No,

89-1936]

DRAvTDTAN TLEMENT

ooD

THE DRAVIDTAN ELEMENT IN

SINHALESE *
Bv FarunR S. GNANA Pn,rxa.san, o.nr.r. Rnv. After a "thorouqh scientific exa,mination of the Sinhalese larrguage in its vocabulary ard gramma,r," Professor E. Kuhn concluded as follows : "'Ihe stanJartl elemcnts cf the Sinhalese vocabulary, that is, those ideas rvhich constitute the indispensable stock of wortls of tlie largc mas.< of thc people, are deciclerlly entirel'v of Aryan ori{in, but in their sounds, as contra-cted witti tho other Arva,n languages, sr.r thoroughl-v altered, that tliis pecr-rliar transforrnatiori requires a special explanation. fn like manner, the gramm:i,r reveals.
beside lnore or less ohscured fragnrernts of Alyan dcclerision and conjugation, wholl.1. unknown formations, and a constluc-

tion of senteuces throughout indepenclent antl pecrrlia,r'. The cxtraordinarl, character of the language is expl:r,inerl in a perfectly sa,tisfacbor.v manneir) if 'rve cortsider it as a, result of the influence rvhich the la,nguage of thc original inhabitarrts exerciseil on the langLragc of the Aryan immigrants. The language owes to the Arvarr irnmigrants its vocahular5,., which, hovever, ad-apted itself to the phonetic peculiarities of the native idionr and gare up thc,se sounds and combinatiorrs of sounds vhiclr were unl<nown to the latter, in favour of those most like thern il the forr:ign phonetic system. The construction of forrns is a simrlar compronrise of botlr elernents, rvhile, in t,he formatiorr of sentences, the itner fcrrm of speerch of the native idiorn, that is, its chitracter au<l rnanner of expressiu-g the logical elements of t;he sen lenr:e, prevuilecl to its frrllest extcnt."1
t'1, xPaper rearl at a (]eneral Meeting of the Sor:ietv rtn Decembel l!)34. Vicle page 39 of Vol. XXXIII, No. 87-19"34.-Ecl. Sec. . l, $ ptp", read at the lilxtraordinary Sitting of the Anthros

tn t'he Cevlon Liter.ru'v Register', ilrd Sei'ies.

l('l|grcal Society ,,f Muuich on 2 May, 188i3. Translatiou published vol. I. pp" 145 & seq.

234

JolJr.NAr,, R,.A..s. (cnYr,oN) [\'/or,' XXXTTI'

No.

89._i936]

DRAvrDraN

ELEMoNT

235

Draviilian Grammar and Syntax

in

Sinhalese.

Now, the langua,ge of the original inhabitants of Ceylon, as far as can be traced from the "unknown fonnatiorrs" of declension and conjugation ancl the construction of senbences in Sinha,lese was, without doubt, an ancient form of

I)ravidian. Tiris re shall point out in the secluel' James cle Alwis liad noted this long a,go. In the In.troduction io his learnccl transla'tion of thc Sitlath Sangarii he "wrote : "lllhe Singhalese is urlquestionir,blv a,rr Indian tlialect ; anil looking merelv to tlie geographical pcsition o{ Ceylon' it is but natural to conchtde th:rt the Singhalese owe their origin to the iniiabitants of Southern India,, and that their language belongs to the Southern family of languages' To trace, tlierefore, Sinqhalese to one of the Northern family
of languages aud to call i1, a, dialei:t of Sanscrit, is apparently far more diffr,:ult tha,n to assigtr it an origin colnrnoo with the llelingu, Ttr,iniI rr,rrd Nlala'yrr,linl, tho SoutJrenl familY'"1

determining {n,ctor of a la,trgiragc is riot its I'ocabulary, but its structure, viz., that l,sperct of it which is concerned with the a,rrangemeni, ancl rnutu:r'l adiustmeat of words in. the oxpression of tliought ; and in tlris respect, it must be sairl, thtr,t Sinha,lese is essentia'lly a Dra,vidian la'irgnage. This is not a,ll. Its evolution too scems to have been on a Tanril basis. And so we seem safe irr sayirrg that, rn'hile, in regard
its v,'crd-equipment, Sinhalese is the child of Pali and Sanslrrit, it is, witb regarcl" to its phvsical featuros and phl'sical structure, essentiall;r the daughtcr of Tarnil."
t,o

Then he institutes a detailecl comparison betw-een Pali, fairly rc.plesenting the dialect introcluced from North India, and SinhaleseJ on the oiie liand. :rnd Tamil orr the other; (I) In Pali aspir:atecl consonanbs are present, while they are absent in pure SinJralese and Tamil; (2) Iu Pa,li tlrere arc cight vibhaktis or tenses a,nd moods of the verb, rvhereas
Sinhirlese follorvs Ta,mil, only

l'ith

the tlrree ordinary tenses:

That the grammar antl construction of Sinhalese have ahvays remainecl Drai'idiarr in t'he mailr, is admitted by all serious stucl-ents of the present day. Tn a lecture delivered at Anancla College, Colornho, "before the T)itector of I'lclueation u,nil a gatheting of lcarne,l mcr" on 28 Septeml-rer,
1918, the late }Iu<1:r,livrrr W. F. Guna'wardhana gave a succinct l,ccount of tlLc whole argument' A{ter alluciing to the tratlitional stor;' of Vijaya and his seven hundred followers

invarling Cle;rlon from a corurtry where a certain form of Prakrit was spoken, anrl of their taking wives, with a large retinue, from thc Tamil coulrtr;' in South fnditr', the 1\{uclaliya'r
s:r,id :

it may be premised, is the rnedium ft''t the of our thoughts, rlncl thoughts are com'

"Language,

communication municatecl not by isoLi'ted words, but by me&rrs of sentences' Language takerr essentially is, therefore, the sentence, and gtu*^ut is that science which analyses and explains the Jonstmction of the sentence. Scientifically, therefore, the
1.

" Siilath Sangard

P.

xlvi'

lrresent, past and future ; (3) l'a,li has a r.listinct optative rnood. Tarnil makes use of the ordinary lerb for this, with rr,n addition of the suffix r7lia. Sinlialese follorvs this cleviccr rvith the suffix c'rl ; (4) The t'lvo conjugationa,l forms named tr'ttano-pa,Ca antl .paro,ssu-pcttla in Pali :rre absen.t in Sinhalese, as thcy are in 'I-amil ; (5) In llali, the verb is conjugated for tile passive voice as frrr the actile, bv mea,ns o{ srrffixes. fn Tamil, the place of suffixes is supplied by conjugated forms of the root pa(u Lo suffer. In Sinhalese the devicc is the same, the place of the suffixes being supplied by thc conjugated forms of the root laba,, to receive. (6) In Pati, the adjective is Ceclined for gender, number alrd case. fn 'Iarnil it is trot. Sinhalese follows the Tamil ; (7) In Pali the relative clause is sometimes a necessity. In Tamil the necessit5r is absent, anrl the place of the relative clause is supplied by a verbal :r,cljective, as it is in Sinhalese ; (8) ln Pali, the verb-stern of the past tensc is developed from the root, eitlrer (a) by placing before it the vowel o or (b) doubling the initial consonarrt of tlie root. This is unknown to Tamil as well as to Sinhalese ; (9) In Tamil, the past tense is formed from t'he stem of the past, participal adjective,

236

JorrRNAL, n.a.s.

(cnvlox)

[Vor,"

XXXIIL

No. 89-19361

DIi,{V

TDIAN

ItrI,TMIi] NT

bv adding tllo Jrersonal suffixes for the two numbers. In Sinhalese it is the same ; (10) Tn Pali, lhere is no junction of words by means of the epenthesis y ot u, in a, concursus of two vowels, the first, of which may happen to be z or a,. fn Tamil when a or zr forms the first of a concrirsus of two vowcls, their junction by means of the epenthesis y or u, as the case m:ty bc, is compulsory. So in Sinhalese ; (11) In Tamil, there are two verbs pidu, 'No put,' and u,id,u 'Lo leave off,' which are affixecl to other ver:bs just for the sake of r.'ivid expression, the substantivc verb, in this case, being 1.rut in the perfect participle. Tlierc is no such irliom in any knor.vn Aryan langru,ge. But thc itliom obtains in Sinhalese ; (12) In Tamil, after the l{ominatir-c and the Accusative cases have been given, the stem of the Accusative case is the guide to the rest of the declelsion. fn Sinhalese it is the same. A great deal more of affi,tities between these two languages, all on the inner side, can be given.

a great cl"eal arnplified as l,o rLeta,ils. It trow appears to me that the original loittributors to tlie evolution of the language, viz.. the Y-rlhsas ancl Nagas (the a,borigines), Vijaya, and liis party, and the contingetrt from Madura, were all Dravidian. By natural presumption the t'u'o most numerous of these three scctions, viz., thc home popuhtion anrl the Tamils from l'Iarhira, spohe l)rar,"idian, 'while.thc third and smallest section, viz., the Vijaya contingent, speahing Prakrit, coulrl in no u'tr,y have adversely affectecl thc forrnation of the new lringuagc on the general itlionr of tlie country at large. fn Englancl-, the spcech of the Normans could not ailversely affcct the formation of the English language on the icliom

of .the

Anglo-Strxons, "1

EVOLUTION OF

TIIE

SINHAI,ESE I.ANGUAGE.

"With regard to thc larvs governing the rela,tion of rvords jrr a sentence, yiz., thc laws of syntax i-ncluding idionis, we find," he continues, "great many lav's which cannot be explained except on the principles of Tamil grammar. Elsewhere wc have also seen that,

in

Orthography ancl Accidence,

The grammar ancl syltax of Sinhalese zr,re mainly Dravirlian, but the vocabulary constituting ihe stock of 'lvords indispensable for the large mass of the people is mai,nly Aryan, not so "decid,edly entirely" as Kulrn would have it. How di4 this happen ? Arrd rvhat became of its own vclcabuIarv which Sinhalese, as a Dra'vi.fian dialcct, originally
possessed

the underlying principles are, to a considerable extcnt, the samc. These are our justification for the statement already rnade that, in legard to structure, Sinhalese is the claughter

We shall cc,nsider these trvo questions, the second

in the first place.

of the Tarnil Language."l

1\{udaliyar Gunawardhan.a macl,e further studies in the history of the Sinhalese and their language and states his

more matured views

in his

Sic'l,dhanta Parikshanaya, thus

regrr,rd to the language of the Sinhalese, mv conclusions Lrave not only receir.erl confirmation, but have been
.l . The origin of the Sirihalese Language, pp. 13-18. See also De Als'is op. cit. pp. xxxix-xliii. Cf. Gustave Oppert: "A language can adopt and create as rnany words as it pleases without changing its character, but it cannot, alter its grammar, its syntax, without,

"With

Ancient writers tirought that the Dravidian dialects all tlerrived from S:r,nskrit.z It is modern philology ttiat has rlispelieil this error arrrl demonstrated r:hat Tamil, 'Ieluqu, Kanarcsc, &c., a,re offshoots of a rlifferent family of lauguages, named, for sake of convenience, l)rar."iclian or Tamilian. I{ow a language, which was one in the beginnirg,
were
corne to the same conclusiun by indepenrlerrt re*earch: e.g. R,ask assign-I)ravidian.

becoming another' ; for grammar represents the innate rnotle of thought over which the irrdividual persorr or natiorr has no real control!'-

On the classification of

I. Sidtlhanta Palikshanaya. Iritrorl., pp. l4-15. Others had ed to Sinhaiese a place in .the Famili (Singatrsitk Skr.i;ftloerc, ?ref., p.1) Ir. Miiller indicated its basis as l)ravidian (Allgemeine Ethnographie, p. 446). T{aas rnaintairred a Tamil influence on its linguistic rleveloprnent, (Z.M.G. 30, p. 688). See the Ceylon. Lit. Regist. loc. cit. 2. See, for insl;ance, Manu X, 43-4, Andhra6abda Cintd,mar.ri I,
1

Languages, p.17.

4-18.

238

JouB,NAr,, ri.A.s.

(oEYLoN) [Vor,.

XXXII.

No. SC--l

0361 nR\vl)T^N TT-nt\rnNr

239

became tlifierentiated into various dialects will be easily recogilised when we reflect on the difficulties people encounter

iir

catching and pronouncing articulate sounds. Defects senser of hcaring, imperfect trainirrg of the organs 9f speech, a,nrl, especially man's tratural t'errdency to minirnise e{fort-&re some of thc clrief c:luses of the va'riations rvhich r,vords underg(r in tlieir form. Vowel souncls of a comrnon origil aro gradually intercharrged-, kin<lred consonants take the place of one another, an<l rvhen sucli changes are lrerpetuated among sections o{ the people living, for a considerable time, apart from one another, there appetr,r as many t-lialects as the dispersed sections themselvcs' In dialects, the grammtrr anrJ syutax of a mother torrgue uridergo little cha,nge ; for these belong to the geniirs of the language. The transfornration is mair,lv in sounds and also sometimes, by a ntltnral r'levelopment of idea,s, in the sema'ntic contents cf rvords. I)ia,lects, again, tentl, hJ' continual corruptiorr cr development, to be divided and subdilided int'o new dialects during the course of a,ges, utrless a'nd until a written literature fixes the sounds to a certain clegree and arrests

in the

l,hat many rvords found in the latter are l1o more understootl liy thc unetlucated. But, bv a strange irony of circurnstances, many Cen'tnmil words are still retairre<1 by tlre other dialects in common parlance, in spite of tire fact tlrat they have, in other respecis, so far drifted away from tire original Dravi-

dian

speceh.

further deterioration.
This is what happerlecl to the Dra,vitlian family of latr' guages. The first of the man;' ditr,lects of tht: original I)ravidian stocli to be fixecl by a, written literature was thtrt lacal pat.ods of tlie tract of lancl irr South India 'u-hich lay between Ka.rur-dr on the tr-ast, lViaruvur on the West, the

That the language of the early inhabitants of Ccylon too was a dialect of Dravidian is proved by the entirelv Dravidian basis on which Sinlialese, the langua'ge of Ceylon in later times, stancls built up. As in the other ca'ses, the Dravidiarr dialect of Ce;'lon too hatl undergone great lexical transformations, guarding at the szr,me time its own morphological a,nd syntactical cham'cter. The original words of the language went tlirough a process of phonetic change, as a result of the ltlck of a rr-ritten literature to hold the process in restraint. The strbsecluent a,dmixture of North fnclian v'rirds brought further change in the pronrurciatiorr of l)r:avidian words, rvhile the forrner themselves were transformed to a great extent jn the mouths of a foreign people. Yet the influence of the invaders from Lala on the languagc of Ceylon 1'f'ould not havc becn great, if not for the Buddhist faith which was introclucccl into the fslanrl in their wake. Magadhi found its u,ay into Ceylon chiefly in connexion with thc preaching of l3utldhism. And it is
the teachers from the North of India wiro laid the foundations

North.

River Vaihai on the South and the river Larutam on the As T:lmil was fortunatc in possessing an early a,ll{l copious literature r.l.ritten in wliat is ca,lled Cen-tamil, as distinguishccl from Kodun-tarnil spoken b.v the vulgar, it rras able to resist the onrush of the Aryan speeches southwart.|,s, in which, the other dialects were, as it were, submerged. 'Ielugu and Kanarese aclopted much of the vocabulary of Sanskrit and the Prakrits, and morlellecl their grammar a,fter Sanskrit grammars to such an extent that they came to be regarcled by the ignorant as Aryan speeches. On the other hand, spoken Tamil has undergone great change since the days of Cen-tamil, with the result

fc.r a written literature. in Ceylon. Their Prakrits v'ere imperfectly caught by Ceylonese e.Irs and pronounced in. a peculiar ma,nner" Ancl wlien, after the course of a, few centuries, the Buddhist scr:iptures carne to be written in a North fndian dialect, that language took the colouring of a Ceylon clialect and began to be known as Pali. And, if, on the one hand, the langua,ge of the foreigners became fixed as Pali in Ceylon, the native dialect itself had become Elu, or Sinhalese as we now call it, comprisittg original natire wortls whose form had considerably clianged by the impact of northern dialects, and a large number of rvords from these dialects transformed according to na'tive phonetics. tr'oreign ad.mixture tlid not end here. When new arts and

240 sciences began

JouRNAr,, F,.A.s.

(cayr-oN) [Vor,. XXXIII.

No.
,,i;.e.

89-*19361
as

Drl,AvrDraN ELEMENT

241

to be cultivated in the Island., Sar',skrit, the language in which thesc branclres o{ kno'wlcdge werc best developer-l, also began to be introduced arnong the le:lrnecl. More knorvledge of it v'as spread through the new teachings of the Vaitulian or Mahayanist scirocl of Bucldhisrn, whose literature 'lras in a form of mixed Sansklit. This was as early as in the thircl century A.D. From those days, the introduction of Sanslcit into Sinhalcse may be said to ha,r'e become quite a fashion, especially through the activity of commentators on Ruddhist scriptures and other ancient
works.l

,history. Mudaliyar A. M. Gunasekara gives only a small list of some four hundred Draviclian words as having been cmbodied into Sinlralese.l Quite apart from these palpablc "loen" 'words, hundreds of origina,l Sinhalese words are
d.e. forms derived from Dravidiatr words. And a remarkable fact, with them is, that, in ntost cases, tliey represent an early evolution parallel to those of Centamil. Ilere are a few examples:-

tok"tr o\rer

they stoocl, at a very late period of Silhaleso

Dravidian tatbkaua,s,

ORIGINAL SINHALESE WORDS.

fn speaking <lf the proportion of original Silhalese v-orcls to Pali and Sanskrit in modern Siniialese, I)e Alwis rcmarks: "The Singh.rlese languagc, as we find it at thc present day, contains three prirnary elements, one bearing a relation to Pali, another to Sanscrit ancl a thirrl, in all probability, to that tongue from w-hence Pali and Sanscrit are thcmselrres rlerived. To the first belong terms connected vith the national religion of tire Singha,lese ; to tlie secon<I, terms of arts alld sciences; anrl to the tliirtl, native terms exprcssive of the common wants of manl<ind before the refined organization o{ society. And no person can stu(ly Singhalese witlr anything like attention, without perceil{ng that nearly three-fourths of the satne may be now tra,cecl to the first two sources. lea'virrg liut a quarter rvhich is the basis of Singhalese."2 fri what sense the orip;inal la,nguage of the Sinhalese might be called "that torigue frcim thence Pali
and Sanscrit are themselves clerilccl" we sha,ll scc presentllr, De Alwis' estimate of Dra,vidian words in Sinhalese is ver], modest. It will be secn that rnany wortls, oncc supposed to be derived from Sanskrit or Paii, arc based on lllue Dravidian roots. Olher u,riters, lil<e the autlior of "A Compreliensive Grammar of the Sinhalese Langrta,gc," dirccted their attention t<r Dravjdia,n wotds borrowed in Nhe ['a,tsama wav,
L
r)

The ivord el in Cen-tamil, (from the rout el-u, to fise) originally signified thc 'sun,' i.e. "the riser,-the orien's" and subsequently, through slightly di#elentrated forms antl by gradual extension of meaning, 'light' ; 'dav' reprcsenting the duration of light ; 'limit' distinguishing light from darkness ; 'whiteness' frotn its brilliancy ; the 'u'hite 'lamb,' eto. Later Tamil has prefixed a, u to most of these forms either euphonically or 'for sri,ke of emphasis. For instance, thc form eII-, meaninq 'in the Lig,ht,' i.e. openlv, outside, becanre uel-iy d. trVe shall present bclow some of the derivatives of el in Cen-tamil. Later Tanril and Sinhalese
:

Cen-tam,,il
eZ,

ell-tt, cla,ylight,
El-a,

light el,-lE, in the light, openl5,

f'ater Tam,il
VeI-iccam, uel-igE

Sinhalese

eI-iya
el-i., el-iyatct
el.-i-uena.u:d,

day

r:el-i-hlci.ratu,'tid-iki,ratu.,

to

dau-n o,I-u, cLl-u-ycuna

u:El-d,-pct sa.

at day dav'n, early

r:ell-ena, tEl-o'ikl:tt

uel-a-t:t, (in time) soon. el, briglrtness, s,liiteness t,el-loi

lew)
ell-ai, day,lit.rtit,
u-a

hel, hel-a, a,l-ttt (fuesh,

af-rr. ($'hite) ashes

limit, opportunity)
eli, al-akam, slteep
2r1-u

(bountlarv) n:El-ai' (tirne

ntEI-6,ua e1a

t.

,L'el-1

u'el-a

(Talu), iidtt,

el-u,

(wliite, goat) (goal)

,

cf Sidath Sangari, flrtrotl., p. ibid, p. xlr'iii.

l.

l
356-:168.

Comprehensive Glanimar of the Sinhalese f,anguage, pp

242

.roTTRNAr,,

R.d.s.

(cnyLoN) [\ror,. XXXITI.

'

No.

$fl-J{t3til

DrtAvJDr^N rLUM-tjNir

243

will be scen th*t tlrc Sinhalese lyords above are net,rel thc Later Tarnil words. Those forms probably belong to the original Dravirliarr clialect of C,'evlrnr. f am a,r'rir,rc that others have entleavouretl to clerive the Sin-l lralese el-'iya from the Sa,nsl<r'it u-klka,.r }Torv, a-lofta is a, rlerirative of. lok, l6c, (:lq1; or ruc'to shiue'), whicl forms
Tt

to

Ce,n-tamil thrrri

themselves have to be referred tct el fot a rational explanation. El,lhe sun, is he,l,i,os in Greck, sol in f,atin, c-.tc.2 fn Sumerian, el stands for 'shining', ' brightrrcss.' In Old German helle is 'liright, clear.' All t]rese forms are evidentlv int,errelatecl arrcl point back to lhe eI, the el.-uuan (another Ta,mil

\ too uetlai, (:eti') is the narne for a p:r,rticula,r kintl of sheep. On the other hanr1, another clca,turr, i'he rat. also rvas known 1-r;. tlre designation of clz, (Telu gu el-'ika) from a particular hinri of thc species having 'whitencss ils its otrtstanding feature. lt was thererforc forurd nocessary to clifierentiate eli +.he shcrp {lom eli, Nhe r:r,t ; and t}ris wa,q ciTccted by chang-

ing tlre original eli into Elq, or dla-ka--a ck:r"ice for rvltich ilr.ere are hundreils of tr,nalogies in the langu:rgc. Sinhalese, r,r'hich had arrother $rord for the ra,t, ke1rt, tlre original elf nlmost urlchanged, zts ele, or ellt. TLe Tarnil lorrns cl'i, !a,
el.a-ka are founcltransformed

deriva,tive, meanirrg 'the r,iser,' the sun, the oriens). On tlre other hanrl, tlre Sa,nslirit, ruc (for luc), eLc., are forms parallel to the l.at,in lu,r, Old High German lioht, Greek l,eukos, ctc., and represent (e-)liya attd u-el,icc-a,riz) (originall;' u-i,laklc-arn), rvith the eli.*ion of the initial vorvel- a colnruon
phenomenon in Aryan phonetics. Wc rnust emphaticrill.v say, then, Lhat e:I-i,qa, as u,'ell as u-loln ri,re derived from the common source, the l)raviclian primitivc el, from the root el-zt Lo rise. Sinhalese po.usessecl el-i,y<t as arl inheritancc from tlie native dialt'ct, but it has nlso borrowed the derivative u-lolca rlevelopecl irrdcpenderrtly b1' glunsktil. On the introduction of onc and thc sarne u'ord into modern .Qinhalcse frorn trl'o sorirces s.<l slrall lraver t,o s1;cak ilq;r,in in auother
place.

in other dialects as d1a (Krtrul;h),

cr/o (Kui), drlru ('Iotluva), dd'u (Malavalam). TJre rnodern 'f'amil for"m of cla is also aQu ot yd,Q'u. It, may now be seen horv the Pa,ii Elaka' an<l Sanslitit FtJtt, rilaka', are related to the Tamil eli, ela awl elaka' r\ comparison gdrlu
of these fcrrms rvith the names for sheep, &c.. in otlrer languages may bc intetesting. See, for instance, the Sumeriat. el'im', 'a ram ': Egyptian a,il,, 'a stag'; Greek er'iTtltos 'a liicl,' ellos '^ young <Ieer,' alke ' an elk '; OId High Gennan, elho, elaho, German, ellce, ' an elk.'

(Trh),

Tlre last wortl in the list, i.e. el'i.t, is usually, but erroneously, <lerived frorrL the Sanslrrit edaka or the Prakrit

and z (for il) 'possessing,' ivas the name given originally to the n'hite kind of sheep, antl later extended to other kinds. \Ve hare this appellation in. classical Tamil.s [n later Tarrril l So Kuhn, after Childers : On the oldest Arvan Element of the Sinhalese Vocabulary, in Cevlon Lit. Iiegister, Thircl Series, \rol. I, p. 473. So also W. Geiger; Etymologie des Singhalesischen, s.v. 2. tr'or other equations see E. Boisacq: I)ict, Etymoi. de la Langue Grecquo; A. W'akle : Latoiniscles ltrtymol. Wdrterbuch. 3. cf. Civaka-Cintdmati, 1871, 2471, 2680, 2684; Perunkatai I,
17,r79, &c.

Fla,lco. 'Ihe latter camot l:e accourrterl for cxcept, tlre original el, 'white.' El-,i, from el ' white

through
(colorrr)'

To return from a digrcssioit, \t'e sec, liy the examples r,itcd al;ove, the sensc in vhich thc original dialect o1 Qeylon could be said to have bccn from the "s:trmc solffcc whence Pa,li a,n<l Sanslrit 'i4'ere tireixsclves dcrived." Ry the present \lriter's tesearches it trorv seerns tnost probaLrle t'hirt the Arya,rl ai;.rl Dravidia,n languages are tadi'cully relatecl' In a very rernote past, tlc two families seem to have sprung from tlre .qrrme stocL of original \-,'ords or roots, tlesignatfu)g very eleme.ntar.y ideas. 'Ihese \rrerc) ollce trsecl rvithout grammatical
ilflexions. rvithout t'hat we now call s\ntax, ot setltcnceconstrurtiorr I
.

Hundreds of Sinhalese vort! s-those rtsnall.1' rc'cttgnisecl r\,r-zti;hpanrlas, as 'ncll as nlanv otirers cornrnonly 1)tlt dowrl as Pali or Sanslrrit cler:iva,tives,-'are brrilt rqt rvith Dravidiatl

I. See a discussion on this subject, by tho present, v'riter in the Ceyl. Lit', Rogister, 3rd Series, III,106 & seq.

244

JouB,NAr,, B,.a.s.

(cnYLoN) lvor,. XXXTII.

No.

89-19361

DRAvTDTAN ELEMENT

245

word-rlaterials ald it, is vcrv lilrely tha-t t'hev beloriged to the criginal dialecb orr rvLich the 1rr6llrsntr Sinha'lese langr.age flog,' with its ol'-rster of kirtdred ruorrls, rlight l,,r' sotne be considered as derived {rom the Sanskrit tad 'to str:ikc.' fn exa,niining soilre of tlte l)rarid-isnrs founrl in Sanskrit, a,s notccl b.v Kittel in the Preflce to his Kannacl,a l)ictionary, .Irrles Bloch remarlis a,s tollorvs: "A r,erbu.'l roc:i; tai, clnotetl irr thc Nirul<ta, is also founcl in Pttli taleti, rneanir.'gq to strike; A.V. hels td,da, a, 'strolie.' Probably tala,,P. laio 'mrisical time'
is a derivative of this root r:rther than connectetl with ftara-

like the other old l)ravidian dialects, ha's reta,ined in common use many'ari okl T)ravitiian fotm nont' become obsolete in their earliest cultivtr,ber.l sister d.ialect.

It is also likcll. tirat some forms of a Sinhalese word wcre inberited from the Cevlon dialect, g'hile, other forms of the same worcl, taken frorn thc same original source and cvolved in Pali or Sanskrit, rvcre bort'orvecl from these speeches at a later stage. I may instance ntaS-uwa r4ricir is prohably

tala 'palm of the harrd' as some 'wtould lrave it. T,astly, tapclztliih'huskecl rice, tlircshed grains,' "ir.hich is founrl alrcacly in A.Y., may be a clerivatir.'e of the sa,me root, just as
tlre Gond lm,rmi ' the lrarcler p:r,tt of rice, kodon, etc., whicir remains after grin.ding' is connected r.vith lculum-'to grirtd or pound grain in a mortar.' I{ow of this Skt. lad-there is no good Aryan etymologv ; cornllare, on the contrary, Ka., Til., Te., tattu'to tap, strike,' Ka. ta/u'strikc againsL,' Ta.tal.umbu, 'wound."l l{ow, the T:r,mil fall-zr, or tad,r|u is regularlv derived from lal, (roob a,1., 'to go t1own,') antl originally rneant 'to push tlown,' then 'strike against, lleat,'etc. I'rom

a natile v'orrl. It is regularly derived from nmrJ'i' or ma,rJo,hku 'to T:end' or 'turil roun<l, to encircle,.' MaS-u (Tam. 1\1.a1.) is an enclosure for water, from the fact r,f a bund running rounrl it. Telugu has mad-ugzt. IlIar!-am (Yart.
Mal.) is a walled enclosrrre, ;r caravarls&ry, monastery. Mad,ai, is a dike or flood gate for turning tlie course of watcr. Mat-alru (Tel. m,ad,-aua or marl-uaa) is an opening out of a channel' Ma,l-i,kai, is like'rvise an enclosr,le used as a shop, efu. Mor!-am is again differentiatedinl'o manr-anz to mean another sort of
enclosure, 'a place of assembly,' a 'courtyard.' The Sinhalese macl-uua has a like significancc. It means "a shed, tenlporarv building, bungalow" (Clougli's Dictionary). Tire differentiated form mal-u,wa signifiies "court (applied to the

the sarne secondary tal, are such I'erbal forms as tdl-ttu,'lrtwer <Iown,' tall-tt, 'push down,' ta!,-uuu, 'fall down, embrace,' tad-i, tand-i 'strike, punish,' etc., anrl nominal forms such as td,!-am,'beatin.g,' tal-i'pqtu,'crushing,' tal.-umpw,'wound,' I,a,n(-am, 'stick, fine,' taq'il-an,ai', 'prrnishment.' We may therefore, scc, tha,t the Sinitalese tal-anawit,, tal-i,rna, lq'I' u'mbuwa, dan d-uwama, daq rJ-a, etc., might very well helong tcr the original dialect. T ctllu- ln ra--and taltu-kard--are possibly later introductions, to jrrdge by thcir combination rvith karatl,aua. The Sinhrilese ta,l-anawd,, again., points back to the Cen-tamil form tarl-i' (to strike tlown), a wr,rd no more use(l in present tlay Tamil. (The interchange of the cerebrals d and I is of course a well-known fn,ct in Dra,vidian phonology). As rve observed in iiir.othel place, Sinhalesc, l. Somo problems of Indo-Aryan Philology, I3ulletin of IY, 1930, p. 737'
the

School of Oriental Studies, Vol. V, ?art

outer part of an ancient buikling) vard, fold, enclosure, shed, tent." (ibid.) AII these fotms are, vithout doubt', Dravidian. But the Sinhalese has also introduced a set of rvortls clcrived from the samc toot macl-i or rnaQ-ah,ku, b:ut' acloptcil into ar.rd tJeveloped by Sanskrit. Such is ma,nQ' apa meaning thc same thing as m,aQ-uwa. The Sanskrit is a corrnterpart of the Tamil many-am. Mnncl-'ira,' a dwelling,' is another Sanskrit lvord frotn the same soltrce. Compare also mar.tcl-ala (Sinh. ma('-ulla'), 'a circle,' which is from the same Draviclian roo| macJ-'i. Agair, instead oI nrul'ikai we har.'e the Sinhalesc mul;-i'gaya or ma!-igdwa, also m'd'lifto rneaning 'palace,' probably bv analogy with the Sanskrit rndti,-ka which, ltowrer.er, does not seem to mcan the same thing. Ilonier Williams' Skt. Dictionary has only the sensc of ' a row' or 'collectiorr of tliings arranged in a lino' a,pproaching the sense in Sinhalese' The Sanskrit form is trom md,ld,,'a garlatrd' vhich itself is probably from the

246

JouB,NAl,,

ri.a's. (cEYr,oN) [Vor,. XXXIII"

No. S9-l

9361

rtRA\rTT)Tr\N nr'Tl\IRNII'

24',;

Dravidian mal-ar, 'flowet,' (root : al'ar'lo expand, blossorn") We may remark here that the Sinhalese ma'Ia', in t'he sense ef 'flow'er,' is a l)ravitlian word and should be considered as belonging to the ea'rly dialect and not brought from an

Aryan

source.

PRONOUNS

AND

PARTICLES.

the person referretl, in ancient Tamil uso, to rxto a,w:ly from lute "pfi'ni'ra noklci'" " " ' spokerr to. ,So in the classical jewels''l Uua-n came' $arnan uan'n : 'he gazed at, t'he a person near the one spoketr iy .l"gr*"s, later, to denote d. So too the Sinhalese oba, originally clenoting a person beyond the one spoken to, came, in course of time, to indicate thl person uearest to the speaker, 'i'"e' t'he second persoli" It is tiket.y that when the original third persotral pronoun
hr,r,cl

passage quoted at the beginning of this pa'per' Kuhn observes that Sinhalese grammar revea]s "more or less

In the

of .Aryan declension and conjugation'" Now, nouns ancl verbs are declined or conjugated with the help of certain particles which are no other than corrupted forms of primitive rvords. Pronouus too are to be included in this class of the original linguistic stock. But the latter need. not be consiclered, except in the position of final particals in conjugation, as a deciding factor in ascertaining the group or family to which a language belongs' Tlius, Sinhalese might stitl be essentially a Dravidian speech' even if all its pronouns were provecl to be loan words from the Aryan, as is the case with most of its numerals' The particles, irrctuding corrupted forms of the native pronollns, belong, horvever, to its construction and should, consequently bc, at least in great part, traceable to a Dravidi:i'n source' Wtr
obscured" fragments

become the second, other forms of tlre same word took its place as ohtt, or tZ rvhich lattcr was later differentiateci into 6 a,nd ii to clonote the female.z In Tamil, tire place of the

original 'uua-n for the third person was tahen bv aaa-n' t'he deionstrative a having itself unrlergone a change of sense from 'proximitv ' to 'rernotencss'' For, it is known that radical n except ln the ,tus" n{ the thircl personal pronounsr of 'proxirnity ' in DravidiR'n w-ordhris alival's the sen$e
hrrilding. We now retrrtn to the second personal pronoun and flnd that oba is alsrl transf<lrnred into the classical nuba ancllater tLmbct. The forms l,amtr'nuohnnsE, I'atmrntt'iin'sd ancl t'anntsE are tleriverl from fanz ' his o!vu''3 Tam is t'he Cen-tamil forrn of larn-tr,ftr" his owrl.' In respcctful address thc Tamils persoll' I trse t,arn, ta'm, in thc vcrv same way for the seconrl fancy that the atljuncts tema and fonzrl combined with some pronominal foTms, anil perhaps tcrmd' 'thou,' ate also r'ariaiion* of the Tamil tam in t'hc setrse of ' onc's self '' Herrce

shail briefly examinc here some of the pronouns and particles 'n'hich indicate Dravidian origin.

To begin rryith the third persona'I pronorttr,

i,r,ncient, Sinhalese

for 'he ' or 'she.'l

cDa was tho See examples in SicI-

it is "that in classics when thc

clhat Sangar5 Sannaya, c.YII,42. Its origina'l meaning lvas 'yonder ' and is d.oubtless connected rvith the Dravidian upari and urnpar, 'beyond,' ummai, 'the other rvorld,' ,unku, 'beyoncl, away,' etc. In Draviclian, the clemonstrative tr had, at, the original wortl-building st:l'ge, the sense of 'away' or 'hiden from view,' as mav be seen by every 'Iamil wolrl rvitlr initial u and. fi, or o ancl r), the latter being rnociificatiolrs of the former. Uua-n, the equivalen't of the Sirrhalese oDn

particles temE, Ioma^ and is olteo I,tlnzil, areused as prollouns. the rcflexive pronoun I'amA' thetn'"4 Agafur, the use of the p^rtiale td'ma nserl after {or eruphasis as in the e"u*pl": 6 rnama tamayi ' it is mvself" points to the ori.qin of the emphasising particle zaa o{ which we have to sPeal< Presentl.tt.
Coming

to the fi.r'st personal pronolrn, De Alwis

s:rys

"There is but, one pronoulr lna, '

I,'

{or the first person

""

-r4.

be Alwis, oP' cit.. 1'. ibid., p. 157.

See

Paripddal,

XII,

55.

I62.

1. Do Alwis, oP. cit., P. I54.

I'Clfrpt"ft""sive Grammar of the Sinh' Lang', p' 158'

248

Joull,lTAr,, R.A,s'

(oEYLoN) [Vor''

XXXIII'

No.
we

89-1936]

DB,AvTDTAN

ET,EMENT

249

Itisd'evoid.ofgender.ltsinflrrerrceonr'erbsirrtheformatiorr of the pcrsonal terminations is well'knovn' Both in t'he singularandinl;heplual,andinitsseverafmooclsandtenses' thel verb f,akes ma rvilh dirferent mocLifications" ' Lncl ma in its primarv signification, seems to be thc distinguishing the recogof the person speaking' llence, afher nnrrtct became the first person, it seems to ltave retlu'linised ironou' of cated to convey its original meaning as rnd'rncl-?nLt', an adtlition -,,rrhich is likewise macle to the other pronouns, with the same object of laying stress, or emphasis rrpon or of singling out a, particular person...."1 Tt is possiblc tirat the first personal pronolln ???,,, 1l'as evclved ltotn ta'ma by 'ivav of empliasising the speaker, as suggested l-ry tbe learnecl antlror' Or -oy it not be {rorn tire I)ravidian 'i31un vhich has becomc gnan n l\dalayalarn, 6rl itr J(anatese, niin' in Tarnil' antl "Anu, '? The trairsition might have l;een ,An",r, rze in Telugu ch:lnge cif n' into ri is not impossible' as we fiol; nrin, nnrl the runcl in see the Tamil second personal pronoun originalll'yz transformocl inho ri'tru ilr 'Ielugu' Note Tamil nr'r (plural) the oblialso the Saittit crltam, 'I,' becoming rnd'm' etc'' in long vowel becornirg short need ttot lie lpre cases. The for its parti' cic,nsiclere.t unlikclv, as Sinhrllese is rernarkable vowels'2 The clerivatiott of marno' from thc ality for short obr..r"" San,slirit plural a'srnils tloes rlot seelll to be
congru()us.

a resenrblance, which clearly establishes the relationship, r.vhich in reference to the former rve have elsewhere a.ssignecl to the latter language."l No dor,ibt there is much similarity between these pronominal acljectives ancl those of Sanskrit. ll'hus E. Iliiller pointed out the connectitin betweerr md a'nd- the Sanskrit i'ma', a form of i'dam, which seems to lie supported blr iosslittions whcre a nornina,tive irno is found.2 But the l)ravidian ifiz corresponds as well with tlre Sanskrit i'clam and other forms such as italt, iti, i,ttham, i,4iintm, etc. So too the Sinhalese aro seems to be rrearcr to the Tamil aftr, than to thc Sansl<rit a,tkts antl tctd. On the other hanr1, oya, tTre person or thing nea'r (opposite) to the person spoken to, has no parallel in Sanskrit and Prakrits. The tdindi 'r7, Panjabi dlt'a, Bengali o denote a person or thing distant, cir &way from the llerson spol<crr to,3 illustrating thc original impoit of rz in Cen-tamil, which was referred to abovc. It is in Later Ta,mil alone that we liave 'a as ir clemonstrative applying to the person or thing near (opposite)

fin.l

the one spoken to : and we would., thereforc, trace thc Sinhalese oyn' to this source.

Regarding the lironominal adjectives, De Alwis rvrites: having nice distinctions in their n'pplication' I'Ir' Lambrick

"Mc, 'ihis,'-antl oya,

;A*
"p"rron

Qr{L,

d, 'that,' ilre demonst'ratives'

We sha,ll conclude with a, fcw words on somtl particles employed in Sinha,lcse cleclension. The sign of tlie accusative o, as rverll as the colloquial sign- z'a, is srtpllosed by some to lre a, corrulrtion of eI; or ak, e.s in horri gond.wrt oragena gi,?to' 'the thief tooli n,rvay the ox,' wbete gond,wa is supposed to stand for gona(a)alt. this zra (:o combine<l with euphonic o) may be also an ecluivalent of the Tamil a,ccusative sign azi, originally o from the emphatic d (terr\kd'ram) as in ponnd
pol 'pcryuuar' 'thev rvould esteem
yton,ntip-pol, t:tc. '

or thing nea'r (opposite) to thc: pcrsoo spol<en to ; o a' nid. orrr, rvith itsl derivatives, is appropriaterd to represettt both the persons in convt'rpersoir or thinq ;r,t ir, rlistancc from sation. Tlie io*rth p, 1l'ith its dcrir'-ati'es, is appropriated to rel.rreserrt & person. ot' thing spoken of before'' lipon a co*iiari*on of tr' grcat mtljorit.v 6f f]1g pronomiiral adjectives in Sansl<rit with tlose in Sinhalese ol the like signification'
1.

uuyr,

rn,tviLh its tleriva'tivc's, is n'ppropriatetl to represent

it

n,s gold

'

which becomes

'Ihe preposition tzisi'ra, useri commonly to clenote the instrunrental case, is probabl.-v the Cen-tarnil word aayin,a vr"rlgariy pronouncecl 'uasiz, trsecl as a preposition for the
l. ibid., pp. 166-7. 2. R,eport, on fnscriptions, 1879, quotedin Ceylon Lib. R,egister, Third Series I, 477. 3. See J. Boamos, A Comp. Gram. of the modern Aryan tang' of India II, 366. 4. Nannril 302.

Do Alwis, oP. cit', P. i53-'1'

See

,iue G.ttra"eko'ra's Oompreh' ()ram , p' 35lt'

Kuhn, loco cil. L' 234'5'

250

.rounNAr,, R.a.s. (oEYr,oN)

fVor'' XXXIII'

No.

89-19361

DRAvTDTAN Er,rMENr

25L

seventhcaseinTamil.Thiswordoriginallyrneant.throrrgh, (rool' ul)' It being derived. from t'tali' ' way ' or ' mearrs t'hat' ka{utact', "with,' another preposition " is to"be suspectecl employeclir-,Sioh^l"*ufortheinstrumentalcase'alsogoes brr"k to the Tamil hi'tta 'near''
case 'in, ini', and e2' a'rc also Tamil has tleveloped a sign al clen'Lonstnr,tillz Dravidian. ttom aEal, ; neat,' fot expressitrg tlris c:rse rvhicli indeed this denotes some sort' of atljacency' Jlut it' often prefixes a 'lvrrtl originally nreaning 'place" Thus' ol rvith an. in, for the Sinlralese mama pihi"ydrt galLa kaptmi' I cut the tree rvith a knife' Tamils Tyoulcl. say nrin ha,tt'iyinal narattoi uet-

Tlre locative sigrs ebi, hi', e, ate a,lso referable to the Tamil xl rneaning 'in.'
Sinhalese plural signs ld, and uaru are from Tamil, as also riotetl by thc author of the Oomcleariy prelrensive Gramrnarl. The Tamil kat (c;riginally ell-d', the source from which the Sanslirit sa,ka,la and Sinhalese

'Ihc mcrclcrn

Tire signs o{ the auxiliary

s'iqala are most probaLrlJt derived) becomes galu it Kanarese and lu in Telugu, wlrich has also sometimes kulu, gul,tc and

altt,. 'Ihe Sinhalese forru ld is also founttr as go!!a, as in rleui,-golla,' gods,' which is nearer to ka!,' llhe Tanril plural
sign uar is a.coltraction of tirc p.rorloun of t'he sarne numher a"(a)ar, composed of the clemoustrrative o a,nd ar, the plural

probanle that the Sinhalese has retained t'he i'n which eupho" nicallv becomes ar' tc the exclusioir of the firral lil'

ti'ndn.Herewehatein-dlirrstearlofal.Itisextrenrely

form of at-u '

lhat.'

Telugu h'as oud'yu and

ud"yu'z

One might go on with scores of other Silhalese particles, aclverbs, conjunctions, prefixes and affixes--which are, on

The origin of t'tre d.ative c'i'se-sis'-n is clear' The SinhaTnstead lese Ja is rro doubt corrupterl from t'he Tumrl ilarn' ' I gave him,' the unletterr:d rvould of auan itam lcotutl;a'r d'unimi'' say auan'itta'i kod,uttcn The Sinhalese ]nas ohu'ta itam' is 'place'' Horv the dative sense The meaning ol may be cleriloped from the iclea of place is obvious' To .l"rirr" !a from the Sanskrit a'rth(r'ga is ccrtainly far-fetched' llhe more ordinarY clative sign ir Tamil is ku fuam lcai'

close examination, reducible

semblance

to the Draviclian. Their re'

the same sodrce is to be sought for the Aryan and Dravidian languages in a hoary past, or, in other words, that' rve have to recognise a ratlical connectiorr between these trv<-r ancient
farnilies of languages.
When the subject t'as thrown open for-discussion, Dr' M' d9 Z' Wickremasinghe sdicl ho 'was remincl'ed of the saying "Fools rush, irr where angelsTear to tread." He suggest'ed that tsather Gnana PrakaPhilology before at-tempting <1o w-ell to take " "ou"*6-i.t "r"-*""tE aim"Ut task as ihe subject of the paper' He agreed -that his "r"fr ,,r,r"r"rt** full of icleas, so-e oi whichwer6, ho*-eve", very difficult ttr ir"i"" *llft, while others were distinctly wrong. He felt he could have t. m.rst of the explarrations birt, nof having been provided

to those in the Aryan langu-ages t'oo will not be rlenied. But this fact oirly supports the contention that

'to him.' Sinhalesc with the sarne itlea' Ohu kard' gi'yd'm'i" has a sirnilar locution 'I went, to him,' liierally 'to his hand''
,hand., iph.s auar-k,
or: ctua.n-,tlk-ku,

,Ia,mil

llhe abla,tive signs iin, ini', en, eni ate identical rvith the sig' in, lroni til rneaning 'place,' s'ith the sense of

""Xil.l copy .tiih a

of the paper earlier, he could not do so efr tempore'

'

f1g1a"'

the Tarnil 'Ihe genitive sign 9e is, again, probabll' from kai' puttcrk'o'm rvould mean 'his (in his kai,, 'haid'.' Auai same' Ounahancl) frook.' The Sinhalese ohu'ge pota is tlre it ri'ith the llindi fre' trut the orisekara Muclaliyarl equates gin of the latier is not sta'ted'

however, propose to enter into details, firstly as he coultl not stud)' , t-ru our"' tefbrehanrl, and seconclly as t'he manner irr which lhe auihor' nra'"il"to""f."cl the iul,iecb hardi.v calletl for a del ailed examirtaLiott ;r;hd--t;p;t. The loll"orving is L surnmary ut Mr' de Lanerolle " frirther remarks:

Mr. Julius cle Lanerolle expressed the view that Father Gnana P"u,k*su,.'s concl usions co u [d n of stan tl scienl ific analysis' - ]Ie did n ot

t:-"e-tt"

p. 350.

pp. 239 &

l- p. 350. ;', 5"" C*ia"'*fl : Comp.

soq,

Grammar of Dravicl' lang', 3rd Edition

252

JoURNAL, rr,.A.s.

(cEyLoN) [Vor,. XXXIll.

No.

89-19361

DRAvTDTAN ELEMENT

253

lrlaces rvhere Sinhalese differs from Pali ancl Sanskrit, in lespect, of ii generally agrees with Tamil. These phenomena have led many a student to imagirLe that Sinhalese is of iDravidian origin, particularly w-herr their l<riov'lerlge of Sinhalese is limited to the modern language. On the other hand, I have not ye1, come across nor heard o{ any linguist u'ho has made a systernatio study of Old Sinhalese suggesting such a possibility.
crertain grammatical forrns, etc.,

"In that monumontal work, the "Linguistic Survey of fndia," Sir George Grierson lias acl<nowledged r.vitirout any reselvation that Sinhalese is one of the Nlodern Indo-Aryan Yerrraculals; all other eminent linguists rvho are competellt to express an opinion on the subject have done likewise. It, is remarkable, however, that a casual observer ca,nnot but' be struck b;r the large n.urnber of ])ravidial rvorris found in the modern larguage, and also bv the fact, thal in most

rnany a mode of expression, ancl a host of other things, to Tamils. The tu'o races have been in close contact, both politically and socially, during a long succession of centuries. But the fact still remains that, the essentiai chalacteristics of one lace have at no time been identical r'r'ith those of the other. In these respects tltey have always

siootl distinctlyapart."
The Chairrnan

languages there is

in moving a vote of thanks to the liev. Fat'hel to Gate Muclalivar C. Rasanayagam for reading it, saitl that to those u'ho have had to study the tw-o
Gnana Prakasar'{or his paper, and
a,

"\Itre all alree that when Aryans first came to Ceylon, sevelal centuries before Christ, this Island was inhtrbitecl by aborigirral trilres rihoso language perished irr course of time. It is the language of the Aryan invaders, as a scientific sturly of Old Sinhalese proves beyon(l a shadow of doubt, that eventually shaped itself int,o r.hat latterly came to be called Sinhalese. l)very stage of this development is reflect'ed il t,he numerous litltic and other records extending over a
eviclence,

might iead one to t,hink that there is some connection between them. Tlie theory of the paper to explairr this connection is that the Sinhalese on landing in Ceylon found a lJravidian people hele, and adopted their language in principle u'hile retainir:rg to a very large extent their ow-n vocabularv. fhis tendency v'as asbiste(l further by the fact' that the Sinhalese invaders io a Jarge extelt marrjecl Dravidian speaking
wives"

in such rnatters as the structure and form of the sentence. This

remarkable similaritv bets-een them, particularly

period of two thousand years. In the {ace of this indisputable it is impossible to hold that the basis of Sinhalese is anytlring but Aryan. This fact has been proved by Professor Wilhelm Geiger ir Jnis Li,tteratur unil Sprache rler S'i'nglnlesen (Sirasstrurg, J.900) to the satisfaction of the best authorities on Comparative Philology. I am surprised to fintl that !'atlier Gnana Prakasar has chosen to ignore

ail this.

Ahe Chairnan statecl that he felt doubt, as to the accurancy of this theory, which clid not, accord w-ith the experience of other countries. For instan.ce, the expelience of theAnglo-Saxontongue has not been this. Ile r.r'as not irrclinecl to believe that Sinhalese had a Dravidian basis and was essentially Dravidiarr. 'Ihe relationship betu.een the two languages, however, was interesting. Possibly the likeness betrveen the tv'o goes back to arr earlier language than. the Indo-Germanic Group. The case was one not for hastv words but for further studies.

"It is true that non-Aryan influences.-not necessarily l)ravidian only, but pre-Dravidian as rvell-havo been at n'ork in the development of the Sinhaiese language. fhe chief result of these influences-is the loss of the aspirate. Ilxcept for this change, no great non-Aryan influence is found in the Sinhalese larrguage for over thousand years from the first known Aryan settlernent in this couhtry. llven in respect of this importani point, which directly affects the phonologv of the language, the most notable fact to be observed is that, in spite of it, the whole phonetic system of Sinhalese preserves its Aryan character' all throughout, In morphology too its Arvan character is not altt.rgether lost, even today. 'Ihe expression of case relations by means of appended particles instead of by regular inflection and a number of other similar developmonts are found in tho modern languaqe, and these developments are rmdoubtedlv agairrst Olcl and Middle Indo-Aryan speech habits. It is true that thev agree with the Dravidian, but in this rospect Sinhalese does not stand alone: it stands in the company of other Indian Yernaculars which have been acknov-ledged as Aryan. It has aheady been pointed out by competerrt authorities that these differences between Olcl and Modern IndoAryan Yernaculals are quite similar to certain peculiarities observed in Iiluropean languages, such as the use of tlie auxiliary, which in course of time seems to have developed as a simple necessity of speech. fn any case, in so far as Sirrhalese is concerned, tlre.y speak onlv for the l)r'avidian influence upon it-not for a l)ravidian origin of it. "It must not ire forgotten, however, that the Sinhalese are a mixed raco and that, in consoquence, th\eir language is a r:omposite one, 'Ihey orve much of their culture, a considerable part, of their vocabulary,
.