1S3G.] 



and Derived Languages. 



127 



address or composition, although in itself logical, idiomatic and ex- 

 cellent, will appear to a native as covered with a mist. He sees the 

 objects, but not distinctly ; each sentence he understands, but not 

 always the connexion with what precedes or follows; his mind is 

 wearied, and his attention flags. I know, from my own experience, 

 that, after having studied one of the south Indian dialects for years, 

 before T obtained a clear understanding of these principles, I was fre- 

 quently uncertain how to arrange my periods and to shape my ideas, 

 so as to become perspicuous and impressive, or even intelligible, to the 

 natives. 



A proof that the real nature of the construction of the dialects of 

 southern India, is not yet sufficiently understood, is, that we hear so 

 often in conversation, and see so often in print, the word enendrdl or 

 yenandere, — whereas it follows, fr< m the above observations, that all 

 parts or clauses of a period, beginning in English with -/or, because or 

 as, containing the cause of some effect, must invariably stand before 

 that effect. One, therefore, who uses enendrdl or yenandere, betrays 

 himself, in most cases, as an uuidiomatic speaker or writer. Suffice 

 it to mention only one instance, which just occurs to my mind. If the 

 construction of the words, " Jesus saw two brethren, Simon and 

 I Andrew, casting their nets in the sen, for they were fishers" be closely- 

 followed in the Tamul translation, thus — Yesu Simoneium Andrea- 

 veium tangel valeigelei kadeliie potu kolla kandar enendrdl avergel 

 | mm piidickiravergelairundargel, it would be unidiomatical, and a 

 ; Tamiilian would be inclined to suppose, that their being fishers, was the 

 reason that Jesus saw them. Only if a very important sentence is to 

 | be enounced, or a long chain of reasonings is to be introduced, this 

 I construction, and the use of enendrdl may be allowable, and is, perhaps, 

 unavoidable ; but, in the present, and most other, cases, the construc- 

 tion of the sentence must be altered. Thus — Jesus saw Simon and 

 {Andrew (they) being fishers, casting their nets in the sea ; but even 

 ithis change is not sufficiently conformable to the spirit of an original 

 language, for, after all, the clause, for they were fishers, is merely a 

 jmore accurate description or definition of the subjects — Simon and 

 Andrew — and the Tamul period is most clear, concise and unem- 

 barrassed, if we say, Jesus saw the fiahers Simon and Andrew, etc. 

 [mm pudickiravergelagia Simoneium Andreaveium kandar) which 

 \\uite expresses the meaning of the Apostle, although, at first sight, it 

 night appear an unnecessary and unwarrantable departure from the 

 original. 



