Talk:Dravidian languages

Moving Tamil_phonology#Changes_from_Proto_Dravidian_to_Standard_Tamil to here and South_Dravidian_languages

That section has general info about Dravidian than anything specifically Tamil AleksiB 1945 (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Could you please clarify?

@AleksiB 1945: I do not understand the following (which you added):

"The Sindhi version or Gilli Danda uses Teluguoid like numerals doe counting [numeral list]."

Perhaps there are misprints; but even if I read "doe" as "do", I don't get it. Or, perhaps, since you compared with some British specific sheep counting numerals, this also refers to cattle counting? If so, what species of doe did you mean? She-goats?? Regards, JoergenB (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

It was for, fixed it now. AleksiB 1945 (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Contradiction and incorrect wording

The article contradicts itself on whether Tamil has a voicing contrast or not. On the one hand, it states 'At one extreme, Tamil, like Proto-Dravidian, does not phonemically distinguish between voiced and voiceless or unaspirated and aspirated sounds, even in formal speech; in fact, the Tamil alphabet lacks symbols for voiced and aspirated stops'. On the other, it states 'All non-Tamil-Malayalam languages (including modern spoken Tamil) developed a voicing distinction for plosives.' Unless the second sentence is intended to mean 'all languages except those of the Tamil-Malayalam group (which includes modern spoken Tamil)'; but if so, this is not a normal way to phrase it in English. Moreover, the second sentence is incorrectly worded in either case, because it makes it sound as if modern spoken Tamil is a 'non-Tamil-Malayalam language'. ~2025-43840-74 (talk) 11:30, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Obviously, Tamil is not non-Tamil-anything, so I'll be bold and rephrase this as it must have been meant. Others correct this if it is incorrect! Nø (talk) 10:10, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Re-evaluating the Proto-Dravidian 1st Person Pronoun Root ($*{\bar {e}}n/*{\bar {e}}m$ vs. Caldwell’s Tamil-Centric $*y{\bar {a}}n/*y{\bar {a}}m$)

I would like to propose a formal update or additional nuance to the "Pronouns" section of the main article. Specifically, we should challenge the traditional, nineteenth-century Caldwellian paradigm ($*y{\bar {a}}n/*y{\bar {a}}m$) in favor of a symmetrical front-vowel root ($*{\bar {e}}n/*{\bar {e}}m$).

The current framework found in many older textbooks—which reconstructs the Proto-Dravidian (PD) first-person nominative pronouns with an initial palatal glide ($*y{\bar {a}}n$ for singular, $*y{\bar {a}}m$ for plural)—suffers from a severe South Dravidian I (Proto-Tamil-Kannada) bias. When we apply the strict comparative method across all three major geographic branches (North, Central, and South), the architectural data points unequivocally to an original front-vowel root system ($*{\bar {e}}n/*{\bar {e}}m$).

1. Invariance of the Oblique Stem ($en-/em-$)

The strongest morphological evidence lies in the bound oblique stems across all branches. While nominative forms drift freely across dialects, bound oblique stems attached to case markers are highly conservative time capsules.

• Old Tamil: yān (Nom) → en- (Obl)
• Old Kannada: ān (Nom) → en- (Obl)
• Old Telugu: ēnu (Nom) → en- (retained in older bound structures)
• Kurukh (North): ēn (Nom) → eṅg- (Obl)

Phonological law dictates that an initial palatal glide sequence ($*ya-$) does not spontaneously and cleanly flatten into a pure front vowel ($e-$) across every single geographically isolated, independent branch of a language family simultaneously. The pan-Dravidian presence of the short front-vowel oblique ($en-/em-$) indicates that the underlying base vowel was a front-leaning palatal vowel (${\bar {e}}/e$) from the ancestral stage.

2. Deconstructing the Tamil Initial Glide ($y-$) as a PTK Localized Quirk

Robert Caldwell (1856) fell into a "Golden Lens" bias, treating Old Tamil's written archaic features as the default parent state. However, modern historical phonology recognizes that:

1. The Glide is Phonotactic: Old Tamil phonotactics historically required or preferred an automatic palatal on-glide ($y-$) before long front vowels at word boundaries (e.g., pronouncing Ēka as Yēka). Old Tamil grammarians meticulously captured this acoustic specification in their orthography, which was later mistaken by early Western philologists as an ancestral structural marker.
2. PTK was a laboratory of innovation: The Proto-Tamil-Kannada branch actively restructured its pronouns—such as creating a brand-new 3-way gender singular split by inventing the feminine suffix *-aḷ (not found in North or South-Central branches like Telugu, which stayed true to the ancient Masculine/Non-Masculine binary). PTK similarly introduced the intrusive labial glide $*-w-$ to expand bare deictic pointers (generating $*aw-an-tu$ / $*aw-ar$ where Kurukh preserved raw attachments like ā-s / abṛar via hardened northern labial $w\to b$).

Conclusion for the Article Page

I propose we update the page to reflect that while $y{\bar {a}}n/y{\bar {a}}m$ is accurately reconstructed for Proto-Tamil-Kannada (PTK), the true parent Proto-Dravidian (PD) root is natively ${\bar {e}}n/{\bar {e}}m$. This aligns the article with modern Dravidianist consensus, correcting a 150-year-old Tamil-centric bias and highlighting the geometric vowel symmetry of the ancestral language.

I would love to get your thoughts on updating the reconstruction tables to reflect this distinction!

Realtimetraveler (talk) 10:01, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Impressive! But... where's the WP:RS? Or is this WP:OR? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:54, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Same: I like the idea or something similar (the extremely limited phonological distribution of Proto-Dravidian *y- is generally suspicious), but Wikipedia is not the place to submit original research. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 15:20, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

=== Reconstructing Proto-Dravidian First Person Nominative (*ēn vs. *yān) ===

I’d like to offer a comparative perspective on the 1st person singular nominative reconstruction (*ēn vs. *yān) based on morphological transparency and oblique stem consistency across the family.

While Old Tamil yān has historically been prioritized due to the antiquity of Sangam texts, there are strong linguistic intimate Proto-Dravidian *ēn / *ēm rather than *yān / *yām:

==== 1. The Primacy of the Oblique Stem ====

In comparative linguistics, oblique stems are significantly more conservative than nominative citation forms because they are structurally bound to the entire case-marking system (dative, genitive, accusative, etc.).

Across all major branches—North (Kurukh eṅg-), Central, and South—the oblique stem consistently preserves a short front vowel: *en- (1st sg.) and *em- (1st pl. excl.). Even in Modern Tamil (en-akku, en-nai) and Malayalam (en-ikku, en-te), the system falls back entirely on en-. If yān or nān were the fundamental PDr root, we would expect an oblique built on *yan- or *nan-. Instead, the oblique stem has remained frozen as *en- for thousands of years.

==== 2. Quantitative Ablaut vs. Vowel Mutation ====

Reconstructing PDr *ēn yields a clean, regular rule of Dravidian quantitative ablaut (vowel shortening in bound stems):

${\text{Nom. }}*{\bar {e}}n\longrightarrow {\text{Obl. }}*en-\quad ({\text{Long Vowel}}\rightarrow {\text{Short Vowel}})$

Reconstructing *yān forces an irregular qualitative vowel mutation ($a/{\bar {a}}\rightarrow e$) specifically for the oblique stem. Kurukh (ēn / eṅg-) maintains complete vowel quality synchronization between its nominative and oblique forms, reflecting a pristine agglutinative state.

==== 3. Literary Innovation vs. Retention ====

The appearance of yān / ān in Old Tamil and Old Kannada is best explained as a South Dravidian innovation—a secondary prosthetic glide/onset shift ($*{\bar {e}}\rightarrow *{\bar {a}}\rightarrow *y{\bar {a}}$) that became codified during early literary standardization. Non-literary languages like Kurukh were not subject to these stylistic shifts and thus preserved the original PDr vocalism (ēn).

Relying solely on Old Tamil's yān risks a philological bias where written/literary status is conflated with historical antiquity. When we weigh the non-literary spoken branches equally and look at the immutable oblique core, the evidence points firmly toward *ēn / *ēm as the true Proto-Dravidian parent form. Realtimetraveler (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

You can compare by yourself!

Kurukh

	Nom.	Obl.
I	ēn	eṅ(g)-
We (incl.)	nām	nam(m)-
We (excl.)	ēm	em(m)-
You (sg.)	nīn	niṅ(g)-
You (pl.)	nīm	nim(m)-
Reflexive (sg.)	tān	taṅ(g)-
Reflexive (pl.)	tām	tam(m)-

Old Kannada

	Nom.	Obl.
I	ān	en(n)-
We (incl.)	nāv	nam(m)-
We (excl.)	ām	em(m)-
You (sg.)	nīn	nin(n)-
You (pl.)	nīm	nim(m)-
Reflexive (sg.)	tān	tan(n)-
Reflexive (pl.)	tām	tam(m)-

Old Tamil

	Nom.	Obl.
I	yān	en(n)-
We (incl.)	nām	nam(m)-
We (excl.)	yām	em(m)-
You (sg.)	nīn	nin(n)-
You (pl.)	nīm	nim(m)-
Reflexive (sg.)	tān	tan(n)-
Reflexive (pl.)	tām	tam(m)-

Realtimetraveler (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

You said that Krishnamurti mentions arguments for *en/*em. Where is that? I can't find it in his Cambridge Language Surveys book. Kanguole 15:15, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Oops It was big mistake ! Pardon

Krishnamurti was never part of these research nor you will find in any published books! It was mistakenly mentioned!

I am Excluding his Names!

Rest argument I am making same!

I was replying to Joshua Jonathan Who wanted to know that's why shared that wikitable so he can compare by himself..!

Even Telugu has these forms

nēnu (Telugu) ~ ēnu (Old Telugu) ~ *ēn (Pre-Telugu)

mēmu (Telugu) ~ ēmu (Old Telugu) ~ *ēm (Pre-Telugu)

Old Telugu Attested These Forms Well! Realtimetraveler (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Where is Proto Dravidian now?.. It should exist

The so called comic character like language, Proto Dravidian (no name to such an ancient strong langauge?.. I will call it PD here in future) can be compared in every way to Latin. Latin gave birth to popular languages like Italian, Spanish, French etc.. just as they claim PD gave birth to Tamil, Telugu, Kannada etc. But Latin is still alive and kicking!... People try to revive it... some churches use it. Another comparison is with Sanskrit which is also still alive. Why is Proto Dravidian dead then... it doesnt even have a name.... comedy!! I will answer myself...

The reason it is not present now, is because it was never present any time in human history. When it was present... it was only present as Tamil... the unique forms it had as shown by linguists.. was in Tamil and it changed over time... If you read Thirukkural you are reading a great literature of Proto Dravidian. PD has no literature of its own... can you name one? I can .. all the hundreds of old Sangam Tamil literary works are in PD Purananuru, Agananuru, Ettuthokai, Pathu pattu etc etc.

Modern Tamil is indeed PD which has absorbed some Sanskrit, very little Hindi and even some English !

Giving the name Tamil to PD is the greatest honour one can do to this anamika! ~2026-39218-19 (talk) 07:39, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

You can learn about what proto-languages are and how they are reconstructed from the Comparative reconstruction article or any textbook on historical linguistics. Kanguole 09:34, 14 July 2026 (UTC)