KTHNOLOaV OF TIIK ISDO-rACIPIC I9LANt)3. 



80 



"Willi Ihtle vaiiation, Hic composlion of the Tamil and Cannadi 

 are the sntne a;? tlie Ttiliigii, and tlte same disttnclioii?, congequently, 

 are made by their grammatical writers. The Tolugit and Cannadi 

 both admit of a freer adoption of TatKamara terms than the Tamil j 

 in the two former, in facl, the discretion of Ibe writer the oidy 

 limit of their use; in llie high diulecl of tlie hitler those only can bu 

 used J which have been admitted into the dictionaries by which tho 

 iLinjiuajrc has loni^ been fixed, or for which elassical aulboritv can 

 be adduced; lu the low dialect the use of them is more general— 

 by the Bruhmane they are proftisely employed^ more Bparinglv 

 by the Sudia tribes. The Cannadi has a greater and the Tamil 

 n lof:3 proportion of Tadhbavam terms than the olher dialects; but 

 in the latter all Sanscrit words are liable to greater variation than 

 m produced by the mere difference of termination, for, as the 

 alphabet of this langunpfe rejects all aspirates, expresses the first 

 and third consonant of each regular series by the same character, 

 and admits of no other combination of consonants than the dupli- 

 cation of mutes or ihe junction of a nasal and a mute, it is obviously 

 incapable of expressing correctly any hut the simplest terms of the 

 Sanscrit; all siicb, bowefcr, in tliis tonijue arc accounted Talsa- 

 mam when ibe alteration is regular and produced only by the 

 deficiencies of the alphabet. 



**3utj though the derivation and general terms may be the 

 same in cognate dialects, a diffurcnce in idiom may exist so great, 

 that, in the acquisition of one, no assistance in this respect can be 

 derived from a knowledge of the other. As regards the dialects 

 of southern India this is by no means the case, — in collocation of 

 words, in syntaxical government, in phrase, and, indeed, in all that 

 is comprehended under the terra idiom, they are, not similar only 

 but the same." (p. p. 21, 22). 



Mr Elliot has also more recently remarked on tho aptitude of 

 the South Dravirians to substitute Prakrilic words for aboriginal 

 ones. (J ourn. As. Soc, of Beng. vqU 18, p. 350). * 



• The form of the Sanskrit wonla In much rnrcr in the Dravirian thm in flie 

 Sanskrit «4fl tanguafca Ihemflelvefi, and tlie ria^oti is ivell explained by l)r Steven- 

 son 5n oiieof Ilia roi?fnt fm|»er9. " In reference to ihe San -.lint portion of i be vtjrna- 

 culai- lantrniifc-s of Indin if la a stngiitar fact tliut it. h pnrnr anmnir the iiihuMtanta 

 of Malabar and Mysore tban anionif Uioae of Bengal and Upper Imlia, The reason 

 of tins can emiiy be Kiven, though it he not ut Sr^i obvions. In Upnor Indian 

 Bei.|£al and Gujarattt, "nme-tcnttis of ttie language i» a corrupted Sanskrit, llie 



