# Dravidan Uralic relations



## astlanda

This problem rose up in a discussion about mutual understanding between languages of India, but it grew over the limits of that thread. So I removed it here:

As it was told by shaloo:
mom is ma (Hindi) amma (Telugu, Kannada, Tamil) amme (Malayalam)
dad is papa (Hindi) nanna (Telugu) appa (Kannada, Tamil) achhan (Malayalam)
and
"amma" is also used:
1) to address a woman, who's a total stranger to you... (for eg., may be a fruit vendor)
2) as a term of endearment... by parents to their daughter, an elder brother to his sister etc (that's not much with the youngsters, but as they grow up, affection seems to increase with time )

It looks like Finnish might be a good candidate to Dravidan branch:
1.
mom is amma (Telugu, Kannada, Tamil) amme (Malayalam)
  "ämmä" is an old woman in Finnish. It could be used to address several kinds of female persons in slang etc, which I won't list here. Estonian "ämm" means "mother in law" and "ema" stands for "mother". Finnish "emo" & "imä" refer to female creatures etc.
2.
dad is appa (Kannada, Tamil) achhan (Malayalam)
and "appi" means 'father in law' in Finnish. Estonian "ätt" means an old man.

I hope to add some solid stuff here as soon as possible.

P.S!

I would like to discuss about similarities in grammar in particular, but any comparison of vocabulary etc is welcome as well.


----------



## Kevin Beach

I consider that trying to form cognates out of various languages' words for mother and father creates the danger of misunderstanding how the sounds have come into being.

Listen to a baby's first attempts at speech in any culture. They consist of "a" sounds and various consonants. The baby of a few months will point at somebody and utter sounds like mama, ama, papa, dada, aba, nana etc., without meaning anything by them except perhaps "I want it"*. Yet adults, probably sentimentally, will intepret them as the baby "naming" the person it is pointing at. Hence, in my view, have humanity's parental and grandparental names come about. I think the process is random and coincidental. The similarities are attributable to the nature of infant speech rather than to any etymological connections.

*When a baby points at something, it is trying to reach the object, not indicate it as we do in later life.


----------



## Kanes

I think too that the parent words can't be objective, but there are allot of evidence to support the relation. Language structures are very similar and there are many congnatives. At least they are closer related to each other then to IE.


----------



## Lugubert

astlanda said:


> I would like to discuss about similarities in grammar in particular, but any comparison of vocabulary etc is welcome as well.


What about all the differences in phonetics?

There are no retroflexes in Finnish. None have been borrowed from Swedish (we've got four). Tamil, for example, has two. The sibilant sets are different, too. And I know of nothing in Tamil like the Finnish vowel harmony. There's one kind of 'r' in Finnish, three in Tamil, plus two different Tamil 'l' vs. one. The Finnish sounds for written y and ö have no correspondence in Tamil. There's even more.


----------



## Athaulf

astlanda said:


> This problem rose up in a discussion about mutual understanding between languages of India, but it grew over the limits of that thread. So I removed it here:
> 
> As it was told by shaloo:
> mom is ma (Hindi) amma (Telugu, Kannada, Tamil) amme (Malayalam)
> dad is papa (Hindi) nanna (Telugu) appa (Kannada, Tamil) achhan (Malayalam)
> and
> "amma" is also used:
> 1) to address a woman, who's a total stranger to you... (for eg., may be a fruit vendor)
> 2) as a term of endearment... by parents to their daughter, an elder brother to his sister etc (that's not much with the youngsters, but as they grow up, affection seems to increase with time )
> 
> It looks like Finnish might be a good candidate to Dravidan branch:
> 1.
> mom is amma (Telugu, Kannada, Tamil) amme (Malayalam)
> "ämmä" is an old woman in Finnish. It could be used to address several kinds of female persons in slang etc, which I won't list here. Estonian "ämm" means "mother in law" and "ema" stands for "mother". Finnish "emo" & "imä" refer to female creatures etc.
> 2.
> dad is appa (Kannada, Tamil) achhan (Malayalam)
> and "appi" means 'father in law' in Finnish. Estonian "ätt" means an old man.



Sorry to disappoint, but it's impossible to prove anything this way, for two important reasons. 

First, in order to establish relatedness of languages, you have to find _regular and systematic_ correspondences in their vocabulary (it's called "comparative method"). Picking a few similar words proves absolutely nothing, since among any two languages, there will always be numerous random similarities. 

Second, words for close family members, and especially mother and father, often exhibit more than chance similarity even among unrelated languages, for reasons mentioned above in post #2. The issue was discussed in much detail in this old thread. 

In any case, there is no proven relationship between Dravidian and Uralic languages. There have been attempts to reconstruct language super-families that would include both Uralic and Dravidian, most notably the Nostratic hypothesis, but these are all considered speculative and controversial -- and even such theories require a much more solid basis than your arguments above.


----------



## Athaulf

Kanes said:


> I think too that the parent words can't be objective, but there are allot of evidence to support the relation. Language structures are very similar and there are many congnatives.



What do you mean by "many congnatives [sic]"? If there were any cognates (in the strict sense of the term), then the relationship would be proven.



> At least they are closer related to each other then to IE.


To the best of the present knowledge, IE, Uralic, and Dravidian families are unrelated to each other, except for some highly controversial and speculative hypotheses such as Nostratic. 



Lugubert said:


> What about all the differences in phonetics?



They wouldn't matter if there were systematic correspondences between sounds, even among totally different sounds. Even very closely related languages can develop very different sound systems in a fairly short time.


----------



## astlanda

That, what I was expecting!

I didn't try to proof anything with those 2 words. Speaking about phonetics - it differs enough among Finnic dialects. (Estonian & Finnish are just 2 written standards covering territories merely on political bases, but that is another topic, which I would not like to discuss about in this particular thread.)

I did not mean that Tamil was spoken in Finland just 1000 years ago & for sure I can find more common features between Estonian and Latvian than between those 2 remote groups. It's not the point.

Let's forget our emotions and face the facts, if there is any basis for such a speculation.
I have some conspects about Dravidan languages, but I know none of them, so I'll need your help.

1. I found in my sources, that there should be some reminders of vowel harmony at least in Telugu (? i versus u). It might be Mundan influence. Could anyone give an example.
E.g. in Finnish the vowel of a suffix depends in the vowels of the stem:
[-ssa](inessive) 
a) maa+ssa=maassa 'in the ground' 
b) jää+ssa=jäässä 'in the ice'

It surely does not proof anything, because the vowel harmony is lost or never existed in some other Uralic languages (Udmurt for example), but is present in some other languages (Turkic, Korean), which may or may not be related with Uralic.

Moreover we can not be sure, if the Uralic nations ever spoke the so called "Proto-Uralic". Similarities between Jamaican creole and Pidgin English do not mean, that speakers of those languages have genetic relations.


----------



## sokol

Athaulf said:


> Even very closely related languages can develop very different sound systems in a fairly short time.


I agree fully, phonetics and phonology are treacherous and can't be trusted if it comes to the history of language, especially if we speak of languages like Uralic or Dravidian, and even more so if modern languages are compared, without references to older steps in the phonetic development.

(It is different with Indoeuropean ones, as you know, where there are quite some ancient linguistic documents which help follow phonetical developments in history.)

Nevertheless:


Lugubert said:


> And I know of nothing in Tamil like the Finnish vowel harmony.


Vowel harmony indeed is something which could *point *to relations; it couldn't prove anything, nor refute, but it could provide a good additional argument.

The fact (if it were a fact) that there is vowel harmony in Finnish while there isn't any in Dravidian languages decreases the likeliness of those two languages being related.
But as anyway theories trying to reunite both Uralic and Dravidian into one language family are highly speculative, as you've already said, I guess this doesn't add a great deal.


To address the examples posted by astlanda in the first place, as Athaulf already said almost nothing could be proven with the names for father and mother. (This former thread now took me back to the days when I began posting here - it seems this was _ages _ago. )

So we would need more examples, and better ones.


----------



## astlanda

sokol said:


> The fact (if it were a fact) that there is vowel harmony in Finnish while there isn't any in Dravidian languages decreases the likeliness of those two languages being related.
> 
> So we would need more examples, and better ones.



There is no vowel harmony in Estonian, but every native speaker of Finnish can grasp immediately that those languages are closely related.

So, please give some better examples for or against not the emotions!

2. Both Dravidan and Uralic languages have personal verbal suffixes (as the Indoeuropeans do.)
E.G. Finnish:
tule+n= tulen 'I come'
tule+mme= tulemme 'we come'
tule+t= tulet 'thou come' singular - (German: du kommst, Spanish: tu vienes)
tule+tte= tulette 'you come' plural - (German: ihr kommt, Spanish: vos ven´is)

The suffix of 3. person is a late invention in the languages, where it exists.

The closest set to Finnic is found in Parji (Duruwa):
1. sg -en
1. plural -om
2. sg -ot
2. plural -or

I have no idea of Dravidan phonetic history and I wait for your assistance.

Reconstructions for Finnic:
1. sg. -n  < *-m  (e.g. 'key' = avain < *avaim  ~ plur: avaim/et)
1. pl. -mme < *-?men OR -?mek   < *-k (? present time indicator) + m (1. person) + n/k (dual or plural)  ~ Eastern Votic -mmaG / Ingrian (Izhorian) -mman

2. sg & pl follow the same sample
2. sg. -t  
2. pl. -tte < *-?ten OR -?tek   < *-k (? Present time indicator) + t (2. person) + n/k (dual or plural)  ~ Eastern Votic -ttaG / some Savo dialects -tten -tton

The Finnish personal particles of 1.pl and 2.pl (-mme -tte) are very similar to Lithuanian ones (-me -te) , which I regard to be a result of mutual influence and which does not belong to the direct topic of this thread.
The counterparts of other Uralic groups are as follows:

Saami (Norwegian Standard):
1. sg. -m
1. dual. -me (Imperfect)
1. plural -mek (Imperfect)
2. sg. -k
2. dual. -de (Imperfect)
2. plural -dek (Imperfect)

Erza (Mordvin): Subject conjugation
1. sg. -ń (Imperfect)
1. plural -ńek (Imperfect)
2. sg. -´t (Imperfect)
2. plural -´de (Imperfect)

Mari (Meadow): 
1. sg. -m 
1. plural -na 
2. sg. -t 
2. plural -ta 

Udmurt: 
1. sg. - 
1. plural -my [mә]
2. sg. -d
2. plural -dy [dә]

Hungarian: Object conjugation
1. sg. -m
1. plural -uk
2. sg. -d
2. plural -tok

Selkup (Narym version): Subject conjugation
1. sg. -k (Present)
1. dual. -i (Present)
1. plural -ut (Present)
2. sg. -nd (Present)
2. dual. -li (Present)
2. plural -lt (Present)

As you see from the examples above - Hungarian & Selkup are rather far from the "Uralic" mainstream.

P.S. I dont think you can imagine the relations between the languages to be similar to branches of a tree, but rather I'd like to suggest, that a language works on the similar way to a *Biocoenosis* where the lexemes play the role of living organisms of several species and various origen. I.e. a forest may inherit some inhabitants from a neighbouring grassland or from a former cultivated field, what ith has replaced.


----------



## sokol

astlanda said:


> There is no vowel harmony in Estonian, but every native speaker of Finnish can grasp immediately that those languages are closely related.
> 
> So, please give some better examples for or against not the emotions!


Very well, I'm sorry then - I don't know any Estonian.
(I only know that Estonian and Finnish are closely related.)

I didn't want to sound impolite, you know, and if I came over like that then I hope that you will accept my excuses. But let's keep personal remarks out of the discussion (you can PM me for that if you like).

The thing is that the existence of vowel harmony alone can't prove that two languages are related, nor could it be proof against it: as already said above. But it could increase the _likeliness _of a probable relation.

And as for the other thing, the words for father and mother: if you take the time to read the other thread to which Athaulf has linked (this one) you will see what I've meant.

The first sounds babies all over the world make are something like "maa" or "amamam" and so on or "pa"/"ba" and "papapap" and so on. Thus it seems very likely that parents think that their babies refer to them, with their very first words (which by the way is not true because most babies, when saying their first "ma" and "pa", do not mean anything with it; this usually only comes later).
And while it is really an interesting question why most languages have "ma" for the mother part and "pa" for the father part (which of course better should be discussed on the old thread) it seems obvious that languages who only share these words (i. e. similar words for father and mother) are not related, or at least that this isn't by far sufficient to prove any relationship.

Your contribution about these words and those of Shaloo as taken from the other thread which I've read too certainly is interesting, but nevertheless this does not add any likeliness to a possible relationship; simply because a great many languages in the world share those similar words for father and mother.


----------



## astlanda

astlanda said:


> I would like to discuss about similarities in grammar in particular.



I don't take it personal & I accept your excuses, but let us finish with the "mommy" & "daddy" talk here.

If you would look at the thread
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=304649&page=2
you might understand, that this was a joke.
You know we Eastern Europeans seldom say the phrase "I was only kidding", but we rather expect the other people to take it or leave it, if they did not get it.

Sorry, I don't want to insult you. Could we continue now with more serious discussion.

P.S.


astlanda said:


> 1. I found in my sources, that there should be some reminders of vowel harmony at least in Telugu (? i versus u). It might be Mundan influence. Could anyone give an example.
> E.g. in Finnish the vowel of a suffix depends in the vowels of the stem:
> [-ssa](inessive)
> a) maa+ssa=maassa 'in the ground'
> b) jää+ssa=jäässä 'in the ice'


----------



## sokol

I am sorry but I can only play advocatus diaboli here as I haven't any deeper knowledge of Uralic languages - and even less of Dravidan.


astlanda said:


> Both Dravidan and Uralic languages have personal verbal suffixes (as the Indoeuropeans do.)
> (...)
> I have no idea of Dravidan phonetic history and I wait for your assistance.


So, the /m/ and /t/ element (and /k/) seems to be quite well documented for Uralic languages.
Unfortunately I can't help with Dravidan phonetic history either.
Some similarities are there, but for this one similarity you could name several things that are different. For example (and I am here only comparing German Wiki articles on Tamil and Finnish) Tamil only has nine cases while for Finnish fifteen are listed. Tamil has a complicated gender system (with "thinking genders: male/female/both" and "not thinking ones = neutral gender") while Finnish has none.
And so on (there's no real point to compare those Wiki articles chapter for chapter, yes?).

It will always be difficult to prove genetic relationship, as the Nostratic theory already shows; and again: I could only play the role of the sceptic in this discussion, I am not the expert here. 



astlanda said:


> The Finnish personal particles of 1.pl and 2.pl (-mme -tte) are very similar to Lithuanian ones (-me -te) (...)


I can only tell you that the Lithuanian ones are "good IE" and that according to the sources that you have listed the Finnish ones should be "good Proto-Uralic" so that it seems this is no coincidence after all.
But nevertheless the topic of this thread is of course Dravidian-Uralic relations so this of course is not the topic here.



astlanda said:


> P.S. I dont think you can imagine the relations between the languages to be similar to branches of a tree, but rather I'd like to suggest, that a language works on the similar way to a *Biocoenosis *(...)


With this you've actually given a much better metaphor than the tree metaphor which is used so frequently with PIE - the tree metaphor is stricter and less flexible.
Nowadays most linguists (I'd say) think that PIE was not a "unique" language but a set of dialects, and that the reconstruction of PIE was not a spoken language - but is just that, a reconstruction.
And the same should be true for Uralic reconstructions.

But it will be much more different to bring them all together, as the Nostratic theory tries. This anyway would only (if ever) be possible in the way of a biocoenosis, it would be unthinkable to reconstruct a language the way it was done with PIE for Uralic and Dravidan.
Personally I don't really believe that this is achieveable.


----------



## shaloo

astlanda said:


> Let's forget our emotions and face the facts, if there is any basis for such a speculation.
> I have some conspects about Dravidan languages, but I know none of them, so I'll need your help.
> 
> 1. *I found in my sources, that there should be some reminders of vowel harmony at least in Telugu* (? i versus u). It might be Mundan influence. Could anyone give an example.
> E.g. in Finnish the vowel of a suffix depends in the vowels of the stem:
> [-ssa](inessive)
> a) maa+ssa=maassa 'in the ground'
> b) jää+ssa=jäässä 'in the ice'
> 
> It surely does not proof anything, because the vowel harmony is lost or never existed in some other Uralic languages (Udmurt for example), but is present in some other languages (Turkic, Korean), which may or may not be related with Uralic.


 
You're right astlanda, Telugu follows vowel harmony.
If I've understood correctly, vowel harmony can be translated as "Sandhi" which means "Being together" or "In Good Relation" in Telugu. Vowel Harmony is quite possible between two vowels or a vowel & a consonant. 
Besides, there are two types of Sandhi_s_ (plural of Sandhi) here: 
1) Sanskrit Sandhis (directly imported from Sanskrit)
2) Telugu Sandhis (introduced, to cater to the language requirement)
There are other grammar concepts called a "Samasam", an "Alankaaram" and many more, which would take you deeper into the intricacies of the Telugu grammar.

Now back to Sandhis, there are a number of Sandhi_s _in Telugu, of which here are a few simple examples:
deva+aalayam = dev*aa*layam: god's abode; a temple
grantha+aalayam = granth*aa*layam: abode of books; a library
desa+uddhaaraNa = des*o*ddhaaraNa: upliftment of the country
maha+eeswara = mah*e*swara = the great Almighty: Lord Siva (one of our greatly worshipped deity)

To add:
tintaanu = I will eat
tintaava? = will you eat?
tinanaa? = shall I eat?
These are just to say that the suffixes change according to the context & person (I, II, III) and it doesn't fall under the grammar of Sandhi or Vowel Harmony.

And as I was never before exposed to the Uralic languages, its surprising to note these similarities, something I never thought they existed in many Western languages!


----------



## astlanda

sokol said:


> Nowadays most linguists (I'd say) think that PIE was not a "unique" language but a set of dialects, and that the reconstruction of PIE was not a spoken language - but is just that, a reconstruction.
> And the same should be true for Uralic reconstructions.
> 
> But it will be much more different to bring them all together, as the Nostratic theory tries. This anyway would only (if ever) be possible in the way of a biocoenosis, it would be unthinkable to reconstruct a language the way it was done with PIE for Uralic and Dravidan.
> Personally I don't really believe that this is achieveable.



First we must define what a language is (both in time and space), but not in this thread.
I'm even not sure, if the Proto-Finnic was a language or a stage. It's another topic.

Talking about the number of cases the answer lies in comparison of Latin and German.
I'm afraid the Finnic noun suffixes were called cases by the Western European missionaries initially.
As for me, I can't find any principal difference between Finnic CASES and Korean PARTICLES, but I see the IE gender based case system as a very different thing from Finnic noun suffixes.

The number of cases is not the same in other Uralic languages either. I'll give the examples in the evening.

P.S!
The Dravidan gender system MAY be an "ant species originated from the neighbouring Indo Aryan grassland" or may be not.


----------



## shaloo

sokol said:


> The fact (if it were a fact) that there is vowel harmony in Finnish *while there isn't any in Dravidian languages* decreases the likeliness of those two languages being related.
> But as anyway theories trying to reunite both Uralic and Dravidian into one language family are highly speculative, as you've already said, I guess this doesn't add a great deal.
> So we would need more examples, and better ones.


 
Hi Sokol..!
Just to confirm that there *indeed* exists Vowel Harmony in the Dravidian languages and I can undoubtedly say it exists in Telugu


----------



## astlanda

shaloo said:


> You're right astlanda, Telugu follows vowel harmony.
> If I've understood correctly, vowel harmony can be translated as "Sandhi" which means "Being together" or "In Good Relation" in Telugu. Vowel Harmony is quite possible between two vowels or a vowel & a consonant.
> Besides, there are two types of Sandhi_s_ (plural of Sandhi) here:
> 1) Sanskrit Sandhis (directly imported from Sanskrit)
> 2) Telugu Sandhis (introduced, to cater to the language requirement)
> There are other grammar concepts called a "Samasam", an "Alankaaram" and many more, which would take you deeper into the intricacies of the Telugu grammar.
> 
> Now back to Sandhis, there are a number of Sandhi_s _in Telugu, of which here are a few simple examples:
> deva+aalayam = dev*aa*layam: god's abode; a temple
> grantha+aalayam = granth*aa*layam: abode of books; a library
> desa+uddhaaraNa = des*o*ddhaaraNa: upliftment of the country
> maha+eeswara = mah*e*swara = the great Almighty: Lord Siva (one of our greatly worshipped deity)
> 
> And as I was never before exposed to the Uralic languages, its surprising to note these similarities, something I never thought they existed in the Western languages!



Thank you Shaloo. You are our only link to Dravidan reality.

Nevertheless your Sandhi examples above are not related to vowel harmony.
I must explain the Finnish example above.

There are two sets for certain suffixes opposed by bacness ( or roundedness as in Turkic) of their vowels.
In the example above -ssa is used with stems, which contain at least one back vowel (a, o, u) {maassa}. If there is no back vowel we must use -ssä  {jäässä}.

If there is a similar feature in Telugu, then I suppose there should be the roundedness opposition as in Turkish:
Eston+um.  'I am an Estonian' 
Ingiliz+im.   'I am English.'

In the example above -um is used, when the syllable, which it is added to contains a rounded vowel (o, u) etc. (Please leave the explanations of Turkish to another thread as it is not the topic here but a bare example.)


----------



## shaloo

astlanda said:
			
		

> 2. Both Dravidan and Uralic languages have personal verbal suffixes (as the Indoeuropeans do.)
> E.G. Finnish:
> tule+n= tulen 'I come'
> tule+mme= tulemme 'we come'
> tule+t= tulet 'thou come' singular - (German: du kommst, Spanish: tu vienes)
> tule+tte= tulette 'you come' plural - (German: ihr kommt, Spanish: vos ven´is)
> 
> The suffix of 3. person is a late invention in the languages, where it exists.
> 
> The closest set to Finnic is found in Parji (Duruwa):
> 1. sg -en
> 1. plural -om
> 2. sg -ot
> 2. plural -or
> 
> I have no idea of Dravidan phonetic history and I wait for your assistance.


 
The verb 'to come' is an exception in Telugu, which takes two roots, depending on the person & respect level. Hence, I prefer using a simpler verb, say: 'to do'
to do = cheyyadamu

(nenu) chestaa+nu= chestaanu 'I do'
(memu) chestaa=mu= chestaamu 'we do'
(nuvvu) che+ i= che*yy*i - 'you do' singular 
(meeru) che+andi= che*yy*andi 'you do' plural (formal singular 'you' & formal + informal plural 'you')
Please note that

Another example: 'to go' = velladamu

(nenu) veLtaa+nu= veLtaanu 'I go'
(memu) veLtaa=mu= veLtaamu 'we go'
(nuvvu) veL+ u= ve*LL*u - 'you go' singular
(meeru) veL+andi= ve*LL*andi 'you go' plural (formal singular 'you' & formal + informal plural 'you')

'to give' = ivvadamu

(nenu) istaa+nu= istaanu 'I give'
(memu) istaa=mu= istaamu 'we give'
(nuvvu) i+ i= i*yy*i - 'you give' singular 
(meeru) i+andi= i*yy*andi or i*vv*andi 'you do' plural (formal singular 'you' & formal + informal plural 'you')

Nevertheless, there are a few exceptions, as usual!


----------



## shaloo

astlanda said:


> Nevertheless your Sandhi examples above are not related to vowel harmony.
> I must explain the Finnish example above.
> 
> There are two sets for certain suffixes opposed by bacness ( or roundedness as in Turkic) of their vowels.
> In the example above -ssa is used with stems, which contain at least one back vowel (a, o, u) {maassa}. If there is no back vowel we must use -ssä {jäässä}.
> 
> *If there is a similar feature in Telugu, then I suppose there should be the roundedness opposition as in Turkish:*
> Eston+um. 'I am an Estonian'
> Ingiliz+im. 'I am English.'
> 
> In the example above -um is used, when the syllable, which it is added to contains a rounded vowel (o, u) etc. (Please leave the explanations of Turkish to another thread as it is not the topic here but a bare example.)


 
Well, I might have(not) understood your question wrong. But see:

In the example of 'you do' (formal) che*yy*andi, the two separate words 'chey' and 'andi' would be difficult to pronounce as a habit, hence a related consonant 'y' is introduced and stressed.
The same thing can be said this way: ch*é*yandi (elongated "e" instead of stressed "y").
Not sure if this is called vowel harmony again!

There are cases when that might not be necessary, like:
'to eat' - tinadamu
'you eat' = tinu+andi = tinandi
In this case, the vowels u & a have come together in harmony to merge into 'a'.

But seriously, I think I need to actually understand at least some grammar of the Uralic languages so as to better relate to them.
I'm completely naive here! Please don't mind if I'm posting off-the-topic being discussed.


----------



## sokol

shaloo said:


> Now back to Sandhis, there are a number of Sandhi_s _in Telugu, of which here are a few simple examples:
> deva+aalayam = dev*aa*layam: god's abode; a temple
> grantha+aalayam = granth*aa*layam: abode of books; a library
> desa+uddhaaraNa = des*o*ddhaaraNa: upliftment of the country
> maha+eeswara = mah*e*swara = the great Almighty: Lord Siva (one of our greatly worshipped deity)


Well, these examples are not vowel harmony but Sandhi. Vowels get contracted, and in the case of /a+u/ in /desoddhaaraNa/ they change to the vowel which lies between them in the vowel triangle (the vowel triangle you see here in IPA) which is something not unusual for many languages.

Such Sandhi rules by the way exist in many languages and dialects (though different sets of rules of course).

Vowel harmony would be when within a word only front vowels = /i ü e ö/ or only back vowels = /a o u/ were allowed, and when e. g. suffixes will change their vowel according to the vowels of the stem - see for example the Wiki article on this which gives an overview.

And which also states that for Telugu vowel harmony exists in a way that the vowel of a suffix will be changed according to the stem.
(We should have looked there on the Wiki article in the first place.)

So yes, there is vowel harmony in at least one Dravidan language (and vowel harmony is well documented for Uralic), but as you can see in the Wiki article there are also quite some other languages where this exists; some of them are Amerindian and some African.

Therefore - yes, it *is *an argument in favour of Dravidan-Uralic relations (vowel harmony is, unless Sandhi, something not shared by most language families but only by a rather small number), but of course this still is not nearly enough to prove anything (vowel harmony also may develop independently). 
It only increases likeliness.


----------



## astlanda

Hi again!

Speaking about vowel harmony :



shaloo said:


> to do = cheyyadamu
> (nuvvu) che+ i= cheyyi - 'you do' singular
> 
> Another example: 'to go' = velladamu
> (nuvvu) veL+ u= veLLu - 'you go' singular
> 
> 'to give' = ivvadamu
> (nuvvu) i+ i= iyyi - 'you give' singular



It might be the case of vowel harmony, if the choice between -i and -u was made on the basis of preceding vowels of the word, which I can not see here. But I don't know their exact pronunciation and the phonetic history of Telugu either.

A clearer example of vowel harmony would be a case, when -nu and -mu might be replaced with -ni and -mi for some stems or something similar.



Speaking about Sandhi :



			
				shaloo said:
			
		

> In the example of 'you do' (formal) cheyyandi, the two separate words 'chey' and 'andi' would be difficult to pronounce as a habit, hence a related consonant 'y' is introduced and stressed.
> The same thing can be said this way: chéyandi (elongated "e" instead of stressed "y").
> Not sure if this is called vowel harmony again!
> 
> There are cases when that might not be necessary, like:
> 'to eat' - tinadamu
> 'you eat' = tinu+andi = tinandi
> In this case, the vowels u & a have come together in harmony to merge into 'a'.



Such features exist in most of the languages, what I know (including Mandarin).
E.G. in Finnish:
We write: Tule tänne! (Come here!) but we pronounce: Tulettänne!, because there is a remainder of former *k in the end of Tule, which assimilates with the following t.


Speaking about the personal indicators :

The Telugu set
1. sg -nu
1. pl -mu
2. sg -i / -u
2. pl -(an)di

MAY reveal similarities with the Uralic counterparts: 1. person *m & 2. person *d (*t)


----------



## shaloo

sokol said:


> Well, these examples are not vowel harmony but Sandhi. Vowels get contracted, and in the case of /a+u/ in /desoddhaaraNa/ they change to the vowel which lies between them in the vowel triangle (the vowel triangle you see here in IPA) which is something not unusual for many languages.
> 
> Such Sandhi rules by the way exist in many languages and dialects (though different sets of rules of course).
> 
> Vowel harmony would be when within a word only front vowels = // or only back vowels = // were allowed, and when e. g. suffixes will change their vowel according to the vowels of the stem - see for example the Wiki article on this which gives an overview.
> 
> And which also states that for Telugu vowel harmony exists in a way that the vowel of a suffix will be changed according to the stem.
> (We should have looked there on the Wiki article in the first place.)


 
Ah.. to be frank, I got confused between the two - vowel harmony & sandhi 
Anyway, thanks for enlightening on that part sokol!


----------



## sokol

astlanda said:


> The Dravidan gender system MAY be an "ant species originated from the neighbouring Indo Aryan grassland" or may be not.


 Wiki too keeps telling me that Dravidan grammars were heavily influenced by Sanskrit grammars - as were grammars of European languages.
This of course makes the topic even more complicated.



shaloo said:


> The verb 'to come' is an exception in Telugu, which takes two roots


As astlanda already has pointed out this also is not vowel harmony; it is Sandhi.


----------



## sokol

shaloo said:


> Ah.. to be frank, I got confused between the two - vowel harmony & sandhi
> Anyway, thanks for enlightening on that part sokol!


Shaloo, you were too quick, I just wanted to edit in examples for vowel harmony. 
(They're missing in the post above, forgot about them in the first place.)

So here a typical example for vowel harmony, quoted from Wiki - Hungarian:



> város-nak
> öröm-nek


The suffix in both cases is -nVk (with V = vowel): the vowel is /a/ = a back vowel*) if the stem has back vowels (see the vowel triangle) which would be /a o u/, and if the stem has front vowels /i ü e ö/ the vowel will be /e/ = a front vowel.
*) Actually /a/ can be both back and front vowel in Hungarian: it is a back vowel when short and a neutral (or if then rather front) vowel when long; so in this case let's say that /a/ is a back vowel "by covenant", such irregularities are natural for languages.

This, or something similar, should exist for Telugu according to Wiki: it says there that suffixes' vowels would change according to the stem. No examples given however, so I can't possibly confirm if Wiki were right. (And even though many Wiki articles are quite good you also find faults in them.)


----------



## shaloo

astlanda said:


> Hi again!
> 
> Speaking about vowel harmony :
> It might be the case of vowel harmony, if the choice between -i and -u was made on the basis of preceding vowels of the word, which I can not see here. But I don't know their exact pronunciation and the phonetic history of Telugu either.
> 
> A clearer example of vowel harmony would be a case, when -nu and -mu might be replaced with -ni and -mi for some stems or something similar.


No astlanda, that doesn't happen in Telugu.



> Speaking about Sandhi :
> Such features exist in most of the languages, what I know (including Mandarin).
> E.G. in Finnish:
> We write: Tule tänne! (Come here!) but we pronounce: Tulettänne!, because there is a remainder of former *k in the end of Tule, which assimilates with the following t.


Yeah, I get that one. However, I doubt if its a case of Sandhi or if its just for a better sound.



> Speaking about the personal indicators :
> The Telugu set
> 1. sg -nu
> 1. pl -mu
> 2. sg -i / -u
> 2. pl -(an)di
> MAY reveal similarities with the Uralic counterparts: 1. person *m & 2. person *d (*t)


 
That's correct 
However, to be noted that these suffixes are actually for the future tense, but the same applies to simple present as well.
For eg: I person singular
I eat banana = nenu arati-pandu *tintanu*
I will eat that later = nenu adi taravata *tintanu*

Like simple present & future => *-nu*
Present continuous would have the suffix -*nnanu*
I'm eating a banana = nenu arati-pandu *tintunnanu*

Likewise,
1. sg -nnanu
1. pl -nnamu
2. sg -nnavu
2. pl -nnaru


----------



## shaloo

sokol said:


> Wiki too keeps telling me that Dravidan grammars were heavily influenced by Sanskrit grammars - as were grammars of European languages.
> This of course makes the topic even more complicated.


 
Well, of course, that cannot be negated... very much true.
And to be more precise, Telugu is the Dravidian language that is most closely related to Sanskrit. I still remember my first Sanskrit class in school, when my teacher told us that whoever knew Telugu very well already knows quite a bit of Sanskrit and that made us attend Sanskrit classes more comfortably! In fact, I feel Telugu has retained most of Sanskrit compared to Hindi; be it written or spoken. By this, I mean everything except the script.

P.S: I guess this is again off-topic, and another thread might be needed for a discussion on this.


----------



## astlanda

sokol said:


> And which also states that for Telugu vowel harmony exists in a way that the vowel of a suffix will be changed according to the stem.
> .


Unfortunately there is no example on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telugu_language#Vowel_harmony

I found an example of regressive vowel harmony. So Shaloo, you may create your own example now .

4          The -i- in forms like kal(i)pify is subject to elision, the syncopated forms being particularly common in the spoken language.
The fact that, when it does show up, the vowel surfaces as -i- provides an interesting piece of evidence for the claim that the Telugu
base verb and the suffix -ify form a phonological unit. Telugu has a vowel harmony process by which an /u/ in the final syllable of
the stem changes to /i/ under the influence of a high-vowel suffix (cf. Babu 1981). Roots like kalupu ‘stir’ undergo this process not
just in the context of an indigenous suffix (cf. kalip-indi ‘she stirred’ ) but also under the influence of -ify (cf. (7a–d)).
http://web.gc.cuny.edu/dept/lingu/de...u_revision.pdf


Telugu has rex instead of tense vowels before /a/ in the following syllable, a subphonematic phenomenon; 
http://www.freidok.uni-freiburg.de/volltexte/4449/pdf/Auer_Stress_Timing_vs_Syllable_Timing.pdf

There is a different case here:
http://books.google.fi/books?id=rcA...=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA76,M1
See the list 22.


----------



## Lugubert

sokol said:


> Tamil only has nine cases while for Finnish fifteen are listed. Tamil has a complicated gender system (with "thinking genders: male/female/both" and "not thinking ones = neutral gender") while Finnish has none.


I didn't mention cases, because  I hadn't looked into their _different_ systems for quite a while. Anyway, already the different number tells a lot. 

On gender, I think the Tamil system looks more like African languages (no sexually related gender; just mostly different classes of nouns, often separated by the word phonetics, not their references).

Admitted, there are traces of vowel harmony in all Dravidian languages. But even in Telugu, where it is most distinct, it only affects two (2)vowels. In Finnish (like in Turkic languages), it's every vowel; no exceptions.

The relative participial noun, instead of phrases introduced by a relative pronoun, is a peculiar feature of D. speech.

Tamil, and most D. languages, has two pronouns of the 1st p. pl.: one inclusive of of the person addressed, the other exclusive. I know of only some Chinese usages that have this distinction.

A very special Dravidian feature is the negative voice of verbs. It appears in different ways in different D. languages, but can't structurally be compared to the a(n)-/un- etc. prefixes of IE languages, or any way I know of expressing a negative in Finnish.

There are several ways of expressing the passive voice in Finnish. Some use inflexions of the core verb; in D. it's always using auxiliary verbs signifying 'to suffer' etc.

I thought that I remembered having read that D. languages use an ergative construction, even more than what Hindi does in past tenses, and that this facet has been used as a possible argument for linking D. to Basque (like any odd language feature on the globe will be proposed as a link to Basque). Can't verify that from either Caldwell: _A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian or South Indian Family of Languages_ or Arden: _A Progressive Grammar of the Tamil Language_ or other sources.

Rev. Caldwell's tome was first published in 1856. There's still nothing like it, and my edition was re-printed in 1974.


----------



## astlanda

Lugubert said:


> Admitted, there are traces of vowel harmony in all Dravidian languages. But even in Telugu, where it is most distinct, it only affects two (2)vowels. In Finnish (like in Turkic languages), it's every vowel; no exceptions.



There are 2 exceptions in finnish: i & e which may both occur with back or front vowels
E.G. isä / sika, hella /hellä

In the North Eastern dialect of Estonia (Alutaguse i.e. Jõhvi, Iisaku, Vaivara) the vowel harmony affects only a & ä, depending on the preceding syllable & not the stem.
E.G. 'tuli/väd' (~ Finnish : tulivat = They came.)

It does not mean, that we are no Finnic any more.
The principal difference between the vowel harmony in Finnic and Telugu, is that the latter is regressive while ours is progressive.


Could you critisize me in a more constructive way, please!

This thread is not about the Nostratic hypothese or any other fancy theory. I would like to list here all the similarities between Dravidan and Uralic languages. The primary reason is to give some hints to the people, who would ever want to learn any of them. It's easier to memorize grammatic features, which you can link with something.
Listing differences makes not much sense, cause there are bizillions of them even among the closely related languages (Swedish & Icelandic for example).

*Any constructive critics is warmly welcome. E.G. :*
1. Fellows, who are good in several IE languages might show me (by examples of course), that the gender in Dravidan is not originated from Indo Aryan.
2. Whoever knows anything about the Dravidan phonetic history. Could you please oppose to my postulate of the resemblance of the Dravidan & Uralic personal suffixes.


----------



## shaloo

astlanda said:


> Unfortunately there is no example on:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telugu_language#Vowel_harmony
> 
> I found an example of regressive vowel harmony. I'll post it here though the moderator may not like it. So Shaloo, you may create your own example, if you're quick enough .



 Let me add a few more examples to that:

 to break = viruguta (standard) viragadamu (spoken)

 adi vir*u*gutundi - it breaks
 adi vir*i*gindi - it broke

 to read = chaduvuta (standard) chadavadamu(spoken)
atanu chad*u*vutaadu - I read
 atanu chad*i*vaadu - I read



> 4 The -i- in forms like kal(i)pify is subject to elision, the syncopated forms being particularly common in the spoken language.
> The fact that, when it does show up, the vowel surfaces as -i- provides an interesting piece of evidence for the claim that the Telugu
> base verb and the suffix -ify form a phonological unit. Telugu has a vowel harmony process by which an /u/ in the final syllable of
> the stem changes to /i/ under the influence of a high-vowel suffix (cf. Babu 1981). Roots like kalupu ‘stir’ undergo this process not
> just in the context of an indigenous suffix (cf. kalip-indi ‘she stirred’ ) but also under the influence of -ify (cf. (7a–d)).
> http://web.gc.cuny.edu/dept/lingu/de...u_revision.pdf


This format is anglicised telugu and is not standard.
For eg: simplify, rectify etc...
Teens normally use the *-fy* or *-ing* ending for almost all verbs but its not a recognised usage.
For eg:
A: Oye, Emi chestunnavu? (Hey, What're you doing?)
B: Chaduv*ing*  (Reading) for which the spelling should actually be: chaduv*utunnanu*


----------



## shaloo

astlanda said:


> There are 2 exceptions in finnish: i & e which may both occur with back or front vowels
> E.G. isä / sika, hella /hellä
> 
> In the North Eastern dialect of Estonia (Alutaguse i.e. Jõhvi, Iisaku, Vaivara) the vowel harmony affects only a & ä, depending on the preceding syllable & not the stem.
> E.G. 'tuli/väd' (~ Finnish : tulivat = They came.)
> 
> It does not mean, that we are no Finnic any more.
> The principal difference between the vowel harmony in Finnic and Telugu, is that the latter is regressive while ours is progressive.


It just occurred to me if Estonian or its dialects always ended in a vowel sound?



> I would like to list here all the similarities between Dravidan and Uralic languages. The primary reason is to give some hints to the people, who would ever want to learn any of them. It's easier to memorize grammatic features, which you can link with something.
> Any constructive critics is warmly welcome. E.G. :
> 1. Fellows, who are good in several IE languages might show me (by examples of course), that the gender in Dravidan is not originated from Indo Aryan.
> 2. Whoever knows anything about the Dravidan phonetic history. Could you please oppose to my postulate of the resemblance of the Dravidan & Uralic personal suffixes.


Okay... I'll list out the probable similarities discussed here in this thread.

1) personal suffixes (I'll post them below and you could probably identify if they're similar)
2) vowel harmony (I think that's a similarity as it exists in Telugu, for sure)
3) formal & informal II person 
4) gender classification: masculine & feminine for living beings, neuter gender for objects, non-living things
5) personal suffixes changing according to the gender

Personal Suffixes:
Eg: to do - chaduvuTa (standard) chadavadamu (modern & generally accepted)

I = nenu chaduvut*aanu*
You = nuvvu (informal) chaduvut*aavu*
He/ She = atanu/ aamay chaduvut*aadu/ *chaduvut*undi*
You = meeru (respectful) chaduvut*aaru*
We = memu** (exclusive "we") & We = manamu** (inclusive "we" ) chaduvut*aamu*
They = vaaru chaduvut*aaru*
** Please note that this one is a distinctive feature again. Do Uralic languages also have (had) this kind of grammar?

We can try to see if there are any other similarities. Corrections welcome.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


shaloo said:


> 1) personal suffixes (I'll post them below and you could probably identify if they're similar)
> 2) vowel harmony (I think that's a similarity as it exists in Telugu, for sure)
> 3) formal & informal II person
> 4) gender classification: masculine & feminine for living beings, neuter gender for objects, non-living things
> 5) personal suffixes changing according to the gender


I'm still a bit skeptic about a possible connection (though I am aware that some linguists are seriously working into that direction). But these all look to be typological features. Aren't there any more substantial or at least more convincing arguments?

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## astlanda

shaloo said:


> Let me add a few more examples to that:
> 
> to break = viruguta (standard) viragadamu (spoken)
> 
> adi vir*u*gutundi - it breaks
> adi vir*i*gindi - it broke
> 
> to read = chaduvuta (standard) chadavadamu(spoken)
> atanu chad*u*vutaadu - I read
> atanu chad*i*vaadu - I read



Thank you Shaloo!

It is precisely, what we need.




Let us look to the so called cases of these language groups. The paragraph in the Wikipedia article about Tamil morphology is telling the same, what I told you about the so called Uralic _cases_.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_language#Morphology

_Traditional grammarians tried to group the various suffixes into eight cases corresponding to the cases used in Sanskrit. These were the nominative, accusative, dative, sociative, genitive, instrumental, locative, and ablative. Modern grammarians argue that this classification is artificial, and that Tamil usage is best understood if each suffix or combination of suffixes is seen as marking a separate case._

Let's take a closer look. Correct me, if I'm wrong, please. I'm not familiar with the modern grammarians, but there should be at least:
0. prepositional (basis for postpositions and noun suffixes) = nominative (with exceptions)
1. accusative -ai
2. instrumental -āl [aal]
3. dative -ukku
4. genitive -in
5. locative -il

in Kannada respectively:
0. prepositional -a (basis for postpositions and noun suffixes)
1. accusative -a(nnu)
2. instrumental -?
3. dative -ige / -uge (depending on *WOWEL HARMONY*)
4. genitive -a ?
5. locative -u ?

in Telugu respectively: *(Shaloo, please check this set.)*
0. prepositional -ni (basis for postpositions and noun suffixes)
1. accusative -nu / -ni (*????* depending on WOWEL HARMONY)
2. instrumental -?
3. dative -ku / -ki (*????* depending on WOWEL HARMONY)
4. genitive -la
5. locative -lu
6. vocative -lā, -rā [laa, raa]

in Parji (Duruwa) respectively: 
0. prepositional -n (plur: -l) (basis for postpositions and noun suffixes)
1. accusative -(i)n
2. instrumental -(n)oḍ [nod]
3. dative -(u)g -(u)ṅ [un]
4. genitive -(i)n
4. genitive -t (irrational gender)
5. locative -(t)ti

in Gondi respectively: 
0. prepositional -n  -t (basis for postpositions and noun suffixes)
1. accusative -un 
2. instrumental -?
3. dative -un -k 
4. genitive -ōr [oor] (rational gender)
4. genitive -ā [aa] (irrational gender)
5. locative -ē [ee]
6. ablative -a -āl [aal] -sē [see]
7. vocative -nī [nii]

in Kuruh = Oraon respectively: 
0. prepositional=nominative (basis for postpositions and noun suffixes)
1. accusative -(i)n
2. instrumental -?
3. dative -gē
4. genitive -gahi
5. locative -nū [nuu]
6. ablative -tī [tii]
7. vocative  -(ay)ō [oo]

in Brahui respectively: 
0. prepositional=nominative (basis for postpositions and noun suffixes)
1. accusative -e     ? -in
2. instrumental -aṭ [at]
3. dative -e     ? -in
4. genitive  -nā [naa]
5. locative  -āe [aae] -ṭī [tii]
6. ablative  -ān [aan]
7. vocative  -(ay)ō [oo]


----------



## astlanda

Dear Frank06!



astlanda said:


> Could you critisize me in a more constructive way, please!
> 
> This thread is not about the Nostratic hypothese or any other fancy theory. I would like to list here all the similarities between Dravidan and Uralic languages. The primary reason is to give some hints to the people, who would ever want to learn any of them. It's easier to memorize grammatic features, which you can link with something.
> Listing differences makes not much sense, cause there are bizillions of them even among the closely related languages (Swedish & Icelandic for example).
> 
> *Any constructive critics is warmly welcome. E.G. :*
> 1. Fellows, who are good in several IE languages might show me (by examples of course), that the gender in Dravidan is not originated from Indo Aryan.
> 2. Whoever knows anything about the Dravidan phonetic history. Could you please oppose to my postulate of the resemblance of the Dravidan & Uralic personal suffixes.


----------



## shaloo

> Fellows, who are good in several IE languages might show me (by examples of course), that *the gender in Dravidan is not originated from Indo Aryan*.


I strongly believe that there's hardly any D grammar that has its roots from Indo Aryan.
IA are themselves the branches of the Sanskrit tree.
But yes, Dravidan languages are a lot influenced by Sanskrit.
Scripts are very different, of course, but one can observe a lot of similarities between DL and Sanskrit, and more between Telugu & Sanskrit (I'm sure of that because I was exposed to both the languages)

The reason for the similarities dates back to the rule of Satavahanas during 4th century BC or so... and the rulers spoke only Sanskrit or Prakrit. It was during the time of Cholas (about a century later) that these rulers started using the local language, Telugu for official & royal purposes. Till then, everything was written only in Sanskrit, but from then on, Telugu script was quite visible everywhere. And as years rolled by, the land produced many great poets & writers. Telugu has a lot of influence of Sanskrit.


----------



## Frank06

Astlanda,



astlanda said:


> Dear Frank06!


WR tries to be a forum for adults. We try to have a debate here. This involves arguments and counterarguments. This also implies that sometimes people, interested readers, ask for more solid arguments for quite specatular and controversial claims. 

So far, I am just an interested reader of this thread, and yes I expressed my skepticism about a possible connection and about the strength of the arguments so far. That's why I asked if people could provide more and better ones (or other wise said, non-typological ones).

So, could you please stop mistaking any kind of reaction which doesn't fully agree with your ideas as "emotional" (#9, #11), "unconstructive" or  whatever.

Thank you.

So, an open question for this thread, from an interested but skeptical reader: are there arguments for a connection between Uralic and Dravidian Languages other than typological ones?


Frank


----------



## astlanda

Frank06 said:


> So, an open question for this thread, from an interested but skeptical reader: are there arguments for a connection between Uralic and Dravidian Languages other than typological ones?



Let's find it out!


----------



## shaloo

Frank06 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I'm still a bit skeptic about a possible connection (though I am aware that some linguists are seriously working into that direction). But these all look to be typological features. Aren't there any more substantial or at least more convincing arguments?
> 
> Groetjes,
> Frank



Hi Frank!
Well, those were the gist of all the discussion that happened so far and I've listed them out thus. If astlanda or anyone knowing Uralic languages could agree with them, we could start working towards it.

As for the substantial or convincing arguments, I guess it was a similar case with the IE languages earlier, when not many believed if Sanskrit actually had any relation with the European languages. But now, everyone is aware of the fact that they're related and have been classified under one group called Indo European languages (which were before called Indian languages & European languages, if I'm not wrong)
I don't think we could come to such a conclusion yet... there's a long way to go! However, its through bits & pieces that a possible connection or a disconnection might be discovered 
(Please don't mistake my comparison, I was only trying to focus a little more on finding out better & solid info )

Cheers!


----------



## Frank06

*Hi,

This is an interesting thread, but we cannot work on a comparative morphology of Uralic and Dravidan languages here in this thread.

The discussion already is so overboarded with paradigms that it is difficult to still keep up and follow the original discussion which is still Dravidan-Uralic relations.

A comprehensive list of morphologies of several languages is beyond the scope of this forum; please limit your posts to the original question.

Groetjes,

Frank
Moderator EHL
*


----------



## astlanda

So, if you would give me a moment to look at this stuff, what I just typed in, I could give a more constructive and less emotional answer.
*I think we should base on facts anyway.*

As much as I can see the gender plays almost no role in the Dravidan noun inflection (as well in Uralic).
The proposed related suffixes are the following:

1. *-l * (Tamil, Telugu _locative_, Gondi _ablative_, Parji _prepositional_  )
~ Finnic -l in composed suffixes -lta (_ablative_), -lla (_abessive_), -lle (_allative_)
Examples: 
Finnish: tie*llä* = *on* the road, tie*lle* = *onto* the road, tie*ltä* = *from above* the road

Their Udmurt (from a Uralic subgroup, which is relatively far from Finnic) counterparts are:
-лэн [len] Genitivus
-лэсь [leś] Ablativus
-лы [lә / ly] Dativus
-лань [lań] Apporoximativus 
Most of the eastern languages of the Uralic family use Cyrillic alphabet, so I'll post longer examples here only, if you really need them.

2. *-n* (Tamil, Parji, Brahui  _genitive_; Telugu, Gondi  _prepositional_; Kannada, Telugu, Parji, Gondi, Kuruh, Brahui _accusative_, )
~ Finnic -n _genitive_ & _accusative_ & _instructive_ (+ Livonian, Brahui, Gondi, Parji _dative_, which I'm not sure about.)
Examples: 
Finnish: 
tie*n* pää = an end *of* a road,  _genitive_
löysin tie*n* = I found a road,  _accusative_
tulin jala*n* = I came *on* foot,  _instructive_
Anna kättä köyhä*n* miehe*n*. (archaic) = Give a hand *to* a poor man. _dative_

3. *-k* (Tamil, Kannada, Telugu, Parji, Gondi, Kuruh _dative _)
~ Proto-Finnic *-k _locative_; 
Finnic -ksa/-kse _translative_ < * -k (lokative) + s(en?) (illative)
Examples: 
Finnish: Tule mun luo*'* ! = Come *to* me! (luo' < * luo*k*)
 Tule mun luo*kse* ! = Come *to* me! 
 Tulin sairaa*ksi*. = I became ill.


----------



## astlanda

shaloo said:


> It just occurred to me if Estonian or its dialects always ended in a vowel sound?


Estonian is hevily influenced by neighbouring IE languages and espescially by Plattdüütsch (Neddersassisch) and German. We should not base on Estonian. Estonian words may end on any sound except õ, ä, ü, ö.



shaloo said:


> Personal Suffixes:
> Eg: to do - chaduvuTa (standard) chadavadamu (modern & generally accepted)
> 
> I = nenu chaduvut*aanu*
> You = nuvvu (informal) chaduvut*aavu*
> He/ She = atanu/ aamay chaduvut*aadu/ *chaduvut*undi*
> You = meeru (respectful) chaduvut*aaru*
> We = memu** (exclusive "we") & We = manamu** (inclusive "we" ) chaduvut*aamu*
> They = vaaru chaduvut*aaru*
> ** Please note that this one is a distinctive feature again. Do Uralic languages also have (had) this kind of grammar?


This is a typical Dravidan feature, which has no direct counterpart in any Uralic language, which I know. It MAY be related with Uralic 1. person of dual though.

I know similar category in Vietnamese and Mandarin (exclusive wo-men 我们 ~ inclusive zan-men 咱们 , but this opposition is not clear).

Finnish translation of this set would be:
Eg: to do - tehdä <* tek (stem) + tak (infinitive)

I = minä tee*n*
You = sinä (informal) tee*t*
He/ She = hän teke*e * < * various interpretations, but no differences in gender
You = te (respectful) tee*tte*
We = me tee*mme*
They = he teke*vät* < * -va (present participle) + t (plural)

You can see the same pattern in prepositions, which we saw in personal suffixes:
*m* = 1. person : minä / me
*t* = 2. person : sinä / te  
   sinä MAY be interpreted as < * t (2. person) + i + na   
There was a phonetic shift in Proto-Finnic **ti *> si  . E.G. Lithuanian "tiltas" has now the form "silta" in Finnic languages.
Though the case may be more complicated.

Their Udmurt (from a Uralic subgroup, which is relatively far from Finnic) counterparts are:
1. sg мон [mon]
1. pl ми [mi]
2. sg тон [ton]
2. pl тӥ [ti]


Telugu: memu & manamu appear similar to Finnic m, but the other personal pronouns are difficult to include to this system for a mere mortal.

Nevertheless:
-*nu* of Telugu 1. person sg nenu & 3. person masculine singular atanu
and
-*na* in 1. person inclusive plural manamu may be related to the Finnic pronoun suffix -*na* (minä / sinä) ( ~ Udmurt: mon / ton)



P.S.
In modern Uralic languages (except Hungarian) the 2. persons plural is used for *honorific* addressing. It's mainly Russian influence.

Hungarian has specific honorific pronouns:
sg Maga / pl Maguk
and extremely honorific:
sg Ön / pl Önök

They are used with common 3. person verbal suffixes (singular & plural).
This may have developed under neighboring IE influence (German http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_pronouns#Personal_pronouns or Romanian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_grammar#Polite_Pronouns)


----------



## astlanda

shaloo said:


> Okay... I'll list out the probable similarities discussed here in this thread.
> 
> 1) personal suffixes (I'll post them below and you could probably identify if they're similar)
> 2) vowel harmony (I think that's a similarity as it exists in Telugu, for sure)
> 3) formal & informal II person
> 4) gender classification: masculine & feminine for living beings, neuter gender for objects, non-living things
> 5) personal suffixes changing according to the gender



My opinion

1) personal suffixes 
_*(I'd like to see some serious critics about it. E.G. you can reveal me the phonetic "biography" of the very similar Lithuanian suffixes 1. person plural -me & 2. person plural -te based on your IE knowledge.)*_
2) vowel harmony 
_*(Are the Uralic (progressive, backness) and Dravidan (regressive, roundedness) possibly originated from a combined system (as it is present in modern Turkish) ?)*_
3) formal & informal II person 
_(It is a rare or late feature in Uralic.)_
4) gender classification: masculine & feminine for living beings, neuter gender for objects, non-living things 
_(Uralic has only a living / non living opposition for interrogative words. 
E.G. Finnish who = ken / ku(ka), what = mi(kä)  !(ka/kä is a suffix ) 
The Dravidan gender classification resembles me Polish. So it's your battlefield here, my honoured opponents.
)_
5) personal suffixes changing according to the gender 
_*(There is no grammatic gender in Uralic)*_

+
6) some similarities in noun suffixes _*(Espescially the genitive -n, which has counterparts in Turkic -n and Japanese -no)*_


----------



## Frank06

*Hi,

As already said in the other moderator note (post #38) the thread has become very difficult to follow, especially as there were still added more posts with detailed lists of inflection paradigms of numerous Uralic and Dravidan languages. This really kills off discussion about the general topic - Dravidan-Uralic relations: so far, the focus only is on individual paradigms.

A comparative morphology of several Uralic and Dravidan languages unfortunately can't be achieved here; it is near impossible to still find a clear line of arguments in this thread.
This would be a perfect subject for a seminar at university, but it is just impossible to compare so many languages on such a detailed level here.

Therefore, as interesting this topic is, I will have to close this thread now.

Thank you for your understanding.

Groetjes,

Frank
Moderator EHL
*


----------

