Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T12:15:45.975Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Linguistic convergence: the Tamil–Hindi auxiliaries1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 December 2009

G. H. Schokker  and
A. Govindankutty Menon
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The subject of the Indianization of the Indian languages has occupied the thoughts of scholars for more than a century. But during the last four decades it has become a field of intensive investigation. The study of the process of convergence in the Indie area began with a hesitant study of common lexical items in Indo-Aryan, Dravidian and Munda. The initial conviction was that grammatical traits may not travel across genetic boundaries. However, scholars like Kuiper and Emeneau not only proved the contrary but also laid the foundation for future research on the ‘unexpected’ structural similarities among the above–mentioned three major language families of the Indian subcontinent.

Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 53 , Issue 2 , June 1990 , pp. 266 - 282
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agesthialingom, S. 1969. ‘Passive in Dravidian’, in (ed.) Agesthialingom, S. and N. Kumaraswami, Raja, Dravidian linguistics: Seminar papers. Annamalainagar:Annamalai University, 1–22.Google Scholar
Agesthialingom, S. and Varma, G. Srinivasa (ed.) 1980. Auxiliaries in Dravidian. Annamalainagar:Annamalai University.Google Scholar
Andronov, M. 1964. ‘On the typological similarity of new Indo-Aryan and Dravidian’, Indian Linguistics, 25: 119–26.Google Scholar
Beames, John. 1879. Comparative grammar of the modern Aryan languages of India. Vol. III: The Verb. London: Trūbner & Co.Google Scholar
Chettiar, A. Chidambaranathan. 1938–1939. ‘The Passive voice in Tamil’, Journal of the Annamalai University, VII, VIII.Google Scholar
Deshpande, M. M. and Hook, P. E. (ed.). 1979. Aryan and non-Aryan in India. Ann Arbor: Centre for South and Southeast Asian Studies, University of Michigan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emeneau, M. B. 1956. ‘India as a linguistic area’, Language, 32: 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emeneau, M. B. 1965. ‘India and linguistic areas’, India and historical grammar. (Annamalai University Publications in Linguistics, no. 5.) Annamalainagar: Annamalai University, 25–75.Google Scholar
Emeneau, M. B. 1971. ‘Dravidian and Indo-Aryan: the Indian linguistic area’, in (ed.) Sjoberg, A. F., Symposium on Indian civilization. Austin and New York, 33–68.Google Scholar
Emeneau, M. B. 1974. ‘The Indian linguistic area revisited’, International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, III, 92–134.Google Scholar
Emeneau, M. B. 1980. ‘“Arm” and “leg” in the Indian linguistic area’, repr. in (ed.) Dil, Anwar S., Language and linguistic area: essays by Murray B. Emeneau. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 294–314.Google Scholar
Govindankutty, A. 1973. Tamil verb classification, Proceedings of the 29th International Congress of Orientalists. Paris, 136–48.Google Scholar
Govindankutty, A. 1987. Review of McAlpin, David W., Proto–Elamo–Dravidian: the evidence and its implications, Bibliolheca Orientalis, XLIV, 3/4: 495–9.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John J. and Wilson, R.. 1971. ‘Convergence and creolization: a case from the Indo–Aryan/Dravidian border’, in (ed.) Hymes, , Dell, , Pidginization and creolization of languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 151–68.Google Scholar
Hacker, P. 1958. Zur Funktion einiger Hilfsverben im modernen Hindi. (Abh. der Geistes– und Socialwiss. Kl., Jg. 1958, Nr. 4.) Wiesbaden. Verlag der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz.Google Scholar
Kapp, Dieter B.. 1972. Das Verbum parab in seiner Funktion als Simplex und Explikativum in Jāyasīs Padumdvāti. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Karthikeyani, G.. 1980. ‘Analysis of auxiliaries in Tamil inscriptions—from 800 to 1050 A.D.’, in (ed.) Agesthialingom, and Varma, Srinivasa, 1980 Auxiliaries in Dravidian, 157–66.Google Scholar
Kothandaraman, Pon. 1980. ‘Auxiliaries in Tamil’, in (ed.) Agesthialingom, and Varma, Srinivasa, 1980, Auxiliaries in Dravidian, 59–78.Google Scholar
Krishnamurthi, Bh. (ed.). 1986. South Asian languages: structure, convergence and diglossia. Part II:Convergence. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 123–285.Google Scholar
Kuiper, F. B. J. 1967. ‘The genesis of a linguistic area’, Indo–Iranian Journal, 10: 81–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masica, Colin P. 1974. ‘The basic order typology as a definer of an Indian linguistic area’, International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 3/1: 154–80.Google Scholar
Masica, Colin P. 1976. Defining a linguistic area: South Asia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Masica, Colin P. 1979. ‘Aryan and Non–Aryan elements in North Indian Agriculture, in (ed.) Deshpande, and Hook, , Aryan and non–Aryan in India, Ann Arbor, 1979, 55–151.Google Scholar
McAlpin, David W. 1981. Proto–Elamo–Dravidian: the evidence and its implications. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.Google Scholar
Ohno, Susumu. 1980. Sound correspondences between Tamil and Japanese. Tokyo: Gakushuin University.Google Scholar
Ohno, Susumu. 1983. ‘A study of the relationship between Tamil and Japanese: intervocalic stops in the two languages’, International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, XII, 2: 366–96.Google Scholar
Pillai, S. A. 1973. ‘Compound verbal constructions in Kannada’, International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, II, 2: 316–20.Google Scholar
Rajapurohit, B. B. 1964. ‘Auxiliary verbs in Tamil’, Tamil Culture, xi, 3: 272-9.Google Scholar
Ramanujan, A. K and Colin P., Masica. 1969. ‘Toward a phonological typology of the Indian linguistic area’ in (ed.) Thomas A., Sebeok, Current Trends in Linguistics 5: Linguistics in South Asia. The Hague: Mouton, 543–77.Google Scholar
Renou, L. 1961. Grammaire Sanscrite. [2nd ed., revised.] Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve.Google Scholar
Schokker, G. H. 1969. ‘The jānā–passive in the NIA languages’, Indo–Iranian Journal, 12/2: 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schokker, G. H. 1981. Review of Kapp, Dieter B., Das verbumparab in seiner Funktion als Simplex und Explikativum in Jāyasīs Padumāvatī, in Indo–Iranian Journal, 23: 133–8.Google Scholar
Southworth, F. C. 1971. ‘Detecting prior creolization: an analysis of the historical origins of Marathi’ in (ed.) Hymes, , Dell, , 1971, Pidginization and creolization of languages, 255–74.Google Scholar
Southworth, F. C. 1974. ‘Linguistic stratigraphy of North India’, International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, III, 2: 201–23.Google Scholar
Southworth, F. C. 1979. ‘Lexical evidence for early contacts between Indo–Aryan and Dravidian’ in (ed.) Deshpande, and Hook, , 1979, Aryan and non–Aryan in India, 191–233.Google Scholar
Speijer, J. S. 1886. Sanskrit syntax. Leyden: Brill.Google Scholar
Srinivasan, R. 1980. ‘Auxiliary verbs in Sangam literature’ in (ed.) Agesthialingom, and Srinivasa, Varma, 1980, Auxiliaries in Dravidian, 231–60.Google Scholar
Vale, Ramachandra Narayan. 1948. Verbal composition in Indo–Aryan. (Deccan College Dissertation Series.) Poona.Google Scholar
Velupillai, A. 1976. Study of the dialects in inscriptional Tamil. Trivandrum: Dravidian Linguistics Association.Google Scholar