No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Dravidian Metaphony
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 April 2026
Extract
1. Introduction. The development of South Dravidian phonology has shown, through its entire recorded and reconstructable history, extensive vocalic assimilation of the type which is known as metaphony, umlaut, or vowel mutation. Specifically, the vowels of radical (word-initial) open syllables have become lower when the following syllable contains the low vowel a. The points to be made in this paper are four. (1) This process is reflected in all modern South Dravidian languages, though it is obscured in the literary dialects of Tamil and Malayalam by a change of an opposite, dissimilatory type. (2) The process, which in its earliest form affected only high short vowels, has spread in some languages to affect other vowels, including long ones. (3) This enlarged scope of the process has in some cases produced new phonemic distributions and expanded phonemic inventories. (4) The process has parallels in non-Dravidian languages of South Asia, raising the possibility that a linguistic area or Sprachbund, made up of languages displaying metaphony, may be recognized in the Indian subcontinent.
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1966 Linguistic Society of America
References
1 On the term ‘metaphony’, cf. Curtis Blaylock, ‘Hispanic metaphony’, Romance philology 18.253–71 (1965).
2 Bh. Krishnamurti, ‘Alternations i/e and u/o in South Dravidian’, Lg. 34.458–68 (1958); cf. also T. Burrow, ‘Dravidian studies II’, BSOAS 10.289–97 (1940).
3 Abbreviations used in this paper: PDr. Proto-Dravidian, PSDr. Proto-South-Dravidian, Ta. Tamil, LTa. Literary Tamil, CTa. Colloquial Tamil, Ka. Kannada (Kanarese), LKa. Literary Kannada, OKa. Old Kannada, Tu. Tulu, Te. Telugu, Skt. Sanskrit, Pkt. Prakrit, Si. Singhalese, Br. Brahmin, NBr. Non-Brahmin.
4 Alternation of high and mid vowels in such cases is reported from early inscriptional evidence by K. Kanapathi Pillai, A study of the language of the Tamil inscriptions of the 7th and the 8th centuries a.d. (University of London dissertation, 1935). I am indebted to Pillai and to the Librarian of the University of London for making this dissertation available to me on microfilm.
5 Cf. T. N. Sreekantaiya, ‘The mutation of i, u, e and o in Kannada’, Proceedings and transactions of the 8th All-India Oriental Congress 769–800 (Mysore, 1939).
6 G. S. Gai, Historical grammar of Old Kannada 5 (Poona, 1946).
7 Such occurrences of mid vowels are reported as characteristic of Colloquial Tamil in general by several sources : Julien Vinson, ‘Les variations phonétiques de la prononciation populaire tamoule’, Centenaire de l'Ecole des Langues Orientales Vivantes 115–26 (Paris, 1895), esp. 121–2; P. Jothimutthu, A guide to Tamil by the direct method (Madras, 1956), esp. 216; R. P. Sethu Pillai, ‘Tamil—literary and colloquial’, Annals of oriental research of the University of Madras 2:2, 3:1 (1938), 3:2 (1939); M. Shanmugam Pillai, ‘Tamil—Literary and colloquial’, Linguistic diversity in South Asia 27–42 (ed. Charles A. Ferguson and John J. Gumperz; Bloomington, 1960), esp. 32–3. Published sources for specific regional dialects follow: Jules Bloch, ‘Castes et dialectes en tamoul’, Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 6.1–30 (1910), for Madras, Chidambaram, Kumbakonam, Chingleput, and Tirumangalam; Kamil Zvelebil, ‘Dialects of Tamil I–IV’, Archiv orientální 27.272–317, 572–603 (1959), 28.414–56 (1960), 31.635–68 (1963), for Madras, Erode, Dindigul, Madura, Ramnad, Tuticorin, Tinnevelly, and Trincomalee; Zvelebil, ‘Notes on two dialects of Ceylon Tamil’, Transactions of the Linguistic Circle of Delhi, Dr. Siddheswar Varma volume 28–36 (1960), for Jaffna and Trincomalee; K. Kanapathi Pillai, ‘The Jaffna dialect of Tamil’, Indian linguistics 19.219–27 (1958), for Jaffna; and M. Kanapathi Pillai, Practical Tamil (Paruthithurai, Ceylon, 1955), esp. 65–69, for Ceylonese Tamil in general. (I have been provided with a copy of this last work through the kindness of Indreni M. Savundranayagam.) Data have also been gathered from informants for the dialects of Madras, Kumbakonam, Vellore, Tinnevelly, and Jaffna; I am indebted for such material to Mrs. Nesamani Lazarus, to K. V. Ramanathan, Samuel Z. Koil Pillai, and Shridhar Subramanyam, and especially to A. K. Ramanujan of the University of Chicago. Most of the data studied have been from middlecaste speakers; but the preservation of Proto-Dravidian mid vowels is also well attested in data from Brahmin and Untouchable dialects.
8 Literary Tamil forms are given in the usual transliteration; Colloquial Tamil forms are in phonemic notation. The notation used here is intended to reflect an ‘overall pattern’ of dialectal phonology; it gives full value to the contrasts introduced by loanwords, viz. k/g/h, c/j/š/s, t/d, t/d, and p/b. (For discussion of the phonemic problem, and a different decision, cf. Gordon H. Fairbanks, ‘Frequency and phonemics’, Ind. ling. 17.105–13, 1957). The shapes of the colloquial examples are typical of a wide variety of dialects.
9 Zvelebil's data show e mainly in the environment of r and r in the dialects of Erode, Dindigul, Tuticorin, Tinnevelly, and in the Ceylon dialects. My Tinnevelly informant, however, gave many examples like edadu 'left (hand)', LTa. itatu; sele 'few', LTa. cila. Similarly, the Ceylonese data contain examples like cehappu ‘red’, LTa. civappu; edai ‘weight’, LTa. itai (K.KanapathiPillai221); e⇛avu ‘bereavement’, LTa. i⇛avu (M.Kanapathi Pillai 65).
10 Lg. 37.165 (1961).
11 Data from Nagercoil presented in V. Subramoniam, A descriptive analysis of a dialect of Tamil (Indiana University dissertation, 1958), include many cases where the dissimilatory i appears (as in the verb lists, 81–92), but also several cases of e, e.g. eie ‘leaf’ (14), LTa. ilai; cevatta ‘reddish’ (70), LTa. civatta.—It should be noted that there are scattered instances of PDr. *e yielding o in the colloquial dialects—usually, but not always, after a labial consonant—and other cases where it has become a. Examples are molahu ‘pepper’, LTa. milaku; tora ‘to open’, LTa. tira; ka⇛ame ‘day of the week’, LTa. ki⇛amai.
12 All forms of the second person oblique pronominal stem (LTa. un) commonly show o in colloquial Tamil, regardless of the environment following; hence we have LTa. un 'you (sg.)' CTa. õ; LTa. unkal 'you (pl.)', CTa. onga.
13 Zvelebil, ‘Dialects IV’ 287; M. Kanapathi Pillai 68.
14 Zvelebil, ‘Dialects IV’ 646, 656.
15 K. Kanapathi Pillai 221.
16 Burrow (290) points to several cases where Kanarese and Telugu show unexpected e and o before a double consonant, e.g. Ka. motte ‘egg’ (cf. Ta. muttai).
17 L. V. Ramaswami Aiyar, ‘A brief account of Malayalam phonetics’, Journal of the Dept. of Letters, University of Calcutta, 14:3.8–9 (1927).
18 All Kota data, as collected by Emeneau, are taken from R. Burrow and M. B. Emeneau, Dravidian etymological dictionary (Oxford, 1961), hereafter abbreviated DED.
19 Sets of cognates are preceded by the number assigned them in the DED. The glosses given here are much abbreviated.
20 M. B. Emeneau, Sketch of Dravidian comparative phonology 26–36 (dittoed; Berkeley, 1963).
21 Emeneau 36–40.
22 L. V. Ramaswami Aiyar, ‘Materials for a sketch of Tulu phonology’, Indian linguistics 6.385–438 (1936); see 432–3.
23 A. Männer, Tulu-English dictionary (Mangalore, 1886).
24 Differences between Brahmin and Non-Brahmin Tulu are discussed by Ramaswami Aiyar, op.cit., and in his ‘Tulu prose texts in two dialects’, BSOS 6.897–931 (1932). He does not, however, mention the correspondence of high and mid vowels. For my own data on Tulu, I am indebted to Ramakrishna Adiga, Harihar Rao, Shankar Shetty, and Krishna Shetty; my thanks also go to Charles Richards for data collected by him.
25 ‘The vowels of colloquial Tamil’, Ar. or. 31.225–29 (1963), esp. 227.
26 Quite different processes seem to have produced a contrast between [e] and [ε] in a few dialects. In A. K. Ramanujan's speech (Madras Brahmin), there is a possible word-final contrast between LTa. ai > [ε] and LTa. ē, ay > [e]. A contrast in Ceylon Tamil is also reported by M. Shanmugam Pillai, ‘A Tamil dialect of Ceylon’, Ind. ling. 23.90–8 (1962), esp. 96, but its origins are not clear.
27 The phone [ɚ], as introduced by English loanwords, has a well-established foothold in most Tamil dialects; pronounciations like bɚjku ‘bank’ are widespread.
28 ‘Dialects I’ 290.
29 ‘Dialects II’ 587.
30 ‘Vowels’ 228.
31 Sketch of Dravidian comparative phonology 28.
32 W. Bright, An outline of colloquial Kannada (Poona, 1958).
33 T. N. Sreekantaiya, ‘English as the Kannadiga speaks it’, Mysore University Bulletin of phonetic studies 1.11–9 (1940).
34 R. C. Hiremath, The structure of Kannada (Dharwar, 1961), esp. 1–10.
35 Some of Hiremath's data do not show the expected changes, e.g. kodi ‘umbrella’ (1) as compared with LKa. kode. This is presumably due to dialect mixture, reflected also in Hiremath's report of free variation in cases like bēɚ↓ ~ bɚda ‘hunter’ (3), as compared with LKa. bēda.
36 Sreekantaiya, ‘Mutation’ 771.
37 Gerald B. Kelley, ‘Telugu vowel phonemes’, Ind. ling. 20.146–58 (1959); ‘Vowel phonemes and external vocalic sandhi in Telugu’, JAOS 83.67–73 (1963).
38 Bh. Krishnamurti, Telugu verbal bases 189–91, 212–4 (Berkeley, 1961).
39 A. H. Arden, A progressive grammar of the Telugu language 4 63, 382 (Madras, 1937).
40 Krishnamurti, Telugu verbal bases 204, 225.
41 Krishnamurti, Lg. 34.462–64.
42 A. Grignard, A grammar of the Oraon language 66–7 (Calcutta, 1924).
43 Heinz-Jürgen Pinnow, Versuch einer historischen Lautlehre der Kharia-Sprache (Wiesbaden, 1959).
44 R. Pischel, Comparative grammar of the Prakrit languages 77–8, 100–2, 104–5 (translated by Subhadra Jha; Varanasi, 1957).
45 P. B. Pandit, ‘E and O in Gujrati’, Ind. ling. 15.14–54 (1955).
46 Subhadra Jha, The formation of the Maithili language 95–6 (London, 1958).
47 U. N. Tiwari, The origin and development of Bhojpuri 5–6 (Calcutta, 1960).
48 S. M. Katre, ‘Konkani phonetics’, Journal of the Dept. of Letters, University of Calcutta, 27:4.14 (1935). The data do not make it clear whether vowel length is contrastive.
49 The diachronic details are provided by S. K. Chatterji, The origin and development of the Bengali language 387–402 (Calcutta, 1926). A synchronic description is given by E. C. Dimock Jr., ‘Notes on stem-vowel alternation in the Bengali verb’, Ind. ling. 17.172–7 (1957).
50 Chatterji 388.
51 Banikanta Kakati, Assamese, its formation and development 64–6 (Gauhati, 1941).
52 Wilhelm Geiger, A grammar of the Sinhalese language 18–26 (Colombo, 1938).
53 Geiger, Litteralur und Sprache der Singhalesen 34–36 (Strassburg, 1900).
54 M. B. Emeneau, ‘India as a linguistic area’, Lg. 32.3–16 (1956). I am indebted to Emeneau for his helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.
- 5
- Cited by