Misplaced Pages

#78921

71-571: Arabi Malayalam (also called Mappila Malayalam and Moplah Malayalam) is the traditional Dravidian language of the Mappila Muslim community . It is spoken by several thousand people, predominantly in the Malabar Coast of Kerala state, southern India. The form can be classified as a regional dialect in northern Kerala, or as a class or occupational dialect of the Mappila community. It can also be called

142-720: A vernacular in general, or as a provincial patois , with the latter label being increasingly applicable in Colonial times. All the forms of the Malayalam language, including Mappila, are mutually intelligible. The Mappila form shows some lexical admixture from Arabic and Persian. The variety Arabi Malayalam is also used by lower caste non-Muslims in northern Kerala , Muslims in Dakshina Kannada , and different Mappila migrant communities in South East Asia. The Arabi Malayalam script

213-549: A common, non- Indo-European ancestor. He supported his argument with a detailed comparison of non-Sanskrit vocabulary in Telugu, Kannada and Tamil, and also demonstrated that they shared grammatical structures. In 1844, Christian Lassen discovered that Brahui was related to these languages. In 1856, Robert Caldwell published his Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian or South-Indian Family of Languages , which considerably expanded

284-622: A connection between the Dravidian languages with other language families, including Indo-European , Hurrian , Basque , Sumerian , Korean , and Japanese . Comparisons have been made not just with the other language families of the Indian subcontinent ( Indo-European , Austroasiatic , Sino-Tibetan , and Nihali ), but with all typologically similar language families of the Old World. Nonetheless, although there are no readily detectable genealogical connections, Dravidian shares several areal features with

355-406: A different language do not reflect the phylogeny to be tested, and, if used, will detract from the compatibility. Getting the right dataset for the comparative method is a major task in historical linguistics. Some universally accepted proto-languages are Proto-Afroasiatic , Proto-Indo-European , Proto-Uralic , and Proto-Dravidian . In a few fortuitous instances, which have been used to verify

426-624: A generic appellation for the South Indian people and their languages, and it is the only single term they ever seem to have used in this manner. I have, therefore, no doubt of the propriety of adopting it. The origin of the Sanskrit word drāviḍa is the Tamil word Tamiḻ . Kamil Zvelebil cites the forms such as dramila (in Daṇḍin 's Sanskrit work Avantisundarīkathā ) and damiḷa (found in

497-411: A language to change, and "[as] a result, our reconstructions tend to have a strong bias toward the average language type known to the investigator." Such an investigator finds themselves blinkered by their own linguistic frame of reference . The advent of the wave model raised new issues in the domain of linguistic reconstruction, causing the reevaluation of old reconstruction systems and depriving

568-485: A mother language. Occasionally, the German term Ursprache ( pronounced [ˈuːɐ̯ʃpʁaːxə] ; from ur- 'primordial', 'original' + Sprache 'language') is used instead. It is also sometimes called the common or primitive form of a language (e.g. Common Germanic , Primitive Norse ). In the strict sense, a proto-language is the most recent common ancestor of a language family, immediately before

639-462: A people of south India (presumably Tamil); damilaraṭṭha - was a southern non-Aryan country; dramiḷa -, dramiḍa , and draviḍa - were used as variants to designate a country in the south ( Bṛhatsamhita- , Kādambarī , Daśakumāracarita- , fourth to seventh centuries CE) (1989: 134–138). It appears that damiḷa - was older than draviḍa - which could be its Sanskritization. Based on what Krishnamurti states (referring to

710-475: A process of Sanskritisation of the masses started, which resulted in a language shift in northern India. Southern India has remained majority Dravidian, but pockets of Dravidian can be found in central India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal. The Kurukh and Malto are pockets of Dravidian languages in central India, spoken by people who may have migrated from south India. They do have myths about external origins. The Kurukh have traditionally claimed to be from

781-554: A scholarly paper published in the International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics ), the Sanskrit word draviḍa itself appeared later than damiḷa , since the dates for the forms with -r- are centuries later than the dates for the forms without -r- ( damiḷa , dameḍa -, damela - etc.). The Dravidian languages form a close-knit family. Most scholars agree on four groups: There are different proposals regarding

SECTION 10

#1732844724079

852-568: A strong correlation between Dravidian and the Ancestral South Indian (ASI) component of South Asian genetic makeup . Narasimhan et al. (2019) argue that the ASI component itself formed in the early 2nd millennium BCE from a mixture of a population associated with the Indus Valley civilization and a population resident in peninsular India. They conclude that one of these two groups may have been

923-438: A valid subgroup, splitting it into Northeast (Kurukh–Malto) and Northwest (Brahui). Their affiliation has been proposed based primarily on a small number of common phonetic developments, including: McAlpin (2003) notes that no exact conditioning can be established for the first two changes, and proposes that distinct Proto-Dravidian *q and *kʲ should be reconstructed behind these correspondences, and that Brahui, Kurukh-Malto, and

994-568: A wider area, perhaps into Central India or the western Deccan which may have had other forms of early Dravidian/pre-Proto-Dravidian or other branches of Dravidian which are currently unknown. Since 1981, the Census of India has reported only languages with more than 10,000 speakers, including 17 Dravidian languages. In 1981, these accounted for approximately 24% of India's population. In the 2001 census , they included 214 million people, about 21% of India's total population of 1.02 billion. In addition,

1065-411: Is 'Dravidian', from Drāviḍa , the adjectival form of Draviḍa . This term, it is true, has sometimes been used, and is still sometimes used, in almost as restricted a sense as that of Tamil itself, so that though on the whole it is the best term I can find, I admit it is not perfectly free from ambiguity. It is a term which has already been used more or less distinctively by Sanskrit philologists, as

1136-450: Is a common enough phenomenon in Dravidian phonology". Bhadriraju Krishnamurti states in his reference book The Dravidian languages : Joseph (1989: IJDL 18.2:134–42) gives extensive references to the use of the term draviḍa , dramila first as the name of a people, then of a country. Sinhala BCE inscriptions cite dameḍa -, damela - denoting Tamil merchants. Early Buddhist and Jaina sources used damiḷa - to refer to

1207-568: Is an Abjad . The script is also known as Khatafunnani or Ponnani script. It is also used to write several minority languages such as Eranadan and Jesri . Arabi Malayalam was made by writing Malayalam while using the Arabic script. The language of Malayalam was mainly used to spread the ideas and practices of Islam in Kerala. Creating Arabi Malayalam made it easier for the Arabs who migrated to Kerala to spread

1278-667: Is attested only fragmentarily. There are no objective criteria for the evaluation of different reconstruction systems yielding different proto-languages. Many researchers concerned with linguistic reconstruction agree that the traditional comparative method is an "intuitive undertaking." The bias of the researchers regarding the accumulated implicit knowledge can also lead to erroneous assumptions and excessive generalization. Kortlandt (1993) offers several examples in where such general assumptions concerning "the nature of language" hindered research in historical linguistics. Linguists make personal judgements on how they consider "natural" for

1349-415: Is by definition a linguistic reconstruction formulated by applying the comparative method to a group of languages featuring similar characteristics. The tree is a statement of similarity and a hypothesis that the similarity results from descent from a common language. The comparative method, a process of deduction , begins from a set of characteristics, or characters, found in the attested languages. If

1420-584: Is first attested in the 2nd century BCE, as inscriptions in Tamil-Brahmi script on cave walls in the Madurai and Tirunelveli districts of Tamil Nadu . The Dravidian languages with the most speakers are (in descending order of number of speakers) Telugu , Tamil , Kannada and Malayalam , all of which have long literary traditions. Smaller literary languages are Tulu and Kodava . Together with several smaller languages such as Gondi , these languages cover

1491-553: Is given in his book Deciphering the Indus Script . Although in modern times speakers of the various Dravidian languages have mainly occupied the southern portion of India, in earlier times they probably were spoken in a larger area. After the Indo-Aryan migrations into north-western India, starting c.  1500 BCE , and the establishment of the Kuru kingdom c.  1100 BCE ,

SECTION 20

#1732844724079

1562-465: Is given to the hypotheses of highest compatibility. The differences in compatibility must be explained by various applications of the wave model . The level of completeness of the reconstruction achieved varies, depending on how complete the evidence is from the descendant languages and on the formulation of the characters by the linguists working on it. Not all characters are suitable for the comparative method. For example, lexical items that are loans from

1633-481: Is indigenous to India. As a proto-language , the Proto-Dravidian language is not itself attested in the historical record. Its modern conception is based solely on reconstruction. It was suggested in the 1980s that the language was spoken in the 4th millennium BCE, and started disintegrating into various branches around the 3rd millennium BCE. According to Krishnamurti , Proto-Dravidian may have been spoken in

1704-530: Is often cited as evidence of substrate influence from close contact of the Vedic speakers with speakers of a foreign language family rich in retroflex consonants. The Dravidian family is a serious candidate since it is rich in retroflex phonemes reconstructible back to the Proto-Dravidian stage . In addition, a number of grammatical features of Vedic Sanskrit not found in its sister Avestan language appear to have been borrowed from Dravidian languages. These include

1775-647: Is termed "Pre-X", as in Pre–Old Japanese. It is also possible to apply internal reconstruction to a proto-language, obtaining a pre-proto-language, such as Pre-Proto-Indo-European. Both prefixes are sometimes used for an unattested stage of a language without reference to comparative or internal reconstruction. "Pre-X" is sometimes also used for a postulated substratum , as in the Pre-Indo-European languages believed to have been spoken in Europe and South Asia before

1846-579: Is the Northern branch, with around 6.3 million speakers. This is the only sub-group to have a language spoken in Pakistan – Brahui . The smallest branch is the Central branch, which has only around 200,000 speakers. These languages are mostly tribal, and spoken in central India. Languages recognized as official languages of India appear here in boldface . Researchers have tried but have been unable to prove

1917-608: The Deccan Peninsula , more specifically Karnataka . The same tradition has existed of the Brahui, who call themselves immigrants. Holding this same view of the Brahui are many scholars such as L.   H. Horace Perera and M.   Ratnasabapathy. The Brahui population of Pakistan's Balochistan province has been taken by some as the linguistic equivalent of a relict population, perhaps indicating that Dravidian languages were formerly much more widespread and were supplanted by

1988-702: The Indo-Aryan languages , which have been attributed to the influence of a Dravidian substratum on Indo-Aryan. Dravidian languages display typological similarities with the Uralic language group, and there have been several attempts to establish a genetic relationship in the past. This idea has been popular amongst Dravidian linguists, including Robert Caldwell , Thomas Burrow , Kamil Zvelebil , and Mikhail Andronov. The hypothesis is, however, rejected by most specialists in Uralic languages, and also in recent times by Dravidian linguists such as Bhadriraju Krishnamurti . In

2059-590: The colonial period in India , Dravidian speakers were exploited by the colonial empires and sent as indentured servants to Southeast Asia , Mauritius , South Africa , Fiji and the Caribbean to work on plantations, and to East Africa to work on British railroads. There are more-recent Dravidian-speaking diaspora communities in the Middle East , Europe , North America and Oceania . The reconstructed proto-language of

2130-495: The gerund , which has the same function as in Dravidian. Some linguists explain this asymmetrical borrowing by arguing that Middle Indo-Aryan languages were built on a Dravidian substratum. These scholars argue that the most plausible explanation for the presence of Dravidian structural features in Indic is language shift , that is, native Dravidian speakers learning and adopting Indic languages due to elite dominance . Although each of

2201-429: The realist or the abstractionist position. Even the widely studied proto-languages, such as Proto-Indo-European , have drawn criticism for being outliers typologically with respect to the reconstructed phonemic inventory . The alternatives such as glottalic theory , despite representing a typologically less rare system, have not gained wider acceptance, and some researchers even suggest the use of indexes to represent

Arabi Malayalam - Misplaced Pages Continue

2272-437: The Dravidian identification. Yuri Knorozov surmised that the symbols represent a logosyllabic script and suggested, based on computer analysis, an underlying agglutinative Dravidian language as the most likely candidate for the underlying language. Knorozov's suggestion was preceded by the work of Henry Heras, who suggested several readings of signs based on a proto-Dravidian assumption. Linguist Asko Parpola writes that

2343-467: The Dravidian language family was undertaken by Kolipakam, et al. (2018). They support the internal coherence of the four Dravidian branches South (or South Dravidian I), South-Central (or South Dravidian II), Central, and North, but is uncertain about the precise relationships of these four branches to each other. The date of Dravidian is estimated to be 4,500 years old. Speakers of Dravidian languages, by language Dravidian languages are mostly located in

2414-477: The Dravidian languages may have been brought to India by migrations from the Iranian plateau in the fourth or third millennium BCE, or even earlier, the reconstructed vocabulary of proto-Dravidian suggests that the family is indigenous to India. Despite many attempts, the family has not been shown to be related to any other. The 14th-century Sanskrit text Lilatilakam , a grammar of Manipravalam , states that

2485-555: The Dravidian languages were the most widespread indigenous languages in the Indian subcontinent before the advance of the Indo-Aryan languages. Though some scholars have argued that the Dravidian languages may have been brought to India by migrations from the Iranian plateau in the fourth or third millennium BCE or even earlier, reconstructed proto-Dravidian vocabulary suggests that the family

2556-506: The Dravidian umbrella and established Dravidian as one of the major language groups of the world. In 1961, T. Burrow and M. B. Emeneau published the Dravidian Etymological Dictionary , with a major revision in 1984. Caldwell coined the term "Dravidian" for this family of languages, based on the usage of the Sanskrit word Draviḍa in the work Tantravārttika by Kumārila Bhaṭṭa : The word I have chosen

2627-677: The Indus Valley Civilisation, John Marshall stated that (one of) the language(s) may have been Dravidic. Cultural and linguistic similarities have been cited by researchers Henry Heras , Kamil Zvelebil , Asko Parpola and Iravatham Mahadevan as being strong evidence for a proto-Dravidian origin of the ancient Indus Valley civilisation. The discovery in Tamil Nadu of a late Neolithic (early 2nd millennium BCE, i.e. post-dating Harappan decline) stone celt allegedly marked with Indus signs has been considered by some to be significant for

2698-566: The Indus civilization, suggesting a "tentative date of Proto-Dravidian around the early part of the third millennium." Krishnamurti further states that South Dravidian I (including pre-Tamil) and South Dravidian II (including Pre-Telugu) split around the 11th century BCE, with the other major branches splitting off at around the same time. Kolipakam et al. (2018) give a similar estimate of 2,500 BCE for Proto-Dravidian. Historically Maharashtra, Gujarat and Sindh also had Dravidian speaking populations from

2769-501: The Indus script and Harappan language are "most likely to have belonged to the Dravidian family". Parpola led a Finnish team in investigating the inscriptions using computer analysis. Based on a proto-Dravidian assumption, they proposed readings of many signs, some agreeing with the suggested readings of Heras and Knorozov (such as equating the "fish" sign with the Dravidian word for fish, "min") but disagreeing on several other readings. A comprehensive description of Parpola's work until 1994

2840-472: The Iranian part of the Fertile Crescent . (In his 2000 book, Cavalli-Sforza suggested western India, northern India and northern Iran as alternative starting points. ) However, linguists have found McAlpin's cognates unconvincing and criticized his proposed phonological rules as ad hoc . Elamite is generally believed by scholars to be a language isolate , and the theory has had no effect on studies of

2911-493: The Sri Lankan (Ceylonese) chronicle Mahavamsa ) and then goes on to say, "The forms damiḷa / damila almost certainly provide a connection of dr(a/ā)viḍa " with the indigenous name of the Tamil language, the likely derivation being "* tamiḻ > * damiḷ > damiḷa - / damila - and further, with the intrusive, 'hypercorrect' (or perhaps analogical) - r -, into dr(a/ā)viḍa . The - m -/- v - alternation

Arabi Malayalam - Misplaced Pages Continue

2982-551: The ancestor of the modern Scandinavian languages , is attested, albeit in fragmentary form, in the Elder Futhark . Although there are no very early Indo-Aryan inscriptions, the Indo-Aryan languages of modern India all go back to Vedic Sanskrit (or dialects very closely related to it), which has been preserved in texts accurately handed down by parallel oral and written traditions for many centuries. The first person to offer systematic reconstructions of an unattested proto-language

3053-424: The arrival there of Indo-European languages. When multiple historical stages of a single language exist, the oldest attested stage is normally termed "Old X" (e.g. Old English and Old Japanese ). In other cases, such as Old Irish and Old Norse , the term refers to the language of the oldest known significant texts. Each of these languages has an older stage ( Primitive Irish and Proto-Norse respectively) that

3124-475: The disputed series of plosives. On the other end of the spectrum, Pulgram (1959 :424) suggests that Proto-Indo-European reconstructions are just "a set of reconstructed formulae" and "not representative of any reality". In the same vein, Julius Pokorny in his study on Indo-European , claims that the linguistic term IE parent language is merely an abstraction, which does not exist in reality and should be understood as consisting of dialects possibly dating back to

3195-481: The early 1970s, the linguist David McAlpin produced a detailed proposal of a genetic relationship between Dravidian and the extinct Elamite language of ancient Elam (present-day southwestern Iran ). The Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis was supported in the late 1980s by the archaeologist Colin Renfrew and the geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza , who suggested that Proto-Dravidian was brought to India by farmers from

3266-399: The emergence of Proto-Indo-European 4,000–6,000 BCE. However, the general consensus is that such deep connections are not, or not yet, demonstrable. The origins of the Dravidian languages, as well as their subsequent development and the period of their differentiation are unclear, partially due to the lack of comparative linguistic research into the Dravidian languages. It is thought that

3337-501: The entire set can be accounted for by descent from the proto-language, which must contain the proto-forms of them all, the tree, or phylogeny, is regarded as a complete explanation and by Occam's razor , is given credibility. More recently, such a tree has been termed "perfect" and the characters labelled "compatible". No trees but the smallest branches are ever found to be perfect, in part because languages also evolve through horizontal transfer with their neighbours. Typically, credibility

3408-524: The evidence of place names (like -v(a)li, -koṭ from Dravidian paḷḷi, kōṭṭai ), grammatical features in Marathi, Gujarati, and Sindhi and Dravidian like kinship systems in southern Indo–Aryan languages. Proto-Dravidian could have been spoken in a wider area, perhaps into Central India or the western Deccan which may have had other forms of early Dravidian/pre-Proto-Dravidian or other branches of Dravidian which are currently unknown. Several geneticists have noted

3479-470: The family is known as proto-Dravidian . Dravidian place names along the Arabian Sea coast and clear signs of Dravidian phonological and grammatical influence (e.g. retroflex consonants and clusivity ) in the Indo-Aryan languages suggest that Dravidian languages were spoken more widely across the Indian subcontinent before the spread of the Indo-Aryan languages. Though some scholars have argued that

3550-418: The family started to diverge into the attested daughter languages . It is therefore equivalent with the ancestral language or parental language of a language family. Moreover, a group of lects that are not considered separate languages, such as the members of a dialect cluster , may also be described as descending from a unitary proto-language. Typically, the proto-language is not known directly. It

3621-508: The formal varieties of the so-called "literary" Dravidian languages (except Tamil) today, but may be rare or entirely absent in less formal registers, as well as in the many "non-literary" Dravidian languages. 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. At

SECTION 50

#1732844724079

3692-470: The incoming Indo-Aryan languages . However, it has been argued that the absence of any Old Iranian ( Avestan ) loanwords in Brahui suggests that the Brahui migrated to Balochistan from central India less than 1,000 years ago. The main Iranian contributor to Brahui vocabulary, Balochi , is a western Iranian language like Kurdish , and arrived in the area from the west only around 1000 CE. Sound changes shared with Kurukh and Malto also suggest that Brahui

3763-731: The innovative traits in Indic could be accounted for by internal explanations, early Dravidian influence is the only explanation that can account for all of the innovations at once; moreover, it accounts for several of the innovative traits in Indic better than any internal explanation that has been proposed. Proto-Dravidian, unlike Sanskrit and other Indo-Iranian languages languages of South Asia, lacked both an aspiration and voicing contrast. The situation varies considerably amongst its daughter languages and often also between registers of any single language. The vast majority of modern Dravidian languages generally have some voicing distinctions amongst stops; as for aspiration, it appears in at least

3834-609: The language of the Rigveda (c.   1500 BCE), which also includes over a dozen words borrowed from Dravidian. Vedic Sanskrit has retroflex consonants ( ṭ / ḍ , ṇ ) with about 88 words in the Rigveda having unconditioned retroflexes. Some sample words are Iṭanta , Kaṇva , śakaṭī , kevaṭa , puṇya and maṇḍūka . Since other Indo-European languages , including other Indo-Iranian languages , lack retroflex consonants, their presence in Indo-Aryan

3905-582: The language. In 2012, Southworth suggested a "Zagrosian family" of West Asian origin including Elamite , Brahui and Dravidian as its three branches. Dravidian is one of the primary language families in the Nostratic proposal, which would link most languages in North Africa , Europe and Western Asia into a family with its origins in the Fertile Crescent sometime between the Last Glacial Period and

3976-426: The large numbers of loanwords from Sanskrit and other Indo-Iranian languages , though some are found in etymologically native words as well, often as the result of plosive + laryngeal clusters being reanalysed as aspirates (e.g. Telugu నలభై nalabhai , Kannada ಎಂಬತ್ತು / ಎಂಭತ್ತು emb(h)attu , Adilabad Gondi phōṛd ). Proto-language In the family tree metaphor, a proto-language can be called

4047-456: The largest Dravidian-speaking group outside India, Tamil speakers in Sri Lanka, number around 4.7 million. The total number of speakers of Dravidian languages is around 227 million people, around 13% of the population of the Indian subcontinent. The largest group of the Dravidian languages is South Dravidian, with almost 150 million speakers. Tamil , Kannada and Malayalam make up around 98% of

4118-528: The method and the model (and probably ultimately inspired it ), a literary history exists from as early as a few millennia ago, allowing the descent to be traced in detail. The early daughter languages, and even the proto-language itself, may be attested in surviving texts. For example, Latin is the proto-language of the Romance language family, which includes such modern languages as French, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian, Catalan and Spanish. Likewise, Proto-Norse ,

4189-531: The other end, Brahui is exceptional among the Dravidian languages in possessing and commonly employing the entire inventory of aspirates employed in neighboring Sindhi . While aspirates are particularly concentrated in the Indo-Aryan element of the lexicon, some Brahui words with Dravidian roots have developed aspiration as well. Most languages lie in between. Voicing contrasts are quite common in all registers of speech in most Dravidian languages. Aspiration contrasts are less common, but relatively well-established in

4260-410: The phonologies of the higher or more formal registers, as well as in the standard orthographies , of the "literary" languages (other than Tamil): Telugu, Kannada, and Malayalam. However, in colloquial or non-standard speech, aspiration often appears inconsistently or not at all, even if it occurs in the standard spelling of the word. In the languages in which aspirates are found, they primarily occur in

4331-499: The proto-language of its "uniform character." This is evident in Karl Brugmann 's skepticism that the reconstruction systems could ever reflect a linguistic reality. Ferdinand de Saussure would even express a more certain opinion, completely rejecting a positive specification of the sound values of reconstruction systems. In general, the issue of the nature of proto-language remains unresolved, with linguists generally taking either

SECTION 60

#1732844724079

4402-409: The relationship between these groups. Earlier classifications grouped Central and South-Central Dravidian in a single branch. On the other hand, Krishnamurti groups South-Central and South Dravidian together. There are other disagreements, including whether there is a Toda-Kota branch or whether Kota diverged first and later Toda (claimed by Krishnamurti). Some authors deny that North Dravidian forms

4473-543: The religion without a language barrier getting in the way. Malayalam University has been set up a centre for studies of Arabi Malayalam language at Tirur . Dravidian languages The Dravidian languages (sometimes called Dravidic ) are a family of languages spoken by 250 million people, mainly in South India , north-east Sri Lanka , and south-west Pakistan , with pockets elsewhere in South Asia . Dravidian

4544-474: The rest of Dravidian may be three coordinate branches, possibly with Brahui being the earliest language to split off. A few morphological parallels between Brahui and Kurukh-Malto are also known, but according to McAlpin they are analysable as shared archaisms rather than shared innovations. In addition, Glottolog lists several unclassified Dravidian languages: Kumbaran , Kakkala (both of Tamil-Malayalam) and Khirwar . A computational phylogenetic study of

4615-513: The source of proto-Dravidian. An Indus valley origin would be consistent with the location of Brahui and with attempts to interpret the Indus script as Dravidian. On the other hand, reconstructed Proto-Dravidian terms for flora and fauna provide support for a peninsular Indian origin. The Indus Valley civilisation (3300–1900 BCE), located in the Indus Valley region, is sometimes suggested to have been Dravidian. Already in 1924, after discovering

4686-672: The southern and central parts of south Asia with 2 main outliers, Brahui having speakers in Balochistan and as far north are Merv, Turkmenistan and Kurukh to the east in Jharkhand and as far northeast as Bhutan, Nepal and Assam. Historically Maharashtra, Gujarat and Sindh also had Dravidian speaking populations from the evidence of place names (like -v(a)li, -koṭ from Dravidian paḷḷi, kōṭṭai ), grammatical features in Marathi, Gujarati, and Sindhi and Dravidian like kinship systems in southern Indo–Aryan languages. Proto-Dravidian could have been spoken in

4757-593: The southern part of India and the northeast of Sri Lanka , and account for the overwhelming majority of speakers of Dravidian languages. Malto and Kurukh are spoken in isolated pockets in eastern India. Kurukh is also spoken in parts of Nepal , Bhutan and Bangladesh . Brahui is mostly spoken in the Balochistan region of Pakistan , Iranian Balochistan , Afghanistan and around the Marw oasis in Turkmenistan . During

4828-500: The speakers, with 75 million, 44 million and 37 million native speakers, respectively. The next-largest is the South-Central branch, which has 78 million native speakers, the vast majority of whom speak Telugu . The total number of speakers of Telugu, including those whose first language is not Telugu, is around 85 million people. This branch also includes the tribal language Gondi spoken in central India. The second-smallest branch

4899-490: The spoken languages of present-day Kerala and Tamil Nadu were similar, terming them as "Dramiḍa". The author does not consider the "Karṇṇāṭa" (Kannada) and the "Āndhra" (Telugu) languages as "Dramiḍa", because they were very different from the language of the "Tamil Veda" ( Tiruvaymoli ), but states that some people would include them in the "Dramiḍa" category. In 1816, Francis Whyte Ellis argued that Tamil , Telugu , Kannada , Malayalam , Tulu and Kodava descended from

4970-405: Was August Schleicher ; he did so for Proto-Indo-European in 1861. Normally, the term "Proto-X" refers to the last common ancestor of a group of languages, occasionally attested but most commonly reconstructed through the comparative method , as with Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Germanic . An earlier stage of a single language X, reconstructed through the method of internal reconstruction ,

5041-403: Was originally spoken near them in central India. Dravidian languages show extensive lexical (vocabulary) borrowing, but only a few traits of structural (either phonological or grammatical) borrowing from Indo-Aryan, whereas Indo-Aryan shows more structural than lexical borrowings from the Dravidian languages. Many of these features are already present in the oldest known Indo-Aryan language ,

#78921