Chapter- III LINGUISTIC ASPECTS Introduction Language is social phenomenon. Without languages we cannot think of the existence of any society. The history of language and history of society, therefore, go together. Language is the most powerful and effective instrument of culture, because it is the most important vehicle for the sense of belonging. Before one begins to belong to language, language must belong to him; and this belonging comes neither by birth nor by the study of grammar but by use. The deeper, the more extensive, the more comprehensive the use of the language, the richer it becomes and the more it enriches its users. In India, where historical evidence can hardly be said to exist, the data ordinarily available are of three kinds: physical characters, linguistic characters and religious and social usages. Of these the first are by far the most trustworthy. For ethnological purposes, physical characters may be said to be of two kinds: ‘indefinite’, which can only be described in more or less appropriate language; and “definite” which admit of being measured and reduced to numerical expression. The former class usually called descriptive or secondary characters include such points as the colour and texture of the skin; the colour, form and position of the eyes; the colour and character of the hair; and the forms of the face and features conspicuous as these traits are, the difficulty of observing, defining and recording them is extreme. Colour, the most striking of all, is perhaps the most evasive. In the absence of the traditional sources of history, it may be held that the migratory aspects of a people or community which is supposed to be on continuous move from one place to another since the beginning of their history, can be traced if we can successfully trace the history or evolution of the language now they speak. A technique commonly used by historical linguists, will now demonstrate how the distribution of languages can provide information on the geographical points of origin and the path of migration of the population and their languages. The full determination and verification of the points of origin and the path of movements of populations and their languages is complex and requires the assembly of expertise drawn from many fields. But through a simple technique, a lay person can make quick and remarkably valuable estimates of the points of origin and the direction of the past population. Only two sets of information are required and both of which are provided by
Transcript
1. Chapter- III LINGUISTIC ASPECTS Introduction Language is
social phenomenon. Without languages we cannot think ofthe
existence ofany society. The history of language and history of
society, therefore, go together. Language is the most powerful and
effective instrument ofculture, because it is the most important
vehicle for the sense of belonging. Before one begins to belong to
language, language must belong to him; and this belonging comes
neither by birth nor by the study ofgrammar but by use. The deeper,
the more extensive, the more comprehensive the use of the language,
the richer it becomes and the more it enriches its users. In India,
where historical evidence can hardly be said to exist, the data
ordinarily available are of three kinds: physical characters,
linguistic characters and religious and social usages. Of these the
first are by far the most trustworthy. For ethnological purposes,
physical characters may be said to be of two kinds: indefinite,
which can only be described in more or less appropriate language;
and definite which admit of being measured and reduced to numerical
expression. The former class usually called descriptive or
secondary characters include such points as the colour and texture
ofthe skin; the colour, form and position of the eyes; the colour
and character of the hair; and the forms of the face and features
conspicuous as these traits are, the difficulty of observing,
defining and recording them is extreme. Colour, the most striking
of all, is perhaps the most evasive. In the absence of the
traditional sources of history, it may be held that the migratory
aspects ofa people or community which is supposed to be on
continuous move from one place to another since the beginning
oftheir history, can be traced ifwe can successfully trace the
history or evolution of the language now they speak. A technique
commonly used by historical linguists, will now demonstrate how the
distribution of languages can provide information on the
geographical points of origin and the path of migration of the
population and their languages. The full determination and
verification of the points of origin and the path of movements of
populations and their languages is complex and requires the
assembly of expertise drawn from many fields. But through a simple
technique, a lay person can make quick and remarkably valuable
estimates ofthe points of origin and the direction of the past
population. Only two sets of information are required and both of
which are provided by linguists in many cases. (1) A genetic
classification of related languages, distinguishing the broader
groupings of languages for earlier times from the narrower
groupings of more closely related languages for more recent times
and (2) a map showing the locations of population speaking these
same languages and groups of languages. In this chapter we are
concerned only with the first set of information viz., the genetic
classification of related languages etc., Changes in a Language: It
is a well known fact that the Sourashtras of Tamil Nadu are the
immigrant Indo-Aryans (whether as outsiders or natives ofIndia)
from the ancient land of Saurashtra in Gujarat peninsula, which is
considered to be the home ofthese people to the present area,
having traversed or crossed the soils of Maharashtra, Kanarese or
Canarese and Telugu. It is but natural for any language having come
into contact with other alien languages at various points of time
to absorb certain linguistic elements like the vocabulary and or
other grammatical traits following the principles of Contact and
convergence, the influence or impact varying in degree depending
upon the period of contact with such alien languages. This is very
significant in the case of the Sourashtras, an oft- migrating
population ever since their earliest period of history till their
permanent and firm
2. settlement in the Tamil soil. The greater the period of
contact at a particular geographical point, the larger will be the
extent of the impact. Some scholars are ofthe opinion that while
the Brahmins were able to pre serve the purity of Sanskrit, they
were not able to prevent the transformation of the spoken language.
The Aryan speech changed with diet, mixed blood, and different
climates leaving behind. Panini and Patanjali were the first to use
the degrading word, Apabhramsa for languages co-existing with
Sanskrit, for they claimed that these languages were derivations
from or corruptions of Sanskrit. Language Vs Dialect To start with,
one has to necessarily know the difference between these two terms
- language and dialect. Although the distinction is a common and
indeed often a useful one, there is no general accepted criterion
for making it. There are two common senses in which the meaning
ofone term is linked with the other. In sense A, a dialect is a sub
variety ofa larger unit, which is typically a language. It may in
turn be subdivided into smaller units, or sub-dialects. These terms
have equivalents in Indo Aryan languages e.g. Hindi bhasha is
language, boli dialect, and Upaboli sub-dialect. In sense B, a
dialect is unwritten, while a language possesses a written standard
and a literature (P. Masica: 1991: 23). Sourashtri, the language
spoken by the Sourashtras in the south, is generally considered to
be a dialect ofGujarati. It seems to be a misconception that has
arisen because of the fact that so far there has been no serious
and sincere research on Sourashtri by any scholar or any
institution in India such as the Linguistic Survey ofIndia or the
Central Institute of Indian Languages (C.I.I.L) with the full
knowledge ofboth Gujarati (ancient and modern) and Southern
Sourashtri. Really the fact seems to be otherwise. It is or it
should be an independent language of yore (Old Saurashtri or
Pre-Gujarati Speech of Gujarat) having undergone a tremendous
change due to language convergence through ages. If at all it is to
be considered as a dialect of any language it should be considered
as the dialect ofthe Mahrashtri Prakrit which was commonly spoken
in the north till 800 A.D. At this juncture, it will not be
improper to quote the views of Sunitikumar Chatterjji, a famous
linguist of India from Bengal, on Sourashtri that we find in the
Introduction to Dr. I.R. Daves book, The Saurashtrians in South
India (1976) the following comment: This unpretentious little
book.......on the little-known language of a small people mostly in
Tamil Country in south India, who had migrated from Lata and
Saurashtra in Gujarat centuries ago during the period when Prakrit
or Middle Indo-Aryan was spoken in India and Bhasha or
NewIndo-Aryan was just coming into being Their home language is
still a modern form of the Old Saurashtri or Pre-Gujarati speech
ofGujarat as it was over thousand years ago,which was the language
they brought with them through Maharashtra and Andhra-desa to
Tamilnadu... This observation of Dr. Chatterji hints at the nature
and antiquity of Sourashtri. Before entering into any discussion on
Sourashtri, let us start with the general linguistic history of the
Indo-Aryans in general and with special reference to languages of
the West India. The history and development of Sanskrit
3. Linguists believe in the traditional evolutionary stages in
the linguistic history of the Indo- Aryan languages viz.,
Indo-European >Indo-Iranian>Indo-Aryan. Stage 1:
Indo-European and Indo Iranian: As to the stage 1 (i.e.,) on
Evolution of pre-Vedic Sanskrit or the language of the Indo-
Europeans including the home (Urheimat) of the Indo-Europeans,
readers are requested to go through the account given in Appendix
I. Stage 2: The arrival and stay in Saurashtra & the evolution
of Sanskrit (Vedic Sanskrit): The Two wave theory and the Outer
Band of Aryans: Divergent opinions have been expressed by scholars
regarding the arrival of the Aryans in India. Some believe that
they had arrived in India in one single lot and later on settled in
other parts ofthe country. However, others opine that they arrived
in India in two or more batches and gradually settled in various
parts. The first and foremost group of Aryans had settled in
western territories and they continued moving ahead in central and
eastern territorial parts of the country. Therefore, the subsequent
batches might have settled in remote eastern areas comprising
Magadh, Videh (lying to the north east of Magadh) and Anga. The
idea that the Aryans entered India in Two waves, was first
formulated by the Orientalist A. F. R. Hoernle in 1880. This thesis
was supported by George. A. Grierson, Director, Linguistic Survey
ofIndia (LSI); the two scholars agreeing that the first invasion
took place in the Punjab via the Kabul valley. The second invasion
occurred later, in a drier climate period and with greater speed as
the newAryans reached the Ganga and Yamuna in a series of hordes,
took wives of non-Aryan stock and penetrated the Madyadesa (the mid
lands). (Brahmanic culture developed here, and later the hymns of
the Rig Veda were composed as Sanskrit de veloped as the classical
language of Aryan culture, differing from Vedic as much as did
Attic from Homeric speech). Hoernle identified two early Aryan
language groups, with the two waves of invaders: Magadhi, the
tongue of the first group, and Sauraseni, of the second. These
varieties of Indo- European language extended into the Gangetic
plains, but Magadhi was displaced to the east and south by
Sauraseni and it was from this second linguistic wave that the
Vedic literature took its origin. What Grierson added to Hoernles
theory was a precise geographical connotation of the spread of the
outer band of Aryans to Punjab, Sind, Rajaputana, Oudh, Gujarat and
Bihar. In Sanskrit geography, India is divided into the Madhya-desa
or Midland and the rest. The mid land is constantly referred to as
the true pure home of the Indo-Aryan people, the rest being, from
the point of view of Sanskrit writers, more or less barbarous. The
Midland extended from the Himalayas on the north to the Vindyas
Hills on the south, and from Sahrind (upto Sirhind) in the Eastern
Punjab on the west to the confluence ofthe Ganges and Jumna on the
east. It thus consisted ofthe Gangetic Doab and of the country
immediately to its north and south; the particular Indo Aryan
dialect of these people developed into the modern language of the
Midland. (Imp.Gaz:357) Round it (Mid land), on three sides-west,
south, and east lay a country inhabited even in Vedic times, by
other Indo Aryan tribes. This tract included the modern Punjab,
Sind, Rajasthan, and the country to its east, Oudh, and Bihar and
Rajaputana for our present purposes may be considered as belonging
to the outer band. Over this band were scattered different tribes,
each with its own dialect. These outer dialects were all more
closely related to each other than any of them was the language of
the Midland. The earliest arrivals spoke one dialect and the new
comers
4. another. According to Dr. Hoernle, who first suggested the
theory, the latest invaders probably entered the Punjab like a
wedge into the heart of the country already occupied by the first
immigrants forcing the latter outwards in three directions, to the
east, to the south and to the west.(ibid:359) The next process
which we observe in the geographical distribution of the Indo-Aryan
languages is one of expansion. The population of the Midland
increased and history shows that it exercised an important
influence over the rest of India. With the increased population and
increased power it expanded and conquered the Eastern Punjab,
Rajaputana, and Gujarat (where it reached the sea and gained
accessto maritime commerce) and Oudh. With its armies and with its
settlers it carried its language, and in all these territories we
now find mixed forms of speech. The basis ofeach is that of the
outer band, but its body is that of the Midland. In the country
near the borders of the Midland, the Midland language has
overwhelmed the ancient language and few traces of the latter can
be recognized. As we go further from the centre, the influence of
the Midland weakens and that of the outer band becomes stronger and
stronger, till the traces of the Midland speech disappears
altogether. As we go south and west, we see more and more of the
original language of the outer band, until it is quite prominent in
Gujarat. In the way we find Marathi in the Central provinces, Berar
and Bombay, and to the east, Oriya, Bengali, and Assamese, all of
them true Outer language unaffected in their essence by the speech
of the Midland. (Ibid: 358-9) Scholars like Allachin and Allachin
(1962) view that the arrival and spread of the Indo- Aryan
languages must have been associated with the movement ofIndo-Aryan
speaking people and that their relations with the populations they
encountered must be conceived as a dynamic process of cultural
contact, producing a variety of cultural responses. This process
must have continued over many centuries. Its result was to produce
a cultural synthesis which we may refer to culturally as
Indo-Aryan, that is a synthesis of Indus or Indian and Aryan
elements. The Encyclopedia Britannica (1911:712) mentions In the
articles Indo-Aryan languages and Prakrit, the history ofthe
earlier stages ofthe Indo-Aryan vernaculars is given at some
length. It is there shown that, from the most ancient times,there
were two main groups ofthese forms of speechone, the language ofthe
Midland, spoken in the country near the Gangetic-Doab, and the
other, the so-called Outer Band, containing the Midland on three
sides, west, north and south . This classification is indeed
connected with a theory relating to the immigration ofAryan-
speaking tribes into the peninsula. The speakers ofthe dialect
(ofthe Mid land) out ofwhich classical Sanskrit was created and on
which later on Souraseni was based, are supposed to have forced
their way into the Madhyadesa sometime after a previous Aryan
invasion/ immigration. The descendants ofthose first comers
provided Outer Band oflanguages. Outer Band Languages &
Saurashtri The non-contiguous Indo Aryan languages, that is, the
Outer band languages may be listed as Sinhalese, Maldivian,
Saurashtri, Dhakkani and Parya. Like the outlying dialects of
Konkani (and apparently also Khetani in Baluchistan) all these are
the result of pre modern migrations of Indo-Aryan speakers.
According to Colin P. Masica the silk weavers living in the Tamil
soil speak a language of the Outer Band Aryans. To quote from his
work The Indo-Aryan Lnaguages,(1991:22) The non contiguous
Indo-Aryan languages,that is those based outside the contiguous
Indo-Aryan areas, may be listed as follows: Sinhalese, the
principal language ofSri Lanka; Maldivian(=Divahi), the related
language ofthe republic ofthe Maldives ( an archipelago in the
Indian Ocean southwest of India); Saurashtri, the language ofa
community of silk weavers centred at Madurai in the Tamil
5. country; ..all of these are the result ofpre-modern
migrations ofIndo-Aryan speakers... These remarks ofMasica hints at
the fact that the Sourashtras ofTamilnadu are the descendents of
the ancient Outer Band Aryans and the people and the language they
speak are very ancient. Saurashtri was once the language of
Gujarat, before that country was overwhelmed by the invasions from
the Midland. One basic difference that can be noticed in connection
with the Outer Band languages is the presence of certain important
Dravidian (?) or nonAryan elements in certain modern Indo-Aryan
languages especially like the Sourashtri. Stages in the linguistic
History of Indo-Aryan languages Following the theory of P. Masica,
we can classify the Indo-Aryan languages as follows: The long
internal history of Indo-Aryans in India, spanning about 3,500
years, may be divided linguistically into three stages-the Old, the
Middle, and the Neo Indo-Aryan, conveniently abbreviated as Old
Indo Aryan (O.I.A.), Middle Indo Aryan (M.I.A) and Neo Indo Aryan
(N.I.A). These may be taken corresponding, roughly to the periods
1500 B.C.-600 B.C.,600 B.C.-1000 A.D. and from 1000 A.D. to the
present day respectively. These may be sub-divided further into
Early, Middle or Second, and Late, and attempts have been made
(e.g., by S. K. Chatterji) to assign approximate dates to the
latter also. 1 A- Early O.I.A. Vedic-based apparently on a far
western dialect, perhaps influenced by Iranian; further sub stages
of bookie-VII ofthe Rig Veda being the most archaic, that of the
Brahmanas and Sutras the least. 1 B -Later O. I. A. Classical
Sanskrit- based on a dialect of the midland (Western Ganga valley,
Eastern Punjab, Haryana), although influenced by Vedic. Later
literature, was much influenced by M.I.A. (with which it is
contemporary), remaining O.I.A., only in phonetics and morphology.
II.A. Early M.I.A: Asokan Prakrits: They standfor the various
regional dialects ofthe third century B.C. (eastern, east central,
south western, north western), with the notable exception of the
Midland, recorded in the inscriptions of the emperor Asoka on rocks
and pillars in various parts of the sub continent. 2. Pali:
Language of the Himalaya Buddhist canon and other literature,
apparently based on a midland dialect possibly influenced by the
original eastern forms of the remembered Buddhist discourses, and
subsequently by Sanskrit. Again, the language of the metrical
portion of the canon proper, of Gathas, is more archaic than the
language of the commentaries and other literature. 3. Early
Ardhamagadhi: Language of the earliest Jain Sutras (Most
Ardhamagadhi represents a later M.I.A. stage, however) II.B.
M.I.A., Second stage 1. Niya Prakrit: administrative language ofan
Indo- Aryan polity ( i.e. besides the Scythian and Tocharian
ones)in Chinese Turkestan, known from 3rd century A.D. documents,
north western in type, but full of Iranian and other loan words.
Akin to this but what earlier (first century) is what is
sometimescalled Gandhari, the language ofthe Kotan manuscript ofthe
Dharmapada.
6. 2. Ardhamagadhi: supposedly the ancient language of Kosala
(=Oudh or modern eastern U.P) known from the Jain canon (not
finalized until the sixth century A.D.) and from early Buddhist
dramas of varying age. 3. Later (=post Asoka) inscriptional
Prakrit: until replaced (fifth century) totally by Sanskrit in
inscriptions. 4. Magadhi: language of Bihar and presumably of the
Mauryan Empire (fourth-second century B.C.); stylized sub varieties
represented by the conventionalized speech oflower-class characters
in Sanskrit drama. 5. Sauraseni: the standard Prakrit of the drama,
it represents the stage of midland speech succeeding Pali, mutatis
mundadis; more conservative than Magadhi or Maharashtri; another
variety was cultivated by Jains. 6. Maharashtri: a southwestern
dialect, vehicle of lyric poetry (and in another variety, mixe d
with Ardhamagadhi of Jain literature); phonetically the more
advanced of the second stage Prakrits. 7. Sinhala Prakrit: language
ofthe Sinhalese inscriptions, from the first century B.C. (to these
may be added Buddhist hybrid Sanskrit, a Middle Indo-Aryan dialect
in Sanskrit garb; vehicle of Mahayana Buddhist literature) II-C:
Late (Third stage) M.I.A.: (600A.D.-1000.A.D.) or Apabhramsa stage
(described elsewhere in this work). S.K. Chatterji makes the
following remarks about the Old, Middle and New phases of Indo
Aryan: The Aryan came to India, assuredly not as a single, uniform
or standardized speech, but rather as a group or groups of dialects
only one of these dialects or dialect-groups has mainly been
represented in the language of the Vedas -- other dialects(might)
have been ultimately transformed into one or the other of the
various New Indo-Aryan languages and dialects. The mutual
relation-ship ofthese Old Indo-Aryan dialects, their individual
traits and number as well as location, will perhaps never be
settled The true significance of the various Prakrits as preserved
in literary and other records, their origin and interrelations, and
their true connection with the modern languages, forms one of the
most baffling problems of Indo-Aryan linguistics and there has been
admixture among the various dialects to an extent which has
completely changed their original appearance, and which makes their
affiliation to forms of Middle Indo-Aryan as in our records at
times rather problematical. Based on these presumptions, our
linguistic study of these people upto1000 A.D. may fall under the
following subdivisions: Evolution of Sanskrit, Prakrits, Apabrahmsa
and the rise of modern Indo-Aryan languages. Evolution ofSanskrit
The Indo-Aryan (I.A.): In the greater part of India today,
languages are spoken which are derived from a single form of speech
which was introduced into India by invaders /immigrants from the
north-west more than three thousand years ago. The
invading/immigrant peopleswere known in their own language as ayira
a word which is also commonly used as an adjective meaning noble,
honourable. Behind them, in Central Asia remained kindred peoples
who eventually occupied the plateau of Iran, as well as large tract
of Central Asia. These peoples used the same name for themselves in
Avestan airya, and from the genitive plural of this word the modern
name Iran is ultimately
7. derived. In conformity with this usage the term Aryan is now
used as the common name of these peoples and their language;
alternately the term Indo-Iranian, is commonly used. To distinguish
the Indian branch from the Iranian, the term Indo- Aryan has been
coined, and as applied to language, it covers the totality of
language and dialects derived from this source from the earliest
times to the present day. By comparing the (early Indo-Aryan or)
Indo-European language with the very closely related Iranian, it is
possible to form a fairly accurate idea of the original
Indo-Iranian or Indo- Aryan language from which both have evolved.
By comparing Indo-Aryan language and Iranian with the other
Indo-European languages,it is possible also to go beyond this, and
to reconstruct in general the characteristics of the original
Indo-European language from which all these are derived. The
relation between this ancient Iranian and the language ofthe Veda
is so close that it is not possible satisfactorily to study one
without the other. Grammatically, the differences are very small;
the chief differentiation in the earliest period lies in certain
characteristics and well defined phonetic changes which have
affected Iranian on the one hand and Indo Aryan on the other. It is
quite possible to find versesin the oldest portion ofthe Avesta
which simply by phonetic substitutions according to established
laws can be turned into intelligible Sanskrit. This resemblance is
particularly striking in the field of culture and religion.
(T.Burrow:2001: Pp 1-4) Rig Veda: The earliest document of the
linguistic history of Indo-Aryan is the Rig Veda, which, by rough
guess work, is placed in the region of1500-1000 B.C., But this
language itself had evolved out of a yet earlier form of speech, by
precisely the same kind of slow change and alteration which caused
it to evolve later into something also. This earlier evolution is
unrecorded by any direct documentation, but it can be reconstructed
in considerable detail by means of comparison with related
languages.By this method two stages in the pre-history of the
language can be established. Vedic Sanskrit: Nature of Linguistic
Evidence: According to scholars, the oldest extensive linguistic
data in the Indo-Iranian branch is represented by the Rig Veda
(dated since the days ofMax Muller to somewhere between 1500-1000
B.C.). They are followed by the Mittani treaties, dated much more
securely to the 14th century B.C. Afterwards we have the Avestan
and Old Persian materials. Finally, we may also list the Prakrits
as seen in Asokan inscriptions. Focusing on the Rig Veda alone, we
find that there were numerous stages in which this material was
created, collected, collated, edited, and preserved. We cannot deny
that the incoming Aryan speakers came in contact with certain
non-Arya people in India. There is ample evidence for such
contacts. It is also held by scholars, that the authors of, at
least of the Rig Veda, are largely Aryans in linguistic, ethnic,
and cultural terms, mixed perhaps with a small number of Aryanised
non-Aryans. This is what indicated by that the few Dravidian loans
one finds in Rig Veda are phonetically Aryanised. (Some scholars
are of the view that the composition of the Vedas had started after
the arrival ofthe second batch ofAryans in India. Aryans of the
second batch arrive d in Central India en route Punjab and coastal
areas / regions of Saraswati and Draswati rivers). As Mr. Masica
observes (1991:p.39), In any case, it is clear that the incoming
Aryans did not find the subcontinent empty. Preceding them were
peoplesspeaking language ofother linguistic
8. stocks, some ofwhich are still vigorously represented in the
subcontinent today. Sir Grierson has named the regional local
dialects (whom the Vedic people came in contact with) concurrent
with the Vedic period or in use prior to it, as Primary Prakrits.
The period of the said primary Prakrits is considered from 2000
B.C. to 600 B.C. It is believed that these primary Prakrits had
considerable similarities in pronunciation, phonetics,sounds
ofvowels and consonants as also use of inflections etc., with Vedic
Sanskrit. At this juncture, one may get a reasonable historical
certitude why could not this language be the reminiscence of the
tongue spoken once in the Harappan sites all over the Gujarat
coastal areas up to South Gujarat areas or the areas covered by the
ancient historical Saurashtra. It is because of this factor,
perhaps, some specific non-Sanskrit or non-Aryan elements are found
in Outer Band languages (esp., in Sourashtri). Although, there is
perfectly unanimity and beliefregarding the ancientness ofVedic
Sanskrit, yet it does not appear feasible that it was ever used as
a medium ofspeech by people at large. Sanskrit language was meant
for accomplishing literary compositions by sages,scholars and
priests. It is quite possible that numerous dialects,having
consistency and resemblance with Vedic Sanskrit might have been in
vogue. The great commentator Patanjali had elaborately discussed
regarding use ofdifferent forms ofthe same words in different
regions ofthe country in his commentary. Probably, this supports
the viewthat after coming in close contact with regional dialects,
either some words ofVedic Sanskrit might have adopted different
shapes or certain specific forms of words of Vedic Sanskrit might
have been adopted and included in the dialects. Later Vedic and
Classical Sanskrit By the time ofthe Late Vedic, Epic, and
Classical periods this Aryanised element was probably the largest
segment among the users ofIndo-Aryan languages. It is during this
later epoch that one finds evidence oflarge scale
ofDravidianisation ofIndo-Aryan structures. The later Vedic is, in
broad terms, the form ofthe language that Panini described with
such exactness in his grammar around the fourth century B.C.,
thereby creating no doubt unintentionally an absolute standard for
the language thereafter. His work is clearly the culmination of a
long grammatical tradition, based on concern to preserve the Vedas
unaltered (hence the stress on Phonetics) and is itself intended
for memorization and oral transmission as its brevity indicates. We
get the following account on Net (www.list india.net/Sanskrit) in
the introductory part of an article: IX. Sanskrit Language: Use
whose copy right is held by the CIIL, Mysore) Sanskrit is an
ancient language ofIndia. Indias heritage,religion, culture and
philosophy are in Sanskrit language. J. L. Brockington says that
Sanskrit, in its older form of Vedic Sanskrit (or simply Vedic),
was brought into the northwest of India by the Aryans sometime in
the second half of the second millennium B.C.E and was at that
period relatively little differentiated from its nearest relation
within the Indo-European group, Avestan in the Iranian family of
languages (these two being the oldest recorded within the
Indo-Iranian branch of Indo-European). From there it spread to the
rest of North India as the Aryans enlarged the area that they
occupied, developing into the classical form of the language, which
subsequently became fixed as the learned language of culture and
religion throughout the sub-continent, while the spoken language
developed into the various Prakrits. There is ample evidence of
rapid evolution during the Vedic period with the language of the
latest phase, attested for example in the Upanishads, showing
considerable grammatical simplification from that of the earliest
hymns.
9. From the above statement ofJ. L. Brockington we can presume
that Sanskrit was in use in ancient India and it was a spoken
language. Dr. H. S. Ananthanarayana, in his paper on Sanskrit and
Indian heritage published by the Central Institute of Indian
Languages, in a book entitled Linguistic Heritage ofIndia and Asia,
(Edited by Omkar N. Koul and L. Devaki) pp.245 says that "Sanskrit
was a spoken language and the vast literature in this language is a
solid testimony to this fact. It was not limited to any particular
area, but was spoken throughout the length and breadth of the
country". Regional peculiarities observed by Panini and others
confirm this thesis. It was spoken not only by the Brahmins but was
equally used and understood by other social classes.Ifthe word
Samskrata is taken in the meaning 'polished', 'purified', 'correct
speech', it may then be thought of as the speech of the educated
class of the Aryan society. Others must have spoken substandard
form and may have even mastered it so as to use it on occasion. The
fact that Sanskrit and Prakrit were used side by side suggests that
they were mutually intelligible and the people were bilinguals.
Within their class, the members may have used their own speech as a
mark of identity and whenever it involved members of the upper
class. Patanjali (150 A.D) in his work 'Mahabhasya' (re quoted from
the book Paninian Linguistics by P.S. Subramanayam (pp18) says
"Even by the time of Patanjali, Sanskrit was a living language and
that there were still people for whom it was the mother tongue, but
not one acquired from grammar books and literature. Most probably,
such people belonged to the upper crust of the society and were
also less in number since as evidenced by the Mahabhasya itself, a
variety of the Prakrit language called Apabhramsa in that work has
already come into vogue and was spoken chiefly by the uneducated
masses". (ibid) Sanskrit was the cultural language of India. It was
uniting people speaking different languages. Cambridge Language
Survey: The Indo-Aryan Language, (1991:6),remarks as follows: The
multi lingual nature of much South Asia Society presents special
challenges to the socio-linguists. Participation of linguistically
disparate regions, in a common civilization, held together by such
specific institutions as pilgrimages, as well as requirements of
trade, led to the development of lingua franca, of which Hindustani
is the most notable recent example. Sanskrit itself could be said
to have played this role. In its heyday in the first millennium
A.D. it linked together and synthesized elements from an area
vaster than Indo-Aryan itself or over the sub continent and widely
separated epoch of time. People in India even today respect those
who speak in Sanskrit and it survives even today as the language
ofreligion and scholarship. Even today, Vedas are recited with
accurate accents for the religious purposes.Also,(to our knowledge)
in this very Sourashtra community, we find one Sri. T. G.
Dwaraganath (65), (a retired government servant from the Treasury
department ofTamil Nadu) of Madurai is capable of lecturing in
Sanskrit. Vedic (Pre-Classical) Sanskrit Vs Classical (Post-Vedic)
Sanskrit Generally by term Sanskrit we mean in modern days only the
Classical Sanskrit which is quite different from the original or
Vedic Sanskrit. For those who may have some interest in knowing the
differences between the two, we hereunder give major points of
differences between the two. Also it may help scholars who may
venture to take up a proper research in tracing out the antiquity
of Sourashtri and to find out if it goes as far back as the Vedic
period. We reproduce the following from an account on Vedic
Sanskrit grammar, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia, on the
major difference between the two:
10. Vedic Sanskrit differs from Classical Sanskrit to an extent
comparable to the difference between Homeric Greek and Classical
Greek.Tiwari (2005) lists the following principal differences
between the two: *Vedic Sanskrit had a voiceless bilabial fricative
(called ''upadhmnya'') and a voiceless velar fricative, (called
''jihvmlya'')which used to occur when the breath ''visarga'' ()
appeared before voiceless labial and velar consonants respectively.
Both ofthem were lost in Classical Sanskrit to give way to the
simple ''visarga''. *Vedic Sanskrit had a retroflex lateral
approximant () as well as its aspirated counterpart (), which were
lost in Classical Sanskrit, to be replaced with the corresponding
plosives () and (). (''Varies by region; Vedic pronunciations are
still in common use in some regions, e.g. Southern India including
Maharashtra''.) *The pronunciations ofsyllabic (), () and their
long counterparts no longer retained their pure pronunciations, but
had started to be pronounced as short and long () and (). *The
vowels e () and o () were actually realized in Vedic Sanskrit as
diphthongs and , but they became pure monophthongs and in Classical
Sanskrit. *The vowels ai () and au () were actually realized in
Vedic Sanskrit as hiatus () and (), but they became diphthongs ()
and () in Classical Sanskrit. *The ''Prtishkhyas'' claim that the
dental consonants were articulated from the root of the teeth
(''dantamlya''), but they became pure dentals later. This included
the, which later became retroflex. *Vedic Sanskrit had a pitch
accent which could even change the meaning ofthe words, and was
still in use in Panini's time, as we can infer by his use
ofdevicesto indicate its position. At some later time, this was
replaced by a stress accent limited to the second to fourth
syllables from the end. *Vedic Sanskrit often allowed two like
vowels to come together without merger during Sandhi. Prakrits: The
oldestIndo-Aryan language is Vedic Sanskrit which is attested to as
far back as 1500 B.C. It gave rise to a variety ofspoken language
known as Prakrit in about 500B.C. Prakrit means unrefined or
common, a label which the language earned because ofthe large
influence ofNon- Aryan language on it. Prakrit is generally, meant
as original, natural, artless, normal, ordinary, usual, vernacular,
language. Prakrits were the dialects of the common man, while
Sanskrit was used by learned people. It may be pointed out noted
here that Prakrits may have born out of Sanskrit, as in later days,
Apabhramsas from Sanskrit. By the middle of the first millennium
B.C. the Aryan languages of Northern India had developed into three
forms ofPrakrits. In the absence ofdefinite names were vaguely
attributed to their respective regions and later came to be
recognized as Udichya (North West), Madyadesi, and Prachiya (East).
The Imperial Gazetteer of India gives the following
information:
11. The earliest Prakrit ofwhich we have any cognizance is the
Midland vernacular during the Vedic Period. We have no record ofthe
contemporary Prakrits of the Outer Band. We may call all these
vernaculars (including the tongue of the Midland) the Primary
Prakrits of India. We have no definite information on what was the
language of the Punjab; but for the rest of India there was a
Prakrit of the Midland, the so-called Sauraseni , called after the
Sanskrit name Surasena, ofthe country round Mathura (Muttra). To
its south and east was a band of dialects - in Oudh and Baghal
khand, Ardha magadhi, and south of Ardha magadhi and Sauraseni,
Maharashtri with its head quarters in Berar. It is important to
remember that it (under the name of Saurashtri) was once the
language of Gujarat, before that country was overwhelmed by the
invasion from the Midland (ibid: 360-361) Concurrently with the
development of the Indo-Aryan vernaculars, we have Sanskrit, the
literary language of the Brahminical schools. In earlier times, its
influence was stronger in its proper home, the Midland allowing for
phonetic corruptions, the vocabulary of Sauraseni Prakrit is
practically the same as Sanskrit. Maharashtri Prakrit There were
four Prakrit languages: Magadhi, Shauraseni, Paishachi, and
Maharashtri current in north India in 5th century B.C. Shauraseni
was spoken in the province of Mathura, Agra. Maharashtri was the
language spoken by the Central divisions of the Gangetic Valley and
the adjacent provinces ofeastern Rajasthan and Malwa. Maharashtri
thus seems to have been the principal Prakrit language in North
India as it was spoken over a comparatively large area of the
country. Vararuchi, who was a famous grammarian of the Prakrit
languages, lived about 250 B.C. and wrote his famous grammar of the
Prakrit language known as the Prakriti-Prakasha. It is a book
divided into 12 chapters and the first 9 chapters ofthe book deals
with Maharashtri while the 3 chapters ofthe book are devoted to the
other three Prakrits: Paishachi, Shauraseni, and Magadhi
respectively. Vararuchi terms the Maharashtri as the Prakrit
proper. Generally, it is considered to be the best Prakrit. Most
authorities seem to agree with Woolner, however, who holds (1975:5)
that it is indeed based on the spoken language of the country of
the Godavari, and contained many features that survive as
peculiarities ofModern Marathi. (However, The Indian Antiquary
(1882: 335) terms Maharashtri as a variety of the Sauraseni) The
oldest written work in Maharashtri as known to us is Sapta-Shathi
Gatha which was probably edited by Hala about the year 60 A.D. The
earlier Maharashtri Prakrit was cultivated under the Satavahanas,
but does not seem to have been the only language. There is some
difference ofopinion as to whether it is necessary to be associated
with Maharashtra. Sukumar Sen (1960:20) writes: There is no reason
to assign Maharashtri to a fixed dialect area. According to A.
Master There are already words in the Sattasa of Hala (c.400-500
A.D.) which are peculiar to Marathi. All this shows that in the
Satavahana Kingdom a form of Prakrit called Maharashtri, became the
language ofthe court. All the dynastieswhich followed the
Satavahanas were patrons of Maharashtri. During Rashtrakuta dynasty
was written one of the most voluminous books of Maharashtri
dialect, namely the Harivamsha Purana by the court poet Pushpadanta
(a Jain monk). It was most widely used language in Western India
and Southern India from Malwa and Rajaputana in the north to
Krishna and Tungabadhra in the south and was commonly spoken till
875 A.D. Ancient Saurashtri was the language of the people of
Saurashtra. (Rashiklal B. Sukhla: 1993) - It was spoken for
centuries in the present day Marathi and Kannada speaking areas.
For
12. this reason perhaps some term it as the Prakrit of greater
(maha) kingdom (rashtri). It followed rather Vedic Sanskrit accent.
Sauraseni Prakrit In the words of Woolner, Sauraseni, the Midland
Prakrit is derived from the Old Indian dialect of Madyadesa on
which Classical Sanskrit was mainly based. (1917:3) Sauraseni
Prakrit was a spoken colloquial language around the 5th century
B.C., It originated (near) Mathura (or Surasena Mahajanapada) and
was the main language used in drama in North India. In the dramas
ladies who spoke in Sauraseni, sang their songs in Maharashtri.
This Prakrit is nearest to classical Sanskrit. Moreover, a speaker
of Sauraseni would easily learn to recognize many Sanskrit words,
and even grasp the meaning of a Sanskrit sentence without being
able to speak Sanskrit, as it follows classical Sanskrit accent. It
is supposed to be an artificial language ofprose oftheatres. The
Imperial Gazetteer of India comments: Allowing for phonetic
corruptions, the vocabulary of Sauraseni Prakrit is practically the
same as that of Sanskrit. Pali and Prakrits The period of Middle
Indo-Aryan languages or Prakrit dialects is believed to be from 5th
century B.C. to the commencement ofthe Christian era. Pali and
Prakrits were found inscribed on rocks and stones during this
period. However, the use of the Pali implying a language is not
very old. Vallabhi was the first empire in India where three
languages flourished together: Sanskrit, Prakrit (Jain) and
Pali(Buddhist). These were mainly the language of the scholars. The
special problem(s) related to Sourashtri: The speakers of this
language find a special trait in their present form of language
viz., the presence (and also predominantly) of short e and o which
are now absent in most of the modern major Indo-Aryan languages
spoken all over North India. To many among the Sourashtras it is
considered to be the influence ofthe Dravidain languages and that
too only after their entry into the Dravidian soil say after c.1300
A.D. But to the author ofthis book, it seems to be present from the
time ofthe birth of this language. Hence some sort ofdetailed study
may be undertaken to find out the truth. On use of short vowels e
and o in ancient periods-Certain facts related to the Primary
Prakrits: Scholars on Agamas and Tripitakas like Muni Shri Nagrajji
(2003) give certain hints on the Phonetic changes in Pali and
Prakrits: According to Muni Shri Nagrajji, the short vowels a e i o
u are used in Pali. So they are used in almost all the Prakritas.
If the short vowel a precedes a joint consonant in Sanskrit then in
Pali it turns into vowel e at certain places, such as , the
formation in Pali of the Sanskrit word (a bed) is and in Prakritas.
(2003:150) Prof. N.B. Divatia in his work Gujarati Language &
Literature (1993:169-72) gives some notice on the presence ofshort
e and o in Indian languages. Relevant portions are quoted below:
P170 .to take up, for a while, the Pali & Prakrit short e and
o, referred to just nowwe need not dwell on the sound long,
incidental and indirect as its connection is with our subject in
hand. Dr. Bhandarkar has, aptly and with full analysis of the
causes, pointed out in his Lectures (pp44-47):
13. (a)That in Pali as also in Prakrita a long vowel is
shortened when it is followed by a conjunct e.g.: etc., (b)When the
length ofthe vowel prevailed over the force ofthe contact ofthe
conjoined consonants the result was the dropping ofone ofthe
conjoined consonants: - , - (c)The Pali speaker could not exert the
strong pressure by forming a strong contact of the consonants
without the momentum acquired from the force and rapidity of the
preceding vowel utterances i.e.,without a short preceding vowel
they could not pronounce a double consonant. The result was:-
(1)The and preceding the consonants were shortened (2)The and u ,
preceding conjunct was changed to and the tongue being unable to
rise close enough to the palate or the lower lip so as to form and
(?) thus creating an sounds. Hence we had for and for , for etc.,
(d)That some times, even where no conjunct followed, esp., before ,
the was shortened, and to adjust the resulting lossof quantity, the
single consonant was doubled e.g., for , for etc. These phenomena,
pointed out by Dr. Bhandarkar are reflected in principle in
Hemachandras Sutras (Details not reproduced) Any reader going
through Alfred C. Woolners work Introduction to Prakrit (1917) may
notice the presence of short vowels e and o (vide pages 14, 20,
28-note2 and page 29) in Maharashtri and Sauraseni Prakrits. In
Sanskrit, the short vowels I and preceding joint consonants are
turned into e and o respectively in Pali, just as the word (a blue
lotus) in Skt., is turned to Pali Other non-Aryan elements in
Indo-Aryan languages: The Imperial Gazetteer of India observes:
Other languages have contributed their quota to I.A. vernaculars
Many words have been borrowed from Dravidian languages, generally
in a contemptuous sense. Thus the common word pilla a cub is really
a Dravidian word meaning son. While mentioning about the Dravidian
Languages, the Imperial Gazetteer comments: The Dravidian race is
widely spread over India, but all the members ofit do not speak
Dravidian languages; In the north, many of them have been
completely Aryanised, and have adopted the language of their
conquerors while they have retained their ethnic characters.
Bridget Raysmond Allchin, speaking of the chalcolithic, Jorwe
culture which flourished in Maharashtra between the mid second
millennium and the early first millennium BCE makes the following
statement: We may postulate that the original population of
agricultural settlers was Dravidian speaking, and that the changes
associated with the Jorve period coincided with the
14. arrival of immigrants from the north, speaking an I.A.
language. This language must have been the ancestors of modern
Marathi. (1982:352) Dravidian element in Gujarat: Sergent suggests
that the Dravidians formed a pre-Harappan population in Sindh and
Gujarat, and that they were overwhelmed and assimilated, not by the
invading Aryans, but by the mature-Harappan population. (Bernard
Sergent: Gense de lInde,p.52.) The picture which emergesis that ofa
multi-lingual Indus-Saraswati civilization with Dravidian as the
minor partner (possibly preserved or at -least leaving its mark in
the southern metropolis ofMohenjo Daro) who ended up getting
assimilated by the major partner, a non-Dravidian population whom
we may venture to identify as Indo-Iranian and ultimately
Indo-Aryan. Bernard Sergent argues against the Indian origin of
Dravidian. One element to consider is that the members ofthe
Dravidian family have not diverged very much from one another. The
relative closeness ofits members suggests that they started growing
apart only fairly recently: a thousand years for Tamil and
Malayalam (well-attested), perhaps three thousand for the
divergence ofNorth- from South-Dravidian. This would indicate that
Dravidian was still a single language covering a small area in the
early Harappan period, after having entered the country from the
West. That the genealogical tree ofthe Dravidian family seems to
have its trunk in the coastal West ofIndia, i.e. to the northwest
ofthe main Dravidian area, has long been recognized by scholars
ofDravidian. (A map showing this tree is given in G. John Samuel,
ed.: Encyclopedia of Tamil Literature, Institute ofAsian Studies,
Madras 1990, p-45, with reference to Kamil Zvelebil, who locatesthe
Proto-Dravidians in Iran as late as 3500 BC.) It also fits in with
the old Brahminical nomenclature, which includes Gujarat and
Maharashtra in the Pacha-DraviDa, the five Dravida areas
ofBrahminical settlement (as contrasted with Pacha-Gauda, the five
North-Indian ones). The northwestern coast was the first part of
India to be dravidianized, the wellspring ofDravidian migration to
the south, but also an area where Dravidian was gradually displaced
by Indo-Aryan though not without influencing it. Another indication
for the Dravidian presence in Gujarat is the attestation in
Gujarati Jain texts ofinter-cousin marriage, typically South-Indian
and quite non-Indo-European (Bernard Sergent: op.cited.p.51.) The
IE norm was very strict in prohibiting even distant forms
ofincest,a norm adopted by both Hinduism and Christianity. (This in
contrast with Biblical Judaism and especially with Islam: Hindu
converts to Islam were often required to prove their conversion by
eating beefand, if possible,marrying a cousin or niece; halfof the
marriages in rural Pakistan are between cousins. Note, however,
that the Zoroastrians deviated from the IE standard by also
practising marriage within the family.) Linguists had already
pointed out, and Sergent confirms, that Dravidian has left its mark
on the Sindhi, Gujarati and Marathi languages (as with the
distinction between inclusive and exclusive first person plural)
and toponymy. So, it is fairly well-established that Dravidian
culture had a presence in Gujarat while spreading to South India.
It is possible that Gujarat was a way station in a longer Dravidian
migration from further west. Whether the itinerary ofDravidian can
ultimately be traced to Sudan or thereabouts remains to be
confirmed, but Sergent already has some interesting data to offer
in support. Africans and Dravidians had common types ofround hut,
common music instruments, common forms ofsnake worship and tree
worship. Thus, a South-Indian board game pallankuli closely
resemblesthe African game mancalal; varieties ofthe game are
attested in Pharaonic Egypt and in a pre- Christian monastery in
Sri Lanka. (Bernard Sergent: op.cited.p.59). Section-II
Sourashtrithe language of the Sourashtras of Tamilnadu and its
source languages:
15. The origin of the *Sourashtras of Tamil Nadu is to be
arrived at on the basis of the linguistic history ofthe language
spoken by these people viz., *Sourashtri (i.e., the modified form
of the ancient language of the people of the land of the
Saurashtras). *Saurashtri, the ancient language spoken in
pre-Gujarati period is now extinct and out of use in the land of
modern *Saurashtra (Gujarat). Their exact origin or the original
home has not been conclusively determined or located so far. But,
as these people still remember their immediate past home, there
cannot be any doubt about their original region/area being the
ancient land of Saurashtra or modern Gujarat. This is further
confirmed by these people who call themselves only by the term
Sourashtras. However since their language has a lot ofMarathi
vocabulary, some Marathi scholars raise a doubt and prefer to
locate their home or guessas to their very long period of stay,
somewhere in the land of Maharashtra. The truth may be brought to
light if one analyses the linguistic evolution of Gujarati and
Marathi. Saurashtra -the land of the modern Gujarati language
According to Prof. Rashiklal B. Sukhla ofSaurashtra University
(1993:15) perhaps quoting from H.D. Sankalia, comments If any part
of India to be considered Aryanised earliest on the strength
ofepigraphic evidence alone, it would be Gujarat, more strictly,
Saurashtra. The Aryans were the first to occupy the Dravidian
Gujarat. They poured in from the north. They either conquered the
original inhabitants and converted them to their religion (Kolis)
or drove them forth (The Bhils) to the surrounding hills and
forests. The early Aryan settlements in Gujarat appear to have been
chiefly along the coast at Dwaraka, Somnath Patan, Kodinaror
Mula-Dwaraka, Broach and Surparaka or Sopara. Aryans poured into
Gujarat after Krishna settled at Dwaraka, the capital of Anarta,
(after leaving Mathura, for some reason or other). There is
evidence to show that Aryan tribe called Sau occupied the entire
coastfrom Sind to Bombay (M.R. Majumdar: 1965:50).There is every
reason to believe that their original language was Saurashtri. The
term Gujarati referring to a modern Indo Aryan language simply
refers to the language spoken by the people living in the modern
linguistic state ofGujarat. It is well known that in ancient days
this area was known by such terms as Anartha, Saurashtra, and Lata
(South Gujarat). It may be presumed that these people now living in
the south never knew or were not aware of the name or term Gujarat,
as they might have left it a very long back before this area got
this newterm viz., Gujarat. Hence the Sourashtras ofTamilnadu dont
use the term Gujarati as the name of their tongue. As we have
noticed earlier at least two waves of Aryans came and occupied
Saurashtra (Gujarat). The first or earlier people are considered to
belong to the Outer Band of Aryans. Saurashtri was the language of
Gujarat before that country was overwhelmed by the invasion
(immigration?) from the Midland. Subsequently it seems to have
become a dialect of Maharastri Prakrit, under the caption
Saurashtri dialect of Maharashtri Prakrit. The Imperial Gazetteer
of India (1909:1:368) gives the following: Gujarat is bounded on
the west by the Indian desert beyond which we find Sindhi, one of
the Outer Languages, but to the south we enter easily into Gujarat.
Gujarati, the language of this country, is the most western ofthose
over which the language ofthe Midland exercises sway, and at its
base we can see distinct traces of the old Saurashtri dialect which
belonged to the Outer Band.
16. The Bhils and the inhabitants of Khandesi speak mixed form
of speech which is a dialect of Gujarati Origin of Marathi: The
same Gazetteer (pp372-73) gives the following comment on the origin
of Marathi: South of Sindhi, the Outer Band of I.A. vernaculars is
interrupted by Gujarati, the intermediate language which has
reached the sea-board South of Gujarat; extending from near Daman
along the coast of Arabian Sea to beyond Goa, we come to the great
daughter of Maharashtri Prakrit, the southern I.A. language,
Marathi. The Saurashtri dialect of Maharashtri Prakrit, once
covered Gujarat, but has been superseded by the Midland language.
We find however, traces ofSaurashtri, not only in Gujarat, but
probably also right down to the coast, as far as modern Marathi
extends. In Bombay Presidency Marathi covers the North of Deccan
plateau and the strip of country between the Ghats and the Arabian
Sea. It is also the language ofBerar and a good portion of the
north west ofthe Nizams Dominions. It stretches across the south of
the Central Province, (except a small portion of the extreme south,
in which the Telugu is the language), and in a very corrupt form,
occupies most ofthe State of Bastar. Here it merges into Oriya,
through the Bhatri dialect of that languageIn this way we find
Marathi in the Central Province, Berar, and Bombay; and to the east
Oriya, Bengali, and Assamese,all ofthem true Outer languages
unaffected in their essence by the speech of the Midland(ibid:
p359) Maharashtri Prakrit: Incidentally it will be appropriate here
to mention something more about Maharashtri Prakrit in addition to
what has been mentioned in the earlier part of this chapter. K.M.
Munshi, however citing various authorities, says that the ancestor
of Marathi was further north in Asokas day, was pushed south by the
ancestor ofGujarati, and was not in case the prevailing language of
present-day Maharashtra, which until at least the ninth century was
Kannada. This, he notes, explains the influence of both Maharashtri
and Kannada on Gujarati. He reminds us that Gujarat itself(to say
nothing ofMaharashtra) is for some purposes(e.g. traditional
classification of Brahmanas into Pancha Gauda and Panch Dravida
orders) in the Dravida column. It is generally accepted that the
Marathi language is derived from Sanskrit, but the exact language
from which it originated is a matter of debate.
Sanskrit>Maharashtri Prakrit>Marathi is one sort of
explanation, supported by Grierson and C.V. Vadiya. That Marathi
language had its origin in Maharashtri Prakrit was a view accepted
for a long time. But the recent publications of texts composed
ofJain Maharashtri Apabhramsa language have made available a
missing link in the historical background of Marathi. Sauraseni
Prakrit: Sauraseni Prakrit was a spoken colloquial language around
the 5th century B.C. It originated (near)/in Mathura (or Surasena
Mahajanapada) and was the main language used in drama in North
India. In the dramas ladies who spoke in Sauraseni, sing their
songs in Maharashtri. This Prakrit is nearest to classical
Sanskrit. Moreover, a speaker of Sauraseni would easily learn to
recognize many Sanskrit words, and even grasp the meaning of a
Sanskrit sentence without being able to speak Sanskrit, as it
follows classical Sanskrit accent. It is supposed to be an
artificial language of prose oftheatres. The Imperial Gazetteer of
India comments Allowing for phonetic corruptions, the vocabulary of
Sauraseni Prakrit is practically the same as that of Sanskrit.
17. The importance ofSauraseni will be understood by a modern
scholar if he knows the fact that modern languages such as
Gujarati, Punjabi, Hindi etc., ofthe western India have sprung from
this Prakrit. Apabrhamsas: Time, distance, sex, caste, history,
neighbourhood and various factors which slowly but surely
transforms a language, and the changed forms are called the
Apabhramsas. But in course of time the Apabhramsas gather strength
and change the original language beyond recognition, though the
change is slight from day to day. According to Pichels Prakrit
Grammar (1999:55), each of them (Apabhramsas like Souraseni
Apabhramsa , Maharashtra Apabhramsa etc.,) was originally the
popular speech of the country with whose name it was connected, and
is the mother of modern language of the same tract. According to K.
Ayyappapanikker (1997:90), Apabhramsa is considered to have evolved
from Prakrit under the impact of the local dialects. Prof. S.K.
Chatterji, while writing on Sauraseni Apabhramsa says: Sauraseni,
the standard Prakrit of the drama, developed in the second M.I.A.
stage (200-600 A.D.) and in the third stage (600-1000 A.D.)
Apabhramsas developed. The literary language namely the western or
Sauraseni Apabhramsa based on the Midland speech is in a later
stage than Sauraseni Prakrit. In the History and culture of Indian
people (vol.6:351) it is stated The Apabhramsa represents an
important stage in the development of Indo-Aryan language-a stage
in which the Prakrit die and out of which the Bhasha or vernaculars
are born Already during the period A.D. 750-1000 A.D.the western or
Sauraseni Apabhramsa came into use as a Pan Indo-Aryan literary
speech binding together the spoken provincial dialects. The origin
ofGujarati: Gujarat under Gurjara rule: (c 550- 720 A.D.) Under the
rule ofthe Gurjaras, the people (ofGujarat) were not Gurjara by
descend, being totally different in character and features from
Gurjaras of the north; yet this country has received the name of
Gujarat simply because a Gurjara dynasty ruled from about
550-720A.D. They have left their name supplanting the older names
such as Anarta, Lata etc. Gurjars, who according to P. Masica
(1991:43) possibly of non-Aryan Central Asian origin have probably
also left their language impressed on the people and hence the name
is. The language is undoubtedly northern, Gujarati being more akin
to Sauraseni than to Maharashtri. Yet originally Maharashtri seems
to have been once predominant in Gujarat. Under Trikuta rule that
language must have impressed itself upon the people, the written
characters and era were certainly theirs. In Kathiawar and Gujarat
the Jains used the Maharashtri for their sacred writings and they
still use it. This fact can only be explained by believing that the
language of the common people was then Maharashtri or some form
akin to it. The name and the language of Gujarat thus date from 8th
century A. D. though there is a point which is disputed by many
Gujarati scholars. Evolution of Gujarati: Encyclopaedia Britannica,
(1911:Vol.12: 710) writes:
18. The old outer Prakrit of north Gujarat was known as
Saurashtri and while the Prakrit of the Midland invaders was
Sauraseni and Gujarati is an intermediate language derived from a
mixture of the Apabhramsa forms of Saurashtri and Sauraseni.
(Gujarati is the daughter of Saurashtri?) From the sixth to tenth
century the spoken language of Gujarat was mainly Apabhramsa in its
different forms, which developed considerably during the sixth and
seventh centuries in which the Braj bhasa prevails now and though
it may also be that some of the other Prakrits may also have been
spoken in Gujarat, these have left no traces on Gujarati language
that developed thereafter (N. B. Divatia: 1993 :vol.1:40) .
Hemachandra wrote in Sanskrit as well as in Apabhramsa (ibid: 33).
And between the twelfth and fifteenth century, one single widely
extensive language called the latest Apabhramsa termed by Mr.
Divatia, (ibid: 40) and Old Gujarati or Apabhramsa by Diwan Bhadur
K.H. Dhruva, and was used all over modern Gujarat and Rajasthan. K.
Ayyappapnikkar (1997) has given the following account on the origin
of Gujarati: Gujarati- the language of the people of Gujarat
evolved from Prakrit and Apabhramsa. Apabhramsa is considered to
have evolved from Prakrit under the impact of the Abhir and other
communities ofthe western parts ofIndia.We can trace the origin of
Gujarati language from 10th to 12th centuries.At that time Gurjars
were residing and ruling from Punjab, Rajasthan and Central India
and various parts of Gujarat. Gujarat then included Gujarat,
Rajasthan and Malwa. We can say that from the language once spoken
from Dwaraka to Mathura evolved Gujarati and Rajasthani. Tessitori
names that language as Old Western Rajasthani. Other Gujarati
scholars like K. H. Dhruva and N. B. Divatia name that language Old
Gujarati and Gurjar Apabhramsa respectively. Uma Shankar Joshi
names it Maru gurjar. Of course these names are given in modern
times. At that time (in the past), Rajasthan did not exist. As a
matter of fact Western Rajasthan and North Gujarat together were
known as Gujaratta. Both had a common language with some
dialectical differences. Rajasthani under other influences came
into its own in this region. Old Gujarati was also dubbed as Old
Western Rajasthani by the Italian scholar Tessitori, because the
language was in his days used in an area including part of what is
now the state of Rajasthan. In this connection one may take notice
of the observations of The Imperial Gazetteer of India
(vol.1:1909:367-369) which runs as follow: Turning to intermediate
languages, we first deal with Rajasthani in which the language of
the Midland is the prominent feature. Rajasthani and Gujarati maybe
considered together, as representing the flow of the inhabitants of
the Midland to the southwest to meet the sea. Rajaputana, in which
Rajasthani is spoken, is divided into many states and many tribes.
Each claim to have a language ofits own, but all these are really
dialects of one and the same form of speech. They fall into four
groups: a northern, a southern, an eastern, and a westernMalvi, the
main dialect of southern Rajaputana, is spoken in MalwaThe western
dialect Marwari is by far the most important. It is the most
typical of the Rajasthani dialects. Other offshoots of Rajasthani
are Gujar, the language ofthe Gujars wandering with their herds
over the mountains of Kashmir and Swat valley; and Labhani, spoken
by the Labhanas or Banjaras , the great carrying tribe of Central
and Western India. There are numerous Gujars in the plains ofthe
Punjab, where they have given their names to two Districts but
these nowadays speak ordinary Punjabi.
19. Marwar is bounded on the west by the Indian desert, beyond
which we find Sindhi, one of the outer languages, but to the west,
we enter easily into Gujarat. Gujarati, the language of this
country, is the most western ofthese over which the language of the
Midland excises sway, and at its base we can see distinct trace of
the old Saurashtri Prakrit, which belonged to the outer band.
Gujarati language abounds in Sanskrit words (tat-sama) and the
words derived from Sanskrit (tat-bhava).There are many words from
the language of the early settlers and from the language ofalien
Gurjaras, whose origin is difficult to trace. There are many loan
words accepted by Gujarati from sister languages in India like
Hindi, Marathi, Bengali, Urdu, and Kannada. Modern Gujarati has
incorporated several foreign words like Persian, Arabic, Portuguese
and English. Since Gujarati was born and bred during the period
ofthe Muslim rule, Persian and Arabic words have, from the very
beginning, formed a part of its vocabulary (Gujarat State
Gazetteer: 360) The four main dialects of Gujarati Gujarati
language has four main dialects spoken in different regions. (a)The
dialect ofSouth Gujarat-Surat (b) The dialect ofCentral
Gujarat-Charotari (c) The dialect of North Gujarat-Pattan (d) The
dialect ofSaurashtra- Saurashtri. The Saurashtri dialect has four
sub dialects: Jhalwadi, Gohilwadi , Sorathi, and Halari. The Kutchi
dialect ofKutch is not a dialect ofGujarati but of Sindhi. From the
Apabhramsa of Sauraseni are derived Punjabi, Western Hindi,
Rajasthani and Gujarati. The only literary Apabhramsa described in
detail by the grammarian Hemachandra (1087 1172 A.D.)is the Nagara
Apabh ramsa, and is closely connected to Sauraseni and so named
after the Nagara Brahmins of that locality (in North Gujarat).
Stage 3: Stay in South Gujarat/Lata The Lata dialect: Our
discussion on the language of ancient Saurashtra will be incomplete
unless we give some references on certain dialects that prevailed
in South Gujarat. The Thana District Gazetteer under Language gives
the following information: The Arab writers of the tenth and
eleventh centuries noticed that the people ofnorth Konkan spoke a
special dialect known as Ladavi, that is the dialect of Lar, which
at that time meant the country between Broach and Chaul. It seems
that this was Gujarati, trade language of the coast town as it
still is of Bombay. The region ofLar referred to here is the same
Lar province of Marco Polo mentioned in his Travels in West India.
Also it may be pointed out that Lar is the other name for Lata.
(Marco Polos account on Lar Brahmins has been mentioned in some
detail elsewhere in our present work). Inscriptions make mention of
Brahmins acquainted with the Karnata Lata, Dravida and other
languages of many countries (E.C. V: 130) Udyotana in his
Kuvalayamala (A.D.779) refers to distinct dialects of merchants
hailing from Madya desa, Sindhu, Malwa, Gujarat, and Lata
etc.,
20. Rajasekara in his Kavyamimamsa says, the people of Lata
spoke a kind of Prakrit and named it as Lattabham or Lattagam. The
instance cited do indeed contains a large number of Aspirate (a
special linguistic feature of the modern Sourashtri of south
India)-. In the fifteenth century Markandeya, a Prakrit grammarian
has enumerated twenty seven Apabhramsa languages in his Prakrit
Sarvasa. The list given by him includes Vrachandra, Lata, Dravida,
Gaurjar etc., It is possible that the reference to Dravida
Apabhramsa, might be pertained to Sourashtri or some such Aryan
language spoken in the south. Rudrata also refers to Dravida
Apabhramsa. Section-III Stage 4: Sourashtri as spoken in South
India today: Certain observations on Sourashtri: With this above
account in outline, on the general history on certain I.A.
languages related to our present study, which includes the
migratory aspects ofthe Sourashtras ofTamilnadu, we will now render
hereunder briefaccount on Sourashtri as well as the views expressed
by some modern scholars and authors on it . The problem of
nomenclature and classification: Generally, it has been termed by
the British officials as Surati or Patnuli, on the basis of the
supposed place of their origin. These terms might have used just as
a device to make it known by some name. Subsequently the members of
this linguistic group termed it as Sourashtra(m) on the basis of
their traditional belief that they came from the land of Saurashtra
or Saurashtra Des, as they usually call it. In due course of time,
their tradition as to their original home became more definite and
two theories came into existence. According to one theory, they
migrated from Somnath in Gujarat (ancient Saurashtra) and the other
one fixing it at Devagiri as the original habitat or land of the
Sourashtras. Corollary to these theories there emerged two popular
classifications ofthis language-one as a dialect of Gujarati and
the other as a dialect of Marathi. (However, A. Master terms it as
an independent language). This language (wrongly described as a
dialect} is generally termed by officials, who compiled District
Gazetteers and Manuals, as well by Census officials as *Surati
(Nelson: 1850) or Patnuli, on the basis of their traditional craft
of silk weaving, (Pattu=Silk, Nul=thread) i.e., the language of
silk weavers. (Anyone involved in silk weaving?) The Linguistic
Survey ofIndia (LSI) gives the following account on the language
spoken by these people under present study: Patnuli, also called
Sourashtri, (or the language ofSurat)and Khatri is the language of
the silk weavers of Deccan and Madras.The Linguistic Survey doesnot
extend to Madras presidency and have no figures for or specimen of
Patnuli have been received from that province or Mysore. On the
other hand 6550 speakers of Patwegari also a dialect employed by
Silk weavers,have been returned from Belgaum, Dharwar, and Bijapur.
Specimens have been received from all these districts and on
examination of them shows that Patwegari of Bijapur is simply
corrupt Marathi, while that of Belgaum and Dharwar is
Patnuli..Patnuli is merely ordinary Gujarati and does not require
special examination which it is practically impossible to give
Specimen of Patnuli (or Patwegari) have been received, it is
ordinary Gujarati. No specimens are available of Madras Patnuli,
but it too according to the Census Reports is also of the standard
Gujarati
21. In the Census ofIndia (1891:322) under Gujarati is found:
.One remarkable offshoot of Gujarati is found in the Patnuli or
Sourashtri dialect of the Silk weavers of the Deccan and Madras. In
the same work we find (Chapter VIII: 275) Khatri is also the
language of a weaver caste which is, quite different from the
Patnul caste. *Fn: (Surat is in south Gujarat and covers the
ancient region of Lata. As we have noted earlier, Surati is the
dialect spoken in South Gujarat) However Mr. Edgar Thurston in his
Caste and Tribes of Southern India (vol. 6:160) we find: The
Patnulkarans are.a caste of foreign silk weavers found in all the
Tamil districts, but mainly in Madurai town, who speak Patnuli or
K=hatriI, a dialect of Gujarati. In G. A. Griersons account on
Patnoli in his Linguistic Survey of India, Volume IX-Pt. ii, under
I.A. Family Central Group Rajasthani-Gujarati we find: the language
of the Surat called also as Saurashtri . Defects of the L.S.I. in
describing the language of the Sourashtras of Tamilnadu: The grave
mistake or wrong notion held by the officials of the L.S.I. will be
exposed to the readers if they come to understand the following
facts or information requiring a deep enquiry or analysis. (1)
Sourashtri is the same Saurashtri Prakrit or the Saurashtri dialect
of Maharashtri Prakrit which was in vogue in ancient land of
Saurashtra till 800 A.D., of course, having undergone a lot of
changes due to the oft migrating necessity of its speakers viz.,
the Sourashtras. It is pre-Gujarati and in fact Gujarati is born
out of Saurashtri. (2) There is no mutual intelligibility between
the Saurashtras living in North India and Sourashtras living in the
south. Prof. T. P. Meenakshisundaram a renowned Tamil scholar,a
Linguist and former Vice-Chancellor, M.K. University, Madurai
(Tamil nadu) observed: I dont think any Gujarati speaker today can
identify Sourashtri as Gujarati. (3) The Khatris ofTamil Nadu, even
though till recently called themselves as Patnulkaran or
Saurashtras (as the caste bearing the term Saurashtras also were
termed by the Tamils as Patnulkaran), informed or requested their
kinsmen to call themselves as members of the S.S.K Samaj or to
knowthat they all belonged to Khsatriya group whereas the other
group claimed to be Brahmins. What they wanted to inform their
people is that they are a different people speaking a different
language known as Khatri as against the other group (Brahmins),
speaking a language which is popularly termed as Sourashtri. (4)
There is no unanimity among scholars as to the origin ofthese
people. Scholars like Kaka Kalelkar (J.G.R.S.1954)opine that these
people are Marathi in origin. According to him I found no evidence
to prove that the Saurashtra community came from Kathiawar except
for the fact that the community calls itself Sourashtra Brahmins.
The best evidence one could have in this regard must be from the
language. I found no words in their language which were peculiar to
Gujarati. The Sourashtra language is full of words from the north,
Hindi, Marathi, and Gujarati-all the three language group would
thus call Saurashtra language as its branchI dont to mean to
suggest that the Saurashtra community did not originally come from
Kathiawar. All I suggest is that there are few traces in the
Sourashtra language to prove that it has any direct connection with
the Gujarati language. On the other hand there are large number of
words in the Saurashtra language which could claim to be peculiar
to Marathi..I therefore surmised that community might have
originally started from Saurashtra or Kathiawar. Then it must have
migrated to
22. Maharashtra and stayed there for such a long time that they
lost all traces of Gujarati language and got rooted in Maharashtra
and the Marathi language (5) According to H.N. Randle (1949) It
(the language they brought from Lata or South Gujarat) certainly
appears to belong to the Gujarati-Rajasthani linguistic type..but
it is not possible to regard it as dialect of Gujarati..the
infiltration of Dravidian Syntax is a deep influence it remains
true that Sourashtram is through and thorough an Indo- Aryan
language. At this juncture it will not be out of place to point out
the view that from Mr. Jeyaprakash Lad N.D.s article in Deccan
Herald dt.14.8.2005 and a personal interview with him at Bangalore
on it is understood that the Lads(people from Lata) spoke a dialect
called Chaurasi and it is very similar to Saurashtri (esp. in
Vocabulary)* According to the Anthropological Survey of India, on
Karnataka (Vol.26:2003:57), Ladar from Lata-Kshatriyas- Sourashtri
was the mother tongue of Ladar merchant class. Ladars are
distributed in Mysore, Tumkur, Chitradurga, Chickamagalore and
Dharwa(d)r district. (6) The Sourashtras of Tamil Nadu, speaking a
language peculiar to themselves only, are not found anywhere in
India north of Tirupathy except those found in Bangalore who were
brought there from Tanjore (T.N) by Hyder Ali and Tipu sultan
during their invasion over Tamil Nadu. (7) A number of modern
scholars find some sort ofconnection between Sourashtri and a few
other modern Indo Aryan languages or dialects. Dr. Shanti bhai
Acharya of Zamnagar observes: After reading the Saurashtra-English
Dictionary I felt that most of its entries are present in my
dialect (Halari)-spoken in todays Saurashtra. I examined in this
regard a few Marathi dialects and found that in Kudali, spoken in
Ratnagiri district many words are common with Saurashtra dialect
(8) Some Professors at Surat whom the author happened to meet and
discuss on about the linguistic aspects ofSourashtri commented that
they infered some sort of resemblance between Sourashtri and
Ahirani & Dangii (9) Dr. I. R. Dave Prof. and Head
ofDepartment-Gujarati, Saurashtra University, Rajkot, has held that
one can get the pure form of the Saurashtri language ( probably
spoken by them when they migrated from the land of Saurashtra) if
all sorts of Dravidian elements (esp. vocabulary) are eliminated
from their modern spoken language.(However, he seems to be
motivated by a desire to establish the traditional theory on Origin
and Migration without taking any pains to verify them
scientifically). But his mentioning ofthe fact that the speech of
the people living along the coastal regions or interior parts
ofGujarat has some sort ofconnection with the speech of the
Sourashtras of Tamil Nadu hints at the Outer Band theory. Dr.
Shanttibhai Acharya has pointed out the drawback of Dr. I. R. Daves
work in the same review (referred to above) in the following words:
As we learn from the preface, the main source of this dictionary
(Dr. Ucidos) are O. S .Subramanians hand written Saurashtra
glossary, I. R. Daves Dakhsina Bharatne Saurastrio: Emani
Saurashtra Bhasa (referred to as D.S.) and the authors own
collection. Though aware ofthe unscientificness ofthe other two
collections, as their sources are not known, the author has used
them in the hope of finding their sources in future. I should note
that many words given from D.S do not seem to be Saurashtri words.
As the author is methodical he has separated such words by affixing
symbols to them. Yet the entries from this book remain a weak point
of this dictionary.
23. (10) According to A. Master Sourashtri does not belong to
the Gujarathi-Rajasthani group, but An independent Indo-Aryan
language. This information we get from Appendix to Chapter VI on
Saurashtri script in the work of David Diringer (1948) wherein it
is stated as: However Mr. A. Master of the London School of
Oriental and African Studies does not think (according to the
personal information he gave me) that Saurashtri belongs to the
Gujarati-Rajasthani group but should be considered as an
independent Indo-Aryan language. The author of this work is
convinced of the views of Mr. A. Master. The following additional
arguments can be adduced to confirm the views of Dr. A. Master
treating Sourashtri as an independent language. (1) The language as
spoken by these people are not spoken in any other parts of India
north of Tirupati, (except in Bangalore). In this case it is
mentioned in Govt. records that Hyder Ali took a few families
belonging to these people from Tanjore to Seringappatanam in 18th
century. (2) There is no mutual intelligibility in the language
between the Saurashtri of North and the Sourashtri of South India.
Moreover, Saurashtri is almost akin to Gujarati whereas Sourashtri
reflects (and recollects one) the language of yore. (3) There are a
number of Dravidian features in their cultural traits some
reflecting the features of the Harappan Culture. (4) The linguistic
history ofSourashtri clearly points out to the fact that it is the
descendent or the same with certain modifications or external
influences of the ancient Sourashtri dialect of Maharashtri Prakrit
which was in vogue till 800 A.D. in northern India. Certain special
ancient sounds are available in this language which cant be
presented properly by any modern Indian, phonetically, as they are
probably absent in the modern Indo Aryan languages, attest to this
claim. e.g.: the word for curd- the one mentioned by Panini In
respect of the Saurashtra women selling curd by pronouncing a word
which is maintained by these people even till this day. In other
words these people have not forgotten the word used as early as in
500- 400 B.C. The evolution of Sourashtri- An attempt at an
historical perspective: The Patnulkaran or Sourashtrians of Tamil
Nadu can be identified beyond doubt solely by the language they
speak.Incidentally their language happens to be the chief and
reliable aspect of their cultural trait which unfailingly reflects
their identity and the migratory nature of this community as ..it
has taken the colour ofthe countries through which the caste has
passed (Sir. A. Bains: Census 1891) However, no linguist has, so
far, thoroughly and conclusively analyzed the historical
linguistics of this language so as to determine its antiquity and
historical evolution through the centuries. Yet, some scholars have
made efforts to study this language linguistically and have
furnished some tentative findings. On the basis oftheir findings,
an attempt can be made tentatively to reconstruct the past of its
speakers especially in fixing their earlier home immediately before
their coming to the Tamil soil. Right from the time of Mr. Nelsons
observation for the first time in 1850-51 on the peculiar language
spoken by the Sourashtras ofTamil Nadu and terming it as Surati, no
linguist has studied, so far, this language, systematically and in
great detail, but for the preliminary attempts or studies by a few
scholars like Dr. H. N. Randle, Dr. I.R. Dave, A. Master and Dr.
Ucida Norihico. The reason seems to be lack of interest and/or
Ability among the members belonging to this caste or community even
though some ofthem are very well educated in the field
24. of Indo-Aryan languages such as Hindi and Sanskrit as well
the Dravidian language of the area viz., Tamil. It was a foreigner,
Mr. Nelson, to be the first man to say something on the
nomenclature of the language ofthese people. Perhaps he might have
come across the term Sorath which stood for Saurashtra the original
home ofthese people. This should have led him to identify these
people as Silk weavers of Guzerat and connect their language with
Surat -the famous textile centre (including the weaving of
Silk)-ever since the earliest days of Indian History and term their
language as Surati. However, there arose another problem
simultaneously viz., terming their caste name. The Tamil society
termed them as Patnulkaran-for the simple reason that these people
excelled in the art of silk weaving- but they (the Tamils) did not
pay any attention to term their language. The British
administrators of the erstwhile Madras presidency who happened to
come across a few silk weaving castes or communities of northern
origin, when they wanted to give a name to the language ofthese
people, who could not understand the differencesamong the tongues
of the people belonging to various groups simply termed it as
Patnuli or Khatri following a simple logic that it is the language
ofsilk weavers belonging to the various groups. They could not
understand in those days that there were two groups ofsilk weavers
of northern origin living in Tamil Nadu viz., the Khatris and the
Sourashtra, the former belong to the Kshatriya group and the latter
to the Brahmin group. Unaware of this simple historical fact all
the subsequent Govt., officials such as the compilers of Census
Reports, District Manuals etc., including the Linguistic Survey of
India continued to use the same term i.e., Patnuli or Patnoli. It
was Dr. H.N. Randle, who under the guidance of one Ku. Ve.
PadmanabaIyer a Sourashtra from Madurai initiated the process of
studying or analyzing systematically the history of these people.
His account on these people entitled The Saurashtrans of South
India was published in the Journal ofthe Royal Asiatic Society,
London, in October 1944 and the same was published in a book form,
in 1949 by the Sourashtra Viprabandhu Ku. Ve. Padmanabaiyer (from
Madurai) . This was followed by his study on the language of these
pe ople. His research article entitled An Indo-Aryan Language of
south India: Saurashtrabhasa published in the Bulletin of the
School of Oriental and African Studies, 1943-46, Vol. XI.
(pp104-121) can be considered as the pioneer attempt in the field
of linguistics to study this language. The next scholarly work on
the language and culture of these people entitled The Saurashtrians
in South India was brought out by Dr. I.R. Dave, Professor and Head
of the Department of Gujarati, and published by the Saurashtra
University, Rajkot, in 1976. As per the information received by the
author ofthis Dr. Dave stayed at Madurai for a month or two, and
was assisted by a group of enthusiastic members of Madurai
Saurashtras. (It is a great pity that every scholar thought that
Sourashtras meant Sourashtras of Madurai only. It is absolutely a
wrong notion. Actually, Sourashtras at Trichy, Pudukkottai,
Tanjore, Kumbakonam, Salem, Paramakudy, Palayamkottai, Kancheepuram
and Walajapet too are as important as the Madurai people are, for
any study on the language, history and culture of these people.
Next to him, Dr. Ucida Norihiko visited Tamil Nadu several times,
and stayed on this soil months together to study Sourashtra
language and its culture and visited many parts of Tami Nadu and
published his research findings. As Mr.Ku.Ve.Padmanabaiyer guided
Dr. H. N. Randle, Mr. O. S. Subramanian of Madurai, who has
dedicated himself for the development of Sourashtri and its script,
guided Uchida Norihiko. Dr. Uchida differs from other scholars in
the sense that he could converse with a Saurashtra in Sourashtri
itself. His work A SaurashtraEnglish Dictionary is noteworthy. He
has also brought out a work on Tirupathy dialect ofthese people,
following the
25. principles of linguistic methodology. His works will be
guiding future scholars in the field of linguistic study on
Saurashtri. Now, the present author of this book being only a
scholar in history, by virtue of his qualification could not
directly enter into the field of linguistics in detail or study or
analyze the linguistic features ofSourashtri in its strict sense.
But,an attempt to trace the evolutionary aspects of this language
in a historical perspective has become a necessity for him as a
tool for his study. Evolution of Sourashtri-the language of the
Sourashtras of southern India in the perspective of the author of
this work on the basis of various findings by other scholars:
Though no specific, systematic and detailed analytical study on the
evolutionary aspects of this language has so far been undertaken by
any linguist, Prof. I. R. Daves observations on the possible
evolution ofthe language spoken by the Sourashtras ofTamil Nadu as
given in his account on these people (about which mention has been
made in the early part of this chapter) will be of some sort ofuse
to future linguists who may undertake a detailed and full analysis
of this language. The following are some of the observations of Dr.
I. R. Dave: 1. The language which was brought by the Saurashtrians
from the land of Saurashtra in the eleventh century was called by
them Sourashtra. But really speaking, it was the language spoken in
Saurashtra, which had evolved from Souraseni Apabhramsa and was
spoken with some modifications in Gujarat as well as Rajasthan. 2.
There are various stages ofevolution such as Sanskrit>
Prakrit> Apabhramsa> Old Gujarati> Gujarati (modern); here
in sometimesthe intermediary stage which may be missing in the
evolution ofGujarati is found in Sourashtri. Words and forms of
Apabhramsa or Old Gujarati are found in Sourashtri; and more over
the intermediary stagesofevolution which are not found in Gujarati
words are found in Saurashtri words. 3. As the Sourashtri language
has been evolved from the Sauraseni Apabhramsa which itself is
evolved from Sanskrit (via Prakrit) in the vocabulary of
Sourashtri, many Sanskrit words are found in usage. It is but
natural that the grammar of Saurashtri is influenced by that of
Sanskrit. 4. Sourashtri is related in some way or other to
Sanskrit, Hindi, Rajasthani, Souraseni apabrhamsa, Old Gujarati,
the language spoken in the modern areas ofSaurashtra (Gujarat),
Gujarathi, Marathi, Sanskrit, Kannada, Telugu, and Tamil.
Particularly in the later stage, the influence ofMarathi, Telugu,
and Tamil is considerable in the modern Sourashtri ofthe southern
Sourashtras. Since, Dr. Dave has made use of the Sourashtri
literature available in this community, as well had done a
considerable field work, his observations are noteworthy to any
scholar. His analysis has made it clear that the language ofthe
Sourashtras of Tamil Nadu is more antique than it is normally
believed it to be. A still more detailed and deeper analysis may
lead any sincere researcher to trace its antiquity to even Vedic
times. He upholds the findings of Dr. H. N. Randle labeling this
language as belonging to the Gujarati- Rajasthani group. Dr. Dave
(1976:105) remarks Dr. Randle accepts its re semblance with
Gujarati, in a casual form and passive constructions. According to
him, in terminations it has lesser resemblance with Gujarati and
the basic vocabulary of Sourashtri is predominantly Marathi. Taking
this into
26. consideration, he does not believe that it is a mere
dialect of Gujarati language. He shows the connection of Sourashtri
with the central linguistic group: Following are the remarks of H.
N. Randle on Sourashtri: The language they brought from Lata or
Saurashtra may therefore have come successively under the influence
offirst and for a very long time, of Rajasthani form of speech, and
then of Marathi, Telugu and Tamil. It certainly appears to belong
to the Gujarati-Rajasthani linguistic type: but although it has
some forms such as a causative in d- and passive in a-(aa) which
connect it specially with Gujarati, its inflections are not those
of Gujarati, and its basic vocabulary is predominantly Marathi. For
this reason it is not possible to regard it as a dialect of
Gujarati the infiltration of Dravidian syntax is a deep
influence.it remains true that Saurashtram is, through and through,
an Indo-Aryan language. (Dr. Randle: 1943:327) There is also a
difference of opinion on the origin of Sourashtri. While most
scholars agree on its Gujarati origin, some Marathi scholars prefer
to connect it with Marathi. In this connection, Dr. Dave comments:
There is no doubt that the influence of Marathi language and social
life on the Saurashtra language and society is considerable. If
linguistic experts who can impartially investigate the structure of
the language come to a conclusion that the Sourashtri is a dialect
ofMarathi, there is no need ofjoy or grief. But, the analysis of
the Sourashtra language will show that this language is basically
an off-shoot of the Souraseni spoken Saurashtra and Gujarat.
(1976:127) Dravidian elements i