An Analysis of the Sociolinguistic Problems of the Contemporary Sinhala Language As Regards Its Diglossia

Home , Kumaratunga Munidasa, Sinhala (Unicode block), Sinhala Archaic Numbers, Sinhala honorifics, Tatsama, Viragaya

CLASSICISM VERSUS MODERNISM: AN ANALYSIS OF THE SOCIOLINGUISTIC PROBLEMS OF THE CONTEMPORARY SINHALA LANGUAGE AS REGARDS ITS DIGLOSSIA

THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE MASARYK UNIVERSITY FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN LINGUISTICS BY E.M.M.R.P.L. NUGAPITIYA

UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF PROFESSOR

PhDr. ONDREJ SEFCIK, Ph D.

MASARYK UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS AND BALTIC LANGUAGES, GENERAL LINGUISTICS FACULTY OF ARTS BRNO CZECH REPUBLIC

APRIL 2019

DECLARATION BY THE CANDIDATE I declare that the thesis entitled “Classicism versus Modernism: An Analysis of the Sociolinguistic Problems of the Contemporary Sinhala Language as regards its Diglossia ” submitted by me for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics is the record of work carried out by me, under the guidance of PhDr. Ondrej Sefcik, Ph D ., and has not formed the basis for the award of any degree, diploma, associateship, fellowship, titles in this or any other University or other institution of Higher learning. I further declare that the material obtained from other sources has been duly acknowledged in the thesis.

Date: 25/04/2019 E.M.M.R.P.L. Nugapitiya Place: Brno

Table of Contents Declaration by the Candidate ii Contents iii - xiii Contents of Tables ix - xiii Abbreviations xiv Preface xv Acknowledgements xvi Introduction xviii - xxv Chapter One: Early Literary Trends and the History of Sinhalese Diglossia 01 - 49 1.0 Introduction 01 1.1 Early Literary Trends and the History of Sinhalese Language 01 1.2 History of Sinhalese Diglossia 22 1.3 The Inception of Diglossia in Modern Sinhala 30 1.4 Early Sinhala School Text Books 35 1.5 Conclusion 49

Chapter Two: Sinhalese Diglossia 50 - 101 2.0 Introduction 50 2.1 Phonology 53 2.1.1 Vowel Phonemes in Spoken Sinhala 53 2.1.2 Consonants Phonemes in Spoken Sinhala 54 2.1.3 Vowel Letters of Written Sinhala 55 2.2 Morphology 59 2.2.1 Nouns 59 2.2.1.1 Masculine Gender 60 2.2.1.2 Feminine Gender 63 2.2.1.3 Neuter Gender 65 2.2.1.4 Pronouns 68 2.2.1.4.1 First Person Pronouns 69 2.2.1.4.2 Second Person Pronouns 69 2.2.1.4.3 Third Person Pronouns 74 2.2.1.4.3.1 Third Person Pronouns in Spoken Sinhala 74 2.2.1.4.3.2 Third Person Pronouns in Written Sinhala 79 2.2.1.4.4 Interrogative Pronouns/Question Pronouns 81

iii

2.2.1.4.4.1 Interrogative Pronouns in Spoken Sinhala 81 2.2.1.4.4.2 Interrogative Pronouns in Written Sinhala 82 2.2.1.4.5 Indefinite Pronouns 82 2.2.1.4.6 Quantitative Pronouns 83 2.2.1.4.7 Numerical Nouns 83 2.2.1.4.8 Derivatives 84 2.2.1.4.8.1 Nominal Derivatives [ tadd hit ǝ] 84 2.2.1.4.8.2 Verbal Derivatives “ krudant ǝ” 86 2.2.1.4.8.3 Abstract Verbal Noun 87 2.2.1.4.8.4 Actor Verbal Noun 88 2.2.2 Verb 90 2.2.3 Modifiers 94 2.2.4 Particles (Prepositions/Postpositions/Articles) 96 2.3 Syntax 99 2.4 Conclusion 100

Chapter Three: Controversy over Standard Grammar 102 - 139 3.0 Introduction 102 3.1 A Short History of Sinhala Grammatical Concerns 102 3.2 Accepting Classical Grammar as a Modern Written Idiom 105 3.3 Disagreements on Classical Grammar 107 3.3.1 Ven. Yakkaduwe Pragnarama [yakka ʐḍuv ē Prag ɲārāmǝ 109 3.3.2 Martin Wickramasingha 112 3.3.3 Ven. Dr. Dehigaspe Pragnasara [dehigasp ē prac ɲāsārǝ] 114 3.3.4 Ven. Bambarende Siri Seevalee 115 3.3.5 Ven. Kiriwattuduwe Prachgnasara 116 3.3.6 Professor D. E. Hettiaratchi 117 3.3.7 Senerath Paranavithana 120 3.3.8 M.W.S. de Silva 124 3.3.9 Charles Godakumbure 126 3.3.10 Siri Gunasinghe 128 3.3.11 Nandasena Ratnapala 132 3.4 Conclusion 139

Chapter Four: Grammaticality in Practice 140 - 194 4.0 Introduction 140 4.1 Piyadasa Sirisena 142 4.2 W. A. Silva 144 4.3 Martin Wickramasinhe 154 4.4 G. B. Senanayake 163 4.4.1 Grammar and Language Style of G. B. Senanayake 164 4.4.2 Orthography 165 4.4.3 Word Division 165 4.4.4 Phonology 166 4.4.5 Morphology 167 4.4.6 Syntax 173 4.4.7 Spoken Idiom 188 4.5 Conclusion 193

Chapter Five: Variations in contemporary Sinhala Grammar 195 - 249 5.0 Introduction 195 5.1 Spoken Grammar 196 5.1.1 Common Spoken Grammar 196 5.1.1.1 Phonology 196 5.1.1.2 Sandhi 196 5.1.1.3 Morphology 198 5.1.1.3.1 Nouns 198 5.1.1.3.1.1 Masculine Gender 198 5.1.1.3.1.2 Feminine Gender 199 5.1.1.3.1.3 Neuter Gender 200 5.1.1.3.1.4 Pronouns 201 5.1.1.3.2 Verb 203 5.1.1.3.2.1 Causative Verb 203 5.1.1.3.2.2 Imperative Verb 204 5.1.1.3.2.3 Benedictive Verb 204 5.1.1.3.2.4 Conditional Verb 204 5.1.1.3.2.5 Conjunctive Participles 205

5.1.1.3.2.6 Contemporaneous Verb 205 5.1.1.3.2.7 Causative Contemporaneous Verb 205 5.1.1.3.3 Particles 205 5.1.1.4 Syntax 210 5.1.1.4.1 Declarative Sentences 211 5.1.1.4.1 Nonverbal Sentences 211 5.1.1.4.2 Interrogative Sentences 212 5.1.1.4.3 Imperative Sentences 213 5.1.1.4.4 Exclamation Sentences 213 5.1.2 High-brow Spoken Grammar 214 5.2 School Grammar 215 5.2.1 School Text Books 215 5.3 Prescriptive Grammar 223 5.3.1 The War ṇǝrīti and Sinhalese Grammar 224 5.3.2 Padanitiya 225 5.3.3 A Comprehensive Grammar of the Sinhalese Language 227 5.3.4 Sinhala Vaky ǝ N ītiy ǝ 229 5.3.5 Sinhalese Grammar 229 5.3.6 Sabdanusasanaya 230 5.3.6 Munidasa Kumaratunge 233 5.3.7.1 Kriya Vivaranaya 233 5.3.7.2 Vy ākǝrǝṇǝ Viv ǝrǝṇǝyǝ hevat Sinhala B hāṣāvē Vy ākǝrǝṇǝyǝ 234 5.3.8 Sri Ratnasara Vyakaranaya 236 5.3.9 J. B. Disanayake 237 5.3.9.1 Samakalina Sinhalaya (A book Series) 237 5.3.9.2 Basaka Mahima (A book Series) 238 5.3.9.3 Sinhala Ritiya (A book Series 2012-2014) 239 5.3.10 Sinhala Lekhana Reetiya (1989) 240 5.3.11 Sinhala Bhasa Vyakaranaya (1995) 241 6.3.12 Basa Adhyayanaya ha Sinhala Vyavaharaya (1995) 246 5.3.13 Sinhala Viyarana Vidi 247 5.4 Different Views of Grammarians 247 5.5 Conclusion 249

Chapter Six: Present Status of the Sinhala Language 250 - 301 6.0 Introduction 250 6.1 Spoken Language 250 6.1.1 Dialects 251 6.1.1.1 Regional Dialects 253 6.1.1.1.1 “ ūvǝ” Dialect 255 6.1.1.2 Social Dialects 258 6.1.3 Professional Usages 260 6.1.3.1 Fishery Usage 261 6.1.3.2 Threshing-floor 261 6.1.4 Situational Usages 262 6.1.4.1 Baby’s Usage 262 6.1.5 Public Speech 263 6.1.4 Electronic Media 264 6.1.4.1 Television 264 6.1.4. 2 Radio 271 6.2 Written Language 273 6.2.1 Prose 273 6.2.1.1 Personal Writings 273 6.2.1.2 Academic Writings 273 6.2.1.2.1 Dissertations 278 6.2.1.4 Newspapers 279 6.2.1.5 Social Media 287 6.2.1.6 Fiction 291 6.2.2 Poetry 295 6.2.2.1 Songs 296 6.3 Conclusion 299

Chapter Seven: Conclusions 302 - 340 7.0 Introduction to Conclusion 302 7.1 Introduction 302 7.2 Chapter One 303 7.2.1 History of Sinhalese Diglossia 306

vii

7.2.2 History of Modern Sinhalese Diglossia 307 7.3 Chapter Two 309 7.4 Chapter Three 319 7.5 Chapter Four 324 7.6 Chapter Five 329 7.7 Chapter Six 333 7.8 Conclusion 338

Bibliography 341 - 351

viii

Contents of Tables Table Nos. Title of Tables Page Nos. Table-01 - Phonetic Symbols xxv Table- 1.1 - Deviations of Translation 40

Table-2.1 - Vowel Phonemes in Spoken Sinhala 53

Table-2.2 - Consonants Phonemes in Spoken Sinhala 54

Table-2.3 - Vowel Letters of Written Sinhala 55

Table-2.4 - Sanskrit and Non-Sanskrit Loan Words 55

Table-2.5 - Pali-Sanskrit Loan Words and Sinhala and other Borrowings 56

Table-2.6 - Phonetic Symbols for Sinhala Alphabet 57

Table-2.7 - Noun Conjugation in Spoken Sinhala: Masculine (Type 01) 60

Table-2.8 - Noun Conjugation in Written Sinhala: Masculine (Type 01) 61

Table-2.9 - Noun Conjugation in Spoken Sinhala: Masculine (Type 02) 61

Table-2.10 - Noun Conjugation in Written Sinhala: Masculine (Type 02) 62

Table 2.11 - Noun Conjugation Spoken Sinhala: Feminine (Type 01) 63

Table 2.12 - Noun Conjugation in Written Sinhala Feminine (Type 01) 63

Table 2.13 - Noun Conjugation in Spoken Sinhala Feminine (Type 02) 64

Table 2.14 -Noun Conjugation in Spoken Sinhala Feminine (Type 02) 65

Table-2.15 - Noun Conjugation in Spoken and Written Sinhala: Neuter (Type 01) 65

Table-2.16 - Noun Conjugation in Spoken and Written Sinhala: Neuter (Type 02) 66

Table-2.17 - Traditional Method of Noun Conjugation in Written Sinhala 67

Table-2.18 - First Person Pronouns 69

Table-2.19 - Second Person Pronouns (Type 01) 70

Table-2.20 - Second Person Pronouns (Type 02) 70

Table-2.21 - Second Person: Spoken Language 71

Table-2.22 - Second Person: Spoken Language and Writing (Type 01) 71

Table-2.23 - Second Person: Spoken Language and Writing (Type 02) 72

Table-2.24 - Second Person: Spoken Language and Writing (Type 03) 72

Table-2.25 - Second Person: Written Sinhala (Type 01) 73

Table-2.26 - Second Person: Written Sinhala (Type 02) 73

Table-2.27 - Demonstration Pronouns (Type 01) 74

Table-2.28 - Demonstration Pronouns (Type 02) 75

Table-2.29 - Demonstration Pronouns (Type 03) 75

Table-2.30 - Demonstration Pronouns: Masculine, Feminine and Neutral (Type 01) 76

Table-2.31 - Demonstration Pronouns: Masculine, Feminine and Neutral (Type 02) 76

Table-2.32 - Demonstration Pronouns: Masculine, Feminine and Neutral (Type 03) 77

Table-2.33 - Demonstration Pronouns: Masculine, Feminine and Neutral (Type 04) 77

Table-2.34 - Demonstration Pronouns: Masculine, Feminine and Neutral (Type 05) 78

Table-2.35 - Quantitative Prepositions 78

Table 2.36 - Third Person Pronouns, Written Language: Animate 79

Table 2.37 - Third Person Pronouns, Written Language: Animate and Inanimate (Type 01)80

Table 2.38 - Third Person Pronouns, Written Language: Animate and Inanimate (Type 02)80

Table 2.39 - Interrogative Pronouns in Spoken Sinhala (Type 01) 81

Table 2.40 - Interrogative Pronouns in Spoken Sinhala (Type 02) 81

Table 2.41 - Indefinite Pronouns (Type 01) 82

Table 2.42 - Indefinite Pronouns (Type 02) 82

Table 2.43 - Quantitative Pronouns 83

Table 2.44 - Numerical Nouns 83

Table 2.45 - Nominal Derivatives 84-86

Table 2.46 - Abstract Verbal Noun (Type 01) 87

Table 2.47- Abstract Verbal Noun (Type 02) 88

Table 2.48- Abstract Verbal Noun (Type 03) 88

Table 2.49 - Actor Verbal Noun (Type 01) 89

Table 2.50 - Actor Verbal Noun (Type 02) 89

Table 2.51 - Actor Verbal Noun (Type 03) 90

Table 2.52 - Verb in First and Second Persons 90

Table 2.53 - Verb in Third Person: Masculine 91

Table 2.54 - Verb in Third Person: Feminine 91

Table 2.55 - The Difference of Final Verb by Social Status 92 Table 2.56 - The Difference of Imperative Verb by Social Status 92

Table 2.57 - The Difference of Conjunctives in Spoken and Written Usage 93

Table 2.58 - The Difference of Contemporaneous Particles in Spoken and Written Sinhala 93

Table 2.59 - Variation in Modifiers in Spoken and Written Varieties 94

Table 2.60 - Variation of Particles in Spoken and Written Varieties 96-98

Table 2.61 - The Difference of Sentences in Spoken and Written Usage (Present Tense) 99

Table 2.62 - The Difference of Sentences in Spoken and Written Usage (Past Tense) 99 Table-2.63 - The Difference of Object Forms in Spoken and Written Sinhala 100

Table 3.1 - Types of Grammar 113

Table 4.1 - Comparison of Madolduva and Purist Grammar 158

Table 4.2 - Differences and Similarities Among Madolduva Usage with the Purists’ Style and the Spoken Usage 159

Table 5.1 - Sinhalese Gender in Noun Declension: Masculine (Type 01) 198

Table 5.2 - Sinhalese Gender in Noun Declension: Masculine (Type 02) 199

Table 5.3 - Sinhalese Gender in Noun Declension: Feminine (Type 01) 199

Table 5.4 - Sinhalese Gender in Noun Declension: Feminine (Type 02) 200

Table 5.5 - Sinhalese Gender in Noun Declension: Neuter (Type 01) 200

Table 5.6 - Sinhalese Gender in Noun Declension: Neuter (Type 02) 200

Table 5.7 - Common Pronouns for Masculine and Feminine Genders (Type 01) 201

Table 5.8 - Common Pronouns for Masculine and Feminine Genders (Type 02) 201

Table 5.9 - Second Person Pronouns by Social Status 202

Table 5.10 - Demonstrative Pronouns (Type 01) 202

Table 5.11 - Demonstrative Pronouns (Type 02) 202

Table 5.12 - Contemporary Spoken Sinhala Final Verb 203

Table 5.13 - Imperative Verb 204

Table 5.14 - Imperative Verb by Social Status 213

Table 5.15 - High-brow Spoken Grammar 214

Table 5.16 - Deviation of Vocabulary: Noun 217

Table 5.17 - Deviation of Vocabulary: Verb 217

Table 5.18 - Deviation of Vocabulary: Particle 218

Table 5.19 - Difference of Neuter Gender Noun Declension in Spoken and Grammar 243 Table 5.20 - Case Marking Particles 245

Table 6.1 - Kinship Forms of Selected Sinhala Regional Dialects 257

Table 6.2 - The Difference of Kindship Forms in Colloquial and Formal Usage 258

Table 6.3 - Vocabulary in Threshing-floor 261

Table 6.4 - Vocabulary in Baby’s Usage 262

Table 6.5 - Vocabulary in Buddhist Religious Usage 262

Table 7.1 – [s] < > [h] Variation in Contemporary Sinhala 310

Table 7.2 - The Difference of Noun Declension in Nominative and Accusative Cases 311

Table 7.3 - The Difference of the First-Person Pronoun Declension in Nominative and Accusative Cases 312 Table 7.4 - The Difference of the Second Person Pronoun Declension in Nominative and Accusative Cases 312

xii

Table 7.5 - The Difference of the Third Person Pronoun Declension in Nominative and Accusative Cases 312 Table 7.6 - The Difference of Employing Second and Third Person Pronouns in Colloquial and Formal Usage 313 Table 7.7 - The Difference of Employing [val] Suffix in Spoken and Written Usage 314

Table-7.8 - Past Non-past Difference of Spoken Sinhala Verb 316

Table 7.9 - Variations Written Sinhala Final Verb 317

Table 7.10 - Gender Difference in Written Sinhala Actor Verbal Nouns 317

Table 7.11 - Difference of Conjunctives in Spoken and Written Sinhala 318

Table 7.12 - Difference of Contemporaneous in Spoken and Written Sinhala 318

Table 7.13 - The Difference of Final Verbs in Colloquial and Media Usage 335

Table 7.14 - Second and Third Person Pronouns in Colloquial Sinhala 336

Contents of Maps

Map 6.1 - The Regional Dialect Map of Sri Lanka 254

Contents of Charts

Chart 6.1 - Different Language Varieties of Contemporary Sinhala 301

xiii

Abbreviations

AD – Anno Domini BC – Before Christ BE – Buddhist Era CE – Christian Era CG - Classical Grammar ITN - Independent Television Network NIE - National Institute of Education NVQ - National Vocational Qualifications Pl - Plural Rev - Reverend SAITM – South Asian Institute of Technology and Medicine Sin - Singular SLBC - Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation SSG - Standard Sinhala Grammar SSWG - Standard Sinhala Written Grammar SSWL- standard Sinhala written language TNA – Tamil National Alliance

xiv

Preface

This topic ‘Classicism versus Modernism: An Analysis of the Sociolinguistic Problems of the Contemporary Sinhala Language as regards its Diglossia ’ discusses sociolinguistic issues as regards Sinhalese language standardization and the effect of classical language and grammar on it. There are several international examples that once a language restarts literary tradition after long time abeyance of it due to socio-political reasons or being a crown colony, it is very difficult to get rid of the influence of classical language over standardization or selecting a written usage of local language. Some Sri Lankan scholars have pointed out that Greek language has had similar issues and developments over standard language issue in parallel period from the 18 th Century to 20 th Century.

As a result of employing classical grammar for modern writings and propagating of the idea that spoken Sinhala is ungrammatical have created many issues in contemporary Sinhala writing norms. This dissertation discusses issues which have been irrupted in contemporary Sinhala language basically as a result of standard Sinhala language issue and incorrect views over spoken language and grammar. I have noticed that there is a poly-glossic situation today in contemporary Sinhala language though this is generally discussed as a diglossic situation. There are several varieties of spoken and written usages in practice in Sinhala language today and each variety has differences in grammar and specific functions in language. I hope to inquire the reasons for the existence of several usages in spoken and written Sinhala usages in contemporary Sinhala and their future consequences.

Though some scholars believe that standard language issue has been solved in contemporary Sinhala it is not the reality. As I mentioned earlier there are several language varieties that are deviated from both spoken and written usages of Sinhala. As I realized some language deviations which have occurred as a result of employing archaic grammar and the other issue is sociolinguistics attitudes as regards grammar of spoken Sinhala language which are propagated by purist movement.

Acknowledgements

First, I would like to extend my thanks to the ERASMUS MUNDUS SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM which provided me financial and legal provisions to carry out my doctoral studies in a European university. I would also like to thank Professor Ondrej Sefcik Head of the Department of Linguistics and Baltic Languages who accepted me as a PhD student and agreed to supervise my thesis. While giving his comments, advises, suggestions regarding the content and the structure of the thesis he allowed me completely to analyze some issues independently. I wish to record my indebtedness to Professor, S. Paranavitana, G.D. Wijeratne, Wimal G. Balagalle, J. B. Dissanayake, W. S. Karunatillake, Wilhelm Geiger, K. N. O. Dharmadasa, P. B. Meegaskumbura, and scholars Munidasa Kumatunge, Martin Wickramasinghe, and others whose pioneering works in Sinhala linguistics inspired me in this enterprice. Without the great effort of Professor Anoma Abeyratna who joined the University of Peradeniya with the Erasmus Mundus program and as the co-ordinator of our home university for the Erasmus program I would not be able to continue my doctoral studies in a European university. Professor Jakub Macha encouraged me in my studies and gave me enormous support for this purpose throughout my study program. Buddhika Konara assisted me by sending the necessary study documents from Sri Lanka. Masaryk University, its teaching staff, administrative staff and the staff of the international office helped me in my studies and administrative matters. The University of Peradeniya granted me Three years paid leave for my doctoral studies in overseas and also granted me vacation leave to continue my work in fourth year. Rev. Ginikatuwewe Vipula thero, Ganuska Randula, Srinath Ganewatta, Saman Pushpakumara and Dilini Ariyawansa helped me individually by analyzing Sinhala grammar of the selected ninety sentences. My relatives, colleagues and friends encouraged and supported me unconditionally releasing me from official and social duties during the last few years of my studies. My wife Rupika, released me from all my responsibilities and took over all family responsibilities as a mother and the housewife of the family. My son Thisara and daughter Viroja helped me to carry out my studies without burdening me with their grievances. I wish to thank all of who rendered a great support, for me to fulfill this enterprise successfully.

xvi

Introduction

Sinhalese is the mother tongue of around 15 million people in Sri Lanka (formerly Ceylon) that is around 74.9 per cent of the majority of the 20 million population and the next most important language is Tamil.1 The Sinhala language belongs to the Indo- Aryan family, but it is geographically separated from its related language family in North India by a solid block of Dravidian languages belonging to South India. Sri Lanka lies in the Indian Ocean and is separated from the Indian peninsular by the Palk Straits. It is located towards the South East of India between Northern latitude 5 -10 and Eastern longitude 79 and 82 and has a maximum length of 432Km. and a maximum width 224Km.2 However, being separated from related Indo-Aryan languages as well as from Dravidian languages by the 20 miles wide Palk Straits, it has evolved in isolation developing its own distinct characteristics.3

It is considered that the Sinhalese language originated from the Middle Indo-Aryan (MIA) Prakrit and was introduced to the island by migrants from the Northwest, Central and Eastern parts of North India. Mixing these Indo-Aryan Prakrit with languages of autochthonic inhabitants of Sri Lanka accelerated the evolution of the Sinhalese Prakrit and added unique characteristics to it.4 Sinhalese Prakrit continued to be used until about the 7th century after which it developed independent features and became the first new Indo-Aryan language that developed a literature of its own as seen in the poetical composition of ‘Sīgiriyə’ graffiti from 8th to 10th centuries. At the same time, continuous close relationship with the literary languages of Pali and Sanskrit with Dravidian languages during different periods of history was helpful in the development of different aspects of the language during classical times and the influence of European languages namely Portuguese, Dutch, and English since the beginning of 16th century,

1 Department of Census and Statistics – Sri Lanka http://www.statistics.gov.lk/PopHouSat/CPH2011/Pages/Activities/Reports/FinalReport/FinalReport.p df: 128, accessed on 2nd December 2017; Vineeta,Chand, “Language Polocies and Politics in South Asia”, in The Oxford Handbook of Sociolinguistics, ed. Robert Bayley, Richard Cameron and Ceil Lucas, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 596-97 2 https://www.britannica.com/place/Sri-Lanka, accessed on 05 December 2017. 3 Sidat Sañgarā, ed. James W. Gair and W. S. Karunatllake, (New Haven: American Oriental Series 95, 2013), xi 4 Ibid, xi; Dampiya Atuva Gatapadaya, ed. D.E. Hettiarachchi, (The University Press, 1974), lxv; Wimal G. Balagalle, Sinhala Bhasave Prabhavaya ha Pravardanaya, (Colombo: Dept. of Cultural Affairs, 1996), 12-13. xviii

until the middle of the 20th century. The introduction of Christian culture and literature, the printing machine, new technology, western literary forms as well as new education system brought about revolutionary changes in the language and its uses.

Those who studied the history of Sinhala language has divided it into different stages based on the unique development during its evolution. According to Wilhelm Geiger, there are four stages in the evolution of Sinhala language. 1. The Sinhala Prakrit Era: from 3rd Century BC to 4th Century AD 2. The Proto Sinhalese Era: from 4th Century to 8th Century AD 3. The Medieval Sinhalese Era: from 8th Century to 13th Century AD 4. The Modern Sinhalese Era: from 13th Century to the present.5

The Sinhala Prakrit Era According to common acceptance from 3rd Century BC to 4th Century CE belongs to the Prakrit Sinhala period. The following are the special characteristics of Sinhala Prakrit: i. Though Proto Indo Aryan language has both vowel ending and consonant ending words, in Sinhala Prakrit all of them have become vowel ending words. (It is a common characteristic of all Prakrit’s except the Velar nasal sound “ŋ” of Pali Prakrit.) ii. The disuse of Proto Indo Aryan combined vowels [iru, irū, ilu, ilū] and transforming them into simple vowels. iii. The disuse of hard aspirate of Proto Indo Aryans. iv. The disuse of Velar nasal of Pali Prakrit. v. Transforming Proto Indo Aryan aspirated sounds into non-aspirated. vi. Transforming Proto Indo Aryan [ʃ,ṣ,s] sounds into [s]. vii. The disuse of Proto Indo Aryan long vowels. viii. The disuse of Proto Indo Aryan consonant clusters. ix. The existing of the [e] suffix for the First (nominative) case. x. Existing of grammatical gender in noun declension.

5 Wilhelm, Geiger, A Grammar of Sinhalese language, (The Royal Asiatic Society, Colombo Branch, 1938), 1-8 xix

xi. The beginning of vowel assimilation which became very common in the mediaeval Sinhala period.

The Prakrit Sinhala Alphabet: Vowels: [a], [i], [u], [e], [o]. Consonants: [k], [g], [ɉ], [ṭ], [ḍ], [ṇ], [t], [d], [n], [p], [b], [m], [y], [r], [l], [v], [s] (ʃ), [h]6

The Proto Sinhalese Era From 4th Century to 8th Century CE period is considered the Proto Sinhalese era and its special characteristics are as follows: i. The appearing of the first sign of the ‘umlaut’ [æ] sound which existed as [e] sound in Proto Sinhalese era. ii. Deletion of consonants which were existed in between vowels and exist remaining vowels without combining with inserted consonants. iii. Variation of vowels in monosyllabic words. iv. Transforming noun declension from grammatical gender to biological gender.

Many other characteristics are the same as in the Prakrit Sinhala stage.

The Medieval Sinhalese Era From 8th Century CE to 13th Century CE is considered the Medieval Sinhalese era. i. Appearing of vowel ending and consonant ending difference of Sinhala words began during the mediaeval Sinhala period as a result of the elision of last vowels of vowel ending words which exist in Prakrit and Proto Sinhala periods.

Consonant ending words: [putrǝ] (son) > [putǝ] > [put]; [grāmǝ] (village) > [gamǝ] > [gam]; [pipāsǝ] (thirst) > [pavas]

6 S. Paranavitana, Inscription of Ceylon Vol. 1, (Colombo: Government Press, 1970), xxvii-xxxviii.

Vowel ending words: [bud] (enlightened) > [budu]; [sand] (moon) > [sandu]; [kir] (milk) > [kiri]; [kumbur] (paddy fields) > [kuburũ ]

ii. Appearing of [æ] letter at the beginning of this period can be considered a unique development of Sinhala phonemes system as it is not available in other Indo-Aryan or Dravidian languages. Long vowels also came to exist at the beginning of this era. [vāpi] (lake) > [vevǝ]; [vaḍḍi] (work) > [veḍǝ] > [væḍǝ]; [amātyǝ] (minister) > [ameti] > [æmǝti]

iii. Appearing of the difference between long and short vowels: [āgǝtǝ] (attended) > [ā]; [pādǝ] (foot) > [pā]; [ɉātǝkǝ] (Jataka story) > [dā].

iv. Appearing velar nasal sound letter (ŋ) and half nasal letters. Velar nasal: [maŋg] (paths); [siŋhǝ] (lion); [iŋgen] (by the gesture)”. Half nasals: [ag̃ǝ] (body); [kad̃ǝ] (beam); [daḍ͂ u] (sticks)

v. Appearing full nasal letters: [kumbur] (paddy field); [muhund] (sea); [beyand] (precipice)” vi. Transforming [ɉ] into [d]: [ ɉātǝkǝ] (jataka story) > [dā]; [æɉuru] (teacher) > [æduru]; [vaɉan] (words) > [vadan]. vii. Transforming [c] into [s] or [h]: [candǝ] (Moon) > [sad̃ǝ]; [cavi] (skin) > [sivi]

As a result of the above-mentioned phonetic development in Sinhala, several letters came into existence in the Sinhala alphabet to substitute its unique phonemes. Medieval Sinhala alphabet: Vowels: [a], [ā], [æ], [ǣ̃], [u], [ū], [e], [ē], [o], [ō]. Consonants: [k], [g], [g̃], [ɉ], [ɉ]̃ , [ṭ], [ḍ], [ṇ], [ḍ͂ ], [t], [d], [n], [d̃], [p], [b], [m], [b̃], [b̃], [y], [r], [l], [v], [s], [h], [ḷ], [ŋ]. Apart from that phonemic developments some case related postpositions such as [visin], [keren], [kǝrǣ], [kerē] and suffixes such as [gē], [gen] came into existence at the beginning of this period. xxi

Indefinite noun suffixes [ek] and [ak] also can be seen among 8th Century inscriptions: [kenek] [kiriyak]. As a result of the disappearing plural forms of inanimate nouns, the plural suffix [val] came to denote the plural meaning of inanimate nouns. [val + vǝlæ] (of forests); [vihǝrǝ + vǝlæ] (of temples). According to Dampiya Atuva Gatapadaya, aspirated letters, diphthongs [ai], [au] and hard aspirate letters have been in existence since the 10th Century CE, with Pali and Sanskrit loan words and hence the Sinhala alphabet became a richer alphabet than the Sanskrit alphabet.

The Modern Sinhala Era According to Wilhelm Geiger modern Sinhala period starts in mid-13th Century Since the composing time of classical Sinhala grammar the Sidat Sangara falls in to that era. However, some grammarians believe that there is no considerable development of Sinhala grammar during that period other than the expansion of some case suffixes, verb forms, Tamil words, inclining to folk usage, and simplifying some syntax rules. However, some grammarians believe that 17th Century should be the beginning of modern Sinhala period since spoken Sinhala grammar has been used for writing during that period.7

Though there are many later classifications on the evolution of Sinhalese language it seems that Geiger’s early classification has become more accepted as the Sinhala Dictionary editors have used it.

However, later Wimal G. Balagalle and many other scholars has changed the classification of the evolution of the stages of Sinhala language history.

Methodology As this thesis takes into consideration the problem of language planning, it is basically a synchronic study. However, as forces at work are based on vestiges of historical situations diachronic perspectives have to be discussed to trace the origin of certain complexities especially in regard to the literary models. During the revivalist period

7 Balagalle, Sinhala Bhasave Prabhavaya ha Pravardanaya, 50-53. xxii

beginning from about the 18th Century, certain new styles of writing have been introduced such as reverting back to the 12th Century norms where we find highly standardized Sinhalese with puritanical interest and the subsequent period of ever increasing Sanskritization that developed as a South Asian phenomenon. And also the questions of grammaticality including accommodation of a fairly extended lexicon to suit new branches in the language with special reference to scientific literature and many other practical usages have led to this complexity.

Basically, the method of finding information is books, journals, newspapers, electronic media and interviews where necessary. Since I got some information regarding grammatical issues of contemporary Sinhala standard grammar, I sent some selected sentences to reputed contemporary Sinhala grammarians to obtain their views regarding these grammatical issues. At the same times I collected some writing samples of various ordinary writers to evaluate the way of their grammatical practice.

The Present Study The present study “Classicism versus Modernism: An Analysis of the Sociolinguistic Problems of the Contemporary Sinhala Language with Particular Reference to its Standardization” is selected as it involves a complex linguistic problem that affects the users of the contemporary Sinhala language and hence an important socio-linguistic issue. Over the years, scholars have convincingly argued the existence of a diglossic situation in the Sinhala language where the spoken language deviates to a great extent from the highbrow written language of the standard type.8 Though some scholars believe that standard language issue is solved in contemporary Sinhala it is not the reality. The Sinhala language has different standards for different purposes. There are several written usages in contemporary Sinhala because of the subtlety of classical grammar based written grammar and there are several spoken usages that are also in practice as a result of the attitude of grammar of spoken language. I infer that all these controversies over grammar, grammaticality and language standardization are not grammatical issues, but sociolinguistic issues.

8 J. Gair, ‘Sinhala Diglossia’ Anthropological Linguistics Vol. 10(8), (1968), 1-15; K.N.O. Dharmadasa, ‘Language and Sinhalese nationalism: The Career of Munidasa Cumaratunga’ Modern Ceylon Studies Vol 3(2) (1972), 125-43; M.W.S. de Silva, “Some Consequences of Diglossia” Yourk Papers in Linguistics, 4: (1974), 71-90. xxiii

The aim of the present research is to study the impact of classical literature and grammar on the standardization of contemporary Sinhala language and the response of some institutions and individuals on the written usage of classical grammar based standard Sinhala as a result of its subtle grammar.

Even though this topic targets issues in contemporary Sinhala language, I present the location of Sri Lanka and the origin and the history of language and its developments in detail as this dissertation is going to be submitted to non-Sinhala readers. Though several scholars have discussed the history of Sinhala diglossia in their scholarly work, I discuss this again in detail in the first chapter as it is the foundation of the issue of this dissertation. The second chapter has been devoted to a brief discussion of the diglossic situation of contemporary Sinhala language. The third chapter presents ideas and arguments of various Sinhala scholars and writers in the 20th Century which explains the importance of using an equivalent of spoken idiom for contemporary writing rather than using classical grammar. The fourth chapter evaluates the writing of a selected author who supported employing classical grammar for contemporary writing. Ninety selected sentences of that selected writer were sent to five contemporary grammarians to obtain their opinions on their grammaticality and chapter five also discusses some different opinions of these five grammarians regarding the grammatical issues found in these selected sentences and different approaches of different grammatical texts. Chapter six ‘present situation of Sinhala language’ discusses current developments of the language. Main findings of each chapter and the existence of poly-glossic situation in contemporary Sinhala language is discussed in the conclusion.

Since Sinhalese use non-Roman letters for their writings, I had to transliterate all Sinhala language samples into international phonetic symbols to facilitate them to be read them as it would have been in the original language and I had to translate all language samples into English. A table of phonetic symbols is given below that I used for transliterating Sinhala phonemes and letters. All Sinhala language samples are given in phonetic symbols within brackets and in Italics.

xxiv

Table-01 Phonetic Symbols

Consonants

dental

Velar Palatal Retroflex Dental Labial Labio Non- aspirated la É Ü ;a ma [k] [c] [ṭ] [t] [p] Non-voiced Aspirated Ä þ Ga :a Ma [kh] [ch/] [ṭh] [th] [ph] Voiced Non- aspirated .a Ê â oa í [g] [ɉ] [ḍ] [d] [b] Aspirated >a Cè Va è Na [gh] [ɉh] [ḍh] [dh] [bh] Nasal Ù [a Ka ka ï [ŋ] [ɲ] [ṇ] [n] [m] ^w&x [ŋ] Nasalized Õa `Ê å |a Us [g̃] [ɉ̃] [ḍ͂ ] [d̃] [b]̃ Semi vowels ha õ [y] [v] Trill ¾ [r] Lateral

Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018 The Chicago Manual of Style is followed for citation and the bibliography.

xxv

Chapter One Early Literary Trends and the History of Sinhalese Diglossia

1.0 Introduction Sinhala language has over 2000 years continuous written history which helpful to study the development and the evolution of the language up to now. We can infer that written Sinhala has been evolved according to the development of spoken language and this evolution and specific historical incidents are essential to understand the contemporary situation of the language.

1.1 Early Literary Trends and the History of Sinhala Language The story of the History of Sinhala language goes back to the 6th Century BC. The Mahāvaŋsə, a Pali chronical written in the 5th Century CE has stated about the letters exchanged king Vijəyə, the leader of the earliest Aryan settlers in Sri Lanka with king of Madurapura in India, and with his brother Sumittə who also lived in India at that time.1 Besides those stories, Sinhalese language inherits a long standing continuous written tradition that beginning from inscriptions scattered various parts of the island, since 3rd Century BC. At the beginning these inscriptions had been used to record the endowments of caves for Buddhist monks.

The sample inscriptions belonging to early Brāhmī period are given below would be sufficient to understand the Sinhalese language and its structure at that period.

1. [de[və]nəpiyə-maharaɉaha bariyayə bak[iniyə] upəʃikə-varuṇə[datə]yə [le]ṇe] (Cave inscription 3rd Century BC.)

(The cave of the female lay-devotee Varuṇadattā, sister of the wife of the great king Devanapiya.)

2. [maharaɉhǝʃǝ devənəpiyəʃə gaməṇi tiʃəʃə veɉhə baməṇə gobutiyə leṇe ʃagəʃə] (Cave inscription: 3rd Century BC)

1 D. E. Hettiarachchi, “Preface”, Dhampiya-Aṭuva-Gaṭapadaya, ed. D. E. Hettiaratchi, (Sri Lanka: University Press, 1974), xii.

(The cave of the Brahmin Gōbhūtikə, doctor of great king Dēvānampijə Gāminī Tissə (is given) to monks.)

3. [gaməṇi uti devənəpiyə maharaɉhaha ɉhayə ʃumənə deviyə leṇe agətə anəgətə catudiʃə ʃagəʃə] (Cave inscription:3rd century BC)

(The cave of the Jayə Sumənā, wife of great king Gāminī Uttiyə Dēvānampiyə (is given) to attended or not attended monks of four directions.)

Translations of above inscriptions into Pali would be helpful to understand the relationship as well as differences of Sinhala Prakrit in the 3rd Century BC. 1. [dēvānampiyə mahārāɉassə bhariyāyə bhaginiyā upāsikā varuṇədattāyə lēṇaŋ.] 2. [mahārāɉassə dēvānampiyassə gāməṇī tissassə veɉɉassə brāhməṇə gōbhūtikassə lēṇaŋ saŋghassə.] 3. [gāməṇī uttiyə mahārāɉassə ɉāyāyə sumənā dēviyā lēṇaŋ āgətānāgətassə cātuddisassə saŋghassə.]2

When compared with Pali and modern Sinhala, there are no letters to illustrate long vowels, consonant clusters, velar nasal sound (ŋ), and aspirated sounds. However, there are some aspirated letters in inappropriate positions. Palatal sibilant letter can be seen in appropriate and inappropriate positions. Suffix [ha] has been used to indicate dative and genitive cases. At the same time [yə], [ha], [ʃə] suffixes have been used to indicate genitive case.

Later, inscriptional language becomes more complex as those inscriptions had been used for the announcements of various royal decrees and orders and the like. However, Sinhalese language has not been restricted only to inscriptions in the very early period of 3rd Century BC and it had been used for comprehensive literary works.3 As early Pali religious texts (commentaries) which belong to 5th Century AD has pointed out that they are the translations of early Sinhala commentaries which were called Helaṭuwā or

2 Balagalle, Sinhala Bhasave Sambhavaya ha Parinamaya, 16. 3 Sidat Sañgarā, xi. 2

Sīhəlaṭṭhəkathā that had descended from around the 3rd Century BC.4 This has been proved by the oldest available Sinhala text belong to the 10th Century, the Dampiyā Aṭuvā Gæṭəpadəyə: 4. [magədhə basin væṭemin ā budukæli aṭuvā Helədivə æɉurō helubasin tubūhə.]5 (the Pali Aṭṭəkatā were translated into Sinhala by Sinhala scholars).

Above Extract could be considered as a direct extract from ancient Aṭṭhəkatā that are not extant today.

Those Helaṭuwā or Sīhəlaṭṭhəkathā had been translated into Pali language (considered as lingua franca of Theravada Buddhism at that time) for the benefit of the over sea communities. It is considered that early Sinhala commentaries and chronologies that are referred to by name in their Pali translations. However, we can infer that those Sinhala commentaries have gone into disuse gradually as Pali commentaries were becoming more popular.

Modern critiques who studied Sinhala literature have classified it as follows: [vyākhyānə] (Explanatory texts), [gadyə] (prose), [padyə] (Verse Texts), [candōlaŋkārə] (Rhetorical Texts), [vidyā] (Medical) and [ɉōtis] Astrological Texts), [vyākərəṇə] (Grammatical Texts), [vinəyə] (Disciplinary Codes) and [kōʃə] (Lexicons).6 However, some categories have many sub categories.

While the inscriptions continued to appear, the literary breakthroughs came with Sīgiri graffiti poetry, indented on the “Mirror Wall” provided one of the most valuable ancient language samples belonging to 6th-13th Centuries. Mirror Wall is a lime coated wall originally meant to reflect female figures painted on the higher surface of the rock and was later used by visitors to record their feelings and thoughts after seeing the paintings and natural setting. Professor S. Paranavithana has treated 685 Gi poems in his Sigiri Graffiti Vol. II and Sigiri Graffiti vol. I has been devoted for the Introduction where he discusses on Sigiriya and its history, documents and their decipherment, orthography,

4 K. T. W. Sumanasuriya, “The Influence of Pali and Sanskrit on Early Sinhala Literary Trends”, in Education in Ceylon, (Colombo: Government Press, 1949), 41; Wimal G. Balagalle, Sinhala Bhasa Adyayana Itihasaya, (Colombo: Godage, 1998), 16-17 5 Dhampiya-Atuva-Gatapadaya, 6 6 Sumanasuriya, “The Influence of Pali and Sanskrit on Early Sinhala Literary Trends”, 43 3 paleography, grammar, language, prosody, literary quality, authors and so on. It is important to highlight here that Paranavithan points out that there had been two opposite tendencies at work in some important phonological developments which the Sinhala language has undergone. Paranavithana has named these two tendencies as ‘progressive’ and ‘conservative’. The progressive tendency always supports for the change, evolution, simplification or the development of the language while conservative tendency trying to preserve the existing form.7 There are nearly 800 poems which were written on the Mirror Wall. Sīgri poems are called by locals as ‘Sīgri Gī’ (lyrics). The meaning of ‘Gī’ is the poem compose to sing.8 Those poems differ from later poetry that were based on religious themes. Sīgri poems are very special in many ways as they were written by various viewers who came to visit ‘Sīgiriyə’ fortress from various parts of the island over a period of seven centuries from 6-13 Centuries CE. Earlier poems are too worn out and later ones are not of much poetic value. It is now central place of tourist attraction in Sri Lanka. These visitors belonged to various social groups such as Buddhist monks, those of royal clans, ministers, military men, farmers, women, and so on. These poems testify that composing and enjoyment of poetry had been popular all over the island at that time, and also prove that Sinhala language also had been developed up to a very high level of proficiency. Two poems given below would be sufficient to get an idea about the level of Sigiri poetry.

5. [swasti], [topə nuyunə miṇiviṭni – væmhenə pæhæ diseyi nokele taman temam – eyin danim topə surə bavə]9 (Hail! In your eye (there) appears the effulgence which shines forth from jewel lamps. (And) the stillness (of the eye) has not been feigned (not made purposely) by you. Therefore, I know that you are celestial beings (I know your divine status).10

6. [swasti agboyimi līmi], [nil kaṭrolə malekæ - ævuṇu væṭkolə malə sey sændægæ sihi venney – mahanel vanə hay ranvanə hun]11

7 S. Paranavitana, Sigiri Graffiti Vol. II, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1956), 8 Ananda Kulasooriya, Sinhala Sahityaya 2, (Maharagama: Saman, 1963), 255 9 S. Paranavitana, Sigiri Graffiti Vol. I, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1956), xlvii – lxi. 10 S. Paranavitana, Sigiri Graffiti Vol. II, 30 11 Ibid, 205 4

(Hail! I am Agboy, I wrote this), (Like a [væṭkolə] flower (‘Luffa acutangular’ is a golden color flower) entangled in a [kaṭərolu] (‘Clitoria ternatea’ a blue color flower very common in village home gardens in Sri Lanka) flower, the golden colored one who stood together with the lily-colored one will be remembered at the advent of the evening.)12

Except inscriptions and Sīgiri graffiti the ‘Dampiyā Aṭuvā Gætəpadəyə’, is the oldest existing Sinhala prose work which is an explanatory text of the difficult words of Pali Dhamməpadatthəkathā, a commentary of the ‘Dammǝpadǝ’. This was written by Abhāsaləmevan Kasub or Kāśyəpə V (908-918 AD) a king of Sri Lanka in early 10th Century.13 Dampiyā Aṭuvā Gæṭəpadəyə is one of the clear samples to testify the complexity of Sinhala language as it has used a variety of stylistic variations according to different contexts and theme. Though there is some influence of Sanskrit language in Dampiyā Aṭuvā Gæṭəpadəyə it mainly displays a pervasive influence of the Pali language.14 As a result of close relationship with Pali language Dampiyā Aṭuvā Gæṭəpadəyə has used a substantial amount of Pali loan words (tatsamə) and Pali and Sanskrit mixed loan words (tatsamə) with Sinhala suffixes.

Though it has used a substantial amount of Pali loan words in the text we cannot say that Sanskrit loan words are less.15 Though the domination of Pali language is wide spread in the text we can see the basic signs of using ‘mix Sinhala language’ which came into dominance during the Polonnaruvə period. Some critiques consider the Dampiyā Atuvā Gæṭəpadəyə as a treasure of much older Sinhala language usage as it displays much older grammar with a plenty of loan words.16 Further, Prof. D. E. Hettiarachchi, has pointed out that many Sinhala colloquial words have been used in the day-to-day use during that period.17 Apart from those Pali and Sanskrit loan words and Sinhala colloquial words, prof. Hettiarachchi also shows that there is some Tamil vocabulary influence on the text. Therefore, the Dampiyā Aṭuvā Gæṭəpadəyə can be

12 S. Paranavitana, Sigiri Graffiti Vol. II, 205. 13 Sidat Sañgarā, xi. 14 Hettiarchchi, Dampiyā Aṭuvā Geṭəpadəyə, xxxiii. 15 Ibid, xxxiv. 16 Ibid, xxxvi. 17 Ibid, li. 5 considered as a mirror that reflect the use of mix Sinhala usage and serves as a source that helps to trace the origins of Sinhala words and suffixes.

Sometimes the author of the Dampiyā Atuvā Gæṭəpadəyə has provided commentaries for Pali words or passages in Pali language as the Pali language was widely studied and used for religious purposes by Buddhist monks and lay scholars at that time. 7. [anupubbēnǝ bārāṇasitō kappāsikǝ vanǝsaṇḍaŋ, tatō uruvēlaŋ, tatō rāɉǝgahaŋ, tatō kapilǝpuraŋ, tatō sītǝvananti iminā anukammēnǝ āgǝtattā ‘anupubbēnǝ āgantvā’ yī yūhu.]18 (In order from the cotton forest of Bārāṇǝsī, then Uruvēlǝ state, then Rāɉǝgaha state, then Kapilǝ city, then cool forest having come in that order ‘anupubbēnǝ āgantvā’ was said.)

All commentary for the above Pali quotation ‘anupubbēnǝ āgantvā’ (having come in order) has provided in Pali language except last two Sinhala words “yī yūhu” (is said).

Pali tatsama words have been used with Sinhala for some commentaries. 8. [kalaha nam pattǝcīvǝrǝ nīharādi visin pævǝti piyō.] ([kalaha] is frauds that exist related for removing robs and bowls.) Two words [pattǝcīvǝrǝ nīharādi] in the above quotation are Pali tatsama.

Words which are more similar to Pali language than Sinhala are called Pali [ardhǝ- tatsama]. [vyākyānǝ] (commentary) = [viyǝkhæn]19, [vyakhyan]20, [viyǝkkhyǝyan]21; [saŋkhārǝlōkǝ] (material world) = [sakhǝrǝlov]22 [paryutthānǝ] (rise environs powerfully) = [pariyuthan]23, [piriyuthan]24 [ɉhānǝ] (absorptions) = [ɉhan]25

18 Hettiarchchi, Dampiyā Aṭuvā Geṭəpadəyə, 27. 19 Ibid, 68. 20 Ibid,1. 21 Ibid,3. 22 Ibid, 1. 23 Ibid, 1. 24 Ibid, 114 25 Ibid, 26. 6

Sanskrit words are not rare in the Dampiyā Atuvā Gæṭəpadəyə though the Pali influence is widely visible. [saŋvarṇǝnā]26 (commentary); [svārthǝ sampatti guṇǝ hā parārthǝ prǝtipatti deguṇǝ kiyūhǝ]27 (Both virtues of comforts of one’s own benefits and policies of other’s welfare are said.) [prǝnāmǝ]28 (veneration).

D. E. Hettiaratchi has pointed out that there are many colloquial words are also available in the Dampiyā Atuvā Gæṭəpadəyə: [kabǝlǝ] (cooking pan); [alut] (new); [avvǝ] (sunlight); [ætiliyǝ] (cooking pot); [kullǝ] (winnowing fan); [ginnǝ] (fire); [nændā] (aunt); [uḍǝ] (up).

Hettiaratchi says that there are some words which do not related to Pali, Sanskrit or Sinhala spoken languages and therefore, he guests that those words could be related to Tamil language according to their form: [eḍipu]29 (string hoppers: a kind of food made of flour); [karavvǝrǝ]30 (tax); [mudǝlǝ]31 (money); [veḷevi]32 (fast).

Above quotations of the Dampiyā Atuvā Gæṭəpadəyə testify of the nature of multilingual of Sinhala scholars as well as language in contact of Sinhala at that time.

Apart from poetic inscriptions and Sīgiri poetry the first Sinhala poetic text is the Siyəbaslakərə written by a king call Saləmevan during the 10th Century. The Siyəbaslakərə is an adaptation of popular Sanskrit [alaŋkārə] or rhetoric didactic Sanskrit text of the Kavyādarśə written by Daṇḍīn. According to the author this Sinhala version of the Sanskrit Kavyādarśə has been meant for the benefit of two kinds of people, namely, those who do not know about former scholarly texts on the subject and those who are not competent in Sanskrit. While adopting the Kavyādarśə into Sinhala the author has made some changes according to Sinhala Buddhist culture and also views

26 Hettiarchchi, Dampiyā Aṭuvā Geṭəpadəyə, 1. 27 Ibid, 2. 28 Ibid, 2. 29 Ibid, 102. 30 Ibid, 65. 31 Ibid, 85. 32 Ibid, 28. 7 based on earlier Sinhala rhetoric works. For example, he has suggested to use Buddha’s character as a subject matter for poetry not mentioned in the Kavyādarśə. Another remarkable feature is that it uses ‘tad bhava’ forms in Sinhala.

The Sikhəvaləd̃ə, which deals with over one hundred and fifty disciplinary rules of the Buddhist [Vinəyə] code, is a summary of Pali disciplinary code contained in the [Vinəyə] and the Sikhəvaləd̃ə Vinisə is an elaborate commentary of the rules given in the Sikhəvaləd̃ə and both texts are considered as a single text probably by the same author.33 They have been written in late Anuradhapura period and are mere or less contemporary with the Dampiyā Aṭuvā Gæṭəpadəyə but somewhat later. These texts on [Vinəyə] are written in ([helə]) pure Sinhala usage with clear, simple, straight and short sentences, that are useful to memorize the [Vinəyə].

This is how “four defeats” which may cause decline in monkhood in Theravada Buddhism have been explained in the Sikha Valanda (Sikhəvaləd̃ə).

9. [tun lovəṭə utum ruvan tiya: ka: visi muni tun dorin sakəsā væd̃ə upəsapuvə ladə pæviddā paṭan hikmiyæ yutu saritvarit sikhə sækhevin kiyanem.]

(After worshiping triple gem (Buddha, his teaching (Dhamma) and community of monks (Sangha) which are the greatest in the three worlds by attention of triple doors such as body, word and mind, I will tell customs, exclusions and disciplinary rules that should tame from the beginning by Buddhist monks who attained higher ordination.)

i. [minis aminis tirisənunge mag̃ətiyāyehi seviyæṭi sitin tamā mag̃ə meheyuvə pariɉi vē. me hæmə mevun dham pariɉi nam.]

(If his own penis inserted into three openings (vagina, mouth and anus) of human, (nonhuman) demon or animal by intention of having sex he falls into the category of defeated from monkhood. All these are called sexual expulsion (defeat) on account of sexual transgression)

33 Kulasooriya, Sinhala Sahityaya 1, 97 8

ii. [parə minisakhu ayat pal pohonā vatak sorə sitin gatə pariɉi vē. me hæmə ayinādan pariɉi nam.]

(If one steals a property worth even a pāda coin that belongs to another person he will be one “defeated” in monkhood. All these are called expulsion (defeat) on account of claims for stealing.)

iii. [mavukushi paṭā minissatakahu mæriyæṭi sitin divi gæləvuvə pariɉi vē. me hæmə minisvikā pariɉi nam.]

(killing a human being by intention even when it is in mother’s womb will be declined from monkhood. All these are called expulsion (defeat) on account of claims for homicidal.)

iv. [tamā kerehi næti uturuminisdham anik minis satak haṭə buhuman kæməti sitin id̃ura: ohu evigəsə datə pariɉi vē. me hæmə uturuminisdham pariɉi nam.]34

(Trying to convince a human by showing once own high spirituality that one does not possess by the intention of obtaining honor or respect from another and if he is convinced of it, will be regarded as “Defeated” in monkhood. All these are called Defeat on account of claims for Super normal powers.)

In this text, we can see that the phonetic system of Sinhala language has developed up to some extent and there are letters for long vowels, [æ] sound and half-nasals that we did not see in early inscriptions. Moreover, suffix [hu] in the agent of action, [ge] in genitive meaning, [yehi] with inanimate nouns in locative meaning, and postposition [kerehi]with animate noun for locative meaning have been developed. Therefore, we can see that this language has developed closer to modern Sinhala stage.

The Sikhəvaləd̃ə Vinisə explains the disciplinary rules of the former in detail. These texts are very important when we consider the history of Sinhalese language. They

34 Sikhavalanda ha Sikhavalanda vinisa, ed. Medauyangoda Wimalakitti, (Colombo: Gunasena, 1955), 2. 9 testify the richness and development of Sinhala language showing its capacity to express and analyze even a delicate subject as disciplinary rules that needs clear and lucid style.

The Dharma-Pradīpikā (The Lamp of Good Doctrine35) was written at the end of the 12th Century by one of the most prominent lay Buddhist writer Gurulugōmi. This provides copious comments to 205 quotes from the Mahābōdhivaŋsə, a Pāli text that deals with the history of Sacred Bodhi Tree brought from India and planted in the 3rd Century BC in Anuradhapura, ancient cultural city of Sri Lanka. This text is very important as regards its style of Sinhala language, since it has employed various types of diction selected according to different themes. It consists of peripheral comments on grammar, semantics, background stories, and the like. This belongs to the genre called Pradīpikā illumination by elaborate comments. When he discusses grammatical background of a word or a phrase, he usually traces it to the Sanskrit base.

10. [nisinnōvə’ yanə tanhi ‘ēvə’ yanə nipātəyə ayōgə vyəvacchēdəkəyæ anyəyōgəvyəvacchēdəkəyæ atyantəyōgəvyəvacchēdəkəyə yi trividhə36 vūyē.]37

In this example, the use of the particle [ēvǝ] is given in different context and the grammatical explanation are all in Sanskrit.

For explanation, he has used Sanskrit loan words or pure Sinhala words according to the theme. For example, when he provides grammar or language base semantics, he tends to use Sanskrit examples to explain the word.

Following extract is an example for using Sanskrit loan words for exegesis. 11. [arthə ʃabdəyə ‘parārthə prəvruttah’ yanə tanhi hitəyehi væṭēyi. meyin bæhærə ‘arthəvān dēvədattah’ yanə tanhi dhanəyehi væṭeyi, ‘arthəvān’ yanu ‘dhanəvān’ yū sē yi. ‘kimarthəmāgətō’ yi yanə tanhi kārənəyehi væṭeyi, ‘kimartham’ yanu ‘kim prəyōɉənam’ yū sē yi. prəyōɉənəyə, hētuyə kārənəyə yanu paryāyə yi.

35 “The story of Prince of Kalinga”, trans. Vajira Cook and C. Bryan Cook, in An Anthology of Sinhalese Literature up to 1815, ed. C. H. B. Reynolds, (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1970), 91. 36 Bold words mark Pali or Sanskrit loan words 37 Dharma-Pradīpikā, ed. Ratmalane Dharmarama, (Peliyagoda: Vidyalanka Press, 1915), 2. 10

‘tatvərthēnə ɉānīyāt’ yanə tanhi buddhiyə væṭeyi, ‘artēnə’ yanu ‘ɲānēnə’ yū sē yi. ‘samarthah puruṣah’ yanə tanhi ʃaktiyæ væṭeyi, ‘samarthah’ yanu ‘ʃaktah’ yū sē yi...]38

To explain the meaning of the word [arthə] he has quoted Sanskrit texts and sometimes uses loan words intermittently.

Sometimes he has used pure Sinhala usage for semantics specially when he wanted to make pleasant feeling in reader’s mind.

12. [abhinīlənettō yanə tanhi ovun abhinīlənētrə vū paridi kisēyə yat? Budun siyəlu nuvanmə nil vannē no veyi, nil vuvəmənā tanhi diyəmerəliyə mal sudusu itā pirisidu nil pæhæyæ, ran van vuvə manā tanhi kinihiri mal sudusu ranvan pæhæ yæ, rat vuvəmənā tanhi bañduvadə mal sudusu rat pæhæyæ, sudu vuvəmǝnā tanhi davəhat taru sudusu sudu pæhæyæ, kalu vuvəmənā tanhi rukpenelə æṭə sudusu itā pirisidu kalu pæhæyæ, nētrə yugələyō ranvimənekhi nægū mini sivu mæd̃urak seyin abhinīlə vū nētrəyan æti vənə bævin ‘abhinīlənētrə’ nam vet.]39 (Bolded words mark Pali or Sanskrit loan words.)

Though mix language style that was common during that period for storytelling, Gurulugōmi has been used descriptive pure Sinhala language style with plenty of embellishments with minimum loan words for background stories. Following extract and its English translation would help to understand that style.

13. [raɉə kuməriyə ab̃ə rukhi hid̃ə miyurusarəyen kiyənə gī asā rukmuləṭə elæbə̃ nilvalāgæb hi viduliyəhavyen sunildalə gæbhi disnā dæriyə dækə lomudehen udam vī. evhu sunil yuvələnuvanbig̃uhu æyə uvan piyum dækə æsipiyə piyā paharā yahadasun mī bot. ekalhi sulukalig̃u kumərə ‘mō dev asərəkə hō? nā kinuru gadəbə̃ sidabuvakə̃ hō’? yanə sitin ‘sod̃urə! tō kavərəhi? yi pilivit. esad̃ə raɉə

38 Dharma-Pradīpikā, 55. 39 Ibid, 12. 11

kumǝrī bamərə piyəræv bad̃u sinid̃u miyuru tepəlen ‘minisakmu himi!’ yū. ē asā yuvərəɉə ‘sapupæhæsiviyə! tī abunminisəkə̃ bævin gasin basə’ vī. mesē noyek sē bænæ gasin bahā nogatə hī … kiyəgə sod̃urə maha babə̃ temehe sad̃in somi genæ ran galin pahan pæhæ ukəhāgenæ vanəvilin mathasyuvəlak genæ tunrat piyumak æræ eyin ekak tabā dekak hirā genə sinid̃u sunil mahanelmal dekak genæ lahōpallehi melekak genæ lahelmællehi sihilas genæ sæhæsī hanā vanā bamərə barə pul lelə liyekhi evə tī mavəmin layə kisē galə kelē hō? yī kī]40

(“Going further he heard songs sung by the princess in the sweetest sounding voice, seated in the mango tree. He approached the foot of the tree, and with the sight of the young girl seated amidst the dark green leaves, like lightning against dark rain- clouds, his elation knew no bound and his hairs stood on end. Like bees in lotus were the two blue eyes in her face. With eyelids fluttering he drank in the beautiful sight as though it were honey.

Then younger Prince Kalinga thought: Is this a divine damsel? Or a Naga? Or a Kinnera? Or a Gandharva? Or a Siddha maid? And he asked: ‘Dear one, what are you’? The Princess answered, with words as sweet and soft as the pleasant sound of bees: ‘My lord? I am a human’. Hearing this Viceroy said: ‘Lady whose skin is the color of the champak flower, as you are a human girl, come down from the tree.’

The prince, however, was unable to make the princess come down from the tree, and therefore, he spoke to her thus:

‘Tell me, dear one, why the great Brahma who created you by taking gentleness from the moon, radiant color from golden rock, two young swans (for breasts) from a forest lake, taking three red lotuses, one whole (for the face) the other two split (for legs and hands), taking two very soft, very blue manel lilies (for eyes), taking the softness of the tender leaf of the [asoka] (Saraca asoca) tree, the coolness of a

40 Dharma-Pradīpikā, 299. 12

young white lily, eagerly mixing all this and pressing it into a full blossomed swaying creeper heavy with bees tell me, why did he take a stone for your heart?”)41

Author usually preferred pure Sinhala usage which is common in classical poetry, for this type of poetic descriptions. However, even in the same story he has rarely used Sanskrit loan words (tadbhavə) such as [nahabə̃ gad̃ə gajakhu sē harṣəyen utkarṣəvæ] (like a young must-elephant fanned by the vernal breeze42) where he felt necessary.

Therefore, the Dharma-Prədīpikā is a good example for employing language style according to the theme and the objective of the author and it also testifies for dominating Sanskrit style with loan words suppressing Pali style which dominated for over 12 Centuries in Sinhala literature.

Though Sanskrit style got started dominating the Pali style from 12th to 15th Century in Sinhala classical literature there were some exceptional prose literary texts such as the Amāvaturə or more precisely the Amāvaturu (The Flood of Nectar43) by Gurulugōmi is the earliest existing non-exegetical classical Sinhala prose work. Though later classical prose writers did not follow the Amāvaturu style, scholars and critiques in the 20th Century highly appreciated it.

Following extract is an example for its style. 14. [ag̃ulmal sorəhu dæmū paridi kisēyə yat? kosol raɉəhugē gargə nam purōhitəyā piṇisə mantāni nam bæmiṇi gæb genə rǣ putəku prəsəvə kəḷā. ohu mavukusin nikmenə kalə siyəlu nuvərə raɉungē āyudhə diliṇə. raɉugē yahanhi tubū mag̃ul kaduvədə diliṇə. bamuṇu nikmæ nakat taru balannē ‘sorə’ nakətin upan bav dænə raɉu kərā gos “davas giyə sē suvadæ” yi piḷivitə. raɉə “davas giyə sē nosuvəyə. rǣ māgē mag̃ul avi diliṇə. raɉəyətə hō diviyətə hō antərāyə veyi yanə sitin nidi nolatmi” kīyæ. “maharaɉə! nubævə māgē geyi kumərek upənə. uhugē ānubhāvəyen topəgēmatu noveyi siyəlu nuvərə āyudhə diliṇæ” yi kīyæ. raɉə ekalhi “kimek ve” yi puḷuvutten “sorek veyi” kīyæ. “ekə sorekveyi hō? bohō

41 “The story of Prince of Kalinga”, in An Anthology of Sinhalese Literature, 95-96. 42 Ibid, 95. 43 Amavatura, “The Flood of Nectar”, trans. C.H.B. Reynolds and T. Rajapatirana, in An Anthology of Sinhalese Literature, ed. C.H.B. Reynolds, (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1970), 32. 13

sorun genə ratə paharənətə nisi sorek veyi hō” yi kīyæ. “ekə sorek veyi maharaɉə” yi kīyæ. esē kiyā tamā raɉu sit gannā sad̃əhā “uhu hærəpiyə mænævæ ho? yi kīyæ. “ekə soreku bævin kum kereyi? piḷidagəvə ohuyə” yi kīyæ. ohu nam tabannāhu siyəlu nuvərə diliyenə āyudhəyō kisi keneknətə hiŋsā nokəḷə hayi “Ahinsəkə” nam tubūhə.]44

(“I will tell of the subjection of the robber [Aŋgulimālə]. Now the brahmin lady [Mantāni] conceived and bore a son by night to [Gargə], that was the chief court brahmin of the [Kosol] king. When he comes out of his mother’s womb, weapons glittering through all the city, and in the king’s palace the royal sward that was in the bedchamber glittered also with other weapons. Then the brahmin went out and looked to find the constellation; and he was that the child was born under the constellation called the robber. So, he went unto the king and said, ‘Is it well to-day?’ Then said the king: ‘It is not well to-day. For my royal weapons glittered in the night; and I thought within me that danger would come upon my kingdom or upon to my life, and I slept not.’ ‘Fear not, great king’ he said, ‘a son is born in my house, and by his majesty the weapon glittered, not in thy house alone but through all city.’ Then the king enquired what the child should become.’ Then he answered, ‘He will become a robber.’ ‘Will he be a lone robber, or will he be a robber who shall bring many other robbers, to come and plunder the land?’ he said. The brahmin answered, ‘Great king, he will be a lone robber.’ When he had said thus, he spoke again to please the king, and said ‘Shall we banish him?’ But the king answered: ‘If he be a lone robber, what can he do? Thou may set tend the child.’ Then they named the child; and because through all the city weapon had glittered, and yet no harm was done thereby to any man, they called him [Ahiŋsəkə], the harmless.”)45

The above passage is a good example to understand the language style in the Amāvaturə. It is a good experiment of using pure Sinhala language style for storytelling. Although he preferred pure Sinhala usage most of the time, he tends to use loan words occasionally though there are pure Sinhala words available. There are three loan

44 Amāvaturə, ed. Kōdāgoda Gnānālōkə, (Colombo: Gunasena, 1959), 130. 45 Amavatura, “The Flood of Nectar”, in An Anthology of Sinhalese Literature, 57-58. 14

(tatsamə) words in this passage. Instead of [avi] he has used [āyudhə] and [āyudhəyō], for [anuhasin] he has used [ānubhāvəyen]. Most interesting thing is that he has used the ‘tatbhavə’ word [avi] instead of [āyudhā] in the same passage. However, he has used ‘tatsamə’ words in that particular place only.

The writing style is mainly related to Pali style with very less praises has come into the Amāvaturə as a result of close association of Pali texts. Many critiques believe it is the best style for storytelling in Sinhala as it does not have long descriptions story flows clearly and faster without any hindrance to characters and incidents.

Though the 20th Century critiques highly appreciated the Amāvaturə style, it did not attract the attention of classical prose writers at that time. Therefore, Vidyā Cakrəvarti, a contemporary prose writer to Gurulugōmi, and the author of the Butsarəṇə (Refuge in the Buddha46) in the 13th Century, employed a different prose style which is called mix Sinhala style that highly influenced on later classical Sinhala prose as well as modern literature up to the present.

15. [tavədə ‘dahasak ag̃ili kapā guru pūɉā keremi’yi magətətə bæsə yaməyāgē daḷə sē bhayankərə vū kaduvak geṇæ vātə vēgayen divæ minisun marā ag̃ili kapā, getū ag̃ili karæ līmen ‘aŋgulimālə’ yæyi prəsiddhəvæ ‘maməyæ aŋgulimāləyā’ yi kī haḍ͂ ə æsūvitə mæ mahasenəhaḍ͂ ə æsū muvəpollan sē, kēsərəsiŋhə nādə æsū ætpæṭəvun sē manuṣyəyan tatunuvəmin, manuṣyə rūpə gat kalpāntəvahniyak sē itā candəvæ hisə sisāḷə kaḍuven yuktəvæ divenə bhayaŋkərə vēsəyə balā ivəsiyə no hī de atin æs piyā muhunin hunu minisun marā æg̃ili kapəmin ætun habā̃ divæ vālədhiyehi geṇē ædæ rad̃əvā kaḍu paharin dekaḍə koṭə, asun luhubæd̃æ viritiyehi geṇæ hisə sisārā polovə apulā tū tū keremin, ætpayətə hasu vū maḷəparḍ͂ əḷā sē rathə mæḍ͂ æ suṇuvisuṇu keremin; leheyen rat vū atæti væ gam nogam koṭə, niyamgam noniyamgam koṭə, nuvərə anuvərə koṭə ævidin ā kalhi…]47

46 Butsarana “Refuge in the Buddha”, trans. C. H. B. Reynolds and T. Rajapatirana, An Anthology of Sinhalese Literature, ed. C.H.B. Reynolds, (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1970), 107. 47 Butsarəṇə, ed. Velivitiye Soratha, (Mount Lavinia: Abhaya publishers, 1966), 61-62. 15

(yet, approach to the road thinking of ‘I will offer my teacher (present my teacher) by cutting thousands of fingers’, by having a dreadful sword like the tuskers of Yama, and killing and cutting fingers of people by chasing them like the speed of the wind and had knit those fingers and wore as a necklet, and became well known as [aŋgulimālə] as wore a necklet of the fingers of human and frightened people like deer cubs who heard the sound of thunder and cubs of elephants who heard the sound of the roaring of lions with mane once hearing the saying of that ‘I am the [aŋgulimālə], and by chasing people who had covered their eyes by their both hands since it was unable to look at the very ferocious look with the rotating sword over his own head like the humanized rain which occurs at the end of the life of the world (to destroy the world), and cutting fingers after killing and chasing elephants and holding them by their tail and cutting them into two parts by a one shot of the sword, and chasing horses and holding them by their back part of the belly and rotating them over his own head and striking them on the ground to made them into pieces, and trampling and destroying carts like withered leaves that caught by the foot of elephants, and with hands which had become red by the blood and was walking by converting villages into no villages, suburbs into no suburbs and cities into noncities…)

Unlike Gurulugōmi, Vidyā Cakrəvarti does not want to tell all the story and he starts the story from the middle where it has reached up to a peak point of the conflict. Gurulugōmi wanted to tell all the story but Vidyā Cakrəvarti preferred to dramatize the events rather than telling it. For that he has used mix Sinhala language style with plenty of loan words, loan words which are altered in forms (tadbhavə) and long sentences. Some sentences are as long as one paragraph or sometimes one printed page.

The Saddharməratnāvəlī (The Garland of Jewels of the Good Doctrine48) by Ven. Dharməsēnə a Buddhist monk in the 13th Century. The former deliberately eschews using Sanskrit words as much as possible and instead has used pure Sinhala words with Pali style as its most parts were verbatim translations of Pali original text. Though the

48 Saddharma-Ratnavaliya, “The Garland of Jewels of the Good Doctrine”, trans. D. E. Hettiaratchi and C. B. Cook, in An Anthology of Sinhalese Literature, ed. C.H.B. Reynolds, (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1970), 192. 16 latter is an adaptation of the Pali dhamməpadaṭṭhəkathā, author himself emphasizes that he only takes the meaning from Pali text but not the norms of presentation. The author of the Saddharməaratnāvəalī has embellished the stories with proverbs, similes and metaphors that were popular among villagers at that time and has been able to invent a suitable style for storytelling for the benefit of the devotees. The Saddharməratnāvəlī is one of the most significant examples in classical literature for selecting an appropriate language style according to subject pleasing to the listeners or readers. Except the above-mentioned works all the other classical prose works in Sinhala have come under Sanskritization especially as regards the lexical selection.

Another important text of the classical prose is the Pūɉāvǝliyǝ which influenced the later writers. The author mentions eightfold of benefits of the world of the text and eight groups of readers especially kings who could use dhamma teaching of this text for the benefit of their citizen, queens and other royal women. Others include the Ministers, learned Dhamma preaching monks, illiterate Meditating monks, and the lay illiterates who could learn Dhamma by listening to the literate persons.49

Apart from those classical prose texts classical Sinhala poetic texts can be categorized based on language, theme as well as structure. The Muvədevdā Vatə, the Sasadā Vatə and the Kav Siḷumiṇa have used the Jataka Stories as their theme are called Gī poetry as they have used Gī meters where the number of syllables (mātrās) not equal in each four lines (stanza or feet) in verse and have used completely pure Sinhala language style. The conspicuous difference of early Gī poetry is that they are unrhymed except very few occasions when compared with the later poetry.

The Sidat Sag̃ərā is the oldest extant grammar in Sinhala language written during the 13th or 14th Centuries. However, The Sidat Sag̃ərā itself has mentioned about an early learned tradition. At the same time, we can see the effort he devoted in introducing new changes that had come up in Sinhalese grammar, well established at that period. For example, he had to justify for introducing Long vowels and nasal velar [ŋ] sound to his alphabet. But he was not able to accept half-open front vowels [æ], [ǣ] and half nasal consonant sounds [g̃], [ɟ]̃ , [ḍ͂ ], [d̃], [b]̃ for his alphabet though he himself accepted that

49 Pujavaliya, ed. Kirielle Gnanavimala, (Colombo: Gunasena, 1986), 17-19. 17 those sounds had well established in written as well as spoken (Levlækiyə) usages at that time. Therefore, we can infer that there had been a well-developed grammatical tradition in Sinhala. The Sidat Sag̃ərā is a grammar for poetic language called pure Sinhala (Helə Basə or Siyə Basə) and consists 12 chapters. The first ten chapters are devoted for grammar and the last two chapters one metrical devices of using for Auspicious and Inauspicious letters in poetic language and the last one on poetic figures. Though the Sidat Sag̃ərā has composed for poetic language it is not sufficient to understand the grammar of poetic language or prose but it had been honored as the standard grammar of Sinhala until the 20th Century in spite of its apparent inadequacy.50 However, the Sidat Sag̃ərā editions and reviews published during the 19th and 20th Centuries were helpful to recreate a classical Sinhala grammatical tradition which has been used since the 18th Century.

The Elu Sad̃æs Lakuṇə contemporary with the Sidat Sag̃ərā, describes the Sinhala prosody which was considered a very vital field of study in India as well as in Sri Lanka in the past. Apart from Sinhala prosody it provides a number of verses which have been extracted from ancient poetic works that are non-extant today, providing examples for various meters. The Elu Sad̃æs Lakuṇə introduces names of Sinhala meters, number of syllables for each verse and each stanza of a verse. Most interesting thing is the grammar and the prosody text has written in poetry in contemporary period for poetic language. The Elu Sad̃æs Lakuṇə also testifies how important and powerful the pure Sinhala usage has been at that time.

The Mayurə Sandēsəyə (The Peacock’s Message), the Thisərə Sandēsəyə (The Swan’s Message), the Girā Sandēsəyə (The Parrot’s Message), the Haŋsə Sandēsəyə (The Swan’s Message), and the Kōkilə Sandēsəyə (The Cuckoo’s Message) belong to the category of message poetry. They have written with the alleged intention of sending a message through those birds. Whether they employ ‘Gī’ meter or [Sivupadə] meter, (quotations with end rhyme [elisama]) has become an essential poetic feature. Though pure Sinhala language style still dominated in verses of poetry, mixed Sinhala style also has been used on some occasions.

50 M. H. P. De Silva, “A Standard Grammar of the Sinhala Language-Sidatsañgarā”, in Education in Ceylon, (Colombo: Government Press, 1949), 203. 18

16. [vikrəmə vīrə nirid̃un dækə nopǣ piṭi sakrəmə niboru bas misə notepələnə sæṭi akrəmə vaŋkə gunə madəkut nogenə siṭi vikrəmə siŋhə adikāram mætiñdu sitī]

(The chief minister Wickramasinghe who did not run away in the face of valorous and heroic kings, who tells only truthful and orderly words, and who did not keep deceitful and improper virtues is spotted in the king’s council.)

This type of Sanskrit loan words that are indicated in bold letters cannot be found in any early Sinhala poetic works. At the same time mixed Sinhala style also has been used for prose segments that have been intermittently used at the beginning of a descriptions in some message poems.

For example: 17. [tavədə, ē viʃuddhə prəsiddhə samruddhǝvihārəyāgē me də asādhārəṇə

kārəṇəyeki.]51

(More, this is a unique status of that very pure, very popular rich temple.)

18. [tavədə, ākhəlākhaṇḍə guṇəsaṇḍəmaṇḍitə paṇḍitə ɉanəpuṇḍərīkə mārtaṇḍə mārtaṇḍə kulōdgatə bhūmaṇḍəlēśvərə parākrəməbāhu narēʃvərəyāgē me də ek varṇə bhāṣəṇəyekə. e də tā karṇə bhūṣṇəyə kərə.]52

(More, this is the one of the descriptions of the great king [parākrəməbāhu] who is like the Sakka with firm virtue, who is like the sun to the pundits who are like white lotus, who was born in solar race, and who became head or ruler for different kingdoms. You should please your eyes by listening it.)

51 Girā Sandēśəyə, ed. Makuluduve Piyaratana, (Colombo: Gunasena, 1948), 218. 52 Haŋsə Sandēśəyə, ed. C. E. Godakumbura, (Colombo: Apothecaries, 1953), 29. 19

19. [tavədə, kāŋsyəmaṇinūpurə rāvə virājitə hŋsərājōttəməyə, me də ē vihārəjāgē ākarśəṇīyə vū varṇənā viśēṣəyekə. e də tā karṇəyətə svarṇālaŋkārə karə.]53

(More, the great king swan beautiful with the sound of the anklets made of gold and gem, this is a special piece of attractive description of that temple. You also should please your eyes by making it an embellishment to your ears.)

Despite those Sanskrit loan words, inclining towards spoken language is a new trend of language use of above message poem tradition.

The Kāvyəsēkərəyə and the Guttilə Kāvyəyə (16th Century) are versified two Jataka stories. These two-poetical works are different from earlier mentioned poetic works as regards the structure of verse and the language use. Apart from employing rhyme and traditional poetic vocabulary for verses those poets inclined to use spoken language as much as possible. Following verses testify how much above poetic works incline to spoken language.

20. [pekəniyə no dakvā saḷu æd̃ə boləṭə dakvā nopavə tanə sakvā sinā noməsen dasan dakvā]54

(Do not uncover your naval and let your garment hang down to the ankle bone. Do not bare the curve of your breasts, and refrain from laughing to show off your teeth.)55

21. [himi sad̃ini me samē bæluvə muḷu dabədivə̃ mē miyuru venə væyumē saməvə sitiyō apə dedenəmē]56

53 Haŋsə Sandēśəyə, 171. 54 The Kāvyəsēkərəyə, Siri Rahal Pabanda, (Colombo: Gunasena, 1984), 129. 55 Kavya-Sekaraya, in An Anthology of Sinhalese Literature, 278. 56 Guttilə Kāvyəyə, 179. 20

(Noble lord, if you were to make a search throughout the whole of India at this moment for any skilled in playing the sweet-toned [vīnā] (violin), there will only be the two of us.)57

Not like early poetic works the meaning of above verse could be understood by any Sinhalese reader.

This trend of using rhyme and spoken language for poetry can be seen very clearly in the Budugunālaŋkārəyə and the Lōvædə Sag̃ərāvə that belong to the same period. The former marks the beginning of a poetic tradition of eulogizing the Buddha’s and the latter marks the beginning of didactic poetic tradition which became more popular in Sinhala poetry later. As didactic poetry targets the public, spoken language was used in them.

22. [keḷiyəṭə kaḍak sag̃əvā yahaḷuvəku genē eḷi kotə nævətə dun minisekuṭə ete kinē viḷi væsmak nolæbini devi unat anē keḷiyəṭəvat nokərav sorəkəmak dænē]58

(A person who stole a piece of cloth another for fun gave it back to the owner after some time. As a result of this he did not get cloths to cover nakedness even by being as a god.)

The Pærakumbā Siritə marks the beginning of eulogistic poetry tradition, written to eulogize a great king who united the island in the 15th Century. This tradition became popular in Sinhala poetry in the later period.

All these poetic works testify that Sinhala language has evolved much during the course of time. Unlike Sinhala classical prose, poetry tradition continued without any interruption throughout the history. When the 12th-13th Centuries classical poetry

57 Guttilaya, “The Birth as Guttila”, trans. H. Peiris and L. C. Van Geyzel, in An Anthology of Sinhalese Literature, ed. C.H.B. Reynolds, (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1970), 305. 58 Lōvæḍə śañgərāvə, ed. Devundara Vāchissərə, (Colombo: Gunəsēnə, N/Y), 96. 21 compared with later classical poetry during the 15th Century it has evolved significantly as compared to classical prose. This change can be seen in poetry language, theme, structure and meter of verses. The influence of spoken language on poetry has increased after the 15th century.

1.2 History of Sinhalese Diglossia At the beginning, Sinhala language was written in Brahmi letters which were similar to those used in Ashokan Prakrit inscriptions. Senarath Paranavithana who studied inscriptions and other written materials of that period in Sri Lanka believes that there was no difference between written language and spoken language at the beginning. They used the spoken language of that time for writing.59 Moreover, he emphasizes that there was no much difference between spoken and written until about the 7th Century CE. In the late Anuradhapura period, inscriptional language began to change. Not only that according to Paranavitana there were no such differences between spoken, written and poetic usages during this early period. Frequency of non-verbal sentences may be an indication of the spoken idiom. This opinion is testified by the written samples of poetry and prose belong to that period.60 However, there are no spoken language samples available from that early Anuradhapura period to prove his opinion. Sometimes Prof. Paranavitana may have based on language usage of Sīgiri graffiti poems to get an idea about spoken usage of Sinhalese language at that time. At the same time, it could be his simple conclusion based on the idea that spoken language is utilized when a language written down for the first time.

According to Paranavithana the difference between spoken and written, (poetry as well as prose) usages became widening at the beginning of the Polonnaruwa period in the 11th Century CE. During that period prose writers preferred the use of Sanskritized vocabulary, and a pedantic style as found in prose inscriptions of the period. Since Pali and Sanskrit became the sources of neologism of mainly translated and adapted Sinhala prose of that period. Conversely, poets continued to use non Sanskritized early native language style for poetry. It can be seen that poets were earnest in protecting their early pure Sinhala language usage for poetry as is evidenced by the Sidat Sangara. Therefore,

59 K. N. O. Dharmadasa, Bhasava ha Samajaya, (Colombo: The Lake House, 1972), 104. 60 S. Paranavitana “Prakruta Sinhala Livimata Gata Yutuyi” in Adata Obina Basa, ed. Ajit Tilakasena, (Colombo: Godage, 1997), 35-39. 22 they kept away from Pali and Sanskrit ‘tatsama’ words and they have derived words from Pali and Sanskrit as ‘tadbhavas’ as they needed. Spoken language evolved in its own way. Therefore, we can believe that Polonnaruva period could be considered as the period of the beginning of the diglossic situation in the Sinhala language.

As Paranavithana pointed out the progressive and conservative tendencies were not only had been at work in some important phonological developments but also, I guess those tendencies had been at work overall change, evolution or development of the Sinhalese language. Not only that these tendencies moreover are being at work in all aspects of Sinhalese culture even today. We can see that while prose Sinhala usage evolve with the influence of Sanskrit the poetry usage was struggling to preserve ancient language forms which we called pure Sinhala. We can consider the composing of the Sidat Sag̃ərā would be a culmination of this situation. On the other hand, sometimes, we could see this situation even in prose usage specially in the Dharma- Pradīpikā and the Amāvaturə.

Though there were three main practices that had become prevalent for prose, poetry and spoken in Sinhala language during the Polonnaruwa era, contemporary prose literary works Amāvaturə, Butsarəṇə, Dahamsarṇə, Sag̃əsarəṇə, Pūjāvəliyə, Saddharməratnāvəliyə, Tūpəvaŋsəyə, The Jataka stories, Saddharmālankārəyə and Saddharməratnākərəyə testify that the prose language evolved during the course of the time until the15th Century after which writing prose came to an abrupt halt until the mid-18th Century. Therefore, scholars believe if this prose tradition continued according to spoken language without any obstruction there would not be such a diglossic situation in the present Sinhala language.61 Ariya Rajakaruna believes that the language style of the Saddharmālankārəyə is very similar to the language style of modern standard written Sinhala. He also pointed out some early fiction writers of modern Sinhala has closely associated the language style of the Saddharmālankārəyə.62 This was mainly due to revivalist intention of the writers who tried to emulate the classical norms in their writing. One of the most noticeable features of this revivalist prose language is that sometimes there are some grammatical contradictions or wrong

61 Dharmadasa, Bhasava ha Samajaya, 106. 62 D. A. Rajakaruna, Sinhala Navakatave Arambhaya, (Colombo: Godage, 1998), 123-124. 23 applications of grammar. It is convincing us that those writers also had to make an extra effort to follow classical grammatical rules. This mean that following the rules in Sinhala was not easy even to those prominent writers in the pre-modern period. The difference between colloquial and written usage widened during that period.

However, no one can say that the prose language usage at that time has evolved parallel to the evolution of the spoken language since we do not have spoken language samples of that time. Moreover, apart from the evolution of vocabulary of classical prose, more studies are needed to evaluate whether the grammar of the classical prose writing had evolved parallel to the evolution of the grammar of spoken language.

At the beginning of the 16th Century the Island (Sri Lanka) lost its unitary kingdom, and was separated into four small kingdoms as Kōṭṭē, Sītāvəkə, Seŋkədəgələ and Jaffna. There were continuous battles between two brothers of king Buvənekəbāhu VII of Kōṭṭē and king Māyādunnē of Sītāvəkə and Portuguese supported king Buvənekəbāhu VII of Kōṭṭē and made the situation worse. As a result of the strife between two brothers king Buvənekəbāhu VII of Kōṭṭē did not appoint his brother Māyādunnē as his successor and instead named his grandson Dharməpālə to the throne who was very young at that time, against tradition. King Dharməpālə of Kōttē was a weak leader, could not face attack of Māyādunnē and went to Colombo port asking protection from the Portuguese. Finally, King Dharməpālə of Kōṭṭē capitulated his kingdom to Portugal in 1597 before his death.

Portuguese who had launched the destroying Buddhist temples and academic institutions with the help of King Dharməpālə of Kōṭṭē accelerated their activities after becoming custodian of Kōṭṭē kingdom and gradually captured the entire costal area of the Island. They decimated all Buddhist temples and educational institutes of that area and forced Buddhist monks and public to convert to Christianity. According to contemporary literature some of the locals had converted to Christianity and some others fled hill country or had to opted to die.

Not only Portuguese but also the Sinhalese Buddhist king ‘Rāɉasinha I’ came to power by killing his own farther Māyādunnē of Sītāvəkə kingdom and wanted to get relieved of the sin of patricide. He requested the Buddhist monks to suggest religious solution 24 to get relieved from the sin of patricide. The monks had told him there are no Buddhist religious solution to get relieved from the sin of patricide as it is one, out of the worst five sins in Buddhism. Finally, he was convinced by one of Hindu priest who promised to relieve him from the sin of patricide. By using his mental repentance king was converted to one of Hindu cult and persuaded him to destroy Buddhist temples and massacre the monks. Classical Sinhala literary tradition that continued since Anuradhapura period up to end of the 15th Century collapsed as a result of such chaotic situation. This situation was accelerated by the collapse of traditional monastic education system called [pirivena] which thrived even during the Kōṭṭē period. At the beginning of the 16th Century because of struggles of royal family members and the enmity of Portuguese and king Rajasinghe – I, Buddhism nearly disappeared from the areas of their control. As traditional education and literary tradition was inextricably bound with Buddhism and with the collapse of Buddhist monastery schools, the literary tradition also collapsed.63 Since Kōṭṭē and Sītāvaka kingdoms were not safe for Sinhalese and Buddhist monks they were able to form a new kingdom called ‘Kandyan kingdom’ in the hill country at the end of 16th Century.

As a result of the loss of authority of kings and religion, Sinhalese popular literature specially poetry thrived among the public. Kusə ɉātakə Kāvyəyə, Sævul Saŋdēsəyə, Dahamsoḍ͂ ə Kavə, Subhāṣitəyə and Sad̃əkid̃urudāvatə are good example for the influence of spoken language. Therefore, unlike Sinhala prose, poetry shows the gradual shifting of Sinhala literary language to Spoken language since it continued as an oral tradition. There can be several reasons for this inclination to spoken language such as change of the target group, collapse of traditional education and preference of authors for composing popular poetry.

Although the Kandyan kingdom, situated in central highlands of the Island was a foothold to Buddhist monks they couldn’t revive Buddhist monastery education tradition that they had earlier as there were no erudite monks due to unstable conditions. At the same time, there was no peaceful environment in Kandyan kingdom since the continuous invasions of Portuguese and Dutch who ruled the coastal area of the Island

63 For more information, K. N. O. Darmadasa “Diglossia and Nativism: The case of Sinhalese”, (University of Peradeniya: Ceylon Studies Seminar, 1975), series No. 3, Serial No. 53. 25 in succession. The main target of Kandyan kings was to protect his territory from Portuguese, and later Dutch invasions. As Kandyan kings were not able to develop or to keep continuous peaceful environment in their kingdom they were not able to grace Buddhism or establish new Buddhist monastery colleges. Therefore, early era of the Kandyan kingdom was a dark period for all aspects of Sinhalese culture.

As a result of this socio-political chaos marked the abeyance of monastic school education system and scholarly literary tradition. However, the light of the traditional education that had spread during Kōttē period had not extinguished totally during the Kandyan period. Though classical prose and poetry tradition collapsed after Kōṭṭē period, available poetic works of the 16th and 17th Centuries testify that specially poetry had been popular among public than prose. Themes of poetic works during the 16th and 17th Centuries have become diverse. It could be a result of getting relief from the control of the religion. Most important thing is the target group of these poetic works were public so that poetic language has inclined to colloquial language. Still Jataka stories remained as the most popular theme for poetry even after the falling of the authority of Buddhism. Because of continuous battles took place between Portuguese and the Kandyan kingdom number of poetries have been written to eulogize of kings or to praise their warriors. Poetry also has been used to describe historical incidents at that time. As a whole, most of those poets have used popular usage of language as the target group was general public. This language style has been successfully employed in poetry such as “Sad̃əkid̃urudāvatə (a work on a Jataka story called ‘Sad̃əkid̃uru’ jataka), Tun Sarəṇē Kavi Potə (A poetry book on triple assistance in Theravada Buddhism that are Buddha and his teaching or Dharma, and monks), Yasōdərāvatə (A poetry on Lady Yasōdarā who was the princes of Siddhartha Gautama) and Vessantərə ɉātəkəyə (A poetry on a Jataka story one before Siddhartha’s final birth as a human)” during the 16th,17th and 18th Centuries or even before.

During this dark era, a colloquial grammar based on written style has been used for prose such as reporting historical incidents, day to day writings, documenting grants, and personal letters. The “Rāɉəratnākərəyə”, (A book contains historical details), “Rājāvəlijə” (A chronical of kings), “ʃyāmə Dūtə Varṇǝnā” (A description of diplomatic tour to Thailand at that time), “Rakkhŋgə Sandēsəyə”, (Describes a diplomatic tour to abroad) “Sirilak Kadəim Potə” (Describes boundaries) are some of 26 them. Most of those writings testify that there had not been standard written tradition at that time as a result of the collapse of traditional education system so writers have used written language as they wish.

Portuguese who ruled some maritime areas from the beginning of the16th Century used their own language for administration and education. First, Portuguese strategically took the responsibility of teaching young royal family members of Kotte, and Sītāvaka that were in their possession. Sometimes they were royal family members who were deprived of their thrones by Portuguese or royal family members who came to them as refugees. Some local kings like Senarath of Kandyan kingdom entrusted Portuguese missionaries’ education and sent his princes to them for education. Portuguese were diplomatic to undertake responsibility of teaching to Kandyan princes for example prince Rājəsiŋhə and Vijayapala the sons of their rival kings. Rājəsiŋhə II king of the Kandyan kingdom, was educated by Portuguese and he spoke Portuguese language excellently well.64 Finally, besides being tutoring princes’ Portuguese missionaries opened schools for Sri Lankan children in their controlling areas. However, Sinhala language was neglected in their education system.

As Portuguese was the administrative language in their areas of administrators and missionaries did not pay any attention for studying local language at the beginning and they employed interpreters for administrative purposes.65 Instead they persuaded locals for learning Portuguese language, customs and faith and locals were also interested in learning their rulers language, customs and faith to their children for the betterment of their future. The instruction language was admittedly Portuguese in the elementary and secondary schools established by the Franciscan and the Jesuits and there was no evidence of teaching local languages in those schools. However, local vernaculars (Sinhala and Tamil) had been taught in the Jesuit school in Colombo to newly arrived missionaries before they undertake missionary activities in Sri Lanka. At the end of Portuguese administration and even later too there was another category of Portuguese who were permanent settlers in Ceylon and married to locals. Besides localize Portuguese community Portuguese could attract considerable number of locals to their

64 W. L. A. Don Peter, “Portuguese Missionary Activity in the Sphere of Education”, in Education in Ceylon, (Colombo: Government Press, 1969), 285-286. 65 Ibid, 293. 27 language, faith, customs and way of life. They also did not incline to learn local languages as there were more and more widely spoken Portuguese local community. However, Portuguese became widely spoken language in their controlling areas as it was the ruling as well as instruction language in education.

Although missionaries propagated and preached Christianity with the help of interpreters, they came to know it was an unsatisfactory enterprise. St. Francis Xavier (1542-1552 C.E.) and later leading missionaries insisted importance of knowing local languages and they initiated preparing materials on local language for the benefit of future missionaries. It is reported by their names that there had been considerable number of missionaries who had good knowledge in Sinhala. Most interesting thing is early missionaries who acquired fair knowledge in Sinhala, known to have been tutors to new missionaries. Therefore, no doubt that they may have prepared teaching materials for teaching Sinhala as a second language.

According to available sources Antonio Peyxoto, a Franciscan missionary who had acquired a good knowledge of Sinhala has written some Christian canticles and dramas in Sinhala.66 Matthew Pelingotti (1610 C.E.) had translated some prayers, a catechism, the principal events of Our Lord’s life, and some anecdotes of the Saints into Sinhala. Later he has translated twenty-six lives of the Saints, a catechism, the Passion of Our Lord’s life, and some anecdotes of Saints with the help of a Sinhala pundit. Apart from compiling religious texts, it is reported that a Franciscan Pedro de S. Bras has written a Sinhala grammar and a lexicon, Emmanuel Costa has written a Sinhala grammar book in Latin titled Ars Chingalensis Linguae, Pierre Berguin has composed a Sinhala grammar in 1645 titled Arte e grammatica da Lingoa Chingala. Since almost all the above mention works are not available today and we are not able to study the nature as well as the evolution of Portuguese Sinhala literature.67 However, we can infer that all those Sinhala language works could be in spoken Sinhala since they did not have knowledge in classical Sinhala. Though Portuguese left Ceylon with the arrival of Dutch they were able to make indelible impression on Sinhala language by donating

66 W. L. A. Don Peter, “Portuguese Missionary Activity in the Sphere of Education”, in Education in Ceylon, (Colombo: Government Press, 1969),296. 67Ibid,297. 28 considerable amount of Portuguese words which are still very common in spoken and written Sinhala usage.

There are no reports about studying spoken Sinhala in the past. Classical Sinhala grammar the Sidat Sag̃arā has just mentioned about colloquial Sinhala by using the word [levlækijəhi] (in spoken examples).68 It seems that Sinhalese did not want to study spoken Sinhala language as they acquired its fluency involuntarily from the Sinhala community. During the colonial period, colonial rulers and officials were not interested in learning Sinhala language as they used their own language for administration.69 However, European missionaries payed attention for studying Spoken Sinhala as they wanted to learn it to communicate with local ordinary people for their missionary purposes. The Franciscan, Antonio Peyxoto, could be the first European missionary who composed canticles and dramas in Sinhala.70 Joannes Ruel who was the principal of Sinhalese College in Colombo at that time, has written a spoken Sinhala grammar book in Dutch for the benefit of the Dutch who were interested in learning spoken Sinhala.71

Roman Catholic priest Jacome Gonsalves who came to Sri Lanka at the beginning of the 18th Century is considered as the father of Sinhala Catholic literature and his writings are considered as the oldest existing Christian Sinhala literature in Sri Lanka. The aim of his literature was to introduce catholic beliefs to Sinhalese Catholics, propagation of Catholic religion and deploring other religions particularly Buddhism. His Sinhala literature consists of several prose and poetry works and dictionaries. These literary works are important in studying Sinhala language of that time that display colloquial and classical influence.72

Dutch could establish a network of schools covering their areas control. Though they conducted vernacular schools there had been a great scarcity of school books and

68 Sidat Sañgarā, 5. 69 Balagalle, Sinhala Bhasa Adyayana Itihasaya, 47. 70 W.LA. Don Peter, “The Portuguese and the Study of National Languages”, 297; Balagalle, Sinhala Bhasa Adyayana Itihasaya, 48. 71 Ibid,56 72 P. B. Sannasgala, Sinhala Sahitya Vamsaya, (Colombo: Lake House, 1961), 724 -732; For more information, Sunil, Ariyaratna, Jacome Gonsalves: Selected Texts, (Colombo: Government press, 1993). 29 writing materials. Only the school master had a copy of book and students had to practice writing on sand. The establishment of the printing press in Colombo in 1737 CE was one of the great contributions of the Dutch for the development of Sinhala language. As a consequence of Introducing the printing Press to Sri Lanka there had been a sudden influx of Sinhala books.73

1.3 The Inception of Diglossia in Modern Sinhala Rev. Saranankara who was well aware of the chaotic situation launched a movement to revitalize the lost Buddhist monastery, education and literary tradition in the 18th Century with the help of the kings of the Kandyan kingdom. To achieve this goal Rev. Saranankara established a movement called ‘Silvat Samāgəmə’ (Virtuous company or society) with his followers and continued their revitalizing program despite various interruptions. To resuscitate the lost traditional education tradition, he initiated six educational centers at temples. Those can be considered as the root of modern ‘Pirivena’ schools that were started in the late 19th Century.

One of the most important acts of Rev. Saranankara was to collect Pali and Sanskrit manuscripts and copying them down with great vigor that helped to create a new writing tradition as well as an expansion of the readership. With his initiation, King Kirti Sri Rajasinghe made his impact by restoring all the old temples spread over the entire country and also helped Rev. Saranankara to reestablish the Higher Ordination of the Sangha (Buddhist monks). These acts brought about a new cultural awareness that prevails even now. As a result of this revitalizing program in the mid-eighteenth- century writing tradition resurfaced with the influence of the classical Sinhala prose which were written from 12th to 15th Centuries while poetry tradition continued throughout the history. Most important thing was that there was no continuous scholarly written tradition of Sinhala language during that period. They employed the grammar introduced by the Sidat Sag̃arā which was written in 13th Century.74 Though some grammatical observations introduced by the Sidat Sag̃arā were applicable for the prose usage, that text was basically written as a reference grammar for the benefit of the

73 S. A. W. Mottau, “Education under the Dutch”, in Education in Ceylon, (Colombo: Government Press, 1969), 306. 74 M. W. de Silva, “Some Observations on the Scope of the Sidatsangarava”, in Paranavitana Felicitation Volume. (Colombo: Gunasena, 1965): 67-88.

30 beginners inclined to write poetry. However, employing five hundred years old grammatical rules for the 18th Century prose writing created remarkable divergence between spoken and written idiom. This can be considered as the inception of the modern diglossic situation in the Sinhala language.75

Reformists did not want to employ that colloquial grammar-based language usage for the new literature that they ventured for language reform. What they intended was to uplift their prose and poetic literary tradition to the level of the classical period. This could be another occasion in which the conservative tendency came into action in the history of Sinhala language. It seems that the reformists did not have an idea about the future consequences that was created as a result of using five centuries old grammar and vocabulary for contemporary literature. However, the outcome of this language, literary and Buddhist revitalizing movement provided the base for modern language, literary and religious reformation. Another important aspect of this cultural revival was the reintroduction of Pali and Sanskrit learning in the newly established ‘Pirivena’ institutions. The third part of the Pali Mahavamsa was composed by Ven. Tibbotuvave Sumangala tracing the historical development from the 13th century to the time of Kirti Sri Rajasinghe, thus completing the revival of classical tradition. With the reestablishment of ‘Pirivena’ education, teaching of Sinhala, Pali, Sanskrit and Tamil too became important subjects of this education.

The mixed Sinhala writing style which was popular during the classical prose era was used for new religious and other literary prose works such as Sārārthə Saŋgrahayə, Srī Saddharmāvəvādə Saŋgrahayə, Milində Prasṇəyə and Vimānə Vatthu Prəkərəṇəyə after the 18th century language reform mostly by the pupils of Ven. Saranankara. Interestingly all those were Buddhist religious texts. However, these reformists were not able to create a new standard Sinhala grammar based on the 13th Century classical literature. Therefore, there are some deviations of grammar and orthography that can be seen in the above prose works.

75 For more information, M. W. de Silva, “Nutana Sinhala Gadya Bhasave Anagataya”, (Colombo: Ministry of Cultural affairs, 1963) 31

On the other hand, spoken grammar and vocabulary based written tradition also continued for writing biographical and historical writings such as ‘Vilbāgedərə Rālə’s ambassador report’ and ‘saŋgharājəsāducariyāvə’76 (biography of Ven. Saranankara, written after his death by one of his pupils) even after the language reform. Therefore, it seems that while classical grammar-based writing style was being using for religious and scholarly prose writings, colloquial grammar based written style had been used for writing reports and other literary works even after the 18th Century revitalization.

Moreover, the spoken variety had been used for the early Bible translations, newspapers and journals that began in the 18th Century, as well as for the plethora of scholarly debates carried out in newspapers and journals as well as documenting popular debate literature during the late 19th Century. Had this linguistic style continued without interruption, we would not experience such a diglossic situation in Sinhala today. However, continuation of that early language style was interrupted by facts and incidents that occurred in the island during the 19th and 20th Centuries.77

British who ruled maritime area of the island since 1796 replacing the Dutch were able to bring the whole country under the control of their authority in 1815. Since then, the English language become the official state language and Sinhala language lost its authority which it had in the Kandyan kingdom before 1815. At the same time, considerable number of locals were attracted by the new western life style which was endowed with new island - wide administrative, commercial and educational system and tea and, other major plantation systems. This transformed social situation was able to create a new westernized social class in the island among locals who followed their colonial ruler’s language, religion and life style and had more or less no concern about the local culture and language.78 This situation created a fear regarding the future of local languages (specially Sinhala) and culture among locals who were very concerned about them.

76 Dharmadasa, Bhasava ha Samajaya, 108. 77 Ibid,109-110. 78 K.N.O. Dharmadasa, “Language and National Identity in Sri Lanka”, in Language and National Identity in Asia, ed. Andrew Simpson, (New York: Oxford University Press. 2007), 120. 32

In British Ceylon since 1869 there were three types of schools (medium wise) such as 1. The English, 2. The Anglo Vernacular, 3. The Vernacular. Some English schools condemned and rejected teaching Sinhala and Tamil languages and literature. Following extracts are the views of administrators opposing the study of the Vernacular in the English medium schools in Ceylon during that period. It would be helpful to understand the attitudes of colonial school administrators towards vernacular languages in Ceylon at that time.

1. “Remembering the growth and history of English schools in Ceylon, I am not inclined to attach any value to the study of Vernacular in those schools”79

2. “We have the belief that higher education in Sinhalese literature and Tamil literature is not for the moral or spiritual welfare in Ceylon from our point of view but rather the opposite. If you wish to find filth in literature, you will find it equally in both and those who know most about it are forced to admit it. I would teach rather French novels.”80

3. “The vernacular languages are of no value in the education of the classes which attend English schools, elementary and secondary-I think it will be a decided disadvantage for Ceylonese boys to be taught the vernacular in such schools. The only way to aim at a standard pure English…is to make the pupils think as much as possible in English and to teach English in English schools through the medium of English alone”81

Therefore, English medium schools had no contribution for advancement of Sinhala language. At the same time, there was no government patronage for traditional Buddhist monastery schools. However, some Buddhist monks had been able to carry out that system, at least for its survival, throughout the colonial period for over three centuries despite colonial rulers’ onslaught. It could be considered as a continuation of education system that was introduced by Vev. Saranankara in the 18th Century. According to the

79 E. H. de Alwis, “Language and Education-An Assessment”, in Education in Ceylon, (Colombo: Government Press, 1969), 975. 80 De Alwis, “Language and Education-An Assessment”, 976. 81 Ibid,976. 33 available records in 1827 there had been 94 such schools conducted by Buddhist monks in their temples.82 Some of those Buddhist temple schools belonged to lineage of Saranankara lineage Pelmadulla Rev. Vehelle Dhammadinna was one of those where Rev. Valane Sri Siddhartha who was the founder of another Buddhist temple school in 1864.83 It seems that this tradition had been developed during the 19th Century without any patronage of the government and it had produced many Oriental scholars who contributed for the continuance of Sinhala scholarly written tradition that introduced in the 18th Century revival.

On the other hand, the inclination of British administrative officers, missionaries and other European scholars for the Oriental Studies provided a great enthusiasm for local educated community in the 19th Century. Translation of Ceylon Chronicles into English, the expansion of publications on Sinhalese history, language and culture, reading of the early Brahmi inscription, the establishment of the Royal Asiatic Society Ceylon Branch by government officers, missionaries and scholars in 1845, and initiating a journal for the society to publishing their findings, attracted the local educated community. The initiating of Sinhala periodicals, journals and newspapers in the mid-19th Century can be considered as a new chapter in Sinhala language.

The foundation of the Vidyodaya Pirivena by Ven. Hikkaduwe Sri Sumangala in 1873 and the Vidyalankara Pirivena by Ven. Ratmalane Dharmaloka in1875 was a great achievement of Buddhist scholarship and Oriental studies. In 1902, founding ‘Oriental Studies Society’ with the chairmanship of Director of Education, was a great achievement of modern oriental studies in Sri Lanka. Those who successfully complete three exams in Sinhala medium offered by Oriental Studies Society made students eligible to ‘Pundit Degree’.84 Therefore, on the one hand, founding of above two Pirivena Schools can be considered as a climax of the resuscitation movement spearheaded by Ven. Velivita Saranankara, in the 18th Century. On the other, it was a good response to neglection of traditional Buddhist education and reaction to handing over the responsibility of state education to Christian missionaries by the colonial

82 , Ranjit t. Ruberu “Early British Education Activities”, in Education in Ceylon, (Colombo: Government Press, 1969), 372. 83 Balagalle, Sinhala Bhasa Adyayana Itihasaya, 92. 84 Ibid, 119. 34 rulers. However, temple education centers and later established Pirivena Schools were helpful to continue and establish scholarly written tradition in Sinhala that was resuscitated in the 18th Century. Another break through that had for reaching results as regards the cultural revival was the establishment of the Pali Text Society in London, in 1885, by Rhys Davids who served in Ceylon Civil Service who studied Pali in Sri Lanka. This gave an impetus to the revival of Theravada Buddhist tradition word-wide.

However, during the 19th and early 20th Centuries in the island under the administration of the British, Sinhalese Buddhist culture lost its precedence and instead, the English language and Christianity got the patronage of the British colonial government. Some locals who were concerned about their betterment were attracted by the new culture which provided through their education. Sinhalese Buddhists who concerned about the future of their culture launched a religious movement against Christian proselytization. Unlike the 18th Century revivalist movement this was led by laymen including elites, writers and social workers. During the last three decades of the 19th Century activities of Buddhist Theosophical Society and the establishment of new two Pirivena schools provided new energy to this movement. Nationalist educated Sinhalese who had a fear about the consequences of ongoing situation in the island, endeavored to elevate the feeling of language nationalism along with language loyalty among the public. Some ideas expressed on language by those leaders were capable of attracting the public interests and affected the thinking on language and its standard of Sinhalese.

Sinhala grammar books composed as text books for the use of Pirivena schools or vernacular medium schools during the second half of the 19th Century by leading Sinhala scholars who studied in Buddhist temple schools, rendered to entrench classical idiom in modern Sinhala writing.

1.4 Early Sinhala School Text Books However, there had been some Sinhala medium text books for History of Ceylon, Geography of Ceylon, Modern Geography and Arithmetic for the use of Sinhala medium classes in Anglo-Vernacular schools and Vernacular medium schools during the colonial period. According to observations of examination paper setter Rev. Mr. Dias, there were wrong selection of terms, inconsistent grammar, and idioms of language in translated Sinhala text books in 1870s. Following samples of early Sinhala 35 medium text books testify the quality of the Sinhala language which had been employed at that time.

23. [bretāɲɲǝ agrǝ rāɉyǝyehi kathāntrǝyayi. rōmānuvǝru visin allāgannǝladǝ raṭǝval gænǝyǝ. kristuvarṣǝyen 55 veni varṣǝyǝṭǝ prǝthǝmǝyen mulu utrǝ pascimǝ ērōpǝyehi hā bretāɲɲǝ divayinvǝlǝdǝ mlēccǝkǝ gōtrǝyō vāsǝyǝ kǝlāyǝ. rōmānuvǝru dænǝṭǝ pransǝyǝyi kiyǝnǝladǝ hāvul raṭǝ ɉayǝgenǝ hamārǝvūkalǝ dænǝṭǝ bretāɲɲǝ muhudǝyayi kiyǝnǝladǝ paṭu sāgǝrǝyǝṭǝ egoḍin tavat sārǝvat prǝdēsǝyak tibenǝ bavǝ ihǝtǝkī avuruddēdī ovungē prǝsiddhǝ sēnādhipǝtivū ɉūliyǝs kāyisǝr ē dēsǝyē velǝd̃ungen dænǝgǝnǝ ehi gos ē prǝdēsǝyǝdǝ rōmānu yuddhǝ hamudāvǝṭǝ yaṭatkǝrǝdennǝṭǝ hitǝṭǝ gattāyǝ. ē vakǝvanuvǝṭǝ passē dīl yayi kiyǝnǝladǝ sthānǝyǝṭǝ goḍǝbæsǝ svǝbhāvǝyenmǝ yudhǝkāmīvūdǝ an āḍuvǝkǝṭǝ͂ yaṭatvennǝṭǝ akǝmætivūdǝ sīlācārǝ novū eraṭǝ væsiyan nopǝmāvǝmǝ bhayǝkǝrǝvā gattāyǝ. ē koji hæṭi numut mē lag̃ǝ avuruddǝ dakvā (kri. va. i.54) ohu bretāɲɲǝyehi isthirǝvāsǝyǝkǝṭǝ nopæminǝ siṭǝ ē avuruddēdī ohugē yudǝǝ hamudāvǝ hāvulhi siṭǝ genenā piṇisǝ nævu aṭǝ siyǝyǝkǝṭǝ aḍunovǝnǝganǝnak (hadǝnǝ lesǝṭǝ) ohu visin niyōgǝkǝrannǝṭǝ yedunāyǝ. madak goyitæn ætuvǝ tibunāvū muhudukǝrē vāsǝyǝkǝlǝvun hærǝ bretāɲɲǝ gōttrǝyō daḍǝyam karǝṇǝkoṭǝgenǝ hā vanǝ phalǝvǝlindǝ tamangē ɉīvikāvǝ kǝrǝgattāyǝ]85

According to contemporary language style and Standard Sinhala Grammar above quotation should be as follows.

[britānyǝ adhirāɉyǝyehi itihāsǝyǝ. rōmānuvan visin yaṭatkǝrǝ gannāladǝ raṭǝval. or rōmānuvangē yaṭatviɉitǝ.

85 Brotañña Agra Rajyayehi Katantaraya, (History of the British Empire) (Colombo: Wesleyan Mission Press, 1852), 1. 36

“kristuvarṣǝyen 55 veni (But it should be: [kriṣtu pūrvǝ] (B.C.)) varṣǝyǝṭǝ prǝthǝmǝyen samastǝ vayǝbǝdigǝ̃ yurōpǝyehi hā britānyǝ divayinvǝlǝdǝ mlēccǝ gōtrǝ vāsǝyǝ kǝḷǝhǝ. rōmānuvan dænǝṭǝ pransǝyǝ yanuven had̃unvǝnu labǝnǝ hāvul [havul]raṭǝ yaṭatkoṭǝ gat pasu dænǝṭǝ bretānyǝ muhudǝ yæyi kiyǝnu labǝnǝ paṭu sāgǝrǝyǝṭǝ obbehi tavat sārǝvat raṭak tibenǝ bavǝ ē raṭinmǝ pæmiṇi veḷǝnd̃angen ihǝtǝ kī avuruddē dī mǝ asā dænǝgat ovungē prǝsiddhǝ sēnādhipǝtiyeku vū ɉūliyǝs kāyisǝr ehi gos ē prǝdēsǝyǝ dǝ rōmānu yuddhǝ hamudāvǝṭǝ yaṭat kǝrǝ dennǝṭǝ adhiṣṭānǝ kǝḷēyǝ. in kalǝkǝṭǝ pasu dīl yanuven had̃unvǝnǝladǝ sthānǝyǝṭǝ goḍǝbaṭǝ rōmǝn hamudāvǝ svǝbhāvǝyenmǝ yudhǝkāmī vūdǝ an ɉātiyǝkǝṭǝ yaṭat vennǝṭǝ akǝmæti vūdǝ sīlācārǝ novū eraṭǝ væsiyan vahā mǝ yaṭat kǝrǝ gathǝ. ē kesē vuvat kri. pū. 54 dakvā britānyǝyeṭǝ nogiyǝ ohu hāvulhi siṭǝ ohugē yudhǝ hamudāvǝ āpasu genǝ yāmǝ piṇisǝ nævu aṭǝsiyǝyǝkǝṭǝ noaḍu ganǝnak ē vasǝrēdī mǝ [sædīmǝṭǝ] niyōgǝ kǝḷēyǝ. muhudubaḍǝ vesenǝ britānyǝ gōttrikǝyan madak govitæn kaṭǝyutu kǝḷǝ atǝrǝ anek piris daḍǝyamin hā vanǝ palǝvælin tamangē divi rækǝ gathǝ]

(The History of the British Empire. The countries brought under their rule by Romans (Roman colonies). Before 55th CE (but this should be B.C.) all north western Europe inhabitants were barbaric tribes. After the Romans capturing [hāvul] (Republic of France?) country which we known as France today in the same year (55th CE ) a famous Roman commander in chief Julius Kaiser came to know by traders who came from the same country that there is a fertile and luxuriant island beyond the narrow sea which we known as the sea of Britten today and Kaiser went there and determined to capture that country for the Roman army. Sometime after, the Roman army landed on the place called ‘Dil’ and conquered the country after the fighting with native tribes who were barbaric and inherently warriors who did not like to surrender to any other nation. However, he did not go to Britten until 54th BC remained in [hāvul] and ordered to build more than 800 ships within the same year to carry his army. Some maritime tribes were farmers and others lived by hunting and gathering.)

It is very difficult to get the real meaning to rewrite above paragraph in contemporary written Sinhala without its original English copy. It is difficult to understand weather that period is Before Christ or Anno Domini. At the beginning it says [kristuvarṣǝyen 55 veni] 55AD. But at the end of the paragraph it says (kri. Pū 54) B.C. At the same time, some English terms like ‘North Western’ have translated into Sinhala as [uturu 37 pascimǝ] as a direct translation. The actual Sinhala term for ‘North-Western’ is [vayǝbǝdigǝ̃ ] Sometimes, it is difficult to understand what he really meant by the word [hāvul] without original English text.

The Sinhala terms which have been used in the text should be changed as follows: bretāɲɲǝ > [britānyǝ]; [agrǝ rāɉyǝyehi] >[adhirāɉyǝyehi]; [kathāntrǝyayi] > [itihāsǝyǝyi]; [allāgannǝladǝ] > [yatatkǝrǝ gannā ladǝ]; [gænǝyǝ] > [pilibad̃ǝ]; [kristuvarṣǝyen] > [kriṣtuvarṣǝyǝṭǝ perǝ]; [utrǝ pascimǝ] > [vayǝb̃ǝ]; [ērōpǝyehi] > [yurōpǝyehi]; [kiyǝnǝladǝ] > [kiyǝnulabǝnǝ]; [hamārǝvūkalǝ] > [avǝsan vū pasu]; [egoḍin] > [eterǝ]; [hitǝṭǝ gattāyǝ] > [adhiṣṭhāṇǝ kǝlē yǝ]; [passē] > [pasu]; [āḍuvǝkǝṭǝ͂ ] > [raṭǝkǝṭǝ]; [koji hæṭi] > [kesē vetat]; [mē lag̃ǝ] [ī lag̃ǝ]; [kri. va. i.] > [kri. Pūrǝ]; [genenā] > [genǝ enu]; [goyitæn] [govitæn]; [ætuvǝ] > [kǝrǝmin]; [ tibunāvū] [siṭiyā vū]; [ muhudukǝrē] > [muhudubaḍǝ]

Confusion of the selecting the nominative and the accusative forms: [gōtrǝyō vāsǝyǝ kǝlāyǝ] > [gōtrǝyō vāsǝyǝ kǝḷǝhǝ] [rōmānuvǝru …. gattāyǝ] > [rōmānuvǝru …. gathǝ] [ɉūliyǝs kāyisǝr …. gattāyǝ] > [ɉūliyǝs kāyisǝr …. gattēyǝ] [ohu visin niyōgǝkǝrannǝṭǝ yedunāyǝ] > [ohu niyōgǝ kǝḷēyǝ] [gōttrǝyō …. ɉīvikāvǝ kǝrǝgattāyǝ] > [gōttrǝyō …. ɉīvikāvǝ kǝrǝgathǝ]

The subject predicate agreement of the above sentences is not compatible to spoken or written idioms. Final verb of each sentence corresponds to the Third Person singular feminine nouns. This style became popular during the Kandyan period after the collapse of the classical literary era as a result of the Portuguese invasion in the 15th Century. Author has followed that style since that secondary writing style had been used by missionaries for their religious propagation.

These translators were not able to find appropriate technical terms for some English terms since they have not had good command in Sinhala language:

They have translated the English word ‘Empire’ as [agrǝ rāɉyǝye] instead of [adhirāɉyǝyǝ] and ‘History’ as [kathāntrǝyǝ] instead of the popular technical term [itihāsǝyǝ].

Sometimes they have mixed many colloquial words with written language vocabulary. Some words have been used in the manner pronounced by uneducated people.

[allāgannǝladǝ] > [yaṭatkǝrǝgannā ladǝ]; [ērōpǝye] > [yurōpǝyǝ]; [bretāɲɲǝ] > [britānyǝyǝ]; [gænǝ > pilibad̃ǝ]; [hamārǝvūkalǝ] > [avǝsanvū pasu]; [egoḍin] > [eterǝ; passē] > [pasuvǝ]; [āḍuvǝkǝṭǝ͂ ] > [ānḍuvǝkǝṭǝ] / [raɉǝyǝkǝṭǝ]; [ē koji hæṭi numut] > [ē kesē vuvat]; [avurudd] > [varsǝyǝ]; [goyitæn] > [govitæn]; [ætuvǝ] > [sahitǝvǝ]; [tibunāvū] > [tibuṇu]; [muhudukǝrē] > [muhudubaḍǝ]; [ɉīvikāv kǝrǝgatta] > [ ɉīvat; vuṇā] > [ɉīvǝnǝ] [mārgǝyǝ].

Following quotation is another sample of a translated Sinhala text book at that time. The quality of the language is very poor, and we cannot grasp the meaning of the first sentence without English copy. [abhinǝvǝ katāntrǝyǝ.] [palǝmuveni khāḍǝyǝ͂ ] [I paricchēdǝyǝ.] [rōmānu rāɉyǝyǝ naṭǝbunkǝlāvū̃ mlēcchǝkǝ gōttrǝyangē paṭangæmmǝyǝ.] [kri. va. 406 paṭan kri. va. 800 dakvā.] [siddhǝvū siyǝḷumǝ vædǝgat kārǝṇā īṭǝ perǝpasuvǝ siddhǝvū kārǝṇāvǝlǝṭǝ pilibad̃ǝvǝ tibenā bævindǝ ek dēsǝyǝkǝ katāntrǝyehi itā vædǝgatǝvarṣǝyǝ anik dēsǝyǝkǝ katāntrǝyǝṭǝ kisi vædǝgatkǝmak nohot væḍi vædǝgatkǝmak nætuvǝ tibennǝṭǝ puḷuvan bævindǝ varṣǝ prǝmānǝ vasǝyen katāntrǝyehi bedīmǝval kisi kalǝkǝ sampūrṇǝvǝ tibennǝṭǝ nupuḷuvǝnǝ. madhyǝkālāntǝrǝyēdī pævǝtunāvū andǝmǝ prǝdhānǝkoṭǝ mē hæṭiyǝ: rōmānuvǝrun visin sīlācārǝvū dēsǝval atǝrē pihiṭuvǝnǝladǝ samǝgikǝmǝ mē madhyǝ varṣǝvǝlǝdī mlēccǝkǝyingē yuddhǝval karǝṇǝkoṭǝgenǝ nætivīgiyāyǝ. mē yuddhǝkārǝyin visin pihiṭuvǝnǝladǝ rāɉyǝval novisālǝvǝ svalpǝ kālǝyak pævǝtunat hærǝ memǝ rāɉyǝval svǝmīpǝ rāɉyǝval hā samǝgǝ misǝ an rāɉyǝval hā samǝgǝ yam ekǝtukǝmak ætuvǝ tibunē nætǝ. ē nisā

ērōpǝyǝ nopilibad̃ǝvū āḍuv͂ ǝlǝṭǝ khāḍǝ͂ khāḍǝvǝ͂ giyǝ vakǝvānuvēdī ē mahā divǝyinǝ gænǝ sādhārǝṇǝ kathāntrǝyak vasǝyen yamak liyannǝṭǝ puḷuvanvennēmǝ nætǝ.]86 Table-1.1 Deviations of Translation

English Word Text Book Translation Correct Translation General [sādhārǝṇǝ]; [podu], [sāmānyǝ] History [katāntrǝyǝ] [itihāsǝyǝ] Second [deveni] [deveni], [devǝnǝ] Series [pag̃uvǝ] [koṭǝsǝ], [pelǝ] Modern [abhinǝvǝ] [nūtǝnǝ] School skōlǝ [pāsal], [viduhal] Press [pot accugasǝnǝ sthānēdīyǝ] [mudrǝnālǝyǝ] Mission [misiyōnāris unnānsēlāgē] [mīsǝmǝ] Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

We can understand the cover page and the title since it has been printed both in English and Sinhala, but it is very difficult to grasp the real meaning of first sentence of the text without original English text. However, we can understand the title of the lesson. Unsuitable words or terms of the title and the text have been bold. Unsuitable terms and words of the title should be as follows: [abhinǝvǝ] > [nūtǝnǝ] (modern); [katāntrǝyǝ] > [itihāsǝyǝ] (history); [khāḍǝyǝ͂ ] > [kāṇḍǝyǝ] (Parts); [naṭǝbunkǝlāvū̃ ] > [vināʃǝ kǝḷǝ], [ākrǝmǝṇǝyǝ kǝḷǝ], [paṭangæmmǝyǝ] > [ārambhǝyǝ] (bigining); [paṭan] > [siṭǝ] (from) [madhyǝkālāntǝrǝyēdī] >[madhyǝkālīnǝ] (medieval?) [madhyǝ varṣǝvǝlǝdī] >[madhyǝkālīnǝ] (medieval?) [mē hæṭiyǝ]: > [mesēyǝ]; (like this) [dēsǝval] > [raṭǝval] (countries): [yuddhǝval] > [yuddhǝ] (wars)

The suffix [val] does not usually combine with Sanskrit ‘tatsama’ words like [dēsǝ] and [yuddhǝ]. The root of those words gives the plural meaning. [svǝmīpǝ] > [samīpǝ] (close/neighboring)

86 sādhārǝṇǝ katāntrǝyǝ deveni pag̃uvǝ. abhinǝvǝ katāntrǝyǝ (Element of Modern History), (Colombo: Wesleyan Mission Press, 1851), 1. 40

[hā samǝgǝ] > [hā / samǝgǝ] Both post positions (particles) have same meaning (and). [ekǝtukǝmak] > [mitratvǝyak / sabǝd̃ǝtāvak] (a friendship) [ērōpǝyǝ] > [yurōpǝyǝ]; (Europe); [nopilibad̃ǝvū] [sambandǝ næti] or [hudekǝlā] (not united/ununited). [āḍuv͂ ǝlǝṭǝ] > [āṇḍuv͂ ǝlǝṭǝ] (to governments) [khāḍǝ͂ khāḍǝvǝ͂ ] > [khāṇḍǝ͂ khāṇḍǝvǝ͂ ] (being splitted). However, this term is not suitable. Therefore, it should be [koṭas koṭas vī]. [sādhārǝṇǝ kathāntrǝyak] > [podu itihāsǝyak] (a general history) [puḷuvanvennēmǝ nætǝ] > [nopilivǝnǝ] or [nohækiyǝ] [novisālǝvǝ] > [viʃālǝ nætǝ] or [kuḍā yǝ] (are not big)

To respond to above observations the Director of Public Instruction had recommended to appoint a recognized Pundit to assist the production of vernacular text books. According to inspectors reports at that time they have had a desire to maintain classical idiom and genius of language in preparing Sinhala text books. Though there was no approved language standard for Sinhala at that time even colonial officers have had a desire to employ classical idiom for the text books.87 This is another occasion in which the conservative tendency came into action against the progressive tendency.

There had been inevitable criticism from interested sectors regarding the level of the language that had been used in Sinhala medium school text books during the second half of the 19th Century. Therefore, a committee was appointed to inquire into the quality of Sinhala reading books by Legislative Council in 1891. The Committee consisted of Vev. Hikkaduwe Sri Sumangala, Vev. Ratmalane Dharmaloka, Ven. W. Sri Sumangala and Mr. L. C. Wijesinhe (The Translator of Mahawamsa into English). However, the committee had some disagreements on orthography, etymology and syntax of the text books. This means that there had no common agreement among Sinhala writers regarding the standard of written Sinhala at that time. Different scholars had been followed different standard according to their schools. Therefore, this opportunity was very important regarding the forming of standard for Sinhala language

87 K. D. Ariyadasa, and E. S. W. Perera, “Text Books”, in Education in Ceylon, (Colombo: Government Press, 1969), 1011-1012. 41 as the committee provided an opportunity to scholars who had different opinions on grammar, orthography and syntax.

It is no doubt that editing of Classical Sinhala books, that came into vogue in the 19th Century provided a great opportunity to disclose difficult points of classical written idiom. As a result of the expansion of vernacular medium education in government schools and Pirivena Schools classical text or extract of them were approved as school text books. Not only this situation but also degradation of vernacular literature by some missionaries and educationalists. However, nationalist ideas expanded during early 20th Century encouraged Sinhala scholars to espouse editing of classical texts. Especially some editions the Sidatsangara the classical grammar of Sinhala gave an opportunity to analyze its deficiencies as a grammar of Sinhala language that was helpful to disclose many difficult points of grammar in the first half of the 20th Century. As a result of close affiliation with those classical texts some authors tend to imitate the styles of those texts.

Those who studied in superior English medium schools and Anglo-vernacular schools had to go to England or India to obtain their bachelor’s degrees. Therefore, at the beginning of the 20th Century educated upper middle-class community demanded for a university education in Ceylon. One of the main targets of demanding a local university was, as Sir. Ponnambalam Arunachalam who led the Ceylon University Association declared in 1906 in his own words was “our youth do not grow up strangers to their mother tongue and to their past history traditions… which they did not get from British or Indian universities.88 As a result of the demand for a university similar to the London university adapted to local needs, a University College was opened in Colombo in 1921 affiliated to London University. The University of Ceylon was formed in 01st July 1942 by combining the Ceylon University College and the Ceylon Medical College. Though there were separate department for Tamil, there were no Separate Department for Sinhala at the beginning of the University of Ceylon. However, since beginning of the Ceylon University College students and the staff contributed for the advancement of Sinhala language and literature.

88 G. P. Malalasekara, “Beginnings of University Education”, in Education in Ceylon, (Colombo: Government Press, 1969), 870. 42

These two education systems (government schools and Pirivena schools) could produce a number of new erudite personalities who worked for the progress of Sinhala language, literature and culture. They contributed by composing prose and poetry, editing of classical Sinhala texts, translating some of them into English, translating foreign texts into Sinhala, editing Sinhala journals and Newspapers. With the influence of western literature, new prose works such as novels and short stories were produced in Sinhala language. Both spoken idiom and classical idiom were used for those Sinhala fiction works.

Buddhist counter offensive arose in the second half of the 19th Century against depriving of the precedence for Sinhalese language and Buddhism and replacing by English language and Christianity. Uplifting the language and the nation (Sinhala) up to the classical level and saving the nation and language from slavery was the major desire of ‘Hela Havula’ movement spearheaded by Munidasa Kumaratunga (1887- 1944). His main intention was avoiding Sinhala literary language from Sanskritization as well as colloquialization. For this he started creating derivation forms (tadbhavə) words from Sanskrit and Pali words and employing classical grammar and style to modern literary Sinhala. As a result of this movement Sinhalese educated community was able to rehabilitate the classical language for the twentieth century prose writing. As the classical Sinhala prose has scattered almost over three centuries (from 12th to 15th Centuries) as well as different styles have been used by different authors it made an influence on the 20th Century writers who followed those texts.89 In the end, classical Sinhala style of writing was established in modern Sinhala prose by the Sinhala nationalist and language loyalty movement in mid-20th Century.

Most important thing was that all these revivalist movements disregarded the spoken Sinhala language. Though there were suggestions to adopt a usage equivalent to spoken idiom those were condemned or unheeded by the party who supported the movement for classical idiom. At the same time, suggestion for adoption of parallel to spoken idiom did not get any attention of politicians as they were mainly concerned about independence.

89 Dharmadasa, Bhasava ha Samajaya, 107-108. 43

Munidasa Kumaratunga’s contribution was remarkable during 1930s and 40s regarding the sophistication of vocabulary, style and grammar in his prescriptive style. He could resolve many issues of grammaticality at that time by resuscitating of classical grammar. He edited many classical prose, poetry and grammar texts that paved the way for him to help resuscitating classical grammar. He always insisted the importance of grammaticality, and he himself used lucid language style bereft of verbiage and embellishments. Some critiques believe that Kumaratunga had found this style accidentally from classical Sinhala prose work the Amāvaturə which was written during 12th-13th Centuries. However, it seems not only the Amāvaturə but also other classical poetic works also has influenced him to resuscitate classical grammar, vocabulary and the style. Finally, Kumaratunga decided to form a movement to propagate this idea on 11th January 1941 at his residence called ‘Sevana’. The movement was named ‘Hela Havula’ which was proposed by Jayantha Weerasekara, a prominent scholar of that movement.90 ‘Helə Havulə’ opposed both Sanskritization and colloquialism instead he suggested classical grammar with pure Sinhala (Hela) classical vocabulary.91 According to ‘Helə Havulə’ the purist movement of Sinhala language considered spoken language as ungrammatical, corrupted, and stupid usage and they launched a fruitless effort to transform the spoken language on the lines of their purified written usage. However, the ideology created by Helə Havulə and other Sinhala nationalist and language loyalty movements gor established in society. Even now majority of Sinhalese among many educated people believe that spoken Sinhala is ungrammatical. This is the most decisive turning point of the modern Sinhala language history in which the conservative tendency came into action for all aspects of the written Sinhala usage such as grammar, vocabulary and the style. This tendency spread out towards the Spoken usage with the promulgation of the notion that ‘spoken Sinhala is ungrammatical’.

In 1945 Vernacular (Swabhāṣā) was made the medium of education in all primary schools (with the exception of those attended by Burgher and Muslim children) and it marked the end of English as a medium of instruction. This gave some privilege in the

90 K. A. I. Kalyanaratna, “Hela Havula marks the 75th Anniversary”, The Island e-paper, viewed on 31st March 2016. 91 P. B. Meegaskumbura, “Sinhala Language and Lliterature since Independence”, in Facets of Development of Sri Lanka since Independence: Socio-Political, Economic, Scientific and Cultural, ed. W. D. Lakshman and C. A. Tisdell, (Queensland: University of Queensland, 1999), 338. 44 sphere of vernacular education to some extent. Tamil and Sinhala regained their lost importance as they (Vernaculars) became compulsory for Senior School Certificate examination and recruitment for government service. Centers that callously rejected vernacular language and literature, opened the door for various cultural activities such as Sinhala drama, folk song, music, dancing and so on.92 Though the shifting of the medium of the secondary school got delayed due to practical reasons the trend progressively continued and was completed in mid-1950s. The Cabinet issued a policy statement by which the government accepted Sinhala and Tamil as official languages on the 6th January 1955. The medium of instruction in vernaculars was raised up to Senior School Certificate level except for some science subjects. Finally teaching of those science subjects was also shifted to vernaculars in 1964.93

Introducing free education system since 1st October 1945 from kindergarten to university level and shifting the medium of instruction to vernacular provided an opportunity to underprivileged students to enter higher education.94 Because of this there was an urgent need of publishing vernacular school text books for all fields of public-school education. This led to increase in literacy percentage. In the case of the Sinhalese this led to more Sinhala writers and readership. At the same time, Official Language Act 33 of 1956 passed in Parliament of Ceylon in 1956 gave the status of official language to Sinhala replacing English and this resulted in promoting the status and the functions of Sinhala language.95 As a result of this expansion of functional load of language, it became necessary to introduce new vocabulary in many fields particularly in science. Mainly Sanskrit and classical Sinhala roots were the source of neologisms. At the same time adopted loan words and translated borrowings from English were also introduced as words for new concepts were not available in local language.96

Though Sinhala language became the medium of instruction in schools, and the national language as well as official language, there was no accepted standard language policy

92 G. P. Malalasekara, “Beginnings of University Education”, in Education in Ceylon, (Colombo: Government Press, 1969), 980. 93 Ibid,981. 94 Meegaskumbura, “Sinhala Language and Literature since Independence”, 339. 95 Ibid,339. 96 Ibid,339. 45 for the government. However, the common standard of written Sinhala for which they used classical idiom with some later developments was the common among Sinhala educated community. There were stylistic, orthographic and word divisional anomalies among those elite writers though they accepted classical idiom. Therefore, Department of Education of Ceylon at that time initiated a program to introduce new set of school text books for teaching Sinhala language and literature from kindergarten to G.C.E. Ordinary Level during the period of 1965 to 1969. As the Minister of Education at that time was a reputed writer, he had understood the requirement of having a fixed standard Sinhala for official usage and education purposes and he appointed a committee to prepare a scheme.97 It seemed a good idea of having a state sponsored policy uniform standard language for official usage and a set of school text books.

With the appearance of new text-books for higher grades in 1967 mainly two factions protested against the language that had been used in those text-books. Both factions accused that language of text books indiscriminately inclined to the ideology of the Hela Havula. Same criticism was directed for the Standard Language Committee Report which issued in December1968. One faction led by university teachers who suggested a simplified version of classical idiom with special attention to the development of recent past to be the standard Sinhala. The other faction though less in number argued in favor of the adoption of the equivalent to the spoken idiom to be the standard written Sinhala.

Authorities were not able to resist the criticisms against new language of text-books and the Standard Language Committee Report as both factions of critiques consisted of university teachers and some elite writers of the society including fiction writers. At the same time, authorities were persuaded to solve the issue before the forthcoming general election in 1970. Therefore, the Minister of Education took necessary steps to revise both text books and the Standard Language Committee Report in favor of the faction who suggested simplified version of the classical idiom. Moreover, ultra-puristic language usage that was biased to Hela Havula was removed from Text Books and the Standard Language Committee Report was republished in April 1970 just one month before the General Election. Protesters did not accept revised Text Books and Standard

97 Dharmadasa, “Diglossia and Nativism: The Case of Sinhalese”, 6. 46

Language Committee Report. The Minister of Education of the newly elected government in May 1970 removed both controversial Text Books and Standard Language Committee Report and prepared new ones taking into consideration the views of the critiques.98

The standard language controversy testifies that there had been three different views regarding standard language in the society. Those two groups who suggested ultra- puristic classical idiom and the equivalent of the spoken grammar of Sinhala got less public attention, but majority of the society supported for the using of simplified version of the classical idiom that appear in venerated classical prose and poetry. Thus, the classical idiom of Sinhala language received the official approval as the standard language for the first time of the history. Though there has been ongoing debate regarding the standard language, still a majority of the society support for using classical idiom at least for academic purposes, government official use, academic writing and printed and electronic communication purposes at that time.

Since there was no official grammar book or a report like ‘Standard Sinhala Committee Report’ regarding standard Sinhala written language (SSWL), standard Sinhala grammar was taught in schools by grammar lessons included in school text books. National Institute of Education (NIE) in 1989 led a program to facilitate students and educated people on standard Sinhala written idiom as they noticed grammatical mistakes and some other confusions in writings of students and even in writings of some well-known writers. Moreover, there was an ongoing discussion in printed media and among educated community regarding the requirement of a revision of Sinhala standard to accommodate new changes and developments that had been established in the language in the recent past.99 This expert’s committee comprised of university professors of departments of Sinhalese, famous scientists, writers, experts from media, and selected government officers from departments and ministries related to Sinhala language. With the help of those experts National Institute of Education published a Standard Sinhala Report named Sinhala Lekhana Reetiya in 1989.

98 Dharmadasa, “Diglossia and Nativism: The Case of Sinhalese”,6. 99 Sinhala Lekhana Reetiya, (Maharagama: National Institute of Education,1989), V. 47

This committee could include five half-nasal letters to alphabet that had been used in Sinhala language since 12-13th centuries. At the same time a new letter was introduced to indicate labio-dental “f” sound which came into use in Sinhala because of European language influence. Apart from that, this Standard Sinhala Committee paid its attention to resolve the confusions regarding orthography, conjugation of nouns, subject predicate agreement, word division and punctuation. However, this suggestion regarding the standard Sinhala did not make stir in the society due to several reasons:

1. The committee consisted members from almost all necessary fields. 2. It allowed to employ new progressive changes and long-established developments of the language. 3. New suggestions took the consent of almost all in the society except who refused classical idiom for modern writing. 4. There were no hard-core members of Hela Havula and those who suggested an equivalent to spoken grammar for written language. 5. This report also allows writers to employ spoken usage for creative writing and also allows alternative usages. 6. This work received little notice as a result of the socio-political unrest and armed struggle that spread all over the country which did not allow to attract public attention.

However, an organization called Sinhala Bhashabivardhana Sanvidanaya (Sinhala Language Development Organization) published Nirdeshita Bhasha Reeti (Recommended Language Codes) in 1991 and Nutana Sinhala Bhasha Reeti (Modern Sinhala Language Codes) in 1993. These Sinhala Language Development Organizations accused all Sinhala language standard committees who neglected school teachers views involved in teaching the language. At the same time, they accused experts of language standard committees who always tried to include linguistic peculiarities of their own tradition or school to the new standard. They have suggested to include some progressive changes that have been developed and established in common usage. In 1991 ‘Editor’s Society’ published a standard of word division with the help of some experts who were involved in preparing Sinhala Lekhana Reetiya. This revising prosses of language standard testify that it is difficult to prepare a long- standing standard for a living language and it is difficult to satisfy each and every 48 faction by a one version of language standard. Finally, all those amendments confirmed and established the simplified version of classical idiom as the possible standard for written Sinhala.

Thus, the inception, establishment and continuation of this diglossic situation in Sinhala language occurred due to several socio-political and cultural incidents during the 18th and 20th Centuries.

1.5 Conclusion We discussed the development of the Sinhala language from 3rd Century BC. In this discussion we realized that the continuous available Sinhala language samples testify that the Sinhala language has been evolved during the course of time. This means that the written Sinhala has been evolved parallel to the development of the spoken Sinhala. At the same time, we have clear evidence that from the 10th Century CE, there had been several language varieties or styles for different purposes. However, the continuous evolution of Sinhala literature collapsed at the beginning of the 16th Century as a result of the Europeans invasions and internal conflicts. Buddhism nearly disappeared from the areas of Portuguese control. As traditional education and literary tradition was inextricably bound with Buddhism and with the collapse of Buddhist monastery schools, the literary tradition also collapsed.

Sinhala literary tradition was resuscitated during the 18th Century by the Ven. Saranankara through his revitalization movement. However, they have opted classical Sinhala grammar of the 13th Century for their literary works. As early researchers pointed out this was the beginning of the diglossic situation in modern Sinhala. At the same time, the Bible translators and Sinhala text book translators who have not had sufficient command in language had devalued the potential energy of the spoken idiom. On the other hand, the attitude propagated by purists regarding the spoken language well established in the society and made long term impact over spoken usage. However, all the forces of Sinhala society in the first half of the 20th Century supported for the establishment of classical literature-based grammar for modern writing. At the same time, we could notice that the two tendencies pointed out by Paranavithan were at work in all aspects of the Sinhala language.

Chapter Two: Sinhalese Diglossia

2.0 Introduction

There are mainly two types of illustrations of many living languages and these are the spoken and written usage. Not only in human history but also in the life of a man, the spoken usage is older than the written usage. A man starts to speak very early in his life, but he starts writing little later. On the other hand, during the life time, a man engages mostly in spoken activities than written activities. In a language community, only a limited number of people are engaged in writing activity while all the others are engaging in spoken activity. At the same time, people acquire spoken skill almost fully in their early childhood from the society where he/they grew up, but they have to learn the written idiom separately in later life. In the past, in any language community only a very few people had mastered writing and were considered educated people. Besides, the writing skill such as writing letters, distinguishing actual characteristic of words, separation of words, sentence structures, and punctuation, they must learn separate if there is a diglossic situation on that particular language. Diglossic situation of a language is compared to bilingualism by some linguists, as there is a link between high and low varieties and spoken and written idioms of a language.1 Speaker of these languages have an idea as to which language variety to employ among high and low varieties for speaking and writing according to the situation.

If a language has two different varieties or grammar for spoken and written usage, it is known as diglossia. Once a language loses its great continuous literary tradition due to being suppressed by another language tradition that causes the abeyance of it and tends to resuscitate the language idiom on the basis of the post tradition. This could be identified as its renaissance period. This was the situation that prevailed in the cases of Sinhalese, Tamil, Greek and many other languages where diglossia was formed. In such situation classical language style will become the status of high variety since it has a continuous proud written tradition which is considered as sufficient to express any kind of idea. In many languages where there had been a diglossic situation, writing is considered as the upper usage or standard variety than speaking variety of the same

1 K. N. O. Dharmadasa, Lekhanaya hā bhasanaya hevat bhasa dvirupatavaya, (Colombo: Ministry of Cultural Affairs, 1999), 7.

50 language. While a child acquiring speaking skills of a language from the society, he or she has to learn written idiom in a formal manner with the help of grammar lessons. Therefore, he or she tends to think that written language has a grammar but spoken language does not. At the same time, in such societies some traditional grammarians tend to promulgate the idea that spoken language is ungrammatical or inferior. Sinhala speaking society of Sri Lanka testifies that this type of miss-conception created by the purists or some traditional grammarians in the society is difficult to remove. However, in the field of linguistics, spoken usage is considered the language as almost all engage in it for a considerable amount of time than for writing. According to linguistics, writing is considered as a secondary usage of a spoken language.

Though Sinhalese believe that spoken and written idiom as two different illustrations of the same language, they do not speak the way they write, or they do not write the way they speak. Sinhalese do not normally use spoken idiom for academic or technical writing. Except on the occasions of reading a written document, some public lectures, or speeches, they do not use written idiom for speaking. There are many written and spoken styles between the classical grammar based written idiom and the colloquial usage of Sinhala. From the extreme of classical grammar based written idiom there are several writing styles up to writing style that merges with the spoken idiom and likewise there are many spoken styles from colloquial type with various dialects leading up to the highbrow spoken idiom and sometimes merging with the written idiom.

In the standard written idiom of Sinhalese, more than one letter is sometimes used to illustrate the same phoneme in different situations. They also use different vocabulary for the same meaning, different grammar and different sentence structures for both idioms. In this chapter we will be discussing the difference between colloquial and written idioms in phonology, morphology and syntax levels of the Sinhala language.

As we mentioned earlier, the Sinhalese normally do not write the way they speak, and they do not speak the way they write. The Sinhalese use two different language codes for spoken and scholarly writings to communicate the same set of ideas and this is called

‘diglossia’ in modern linguistics.2 Diglossia is the sociolinguistic phenomenon of the existence of two different varieties of a language within a single language community. These two varieties cannot be considered as two dialects of a given language since a dialect is confined to a region or a special community based on region, caste or class. Simultaneously these two discernible varieties cannot be two dialects as person opt these two varieties in two different conditions, situations or purposes of communication. The term diglossia was used to name this sociolinguistic phenomenon by Ferguson in his famous article ‘diglossia’ where he classifies two language varieties as higher and lower in relation to each other. The higher variety is usually taught in the school or a place of formal education and it is used for writing as well as to speak in some formal situations. The lower variety could be a dialect which a person acquires in his childhood and it is used for writing transaction and formal communication.3

Ferguson explains the differences of two language varieties of his ‘define languages’ (Arabic, Modern Greek, Swiss German, Haitian Creole) diglossic situation under nine features such as function, prestige, literary heritage, acquisition, standardization, stability, grammar, lexicon and phonology. All those conditions that Ferguson has described under the above features are similarly relevant to Sinhala language. However, diglossic situation in Sinhala language differs from the situation that Ferguson identified in his ‘defining languages’ and the diglossic situation of the Sinhala language is very similar to the situations of Tamil language that Ferguson describes at the end of his article.

According to Ferguson one of the most important features of diglossia is that each language variety has unique role in ‘function’ in the language community for example written Sinhala language is used for academic, official and formal writing purposes and spoken Sinhala is used for normal conversation. However, the position held by standard Sinhala written language (SSWL) in the past is gradually being acquired by spoken Sinhala or its modified varieties today. As regards the ‘prestige’, written language has higher reputation in society because only educated people have the ability to use the

2 Dharmadas,“Diglossia and Nativism: The Case of Sinhalese”, 1. 3 Charles A. Ferguson, “Diglossia”, published online 04 Dec. 2015, accessed January 08, 2018, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/cited by/10.1080/0043795.

52 standard written Sinhala variety and it is also used only for specifically important purposes. Since the subtlety of rules and many other reasons SSWL is losing its authority which it occupied in the past. SSWL is still considered as the ‘prestige’ variety when compared with the other usage. Therefore, almost all try to employ that variety in their writings despite grammatical deviations. In Sinhala ‘literary heritage’ appears in both spoken and written idioms according to the requirement or the preference of writers but standard Sinhala written idiom is used in academic and official settings.

A comparison of the difference between spoken and written Sinhala varieties will be provided hereafter and it will be sufficient to understand the diglossic situation of the Sinhala language.

2.1 Phonology

The difference between spoken Sinhala phonemes and the way the Sinhalese transcribe those phonemes in written Sinhala will be discussed under phonology.

2.1.1 Vowel Phonemes in Spoken Sinhala There are around 38 phonemes in contemporary spoken Sinhala usage as recognized by linguists.4 However, labio-dental fricative sound cannot be found in the speech of a monolingual speaker. This set of phonemes in modern spoken Sinhala is very similar to the alphabet of The Sidat Sag̃ərā, the classical Sinhala grammar of the13th Century.

Table-2.1 Vowel Phonemes in Spoken Sinhala

Short vowels w [a] we [æ] b [i] W [u] t [e] T [o]

Long vowels wd [ā] wE [ǣ] B [ī] W! [ū] ta [ē] ´ [ō]

Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

4 Balagalle, Bhasa Adyayanaya ha Sinhala Vyavaharaya, 140.

2.1.2 Consonants Phonemes in Spoken Sinhala Table-2.2 Consonants Phonemes in Spoken Sinhala Plosives Fricatives

Voiced Voiced

Voiceless Voiceless

Vowels

Nasal Nasalized Semi Trill Lateral

Velar la .a o Õa ya [k] [g] [ŋ] [g̃] [h] Palatal É Ê [a `Ê ha [c] [ɉ] [ɲ] [ɉ]̃ [y] Retroflex Ü â å ¾ ,a [ṭ/ʈ] [ḍ/ɖ] [ɖ̃] [r] [l] Dental ;a Oa ka |a ia [t] [d] [n] [d̃] [s] Labial ma í ï Us [p] [b] [m] [b̃] Labio-dental *a õ [f] [v] Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

When it comes to the written language, writers are confused in selecting the appropriate letter to illustrate the 38 phonemes above as there are sixty-one letters to represent the above given 38 phonemes of spoken Sinhala.

There are six additional vowel letters and 15 consonant letters in written Sinhala alphabet:

2.1.3 Vowel Letters of Written Sinhala Table - 2.3 Vowel Letters of Written Sinhala Vowels w we b W iD Ì t T Short vowels [a] [æ] [i] [u] [ıru] [ılu] [e] [o] Long vowels wd wE B W! iDD Ï ta ´ [ā] [ǣ] [ī] [ū] [ırū] [ılū] [ē] [ō] Combined vowels ft T! [aı] [au] Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

Vowel phonemes, “^we& [æ] ^wE& [ǣ] cannot be seen in Pali, Sanskrit or Dravidian languages. Therefore, they are considered as internally developed phonemes in the Sinhalese language since the 7th Century CE. (ft) [ai], (T!) [au], (iD) [ıru], ^iDD& [ırū], ^Ì& [ilu] and (Ï) [ilū] letters are mainly used to write Sanskrit borrowings. Out of the above vowel letters ^Ì& [ilu] and (Ï) [ilū] letters do not occur in modern Sinhala as there are no Sanskrit borrowings in Sinhala with these sounds. However, Sinhala experts who are involved in standardizing the Sinhala alphabet in 1989 have agreed to keep these two traditional letters in the Sinhala alphabet. (ft) [ai] and (T!) [au] are considered as diphthongs and they are mainly used to write Sanskrit loan words. Once Sinhalese write Sinhalese words and other borrowings with the same sound combination, they use different letters to illustrate them.

Table – 2.4 Sanskrit and Non-Sanskrit Loan Words Sanskrit Loaned Words with (ft) Non-Sanskrit Sinhala Words with (ft) [ai] [ai] ^ffl&rdál [kairātikǝ] (deceitful) ^lhs&jdre [kaivāru] (flattery) ^ffk&;sl [naitikǝ] (legal) ^khs&j, [naivǝlǝ] (a name of a village) ^ffj&oH [vaidyǝ] (medical) ^jhs&ru [vairǝmǝ] (shining line), (වරස් [vairǝs] (virus) Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

In the above examples both ^ffl& [kai] and ^lhs& [kai] syllables are substituted same [kai] pronunciation. But two orthographical devices are used in written Sinhala to indicate Sanskrit loan words and Sinhala and other loan words. ^ffk&$^khs& [nai], and

^ffj&$^jhs& [vai] differences are also similar. Different writing patterns are followed to indicate Pali – Sanskrit loan words and Sinhala and other borrowings.

Table - 2.5 Pali-Sanskrit Loan Words and Sinhala and other Borrowings

Loaned words with (T!) [au] Sinhala words with (T!) [au] ^T!&IO [auṣǝdhǝ] (medicine) ^wjq&, [aulǝ] (confusion), අǔ뷊ද [auruddǝ] (year) ^fl!&;=l [kautukǝ] (curious) ^ljq&o [kaudǝ] (who) ^f.!&rj [gaurǝvǝ] (respect) ^.jq&u [gaumǝ] (gown) ^fm!&oa.,sl [paudgǝlikǝ] (private) ^mjq&, [paulǝ] (family) ^fn!&oaO [bauddhǝ] (Buddhist) ^njq&i¾ [bausǝr] (bowser) Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

In the above table first syllable of each pair such as ^fl!& < > ^ljq& [kau], ^f.!& < > ^.jq& [gau], ^fm!& < > ^mjq&, [pau], ^fn!& < > ^njq& [bau], has similar sound combinations but we can clearly see the difference of writing between Pali and Sanskrit loan words and non-Sanskrit words. When the Sinhalese write similar Pali and Sanskrit loan words (tatsama) with “(T!) [au]” sound (diphthong) they have to follow traditional writing method. But they use different type of letters to illustrate similar sound combinations in Sinhala for non-Sanskrit words. Therefore, writers must have a basic understanding about the vocabulary, i.e. whether they are Sanskrit borrowings or not. Many writers who are not experts in the Sinhala language have difficulties in selecting the appropriate letters.

Table-2.6 Phonetic Symbols for Sinhala Alphabet

dental

Velar Palatal Retroflex Dental Labial Labio Non- aspirated la É Ü ;a ma [k] [c] [ṭ/ʈ] [t] [p] Non-voiced Aspirated Ä þ Ga :a Ma [kh] [ch] [ṭh/ʈh] [th] [ph] Voiced Non- aspirated .a Ê Ê oa í [g] [ɉ] [ḍ//ɖ] [d] [b] Aspirated >a Cè Va è Na [gh] [ɉh] [ḍh/ɖh] [dh] [bh] Nasal Ù ^w&x [a Ka ka ï [ŋ] /ŋ/ [ɲ] [ṇ] [n] [m] Nasalized Õa `Ê å |a Us [g̃] [ɉ]̃ [ḍ͂ / /ɖ̃] [d̃] [b̃] Voiced Semi vowels ha õ [y] [v] Trill ¾ ,a [r] [l] Lateral

Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018 Though ^R& [ıru] ^RD& [ırū] letters are considered as vowels they are combinations of “^R& [ı + r + u]” and “^RD& [ı+r+ū]” phonemes but these two letters function as vowels once they impute to consonants. Actually these are mixed-vowels that have a consonantal feature, but are treated as vowels because they function as single unit in syllabification as in [ṛtu] (R;=) (season) and [tṛuṇǝ] (;DK) (grass). These letters are used to write Sanskrit borrowings and other loan words which have similar sound combination.

The 18th Century textbook the Vadan kavi pota has included “Ì [ilu], Ï [ilū]” letters to the Sinhala alphabet though they do not use in contemporary Sinhala writing. The Sinhala Lekhana Reetiya published by the National Institute of Education to enhance the skills of classical grammar based grammatical knowledge among students and

57 writers in 1989 also has included these letters to its alphabet. Professor Wimal G. Balagalle argues that “Ì [ılu] Ï [ılū] letters are essential for the Sinhala alphabet since those letters are appearing in Vadan kavi pota of the 18th Century.5 Besides that those two letters are essential for Sinhala alphabet since Sanskrit studies are still prominent in Sinhalese scholarship.

h] are different from other] (׃)“ Velar nasal letter (x) [ŋ] and velar fricative voiced sign consonant letters as they do not impute vowels. This velar nasal letter “(x) [ŋ] has been included in the Sidat Sag̃ərā alphabet in the 13th Century. That sign is a later development of Sinhala language as a result of Pali and Sanskrit influence or due to h]” is a loaned sign from] (׃)“ spontaneous nasalization. Velar fricative voiced sign Sanskrit alphabet which is used to illustrate same sound in that language. It is also mainly used to write Sanskrit ‘tatsama’ or equal loaned words

. Sinhalese as a phonetic language have separate letters for almost all phonemes of its spoken idiom. But the issue is that many consonant phonemes have more than one letter to illustrate them as a result of the historical relationship with Pali and Sanskrit languages. Though there are no pronunciation differences between aspirated and non- aspirated, these non-aspirated “(la & [k], ^É& [c], ^Ü& [ṭ/ʈ], ^;a & [t], ^ma & [p], ^.a & [g], ^Ê& [ɉ], ^â) [ḍ/ɖ] , ^oa& [d], ^í& [b]” letters have their aspirated letters though these letters mostly pronounced as non-aspirated phonemes.

Though there are aspirated sounds in some rare occasions such as unvoiced stops at the initial position, they do not have phonemic value and they could be considered as allophones. However, in contemporary Sinhala language aspirated and non-aspirated letters are employed in writing Pali and Sanskrit loan words on considering of differences in their originals.

There are two separate letters “^w&x” and “Ù” in Sinhala alphabet to illustrate velar nasal phoneme [ŋ]. Since there are no distinctive phonemic values or pronunciation differences in the pairs “^Ka& [ṇ](ka) [n] and (

5 Balagalle, Bhasa adyayanaya ha Sinhala vyavaharaya, 142.

58 very controversial in written Sinhala. Those letters are adopted considering the early usage of cognate forms. To master to employ those letters precisely in Sinhala language writer should have prior knowledge about from which language that word has borrowed from and how those letters have employed in the Pali or Sanskrit languages. Otherwise writers have to learn from the experience or with the help of a dictionary. There are three different letters, “palatal (Ya) [ʃ] retroflex Îa & [ṣ] and dental îa & [s]” in Sinhala written language. However, there are no such variation in spoken Sinhala. Almost all Sinhala people pronounce these three letters as dental fricative [s] phoneme. Traditionally, these letters have been used to write loaned words same as they appear in Pali or Sanskrit languages. These “(Ya) [ʃ] Îa & [ṣ]” letters are used in contemporary Sinhala written language to illustrate words borrowed from other languages besides Pali and Sanskrit loans. Nasalized non-aspirated voiced letters such as “^Õa &[g̃], (`Ê) [ɉ]̃ , ^å& [ḍ͂ /ɖ̃], (|a) [d̃], Ûs& [b̃]” were considered as internally developed sounds or phonemes in the Sinhala language during medieval Sinhala period. In this category there are words where spontaneous nasalization has taken place in such cases as Sanskrit [mārgǝ], > Pali [maggǝ] > Sinhala [mag̃ǝ]. Labiodental “(*a & [f]” phoneme was officially introduced to the Sinhala alphabet by the Sinhala Lekhana Reetiya in 1989 to illustrate European and Arabic loan words.

2.2 Morphology

The diglossic situation is also widely visible in morphological level between spoken and written usage such as morphemes, word formation, and conjugation of nouns and verbs.

2.2.1 Nouns

Sinhalese nouns disclose three genders in noun conjugation. Almost all Sinhalese nouns can be categorized into three genders based on their biological status. Usually all nouns denote masculine animals belonging to the masculine gender category. Nouns denote feminine belong to the feminine gender. Nouns denote things, places, status belong to the neuter gender.

2.2.1.1 Masculine Gender Following tables illustrate the differences of noun conjugation between spoken and written usages. The [s] phoneme at the end of stem of [minis] becomes [h] in the singular form of the spoken language.

Table-2.7 Noun Conjugation in Spoken Sinhala: Masculine (Type 01) Spoken Sinhala Stem: Minis (Human) Singular Plural Case Definite Indefinite Nominative written [minis + ā] [minis + ek] [minis + u] spoken [minihā] [minihek] [minissu] Dative written [minis + atǝ] [minis + ektǝ] [minis + untǝ] spoken [minihatǝ [minihektǝ [minissuntǝ] Ablative written [minis+agen] [minis+ekgen] [minis + ungen] spoken [minihagen] [minihekgen] [minissungen] Genitive written [minis + age] [minis + ekge] [minis+un+gē] spoken [minihage] [minihekge] [minissunge] Vocative written [manussǝ+ō] [minis + unē] spoken [manussǝyō] [minissunē] [minis + ō] [minihō] Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

Table-2.8 Noun Conjugation in Written Sinhala: Masculine (Type 01)

In Modern Grammar Written Sinhala [minis] (Human) Singular Plural Definite Indefinite Nominative [minis + ā] [minis + ek] [minis + u] Case [minisā] [minisek] [minissu] Accusative case [minis + ā] [minis + eku] [minis + un] [minisā] [miniseku] [minisun] Instrumental and [minis + ā + gen] [minis + eku + gen] [minis+ un+ gen] Ablative Case [minisāgen] [minisekugen] [minisungen] Dative case [minis + ā + tǝ] [minis + eku + tǝ] [minis + un + tǝ] [minisātǝ] [minisekutǝ] [minisuntǝ] Genitive and Locative [minis + ā + gē] [minis + eku + gē] [minis + un + gē] case [minisāgē] [minisekugē] [minisungē] Vocative case [manussǝ + ō] [minis + un + ē] [manussǝyō] [minissunē] Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

Table-2.9 Noun Conjugation in Spoken Sinhala: Masculine (Type 02)

Spoken Sinhala [kolu] (Boy) Singular Plural Definite Indefinite 1 Nominative Case [kolu + ā [kolu + ek [kolu + ō] [kollā [kollek [kollō ] 2 Accusative case [kolu + ā [kolu + ek [kolu + ō] [kollā [kollek [kollō] 3 Dative case [kolu + atǝ [kolu + ektǝ [kolu + antǝ] [kollatǝ [kollektǝ [kollantǝ] 4 Instrumental and Ablative [kolu + agen [kolu + ekgen [kolu+ angen] cases [kollagen [kollekgen [kollangen] 5 Genitive and [kolu + age [kolu + ekge [kolu + ange] Locative cases [kollage [kollekge [kollange] 6 Vocative case [kolu + ō [kolu + anē] [kollō [kollǝnē] Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

Table-2.10 Noun Conjugation in Written Sinhala: Masculine (Type 02)

Written Sinhala [kolu] (Boy) Singular Plural Definite Indefinite

Nominative [kolu + ā] [kolu + ek] [kolu + ō] Case [kollā] [kollek] [kollō] Accusative case [kolu + ā] [kolu + eku] [kolu + an] [kollā] [kolleku] [kollan] Dative case [kolu + ā + tǝ] [kolu + eku + tǝ] [kolu + an + tǝ] [kollātǝ] [kolleku + tǝ [kollantǝ] Instrumental and [kolu+ ā+ gen] [kolu+ eku+ gen] [kolu + an + gen] Ablative cases [kollāgen] [kollekugen] [kollangen] Genitive and [kolu + ā + gē] [kolu + eku + gē] [kolu + an + gē] Locative case [kollāgē] [kollekugē] [kollangē] Vocative case [kolu + ō] [kolu + an + ē] [kollō] [kollǝnē]

[koluvō] Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018 In the Sinhalese language masculine nouns get [ā] suffix for definite meaning and [ek] suffix for the indefinite meaning in Nominative Case contrary feminine nouns get [ǝ] suffix for the definite meaning and [ak] suffix for the indefinite meaning for the same case. Plural meaning suffixes are same in both masculine and feminine genders. Inanimate nouns get [ǝ] suffix for definite singular meaning, [ak] for indefinite singular meaning and zero [ø] or [val] suffix for the plural meaning. Plural suffixes of inanimate nouns are completely different from animate nouns.

Table 2.11 Noun Conjugation Spoken Sinhala: Feminine (Type 01)

Spoken Sinhala [gæhænu] (Woman) Singular Plural Definite Indefinite Nominative [gǣnu + ı + ǝ] [gǣni + ak] [gǣnu] Case [gǣnıyǝ] [gǣnıyak] [gǣnu] Accusative case [gǣnu + ı + ǝ] [gǣni + ak] [gǣnu] [gǣnıyǝ] [gǣnıyak] [gǣnu] Dative case [gǣnı+ ǝtǝ] [gǣni + ǝktǝ] [gǣnu + untǝ] [gǣnıyǝtǝ] [gǣniyǝktǝ] [gǣnuntǝ] Instrumental and Ablative [gǣnı+gen] [gǣni+ekgen] [gǣnu+ungen] cases [gǣnıgen] [gǣniyekgen] [gǣnungen] Genitive and [gǣnı + ge] [gǣnu + ungē] Locative cases [gǣnıge] [gǣnungē] Vocative case [gǣnı + ē] [gǣni + ekge] [gǣnu + nē] [gǣnıyē] [gǣniyekge] [gǣnunē] Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018 2.2.1.2 Feminine Gender Table 2.12 Noun Conjugation in Written Sinhala Feminine (Type 01) Written Sinhala Stem [gæhænu] (Woman) Singular Plural Definite Indefinite Nominative gæhænı + ǝ gæhænı + ak gæhænu Case gæhænıyǝ gæhænıyak gæhænu Accusative gæhænı + ǝ gæhænı + ǝkǝ gæhænu + un case gæhænıyǝ gæhænıyǝkǝ gæhænun Dative case gæhænı + ǝ + tǝ gæhænı +ǝkǝ + tǝ gæhænu + un + tǝ gæhænıyǝtǝ gæhænıyǝkǝtǝ gæhænuntǝ Genitive and gæhænı + ǝ + gen gæhænı + ǝkǝ + gen gæhænu + un + gen Locative case gæhænıyǝgen gæhænıyǝkǝgen gæhænungen Instrumental gæhænı + ǝ + gē gæhænı + ǝkǝ + gē gæhænu + un + gē and Ablative gæhænıyǝgē gæhænıyǝkǝgē gæhænungē cases Vocative case gæhænuı + ē gæhænu + un + ē gæhænıyē gæhænunē Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

Table 2.13 Noun Conjugation in Spoken Sinhala Feminine (Type 02) Stem [keli] (Girl) Spoken Sinhala Singular Plural Definite Definite Indefinite Nominative Case [keli + ǝ] [keli + ak] [keli + ō] [kellǝ] [kellak], [kellō]

[keli + ek] [kellek] Accusative case [keli + ǝ] [keli + ak] [keli + ō] [kellǝ] [kellek], [kellō]

[keli + ek] [kellek] Dative case [keli + ǝtǝ] [keli + ekutǝ] [keli + antǝ] [kellǝtǝ] [kellekutǝ] [kellantǝ] Ablative and [keli + ǝgen] [keli + ekgen] [keli + angen] instrumental case [kellǝgen] [kellekgen] [kellangen] Genitive and [keli + ǝge] [keli + ekge] [keli + ange] Locative cases [kellǝge] [kellekge] [kellange] Vocative [keli + ē] [keli + anē] [kellē] [kellǝnē] Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

Table 2.14 Noun Conjugation in Spoken Sinhala Feminine (Type 02)

Stem [keli] (Girl) Written Sinhala Singular Plural Definite Indefinite Nominative case keli + ǝ [keli + ek] [keli + ō] kellǝ [kellek], [kellō]

[kelu + ak] [kellak],

Accusative case [keli + ǝ] [keli + eku] [keli + an] [kellǝ] [kelleku,] [kellan]

[keli + ǝkǝ] [kellǝkǝ], Dative case [keli + ǝ + tǝ] [keli + ǝkǝ + tǝ] [keli + an + tǝ] [kelltǝ] [kellǝkǝtǝ] [kellantǝ] Instrumental and [keli + ǝ + gen] [keli + ǝkǝ + gen] [keli + an + gen] Ablative case [kellǝgen] [kellǝkǝgen] [kellangen] Genitive and [keli + ǝ + gē] [keli + ǝkǝ + gē] [keli + an + gē] Locative case [kellǝgē] [kellǝkǝgē] [kellangē] Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018 2.2.1.3 Neuter Gender Table-2.15 Noun Conjugation in Spoken and Written Sinhala: Neuter (Type 01)

Stem [gas] (Tree) Written Sinhala Spoken Sinhala

Singular Plural Singular Plural

Definite Definite Indefinite Definite Indefinite Nominative [gasǝ] [gasak] [gas] [gaha] [gahak] [gas] case Accusative [gasǝ] [gasak] [gas] [gaha] [gahak] [gas] case Instrumental/ [gasen] [gasǝkin] [gasvǝlin] [gahen] [gahakin] [gasvalin] Ablative case [gasin] [gahin] Dative case [gasǝṭǝ] [gasǝkǝṭǝ] [gasvǝlǝṭǝ] [gahatǝ] [gahakǝṭǝ] [gasvǝlǝṭǝ] Genitive and [gasē] [gahakǝ] [gasvǝlǝ] [gahē] [gahakǝ] [gasvǝlǝ] Locative case Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

Table-2.16 Noun Conjugation in Spoken and Written Sinhala: Neuter (Type 02) [pārǝ] (Road) Stem Written Sinhala Spoken Sinhala

Singular Singular Plural

Plural

Definite Definite

Definite

Indefinite Indefinite Nominative [pārǝ] [pārak] [pārǝval] [pārǝ] [pārak] [pārǝval] case Accusative [pārǝ] [pārak] [pārǝval] [pārǝ] [pārak] [pārǝval] case Instrumental [pāren] [pārǝkin] [pārǝvǝlin] [pāren] [pārǝkin] [pārǝvalvǝlin] /Ablative [pārin] [pārin] case Dative case [pārǝṭǝ] [pārǝkǝṭǝ] [pārǝvǝlǝṭǝ] [pārǝṭǝ] [pārǝkǝṭǝ] [pārǝvalvǝlǝṭǝ] Genitive and [pārē] [pārǝkǝ] [pārǝvǝlǝ] Locative case Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

Table-2.17 Traditional Method of Noun Conjugation in Written Sinhala

[minis] (Human) Singular Plural Definite Definite Indefinite Nominative [minis + ā] [minis + ek] [minis + u] case [minisā] [minisek] [minissu] Accusative [minis + ā] [minis + eku] [minis + un] case [minisā] [miniseku] [minisun] Agentive case [minis + ā + visin] [minis + eku + visin] [minis + un + visin] [minisā visin] [miniseku visin] [minisun visin Instrumental [minis+ā+ [minis + eku + [minis + un + case karǝnǝkotǝgǝnǝ] karǝnǝkotǝgǝnǝ] karǝnǝkotǝgǝnǝ]

[minisā [miniseku [minisun karǝnǝkotǝgǝnǝ] karǝnǝkotǝgǝnǝ] karǝnǝkotǝgǝnǝ] Dative case [minis + ā + tǝ] [minis + eku + tǝ] [minis + un + tǝ] Ablative case [minis + ā + gen] [minis + eku + gen] [minis + un + gen] Genitive case [minis + ā + gē] [minis + eku + gē] [minis + un + gē] Locative case [minis + ā + [minis + eku + [minis + un + kerehi] kerehi] kerehi] Vocative case [manussǝ + ō] [minis + un + ē [manussǝyō] Minissunē] Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

The early Sinhala grammar of the Sidat Sag̃ərā gives nine cases namely nominative, accusative, agentive, instrumental, dative, ablative, genitive, locative and vocative cases. Though some of these cases are not relevant to the Sinhalese language, these cases have been introduced to the Sinhala language as a result of the close relationship with Pali and Sanskrit languages. At the same time, these cases are needed to explain Pali and Sanskrit grammatical texts and lessons in Sinhala as these studies were abundant in Sri Lankan history. However, all those nine cases are not relevant to analyze Sinhalese nouns as there is a biological gender system is existing in Sinhalese noun conjugation. For example, Agentive and Genitive cases are not relevant for inanimate noun conjugation. At the same time, there are no case terminations (suffixes) for the animate nouns to indicate Agentive, Instrumental cases. Inanimate nouns have case suffixes for Locative meanings and animate nouns have suffixes for genitive case. Agentive case does not have case suffixes both animate and inanimate nouns instead the postposition [visin] is used with animate nouns for that meaning. Case terminations

(suffixes) of inanimate nouns are equal for the instrumental and ablative cases and animate nouns do not have terminations for the instrumental case. At the same time, animate nouns have suffixes for genitive case, but it is not relevant for inanimate nouns. Inanimate nouns have suffixes for locative case, but it is not applicable to animate nouns.

2.2.1.4 Pronouns In Sinhala language Pronouns are called [sarvǝnāmǝ]. Its mean nouns which can substitute any noun. However, pronouns cannot substitute any noun at least related to same variety. For example, a single second person pronoun cannot use for anyone we call. Pronouns are divided to several groups according to their function. Some pronouns conjugate according to other nouns in singular – plural and in all cases except the vocative case. Some of them have gender difference as well. Some pronouns conjugate only in plural.

Some pronouns are different in form in spoken and written usage. Some stems of pronouns are similar but conjugate in both usage. Diglossic situation is wider in the level of pronouns as they are different in form and conjugation. While using traditional classical pronouns in written language, pronouns in the spoken idiom have changed widely during the recent past according to the evolution of the society. However, many scholars and grammarians do not recommend or allow to use some pronouns in written language that are very commonly use in contemporary spoken idiom. Following tables testify the difference in form and conjugation of the pronouns in spoken and written

2.2.1.4.1 First Person Pronouns

Table-2.18 First Person Pronouns First Person Spoken Language Written Sinhala Singular Plural Singular Plural Nominative [mamǝ] / [maŋ] [api] [mamǝ] [api] case Accusative [mamǝ] / [maŋ] [api] / [mā] [apǝ] case / [māvǝ] [apivǝ] Agentive case [mā visin] [apǝ visin] Instrumental [magen] [apen] [mā [apǝ and Ablative karǝṇǝkoṭǝgenǝ] karǝṇǝkoṭǝgenǝ] case Dative case [maṭǝ] [apiṭǝ] [maṭǝ] [apǝṭǝ] Genitive and [mage] [ape] [mage] [ape] Locative case Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

2.2.1.4.2 Second Person Pronouns

Second person pronouns are higher in number in Sinhala language as Sinhalese society has different levels in society based on the social status of people such as laymen vs Buddhist monks, parents/adult vs kids, owner vs servants, chief vs servants, high class vs low class and sometimes high caste and low caste and so on. Therefore, the pronoun has to be selected according to the situation and the social status of interlocutors.

Though following pronoun is very commonly used in contemporary spoken idiom it is not allowed or recommended for the use in academic writings, formal level speeches and electronic media. This second person pronoun [oyā] (you) is used to address people of equal status. Though it does not have gender difference it conjugates in singular – plural as well as in all cases like other pronouns.

Table-2.19 Second Person Pronouns (Type 01)

Second Person Spoken Language Singular Plural Nominative Case [oyā] [oyāla] Accusative Case [oyā] / [oyāvǝ] [oyāla] / [oyālavǝ] Dative Case [oyāṭǝ] [oyālaṭǝ] Instrumental and [oyāgen] [oyālagen]

Ablative Case Genitive and [oyāge] [oyālage] Locative Case

Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

[ubǝ̃ ] (you) is a second person pronoun limited to contemporary spoken idiom. It was used very widely in the past, to call people who are very low in social status than the speaker. Now close friends widely use it to call each other to indicate intimacy.

Table-2.20 Second Person Pronouns (Type 02)

Second Person

Spoken Language Singular Plural Nominative Case [ubǝ̃ ] [ubǝlā̃ ] ̃ ̃ ̃ Accusative Case [ubǝ]/ [ubǝvǝ] [ubǝlā] [ubǝl̃ avǝ] Dative Case [ubǝ̃ ṭǝ] [ubǝlã ṭǝ] Instrumental and [ubǝgeñ ] [ubǝlageñ ] Ablative Case Genitive and [ubǝgẽ ] [ubǝlagẽ ] Locative Case Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018 [tamuse] (you) is also a second person pronoun which is restricted to spoken language. Sometimes it is used today among intimate friends to call each other.

Table-2.21 Second Person: Spoken Language Second Person Spoken Language Singular Plural Nominative Case [tamuse] [tamuselā] Accusative Case [tamuse] [tamuselā] [tamusevǝ] [tamuselāvǝ] Dative Case [tamuseṭǝ] [tamuselāṭǝ]

Instrumental and [tamusegen] [tamuselāgen] Ablative Case

Genitive and [tamusege] [tamuselāge] Locative Case Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

[obǝ] (you) is used in formal or upper-level discussions and sometimes in written language to call socially equal or lower people. This pronoun is used to call honorable people with suitable honorific words such as [obǝ + tumā] and [obǝ + vahanse] and the like.

Table-2.22 Second Person: Spoken Language and Writing (Type 01)

Second Person

Spoken and Writing

Singular Plural Nominative Case [obǝ] [obǝlā] Accusative Case [obǝ] [obǝlā] [obǝvǝ] [obǝlāvǝ]

Dative Case [obǝṭǝ] [obǝlāṭǝ] Instrumental and [obǝgen] [obǝlāgen] Ablative Case Genitive and [obǝgē] [obǝlāgē] Locative Case Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

Table-2.23 Second Person: Spoken Language and Writing (Type 02)

Second Person Spoken/ Writing Singular Plural Nominative Case [tamunnanse] [tamunnanselā] Accusative Case [tamunnanse] [tamunnanselā] [tamunnansevǝ] [tamunnanselāvǝ] Dative Case [tamunnānseṭǝ] [tamunnānselāṭǝ] Instrumental and [tamunnansegen] [tamunnanselāgen] Ablative Case Genitive and [tamunnansege] [tamunnanselāge]

Locative Case Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018 The pronoun [tamunnanselā] (you: plural form) is used to call a gathering or public in a formal meeting and to address people in higher positions in society.

[tamā] (you) also a second person pronoun which does not have gender difference, and it is mainly used by police or judges to question the subjects.

Table-2.24 Second Person: Spoken Language and Writing (Type 03)

Second Person Spoken/Writing Singular Plural Masculine Feminine Nominative Case [yusmǝtā] [yusmǝtī] [yusmǝtāla] [yusmathu] Accusative Case [yusmǝtā] [yusmǝtī] [yusmǝtāla], [yusmǝtāvǝ] [yusmǝtīvǝ] [yusmǝtālavǝ] [yusmathu] Dative Case [yusmǝtāṭǝ] [yusmǝtīṭǝ] [yusmǝtālaṭǝ] Instrumental and [yusmǝtāgen] [yusmǝtīgen] [yusmǝtālagen] Ablative Case Genitive and [yusmǝtālage] [yusmǝtīge] [yusmǝtālage] Locative Case Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

[yuṣmǝtā] (you) is a second person pronoun specially used by judges to call the person who is considered to be questioned in a trial.

Table-2.25 Second Person: Written Sinhala (Type 01)

Second Person Written Sinhala [tō] Masculine: (You). [tī] Feminine: (You) Singular Plural Masculine Feminine Nominative [tō] [tī] [topi],[tepi], [tep] Case Accusative [tā] [tī] [topǝ] Case Agentive and [tā karǝnǝkotǝgǝnǝ] [tī [topǝ karǝnǝkotǝgǝnǝ] Ablative Case karǝnǝkotǝgǝnǝ] Instrumental [tā visin] [tī visin] [topǝ visin] Case Dative Case [taṭǝ] [tiṭǝ] [topǝṭǝ] Ablative Case [tagen] [tigen] [topǝgen] [tāgen] [tīgen] [topǝgen] Genitive and [tagē] [tigē] [topǝgē] Locative Case [tāgē] [tīgē] [togē] Vocative Case [tā kerehi] [tī kerehi] [topǝ kerehi] Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

Table-2.26 Second Person: Written Sinhala (Type 02)

Second Person [nubǝ̃ ] (You) Masculine/Feminine Written Singular Plural Nominative Case [nubǝ̃ ] [nubǝlā̃ ] Accusative Case [nubǝ̃ ] [nubǝ̃ ], [nubǝvǝ̃ ] Dative Case [nubǝ̃ ṭǝ] [nubǝlā̃ ṭǝ]

Instrumental and [nubǝgeñ ] [nubǝlāgeñ ] Ablative Case Genitive and [nubǝgē̃ ] [nubǝlāgē̃ ] Locative Case Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018 The pronoun [nubǝ̃ ] (you) is a second person pronoun which we can see often in classical texts. This pronoun is equal to English pronoun ‘you’ in the meaning that is being used to call upper and lower status people in Sinhala language. This pronoun is

73 also used with honorific words in upper level spoken usage and written language to call most respectable people in society. In modern society [obǝ] (you) is the most common pronoun instead of [nubǝ̃ ] in highbrow spoken usage and written language for the same meaning, sometimes with honorific word in appropriate places.

2.2.1.4.3 Third Person Pronouns Many third person pronouns have different forms for spoken and written usages in modern Sinhala language according to proximity.

2.2.1.4.3.1 Third Person Pronouns in Spoken Sinhala [e] (that) is the root of the third person pronoun and it makes animate and inanimate pronouns of contemporary spoken Sinhala. Third person does not have separate form of pronouns for masculine and feminine, but it has only animate and inanimate difference in upper level of spoken Sinhala. [mē] (this), [oyǝ] (that – near), [arǝ] (that – far), [ē] (it)” are demonstration pronouns which are used according to the proximity or distance.

Table-2.27 Demonstration Pronouns (Type 01)

[mē] (This) Animate Inanimate Singular Plural Singular Plural Nominative Case [meyā] [meyāla] [mēkǝ] [mēva] Accusative Case [meyā], [meyāla], [mēkǝ] [mēva] [meyāvǝ] [meyālavǝ] Dative Case [meyāṭǝ] [meyālaṭǝ] [mēkǝṭǝ] [mēvaṭǝ] Instrumental [meyāgen] [meyālagen] [mēkǝn] [mēvagen] and Ablative Case Genitive and [meyāge] [meyālage] [mēke] [mēvage] Locative Case Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

Table-2.28 Demonstration Pronouns (Type 02)

[oyǝ] (That – Near) Animate Inanimate Singular Plural Singular Plural Nominative Case [oyā] [oyāla] [ōkǝ] [ōva] Accusative Case [oyā], [oyāla], [ōkǝ] [ōva] [oyāvǝ] [oyālavǝ] Dative Case [oyāṭǝ] [oyālaṭǝ] [ōkǝṭǝ] [ōvaṭǝ] Instrumental [oyāgen] [oyālagen] [ōkǝn] [ōvagen] and Ablative Case Genitive and [oyāge] [eoālage] [ōke] [ōvage] Locative Case Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

Table-2.29 Demonstration Pronouns (Type 03)

[ē] (That) Animate Inanimate Singular Plural Singular Plural Nominative Case [eyā] [eyāla] [ēkǝ] [ēva] Accusative Case [eyā], [eyāvǝ] [eyāla], [ēkǝ] [ēva] [eyālavǝ] Dative Case [eyāṭǝ] [eyālaṭǝ] [ēkǝṭǝ] [ēvaṭǝ] Instrumental and [eyāgen] [eyālagen] [ēkǝn] [ēvagen] Ablative Case Genitive and [eyāge] [eyālage] [ēke] [ēvage] Locative Case Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018 When third person pronouns [mē] (this), [oyǝ] (that – near), [arǝ] (that – far), [ē] (it)” are used in spoken Sinhala to point out referred being or thing or to disgrace people and it conjugate in all three genders.

Table-2.30 Demonstration Pronouns: Masculine, Feminine and Neutral (Type 01)

[mē] (This – Near) Gender Masculine Feminine Neutral Singular Plural Singular Plural Singular Plural (This (This (This (This (This (This male male female female thing) things) being) beings) being) beings) Nominative [mēka] [meun] [mēkī] [mēkīlā] [mēkǝ] [mēva] Case Dative Case [mēkaṭǝ] [meunṭǝ [mēkiṭǝ] [mēkīlāṭǝ] [mēkǝṭǝ] [mēvaṭǝ]

Instrumental [mēkagen] [meungen] [mēkigen] [mēkīlāgen] [mēken] [mēvagen] and Ablative Case Genitive and [mēkage] [meunge] [mēkige] [mēkīlāge] [mēke] [mēvage] Locative Case Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018 Table-2.31 Demonstration Pronouns: Masculine, Feminine and Neutral (Type 02)

[ō] (That person, woman or thing) Gender Masculine Feminine Neutral Singular Plural Singular Plural Singular Plural (That (That (That (That (That (That male male female female thing) things) being) beings) being) beings) Nominative [ōka] [oun] [ōkī] [ōkīlā] [ōkǝ] [ōva] Case Dative Case [ōkaṭǝ] [ounṭǝ] [ōkiṭǝ] [ōkīlāṭǝ] [ōkǝṭǝ] [ōvaṭǝ]

Instrumental [ōkagen] [oungen] [ōkigen] [ōkīlāgen] [ōken] [ōvagen] and Ablative Case Genitive and [ōkage] [ounge] [ōkige] [ōkīlāge] [ōke] [ōvage] Locative Case Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

Table-2.32 Demonstration Pronouns: Masculine, Feminine and Neutral (Type 03)

[arǝ] (That – far) person, woman or thing Gender Masculine Feminine Neutral Singular Plural Singular Plural Singular Plural (That (That (That (That (That (That male male female female thing) things) being) beings) being) beings) Nominative [arǝkā] [arun] [arǝkī] [arǝkīlā] [arǝkǝ] [arǝva] Case Dative Case [arǝkaṭǝ] [arunṭǝ] [arǝkiṭǝ] [arǝkīlāṭǝ] [arǝkǝṭǝ] [arǝvaṭǝ]

Instrument- [arǝkagen] [arungen] [arǝkigen] [arǝkīlāgen] [arǝken] [arǝvagen] al and Ablative Case Genitive [arǝkage [arunge] [arǝkige] [arǝkīlāge] [arǝke] [arǝvage] and Locative Case Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018 Table-2.33 Demonstration Pronouns: Masculine, Feminine and Neutral (Type 04)

[ē] That person woman or thing Masculine Feminine Neutral Singular Plural Singular Plural Singular Plural Nominative [ēka] [evun] [ēki] [evun] [ēkǝ] [ēva] Case Dative Case [ēkaṭǝ] [evunṭǝ] [ēkiṭǝ] [evunṭǝ] [ēkǝṭǝ] [ēkvaṭǝ] Instrumental [ēkagen] [evungen] [ēkigen] [evungen] [ēken] [ēvagen] and Ablative Case Genitive and [ēkage] [evunge] Ēkige] [evunge] [ēke] [ēkge] Locative Case Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

Table-2.34 Demonstration Pronouns: Masculine, Feminine and Neutral (Type 05)

Stem [arǝ] (That – far) person, woman or thing Gender Masculine Feminine Neutral Singular Plural Singular Plural Singular Plural (That (That (That (That (That (That male male female female thing) things) being) beings) being) beings) Nominative [arǝkā] [arun] [arǝkī] [arǝkīlā] [arǝkǝ] [arǝva] Case Dative Case [arǝkaṭǝ] [arunṭǝ] [arǝkiṭǝ] [arǝkīlāṭǝ] [arǝkǝṭǝ] [arǝvaṭǝ]

Instrumental [arǝkag- [arung- [arǝkigen] [arǝkīlāgen] [arǝken] [arǝvagen] and Ablative en] en] Case Genitive and [arǝkage] [arunge] [arǝkige] [arǝkīlāge] [arǝke] [arǝvage] Locative Case Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

Sometimes [e, me, o, ko] forms combine with quantitative prepositions to indicate quntities. Table-2.35 Quantitative Prepositions Spoken Language Written Language [eccǝrǝ] [epamǝnǝ] (that much) (that much) [meccǝrǝ] [mepamǝnǝ] (this much) (this much) [occǝrǝ] [opamǝnǝ] (that much) (that much) [koccǝrǝ] [kopamǝnǝ] (how much) (how much) [etaram] (that much) [metaram] (this much) [otaram] (that much) Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

2.2.1.4.3.2 Third Person Pronouns in Written Sinhala

[hē] (he), [ō] (she) pronouns are not used in contemporary written language very often, but they are used at school level grammatical lessons. In contemporary written language [ohu] in masculine gender and [æyǝ] in feminine gender are commonly used instead of [hē] (he), [ō] (she) in archaic or classical idiom.

Table 2.36 Third Person Pronouns, Written Language: Animate

Masculine [hē] (he) Feminine [ō] (she) Singular Plural Singular Plural Nominative Case [hē] (he) [ovuhu] [ō] (she) [ovuhu] /[ohu] Accusative Case [ohu] [ovun] [æyǝ] / [ǣ] [ovun] Dative Case [ohuṭǝ] [ovunṭǝ] [æyǝṭǝ] / [ovunṭǝ] [ǣṭǝ] Instrumental and [ohugen] [ovungen] [æyǝgen] / [ovungen] Ablative Case [ǣgen] Genitive and [ohugē] [ovungē] [æyǝgē] / [ovungē] Locative Case [ǣgē] Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

[ohu] (he) and [æyǝ] (she) are very common third person pronouns in modern Sinhala standard written language instead of [hē] (he) and [ō] (she) in classical usage.

Table 2.37 Third Person Pronouns, Written Language: Animate and Inanimate (Type 01)

Third Person Pronouns Inanimate Animate mē (that one) Male Female Sin. Pl. Sin. Pl. Sin. Pl. Nominat [mohu] [movuhu] [mæyǝ [movuhu] [meyǝ] [mēvā] ive Case (this (these (this lady) (these (this (these person) people) ladies) thing things) Accusati [mohu] [movun] [mæyǝ] / [movun] [meyǝ] [mēvā] ve Case [mǣ] Dative [mohuṭǝ] [movunṭǝ] [mæyǝṭǝ]/ [movunṭǝ] [meyǝṭǝ] [mēvāṭǝ] Case [mǣṭǝ] Instrume [mohugen] [movungen] [mæyǝgen] [movungen] [meyin] [mēvāyin] ntal and / Ablative [mǣgen] Case Genitive [mohugē] [movungē] [mæyǝgē] [movungē] [mehi] [mēvāyē] / and [mǣgē] [mēvāyehi] Locative Case Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018 Table 2.38 Third Person Pronouns, Written Language: Animate and Inanimate (Type 02)

Written Language Third Person Pronouns Inanimate Animate ē (that one) Male Female Sin. Pl. Sin. Pl. Sin. Pl. Nominative [ohu] [ovuhu] [æyǝ] [ovuhu] [eyǝ] [ēvā] Case (he) (they) (she) (they) (it) (them) Accusative [ohu] [ovun] [æyǝ] / [ǣ] [ovun] [eyǝ] [ēvā] Case Dative Case [ohuṭǝ] [ovunṭǝ] [æyǝṭǝ] / [ovunṭǝ] [eyǝṭǝ] [ēvāṭǝ] [ǣṭǝ] Instrumental [ohugen] [ovungen] [æyǝgen] / [ovungen] [eyin] [ēvāyin] and Ablative [ǣgen] Case Genitive and [ohugē] [ovungē] [æyǝgē] / [ovungē] [ehi] [ēvāyē] / Locative Case [ǣgē] [ēvāyehi] Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

2.2.1.4.4 Interrogative Pronouns/Question Pronouns

There are some Interrogative pronouns that can be used in both spoken and written languages. At the same time, some of them are restricted to spoken or written usage only.

2.2.1.4.4.1 Interrogative Pronouns in Spoken Sinhala

Interrogative pronouns are also different in spoken and written Sinhala. Pronouns begins with [kavru], [monǝ], [kohomǝ], [kohen], [mokak]” are widely common in spoken language and pronouns that begin with [kum], [kavǝrǝ], [ke] stems are used only in written language.

Table 2.39 Interrogative Pronouns in Spoken Sinhala (Type 01)

Spoken Language Meaning Written Language [kavudǝ] who [kavǝrekdǝ] / [kimekdǝ] [kāgedǝ] whose [kavǝrekugēdǝ] [kāgendǝ] whom [kavǝrekugendǝ] [kōkadǝi] which person or animal [kavǝrekdǝ] [kōkıdǝ] which woman or animal [kavǝrekdǝ] [kōkǝdǝ] which one [kumakdǝ] [kohedǝ] where [kohidǝ] Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

Table 2.40 Interrogative Pronouns in Spoken Sinhala (Type 02)

Spoken Language Meaning Written Language [kohendǝ] from where [kavǝrǝ] / [kinam tænǝkindǝ] [mokǝdǝ] why [mandǝ] / [kimdǝ] [mokakdǝ] what [kumakdǝ] [kohomǝdǝ] how [kesēdǝ] [kīyǝdǝ] how much [kopamǝnǝdǝ] [æyı] / [mokǝdǝ ] why [kimǝdǝ] [kohendǝ ] from where [koyindǝ] Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

2.2.1.4.4.2 Interrogative Pronouns in Written Sinhala

Questioning pronouns in written Sinhala are different from spoken usage. [kavǝrekdǝ] (who), [kumakdǝ] (what), [kesēdǝ] (how) are not in use in spoken language.

2.2.1.4.5 Indefinite Pronouns Pronouns which do not refer definite person like [kisivek, ætæmek, ayek, kenek, yamek, samaharek] are called indefinite pronouns. Table 2.41 Indefinite Pronouns (Type 01)

Stem [kisi] [ætæm] [ayǝ] Nominative Case [kisiek] [ætæmek] [ayek] Accusative Case [kisieku] [ætæm] [ayeku]

Dative Case [kisivekuṭǝ [ætæmekuṭǝ] [ayekuṭǝ] Instrumental and [kisiekugen] [ætæmekugen] [ayǝekugen] Ablative Case

Genitive and [kisiekugē] [ætæmekugē] [ayekugē] Locative Case

Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

Table 2.42 Indefinite Pronouns (Type 02)

Stem [kenǝ] [yam] [samaharǝ] Nominative Case [kenek] [yamek] [samaharǝek]

Accusative Case [keneku] [yameku] [samahareku]

Dative Case [kenekuṭǝ] [yamekuṭǝ] [samaharekuṭǝ] Instrumental and [kenǝekugen] [yamekugen] [samaharekugen] Ablative Case

Genitive and Locative [kenǝekugē [yamekugē] [samaharekugē] Case

Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

All the above indefinite pronouns conjugate only in singular though they are plural in meaning and except [samaharek] that all the other forms are not used in the spoken language.

In the spoken Sinhala indefinite pronouns like [kavru] is used with suitable prepositions like [vat], [hari],[dō].

2.2.1.4.6 Quantitative Pronouns

Pronouns that are used to indicate an amount or quantity are called quantitative pronouns. There are separate quantitative pronouns for spoken and written usages in Sinhalese.

Table 2.43 Quantitative Pronouns Spoken Written Language Language [ṭıkǝ], [ṭıkak] (little) [svalpǝ], [svalpǝyak] [hug̃ak], [godak] (a lot) [bohō], [bohomǝyak] Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

2.2.1.4.7 Numerical Nouns

Numerical nouns are not different in spoken and written languages in Sinhala but during certain occasions [h] sound (phoneme) of the spoken language turn to [s] sound in the written language. Specially [s < > h] occurs when the stem of a numerical pronoun is used as a modifier. Though there are some numerical pronouns restricted to the written language they are not common among average people.

Table 2.44 Numerical Nouns Spoken Written Language Language [hatǝrǝ] four [satǝrǝ] [hayǝ] six [sayǝ] [hatǝ] seven [hatǝ] [hatǝlihǝ] forty [hatǝlihǝ] [satǝlihǝ] Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

2.2.1.4.8 Derivative

There are two types of derivatives in Sinhalese language such as nominal derivatives [taddhitǝ] and verbal derivatives [krudantǝ]. nominal derivatives [taddhitǝ] are formed by adding suitable suffixes to noun stems. Verbal derivatives [krudantǝ] are formed by adding appropriate suffixes to verb roots.

2.2.1.4.8.1 Nominal Derivatives [taddhitǝ]

Derivatives which are formed by adding different types of suffixes to noun bases are called [taddhitǝ] in Sinhala. Table 2.45 Nominal Derivatives

Function

of of

ase ase

B B

uffix

oun oun

anguage anguage

N Meaning N of Suffix Meaning the of Noun Derivative Meaning Derivative the Spoken L Written L [næv] ship [-i] [nævi] seaman ✓ ✓ [toṭǝ] port [-i] [toṭi] sailor ✓ ✓ [gam] village [-i] [gæmi] villager ✓ ✓

[daham] [-i] occupied [dæhæmı] [ɲānǝ] wisdom [-vantǝ] [ɲānǝvantǝ] wise ✓ [guṇǝ] virtue [-vat] [gunǝvat] virtuous ✓ [guṇǝ] [-vantǝ] [guṇǝvantǝ] ✓ [pin] merit [-vat] [pinvat] dear ✓ [pin] [-vantǝ] [pinvantǝ] ✓ [sil] precept [-vat] ✓ [sīlǝ] [-vantǝ] ✓

[pem] love [-vat] [pemvat lovely ✓ [senehe] [-vantǝ] [senehevantǝ] ✓ [harǝ] core [-aṭu] [harǝṭu] > heart of ✓ ✓

[arǝṭu] wood

[vakǝ] crook [-aṭu] [vakuṭu] crooked ✓ [gæṭǝ] problem/ [-lu] [gæṭǝlu] difficult/ ✓ difficult/ knotty

knotty of consist

Function

of of

ase ase

B B

uffix

oun oun

anguage anguage

N Meaning N of Suffix Meaning the of Noun Derivative Meaning Derivative the Spoken L Written L [ıhǝ] upper [-alǝ] [ıhǝlǝ] upper ✓ ✓ /head region [pā] lower [-alǝ] [pahalǝ] lower ✓ ✓ region [ıhǝ] upper/ [-aṭı] [ihǝṭi] upper or ✓ head head region [pā] lower [-aṭı] [pahaṭi] lower or ✓ region below region [pā] lower [-atǝ] [pahatǝ] lower ✓ [pā] lower [-atǝ] [pātǝ] region or ✓

region below

[ıhǝ] Previo-us [-atǝ] [ihǝtǝ] Previou- ✓

area sly [dorǝ] door [-aṭu] [dorǝṭu] door ✓

[pıyā] feathers [-aṭu] self [pıhāṭu] feathers ✓ [varal] [-as] [varǝlas] ✓ [sisil] [-as] [sisilas] ✓ [ısuru] [-mat] [isurumat] ✓ [sırı] [-mat] [sırımat] ✓ [dhanǝ] wealth [-vat] [dhanǝvat] rich [senehe] love [-as] [senehas] ✓ [pælǝ] [-æṭi] [pælǣṭı] ✓ ✓ [lā] [-æṭi [lǣṭi] ✓ ✓ [sevǝnǝ] [-li] [sevǝnæli] ✓ [hevǝnæli] ✓ [mal] [-li] [malli] ✓ ✓ [net] [-u] [netu] ✓ [bit] [-u] [bitu] ✓ [helǝ] [-lu] [helǝlu] > ✓

Consistof [elǝlu]

[ad̃uru] [-i] [æd̃ırı] Semi ✓ ✓ dark dark [mæduru] Apartm- [-i] [mædırı] cabin ✓

ent /room/

chamber little

Function

of of

ase ase

B B

uffix

oun oun

anguage anguage

N Meaning N of Suffix Meaning the of Noun Derivative Meaning Derivative the Spoken L Written L [sug̃ǝ] little [-iti] [sıg̃ıtı] ✓ ✓ [poḍı] [-iti] [poḍıtı] ✓ very [abǝ] mustard [-iti] [æbıtı] ✓ seeds, little used to denote very small [kænǝ] cluster [-iti] [kınıtı] Spring ✓

[ran] gold [-muvā] [ranmuvā] made by ✓ gold [dævǝ] wood/ [-mǝyǝ] [dævǝmǝyǝ] made by ✓ timber timber [rıdī] silver [-mǝyǝ] [rıdīmǝyǝ] made by ✓ silver [rajǝtǝ] [-mǝyǝ] [rajǝtǝmǝyǝ] made by ✓

made of same thing thing same of made silver Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

There are some borrowed nominal derivatives (taddhitǝ) from Sanskrit and Pali languages which are commonly used in Sinhala language.

2.2.1.4.8.2 Verbal Derivatives “krudantǝ” Verbal derivatives (krudantǝ) are twofold namely ‘havkiriyǝ’ (abstract (action) verbal noun) and [arutkiriyǝ] (actor verbal noun).

2.2.1.4.8.3 Abstract Verbal Noun

Table 2.46 Abstract Verbal Noun (Type 01)

Verb Derivative Suffix Derivative Meaning Root [natǝ] [-nu] [natǝnu] act of dancing [kapǝ] [-nu] [kapǝnu] act of cutting [kǝrǝ] [-nu] [kǝrǝnu] act of doing [liyǝ] [-nu] [liyǝnu] act of writing [ka] [-nu] [kanu] act of eating [de] [-nu] [denu] act of giving [e] [-nu] [enu] act of coming [natǝ] [um] [nætum] Dancing

[kapǝ] [um] [kæpum] Cutting [kǝrǝ] [um] [kerum] Doing [liyǝ] [um] [liyum] Writing [balǝ] [um] [bælum] watching [ganǝ] [um] [gænum] taking [pisǝ] [um] [pisum] cooking [natǝ] [-īm] [nætīm] act of dancing [kapǝ] [-īm] [kæpīm] act of cutting

[vasǝ] [-īm] [visīm] act of living [vasǝ] [-īm] [væsīm] act of closing [tabǝ] [-īm] [tibīm] act of existing [balǝ] [-īm] [bælīm] act of watching Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018 Derivative nouns that are made by [nu] and [īm] suffixes are mainly used in scholarly written language and derivatives made by [um] suffix is common in written as well as spoken language. Vowel assimilation (Back vowels turning to front vowels) occurs in the verb root when [um] and [īm] suffixes impute to the verbal root. Vowel assimilation (Back vowels turning to front vowels) occurs in different manner once it gets [um] and [īm] suffixes to the same verbal root in form but are different in meaning as follows.

[ili] and [man] suffixes are common in spoken idiom than writing. Vowel assimilation (Back vowels turning to front vowels) occurs with the imputation of [ili] suffix, but it not happens with the imputation of [man] suffix.

Table 2.47 Abstract Verbal Noun (Type 02)

Verb Root Derivative Derivative Meaning Suffix [natǝ] [-ili] [nætili] act of dancing [kapǝ] [-ili] [kæpili] act of cutting [balǝ] [-ili] [bælili] act of atching [liyǝ] [-man] [liyǝman] act of writing [kiyǝ] [-man] [kiyǝman] act of saying [viyǝ] [-man] [viyǝman] act of weaving Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

Vowel assimilation occurs with the imputation of [uṇǝ] and [uṇu] suffixes to the verbal root. Table 2.48 Abstract Verbal Noun (Type 03)

Verb Root Derivative Suffix Derivative Meaning Passive Verbs [natǝ] [uṇǝ], [uṇu] [nætuṇǝ], [nætuṇu] Dance [kapǝ] [uṇǝ], [uṇu] [kæpuṇǝ], [kæpuṇu] Cut [balǝ] [uṇǝ], [uṇu] [bæluṇǝ], [bæluṇu] Seen [marǝ] [uṇǝ], [uṇu] [mæruṇǝ], [mæruṇu] Dead Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018 [uṇǝ] and [uṇu] suffixes are used for the pass tense passive voice verbs in written language and sometimes same form of verb is used as an adjective in spoken and written languages.

2.2.1.4.8.4 Actor Verbal Noun [arutkiriyǝ] or [arthakriyānāmǝ]

Derivatives which impute case-verb relative suffixes and feminine suffixes are called ‘actor verbal noun’ [arutkiriyǝ] or [arthakriyānāmǝ] in traditional grammar. This type of actor verbal nouns with feminine suffixes are very rarely used in modern written usage except in examples of grammatical lessons and they do not take feminine suffixes in spoken Sinhala. However, some of these similar forms are used in modern spoken and written Sinhala to emphasize action, thing or being.

[kollā gīyak gayannē6 mal nelayi]. (The boy sings while flowering)

[kellǝ gīyak gayannī mal nelayi.] (The girl sings while flowering)

sentences can be given by contemporaneous participles.

[kollā mal nelannē yǝ.] (The boy sings) [kellǝ gīyak gayannī yǝ.] (The girl sings)

Sometimes actor verbal nouns are used in the place of the verb of a sentence in traditional written language. Table 2.49 Actor Verbal Noun (Type 01) Stem Case-verb Feminine Past Tense Relative Suffix Suffix [gayǝ] (singing) [gayannē] [gayannī] [gæyū] [dinǝ] (winning) [dinannē] [dinannī] [dinū] [vasǝ] (living) [vasannē] [vasannī] [visū] [valǝ] (watching) [balannē] [balannī] [bælū]

Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

Above actor verbal nouns conjugate in masculine and feminine genders in past and non- past tenses in all cases and is the same as other animate nouns as follows.

Table 2.50 Actor Verbal Noun (Type 02) Spoken Sinhala Masculine Feminine Singular Plural Singular Plural Nominative Case [gayannē] [gayannō] [gayannī] [gayanniyō] [gayannā] [gayanniyǝ] Dative Case [gayannāṭǝ] [gayannanṭǝ] [gayannīṭǝ] [gayanniyanṭǝ] [gayanniyǝṭǝ] Instrumental and [gayannāgen] [gayannangen] [gayannīgen] [gayanniyangen] Ablative Case [gayanniyǝgen] Genitive and [gayannāgē] [gayannangē] [gayannīgē] [gayanniyangē] Locative Case [gayanniyǝgē] Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

6 The words given in bold letters are actor verbal nouns.

Table 2.51 Actor Verbal Noun (Type 03)

Written Sinhala Masculine Feminine Singular Plural Singular Plural Nominative [gayannē] [gayannō] [gayannī] [gayannō] Case [gayannā] [gayanniyǝ] [gayanniyō Accusative [gayannē] [gayannan] [gayannī] [gayannan] Case [gayannā] [gayanniyǝ] [gayanniyan] Dative Case [gayannāṭǝ] [gayannanṭǝ] [gayannīṭǝ] [gayannanṭǝ] [gayanniyǝṭǝ] [gayanniyanṭǝ] Instrumental [gayannāgen] [gayannangen] [gayannīgen] [gayannangen] and Ablative [gayanniyǝgen] [gayanniyangen] Case Genitive and [gayannāgē] [gayannangē] [gayannīgē] [gayannangē] Locative Case [gayanniyǝgē] [gayanniyangē] Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

There are plenty of loan ‘verb root-based derivatives’ which are widely used in learned tradition of contemporary Sinhala written language.

2.2.2 Verb

Though the Sidat Sag̃ərā, the classical grammar of the Sinhala language pointed out three tenses in Sinhalese verb it is obvious that there are only two tenses in the verb of the Sinhala language as non-past and past. Sinhalese verbs in written language conjugate in three persons, two tenses (non-past and past) and singular and plural. Unlike written Sinhala, there are no such different forms of three-person verb in spoken usage except two tenses.

Table 2.52 Verb in First and Second Persons Written Spoken Non- past Past Non- Past past Sin. Pl. Sin. Pl. Sin./Pl. Sin./Pl. First [yami] [yamu] [giyemi] [giyemu] [yanǝva] [giyā] Person [yannemi] [yannemu] Second [yahi] [yahu] [giyehi] [giyehu] [yanǝva] [giyā] Person [yannehi] [yannehu] Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

Table 2.53 Verb in Third Person: Masculine

Third Person Written Spoken Non- past Past Non- Past past Sin. Pl. Sin. Pl. Sin. /Pl. Sin. /Pl. Masculine [yayi], [yati], [giyēyǝ] [giyǝhǝ], [yanǝva] [giyā] [yannēyǝ] [yat], [giyōyǝ] [yannōyǝ] Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018 Table 2.54 Verb in Third Person: Feminine

Third Person Written Spoken Non- past Past Non- Past past Sin. Pl. Sin. Pl. Sin./Pl. Sin./Pl. Feminine [yayi] [yati], [giyāyǝ] [giyǝhǝ], [yanǝva] [yanǝva] [yannīyǝ] [yat], [giyōyǝ] [yannōyǝ] Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

Spoken Sinhala ‘verb’ has only present and past difference, but in written Sinhala it appears in different forms for all three persons, singular – plural and present and past. According to the above table, many different forms of a verb such as three persons, singular plural, past, non-past and some occasions as masculine and feminine can be seen in the written language instead of the two tenses in the spoken language.

In both spoken and written usage the form of the verb changed according to social status of the person. For example, there are separate form of verbs for Buddhist monks. Though it is not abundantly used in modern society, there are synonyms for many verbs in spoken as well as written languages from different dialects, different purposes, and the use of people in different social strata and status.

Table 2.55 The Difference of Final Verb by Social Status Present Tense, First Person Singular Go Eat Common use in Spoken Idiom [yanǝva] [kanǝva] For Buddhist Monks [vadinǝva] [valǝd̃ǝnǝva] Very Polite [piṭatvenǝva] [anubavǝkǝranǝva] For High Rank People [sæpatvenǝva] Only in Spoken Idiom: For [yahapatvenǝva] [sappāyaŋvenǝva] High Rank People [yannǝhod̃ayi] [kannǝhod̃ayi] Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

Imperative verb in Sinhala has several synonyms for various purposes and people of various social status. Table 2.56 The Difference of Imperative Verb by Social Status Go Do Say Spoken language Sin. [palǝyang] Use to command lower status Pl. [palǝyav] people (not polite) Spoken language More polite [yannǝ], [kǝrannǝ] [kiyannǝ] order [piṭatvennǝ] Spoken and For Buddhist [vadinnǝ] [vadārannǝ] written language monks Spoken and For high [yahapatvennǝ] [kiyannǝ] written language order people Written More [yanu] [kǝrǝnu] [kiyǝnu] language commanding Written Sin. [yavǝ] [kǝrǝvǝ] [kiyǝvǝ] language Pl. [yav] [kǝrav] [kiyav] Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

Causative, Conditional and benedictive verbs are similar in spoken and written languages.

Conjunctives are different in spoken and written languages

Table 2.57 The Difference of Conjunctives in Spoken and Written Usage

Meaning Spoken Written

Done [kǝrǝla] [kǝrǝ],[koṭǝ] Seen [dækǝla] [dækǝ] Gone [gihilla] [gos] Come [ævilla] [ævit] Eat [kāla] [kā] Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018 Contemporaneous Particles are also different in spoken and written languages. Table 2.58 The Difference of Contemporaneous Particles in Spoken and Written Sinhala

Meaning Spoken Written Doing [kǝrǝ kǝrǝ] [kǝrǝmin] Seeing [dækǝ dækǝ] [dakimin] Looking [balǝ balǝ] [balǝmin] Going [yamin] [yamin] Coming [emin] [emin] Eat [kakā] [kamin] Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

2.2.3 Modifiers There are two types of modifiers in Sinhala language such as adjectives and adverbs.

Table 2.59 Variation in Modifiers in Spoken and Written Varieties Modifier Meaning Spoken Written Language Language [hod̃ǝ] good [hod̃ǝ lamǝya] ✓ ✓ (good boy) [suvǝd̃ǝ] incense [suvǝd̃ǝ malǝ] ✓ ✓ (incense flower) [gæburũ ] deep ✓ [sudu] white [sudu reddǝ] ✓ ✓ (white cloth) [ratu] red ✓ ✓ [kalu] black ✓ ✓ [kætǝ] ugly ✓ [loku] big/ large ✓ ✓ [tarunǝ] young ✓ ✓ [mahatǝ] big/fat ✓ [mahalu] old [mahalu minisā] (old ✓ man) [nākı] old [nākı miniha] ✓ (old man) [napuru] cruel ✓ ✓ [usǝ] tall ✓ ✓ [hayyǝ] strength [hayyǝ līyak] ✓ (strength timber) Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

Some adjectives take nominal suffixes [in] and [ṭǝ] as [hod̃ǝin / hod̃ǝṭǝ; suvǝd̃ǝin, suvǝd̃ǝṭǝ].

Adjectives (Noun Modifiers)

A word which modify a noun known as adjectives. There are some words in Sinhala language which are basically work as modifiers. The adjective [kætǝ] is not used in standard written language as Sinhalese believe it is impolite. Instead they use a more polite word [avǝlassǝnǝ] for the same purpose. Instead of [hayyǝ] in standard written Sinhalese use Sanskrit borrowing [ʃaktimat]. At the same

94 time, some adjectives are restricted to standard written language. For example, the adjective [mahalu] is mainly use in standard writing and upper standard of speaking. In colloquial Sinhala [nākı] is the more widely use term instead of [mahalu] in standard usage.

Though the above modifiers mainly work as adjectives they also work as adverbs by having dative and instrumental or ablative suffixes.

Apart from the above modifiers (adjectives) the nouns denote a kind or variety of beings, nouns denote substance or things, nouns that denote a quality (attributions), verbal nouns and proper nouns are also used as adjectives.

Examples:

Nouns denote a kind or variety of beings: [minis molǝyǝ] (human brain), [satvǝ hınsāvǝ] (animal irritation), The words [minis] and [satvǝ] in above examples denote a kind or variety of beings and those words function as adjectives to following words.

Pronouns: [apǝ raṭǝ] (our country), [mage nivǝsǝ] (my home). In these example

[ape] (our), [mage] (my) are pronouns and they function as adjectives

for following words.

Nouns denote a substance: [gal kæṭǝyǝmǝ] (rock carving), [dævǝ karmāntǝyǝ]

(timber industry). In these examples [gal] and [dævǝ]

(timber) denote substances or inanimate things and those

nouns work as adjectives to following words.

Sometimes [ē] and [mē] pronouns function as demonstrators.

Examples:

[ē miniha] (that man)

[mē miniha] (this man)” are function as modifiers.

2.2.4 Particles (Prepositions/Postpositions/Articles)

Some indeclinable occur before the relevant word and some of them occur after the relevant word. However, spoken and written Sinhala usages have different indeclinable for same meaning. But some of them can be used in both usages.

Table-2.60 Variation of Particles in Spoken and Written Varieties

Particles

(Prepositions/ Postpositions/Arti

cles) Written Spoken Collective meaning: [yi] And/also ✓ [t] And/also ✓ Meaning with: [ekkǝ] with ✓ [samǝgǝ] ✓ [kæṭuvǝ] ✓ [saha] ✓ [hā] ✓ Showing emotions: Showing surprise: [ammō], [appō] ✓ [ahō] Showing sorrow or [anē] ✓ ✓ compassion: [apoyi], [ayyō] ✓ Showing painfulness: [āyi,ūyi],[āh], [ūh] ✓ Showing disgust: [cih], [ʃih] ✓ Giving approval: [hā̃] okay ✓ [ovu yes ✓

Particles

(Prepositions/ Postpositions/Arti

cles) Written Spoken For equalization: [vāge] like ✓ [væni] ✓ [bad̃u] ✓ Manner [sē] ✓ For comparing: [vaḍā] than ✓ [væḍi] than ✓ For giving time: [dæn] now ✓ ✓ [heṭǝ] tomorrow ✓ ✓ [passe] later ✓ [pasu] ✓ [āye] again ✓ [nævǝtǝ] ✓ Showing boundary: [id̃ǝla] from ✓ [siṭǝ] ✓ [kal] (till, to) ✓ [tek/turu] ✓ Showing minimum [pavā] (even) ✓ ✓ or maximum limit: [vat], [hari] (at least) ✓ [hō] ✓ Obstructive [epā] (do not) ✓ meaning: Meaning of except: [nætuvǝ], [ærǝ] (except) ✓ ✓ For questioning: [æyi] (why) ✓ ✓ [mandǝ] ✓ [kimǝ] ✓ [mokǝ dǝ] (why) ✓ [dǝ] (?) ✓ ✓ Meaning of [hari], [nættaŋ] either/or ✓ alternative: [hō] ✓ Meaning of each or [gāne] each ✓ all: [pāsā] ✓ [hæmǝ] each ✓ [sǣmǝ] ✓ Excessive Meaning: [hug̃ak], [godak] very/many ✓

[bohō, itā] very/many ✓

Particles

(Prepositions/ Postpositions/Arti

cles) Written Spoken [hari] Emphasizing [mǝ] very/most ✓ ✓ Opposite meaning: [no, ni, a] ✓ Manner quick: [hanikǝ] (quickly) ✓ [vahā] ✓ [hayiyenŋ] (fast) ✓ [ikmǝniŋ] (quickly) ✓ Slowing meaning: [hemiŋ] (sloly) ✓ Thus: [mehemǝ] ✓ ✓ For calling: [ēyi] (hello) ✓ [mē] (hello) ✓ [ōyi] (Hello) ✓ Naming or pointing: [nam] ✓ ✓ [tamayi] ✓ Straight: [kelinmǝ] ✓ Demonstration: [onnǝ, ōnnǝ,menǝ] there/look ✓ Giving cause: [hinda] (for, ✓ because) [nisā] ✓ [ēt] (but) ✓ For (about): [gænǝ] (about) ✓ [pilibad̃ǝ] ✓ Manner: [vidihǝṭǝ] ✓ [ākārǝyǝṭǝ] ✓ Conjunctions: [hinda] (because) ✓ [koṭǝ] (when) ✓ Showing amount: [tavǝ] (more) ✓ ✓ [ṭikak] (little) ✓ [madak] ✓ Showing Negativity: [nǣ] (do not) ✓ ✓ [nǣti] (have not) ✓ ✓ Prohibition: [epā] (do not) ✓ ✓ Showing [bǣ] (cannot) ✓ impossibility: [bæhæ] ✓ [bǣri] ✓ ✓ Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

2.3 Syntax

The structure of active voice sentences is similar in both spoken and written usages, but the vocabulary and form of words are sometimes different. Subject-predicate agreement is completely different in both usages. Verb is similar in spoken Sinhala in all three persons, but verb form is different in singular and plural of all three persons and sometimes masculine and feminine of third person.

Table-2.61 The Difference of Sentences in Spoken and Written Usage (Present Tense)

Spoken Sinhala Written Sinhala

First Person Singular [mamǝ yanǝva] [mamǝ yami] Plural [api yanǝva] [api yamu] Second Person Singular [oyā yanǝva] [obǝ yannehi] Plural [oyāla yanǝva] [obǝlā yannǝhu] Third Person Singular [eyā yanǝva] [æyǝ yayi/yannī yǝ] [ohu yayi/yannē yǝ] Plural [eyāla yanǝva] [ovhu yati/yannō yǝ] Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018 Table-2.62 The Difference of Sentences in Spoken and Written Usage (Past Tense)

Spoken Sinhala Written Sinhala First Person Sin. [mamǝ giyā] [mamǝ giyemi] Pl. [api giyā] [api giyemu] Second Person Sin. [oyā giyā] [obǝ giyehi] Pl. [oyāla giyā] [obǝlā giyǝhu] Third Person Sin. [eyā giyā] [æyǝ giyā yǝ] [ohu giyē yǝ] Pl. [eyāla giyā] [ovhu giyǝ hǝ/ yannō yǝ] Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018 In transitive sentences of written Sinhala, the noun subjected by the final verb should be in (object form) nominative case in active voice sentences but nouns which are not

99 subjected by final verb should be accusative case. However, accusative case nouns are not available in spoken Sinhala and therefore, both subject and object forms are similar.

Table-2.63 The Difference of Object Forms in Spoken and Written Sinhala

Spoken Sinhala Written Sinhala 1st Person Sin. [mamǝ sattu balǝnǝva.] [mamǝ satun balǝmi/balannemi.] Pl. [api sattu balǝnǝva.] [api satun balǝmu/balannemu.]

2nd Person Sin. [oyā sattu balǝnǝva.] [obǝ satun balǝhi/ balannehi.]

Pl. [oyāla sattu balǝnǝva.] [obǝlā satun balǝhu/ balannǝhu] 3rd Person Sin. [eyā sattu balǝnǝva.] Masculine [ohu satun balayi /balannē yǝ.] Feminine [æyǝ satun balayi /balannī yǝ.] Pl. [eyāla sattu balǝnǝva.] [ovhu satun balǝti / balat / balannō yǝ.] Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

Passive sentences are used in written Sinhala, but that structure is not used in spoken Sinhala. [væddā visin muvō mæret.] (Deers are killed by vedda.”) The postposition [visin] (by) and passive voice verb form [mæret] (is killed) is not available in spoken Sinhala instead the verb form [mærenǝvā] could be used as a passive verb in spoken Sinhala. However, there is another kind of sentence structure in spoken Sinhala which is used when the doer of the sentence is not important or unknown.

2.4 Conclusion

The above discussion proves that the diglossic situation exists each levels of the Sinhalese language. At the phonetical level, written Sinhala usage has nearly 60 letters to transcribe nearly 38 phonemes of spoken Sinhala. On the other hand, different types of letters and letter combinations are used to transcribe similar type of sounds or sound combinations in written Sinhala. Sometimes, animate nouns have separate suffixes for

100 accusative case definite [un/an] and indefinite [eku] meaning in written Sinhala. At the same time, the plural suffixes of some inanimate nouns are different like [vǝlin] and [valvǝlin] in both spoken and written Sinhala. This diglossic situation is highly visible in the verb category. The spoken Sinhala final verb has only non-past and past forms, but written Sinhala verb differs according to the number, ‘person’ and sometimes according to the gender as well. At the same time, we have identified that nonfinite verb forms are also usually different in both usages. We also understood that the Sinhala language has a large number of particles and some of them are common for both usages and some are confine to one usage. Though the word order is similar in both usages, some sentence patterns like passive voice sentences of written usage are not available in spoken language. Therefore, some people argue that the Sinhala language could be among the languages that exhibit the vast diglossic situation in the world.

101

Chapter Three

Controversy Over Standard Grammar

3.0 Introduction

This chapter will provide a short history of Sinhalese grammar and the resuscitation of classical grammar and its establishment in modern written language which paved the way for the diglossic situation in the Sinhalese language. Though many equitable (even handed) writers and university teachers who are interested in language issues are happy with the classical grammatical norms which have relinquished both highly Sanskritized and purist extremes, but there are some individuals who are not satisfied with the classical grammatical norms which are far removed from the spoken idiom. The arguments presented by the individuals who are against Standard Sinhala Grammar concepts which are based on classical grammatical norms and also far removed from spoken language and will be evaluated in this chapter. Finally, all these ideas will be evaluated in the conclusion.

3.1 A Short History of Sinhala Grammatical Concerns

Though the Sinhala language has continuous written tradition since the 3rd Century BC, there is no evidence of any grammatical treatises until the 13th Century. As discussed in chapter one, the Sidat Sag̃ərā is the oldest classical Sinhala grammatical text. Though it has been basically written as a reference grammar to be used by beginners of Sinhala poetry of the grammatical rules are applicable for prose writing as well. However, though there were some personal and periodical differences, it is obvious that whole

Sinhalese classical prose and poetic works have generally followed this grammatical tradition. This means that all traditional Pirivena schools and other institutes have followed the same tradition.

102

As we discussed in the early chapters, Sinhalese language owed continuous written tradition since 3rd Century BC. The early language samples which were written on hard surfaces such as stone, pottery, metal, walls and so on remain as they were written by the writers. There is much evidence reported in Pali and Sinhala chronicles and other literary texts regarding the extinct Sinhala texts. At the same time, the Sidat Sag̃ərā,

Elu Sandes Lakuǝa and many other texts have taken extracts from old books which are extinct today. However, all existing written evidence testify that Sinhala written language has undergone an evolutionary process on the basis of it being a living spoken language. Sinhalese literature testifies that Sinhala language has developed as a literary language by absorbing evolutionary changes from its living spoken language even though grammarians were reluctant to include those developments into grammatical norms. The Sidat Sag̃ərā, also have followed some usages which are totally against norms it treats especially what he teaches in his text regarding gender is totally different the usages of his own text and the usage of contemporary writers.

The Sidat Sag̃ərā also bears witness to the existence of living spoken language (Lev lækiyǝ1) and its author has provided justification for including these evolutionary changes into his grammar. Ancient Sinhala written evidences prove that literary Sinhala usage has evolved following the evolution of its living spoken language. However, it has taken several centuries before including those changes into the grammar. For example, the author of the Sidat Sag̃ərā has given linguistic evidence to justify the inclusion of five long vowels [ā], [ī], [ū], [ē], [ō] and nasal velar sound [ŋ] into Sinhala alphabet. There have been two new vowel letters illustrate [æ] and [ǣ] phonemes since the 7th Century CE in Sinhala literature but the Sidat Sag̃ərā has not included them into

1 Sidat Sañgarā, 4-5. 103

his alphabet though he discusses and employs them in his text. At the same times though the Sidat Sag̃ərā discusses and employs nasalized voiced consonants (Õa [g̃], `Ê [ɉ]̃ , å

[ḍ͂ ], |a [d̃], Us [b̃] he has not been able to include them into his alphabet. All the above linguistic changes have been used in literature for centuries though grammarians have been reluctant to include them in grammatical treaties. This means that the grammatical standard has not been an essential factor for the usage some letters letter in the Sinhala language. All the classical Sinhala texts bear evidence that since literary Sinhala usage was not a rigid codified language and writers could have been able to include linguistic changes of living spoken language into their writings and deviate from the standard grammar to some extent. It must also be noted that the Sidat Sag̃ərā on occasion refers to “ancient teachers” of grammar indicating that there had been previous grammars for

Sinhala before it was written.

Some ancient literary languages in South Asia (Pali and Sanskrit), as well as in other parts of the world became extinct as they did not evolve according to the evolutionary process of their living spoken languages. However, literary Sinhala language, especially prose has evolved adjusting itself to its living spoken language throughout its history without confining itself to a rigid grammar. At the same time, the aim of many Sinhala classical prose texts was to transform the Buddhist teaching and religious faith to the public by stories. The intention of most of these classical Sinhala prose texts was meant to be read out for the ordinary people. Therefore, as a result of continuous development according to living spoken idiom Sinhalese literary language still remains a living written usage, although prose writing was abandoned during the late medieval period paving the way for diglossia.

104

3. 2 Accepting Classical Grammar as Modern Written Idiom

It is obvious that the virtual abeyance of classical written tradition after the 15th Century until mid-eighteenth Century when resuscitation of the classical written tradition took place as a revivalist strategy. While Christian Sinhala prose literature based on spoken colloquial made headway as an instrument of conversion of the rural folk, the attempt at reviving classical Buddhist literary tradition resulted in the reintroduction of classical prose norms. It is no doubt that like many other language societies have done in similar socio-political situations in the world, the 18th Century Sinhalese scholars have opted classical grammar-based writing tradition for their scholarly or religious writings. In doing so they have selected the Sidat Sag̃ərā as their grammatical handbook may be without knowing its inadequacies as a classical grammatical treatise.

Though the 18th Century and later Sinhala scholars supported classical grammar based written idiom, they were not able to fully resuscitate that grammatical idiom until the

1930s as there was no proper classical grammar text except the Sidat Sag̃ərā. As they selected the Sidat Sag̃ərā as their grammatical handbook, it was not sufficient to fulfil their grammatical requirements as it contains grammatical misconceptions as classical grammar. At the same time, they were not able to codify that grammatical idiom from classical prose and poetic texts. Therefore, various types of grammatical and other language deviations (irregularities) were common even in elite writings until 1930s.

As pointed out in earlier there were two written idioms developing in Sinhala language since the 18th Century renaissance. The first one was classical grammar based written idiom which has been used for religious and scholarly writings and the second one was a written style which was equivalent to the spoken idiom that has been used in official documents such as deeds, grants, historical incidents, personal reports and day to day

105

writings. As a result of introducing the printing machine European missionaries popularized spoken grammar based on written idiom during the 18th and 19th centuries for their religious propagation. Later Sinhala newspapers, journals and some fiction writers also adopted this language style. Another notable feature is that the Sinhala

Christian literature devoted mainly on Bible translation began by using colloquial language with high sounding words for spiritual concepts, it also underwent change emulating the high grammar adopted by the Buddhist writers, and as a result we find more and more language sophistication in the Bible translations.

According to Senarath Paranavithana classical grammar based classical idiom expanded and became more popular with the expansion of government school education.2 Classical grammar based archaic idiom has been employed in journals, newspapers and has also been used for educational purposes in monastery educational institutes and later in Pirivena and vernacular schools. However, the above classical grammar based archaic written idiom is not the one Sinhalese use for the above purposes today. They were not able to clarify grammatical and orthographic rules from the classical texts until Kumaratunga resuscitate classical grammar based written grammar during 1930s. As some critiques pointed out, Kumaratunga was able to

(reform) codify new Sinhala written grammar by studying all classical Sinhala texts.3

According to available written documents before 1920s classical grammar based written idiom was a mixture of written and spoken idioms with grammatical inconsistencies. Finally, Sinhalese scholars could identify grammatical mis concepts of

2 Paranavitana, Senarat, “Prakruta Sinhalaya liveemata gata yutui”, Adata Obina Basa, ed. Ajith Thilakasena, (Colombo: Godage, 1997), 38. 3 Martin Wickramasinghe, Sahitya Kalava, (Galkissa: Mount Press, 1950), 29. 106

the Sidat Sag̃ərā and were able to codify classical grammar rules as a result of editing classical prose and poetic texts during the first half of the 20th Century.

With the expansion of vernacular (Sinhala & Tamil medium) medium studies in government schools in the latter part of the 19th Century, there was a crying need for preparing of Sinhala medium textbooks. As regards the notion on the standard of

Sinhala language during the 1870s the remarks of the Director of Public Instruction on textbooks of government schools are worth mentioning here. The report states “…. either as regards the rendering of certain terms used in them or the style employed, the latter being inconsistent alike with the grammar and with the idiom of the language.”4

The general desire of other inspectors regarding the language of textbooks was to refine them by the genius of language of the classical idiom. This means the classical idiom was the general desire of the SSWL of school textbooks at that time.

3.3 Disagreements on Classical Grammar

In the year 1879 government took the responsibility of preparing school text books for

Sinhala medium students. Authors were selected from a wider circle including

Directors of the Department, Inspectors, Translators, and scholars from outside the

Department. Though all those writers contributed their best for the preparation of school textbooks there were criticisms from interested parties regarding the language in which textbooks were written. This issue was questioned in the Legislative Council in 1891 and a committee was appointed to investigate the merits of school textbooks for vernacular schools.

4 The Administration Report of Director of Public Instruction, 1871, 415. 107

The Committee consisted of the Auditor-General (Chairman), three erudite Buddhist monks namely: Ven. Hikkaduwe Sumangala, Ven. Weligama Sri Sumangala and Ven.

Ratmalane Dharmarama, and one lay scholar Mr. I. C. Wijesinghe (the Translator of the great chronicle Pali Mahawamsa into Sinhala).5 However, there was no common agreement among the committee members regarding the language of textbooks in the question. Therefore, all committee members submitted their views in their individual capacity and Mr. I. C. Wijesinghe did not attend the final meeting and submitted his report separately. At the end, there was a disagreement among Mr. I. C. Wijesinghe and rest of the committee members regarding the grammatical errors of these school textbooks. The rest of committee members except Mr. I. C. Wijesinghe, suggested careful revision of one textbook as it was replete with faults in general style and the glossary. In contrast, Mr. I. C. Wijesinghe stated in his memorandum that “sixth reader is utterly unfit to be in school as it contains gross errors in orthography, etymology, syntax and sense.” He also suggested some minor revisions to the seventh reader as well. However, this disagreement finally extended up to personal criticism of Mr. I. C.

Wijesinghe’s Sinhala translation of the Mahawamsa. Ven. Ratmalane Dharmarama as a committee member replied to Mr. I. C. Wijesinghe’s criticism saying that when compared to the sixth reader, the Sinhala version of the Mahavamsa as a joint production of best scholars was replete with many more errors. This debate reveals that there was no common agreement among the best scholars regarding the standard written

Sinhala even at the end of the 19th Century.

5 Education in Ceylon, 1014. 108

3.3.1 Ven. Yakkaduwe Pragnarama [yakkaʐḍuvē pragɲārāmǝ (1907 - 1986)

One of the prominent Oriental scholars in Ceylon at that time Ven. Yakkaduwe

Pragnarama did not appreciate Sanskritized written style as well as pure Sinhala style that were popular during the first half of the 20th Century and instead, he preferred the use of the spoken idiom for writing. He wanted to introduce a new written style to the

Sinhala language through his story books called “Vanakata” (Jungle tales). In the preface of his story book he says that he did not take any extra effort to edit the language, grammar, or the style of this book. His main intention was to present these stories in such a manner that whether the content was deep or simple, any Sinhala person who can read Sinhala writing would be able to understand it without difficulty.

He wanted to save Sinhala language from the corruption of loan (tatsama) words and said that we should write Pali, Sanskrit or any other loan words according to the way

Sinhalese people pronounced them. But it is not possible to employ loan words according to the way that ordinary people pronounced them as they have regional and other differences. At the same time, the colloquial pronunciations of such loan words are disappearing because of the expansion of education. He satirizes that though

Sinhalese are proud to state that Sinhalese is a living language, there was no difference between dead languages and written Sinhalese language because it remains fixed.

Though this criticism is not referring each and every stratum of written Sinhala usage, it is relevant for the grammar to some extent. He was worried that though spoken

Sinhala is evolving during the course of time, elite ridicule the spoken language of the common people and elite do not allow the use of spoken language even for a personal letter. However, presently the spoken grammar is accepted for writing dialogues in fiction, movies, dramas, personal letters, poetry, electronic and printed media, news

109

reading, public lectures and many other occasions except for technical or academic writing.

At the same time, he criticized the fact that having several usages for several purposes such as spoken Sinhala, poetic Sinhala, written Sinhala, upper standard of spoken

Sinhala in Sinhala language, and he also viewed it as an obstruction for the development of the language.6 However, it is very common fact that many languages with long written and cultural history has different usages for different purposes and it is useful for the creative writing and also it is not possible to agree with that argument of having several usages for several purposes may not cause as an obstruction for the development of a language. He also criticized the notion of some elite people who populate that spoken language is ungrammatical. He also ridiculed to the fruitless effort of grammaticalizing spoken language by purists. He condemned the notion of spoken

Sinhala is ungrammatical and argued if one can understand any Sinhala spoken statement without any doubt or confusion its mean that statement is grammatical. He insisted that grammar of a language as a common approval of a language society we must accept that the way Sinhalese people are speaking is grammatical. It is the only solution to settle our language issues as a language community. With the development of linguistics and the development of fiction writing, now except a few, almost everybody accepts that spoken Sinhala is grammatical. He pointed out that Sanskrit testifies that a grammar cannot stop the evolution of a language. Changing archaic grammar and Sanskritized vocabulary to spoken grammar and popular usage was his main intention of language use.7 Therefore, Martin Wickramasinghe described him as a one among a few who wanted to set free Sinhala language from the 13th Century

6 Yakkaduwe Pragnarama, Vanakata gæna kata, (1947), (Kelaniya: Vidyalankara Press, 1957). 24 7 Ibid, 24. 110

grammar and vocabulary.8 We can get an idea about his writing style by analyzing the following quotation from his story book.

1. [mesē yanǝ atǝrǝmagǝdī, yamunā nadītīrǝyǝṭǝ pæmiṇi avasthāvēdī, ektarā

vanantǝrǝyak mædǝdī, arǝ saŋɉīvǝkǝ nam gonā maḍǝ vagurǝkǝṭǝ bæsǝ htǝrǝ

gātǝyǝm푎 madē gilī goḍǝ gatǝ nohæki tarǝmǝṭǝ barǝpatǝḷǝ karǝdǝrǝyǝkǝ

væṭī gamǝnǝdǝ natǝrǝ viyǝ.

mē siddhiyǝ nisā vardhǝmānǝgē hitǝṭǝ balǝvat dukak ætiviyǝ. mē gonā gænǝ

æti snēhǝyǝ nisā, hitǝ uṇuvī vardhǝmānǝ ē vædǝgat gamǝnǝ pavā natǝrǝ

kǝḷēyǝ. Tun davǝsak gatǝ vū pasut ohugē ē dukǝ esēmǝ nisā anik sahacǝrǝyō

ekǝtu vī ohuṭǝ mesē kīhǝ. ‘ǣ siṭu tumǝni, mē monǝ væḍak dǝ! mēkǝ monǝ

yutukǝmak dǝ! mē ekǝ goneku nisā siŋhǝ vyāgrǝ ādīngen piruṇu bhayānakǝ

uvǝduru æti maha daruṇu mevæni vanāntǝrǝyǝkǝ mē sā mahat naḍǝyak

antǝrāvē heḷīmǝ obǝtumāṭǝ sudusudǝ? næhæ næh! kisisētmǝ næhæ!]9

(Thus, while they were going, once they arrived at the ‘Yamuna’ river bank, in

one stretch of forest, that bull called Sanjeevaka, walked into a mire and all his

four legs sunk as such that he could not escape, and all were in trouble and was

disturbed the journey.

Because of this incident ‘Vardhǝmānǝ’ became so sad. Since Vardhǝmānǝ loves

that bull he gave up even this important tour. As his sorrow was still the same

even after three days, his other friends came to him and said: hey merchant

(Nobleman) what a nonsense is this, what kind of a gratitude is this? Do you

8, Kusaladhamma, Welamitiyawe, Yakkaduwe Himiyange Dharma Shastriya Lipi, (Kelaniya: Vidyalankara Press, 1983), v. 9 Yakkaduwe Pragnarama, Vanakata, 2. 111

think is it suitable to you to put such a big group at risk in a so cruel and dreadful

forest which is full of cruel tigers and lions. because of this bull. No. No. it is

not suitable at all.)

In the above paragraph the author has used aspirated letters [th], [dh] and retroflex letters such as [ṇ] and [ḷ] though they are not available in Sinhalese pronunciation. At the same time, subject predicate agreement is accurate to the standard written grammar.

Therefore, we can conclude that he was against the Sanskritization and the pure Sinhala usage but keeps to the classical grammar.

3.3.2 Martin Wickramasingha (1890-1976)

Martin Wickramasingha, a novelist, critique and a journalist widely known as the greatest writer in modern Sinhala literature believes that having a strict or uniform grammar for a language is viewed as a similar an attempt of persuading people to think similarly. He also pointed out that Pundits who edited classical Sinhala texts recently

(in the first half of 20th Century) invented their own logical Sinhala grammar through editions of those classical texts. Wickramasingha says that Kumaratunga invented his grammar by searching almost all Sinhala classical texts. Munidasa Kumaratunga developed it up to a science and edited Sinhala classical texts according to his newly prepared grammar.10 However, he pointed out by citing other editors that there are some sentences of many Sinhalese classical texts that did not fit with popular grammatical rules. This means that there are grammatical discrepancies among different texts belonging to the same period as well as within a given text. Wickramasingha criticizes that the arguments over grammaticality of the Pundits during the first half of the 20th

10 Martin Wickkramasinghe, Sahitya kalava, (Galkissa: Mount Press, 1950), 29. 112

Century did not helpful for the development of language.11 He says that as a result of those arguments, grammar became more important than language and expression of ideas.

According to him, grammar is helpful to convey or express an idea without any confusion to another.12 He also stressed that people could think without a language but if they want to convey that thought to another they have to think via language.13 In this situation people face confusion over grammaticality if their language has diglossic situation as they think via spoken idiom and convert that thought into written idiom. He strongly believed that development of the controversy over grammaticality in written

Sinhala has obstructed the development of Sinhala written language and he equalized grammar as tools which helpful to fix language raw material.14 Martin Wickramasingha says in his Sahitya Kalawa that there are three types of grammar in the Sinhala language.

Table 3.1 Types of Grammar Spoken Grammar [minissu geṭǝ vædenǝvā.] (people are entering house) Written Grammar [minissu geṭǝ vædeti.]

Highbrow Written Grammar Created by [minisun geṭǝ vædenǝvā.] Kumaratunga Source: Wickkramasinghe, 1950, 23

Wickramasinghe has also suggested that learned written grammar should be prepared by using grammatical rules and expressions of spoken idiom of villagers and it may be helpful to express ideas lucidly. At the same time, if there are any grammatical rules in

11 Wickkramasinghe, Sahitya Kalava, (1950), 23. 12 Ibid 41. 13 Ibid 27. 14 Ibid, 34. 113

written language that obstruct expressing of ideas clearly, they should be modified. He also thinks that excluding of unwanted or troublesome grammatical rules will increase with the increase of the number of talented writers of the language.15

As a result of introducing vernacular languages as the media of instruction to school education in the 1940s, there had been a debate in the Silumina (a Sunday daily) in 1955 whether it is necessary to implement a new grammatical code or to continue with the classical grammar in Sinhala16. In this debate, some of them have suggested minor revisions to classical grammar while a few of them have proposed to remove outdated grammatical rules to narrow down the wide gulf between the spoken and written idioms.

3.3.3 Ven. Dr. Dehigaspe Pragnasara [dehigaspē pracɲāsārǝ ]

Among those scholars Ven. Dr. Dehigaspe Pragnasara has argued that though the language evolves in the course of time it should accept changes if they fit with the grammatical framework of the language. He believed that there should be a grammatical framework for the language though even if we remove the outdated grammatical rules. According to him it is important to codify grammatical rules based on learned usage of scholars for the betterment of the language, but it is not possible to burden the language with these traditional grammatical rules as the future as language should expand along with the development of the society. At this juncture, traditional grammar, which was helpful for the development of the language in the history, obstruct the present development of the language. His argument is very important because it says that there should be a grammar for a language and it also helpful for the

15 Wickkramasinghe, Sahitya Kalava, 43. 16 “Vyakarana viplavaya” (The revolution of the Grammar), Silumina,, 4th September 1955. 114

development of a language but with the expansion of a society old grammar obstruct for the expression of new thoughts and ideas. He also pointed out that if a language could not able to modify its grammatical rules for the requirement of modern society that language will become a dead language because of its outdated grammatical rules.

Moreover, he says that some languages narrow down the wide gulf between spoken and written idioms as a result of the revolution of grammar by eliminating old grammatical rules which obstruct expression new thoughts and ideas. At the same time, he has pointed out that some languages like Sinhala solve this issue successfully by introducing new grammatical rules and by modifying traditional grammatical rules to cater the new requirements of the society. However, Ven. Pragnasara prefers the way

Sinhalese language resolves the language issue by modifying traditional grammar. As he believes the idea is more important than the grammar. The grammar should be used to convey the message lucidly. After the conveying of the message through language, grammar is not important. Therefore, he compared grammar to the scaffolding that we use to build a house which is not useful after its construction.17

3.3.4 Ven. Bambarende Siri Seevalee (1908-1985)

Another prominent scholar at that time was Ven. Bambarende Siri Seevalee who joined with this debate and supported the view of introducing a new grammar for the Sinhala language. That is because in the past Sinhalese language evolved with the influence of oriental languages but later since the 16th Century it has been evolving with the influence of European languages. There have been drastic changes in phonological, morphological and syntax level of Sinhalese language as a result of the effect of

Western languages. Therefore, he believes traditional grammar, which has based on

17 Dehigaspe Pragnasara, “Vyakarana Viplavaya (The revolution of the Grammar), The Silumina, 4th September 1955. 115

classical Oriental languages such as Pali and Sanskrit, is not sufficient to analyze modern Sinhala language. He suggests that modern Sinhala grammarian should be experts in Oriental as well as Western languages. He believes that the controversy over grammaticality of contemporary Sinhala language is created by traditional grammarians who neglected contemporary developments of Sinhala language and respected the grammatical rules introduced by ancient Oriental grammarians. He also views that the simplifying of grammatical rules of a language as a sign of a development of that language. At the same time, he claims that the nonexistence of stage drama which is uses colloquial idiom for dialogues, is as a one of the main reasons for tough grammatical rules to exist in modern Sinhala language.18

3.3.5 Ven. Kiriwattuduwe Prachgnasara (1891-1970)

“Whether a language idiom is correct or incorrect according to its origins, it should be included into the language if it is widely spread among users” said Ven. Kiriwattuduwe

Prachgnasara the principal of the Vidyalankara Pirivena, one of the leading temple schools in Kelaniya, Sri Lanka. He also claims that even a grammarian cannot control a language no matter how much he tries by establishing grammatical rules. He stresses that a grammar of a one era is not suitable for another. Therefore, he clearly emphasizes that grammarians should be based on contemporary language when they codify new grammars for language. Moreover, he says that though there are several contemporary grammar books in Sinhala language they are not suitable for use as all of them have an intermixture of old and new grammatical rules.19

18 Bambarende Siri Seevalee, “Vyakarana Viplavaya”, The Silumina, 4th September 1955. 19 Kiriwattuduwe Pragnasara, “Vyakarana Viplavaya”, The Silumina, 18th September 1955. 116

3.3.6 Professor D. E. Hettiaratchi (1909-1989)

Professor D. E. Hettiarachchi, a prominent oriental scholar and Professor of Sinhala at the University of Ceylon at that time has stated that it is essential to take necessary steps as much as possible to narrow down the wide gulf between spoken and written idioms in Sinhala. He also claimed that leaving away outdated grammatical rules and orthographical usages are also needed. He has condemned the usage of unnecessary

Sanskrit borrowings and unfamiliar terms that are created according to archaic language. According to him [n/ṇ] and [l/ḷ] usage in Sinhala is quite complicated and unnecessary as it also confuses students. Hettiaratchi also pointed out the importance of a language academy to deal with language issues.20

Father S. J. de S. Weerasinghe suggests that a simple contemporary grammar should be prepared by an assembly of contemporary Sinhala scholars. He also believes that the wide gulf of spoken and written usages should narrow down and outdated grammatical rules should be eliminated while correcting mistakes in spoken and written usages.21

However, there are several Sinhala scholars who have participated in the above debate have argued for maintaining classical grammar in written language. I. G. P. Perera, a school teacher, says that it is difficult to eliminate the difference between spoken and written Sinhala as this difference discloses the difference of the educated and uneducated gulf in society.22 H. D. Sugatapala says that this is not the time to produce new a grammar for Sinhala language since the Sinhala writers are still reluctant to employ the spoken language for writing. Further he says that the traditional grammar is not important for writing if the meaning is clear. No matter whether it is fitting with

20 D. E Hettiaratchi, “Vyakarana Viplavaya”, The Silumina, 18th September 1955. 21 S. J. de S Weerasinghe, “Vyakarana Viplavaya”, The Silumina, 18th September 1955. 22 I. G. P. Perera, “Vyakarana Viplavaya”, The Silumina, 25th September 1955. 117

traditional grammar, if writers use their own style continuously later the grammar introduced by them will be accepted by grammarians.23

According D. A. Jayakodi, a lecturer of government Teacher Training College of

Katukurunda, states that there is no regular system of orthography in the Sinhala language since its early period. As Sinhalese is a phonetic language, and we write according to the way we hear it is better to form an orthographic standard to cater to developing print technology. He also added that Sinhala language should not depend on Pali and Sanskrit though they serve as parent languages. At the same time, he insisted that Sinhala language does not need to depend on English though it is a well-developed and a widely spread language. Though Sinhala language contacts with or is influenced by other languages it should be left to itself. He also suggests disregarding [n/ṇ] and

[l/ḷ] usage in Sinhala as there is no phonemic value.24

Dr. Ven. Bambarende Mahanama believes that a grammar is essential for a language.

He has further pointed out the requirement of a new grammar for Sinhalese.

Mr. H. M. Thisera has written an article just before Sinhalese language was endowed with official language status. He questions, if we suggest granting the official status for

Sinhalese, which language we are referring to as Sinhalese out of spoken, written and poetic usages? He avows that except the spoken Sinhala, any other usage should not get official status.25 Now it is clear that people are referring to the entire language including spoken, writing, and poetic usages as Sinhalese. He proves citing various

23 H. D. Sugatapala, “Vyakarana Viplavaya”, The Silumina, 25th September 1955. 24 D. A. Jayakodi, “Vyakarana Viplavaya”, The Silumina, 02nd October 1955. 25 H. M. Thisera, “Katakarana Basava Liyanne Kohomada”, Rajya Bhasha Vol. 2, Nos. 2 (April-June 1956), cited in Adata Obina Basa, ed. Ajith Thilakasena, (Colombo: Godage, 1997), 29. 118

evidences from Pali, Sanskrit and classical Sinhala that the grammar is a common acceptance of people whom they use. Therefore, he argues that once we accept spoken

Sinhala is grammatical there won’t be any other obstruction of using it for written purposes. He also believes that using spoken idiom for written purposes increases the power of expression of the language. Though Thisera has employed spoken idiom in this article there are some irregularities in his style. Though it seems that he has omitted the use of aspirated letters and [ṇ], [ḷ], [ʃ] letters in this article in order to conform to the spoken idiom, above letters can be seen occasionally in his article. Sometimes it can be considered as an effect of long-standing practice in his career.

Ven. Weliwitiye Sri Soratha, the pioneer of the University of Sri Jayewardenepura, Sri

Lanka being a Buddhist monk as well an Oriental scholar who prepared the famous Sri

Sumangala Sabdakosa, the Sinhala dictionary, was a liberalist as regards issues of language and grammar of Sinhala. He has revealed his opinion on Sinhala language and written grammar in the preface of in his edition of classical Sinhala poetry “Selalihini

Sandesaya”. These ideas are more important as they have been expressed in the year in which Sinhala language achieved official language status and in a period in which

Sinhala society was overwhelmed by the enthusiasm of Sinhala language and culture.

In the above preface he says that as Sinhala language has achieved the official language status, now even foreigners tend to learn the Sinhala language. Therefore, it is the responsibility of Sinhala scholars to facilitate them to do so. Having unnecessary rules in a language is an obstacle for new learners and it is also a hindrance for the development of a language. Grammar rules and aims of a living language do not exist unchanged forever but gradually change in the course of time. He believes that it is not suitable to wait to expect those changes to occur involuntarily when considered the way how the world is changing today. Therefore, eliminating of all unnecessary rules and 119

usages is the responsibility of those who expect the development of Sinhala language.

Some dysfunctional letters may be overlooked once they are not necessary for writing today. At the same time, unnecessary rules also must be left aside in writing.

Moreover, he says that letters are the visible symbols which represent basic sound units of a word and once we inquire that whether there are unnecessary letters in our alphabet, we may definitely find that one of each [n] and [ṇ] as well as [l] and [ḷ] are unnecessary.

Though there are two letters as [n] and [ṇ] both represent the same sound in Sinhala, and no one can able to differentiate between these two letters by pronouncing and the difference of [l] and [ḷ] letters also same. There is no point of using those four letters as they are used in the past since there is no difference in pronunciation in contemporary

Sinhala and not only foreigners but also even Sinhalese are not skillful to use those letters appropriately. Therefore, we should take necessary action to adopt common acceptance to employ one each of these pairs. We know that though there could be many objections from conservative pundits, it is very helpful for the typewriter and the printing technology of reducing at least two letters from the alphabet. He also points out that even Thai alphabet have been revised to cater requirement of print technology.26

3.3.7 Senerath Paranavithana (1896-1972)

Senerath Paranavithana Professor of Archeology of University of Ceylon as well as a well-known expert in ancient Sinhala language, believed that spoken language of common people should be adopted for writing purposes. He accepted that spoken and written usages of a language should be different for several reasons. We speak with the

26 Weliwitiye Soratha, “preface”, Selalihini Sandesa Warnanawa, 1956, cited in Dharma Shastronnati, edited by Kadihingala Soratha, (Colombo: Anula Press). 120

people in front of us or with the people who live in the same period and speech forms will disappear after the act of speech. But written documents can remain for a longer period. Therefore, he believed that there should be some regularity and careful attention to maintain a written language. He has suggested that it is better to use spoken usage of respectable (elite) people of society for written purposes. Though the above views are true in the past regarding the spoken language today we can communicate with the people anywhere in the world or sometimes in the universe with the help of technology.

At the same time there are possibilities of preserving spoken documents for the future with the help of technology. Therefore, there is no big difference between spoken and written documents being preserved for longer periods.

In his own writings he has mainly focused on the sentence structure and the use of verbs as they appear in the spoken language. Though there are no different verbs for different

‘gender, number and persons’ in the spoken language he questioned the point of using them as separate verbs for different gender, number and persons in the written language.

Though he employed spoken Sinhala usage in some of his writings there is no regularity of using the vocabulary, and orthography. Sometimes he tends to use aspirated letters as well as [ṇ] – [ḷ] and [ʃ] – [ṣ] letters in his writings while using colloquial type derived forms on some occasions. Sometimes, it could be the result of the influence of the long practice of reading and writing of classical grammar in his career. He accepted that in certain occasions, it is necessary to borrow words from Sanskrit or any other languages but after employing them in the Sinhala language, we should allow them to adapt according to Sinhala usage. He also condemned the use of Sanskrit and other borrowings while having better Sinhala words.27 We can evaluate the success of

27 For more information, Senerat Paranavithana, “Prakrit Sinhala should be Used for Writing”, Piyavara, Sinhalese Society Annual Journal, University of Ceylon, 1956-57. 121

employing spoken idiom for technical writing with the help of following extract of

Senerat Paranavithana.

2. [indu-āriyǝ ɉanǝyā mē divǝyinē vāsǝyǝṭǝ pæmiṇenǝ kāledi pamǝṇǝ uturu

bārǝtē bærǣrum siddi gaṇǝnāvak æti vuṇā. Avurudu siyǝ ganǝnak muḷullē

mahaṇǝ

bamuṇu paramparāvan vatpiḷivetvǝlat tatu dækmehit nirǝtǝ vīmen pasuvǝ

bududahamǝ magǝdǝdēsǝyē pahaḷǝ vuṇā. Yamkisi deviyekuge pihiṭak

nætivǝ minisunṭǝ tamange mǝ vīriyen melō parǝlō subǝ siddiyat avǝsānǝyē

akālikǝ sāntiyat piḷilæbiyǝ hæki yǝ yi pævǝsuvāvūt yuktiyǝṭǝ niyǝmǝ tænǝ

dunnāvūt mē dahamehi pæhædi ayǝṭǝ eyin læbiyǝ hæki setǝ mululovǝ patǝḷǝ

kirīmǝ pævǝrila tibuṇa. āriyǝ ɉanǝtāvak visin paḷǝmuvarǝṭǝ pihiṭevū

mahārāɉɉǝyǝ vunāvūt īṭǝ perǝ ætivū hæmǝ mahārāɉɉǝyǝkǝṭǝ vaḍā visālǝvūt

pārǝsikǝ mahārāɉɉǝyǝṭǝ dænǝṭǝ baṭǝhirǝ pakistānǝyǝṭǝ ætuḷat purāṇǝ

indiyāvē vayǝbǝ̃ pedes yaṭat velǝ tibuṇa. budu dahamǝ pahaḷǝvunu magǝdǝ

nam āriyǝ rāɉɉē purāṇǝkāledi gaŋgā nadiyǝ depættē pihiṭi ɉanǝpadǝ ekkomǝ

yaṭat kǝrǝgenǝ mahā balǝæṇiyǝkuyi kāriyǝṭǝ dassǝ pālǝnǝtantǝrǝyǝkuyi

padǝnǝmǝ vasǝyen æti mahārāɉɉǝyak bavǝṭǝ patvunā. pārǝsikǝ mahārāɉɉe

paraddǝla ē rāɉɉe nægenǝhirǝ sīmāvat ikmǝvǝla bārǝteṭǝ ā alaksandǝrǝ

yavǝnǝ raɉu āpahu giyāmǝ yavǝnǝyan yaṭǝtǝṭǝ gohin tibuṇǝ purāṇǝ indiyāve

pedesuyi īṭǝ baṭǝhirin pihiṭi tavat visālǝ pedesuyi candrǝguptǝ pihiṭevū

moriyǝ mahārāɉɉǝṭǝ yaṭatvǝ tibuna.]28

28 Senerat Paranavithana, Sinhalayo, (Colombo: Lake House, 1969), 1-2. 122

The above paragraph discloses the difficulty of employing the spoken language for writing in the Sinhala language. First of all, we have to decide which colloquial usage to use. When we compare the above paragraph with the spoken language of today, no one uses words like [āriyǝ, mahārāɉɉǝyǝ, pārǝsikǝ, ekkomǝ, dassǝ, gohin, moriyǝ] in their spoken usage. Meanwhile he has used several written language words [pæmiṇenǝ, pamǝṇǝ, piḷilæbiyǝ, pævǝsuvāvūt, dahamehi, paramparāvan] which are not common in colloquial usage and these words have alternatives in the colloquial. This mixture also prompts how spoken and written usages influence each other in the diglossic situation.

Many scholars suggest the employing of spoken grammar for writing but not the vocabulary. They affirm that using spoken language means not the vocabulary but the grammar. Scholars, either they support employing spoken idiom for written Sinhala or not they have pointed out the insignificance of [n - ṇ] and [l - ḷ] usage in written Sinhala but not the aspirated letters. But Paranavithana has employed retroflex [n/ṇ] and [l/ḷ] variation while omitting aspirated letters to correspond with colloquial Sinhala.

However, these writings of Paranavithana on the basis of spoken grammar, style and vocabulary disclose that we must rethink about the vocabulary of technical writing. At the same time, it is not possible to accept his suggestion of employing some colloquial words as technical terms in scholarly writings. It is worth mentioning here that with the expansion of education and mass media some of colloquial terms that he has suggested are becoming obsolete in the spoken usage.29

Senerat Paranavithana says that a strange grammar is not necessary for the Sinhalese language and the natural spoken grammar will be sufficient for written purposes. He

29 Senerat Paranavithana, “Prakrit Sinhala should be Used for Writing”, 39. 123

also ridiculed those who condemn and degrade the spoken language of villagers. He thinks that it is not possible to enact or arrange fixed grammatical rules for a language since a language evolves day-by-day. Paranavithana strongly opposed the Standard

Sinhala Committee Report of 1968 which attempted to establish a learned classical idiom for modern Sinhala writing. He strongly believed that introducing outdated rigid, archaic classical idiom will collapse the creativity of language as well as literature. He also pointed out that this outdated grammar will obstruct the creative writers to express their free ideas. At the same time, teaching two grammars as spoken and written for one language will discourage students and it also will encourage them to learn English. He also reminded that it is not suitable to enact rigid classical grammar for all language community which had not happened even in the history. Therefore, he suggested that it is worth to introduce one grammar for both usage and it will helpful for the development of literature as well.30

3.3.8 M.W.S. de Silva (1931-1979)

M.W.S. de Silva was a leading figure in introducing modern linguistics in Sri Lankan university system. By introducing linguistic courses to the University of Ceylon in

1960s, he was able to train young scholars to view at language as well as traditional grammar in a different manner. He was able to attract some young university lecturers to the field of linguistics and some of them are the leading linguists in the island today.

However, they did not want to continue Silva’s struggle of adopting spoken grammar for writing in the Sinhala language. However, several grammars on the analysis of

Sinhala language appeared and more interest in studying dialects because popular.

30 For more information, Senarat Paranavithana, 1969, “Sinhala Basavata Amutu Viyakaranayak Avasya Nehe” (1969), in Adata Obina Basa, (Colombo: Godage, 1997). 124

Dr. Silva’s ideas regarding the adopting of spoken grammar based written idiom was very impartial when compared to many others who wanted to adopt spoken Sinhala for writing. He argued that though it is impossible to fully employ spoken language for writing, some of rigid grammatical rule of written language can easily be removed. He points out that though Sinhalese believe that they are using the same language, there are so many differences in a single language, especially in vocabulary and pronunciation variations in different contexts and so on. Therefore, he argues that not only the whole language community, but also even a single person who does not have a similar language style for all purposes as the language usage of same person change according to the situation. Therefore, Silva very correctly states that the saying of ‘write in spoken Sinhala’ will become more meaningful if we would say it as ‘write in spoken grammar’. He also points out that it is difficult to adopt all the aspects of spoken language for writing.31

As it is not possible to adopt written grammar for the spoken language de Silva suggests very correctly that adopting spoken grammar for writing is the only possible solution to minimize the wide gulf between spoken and written usages. He says that it is not possible to adopt written grammar for spoken language for many reasons. The first one is that spoken language is the base of the written language and writing is a secondary illustration of spoken language. Second reason is that only a very few people in a language community are involved in writing but almost all use the spoken language. At the same time, the writers of a society spend more time for speaking than writing.

Another important reason is that the written language and grammar of Sinhala language

31 M.W.S. de Silva, “Vyavahara Sinhalaya livimata gata hekida?” (1967), in Adata Obina Basa, (Colombo: Godage, 1997), 68 – 83.

125

is a resuscitated version of an outdated classical language. De Silva clearly explains as a brief history of Sinhala language about the sequence of historical incidents that affected the deviation of written language from spoken Sinhala usages. According to him, all the reasons that affected for adaptation of classical grammar for the written usage of Sinhala language were not linguistic but sociological. He also explains with necessary examples that the diversity of the language exists or depends on the vocabulary and the style but not on the grammar.32

3.3.9 Charles Godakumbure (1907-1977)

Charles Godakumbure was a university lecturer in Sinhala, Commissioner in

Archeology during the 1960s and a prominent scholar who believed that spoken grammar should be adopted for written purposes and he has experimented this in his

Administration Reports when he served as the Archaeological Commissioner.

1. [avurudu kīpǝyǝkǝṭǝ perǝ garu paḷāt pālǝnǝyǝ hā saŋskrutikǝ æmǝtitumā visin patkǝrǝnǝ ladǝ yathōktǝ mandǝḷǝyǝ visin pærǝṇilēkhǝnǝ depārtǝmēntuvǝ, ɉātikǝ kautukāgārǝ depārtǝmēntuvǝ hā purāvidyādepārtǝmēntuvǝ yanǝ mē āyǝtǝnǝ tunē vædǝ piḷibad̃ǝ vārtāvak 1959 vænnēdī sapǝyǝnu læbuvā. viʃēṣǝyen purāvidyā depārtǝmēntuvǝ pilibad̃ǝ mē vārtāvehi sad̃ǝhan karunu gænǝ vivēcǝnǝyak kǝrǝṇǝlesǝ væbalǝnǝ purāvidyā komǝsāris tænǝṭǝ garu saŋskrutikǝ hā samāɉǝsēvā æmǝti tumāgen lat niyōgǝyǝ anuvǝ ṭayip piṭu visipahak digǝ vivēcǝnǝyak 1960 muḷdi sæpevvā.]33

The above quotation has been written in spoken Sinhala. However, the structure of the first sentence has tried to prepare in written idiom is a passive voice construction and

32 M.W.S de Silva, “Vyavahara Sinhalaya livimata gata hekida?,” in Adata Obina Basa, (Colombo: Godage, 1997), 33 C. E. Godakumbure, Administration Report of the Archaeological Commissioner, (Government Press, 1963), G5. 126

there are no such passive voice sentences in spoken Sinhala. Final verb of the above sentence has been given in spoken Sinhala as [læbuvā] (received). According to written Sinhala that verb should be kept as [læbuṇi] (is received). Retroflex [ḷ] letter has been used instead of dental [l] letter in two occasions. Retroflex [ṇ] has been used instead of dental [n]. The word division of bolded words of [purāvidyādepārtǝmēntuvǝ] and [kǝrǝṇǝlesǝ] are wrong according to standard grammar. Those words should be corrected as [purāvidyā depārtǝmēntuvǝ] and [kǝrǝṇǝ lesǝ].

In his article of ‘What is grammar’ (in Sinhala) says that he writes this article in the manner he answers to questions of someone else. If there are any [n - ṇ] and [l - ḷ] variations and aspirated letter in this article it should be considered as an unintentional occurrence or as a mistake that happens because of the habit of the long-standing association with classical literature. His main intention of this article was refuting outdated and false ideas regarding the grammar of language. Godakumbure says that a grammar is not essential to learn a language, but it is useful to learn about the language.34 Perhaps Godakumbure’s views were influenced by his study of the ‘Verb’ in pre-Christian inscriptions where pure verb is almost never used. The sentences are mostly nonverbal.

The controversy over grammaticality did not end after the establishment of classical grammar with minor revisions during the early 1970s. Some University teachers and writers struggled against the 1968 ‘Standard Sinhala Committee Report’ and school textbooks as they had clear linguistic loyalty with the purist movement of ‘Hela

Havula’. Some University teachers and writers were satisfied by the reprinted school text books in 1970 with the minor revision of classical grammar and removal of the language style of ‘Hela Havula’. However, several scholars and writers continued their

34 C. E. Godakumbure, Viyaranaya yanu kumakda?, The Silumina, on 01. 02. 1969. 127

struggle against the establishment of archaic grammar and demanded an equivalent form of spoken idiom for writing. The Sinhala Lekhana Reetitiya was published by the

National Institute of Education in 1989 to improve the skills of classical written idiom among students and writers with the association of University and other language experts. Since Sinhala Lekhana Reetitiya also was not able to fulfil the desire of those who wished to adopt an equivalent of spoken idiom for contemporary standard writing.

Therefore, they continue their struggle for adopting spoken grammar for written Sinhala though the number of prominent scholars were less among its supporters.

3.3.10 Siri Gunasinghe (1925-2017)

Professor Siri Gunasinghe of Peradeniya University was one of the key figures among those who struggled for employing spoken idiom for writing in Sinhala. Apart from his specialty in Sanskrit as a university professor he was known as a poet, novelist, as well as a film director. He was able to make revolutionary landmark in all the above fields.

His attitude towards language as a creative writer as well as a critique was also very controversial at that time. According to him, though there is a difference between spoken and written usages of many other languages the gulf between written and spoken usages of Sinhala is very wide. He says spoken and written usages in Sinhala are like two different languages because of the wide gulf between both usages in vocabulary, grammar, and syntax. He says that he feels the progress of Sinhala language has ceased because of the wide difference of written and spoken usages.

As the pioneer of Sinhala “Blank Verse” he wrote poetry with great precision and full of unusual and used spoken language in his stream of consciousness novels. According to his understanding, both concepts of thinking to write anything by using day to day spoken idiom or archaic written idiom are wrong. He argues that the style of scientific

128

writing is not suitable for a novel or a newspaper report. At the same time, day to day spoken language is not suitable for a novel or an academic writing. He clearly pointed out with his experiences that all those differences should remain in vocabulary and the style but not in grammar. He thinks that the only difference between spoken and written usages should be the difference of vocabulary not the grammar. He clearly proves his argument by citing several extracts that an academic writing should contain with meaningful academic vocabulary and technical terms to maintain its academic quality.

On the other hand, he convinces this with some examples that show academic vocabulary or style is not suitable for creative writings. He firmly says that though we need separate vocabulary for different purposes and that we do not need different grammars for each purpose. Finally, he concludes the written Sinhala grammar is dead and useless, and there won’t be any damage to Sinhala language by giving up that grammar.35

Siri Gunasinghe believes that the grammar of Spoken Sinhala is very simple and active than outdated, complicated, complex, dead, and rigid written grammar. He deplored the idea of promoting written grammar and degrading spoken idiom. He criticized the habit that spoken grammar is useful, sufficient and correct for all day to day purposes but not for the writing. Gunasinghe argues that Sinhalese do not tend to use spoken grammar for writing as they think spoken grammar demotes the scholarly value or the academic quality of their writings. However, he ridiculed those scholars for using that lower spoken grammar for all day to day purposes. He argues that according to their belief whatever they do with the help of spoken grammar is lower and writing is the only eminent work they do in their life. He proves his argument by citing a couple of

35 Siri Gunasinghe, “Sinhalaye Liyana Basa”, The journal of the Ceylon public art council, 1961, cited in Adata Obina Basa, ed. Ajith Thilakasena, (Colombo: Godage, 1997), 50. 129

quotations from contemporary writers that the written grammar or unnecessary

Sanskritized vocabulary is not necessary for the maintaining of academic quality.36

Gunasinghe proves that academic quality remains in the vocabulary and the style but not in written grammar. He says some scholars argue that spoken usage does not have sufficient vocabulary for academic writings but Gunasinghe point out that vocabulary will develop according to the requirement of that usage. ‘Those so-called learned scholars who populate the idea that of ‘spoken language is ungrammatical’ do not know what’s the meaning of grammar’ Gunasinghe accused. Moreover, he says the grammar is not a code of rules. Grammar is a method which explains the way of the behavior or the function of a language. A grammar is not a codified rule of a language and it remains with the functionality of a language. He also criticized some out dated ideas are populated by traditional grammarians in Sinhalese society and proved language as well as the grammar evolve in course of time.37

Gunasinghe clearly pointed out that all most all type of verbs that we enjoy in written

Sinhala are also available in spoken Sinhala. Unlike in written usage the function of the verb is simple in spoken Sinhala since gender, case, and pronoun differences are not reflected by the verb. In written Sinhala, the passive voice sentences are mainly used to express ideas which easily can convey in active voice. In spoken Sinhala that type of passive voice sentence is not been used as it is possible to express same idea very clearly in active voice. Gunasinhe says that selecting appropriate verb is not an issue in spoken

Sinhala as there is no gender, number, case and three persons difference in verb, but it

36 Siri, Gunasinghe, (1997) “Katakarana Basave Viyakaranayak Tiyenava E Vagema Sayiliyakut Tiyenava” (1997), in Adata Obina Basa, ed. Ajith Thilakasena, (Colombo: Godage, 1997), 54-55. 37 See, Siri Gunasinghe, (1997) “Katakarana Basave Viyakaranayak Tiyenava E Vagema Sayiliyakut Tiyenava” (1997), in Adata Obina Basa, ed. Ajith Thilakasena, (Colombo: Godage, 1997), 51 – 67.

130

is the most complicated issue in written Sinhala since there are such differences available. At the same time, he correctly points out that the other main complicated issue in written Sinhala is selecting subject and object form of the noun of a sentence as we use artificial grammar for written language. However, it is also not an issue in spoken Sinhala as there is no difference between subject and object forms in spoken language. As Gunasinghe pointed out that except the first-person pronouns, second and third person pronouns are completely different in both usages.

Gunasinghe’s attitude seems very impartial regarding the adoption of aspirated letters in written Sinhala. He suggests that if the word still looks like or like original loan word, it is better to use aspirated letters. However, he believes that using ‘Tatsama’ form of a word is depending on the subject, purpose, and the style. He argues that except traditional practice, there is no linguistics importance in using [n/ṇ] and [l/ḷ] variation in written Sinhala. Apart from that there is no common standard or acceptance among traditional grammarians regarding the using those letters. He draws our attention to the fact that orthographical mistakes are very common in books, journals, printed and electronic media and so on. Therefore, he believes that it is a useless practice to continue.

Finally, he suggests that it is better to investigate that how many people would be able to write in that scholarly language correctly after mastering it. He was worried about the using such an artificial language for writing while having such a living natural language. He again emphasizes that if the depth of the subject and the academic quality is the reason to use such an artificial grammar, it is a well-known fact that academic quality is exist in the style and the vocabulary, not in the grammar. He also questions the validity or the equity of archaic artificial grammatical rules by citing some popular

131

examples. According to Gunasinghe Learning two grammars for a one language is a waste of time and energy. Though Sinhalese can write in spoken language without any effort he has noticed that same people write in learned grammar with extra effort. He thinks that while writing in spoken or natural grammar authors can pay more attention for choosing a better and attractive style for the readers. He believes that spoken language is more active and suitable to express ideas as it has evolved naturally with the requirement of society.

3.3.11 Nandasena Ratnapala (1935-2007)

Nandasena Ratnapala, Professor of Sociology of University of Sri Jayawardhanapura, a creative writer, and a critique joined the struggle against the establishment of classical archaic grammar. Ratnapala in his article of “What is the secret to oppose a living language?” (In Sinhala) He wrote against the false ideas regarding the grammar and language which were populated by the purist movement during the first half of the 20th

Century. While refuting false concepts regarding grammar and language, he condemned the out dated archaic grammar as well as artificial enigmatic vocabulary coined by purists. He wanted to convince that grammar is changing with the evolution of language according to the requirement of the society. He also pointed out the importance of using living grammar and believed that outdated grammar will restrict the efficiency of the language. According to him, there are some grammatical inconsistencies even in the writings of those who argued for classical grammar.38

38 See, Nandasena Ratnapala, “Jeevamana basata erehi veeme rahasa kumakda?”, Dinamina, March 24, April 28-29, 1976, cited in Adata Obina Basa, ed. Ajit Tilakasena, Colombo: Godage, 1997). 132

Professor Nandasena Ratnapala in his article of “Which path our modern language should follow?” in 199739 says that now we are in the 21st Century. He points out that our challenges of today are different from those of the past. He draws our attention to the following orders. The language is changing and none of the force can stop it. The grammar of a language is system of its function. A grammar should not be a regulator which controls the language. He reminds us that during the 25 centuries written history of our language, all remaining language samples testify that the shapes and number of letters, words, grammar, and sentence structures have undergone change. He predicts that changing of orthography, discarding of unwanted letters, simplifying grammatical rules, narrowing the wide gap between spoken and written idiom will occur faster as a result of the expansion of the electronic and printed media. Apart from media, nowadays poets and fiction writers as well as some technical writers also tend to use spoken idiom seeking for simplicity and efficiency. He suggests that more experiment is needed for narrowing down of the wide gulf between spoken and written usages.

Hariscandra Wijetunga believes that Asians who have donated great civilizations to the world in the past have declined in many aspects, especially in language, because of being crown colonies for several centuries. Moreover, he says that having a classical history for any is not important if a language is not sufficient to express modern ideas effectively. He thinks that Sinhala language today faces many difficulties when confronted with modern requirements. If a language could express a great amount of current knowledge, that language could be considered as a developed language.

According to him, a language should not be a diehard one if a society needs to fix a

39 See, Nandasena Ratnapala, “Jeevamana basata erehi veeme rahasa kumakda?”, Dinamina, March 24, April 28-29, 1976, cited in Adata Obina Basa, ed. Ajit Tilakasena, Colombo: Godage, 1997).

133

language to suit modern requirements. Thus, it is essential to remove outdated elements from that language. He also points out that an old language does not suit for a modern society and a modern language does not prevail in an outdated society. Therefore, he suggests that the Sinhalese needs to modernize their language. For this they need an attitude change and they themselves have to get modernized. He supposes that language and society have to be changed concurrently. He opposes all kind of extremes that

Sinhalese follows while borrowing new words for modern requirements. He believes that we should not hesitate to borrow words from any language if they are sufficient to express new knowledge. He has given a list of words in many new languages which have been borrowed from other languages. He has stated that the German language has borrowed the word ‘Roboter’ from the Czech language. Therefore, he thinks we should not hesitate, be worried or be afraid of borrowing words from other languages. At the same time, we need not worry about the root of the word when it gets changed in the usage.

Wijetunga has pointed out that natural speakers of a language never face difficulties but people who study it or write in that language face some difficulties. He also states that many pundits and grammarians know the grammar of language, but they do not know the usage. He claims that though writing is not the use of a language and it is only a method of transforming a language to the state of the visible mode and some pundits believe that Sinhalese language is the written language and not the spoken language.

Since a written Sinhala grammar is not available for spoken language, those pundits do not consider spoken Sinhala as a grammatical language. But he believes that the real

Sinhala language is only the spoken variety and not the written variety. Citing

Webster’s Grammar, he asserts that ‘a grammar has to be formed on the basis of the structure of the language. Things which are not available in a spoken variety should not 134

receive any important position in a written language. A grammar is prepared to show the status of a language for students but not to teach that how it should be.’40 He draws our attention of the saying of Webster’s that ‘anything that is not available in the spoken variety of a language, does not deserve to be included in the grammar’. However, he says that some Sinhala pundits dictate the general public regarding should be grammatical issues of language based on the age-old written Sinhala usage without considering their relevance for the common spoken language. Not only that, he points out that some pundits want general public to talk using the written language. However, the common Sinhala people did not heed such nonsense he added. The most important thing is Wijetunga believes that linguists and pundits must plan a language, but that planning should be subjected to the approval of the common people.41 He suggests that we should not try to change the spoken variety according to written usage, instead we should change written variety in the lines of the spoken usage. Finally, he asserts that

Sinhala language must fulfil all requirements of both its rural and urban speakers.

Ajith Thilakasena is the only well-known contemporary writer who is fighting for an equivalent of the spoken idiom for writing and besides in the struggle he tries to practice his suggestions in his writings. He suggests the using [n] and [l] disregarding the use of cerebral [ṇ] and [ḷ]. In some occasions, he employs palatal [ʃ] instead of cerebral [ṣ].

He also suggests isomorphism of vowel signs of consonants and he uses a system devised by himself. At the same time, he uses same symbol to indicate long vowel of a consonant. However, only in the word [vyakaraṇa] he inserts [i] letter in-between [v] and half sign of [y] letters to follow colloquial pronunciation.

40 Harishchandra Wijetunga, “Bhasava ha Janatavata Ita eati Ayitiya”, Sanskruti, ed. K. C. Perera, 16 Vol. No. 1, 1969, 3-19. 41 Wijetunga, “Bhasava ha Janatavata Ita eati Ayitiya”, 10. 135

^úhdlr& [viyākǝrǝnǝ] instead of (ව්‍යාකරණ) [vyākǝrǝṇǝ]. Tilakasena has removed half sign of [y] letter and has employed [i] letter between [v] and [y]. ^jHjydr& [vyǝvǝhārǝ].

In this illustration, he uses half sign of [y] letter same as some other writers. කෘත්‍රිම

[krutrimǝ] කෘත්‍රිම ^NdYdj& [bhāʃāvǝ] instead of ^NdIdj& [bhāṣāvǝ]. In this illustration, he employs palatal [ʃ] letter instead of cerebral [ṣ] letter. In many instances, he employs palatal [ʃ] letter instead of cerebral [ṣ] letter because [ʃ] is easier for pronunciation. But he keeps aspirated [bh] letter. [niʃpǝlǝ] instead of (엒ෂ්ඵල) [niṣphǝlǝ]. In this illustration

(ශ්ටג) .[he replaces palatal [ʃ] for cerebral [ṣ] and non-aspirated [p] for aspirated [ph

ෂ්ට) [ʃiṣṭǝ]. In this illustration, he employs palatal [ʃ] letter forג( ʃiʃṭǝ] instead of] cerebral [ṣ] letter.42

Though he emphasizes spoken grammar he does not use spoken language pronouns instead he prefers to use written language pronouns such as [ohu] ^Tyq& (he), [ovuhu]

^Tjqyq& (they: nominative case), ]ovun[ (Tjqka& (they: accusative case) in his writings.

Ariya Rajakaruna, a retired professor in Sinhala, prominent critique and a translator pointed out that drastic language reforms have been introduced for Chinese and

Japanese languages after the World War II as they believed that language should be modified to cater to the modern requirements. While appreciating progressive ideas of some traditional scholars regarding the modernizing of Sinhala language, he expresses his remorse for the stance of modern linguists as well as the newspapers for supporting and maintaining classical idiom. He also argues that a standard is required today for the betterment of Sinhala literature as various styles and idioms are being used by rapidly increasing contemporary writers. However, he believes that a modern standard of

42 Ajith Thilakasena, Adata obina basa, 9

136

language should be prepared based on contemporary Sinhala language. He also criticizes the practice of correcting modern orthography or grammar comparing it with classical usage. Moreover, he stresses that Sinhala word division should be simple and variable, rather than strict rules it should follow the pronunciation. According to

Rajakaruna, the wide gulf between of spoken and written usages in Sinhala is changing gradually but it should not be done purposely. He also states that there is a learned, clear, brief state in written usage when compared with spoken usage of Sinhala.

However, he concludes that there should be a freedom to use spoken idiom for creative as well as academic writings if the writer want.43

G. B. Senanayake, a modern writer and a critique has pointed out that grammatical rules do not exist since living languages are changing in the course of time. He also argues that living languages cannot be confined to strict grammatical rules and if they do so that language will become a dead language.44

In the light of the knowledge of modern linguistics, many university teachers give support for colloquial grammar based written grammar. However, after 1970, the demand of colloquial grammar based written grammar in Sinhala gradually became dormant. The demand of spoken grammar based written grammar got diminished with the establishment of ‘standard’ for Sinhala language in 1989 by the National Institute of Education with the help of university teachers and other interested parties. A. V.

Suraweera (1930 - 2014) a University Professor in Sinhala, a well-known creative writer, a translator, and a critique believed that basically it is not possible to enact rules or codes for Sinhala language and it is not possible to follow rules while writing

43 Ariya Rajakaruna, “Sinhala basava kalanurupava venas viya yutui: Nutana yugayata gelapena sammata Sinhalayaka avasyatava”, Silumina, on 09. 03. 2008 44 G. B. Senanayake, Sahitya Dharmatava (1963), (Colombo: Godage, 2007), 47. 137

fictions. He also added that when a language change and become simpler when it employs in creative writing. He draws our attention for the Proposed Standard Grammar that was introduced by the Educational Publication Department for school textbooks.

He believes once that standard grammar uses in school text books for some time it will become a Standard in the end. However, he is happy with the subject predicate agreement in Sinhala and also, he says no one suggests changing it. But it is a serious issue which confronted by many novices as well as experienced writers in written

Sinhala.45

P. B. Meegaskumbura believes that a grammar is a common agreement of the people of that particular language community. He also added that grammar should be codified with the association of the usage of a language and it is also different from language to language. That agreement also changes from time to time with the consent of the people of that community. Otherwise a grammar is not a code of language which imposed is by grammarians or language experts.46 Wimal G. Balagalle a Professor in Sinhala says that the gulf between spoken and written usages in contemporary Sinhala language is enormous and narrowing down that gap is also possible. He suggests that it should be examined to identify whether it is fruitful or useful to reduce the gap of spoken and written usages. He also added that employing spoken language for writing is the best way to minimize the gap of both usages. He traces that some prominent Sinhala scholars have employed the spoken language for their writing very successfully. Finally, he draws our attention to the fact that majority of Sinhala scholars believe that except for fiction writing using classical grammar is effective and successful for academic and

45 A. V. Suraweera, “Veemansa”, The Lankadeepa News Paper, on 4th June 2013. 46 P. B. Meegaskumbura, “Sinhala Bhasha Reetivadaya ha Martin Wickramasinghe”, Martin Wickramasinghe Koggala Maha Pragnaya (1975), (Dehivala: Thisara, 2001), 113-114. 138

technical writing. This fact has been proved by Gunadasa Amarasekara, a novelist, poet as well as critique by saying that even [n/ṇ] and [l/ḷ] usage also necessary for literary appreciation in Sinhala. He also argues language experiments must be done in mass media but not in literature.47

3.4 Conclusion

It is apparent that the diglossic situation came into existence in Sinhala language as a result of employing of classical grammar in modern literature in 18th and 20th centuries.

This diglossic situation is in existence at each level of language and it confused novice and expert writers in Sinhala. It is clear we discussed under ‘the disagreement over grammar’ in this chapter that there was no agreement among language experts over some grammatical issues of school textbooks. Since these disagreements over grammaticality and the diglossic situation, certain individuals have been suggested many solutions to settle these issues. But unfortunately, they do not have united movement to achieve demands hence their suggestions remain scattered. At the same time, those who are in the highest position of language authority are satisfied with the present situation of the written idiom.

When we analyze the views of scholars mentioned above, we find that most of them believe that the grammar of a living language is changing and therefore, it is not possible to codify a fixed grammar for a living language. At the same time, it is not possible to adopt spoken language as it is, for writing, since there are many variations.

Therefore, the best possible solution is accepting spoken grammar for written language meanwhile many of them propose that nasal and retroflex variation of [n/ṇ], [l/ḷ] and

[s/ṣ] letters and aspirated and non-aspirated variance also should be excluded.

47 Gunadasa Amarasekara, “Mata mula indalama visala desapalana vinnanayak tibna”, The Lankadeepa, on 12. 02. 2009. 139

Chapter Four

Grammaticality in Practice

4.0 Introduction

The usage of various types of grammatical norms in different written activities will be discussed in this chapter. For that a single author’s writings has been selected as a case study to analyze various practices of contemporary Sinhala written language. Selecting a single Sinhala writer among many writers is not an easy task. In this regard, I had to observe the literary contributions of early modern Sinhala writers such as Piyadasa Sirisena, W. A. Silva, Martin Wickramasinghe and G. B. Senanayake as prominent modern Sinhala writers who have contributed to fiction, poetry, and critical writing.

While observing the writings of these authors, I paid special attention to the grammatical norms of their writings. The most interesting thing is some of these authors have contributed to the development of the Sinhala fiction language style and some of them have tested various language styles and grammatical norms during their career. At the same time, as we mentioned earlier the classical grammar (CG) based standard Sinhala writing had not been developed up to the present level when Piyadasa Sirisena, Martin Wickramasinghe and W. A. Silva embarked on their careers. The standard grammar based on classical Sinhala grammar was developed to its peak during the 30s of the 20th century through the edition of classical texts. A common grammatical norm and style has been selected by the majority of fiction writers since 1960s, though a few of them continued their experiments on grammar of fiction language.1

The main object of this chapter is to evaluate the way of practice of using the CG or Standard Sinhala Grammar SSG or the Spoken grammar in their writings. When I observe the grammar of the above authors’ writings, I basically paid my attention to how they use both spoken and written norms for fiction as they tend to use spoken idiom for dialogues and the written idiom for descriptions consequent to the diglossic situation. I try to observe whether they use standard spoken and written grammar or whether they try to deviate from those basic norms when they apply the language for

1 Martin, Wickramasinghe, Madolduva (1947), (Rajagiriya: Sarasa, 2002).

140 fiction. At the same time the usage of standard written grammar for critical writings were also critically studied to identify whether they have been able to apply standard written grammar as it is.

In analyzing those deviated samples, I will give the Sinhalese pronunciation in phonetic symbols within inverted commas, corrected version in square brackets and the English meaning within brackets. The actual form of the deviated words or sentences and some descriptions also will be provided when necessary. In the process of selecting a modern writer I left out our early modern fiction writers such as L. Isaac de Silva (1844 - 1907), Benthota Albert de Silva (1866 – 1919), A. Simon de Silva (1874 – 1920) and M. C. F. Pereira for several reasons. As Ariya Rajakaruna has pointed out, some of these writers have followed the vocabulary and language style of the 15th century prose for dialogues and descriptions.2 The main reason is that there was no established written idiom for fiction as well as technical writings at that time. Simultaneously, all the above authors had written only a few fiction with no critical or technical writings. Further, the CG based archaic grammatical rules had not been utilized in the early fiction. We begin with writers who had consciously followed some grammatical norms.

What I mean by grammaticalization in this thesis is a relative concept. There is an extremist view that the spoken language is totally ungrammatical. But this cannot be accepted as it is a wrong notion. Some traditional grammarians propagate this idea since spoken grammar is far removed from classical written grammar. The modern linguists who had studied the language have shown that spoken language has its own grammar, though there are a large number of variations in it. The standard grammar introduced by Kumaratunga and others of his school have introduced grammatical norms based on some classical texts (both prose and verse) and expect everyone to follow their dictate. This attempt itself has resulted in the widening of diglossic difference in Sinhala. However, the writers in their writing mix up the two varieties of spoken and written that leads to ungrammatical constructions. In my work I have particularly shown how some authors try to impose writing norm into spoken, making the language unintelligible mostly in the syntax. Works like Honda Sinhala (good Sinhala) by R.

2 Ariya Rajakaruna, Sinhala Navakatave Arambhaya, (Colombo: Godage, 1998), 124-125.

141

Tennakoon attempt to refine the language.3 These norms prevail as a part of the syllabi of school education with special emphasis on subject-object bination, compounding rules and orthographic and word division.

Thus, for educational purposes such norms are considered as grammatical and, in my analysis, I have pinpointed such instances restricting grammaticality to abnormal usages. Thus, in my view such abnormal uses are considered as ungrammatical.

4.1 Piyadasa Sirisena

Piyadasa Sirisena (1875-1946), is one of the most popular and influential journalists and a modern fiction writer of the 20th century, who made a lasting contribution to populate modern fiction among the Sinhalese community. His commitment to religious and national, sentiments against the colonial rule and selecting of appropriate subject matter made him a widely read author. The selling rate of his fiction testify the popularity of his Sinhala fiction. One of his novels had sold out all its 5000 copies within three months4 in 1921 at a time when the literacy rate was very low among the Sinhala community and the school education system also had not had deep roots. It is revealed that his romantic novel Vasanavanta Vivahaya hevat Jayatissa ha Rosalin (Lucky marriage or Jayatissa and Rosalin) which he wrote to a Sinhala News Paper in parts and published as a book in 1906 had sold out over 30,000 copies when it came to its 6th edition during 36 years.5 The most notable thing is the Sinhala speaking community was not more than over 5 million in the island and had low literary rate at that time. Sirisena wrote Vasanavanta Vivahaya hevat Jayatissa ha Rosalin to to propagate excellence of Sinhala Buddhist culture as a counter to an early fiction Vasanavanta ha Kalakanni pavulǝ (Lucky family and Miserable Family) which propagates the excellence of Christianity and condemned the Buddhist belief and the way of life by L. Isaac de Silva.

3 For more information, R. Tennakoon, Honda Sinhala, (Colombo: Sri Lanka Publisher’s Ltd., 1965) 4 For more information Piyadasa Sirisena, Valavvaka Palahilavva hevat Vickramapalage Tunveni Vickramaya, (Colombo: New Leela Press, 1948) 5 For more information Piyadasa Sirisena, “Preface”, Dingiri Menika, (Maradana: Oriental Press, 1956)

142

Sirisena was a key figure among the writers who sponsored the independence struggle. The main objective of his fiction was to popularize the distinctive nature of the Sinhalese Buddhist culture. He has clearly stated that his main intension of his writing was the eradication of all vices and crimes and the inculcating of virtue in the society. He says that through these novels he expected to promote religious, political, national and cultural matters. Between 1906-1944 Piyadasa Sirisena had written 19 fictional works dealing with religious and social issues. These included romantic novels, criticism of social issues, moral tales, detective stories, religious works etc. Thus, Piyadasa Sirisena used the vehicle of fiction basically to promote the subject matter of Buddhism that was always the aim of Sinhala literary works for over 25 centuries. In this revivalist attempt he also was concerned about the language and condemned some of the norms used by Christian writers as corrupt, branding the language used by them as Christian Sinhala, Church Sinhala and Bible Sinhala. By this he wanted to revitalize the Sinhala Buddhist linguistic culture and to critically point out the reasons for its decline.6

The language style of Sinhala fiction and the SSG had not reasonably developed during his time. His novels are replete with his own poems, quotations from classical Sinhala texts and Pali and Sanskrit didactic poems. Some of the chapters of his novels are totally composed of poetry.7 The spoken idiom has been employed for dialogues but sometimes it simply deviates towards learned language. CG based written idiom has been used for description. It should be noted that in this connection during the late medieval period, poetry was the most popular medium as against prose. Late medieval prose consisted of long compounds and sentence of extreme length. The following is a sample of his prose that is an admixture of spoken and classical prose norms.

1. [anē mahattmǝyō æyi magē ɉōn kǝmǝṭǝ oyǝ taram occan kǝranne? hod̃ayi ɉōn malāṭǝ rævulǝ kæpū katāntǝrǝyǝ mamǝ nævǝtǝ kiyannemi. ehet mē lōkǝyǝ avurudu siyak kōṭiyǝkǝṭǝ vaḍā parǝnǝ yayi kīve monǝ balǝyak piṭǝ dǝ? apē bayibǝlǝyē hevat dēvǝ vēdǝ purānǝyē hæṭiyǝṭǝ mē lōkǝyǝ mavā avurudu 5119ki.

6 For more information Piyadasa Sirisena, “Preface” Atbhuta Agantukaya, (Maradana: Oriental Press, 1956) 7 For more information Piyadasa Sirisena, “2nd chapter”, Ashtaloka Dharma Cakraya, (Maradana: Oriental Press, 1963)

143

katōlikǝ panḍitǝyangē ʃikhā mānikyǝyǝ vū ɉākōmē gonālvis tuāgē potǝ bæluvāmǝ me magē kīmǝ satyǝ bavǝ væṭǝhē.]8

(Oh Gentleman. why are you insulting me as such for having the name John? Okay, I will tell you again the story which says saving of the beard though John has died. With what kind of power, you say that this world is 1,000,000,000 years old? According to our Bible or the Devaveda Purānaya (Myth of creation) this world was created 5919 years ago. My saying will be proved if we refer to the book of Jacome Gonçalves who was the crest gem (head gem) of the Catholic Pundits.)

All bold words are not used in spoken Sinhala and they have entered these dialogues as an influence of classical prose.

According to spoken idiom or modern novel dialogue, the above bold words should be as follows.

[nævǝtǝ kiyannemi > āyet kiyannam; ehet > ēt; parǝnǝ yayi > parǝnayi; hevat > nætnam/nættaŋ; mavā > mavǝla; 5119ki > 5119yi; ʃikhā mānikyǝyǝ > cūḍā mānikyǝ; vū > veccǝ; satyǝ > ættǝ; væṭǝhē > væṭǝheyi.]

4.2 W. A. Silva

W. A. Silva (1890-1957) started his career as a writer of romantic fiction at the age of 16 years and confesses that his writing skills were very poor at the beginning. He had learnt Sinhala grammar and language only up to 5th standard and at the Wesleyan College but later he learnt classical Sinhala and Sanskrit languages with the help of a learned Buddhist monk. After learning Sinhalese grammar, he noticed some language and grammatical errors in his first novel and he also says that he noticed such language and grammatical errors in the writings of other prominent writers at that time. Moreover, he says that his fear regarding the writing skills and grammar was left off by the language errors that appeared in other writings of other prominent writers at that time. He also states that instead of confining to standard grammar he has experimented and changed his language style and grammar in almost all his publications. Therefore,

8 Sirisena, Ashtaloka Dharma Cakraya, 27

144 he mentions that he experimented with different styles in each of his novels and, he believes that a language should be an instrument which can change or alter according to the requirement of the writer and the content of different writings. Meanwhile he tries to convince that a writer should not confine to a standard notion of grammar or style once he needs to express his ideas and grammar should not be an obstruction to express ideas.9 These ideas are mentioned at the end of 1950 in the introduction for the fourth edition of his first novel ‘Siriyalatha or the Orphan Girl’, 40 years after its first edition.

The following quotation from Silva’s first novel shows that he also employed written idiom even in his dialogues.

2. [duvǝ, ægnǝs, obǝṭǝ āyubōvan kīmǝṭǝ nohot obǝ tani kǝrǝ damā yǣmǝṭǝ dæn maṭǝ kālǝyǝ pæminǝ tibē. ahō! obǝṭǝ itin kāgē pihiṭak dǝ? obē matu kālǝyǝ gænǝ kesē liyǝ vī æddǝ?” “anē, mǣniyǝni, mamǝ kesē taniyǝmǝ pasuvem dǝ?” “ægnus obǝvǝ davannē abhāgyǝya yi. ovu maṭat vadā loku abhāgyǝya yi. magē ɉīvitǝyǝ obǝgē ɉīvitǝyǝ men me taram duhkhǝ dāyǝkǝ novīyǝ. ē duk sæpǝ dekinmǝ yuktǝ viyǝ. ehi prǝthǝmǝ bhāgǝyǝ mamǝ itā sæpǝvat lesǝ gatǝ kǝlemi. ē sæpǝ mesē yayi duppat obǝṭǝ menehi kirīmǝ pavā nupuluvǝnǝ. ehet paʃcimǝ bhāgǝyǝ daruṇu dukin yuktǝ viyǝ…]10

(Daughter, Agnes, now the time has come to me to say you good bye or leaving you alone. Oh, what help do you have now? How is the way your future has been written?

Oh, mom how can I live alone? A

Agnus, what agonizes you is your misfortune. Yes, your misfortune is worse than mine. My life as bad as yours. My life was mixed with sorrow and comfort. In the first half of my life I lived in a very luxurious manner. It is very difficult even you to convince about my early luxurious way of life as you are poor. However, I suffered very badly in the later part of my life.)

9 W. A. Silva “Preface”, Siriyalatha, (Colombo, Godage, 1997), 1-2 10 ibid, 15-16

145

According to spoken idiom or modern novel dialogues, above bold words should be as follows.

[obǝṭǝ > oyāṭǝ; kīmǝṭǝ > kīyanṭǝ; nohot > nættaŋ; obǝ > oyāvǝ; kǝrǝ > kǝrǝla; damā > dāla; yǣmǝṭǝ > yanṭǝ; pæminǝ > ævilla; tibē > tiyenǝva; ahō! > anē!/ayyō!; obǝṭǝ > oyāṭǝ; obē > oyāge; matu > idiri; kālǝyǝ > kāle; kesē > kohomǝ, liyǝ vī > liyǝvilā] [mǣniyǝni > ammē; kesē > kohomǝ; pasuvem dǝ? > pahuveṭǝ dǝ?; obǝvǝ > oyāṭǝ; abhāgyǝya yi > karumǝyayi/avāsǝnāvayi; ɉīvitǝyǝ > ɉīvitē; obǝgē> oyāge; men > vāge; me taram > meccǝrǝ; duhkhǝ dāyǝkǝ > kanǝgāṭu; novīyǝ > nǣ; yuktǝ viyǝ > tibuna; ehi > ēke; prǝthǝmǝ > mul; bhāgǝyǝ > koṭǝsǝ; itā > godak/hug̃ak; sæpǝvat > sæpǝṭǝ; lesǝ > vidihǝṭǝ; kǝlemi > keruva; mesē > mehemǝ; yayi > kiyǝla; obǝṭǝ > oyāṭǝ; menehi kirīmǝ > hitāganṭǝ; nupuluvǝnǝ > bǣ; ehet > ēt; paʃcimǝ > antimǝ; bhāgǝyǝ > koṭǝsǝ/ kāle/; yuktǝ viyǝ > tibuna.]

This is another quotation from a dialogue of ‘Siriyalatha’ which shows how they used written idiom for dialogues at that time.

3. [mahatmǝyāṇeni, mīṭǝ dǣvuruddǝkǝṭǝ prǝthǝmǝ mamǝ æyǝṭǝ vivāhǝ yōɉǝnā kǝlemi. ehet ǣ īṭǝ nokæmǝti vūvāyǝ. ǣ eyǝ nopiligattāyǝ. e sē dǝ uvat mā sithi æyǝṭǝ pævǝti balǝvat prēmǝyǝ kisisēt adu novīyǝ. ē kāle æyǝ mā hā madǝ aprǝsannǝyen siṭiyā sæbǣ yǝ.]11

(Sir, two years ago I sent a marriage proposal. But she did not agree to it. She did not accept it. But the love in my mind for her is still the same. It is true that those days she was a bit upset with me.)

[mahatmǝyāṇeni > mahattǝyō; prǝthǝmǝ > issǝrǝ; æyǝṭǝ > eyāṭǝ; kǝlemi > kǝlā; ehet > ēt; ǣ > eyā; īṭǝ > ēkǝṭǝ; nokæmǝti > akæmǝti; vūvāyǝ > unā; ǣ > eyā; eyǝ > ēkǝ; nopiligattāyǝ > piligatte nǣ; e sē dǝ uvat > ehemǝ unat; mā > mage; sithi > hitē; æyǝṭǝ > eyāṭǝ; pævǝti > tibunu; prēmǝyǝ > ādǝrǝyǝ; novīyǝ > nǣ; æyǝ > eyā; mā hā > māt ekkǝ; > eyā; madǝ > ṭikak; aprǝsannǝyen > amǝnāpen; siṭiyā > hiṭiyā; sæbǣ yǝ > ættǝ]

11 Silva “Preface”, Siriyalath, 161

146

The above comparison testifies how much he has deviated from spoken idiom towards written idiom when he uses dialogues in his first novel.

The language style, vocabulary, and grammar of his third novel ‘Hingana Kolla’ (Beggar Boy) is far closer to contemporary life when compared with his first two novels. An idiom equivalent to the spoken language has been used for dialogues and the language style, vocabulary, and grammar of narrations are also closer to modern spoken in its language norms.

3. [tavǝ sati kīpǝyǝkin lamā hāmiṭǝ un hiṭi tæn pavā ahimi viyǝ. geval kārǝyā visin æyǝsatu sesu æd̃um kæbǝli kihipǝyǝ sahitǝ peṭṭiyǝ ṇayǝṭǝ tahanam kǝrǝnǝ ladi. mē nīti virōdī kriyāven ǣ sig̃anniyak vǝ daruvā dǝ genǝ mahamag̃ǝṭǝ bæssā yǝ.]12

(A few weeks later ‘Lamaahaami’ (Lady of the house) lost her residence. Her box with a few of her cloths was kept by the property owner as a settlement for her accommodation fee. She became a homeless vagrant and with her child was thrown on to road because of this illegal act of the property owner.)

Bold words of the above quotation are not usually used in spoken language. Those examples testify that he has not been able to avoid the influence of highbrow vocabulary even when he tries to employ spoken language for dialogues.

Nouns: [kriyāven > væḍen]

Pronouns: [æyǝ > eyā; ǣ > eyā]

Verbs: [Viyǝ > unā; kǝrǝnǝ ladi > keruva; vǝ > velā; genǝ > æran].

Prepositions: sesu > anik].

Postpositions: [sahitǝ > ekkǝ; dǝ > t; yǝ] these postpositions do not used in spoken Sinhala.

12 W. A. Silva, Hingana kolla, (Colombo, Godage, 1996), 37

147

Some dialogues in the novel of Hingana kolla are very similar to contemporary colloquial language. While using more colloquial vocabulary sometimes he uses written language pronouns such as [obǝ], [mā] and [apǝ] instead of [oyā], [mamǝ] and [api] respectively.

The following extract is a dialogue between a pregnant woman and a midwife.

4. i. [duvǝ bayǝ vennǝ epā. heṭǝ vagē venǝ koṭǝ oyǝ baren nidahas vennǝ læbēvi]. ii. [anē vinnǝbũ ammē samaharǝ daruvo mærilat bihi venǝvalu nēdǝ?] iii. [monǝva dǝ duvǝ obǝ mē kiyanne? obǝṭǝ ehemǝ deyak venne næhæ.] iv. [anē, ehemǝ venǝva nam koccǝrǝ ekak dǝ?] v. [duvǝ!] vi. [ovu amme ovu! maṭǝ mage daruvagen nam uvǝmanāvak næhæ] vii. [hā! hā! Duvǝ, ehemǝ kiyannǝ epā. Monǝ vidiyǝkin namut mavǝkǝṭǝ læbunu daruva daruva tamā!] 13 i. (daughter you don’t need to worry. You would be able to get relief from this burden around tomorrow.) ii. (oh, midwife, I have heard that some infants are stillborn. Aren’t they?) iii. (Daughter, what nonsense are you talking? Such a thing will not happen in your case.) iv. (please, how nice if such a thing happens to me?) v. (Daughter! [as a question or reprove) vi. (yes, mother yes, I have no need of this child.) vii. (No! No! daughter, don’t say like that. In whatever way, if a mother delivers a child, it will be a child of hers.) [bihi venǝvalu > læbenǝvalu; obǝ > oyā; mavǝkǝṭǝ > ammekuṭǝ]

The above extract is very similar in vocabulary and sentence patterns to a contemporary dialogue except the underline words [bihi venǝva], [obǝ], [mavǝkǝṭǝ] and so on. It was very difficult to get relieved of written Sinhala vocabulary even in their dialogues in spoken language. At the same time pronouns as, [oyā] which are used instead of [obǝ] considered today as low - brow usage by the elite Sinhala grammarians.

13 Silva, Hingana kolla, 35

148

The following extract proves that the Sinhala novelists have not been able to compose dialogues for novels even in the second decade of the 20th century without recourse to classical grammar.

5. [balǝ nīcǝ strī, tī mā godurǝṭǝ gattā madivǝ tavat ravǝṭannat hadannehi dǝ?]14

(See, lowly woman, in addition to taking me as your prey, are you further trying even to cheat me?)

[balǝ > balǝpiyǝ; nīcǝ > næhædiccǝ; strī > gǣni; tī > tō; mā > māvǝ; hadannehi dǝ? > lǣsti dǝ?]

The grammar and the vocabulary of the above sentence is similar to a sentence of a classical text. This type of vocabulary and sentences have been used for dialogues of movies, dramas and novels even in later the period.

Sinhala novelists would not have been able to free from the influence of classical vocabulary which has been used for praising people, incidents, and situations. For instance:

6. [hemin hemin tarunǝyāgē muhuṇǝṭǝ siyǝ muvǝ kamǝlǝ laŋ koṭǝ prēmāvǝnaddǝ taruniyǝkǝvisin e vænimǝ vū taruṇǝyekuṭǝ prǝdānǝyǝ kǝỊǝ hæki itā ʃrēṣṭhǝ tyāgǝyǝ vū cumbǝnǝyen ohuṭǝ saŋgraha kǝỊāyǝ.]15

(The young girl who was overcome by love for the boy gradually drew her lotus face towards his face and she treated him by kissing which is the most superior gift that she could give to such a youth.)

[muvǝ kamǝlǝ (lotus face) > mūnǝ/muhunǝ; cumbǝnǝyen (by kissing) > sipǝgænīmen]

14 Silva, Hingana kolla, 33 15 ibid, 18

149

[mrudu bhāṣitǝye]16 (by soft words) > [mrudu tepulen]; [sthanǝ kuṭmǝlǝyan]17 (pair of lily-buds) [sahaɉāvǝbōdǝyǝ]18 (natural understanding). All words here are of Sanskrit origin.

CG based standard written grammar has been used for descriptions while using colloquial usage for dialogues in his second novel Lakshmi hevat Nonesena Rejini (1922) (Lakshmi or the Immortal Queen). Sometimes Sanskrit ‘tatsama’ words with their Compound forms have been used in the descriptions. Sanskrit being a synthetic language is prone to make loud sounding sentences where compounding is a prominent feature, and the Sinhala writers who used Sanskrit vocabulary have the tendency to make similar expressions in Sinhala.

7. [apǝ katārambhǝyehi dī mē viɉǝyǝ srī mandirādhipǝti temē svakīyǝ pustǝkālǝyǝyehi rasāyǝnǝ vidhi sambandhǝ potak kiyǝvǝmin siṭiyēyǝ. Velāvǝ savǝsǝ hatǝ pamǝnǝ vū nisā potǝ kiyǝvīmen viḍāvǝṭǝ pat ohu dælvenǝ viduli pahanǝ desǝ net helā kalpǝnāvē yedī siṭinǝ atǝrǝ pustǝkālǝdvārǝyǝ vivrutǝ koṭǝ genǝ māṭin penī siṭiyē yǝ.]19

(When we just started our story the owner of the Vijayasri mansion was reading a chemistry book sitting in his own library. The time was 7 p.m. He was tired of this reading. He started to think while looking with eyes fixed on the burning lamp. Then Martin opened the door of the library and appeared before him.)

Except the underlined Sanskrit ‘tatsama’ compound words, the vocabulary, grammar and sentence structures are very similar to those of a contemporary novel.

An analogous spoken idiom, with spoken compound forms have been used in dialogues.

8. [mokǝdǝ mātin?] (Martin, what is the matter) [kavudǝ mahattǝyek ævilla sǝr] (A certain gentleman has come sir.) [kavudǝ mahattǝya?] (who is the gentleman?)

16 Silva, Hingana kolla, 20 17 ibid, 36 18 ibid, 10 19 W. A. Silva Lakshmi hevat Nonesena Rejina, (Senarat Nandadeva, 6th ed. 1962), 6

150

[perǝkǝdōruveklu] (He claims to be a proctor) [namǝ?] (Name?) [kāḍ ekǝ dunne næhæ sǝr]20 (He does not give the name card sir.)

The above dialogue is very similar in vocabulary and sentence structure to modern spoken Sinhala.

However, Sanskrit ‘tatsama’ words have been used in descriptions through the influence of classical Sinhala literature. The underlined words of the following quotation are Sanskrit ‘tatsama’ words which are rarely found in later fiction.

9. [ati prǝchanḍǝ vātǝ vruṣṭiyǝkǝṭǝ anǝturuvǝ mahā ʃāntǝtāvak æti vannāk men yaṭǝ kī āpǝdāven kæỊæbunũ Viɉǝyǝsiri pasuvǝ dā udǣsǝnǝ nisala sitin ālindǝyehi puṭuvǝkǝ hānsivī siṭinǝ atǝrǝ palāsǝ varnǝ vrukṣǝ latādiyen ubhǝyǝ pārʃvǝyǝ gævæsī gat paṭu mag̃ǝ ossē gruhābhimukǝvǝ enǝ vruddhǝyǝku duṭuvē yǝ.]21

(Though Wijayasri became confused because of the above said calamity, he became very calm the following day morning just like the calm which comes after a very fierce storm and was sitting on a chair in the verandah with a firm mind when he saw an old man coming toward his house through the narrow path which was interspersed with greenery flora.)

[ati > itā; prǝchanḍǝ > bihisunu; vātǝ > sulaŋ; vruṣṭiyǝkǝṭǝ > væssǝkǝṭǝ; ʃāntǝtāvak > nisansǝlǝkǝmak; palāsǝ > kolǝ; varnǝ > pæhæti/pāṭǝ; vrukṣǝ > gas; latādiyen > væl vǝlin; ubhǝyǝ pārʃvǝyǝ > depasǝ; gruhābhimukǝvǝ > nivǝsǝbalā; vruddhǝyǝku > væḍihiṭiyǝku]

This style has been used very widely in his second novel for reported dialogues.

10. [dinēsǝ, kimekdǝ? nub̃ǝ mā kuḍā atǝ daruvekæyi sitannehidǝ? maṭǝ uvǝmǝnā kǝrǝnǝ ārakṣāvǝ kumakdǝ? piyāt unhiṭi tænut hitǝvǝtunut næti vū maṭǝ tavat uvǝmǝnā kǝrǝnǝ ārkṣāvǝ kumakdǝ? dinēsǝ, maṭǝ uvǝmanā māgē

20 Silva Lakshmi hevat Nonesena Rejina, 6 21 ibid, 21-22

151

piyānanṭǝ vū dē dænǝ gænīmǝ misa senkǝḍǝgǝlǝ nuvǝrǝ yǣmǝ novē. Mamǝ tavat aḍiyak vat no tabǝmi. raɉǝ vāsǝlǝ vū deyǝ maṭǝ novalǝhā kiyǝvǝ.]22

(Dinesa, do you think I am a tiny baby in hand? What kind of security do I need? After losing my father, friends and home what else of security do I need? Dinesa, I never want to go to Senkadagala city and I only want to know what happened to my father. I will not take a single step. Disclose to me what happened in the royal palace without suppressing anything.)

[kimekdǝ? > mokakdǝ; nub̃ǝ > ubǝ;̃ mā > maŋ; kuḍā > puŋci; atǝ daruvekæyi > atǝdaruvek kiyǝla; sitannehidǝ? > hitǝnǝvadǝ; uvǝmǝnā > ōnæ; kumakdǝ? mokakdǝ; piyāt > tāttat; vū > veccǝ; uvǝmǝnā > ōnæ; kumakdǝ? mokakdǝ; uvǝmanā > ōnæ; māgē > mage; piyānanṭǝ > tāttaṭǝ; vū > unǝ; dænǝ gænīmǝ > dænǝ gannǝ ekǝ; novē > nevē; no tabǝmi > tiyanne nǣ; vū > unǝ; deyǝ > dǣ; novalǝhā > haŋgannætuvǝ; kiyǝvǝ > kiyǝpaŋ]

The language style of his detective novel Julihata (1943) (July 7: Julihata is a stock expression that is used to indicate a time of misadventures) is very simple and its vocabulary also has been enriched with colloquial usage compared to his early novels. The spoken idiom has been used for dialogues while using standard grammar for descriptions. Obviously, the language style of fictions which had been developed at that time has influenced him.

The third person feminine pronouns [æyǝ] have been used in dialogues which are not common in contemporary spoken language. Sometimes writers tend to use that pronoun in dialogues since there is no gender difference in Third-Person pronouns in spoken Sinhala today:

11. [æyǝṭǝ vayǝsǝ de vissǝkǝṭǝ vædi vennǝ bǣ.] (She can’t be over 22 years old.)

[æyǝgē mavǝ hē mǝ ɉīvatvǝ innǝvā dǝ?] (Is her mother alive?)

22 W. A. Silva, Sunetra hevat Avicarasamaya, (Colombo: Godage, 1996), 227

152

[nǣ. æyǝ maỊē bēruvǝlǝdi]23 (No. She died at Beruwala)

The underlined words of the above dialogues are Third Person feminine pronouns which usually are not used in spoken Sinhala today.

The object forms of some nouns and pronouns are also used in the dialogues.

12. [nǣ. evænnǝku gænǝ kiyannǝṭǝ maṭǝ matǝkǝ nǣ.]24 (No. I cannot recollect any remembrance about such a person.) [kussi ammat ekkǝ denneku innava]25 (There are two persons with the cook woman.) [nǣ. ē bavak mā danne nǣ.]26 (No. I don’t know about that.)

The underlined words of [vænnǝku], [denneku] and [mā] of the above sentences have given in the object form which are not available in spoken Sinhala.

Unlike in his early novels, a simple diction enriched with some colloquial terms have been used for descriptions in this novel. He has been able to abstain from using classical vocabulary and unnecessary descriptions which are influenced by classical literature that he had used in his early novels. Except using some form of pronouns which are not in use in contemporary spoken Sinhala such as the third person pronouns [æyǝ, ǣ, ohu], second person pronouns [obǝ] and the object form of the first-person pronouns [mā], [apǝ] almost all dialogues in his later fiction such as Deyyanne Rate ha tavat Kata (1927), Juli-hata (1943) are very similar to modern spoken Sinhala in vocabulary and even in sentence structure.

W. A. Silva has started his career as a Sinhala fiction writer at the beginning of the 20th century. As we pointed out earlier since the classical Sinhala grammatical code had not been resuscitated during the early period of his career, he experimented for a better language style. Trying for different alternatives especially pertaining to the subject

23 W. A. Silva, Juli Hata, (1943) (Beruwala: Peramuna Press, 1955), 57 24 W. A. Silva, Juli Hata, (1943) (Beruwala: Peramuna Press, 1955), 57 25 ibid, 62 26 ibid, 65

153 matter as could be seen in historical novels where he uses classical literary norms as against the contemporary themes where he resorts to spoken norms.

4.3 Martin Wickramasinhe

Martin Wickramasinhe (1890 – 1976) is known as ‘Maha Gatkaru’ (Great Writer) in modern Sinhala literature and his literary contributions spread over 60 years (1914 to 1975). He has started his career at the age of 19 years by composing his first novel Lila in 1914. He was credited with the authorship of 14 novels, 8 short story collections, 3 play scripts; 19 volumes of literary criticism; 3 books on anthropology; 6 books on philosophy; 2 auto-biographies, 3 biographies, 2 books on history and one travel report. All in all, Wickramasinghe is an intellectual and charming story teller, a novelist, a literary critic, a connoisseur of art and archaeology, a philosopher, and a journalist.27

The language style in his early novels such as Leela (1914), Soma (1920), Irangani (1923) and Seetha 1923 are similar to other contemporary fiction writers in language and style that consists of Sanskrit tatsama (loan) words. Classical Sinhala poetic expression and descriptions that are irrelevant and full of Sanskrit verbiage.

A few representative quotations from his early novels are given here to show his preference for Sanskrit loan words (underlined) and Sinhala poetic words (bold script).

13. [æḍmǝn punarɉīvǝyǝ laddakhu men nævǝtǝ denet vidǝhannǝṭǝ viyǝ. sōmāgē saumyǝ vaktrǝyǝ duṭu æḍmǝngē net kad̃ulin piruni.

lapirunu ʃōkǝyen yut sōmāgē muhunǝ æḍmǝngē muhunǝṭǝ vaḍāt laŋ viyǝ. ʃōkǝyen pelenǝ ægē siumæli detolǝ æḍmǝngē detolǝṭǝ laŋ viyǝ. ʃōkāgniyen tævī unusum vū ægē detolǝ æḍmǝngē detolǝṭǝ hā ek viyǝ.

dilisenǝ aŋgārǝ karṣuvak væni vū mārǝyāgē mukhǝ kuhǝrǝyehi væṭī siṭi æḍmǝnṭǝ tamā pem kǝlǝ kāntāvǝ visin denǝ ladǝ cumbǝnǝyǝ ohugē divagǝ tubū sumadu binduvak hā samǝ viyǝ. gunǝ vesesin hā rūpǝ lāvanyǝyen sapirisiri vū

27 Edmund, Peiris, “The Sage of Koggala”, Martin Wickramasinghe: Koggala Maha Pragnaya, (Sri Lanka: Thisara, 1975), 38-39

154

dæriyǝkǝgē sivumæli detolin lat cumbǝnǝyǝ parǝlovǝ genǝ giyǝ nohæki vuvat tarunǝ viyē vū æḍmǝnṭǝ nam vaṭinā dāyādǝyak viyǝ.

mārǝyā dayā virǝhitǝ dæḍi sitæti rakuseku hā samānǝyǝ. Eheyin ovungē saṭǝnǝ asǝmānǝ saṭǝnǝki. mārǝyāṭǝ atæg̃ili paharin prēmǝyǝ namæti ladǝruvā marā bimǝṭǝ hēmǝ kǝlǝ hækkēyǝ.]28

(Adman opened his eyes as if he got a new life. His eyes filled with tears when he saw Soma’s placid face.

With heart filled sorrow, Soma’s face came closer and closer to Adman’s face. Her tender lips became warmer as suffering with sorrow, joined together with adman’s lips.

The kiss given by his loving girlfriend was like a drop of bee’s honey that put into Adman’s mouth who has fallen into Mara’s (Mara, Lord of Death) mouth which is like a burning charcoal pit (chamber of a volcano)). The kiss given by the girl who was full of good conduct and beauty was a great gift to young Adman although he could not carry it to the life after death.

Mara is like a merciless and tough-minded monster. Therefore, the fight between Adman and Mara was a matchless fight. Mara can kill the infant of love with the tip of his fingers and make it sprawl on the ground.)

This description is not suitable for the occasion of the novel as the boyfriend is on the death bed. At the same time, this description has been decorated with classical Sinhala poetic words and Sanskrit loan words and some loan words like ‘aŋgārǝ karṣuvak’ are not familiar to the average Sinhala reader.

Though he has used spoken idiom for dialogues on many occasions sometimes his dialogues become a mixture of spoken and written idiom.

28 Martin, Wickramasinghe, Sita, (Maharagama: Saman, 1963), 13.

155

14. [gilberṭ rǣ ævidinṭǝ epāyayi kīpǝ vatāvak mamǝ ubǝ̃ ṭǝ avǝvādǝ kǝlā. Perēdā rǣ ekǝṭǝ pamǝnǝ avǝdivǝ mamǝ ubē̃ kāmǝrēṭǝ gohin bæluvā. namut ē velāvēvat ubǝ̃ kāmǝrǝyē hiṭiyē næhæ. mē palātē minisun yaṭin apǝ samǝgǝ taraha bavǝ apǝṭǝ īrṣyā kǝrǝnǝ bavǝ ubǝ̃ dannē næddǝ? ovun apǝṭǝ vacǝnǝyenut kriyāvenut gaurǝvǝ kǝrannē apǝ kerehi ovun tulǝ tibenǝ pæhædīmǝkin novē. dhanǝyat balǝyat yanǝ dekin yut apǝṭǝ ē gollǝ biyen garu sælǝkili kǝrǝnǝ namut hiten apē mālu kanǝ taram tarahayi. ubǝ̃ rǣ ævidinǝ viṭǝ horek haturek rækǝ siṭǝ galǝkin gasā anǝturak kǝlot monǝvā kǝranṭǝdǝ? ub̃ǝ mā kiyǝnǝ dē ahannē nættē mandǝ? ubǝ̃ tavǝmǝ punci ekekæyi sitā genǝ innǝvādǝ? dæn sellam kǝrǝnǝ kālǝyak nevī. hari hambǝ kǝrǝnǝ vayǝsayi…]29

(Gilbert, I have told you on several occasions not to go walking in the village in the night. I checked your room the day before yesterday night at 1.00 a. m. But you were not there even at that time. Don’t you know that the people of this area are jealous and against us covertly. They respect us by word and behaviour not because they are pleased with us. Though they respect us in fear because of our wealth and power, they are extremely angry with us. What can we do if a thief or an enemy does harm by throwing a stone at you when you roam in the night? Why don’t you listen to me? Do you think you are still young? This is not your playing age. This is the time to earn yourself…)

[epāyayi] > [epā kiyǝla]; [kǝlā] > [keruva]; [pamǝnǝ] > [vitǝrǝ]; [avǝdivǝ] > [avǝdi velā]; [kāmǝrǝyē] > [kāmǝrē]; [næhæ] > [nǣ]; [apǝ] > [api]; [samǝgǝ] > [ekkǝ]; [apǝṭǝ] > [apiṭǝ]; [ovun] > [evun]; [apǝṭǝ] > [apiṭǝ]; [apǝ] > [api]; [kerehi] > [genǝ]; [ovun tulǝ] > [evunge]; [tibenǝ] > [tiyenǝ]; [novē] > [nevē]; [yanǝ > [kiyǝnǝ]; [yut] > [tiyenǝ]; [apǝṭǝ] > [apiṭǝ]; [ævidinǝ viṭǝ] > [ævidinǝ] [koṭǝ]; [rækǝ siṭǝ] > [rækǝ id̃ǝlai]; [gasā] > [gahala]; [kǝlot] > [keruvot]; [mā] > [maŋ]; [mandǝ]? > [æyi]?; [ekekæyi] > [ekek kiyǝla]; [sitā] > [hitā genǝ].

Wickramasinghe developed his fictional language up to the modern fiction writer’s level with the Gamperaliya (Uprooted village) in 1944. Until that time his language usage was similar to that of contemporary Sinhala fiction writers. At the same time,

29 Martin, Wickramasinghe, Sita, (Maharagama: Saman, 1963), 13

156 though he followed standard written idiom to some extend in his writings he was not happy with the CG base written standard. He continuously supported for the usage of equivalent of spoken language for written Sinhala.

Since Wickramasinghe fought against the purist movement and the establishment of classical grammar his writings were heavily criticized by purists. When Wickremasinghe’s children’s story book ‘Madolduva’ [maḍoldūvǝ] an adventure story, (recommended for Senior School Certificate Examination in 1951 as a text book) one of the popular purists published a book criticizing its unethical contents and incorrect language usage.30 Madolduve heti has pointed out the errors such as unethical ideas for school kids, word division, corrupted usage, grammatical errors, funny usage in the noel. The author has criticized all types of above said errors chapter by chapter, according to the purist’s point of view. Gunawadu presents erroneous usages in Madolduva and corrected version of them in his book according to the purist’s point of view. However, I do not want to discuss matters related to ethics but only include matters related to language usage. Therefore, I prefer to discuss here Gunawadu’s criticisms related to word division, corrupted usages, and grammatical errors.

Word Division:

Word division was not consistent in Sinhala language in the past when it was written down on palm leaves and hard materials such as rocks, metals and terracotta and even in early printed materials. However, word division came to be considered seriously with the expansion of the printing tradition and the influence of English language. There are several styles of word division in practice in the contemporary Sinhala language namely the purist’s style, Editor’s Board style and Sinhala Lekhana Ritiya style. Thus, Gunawadu has corrected some usages related to word division in Madolduva according to the purist’s style. However, some practices in Madolduva fit with the Editor’s Board style and the Sinhala Lekhana Ritiya style. Therefore, I provide here the usage in Madolduva and corrected form of Gunawadu as a purist and the way it should appear

30 For more information, Amarasiri Gunawadu, Madolduve heti, (Maradana: Oriental, 2545 B.E.)

157 according to Editor’s Board style and Sinhala Lekhana Ritiya style in the following table.

Table 4.1 Comparison of Madolduva and Purist Grammar

Madolduva Purist’s Style Editor’s Sinhala Board style Lekhana Ritiya Style [palhoru] (robbers) [pal horu] [palhoru] [palhoru] [magē] (mine) [ma-gē] [magē] [magē] [novīyayi] (did not happen) [no vī yæ yi] [novīyayi] [novīyayi] [vaḍāgenǝ] (a baby holds in hand) [vaḍā-genǝ] [vaḍāgenǝ] [vaḍāgenǝ] [ḷaŋvǝ] (being close) [ḷaŋ væ] [ḷaŋvǝ] [ḷaŋvǝ] [gǣnungē] (of women) [gǣnun gē] [gǣnungē] [gǣnungē] [katābaha] (conversation) [katā baha] [katābaha] [katābaha] [undǣgen] (of him/her) [undǣ gen] [undǣgen] [undǣgen] [edā] (that day) [e dā] [edā] [edā] [noesē] (it is not) [noe sē] [noesē] [noesē] [bælūhǝ] (watched pl.) [bælū hǝ] [bælūhǝ] [bælūhǝ] [kāṭǝvat] (talk also) [kāṭǝ vat] [kāṭǝvat] [kāṭǝvat] [piṭǝvūhǝ] (go away pl. [piṭǝ vū hǝ] [piṭǝvūhǝ] [piṭǝvūhǝ] [depā] (both legs) [de pā] [depā] [depā] Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

Though the above examples in Madolduva do not fit with the purist’s word division style all those examples fit with the other two styles word division in Sinhala.

Madolduve heti has pointed out some corrupted usages of the Madolduva, according to the purist’s style. The following table shows the differences and similarities among Madolduva usages with the purists’ style and spoken usage.

158

Table 4.2 Differences and Similarities Among Madolduva Usage with the Purists’ Style and the Spoken Usage

Madolduva Purist’s Common Spoken Style Written Usage Usage [hæḍ͂ uvē] (made of) [hæḍ͂ ūyē] [hæḍ͂ uvē] [hæḍ͂ uvē] [anik] (other) [anek] [anik] [anik] [haḍ͂ anṭǝ] (tomake) [haḍ͂ annṭǝ] [haḍ͂ anṭǝ] [haḍ͂ anṭǝ] [parakkǝrǝnǝ] (lull) [naḷǝvǝnǝva] [naḷǝvǝnǝva] [parakkǝrǝnǝ] [ahaḷǝ] (nearby) [ahalǝ] [ahaḷǝ] [ahalǝ] [kīvē](said) [kīyē] [kīvē] [kīvē] [pig̃anvǝlǝṭǝ] (to plates) [pig̃ānvǝlǝṭǝ] [pig̃anvǝlǝṭǝ] [pig̃anvǝlǝṭǝ] [madi] (not sufficient) [mad̃i] [madi] [madi] [pahaki] (a five) [paseki] [pahaki] [pahaki] [velad̃āmǝ] (business) [veled̃āmǝ] [velad̃āmǝ] [velad̃āmǝ] [mallige] (of younger brother’s [mallīge] [mallige] [mallige] [ekoḷahaki] (an eleven) [ekoḷoseki] [ekoḷahaki] [ekolahayi] [æḷǝkǝ] (of a stream) [æḷekæ] [æḷǝkǝ] [ælǝkǝ] Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

Almost all words in the Madolduva are very similar to the spoken usage and common written tradition. Some usages like [parakkǝrǝnǝ] has been used in Madolduva to conform with the regional dialect of the area.

According to the purist’s norm Gunawadu has pointed out grammatical errors of 107 sentences of the first chapter, 133 sentences in chapter two, 216 sentences in chapter three, 51 sentences in chapter four, 104 sentences in chapter five, 129 sentences in chapter six, 147 sentences in chapter seven, 253 sentences in chapter eight, 313 in chapter nine and 366 in chapter ten of Madolduva. Among those errors most of them are rare spelling mistakes erroneous form of words according to the purist point of view. I could identify very few deviations of the form of words such as [pirimihut] instead of [pirimit]. At the same time, several sentences which have deviated from the standard norms of subject predicate agreement have been pointed out by Gunawadu. The following sentences have deviated not only from the purist point of view but also from

SSWG.

1. [ɉnnāgē namǝ kisivek nokī yǝ.] (No one mentioned Jinna’s name) 2. [kæṭǝkin paharǝ læbū ekā daruvanṭǝ banimin giyā yǝ.] (Those who were pelted by a stone went away scolding the children.)

159

3. [ohu dorǝ vasā yaturǝ gattā yǝ.] (He closed the door and took the key.) 4. [tāttā pasumbiyǝ ædǝ rupiyal tihak genǝ iskōle hāminēṭǝ dunnā yǝ.] (Father took the purse out and gave thirty rupees to the wife of the school master.) 5. [iskōle hāminē sinā semin kīvē yǝ.] (The wife of the school master said while smiling.) 6. [ekek kǣgæsūhǝ.] (One shouted.) 7. [kisivek nokeḷē yǝ.] (No one did.) 8. [api kīvemi.] (We said.) 9. [api āpasu gos poḍi gamǝrālǝṭǝ maḍol dūvǝ piḷibad̃ǝ torǝturu kīvemi.] (We went back and told Podi Ralahami the news about the Madol island.) 10. [mamǝ vaḍāt væren …. oruvǝ padǝvannǝṭǝ vīmu.] (I rowed the boat more forcefully.) 11. [ætæmek kǝḷē yǝ.] (Someone did.) (i) The subject of the first extract [kisivek] (someone) is an indefinite plural pronoun and the final verb [nokī yǝ.] (said sin.) has been given in singular. According to SSWG the final verb should be in the plural form as [nokī hǝ.];

(ii) The subject of the second extract [ekā] is a masculine singular noun but the final veb [giyā] has been given in the singular feminine form. Therefore, the final verb shoud be given in masculine singular form as [giyē ] to conform the with masculine singular subject.

(iii) The subject [ohu] of the third sentence is a masculine singular pronoun and the final verb [gattā] is in the singular feminine form. To conform with the masculine singular pronoun [ohu] the final verb also should be changed to the masculine singular form as [gattē].

(iv) [tāttā] (father) is a singular masculine noun and the final verb [dunnā] has been given in the feminine singular form. To conform with the subject, the final verb also should be given in the masculine singular form as [dunnē];

160

(v) [iskōle hāminē] is a feminine singular noun but the final verb [kīvē] of that sentence is in the masculine singular. Therefore, the final verb should be changed into the feminine singular form as [kīvā];

(vi) The subject of this sentence is [ekek], and it belongs to the singular indefinite category but the final verb [kǣgæsūhǝ] has been given in the third person plural form. Therefore, the final verb should be given in the third person singular form as [kǣgæsuvē yǝ];

(vii) [kisivek] is a third person indefinite plural pronoun and the final verb [nokeḷē] is a third person singular final verb. To conform with the subject the final verb has to be changed into the third person plural as [nokeḷǝ hǝ];

(viii) The subject [api] of both the eighth and ninth sentences are first-person plural pronoun but the final verb [kīvemi] of these have been given in the first-person singular form and it also should be changed into the first-person plural form of [kīvemu];

(ix) [mamǝ] is a first-person singular pronoun but the final verb [vīmu] is in the first-person plural form. To conform with the first-person singular subject the final verb also should be changed into the first-person singular form as [vīmi];

(x) [ætæmek] is a third person indefinite plural pronoun and the final verb [kǝḷē yǝ] has been given in the third person singular form. Therefore, the final verb also should be changed into third person plural form as [kǝḷǝ hǝ].

The most important observation here is that all the above changes have been corrected in later editions of the Madolduva to conform with SSG or SSWG.31 At the same time, he has listened to some fair criticism related to spelling mistakes and changes have been done where necessary. Wickramasinghe has changed some corrupted usages like [pirimihut] as [pirimit], and spelling mistakes like [marǝṇǝvā] as [marǝnǝvā] in his later

31 For more information, Wickramasinghe, Madolduva (1947), (Rajagiriya: Sarasa, 2002).

161 editions of Madolduva.32 However he has not corrected some spelling mistakes like [udǝḷu] even in later editions though they contradict with the contemporary standard.33 The later editions of Wickramasinghe’s novels and his later publications testify that this criticism has been effected to uplift the grammar and the language style of his fiction.

Wickramasingha has continued his language experiments in the latter part of his life even his last fiction ‘Bavataranaya’. While using contemporary standard grammar he tends to use some words according to the common peoples’ pronunciation.

[sākkiyǝ] < [ʃākyǝ]; [baddiyǝ] < [bhaddiyǝ]; [adipǝti] < [adhipǝti]; [sāstǝrǝyǝ] < [ʃāstrǝyǝ]; [ɉainǝ] (chsk < ffck); [vaidikǝ] (jhsosl < ffjosl); [darmǝyanṭǝ] < [dharmǝyanṭǝ].

On the other hand, some Sanskrit or Pali borrowings have been used according to standard Sinhala writing norms.

[prākrutǝyǝ], [upǝniṣad], [viʃvāmitrǝ], [rāɉǝʃuyǝ], [kṣatriyǝ], [vrukǝyeki], [antahpurǝ].

Grammatical deviations have occurred even in his last novel when he employs SSWG for narrations in Bavataranaya:

15. [dēvǝdattǝ kapilǝ ādīhu satun vidǝ mærīmen pasu un vit kā væṭunu tæn āyāsǝyen soyǝmin kælǝyǝ mædin giyē mahat garvǝyen hā santōsǝyeni.]34

(After shooting down animals, both Devadatta and Kapila went through the forest searching them very pride and pleasure.)

According to the structure of the above sentence [ādīhu] has been given in the subject form but there is no final verb to subject it. Therefore, it should be in the accusative case as [ādīn].

32 Wickramasinghe, Madolduva (1947), (Rajagiriya: Sarasa, 2002). 11-12. 33 ibid. 81. 34 Bavataranaya (1973), (Dehiwala: Thisara, 1975), 21

162

Modern Sinhala fiction writers who entered the field in the 19th century and the first half of 20th century excluded colloquial usage instead they opted for CG and the vocabulary according to their understanding.35 According to modern SSWL there are some grammatical deviations found in modern Sinhala fiction language up to the 1940s. At the same time, there were some inconsistencies of the language style such as using Sanskrit and classical Sinhala poetic vocabulary for narration and mixing written grammar and vocabulary with spoken vocabulary and grammar for dialogues and other admixtures. Though Sinhala fiction writers were able to establish a common accepted language style for fiction during the 1940s still there are some deviations after the 1940s and even later. Therefore, I decided to select G. B. Senanayake a writer who embarked in his career after the establishment of classical grammatical norms and one who followed that style throughout his literary career.

4.4 G. B. Senanayake

For this analysis as a modern writer Gunaratne Bandara Senanayake (1913 - 1985) widely known as G. B. Senanayake has been selected since he has been active in a wide range of literary activities from 1940s to 1980s. He embarked on his career as a writer after the establishment of CG base written grammar and he himself followed that norm as much as possible. As he has mentioned in the latter part of his career, he could read grammatically correct sentences when someone transcribed his fiction or critical essays as a result of long-term practice. He also added that even after being blind he did not like to use spoken idiom when he dictates to another person. He believed that employing spoken idiom for his writing is a disrespect for his long-term practice since his childhood as well as a disgrace to the civilization or the culture where he grew up and respected. He also believed that written idiom should exist in the Sinhala language and also, viewed that employing the spoken idiom for writing as an act of uneducated people.36 When we observe the above Sinhala writers. I am convinced that G. B. Senanayake is one of the most suitable writers to examine the practice of employing the written idiom.

35 Wimal G. Balagalle, “Martin Wickramasinghage Vasyavachobhavaya ha Basa Pilibanda Ohuge Sankalpa”, Martin Wickramasinghe: Koggala Maha Pragnaya, (Dehiwala: Thisara, 1975), 202 36 Senanayake, G. B., Vini Vidimi Andura, (Colombo: Godage, 1984), 7

163

He has contributed to a wide range of literary works from 1940s to 1980s for over 40 years. These includes 17 novels such as Medha (1964), Caarumukha (1965), Varadatta (1967), Avaragira (1974), Kekerilla (1976), Rala Binduma (1976), Malapuduva (1977), Jala Gelma (1979), Benduma (1980), Ruva (1983), Uragala (1984), Mudupani (1985), Keles sayura (1989), Ekata Eka (1990) though he was widely honored as short story writer. His short story collections are Duppatun Neti Lokaya (1945), Paligeniima (1946), Mituriya (1963), Gamana (1983) and Netuma (1990). He has composed 5 poetry collections such as DelKavluva (1973) Vindimi (1975), and Sevaneli (not given), but his early poetic works which were the earliest samples of free verses in Sinhala poetry were published in-between the short stories in Paligeniima in 1946. He also has published six critical academic writings namely Navakata kalava (1946), Batahira Sresta Navakata (1955), Vicara Pravesaya (1960), Sahitya Sesat (1957), Sahitya Vigrahaya (1961), Sahitya Dharmatava (1963). Sahitya darsana situvili (1982), Vinivindimi andura (1984), Mage situm petum (1986), Mama eda saha ada (1991) which are among his biographies. His 6 fables are as follows Mal Kumari, Maha lobaya, Haal messa, Rat handun rupaya, Amba katava, and Heenaya. He translated the famous poetic work of Omar Khayyam as Rubaiyat into Sinhala.

G. B. Senanayake hails from a middle-class village background which has had a profound effect on his life. The English education which he received later made him a sophisticated writer who was well acquainted with Western literature as well as Buddhist literature two of the influences one could trace in his writings.

4.4.1 Grammar and Language Style of G. B. Senanayake

As a writer Senanayake has opted for standard Sinhala written language following a middle way leaving aside both the purist style and the highly Sanskritized style that were popular as learned varieties during that period. However, the purist style was not able to attract fiction writers though it was very popular since the 1940s. Though the highly Sanskritized style attracted the fiction writers during the 1920s and 30s, the language style followed by Senanayake was established in Sinhala fiction writing before he began his career.

164

Senanayake himself believes that his language style is easy to understand as a result of short sentences and common and simple vocabulary. He has disclosed in the final stage of his career that he has written all kinds of writings to a hidden sample reader who lived in his mind. Senanayake knew his sample readers level of language skill and he has compared his writings with the hidden reader’s knowledge. He also added that though his language style is easy to understand it is very difficult to write. His main intention was to employ a simple but stately language style for his writings. To maintain that stately style he has opted to use only suitable words very carefully, which has left away uncommon or difficult Sanskrit vocabulary, and has used limited words. He also claims that he has used a different style for each genre such as fiction, poetry and critical essays. At the same times he accepts that his language style also has been developed or evolved throughout his career. One of his intentions was to deviate from the language styles of his early creative writers.37

In this chapter under ‘grammaticality’ we hope to analyze the usage of orthography, words, and syntax under the parameters of SSG. In doing so we would be able to understand the capability of a writer to follow such grammatical tradition which is far removed from the spoken idiom and close to classical grammatical norms.

4.4.2 Orthography

Senanayake prefers to follow impartial vocabulary and a language style which is free from both purist and Sanskritized styles that came to be popular among Sinhala writers. Though there were no Sinhala dictionaries to check the orthography at the time, there are very few orthographic deviations from the standard like [gælǝpǝti]38 [gælǝpeyi]39 (he has opted for dental [l] instead of Retroflex [ḷ] in all kind of his writings.

4.4.3 Word Division

Word division is also one of the controversial issues in contemporary Sinhala. It was not an important issue when writing on palm leaves before introducing the printing

37 G. B. Senanayake, Sahitya Darsana Sitivili, (Colombo: Godage, 1982), 40-45 38 G. B. Senanayake, Navakatha Kalava, (Colombo: Gunasena, 1954), 6 39 ibid, 26

165 technology. Today it has become an important issue with the influence of western languages and the printing technology. However, though there is a common standard for word division in Sinhalese language introduced by the Sinhala Lekhana Reetiya, there are several standards available today and writers tend to select any one standard according to their choice.

Senanayake has selected a similar standard close to that followed by ‘Hela Havula’ school which was popular during the outset of his writing career. As compounding is an optional feature in modern Sinhala, authors prefer to use pair words separately.

16. [yānǝ vāhǝnǝ] (all type of vehicles), [kǣm pīm] (all type of food and beverage), and so on. He also separates all types of prepositions such as [no hæki yǝ]40 (cannot), [ē vā]41 (those things), [esē yǝ] (in that manner) [pasu vǝ] (later) [prǝdhānǝ vǝ]42 (as a chief or main), [no hē]43(cannot) and the like. Sometimes he has separated some compound words such as [mahā ɉanǝyā]44 (general public) as also using it as a single word like [mahaɉanǝya]45. Sometimes we can see those words together such as [darunælǝvili]46 (lullabies), [potǝpatehi]47 (in books), [koṭǝgænīmehi]48 in his writings. Sometimes those could be printing mistakes or errors of that type could happen as a result of negligence.

4.4.4 Phonology

Sometimes Senanayake does not use length signs for long vowels of “ē, ō” that have been combined with consonants such as:

40 G. B. Senanayake, Vindimi, (Colombo: Pradeepa, 1975), 64 41 ibid, 65 42 G. B. Senanayake, Saahitya Dharmatava, (Colombo: Gunasena, 1963), 84 43 ibid, 84 44 ibid, 66 45 ibid, 86 46 ibid, 85 47 ibid, 85 48 ibid, 85

166

17. [sēvǝkǝyo]49 (servants), [lēkǝkǝ]50 (writer), [vēdǝnā]51 (feeling), [dēʃǝpālǝnaɲǝyan]52” (politicians). [rōgǝyǝ]53 (disease), [ʃōkǝ]54 (sorrow).

Traditionally some Sinhala writers did not use any signs to illustrate the length in /ē/ and /ō/ in Pali and Sanskrit borrowings. /ē/, /ō/ vowels of Pali ‘tatsama’ words are usually long except before double consonants. The Sinhala writers too followed this norm in their writing of Pali words. G. B. Senanayaka followed this when he used Sanskrit and Pali loan words.

4.4.5 Morphology

While using contemporary standard written language vocabulary he sometimes mixes the classical poetic words in his creative enterprise. Sometimes he has used older models such as [malni]55 (O’ flowers: vocative case) which has been created following such words as [netin] (O! eyes) in Kavsilumina a classical poetic text of the 13th Century. He also has coined the word [nuvariya]56 (urban lady) following the classical word [nuvaru] (urban people). However, in the same verse he has used the common contemporary usage [nuvara geheniya] (urban lady) instead of [nuvariya] (urban woman). Sometimes he has used very old nominal verb [bami]57 (I am afraid) which can be seen in the oldest Sinhala prose The Dampiya atuva getapadaya in the 10th century. He has also employed the classical pronoun [uhu]58 (they: plural subject form) in many occasions as a subject form of pronoun [un] (they) which is usually used in case of animals or derogatorily in case of people. Though he changes the normal prose order in his later poems, he rarely changed the standard grammatical norm, word division, orthography.

49 G. B. Senanayake, Saahitya Dharmatava, (Colombo: Gunasena, 1963), 87 50 ibid, 91 51 ibid, 82 52 ibid, 89 53 ibid, 82 54 ibid, 87 55 Senanayake, Vindimi, 49 56 ibid, 52 57 ibid, 51 58 ibid, 80

167

Senanayake has coined some words like [rōmǝkǝyan]59 (Romans) for his prose writings following the word [greekǝyan] (Greeks). Instead of [rōmǝkǝyan], [rōmānuvan] is the most popular usage in contemporary Sinhala which has been derived from the English word ‘Romans’. When we make pair words, compounds (samāsǝ) and combination (sandhi) we do not use Pali or Sanskrit loan words and Sinhala words together but Senanayake sometimes uses Sanskrit and Sinhala words together like [vāgbahulǝ]60 (wordy) instead of [vāgbāhulyǝyǝ] (wordy). Using the same variety of words is the usual practice in the Sinhala language.

While using standard Sinhala written usage Senanayake has deviated from classical grammatical norms, and those forms are very common even in some expert Sinhala scholarly writings. Sometimes he has used [bhāṣāvan]61 (languages) as the plural object form of the word [bhāṣā] (languages). According to standard Sinhala written language norms the subject and the object form of neuter gender nouns should be the same. However, many contemporary Sinhala writers tend to use masculine plural object suffix [an] with neuter gender nouns to make the plural object form of neuter gender nouns. According to traditional Sinhala grammarians the word [bhāṣāvan] should be the object form of the masculine gender subject form of [bhāṣāvō]. However, contemporary Sinhala writers tend to use both [bhāṣā] and [bhāṣāvan] as the object form of neuter gender nouns. He also has used many such words like [sabhyatvǝyanhi] (in civilizations) and [samāɉǝyanhi] (in societies) instead of [sabhyatvǝvǝlǝ] and [samāɉǝvǝvǝlǝ] respectively. When the neuter gender noun appears as the subject of the sentence Senanayake has used the stem form as the plural form. [samāɉǝ nojek hētu nisā venas vannē yǝ.]62 (Societies change due to various reasons) In this sentence the base form has been used as the plural, but he does not use the same form as the object though both subject and object forms neuter gender nouns are the same in SSG.

Senanayake and many other contemporary writers prefer to use the suffix [an] with neuter gender nouns to make them plural, but the correct way is to keep them as the plural subject form as there is no difference between the subject and the object forms

59 Senanayake, Saahitya Dharmatava, 55 60 ibid, 67 61 ibid, 1 62 ibid, 80

168 of neuter gender nouns in Sinhalese language. There are several ways of making the plural form of neuter gender nouns in Sinhalese language. Some neuter gender nouns do not take any suffix to make the plural form and just the base form illustrates the plural word. Some neuter gender nouns take the suffix of [val] such as [pārǝ] (road) + [val] (plural suffix) > [pārǝval] (roads), [ge] (house) + [val] (plural suffix) > [geval] (houses) to illustrate the plural form. Senanayake also has used the suffix [val] in some occasions [raṭǝval]63 and [raṭǝvalǝ]64 while using the suffix [an] very frequently to make the object form of neuter gender nouns. Simultaniously, he has used two different suffixes of [vǝlǝ] and [anhi] for the Locative case with the same word such as [samāɉǝyanhi]65 and [samāɉǝvǝlǝ]66, [navǝkatāvǝlǝ]67 [ɉātivǝlǝ] and [samāɉǝvǝlǝ]68while using the suffix [anhi] with the same words for the same meaning.

As we pointed out earlier today many Sinhala writers tend to use the style of making the plural object form of neuter gender nouns as the way they do with masculine gender nouns by adding the suffix of [an] with neuter gender nouns. Though the subject and object forms of masculine gender nouns are different in Sinhalese the subject and the object forms are similar in neuter gender nouns. Still it seems that many Sinhala writers want to make the object form different from the subject form of neuter gender nouns though the subject and object forms are similar. There could be three reasons for this behaviour.

I. Sometimes writers are not happy with the use of the suffix [val] that should be added to the neuter gender nouns to make the plural form. II. Sometimes they use the object form of the neuter gender noun the masculine gender object suffix [an] since they do not know that the subject and the object form are the same in neuter gender nouns. III. Sometimes they may need to differentiate between the subject and the object forms of neuter gender nouns.

63 Senanayake, Saahitya Dharmatava, 3 64 ibid, 3 65 ibid, 4 66 ibid, 10 67 ibid, 12 68 ibid, 13

169

Therefore, they employ the masculine gender object suffix [an] to some neuter gender nouns to make the plural object forms of them.

18. [varnǝnǝyan]69 (colours); [yāgǝhōmǝyanhidī]70 (in Hindu rituals); [ʃabdǝyangē]71 (of sounds); [aŋgōpāŋgǝyan]72 (features or parts); [racǝnǝyangen]73 (by writings); [kāvyǝyanhi]74 (of poems).

Sometimes Senanayaka has used both stem form and the /an/ suffix imputed forms [kāvyǝ] (poems) and [kāvyǝyan]75 (poems) and [dōṣǝ] (deficiencies) and [dōṣǝyan] (deficiencies) as the object forms.

The dative case suffix [vǝlǝṭǝ] has been used vith the Sanskrit Tatsama word [kathā] (story) and the stem form [kathā] (story) itself has been used as the plural object form.76

Sanskrit tatsama stem form [bhāvǝ] (feelings) has been used with plural suffix [-an] several occasions as the object form in the same paragraph.77

The usual tendency is to eliminate the final vowel of the singular form to make the plural: [gasǝ] (tree) > [gas] (tries); [potǝ] (book) > [pot] (books); [malǝ] (flower) > [mal] (flowers); [atǝ] (hand) > [at] (hands). However, the consonant does not occur in the final position especially when cerebral, [val] is used to form the plural: [kaṭǝ] (mouth) > [kaṭǝval] (mouths); [raṭǝ] (country) > [raṭǝval] (countries); [pārǝ] > (road) > [pārǝval] (roads); [baḍǝ] (stomach) > [baḍǝval] (stomachs) and so on. The object suffix [an] has been used very often with many nouns such as [nirmāṇǝ] (creations) >

69 Senanayake, Sahitya Vigrahaya, 19 70 Senanayake, Vichara Pravesaya, 31 71 ibid, 32 72 ibid, 39 73 ibid, 41 74 ibid, 44 75 Senanayake, Navakata Kalava, 13 76 ibid, 13 77 Senanayake, Vichara Pravesaya, 96-97

170

[nirmāṇǝyan] (creations),78 [varṇǝnǝ] (praises) > [varṇǝnǝ+yan] (praises) and [bhāvǝ + yan] (feelings) in many occasions instead of using the noun base as the plural.

Sometimes he uses tatsama and its tatbhavǝ words in the same paragraph and he uses [- vǝlǝ], [-vǝlin] suffixes with tatbhavǝ noun very often79. At the same time, the suffix [- vǝlin] has been used with Sanskrit tatsama noun [granthǝ] (text).80 All the above examples give evidence that using the suffix [-an] indicates that the object form of neuter gender nouns depend on the interest of the writer.

Sometimes he has used some well-established colloquial compound words as two words like [æṭǝ] (seeds) [ambǝ̃ ] (mango) though originally it should be [æṭǝmbǝ̃ ] which means a variety of mango which has a big seed and less edible flesh part. However, no one can separate that word into two parts in written language as it becomes unfamiliar to readers. He also has artificially separated another compound word as [ekǝ anikāgē]81 (of each other) which originally should be as [ekinekāgē]. Sometimes, Senanayake has created unfamiliar words [dasǝsatǝrǝ]82 (fourteen) instead of [dāhatǝrǝ] or [dahahatǝrǝ] to make them more academic or more standard.

Senanayake has used the pronoun [ætæmak]83 (a something) to give the neuter gender an indefinite meaning. He has coined this word by adding [-ak] suffix to the [ætæm] (some) which is not common in modern Sinhala. However, it is (ætæm) very widely coupled with the masculine indefinite suffix of [-ek] as [ætæmek] (some people). Though the base [ætæm] is very commonly coupled with the masculine indefinite suffixes such as [-ek], [-hu], [-un]” and so on it does not couple with neuter gender suffixes in modern Sinhala. However, Senanayake has used it (ætæmak) in many occasions in the same text. Though the suffix [-ak] usually combines with nouns to convey the neuter gender indefinite meaning Senanayake has combined it with the

78 Senanayake, Vichara Pravesaya, 98 79 ibid, 102 80 ibid, 105 81 Senanayake, Saahitya Dharmatava, 26 82 ibid, 14 83 ibid, 14

171 adverb [yantam] (narrowly) as [yantǝmak]84 (a little). This appears as a case of analogical extension.

19. [ohuṭǝ kisi viṭǝkǝ mē bādhātāk muḷullǝ ɉayǝgatǝ hæki no vē.]85 (He could not have possibly overcome all these obstructions.)

In this sentence He has coined a new word [bādhātāk] combining the noun [bādhā] (obstructions) and the postposition [tāk] (until/as many as). Usually the postposition [tāk] is combined with another preposition [ē] (that) and [mē] (this) such as [ētāk] (until that) [mētāk] (until this) or with action verbal nouns such as [kǝrǝnǝ + tāk], [marǝnǝ + tāk], [yanǝ + tāk] and so on. However, it is not common to combine it with a noun like [bādhātāk] in modern Sinhala usage. Another analogical formation.

20. [ovuhu kæṭǝyǝmǝṭǝ, vidumǝṭǝ, maṭǝsiḷuṭǝṭǝ, opǝyǝṭǝ, noyek upǝkǝrǝṇǝ yodǝnǝ ʃilpīn bandǝhǝ.]86 (They are like artists who use various instruments for carving, drilling, flattering, smoothing and polishing.)

To fit with the third person plural pronoun subject of the sentence he has created a new final verb by using the preposition of [bad̃u] (like). Though there are some words like [bandō], [bandan], [bandekuṭǝ], [bandak] that can be derived from that preposition, the word [bandǝhǝ] is not familiar and which has been created by adding [-hǝ] suffix to that post-position.

Sometimes, he has used classical or rare words in his critical texts such as [leṭi]87 (stingy) that are not very common in modern usage. Sometimes he has used classical words [perǝli] which can be seen in the ‘Sidat Sangara’ to create a new technical term like [sit perǝli]88 for the meaning of ‘transformation of thought’.

84 Senanayake, Saahitya Dharmatava, 31 85 ibid, 31 86 ibid, 32 87 ibid, 41 88 ibid, 43

172

4.4.6 Syntax

Usually Senanayake has used very short and simple sentences in creative and critical writing as well as fiction. This has been helpful for him to maintain classical grammatical norms especially subject predicate agreement in his sentences very successfully.

21. [ovuhu mālǝyǝ milǝyǝṭǝ genǝ næti vuṇu mālǝyǝ himi kāntāvǝṭǝ dunhǝ. ṇayǝ gevīmǝṭǝ mudal itiri kirīmǝ piṇisǝ ovun visin tamangē viyǝdam aḍu kǝḷǝ yutu viyǝ. ovuhu gedǝrǝ væḍǝkāriyǝ as kǝlōyǝ. geyǝ athærǝ vaḍā kuḍā geyǝkǝ vāsǝyǝṭǝ giyōyǝ. uyǝnǝ pihǝnǝ bad̃un dǝ pig̃an kōppǝ dǝ mæṭilḍā visin sēdiyǝ yutu viyǝ. kiḷiṭi redipiḷi ǣ tomō mǝ sōdā gattā yǝ. gedǝrǝ kasǝḷǝ mahā mārgǝyǝṭǝ genǝ yanǝ laddēt mahā mārgǝyen vaturǝ genǝ enǝ laddēt æyǝ visin mǝ yǝ.]89

(They bought a necklace and gave it to the lady who owned the lost necklace. They had to cut down their expenses to settle their loan. They dismissed their servant. They shifted to a smaller house. Matilda had to wash pots, pans, cups, and plates. She herself washed their dirty linen. Carrying of garbage to the road and bringing water from the road also she had to do by herself.)

The sentences are very short in the above paragraph. Except the last sentence all the others are not longer than one line. This type of short sentences are helpful to follow subject predicate agreement and other grammatical rules. However, later extracts in this chapter will give evidence that grammatical deviations can occur even in short sentences because of diglossic situation.

Sometimes sentences become ambiguous as they get longer.

22. [taman rahasin kæṇǝ tibū umǝgǝkin eviṭǝ mahauṣǝdhǝ paṇḍitǝyō horen tamǝ bhaṭǝyan brahmǝdattǝ raɉugē māligāvǝṭǝ yavā ohugē diyǝṇiyan hā mavǝ dǝ bisǝvǝ hā putā dǝ yanǝ satǝrǝ denāt vēdēhǝ raɉu samǝgǝ umǝgǝkin yævūhǝ.]

89 Senanayake, Navakata Kalava, 17

173

(Then Pandit Mahaushadha, sent soldiers to king Brahmadatta’s palace and brought four of his family members secretly including daughter, mother, wife (queen) and the son and dispatched them with king Vedeha to his country through a tunnel he had dug himself.)

This above sentence is ambiguous because of the wrong order of clauses but nothing wrong in the subject predicate agreement. The correct order should be as follows.

[eviṭǝ mahauṣǝdhǝ paṇḍitǝyō, taman rahasin kæṇǝ tibū umǝgǝkin horen tamǝ bhaṭǝyan brahmǝdattǝ raɉugē māligāvǝṭǝ yavā ohugē diyǝṇiyan hā mavǝ dǝ bisǝvǝ hā putā dǝ yanǝ satǝrǝ denāt vēdēhǝ raɉu samǝgǝ umǝgǝkin yævūhǝ.]

As a result of using short sentences or trying to make short sentences with less words sometimes he has composed incomplete or wrong sentences.

23. [eyin dǝ nāṭyǝkārǝyō nosǣhuṇā hǝ.] (dramatists were also not satisfied even by that).

However, it is not the meaning he wanted to convey. The correct sentence should be:

[eyin dǝ nāṭyǝkārǝyō sǣhīmǝkǝṭǝ pat novūhǝ.]

(dramatists were also not satisfied even with it).

The subject predicate agreement is very important and sometimes it is one of the most complicated issues in standard Sinhala written language. As we mentioned earlier all Sinhala writers should pay special careful attention when they use standard written grammar in keeping subject form according to the predicate as rules are different between spoken and written norms. Though Senanayake has followed standard Sinhala written style very successfully in his prose, critical writings as well as in narrative parts of his novels and short stories some deviations also have occurred when he loses his careful attention of correcting language errors.

174

The final verb for third person masculine and feminine past tense nouns is different in contemporary standard written Sinhala norm. However, Senanayake has used third person masculine past tense verb [viyǝ] for feminine nouns in some occasions. Therefore, the final verb of the following sentences (24 to 30) should be changed to [viyǝ > vūvā yǝ].

24. [īṭǝ pasu nagǝrǝyē udyānǝyēdīt nagǝrǝ madyǝyēdīt ohuṭǝ ǣ dinǝkǝṭǝ kīpǝvarǝ bægin hamu viyǝ.]90 (She met him several times a day at the city park and the city center.) 25. [ǣ tamǝ muhuṇǝ ohugē ḷayehi tabā ohuṭǝ turulu viyǝ.]91

(She kept her face on his chest and embraced him.)

26. [mesē kī ǣ daruvāgē hisǝ pirimadinnǝṭǝ viyǝ.]92

(She rubed the child’s head after telling this.)

27. [tavusan visin hadā vaḍā gat ʃakuntalā namæti taruṇiyak ehidī raɉuṭǝ hamu viyǝ.]93

(The king met a girl named Sakuntala who was brought up by hermits there.)

28. [ǣ ehi vū pirisǝ samǝgǝ hid̃ǝ baṇǝ asannǝṭǝ viyǝ.]94

(She sat down with the crowd and listened to the Dhamma.)

29. [mesē kī ǣ daruvāgē hisǝ pirimadinnǝṭǝ viyǝ.]95

(She said that and rubbed the head of the son)

30. [mē prēmǝ sambandhǝyǝ æti vū pasu ǣ yalit gæbbǝrǝ viyǝ.]96

(She became pregnant as a result of this affair.)

90 Senanayake, Navakata Kalava , 47 91 ibid, 52 92 ibid, 74 93 ibid, 9 94 ibid, 65 95 ibid, 74 96 G. B. Senanayake, Batahira Sresta Navakata, (Colombo: Taranga, 1998), 33

175

According to contemporary standard written Sinhala grammatical norms the underlined final verb [viyǝ] of all the above sentences fits with masculine singular nouns but not with the feminine nouns. However, contemporary pro-classical grammarians argue that the final verb [viyǝ] is a ‘pure verb’ not a verbal noun therefore, it can be used in the past tense with feminine nouns as it occurs in the above 24th to 30th sentences.

According to contemporary standard written Sinhala norms the third person pronoun [kisivek] is always plural but if it clearly indicates ‘no one is there’ the final verb should be in the singular form.97 According to contemporary pro-classical grammarians, the indefinite pronoun [kisivek] is always plural therefore, the final verb which is subjected by the indefinite pronoun [kisivek] should be in plural.

31. [ǣ kavǝrek dæ yi kisivek no dannē yǝ.]98 (No one knows who she is) 32. [ovun dedenā mesē hamuvǝnǝ bavǝ moskav nagǝrǝyē kisivek nodani yi.]99

(No one in the Moscow city knows about their meeting in this manner.)

33. [ǣt tamāt mesē hamu vǝnǝ bavǝ kisivek nodani yi.]100

(No one knows that she and him meet like this.)

[dannē yǝ] > [daniti]; [nodani yi] > [nodaniti]

The final verb of a sentence should be in plural if the indefinite pronoun [kisivek] does not clearly indicate the singular person or ‘no one’101

34. [kisivek mē heyin gæhænu hō pirimi hō asabhyǝ yǝ yi no kiyayi.]102

97 Sinhala Lekhana Reetiya, (Maharagama: National Institute of Education, 1989), 45 98 Senanayake, Navakatha Kalava, 47 99 ibid, 57 100 ibid, 58 101 Sinhala Lekhana Reetiya, 45 102 Senanayake, Sahitya Darsana Situvili, 157

176

(No one says that men and women are vulgar because of this.)

35. [kisivek ætæm deyak hētukoṭǝ genǝ tamāṭǝ pæhædili lesǝ dænenǝ bhāvǝyak æti noveti yi kiyayi]103

(Someone says that they do not feel any feeling clearly, as a result of something.)

36. [ætæm deyǝkǝ suvǝd̃ak nætæ yi kisivek kiyayi]104

(Someone says that there is no fragrance in certain things.)

From sentences 34 to 36 the final verb should be changed to: [kiyayi] > [kiyǝti]

The third person past tense singular verb has been used in many occasions for the indefinite plural pronoun [kisivek]. The final verb should be in the third person plural as the subject of the sentence is a third person plural pronoun [kisivek].

37. [īṭǝ pasu kūḍu nivīmǝṭǝ kisivek vehesǝ no vī yǝ]

(No one tried to extinguish the fire that engulfed the Vesak Lanterns)

38. [varāyē minisun goḍǝbahinǝ pālǝmē kisivek no vī yǝ]105

(There was no one at the harbour bridge where people land.)

39. [ē arǝbhǝyā gedǝrin piṭǝtǝ dǝ kisivek no vī yǝ]106

(There was no one outside the house in that regard.)

Sometimes, the object form has been used instead of the subject form of the noun.

[eku] is the indefinite object form suffix but it has been used for the subject of following sentences. Therefore, it should be changed to the subject suffix as [ek].

103 Senanayake, Vichara Pravesaya, 21 104 ibid, 21 105 Senanayake, Navakatha Kalava, 52 106 ibid, 53

177

40. [kisi kaviyeku kāvyǝyak racǝnǝyǝ kǝrayi].107

(A poet composes a poem.)

[kaviyeku] > [kaviyek]

41. [diyǝ rakuseku muhudin pænǝ nægī nævǝ allā ganī].108

(A sea monster rises from the sea and catches the ship.)

[rakuseku] > [rakusek]

42. [minisǝku tamǝ gedǝrǝ tibī liyumak ahulā ganī].109

(A man picks up a letter which was in his compound.)

[minisǝku] > [minisǝk]

[ovun] is the third person plural object pronoun but it has been used as the subject of the following sentence. Therefore, it should be changed to the subject form as [ovuhu].

43. [ikbitivǝ ovun tamangē tatvǝyǝ gænǝ katā kǝrannǝṭǝ vūhǝ].110

(Then they discussed regarding themselves.)

44. [ovun sāhityǝyen samāɉǝ praʃnǝ visǝd̃iyǝ hæki yǝ yi sitannō yǝ].111

(They are those who think that social problems can be solved by literature.)

45. [ovun dedenǝ mē arǝbhǝyā sākacchā kǝḷǝhǝ].

(The two of them discussed this.)

[ovun] > [ovuhu].

[minisun] (men) is the plural object form the stem of [minis] (human) and it has been used as the subject of the following sentence. Therefore, it should be changed into the subject form as [minissu].

107 Senanayake, Vichara Pravesaya, 24 108 Senanayake, Sahitya Darsana Situvili, 18 109 ibid, 52 110 Senanayake, Navakatha Kalava, 60 111 Senanayake, Sahitya Darsana Situvili, 77

178

46. [ætæm viṭǝ minisun ɉātyantǝrǝ yuddhǝvǝlǝṭǝ poḷǝbǝ̃ vǝti].112

(Sometimes men are induced for international wars.)

[minisun] > [minissu]

[daruvan] is the plural object form of noun [daru] (child). According to Standard written Sinhala rules [daruvan] should be in subject form as [daruvō].

47. [dolos hæviridi diyǝṇiyak dǝ pāṭǝʃālāvǝṭǝ yanǝ vayǝsē siṭinǝ tavat īṭǝ bālǝ daruvan dedenek dǝ ohuṭǝ ætǝ].113

(He has a twelve-year-old daughter and another two younger schooling kids.)

[daruvan] > [daruvō]

Using the subject form of a noun instead of the object form.

Using the subject form of pronouns is a very common mistake because of the diglossic situation in written Sinhala since there are no object forms in spoken Sinhala and it has happened in Senanayake’s writings as well. [api] is the subject form of the first-person plural pronoun and it should be in the object form as [apǝ], as it is not the subject of the sentence.

According to the subject predicate agreement of written Sinhala [api] is the subject form of the first-person plural pronoun. If the noun is not the subject of the verb it should be in the object form as [apǝ].

48. [vǣyǝmen soyā gat upǝmāvǝkin api pinǝviyǝ hækæ yi kaviyā sitū bavǝ pæhædili yǝ].114

112 Senanayake, Sahitya Darsana Situvili, 169 113 Senanayake, Navakata Kalava, 47 114 Senanayake, Vichara Pravesaya, 47

179

(It is clear that the poet had thought that it is easy to please us by a simile which he found by effort.)

49. [api mesē vaṭǝhā gannē gas, gal, æd̃ǝ, puṭu minisun ādi vastu pamǝṇak novē].115

(Not only do we realize that trees, rocks, beds, chairs, humans etc. are in this way.)

50. [api avǝṭǝ lōkǝyǝ desǝ balā mē gasǝki mē galǝki ādī vaʃǝyen hæd̃inǝ gannē ē vastuvǝlǝ podu svǝbhāvǝyǝ salǝkā yǝ].116

(We identify things as a tree, a rock etc. by looking at the common features of those things.)

51. [ehet vākyǝ kiyǝvǝnǝ kalǝ api yaṭǝ kī paridi vadinnē manahkalpitǝ lovǝkǝṭǝ yǝ].117

(Nevertheless, we enter into a mental - world when we read sentences as we said earlier.)

52. [api kisi vastuvak indriyǝyangen grahaṇǝyǝ kǝḷǝ viṭǝ eyǝ meyǝ ya yi dǝ ehi sæṭi mesē ya yi dǝ apǝ tīrǝṇǝyǝ kǝrannē kisi vivǝrǝnǝyǝkini].118

(When we grasp something by the faculties of sense we decide that it is this, its characteristics are these by some kind of analysis.)

53. [mīṭǝ hētuvǝ api naṭannā tulǝṭǝ sitin pivisǝ naṭannā vīmǝ yǝ].119

(The reason for this is that we become the dancer by mentally entering into the dancer.)

The first-person pronoun should be in the object form as [api] > [apǝ] in the above sentences from 48 to 53.

115 Senanayake, Sahitya Darsana Situvili, 161 116 ibid, 162 117 ibid, 166 118 ibid, 106 119 ibid, 108

180

Instead of the object form (deneku) the subject form (denek) of the indefinite plural pronoun has been used in the following sentence. According to Standard Sinhala written idiom [-ek] is the singular subject form suffix of masculine nouns. It should be in the object form as [-eku], according to the subject predicate agreement rules of written Sinhala.

54. [ǣ mehi pæminǝ siṭinnē tamǝ svāmi puruṣǝyā hō an kisivek hō næti va yǝ].120

(She has come here without her husband or anyone else.)

[kisivek] > [kisiveku]

55. [itā manǝharǝ hansǝyan tun denek pad̃urak desǝṭǝ pīnā yanu ohu duṭuvēyǝ].121

(He saw three very beautiful swans swim towards a bush.)

[denek] > [denek]

56. [kisivek tamā etǝrǝ kǝḷot tamā ḷag̃ǝ tibenǝ ruci vannak denǝ bavǝ ohu goḍǝ siṭinnanṭǝ kǣgasā kiyayi].122

(He shouts to the people on the land that if someone gets him across, he will give that person whatever he desires from whatever he has.)

[kisivek] > [kisiveku]

57. [gavǝyan dedenek atǝrǝ ætivǝnǝ saṭǝnǝ tavat navǝkathākārǝyekuṭǝ gæḷǝpenǝ atdækīmak viyǝ hæki yǝ].123

(A fight between two buffalos would be another suitable plot for another novelist.)

[dedenek] > [dedeneku]

58. [greek paṇḍitǝyek vū gilbǝṭ marē esē kirīmǝ nuvǝṇǝṭǝ huru no vanṭǝ 푝푢ḷ푢푣ǝ푛æ yi kiya yi].124

120 Senanayake, Navakatha Kalava, 47 121 Senanayake, Saahitya Dharmatava, 77 122 ibid, 18-19 123 ibid, 124 124 ibid, 143

181

(A Greek Pundit Gilbert Murrey says that it won’t be wise if it is done that way.)

[paṇḍitǝyek] > [paṇḍitǝyeku]

According to Standard Sinhala written idiom [-ak] is the singular subject form suffix of feminine nouns. It should be in object form as [-akǝ], according to the subject predicate agreement rules.

59. [mæhællak vū ǣ haḍǝ͂ nagǝnǝ miṇimevulak æd̃ǝ æmǝtiyan dǝ vidēʃǝyen ā rāɉǝ dūtǝyan dǝ idiriyehi ævidiyi].125

(Despite being an old woman, she walks wearing a tinkling girdle in front of ministers and foreign diplomats.)

[mæhællak] > [mæhællakǝ]

The subject form of third person plural pronoun [ovuhu] has been used instead of the object form [ovun].

60. [ehet nānā rīti gænǝ nam ovuhu samāɉǝyǝ pilibad̃ǝ pætten bælū bavǝk hæg̃eyi].126

(It appears that they have considered different styles from the social point of view.)

[ovuhu] > [ovun]

Apart from the grammatical mistake of the first word of the following sentence [ovuhu] (they), there are some spelling mistakes of the word [pæsælehi] and it also should be corrected to [pāsǝlehi] (in school).

125 Senanayake, Saahitya Dharmatava, 18 126 ibid, 121

182

61. [ovuhu tanivǝ pæsælehi igenǝ gattat minisun samǝgǝ ekvǝ kriyā kǝḷǝ yutu yǝ].127

(Though they studied alone in the school they should work together with the people.)

[ovun tanivǝ pāsǝlehi igenǝ gattat minisun samǝgǝ ekvǝ kriyā kǝḷǝ yutu yǝ]

In the conditional clauses of the English language it has a subject in the nominative plural and some Sinhala writers who followed English as the medium of instruction in school education may have been influenced by such patterns.

62. [ovuhu samāɉǝyē noyek matǝ datǝ yutu yǝ].128

(Various opinions of the society should be known by them.)

[ovuhu] > [ovun]

When the subject of the sentence belongs to the neuter gender although it is plural, the final verb should be in the singular. If the noun is inanimate third person plural, animate suffixes can be added to the subject of the sentence to suit the plural verb.

63. [ē kathāvē prǝdhānǝ prǝdēsǝyan dekak veti].129

(There are two major aspects in that story.)

[ē kathāvē prǝdhānǝ prǝdēsǝyō dekak veti.] or [ē kathāvē prǝdhānǝ prǝdēsǝ dekak vē].

There are two grammatical deviations in the above sentence. According to the standard Sinhala grammatical norm the subject of a sentence should be in the nominative case but the subject [prǝdēsǝyan] of the above sentence has been given in the object form. Therefore, it should be in the subject form as [prǝdēsǝyō]. On the other hand, we can

127 Senanayake, Saahitya Dharmatava, 185 128 ibid, 224 129 ibid, 9

183 remove the animate plural suffix from the subject of the sentence and adjust the final verb according to it as [prǝdēsǝ] > [ vē].

64. [ovuhu rusiyānuvan yǝ].130 (They are Russians.)

[rusiyānuvan] > [rusiyānuvō]

65. [ovuhu kathāvē prǝdhānǝ tænǝ gannǝvun pamǝṇǝ yǝ]. (They are the ones who take only the leading place of the story.)

[gannǝvun] > [gannō]

Active voice verbs have been used very frequently in his sentences without giving the subject and the reader has to infer the subject of the sentence. If the subject of a sentence is not given or not important it should be in the passive voice as follows. There are a lot of active voice sentences without the subject or doer in his critical writings.

66. [kalā ʃilpǝ yānǝ vāhǝnǝ karmāntǝ ādiyehi samānǝ kǝmǝ salǝkā mē siyǝlu raṭǝvǝlǝ sabhyatvǝyǝ ekak mǝ yǝ yi kiyǝti].131

(It is said that the civilization of all these countries are considered as one by taking into consideration the similarities of arts and crafts, mode of transport and industries of those countries.)

[kiyǝti] > [kiyǝnu læbē].

67. [rāɉyǝvǝlǝ pætirunē ekǝ mǝ sabhyatvǝyǝkæ yi mē samānǝkǝmǝ salǝkā kiyǝti].132

(It is said that the civilization that spread in all these states is considered as one by taking into consideration the similarities among them)

[kiyǝti] > [kiyǝnu læbet]

130 Senanayake, Saahitya Dharmatava, 35 131 ibid, 3 132 ibid

184

68. [yaṭat raṭǝkǝ raɉǝkugē diyǝṇiyan vū pabāvǝtī namæti kumǝriyan ravǝṭā ohuṭǝ sarǝṇǝ pāvā deti].

(The princess Pabavati the daughter of a king of a suburban country is given in marriage to him.)

[deti] > [denu læbē]

69. [noyek ɉātikǝ gatiguṇǝ ætæ yi kiyǝti. ɉǝrmǝn ɉanǝyā buddhimathu yǝ yi kiyannāhǝ. yudevvō buddhimathu yǝ. mudal pilibad̃ǝ kāryǝyehi ʃūrǝyō yǝ yi kiyannāhǝ. venat ɉātivǝlǝ Ɉanǝyāṭǝ dǝ himi mevæni gatiguṇǝ ætæ yi kiyannāhu yǝ].133

(It is said that various nations have their own qualities. It is said that Germans are intelligent. Jews are intelligent, and it is said that they are very clever in handling money. It is said that other nations also have such qualities.)

[noyek ɉātikǝ gatiguṇǝ ætæ yi kiyǝnu læbē. ɉǝrmǝn ɉanǝyā buddhimathu yǝ yi kiyǝnu læbet. yudevvō buddhimathu yǝ. mudal pilibad̃ǝ kāryǝyehi ʃūrǝyō yǝ yi kiyǝnu læbet. venat ɉātivǝlǝ ɉanǝyāṭǝ dǝ himi mevæni gatiguṇǝ ætæ yi kiyǝnu læbē.]

The following sentence has been constructed in the passive form and according to Sinhala grammatical rules the first word [kavīhu] of the sentence should be in the object form as [kavīn].

70. [kavīhu dǝ nerǝpiyǝ yutu yǝ yi kiyǝnǝ ladi].134

(It is said that poets should be expelled)

[kavīhu] > [kavīn]

133 Senanayake, Saahitya Dharmatava, 12 134 ibid, 19

185

According to contemporary Sinhala grammatical norms the indefinite pronoun [kenek] is plural, but when it clearly substitutes a single person the final verb should be in the singular.

71. [ek sthǝvirǝ kenek mænik sæṭṭǝrǝkugē geyidī dan væḷǝd̃īmǝṭǝ purudu vǝ siṭiyǝhǝ].135

(One Buddhist monk used to have alms at a gem cutter’s house.)

[ek sthǝvirǝ kenek mænik sæṭṭǝrǝkugē geyidī dan væḷǝd̃īmǝṭǝ purudu vǝ siṭiyē yǝ].

However, pro-classic contemporary Sinhala grammarians argue that whether the subject does not associate with honorific suffixes or help words or--- it substitutes a singular person indefinite pronoun such as [kenek], [ayek], [ætæmek], [samaharek] should be treated as plural.

‘Actor verbal nouns’ conjugate according to the gender and number of the noun which it represents. [ǣ] is third person singular feminine pronoun and [siṭinnē] is third person singular masculine pronoun. Therefore, [siṭinnē]’ should be changed into a feminine actor verbal noun as [siṭinnī’].

72. [ǣ mehi pæminǝ siṭinnē tamǝ svāmi puruṣǝyā hō an kisivek hō næti va yǝ].136

(She has come here without her husband or anyone else.)

[ǣ mehi pæminǝ siṭinnī tamǝ svāmi puruṣǝyā hō an kisiveku hō næti va yǝ].

Sometimes Senanayake has altered very common usages in his writings:

73. [lēkǝkǝyan bhāṣāvǝ bæd̃ǝ tabannǝṭǝ hevat kathā kǝrǝnǝ bhāṣāven ǣt koṭǝ tabannǝṭǝ kǝrǝnǝ utsāhǝyǝ ekǝmǝ raṭǝkǝ uvǝ dǝ kalin aḍu veyi væḍi veyi].137

135 Senanayake, Navakatha Kalava, 11 136 ibid, 47 137 Senanayake, Saahitya Dharmatava, 51

186

(The attempt of the writers to tie or to keep written language far removed from spoken language maybe it goes up and down even in a single country.)

[kalin aḍu veyi væḍi veyi]. > [kalin kalǝṭǝ aḍu-væḍi veyi].

The underlined part of the above sentence is unfamiliar and according to common usage it should be corrected to [kalin kalǝ aḍu-væḍi veyi]. (Goes up and down from time to time.) These examples are rare mistakes or deviations that can be seen in Senanayake’s writings and he has used these types of sentences very correctly on many occasions.

74. [kavǝrǝ samāɉǝyǝkǝ vuvǝ dǝ sāhityǝ ruci aruci itā visālǝ yǝ].

(The literary interest and disinterest could be very wide.)

[ʃōkǝ katāvǝṭǝ ruci kǝrǝti]. (--- are interested in the tragic story.) [hāsǝ katāvǝṭǝ ruci kǝrǝti]. (--- are interested in the satire story.) [varṇǝnǝyǝṭǝ ruci kǝrǝti]. (--- are interested in the description.)

[varṇǝnǝ hīnǝtāvǝṭǝ ruci kǝrǝti]. (--- are interested in less description.”

[padyǝ katāvǝṭǝ ruci kǝrǝti]. (--- are interested in the poetic story.)

[gadyǝ katāvǝṭǝ ruci kǝrǝti]. (--- are interested in the prose story.)

[mahat vǝ nægunu tālǝyǝṭǝ ruci kǝrǝti]. (--- are interested in high pitch rhythm.) [hīnǝ vū tālǝyǝṭǝ ruci kǝrǝti]. (--- are interested in low pitch rhythm.) [katā kǝrǝnǝ bhāṣāvǝṭǝ āsannǝ vū bhāṣāvǝṭǝ ruci kǝrǝti]. (--- are interested in the equivalent of spoken idiom.) [katā kǝrǝnǝ bhāṣāven ǣt vū bhāṣāvǝṭǝ ruci kǝrǝti].138 (--- are interested in a version closer to the spoken idiom.)

All the sentences of above, except the first one, are active voice sentences where the subject or doer is not stated. Since the final verb has been given in the present tense first person plural, readers should infer the subject according to the final verb. If the author needs to write it in the active voice, he should include the subject otherwise the

138 Senanayake, Saahitya Dharmatava, 14

187 above active voice sentences will seem incomplete without the subject. However, these types of sentences are very common in contemporary Sinhala writings.

Inanimate nouns could be personified by adding masculine and feminine suffixes to the neuter gender or inanimate nouns in Sinhala and it was a common practice in classical prose and poetry. That style was very popular during the first half of the 20th Century among early modern writers who closely associated with classical literature. Senanayake also has followed that style in some of his fiction as well as critical writings.

75. [noyek samprǝdāyǝyō sampūrṇǝyen samānǝ no vannāhǝ. mē asǝmānatvǝyǝ nisā ekǝ mǝ sabhyatvǝyǝkǝṭǝ ayiti noyek raṭǝvalǝ sāhityǝyō asǝmānǝ veti. asǝmānǝ kǝmǝ nisā ekǝ mǝ sabhyatvǝyǝkǝṭǝ ayiti noyek raṭǝvalǝ venas vū sāhityǝyō pahalǝ veti. mē venas vū sāhityǝyō ɉātikǝ sāhityǝyō jǝ. ekǝ mǝ sabhyatvǝyǝkǝṭǝ ayiti raṭǝvalǝ sāhityǝyō sælǝkiyǝ yutu taram ekǝ samānǝ yǝ].139

(Various traditions are not entirely the same. Various countries have different literatures as a result of dissimilarities with the same civilization. These different literatures are national literatures. The literatures that belong to the countries of the same civilization are equal to a considerable extent)

The animate plural [ō] suffix has been added to personify the above underlined words instead of adding [samprǝdāyǝ + -val] and using noun stem for plural meaning as [sāhityǝ].

4.4.7 Spoken Idiom

Using Spoken language grammar and vocabulary is the normal practice in fiction dialogues.

139 Senanayake, Saahitya Dharmatava, 10

188

76. [ubǝ̃ nosanḍālǝ kǝmē yanṭǝ magē salli viyǝdam kǝrǝnǝvā. mamǝ kǝrǝnǝ viyǝdam mē gedǝrǝ vagē dekǝkǝṭǝ æṭi. maṭǝ daranṭǝ bæri velā tiyennē mē gedǝrǝ viyǝdǝmǝ noveyi. ubǝ̃ ravum gahanṭǝ gihin kǝrǝnǝ viyǝdǝmayi]. 140

(You spend my money on your vagabonding rounds (roaming). The money which I spend for the expenses of this house is enough for two houses like this. What is unbearable for me is not the expenses of this house. The expenses that you make for roaming about.)

Though he has been able to follow the spoken grammar and vocabulary, sometimes he deviates from the spoken Sinhala vocabulary to written vocabulary. He has used [noveyi] instead of [neveyi] in the above extract.

Deviation from spoken Sinhala vocabulary to written vocabulary is increased in long expressions.

77. [hæmǝdāmǝ Sirimā ekkǝ kathāvǝṭǝ bæssāmǝ oyā ahannē gē ætulǝṭǝ velā inṭǝ kiyǝnǝvadǝ kiyā. lōkǝyē næti noyek kaṭǝyutu tiyenǝ bavǝ oyā ævidinṭǝ giyāmǝ gedǝrǝ væḍǝ kǝrǝgannē kohomǝdǝ? gedǝrǝ viyǝdǝmǝ kiyā maṭǝ daranṭǝ puḷuvavaṭǝ vaḍā væḍi vī tiyennē oyā ævidinṭǝ yāmǝ nisayi].141

(Every day when you step in to talk with Sirima what you ask is “are you telling me to stay at home all the time,” how can we do housekeeping when you roam about telling me about insignificant things. I can manage the cost of the family expenses, but it has increased with your roaming about.)

[kiyā > kiyǝla]; [kaṭǝyutu] > [mokak hari væḍak]; [kiyā] > [kiyǝla]; [yāmǝ > yanǝ].

140 G. B. Senanayake, Duppatun Neti Lokaya, (Imbulgoda: Taranga, 1996), 109 141 Senanayake, Duppatun Neti Lokaya, 109

189

The underlined words of the above extracts are not usually used in spoken Sinhala. The following extract testify how his dialogues deviate from spoken variety to written usage.

78. [mamǝ giyē samāgǝmē væḍǝ vagǝyǝkǝṭǝ nænsi hambǝ venṭǝ. Itin nænsi mūde nānṭǝ aḍ͂ ǝgæsū nisā mamǝ giyā].142

(I went to meet Nancy for some work of our company. Since Nancy called me to bathe in the sea, I went with her.)

[aḍ͂ ǝgæsū] > [aḍ͂ ǝgahapu]

The bold word is related to written Sinhala than the spoken vocabulary.

Written Sinhala grammar and classical vocabulary have been used for dialogues in one of his early fancy short stories named [prǝtimā ʃilpiyā] (sculptor).

79. [mamǝ mē purǝyehi sæṭi pavat balǝnu piṇisǝ hæsirenǝ duru raṭǝ siṭǝ ā magiyekmi. Topǝgē purǝyehi karuṇu gænǝ maṭǝ væṭǝhum nætǝ. Topǝ mangǝlǝ ʃrīn særǝsī prītiyen pinā gos siṭinǝ bavǝ penē. topǝṭǝ kavǝrǝ nam mag̃ulak dǝ].143

The creator of the world speaks to the artist:

(Friend: I am a passenger from far away visiting this city to get myself acquainted with it. I do not have any idea about this city. You look very happy as if ready for a wedding ritual and the city is decorated, as if a waiting a festival. What kind of festival is it?)

Spoken version:

[mitrǝyā/yāluvā: mamǝ mē nagǝrǝyē torǝturu dækǝ balāganṭǝ durǝ bæhærǝ id̃an āpu magiyek. obǝgē nagǝrǝyē torǝturu gænǝ maṭǝ væṭǝhum nǣ. obǝ

142 Senanayake, Duppatun Neti Lokaya, 109 143 ibid, 26

190

mangǝlǝ kaṭǝyuttǝkǝṭǝ særǝsilā prītiyen ipilī innǝ bavak pēnǝva. Obǝgē nagǝrǝyē tiyenne monǝ vidihe utsǝvǝyak dǝ?]

However, contemporay spoken grammar and vocabulary has been used for dialogues of his later historical novels namely ‘Varadatta’, ‘Medha’ and ‘Carumukha’.

As we said earlier the first poetical works of G. B. Senanayake are placed in between his short stories in ‘Paligeniima’ in 1946. He introduced free verse style to Sinhala poetry which is completely different from from early prosodic tradition. Although those poems were the earliest samples of free verse style, he still tends to use SSWG in narration as well as dialogues with his new poetic structure. However, he mixes modern Sinhala usage with traditional poetical or literary vocabulary very effectively in his early poetical works specially in romantic and historical themes namely ‘Ruva dekiima’ (Seeing the beauty) and ‘Mama topa no handunami’ (I do not know who you are). At the same time, he has used contemporary standard Sinhala usage that is devoid of traditional poetical vocabulary in his early poems that discuss contemporary themes like [Deviyan mærīmǝ] (Killing the God) and [Varǝdǝ] (The Fault). He sometimes occasionally mixes traditional poetical vocabulary and Sanskrit borrowings with modern standard Sinhala vocabulary in his contemporary romantic themes such as [Sæd̃ǣ ad̃urǝ] (Evening darkness), [ʃiṣyava] (The Female Student), [Sundǝratvǝyǝ] (The beauty) and [niʃʃabdǝtāvǝ] (The Silence). His early free verse style poems look like artificially separated prose or spoken passages.

[ꭍiṣyāvǝ]

[ægē sināsenǝ

pæhæbarǝ

nil nuvǝnǝṭǝ

giɉu vū mā net

eyin

ivat kǝrǝ gænīmǝṭǝ

191

mā samat novūyen

mā sitǝ dǝ

mā net ossē giyē yǝ].144

The word order of above poem is very similar to prose language word order. Therefore, G. B. Senanayake’s early free style poems are like artificially separated lines of a prose passage. This extract is a good example for that.

[ꭍiṣyāvǝ] [ægē sināsenǝ pæhæbarǝ nil nuvǝnǝṭǝ giɉu vū mā net eyin ivat kǝrǝ gænīmǝṭǝ mā samat novūyen mā sitǝ dǝ mā net ossē giyē yǝ].

(The student) (My mind went alone with my eyes as I could not take them away as they were greedy for her smiling bright blue eyes.)

In his verse collection ‘Vindimi’ in 1975 he has used a different language style to a certain extent from his early poetic works. He has changed the word order of his poems in ‘Vindimi’ which serves to emphasize the meaning that he wants to obtain.

[æi pirimin ruci nokǝrannē

viḷi nopānǝ gæhænunṭǝ

ovun lobǝ

no avussan heini

viḷi pānnǝvun sē]145

According to the prose and spoken style word order of the above poem it should read as follows.

144 Senanayaka, Paligenima, 82-83 145 G. B. Senanayaka, “Dakimi”, Vindimi, (Colombo: Pradeepa, 1975), 35.

192

[æi pirimin viḷi nopānǝ gæhænunṭǝ ruci nokǝrannē? ovun viḷi pānnǝvun sē lobǝ no avussan heini].

(Why men do not take interest in women who do not display modesty? It is because they do not stir up passion as those who are modest.)

[harǝvannǝ muhuṇǝ, priyē,

mā desǝṭǝ vasā net

no danimi sitǝ eviṭǝ

æs magin]146

In natural language the word order of the above extract should be as follows.

[priyē, net vasā muhuṇǝ mā desǝṭǝ harǝvannǝ. eviṭǝ æs magin sitǝ no danimi].

(Darling, close your eyes and turn your face towards me. Then I cannot see your mind through your eyes.)

4.5 Conclusion

The way of practice of the CG base in written idiom by various contemporary authors were observed at the beginning of this chapter to select a suitable author. In this we found that almost all authors have employed CG base written idiom according to their understanding. However, all the authors show some deviations from CG base of the written idiom since classical grammatical norms had not completely been resuscitated until 1940s. Though Sinhalese language was not the official language of Sri Lanka (Ceylon at that time) the elite of Sinhala educated community had codified their own standards around 1940. Therefore, G. B. Senanayake’s writings were selected as a case study to observe the practice of CG base on written idiom as he believed that he has mastered CG and as he thought that style was the better option for writing in Sinhala.

When compared to other Sinhala writers the standard of Sinhala usage as a fiction writer G. B. Senanayake’s writing is praiseworthy. Except on very rare occasions he has followed orthographic rules and word division norms very accurately. Sometimes to simplify or familiarize with the reader he has neglected some common grammatical

146 G. B. Senanayaka, “Dakimi”, Vindimi, 36

193 rules such as the usage of the indefinite subject of noun suffix [ek] instead of using indefinite object form of [aku] or [eku] which are not available in the spoken language. At the same time according to SSWG, there are some rare grammatical deviations that can be seen in Senanayake’s writings such as using the subject form of a noun instead of the object form of it, using plural verb form instead of singular form, are some common deviations that become prevalent because of wavering between the spoken and written norms. Some sentences have been arranged in active voice when the subject is not indicated. This type of deviation can occur in the writing of any Sinhala writer by mistake or loosing attention as a result of diglossic situation of the language. Only those of the Pure Sinhala movement were consciously maintaining grammatical norms.

194

Chapter Five Variations in Contemporary Sinhala Grammar

05. Introduction

Sinhala grammar has been divided into two main categories based on the two basic varieties of grammar in this study.

i. Spoken Grammar and ii. Written Grammar

The history of modern Sinhala grammatical writings do not go beyond the second half of the 19th Century, except for a few grammatical works done by missionaries for evangelical purposes. The development of the Sinhala language accelerated with the development of education, printing technology and various types of written and spoken usages. The development of writings on Sinhala grammar increased with the requirements of education and publication purposes of the Sinhala language. Finally, Sinhala scholars were able to resuscitate scientific or logical written Sinhala grammatical norms based on classical literature in the first half of the 20th Century mainly through the experience gained by editing of a large number of classical literary works that form the main stay of Sinhala literary and grammatical tradition. It does not mean that contemporary written Sinhala grammar conforms to a single classical grammatical treatise or a prose work and it can be considered as a compendium of grammatical rules which has spread out all over classical literature. As we discussed in the introduction there were two main writing styles in Sinhala tradition namely pure Sinhala and mixed Sinhala traditions since the 1940s. However, the distinctiveness of those two traditions gradually subsided due to the expansion of education, mass media and contemporary readership as well as the impact of modern linguistic ideas.

This chapter will evaluate some representative grammatical texts which have been published since the latter part of the 19th Century and their influence for the establishment of contemporary standard Sinhala written usage. Grammar lessons that are included in school Sinhala text books also will be evaluated as they provide the most common grammatical discipline for all educated people. The grammar of spoken Sinhala usage and its deviations are examined to understand the difference of spoken and written Sinhala usages. At the same time the employing of spoken Sinhala usage

195

for dialogues in the lessons of school text books, fiction and some printed and electronic media also will be examined to understand the varieties of spoken Sinhala grammar. I would restrict the amount of grammatical texts since there are a large number of Sinhala grammatical books that have been published in the recent past for business purposes.

5.1 Spoken Grammar:

There are two types of spoken grammar in the Sinhala language:

1. Common Spoken Grammar and 2. High-brow Spoken Grammar

5.1.1 Common Spoken Grammar

The grammar of contemporary spoken Sinhala language differs from its written language grammar in many ways. It is not possible to discuss all aspects of spoken Sinhala grammar in this chapter. Therefore, the basic features of phonology, morphology, and syntax of spoken grammar are discussed here.

5.1.1.1 Phonology

There are 38 basic phonemes in the contemporary spoken Sinhala:

Vowels: [a], [ā], [æ], [ǣ], [ı], [ī], [u], [ū], [e], [ē], [o], [ō] (12)

Consonants: [k], [g], [ŋ], [g̃], [c], [ɉ], [ɲ], [ɉ̃], [ṭ], [ḍ], [ḍ͂ ], [t], [d],[n], [d̃], [p], [b], [m], [b]̃ , [y], [r], [l], [v], [s], [h], [f] (26)

5.1.1.2 Sandhi (Euphonic Combinations)

Some contemporary grammarians have categorized spoken Sinhala sandhi into three groups1 but there are clearly four types in spoken Sinhala language namely deletion, substitution, insertion and combining consonants and vowels without deletion, substitution or insertion.

1 J. B. Disanayake, Samakalina Sinhalaya: Sabda Vicaraya, (Colombo: University Press, 1973), 92

196

Combining two words nearby by dropping a sound is called deletion sandhi. When a preceding word ends with a vowel and the second word also starts with a vowel usually the final vowel of the preceding word drops: [enṭǝ] (come) [epā] (do not) > [enṭepā] (do not come); [venṭǝ] (to happen) [æti] (maybe) > [venṭæti] (may be has happened); [kiyanṭǝ] (say) [epā] (do not) > [kiyanṭepā] (do not say).

Sometimes the first vowel of the second word becomes a long vowel: [atǝ] (hand) [ærǝla] (released) > [atǣrǝla] (having released); [magǝ] (path) [ærǝla] (avoided) > [magǣrǝla] (having avoided).

When a combination happens between two words, introducing a separate sound instead of the final sound of the first word or the first sound of the second word or both sounds, this is called substitution. Usually introducing a new sound results in the duplication of the first sound of the second word: [tavat] (another) [davǝsak] (day) > [tavaddavǝsak] (another day); [titak] (a full stop) [tibba] (kept) > [titattibba] (kept a full stop); [belek] (tin) [paturǝ] (piece) > [beleppaturǝ] (piece of tin).

Importing a new sound without deleting or substituting the prevailing sounds is called duplication or doubling. If the final sound of the previous word ends with a consonant and the second word starts with a vowel, the final consonant sound of the first word becomes double: [mal] (flower) [attǝ] (branch) > [mallattǝ] (flower branch); [pas] (soil) [ædda] (brought) > [passædda] (brought soil); [pol] (coconut) [ittǝ] (bunch) > [pollittǝ] (coconut bunch); [pol] (coconut) [ulǝ] (stake) > [pollulǝ] (wooden or iron stake that is used to husk coconuts); [bat] (rice) [ekkǝ] (with) > [battekkǝ] (with rice); [gal] (stone) [oyǝ] (stream) > [galloyǝ] (stony stream).

Some words are combined without employing any of the above rules once the first word of two combining words ends with a consonant and the second word starts with a vowel: [vam] (left) [atǝ] (hand) > [vamǝtǝ] (left hand).

197

5.1.1.3 Morphology

Though the morphology is an extensive topic, this chapter will discuss only the main issues of nouns and verbs even if spoken Sinhala possesses its own vocabulary.

5.1.1.3.1 Nouns

Spoken Sinhala nouns can be divided into three genders based on their case terminals. In the masculine gender, almost all nouns have the suffix [ā] in nominative singular and [o] or [u] suffixes in the plural. Feminine nouns have the suffix [ǝ] in nominative singular and [o] or [u] suffixes in the plural. Neuter gender nouns have the suffix [ǝ] in singular and [ø] or [val] suffixes in the plural. Further they maintain definite indefinite category in singular by having [ek] suffix in the masculine, [ek] or [ak] suffixes in the feminine and [ak] suffix with the neuter gender nouns.

5.1.1.3.1.1 Masculine Gender

As Sinhala language has biological (notional) gender in noun declension all nouns which denote male belong to the masculine gender.

Table 5.1 Sinhalese Gender in Noun Declension: Masculine (Type 01)

kolu (Boy) Case Terminals Singular Plural Singular Plural Definite Indefinite Definite Indefinite First case [kollā] [kollek] [kollo] [ā] [ek] [o] Second [kollāṭǝ] [kollekṭǝ] [kollonṭǝ] [āṭǝ] [ekṭǝ] [onṭǝ] case Third [kollāge] [kollekge] [kollonge] [age] [ekge] [onge] case Forth [kollagen] [kollekgen] [kollongen] [agen] [ekgen] [ongen] case Fifth [kolla] [kollo] / [a] [o] / case [kollǝnē] [ǝnē]

Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

198

Table 5.2 Sinhalese Gender in Noun Declension: Masculine (Type 02)

Put (son) Case Terminals Singular Plural Singular Plural Definite Indefinite Definite Indefinite First case [putā] [putek] [puttu] [ā] [ek] [u] Second [putāṭǝ] [putekṭǝ] [puttunṭǝ] [āṭǝ] [ekṭǝ] [unṭǝ] case Third case [putāgē] [putekge] [puttungē] [āgē] [ekge] [ungē] Forth case [putāgen] [putekgen] [puttungen] [āgen] [ekgen] [ungen] Fifth case [putē] [putālā] [ē] [ālā] Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

Some Sinhala nouns such as [pabǝyã ] (effigy), [bōnikka] (doll), [ibba] (padlock) get above masculine case terminations though they denote inanimate things.

5.1.1.3.1.2 Feminine Gender

Almost all Sinhala nouns which denote female creatures get feminine case terminals as follows.

Table 5.3 Sinhalese Gender in Noun Declension: Feminine (Type 01)

gǣnu (Woman) Case Terminals Singular Plural Singular Plural Definite Indefinite Definite Indefinite First case [gǣni] [gǣniyak] [gǣnu] [i] (y)[ak] [u] Second case [gǣniṭǝ] [gǣniyakṭǝ] [gǣnunṭǝ] [iṭǝ] (y)[akṭǝ] [unṭǝ] Third case [gǣnige] [gǣniyakge] [gǣnungē] [igē] (y)[akge] [unge] Forth case [gǣnigen] [gǣniyakgen] [gǣnungen] [igen] (y)[akgen] [ungen] Fifth case [gǣniye] [gǣnune] [iyē] [ne] Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

199

Table 5.4 Sinhalese Gender in Noun Declension: Feminine (Type 02)

keli (Girl) Case Terminals Singular Plural Singular Plural Definite Indefinit Definite Indefinite e First case [kellǝ] [kellek] [kello] [ǝ] [o] Second case [kellǝṭǝ] [kellekṭǝ] [kellonṭǝ] [ǝṭǝ] [ekṭǝ] [onṭǝ] Third case [kellǝge] [kellekge] [kellonge] [ǝge] [ekge] [onge] Forth case [kellǝgen] [kellekge [kellongen [ǝgen] [ekgen] [ongen] n] ] Fifth case [kelle] [kello] / [e] [o] [kellǝnē] /[ǝnē] Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

5.1.1.3.1.3 Neuter Gender

All nouns that denote inanimate things in Sinhala get the following neuter gender case terminates. Table 5.5 Sinhalese Gender in Noun Declension: Neuter (Type 01)

pot (Book) Case Terminals Singular Plural Singular Plural Definite Indefinite Definite Indefinite First case [potǝ] [potak] [pot] [ǝ] [ø] Second [potǝṭǝ] [potǝkǝṭǝ] [potvǝlǝṭǝ] [ǝṭǝ] [vǝlǝṭǝ] case Third case [potē] [potǝkǝ] [potvǝlǝ] [ē] [vǝlǝ] Forth case [poten] [potǝkin] [potvǝlin] [en] [vǝlin] Fifth case Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

Table 5.6 Sinhalese Gender in Noun Declension: Neuter (Type 02)

pārǝ (Road) Case Terminals Singular Plural Singular Plural Definite Indefinite Definite Indefinite First case [pārǝ] [pārak] [pārǝval] [ǝ] [ak] [ø] Second case [pārǝṭǝ] [pārǝkǝṭǝ] [pārǝvalvǝlǝṭǝ] [ǝṭǝ] [ǝkǝṭǝ] [valvǝlǝṭǝ] Third case [pāre] [pārǝkǝ] [pārǝvalvǝlǝ] [ē] [ǝkǝ] [valvǝlǝ] Forth case [pāren] [pārǝkin] [pārǝvalvǝlin] [en] [ǝkin] [valvǝlin] Fifth case Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

200

There are many English loan words (tatsama) which end with consonants such as “car, bus, van, telephone, plan” which are used in Sinhala as plural forms. The Sinhala word [ekǝ] (one) is used to make their singular form such as “car + [ekǝ], bus + [ekǝ], van + [ekǝ], telephone + [ekǝ], plan + [ekǝ]” and so on.

5.1.1.3.2 Pronouns

Some pronouns that refer to humans do not have gender difference as masculine and feminine. The following pronouns are common to both masculine and feminine genders.

Table 5.7 Common Pronouns for Masculine and Feminine Genders (Type 01)

First-Person Pronouns Singular Plural First Person [mamǝ]/[maŋ] (I) [api] (we) Second Person [oyā] (you) [oyāla] (you pl.) Third Person [eyā] (he) [eyāla] (they) Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

Table 5.8 Common Pronouns for Masculine and Feminine Genders (Type 02)

Second Person Masculine Feminine Singular Plural Singular Plural Equal [oyā] [oyāla] Respectful [obǝtumā] [obǝtumāla] [obǝtumī] [obǝtumīla] Respectful [tamunnānse] [tamunnānsēla] Buddhist monks [obǝ vahanse] [obǝ vahansēla] and other priests (even in normal conversations) Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

Some second person pronouns differ according to the social status of interlocutors.

201

Table 5.9 Second Person Pronouns by Social Status

Third Person Masculine Feminine Singular Plural Singular Plural Equal [eyā] [eyāla] Respectful [etumā] [etumāla] [etumī] [etumīla] Buddhist monks and [un vahanse] [un vahansēla] other priests (even in normal conversations) Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

The noun [tum] is used to respect people and it also takes the [ā] suffix for masculine and the [ī] suffix for feminine.

Table 5.10 Demonstrative Pronouns (Type 01)

Singular Plural [ēkǝ] (that thing) [ēva] (that thing) [ōkǝ] (that thing) [ōva] (that thing) [mēkǝ] (this thing) [mēva] (this thing) [arǝkǝ] (that thing) [arǝva] (that thing) Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

Some demonstrative pronouns [ē], [ō], [mē], [arǝ] combine with [ka] (masculine) and [ki] (feminine) endings to indicate derogatory senses.

Demonstrative pronouns [ē], [ō], [mē], [arǝ] combine with the suffix [kǝ] in the singular, and [va] in the plural, to indicate the neuter gender.

Table 5.11 Demonstrative Pronouns (Type 02) Masculine Feminine Singular Plural Singular Plural [ēka] [evun] / [ēkǝlā] [ēki] [ēkilā] (that man) (that men) (that woman) (that women) [ōka] [oun] / [ōkǝlā] [ōki] [ōkilā] (that man) (that men) (that woman) (that women) [mēka] [meun], [mēkǝlā] [mēki] [mēkilā] (this man) (this men) (this woman) (this women) [arǝka] [arun] / [arǝkǝlā] [arǝki] [arǝkilā] (that man) (that men) (that woman) (that women) Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

202

However, second and third person pronouns differ according to the social status of the speaker and the person substitute by the pronoun. Second and third person pronouns of the above table are usually used among peers. Words which denote relationships are used in spoken Sinhala today instead of second and third-person pronouns such as [māma] (uncle), [nænda] (aunt), [putā] (son), [duvǝ] (daughter), [ayya] (elder brother), [akka] (elder sister), [naŋgi] (younger sister), [malli] (younger brother) and some people use the English equivalent of those words. If the speaker realizes that the above words which denote relationship are not suitable to use, they opt to use respectful words like [mahattǝya] (sir), [nōnǝmahattǝya] (madam)” or the English equivalents.

5.1.1.3.2 Verb

The contemporary spoken Sinhala final verb basically has two forms: non-past and past.

Table 5.12 Contemporary Spoken Sinhala Final Verb

Number Subject Verb Person Non-past past First person Singular [mamǝ] (I) Plural [api,] (we) [kanǝva] (eat) [kǣva] Second person Singular [oyā ] (sin. you) [bonǝva] (drink) [bīva] Plural [oyāla] (pl. you) [enǝva] (come) [āva] Third person Singular [eyā ] (he) [nānǝva] (bathe) [nǣva] Plural [eyāla] (they) Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

The verb does not change according to the subject though it is different in number or person.

5.1.1.3.2.1 Causative Verb

The action of one who is instigated by another is called2 (prǝyōɉyakriyā) causative verbs (The action done under guidance or command of another). Causative verbs are formed by adding [va] in-between the root and the suffix. For example:

[ka+va+nǝva] (make the person to eat), [kǝrǝ+vǝ+nǝva] (make the person to do), [uyǝ+vǝ+nǝva] (make the person to cook), [marǝ+vǝ+nǝva] (make the person to kill).

2 Sidat Sangara, 87-89

203

The root of the verb [bonǝva] (drink) changes into another root when it makes a causative verb: [bo+nǝva] (drink) > [po+vǝ+ nǝva].

5.1.1.3.2.2 Imperative Verb

Expressing an order without or with respect to the second or third person without any distinction of present and future tenses are called imperative verbs.

Table 5.13 Imperative Verb

Singular Plural

Respectful Derogatory Derogatory

kǝrannǝ kǝrǝpaŋ/kǝrǝpiyǝ kǝrǝpiyav/kǝrǝpalla balannǝ balǝpaŋ/balǝpiyǝ balǝpiyav/balǝpalla tiyannǝ tiyǝpaŋ/tiyǝpiyǝ tiyǝpiyav/tiyǝpalla

Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

5.1.1.3.2.3 Benedictive Verb

A wish for something desirable in any of the three persons is benedictive. The verb is always non-past, and the form of the verb is similar in all three persons. The wishing noun or adjective is followed by the verb [vēvā] or [læbēvā]. For example: [niduk vēvā!] (May you be healthy!), [nirōgi sæpǝ læbēvā!] (May you be blessed with good health)

5.1.1.3.2.4 Conditional Verb

This occurs when there is a hypothetical/contingent or temporal sense in three persons with no distinction in the form.3 The suffix [ot] is used in hypothetical/contingent or temporal sense in three persons with no distinction in the form. For example: [eyā āvot mamǝ yanǝva] (If he comes, I will go). Conditionals are formed by appending [nam] after regular verbs: [eyā giyā nam mamǝ enǝva] (I would come if he went); [eyā enǝva nam mamǝ yannam] (I will go if he comes.); [oyā kanǝva nam mamǝt kannam] (I will also eat if you are eating.)

3 Sidat Sangara, 94-95

204

5.1.1.3.2.5 Conjunctive Participles

Conjunctive participles are formed by adding [la] suffix to the verbal root on many occasions. For example: [kā + la] (having eaten), [bī + la] (having drunk), [nā + la] (having bathed) and so on.

It functions as a perfect form when used at the final position: [eyā kāla] (He has eaten.); [eyā ævilla] (He has come.)

5.1.1.3.2.6 Contemporaneous Verb

In contemporary spoken Sinhala contemporaneous verbs are formed by giving double form to the verbal root when the root consists of two or more syllables:

[kǝrǝ+kǝrǝ] (doing), [uyǝ+uyǝ] (cooking), [tiyǝ+tiyǝ] (keeping), [balǝ+balǝ] (looking), [marǝ+marǝ] (killing).

When giving double form to the past participle verb or the root of mono syllabic forms, the vowel of the first syllable of contemporaneous verb becomes a short vowel: [ka+kā] (eating), [bi+bī] (drinking), [na+nā] (bathing), [di+dī] (giving).”

[karǝkǝvǝ+karǝkǝvǝ] (rotating), [nāvǝ+nāvǝ] (giving bathing), [kavǝ+kavǝ] (feeding).

5.1.1.3.2.7 Causative Contemporaneous Verb

[kǝrǝvǝ + kǝrǝvǝ] (cause doing), [marǝvǝ+marǝvǝ] (cause killing), [tiyǝvǝ+tiyǝvǝ] (cause keeping).

5.1.1.3.3 Particles

Some particles are placed after the word it governs and some are placed before the word it governs and some are used before and after the word it governs. Therefore, they can be divided as prepositions and postpositions. A postposition is a separate word or morpheme placed after the word it governs.4 A preposition is a word governing and usually preceding, a noun or pronoun and expressing a relation to another word or

4 https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/postposition , accessed on 05th January 2019

205

element in the clause.5 Sometimes a preposition shows the relationship between two other nearby words.6 Some prepositions are unique to Sinhala spoken language, but some are used in both writing and spoken usages.

Postpositions

Collective meaning: [yi] > (and) [amma yi tātta yi heṭǝ mehe enǝva] (Father and mother will be coming here tomorrow.)

[t] (also, and) > [mamat enṭǝ dǝ?] (May I come too?)

[oyat enṭǝ] (you also come.)

Meaning with: [ekkǝ] > (with) [oyat ekkǝ yanne kavudǝ?] (Who is going with you?)

Showing emotions:

Showing surprise: [ammō, appō]

Showing sorrow or compassion: [anē, apoyi, ayyō]

Showing painfulness: [āyi, ūyi, āh, ūh]

Showing disgust: [cih, ʃih]

Giving approval: [hā̃] (okay), [ovu] (yes).

For equalization: [vāge] > (like) [mē vāge potak maṭat tiyǝnǝva] (I also have a book like this.)

For comparing: [vaḍā] (than), [væḍiyǝ] (than) > [mēkǝṭǝ vaḍā arǝkǝ hod̃ayi] (This one is better than that.)

[mīṭǝ væḍiyǝ arǝkǝ hod̃ayi] (This one is better than that.)

For giving time: [dæn] > (now) [dæn mǝ ennǝ] (come just now.)

5 https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/preposition, accessed on 07th January 2019 6 https://www.grammar-monster.com, accessed on 10th January 2019

206

[heṭǝ] (tomorrow) > [mamǝ) heṭǝ ennam] (I will come tomorrow)

[passe] > (later) [mamǝ) passe ennam] (I will come later.)

Sometimes like above examples first-person pronoun is not compulsory.

[āye] > (again) [mamǝ āye mehe enne nǣ] (I will never come here again)

Showing boundary: [id̃ǝla] > (from) [prague id̃ǝla brnovǝlǝṭǝ durǝ kīyǝda] (How far is it from Prague to Brno?)

[kal] (until, to) > [prague id̃ǝla brnovǝlǝṭǝ yanǝkal vahinǝva] (It rains while travelling from Prague to Brno.)

Showing minimum or maximum limit: [pavā] (even) > [aliyo pavā gindǝrǝṭǝ bayayi]

(Even elephants are afraid of fire.)

[vat, hari] (at least) > [aḍu gāne oyā vat/hari ennǝ] (At least you had better come.)

Obstructive meaning: [epā] > [mehe ennǝ epā] (Do not come here.)

Meaning of except: [nætuvǝ, ærǝ] (except) > [mēkǝ nætuvǝ/ærǝ venǝ ekak dennǝ] (Give me another one instead of this.)

For questioning: [æyi] (why) [oyā aḍanne͂ æyi] (Why are you crying?)

[mokǝ dǝ] (why) [mokǝdǝ oyā aḍanne͂ ] (Why are you crying?)

[dǝ] (?) [bat kǣva dǝ?] (Did you eat?)

Meaning of alternative: [hari], [nættaŋ] (either / or) >

[eyā hari mamǝ hari ennaŋ] (If he doesn’t come I will come.);

207

[eyā nættaŋ mamǝ ennaŋ] (Either he/she or I will come.)

The postposition [hari] occurs twice after both nouns.

Meaning of each or all: [gāne] (each) > [mamǝ kaḍǝyak gāne giyā] (I went to each and every shop.)

[hæmǝ] (each) > [hæmǝ dā mǝ vahinǝva] (It rains every day.)

Particles: Prepositions

Excessive Meaning (adv.): [hug̃ak], [godak], [hari] (very/many) > [eyā] [hug̃ak/godak/hari hod̃ayi.] (He/she is very good)

Emphasizing: [mǝ] (very/most) > [himālǝyǝ tamyi lōke usǝ mǝ tænǝ] (The Himalayas is the highest place in the world.)

“udē mǝ ennǝ” (come very early.)

Negation or Opposite meaning: [no, ni, a] > [no kǝranṭǝ] (not to do.);

[eyāṭǝ ni karunē dos kiyanṭǝ eā.] (do not blame him without a reason.);

[ēkǝ a nisi væḍak] (It is not a suitable work.)

Manner quick: (adv.) [hanikǝ] > [hanikǝ ennǝ] (come quickly.);

[hayiyenŋ] (fast) [hayiyeŋ elǝvanṭǝ epā] (Do not drive fast.);

[ikmǝniŋ] (quickly) [ikmǝniŋ gedǝrǝ ennǝ] (come home quickly.)

Slowing meaning: (adv.) [hemiŋ] (slowly) [hemiŋ ennǝ] (come slowly.)

Thus: [mehemǝ] > [mehemǝ ho d̃ǝ nǣ] (it is not good like this?)

208

For calling: [ēyi] (hello) > [ēyi, mehe ennǝ] (Hello, come here.)

[mē] (hello) > [mē, api gedǝrǝ yamu dǝ?] (Hello, shall we go home?)

[ōyi, mehe enǝva] (Hello (in anger), come here.)

Naming or pointing: [nam] (?) [oyā nam hari hoḍ͂ ayi] (you are very good.);

Conformation: [tamayi] ( ) [meyā tamayi palǝveniya] (he is the first.)

Straight: [kelinmǝ] (adv.) > [mamǝ nam kelinmǝ kiyǝnǝva] (If I were you, I would directly tell you);

Demonstration: [onnǝ, ōnnǝ, annǝ] (there/look) [onnǝ aliyek enǝva] (Look an elephant is coming.);

[mennǝ] (here/look) > [mennǝ mēkǝ hoḍ͂ ayi] (Look this is good.)

Giving cause: [hinda] (for, because) > [vahinǝ hinda kuḍē geniyannǝ] (Take the umbrella as it is raining.);

[ēt] (but) > [mamǝ muhude nānṭǝ kæmǝtiyi ēt bayayi] (I like to bathe in the sea, but I am afraid.)

For (about): [gænǝ] (about) > [oyā gænǝ ṭikak vistǝrǝ kǝrannǝ] (Describe something about yourself.)

Manner: [vidihǝṭǝ] > [ē vidihǝṭǝ kǝranṭǝ] (Do it like that.); [vāge] > [ē vāge hoḍ͂ ǝ dǝ] (Is it okay like that?)

Conjunctions: [hinda] > [lamayi piṭǝraṭǝ giyǝ hinda mamǝ mahalu nivāsekǝṭǝ giyā] (I settled in an elderly home since my children went abroad.);

[koṭǝ] (when) > [hayiyen vahinǝ koṭǝ mē pættǝ yaṭǝ venǝva] (These areas get flooded when it rains heavily.)

209

Showing amount: [tavǝ] (more) > [maṭǝ tavǝ ōnæ] (I need more.)

[ṭikak] (little) > [maṭǝ tikak ingrīsi puluvaŋ] (I am a bit fluent in English.)

Showing Negativity: [nǣ], [nǣti] (do not) [eyā enne nǣ] (He/she did not come.)

[maṭǝ salli nǣ] (I do not have money.)

[næti] > [mamǝ salli næti kenek] (I am a person sans money.)

Always [nǣ] occurs as the final word of a sentence but [næti] never occurs as the final word of a sentence.

Prohibition: [epā] (do not) > [ehe yanṭǝ epā] (Do not go there.)

Showing impossibility: [bǣ], [bǣri] (cannot) > [maṭǝ enṭǝ bǣ] (I cannot come.)

[eyā ævidinṭǝ bæri kenek] (He/she is a disabled person.)

Sometimes [bǣ] occurs as the final word of a sentence but [bæri] never occurs as the final word of a sentence.

5.1.1.4 Syntax

The normal word order of a sentence in Sinhala spoken language is subject + object + verb (SOV) and does not differ from the written language. A. A. Abhayasinghe has pointed out that there are 25 types of simple sentence patterns in spoken Sinhala.7 Though there is no opportunity to discuss all those sentence patterns I hope to include some selected ones to clarify some sentence patterns.

7 For more information, A. A. Abhayasinghe, Sinhala Bhasave Sarala Vakya Vibhagaya, (Mahara: Abhaya Press, 1998).

210

5.1.1.4.1 Declarative sentences:

1. The first type consists of noun and intransitive verb. [ballā] (Dog) [burǝnǝvā] (barks). [malli] (Younger brother) [aḍ͂ ǝnǝva] (is crying).

Usually in Sinhala language adjectives proceed the respective nouns and adverbs proceed the relevant verbs.

[arǝ] (that) [balla] (dog) [hayiyen] (loudly) [burǝnǝvā] (barks).” (That dog barks loudly) [poḍi] (younger) [malli] (brother) [nitǝrǝmǝ] (always) [aḍ͂ ǝnǝva] (is crying). (The younger brother is always crying)

2. The second pattern consists of a transitive verb and both nominative and accusative nouns.

[mamǝ] (I) [bat] (rice) [kanǝva] (am eating).” (I am eating rice.)

[mamǝ] (I) [gedǝrǝ] (home) [yanǝva] (am going). (I am going home.)

Adverbs occur after the subject and modifiers of the object noun occur in between adverbs and the object noun as follows.

[mamǝ] (I) [tunvēlǝṭǝmǝ] (all threemeals) [kækulu] (red) [bat] (rice) [kanǝva] (eat).” (I eat red rice for all three meals.)

[mamǝ] (I) [hæmǝdāmǝ] (everyday) [havǝsǝṭǝ] (evening) [gedǝrǝ] (home) [yanǝva] (go).” (I go home everyday evening.)

5.1.1.4.1 Nonverbal Sentences

Some declarative sentences do not expect a verb.

[eyā] (he) [guruvǝrǝyek] (a teacher). (He is a teacher.)

[mamǝ] (I) [goviyek] (a farmer). (I am a farmer.)

[malǝ] (flower) [suvǝd̃ayi] (is fragrant). (The flower is fragrant)

211

[kārekǝ] (the car) [alut] (new). (The car is new)

However, the above sentences will have the verbal component when they are transforming into other sentence patterns:

[eyā goviyek] (He a farmer) > [goviyek veccǝ eyā].

5.1.1.4.2 Interrogative Sentences

Some interrogative sentences could be a verb and a question mark.

[kǣva dǝ]? (Did you eat?)

[vahinǝva dǝ]? (Is it raining?)

[ivǝrǝ dǝ] (Is it over?)

Some sentences consist of a single word such as a noun, a preposition, or a verb. If the single word sentence is a modifier it combines with a [yi] preposition:

[api] (We) [yamu] (go) [dǝ]? (Let us go?)

The answer would be a single word such as:

[hā] (okay),

[bǣ] (No I cannot),

[yamu] (Let us go).

[tātta] (father) [koyi] (where)? (Where is father?)

The answer would be a noun, verb or a adverb:

[kāmǝrē] (in the room)

[nānǝva] (bathing)

[kanǝva] (eating)

[nǣ] (he is not available)

212

A questioning preposition is used at the beginning of a sentence. However, the preposition could be placed at the end as well.

[æyi] (why) [aḍ͂ anne]? (crying) (Why are you are /he is/she is crying?)

5.1.1.4.3 Imperative Sentences:

The usual word of positive imperative sentences of Sinhala is the present tense verb. The postposition [epā] (do not) is followed by the present tense verb in negative sentences. Though the subject of the sentence is always in the second person, it is not important. Therefore, the imperative verb could be the sentence. At the same time the verb differs according to the social status of the commander and the doer. Table 5.14 Imperative Verb by Social Status

Honorable Equal Status Lower Status Singular Plural Stop [innǝ] [hiṭǝpaŋ] [hiṭǝpiyav] Stop [navǝtinnǝ] [nævǝtiyan] [nævǝtiyav] Eat [valǝd̃annǝ] [kannǝ] [kāpaŋ] [kāpiyav] Go [vadinnǝ] []yannǝ [palǝyaŋ] [palǝyav] Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

5.1.1.4.4 Exclamation Sentences:

Several prepositions such as [monǝ], [hari], [harimǝ], [mārǝ] are usually used in a sentence to express emotion or excitement in the Sinhala language. The preposition [monǝ] is used at the beginning of a sentence to express displeasure.

[monǝ karumǝyak dǝ] (What an evil),

[monǝ apǝrādǝyak dǝ] (What a crime/loss)

[monǝ karaccǝlǝyak dǝ] (What a noise)

[monǝ kehemmalak dǝ] (What a nuisance)

The usual word order of the above exclamation sentences are as follows:

213

[monǝ] (interrogative adj.) [kehemmalak] (noun+ [ak] suffix) [dǝ] (Questioning particles (prepositions))

Some absolutives such as [hari], [harimǝ], [mārǝ] are used alone or as adjectives to express desire.

[harimǝ apūruyi] (How wonderful)

[hari lassǝnayi], [mārǝ lassǝnayi] (How beautiful.)

At the same time absolutions such as [mārǝ], [niyǝmǝ] are used with [yi] postposition:

[mārǝ + yi], [niyǝmǝ + yi] (Excellent!)

Some articles such as [anē], [ayyō], [appō] are used alone to express sorrow, sympathy or wonder.

5.1.2 High-brow Spoken Grammar

As we discussed in chapter five the common spoken grammar is far removed from written grammar and Munidasa Kumaratunge has pointed out that the common spoken language of Sinhala is ungrammatical. Therefore, he introduced a new grammar for spoken Sinhala. Kumaratunge says: “These are (spoken Sinhala final verbs such as [kiyǝnǝvā] (say), [liyǝnǝvā] (write), [yanǝvā] (go), [duvǝnǝvā] (run)) which are not finite verbs for they do not agree with a subject in number and person. This fact will at once explain why a noun or a person in the exclusive Nominative form can never be used with a word of this class. Then how are we to construct a sentence? Let us see.

Table 5.15 High-brow Spoken Grammar Singular Plural First Person [mā siṭinǝvā (I stand) [apǝ siṭinǝvā] (we stand) Second Person [obǝ siṭinǝvā] (You stand) [obǝ siṭinǝvā] (you stand) Third Person [ohu siṭinǝvā] (he stands) [ovun siṭinǝvā] (they stand) Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

214

[mā siṭinǝvā] (I stand) is quite a good sentence in Sinhalese. You will at once admit that if this be good Sinhalese the learning of it should present any difficulty at all. I assure you that it is perfectly good Sinhalese and challenge any pundit to prove that it is otherwise. The telling word -the word that does the work of a verb- is the same all throughout, whatever be the person or the number. Let us call this the Infinitive Verb. ‘verb’ because it does the work of a verb and ‘infinitive’ because it does not agree with its subject in person and number.”8

According to Kumaratunge the final verbs of spoken Sinhala which end with the suffix [nǝvā] in the present tense are not finite verbs so that they do not agree with the subject in number and person. Therefore, he suggests keeping the subject of the sentence in the accusative case with this type of infinite verbs. However, the idea that spoken Sinhala language is ungrammatical came to be popularized by the pure Sinhala movement since the 1940s and happen to settle down in society. Even today the majority thinks that spoken Sinhala does not have a grammar. Therefore, many tend to use high-brow spoken grammar introduced by Kumaratunge for formal discussions and public speeches.

5.2 School Grammar

These include grammar books which have been prepared for various school grades targeting examinations.

5.2.1 School Text Books

Contemporary school text books which have been prepared for Sinhala language and literature are used for this study.

The Sinhala reader grade 1 has employed the spoken idiom throughout the text. However, it has used written Sinhala pronouns [apǝṭǝ] (us) on a couple of occasions

8 Kumaratunge, Munidasa, “Sinhalese Practice”, The Helio, Vol. 1, No. 1, (August 29, 1941): 8

215

and it also has used conjunctives [dī] (have given), [pīnā] (swum) in several occasions instead of spoken verb [dīlā] and [pīnānǝlā] respectively.

Spoken idiom and vocabulary have used in the grade two Sinhala reader:

1. [væv iwrē saŋgītǝ pantiyǝ] (The music class on the bank of the lake) [yāḷuvō væw iwrǝṭǝ āvā.] (friends came to the bank of the lake) [api adǝ monǝvadǝ kǝrannē?] (What are we going to do today?) [ɉānǝkǝ æsuvā.] (Janaka asked) [saŋgītǝ pantiyak damǝmu. pavǝni kivvā.] (Let us do a music class.” Pavani said) [hæmōmǝ kæmǝti vunā.] (Everyone agreed) [mamǝ gurutumī vennam. malī akkā kivvā.] (I will be the teacher.” said the elder sister Mali.)

According to the written idiom the above lesson should be as follows. The spoken and written differences have been underlined.

[yāḷuvō væw iwrǝṭǝ pæminiyǝhǝ.] (friends came to the bank of the lake)

[api adǝ kumak kǝrǝmu dǝ?] (What are we going to do today?)

[ɉānǝkǝ æsuvē yǝ.] (Janaka asked)

[saŋgītǝ pantiyak damǝmu. pavǝni pævǝsuvā yǝ.] (“Let us do a music class.” Pavani said)

[hæmōmǝ kæmǝti vūhǝ.] (Everyone agreed) [mamǝ gurutumī vennam. malī akkā kīvā yǝ.] (I will be the teacher.” said elder sister Mali.)

216

Sometimes the text has been used written Sinhala vocabulary though it employs spoken idiom.

Table 5.16 Deviation of Vocabulary: Noun

The Text Book Spoken Idiom has used h [d anǝvat] (Rich) [pohosat] [piyā] (Father) [tātta/appacci] [piyāṭǝ] (to Father) [tāttaṭǝ/appacciṭǝ] [pāsal] (School) [iskōlǝ]

[sthānǝyǝṭǝ] (Place) [tænǝṭǝ] [idiriyen] (Front) [issǝræhin] [krīḍā piṭiyǝ] (Playground) [piṭṭǝniye] [milǝ] (Price) [gānǝ] [cārikāvǝ] (Trip) [gamǝnǝ] [puvǝruvak] (Board) [lǣllak]

Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

The grade two text book also has used accusative case nouns [putun] (sons) while using spoken Sinhala grammar.

Instead of employing the above spoken vocabulary the text book tends to use written language vocabulary. At the same time, some written language verbs also have been used instead of spoken verbs.

Table 5.17 Deviation of Vocabulary: Verb

The Text Book has used Spoken Idiom [kæpū] [kapǝpu]

[ærǝb̃uvā] [paṭangattā] [kǣgæsuvā] [kǣgæhuvā]

[darʃǝnǝyǝ vuṇā] [penunā] [æsuvā] [æhuvā]

[hædū] [hadǝpu] Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

217

The following written Sinhala prepositions and postpositions have been used instead of the spoken language synonyms.

Table 5.18 Deviation of Vocabulary: Particle

The Text Book has used Spoken Idiom [ārambhǝkǝ (Starting) paṭangannǝ/mul] [matǝ] (On) [uḍǝ] [paridi] (according to) [vidihǝṭǝ] [ākārǝyǝṭǝ] (manner) [vidihǝṭǝ] [pamǝnak] (only) [vitǝrak] The Text Book has used Spoken idiom [samǝgǝ] (with) [ekkǝ] [nævǝtat] (again) [āyet] [viʃālǝ] (big) [loku] [bægin] (at the rate of) [gāne] Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

The third person pronouns [ovun] (they) is not used in spoken Sinhala. At the same time the Spoken Sinhala equivalent [eyā] does not have gender difference in both singular and plural forms. However, the object form of the written Sinhala third person plural pronoun with dative suffix [ovunṭǝ]9 has been used in this text book. The Spoken Sinhala third person pronoun [eyā] does not use in the written language as well as highbrow spoken Sinhala since it does not have a good reputation in learned society. In spoken Sinhala, instead of using the third person pronoun [eyā] (he/she) a different form of words is used with the basic form of it [e] such as [e tumā] (for a male respectable person), [e tumiyǝ] (for a female respectable person) or [un vahanse] (for high dignitaries/clergy).

At the same time, the object suffix of the written language “an” also has been used with the noun [yahaluvan]10 [yahalu (v) + an] in this text book. [v] is the supportive sound for the suffixation of the noun [yahalu] the suffix [an]. Sanskrit tatsama word [rathǝ] (vehicle) has been used in the text book Sometimes with English borrowings like [bus + rathǝ] (bus) as well as Sinhala words [tri rōdǝ + rathǝ] (trishaw).

9 Sinhala Grade 2 Reading Book, (Colombo: Educational Publication Department, 2016), 9 10 ibid, 38

218

English words like “bus, car, van, phone” are widely used in spoken Sinhala today. English singular words or stems that end with a consonant are used as the plural forms in Sinhala. However, singular neuter gender suffix [ǝ] is not used with those English borrowings to form the singular noun, instead appended Sinhala word [ekǝ] (one) is used to form the singular noun with those English borrowings. For instance: [car + ekǝ], [bus + ekǝ], [van + ekǝ] and the like. It is also worth stating here that while having Sinhala words [gurutumā] (male teacher) [gurutumiyǝ] (female teacher), almost everybody uses [sir] for a male teacher and madam or teacher for a female teacher in spoken Sinhala today. The Sinhala words [gurutumā] and [gurutumiyǝ] are used only in written language or formal occasions in the spoken language.

Retroflex and dental variations of Sinhala letters have been used in the first two lessons and aspirated sounds are used from third lesson.

The grade three Sinhala reader can be considered as a transitional reading book as it is meant to familiarize students with both spoken grammar and written grammar. Spoken The Sinhala grammar has been used in grade three Sinhala reader up to the 12th lesson. Standard Sinhala written grammar has been introduced for school children for the first time in lesson 13. However, the 14th lesson has been written in spoken grammar. Both the 15th and 16th lessons have been prepared in Standard Sinhala written grammar.

Written Sinhala grammar and vocabulary have been used in the Grade Four Sinhala Reader as follows:

2. [sundǝrǝ gammānǝyak gal talāvē vāḍi vuṇu tarid̃u vaṭǝpiṭǝ bæluvē yǝ. pāsǝlē væḍǝ avǝsānǝ kǝrǝ ṭikǝ vēlāvak vivēkǝyen siṭīmǝṭǝ ohu tuḷǝ ættē pudumǝ āsāvǝki. tarid̃ugē nivǝsǝ asǝlǝ ōviṭē pihiṭi galtalāvǝ samīpǝyǝṭǝ samǝharǝ dinǝvǝlǝ dī tuṣāri, ramyā, hā mādhǝvǝnut ek vūhǝ. avǝṭǝ parisǝrǝyǝ narǝbā̃ satuṭu vīmǝṭǝ pamǝṇak novǝ ē gænǝ igenǝ gannǝṭǝ dǝ mē daruvō purudu vī siṭiyǝhǝ.]11 (An attractive Village

11 Sinhala Grade 4 Reader, (Colombo: Educational Publication Department, 2013), 12-13

219

Tarindu sat on a flat rock and looked around. He very much likes to rest for a while after completing the school home work. On some days Ramya, Thushari and Madhavan also joined him to go to the flat rock which is near Tarindu’s home. These children used to not only enjoy the environment but also to study it.)

The spoken Sinhala version of the above extract should be as follows and it will also illustrate the wide gulf of Spoken and written Sinhala usage.

[lassǝnǝ gammānǝyak gal talāvē id̃ǝ gattu tarid̃u vaṭǝpiṭǝ bæluva. iskōle væḍǝ ivǝrǝ kǝrǝla ṭikǝ velāvak vivēken inṭǝ eyā harimǝ āsayi. tarid̃ugē gedǝrǝ lag̃ǝ ōviṭē tiyǝnǝ galtalāvǝ lag̃ǝṭǝ samǝharǝ davasvǝlǝ tuṣāriyi, ramyayi, mādhǝvǝnut ekǝtu venǝva. avǝṭǝ parisǝrē balǝla satuṭu venǝ ekǝ vitǝrak nevē ē gænǝ igenǝ ganṭǝt mē daruvō purudu velā hiṭiya.]

Spoken Sinhala idiom and vocabulary have been used for dialogues while written grammar is used for description and narration. As a result of the diglossic situation the mixing of the vocabulary and grammar of both spoken and written usage is very common even in school text books as for example:

3. i. [oyāṭǝ agēṭǝ paninnǝ puḷuvan novæ ittǣrālǝ.]12 (You could jump very well Mr. Hedgehog! Isn’t it?) ii. [mamǝ paninnǝ danne næhæ. mamǝ paninǝ koṭǝ mē polle balē maṭǝ pihiṭǝ vuṇā.] (I do not know how to jump. When I jump the power of this stick help me.) iii. [ittǣ rālǝ obǝ mā bērā gattā. obǝṭǝ bohomǝ stūtiyi]13 (Mr. Hedgehog! you saved my life. Thank you so much.)

In the first line of the above extract [oyā] (you) which is a spoken Sinhala second person singular pronoun which is also not used in written Sinhala as well as high-brow usage of spoken Sinhala, it has been used in dialogues in this text book. At the same time,

12 Sinhala Grade 4 Reader, (Colombo: Educational Publication Department, 2013), 13 13 ibid, 14

220

[obǝ] (you) and [obǝṭǝ] (to you) written Sinhala second person singular pronoun has been used in dialogues for the same meaning. Mixing of spoken and written Sinhala vocabulary in dialogues is very common in many lessons in this text book.

Standard written Sinhala grammatical rules have been introduced from grade six upward and all Sinhala text books after grade six have been titled as ‘Sinhala Language and Literature’ since they consist literature reading with grammar lessons. Language drills regarding the difference between spoken and written Sinhala is included at the end of the first lesson. The 4th lesson introduces the Sinhala alphabet and vowel symbols used to indicate vowels once they combine with consonants. According to the Sinhala written system vowels can exist separately only at the beginning of a word and all the vowels which are in the middle or at the end of a word combine with consonants. Nouns and their varieties are introduced in the 5th lesson and there is a drill of three persons on written Sinhala at the end. A lesson and an activity on the subject and the object forms of Sinhala nouns and an activity on the gender difference are found in lesson five. A drill on modifiers is found at the end of the Seventh lesson while lesson nine is on verb and its varieties of Sinhala language. The lesson Ten is on syntax of Sinhala language and it has been titled as Creation of Sentences. An introduction to various types of punctuation and its practices in Sinhala language is explained at the end of the12th lesson. Modifiers and its varieties namely adjectives and adverbs are introduced in the lesson Sixteen.14

The 3rd lesson of the grade 7 text book on Sinhala Language and Literature introduces the Sinhala alphabet: the pure Sinhala alphabet and contemporary mixed - Sinhala alphabet and Sinhala orthographical rules. Sinhala nouns and singular plural difference and types of different suffixes, difference of three persons and gender difference of nouns have been introduced at the end of lesson four. An introduction on the subject and object forms of all types of nouns is included at the end of the 5th lesson. A lesson on the verb introduces various types of verbs of the Sinhala language at the end of lesson Seven. The rules on word division have been explained at the end of lessons 15

14 For more information, Sinhala Language and Literature Grade 6, (Colombo: Educational Publication Department, 2015).

221

and 16. A description on modifying words has been included at the end of lesson 19. Some rules of punctuation have been added at the end of lesson 20.15

The Sinhala language and Literature Grade 8 text book introduces contemporary mixed Sinhala alphabet on the back of the front page. Some grammar rules have been included at the end of each lesson. A lesson on traditional idiom is discussed at the end of the first lesson. A short introduction on orthographical rules have been included at the end of the third lesson. The fourth lesson provides a knowledge on the usage of dictionaries. The Seventh lesson introduces imperative and benedictive verbs in Sinhala. An introduction on Sinhala nouns and its sub categories have been included at the end of the tenth lesson. A short introduction on Sinhala adjectives is included at the end of the 11th lesson. An introduction on polysemy words of Sinhala has been included at the end of lesson twelve. The lesson 13 is on the subject and the predicate agreement of Sinhala and it also describes gender and the singular - plural differences of Sinhala nouns that are important to understand the subject and the predicate agreement of Sinhala. A short introduction on synonyms consists with the 16th lesson. The 18th lesson is on part two of the rules on the agreement of the subject and the predicate which describes the three persons and subject and object forms of nouns. A basic introduction to the usage of punctuation has been introduced at the end of lesson 19. Several rules on word division is discussed at the end of lesson 20. Sinhala antonyms are described at the end of the 21st lesson. The whole text has been written in contemporary standard written grammar except the dialogues.

Proverbs, maxims, and idioms at the end of lesson One, synonyms - antonyms and the usage of prefixes at the end of lesson Two and pair words at the end of lesson Three have been introduced in the Sinhala Language and Literature of Grade 9.16 A description on the alphabet at the end of lesson Four, the usage of some punctuation and usage of ‘n/ṇ, l/ḷ and ʃ/ṣ/s letters at the end of lesson Five. An introduction on modifiers is in lesson 7 and an analysis on nouns and its types are included at the end of lesson 10. It also provides some syntactical rules related to the subject and predicate

15 For more information, Sinhala Language and Literature Grade 7, (Colombo: Educational Publication Department, 2016). 16 For more information, Sinhala Language and Literature Grade 9, (Colombo: Educational Publication Department, 2017).

222

agreement with lesson 11, rules behind active and passive voice sentences in lesson 12 and an analysis on causative and conditional verbs in lesson 14. An introduction on various types of prepositions and their usage has been included in lesson 18.

The lesson two of Sinhala Language and Literature Grade 10 is an advanced lesson on Sinhala alphabet and its articulation. Lesson Three is a description on regional dialects of Sinhala language and an analysis on nominal base and verb roots are also provided at the end of the lesson. Lesson Nine teaches on active and passive voice sentences of Sinhala, the subject and the object forms of Sinhala nouns and explains the usage of a noun in the place of a verb under special syntactic rules. Some orthographical rules and the usage of punctuation have been explained at the end of lesson 16. Ten types of Sandhi in Sinhala language have been introduced in lesson 19. An introduction on Sinhala particles have been added to the lesson 20.

The 3rd lesson of Sinhala Language and Literature Grade 11, consists of a long classification of Sinhala alphabet and orthography. An analysis on alphabetical order and some vowel symbols and consonant symbols of Sinhala writing have been introduced at the end of lesson 4. Lesson 4 has an explanation of syntactic rules, including active and passive voice sentences of written Sinhala. An explanation on cases of nouns is given for the first time in these new school text books series in lesson 11. Lesson 14 is an introduction on regional dialects, restricted usage and a brief explanation on euphonic combinations (Sandhi) of the Sinhala language. Lesson 16 is a combination of traditional and modern analysis of Sinhala compounds (Samasa) and lesson 17 is a description of derivations which are made by adding suitable suffixes to verb roots and noun bases. A classification of particles have been added at the end of lesson 20 and a description on punctuations also has been added at the end of lesson 25.

5.3 Prescriptive Grammar

Grammatical treatises that are prepared to prescribe grammatical rules in standard Sinhala written language are discussed under this category. Since there were no Sinhala grammatical works except the Sidat Sangarava it was considered as the standard

223

grammar for Sinhalese language for over seven centuries. In the 19th century with the expansion of modern education and literary publications, Sinhala scholars realized that the grammatical prescriptions of the Sidat Sangarava was not sufficient to fulfill the requirement of modern Sinhala language. Therefore, they tend to describe new Sinhala grammatical rules based on modern Sinhala usage and classical prose.

Sinhala Vyākǝrǝṇǝyǝ’

‘Sinhala Vyākǝrǝṇǝyǝ’ (Sinhalese Grammar) is prepared by Charles Henry Carter (1828 – 1914), a British missionary to Ceylon, and can be considered as the oldest available modern Sinhala Grammatical text in Sinhala which was compiled for the use of school children. Though Charles Carter learned the Sinhala language while living with Sinhalese people for a long time after coming to Sri Lanka as a Christian priest, the book itself testifies that his Sinhala grammatical knowledge had not been sufficient to prepare a grammatical text in Sinhala. However, he has compiled a Sinhala text book in 1873 and later became a prominent lexicographer who compiled Sinhala-English and English-Sinhala dictionaries.17

5.3.1 The Warṇǝrīti and Sinhalese Grammar (1875)

“Sinhala Warṇǝrīti and Sinhalese Grammar”18 of Ven. Hikkaduwe Sri Sumangala in 1875, is one of the earliest modern grammatical texts in Sinhala. It consists of two parts and the first part has been named as “varṇǝrītiyǝ” (phonology/alphabet) and the second part is “Sinhala vyākǝeǝṇǝ” (Sinhala grammar). The first part introduces Sanskrit, Pali, and pure Sinhala alphabets respectively. A classification on the Sanskrit alphabets such as vowels, consonants, the articulation, the ways of combining consonants have been included in the first part. [æ], [ǣ] and [c] letters have been included into the pure Sinhala alphabet. Though half nasal sounds [g̃, ɟ,̃ ḍ͂ , d̃, b]̃ have not been included to pure Sinhala alphabet they have been described following the Sidat Sangara. An explanation about pure and mixed Sinhala usage and a table of correct and incorrect usage of Sinhala orthography also has been given in varṇǝrītiyǝ. The second part is on Sinhala grammar. Except [pūrvǝrūpǝ sandhi] (progressive assimilation sandhi) the other seven types of

17 Wimal G. Balagalle, Sinhala Basa Adyayana Itihasaya, (Colombo: Godage, 1998), 179 18 H. Sumangala, The Warnariti and Sinhalese Grammar, (Colombo: Lakrivikirana Press, 1875).

224

sandhi which have been described in the Sidat Sangara and a description on some Sanskrit sandhi have been given in the discussion of sandhi. The analysis of noun is similar to the Sidat sangara. Sample noun declensions such as masculine, feminine, and neuter gender nouns and pronouns have been given in the analysis of cases. However, sample declension of third person feminine pronouns has not been included. The author has confirmed only masculine and feminine gender in contemporary Sinhala following the Sidat Sangara. The categorization of verb and tenses are also similar to that in the Sidat Sangara. A discussion on “ṇ/ḷ” usage has been included in the appendix. Except the above-mentioned alterations, the entire text has been prepared based on the Sidat Sangara. Since the standard of [ṇ/ḷ] usage and word division in Sinhala had not been developed to the present level there are some deviations in them. Many grammatical terms and titles and sub titles have been given in English for the benefit of the Anglo-Vernacular Schools.

5.3.2 Padanitiya (Morphology)19 (1890)

Padanitiya was compiled by Weragama Puncibandara in 1888 to fulfil the long felt need of teaching Sinhala grammar in vernacular schools. Padanitiya can be considered as a simplified version of classical grammatical text the Sidat Sngara which is far beyond the grasp of ordinary school pupils. the Padanitiya had not hesitated in adding or dropping some grammatical rules such as introducing three genders and including “æ, ǣ” letters to the pure Sinhala alphabet. Seven evaluations of seven prominent Sinhala Pandits at that time have been included into the English preface to evaluate the standard and the aptness as a school grammar. The author has mentioned two names of school inspectors who gave advice for the compilation of the text as a school text book. The preface and the titles and subtitles have been given in English as it has targeted both Vernacular and Anglo-vernacular schools. Each lesson is described very concisely less than a single page and exercises also have been given at the end of each lesson.

The Padanitiya also has named chapters by the name of contents. The first chapter introduces the pure Sinhala alphabet including ‘æ, ǣ’ letters that were not included in the Sidatsangara. Both Pali and Sanskrit alphabets have been introduced instead of

19 For more information, Weragama Puncibandara, Padanitiya, (Colombo: The Buddhist Press, 1890).

225

introducing a mixed Sinhala alphabet. A lesson on pure and mixed Sinhala have been included at the end of the introduction of alphabets. Selected grammatical theories such as deletion, substitution, insertion, giving the latter letter the form of the former, giving the former letter the form of the latter letter (this is not included in the Sidat Sangara), reduplication, vowel change, vowel length, phonological modification of ‘h’ sound (in the evolution of Sinhala language and the making derivation from Pali and Sanskrit) have been introduced with the first chapter, following the Sidat Sangara.

Apart from nine fold sandhi introduced by the Sidatsangara, chapter two of Padanitiya has been introduced “Parǝrūsad̃ǝ” or “Parǝ rūpǝ sandhi” (following assimilation: giving the form of the first letter of the following word to the final letter of the preceding word) which is the opposite manner of “Pūrvǝrūpǝsandhi” (progressive assimilation) that had been introduced by the Sidatsangara. All the other nine sandhi methods are similar to the Sidat Sangara.

Chapter three has been named as “pada” (words) which does not make a chapter in the SidatSangara, which only has a description of words including nouns, verbs, suffixes, prepositions and pronouns. Finally, a description on gender has been included to the chapter where he suggests three genders (masculine, feminine and neuter) for contemporary Sinhala instead of two genders (masculine and feminine) in the Sidat Sangara.

Chapter four is on cases and starts with a short introduction of cases and follows singular – plural difference, nine cases of Sinhala, declension or formation of words, which describes the conjugation of various types of nouns and finally introduces the usage of each nine cases in various meanings.

Chapter five deals with the verb and starts with a short introduction on verb roots and suffixes. Next it explains intransitive and transitive verbs, three tenses and three persons and their suffixes and the usage with appropriate nouns. Further, it introduces the benedictive verb, imperative verb, conditional verb, past participles, present participles,

226

causative verb, (subject and object of a sentence, subject of a sentence and object of a sentence, passive verb and agreement of the subject and the predicate.

Chapter six is a very short one which discusses nominal modifiers and is modified in a single page.

Chapter seven is on nominal and verbal derivations.

The analysis on compounds is in chapter seven and its content and analysis are similar to that of the Sidat Sangara.

In the appendix, after the seventh chapter (1) threefold etymology of words as: niṣpannǝ (native), tatsamǝ (borrowings) and tatbhavǝ (derived), (2) correct usage, (3) ṇ/ḷ usage, (4) incorrect and correct usage have been discussed.

5.3.3 A Comprehensive Grammar of the Sinhalese Language (1891) A Comprehensive Grammar of the Sinhalese Language (1891) by Abraham Mendis Gunasekara is an extensive grammar on the Sinhala language when compared with grammar of the latter part of the 19th Century.20 Though it has been written in English to suit the requirements of English readers, some examples have been given in Sinhala where it is necessary.

The introduction describes the origin of Sinhalese and their language, structure of language and basic technical terms of the Sinhala language studies. The second section orthography introduces both pure and mixed Sinhala alphabets. The author does not hesitate to include [æ] and [ǣ] vowel letters and the consonant [c] into the pure Sinhala alphabet which were not included in the Sidatsangara. 18 vowel letters and 36 consonants have been included into his mixed Sinhala alphabet in which velar voiced nasal letter ^Ù& [ŋ] and velar unvoiced fricative letter ^w:) [h] have been arranged at the

20 For more information, Abraham Mendis Gunasekara, Comprehensive Grammar of the Sinhalese Language (1891), (Maharagama: Saman, 1962).

227

end of consonants. Then he provides the Sanskrit alphabet in which velar voiced nasal letter ^Ù& [ŋ] and velar unvoiced fricative letter ^w:) [h] have been placed at the end of vowel letters. A table has been given to describe the way of combining each vowel to each consonant and different vowel symbol for them. The way of transcribing in compound manner has been introduced for the use of Sinhalese for the benefit of the writing Sanskrit and Pali words with Sinhala letters. Various classifications of the alphabet and their pronunciation in phonetic symbols has been given for the use of non- Sinhala readers. While describing half nasal letters like velar, palatal, retroflex, dental, and labial voiced half nasals the author tends to include a palatal unvoiced half nasal letter which is not available in Sinhala. Another important thing is the labio-dental fricative letter /* [f] has been introduced as a new letter which came into the Sinhala sound system with the influence of European languages. Syllable patterns, history and the origin of Sinhala letters, the usage of [n/ṇ] and [l/ḷ] have been included in the chapter of orthography. Nine phonetic rules such as “elision, substitution, augmentation, two types of assimilation, reduplication, fivefold of metathesis, elongation, abbreviation and tenfold combinations have been described in the section of orthography.

In chapter iii, Etymology discusses various categories of nouns such as three genders in contemporary Sinhala nouns, nine types of cases, their suffixes and case denoting particles, noun declension, adjectives, numerals, declension of numerals, articles, various categories of pronouns, honorifics. The category of verb discusses active and passive voice verbs, past, present and future verbs, benedictive, imperative, conditional, causative, infinitive, participle moods of verbs, three tenses, three persons, formation of tenses, conjugation of verbs, auxiliary verbs, compound verbs, adverbs, prepositions [vibhakti nipātǝ], prefixes, particles, compositions [samāsǝ], derivations, onomatopoeic words, suffixes (nominal and verbal derivatives), reduplication of words, synonyms, homonyms, syntax, idiom, punctuation, comparison of classical and colloquial Sinhalese and so on. Finally, the book consists of an index of Sinhala words.

Though some contradictory matters are included, this grammar could be considered as a precise effort of analyzing contemporary Sinhala language independently, leaving out the structure of the Sidatsangara. Though this was not a school text book at that time

228

we can understand the recognition that had been achieved by this book in the elite society since it has been recommended for the Ceylon Civil Service Examination.

5.3.4 Sinhala Vakyǝ Nītiyǝ21 (Sinhalese Composition) (Syntactical Rules in Sinhala Language) (1903)

The Sinhala Vakyǝ Nītiyǝ (of John Blok)22 mentions that the requirement of a treatise on the syntax of Sinhala language has been a long-felt need, and the result of the absence of such a book has led to each student forming his own standard of composition. The above statement of the author clearly indicates that this book has been prepared as a prescriptive grammar for students. The preface, headings and subheadings have been given both in Sinhala and English as the book has been prepared for the use of both Vernacular and Anglo-vernacular schools. The grammar starts with an introduction of four parts of speech namely noun, verb, prefix and particles. The book introduces subject, predicate, object and various types of particles and their usage in a sentence and the types of sentences. Sentences have been divided based on the structure such as simple and complex sentences. At the same time, sentences have been categorized based on the meaning such as affirmative, interrogative, permissive and the like. An exercise has been given at the end of each lesson. Two exercises are given at the end of the book to get over common errors. The final lesson provides hints for sentence and essay writing.

5.3.5 Sinhalese Grammar (Johannes Grammar) (1912)

The Sinhalese Grammar of Don Eustakius Johannes was prepared in 1912 as a school grammar as the author mentions on the cover page of the book. As the author claims in the preface, the grammar has been prepared as a simple version of the classical grammar the Sidatsangara (excluding the last two chapters which are on prosody of poetics) as it is difficult to be understood by contemporary pupils. Though he has included all important and necessary rules of the Sidatsangara he has changed the order of the content and has placed easier topics at the beginning and difficult ones at the end. The

21 The title page is not available in both copies that I referred but according to University of Peradeniya Library records its authorship goes to: John Block, Sinhala Vakya Nitiya, (Colombo: 1903).

229

text consists of some new information that is necessary for the understanding of modern Sinhala language.

The cover page, the preface, contents and titles are given in both English and Sinhala for the benefit of Anglo-Vernacular schools. A contemporary mixed Sinhala alphabet has been given as the Sinhala alphabet but [æ] and [ǣ] has been excluded from it. But the author acknowledges and states in the analysis of the alphabet that there are two vowels in Sinhala as [æ], [ǣ] which are not available in Pali and Sanskrit. In the discussion of nouns, following the Sidat Sangara, he only discusses two genders (masculine and feminine) and does not mention the neuter gender nouns.23 However, in the declension of nouns he has identified animate and inanimate nouns that cannot be declined in all nine cases, but he has not been able to analyze it successfully.24 Following the Sidat Sangara he has introduced three tenses (present, past and future) for Sinhala verbs.25 An analysis of terms that have been used in the text has been included in the appendix.

The book bears witness itself to some language deviations that exist such as spelling, word division, the usage of punctuation and proper combination of the subject and the predicate of sentences since these had not been developed up to a standard level at that time.

5.3.6 Sabdanusasanaya (1914)

Sabdanusasanaya26 or Grammar of the Sinhalese language of Simon De Silva, is one of the most influential Sinhala grammars that appeared in the first half of the 20th Century as the author was a well-known writer and the Chief Translator for the Ceylon government then. The Opinion of A. Van Cuylenburg, the Director of Schools in Ceylon at that time, has been included at the beginning of the text. The opinion of the director of schools testify that there had been disagreements or different views regarding written Sinhala orthography and grammar among grammarians and

23 Don Eustakius Johannes, Sinhala Vyakaranaya, (Published by H. Z. G. O. Senanayake, 1949), 7 24 Don Eustakius Johannes, Sinhala Vyakaranaya, (Published by H. Z. G. O. Senanayake, 1949), 16-18 25 ibid, 8-31 26 For more information, Simon de Silva, Sabdanusasanaya, (Colombo: Ceylon Observer Press, 1914).

230

grammatical treatises that caused difficulties for the pupils at that time. Sabdanusasanaya consists of 70 topics on grammar and an appendix.

At the beginning of the text under the topic of “Prarambhaya” (Introduction) the author describes trifold levels of grammar of a language namely phonology, morphology and syntax. That analysis and later explanations of the text gives evidence that the author has had the knowledge of traditional grammar and contemporary linguistics as well.

The first part of the text has been named “Akshara Vibhagaya” (The analysis of letters). The author has divided the Sinhala language into two sections namely pure Sinhala and mixed Sinhala. Moreover, it describes that pure Sinhala is specially used for poetry while mixed Sinhala is used for prose and spoken usage. It also introduces Pure Sinhala, Sanskrit, Pali and contemporary mixed Sinhala alphabets. The most interesting thing is that the vowels [æ] / [ǣ] have been incorporated in his pure Sinhala alphabet. It also describes the difference of the letters or each alphabet, vowels, consonants, vowel signs, various categorization of letters, the articulation of letters (sounds), four half nasal sounds (which have not been included in the pure Sinhala alphabet), that have not been included in the Sidatsangara.

The nine-fold practices related to the sandhi and investigation of ‘h’ such as deletion (lōpǝ), substitution (ādēʃǝ, insertion (āgǝmǝ), progressive assimilation (pūrvǝrūpǝ), regressive assimilation (parǝrūpǝ), reduplication (dvitvǝrūpǝ), interchange (viparyāʃǝ), increment (vruddhi) and reduction (hāni) have been given before the analysis of the investigation of ‘h’ sound and sandhi. Apart from the nine types of sandhi of the Sidatsangara, the author has included regressive assimilation (parǝrūpǝ sandhi) into his sandhi analysis. There are a number of Sanskrit borrowings used in contemporary spoken and written Sinhala usage. The author has thus included Sanskrit sandhi rules into his sandhi analysis. An analysis of the use of “n/ṇ, l/ḷ letters of pure and mixed Sinhala and the use of ‘ʃ/ṣ/s’ letters in mixed Sinhala have been provided.

The second part of Sabdanusasanaya has been devoted for the analysis of the word where he distinguishes four types of words in Sinhala namely nouns, verbs, particles (including prepositions and post positions) and prefixes and their various categories.

231

Though the author has given several rules for the identification of the stem of nouns those rules are not easy for beginners to grasp.

His explanation of the gender of the Sinhala noun is complicated and incorrect. At the beginning he says that there are three genders in Sinhala nouns same as in Sanskrit but in practice there are only two genders visible in Sinhala. He has employed the substitution of the pronoun which was the method used in Sidatsangara to identify the gender of nouns instead of using case terminations. As a result of that method he concludes that though there should be three types of nouns in Sinhala only two types are visible as masculine and feminine. He also includes all neuter gender nouns into the masculine category as all neuter gender and masculine gender nouns could be substituted by the pronoun [mē]. In the method employed by the Sidatsangara and Sabdanusasanaya the pronoun [mē] acts as a modifier in those sentences. According to contemporary spoken and written Sinhala the pronoun [mē] is common to all three genders in Sinhala as a pronominal substitute. Though the author has clearly identified the difference of the use of suffixes of nouns in all three genders in Sinhala in the analysis of suffixes he has not been aware of employing the theory of pronominal substitution to categorize the gender of nouns. Therefore, the analysis of gender in Sinhala nouns become chaotic due to the employment of different methods of analysis.

In the analysis of the formation of words the Sabdanusasanaya introduces nine cases for Sinhala nouns for all three genders following the Sidat Sangara. It also explains the usage of separate cases for the expression of different meanings. However, in the conjugation of nouns the author has understood that it is impossible to conjugate masculine and feminine nouns in the instrumental case and neuter gender nouns in agentive and vocative cases. Sabdanusasanaya also introduces five types of compounds (samāsǝ), two types of derivative nouns that are made of noun and verbal stems following the Sidat Sangara and later grammars. The analysis of the Sinhala verb is also similar to that of the Sidatsangara. In the analysis of prefixes unlike in the Sidat Sangara, the Sabdanusasanaya introduces both Sanskrit and Sinhala suffixes. A brief introduction on particles and adverbs have been included. In the explanation of the origin of Sinhala verb and noun stems the author divides them into three patterns namely [nispanna] (native), [tatsama] (loan words) and [thtbhava] (derived forms) and provides Sinhala, Pali and Sanskrit stems of [tatsama]. Prakrit stems have been given

232

for some [tatbhava] stems. A long list of Sinhala [tatsama] and [tatbhava] forms of Tamil, Portuguese, Dutch and English have been included.

The third section has been devoted for syntax which clarifies various rules and styles of the Sinhala syntactic composition and subject – predicate agreement. A lesson on rhetoric has been included at the end of the third section. Finally, in the appendix a list of sentences has been given as an exercise for correction. Overall the Sabdanusasanaya can be considered as one of the most influential modern prescriptive grammars that has been published so far though it has not been able to absolve itself from the influence of the Sidat Sangara.

5.3.6 Munidasa Kumaratunge

As we discussed earlier Munidasa Kumaratunga is the most influential modern Sinhala grammarian who cleared many grammatical issues in modern standard written Sinhala grammar with the help of classical Sinhala texts.

5.3.7.1 Kriya Vivaranaya (1935)

Kumaratunga, the most influential grammarian of the 20th Century was a ruthless critic of the Sidat Sangara. His Sidat Sangara Vivaranaya became his ground work to establish a new grammar for Sinhala, deviating from the norm of the Sidat Sangara. His work marks the final breakaway from the authority of the Sidat Sangara, though the impact of the Sidat Sangarava continued unabated even up to the present times. Kriya Vivaranaya27 of Munidasa Kumaratunge (1935) is the first and most extensive and comprehensive analysis of the Sinhala verb. It has analyzed various categories of the Sinhala verb very precisely and in an erudite manner both formerly and functionally. Moreover, the Sinhala verb roots are divided into six categories based on their declension patterns. At the same time, the author affirms precisely that there are no pure verb forms for the future tense in contemporary Sinhala verbs. The present tense verb form or a supportive word which imply future meaning is appended to the present tense verb. The text consists of a long list of verb roots, their meaning and various functions.

27 For more information, Munidasa Kumaratunga, Kriya Vivaranaya, (Colombo: Gunasena, 1935).

233

5.3.7.2 Vyākǝrǝṇǝ Vivǝrǝṇǝyǝ hevat Sinhala Bhāṣāvē Vyākǝrǝṇǝyǝ28 (1938)

The analysis of Grammar or the Grammar of Sinhalese Language is one of the most influential modern Sinhala grammatical works of Munidasa Kumaratunga who founded the Sinhala purist movement the Hela Havula. the Vyākǝrǝṇǝ Vivǝrǝṇǝyǝ consists of 19 chapters originally published in 1938 and it has been revised at its second edition by Jayanta Weerasekara in 1954. Kumaratunga asserts in the preface of Vyākǝrǝṇǝ Vivǝrǝṇǝyǝ that we should not analyze our language by getting support of outside grammars which have been prepared to analyze other languages. His conviction was that the grammar of a language should only be analyzed on the patterns provided by that language and it should not be done on the basis of the structure of any other language. The reason for this was that early grammars were based on analysis of other languages such as Sanskrit or Pali. He believes that getting the support of non-Sinhala grammars will cause to hide the real state of the structure of our language. Therefore, he implies that we should prepare a grammar for a language by analyzing and judging its own usage. He also affirms that a grammar of a language should be the judgement of an expert who has complete knowledge on the usage of that language. He also states that grammatical texts should not be endowed with rhetoric and prosodic matters since they are exterior to grammar.29 As this was also the time when historical grammars began to appear, Kumaratunga notes that historical questions should not be a concern for a structural grammar of a language. Instead of using Roman numerals he has given page numbers of the preface in Sinhala letters.

Chapter one discusses the importance of grammar of the written language which contains the sophisticated usage and its structure of it. Chapter two introduces mixed Sinhala alphabet which consists of 18 vowels and 36 consonants and also gives various classifications of the sounds and letters. The third chapter describes sandhi (euphonic combinations of words and morphemes) in contemporary written Sinhala language. Instead of the traditional technical term [sandhi] he has used a new term as [ʃabdǝ saŋvidhānǝ] (sound arrangement). He has introduced 12 types of [ʃabdǝ saŋvidhānǝ] methods in contemporary Sinhala instead of 9 types of the traditional sandhi. Three

28 For more information, Munidasa Kumaratunga, Vyakarana Vivaranaya, (Colombo: Gunasena, 1938). 29 For more information, ibid, 1938), ch

234

types of words namely nouns, verbs and particles and two types of stems namely basic and combined roots are described in chapter four. Chapter five introduces three types of base roots by using three new terms such as [dēsīyǝ] (native), [anupātitǝ] (derived forms) and [ānītǝ] (loan words). The sixth chapter describes various categories of noun bases separately. Chapter seven is titled [nāmǝ yōgyǝkǝrǝṇǝyǝ] which describes the rules pertaining to various adjustments of stems and suffixes. which discusses changes that undergo in adding suffixes to nouns and their matters. Moreover, it also introduces four cases for animate nouns and six cases for inanimate nouns instead of 9 cases in traditional grammar. Nouns and their relationship with three-fold words such as verbs, absolutes and nouns in constructing sentences have been discussed in chapter eight which is extensive when compared with the other chapters and consists of 50 pages. Chapter nine analyzes various types of verbal roots based on his earlier work the Kriya Vivaranaya and their conjugations in two tenses (Past and non-past), singular – plural, active - passive and so on. Adjusting verbs for the usage of sentences and various categories of verbs, verb conjugation and the usage in sentences are described in chapter ten. Chapter 11 describes how the verbs are combined with other words of a sentence and the subject predicate agreement of sentences. Absolutives and their various categories and usage have been described in chapter 12. Nominal and verbal derivatives and compounds have been included into a single chapter and has been used a new term for them as: [saŋgraha nāmǝ prǝkrurtiya] (derivative noun stem) which explains the related suffixes for nominal and verbal derivatives, their meaning and usage in chapter 13. For compounds he has used the term [nāmǝnāmǝ saŋgraha nāmǝ] (A noun made by nouns) instead of the traditional term [samāsǝ]. A new term has been named as compound verbal roots in [saŋgraha ākhyātǝ prǝkrurtiya] which introduces verbal root compounds with prefixes, suffixes, prepositions and verbs in chapter 14. Chapter 15 has been named as ‘sangraha nipātǝ prǝkrurtiya’ which analyzes absolutive stems in contemporary written Sinhala language that combine with suffixes or another absolutive stems. Various types of sentences and their structures such as simple and combined sentences, phrases, clauses and many other varieties of sentences are discussed in chapter 16. Chapter 17 explains the way of combining sentences by using absolutives in the written language. Chapter 18 describes the way in which simple sentences are combined to make mixed and complex sentences. Chapter 19 is named as ‘Vibhāgǝyǝ’ (examination) that analyzes various parts of sentences, their cases and position in sentences. Two supplements have been added to the text in its second edition

235

by Jayanta Weerasekara namely ‘no yedīmǝ’ (the usage of ‘no’ absolutive) and ‘vad̃ǝ pavǝtuvǝ’ (non-functional forms in sentences). One may also note that as this grammar was written before the establishment of the Hela Havula Kumaratunga has fully used Sanskrit grammatical models and technical terms though his major task was to analyze the unique features of the Sinhala language.

5.3.8 Sri Ratnasara Vyakaranaya (1944)

Sri Ratnasara Vyakaranaya30 of Rev. Dehigaspe Pagnasara was one of the most influential Sinhala grammars for students and teachers of Pirivena Schools (Buddhist Monastic schools) for a long time. This particular grammar may be a commemorative one titled after Ven. Kahave Sri Rtanasara who wrote the Sidatsangara Bhava Sannaya. He was a contemporary of Kumaratunga. This grammar is different from many other contemporary Sinhala grammars in content. The whole grammar has been devoted for the discussion of morphology and syntax and its does not discuss the alphabet, sandhi or compounds as many other school and prescriptive grammars do. The text starts with an introduction of the fourfold Sinhala words namely noun, verb, prefix and absolutizes. Exercises related to the content of the topic of each lesson has been given at the end. Almost all exercises have been prepared from the quotations of classical prose and poetry which testify that the grammar is trying to corroborate with classical Sinhala grammar. However, the author affirms with examples from classical texts that there is no clear verb form to denote future action in the Sinhala language other than past and non-past distinction.

At the same time, some contradictory grammatical rules have been included in the text. For example: the author says that if the subject is plural, whether animate or inanimate, the verb should be in the plural.

i. [hiru] (Sun) [sad̃u] (Moon) [babǝlat] (shine: pl.)”31 (The Sun and Moon Shine), ii. [lamayi] (children) [mal] (flowers) [nelat] (are plucking: pl.).” (Children are plucking flowers)

30 Dehigaspe Pagnasara, Sri Ratanasara Vyakaranaya, (Colombo: Sahitya Press, 1947). 31 Pagnasara, Sri Ratanasara Vyakaranaya, 6

236

However, according to standard Sinhala grammatical rules even though the subject of a sentence is inanimate plural, the verb should be singular. On the contrary, if the inanimate subject noun of a sentence has taken animate plural suffixes by personification the final verb should be plural. (In Sinhala inanimate nouns could be made into animates by personification.) Therefore, the first sentence of above examples should be as [hiru] (Sun) [sad̃u] (Moon) [babǝlayi] (shine: sin.) since subject nouns have not taken animate plural suffixes. The second sentence is correct as the subject is animate plural.

Similarly, the author points out by citing necessary examples from classical texts that when the subject of a sentence is in the singular feminine noun the verb should be plural if the action has taken place in the past. However, this norm is not accepted in contemporary standard Sinhala grammar.

Though there are some new suggestions such as the rejection of the future tense verb in Sinhala and including [æ], [ǣ] letters into Sinhala alphabet as we said earlier the aim of Sri Ratanasara Vyakaranaya is corroborating classical Sinhala grammatical norms with contemporary Sinhala grammar.

5.3.9 J. B. Disanayake

J. B. Disanayake a professor emeritus in Sinhala has contributed three series of books namely [Samakalina Sinhalaya] (Contemporary Sinhala), “Basaka Mahima” (Greatness of a Language) and Sinhala ritiya (the style of Sinhala) among his large number of publications to analyze contemporary Sinhala grammar.

5.3.9.1 Samakalina Sinhalaya (A book series)

He has started his “Samakalina Sinhalaya” series with the publication of “Samakalina Sinhalaya Sabda Vicaraya”32 (Contemporary Sinhala Phonology) in 1973. The first two chapters of the book are devoted for the analysis of grammar and to introduce the

32 For more information, J. B. Disanayake, Samakalina Sinhalaya Sabda Vicaraya, (Colombo: Colombo Campus, 1973).

237

difference of spoken and written usage of Sinhala language which also explains the diglossic situation in contemporary Sinhala. The rest of the chapters of the book has been devoted for the analysis of alphabet, the orthography (specially for the analysis the variation of [n] / [ṇ] and [l] / [ḷ] usage) and sandhi (the combination of morphemes and words) in Sinhala. The second book of the series has been named as Samakalina Sinhala Lekhana Vyakaranaya: Vyakarana Pravesaya33 (A grammar of Sinhala Written Language: An Introduction to Grammar). This book explains the language, the difference of spoken and written languages, grammar, regional dialects, language and the culture, characteristics of modern Sinhala, classical Sinhala grammar (The Sidat Sangara), methods of writing, and Sinhala letters and the alphabet. Third book of the series is Samakalina Sinhala Lekhana Vyakaranaya: 1 Aksara Vinyasaya34 (orthography) which introduces the Sinhala alphabet, vowel signs, various categories of Sinhala alphabet and it usage. Samakalina Sinhala Lekhana Vyakaranaya: 3 Sandhi Viggrahaya35 (analyses the sandhi) analyses sandhi of the Sinhala language and Sanskrit loan words.

5.3.9.2 Basaka Mahima (A book series)

Basaka Mahima is a series of books and each book describes one main aspect of the Sinhala language such as Basaka Mahima 136 : Sinhala Alphabet, Basaka Mahima 237: letters and vowel signs, Basaka Mahima 338: the standard of [ṇ] letter, Basaka Mahima 439: the standard of [ḷ] letter, Basaka Mahima 540: formation of words, Basaka Mahima 641: the roots, Basaka Mahima 742: the prefixes, Basaka Mahima 843: nominal

33 For more information, J. B. Disanayake, Samakalina Sinhala Lekhana Vyakaranaya: Sabda Vicaraya, (Colombo: Godage, 1995). 34 ____, Samakalina Sinhala Lekhana Vyakaranaya: 1 Aksara Vinyasaya, (Colombo: Lakehouse, 1990). 35 ____, Samakalina Sinhala Lekhana Vyakaranaya:3 Sandhi Vigrahaya, (Colombo: Godage, 1997). 36 ____, Basaka Mahima: 1 Sinhala Hodiya, (Colombo: Godage, 2000). 37 ____, Basaka Mahima: 2 Akuru ha Pili, (Colombo: Godage, 2000). 38 ____, Basaka Mahima: 3 ṇ-kara Sammataya, (Colombo: Godage, 2000). 39 ____, Basaka Mahima: 4 ḷ-kara Sammataya, (Colombo: Godage, 2000). 40____, Basaka Mahima: 5 Pada Sadanaya, (Colombo: Godage, 2000). 41 ____, Basaka Mahima: 6 Prakrurti, (Colombo: Godage, 2000). 42 ____, Basaka Mahima: 7 Upasarga, (Colombo: Godage, 2000). 43 ____, Basaka Mahima: 8 Taddhita, (Colombo: Godage, 2000).

238

derivations, Basaka Mahima 944: Suffixes, Basaka Mahima 1045: the noun and Basaka Mahima 1146: the verb.

5.3.9.3 Sinhala Ritiya (A Book Series 2012-2014)

The book series of Sinhala Ritiya of J. B. Disanayake consists of 9 books. The first one is Sinhala Ritiya 1, Sinhala Akshara Malava 47 (Sinhalese alphabet) which describes various categories of Sinhala alphabet in 36 topics namely the alphabet of the Sidatsangara, pure Sinhala alphabet, mixed Sinhala alphabet, alphabet of the National Institute of Education, contemporary Sinhala alphabet, and the international Sinhala alphabet. Moreover, it explains sounds and letters, vowels and consonants, voiced and unvoiced letters, vowels and semi vowels, consonants and semi consonants, non- aspirated and aspirated consonants, short vowels and long vowels, front vowels and back vowels, simple vowels and diphthongs, open vowels and closed vowels, and many other categories of Sinhala alphabet.

Sinhala Ritiya 2 Aksara ha Aksaranu48 (Letters and letter signs) introduces consonants, vowels and vowel signs of each vowel which are used when combining consonants and vowels, names of vowel signs, and signs for consonants that are used for combining consonants under 32 topics. Sinhala Ritiya 3, ṇ-Kāra Vinyāsaya49 (distribution of [ṇ] letter) explains various rules of the distribution of retroflex ṇ letter in the Sinhala language in 30 topics. Sinhala Ritiya 4, ḷ-Kāra Vinyāsaya50 (distribution of [ḷ] letter) analyzes the distribution of the letter, controversies of standard, standard and evaluation, origin of the letter, arrangement of the letter at the beginning of a word, middle of a word and at the end of a word, various rules related to various categories and erroneous usage of the letter under 30 topics. Sinhala Ritiya 5, Aksara Vinyāsaya51 illustrates the Sinhala alphabet, arrangement of Sinhala letters, rule of arranging Sinhala letters, correct usage of open [a] letter and diphthongs, [ɲ-ñ] letters, [ŋ] ([Anushvara]

44 J. B. Disanayake, Basaka Mahima: 9 Pratya, (Colombo: Godage, 2000). 45 ____, Basaka Mahima: 10 Nama Padaya, (Colombo: Godage, 2000). 46 ____, Basaka Mahima: 11 Kriya Padaya, (Colombo: Godage, 2000). 47____, Sinhala Ritiya 1, (Dehiwala: Sumita Publishers, 2017). 48 ____, Sinhala Ritiya 2 Aksara ha Aksaranu, (Dehiwala: Sumita Publishers, 2013). 49 ____, Sinhala Ritiya 3, ṇ-Kāra Vinyāsaya, (Dehiwala: Sumita Publishers, 2013). 50 ____, Sinhala Ritiya 4, ḷ-Kāra Vinyāsaya, (Dehiwala: Sumita Publishers, 2013). 51 ____, Sinhala Ritiya 5, Aksara Vinyāsaya, (Dehiwala: Sumita Publishers, 2018).

239

or [Niggahita]), [n] / [ ṇ] variation, [l] / [ḷ] variation, aspirated and non-aspirated variation, [ʃ] / [ṣ] / [s] variation, incorrect usage of letters and many other topics related to the distribution of Sinhala letters under 35 topics. Sinhala Ritiya 6, Pada sandhi52 (combining of words) characterizes sandhi analysis of several contemporary Sinhala grammarians, sandhi of spoken and written usages, and sandhi in contemporary Sinhala language under28 topics. Sinhala Ritiya 7, Pada Nirmanaya53 (formation of morphemes) introduces various Sinhala morphemes such as stems, prefixes and suffixes, of Sinhala language formation of Sinhala morphemes under six main topics. Sinhala Ritiya 8, Nama Pada Nirmanaya54 (formation of nouns) expresses various categories of Sinhala nouns in details under 48 topics. Sinhala Ritiya 9 Pada Bedima55 (Word division) defines rules or standards of word division in Sinhala under five main topics such as how words have to be separated, morphemes have to be combined, words have to be combined, words can be separated or combined, and words separated erroneously.

5.3.10 Sinhala Lekhana Reetiya (1989)

Sinhala Lekhana Rītiya56 has been published by the National Institute of Education of Sri Lanka with the association of selected experts in 1989 to standardize the written Sinhala usage and to assist students as well as experts to develop their writing skills in the Sinhala language. As the expert group pointed out in the preface of the report Sinhala Lekhana Reetiya is not a complete Sinhala grammatical text and it is a report which addresses some selected areas of the Sinhala written language which help to develop the correct usage of written Sinhala and also helpful to maintain a standard in writing. The report consists of four chapters.

The first chapter introduces a revised Sinhala alphabet, some orthographical rules and some advice for the formation of words in Sinhala. Five half nasal voiced consonant letters and a labiodental unvoiced fricative letter similar to English ‘f’ sound has been introduced to the traditional mixed Sinhala alphabet and it became the standard Sinhala

52 J. B. Disanayake, Sinhala Ritiya 6, Pada Sandhi, (Dehiwala: Sumita Publishers, 2013). 53____, Sinhala Ritiya 7, Pada Nirmanaya, (Dehiwala: Sumita Publishers, 2014). 54 ____, Sinhala Ritiya 7, Nama Pada Nirmanaya, (Dehiwala: Sumita Publishers, 2014). 55 ____, Sinhala Ritiya 9, (Dehiwala: Sumita Publishers, 2016). 56 Sinhala Lekhana Reetiya, (Maharagama: National Institute of Education, 1989).

240

in alphabet in contemporary Sinhala language. Standardizing the order of Sinhala alphabet is another aim of the chapter which may be helpful for the preparation of dictionaries. Some orthographical rules related to traditional Sinhala words as well as Pali, Sanskrit and English borrowings and traditional rules for the formation of words also are discussed in the first chapter.

The second chapter describes the differences of subject and object forms of animate plural nouns, animate indefinite singular nouns, animate pronouns, inanimate nouns which are combined with animate suffixes to make those animate. Students as well as learned Sinhala writers always confuse in selecting subject and object forms in their writing since there are no object forms of nouns merger in the nominative in spoken Sinhala. All other cases retain the object bases. A number of subject - predicate agreement rules of selecting subject and object forms of nouns and the rules of selecting of verbs according to those subject and object forms of nouns of Sinhala written usage have been discussed in chapter two. Chapter three proposes a style of word division since there are several traditions in practice. Chapter four introduces punctuation standard which has become more important in Sinhala written usage with the printing technology.

5.3.11 Sinhala Bhasa Vyakaranaya57 (1995)

The Sinhala Bhasa Vyakaranaya of prof. W. S. Karunatilake with a background of historical and modern linguistics is one of the most influential prescriptive Sinhala grammatical works of the recent past. It is widely used for higher education purposes as a standard prescriptive Sinhala grammar by both teachers and students. The book consists of 14 chapters and chapters have been devoted separately for basic topics of Sinhala grammar and each topic is discussed in comprehensive details. The author has been able to analyze the traditional Sinhala grammar in the light of his knowledge in Sanskrit, Pali and Sinhala grammar as well as in his linguistic training in modern linguistics.

57 For more information, W. S. Karunatilake, Sinhala Bhasa Vyakaranaya, (Colombo: Gunasena, 1995).

241

Chapter one is devoted to the analysis of the Sinhala alphabet. It has introduced mixed Sinhala alphabet which consists of 54 letters and then it describes the way is it increased up to 60 letters. After introducing the pure Sinhala alphabet of the Sidatsangara it starts categorizing letters of mixed Sinhala alphabet by using traditional and modern linguistic approaches. To the pure Sinhala alphabet, he adds [æ] / [ǣ] which were out in the Sidatsangara. According to the Sinhala writing system a vowel can exist alone only at the beginning of a word and if the vowel follows a consonant the following vowel should be combined with it. Once a vowel is combined with a consonant it is indicated by a vowel symbol ([pillam]). This chapter introduces all vowels and their vowel symbols and the proper usage which is helpful for the beginners. A table has been provided to display the differences of each vowel symbol because the form of a vowel symbol could be different according to the consonant.

Chapter two introduces technical terms which have been used in the text.

The third chapter is on sandhi which starts with the introduction of nine-fold sandhi of the Sidatsangara and then it describes sandhi of contemporary Sinhala language. The chapter consists of a description of Sanskrit sandhi to provide an appropriate understanding of the usage of Sanskrit tatsama words which are very common in contemporary Sinhala.

The fourth chapter has been devoted for nouns which provides a definition for nouns at the beginning and then it categorizes Sinhala nouns based on their structure, meaning and the usage. Then it explains the gender of Sinhalese nouns basically dividing them into two categories as animate and inanimate and then animate nouns are divided into two categories as masculine and feminine. Furthermore, it introduces the methods of forming feminine nouns, nouns that belong to both masculine and feminine genders, and definite and indefinite variations. After introducing nine cases the author introduces suffixes for each case, genders, singular – plural and definite – indefinite forms separately. Subject – object forms, honorific suffixes and prepositions, nominal and verbal derivatives have been described. Sample declension for various types of nouns have been provided at the end of the chapter.

242

Though the author has supported to establish classical grammatical norms by his grammar he has not hesitated to include some later developments of the spoken idiom such as reduplication of neuter gender plural suffix ‘val’ in instrumental, genitive and locative cases. For examples some neuter gender nouns get the suffix ‘val’ to make their plural form. At the same times, ‘vǝlin, vǝlǝṭǝ, vǝlǝ’ suffixes are added to almost all inanimate nouns to make their plural forms of instrumental, dative and locative cases respectively. Once a noun has got the suffix ‘val’ to make it plural it may take suffixes to give instrumental, dative and locative plural meaning. However, prof. Karunatilake has not hesitated to accept that long-standing well-established development to his grammar. The following table provides a clear picture of the difference of using the suffix ‘val’ in spoken and written usages.

All in all, W. S. Karunatilleke tries to reestablish the authority of the Sidat Sangara tradition. His critical edition of this work with an English translation with the collaboration of prof. James W. Gair, a linguist clearly shows his commitment to perpetuate the said tradition.

Table 5.19 Difference of Neuter Gender Noun Declension in Spoken and Grammar

Spoken Grammar Written Grammar Singular Plural Singular Plural First Case [pārǝ] [pārǝ+val] [pārǝ] [pārǝ+val] (Nominative Case) Accusative Case [pārǝ] [pārǝ+val] [pārǝ] [pārǝ+val] Agentive Case Instrumental Case [pārǝ] [pārǝ+ val+vǝlin] [pārǝ] [pārǝ+vǝlin] Dative Case [pārǝ] [pārǝ+val+vǝlǝṭǝ] [pārǝ] [pārǝ+vǝlǝṭǝ] Ablative Case [pārǝ] [pārǝ+val+vǝlin] [pārǝ] [pārǝ+vǝlin] Genitive Case Locative Case [pārǝ] [pārǝ+val+vǝlǝ] [pārǝ] [pārǝ+vǝlǝ] Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

Though there is a difference between spoken and written norms in Sinhala regarding the usage of [vǝlin], [vǝlǝṭǝ], [vǝlǝ] suffixes the author has agreed to apply spoken usage for standard Sinhala writing.

243

Chapter five starts with a definition and introduction about pronouns in Sinhala. Then he categorizes pronouns such as first person, second person, third person, question pronouns, indefinite pronouns, reflexive pronouns, collective pronouns and so on. Then it provides sample conjugations for all types of pronouns and finally states some honorific forms of pronouns.

Numeral nouns in Sinhala are analyzed in chapter six. Besides sample conjugations it also provides comparisons of old and modern numerals as well as Sanskrit and Sinhala numerals as they are used in some occasions today.

Chapter seven has been devoted for the study of verbal and nominal derivatives though their conjugation has been discussed in chapter four. The chapter starts with an introduction to derivatives and the main objective of this chapter is categorizing various verbal and nominal derivatives and introducing their derivative suffixes. Lists of verbal and nominal derivatives related to each category have been provided.

Chapter eight explains adjectives of Sinhala. Besides these it provides examples regarding the usage nouns as modifiers.

Verbs of the Sinhala language are described in chapter nine and it starts with a basic introduction of verb, basic verbal roots and derived roots. Transitive – intransitive, active – passive, causative – abstract/passive/involuntary differences of verbs have been given as an introduction to the verb in Sinhala. Under conjugation of the verb, the author divides the verb into two categories as finite and nonfinite verbs. Under final verbs he has provided examples for a trifold conjugation of Sinhala verb: present, future and past tenses though many other grammarians do not accept separate suffixes for the future tense. The conjugations for causative, benedictive, imperative verbs have also been given under the final verb category. The present and past verbal derivatives ([krudantǝ]), past participles ([pūrvakriyā]), present participles ([miʃrakriyā]), conditional verb have been described under non final verbs. Next it describes [praccannǝ kriyā] (concealed verbs): [ætǝ], [nætǝ], [hæki], [yutu] which act as a verb in many occasions but do not fully conjugate as a normal verb. Then the author

244

introduces another supportive verb [labǝ] which is basically used with verbal nouns to form passive voice supportive verbs. Finally, this chapter clarifies supportive verbs for benedictive, imperative, honorific and some other supportive verbs. These illustrations and explanations on verb are very helpful since the application of verb is the most complicated issue in written Sinhala usage mainly as a result of the diglossic situation.

Adverbs, their meanings and usages are expounded in chapter ten. The chapter points out with examples of the ability of using modifiers, nouns, and prepositions as adverbs in Sinhala. Finally, adverbial clauses and their meanings have been described.

Chapter eleven is on [avyǝyǝ] (indeclinable) and it categorizes indeclinable into two as [nipātǝ] (particles) and [upǝsargǝ] (prefixes). In introducing [nipātǝ] (particles) first he discusses case marking particles where he includes some case suffixes as prepositions.

Table 5.20 Case Marking Particles Instrumental Case [minisun + visin]

Dative Case [bamunan + ṭǝ]; [bamunan + haṭǝ] Ablative Case [ovun + gen]; [dudǝnan + keren] Genitive Case [kumǝrun + gē]

Locative Case [sudǝnan + kerehi]; [ovun +tuḷǝ]

[māpiyan + matǝ]; [gasǝ + uḍǝ]

Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

Many modern grammarians, even Munidasa Kumaratunga, being a traditionalist as regards language accepts [ṭǝ] as dative case suffix in his Vyakarana Vivaranaya.58 Some later grammarians accept [gē] and [gen] as genitive and ablative case suffixes respectively. All the other particles given above such as [visin], [keren], [kerehi], [tuḷǝ], [matǝ], [uḍǝ]” are generally accepted as particles. After introducing case mark prepositions in Sinhala have been divided into 36 categories. In the discussion of [upǝsargǝ] (prefixes) 20 pure Sinhala prefixes which are included in the Sidatsangara

58Munidasa Kumaratunga, Vyakarana Vivaranaya, 108

245

and 19 mixed Sinhala prefixes which came with Sanskrit borrowings, have been discussed separately.

Chapter twelve discusses cases and their functions. It begins with an introduction of case terminations where it describes animate (masculine and feminine suffixes together) and neuter gender suffixes and case marking prepositions separately. Then the chapter describes each case and their suffixes and case marking prepositions and their various functions and usage by employing those words in sentences to explain the meaning clearly. Finally, it presents cases and six voices of Sinhala. Though there are nine cases in Sinhala only six cases namely accusative, agentive, instrumental, dative, ablative, locative cases act as voices in Sinhala. Genitive and vocative cases do not act as syntactic relations as they do not connect with the main verb of a sentence.

Chapter thirteen illustrates the compounds of Sinhala language. The chapter begins with an introduction to compounds where it explains the structure, meaning and function of compounds. The author has specified five types of compounds in Sinhala following the Sidatsangara categorization, but he includes some sub categories to those five types of traditional compounds.

The final chapter depicts the agreement of subject and predicate and their rules with necessary examples. The agreement of subject and predicate is the most controversial issue in standard Sinhala written language which manifests the diglossic situation of the language very clearly.

6.3.12 Basa Adhyayanaya ha Sinhala Vyavaharaya (1995)

Basa Adhyayanaya ha Sinhala Vyavaharaya (The Study of Language and Sinhalese Usage) of Wimal G. Balagalle professor emeritus in Sinhala contains prescriptive grammatical lessons of Sinhala on such topics as sandhi and orthography, at the end of the text.59

59 For more information, Wimal, G. Balagalle, Basa Adyayanaya ha Sinhala Vyavaharaya, (Colombo: Godage, 1995).

246

5.3.13 Sinhala Viyarana Vidi60 (1997)

Sinhala Viyarana Vidi (Sinhala Grammar rules) of contemporary Sinhala pandit Siri Tilakasiri is another influential grammar text for both students and teachers. The author claims in the preface of the second edition that he attended to revise his original one as there were some errors and printing mistakes. The first chapter has been devoted as an introduction to the language. Second to fifth chapters explain the alphabet, categorization of alphabet, usage of vowel signs and consonants. Six to eight chapters analyze sandhi, tenfold of sandhi in Sinhala and mixed Sinhala sandhi respectively. Nine to seventeen chapters introduce word, roots, gender, cases, compounds, modifiers and modified, verbs, prefixes and prepositions respectively. Chapter 18 is on active and passive differences and chapter 19 is on cases and their functions. The final chapter deals with the agreement of the subject and the predicate. Altogether the text is a traditional analysis of Sinhala grammar for teachers and students.

5.4 Different views of grammarians

Even though Sinhala written grammar is being taught in schools and universities for years still there are some disagreements among different grammarians, institutes and schools. For the investigation of different views of different grammarians over some grammatical rules, I sent 90 selected sentences from G. B. Senanayake’s writings to selected Sinhala grammar experts. While analyzing those reviews I found that they have different views over some grammatical rules while having same view over some grammatical issues. Therefore, I decided to include their views in this chapter to highlight variations of Sinhala standard written grammar.

The subject of 24, 25, 26, 27 sentences in chapter 4 is in the third person singular feminine pronoun [ǣ] (she) and is considered as third person feminine singular pronoun according to contemporary standard Sinhala grammar. However, according to traditional grammarians who follow classical grammatical rules believe [ǣ] as an object form of the third person singular feminine pronoun and as they believe the subject form of this should be [ō] or [ō tomō] (she). The final verb [viyǝ] (was) is in the third person

60 For more information, Siri Tilakasiri, Sinhala Viyarana Vidi, (Colombo: Ratna, 1997).

247

present tense singular masculine according to contemporary standard Sinhala written grammar. Therefore. It should be corrected to the third person past tense singular feminine form “vūvāyǝ” (was). However, still some traditional grammarians believe that “viyǝ” is common to both masculine and feminine singular subject of the third person as it is a pure Sinhala verb.

The indefinite Sinhala plural pronoun [kisivek] (someone) is considered singular if it clearly substitutes a single person. However, traditional grammarians believe that it should be plural though it substitutes a single person. The 71st sentence on the 34th page of chapter 8 clearly denotes that the pronoun [kisivek] substitutes with a single person. According to traditional grammarian views it should be plural though it clearly substitutes a single person.

According to contemporary Sinhala grammar [ohu] (he) is a third person masculine singular pronoun but traditional grammarians believe that it as the third person plural pronoun. According to traditional Sinhala grammarians third person masculine singular pronoun should be [hē] or [hē temē] (he). Therefore, they suggest that the third person masculine singular pronoun of 55 and 56 quotations on the 30th page of chapter 8 should be corrected to [hē] or [hē temē] (he).

In contemporary written Sinhala “obǝ” (you) is the second person singular pronoun however, traditional grammarians believe that “obǝ” as a third person plural pronoun. Therefore, according to two grammatical traditions the following sentence should be as follows:

Contemporary grammar:

[obǝ mē vacǝnǝvǝlǝṭǝ itā nopæhædili arthǝ denṭǝ purudu vī siṭihi.]

(You used to give very ambiguous meanings for these words.)

248

Traditional Grammar:

[obǝ mē vacǝnǝvǝlǝṭǝ itā nopæhædili arthǝ denṭǝ purudu vī siṭiti.]

(You used to give very ambiguous meanings for these words.)

5.5 Conclusion

This chapter has discussed the basic structure of the Sinhala spoken language. At the same time Munidasa Kumaratunga claimed that spoken Sinhala language is ungrammatical, and he introduced a new grammar for spoken Sinhala. However, that idea profoundly influenced the Sinhala spoken community and even today the majority of Sinhalese believe that the spoken Sinhala is ungrammatical. Therefore, they tend to use a grammaticalized version of Sinhala spoken usage in public lectures and discussions. As a result of this Sinhalese opt an artificial spoken grammar which is known as highbrow spoken Sinhala for special public settings instead of the natural spoken usage. Similarly, their standard written Sinhala grammar which is resuscitated from classical Sinhala literature is different from both highbrow and natural spoken Sinhala grammars. At the end of the chapter we discussed that though contemporary standard written Sinhala is being taught in schools, universities and many other institutions still traditional grammarians who strictly follow classical grammatical norms do not agree with some grammatical issues that are accepted by contemporary standard Sinhala grammar. Thus, still there are some unsettled grammatical issues both in spoken and written Sinhala grammars.

249

Chapter Six Present Status of the Sinhala Language 6.0 Introduction This chapter is an overview of the present situation of Sinhala language and it will examine the various applications or usages and their differences in spoken and written language. The chapter examines several selected fields that have a bearing on the language itself and the society. Quotations will be provided to explain the differences of the language styles and grammar of different usages and deviations of written and spoken standards. Relevant Sinhala language samples will be provided in phonetic transcription with their English translations.

Basically, present Sinhala language can be divided into two categories based on grammar, raw material (sounds and letters) and the way of presenting: 1. spoken language 2. written language.

Each usage has many varieties according to their different applications, purposes, social status of the users, and so on. Some usages such as regional and social dialects and slang are basically restricted to spoken usage. Sometimes, such usage can appear in written language in creative writings or social or language studies related to those societies or characters. At the same time, there are some rules and styles such as written grammar and poetic usage which are mainly limited to the written language. Some differences are common to both spoken and written usages. For example, the Sinhala registers or restricted usage which are used in relation to Buddhist religious activities, and the judicial system are commonly found in spoken and written usage. The present status of the Sinhala language has become more complicated as a result of the diglossic situation as both usage intertwine with each other. However, this chapter will examine only some selected applications of spoken and written usage which are common to the whole language and the language community.

6.1 The Spoken Language The spoken Sinhala language also has various usages as in many other living languages. Among those differences’ in the spoken Sinhala regional dialects, social dialects, contextual usages, slang is very visible. 250

6.1.1 Dialects The word ‘dialect’ has been used in ancient Greece to call clearly distinct written varieties which had been developed in classical Greek for different kind of literature. In French the word ‘dialecte’ refers only to regional dialects which have in written tradition and literature. A regional variety which does not have a written tradition or literature is called a ‘patois’.1 However, in English the word ‘dialect’ is used to name different varieties of a language which are formed as a result of the isolation of a community from the same language community due to regional, political, and cultural reasons. Usually all dialects of a language are mutually intelligible. A dialect is a variety of a language.2 A dialect may be distinguished from other dialects of the same language by features like phonology, morphology and syntax.3 Sometimes mutually intelligible dialects can be regarded as two different languages because of political, religious and cultural reasons like Hindi and Urdu. Therefore, national consciousness is very important in dialects for its acceptance as one language. Simultaniously, one dialect of that particular language can be regarded as the standard language. However, as we have discussed in the early chapters the situation in the Sinhala language is different. The standard written language is different from it spoken variety with regard to the features of phonology, morphology, syntax and grammar. On the other hand, Sinhala tends to employ a different grammar for the regular speeches and discussions because of the notion that spoken Sinhala is ungrammatical. The highbrow spoken Sinhala grammar is different from the grammar of all dialects and standard written grammar and the vocabulary is also a mixture of both written and spoken usages.

Though dialect study (dialectology) was popular in Western Europe since the first half of the 19th century as a discipline, linguistic studies became popular in Sri Lanka during the second half of the 19th century after it was introduced it as a subject in the University of Ceylon which was established in 1942. However, the first impact of modern linguistics on Sinhala was in the first half of the 19th century but it was restricted only to phonetics at the time. Linguistic studies became popular among university students in Sri Lanka in the 1950s they tended to opt for linguistic related topics for their postgraduate research. Linguistics was introduced to Ceylon University curricula as a

1 R. A. Hudson, Sociolinguistics, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 31. 2 The New Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 5, (USA: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.1978), 696. 3 Ibid, 696. 251

full course 1958 by one Sri Lankan scholar who underwent his doctoral studies in linguistics in London under the supervision of Prof. John Rupert Firth. His university teaching, public lectures and writings have attracted many young students to the field of his study. After he started dialect studies in Sinhala4 thereafter even some of his students have opted for dialect studies for their post graduate studies.5

Though some dialect studies have been carried out on several dialects by some individuals for their studies and personal interest, there is no complete systematic dialect study or survey done on Sinhala yet. Therefore, all dialects of Sinhala and their features, dialect boundary lines (isogloss) have not been systematically prepared. Some linguists and researchers have collected data from various Sinhala dialects for their individual research and publications. However, one researcher has taken the responsibility to do a research on Sinhala dialects in a personal capacity. In his study he has identified 11 regional dialects 2 social dialects and 2 vocational dialects.

Colombo was the capital throughout the colonial period at the beginning of the 16th century. Portuguese captured Colombo and the maritime provinces of Sri Lanka a few years later with their arrival in 1505 and their language became the official language within their governing areas. When the Dutch occupied the Portuguese ruling areas in 1656, they replaced Dutch instead of Portuguese. After the British occupied Dutch governed areas in 1796, they replaced English with Dutch. As we mentioned in chapter one Sri Lanka became a crown colony in 1815 and English became the official language in the whole country. It retained official language status until 1956 and even after independence in 1948.

Normally dialect of the capital of a country is considered as the official dialect. However, Colombo dialect is not considered as the official dialect of Sri Lanka for several reasons even before the capital shifting to Sri Jayawardhanapura. Though Colombo was capital of Ceylon for over four centuries, the rulers were foreigners until 1948. Even after the independence nearly half of the population of Colombo were non-

4 For more information, M. W. Sugathapala de Silva, Vedda Language of Ceylon, (Munchen: Kitzinger, 1972). 5 Pushpakumara Vithana Premaratne, Some aspects of the Vanni Dialect of Sinhalese as contrasted with the dialect of the Western Region of Sri Lanka, (University of York: PhD Thesis, 1974), 1-4. 252

Sinhala speakers. Therefore, Colombo dialect was not considered as the official dialect of the Sinhalese. On the other hand, even during the colonial period classical grammar based written variety was considered the standard variety of Sinhala. Even today any of Sinhala dialect does not sustain the official status, instead the written Sinhala variety was considered as the official language by the Sinhalese. Since any dialect is not considered as the official language in Sinhala day to day communications it is the most common activity of all dialects. The day to day communication differs according to the region, education, the level of exposure, and the social status of the speaker. The type of language differs according to the context, place, status of listeners and the nature of the speech act. Apart from that the spoken language is used for education, electronic media, occupation, business, administration, politics, sports, religious activities and so on. Sometimes based on an individual’s dialogue we can identify the area where the speaker comes from or the region, the age, education level, social status, to whom he speaks, in which activity or occupation he is involved in and the like. This means that the Sinhalese language has regional dialects, social dialects and speakers use different vocabulary based on speaker’s and receiver’s social status. Different professions have their own usages and all those important variations are discussed separately.

6.1.1.1 Regional Dialects There had not been a proper island wide linguistic dialect survey on Sinhalese. According to Kahandagamage there are eleven regional dialects namely [ūvǝ, digāmaḍullǝ, pānǝmǝ, upcountry, satǝrǝkōrǝlē, sabǝrǝgǝmuvǝ, hatkōrǝlē, vanni, nuvǝrǝkalāviyǝ, ruhunǝ] and western province” in the Sinhala language.6 The map also illustrates Northern and Eastern Tamil speaking areas. All those regional dialects are intelligible to any Sinhalese except several usages. Sometimes there are several variations even within a dialect. Therefore, it seems that this study has mainly considered the historical differences or classifications of Sinhala society. Some of those regional dialects are disappearing due to expansion of education, mass media and transportation. Though the people inherit a dialect of a language from the society where they grow up some people in Sri Lanka could suppress their dialect when they speak with people of other regions. However, some people prefer to use their own regional

6 Piyasena Kahandagamage, Pradesiya Vyavaharaya, (Colombo: Godage, 2000), xviii 253

dialect to disclose his or her identity if the speaker comes to know that the collocutor is from the same region. Map 6.1 The Regional Dialect Map of Sri Lanka7

Source: Kahandagamage, 2000, xix

7 Kahandagamage, Pradesiya Vyavahara, xix 254

Today regional dialects are used in written form in drama, novels and short stories for dialogues and descriptions. The using of regional dialects is mainly confined to the area of its origin. People in general tend to use standard spoken language for public or national affairs but use their regional dialect on personal and general affairs within the region. Some village bound people use their regional dialect in all occasions since they have less exposure to education. According to Kahandagamage’s study the above map illustrates different major dialect areas of the Sinhalese.

6.1.1.1.1 “ūvǝ” Dialect Many parts of “ūvǝ” province are mountainous under developed in education and the infrastructure developments when compared to the Western province. Therefore, most people have had less exposure until the recent past and as a result of this the “ūvǝ” dialect has preserved many idioms inherent to it. Kahandagamage has been able to collect a large number of such idioms but unfortunately his collection has been restricted to idioms and has not analyzed sound variations. However, though this is not the place to quote all his idioms only a few will be analyzed since they are inherent to “ūvǝ” dialect and I feel they are worth mentioning.

Natural or environmental incidents or conditions have been used when ‘referring the time’ of the day. Those idioms could have been used in the past before the introduction of the clock.

[pānkaluvǝ] (The dark: just before the sun rise). The time just before the sun rise is in between the dark and the illumination. Therefore, people of “ūvǝ” region has used a compound which consists of two words which meant [pān] (light/illumination). [kaluvǝ] (dark).

[hīlpāndǝrǝ] / [vaitālǝyǝ] / [pānupæyǝ] (The time which gets the sun light: early morning/dawn); [hīl] (cold); [pāndǝrǝ] (the time in which the sunlight falls)

[kiri velāvǝ] [kiri] > (milk); [velāvǝ] > (time) (The time after the sunrise in which people drink milk.)

255

[himpīrǝ / hiṭi piyǝrǝ / hiṭi bīrǝmǝ] (middy) (The time in which the shadow of a person remains with him.)

[irǝgalǝ væṭunā] (sun set); [irǝgalǝ] (place of the sun set);

[vavulan baḍǝ gahanǝ ɉāme] (Time just after the sun sets when bats fly) [kukulan gas yanǝ ɉāme] (Time just after the sun set: For “ūvǝ” people it is the time for which cocks climb trees to perch for the night.) [goŋ maŋ velāvǝ] (Time just after the sun set in which domesticated cattle come on to the roads from grasslands to go home.)

[æṭǝ bagavvǝ] (sun rays); [bagǝ] (lucky/strong); [avvǝ] (sun rays) [bakmaha bagavvǝ] (strong sun rays in the month of April in Sri Lanka);

[hevan bǣmǝ] (covering the sun by clouds). In common Sinhala usage it is known as [mandārǝmǝ]

[bīran] (rainy clouds). In common Sinhala usage it is called [væhivalā]

[bīran bāla] (gathering rain clouds). In common Sinhala it is known as [væhivalā mudun vīmǝ]

[nillǝ] (drizzle). In common spoken Sinhala it is called [pinnǝ/podǝ væssǝ]

[kulantǝrǝyǝ] (heavy rain).8 It is called [tadǝ væssǝ] in common usage.

All the above idioms and usage are inherent to the “ūvǝ” dialect and most of them are different from the other dialects. At the same time, a large number of idioms and usage have been preserved among less exposed people of those dialects. We do not expect to discuss the idioms and usages of all dialects here since we have to devote a large portion of this chapter for that discussion.

8 Kahandagamage, Pradesiya Vyavaharaya, xviii 256

I am herewith providing a table which illustrate the different usage of kinship forms of selected Sinhala regional dialects since it will be a long discussion of analyzing all different usage of Sinhala dialects. Table 6.1 Kinship Forms of Selected Sinhala Regional Dialects

Dialect digāmaḍullǝ upcountry nuvǝrǝkalāviyǝ ruhunǝ Western Region Province Father [appā] [appā] [appocci] [tātta] [tātta] [appacci] [appacci] [apucci] [apucca]

Mother [mō] [amma] [ammā][mō] [amma] [amma] [mōvi] [ape amma] [maye ammā] [ape ammā]

Mother’s [kiriammā] [attamma] [kiri amma] [ācci] [ācci] mother Father’s [ātā] [attamma] [attappa] [ācci] [ācci] Mother Mother’s [kiriappā] [atta] [kiri appacci] [sīya] [sīya] Father [kiriattā] [kiri apucci] [attappa]

Father’s [muttā] [atta] [attappa] [sīya] [sīya] Father [kiriattā]

Father’s [kuḍappā] [kuḍappā] [kuḍappā] [bāppa] [bāppa] Younger [kuḍappacci] Brother Mother’s [hīnammā] [hīnammā] [punci amma] [punci [punci Younger [bālǝamma] amma] amma] Sister [kuḍamma]

Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

257

However, Sinhalese use different forms for kinship in formal settings like formal writing or speaking. The kinship forms which the Sinhalese use in common spoken language are Dravidian or European borrowings. Therefore, they prefer to use their Pali and Sanskrit ‘tatsama’ or their derivate forms in formal occasions. Table 6.2 The Difference of Kindship Forms in Colloquial and Formal Usage

Spoken Variety Formal Usage Father [appcci], [tātta] [piyā] Mother [amma] [mavǝ] Spouse [sahakaru], [sahakāriyǝ] [kalatrǝyā] Elder brother [ayya] [væḍimahal sahōdǝrǝya] Elder sister [akka] [væḍimahal sahōdǝriyǝ] Younger brother [malli] [bālǝ sahōdǝrǝya] Younger sister [naŋgi] [bālǝ sahōdǝriyǝ] Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

6.1.1.2 Social Dialects Though caste system still does not play a vital role in the Sinhalese community it has only a marginal role in the case of language. Within major dialect areas caste-based variations like the Veddas and Rodiya are located. Of these the Veddas retain their variety as a mark of their special identity but the Rodiyas occasionally use theirs only for communication among themselves in the presence of outsiders as a mode of secret code. There are no strict social disparities in the Sinhalese community within castes or classes. However, there are some differences in vocabulary and pronunciation among the educated and uneducated people. Age is a key factor which affects the creation of different usage of a language. Thus, we can identify different language usage among Sinhala kids, youth, and elders. Some elderly monolingual Sinhala speakers use a dialect which is usually devoid of English borrowings:

1. [ubǝlã owwavaṭǝ gæhenṭōnnǣ. gihilla ubǝlagẽ gedǝrǝ pætte væḍakpolak balāganilla. maṭǝ tavǝ detun dohokṭǝ vaḍā gatǝvennǣ mēkǝ ahavǝrǝ koranṭǝ].

258

(You do not need to worry about that. You go home and look after your own work. It will not take more than two or three days for me to finish this.)

If a young person of the same village wanted to say the above, he would say:

2. [oyāla owwaṭǝ karǝdǝrǝ venṭǝ ōnnǣ. gihilla oyālage gedǝrǝ pætte væḍakpolak balāganṭǝ. maṭǝ tavǝ detun davǝsǝkǝṭǝ vaḍā gatǝvennǣ mēkǝ ivǝrǝ koranṭǝ.

The above expressions are completely devoid of the influence of English and this type of language can be expected only from monolingual Sinhalese. Sometimes, monolinguals also tend to use English words. These two types of language style and vocabulary do not change that much even if these speakers talk with an outsider or visitor.

Usually some Sinhalese prefer to talk in their regional or social dialect with their neighbors or area mates, but they tend to use standard spoken language with unknown or outside people. Similarly, some speakers prefer to use slang with particular group members or peers, and they try to avoid using it when speaking with others or in a formal setting.

A hybrid language style is used by English - Sinhala bilinguals in their spoken Sinhala usage and that style is also very common among the Anglo-Indian languages today. Today even some monolinguals use English borrowings since those English borrowings are quite popular in the Sinhala speaking community. Sometimes English words are used in the absence of Sinhala words or as the English words are more popular than the Sinhala words. Though there are easy Sinhala words people tend to use English words just for the style or as a habit. Because of the popularity of that mixed style it is being used for the dialogues of fiction, stage drama, movies, teledramas and advertisements. Today this style is used even in electronic media specially in dialogues or discussions sometime even by the announcers or presenters in youth or child programs.

Some Sinhalese prefer to embellish their Sinhala sentences with English words even though they are Sinhala monolinguals. Sinhala-English bilinguals prefer to use English borrowings, phrases or sometimes whole sentences when they talk with peers or people 259

of high social position. This could be due to colonial mentality where the use of English expressions was seen as prestigious. The following quotation is an example of the way this is used by Sinhala-English bilinguals. This is part of a telephone conversation of a Sinhala-English bilingual showing the way how a patient (P) calls his family doctor (D) to inform of his discomfort.

3. P: [halō halō ḍokṭǝ guḍ mōniŋ]. (Hello, hello, Good morning doctor.) D: [halō guḍ mōniŋ. īs dis misṭǝ disānāyǝkǝ?] (Hello good morning. Is this Mr. Disanayaka?) P: [ov. ov. veri sori. udenmǝ maŋ ḍokṭǝṭǝ karǝdǝrǝ kǝrǝnǝvadǝ manda? nǣ itiŋ ḍokṭǝ maṭǝ kiyǝla tiyǝnǝvane problǝm ekak tiyǝnǝvanam fōn kǝrannǝ kiyǝla]. (Yes. Yes. Very sorry. I don’t know if I am disturbing you in the morning. Any way, you have told me to inform you if there is any problem.) D: [nō problǝm. mamǝ vaifui putai iskōleṭǝ ḍrop kǝrǝla mē dæŋ gedǝrǝ āve. maṭǝ vōḍ ekeṭǝ yanṭat tiyǝnǝva]. (No problem. I went to drop my wife and son to the school. I have to go to the ward as well.)

Almost all Sinhalese use the English word “Hello” to start a telephone conversation or to answer the telephone. The term “Good morning” is also commonly used to greet others instead of Sinhala translated borrowing [subǝ udǣsǝnak]. Though Sinhala language possesses the word “durǝkatǝnǝyǝ”, for a telephone, Sinhalese very rarely use it. Instead they prefer to use the English word ‘telephone’ or ‘phone’. Even if Sinhala language possesses words for doctor > [dostǝrǝ]; very sorry > [samāvennǝ]; ward > [vāṭṭuvǝ]; problem > [prasnǝyǝ] many Sinhalese prefer to use English terms in their conversation. One may note that words [dostǝrǝ]; [vāṭṭuvǝ]; are borrowed forms from European languages like the Portuguese. The physicians who practice indigenous medicine, Ayurvēda, are called [vedǝ mahattǝya].

6.1.3 Professional Usages There are a number of traditional and modern vocational usage available in the Sinhala language. However, onle two traditional usage are related to fisheries and paddy farming which will be discussed here.

260

6.1.3.1 Fishery Usages Fishery is an age-old vocation in Sri Lanka. Sea water fishery has been one of the main vocations in maritime areas of Sri Lanka and the fresh water fishery is also an age-old profession in manmade tanks and rivers in the island. Therefore, fishery in Sinhala society has developed its own language variety.

[oru] (canoe); [balǝ oru] (large sailing boat); [viyal oru] (canoe which can carry two fishermen); [maha oru] (sailing boats which are used to catch fish in the deep sea); [vallǝmǝ/teppǝmǝ] (small canoe); [goḍǝ oru] (canoe which is used for fishing in shallow waters); [avǝlǝ] (oar) [pannǝ kǝrǝnǝva] (killing fish); [diyǝbǝ̃ ] (deep sea); [kollǣvǝ] (outrigger); [ruval] (sail: which catches the wind); Sinhala fishery usage has a large number of traditional vocabulary which fishermen use even today.

6.1.3.2 Threshing-floor The threshing-floor [kamǝtǝ] is the place where farmers thresh or separate rice from the paddy. This place is considered as a sacred place by farmers since it marks the end of the paddy farming of a season. Therefore, they use different words that they usually use for instruments and buffalos on the threshing-floor. Table 6.3 Vocabulary in Threshing-floor Threshing-floor Common Word English Word [ambaruva] “mī harǝka” buffalo [yaturǝ] “kullǝ” winnowing fan [mutteṭṭu] “kǣmǝ” food [bætǝ] “vī” rice [bōl tiyǝnǝnva] “atugānǝva” sweep Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

A large number of vocabularies has been developed in Sinhala related to threshing- floor activities.

261

6.1.4 Situational Usages As we mentioned earlier dialects are usually acquired by the people from the society where they live when they ‘learn to speak’. It is the language variety people use to talk with the people their language community. On the contrary people tend to use different words or usages based on the social situation or the context. For example, Sinhalese use different vocabulary when they talk with babies.

Table 6.4 Vocabulary in Baby’s Usage Baby Usage Common Usage English Meaning [abuŋ] [kǣmǝ] Food [bō] [vaturǝ] Water [akkuŋ/ukkuŋ] [kiri] Milk [kayya] [satā] harmful animal [banḍiyǝ] [baḍǝ] Belley [tottuvǝ]/ [ibīmǝ̃ ] Kiss [hāduvǝ] Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

6.1.4.1 Buddhist Religious Usage At the same time, Sinhalese employ a different vocabulary at Buddhist temples and when engaged in religious activities. Table 6.5 Vocabulary in Buddhist Religious Usage Religions Word Common Word English Word [pæn] [vaturǝ] water [dāne] [kǣmǝ] Food [pirikǝrǝ] [tǣgi] gifts [vǣɲɉǝnǝ] [mālupini] Curries [avulpat] [rasǝkævili] sweets [maluva] [midulǝ] compound [amǝdinǝva] [atugānǝva] Sweep [dōvǝnǝyǝ] [hēdīmǝ] washing Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

262

On the other hand, the Sinhalese do not use the same language variety when chatting with friends and in a formal situation. Similarly, Sinhalese do not use the same language variety to talk with friends and elders, priests or people of a high strata in society. Therefore, Sinhalese people use different language varieties to explain same incident or thing in different situation.

6.1.5 Public Speech: The language and style in public speeches and formal discussions differ from person to person according to personal interest and long-standing practice. Some use highbrow spoken grammar and vocabulary for public speeches and formal discussions. Using written Sinhala grammar accusative case nouns with the spoken language final verbs and written language vocabulary such as pronouns, prepositions and some verb forms which are not common in spoken Sinhala. Some prefer to use spoken grammar and vocabulary for public speeches and discussions, but some people tend to use some written Sinhala articles, pronouns, and accusative case nouns in between while using the spoken style. In public speeches, though we intend to deliver it in formal or informal Sinhala language although our common or occupational usage interferes with our speech unintentionally due to inattention.

4. [obǝ dannǝvā mē prǝdēsǝyǝ itā visālǝ prǝdēsǝyak. ē hæmǝ tænǝmǝ api trūps ḍiplōyi kǝrǝla tiyenǝva. ē vagēmǝ mē vagē siṭuvēṣǝn ekǝkǝdi trūps gēnǝ pilivelak tiyenǝva. mokǝdǝ raṭē anik prǝdēsǝvǝlǝ ārakṣāvǝ gænat balannǝ ōnæ. ē anuvǝ īye rǣ vunǣ insiḍǝnṭ dekayi. ē insiḍǝnṭ dekǝ velā mohotǝkin apē hamudāval etenṭǝ gihilla ē kǝrannǝ ōnæ rāɉǝkāriyǝ kǝlā. namut adǝ udē yam stānǝvǝlǝ æti vǝccǝ dē īṭǝ vaḍā poḍḍak venas. mokǝdǝ ēkǝṭǝ hētuvǝ ē ayǝṭǝ æṭǣk kǝranṭǝ yanǝkoṭǝ ē ayat dæn responḍ kǝrǝnǝva].9

(you know this is a very large area. We have deployed our troops in all places. Moreover, there is a procedure of summoning troops in this type of situation, because we have to think about the security of other areas of the island. Accordingly, there were only two incidents which took place last night. Our

9 For more information, Ravindra C Wijegunaratne, Chief of Defense Staff, Cabinet Press Release, Colombo, March 07, 2018

263

troops have reached that area just after the incidents and have done the necessary duties. But the incident that has happened in another place today is a little bit different. The reason is when they were attacked, they also retaliated.)

“trūps” (troops) > [bhtǝ kanḍāyam]/ [bhtǝ piris]; “ḍiplōyi” (deploy) > [yodǝvǝnǝva]; “siṭuvēṣǝn” (situation) > [tatvǝyǝ]; “insiḍǝnṭ” (incident) > [siduvīmak]; “æṭǣk” (attack) > [paharǝdīmak]; “responḍ” (respond) > [prǝticārǝ].

Usually many English verbs are used in spoken Sinhala as nouns with the Sinhala verb [kǝrǝnǝva] and [venǝva] as the way ‘attack’ and ‘respond’ have been used in the above quotation. [kǝrǝnǝva] is used in the volitional sense and [venǝva] is used in the nonvolitional sense.

6.1.4 Electronic Media The electronic media such as radio and television employ different types of Sinhala language styles and grammar for different types of programs such as news reading, announcements, discussions, documentaries and so on.

6.1.4.1 Television The Independent Television Network (ITN) that launched its transmissions on 13th April 1979, is the pioneer television network in Sri Lanka. The Rupavahini corporation is the state-owned television networks of Sri Lanka which launched its transmission on 15th February 1982. The Rupavahini channel telecasts various Sinhala programs that can be divided into three main categories such as informative, educational, and family entertainment.10 At the beginning state owned television networks used the written language grammar style for news reading purposes. With the introduction of private owned television networks, an equivalent of spoken style and grammar was employed for news reading. Later state-owned television channels also followed that style. Still some television channels use written grammar for news headlines while using

10 http://www.rupavahini.lk/organization/about-us.html, accessed on 31st January 2019 264

newspaper-based headlines. Basic grammatical mistakes occur while using written grammar for news headlines:

5. [ayahapat kālǝgunǝyen indiyāvē visi hatǝrǝ deneku miyǝyayi].11 (Twenty-four people die due to bad weather in India.)

In this sentence the subject has been given in the object case and the final verb has been given in the singular. According to standard Sinhala written grammar the indefinite noun [deneku] should be changed to its subject form as [denek] as it is the subject of the sentence. Similarly, final verb [miyǝyayi] should be in plural form [miyǝyati] since the subject is plural indefinite noun.

6. [uḍu guvǝnēdī srī lāŋkikǝyeku guvan yānǝyak pupuruvā harinǝ bavǝṭǝ tarɉǝnǝyǝ kǝrayi].12 (A Sri Lankan threatens to explode an aircraft in the air.)

The underlined word [lāŋkikǝyeku] is in object form but it should be in subject form as [lāŋkikǝyek] since it is the subject of the verb.

However, almost all Rupavahini channels use spoken Sinhala final verb suffix [nǝva] for detailed news reading and descriptions with written language vocabulary. Sometimes they prefer to use sentences without final verbs for news headlines:

7. [navǝkǝ vadǝyǝṭǝ dæḍi daḍuvam.͂ navǝ vyǝvastāvē dalǝ keṭumpatak lag̃ǝdīmǝ pārlimēntuvǝṭǝ. adǝ ɉanǝtāvǝ siṭinǝ tænǝ. (A video clip) gōṭāyǝ ætulu hat denekuṭǝ erehi naḍuvǝ daha vǝnǝ dā vibāgǝyǝṭǝ. sabāpǝti paharǝ dunnæyi maharǝgǝmǝ nagǝrǝ sabā sevēkǝyan varǝɉǝnǝyǝkǝ].13 (Severe punishments for ragging. A rough draft of new constitution to the Parliament. The stance of the public today. The case against seven people including Gothabhaya will be on tenth of next month. Maharagama urban council workers are on strike accusing the chairman for attacking them.)

11 Rupavahini, Sinhala News headlines, 29.05.2017 12 Derana TV, Sinhala News, 01.06.2017 13 ITN News Headlines, 07.09.2018 265

Final verbs have not been used for all the above news headlines and it is also helpful to emphasize basic the headline.

Though television channels prefer to use spoken Sinhala final verb suffixes, they use written Sinhala vocabulary and written Sinhala verb forms as well:

8. [navǝkǝ vadǝyǝ vælækvīmǝ pilibaḍǝ͂ panǝtǝ nisi lesǝ kriyātmǝkǝ kǝrǝmin īṭǝ sambandǝ vǝnǝ piris vetǝ dæḍi daḍuvam͂ labā dīmē nīti idiriyēdī kriyāvǝṭǝ naŋvǝnǝ bavǝ ɉanādipǝti Maitrīpālǝ Sirisēnǝ mætitumā pavǝsǝnǝva]. (President Maithreepala Sirisena says that the anti-ragging act will be activated properly to administer severe punishment to those who are engaged in ragging.)

[ɉanādipǝtitumā mē adǝhas palǝ kǝlē srī laŋkā vruttīyǝ puhunu adikāriyǝ yaṭǝtē idikrīmǝṭǝ yōɉitǝ Polonnaruvǝ ɉātikǝ vruttīyǝ puhunu āyǝtǝnǝyǝṭǝ mulgalǝ tæbīmē avastāvǝṭǝ ekvemin].

(The president suggested this idea while participating at the ceremony of laying the foundation stone at the proposed Vocational Training Institute under the Vocational Training Authority in Polonnaruva.)

[navīnǝ tāksǝnikǝ pahasukam sahitǝ polonnaruvǝ navǝ vruttīyǝ puhunu madyastānǝyǝ polonnaruva hig̃uraggoḍǝ mædirigiriyǝ pārē dorǝdekǝ prǝdēsǝyē pihiṭi akkǝrǝ dāhatǝkǝ būmi bāgǝyǝkǝ idikirīmǝṭǝ sælǝsum kǝrǝ tibenǝvā] (A new Vocational Training Institute is planned to be built in the area of Doradeka on Medirigiriya road of Higuraggoda of the Polonnaruva district.)

[ē saḍǝhā͂ væyǝ kerenǝ mudǝlǝ rupiyal miliyǝnǝ hæṭǝpandahasak]. (A some of 6.5 million rupees will be spent for this purpose.)

[nedǝrlantǝ raɉǝyǝ īṭǝ nayǝ pahasukam sapǝyǝnǝvā]. (The government of the Netherlands provides loan facilities for this venture.)

266

[navīnǝ tāksǝnikǝ pahasukam sahitǝ memǝ puhunu āyǝtǝnǝyǝ magin ɉātikǝ vruttīyǝ sudusukam sahitǝ NVQ hatǝrǝ saha paha maṭṭǝmē tāksǝnikǝ silpīn menmǝ ḍiplōmādārīn ekdāstunsiyǝ visipahak baḍǝvāgenǝ͂ vārsikǝvǝ pūrnǝkālīnǝ puhunuvak labā dīmǝṭǝ apēksitayi]. (Annually, a fulltime national vocational level training with new technical facilities will be provided to 1325 youth for NVQ 4 and 5 levels and diplomas by this institute.) [adālǝ idikirīm vasǝrǝ tunǝkin nimǝ kǝrǝ dedahas visi dekē ɉanǝvāri māsǝyē siṭǝ mehi puhunu kaṭǝyutu ārambǝ kerenu æti]. (Training programs will start within 3 years by January 2022 after completing the construction.)

[vruttīyǝ puhunu madyastānǝyē idikirīm ārambǝ kǝlǝ ɉanādipǝti tumā emǝ parisrǝyē nirīksǝnǝ cārikāvǝkǝdǝ nirǝtǝ vunā] (After starting construction of the Vocational Training Center the president engaged in a site visit.)

[nipunǝtā saŋvardǝnǝyǝ pilibaḍǝ͂ torǝturu ætulat veb aḍǝviyǝ eli dækvunēdǝ ɉanādipǝti tumā atin]. (The website which includes vocational training information is also launched by the president.)

[anǝturu ræsvǝ siṭi pirisǝ æmǝtū ɉanādipǝti tumā navǝkǝ vadǝyǝ sambandǝyen adahas palǝ kǝlā]. (After that the president expressed his ideas over ragging while addressing the gathering”)14

Though spoken Sinhala present tense suffixes [nǝvā] and [vunā] have been used with the final verb in many sentences, the verb root is not common or related to spoken Sinhala usage and it has been derived from written Sinhala. Sometimes the verb root will be altered or completely changed as [kiyǝnǝva] > [pavǝsǝnǝva]; [labādenǝnǝva] > [sapǝyǝnǝvā]; [tiyenǝnǝva] > [tibenǝvā]; [kǝrā] > [kǝlā] according to the written Sinhala

14 ITN News, Headlines, 07.09.2018 267

level. Other vocabulary such as certain nouns, articles, nonfinite verbs are also not related to spoken usage. The following sentences in this news telecast

9. [ɉanādipǝtitumā mē adǝhas palǝ kǝlē srī laŋkā vruttīyǝ puhunu adikāriyǝ yaṭǝtē idikrīmǝṭǝ yōɉitǝ polonnaruvǝ ɉātikǝ vruttīyǝ puhunu āyǝtǝnǝyǝṭǝ mulgalǝ tæbīmē avastāvǝṭǝ ekvemin]. (President expressed these ideas while participating at the ceremony of laying the foundation stone for the proposed national vocational training institute of Polonnaruwa which will be constructed under the Vocational Training Authority.) 10. [nipunǝtā saŋvardǝnǝyǝ pilibaḍǝ͂ torǝturu ætulat veb aḍǝviyǝ eli dækvunēdǝ ɉanādipǝti tumā atin]. (The website that includes information regarding the vocational development, was declared open by the President.)

Some sentences like [nipunǝtā saŋvardǝnǝyǝ pilibaḍǝ͂ torǝturu ætulat veb aḍǝviyǝ eli dækvunēdǝ ɉanādipǝti tumā atin]. are also not common either in spoken or written Sinhala. However, these sentences cannot be grammatically wrong as the Sinhala language possesses free word order. Sometimes this type of sentence has become familiar in the Sinhala language because of translations.

Passive voice sentences are also commonly used in Sinhala news reading with the spoken Sinhala verbs though they are not available in spoken Sinhala.

11. [viduhalǝ rāɉǝkīyǝ vidyālǝyǝ lesin nam kirīmǝdǝ mīṭǝ samǝgāmīvǝ sidu kǝrǝnu læbuva]15 (Naming of the college as the Royal College also took place on this occasion.) 12. [vidyālǝyǝṭǝ pæmini ɉanādipǝti tumā sisu daruvan visin mahat harǝsarin piliganu læbuva].16 (The President who came to college was warmly welcomed by the students.)

15 Jatika Rupavahini, Sinhala News, 09.09.2018 16 Ibid, 09.09.2018 268

13. [vidyālǝyē gruhastǝ krīḍāgārǝyǝ vivurtǝ kǝrǝnu læbuvēdǝ ɉanādipǝti tumā visini].17 (The college gymnasium was also declared open by the President.)

Sometimes the order of phrases has been changed to make diversity in sentence style or emphasize the incident.

Some TV channels use passive voice sentences without the postposition [visin] (by) which is compulsory to use with animate agentive case (non-subjective) noun in passive voice sentences in Sinhala. Instead the accusative case nouns are commonly used with the spoken Sinhala final verbs by many TV channels in their Sinhala news readings:

14. [eksat ɉanǝtā nidǝhas saŋdānǝ pārlimēntu mantrī rōhitǝ abēgunǝvardǝnǝ mahatāgē nændǝniyǝgē dēhǝyǝṭǝ hiṭǝpu ɉanādipǝti mahindǝ rāɉǝpaksǝ hā hiṭǝpu āraksǝkǝ lēkam gōtābǝyǝ rāɉǝpaksǝ yanǝ mahatvǝrun adǝ avǝsan gaurǝvǝ dakvǝnu læbuva].18 (The last respects were paid to the mother-in-law of Rohita Abeygunawardana, a member of the parliament of the United People’s Freedom Alliance today (by) the former President Mahinda Rajapaksha and the former defense secretary Gothabhaya Rajapaksha.)

15. [ladǝ torǝturǝkǝṭǝ anuvǝ īyē dahaval kālǝyēdī visēsǝ kāryǝ balǝkā sebǝlun memǝ stānǝyǝ vaṭǝlǝnu læbuva]. (According to the information received that place was raided yesterday (by) the solders of the Special Task Force.)

Though almost all TV channels prefer to use the spoken Sinhala final verb suffixes in their news reading, the forms of the verb are much similar to written Sinhala verb forms. As regards the vocabulary the situation is the same. They mainly rely on the written Sinhala vocabulary. Similarly, as regards nouns they tend to use the written Sinhala accusative case nouns and pronouns which are not in use in spoken Sinhala. As we mentioned earlier sentence structures also are not confined to the spoken or written usage. Therefore, Sinhala news reading language style on television can be considered

17 Jatika Rupavahini, Sinhala News, 09.09.2018 18 Derana TV, Sinhala News, 07.09.2018 269

as an intermixture of common spoken Sinhala, highbrow spoken Sinhala and written Sinhala grammar.

Some television channels employ spoken Sinhala grammar and vocabulary in entertaining programs. In some programs the announcer and participants are careful to avoid using English vocabulary in some Sinhala educational, entertainment19 and informative programs.20 In some programs spoken Sinhala grammar with written Sinhala vocabulary and sentence structures are used.21 However, in some Sinhala TV programs announcers tend to use English borrowings specially in youth entertainment programs to conform with the teenagers language style.22 Announcers in this type of program used Sinhala and English words earlier which came to be heavily criticized by the public. However, this hybrid spoken Sinhala style is used by both bilingual teenagers as well as elders today. This means that Sinhalese believe that the common spoken Sinhala is not suitable for the use of media. As a result of such criticisms some TV channels have taken responsibility to minimize the usage of English borrowings.

16. [rait, itiŋ adǝ apē tēmāvǝ velā tiyenne rok miyusik bēs kǝrǝgenǝ laŋkāve nirmānǝyǝ veccǝ gītǝ, nēdǝ?]23 (Right, so today’s theme is Sinhala songs composed in Sri Lanka based on rock music. Isn’t it?) [ou. api īlag̃ǝṭǝ gāyǝnā kǝranṭǝ hadǝnǝ gītǝyǝ vӛsǝn dekǝkǝṭǝ gāyǝnā kǝlā].24 (Yes. The song we are going to sing next has been sung in two versions.) [rait] (right) > [hari]; [miyusik] (music) > [aŋgītǝyǝ]; [bēs] (base) > [padǝnam]; [vӛsǝn] (version) > [svǝrūpǝyǝ]

Though Sinhala language has equivalents for the above English borrowings except the name Rock many people prefer to use English words.

19 ITN, “Chat & Music”, 31.08.2018 20 ITN Channel, “Sonduru Agnyaawa” (Good Command), 09.09.2018 21 ITN Channel, “Sanchare” (Tour), 14.09.2018 22 Sirasa TV, “16+”, 12.08.2018 23 Ibid 24 Ibid 270

6.1.4.2 Radio The radio service of Sri Lanka, one of the oldest radio services in Asia, was launched on 16th December 1925 just 3 years after the launching of the European radio services.25It was known as ‘The Colombo radio’ at that time and became Radio Ceylon in 1949 (after independence) and was transformed into a government corporation in 1967 and ultimately with the transition of the Sri Lankan State into Republic of Sri Lanka the Ceylon radio corporation came to be known as the Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation. It enjoyed the authority in the electronic media sector in Sri Lanka until the launching television a service in 1979 and private radio transmissions in the island. The Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation (SLBC), is the leading and the oldest state radio service in Sri Lanka that currently maintains three Sinhala channels island wide. All these Sinhala channels employ written idiom for headlines and detailed news reading. It also prefers to use newspaper style simple language for headlines. Drastic changes in language of the electronic media was introduced with the involvement of private radio stations in 1993. An equivalent of spoken Sinhala grammar was introduced for Sinhala news reading by the private radio channels for the first time. This style is used by the state-owned TV channels even today. The news reading language style of all other radio channels except SLBC channels are similar in language style which is used in all other TV channels for their news reading.

Some radio channels as well as announcers prefer to use highbrow spoken Sinhala style in presenting educational and documentary programs. Spoken Sinhala grammar with written Sinhala vocabulary is used in presenting general programs. A mixed style of spoken Sinhala grammar, spoken and written Sinhala vocabulary intermixed with English borrowings is being used in presenting entertainment programs which specially target the youth.

The Language style differs in advertisements according to target customers. The following Rexona Deo Commercial is taken from YouTube which is good evidence for the use of English -Sinhala hybrid language style. English words are given in bold letters.

25 http://www.slbc.lk/index.php/about-slbc.html, accessed on 05th February 2019

271

17. [ākimidis ehemǝ divve æyi kiyǝla maṭǝ tērunē edā. maṭat unhiṭi tæŋ amǝtǝkǝ unā. ē æs mage æs ekkǝ straight line ekǝṭǝ yā unē hæmǝ action ekǝkǝṭǝmǝ equal ūt prǝtiviruddǝ ūt reaction ekak ætǝ kiyǝnǝ newṭǝnge 3rd law ekǝ lab ekǝkin eliyedi lōkeṭǝmǝ oppu kǝrǝmin. eyā ēkākārī prǝvēgǝyǝkin magē lag̃ǝdi mandǝgāmī unē magē hadǝvǝtē left ventricle ekē patulen āpu wave ekak aḍǝ sad̃ǝ kapāṭǝ kapāgenǝ blood vessels purāmǝ yavǝmin. Magē magnetic field ekǝṭǝ attract unu prǝtiviruddǝ ārōpitǝ magnet ekak vagē eyā magē lag̃inmǝ vāḍi veddi heart ekǝ lub-Dub, lub-Dub, lubub gānnǝ gatta. ēkǝ anit ledgesvǝlǝṭat æhenǝvadǝ kiyǝla balannǝ I looked at kāncǝnā. kāncǝnā apē reaction speed ekǝ væḍi kǝranṭǝ āpu utprērǝkǝyak vagē māvǝ ṭikǝk ehāṭǝ tallu kǝrā. maŋ hariyǝṭǝmǝ fortyfive degrees oluvǝ ælǝ kǝrǝla eyā dihā shyly baladdi tamayi eyayi māyi prǝtikriyā kǝrǝnǝva sir dække. vaturǝṭǝ dāpu sodium kǣllak vagē duŋ dāgenǝ sir mage pættǝṭǝ æg̃illǝ dik kǝraddi eyā supply curve ekǝ vagē light speed eken atǝ issuva. ēt ekkǝmǝ sulfur dioxide, ammonia, methane, gas molēṭǝ credit unā vagē māvǝ mā vaṭā brǝmǝnǝyǝ vemin desk ekǝ vaṭē paribrǝmǝnǝyǝ vemin bimǝ væṭuna. Just like Newton’s apple. saŋsārē gandastārē matǝ eyā mokut kivvet nǣ. kiyannet nǣ. kohomǝ kiyannǝdǝ? mehemǝ misak. macaŋ! dāḍiyǝ gad̃ayi kiyǝla kello kiyanne nǣ. ēt ættǝṭǝmǝ dāḍiyǝ dæmmamǝ gad̃ai. ē nisā kiyǝnǝkaŋ id̃ǝla nāganne nætuvǝ nāpu gaman rexona deo at yaṭǝ gāgannǝ].26

(That’s the day I realized why Archimedes ran that way. I even forgot where I was. Those eyes met with mine in a straight line, proving Newton’s 3rd law. That is “every action has an equal reaction.” He accelerated and then slowed down near me. Releasing a wave from the bottom of my heart’s cutting through the semi-lunar valve spreading through all my blood vessels. Just like a piece of metal attracted to my magnetic field. He sat right next to me making my heart go lub-Dub, lub-Dub, lub-Dub. To see if anyone else heard it, I looked at Kanchana. Like a catalyst put there to increase our reaction speed, Kanchana nudged me towards him. I turned my head 45 degrees and looked at him shyly.

26 You Tube, Rexona Sri Lanka Advertisement (In Sinhala), “How Else Can I Say This?” November 2, 2017, accessed on 13.09.2017 https://www.youtube.com, “How Else Can I Say This?”, Rexona Sri Lanka Advertisement (In Sinhala), accessed on 13.09.2018 272

That’s when our chemistry teacher noticed the chemistry between the two of us. Like a cube of sodium which dropped into water, the teacher started to bubble boil. My saviour’s hand shot up, just like a supply curve. Just then veins of Sulphur dioxide, ammonia, methane, gas opened up in my brain, everything began to spin around me as I spun myself around and dropped to the floor. Just Like Newton’s apple. Heavens, That smell. I didn’t say anything to him. I won’t say anything to him. How else can I say this? Mate. Girls won’t tell you that you have a bad body odour but when you sweat you really do! So, before you make a move and mess things up, use Rexona after a shower.)

The target of the commercial is young men. Therefore, according to this video clip this happens in a science class room of an international school. This environment facilitates to use more English terms, vocabulary and phrases as well as youth slang in Sinhala language as it suits the target participants.

6.2 Written Language Written language basically consists of prose and poetry.

6.2.1 Prose Sinhala prose writing is used for several purposes such as personal letters, academic writings, creative writings, printed media, electronic media, social media and so on. Here we pay our special attention on main literary traditions which impact on Sinhala language in the recent past.

6.2.1.1 Personal writings Many Sinhalese prefer to use spoken grammar and vocabulary for personal writings such as personal letters and personal notes. Usually words are divided without considering spoken Sinhala Sandhi and in orthography [ṇ],[n], and [l], [ḷ]” variations as well as aspirated and non-aspirated variations which are not considered.

6.2.1.2 Academic Writings As we said earlier, using classical grammar based on the written idiom is the normal practice for all types of academic writings in Sinhala today. Abundance of Sanskrit loan 273

words in Sinhala prose writings even in fiction was the popular practice at the beginning of the 20th century. The purist movement erupted in the 1940s as an antagonistic movement to the Sanskritization of the Sinhala language. However, both extreme styles disappeared with the expansion of school and university education with new text books which has avoided both extremes. Today almost all writers prefer to use an impartial style which avoids Sanskritized and purist extremes. The following quotation is a good example for contemporary Sinhala academic written style which has Sanskrit loan words only where it is necessary.

18. [nūtǝnǝ bhāṣāvak lesǝ siŋhǝlǝ bhāṣā vyǝvǝhārǝyǝ sakas vannǝṭǝ vūyē dahanavǝ vǝnǝ siyǝvasē ārambhǝ vū bhāṣā sāstrīyǝ punarɉīvǝnǝ kaṭǝyutu saha visi vǝnǝ siyǝvasē dī rāɉyǝ bhāṣāvak vaʃǝyen siŋhǝlǝ bhāṣāvē kāryǝbhārǝyǝ pulul vīmat samǝg̃ǝ yǝ. emen mǝ vartǝmānǝ siŋhǝlǝ sāhityǝyē prǝbhavǝyǝṭǝ pasubim vū samāɉǝ ārthikǝ saŋskrutikǝ hā dēsǝpālǝnikǝ venasvīm ræsak dahanavǝ vǝnǝ visi vǝnǝ siyǝvasē mul bhāgǝyē dī sidu vūyē yǝ. siŋhǝlǝ bhāṣāvǝ likhitǝ hā mudritǝ sannivēdǝnǝyǝ sad̃ǝhā bahulǝ lesǝ yodā gænīmǝ nisā bhāṣātmǝkǝ navāŋgǝ ekǝtu vū atǝrǝ siŋhǝlǝ gadyǝ bhāṣāvē svǝrūpǝyǝ nūtǝnǝ avaʃyǝtā sad̃ǝhā sarilǝnǝ ākārǝyen sakas vīmǝ ærǝbinĩ ].27 (Sinhalese language began to form as a modern language as a result of language and academic renaissance that started at the beginning of the 19th century and the expansion of the matters concerning Sinhala language as a state language. At the same time, social, economic, political and cultural transformations that occurred in both 19th and the 20th centuries were influenced by the origin of modern Sinhala literature. Sinhalese prose language began to develop with many new features to fulfil modern requirements as a result of using it as a mode of communication in printed media.)

Though there are several Sanskrit loan words in the above quotation most of them take Sinhala suffixes and they are very familiar to average Sinhala readers.

27 Sandagomi Koparahewa, Visi vana Siyavase Sinhala Bhasa Vyavaharaya, (Colombo: Godage, 2010), 179 274

Though Sinhala language is a compulsory subject for Sinhala medium students up to grade eleven and for the General Certificate Examination of the Ordinary Level examination, those who have followed the above courses confronts difficulties when they use standard written Sinhala grammar. The Sinhala Lehkana Reetiya and many other writings also testify to the fact that not only school students but also educated writers and even some school and university Sinhala teachers confront confusions or make mistakes when they write in the standard written language. Therefore, grammatical mistakes such as selecting subject and object forms of nouns and pronouns and selection of correct forms of verbs, and orthographic mistakes occur mainly because of the intermixing of spoken and written grammar. These mistakes can occur even in learned university Sinhala lecturers’ writings.

19. [uḍǝraṭǝ rāɉyǝyē pālǝkǝ pælæntiyǝ pilibad̃ǝvǝ vimǝsīmēdī devǝnǝ vimǝlǝdharmǝsūriyǝ raɉuṭǝ pūrvǝ mahanuvǝrǝ raɉǝvǝru kōṭṭē raɉǝ pelǝpatǝ samǝgǝ hō raɉǝ parǝpurǝkǝṭǝ ayitivāsikam kī kīrǝvællē pelǝpatǝ samǝgǝ hō āvāhǝ vivāhǝ sabǝd̃ǝtā ætikǝrǝ gattat 17 vǝnǝ siyǝvasǝ pamǝnǝ vǝnǝ viṭǝ mē pavul dekǝmǝ abhāvǝyǝṭǝ yāmat balǝvat vemin pævǝti radǝlǝ balǝyǝ mardhǝnǝyǝ kirīmat samǝ kulǝ vanitāvan vivāhǝ koṭǝ gænīmē abhiprāyat arǝmunu koṭǝ genǝ udǝraṭǝ pālǝkǝvǝrun dakunu indiyāvǝ desǝṭǝ hæruni. … ovuhu sinhǝlǝ bavuddhǝ ananyǝtāvǝ piligat namudu ovungē ɲāti balǝyǝ raɉǝ vāsǝlǝ tulǝ vædī yāmat kumantrǝnǝ hā arǝgǝlǝ bahulǝ vīmat hētu koṭǝ genǝ ɉanǝ ɉīvitǝyē dǝ kisiyam caŋcǝlǝ svǝbhāvǝyak haṭǝ genǝ tibuni].28

(The rulers of Kandyan Kingdom before the King Wimaladharmasooriya II arraigned their marriages with the Kotte royal family or the Keerawelle family which had affiliation to royal families up to the 17th Century. As both these families became extinct later Kandyan kings pay their attention towards South India to find same cast queens and they wanted to suppress the increasing power of Kandyan nobles as well. … Though they (Indian royals) accepted Sinhala Buddhist identity since their power began to increase within the royal palace and with increasing conspiracies the lifestyle of the public became unstable.)

28 H. Dias, Jana Sahitya Sampradaya, (Colombo: Godage, 2003), 160-162 275

The bold word [raɉǝvǝru] (kings) of the above quotation has been given in the nominative case but according to the standard Sinhala grammatical norms it should be in the accusative case as [raɉǝvǝrun]. In the same sentence aspirated [dh] has been used instead of non-aspirated [d]. At the same time [pālǝkǝvǝrun] (rulers) has given in the object form but it should be given in the subject form as [pālǝkǝvǝru]. The final verb of the same sentence should be given as [hærunǝhǝ] or [hærunōyǝ] instead of [hæruni]. As we discussed in chapter 5 Controversy over Grammaticality, some scholars struggled to convince the importance of using Sinhala spoken grammar for writing.

However, since they did not have common network among themselves or similar convictions it disappeared in the 1970s. Today, Ajit Tilakasena a famous contemporary fiction writer is the only individual who openly argues against the classical grammar- based writing style. He uses his own writing style based on the spoken Sinhala grammar, and avoids usage of retroflex [ṇ]and [ḷ] letters, and he also sometimes uses his own form instead of the Sanskrit tatsama forms such as [viyākǝrǝnǝ] instead of

[vyākǝrǝṇǝ]. In this example he has avoided the initial [v+y] cluster which is difficult for the average Sinhala speakers to pronounce and has inserted [i] in between [v] and

[y] consonants as a Sinhala speaker normally does. However, he has used the Sanskrit tatsama words [avyākǝrǝṇǝ] and [vyǝvǝhārǝyǝ] which have the same consonant cluster.29 Some Sanskrit tatsama words have been used as it is in his writings such as

[vācyārthǝ] and [krutrimǝ] that are differently pronounced by the average Sinhala speakers. At the time, he has used aspirated letters which are not in average Sinhala speaker’s pronunciation. The palatal [ʃ] letter has been used instead of retroflex [ṣ].

However, this writing style does not attract any followers.

29 Ajit Tilakasena, Adata Obina Basa, (Colombo: Godage, 1997), 10-11 276

He also suggests one diacritical sign [ a ] with “[i] (ඉ); [u] (උ); [e](t&; [o] (ඔ)” vowels to indicate their long vowels as “(ඉ් )[ī]; (උ් )[ū]; (ඒ් ) [ē]; (ඔ් ) [ō]” instead of using four different symbols for the above vowels as: “(ඊ) [ī]; (ඌ ) [ū]; (ඒඒ් ) [ē]; (´) [ō]”. He also proposes two common vowel signs to indicate [u] / [ū] vowel signs with all consonants.

In traditional Sinhala writing “(槊 ) [k]; (燊 ) [g]; (뗊 ) [t]; (� ) [b]/; (ශ් ) [ʃ]” consonants have “(කු) [k] = + [u]; (කූ) [kū]; (ගු) [g+u]; (ගූ) [gū]; (තු) [tu]; (තූ) [tū]; (භු) [bhu]; (භූ)

[bhū]; (ශු) [ʃu]; (ශූ) [ʃū] equal symbols for [u] and [ū] vowels but the [r] () letter has completely different symbol for ‘[u]’ and [ū]’ vowels as (රු) [ru]” and (රූ) [rū]”.

Retroflex (ළ් ) [ḷ]” letter has completely different symbols for ‘[u]’ and [ū]’ vowels:

“(ළු) [lu]”; and “(ළූ) [lū]” and all the other consonants have equal symbol for [u]’ and

‘[ū]’ vowels as “(ඛු ) [kh]/; (ඛූ) [khū]; (ඝු) [ghu]; (ඝූ) [ghū]; (චු) [cu]; (චූ) [cū]; (ඡු) [chu];

(ඡූ) [chū]; (ටු) [ṭu]; (ටූ) [ṭū]; (ඨු) [ṭhu]; (ඨූ) [ṭhū]; (ඩු) [ḍu]; (ඩූ) [ḍū]; (ඪු) [ḍhu]; (ඪූ) [ḍhū];

(ණු) [ṇu]; (ණූ) [ṇū]; (දු) [du]; (දූ) [dū]; (ධු) [dhu]; (ධූ) [dhū]; (නු) [nu]; (නූ) [n]; (පු) [pu];

(පූ) [pū]; (ඵු) [phu]; (ඵූ) [phū]; (බු) [b]; (බූ) [bū]; (මු) [mu]; (මූ) [mū]; (යු) [ju]; (යූ) [jū];

(ලු) [lu]; (ලූ) [lū]; (වු) [vu]; (වූ) [vū]; (ෂු) [ṣu]; (ෂූ) [ṣū]; (සු) [su]; (සූ) [sū]; (හු) [hu]; (හූ)

[hū]; (ෆු) [fu]; (ෆූ) [fū].

Therefore, Tilakasena suggests the ( q ) vowel symbol for the short vowel and [u] and

( Q ) vowel symbol for the long vowel [ū] as they are easy to use with all consonants.

20. [bhāʃsāvǝ ārambhǝ unē livīmen novǝ katābahen. katā baha ārambhǝ velā dīrghǝ

kālǝyak giyāṭǝ passe livīmǝ hevat likhitǝyat bohomǝ mǣtǝkǝdi mudritǝyat æti

unā.

277

siŋhǝlǝyē kaṭǝ basat liyǝnǝ basat atǝrǝ viyākǝrǝnǝmǝyǝ parǝtǝrǝyǝ venat kisimǝ

bhāʃāvak sambandhǝyen daknǝṭǝ nolæbenǝ tarǝmǝṭǝ visālǝ bavǝ prǝkāʃǝ velā

tiyenǝā].30

(At the beginning, language started by speaking, and not by writing. Writing

came into practice after a long-time practice of spoken style, and the printing

technology was invented very recently. It is said that the difference between

spoken and written grammar in Sinhala is much more different than any other

language.)

In the above quotation Ajith Thilakasena has used his own writing style where he has employed spoken Sinhala final verb forms and suffixes. There he has omitted retroflex

[ṇ] and [ḷ]’ instead he has employed their dental variations. However, palatal [ʃ] has been replaced in place of retroflex [ṣ]’ though it does not exist in normal Sinhalese pronunciation. In some occasion’s palatal [ʃ]’ letter has been used with the Sanskrit borrowing [prǝkāʃǝ], but he has omitted it in the word [visālǝ] and instead he has employed the dental [s]’ letter. Aspirated letters also have been used with Pali and

Sanskrit borrowings though they cannot be found Sinhalese pronunciations. He has also employed one diacritical sign to indicate individual consonants (that are not combined with vowels) as best of innovation in the writing system.

6.2.1.2.1 Dissertations Classical grammar based standard Sinhala written idiom is used for writing reports, research papers, dissertations, thesis, websites and textbooks as well. When that type of writings are observed it is clear that very few people can write in standard Sinhala written grammar without deviations. Therefore, many writers or authors obtain the service of capable Sinhala proof readers before submitting or publishing a document.

30 Thilakasena, Adata Obina Basa, 7 278

Accepted correct standard Sinhala usage is existent in Sinhala expert’s writings or those who have gained the service of a capable proof reader. A writing prepared by an expert in any language may need careful attention and rechecking and such careful attention and rechecking is much more essential when one uses standard Sinhala written grammar. This is mainly due to the diglossic situation.

6.2.1.4 Newspapers According to available sources the first Sinhala newspaper The Lankaloka was published in June 1860 followed by Lakminipahana on 11th September 1862 and The Lakrivikirana in July 1863.31 The first two papers The Lankaloka and Lakminipahana were issued fortnightly and The Lakrivikirana was issued weekly. According to Lakminipahana, newspapers have been considered as the fourth governing body of the country.32 Though the authors of early newspapers were reputed educated people at that time there are some language deviations even in their writings when compared with contemporary standard Sinhala, in areas like grammar and orthography: There is confusion of ‘[n] < > [ṇ]’ and ‘[l] < > [ḷ]’ and aspirated and non-aspirated consonants, word division, mixing of written and spoken grammar and vocabulary. The reason was that there was no standard written Sinhala grammar. At the same time, there were no ‘technical terms’ for new subjects and institutions as we have today. Instead, colloquial terms were being used as substitutes. However, by the end of the 19th Century and the beginning of the 20th Century the writers were able to establish some standard of written grammar to some extent as required by the expansion of vernacular medium in government and pirivena schools as well as in editing of classical texts. This development improved more during the first half of the 20th Century.

Standard Sinhala written grammar is presently used for reporting news and articles in contemporary Sinhala newspapers. Some newspapers have successfully employed classical grammar based standard written Sinhala grammar in reporting news and writing news articles. Some national Sinhala newspapers use popular English loan words such as “Face Book, WhatsApp, Viber” which have been used in English letters even in editorials while employing contemporary standard Sinhala written grammar

31 Siri Thilakasiri, 19vana Siyavase Sri Lankaven -1 Sinhala Puvatpate Bilindu Viya, (Colombo: Godage, 2001) 32 Thilakasiri, 19vana Siyavase Sri Lankaven -1 Sinhala Puvatpate Bilindu Viya, 12 279

successfully.33 Mixing standard Sinhala written grammar, spoken Sinhala grammar and highbrow Sinhala spoken grammar in the same article is a common practice in some Sinhala newspaper articles.34 Some writers start their articles in contemporary standard Sinhala written style and gradually incline to use spoken grammar and its style.35 Sometimes they tend to use written Sinhala passive voice sentences with spoken Sinhala final verbs:

21. […īṭǝ davas hatǝrǝkǝṭǝ pasuvǝ, mulu raṭǝmǝ haḍǝvā͂ viɉǝyǝ kumārǝtungǝ marā damǝnu læbuvā].36 (Just after four days Viɉǝyǝ Kumārǝtungǝ was assassinated causing the entire country to lament.) 22. […ē anuvǝ Prēmǝsiri Perērā mahatāvǝ sākṣiyǝṭǝ kæd̃ǝvǝnu læbuvā.]37 (According to that Mr. Premasiri Perera was summoned to give evidence.)

The underlined words are final verbs of the above sentence and they have been kept in spoken style though there are no such passive voice sentences in spoken Sinhala. According to standard Sinhala written grammar those verbs should be kept as [damǝnǝ ladi/damǝnǝ læbī yǝ].

23. [… komisan sabhāvē anekut sāmāɉikǝyan lesǝ abhiyācǝnādhikǝrǝnǝyē siṭi Sarat N. Silvā mahatā dǝ, mahādikǝrǝnǝ vinisuru Ɉayēvikkrǝmǝ mahatā dǝ, pat kǝrǝnu læbuvā].38 (… Appeal Court Judge Sarath N. Silva and High Court Judge Jayawickrama were nominated as the other members of the commission.)

The third sentence also is a mixture of spoken and written Sinhala sentence structures. According to written Sinhala grammar the final verb should be kept as [læbūhǝ] or [adǝhǝ]. According to spoken Sinhala grammar the final verb should be changed to the active voice verb as [pat keruva] or [pat kǝrā] instead of [pat kǝrǝnu læbuā], since there are no such passive voice sentences in spoken Sinhala.

33 Divayina, March 18, 2018, 4 34 Hemanta Warnakulasooriya, “kopuvǝ ɉanǝtāvǝṭǝ kaḍuvǝ ɉavipeṭǝ”, Divayina, March 18, 2018, 4 35 Ibid, 4 36 Warnakulasooriya, “kopuvǝ ɉanǝtāvǝṭǝ kaḍuvǝ ɉavipeṭǝ”, 4 37 Ibid, 4 38 Ibid, 4 280

Also spoken Sinhala grammar has been used in some sentences:

24. [… mamǝ hituvā].39 (I thought.)

Spoken Sinhala verb [hituvā] has been used with the first-person singular pronoun [mamǝ].

25. […īṭǝ pasu api siyǝlu denāmǝ viɉǝyǝ kumārǝtungǝ padiɲcivǝ siṭi polhēngoḍǝ nivǝsǝṭǝ giyā].40 (Thereafter all of us went to house in Polhengoda where Viɉǝyǝ Kumārǝtungǝ resided.)

Following the spoken Sinhala grammar, the past tense final verb [giyā] has been used with the first-person plural pronoun [api]. 26. [… api kavurut dænǝgenǝ hiṭiyā].41 (we all came to know.)

Spoken Sinhala grammar final verbs [giyā] (went) and [dænǝgenǝ hiṭiyā] (had known) have been used with the first-person plural pronoun [api] (we).

Highbrow spoken Sinhala grammar also has been used in the same article. As we pointed out in Chapter 5: variations in contemporary Sinhala Grammar, it is ungrammatical to use the spoken Sinhala final verb with the subject form (Nominative case) of nouns. Therefore, Kumaratunga suggests using the object form of nouns with the spoken Sinhala final verb. That style is called highbrow spoken Sinhala grammar which is different from the normal spoken and written Sinhala grammar. This style has been used for some sentences in this article:

27. [mā ohugē katāvǝṭǝ æhumkan dunnā]42 (I listened to his speech.) 28. [… mā saŋvidhānǝyǝ kǝlā.]43 (I organized.)

39 Warnakulasooriya, “kopuvǝ ɉanǝtāvǝṭǝ kaḍuvǝ ɉavipeṭǝ”, 4 40 Ibid, 4 41 Ibid, 4 42 Ibid, 4 43 Ibid, 4 281

In the above examples the object form of the first-person singular pronoun “mā” (‘I’ accusative case) has been used with spoken Sinhala final verbs.

Many grammatical deviations have occurred in some newspaper articles when standard Sinhala written grammar is used. These deviations mainly occur in selecting subject/object forms or appropriate verb forms.

Using the object form instead of the subject form:

29. [ēvāṭǝ ohu dun uttǝrǝvǝlǝṭǝ komisǝn sabāvē sāmāɉikǝyin mahā hyyen sinahasunāhǝ]44 (The members of the commission laughed loudly for the answers given by him.)

When we consider the vocabulary and the style of the above sentence, the writer wanted to follow written Sinhala grammar. Therefore, as the underlined word is the subject of the sentence it should be in the subject form as [sāmāɉikǝyō].

Using the object form instead of the subject form:

30. [etæn siṭǝ siyallan payinmǝ digǝnǝ, teldeniyǝ, akurǝnǝ ādī prǝdēsǝvǝlǝ siduvǝ æti vināsǝyǝ dækǝgannǝṭǝ gaman kǝlǝhǝ].45 (From that place all went by foot to see the damage has happened in areas such as Digana, Teldeniya and Akurana.) 31. [… amuttǝku pæminiyēyǝ].46 (A visitor came) 32. [… amātyǝvǝrun sahabāgi vī siṭiyǝhǝ].47 (Ministers had participated.) 33. [… amātyǝvǝrun ek vūhǝ].48 (Ministers joined.)

Underlined nouns of the above sentences perform actions of verbs. Therefore, they should be in subject forms as follows: [siyallan] > [siyallō]; [amuttǝku] > [amuttǝk]; [amātyǝvǝrun] > [amātyǝvǝru]; [amātyǝvǝrun] > [amātyǝvǝru]

44 Warnakulasooriya, “kopuvǝ ɉanǝtāvǝṭǝ kaḍuvǝ ɉavipeṭǝ”, 4 45 , Bulita, Pradip Kumara; “Satiye Desapalanaya”, Divayina, 18. 03. 2018, 17 46 Ibid, 17 47 Ibid,17 48 Ibid,17 282

Using the subject form of nouns instead of the object form:

34. [rāɉǝpaksǝvǝru værǝdivǝlǝṭǝ koṭukǝrǝ hirǝ geṭǝ dæmiyǝ hækkē ebad̃u kriyāmārgǝyǝkin pamǝnak bavǝ tarǝyē visvāsǝ kǝlǝ æmǝtivǝru bohō denek nītiyǝ hā sāmǝyǝ pilibad̃ǝ æmǝtikǝmǝ ebad̃u ayǝkuṭǝ dennǝṭǝ nogat vehesak nomæti vūhǝ.]49 (Ministers made many efforts to get a suitable person appointed to the portfolio of Law and Peace since they firmly believed that it is the only way it makes possible to enforce the law and imprison them for the corruption done by the Rajapaksas.)

35. [dēsǝpālǝnaɲǝyō bohō pirisak sahabāgi vū visēsǝ malǝ gedǝrak tibuni].50 (There was a special funeral last week at which many politicians participated.)

36. [… kolǝbǝ̃ maha nagǝrǝ sabāvǝ sad̃ǝhā læyistuvē niyōɉitǝ mantrīvǝru pat kǝrǝnǝ ladǝ atǝrǝ ehidī dǝ Vimallāṭǝ Udǝyǝlāṭǝ kisidu avastāvak labā dī tibunē nætǝ].51 (Wimal and Gammanpila were not given a chance for appointing members from the merit list to the Colombo Municipal Council.)

37. [prasnǝyǝ sambandǝyen paksǝ nāyǝkǝyan bohō denek vivurtǝvǝ adahas palǝ nokǝrǝ munivatǝ ræīmǝdǝ mehidī daknǝṭǝ læbunu visēsatvǝyǝki].52 (It was noticeable situation that many party leaders kept silent without giving their opinion openly regarding the matter.)

38. [mesē asādārǝnǝyǝṭǝ patvū mantrīvǝru hā niyōɉitǝyō pasugiyǝ satiyē Sirikotǝṭǝ pæminǝ mē pilibad̃ǝvǝ prasnǝ kǝrannǝṭat virōdǝyǝ dakvannǝṭat vīmǝ nisā Sirikotē tatvǝyǝdǝ unusum vī tibuni].53 (Thus the condition in Sirikota became

49 Kumara; “Satiye Desapalanaya”, 17 50 Ibid,17 51 Ibid,17 52 Ibid, 17 53 Ibid, 17 283

more critical last week since members and representatives began to question and protested against the unfairness has happened to them.)

39. [kesē vetat ē venǝ viṭǝ sivu denek vævǝṭǝ vætī diyē gilī tibinǝ].54 (However, four people had fallen into the lake and drowned.)

40. [ovuhu ē sambandhǝyen vārtā piṭǝ vārtā tabā tibē].55 (They have established record after record over that issue.)

41. [in kupitǝ vū nisādō mīṭǝ mul vū aturǝliyē ratǝnǝ himiyō pævǝsuvē vasǝ visǝ pohorǝ vyāptiyǝ natǝrǝ nokǝlot ānḍuvǝ perǝlǝnǝ bavǝyǝ].56 (Rev. Aturaliye Ratana said that the government will be toppled if the government did not stop the distribution of poisonous fertilizer.)

42. [… ovuhu natǝrǝvǝ siṭinnē mālǝbē̃ pihiṭi nivǝsǝkǝyǝ].57 (They reside in a house at Malabe.) 43. [… ovuhu nævǝtǝ nævǝtī siṭinǝ tænǝṭǝ yannēdǝ bas ratǝyeni]. (They return to their residence by bus.)

44. [… chīnǝ ɉātikǝyō cīnǝyē gambadǝ prǝdēsǝ vǝlin pæminennan bavǝ dǝ ovun hā kǝlǝ katābahēdī apǝṭǝ tērum giyēyǝ]. (While talking to them we understood that these Chinees had come from remote villages of China.)

In the above sentences the underlined words have been given in subject form but they should be in object form as follows as they do not act as subject of those sentences.

54 Palita Ariyavansa, “Pasala Malagamak Kala Vinoda Carikava”, Lankadipa, July18, 2018, 3 55 “editorial”, Mawbima, March 18, 2018, 6 56 “māgamputrǝ”, Mawbima, March 8, 2018, 6 57 Rajita Jagoda Aracchi, “Colamba Ahasa Surana Meduru Hadana Cheennu” Silumina, July 15, 2018, 13 284

[rāɉǝpaksǝvǝru] > [rāɉǝpaksǝvǝrun]; [æmǝtivǝru] > [æmǝtivǝrun]; [dēsǝpālǝnaɲǝyō bohō pirisak] > [dēsǝpālǝnaɲǝyan bohō pirisak]; [mantrīvǝru] > [mantrīvǝrun]; [bohō denek] > [bohō deneku]; [mantrīvǝru] > [mantrīvǝrun]; [niyōɉitǝyō] > [niyōɉitǝyan]; [denek] > [deneku]; [ovuhu] > [ovun]; [ovuhu] > [ovun]; [ɉātikǝyō] > [ɉātikǝyan].

Using the object form of nouns instead of the subject form.

45. [… etænǝṭǝ amuttǝku pæminiyēyǝ].58 (A guest came to that place.)

46. [… saukkyǝyǝ amātyǝvǝrun sahabāgi vī siṭiyǝhǝ].59 (Health ministers had participated.)

47. [… saukkyǝyǝ amātyǝvǝrun ekvūhǝ].60 (Health ministers joined.)

The underlined word of the above 46, 47 and 48 examples are in object form, but they should be in subject form since they are subjects of respective sentences:

[amuttǝku] > [amuttǝk]; [amātyǝvǝrun] > [amātyǝvǝru].

Using inappropriate verb forms:

48. [mē siyǝlu kaṭǝyutuvǝlin pasuvǝ amātyǝnǝrǝyā polispǝti … mahatā dǝ samǝgǝ malvatu asgiri mahā nāyǝkǝ himivǝrun bæhædækǝ āsīrvādǝ labā gannǝṭǝ yanu læbuvēyǝ].61 (After all these works the minister went to visit and get blessing from the chief incumbents Asgiriya and Malwatta chapters with the Inspector General of Police Mr. ...)

58 Kumara, “Satiye Desapalanaya”, Divayina, March 18, 2018, 17 59 Ibid,17 60 Ibid,17 61 Ibid,17 285

49. [īṭǝ pasu candrikā banḍārǝnāyǝkǝ kumārǝtungǝ raṭē ɉanādhipǝti vūvā].62 (Thereafter Chandrika Bandaranayake Kumaratunge became the President of the country.)

In the first sentence of the above two the underlined word [amātyǝvǝrǝyā] is the subject of the sentence. Therefore, the final verb should be in the third person singular active voice. However, it has been given in the passive voice form. The final verb of the second sentence should be changed as [vūvā yǝ] to fit with the third person feminine singular noun [candrikā canḍārǝnāyǝkǝ kumārǝtungǝ].

50. [… maddumǝ banḍārǝ amātyǝvǝrǝyā lakshmǝn kiriællǝ hā ruvan viɉēvardǝnǝ amātyǝvǝrun samǝgǝ agramāṭyǝvǝrǝyā piligænīmǝṭǝ yanǝ ladi].63 (The minister Mr. Madduma Bandara along with ministers Mr. Lakshman Kiriella and Ruwan Wijewardhana welcomed the Prime Minister.)

51. [mē siyǝlu kaṭǝyutuvǝlin pasuvǝ amātyǝvǝrǝyā polispǝti … dǝ samǝgǝ malvatu asgiri mahanāyǝkǝ himivǝrun bæhædækǝ āsīrvādǝ labā gannǝṭǝ yanu læbuvēyǝ].64 (After all these programmes the minister along with Inspector General of Police Mr. ... paid his respects to the chief incumbents of both the Asgiriya and Malwatta chapters and got their blesings)

52. [saukkyǝ amātyǝvǝrun tamǝ raṭǝvǝlǝ ksǝyǝ rōgǝyǝ turan kirīmǝ sad̃ǝhā genǝ æti kriyāmārgǝ pilibad̃ǝ karunu idiripat kǝrǝnǝ ladi].65 (The health ministers presented measures taken by their respective countries to eradicate tuberculosis.)

The above three sentences give evidence for another common deviation that occurs in employing spoken or written grammar of Sinhala for writing. Writers tend to use the written Sinhala past tense singular passive voice verb instead of the past tense active

62 Hemanta,Warnakulasooriya, “kopuvǝ ɉanǝtāvǝṭǝ kaḍuvǝ ɉavipeṭǝ”, 4 63 Kumara, “Satiye Desapalanaya”, 17 64 Ibid,17 65 Ibid,17 286

voice verb. All the above three sentences require past tense active voice final verbs. According to written grammar they should be as follows:

[yanǝ ladi] > [giyē yǝ]; [yanu læbuvēyǝ] > [giyē yǝ]; [kǝrǝnǝ ladi] > [kǝlǝhǝ]

In spoken grammar they should be as follows:

[yanǝ ladi] > [giyā]; [yanu læbuvēyǝ] > [giyā]; [kǝrǝnǝ ladi] > [kǝrā/kǝlā] Many Sinhala writers are reluctant to use spoken Sinhala past tense final verbs such as [giyā]; [kǝrā] when they use spoken grammar for their formal writing, instead they tend to use an equivalent of written Sinhala passive voice verb.

The spoken language is preferred in reporting discussions or dialogues in Sinhala newspapers. Some reporters prefer to use highbrow spoken grammar specially with the present tense final verb which usually ends with the suffix [nǝvā]. However, they prefer to mix written language vocabulary specially pronouns, articles and non-finite forms of verbs.66 Some reporters have used spoken Sinhala verbs and vocabulary sometimes blending with some features of written language very precisely.67

6.2.1.5 Social Media With the expansion of technology many people got the opportunity to use electronic social media to share their ideas. Since there is no one to edit language errors in social media it appears on their walls as the way they wrote it. Therefore, on one hand social media can be considered as a clear mirror which reflects the written language skills of the Sinhala community. Many writers prefer to employ written idiom for their writings. I found the following language deviations in many posts.

Confusion of using “[ṇ], [n]” and “[ḷ ], [l]” Letters.

66 Tharaka Wickramasekara, “Vahanayak Tiyena Hemoma Badu Gevanna One ne”, Silumina, July 15, 2018, 04 67 Nishantha Kumara Bandara, “Uture Bahutara Janatava Nevata Yuddayak Enavata Kemati Ne”, Lankadeepa, July 15, 2018, 25 287

53. [sayiṭǝm praʃṇǝyat oyǝ vagē tamayi. ɉanādhipǝti mædihat vænne nǣ. … mulu raṭēmǝ minisun vidvattu sayiṭǝm raɉǝyǝṭǝ pavǝrāgenǝ memǝ praʃṇǝyǝ visǝdannǝ kiyā illīm kǝlat kæbineṭṭuvē innǝ epākǝrǝpu æmǝtivǝrungē kīm bahaṭǝ bayǝvelā ɉanādhipǝti memǝ praʃṇǝyǝṭǝ mædihat novī siṭinǝvā]. (The SAITM issue is also like that. The President does not intervene. Even though all the ordinary people and intellectuals of the country demanded a solution for the SAITM issue by nationalizing it the President does not intervene because he trusts the words of several notorious cabinet ministers.) confusion of palatal ‘[ʃ]’ cerebral [ṣ]’ and dental ‘[s]’ letters.

54. [vidēṣǝ æmǝti durǝyǝ itā vagǝkivǝ yutu amātyǝdurǝyak].

Retroflex [ṣ]” letter has been used in the above sentence instead of palatal [ʃ] letter.

[vidēṣǝ] > [vidēʃǝ]

Confusion in the usage of aspirated and non-aspirated letters.

In the above 54th sentence non-aspirated /d/ has been used instead of aspirated /dh/. [durǝyǝ] > [dhurǝyǝ]

Confusion of half nasal letters and their non-nasal letters.

55. [maksim gōrki, hodǝ minisun duk vidinnē narǝkǝ minisun nisāyǝ. … hodǝ minisunṭǝ vaḍā narǝkǝ minisun daksǝyōyǝ. … ovun ikmǝnin diyunu vē. … ehet avǝsānǝyē balāporottu novū deyak siduvī narǝkǝ minisun parǝditi. … hodǝ minisun ɉayǝ ganiti. …] (Maxim Gorky: good people suffer because of bad people… bad people are cleverer than good people… they (bad people) develop very fast…But in the end there will be an unexpected thing and the good will prosper.)

In the above abstract in four occasions dental voiced stop has been used instead 288

of half nasal letter though the writer knows the difference of meaning between [vidinnē] (drill) and [vid̃innē] (suffer/enjoy).

Mixing spoken and written grammar and style within a single post.

56. [… maharaɉānō surǝtal kǝlǝ daru pæṭǝvā ʃiʃyatvǝyen laŋkāvenmǝ palǝveniyā velā. subhǝ pætum rattǝran putē … raɉǝ tumāgē āʃīrvādǝyǝ hæmǝdāmǝ obǝ samǝgayi]. (The infant petted/fondled by the President became the first in the island in the scholarship examination held recently. Congratulations son! The blessing of the President is always with you.)

The final verb of [velā] (has become) the first sentence of the above quotation and has been given in spoken Sinhala but all the other words and sentence structures have been given in written grammar and style.

Using subject form of nouns instead of object forms.

57. [sinhǝlǝyō pakṣǝ pāṭǝ anuvǝ bedī ven vunā æti]

The noun [sinhǝlǝyō] is in subject form (nominative case) in the above quotation but it should be in object form (accusative case) as it is not performing the action of the verb in the above sentence.

Using the object form of nouns instead of the subject form. Using the object form of nouns instead of subject form is one of the very common deviations in standard Sinhala writing. In the above 54th abstract the writer has used the object form of nouns (accusative case) instead of the subject form (nominative case).

[hodǝ minisunṭǝ vaḍā narǝkǝ minisun daksǝyōyǝ. … ovun ikmǝnin diyunu vē. … ehet avǝsānǝyē balāporottu novū deyak siduvī narǝkǝ minisun parǝditi. … hodǝ minisun ɉayǝ ganiti. …]

289

All the bold words of the above quotation should be changed into their subject form as follows: [minisun] > [minissu]; [ovun] > [ovhu]

58. [TNA pakṣǝyē sampandan ætulu dolosdeneku mē vǝnǝ viṭat dvitvǝ purǝvæsibhāvǝyǝ darǝmin pārlimēntuvǝ niyōɉǝnǝyǝ kǝrǝnu labayi] (Eleven people including Sampandan of the TNA party are representing the parliament while having dual citizenship.)

The bold word of the above quotation is in object form (accusative case). It should be in subject form (nominative case) since it is performing the action of the verb.

Deviations of using appropriate verbs.

59. [api tavǝmat hūllǝmin siṭiyi].

The subject [api] of the above sentence is in the first-person plural pronoun form and the final verb [siṭiyi] is in the third person singular. Therefore, the final verb of the above sentence should be changed into the first person plural as [siṭimu] [siṭiyi] > [siṭimu]

Confusion of active and passive voice

60. [antǝvādīn visin yuddhǝyǝ ārambhǝ kǝlǝ pasu virækiyāvǝ visin tarunǝyā soldāduvǝku kǝrǝ vīrǝyǝkǝ lesin mihidan kǝlǝhǝ].

The final verb [kǝlǝhǝ] of the above sentence is in the active voice though the sentence structure is in the passive voice Therefore, the final verb [kǝlǝhǝ] should be changed into passive voice as [kǝrǝnǝ ladi]. [kǝlǝhǝ] > [kǝrǝnǝ ladi].

Some of the above mistakes specially related to orthography occur due to the difficulty of using a large number of keys on the keyboard. Sinhala writers did not have facilities to type [ræ] and [ḷu] letters in their smart mobile phones until September 2018. Typing Sinhala letters is not an easy task even on a computer key board since writers have to 290

use upper and lower level keys to type nearly sixty letters and many vowel symbols.Unavailability of developed Sinhala keyboard for computers and smart phones promote writers to make orthographical mistakes. Unavailability of user-friendly Sinhala dictionaries is another long felt need that Sinhala writers faced until the recent past. Though Sinhala dictionaries specially for spell check are available today, they are not popular even among educated people who engage in writing activities continuously. Apart from those technical and other deficiencies it is clear that negligence is the main reason for many orthographical mistakes.

6.2.1.6 Fiction Though later Sinhala scholars severely criticized the language and style of the Bible translations it has had a profound influence on the later language of fiction.68 However, the mixture of spoken and written vocabulary and short comings of orthography were common, not only in Christian religious literature but also in new fiction at that time. Though there are some rare grammatical mistakes such as subject predicate agreement and orthographic mistakes, a better language style of archaic idiom had been used for narration in some fiction in 1880s, as a result of the expansion of the vernacular medium education in government and Pirivena schools.69 A mixed style of spoken and written idiom have been used for dialogues in early fiction towards the end of the 19th century.

Later Sinhala fiction writers could develop a new language style for fiction by imposing a scholastic appearance to the usage of the Bible translation.70 Ariya Rajakaruna describes modern fictional language as a conglomeration of the styles of two earliest Sinhala fiction writers, one who closely followed the language style of the Bible translation and the other who closely associated the style of classical prose especially the Saddharmālankārəyə. Some early fiction writers at the end of the 19th Century preferred to employ a simplified version of written idiom for descriptions and spoken idiom for dialogues.71 As Rajakaruna pointed out, Albert de Silva has used a language style especially similar to the Saddharmālankārəyə for historical themes.72 At the same

68 D. A, Rajakaruna, Sinhala Navakatave Arambhaya, (Colombo: Godabe, 1998), 56 69 See. Translation of Ramayana, Gulliver’s Travels and Arabian Nights. 70 Rajakaruna, Sinhala Navakatave Arambhaya, 57 71 De Silva, Isec, Vasanavanta pawla, 1888 72 de Silva, Albert, Vimala, AAdara hasuna, (1892), 291

time he has used a style similar to contemporary written idiom and vocabulary for Siribari (1894) and Arabi Nisollasaya (1894).

The first Sinhala novel Meena73 by A. Simon de Silva was published in 1905 and was followed by the Vasanavanta Vivahaya hevat Jayatissa ha Rosalin by Piyadasa Sirisena in 1906, Mage Karume74 by M. C. F. Perera in 1906, Siriyalata hevat Anata Taruniya by W. A. Silva in 1909, Leela75 by Martin Wickramasinghe in 1914. Unlike in early Sinhala fiction writers, authors of these novels have inclined to use written idiom both in descriptions/narrations and dialogues. The language style in the 1920s and 30s is a mixure of a revised highbrow of spoken idiom and classical idiom. They have used written idiom occasionally with Sanskrit borrowings for the description or narration while using revised upper usage of spoken idiom for dialogues up to about 1960.76

In the sixties some novelists were inclined to employ spoken idiom for dialogues while using written idiom for descriptions. Madavala S. Ratnayaka has employed spoken idiom for dialogues as well as descriptions very successfully in his novel Sita Neti Bamba Lova (1961) which he has composed in the first-person narrative style. This language style was followed by several later novelists at that time.

Even in the 1990s some prose writers have come forward to experiment on prose language. Ediriweera Sarachchandra who was a well-known dramatist, novelist, researcher as well as a university professor has experimented on how to use a historical theme for new fiction. In doing so he was influenced by the classical language and style to a great. He has employed classical language and style for descriptions/narrations to impress the readers about its historical theme. He also states that he was mindful of not making it difficult for modern readership. He also states that pure classical language is not suitable for modern fiction even if the theme is historical. Moreover, he has mentioned that he realized that using of classical language for modern fiction is a hindrance to writer’s creativity. At the same time, he says that classical language is not sufficient to express the ideas of modern writers. Therefore, he says basically he had to

73 A. Simon de Silva, Meena, 1905 74 M. C. F. Perera, Mage Karume, 1906 75 Martin Wickramasinghe, Leela, 1914 76 For more information, Wickramasinghe, Martin, Yugantaya, Kaliyugaya, Viragaya. 292

use contemporary language style mixed with the classical language style and vocabulary to enrich the historical theme. He also stated that the classical language style cannot be used for dialogues of a modern fiction even though it is based on a historical theme. The purpose was to make the contemporary characters more lifelike.77

As regards language usage Ajith Thilakasena is the most noticeable creative writer today. He not only fights for the reformation of the language, he in fact employed his suggestions in academic (scholastic) writing and fiction. Among his new suggestions that using of a final verb of a sentence according to spoken grammar for all types of his writings, omitting cerebrals [ṇ] and [ḷ]), instead of cerebral [ȿ]” (ෂ) he uses palatal [ʃ]” ^Y& letter and isomorphism of vowel signs which are important. However, he employs palatal [ʃ] ^Y& letter, aspirated letters, articles, pronouns, and some verbs according to written language.

61. [mamǝ 1- mahalǝṭǝ bæssǝ velē kelinmǝ ṭelifōnǝyǝ vetǝ gihin risīvǝrǝyǝ issuvā. ægē anu aŋkǝyǝ gattā. susānige husmǝ væṭenǝ haḍǝ͂ maṭǝ ehā kelǝvǝrǝ siṭǝ æhunā. ‘maṭǝ vihilu katāvak matak unā. ēkayi ṭelifōn kēlē.’ ‘ikmǝnǝṭǝ kiyanḍǝ mamǝ sumānekin hinæhunē nǣ!’ægē svǝrǝyǝ mā tulǝ anāgǝtǝ sihinǝdǝ avǝdi kǝrannǝ samat unā. bas ekǝ ket yāyǝ kelǝvǝrǝ vaŋguvǝ ganiddi mamǝ kalǝbǝlǝyen sīnuvǝ ædǝ bæssā.]78

(I went down to the first floor and went straight to the telephone and lifted the receiver. I dialed her extension number. I heard Susani’s breathing from that end. ‘A joke came into my mind. That is why I called you. ‘Tell me soon. I didn’t laugh for over a week.’ Her voice generated future dreams in my mind. When the bus took the bend at the end of the paddy field I sounded the bell and got off.)

While using written Sinhala vocabulary such as nouns [mahalǝ], [sihinǝdǝ], [ket] pronouns [ægē], [mā], postpositions [vetǝ], [siṭǝ], [tulǝ], non-finite verbs [ædǝ] and

77 E. R. Sarachchandra, Vilasiniyakage Premaya, (Colombo: Dayavangsa Jayakody), Preface. 78 Ajith Thilakasena, Sadaya, (Colombo: Godage, 2002), 46-47 293

English borrowings [ṭelifōnǝyǝ] Thilakasena has employed spoken Sinhala final verbs in his fiction.

Spoken Sinhala grammar, sentence patterns and vocabulary have been used by contemporary Sinhala novelists for their first-person style Sinhala novels.

62. [panivuḍǝyǝ maṭǝ læbune akka kenekgen. eyāgǝ namǝ minilā. ē kāle eyā kiyǝnǝ ōnemǝ deyak kǝrannǝ mamǝ lǣsti velā hiṭiyā. mokǝdǝ mamǝ dækǝla tiyenǝva eyā pemvǝtun venuven duk vid̃inǝ tarǝmǝ. eyā ē vunuven æḍū͂ tarǝmak. davǝsǝkǝ maṭat æḍ͂unā. mamǝ hituvā loku velā minilāvǝ bad̃inǝva kiyǝlā. vivāhǝ velā eyāge dukǝ næti kǝrǝnǝva kiyǝlā. edā id̃aŋ mamǝ eyāṭǝ horen eyāge svāmipurusǝyā vunā. ættǝṭǝmǝ mamǝ minilāge vitǝrak nemeyi tavǝ akkǝla kihipǝ deneku samǝgǝ ēkǝ pārsvīyǝ namut maṭǝmǝ vitǝrak rahasak vunǝ puɲci sæmiyek velā hiṭiyā.]79

(I received the message from an old girl (older than the narrator). Her name is Minila. Those days I was ready to do whatever she said. The reason was that I had seen how much she suffered because of lovers. I know how much she cried for those things. One day I too cried. I thought I will get marry Minila when I grow up. Thought of pacifying her. From that day I became her husband without her awareness. For sure not only to Minila I became little husband for many such older girls (without their awareness.)

Though spoken Sinhala grammar has been used in the above quotation, some written Sinhala verb forms such as [vunā] have been used contrary to spoken usage. Mixing spoken and written Sinhala words in the same meaning has happened accidentally in this paragraph. [bad̃inǝva] (marry) is the short version of [kasādǝ bad̃inǝva], which is commonly used in spoken Sinhala instead of the written Sinhala word [vivāhǝ venǝvā] (marry). Though he could use the spoken Sinhala word in this context he has selected the written Sinhala word [vivāhǝ velā]. The author has used the written Sinhala word such as [svāmipurusǝyā] (husband), [sæmiyek] (a husband) since spoken Sinhala does not possess such suitable synonyms. Though the novel has used spoken Sinhala

79 K. K. Srinath, Budunge Rastiyaduva, (Nugegoda: Sanhinda , 2018), 16 294

grammar the author has been careful to avoid using English borrowings that are very common in spoken Sinhala. Instead he has employed written Sinhala words such as [birid̃ǝ]80 (wife); [durǝkatǝnǝyǝ]81 (telephone); [vidulibalǝyǝ]82 (electricity) which are not commonly used in spoken Sinhala today. However, instead of the Sinhala word [vidulibalǝyǝ] (electricity), the English word [karǝnṭekǝ] (electricity) or [layiṭ] 83 have been used in the same context in several occasions.

6.2.2 Poetry Both spoken and written Sinhala grammars are used in modern Sinhala poetry. The most interesting thing is Munidasa Kumaratunga who insisted on classical grammar with pure Sinhala language and propagated the idea that spoken Sinhala is ungrammatical, has used spoken idiom in poetry which he wrote for the children. 63. [hā hā hari hāvā kælē mædin āvā hiṭǝgenǝ gag̃ǝ gāvā pæn ugurak bīvā]84

The final verbs of the above verse such as [āvā] (came), [bīvā] (drank) are not used in standard written Sinhala grammar.

Gunadasa Amarasekara has used colloquial words, expressions, and its colloquial style with the spoken idiom very effectively for depicting rural life.85 Sometimes Amarasekara has used language style mixed with written and spoken vocabulary with spoken grammar.86 G. B. Senanayaka (1913-1985) who introduced (Nisandes) free verse poetic tradition to Sinhala, has used written grammar and mixed Sinhala language sometimes with aspirated sounds in his compositions.87 According to some critiques,

80 Srinath, Budunge Rastiyaduva,8 81 Ibid,8 82 Ibid,12 83 Ibid,12 84 Kumaratunga, Munidasa, “Havage vaga”, Kiyavana Nuvana, (1930-1940), in Kumaratunaga Pedi Ekatuva, (Colombo: Government Press, 1970), 24-25 85 Gunadasa Amarasekara, “Andura ape duka nivavi”, Bhava Geeta, (Colombo: Gunasena, 1955), 4; “Vkkada bandimu”, Bhava Geeta, (Colombo: Gunasena, 1955), 55 86 ______, “Andura saha biya”, Bhava Geeta, (Colombo: Gunasena, 1955), 78; “Gedara”, Amal Biso, (gampaha: Sarasavi,),1-2; Gunadasa Amarasekara, “Holman kuuddana Andura”, Amal Biso, (gampaha: Sarasavi,), 65-66 87 Senanayaka, G. B. “deviyan merima” 295

Siri Gunasinghe’s (1925-2017) poetic language is “a medley of classical and spoken Sinhala, interspersed with Sanskrit words or expressions”.88Though he has used mixed vocabulary of written and spoken language he has followed spoken grammar freely.89 Gunasinghe disregarded the use of cerebral letters [ṇ] and [ḷ] in all his writings and even when he wrote his name. Ediriveera Sarachchandra, university lecturer, critique, novelist, and most popular dramatist in Sri Lanka employed archaic language style with plenty of Pali and Sanskrit borrowings for lyrics in his stylistic stage dramas very successfully.90

All types of such grammar and vocabulary are used according to the theme in Sinhala poetry today. Spoken grammar and vocabulary are used for dialogues as well as descriptions or narrations and classical vocabulary is used for romantic themes. However, having a vast vocabulary and synonyms are helpful to poets and lyric writers to express their ideas and to follow meters.

6.2.2.1 Songs Some lyric writers have been influenced by the classical language style and use a simplified version of standard Sinhala written grammar very successfully for romantic themes. 64. [mī vadǝyǝki ɉīvitē mīpæni pirīlā ætē matvīlā gum gum nadǝ dī lā sænǝsemu api situmatē]

[mali malǝṭǝ piyabǝmu tuḍin tuḍǝṭǝ ron gamu liyan tamā rasǝ itirenǝ malvæl ovun soyāgenǝ yamu] (Life is a honey comb and it is full of bee’s honey. Let’s drink it and get intoxicated, let us hum, let’s enjoy our life as we wish.)

88 Meegaskumbura, “Sinhala Language and Literature since Independence”, 345. 89 Siri Gunasinghe, “Iye Pereida Palamuda”, Ratu Kekula, (1962), (Colombo: Godage, 1998), 79-80. 90 For more information, E. R. Saraccandra, Maname, (1958), (Colombo: Godage, 1997); E. R. Saraccandra, Sinhabahu, (1962), (Maharagama: Add & Adds, 2001). 296

(Let’s fly from flower to flower. Let us suck honey from lip to lip; Women are the creepers overflowing with nectar; Lets go in search of them.)

Mixed language style endowed with spoken and written idioms and vocabulary have been used to describe contemporary social experiences. This language style has been used freely by many lyric writers as it facilitates them to conform to the end rhyme.

65. [sad̃ǝ] (moon) [midulǝṭǝ] (compound) [enǝvā] (come) [æge] (her) [vatǝ] (face) [sihi venǝvā] (remember) [sad̃ǝ] (moon) [vaturē] (water) [nalǝvā] (lulled) [satǝpā] (lain) [æyǝ] (she) [rǣ] (night) [eliyē] (light) [sæg̃ǝavī] (hide) [yanǝvā] (go) [The moon (light) spreads over the compound, (then) I began to think of her face, she lulled and lay me in the moonlight, and she disappears in the night]

[ǣ] (she) [inne] (live) [sad̃ǝ] (moon) [rēnuvǣ] (in the moon beam) [mā] (me) [inne] (live) [mage] (my) [lōkǝyē] (world) [ǣtǝṭǝ] (far) [ǣ] (she) [yāvi] (will go) [sītǝṭǝ] (cold) [rǣ] (night) [vēvi] (will become) [mā] (me) [mehi] (here) [tabā] (had kept) [pāluvē] (lonely) [she lives in the moon beam, I live in my world, she will get very far, the night will be cold, keeping me here in solitude.]

While using written Sinhala articles and past participle verb forms [nalǝvā, satǝpā] the final verbs of the above song has been retained in the spoken Sinhala final verb as [enǝvā], [venǝvā], [yanǝvā]. At the same time, written language prepositions such as [ǣ] (she), [mā] (me) also have been used mixing up spoken and written language vocabulary.

Sometimes, the language style that had been used during the 17th and 18th centuries is being used in prose, poetry as well as songs in modern Sinhala to ridicule institutions and their activities.

297

66. [vad̃inǝṭǝ giyǝ kalǝṭǝ nuvǝrǝṭǝ dalǝdāvǝ gamē canḍi isṭænly dǝ sitiyā yǝ yālu nilǝmelā dorǝ ærǝ dunnā yǝ lag̃ǝṭǝmǝ gihin ohu dalǝdā vændā yǝ]

(When I went to worship at the Temple of the Tooth Relic in Kandy, Stanley, who is the thug of our village was also there, his friendly dignitaries opened the door, he reached up to the Relic and worshipped.)

The final verbs of each sentence of the above song has been kept in spoken form but there is a sentence ending postposition (conclusion marker) [yǝ] at the end which does not exist in the spoken idiom. Keeping the conclusion marker at the end of the spoken Sinhala final verb was common in Sinhala prose writing of the 17th and 18th Centuries. That style is used in satirical prose and folk poetry in Sinhala today.

67. [gag̃ǝṭǝ kapǝnǝ ini gag̃ǝ diyǝ rægenǝ yati sæpǝṭǝ væḍunu kayǝ polǝvǝṭǝ dirā yati apǝṭǝ novē babuṭat̃ maru lag̃ā veti pinǝṭǝ dunnu dē pamǝnak ituru veti.]

(Sticks falling into the river will be carried by the river water, the body maintained well will decay into the earth, not only us, even Maha Brahma (Creator God) himself will succumb to death. Only what is given in charity will remain forever.)

The final verb of the above extract has been kept in plural form though the subjects of sentences are in the neuter gender or masculine singular nouns. According to contemporary standard Sinhala grammar final verb of a sentence should be in the singular form if the subject is in the singular. Sometimes, this verb form has been used deliberately by the author to denote future uncertain meaning since there is a similar verb form in spoken Sinhala as [yatē] (carry), [vetē] (happen) for the same meaning. However, in some modern poems and songs rhyme and tune are considered more important than the grammar.

298

Some popular songs have used vocabulary equivalent to the spoken usage of bilinguals and youth which is mixed with English borrowings and slang.

68. [somiyǝṭǝ varen putā - agul dāla nǣ dorē ahapaŋ real katā - gune ayyage kāmǝrē hiṭǝpaŋ side eken - vāḍivelā sumiturē maskut pæni būndi - tiyǝnǝva mage kāmǝrē]

(mate come for some fun the door is not locked, listen to true stories in brother Gune’s room; my dear friend, sit aside, there are muscat ([maskǝt]) and sweet sweets [būndi] in my room]

This song has used common English words in spoken Sinhala such as “side, real” and slang popular among the youth like [somiyǝ] (fun), [varen] (come), [ahapaŋ] (listen), [hiṭǝpaŋ] (stay) and the like. Here [hiṭǝpaŋ] and [ahapaŋ] are derogatory in formal occasions.

6.3 Conclusion In this chapter we discussed that there are several grammars existing both in spoken and written usage in Sinhala language today. There are several of these in spoken Sinhala such as social and regional dialects, restricted usage, slang, common spoken idiom, highbrow spoken idiom, and a mixed style of spoken and written idioms. There are several grammatical norms that are used in written Sinhala such as classical grammar based written idiom, highbrow spoken style, spoken grammar style, and a free style of standard written grammar that are mostly established usages in the society. Apart from that, the electronic media is creating a new grammatical tradition by using spoken Sinhala final verb suffixes with written Sinhala verbs. They also prefer to use written Sinhala articles, pronouns, non-finite verbs and a new passive voice sentence structure that have deviated from the written Sinhala grammar.

Another new style is developing in social media, newspapers and personal writings which use written Sinhala vocabulary and sentence structure disregarding standard grammatical rules. In this style the writers do not bother to follow strict and abstruse rules such as orthography, appropriate subject of object forms of nouns, selecting 299

suitable verb forms according to the person, number of the subject and rules related to passive voice sentences.

As Ferguson very clearly pointed out in his famous article on diglossia the standard Sinhala grammar is fading away from many fields such as news reading in electronic and printed media where it served earlier. As he pointed out the standard Sinhala grammar is gradually being continued to some academic purposes, publications and to the usage of some language specialists because of its subtle rules.91 Even if grammatical lessons that are included in school text books are enough to master the standard Sinhala written grammar, only very few pupils have taken the benefit of this. At the same time, many teachers who are involved in teaching Sinhala written grammar do not have enough training, knowledge or skills to teach Sinhala grammar. On the other hand, even in school education and state examinations the standard Sinhala written grammar is not strictly considered. Even in school and higher education the standard Sinhala written grammar is confined only to grammar lessons.

As a result of using rigid grammar for standard writing many Sinhalese tend to select a variety from common spoken grammar, highbrow spoken grammar, un conformist variety of standard written grammar or conformist style. On the other hand, since the idea that ‘spoken language as ungrammatical, corrupted, and stupid as a usage’ which was promulgated by purists in 1940s many Sinhalese still believe it. As a result of this many people tend to use the highbrow spoken variety in public speeches and discussions. Apart from regional - social dialects, professional and situational usage, common spoken Sinhala is devoid of regional and social dialects and highbrow spoken variety. The following chart describes the main different varieties of contemporary Sinhala language.

91 Ferguson, “diglossia”, 339 300

Chart 6.1 Different Language Varieties of Contemporary Sinhala

Sinhala Language

Spoken Sinhala Written Sinhala

Standard Written Social Dialect Regional Dialect Sinhala

Common Spoken Sinhala Spoken Grammar Based Highbrow Spoken Grammar Conformist Written Sinhala based written Sinhala

Highbrow Spoken Sinhala

Spoken/Highbrow Conformist Varieties Mixed Situational Verities writing style

Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2019

301

Chapter Seven Conclusion 7.0 Introduction to the Conclusion The objective of this thesis has been the study of sociolinguistic problems of contemporary Sinhala language particularly in regard to diglossia. The content and the language samples of this thesis are mainly related to the Sinhala language. All Sinhala and Pali language samples in this thesis have been given in phonetic symbols and their translation have been given in English as the supervisor and examiners of this thesis would be non-Sinhalese and it will be to be submitted to the European community.

7.1 Introduction In the introduction, we discussed the geographical location of the language and its developments reflecting on the population of Sri Lanka from a historical perspective. This will include Sinhalese Prakrit and development of Sinhalese as the first modern Indo-Aryan language. We also recognized that the geographical location of Sri Lanka assisted to continue the relationship with Indo-Aryan language families with intellectual, religious and migration activities for centuries. It also discusses the effect of Pali, Sanskrit and Dravidian languages during different periods of history for the evolution of Sinhala language. As we said earlier, Sinhalese became the first Indo- Aryan language to separate from its Indian sister languages since it has developed unique phonemic and morphological features when compared to other Indo-Aryan languages and has developed its own literature around the 8th Century CE. Then it evaluates the changes and developments brought by European culture to Sinhalese language and related atmosphere. A brief introduction of the four different stages of the evolution of Sinhala language and characteristics of each era has been included in introduction. That description reveals the unique characteristics of Sinhala language with the emergence of [æ], [ǣ] vowel sounds which are unique to Sinhala when compared with other Indo-Aryan languages and the development of [g̃], [ɉ]̃ , [ḍ͂ ],[d̃],[b̃] nasalized (half nasal) sounds. According to some grammarians finally the Sinhala alphabet became complex having a pure Sinhala alphabet and a mixed one that include borrowings from Indian as well as European languages.

Two different methodologies namely diachronic and synchronic methods have been employed for this particular study since it has two types of analysis. The development 302 of the problem and the target issue has been discussed in first chapters of the dissertation as a historical analysis. The synchronic method has been employed for other chapters since they examine the current situation and various issues of Sinhala language by analyzing language samples and grammatical issues. Then the introduction also analyzes the research problem and related issues which we discussed in the thesis and a summary of each chapter have been included in introduction. Finally, a description of phonetic symbols that has been used in the thesis to transcribe Sinhala language samples for non-Sinhala readers, is included in a table at the end of the introduction.

7.1 Chapter One Chapter one has discussed the development and the evolution of Sinhala language since 3rd Century BC to the present based on its available continuous written samples. Three oldest available language samples which belong to the early period of the Sinhala language have been given at the beginning of the first chapter. These language samples and their Pali translation would be enough to understand the characteristics of Sinhala Prakrit and its similarities and differences with Pali Prakrit. The reason is that Pali or Magadhi as the language of the Theravada Buddhist Canon has had a pervasive impact not only on the language but also the Sinhala literature throughout its history. Those available language samples were useful to understand the gradual evolution of phonology, morphology and syntax levels of Sinhalese and we also have traced the particular effect of Pali, Sanskrit and Tamil languages for the evolution of Sinhala language in different stages of its history. After a short discussion of the extinct Sinhala literary works ‘Helatuva’ the Sinhala version of the Pali Commentaries on the Theravada Canon (Tripitaka) that have been recorded in 4th and 5th Century Pali chronicles. When the oral tradition of Pali canon was introduced in the 3rd Century B.C., the commentaries that were introduced were translated into Sinhala during the same time. Once the commentarial tradition was lost in India, the famous Buddhist translator monk came and translated them back into Pali in the 5th Century. They were thus back translations. While the ‘Helatuvas’ survived up to the end of the 11th Century, the Pali translations were used as source books for the Sinhala literature since the 10th Century. The Pali works continued to have this impact up to the 18th Century and was next revived to make an impact even on modern times.

303

The oldest available literary samples in Sinhala known as Sigiri Graffiti poetry scattered over seven centuries from 6th to 13th Century CE. Couple of poems have been traced since they are very important to understand the development of Sinhalese as a modern independent Indo-Aryan language. These poems also distinguish the difference between Prakrit Sinhala and medieval Sinhala. Professor Paranavitana who edited and translated the graffiti into English makes a very important observation regarding its phonology, namely the insistence of progressive and conservative tendencies. The dealing with the development of the language we can trace these tendencies in other aspects of the language as well. Of these, as regards the literature conservative tendency persists even up to modern times.

After introduction of Sigiri Graffiti Poetry, I have quoted some language samples from the Dampiyā Aṭuvā Gæṭəpadəyə, the oldest available Sinhala text that belongs to the 10th Century which exhibits the influence of Pali, Sanskrit, Tamil and colloquial Sinhala influence. Though this text is a commentary to a Pali commentarial text, it demonstrates the complex developments of Sinhala prose language in the medieval era. The Siyəbaslakərə is the oldest available Sinhala work on poetics that also belongs to the 10th Century CE. It testifies that Sinhala language had developed at that time to adopt a Sanskrit ‘alaŋkārə’ or rhetoric text. Moreover, as the title Siyəbaslakərə (Poetic embellishments of Native Language) indicates the conservative tendency of preserving Sinhala poetic tradition despite the fact that he provides an adaptation of Dandin’s Kavyadarsa, a very popular text on Sanskrit poetics.

The chapter one then discusses the nature of language used in the Sikhəvaləd̃ə which deals with the Buddhist disciplinary rules and the Sikhəvaləd̃ə Vinisə elaborate commentary of those disciplinary rules given in the Sikhəvaləd̃ə. Both texts are considered as a single or attached pair of texts probably written by same author during the 10th Century contemporary with the Dampiyā Aṭuvā Gæṭəpadəyə. The Sikhəvaləd̃ə and the Sikhəvaləd̃ə Vinisə prove that the pure Sinhala language during the 10th Century had developed to adopt Buddhist monastic disciplinary rules from Pali into Sinhala efficiently. It uses short sentences but clear enough to discuss points of law that needs precision and clarity of expression. The sentences are simple and are so arranged that it is easy to memorize them. All the above language samples of the early inscriptions, Sigiri poetry, Dampiyā Aṭuvā Gæṭəpadəyə, the Siyəbaslakərə, the Sikhəvaləd̃ə, the 304

Sikhəvaləd̃ə Vinisə testify that since mediaeval period or even before there had been signs of the development of different language varieties for different purposes in the Sinhala language. In all these literary works, the subject matter is Buddhism except the Siyəbaslakərə. However, even in this text which introducing Sanskrit poetics based on Hindu ideologies, the author insists that the subject matter of poetry needs a Buddhist theme.

As we mention in chapter one some scholars claim that Sinhala language have had at least three different usages for speaking, prose writing and poetry since 11th Century CE. Though spoken language samples belong to that period are not available today, existing prose and poetic samples testify that there had been two discernible usages in Sinhala language for prose and poetry. At the same time, as we realized in the discussion of the Dharma-Pradīpikā (end of 12th Century) that even single author has employed different language styles for different themes. Especially Sanskrit vocabulary for grammatical explanations, pure Sinhala vocabulary for praising descriptions, descriptive style with long sentences and pure Sinhala vocabulary rarely mixed with Sanskrit loan words for emotive themes and mixed Sinhala language style for elaborating selected topics with exegetical purpose have been used in the Dharma- Pradīpikā. The two styles of Sanskritized Sinhala for exegesis of doctrinal points elaborately and pure Sinhala for emotive passages and expressions. The romantic tale of ‘Sulukalingudavata’ story that there is an impact of Sanskrit dramaturgy, has an experimentation with ornate style of Sanskrit using pure Sinhala language.

This single text corroborates that authors in 12th Century have had an understanding about the employing different language styles for different themes and purposes even within a single text. The same author has tested a language style with pure Sinhala vocabulary which rarely mixed with Sanskrit loan words for prose writing. Though this style has not followed by later classical prose writers it was highly appreciated by 20th Century critiques specially purists. However, later classical prose writers were attracted by mixed Sinhala language style populated by Vidyā Cakrəvarti the author of the classical prose the Butsarana of 13th Century. Except rare occasions like the Saddharməratnāvəlī, the Butsarana language style has been continued throughout the history of classical prose and that style also preferred by modern prose and fiction writers as well. 305

Since Sigiri Graffiti poetry, didactic poetical text the Siyəbaslakərə, book of prosody the Elu Sad̃æs Lakuṇə, a grammar for poetic instruction the Sidat Sag̃ərā and all the other Sinhala classical poetry tradition has continuously followed pure Sinhala language style. The above three works also indicate the conservative tendency which also accommodates new developments in poetry and prosody. Though the Sidat Sag̃ərā follows the Sanskrit grammatical models, its intention was preserving the native language ‘Siyabasa’. Though we could see the influence of colloquial and mixed the Sinhala language style in Sinhala poetry during the latter part of classical period some poets have tent to employ colloquial usage and sometimes mixed language style after the classical period.

7.2.1 History of Sinhalese Diglossia As Senerath Paranavithana pointed out the Sinhala language has had three different usages for poetry, prose and speaking since the 13th Century. During this earlier period, Pali impact was predominant in religious matters, Sanskrit in higher learning such as poetics, as well as the impact of Mahayana teaching of Northern Buddhism and Tamil in many practical aspects. The Tamil impact was left mostly after the Chola domination in the late Anuradhapura period. At the same time, we came to know that the language style of Sinhala prose writing had also evolved in the course of time parallel to the development of its spoken usage. However, this evolution of Sinhala prose language was obstructed by internal conflicts and Portuguese invasion in after the beginning of 16th Century CE. This resulted in the separation of the Island into four different kingdoms and Sinhalese kingdom was restricted to central hill country as Portuguese captured some maritime areas. Both Portuguese, who ruled maritime areas and Sinhala king Rāɉasinha I, who converted himself to one of the Hindu cults to be relieved from the sin of patricide of his father Māyādunnē, destroyed many Buddhist temples. This led Buddhist monastery schools and Buddhist libraries losing of their control areas. As a result of enmity of Portuguese and king Rajasinhe I, Buddhism disappeared in their territories. Since traditional education and literary tradition was inextricably bound with Buddhism all those traditions also collapsed. As a result of this situation classical prose traditions completely collapse around the 15th Century.

After the collapse of the Portuguese rule in 1658, Dutch and then English became the official languages in the Maritime Provinces and since 1815 after Ceylon became a 306

British colony those western cultures and languages had much impact on the development of Sinhala language. On the other hand, Sinhala remained impact in the areas under the Kandyan kingdom up to 1815. Finally, Sinhalese lost their sovereignty and precedence for Sinhalese language after becoming a crown colony in 1815.

7.2.2 History of Modern Sinhalese Diglossia As we discussed, in the 18th Century literary and educational revitalization movement of Ven. Velivita Saranankara was the beginning of the modern diglossic situation of Sinhala language as a result of employing classical Sinhala grammar for late medieval Sinhala writing. This diglossic situation became well established in the Sinhala language in the first half of the 20th Century with the codification of classical literature based contemporary written Sinhala grammar and employing it for of Sinhala writing in general. This situation was corroborated in Sinhala language with the expansion of Sinhala literary culture with the help of the development of Sinhala medium education and the development of publications with the help of new printing technology introduced by the Europeans. Therefore, Classical Sinhala literature-based language style was established for special use in the academic sphere in the first half of the 20th Century leaving away that spoken grammar based secondary language style. It may be noted that the Bible translations used colloquial Sinhalese at the inception. The establishment of classical literature-based Sinhala written grammar can be used among the Sinhalese after Sinhalese language was declared as the official language of the country in 1956 and changing of the medium of instruction for education in schools and universities. It seems that classical grammar based standard Sinhala written idiom simply got the official status as standard Sinhala variety with the purpose of employing it for school textbooks. These were published by the government through Educational Publication Department since 1960s and the Sinhala Lekhana Ritiya, in 1989 by the National Institute of Education. The same language variety was used for state publication purposes.

However, we also noticed that some language samples in prose, folk poetry and personal letters that belonged to the 18th Century or even before were different from classical prose and poetry language as well as different from learned prose and poetry usages of that period. These can be considered as a similar or equivalent variety to spoken usage at that time. This secondary language style which could have been similar 307 to spoken usage testify that there had been four different language styles for writing of prose, poetry, non-elite writings and spoken usages.

The employing of spoken Sinhala idiom in an improper manner for Bible and school text book translations had proved that it is not suitable for academic purposes. On the other hand, those textbooks prove that the translators have not had sufficient training or knowledge of Sinhala vocabulary. The contemptuous attitude on Sinhala language and literature of colonial rulers and missionaries who controlled education system in Sri Lanka during colonial period also could be another reason to direct attention towards classical grammar. They might think that inclining to classical language is the only solution for preserving Sinhala language from confusions at that time. On the other hand, only, classical poetic language had a codified grammatical text in the classical period though it has some controversial issues over some topics. Though classical Sinhala prose have had followed similar grammatical tradition over several centuries throughout the island that usage have not had a grammatical treatise. Sometimes though a grammatical text does not exist today for classical Sinhala prose that subject was actually taught in Buddhist monastic school according to [Sandesa] (messenger) poems. There is no evidence regarding a spoken Sinhala grammatical treatise in the past as everyone acquired spoken variety from the society without formal education as we do today. At the same time, there have not had been a large number of foreigners or immigrants to study spoken Sinhala usage. However, Europeans have had that interest of studying spoken Sinhala usage and they have composed some Sinhala grammar texts from their own language as it was important for them for evangelical purposes.

Several instances in the world prove that it is an inevitable phenomenon of inclining to get the influence of classical language and literature once a language restarts its literary and scholarly work in a renaissance period after longtime abeyance of its academic and literary traditions. Some Sri Lankan scholars have pointed out that Sinhalese and Greek languages have had similar development in recent past regarding this issue.1

1 K. N. O., Dharmadas, “Some features of Diglossia in Greek and Sinhala”, in Philologos, ed. Chandima S. M. Wickramasinghe, (Colombo: Godage, 2008), 195-210

308

However, the usage of secondary language usage that deviated from standard Sinhala written usage also has been continued up to present in prose and poetry even after the 18th Century renaissance. This secondary language style had been heavily criticized by later scholars once it was used for school textbooks and Bible translations by missionaries. That language style was mainly criticized because of poor vocabulary and terms that had been employed by Bible and school textbook translators who have not had understanding in language and literature hence they had been used poor vocabulary and colloquial pronunciation as it is in their writings. As we pointed out in chapter one, contemporary spoken Sinhala language have several usages like dialects and slangs specially mixing with English borrowings. Sinhala writers must be careful in selecting appropriate spoken Sinhala terms and vocabulary for writing, but the Bible and textbook translators were not be able to do this. Therefore, we can infer that the suitability of using secondary language style for written Sinhala was contempt to some extent by Bible and textbook translators in the 19th Century.

English-Sinhala hybrid spoken Sinhala usage was also condemned by some grammarians and some writers. With the resuscitation of classical grammar based standard Sinhala written grammar, Kumaratunga and ‘Hela Havula’ movement promulgated an idea that ‘spoken Sinhala usage is ungrammatical’ and this became engraved in Sinhala society and many Sinhalese still believe it. This idea also discouraged Sinhalese writers from using Spoken grammar for writing. Not only that, Kumaratunga tried to grammaticalize spoken idiom by introducing a new grammar for spoken style which we known as highbrow spoken grammar. That style is used for formal discussions, speeches and reporting discussions in newspapers today. It is also used by Buddhist monks in their preaching. Spoken Sinhala grammaticalization movement also created an idea in Sinhala speaking community that spoken Sinhala usage is ungrammatical, so that they tend to use the grammar taught by Kumaratunga for official or standard settings. This process paved the way for creating another language style in Sinhala speaking community.

7.3 Chapter Two Chapter two discusses the existing diglossic situation in phonological, morphological and syntactic levels of contemporary Sinhala language and that analysis is sufficient to understand the wide gulf of spoken and written idioms of contemporary Sinhala 309 language. In the analysis of diglossic situation of the Sinhala language, we realized that even some sounds (allophones) of Sinhala language has sociolinguistic value. In some occasions [h] < > [s] variation in spoken and written Sinhala usages has sociolinguistic value in some occasions. If we can substitute [h] < > [s] allophone alternatively Sinhalese feel that [h] sound has lower value than [s] sound. Sometimes, Sinhalese used [h] sound in spoken idiom in informal occasions instead of [s] sound in written idiom. For example: Table 7.1 [s] < > [h] Variation in Contemporary Sinhala Spoken Sinhala Written Sinhala Meaning [miniha]2 [minisa] Man [hāl] [sahal] Rice [kehel] [kesel] Banana [havǝsǝ] [savǝsǝ] Afternoon [hæmǝ] [sæmǝ] All [hulaŋ] [sulaŋ] Wind [hīhānǝva] [sīsānǝva] Plough [hūrǝnǝva] [sūrǝnǝva] Scratch [ahurǝnǝva] [asurǝnǝva] Pack

Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

We also noticed in chapter two that there are 61 letters in written Sinhala to substitute 38 phonemes of spoken Sinhala. Therefore, Sinhala writers have to select the appropriate letter among two or sometimes three letters in many occasions which create orthographical confusions in writing. Sometimes a writer has to select the appropriate letter according to the situation of donor language regardless pronunciation of Sinhala. As we pointed out in chapter two Sinhala writers have to choose two different types of letter combinations to substitute some diphthongs. Sinhalese use the vowel letter (ඖ) [au] to substitute the diphthong [a]’ when it is Sanskrit borrowing but if it is not a Sanskrit borrowing, they use (අǔ) [avu] letter combination. Similarly, the Sinhala

2 The [s] sound of noun stem [minis] (human) transforms to [h] sound in singular form of spoken Sinhala such as [miniha], [minihaṭǝ], [minihage], [minihagen] and so on. But it become [s] sound in plural such as [minissu], [minissunṭǝ], [minissunge], [minissungen] since [h] sound does not appear in double form in Sinhala language. 310 diphthong (ft) [ai] is used for Sanskrit borrowings and the letter combination (අ) [ayi] is used in other occasions where the diphthong is de-clustered by inserting [y] or [v]. As we pointed out in chapter two, different patterns are followed when above diphthongs combine with consonants. The usage of [ṇ], [n] and [ḷ], [l] variations also depend on their situation in Pali, Sanskrit or Tamil languages irrespective of their pronunciation. Employing aspirated letters also depends on the practice of Pali and Sanskrit originals from which they are derived. Though some phonemes have the aspirated sound in pronunciation usually Sinhalese do not employ aspirated letters in their writings if those words are not Pali or Sanskrit borrowings. [ṇ] / [n] and [ḷ], [l] variation also do not consider in many occasions if they are not Pali, Sanskrit or Tamil borrowings. Therefore, Sinhala writers should have an understanding of the origin of words or the practice of employing suitable letters or letter combinations in appropriate positions.

In morphology level, nouns and pronouns have separate accusative case suffixes in written but the subject and object forms of nouns and pronouns are the same in spoken language.

Table 7.2 The Difference of Noun Declension in Nominative and Accusative Cases [Minis] (Human or Man) Written Sinhala Spoken Sinhala Singular Plural Singular Plural Nominative Case [minisā] [minissu] [minihā] [minissu] Accusative Case [minisā] [minisun] [minihā] [minissu] Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

311

Table 7.3 The Difference of the First-Person Pronoun Declension in Nominative and Accusative Cases Written Sinhala Spoken Sinhala Singular Plural Singular Plural Nominative Case [mamǝ] (I) [api] (we) [mamǝ] [api] Accusative Case [mā] (me) [apǝ] [mamǝ] [api] Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

Table 7.4 The Difference of the Second Person Pronoun Declension in Nominative and Accusative Cases Written Sinhala Spoken Sinhala Singular Plural Singular Plural Nominative Case [tō] (you) [topi] (you) [eyā] [eyāla] Accusative Case [tā] (me) [topǝ] [eyā] [eyāla] Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

Table 7.5 The Difference of the Third Person Pronoun Declension in Nominative and Accusative Cases Written Sinhala Spoken Sinhala Singular Plural Singular Plural Nominative Case [ohu] (he) [ovuhu] [eyā] [eyāla] (they) Accusative Case [ohu] [ovun] [eyā] [eyāla] Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

Therefore, Sinhala writers must be aware of selecting nominative (subject) or accusative (object) cases according to the situation.

The difference of employing pronouns is another deviation in both usages where some spoken Sinhala second person pronoun [oyā] (you) and third-person pronoun [eyā]

312

(he/she) are not used in elite written usage and some written Sinhala pronouns are not used in the spoken language. Most interesting thing is while using some of those pronouns in common spoken usage, their use is avoided in writing as well as in formal situations. Table 7.6 The Difference of Employing Second and Third Person Pronouns in Colloquial and Formal Usage Common spoken usage Formal situations Second Person Singular [oyā] (you) [obǝ] Plural [oyāla] (you) [obǝla] Third Person Singular [eyā] (he/she) [ohu] (he) [æyǝ] (she) Plural [eyāla] (he/she) [ovun] (they) Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

Second and third person pronouns in spoken Sinhala today has become simpler when compared to standard written Sinhala. Especially, second and third person spoken Sinhala pronouns do not have gender difference in singular form. However, these pronouns are not welcome in standard spoken or written Sinhala usages.

As we stated in previous chapters as a result of social hierarchy of Sinhala society the above second person pronoun [oyā] (you) and third person pronoun [eyā] (he/she) are not sufficient for day to day communication and so that the above pronouns are usually used among those of same status. Instead of above pronouns, some words which indicate relationships [malli] (younger brother), [ayya] (elder brother), [nangi] (younger sister), [akka] (elder sister), [māma] (uncle: for elder people of the speaker’s father’s age) and [nænda] (aunt: for ladies of speaker’s mother’s age) are used when the above pronouns are not appropriate. Therefore, still traditional pronouns are necessary for standard written Sinhala and formal spoken usage as colloquial pronouns are not welcomed in standard settings.

Another difference of spoken and written varieties of Sinhala language is having separate suffixes for the plural form of accusative case animate nouns such as [un] like [minis-un] and [an] like [kell-an] in written Sinhala usage. Though both nominative and

313 accusative case suffixes are same in singular definite form, suffixes are different in indefinite singular form nominative [ek/ak] and accusative [eku/kǝ]. In written Sinhala nominative case plural (subject) has [o] / [u] and accusative case plural (object form) has [an] / [un] suffixes. Sinhala writers face difficulties when selecting nominative and accusative case nouns appropriately since it is not available in spoken Sinhala variety. The confusion of selecting nominative or accusative cases in appropriate situations is one of the common deviations in the subject predicate agreement in written Sinhala grammar today.

Employing inanimate noun suffixes specially in plural form of instrumental/ablative, dative and locative cases are different in spoken and written Sinhala varieties leading to diglossic situation. Table 7.7 The Difference of Employing [val] Suffix in Spoken and Written Usage Spoken Sinhala pl. Written Sinhala pl. Nominative/ Accusative [gas] (tree) [gas] Cases [pot] (book) [pot] [pārǝval] (road) [pārǝval] Instrumental / Ablative [gasvǝlin] [gasvǝlin] Case [potvǝlin] [potvǝlin] [pārǝvalvǝlin] [pārǝvǝlin] Dative Case [gasvǝlǝṭǝ] (tree) [gasvǝlǝṭǝ] [potvǝlǝṭǝ] (book) [potvǝlǝṭǝ] [pārǝvalvǝlǝṭǝ] [pārǝvǝlǝṭǝ] Locative Case [gasvǝlǝṭǝ] (tree) [gasǝvǝlǝṭǝ] [potvǝlǝṭǝ] (book) [potvǝlǝṭǝ] [pārǝvalvǝlǝ] [pārǝvǝlǝ] Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

Some vowel ending nouns and consonant ending inanimate nouns have different plural suffixes in spoken and written Sinhala varieties. Some vowel ending nouns get the suffix [val] to make plural form. All consonant ending nouns and some vowel ending nouns do not get any suffixes and the stem itself represent the plural form of both spoken and written varieties for nominative and accusative cases. [kolǝ]

314

(papers/leaves), [puṭu] (chairs), [koṭu] (squares), [piṭu] (pages); [pot] (books), [gas] (tries), [gal] (rocks/stones), [væv] (lakes). Therefore, all consonant ending and some vowel ending plural nouns get the suffix [vǝlin] for instrumental/ablative cases, [vǝlǝṭǝ] for dative case and [vǝlǝ] for locative case both spoken and written varieties. However, contemporary Sinhala grammarians argue that some vowel ending noun stems which get the suffix [val] to make its plural form cannot get [vǝlin] for instrumental/ablative cases, [vǝlǝṭǝ] for dative case and [vǝlǝ] locative case as they already have taken the suffix [val] to make them plural though it occurs in spoken Sinhala. Contemporary Sinhala grammarians believe that since there is the suffix [val] already available in plural form of some vowel ending inanimate nouns, it is not necessary to repeat it again as they believe that the plural suffix [val], and [vǝl] of repeating part of instrumental/ablative, dative and locative case suffixes are same. However, we cannot argue that the plural suffix [val] which takes to make the plural form of some vowel ending inanimate nouns and the repeating part of [vǝl-in], [vǝl-ǝṭǝ] and [vǝl-ǝ] are same because of the /a/ǝ/ variation of both morphemes.

On the other hand, not only in the classical grammar but also even today there is a tradition of making accusative form of inanimate nouns by adding the suffix [an/in] such as [grantǝ] (text) + [an] > [grantǝyan]; [pāṭǝʃṭlā] (school) + [an] > [pāṭǝsṭlāvan],

[kalāvǝ] (art) + [an] > [kalāvan] and so on. Usually this trend is limited to Sanskrit

‘tatsama’ words in the past but today it is being used with ‘tatsama’ and ‘tadbhava’ inanimate nouns even in unappropriated occasions where some noun stems consider as the plural form such as [kulǝ] (cast) + [an] > [kulǝyan]; [bhāṣā] (language) + [an] >

[bhṣāvan]. Some vowel ending inanimate nouns which have /i/ vowel at the end of the stem get the suffix [in] to make its plural form such as [ɉāti] (race/variety/nation) + [in]

> [ɉātīn]; [kruti] (text) + [in] > [krutīn]; Those plural inanimate nouns also get [vǝlin],

[vǝlǝṭǝ] and [vǝlǝ] suffixes for instrumental/ablative, dative and locative cases respectively. At the same time, vowel ending inanimate nouns stems which appear as plural form of it itself therefore, they do not need the help of the suffix [val] to make

315 their plural form also get [vǝlin], [vǝlǝṭǝ] and [vǝlǝ] suffixes for instrumental/ablative, dative and locative cases respectively. Therefore, it is worth to consider [vǝlin], [vǝlǝṭǝ] and [vǝlǝ] suffixes as separate units of instrumental/ablative, dative and locative case suffixes both spoken and written idioms in Sinhala. However, still contemporary

Sinhala grammarians reluctant to consider above said case suffixes as separate unite of suffixes for instrumental/ablative, dative and locative cases in written grammar.

As we discussed in chapter two contemporary grammarians believe that Sanskrit loan word should be as it is in Sinhala today and they do not accept the evolution that has occurred in Sinhala. For example, some Sanskrit loan words that combine with the suffix [ālǝyǝ] (exist) such as [dēvǝ] (god) + [ālǝyǝ] (exist)” > [dēvālǝyǝ] (Hindu Temple); [vidyā] (knowledge) + [ālǝyǝ] > [vidyālǝyǝ] (school/college); [puʃtǝkǝ] (books) + [ālǝyǝ] > [puʃtǝkālǝyǝ] (library); have evolved their stems and plural forms into [dēvālǝ], [vidyālǝ], [puʃtǝkālǝ]. Sanskrit plural forms [dēvālǝyǝ], [vidyālǝyǝ] [puʃtǝkālǝyǝ] represent as singular form in Sinhala today. Even though those usages have got established in spoken Sinhala today some contemporary Sinhala grammarians believe that those usages are ungrammatical.

The most controversial issue and the most pervasive diglossic situation of Sinhala language can be seen in the Sinhala verb. Although written grammar identifies verbs for past, present and future Spoken Sinhala final verb has only non-past and past variation as follows: Table 7.8 Past Non-past Difference of Spoken Sinhala Verb Pronoun Non-past Past First Person Singular [mamǝ] (I) [yanǝva] (go) [giyā] (went) Plural [api] (we) [yanǝva] [giyā] Second Person Singular [oyā] (you) [yanǝva] [giyā] Plural [oyāla] (you) [yanǝva] [giyā] Third Person Singular [eyā] (he/she) [yanǝva] [giyā] Plural [eyāla] (they) [yanǝva] [giyā] Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

316

Written Sinhala final verb has different form for each three persons, singular plural and sometimes gender. Table 7.9 Variations Written Sinhala Final Verb Pronoun Present Past First Person Singular [mamǝ] (I) [yami] (go) [giyemi] (went) Plural [api] (we) [yamu] [giyemu] Second Person Singular [obǝ] (you) [yahi] [giyehi] Masculine [tō] Plural [obǝlā] (you) [yahu] [giyǝhu] Third Person Singular [ohu] (he) [yayi[ [giyē yǝ] [æyǝ] (she) [yayi] [giyā yǝ] Plural [ovhu] (they) [yati] [giyōyǝ] Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

Third person past tense final verb is not a pure verb and it can be called ‘actor verbal noun’ so that it has gender difference as follows:

Table 7.10 Gender Difference in Written Sinhala Actor Verbal Nouns Masculine Feminine [yannē yǝ] (is going) [yannī yǝ] [balannē yǝ] (is watching) [balannī yǝ] [kǝrannē yǝ] (is doing) [kǝrann īyǝ] Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

Because of this wide gulf between spoken and written usages Selecting of appropriate final verbs is a complicated issue for many Sinhala writers.

As we said in chapter two, some nonfinite verbs like conjunctives and contemporaneous particles also different in spoken and written usages.

317

Table 7.11 Difference of Conjunctives in Spoken and Written Sinhala Conjunctives Meaning Spoken Written Having done [kǝrǝla] [kǝrǝ], [koṭǝ]

Having seen [dækǝla] [dækǝ] Having gone [gihilla] [gos] Having come [ævilla] [ævit] Having eatten [kāla] [kā] Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

Table 7.12 Difference of Contemporaneous in Spoken and Written Sinhala Contemporaneous Meaning Spoken Written Doing [balǝmin] [balǝ balǝ] Watching [dækimin] [dækǝ dækǝ] Going [yamin] [yamin] Coming [emin] [emin]

Eating [kamin] [kakā]

Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

Some nonfinite verbs like time sense conditionals like [kǝraddi] (while doing);[baladdi] (while watching); [yaddi] (while going); [maraddi] (while killing) and conditionals hypothetical uncertain sense like [āvot] (if come); [giyot] (if went); [bæluvot] (if see) can be used in both spoken and written usages:

But some verb forms like [ætǝ] (have); [nætǝ] (do not have; are limited to single usage.

As we explained in chapter two, some particles [nipātǝ] are limited to written usage and some are limited to spoken usage and some are used in both varieties.

It is obvious that written usages are not capable of expressing some ideas which are expressed through deviations of pronunciation or intonation found in spoken language. Therefore, different words, symbols and sometimes sentence structures have to utilize to express those ideas in written usages of any language. Usually sentence structures

318 are similar in both spoken and written usages of Sinhala. Though there are some passive voice verbs and sentences like [potǝ væṭenǝva] (the book is fallen); [vīduruvǝ bid̃enǝva] (the glass is broken) we cannot see written Sinhala passive voice sentences like [væddā visin muvō mæret] (Deer are killed by Vedda) in spoken language.

However, passive voice sentences which is being used in written usage is not available in spoken Sinhala. The structure of passive voice sentences and passive voice verb forms are limited to written Sinhala.

7.4 Chapter Three Chapter three starts with a short introduction of grammatical history of Sinhalese. Ancient Sinhala language samples which descend from 3rd Century BC onwards prove that features of Sinhala language structure have changed throughout its history. At the same time, some scholars believe that the language of prose and poetry has changed parallel to spoken language. As a living language Sinhalese has undergone change in the course of time. On the other hand, most the interesting thing about Sinhala grammar history is that there has been only one grammatical text in the long-standing written history. Almost all classical prose and poetry have been followed similar grammatical tradition though there are some personal and periodical differences. Though there are not written grammatical text available before the 13th Century, the Sidat Sag̃ərā proves that there had been a well-established grammatical tradition in Sinhala in the past. The Sidat Sag̃ərā clearly states that the grammar is ‘the grammar should be prepared according to the usage’. At the same time, the Sidat Sag̃ərā itself and classical literature prove that some grammatical norms of the Sidat Sag̃ərā do not fit with the Sinhala language at that time.

We pointed out in chapter three that apart from the classical literary tradition there had been another written variety parallel to spoken Sinhala. This secondary written usage that was equivalent to spoken idiom has been used for prose and poetry in the past and it continued up to the present. This secondary style has been used by the Bible translators and textbook translators during the colonial period. However, those translators have not had sufficient knowledge on Sinhala language and appropriate vocabulary for translation of new material. Therefore, their language style has been criticized by later Sinhala pandits. There had been controversy over standard written 319 grammar of school text books even much more later in 1879 when government prepare them. As a result of that the Legislative Council appointed a committee in 1891 including Sinhala pundits to investigate quality of school text books. The committee report proves that there had not been a common criterion regarding the grammatical rules even among the top-level pundits at that time.

Though Sinhala was not the official language of Sri Lanka there was a crying demand for a standard grammar for Sinhala written language among the educated people to be used for the fast-expanding school education, printed media and other publications. Finally, Munidasa Kumaratunga was able to prepare two new grammars for spoken and written usages during the first half of the 20th Century. The written Sinhala grammar has been prepared based on classical literature and the spoken grammar also have been prepared based on it. However, this newly resuscitated grammar has not been used a single writer or in a specific period by classical Sinhala writers. This grammar artificial written grammar is far removed from spoken idiom. Therefore, the antagonistic movement against standard Sinhala grammar (SSG) that was continued by several scholars since 1940s was not successful for many reasons.

Historically nationalistic movement and patriotic movement thrived in Sri Lankan society together with Buddhist religious movement, temperance movement, Sinhala language loyalty movement, the leftist movement and other cultural revolutionary movements during third and fourth decades of 20th Century. These movement continued up to 1960s until Sinhala language and Buddhist religion restored their power in administrative, educational and other institutions of Sri Lankan society was established. Therefore, as K. N. O. Dharmadasa pointed out there was no room for those antagonistic ideas to thrive during that period in Sri Lanka.

Most interesting thing is that it was Ven. Yakkaduwe Pragnarama, an Oriental scholar and a Buddhist monk as well as the principal of one of the leading pirivena schools who was the pioneer of this antagonistic movement. Basically, he argued that anything we write in Sinhala should be understandable to all Sinhala speaking people and the grammar and the vocabulary should not be an obstacle for that. Mainly he opposed both pro-Sanskrit as well as purist movements of the Sinhala language and he also opposed confining Sinhala writers into a rigid grammar which restricts their freedom. He wrote 320 a book series namely [vanǝkatā] (jungle tales) in 1940s to employ his language style based on the spoken grammar. He also pointed out that if the grammar of written Sinhala usage is fixed it will become a dead language. Ven. Pragnarama did not approve the notion that ‘spoken Sinhala is ungrammatical’ which was promulgated by purists in 1940. He also ridiculed the useless effort of grammaticalizing spoken language by purists. However, some of his arguments like criticizing of having several usages or varieties for various purposes could not be accepted. All in all, his arguments were helpful for the development of Sinhala language. Spoken grammar is now accepted in dialogues of fiction, stage drama, tele drama, cinema, news reading, newspapers, social media and on many other occasions except in academic writing.

Martin Wickremasinghe also criticized the classical grammar based written idiom and both Sanscritized and pure Sinhala written styles following Ven. Pragnarama. His main criticism against classical grammar based written usage is that it has not been followed by any given classical writer. He also argued that the grammar of any classical text does not fit with classical literature based written grammar. Wickremasinghe severely criticized rigid written grammar and the effort of grammaticalizing spoken language of Kumaratunga. Wickremasinghe claims that after introducing highbrow spoken Sinhala grammar there are three different types of grammars in existence in the Sinhala language namely common spoken grammar, written grammar and highbrow spoken grammar. However, as we pointed out chapter five Wickremasinghe has corrected some of his grammatical errors of his later editions of Madolduva based on purist’s criticisms.

On the other hand, some traditional grammarians like Ven. Dehigaspē Pragɲāsārǝ has commented in favor of modifying traditional grammar to cater to the new requirements of the language community. He believed that there should be a grammatical framework for a language and those grammatical rules should be codified based on learned usage (viyat vaharǝ). He has been added that if traditional grammatical rule obstructs in presenting new ideas, then the outdated grammatical rules should be removed. At the same time, he also supported for removing outdated grammatical rules, introducing new codes and narrowing the gulf between spoken and written usages.

321

Ven. Bamb̃ǝrændē Siri Sīvǝlī also supported for preparing a new grammar for modern Sinhala but this new grammar should address the new developments in the language. His argument was that before 15th Century the Sinhala language was mainly influenced by Pali, Sanskrit and Tamil languages but after the 15th Century it came to be influenced by Portuguese, Dutch and English languages in that order. Introduction of these languages had a great impact on the culture as well as the language. During the earlier period, religious norms were the main concerns of the society, but with the introduction of European languages there was a tendency for developing material culture along with linguistics norms that were necessary for promoting that culture. Therefore, he supposed that classical language (Pali & Sanskrit) based grammar or classical Sinhala literature-based grammar is not sufficient to analyze modern Sinhala language. According to him, traditional grammarians had created a controversy in Sinhala grammar by neglecting contemporary developments and implementing traditional codes. He also believed that Simplifying grammatical rules of a language lead to the development of that language. Nonexistence of stage drama tradition which usually employ colloquial idiom for dialogues, is given as a reason for the existence of a rigid written grammar for centuries. However, he has not taken into consideration the vast amount of ritual materials that was a part of folk tradition.

Ven. Kirivattuḍuvē Pragɲāsārǝ has told that, “whether a usage is correct or incorrect according to its origins, it should be included in the language if it is widely used.” He strongly believed that a grammarian cannot control a language by introducing grammatical rules. According to his view, a grammar of a one era does not fit with another. Therefore, he suggested that since prevailing new grammars are not suitable for Sinhala new grammars have to be prepared based on contemporary usage.

Prof. D. E. Hettiaracchi , Professor of Sinhala of the University of Ceylon has suggested to narrow down the wide gulf between spoken and written usages and to remove outdated grammatical rules and orthographical usages. He also suggested to establish a language academy to cater to those language issues. Father S. J. de Weerasinghe also has pointed out similar views as Hettiaracchi.

Just before Sinhala language was endowed with official language status Mr. H. M. Thisera has raised an appropriate question. He questioned as to which variety out of 322 three varieties such as spoken, written and poetic varieties, should be granted the official language status? He clearly stated that if the government is going to endow official status for Sinhalese language it should definitely be the spoken idiom because it is the grammatical variety which has common acceptance among all Sinhalese. He also claimed that using spoken idiom for written purposes increases the creative power of expression. The Ven. Sri Weliwitiye Sōrǝtǝ also suggested to remove unnecessary and outdated rules as well as dysfunctional letters be overlooked. Ediriveera Sarachchandra, a dramatist, poet, fiction writer and critic used all the varieties for distinctive purposes but in dealing with he valued classical poetry for its elegant language use.

Senarath Paranavitana also suggested to use spoken language of elite people for writing but he believed that the writing act needs careful attention and regularity. Later he said that strange grammar is not necessary for Sinhala language and natural spoken grammar is sufficient for writing. He strongly criticized the Standard Sinhala Committee Report of 1968 which attempted to implement classical Sinhala grammar for modern writing and claimed that implementing rigid outdated grammar would hinder the creativity of the language. He always emphasized using one grammar for both usages. Siri Gunasingha said that spoken and written usages of Sinhala are like two different languages because of the wide differences of vocabulary, grammar and syntax. He emphasized that as he feels the progress of Sinhala language has ceased because of these two grammars. Gunasinghe claims that all differences in academic, fictions, poetry, newspaper writings should remain in the style and vocabulary but not the grammar. In fiction, Gunasinghe experimented with the spoken language in his “stream of consciousness” novels, but his poetic idiom is precise in diction and impressionistic in expression. Therefore, he suggested to use the spoken grammar for all kinds of writings. M. W. S. de Silva, Charles Godakumbure, and some later critics also suggested to ‘write in spoken grammar’. Meanwhile writers like Ajith Thilakasena proposed overall change in grammar, orthography and alphabet.

All the above-mentioned individuals who struggled against classical grammar based standard written Sinhala usage had no uniform view. Apart from that, they did not live in the same era and they expressed their ideas in individual capacity rather than forming a specific movement as such. Though some scholars employed spoken style in their 323 writings, this was not sustained in the academic sphere. However, the suggestion of using spoken grammar for writing is more meaningful while having different vocabulary and styles for different activities. However, this idea should be tested in practical situations to understand its feasibility and its deficiencies.

Sinhala nationalistic movement continued even after the independence as a counter attack to the Tamil separatist movement in Sri Lanka. Sinhala nationalistic movement again intensified with the start of the Tamil separatist civil war period and continued even after the civil war. However, language loyalty movement did not continue with nationalistic movement after 1970s. Though the antagonistic movement gradually diminished after the 1970s with the introduction of the open economy and the expansion of printed and electronic media and the expansion of authorship in Sinhala writers began to disregard classical grammar based standard Sinhala written usage deliberately or the lack of practice or due to the knowledge of standard grammar. Many individuals got the opportunity to express their ideas freely in writing without the hegemony of language authorization with the expansion of social media. Sinhala writers got the opportunity to express their ideas both in spoken and written styles with the expansion of printed and electronic media. Therefore, rather than expressing their views against classical grammar based written Sinhala usage they tended to practice their writing ignoring standard grammatical norms.

7.5 Chapter Four Chapter four examines the way how individuals practice contemporary SSG in their writings. In this analysis it is difficult to evaluate or analyze the grammar of all modern Sinhala writers and thus that I had to select a single writer. However, I had to evaluate the writings of almost all reputed modern Sinhala writers before selecting the single writer. I also had to pay my attention to the development and the establishment of SSG and the attitude of the individual writer regarding SSG. Therefore, I analyzed the writings of almost all early reputed Sinhala fiction writers and to include the result of that study in this chapter since I needed to justify my selection. In this analysis I observed the writings of Piyadasa Sirisena, W. A. Silva, Martin Wickramasinghe and G. B. Senanayahe as early reputed Sinhala fiction writers. I excluded selecting the writings of Piyadasa Sirisena because his work belongs to the early period of the establishment of SSG though he has written considerable amount of fiction and other 324 writings. At the same time, I could notice some grammatical deviations in his writings because some of those deviations had not grammatical norms at that time.

Though W. A. Siva contributed even after the establishment of the SSG, most of his writings belong to the early period of the establishment of SSG. On the other hand, most of his writings belong to fiction category even fiction language and its style had not been standardized when he starts his career. Martin Wickramasinghe is the most reputed modern Sinhala writer and has contributed for over 60 years but some of his writings also belong to the early period of the establishment of SSG. On the other hand, he criticized the implementing classical grammar for contemporary Sinhala writing. Though Wickramasingha opposed implementing classical grammar for modern writing, we noticed that he has even corrected some of his grammatical errors of his first editions, based on the criticisms of modern grammarians. Though Wickremasinghe had promoted socialist thinking and modernism on the one hand, he, as an exponent of Buddhist views, had on the other hand succumbed to the conservative position as well. While advocating the use of spoken language for writing he also stated that it is like ‘taming a wild horse’. G. B. Senanayahe is the reputed early modern writer who has started his career after the establishment of SSG and he also supported for the use of classical grammar for contemporary writing. At the same time, he believed that he has good knowledge and ability on SSG. Therefore, I decided to select G. B. Senanayahe as a modern writer to analyze the practice of SSG in his writings.

There are considerable instances of grammatical deviations in his writings though he appreciates employing SSG for academic writing and he himself believes that he has good command of it. Only his critical writings were considered for the evaluation of the practice of applying SSG. All the grammatical deviations that appear in Senanayaka’s writings are common to many other Sinhala writers who do not take enough effort to recheck grammar of their own writing. I selected nearly 90 complicated sentences of Senanayake’s writings. According to contemporary SSG some of them are grammatically correct, some of them are wrong and some of them are controversial. At the same time, according to classical Sinhala grammar some of those sentences are correct and some of them are wrong. Therefore, I did not evaluate those sentences myself alone and instead, I selected five Sinhala grammarians who adhere either to classical or to contemporary grammatical norms to understand the different views of 325

Sinhala grammarians over these issues. The samples I selected for this consisted of 90 sentences.

Though those grammarians have indicated similar views over many grammatical deviations, still they also have some contradictions over some issues. Some grammarians had not noticed several grammatical deviations of those selected sentences of Senanayaka’s writings. This assessment proves that still there are some disagreements among contemporary grammarians over some grammatical issues.

According to contemporary grammarians [viyǝ] (happened/was) is a verbal noun but pro-classical grammarians argue that it as a pure Sinhala final verb. Since there are no gender as masculine and feminine for pure Sinhala verbs classical Sinhala grammarians have marked following sentences (25 to 31 sentences of chapter four) as correct though the subject of those sentences are feminine singular nouns. However, contemporary grammarians have marked them as wrong.

[īṭǝ pasu nagǝrǝyē udyānǝyēdīt nagǝrǝ madyǝyēdīt ohuṭǝ ǣ dinǝkǝṭǝ kīpǝvarǝ bægin hamu viyǝ.]3 (She met him several times a day at the city park and the city center.)

[ǣ tamǝ muhuṇǝ ohugē ḷayehi tabā ohuṭǝ turulu viyǝ.]4

(She kept her face on his chest and embraced him.) [mesē kī ǣ daruvāgē hisǝ pirimadinnǝṭǝ viyǝ.]5

(She rubbed the child’s head after telling this.) [tavusan visin hadā vaḍā gat ʃakuntalā namæti taruṇiyak ehidī raɉuṭǝ hamu viyǝ.]6

(The king met a girl named Sakuntala who was brought up by hermits there.) [ǣ ehi vū pirisǝ samǝgǝ hid̃ǝ baṇǝ asannǝṭǝ viyǝ.]7

(She sat down with the crowd and listened to Dhamma.)

3 Senanayake, Navakatha Kalava, 47 4 Ibid, 52 5 Ibid, 74 6 ibid, 9 7 Ibid, 65 326

[mesē kī ǣ daruvāgē hisǝ pirimadinnǝṭǝ viyǝ.]8

(She told that and rub the head of the son) [mē prēmǝ sambandhǝyǝ æti vū pasu ǣ yalit gæbbǝrǝ viyǝ.]9

(She became pregnant after this affair.)

Pro-classical grammarians think that indefinite pronoun [kisivek] is always plural but according to contemporary grammarians it is singular when it clearly substitutes a single person. Therefore, pro classical grammarians have marked 72nd sentence of chapter four as a correct one but contemporary grammarians have marked it as wrong sentence. [ek sthǝvirǝ kenek mænik sæṭṭǝrǝkugē geyidī dan væḷǝd̃īmǝṭǝ purudu vǝ siṭiyǝhǝ].10

(One Buddhist monk used to have alms at a gem cutter’s house.) [ek sthǝvirǝ kenek mænik sæṭṭǝrǝkugē geyidī dan væḷǝd̃īmǝṭǝ purudu vǝ siṭiyē yǝ].

At the same time, Sinhala Lekhana Ritiya which is prepared by National Institute of Education (NIE) says the final verb of the sentence should be in singular form when the subject [kisivek] (someone) is used in a negative meaning. For example [kisivek] (someone) [kāmǝrǝyē] (in the room) [nætǝ] (no)] (no one is in the room). Those who prepared Sinhala Lekhana Ritiya including university professors in Sinhala and outside experts of Sinhala have argued that if the sentence says that ‘no one is there’ that means there is none. Therefore, they argue that the final verb of such sentences should be in the singular. Only one contemporary grammarian had followed that Sinhala Lekhana Ritiya grammatical rule and according to that he had marked 38, 39, and 40 sentences of chapter four as grammatically correct sentences. [īṭǝ pasu kūḍu nivīmǝṭǝ kisivek vehesǝ no vī yǝ]

(No one tried to extinguish the fire that engulfed the Vesak Lanterns)

8 Senanayake, Navakatha Kalava, 74 9 Senanayake, Batahira Sresta Navakata, 3 10 Senanayake, Navakatha Kalava, 11 327

[varāyē minisun goḍǝbahinǝ pālǝmē kisivek no vī yǝ]11

(There was no one at the harbor bridge where people land.) [ē arǝbhǝyā gedǝrin piṭǝtǝ dǝ kisivek no vī yǝ]12

(There was no one outside the house in that regard.)

Most interesting thing is that out five selected grammarians only one had noticed that the word [siṭinnē] in the quotation 55 of chapter four is a masculine ‘actor verbal noun’ so that it should be in feminine form as [siṭinnī] to suit the subject of that sentence.

[ǣ mehi pæminǝ siṭinnē tamǝ svāmi puruṣǝyā hō an kisivek hō næti va yǝ].13

(She has come here without her husband or anyone else.) [siṭinnē] > [siṭinnīē]; [kisivek] > [kisiveku]

Out of the five selected grammarians only four of them had identified that as an indefinite accusative case pronoun of a passive voice sentence which should be in nominative case, but one of them had not identified it. This means that vigilant attention is essential when correcting or rechecking standard written Sinhala grammar because of the diglossic situation of the language. Therefore, we came to be convinced in chapter four that careful attention is essential when writing standard written Sinhala and rechecking of grammar. At the same time, still there are some complications over following grammatical issues between contemporary grammarians and pro-classical contemporary grammarians today.

Contemporary grammarians believe [viyǝ] (was) as a nominal but pro-classical contemporary grammarian believe it as a pure verb. According to pro-classical contemporary grammarian [kisivek] is an indefinite pronoun, but contemporary grammarians argue that it should be singular when it refers to a single person.

11 Senanayake, Navakatha Kalava, 52 12 Ibid, 53 13 Ibid, 47 328

7.6 Chapter Five Chapter five discusses the variations of contemporary Sinhala grammar. Basically, as we shown Sinhala language is divided into two varieties of spoken and written that are based on the two varieties of grammars. Then we discussed social and cultural situation for the development of the modern Sinhala language establishment of SSG and the emerging of two distinct styles.

As we discuss in the introduction of chapter five, the grammars of spoken and written usages show differences in all aspects of language. Therefore, the grammar of different usages has been discussed separately. The structure of spoken usage that we have discussed under topics of phonology, morphology and syntax. Spoken Sinhala phonemes, sandhi, have been discussed under phonology. There are nearly 60 letters in written Sinhala to represent 38 phonemes of spoken Sinhala. At the same time, spoken Sinhala sandhi do not consider in the writing. The morphology section analyses the declension of nouns in all three genders and their suffixes. The main difference in noun conjugation is having a separate accusative case suffixes like [an/un] in definite form and [aku/eku] in indefinite form in written Sinhala. It also describes the conjugation of verbs and the way how different types of verbs form for different meanings in the spoken usage. Then the morphology section introduces various types of particle of spoken written Sinhala that are not found in written usage. Some of those particles are common to both spoken and written usages but some are used only in spoken usage. Different types of sentences are introduced in the section of syntax in section 6.1.1.6.

Then chapter five introduces the grammar of highbrow spoken usage in section 5.1.2 which is introduced by purists in 1940s to grammaticalize the spoken Sinhala usage. Munidasa Kumaratunga propagated the idea that the spoken Sinhala usage is ungrammatical as it uses ‘abstract (action) verbal noun’ with [nǝvā] suffix in the final verb position with the nominative case nouns. Therefore, he has suggested to use accusative case plural nouns (There is no difference between nominative and accusative case nouns in singular) when we use ‘abstract (action) verbal nouns’ mentioned above at the final verb position. Though Kumaratunga would not be able to grammaticalize common spoken usage that idea had a profound effect on formal spoken Sinhala usage. Even today many people opt that grammar in formal discussions and speeches.

329

Chapter five evaluates the grammar of school textbooks in section 5.2.1. In that discussion we identified that grade I and II Sinhala textbooks that have been prepared in the spoken idiom. However, even here written Sinhala vocabulary, pronoun forms and verb forms have been used intermittently because as a result of diglossia.

Spoken grammar is used in the grade 3 Sinhala textbook up to 12th lesson. 13, 15 and 16 lessons have been prepared to introduce written grammar. The grade four textbook also employs written idiom, but it uses spoken idiom for dialogues. Introducing grammatical rules of written usage have been started from grade six in the series of Sinhala textbooks. Textbooks from grade six and above has been named as ‘Sinhala Language and Literature’ since both literature readings and grammatical lessons have been included.

‘Language exercises have been included at the end of the second lesson of Grade six text book to introduce the difference between spoken and written usages. Basic grammar lessons such as alphabet and vowel symbols, subject and object forms of nouns, gender difference, modifiers and their varieties, preparation of sentences and various types of punctuations are introduced in grade six reader.

Lessons on pure and mixed Sinhala alphabets and orthographic rules, nouns, gender difference of nouns, noun suffixes, difference of three persons, subject and object forms of nouns, various categories of verb, rules of word division, modifiers and punctuations have been included in grade seven text book. A table of mixed Sinhala alphabet has been printed in the back side of the front page of grade 8 text book. Apart from that some grammar and language lessons have been included at the end of each lesson. It includes idioms, orthographic rules, methods of using dictionaries, some varieties of the verb, nouns and their sub varieties, adjectives, subject-predicate agreement in relation to gender and singular plural difference of nouns, synonyms, subject predicate agreement in relation to three persons and subject and object forms of nouns, punctuations, rules of word division as well as antonyms.

‘Language and Literature’ of grade nine provides language and grammar lessons on proverbs, maxims, idioms, synonyms, antonyms, prefixes, pair words, alphabet, punctuation, modifiers, nouns and rules of subject predicate agreement, some rules of 330 active and passive voice sentences, some varieties of the verb, particles. Grade 10 reader also consists of language and grammar lessons on alphabet, dialects, bases of nouns and verbs, active and passive voice sentences, subject and object forms of nouns, some orthographic rules, punctuations, sandhi, indeclinable and so on. The grade eleven textbook consists of lessons like alphabet and orthography, alphabetical order, vowel and consonant symbols, syntactic rules, cases of nouns, dialects, restricted usages, sandhi, compounds, nominal and verbal derivatives, particles and punctuations.

Chapter five also discusses the most influential modern prescriptive grammar books that appeared after from the second half of the 19th Century. As we discussed in chapter five, the oldest existing modern grammar is the ‘Sinhala Vyākǝrǝṇǝyǝ’ (Sinhalese grammar) of Charles Carter. However, the book testify that the author has not had enough knowledge on Sinhala grammar since he was a foreigner.

“Sinhala Warṇǝrīti and Sinhalese Grammar”14 of Ven. Hikkaduwe Sri Sumangala in 1875, is a prominent Sinhala modern grammar text. The text testifies that it has been able to surpass the influence of the Sidat Sag̃ərā by introducing new features. Thus, some new information has been included in the analysis of noun following the Sidat Sag̃ərā. The Padanitiya was compiled by Weragama Puncibandara in 1888 is a simplified version of the Sidat Sag̃ərā. The Comprehensive Grammar of the Sinhalese Language (1891) of Abraham Mendis Gunasekara is a very influential Sinhala grammar. This is the only modern Sinhala grammar which introduced the mixed Sinhala alphabet for the first time. Gunasekara has been introduced a Sinhala letter /*/ for labio-dental ‘f’, which came into Sinhala sound system with the influence of European languages. However, other grammarians did not include this letter into mixed Sinhala alphabet until 1989. Most interesting thing is he is the first modern grammarian who deals with the diglossic aspect of spoken and written varieties. He has provided classical Sinhala text and its spoken Sinhala version. Sinhalese Grammar of Don Eustakius Johannes appeared in 1912 is also another influential modern grammar which had been used as a school grammar. The Sabdanusasanaya15 or Grammar of the

14 Sumangala, The Warnariti and Sinhalese Grammar. 15 For more information, de Silva, Sabdanusasanaya. 331

Sinhalese language of Simon De Silva, in 1914 was another popular prescriptive grammar of the early 20th Century.

Though these modern grammars have been prepared to cater to the needs of school education, printed media and other publications, all those grammars were not able to get rid of the influence of the Sidat Sag̃ərā. As a result, these grammars have included some untenable rules of grammar as they appear in the Sidat Sag̃ərā that are not suitable for the language now.

The Kriya Vivaranaya in1935 and Vyākǝrǝṇǝ Vivǝrǝṇǝyǝ hevat Sinhala Bhāṣāvē Vyākǝrǝṇǝyǝ in1938 of Munidasa Kumaratunga could be considered as landmarks as regards modern Sinhala standard grammar. Kriya Vivaranaya (Analysis of Verb) has been analyzed Sinhala verb in a very precise and innovative manner. Any other grammar could not be able to analyze the Sinhala verb precisely and extensively like the Kriya Vivaranaya.

Vyākǝrǝṇǝ Vivǝrǝṇǝyǝ hevat Sinhala Bhāṣāvē Vyākǝrǝṇǝyǝ (Analysis of Grammar or Grammar of Sinhala language) which is widely known as Vyākǝrǝṇǝ Vivǝrǝṇǝyǝ consist of 19 chapters. Unquestionably Vyākǝrǝṇǝ Vivǝrǝṇǝyǝ is the most influential grammar SSG. Unlike previous modern Sinhala grammars Vyākǝrǝṇǝ Vivǝrǝṇǝyǝ has analyzed modern Sinhala language without getting support of Pali, Sanskrit or the Sidatsangara. On the other hand, Kumaratunga was able to discard some grammatical misconceptions which had settled down in Sinhala grammar for centuries. Kumaratunga prepared this grammar by analyzing the structure of Sinhala written language with help of the knowledge which he acquired by editing the Sidat Sag̃ərā and other classical texts. While some historical grammars that the ‘A Grammar of Sinhalese Language’ by Geiger was popular at that time; Kumaratunga’s attempt was an attempt to write a structural grammar for the first time.

The contribution of J. B. Disanayaka on SSG was helpful to make available grammar texts for both teachers and students. One may also note that he originally wrote on spoke grammar. Sinhala Lekhana Ritiya can be considered as another landmark of SSG because the standards consist in the text has been prepared by a committee including university Sinhala professors and other Sinhala experts of the Island. Since it was 332 published by the National Institute of Education in 1989 Sinhala Lekhana Ritiya became the common standard of SSG. Sinhala Bhasa Vyakaranaya of prof. W. S. Karunatillake is another influential grammar for teachers and students in school and higher education. It analyses all features of Sinhala language very widely. Karunatillake too was interested in historical grammar and the edition and translations of the Sidat Sag̃ərā is also an important contribution to sustain the classical grammar.

We explained that the standard written Sinhala grammar is far removed from its spoken usage. The difference of spoken and written Sinhala usages can be seen in phonological, morphological and syntactic levels of the language structure. On the other hand, there are some disparities among contemporary Sinhala grammarians and pro-classical grammarians regarding orthography, grammar and subject predicate agreement. Some disparities of contemporary grammarians and classical grammarians regarding some issues have been discussed at the end of chapter five in the section 6.4.

7.7 Chapter Six Chapter six on the ‘Present Situation of Sinhala Language’ is an overview of the situation of Sinhala language. First, Sinhala language is divided into two parts as spoken and written usages since both usages have two different grammars. Present situation of regional dialects is discussed at the beginning. A map which illustrates 11 regional dialect areas in Sinhala has been included. Several samples of each regional dialect have been included to explain the situation of regional dialects. Apart from educated and non-educated usages, Vedda’s and Rodiya’s dialects also are included into the scheme as social dialects. Here Vedda dialect is a pidgin of Sinhalese that has a few remaining of their earlier language and the Rodiyas who are at the lowest position in caste, retain a few words and this is used as a restricted code. Educated and non- educated usages have several categories according their education background. Hybrid style of English Sinhala bilinguals has several varieties.

Regional dialects developed in Sri Lanka in the past as a result of the geographical, political separation and the influence of the neighboring languages like Tamil. There are several differences even within a single regional dialect. Nowadays, we always meet speakers of different dialects in another dialect areas for many reasons. However, the

333 gap or differences of dialects are disappearing gradually as a result of the development of education, communication and transportation.

We noticed in chapter four that employing of classical grammar based written idiom is not an easy task. Writing of any language is different from speaking. Raw materials of a spoken language are sounds and those are audible, and a speaker can identify errors since he or she can here it while speaking. Raw materials of written forms of a language are letters and they are visible. Therefore, a writer needs to recheck his or her writing to find out its errors. This rechecking is very essential when there is diglossic situation in a language like Sinhalese. However, the high and low varieties still exist since people tend to avoid regional vocabulary and English borrowings of their common usage.

The status of the language in electronic media differs according to the attitude of the administration, situation of the announcer, type of the program and the nature audience. However, the language variety of news reading, background reporting and reporting programs will depend on the language ability of the script writer. As we discussed under electronic media different language varieties are employed in different institutes. Those differences we can categories as follows: 1. Written idiom 2. Highbrow spoken idiom 3. Common spoken idiom 4. Mixed varieties of spoken and written idioms 5. Mixed variety of spoken grammar and written vocabulary

The different language varieties of different age groups will continue even in the future.

As we discussed in chapter six, government radio channels employ written idiom for their news reading. Sometimes, state owned television channels change their news reading language idiom according to preference of the authority. We could notice that some grammatical deviations even in state owned radio and TV channels when they use SSG for news readings.

Highbrow spoken idiom is used in formal discussions and speeches. Usually announcers and other participants tend to use highbrow spoken idiom for several 334 reasons. Sometimes, they may think that common spoken usage is ungrammatical so that they try to use grammatical usage. On the other hand, they may think that it facilitates them to avoid dialectal influence for their speech or discussion and to use written language vocabulary when they use highbrow spoken idiom.

Common spoken idiom is used in electronic media for political and entertainment programs and discussion. Mixed varieties of spoken and written idioms and mixed variety of spoken grammar and written vocabulary are both used specially in news readings. They tend to mix spoken and written idioms when they use accusative case plural forms of nouns and passive voice sentences. Spoken Sinhala noun and verb forms and particles are very widely used in news reading.

Electronic media prefers to use the above-mentioned spoken Sinhala verb suffixes with written Sinhala verb forms in their news reading. They are reluctant to use some spoken Sinhala verb bases with spoken Sinhala suffix “nǝvā”. They do not use or are reluctant to use some verb forms which are very common in spoken Sinhala usage. For example:

Table 7.13 The Difference of Final Verbs in Colloquial and Media Usage Spoken Sinhala Verbs Media Usage Present Tense Past Tense Present Tense Past Tense [enǝvā] (come) [āvā] [pæminenǝvā] [pæminiyā] [kiyǝnǝvā] (say) [kīvā] [pavǝsǝnǝvā] [pævǝsuvā] [yanǝvā] (go) [giyā] [piṭatvenǝvā] [piṭatunā] [kanǝvā] (eat) [kǣvā] [anubavǝ kǝrǝnǝvā] [anubavǝ kǝlā] [bonǝvā] (drink) [bīvā] [pānǝyǝ kǝrǝnǝvā] [pānǝyǝ kǝlā] Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

There could be several reasons for avoiding using of some of above verb forms. Sometimes they may have doubt of selecting one verb form among several regional dialects. On the other hand, this trend gives evidence that some verb forms which are used in day to day spoken usage have lower social value in Sinhala society as a result of purist idea that spoken Sinhala is ungrammatical. However, electronic media

335 purposely avoid some verb forms in their news readings. They also prefer to use written Sinhala nonfinite verb forms than spoken Sinhala forms.

Similarly, some electronic media prefer to employ some accusative case noun forms like [minisun] (people), [kāntāvan] (women), [vaidyǝvǝrun] (doctors) which are not used in common spoken language. As we discussed in chapter two and six some second and third person Sinhala pronouns that are used in common spoken Sinhala also are not used in standard written Sinhala or formal spoken Sinhala. For example:

Table 7.14 Second and Third Person Pronouns in Colloquial Sinhala

Singular Plural Second Person [oyā] (you) [oyāla] [ubǝ̃ ] (you) [ubǝlã ] [tamuse] (you) [tamuse] Third Person [eyā] (he/she) [eyāla]

Source: Prepared by Researcher, 2018

Second person pronoun [oyā] (you) and third person pronoun [eyā] (he/she) are not considered as standard pronouns and they are used among intimate friends or youths. Sometimes even intimate friends do not use that pronoun instead they prefer to use first name or pet name of the interlocutor. Second person pronouns such as [ubǝ̃ ] (you) and [tamuse] (you) are also used among intimate friends or to call people who are lower in social status or in insulting, warning or threatening people. Since the social value of second person pronoun [oyā] (you) and third person pronoun [eyā] (he/she), they are not used in formal settings. Therefore, many Sinhalese prefer to use written Sinhala pronouns in formal settings.

As such the different language varieties of different age groups, some professional and situational usages, will continue even in the future.

As we discussed in chapter six, prose is used for many purposes today. Usually spoken idiom or intermixture of highbrow and common spoken idiom is used for personal

336 writings. Some people prefer to use spoken vocabulary and grammar for personal letters, notes and documents. The adherents of ‘Hela Havula’ continue to use pure Sinhala even in their personal communications.

Classical grammar based written idiom or SSG is confined to academic and official writings and only a few people are capable of handling it. Though the author pays careful attention for his writing, grammatical deviations occur even in academic writings when they employ SSG. Many Authors prefer to get the help of a capable proof reader to check the grammar. Therefore, usually many academic publications, official documents, thesis and dissertations do not have that many grammatical deviations. However, as we mentioned in chapter six grammatical deviations appear in some academic publications once the author does not get the services of a capable proof reader. Meanwhile, as we discussed in the section 6.3.1.6 some contemporary authors like Ajith Tilakasena who do not agree with SSG, prefer to employ their own grammar and style for their prose.

Some contemporary Sinhala newspapers prefer to employ SSG for editorial, reporting news, reports, and special articles. Some newspapers presently do it successfully. Some newspapers and reporters prefer to use highbrow spoken idiom for reporting discussions. At the same time, they have blended written Sinhala vocabulary such as pronouns, particles, non-finite verb forms with highbrow spoken Sinhala idiom.

As we said in chapter six, some Sinhala newspapers prefer to use English loan words in Roman letters besides writing English loan words in Sinhala letters. Some writers have used mixed variety of SSG, spoken grammar and highbrow spoken grammar in the same article if editors of the newspaper do not care about the language idiom. As we pointed out some writers start the article in SSG, and they gradually incline to spoken grammar. On the other hand, some writers use SSG and spoken grammar even in a single sentence.

Social media can be considered as a mirror of the average Sinhala writers. Therefore, social media is a very good field to collect language samples since they appear as the way it was written. Grammatical and language deviations in those who write long

337 articles with careful attention as regards language and grammar. However, we can see some grammatical errors occasionally even in regular writer’s writings.

Sometimes, intermixture of SSG, highbrow spoken grammar and common spoken grammar is very common in average writer’s posts. Some writers do not consider [n]- [ṇ], [l]- [ḷ], aspirated - non-aspirated, and even nasal - half nasal variations. Using object form instead of subject form and using subject forms instead of subject form of nouns and confusing of singular and plural forms of verb are very common grammatical deviations. Confusion of active and passive voice sentences is also a very common deviation among the writings of social media.

Some writers of social media do not consider the standard rigid rules of SSG. They write in a kind of ‘free style’ without considering the rigid rule of subject predicate agreement of SSG. Instead, they use nominative or accusative case noun forms and some verb forms freely. Sometimes they mix some written noun and verb forms when they write in the spoken idiom.

7.8 Chapter Seven: Conclusion Almost all participants in social electronic, printed and social media in writing or speaking act have had school education up to grade eleven or more. Therefore, contemporary standard Sinhala grammarians and pro classical grammarians argue that the main reason for this grammatical deviation or intermixture of SSG, spoken grammar and highbrow grammar is the lack of practice or carelessness. Almost all those reporters have school education at least up to grade eleven. Sinhala grammar is taught in schools only up to grade 11 but those who follow Sinhala as a subject in higher exams get the opportunity to study Sinhala language and grammar. However, lessons and exercises that have been included in school textbooks are enough to gain sufficient knowledge of Sinhala grammar.

At the same time, they argue that almost all go to school at least up to grade 11 since school education is compulsory for those who are under 16 years in Sri Lanka. However, only a very few people have the ability to construct grammatically correct sentences in written Sinhala even after the successful completion of school education. Though Sinhala is the medium of instruction for Sinhala medium students at school 338 level, SSG is not considered in the teaching of other subject in schools. On the other hand, they claim that school teachers do not have sufficient training on SSG, or they do not consider it in teaching. As they point out, SSG is not considered at least in marking government examination papers. Sometimes, following SSG even in writing answers for Sinhala question papers is not expected even in government examinations. The most common practice is that the following grammatical rules are considered only in answering grammar questions of school and government examinations. Therefore, students tend to neglect following SSG since it is not important except in answering grammar questions in Sinhala grammar question papers.

At the same time, some people argue that as a result of using rigid and outdated grammar for writing people tend to neglect even some important differences in their writings like nasal and half nasal differences. Moreover, they argue that writing act of any language need careful attention as it is a different illustration of a natural language. They also point out that it is difficult to illustrate all the features of a spoken natural language in writing. They also argue that using rigid grammatical rules for SSG written language has deprived the careful attention that it should get from writers. Therefore, some Sinhala writers tend to write as they wish without considering any standard in grammar.

Several linguists have convincingly pointed out that diglossic situation came to exist in modern Sinhala language with the introduction of classical literature-based grammar for contemporary writing. At the same time, the idea propagated by Kumaratunga and his followers saying that ‘the spoken usage is ungrammatical’ was established in Sinhalese community and purists introduced new grammar for spoken usage on the line of their written usage. That variety is known here as highbrow spoken idiom. Even today, a majority of Sinhalese including educated people believe that spoken Sinhala is ungrammatical and corrupt. Even today in standard settings Sinhalese tend to use highbrow spoken grammar instead of the common spoken grammar since they believe that spoken variety is ungrammatical and informal. This attitude has been created a triglossic situation in contemporary Sinhala language.

339

On the other hand, as a result of using rigid and outdated grammar for standard writing Sinhalese tend to ignore SSG grammar instead they are experimenting different styles for speaking in electronic media and writing in printed and social media.

In this thesis, I have tried to trace the diglossic situation in modern Sinhala language which is traceable to interaction between conservative and progressive tendencies. At the very beginning, by the translation of the Pali commentaries in the 3rd Century BC, Sinhala language attained its independence from the Prakrit dominance and the Pali canonical texts, and their Sinhala commentaries mutually sustained each other until the canonical works that were brought down in oral tradition were written down. Later in the 5th Century the Sinhala commentaries were translated back to Pali by Buddhaghosa. In the meanwhile, Sinhalese poetic and prose traditions kept to the pure Sinhala norms and poetical works continued to retain the pure Sinhala, called ‘Elu/Helu’ idiom despite the impact of Pali and Sanskrit traditions. Around the 11th Century prose developed a Sanskritized style in addition to pure Sinhalese. While prose literary tradition slowly disappeared by the 16th Century, poetry continued absorbing spoken and folk traditions as well.

These trends came into climax after the mid eighteenth century and continues up to now. Despite the urgent efforts to introduce a new grammar based on the spoken language (with or without too much borrowings particularly from Sanskrit and other languages) recourse to earlier models of writing has been seen throughout. Modern linguists who emphasized the analysis of spoken language and undertaking dialect studies became preponderant at one stage, they too use a mixed variety in their writing. The Buddhist preachers use a Sanskritized version of spoken Sinhala, keeping to the essentials of spoken grammar. Poets like Gunadasa Amarasekara who started their writing career with elegant Sinhala later began to hark back to the poetic tradition of the 17th Century.

In conclusion it may be said that diglossic situation in Sinhala language would continue with even more vigor as an aspect of the revival movement that still persists, the conservative tendency remains intact despite the circumstantial mode for other uses.

340

Bibliography

Abhayasinghe, A. A., Sinhala Bhasave Sarala Vakya Vibhagaya, (Mahara: Abhaya, 1998).

Ada Derana TV, Sinhala News, September 07, 2018.

Amarasekara, Gunadasa, “Andura ape duka nivavi”, Bhavagita, (Colombo: Gunasena, 1960).

______, “Holman kuuddana andura”, Amal Biso, (Gampaha: Sarasavi).

______, “Mata mula indalama visala desapalana vinnanayak tibna”, Lankadeepa, February 12, 2009.

______, “Vakkada bandimu”, Bhavagita, (Colombo: Gunasena, 1960).

Ariyadasa, K. D. and Perera, E. S. W., “Text Books”, Education in Ceylon, (Colombo: Government Press, 1969), 1009-21

Ariyaratna, Sunil, Jacome Gonsalves: Selected Texts, (Colombo: Government Press, 1993).

Ariyavansa, Palita; “Pasala Malagamak Kala Vinoda Carikava”, Lankadipa, July18, 2018.

Balagalle, Wimal G. Sinhala Bhasa Adyayana Itihasaya, (Colombo: Godage, 1998).

Balagalle, Wimal G., Sunhala Bhasave Prabhavaya ha Pravardhanaya, (Colombo: Department of Cultural Affairs, 1996).

Balagalle, Wimal.G. Sinhala Bhasave Sambhavaya ha Parinamaya, (Colombo: Department of Cultural Affairs, 1996).

Balagalle, Wimal, G., “Martin Wickramasinghage Vasyavachobhavaya ha Basa Pilibanda Ohuge Sankalpa”, Martin Wickramasinghe: Koggala Maha Pragnaya, (Dehiwala: Thisara, 1975), 198-211.

Balagalle, Wimal, G; Bhasa Adyayanaya ha Sinhala Vyavaharaya, (Colombo: Godage, 1995).

Bandara, Nishantha Kumara, “Uture Bahutara Janatava Nevata Yuddayak Enavata Kemati Ne”, Lankadeepa, July 15, 2018.

Batuwantudave, Robert and H. Sumangala, (ed.) Kāvyəsēkərəyə, (Colombo: Ratnakara Pres,1946).

Block, John. Sinhala Vakya Nitiya, (Colombo: 1903).

Bloomfield, Leonard, Language, (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1979).

341

Butsaraṇa, ed. Velivitiye Soratha (Dehivala: Abhaya, 1966).

Chand, Vineeta, “Language Polocies and Politics in South Asia”, In the Oxford Handbook of Sociolinguistics, edited by Robert Bayley, Richard Cameron and Ceil Lucas, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013): 587-608 de Alwis, E. H. “Language and Education – An Assessment”, Education in Ceylon, (Colombo: Government press, 1969): 975-81. Department of Census and Statistics – Sri Lanka, http://www.statistics.gov.lk/PopHouSat/CPH2011/Pages/Activities/Reports/Fi nalReport/FinalReport.pdf. de Silva, M. H. P., “A Standard Grammar of the Sinhala Language-Sidatsañgarā”, Education in Ceylon, (Colombo: Government Press, 1969): 203-08.

______, “Nutana Sinhala Gadya Bhasave Anagataya”, Ministry of Cultural affairs, (Colombo: 1963).

______, Vedda Language of Ceylon, (Munchen: Kitzinger, 1972).

______, “Contact and Convergence in South Asian Languages”, International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics Vol. III No. I, ed. V. I.

______, “Verbal Categories in Spoken Sinhala”, University of Ceylon Review, Vol. xviii, Nos. 1 & 2 (January – April 1960)

______, “Some observations on the scope of the Sidatsangarava”, in Paranavitana Felicitation Volume, (Colombo: Gunasena, 1965): 67 – 88.

______, ‘Some Consequences of Diglossia’ Yourk Papers in Linguistics, 4: (1974), 71-90.

______, “Vyavahara Sinhalaya livimata gata hekida?”, in Adata Obina Basa, (Colombo: Godage, 1997). de Silva, Simon, Sabdanusasanaya, (Colombo: Ceylon Observer Press, 1914). de Weerasinghe, S. J. S., “Vyakarana Viplavaya, Silumina, September 18, 1955.

Derana TV, Sinhala News, June 01, 2017.

Derana TV, Sinhala News, September 07, 2018. Dhampiya-Atuva-Gatapadaya, edited by D. E. Hettiarachchi, (The University Press, 1974). Dharmadas, K. N. O., “Diglossia and Nativism: The Case of Sinhalese”, Ceylon Studies Seminar, (Series No. 3, Serial No. 53. 1975).

______, “Some features of Diglossia in Greek and Sinhala”, in Philologos, ed. Chandima S. M. Wickramasinghe, (Colombo: Godage, 2008): 195-210

342

______, Lekhanaya ha Bhasanaya hevat Bhasa Dvirupatava, (Colombo: Government Press, 1999).

______, “Bhasava ha Samajaya”, (Colombo: Lake House, 1972).

______, ‘Language and Sinhalese nationalism: The Career of Munidasa Cumaratunga’ Modern Ceylon Studies Vol 3(2) 1972: 125-43.

______, (2007) “Language and National Identity in Sri Lanka”, Language and National Identity in Asia, ed. Andrew Simpson, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007): 106-138.

Dharma-Pradeepikava (The Lamp of the Good Doctrine), trans. Vajira Cooke and C. Bryan Cooke, in An Anthology of Sinhalese Literature up to 1815, C. H. B. Reynolds ed., (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1970)

Dharma-pradipikava, ed., Ratmalane Dharmarama (Peliyagoda: Satya Samuccaya, 1915).

Dias, H., Jana Sahitya Sampradaya, (Colombo: Godage, 2003).

Disanayaka, J. B., Sinhala Ritiya 5, Aksara Vinyāsaya, (Dehiwala: Sumita, 2018).

Disanayaka, J. B., Sinhala Ritiya 1, (Dehiwala: Sumita, 2017).

Disanayaka, J. B., “Language in Contact: Sinhala and Tamil” (Paper presented at the Fifth Vesak Commemoration Lecture, Russian Center of Science and Culture, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, May 04, 2017).

Disanayaka, J. B., Sinhala Ritiya 9, (Dehiwala: Sumita, 2016).

______, Sinhala Ritiya 7, Pada Nirmanaya, (Dehiwala: Sumita, 2014).

______, Sinhala Ritiya 2 Aksara ha Aksaranu, (Dehiwala: Sumita, 2013).

______, Sinhala Ritiya 3, ṇ-Kāra Vinyāsaya, (Dehiwala: Sumita, 2013).

______, Sinhala Ritiya 4, ḷ-Kāra Vinyāsaya, (Dehiwala: Sumita, 2013).

______, Sinhala Ritiya 6, Pada Sandhi, (Dehiwala: Sumita, 2013).

______, Basaka Mahima: 1, Sinhala Hodiya, (Colombo: Godage, 2000).

______, Basaka Mahima: 2 Akuru ha Pili, (Colombo: Godage, 2000).

______, Basaka Mahima: 3 ṇ-kara Sammataya, (Colombo: Godage, 2000).

______, Basaka Mahima: 4 ḷ-kara Sammataya, (Colombo: Godage, 2000).

______, Basaka Mahima: 5 Pada Sadanaya, (Colombo: Godage, 2000).

______, Basaka Mahima: 5 Pada Sadanaya, (Colombo: Godage, 2000). 343

______, Basaka Mahima: 6 Prakrurti, (Colombo: Godage, 2000).

______, Basaka Mahima: 7 Upasarga, (Colombo: Godage, 2000).

______, Basaka Mahima: 8 Taddhita, (Colombo: Godage, 2000).

______, Basaka Mahima: 9 Pratya, (Colombo: Godage, 2000).

______, Basaka Mahima: 10 Nama Padaya, (Colombo: Godage, 2000).

______, Basaka Mahima: 11 Kriya Padaya, (Colombo: Godage, 2000).

______, Samakalina Sinhala Lekhana Vyakaranaya:3 Sandhi Vigrahaya, (Colombo: Godage, 1997).

______, Samakalina Sinhala Lekhana Vyakaranaya: Sabda Vicaraya, (Colombo: Godage, 1995).

______, Samakalina Sinhala Lekhana Vyakaranaya: 1 Aksara Vinyasaya, (Colombo: Lake House, 1990).

______, Samakalina Sinhalaya: Sabda Vicaraya, (Colombo: University Press, 1973).

Disanayaka, Mudiyanse, Demala Hat Pattuve Janavahara, (Colombo: Godage, 2002).

Ferguson, Charles A. “Diglossia.”, WORD, 15:2, 325-340, DOI: 1959.

Gair, James w., ‘Sinhala Diglossia’ Anthropological Linguistics Vol. 10(8), 1968.

______, Studies in South Asian Linguistics: Sinhala and Other South Asian Languages, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998).

Geiger, Wilhelm, A Grammar of Sinhalese language, (Colombo: The Royal Asiatic Society Ceylon Branch, 1938).

______, An Etymological Glossary of the Sinhalese Language, (Colombo:The Times of Ceylon, 1941).

Gair, James W. and W. S. Karunatllake, (Trans.) Sidat Sañgarā,. (New Haven: Americak Oriental Society, 2013).

Gnanalokə, Kodagoda, (ed.), Amavatura, (Colombo: Gunasena, 1959). Godakumbure, C. E., “Viyaranaya yanu kumakda?” Silumina, February 01, 1969

______, Administration Report of the Archaeological Commissioner, (Colombo: Government Press, 1963).

______, Sinhalese Literature, Colombo: (The Colombo Apothecaries, 1955).

344

______, (ed.), Haŋsə Sandesaya, (Colombo: Apothecaries, 1953).

Gunasekara, Abraham Mendis, A Comprehensive Grammar of the Sinhalese Language (1981), (Maharagama: Saman, 1962).

Gunasinghe, Siri, “Iye Pereida Palamuda”, Ratu Kekula, (Maharagama: Saman, 1962).

______, “Sinhalaye Liyana Basa”, in Adata Obina Basa, ed. Ajith Thilakasena, (Colombo: Godage, 1997).

Gunawadu, Amarasiri, Madolduve heti, (Maradana: Oriental, 2545 B. E.).

Guttilaya (The Birth as Guttila), trans. H. Peiris and L. C. Van Geyzel, in An Anthology of Sinhalese Literature, C.H.B. Reynolds ed., (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1970).

Hettiarachchi, D. E., “Vyakarana Viplavaya”, Silumina, September 18, 1955.

______, (ed.), Dampiya-Aṭuva-Gaṭapadaya, (University Press Board of Sri Lanka, 1974). Hettiaratchi D. E. and C. B. Cook, (Trans.), Saddharmaratnavaliya (The garland of the Jewels of the Good Doctrine), An Anthology of Sinhalese Literature, ed. C.H.B. Reynolds, (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1970).

Hudson, R. A, Sociolinguistics, (Cambridge University Press, 1999)

Independent Television Network (ITN), “Chat & Music”, August 31, 2018.

______, “Sanchare” (Tour), 14.09.2018

______, “Sonduru Agnyaawa” (Good Command), September 09, 2018

Jagoda Aracchi, Rajita, “Colamba Ahasa Surana Meduru Hadana Cheennu” Silumina, July 15, 2018,

Jatika Rupavahini, Sinhala News, September 09, 2018

Jayakodi, D. A., “Vyakarana Viplavaya” (The revolution of the Grammar), Silumina, October 02, 1955.

Johannes, D. E., Sinhala Vyakaranaya, (Colombo: 1912). John Block, Sinhala Vakya Nitiya, (Colombo: 1903).

Kahandagamage, Piyasena. Digamadulu Janavahara, (Colombo:Godage, 1992).

______, Pradesiya Vyavahara. (Colombo: Godage, 2000).

Kalyanaratna, K. A. I., “Hela Havula marks the 75th Anniversary”, The Island e- paper, viewed on March 31, 2016. 345

Karunatillake, W. S., Sinhala Bhasa Vyakaranaya, (Colombo: Gunasena, 1995).

Koparahewa, Sandagomi, Visi vana Siyavase Sinhala Bhasa Vyavaharaya, (Colombo: Godage, 2010).

Kulasooriya, Ananda, Sinhala sahityaya 2 (In sinhala), (Colombo: Saman, 1963).

Kumara, Bulita, Pradip; “Satiye Desapalanaya”, Divayina, March 18, 2018.

Kumaratunga Munidasa, Kriya Vivaranaya, (Colombo: Gunasena, 1935).

______, Vyakarana Vivaranaya, (Colombo: Gunasena, 1938).

______, “Havage vaga”, Kiyavana Nuvana, (1930-1940) in Kumaratunga Pedi Ekatuva, (Colombo: Government Press, 1970), 24-25.

______, “Sinhalese Practice”, The Helio, Vol. 1, No. 1, August 29, 1941.

______, “Sinhalese Practice”, The Helio, Vol. 1, No. 2, September 6, 1941.

______, “Sinhalese Practice”, The Helio, Vol. 1, No. 3, September 13, 1941.

______, “Sinhalese Practice”, The Helio, Vol. 1, No. 4, September 20, 1941.

______, “Sinhalese Practice”, The Helio, Vol. 1, No. 5, September 27, 1941.

______, “Sinhalese Practice”, The Helio, Vol. 1, No. 6, October 4, 1941.

______, “Sinhalese Practice”, The Helio, Vol. 1, No. 7 & 8, October 18. 1941.

______, “Sinhalese Practice”, The Helio, Vol. 1, No. 9 & 10, November 1. 1941.

______, “Sinhalese Practice”, The Helio, Vol. 1, No. 11 & 12, November 17. 1941.

______, “Sinhalese Practice”, The Helio, Vol. 1, No. 13 & 14, December 1. 1941.

______, “Sinhalese Practice”, The Helio, Vol. 1, No. 15 & 16, December 22. 1941.

Kusaladhamma, Welamitiyawe, Yakkaduve himiyange dharma shastriya lipi, (Kelaniya: Vidyalankara Press, 1983).

Loveda Sangarava, ed. Vāchissərə Devundara (Colombo: Gunəsēnə, 1998).

Malalasekara, G. P. “Beginnings of University Education”, Education in Ceylon, (Colombo: Government Press, 1969), 867 - 881.

Maneva, K. B. Nuvarakalaviye Janavahara, (Colombo: Godage, 2001). 346

______, Laggala Jana Vahara, (Colombo: Godage, 2008).

Mavbima, “editorial”, March 18, 2018.

Meegaskumbura, P. B. “Sinhala Language and Literature since Independence”, Facets of Development of Sri Lanka since Independence: Socio-Political, Economic, Scientific and Culture, edited by W. D. Lakshman and C. A. Tisdell ed., (The University of Queensland, 1999): 337-57.

Meegaskumbura, P. B., “Sinhala Bhasha Reetivadaya ha Martin Wickramasinghe”, Martin Wickramasingha: The Sage of Koggala, (Dehivala: Tisara, 1975), 112- 143.

Mottau, S. A. W., “Education under the Dutch”, Education in Ceylon, (Colombo: Government Press, 1969): 303-17.

Parakrama, Arjuna, De-Hegemonizing Language Standards, (New York: St. Martin’s Press Inc, 1995).

______, “Prakruta Sinhalaya Livimata Gata Yutuyi”, in Adata Obina Basa, ed. Ajit Tilakasena, (Colombo: Godage, 1997).

______, “Sinhala Bhasavata Amutu Vyakaranayak Avasya Nehe”, in Adata Obina Basa, edited by Ajith Thilakasena, Colombo: Gadage, 1997.)

______, Sigiri Graffiti, Vol. II, (London: Oxford University Press, 1956).

______, Sinhalayo, (Colombo: Lake House, 1969).

______, Inscription of Ceylon Vol. 1, (Colombo: Government Press, 1970). Peiris, Edmund, “The Sage of Koggala”, Martin Wickramasinghe: Koggala Maha Pragnaya, (Colombo: Thisara, 1975).

Peiris, H. and L. C. Van Geyzel, (Trans) Kavyasekaraya (The diadem of Poetry), in An Anthology of Sinhalese Literature, C.H.B. Reynolds ed., (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1970).

Perera, I. G. P., “Vyakarana Viplavaya”, Silumina, September 25, 1955. Peter, Don W. L. A. Rev. FR; “Portuguese Missionary Activity in the Sphere of Education”, Education in Ceylon, (Colombo: Government Press, 1969): 283- 291.

______, “The Portuguese and the Study of the National Languages”, Education in Ceylon, edited by (Colombo: Government Press, 1969): 294-302.

Pieris, Ralf, Sinhalese Social Organization The Kandyan Period, (Colombo: Ceylon University Press, 1956).

Prajnarama, Yakkaduve, “Vanakata gena kata”, Mituran Ketavima (1947), (Kelaniya: Vidyalankara Press, 1957).

347

______, Vanakata 2: Miturange Age (1947), (Kelaniya: Vidyalankara Press, 1958).

Prajnasara, Dehigaspe, “Vyakarana Viplavaya”, Silumina, September 4, 1955

______, Sri Ratanasara Vyakaranaya, (Colombo: Sahitya Press, 1947).

Prajnasara, Kiriwattuduwe, “Vyakarana Viplavaya”, Silumina, September 18, 1955

Premaratne, Pushpakumara Vithana, Some Aspects of the Vanni Dialect of Sinhalese as Contrasted with the Dialect of the Western Region of Sri Lanka, (University of York, PhD Thesis, 1974).

Piyaratana, Makuluduve (ed.), Girā Sandēśəyə, (Colombo: Gunasena, 1948).

Puncibandara, Weragama, Padanitiya, (Colombo: The Buddhist Press, 1890).

Rajakaruna, Ariya, “Sinhala basava kalanurupava venas viya yutui: Nutana yugayata gelapena sammata Sinhalayaka avasyatava”, Silumina, March 09, 2008

Rajakaruna, D. A., Sinhala Navakatave Arambhaya, (Colombo: Godage, 1998).

Ratnapala, Nandasena, “Jeevamana basata erehi veeme rahasa kumakda?”, in Adata Obina Basa, ed. Ajit Tilakasena, (Colombo: Godage, 1997).

Reynolds C. H. B. (ed.), An Anthology of Sinhalese Literature, (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1970). Reynolds, C.H.B. and T. Rajapatirana, (Trans.), Amavatura (The Flood of Nectar), An Anthology of Sinhalese Literature, C.H.B. Reynold ed., (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1970).

Ruberu, Ranjit t., “Early British Education Activities”, Education in Ceylon, (Colombo: Government Press, 1949): 359-374. Rupavahini, Sinhala News headlines, May 29, 2017

Sannasgala, P. B. Sinhala Sahitya Vamsaya, (Colombo: Lake House, 1961). Sarachchandra, E. R. Vilasiniyakage Premaya, (Colombo: Dayavangsa Jayakody, 1988).

Senanayaka, G. B. “deviyan merima”, Paligenima (1946), (Imbulgoda: Tharanga, 1996).

______, Batahira Sresta Navakata (1955), (Colombo: Taranga, 1998).

______, Duppatun Neti Lokaya (1945), (Imbulgoda: Taranga, 1996).

______, Saahitya Dharmatava, (Colombo: Gunasena, 1963).

______, Sahitya Darsana Situvili, (Colombo: Godage, 1982).

348

______, Vichara Pravesaya, (Colombo: Gunasena, 1960).

______, Vindimi, (Colombo: Pradeepa, 1975).

______, Navakatha Kalava, (Colombo: Gunasena, 1954).

______, Vichara Pravesaya, (Colombo: Gunasena, 1960).

______, Vini Vidimi Andura, (Colombo: Godage, 1984).

Sikhavalanda ha Sikhavalanda Vinisa, ed. Medauyangoda Wimalakitti, (Colombo: Gunasena, 1995).

Silumina, “Vyakarana Viplavaya”, October 16, 1955.

Silumina, “Vyakarana Viplavaya”, October 2, 1955.

Silumina, “Vyakarana Viplavaya”, October 9, 1955.

Silumina, “Vyakarana Viplavaya”, September 18, 1955.

Silumina, “Vyakarana Viplavaya”, September 25, 1955.

Silumina, “Vyakarana viplavaya”, September 4, 1955.

______, Hingana kolla (1923), (Colombo: Godage, 1996).

______, Juli Hata (1948), (Beruwala: Peramuna Press, 1955).

______, Lakshmi hevat Nonesena Rejina (1922), (Colombo: Godage, 1995).

______, Sunetra hevat Avicarasamaya (1936), (Colombo: Godage, 1996).

______, Siriyalatha (1907), (Colombo: Godage, 1997).

Sinhala Grade 1 Reader, (Colombo: Educational Publication Department, 2016).

Sinhala Grade 2 Reader, (Colombo: Educational Publication Department, 2016).

Sinhala Grade 3 Reader, Sinhala Grade 4 Reader, (Colombo: Educational Publication Department, 2013).

Sinhala Grade 4 Reader, (Colombo: Educational Publication Department, 2016).

Sinhala Grade 5 Reader, (Colombo: Educational Publication Department, 2016).

Sinhala Language and Literature Grade 10, (Colombo: Educational Publication Department, 2016).

349

Sinhala Language and Literature Grade 11, (Colombo: Educational Publication Department, 2016).

Sinhala Language and Literature Grade 6, (Colombo: Educational Publication Department, 2015).

Sinhala Language and Literature Grade 7, (Colombo: Educational Publication Department, 2016).

Sinhala Language and Literature Grade 8, (Colombo: Educational Publication Department, 2016).

Sinhala Language and Literature Grade 9, (Colombo: Educational Publication Department, 2017).

Sinhala Lekhana Reetiya, (Maharagama: National Institute of Education, 1989).

Sirasa TV, “16+”, August 12, 2018.

Siri Seevalee, Bambarende, “Vyakarana Viplavaya”, Silumina, September 4, 1955. Liyana Kalava, (Kelaniya: Vidyalankara Press, 1949).

Sirisena, P. Ashtaloka Dharma Cakraya (1916), (Maradana: Oriental Press, 1963).

______, Dingiri Menika (1918), (Maradana: Oriental Press, 1956).

______, Valavvaka Palahilavva hevat Vickramapalage Tunveni Vickramaya (1921), (Colombo: New Leela Press, 1948).

______, Atbhuta Agantukaya (1925), Maradana: Oriental Press, 1956.

Soratha, Weliwitiye, “preface”, Selalihini Sandesa Warnanawa (1956), in Dharma Shastronnati, ed. Kadihingala Soratha, (Colombo: Anula Press).

Srinath, K. K. Budunge Rastiyaduva, (Nugegoda: Sanhinda, 2018).

Sugatapala, H. D., “Vyakarana Viplavaya, The Silumina, September 25, 1955.

Sumanasuriya, K. T. W; “The Influence of Pali and Sanskrit on Early Sinhala Literary Trends”, in Education in Ceylon, (Colombo: Government Press, 1949): 41-50.

Sumangala, H. The Warnariti and Sinhalese Grammar, (Lakrivikirana Press, 1875).

Suraweera, A. V., “Veemansa”, Lankadeepa, June 4, 2013.

Tennakoon, R. Honda Sinhala, (Colombo: Sri Lanka Publisher’s Ltd., 1965) The Oxford Handbook of Sociolinguistics, ed. Robert Bayley, Richard Cameron and Ceil Lucas, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013)

Tilakasena, Ajith, Sadaya, (Colombo: Godage, 2002).

350

______, Adata Obina Basa, (Colombo: Godage, 1997).

Tilakasiri, Siri, 19 vana Siyavase Sri Lankaven -1 Sinhala Puvatpate Bilindu Viya, (Colombo: Godage, 2001).

Tilakasiri, Siri. Sinhala Viyarana Vidi, (Colombo: Ratna, 1997).

Tisera, H. M. “Kata Karana Basava Liyanne Kohomada?”, Adata Obina Basa, ed. Ajith Thilakasena, (Colombo: Godage, 1997).

Trudgill, Peter. Sociolinguistics: An: Introduction, (Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1974). Warnakulasooriya, Hemanta, “kopuvǝ ɉanǝtāvǝṭǝ kaḍuvǝ ɉavipeṭǝ”, Divayina, March 18, 2018.

Wickramasekara, Tharaka, “Vahanayak Tiyena Hemoma Badu Gevanna One ne”, Silumina, July 5, 2018.

Wickramasinghe, Martin, Madolduva (1947), (Maharagama: Saman, 1963).

______, Sahitya kalava, (Dehiwala: Mount Press, 1950).

______, Viragaya (1956), (Colombo: Wesli 1965).

______, Kaliyugaya (1957), Dehivama: Tisara, 1991).

______, Seetha (1923), (Maharagama: Saman, 1959).

______, Soma (1920), (Colombo: Mount Press, 1955).

______, Yugantaya (1949), (Colombo: Mount, 1955).

Wijegunaratne, Ravindra.C, Chief of Defense Staff, Cabinet Press Release, Colombo, March 07, 2018 YouTube Advertisement “How Else Can I Say This?”, Rexona Sri Lanka (In Sinhala), Viewed on 13.09.2018

351