Microfilmed by Univ. of Wis. Department of Photography 7 1 - 1 6 ,0 6 3 BHATT, Sooda Lakshminarayana, 1932- A GRAMMAR OF TULU (A DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGE) The University of Wisconsin, Ph.D., 1971 Language and Literature, linguistics University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan © Sooda Lakshminarayana Bhat-t-r 1Q71 All Rights Reserved (This title card prepared by The University of Wisconsin) PLEASE NOTE: The negative microfilm copy of this dissertation was prepared and inspected by the school granting the degree. We are using this film without further inspection or change. If there are any questions about the film content, please write directly to the school. UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A GRAMMAR OP TTJLU (A DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGE) A thesis submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Wisconsin in partial fulfillm ent of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. by j SOODA LAKSHMINARAYANA HIATT I Degree to be awarded January 1923- June 19— August 19— Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. To P ro fe s s o rs : Valdis. J. Zeps Dan. M. Matson John C. S treet This thesis having been approved in respect to form and mechanical execution is referred to you for judgment upon its substantial merit. (Q a >77- l S e r - J j Dean Approved as satisfying in substance the doctoral thesis requirement of the University of W isconsin. MaJ o r P ro f Date of Examination, Pec‘ ------------19—^ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A GRAMMAR OF TULDO (A DRAVTDIAN LANGUAGE) BY SOODA LAKSHMINARAYANA BHATT A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (LINGUISTICS) a t the UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN 1971 i Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT My thanks are due to Professor Henry C. Hart, Chairman, Department of Indian Studies for offering me a half-time Instructorship in Hindi during the academic year 1967- 68 , as w ell as to all the members of the Staff at the Department of Indian Studies for their best wishes and encouragement towards my studies. I thank the authorities of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, for offering me a University Fellowship for five semesters and one summer (1968-71) under the Ford Foundation Grant, and thus enabling me to complete my thesis within that time, I feel a deep sense of gratitude and appreciation to the Department of Linguistics, and to the three successive chairmen, Professor John C. Street, Professor Murray Fowler, and Professor Valdis J. Zeps, for their valuable guidance and ready help. I thank all the members of the Staff of the Department of Linguistics for their best encouragement and timely help. I thank Professor Charles C. Scott, ray minor Professor, and all the members of the Staff of the .English Department with whom I have taken courses. I thank Professor Frederic G. Cassidy, Director of the Dictionary of American Regional English, for his Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. new ideas and constructive suggestions in preparing the TULTJ- lexicon. I am very much indebted to the members of the Reading Committee-—Professor valdis J. Zeps, Professor John C. Street, and Professor Dan M. Matson, for their excellent suggestions to improve the quality of the thesis. I thank all the members of the oral examination committee for their kind appreciation. Professor Valdis J. Zeps has been my supervisor for this Research. He had to spend a great deal of his precious time in conferring with me. Many of his views and critical evaluations, undoubtedly helped me to bring forth this unprecedented work on Dravidian Language. I thank Professor Valdis J. Zeps, with all : heart, and I remain grateful forever to him for his inspiring guidance and constructive comments. /susdas laksmi:na:ra:yana bhatta/ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. iv CONTENTS. Section. Topic. Page. 0. Introduction ... ... 1 0.0. General 1 0.1. Tulu-locality ... ... 1 0.2. Tulu-language ... ... 1 . ii > \ 0.3. Tulu and its Relation to other languages 2 0.1+. Aim and Purpose of this Study 2 0 .5 . Scope and Lim itations of th is Study 3 Tulu-area Map ... ... Footnotes For Chapter 0. ... 1. Phonology 1.0. Introduction 1.11. Vowels ... ... ... 1.12. Consonants ... ... 111 1.121. Clusters ... ... ... 17 1.1211. Gemination .... ... 17 1.1215. Drawl . 1+1 1.2. Concerning Diphthongs or Vowel Sequences 1+3 1.3* Allophones ... ... 1+5 1.1+. Canonical. Forms . 1+7 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1.5 . Suprasegmental Features ... ... 03 Footnotes For Chapter 1. ... 56 2. Morphology 60 2. 1. Morpheme Classes ... ... ... 60 2. 11. Substantives ... ... ... 60 2. 111. Nouns ... ... ... ... 61 2. 112. Pronouns ... ... ... ... 61 2.113. Adjectives ... 63 2. 11ii. Adverbs ... ... ... ... 6 k 2.115. Numerals . 65 2. 12. Verbs ... ... ... ... 6 9 2.13. P a rtic le s 70 2. 2. Inflection ... ... 71 2. 211. Number ... ... ... ... 71 2. 212. Case . 72 2.213. Pronominal stems, and gender and number 81 2. 22. Con jugation ... ... 85 2. 221. Finite verb ... ... ... 85 2. 2211. Temporal In flectio n 85 2. 22111. In flec tio n according to Tense . 86 2. 22112. Inflection according to Mode ... 90 2.22113. Inflection according to Assertion ... 91 2. 2211U. In flectio n according to Agreement Categories 92 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. vi 2.22121. The Imperative Proper ... ... 95 2.22122. The Hortative ... ... ... 97 2.22123. The Permissive ... ... ... 98 2.222. Non-finite forms ... ... ... 99 2.2221. Verbal Substantive ... ... 99 2.2223. Verbal Mverbs ... ... ... 105 2.22231. The Progressive Mverbs ... ... 105 2.22232. The Potential Mverbs ... ... 107 2.22233. The Debitive Mverbs ... ... 108 2.222k. The Temporal Verbal Mverbs . 108 2.2225. The Infinitive-of-purpose ... ... 110 2.2226. The Combining Verbal Mverb . 110 2 .3. Fhrase-level-suffixes ... ... 111 2 .1+. Derivation ... ... ... 127 2 .1+1 . Derivation of Nouns ... ... 127 2.1+2. Derivation of Verbs ... ... 137 2.1+3. Compounding . 11+0 2.5. Indeclinables • • • ... ... 11+2 2.6. Morphophonemic s . 11+6 3. Syntax ... ... ... 155 3.0. Introduction ... ... ... 155 3.1. Tulu Phrase Structure and Lexical Rules ”156 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. v ii 3*2• The Transformations 167 3.21, The Obligatory Transformations 167 3*22. The Optional Transformations 171 3.3* The Deep Structure . 176 3*U. Ambiguity 185 3.5* The Surface Structure 188 b» The Dialects of Tulu ... 191 U«Ol. The Classification, of Tulu Dialects ... 191 li.1 • Phonological Correspondences 193 lu2« Morphological Correspondences ••• 206 U.3* Correspondence in Fhrase-level-suffixes 212 Correspondence in Derivation 213 5. Lexicon 21 k $.0. Introduction ... ... ... 21U 5.1. Arrang'iment and Pronunciation 21U 5»2. Grammatical Category ... ... 215 5*3* Derivations ... 216 5*U« Tulu Words and Idioms 216 5*5* Abbreviations ... ... ... 217 5.6. The Entries ... 223 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. v i i i 6 . Appendices ... ... ... £ol* 6.1* Grammatical illustrations ... ... 50ii 6 .2 . Sample Illu s tra tio n s . 529 6 .3 . Proverbs . 550 6.1*. D ialect Samples . 565 6.5. A Selected Bibliography ... ... 570 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 0. INTRODUCTION. 0 ,0 . General, Many Dravidian Languages are spoken in India, Among them, Kannada, Malayalam, Tamil, and Telugu have very good written literature. But some other languages like Badaga, Coorg, Kota, Toda, Tulu, etc, have neither written literature nor scripts of their own. The present study is an attempt to investigate the characteristics of TULU as spoken today, 1 0.1. Tulu-locality. Nowadays, the existing Tulu-area lies mostly in the district of South Kanara, Mysore State, India, and to some extent, in the Kasargod Taluk, Kerala State. Before the Reorganization of the linguistic States in India (in 1956), the entire Tulu-region was annexed to the present Tamilnad (previous Madras State). The boundaries of Tulu-land are the Kalyanpur river on the north, the Chandragiri river on the south, the Arabic Ocean on the west, and the Western-ghats on the east. The important places are Udipi, Mangalore, Karkal, and Futtur. 0.2. Tulu-language. Tulu language has no written form of literature. But it has a good amount of oral literature. The p number of Tulu-speakers might be above one m illion. There i s one grammar-^ written in 1872, and also one descriptive a n a ly s is ^ of Tulu. There are two dictionaries-*, but, they are out of print. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 There are some translations of the Bible in Tulu written in Kannada script. Virtually, no other work in Tulu is worth mentioning. 0.3. Tulu and its relation to other languages. The Tulu- speakers^ think that Tulu is derived from Sanskrit. But, modem O Dravidian Scholars have different opinions. Jules Bloch sees the obvious affinities with Kannada but doubts the direct relationship. 9 Caldwell' denounces the suggestion of Ellis that Tulu is a dialect of Malayalam, and is of the opinion that Tulu has closer affinities with Tamil. Krishnamurti^ considers Tulu as having the characteristics of Telugu and the other Central Dravidian Languages. 11 Eiaeneau suggests that further investigation on Tulu is an urgent need before arriving at any definite conclusion. O.lu Mm And Purpose of this Study.