Professor P. S. Subrahmanyam, 1939-2016 the distinguished Dravidian linguist

A short profile and his publications

(Photograph on January 25th of 2008 when he visited Dravidian University to deliver the keynote speech in the seminar on Classicalness of Languages: the Dravidian Context, organised by Dravidian University).

1. Professor Prakya Sreesaila Subrahmanyam (henceforth PSS), (1939-2016) the distinguished linguist of the nation known to the field as PSS passed away on 17th of March 2016 at Hyderabad. He was at the age of 77. His scholarship is an exceptional combination of linguistic understanding of Dravidian languages and Sanskrit grammatical tradition. He has substantially advanced the comparative studies of Dravidian languages; unparallel efforts had been made by him to make Sanskrit grammatical tradition accessible in modern terms and introduced modern linguistics in Telugu language. Consequently, he will remains to us as a distinguished comparative Dravidian linguist, a Prometheus of Sanskrit grammatical tradition to common man and a teacher of many generations of students across the world. More than a half century of his substantial contribution to the advancement of comparative study of Dravidian languages since 1960s transformed his biography synonymous with the history of comparative Dravidian Linguistics. For a half century in the history of linguistics in India no years have passed without at least one publication by him. No advancement can be made in the comparative study of Dravidian languages without cite, follow, revise or challenge him. A general search in the Google scholar shows that PSS belongs to the top cited three scholars in Dravidian linguistics. 2. After his post graduation in Telugu language and literature from the Andhra University in 1960 he joined in the Dept. of Linguistics, Annamalai University, Tamil Nadu in 1962 and retired from there in 1999. He was introduced to modern linguistics through a diploma course in Linguistics at the Annamalai University in 1964. Andhra University was awarded Ph.D and D.Litt to him in 1964 and 1986 respectively. During 1971-72 and 1998-99 he was a visiting Professor of School of Oriental & African Studies, University of London, United Kingdom and Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, Japan respectively. In addition to his mother tongue Telugu and the English in which he had good command, he was comfortable with five Dravidian languages, Tamil, Kannada, Gonḍi, Koḍagu and KoỊami; what else a linguist need other than this to champion in comparative linguistics! He could speak Hindi and Sanskrit and was a scholar in the grammatical tradition of Sanskrit. Like us there are many students supported, encouraged and corrected by him. He never misses a chance to teach youngsters. He taught in a Short Term Intensive Course in Dravidian Linguistics recently organised by CALTS, University of Hyderabad during September of 2015. The last public lecture he has delivered was in the Annul Meet of Telugu Linguists Forum recently held at the University of Hyderabad on 11-12 March 2016. 3. The Descriptive Grammar of Gonḍi by PSS in 1968 proves him as a linguist of the time. Description of a language especially a language other than the mother tongue of linguist was considered as a licence to practice linguistics. The Dravidian Verb Morphology: A Comparative Study published in 1971 still continues as the authentic source of verb morphology of Dravidian languages. An Introduction to Modern Telugu (1974) is the best grammar available for learning and teaching Telugu. Dravidian Comparative Phonology (1983) remains as an unparallel comprehensive account of the comparative phonology of Dravidian languages. Dravidian Comparative Grammar: I (2008) is an advancement of comparative Dravidian linguistics with special references to comparative phonology. After two decades of the 2nd edition of Dravidian Etymological Dictionary (Revised) (1984), PSS revised it by including cognates from many nonliterary languages like IṛuỊa, Baḍaga which are underrepresented in DEDR. The Morphosyntax of the Dravidian Languages (2013) is his recent work. Needless to tell that, this recent work marks the current status of Comparative Dravidian Linguistics towards comparative morphosyntax. 4. In addition to the consistent contribution in the study of Dravidian languages, PSS is credited with a good number of works on the grammatical tradition of Sanskrit and Telugu Pāṇinian Linguistics (1999), Secondary Paribhāshas of Pāṇinian Grammar (2005) and Bālavyākaraṇamu of Paravastu Cinnaya Sūri (2002) are his contribution towards the grammatical tradition of Indian languages. 5. He wrote four books in Telugu. They are draviḍa bhāshalu (Dravidian Languages) (1977 second edition in 1977), ādhunika bhāshāšāstra siddhāntālu (Theories of Modern Linguistics) (1984 second edition in 1994), vēdālalō dēvatalu – gāthalu (Translation of “Vedic Mythology” of A. A. Macdonell) (1995) and pāṇinīyam: – sāstralakshaṇālu (The characteristics of Panini's grammar) (2001). The former two are used as text books for many generations of students in Andhra Pradesh. 6. He entered into the field of Comparative Dravidian Linguistics with an article deals about rendering of –k- in Parji verb (1964). The historical significance of –k- in Parji verb, unnoticed by his predecessors Burrow and Bhattacharya, have proved in this article with the evidence of it’s corresponds with Tamil and Proto- South Dravidian. The Position of TuỊu in Dravidian (1968b) is a demonstrable attempt of presenting a short descriptive account of TuỊu and how the descriptive account can be used to place a language in a family of language with comparative evidences. He safely placed TuỊu as a direct offshoot of Proto-South Dravidian by completing Emeneau’s (1967: 370) diagram of South Dravidian languages. He continued to be firm of the sub grouping Central Dravidian languages with nine languages he introduced in 1969 even though the same proposal is contrary to Krishnamurti’s (2003) fourfold division and Southworth’s (1976, 2005: 235) sevenfold division. The focused comparative attempt of treating gender and number as special category in 1969 left a potential hypotheses about the innovation of the PDR avaỊ “she” as resulted by the grammaticalization of āỊ. In his 1970 article on Long Vowels y in Telugu Bases he contradicts with the standard view of the presence of long vowel before y proposed by Krishnamurti (1955: 243). The 1971 article about the The Principles of Subgrouping and their Application in Dravidian is the methodological article which demystified the principles of subgrouping. The two articles about the Proto-Dravidian development of Toda (1976) and the reflexes *np in Kota-Toda (1979) are demonstrably presented the method of reconstruction with rich comparative data. The later one proves that with and without nasals reflexes of *np in Kota and Toda are innovation and borrowing from Baḍga and Tamil respectively. The article Modal Auxiliaries in Telugu is the first attempt in Dravidian languages (1980) to classify the auxiliaries in Telugu based on the main verb to which they are attached. It should be specially mentioned that this may be the first attempt of morphosyntax of Dravidian languages much before the appearance of Sanford B Steever’s advancement in morphosyntax in 1988 and 1993. The article From Proto- Dravidian to Telugu (1980) appeared in the same year can be confidently recommended as the original article for those who seriously study the history Telugu language. Tense Formation in Kota- Toda: A Comparative Study (1991) demonstrably reveals the structural diversity of tense system in Kota and Toda in comparative perspectives. Voicing and Degemination of Original Stops in Kannada (2004), Historical Study of Toda Morphology: continuation of Emeneau’s Works (2005), Dravidian Personal Pronouns: the interplay of Sound Change and Analogy (2006), Verb Bases a Non-past Adjectives in Old Tamil and Old Telugu (2006) and The Merger of Short High and Mid Vowels in Proto-South Dravidian: a reconsideration of the Hypothesis ( ?) are the recent article appeared as the outcome of his consistent research in the field. The Dravidian Family: Characteristics Features (2015) may be last article he published. In addition of walking on the main way of the discipline two times he documented the history of the comparative Dravidian linguistics by three articles Comparative Dravidian Studies from 1980 (1988), Dravidian Linguistics since the 1960’s (2007) and Trends in Dravidian Linguistics (2008). These three articles remain as the standard historiographic record towards the comprehensive history of Comparative Dravidian Linguistics. 7. We have a decade of scholarly and personal relation with him by which we have much benefitted as his late students. We have often asked to provide Malayalam data for his comparative analysis and enjoyed a special privilege to read most of his works before publication. We were asked to prepare an index of the SDED(R) (2011) and advised by him to strictly follow the card system by using the card he himself given to us. Therefore, we could learn how a methodological practice of an indexing work makes a laborious work error free and systematic. He never left any of our little assistance to him unacknowledged. 8. PSS was not beyond criticism. He takes differences of opinion very seriously. However, he revises his position on a subject if and only substantial and convincible evidences are provided. An instance can be motioned here. For a long time he did not considered Baḍaga as separate language. Instead, he considered it as a dialect of Kannada. However, based on the studies on Baḍaga by Christiane Pilot- Raichoor (1991, with Hocking 1992, 1997) and Balakrishnan (1999) he accepted the independent status of Badaga in 2011. In spite of his conspicuous esteem to Bh. Krishnamurti (1928-2012), the leading linguist of his time, he was in consistent differences of opinion with him about many issues. Subrahmanyam is not included Koraga, Naikṛi and Ollari as separate language, however Krishnamurti (2003: 25-26) considered these three are separate languages. Krishnamurti’s (1997:145-65 (reprinted with a postscript 2001: 323-344] 2003) reconstruction of laryngeal *H as a PDr phoneme based on Tamil ayatam is rejected by PSS. PSS provide an evidence of the contrast of n and ṉ in PDR however rejected by Krishnamurti. Therefore, the number of nasals reconstructed for PDR by PSS is six against Krishnamurit’s four. PSS sub grouped Dravidian languages into three as Krishnamurti done in 1970. Krishnamurti revised the tripartite subrogating by separating the Telugu-Manḍa sub group from CD and places it as another sub branch of SD known as SDII. However, PSS did not accept the new sub grouping and consistent on the earlier tripartite one. 9. One of the distinctions we should learn from PSS’s scholarly wrings is the generous presentation of rich data and the methodology through which he reached towards conclusion. Therefore, his studies are left for further empirical validation and open for advancement like any other standard scientific studies. He was much sceptical about speculations. Therefore, he rarely accepted any of the postulated genetic connection of Dravidian with other families of languages or even the much circulated connection of Dravidian with Indus valley civilization (2008: 315). 10. A careful examination of his latest works for the last half decade indicates that he is giving much focus on contact and convergence studies of Dravidian and the morphosyntax of Dravidian languages. In spite of his relative commitment to Neogrammarian paradigm of his generation he often explained many morphological changes are grammaticalization. This is an indication of the future direction of linguistic studies in India in general and comparative Dravidian linguistics in particular. The discipline is developing the way he directed and reaching towards 200 years of development in this year, sadly without him. P. S. Subrahmanyam’s publications (1964-2016) 1964. Two problems in Parji verb form, Indian Linguistics 25: 47-55 1965. The intransitive and transitive suffixes of Kui. Journal of the American Oriental Society 85: 551-65. 1967-68. The personal pronouns in Dravidian. Bulletin of the Deccan College Research 28: 202-17 1968 a. A Descriptive Grammar of Gonḍi. Annamalainagar: Annamalai University b. The position of Tulu in Dravidian. Indian Linguistics 29:47-66 1969 a. The central Dravidian languages. Journal of the American Oriental Society 89: 739-750 b. The gender and number categories in Dravidian. Journal of Annamali University 26: 79-100. 1970 a. Review of Burrow and Bhattacharya 1960. Indian Linguistics 31: 60-66. b. Long vowels before y in Telugu base. Indian Linguistics 31: 86-90. 1971a. Dravidian verb morphology: a comparative study. Annamalainagar: Annamalai University. b. Reconstruction of allomorphs. Indian Linguistics 32: 36-42. c. The principles of subgrouping and their application in Dravidian. In Proceedings of the first all India conference of Linguistics, ed. Ghatage et al. Pp. 79-84. Poona: Linguistics Society of India, Deccan College. 1973. Notes on Dravidian etymological notes . Indian Linguistics 34: 138-46. 1974. An Introduction to Modern Telugu. Annamalainagar: Annamalai University 1975. Quantitative variation in Dravidian. Indian Linguistics 34:138-46. 1976. a. The Toda development of Proto-Dravidian *a, *a:, *l and *Ị”. In, Dravidian Linguistics-V. In Dravidian Linguistics V. eds. Agesthialingom and Subrahmanyam, Pp 87-120. Annamalainagar: Annamalai University. 1977 a. The Toda reflexes of Proto-Dravidian *l and *Ị. Journal of the American Oriental Society 97:178-81. b. Proto Dravidian *r in Toda. Indian Linguistics 38: 227-33. c. Dravidian alternations: a critique. Indian Linguistics 38: 227-33. d. Dravidia Bhashalu (Dravidian languages) Annamalainagar: The author. 1979 a. Prto-Dravidian high and mid vowels in Toda. Indian Linguistics 40:243-45. b. The reflexes of *NP in Kota-Toda. Osmania Papers in Linguistic 5: 11-18. 1980 a. Case relation sandhi in Old Tamil . In Subramanian and Irulappan: 54-58. b. Model auxilories in Telugu. In Auxiliaries in Dravidian (Seminar Papers). ed. Agesthialingom and Srinivasa Varama, Pp. 327-48. Annamalainagar: Annamalai University. c. From Proto-Dravidian to Telugu. In Studies in Dravidian Linguistics (Pāakha sanjam vol10) ed. Vaidyanathan. Pp. 251-74. Patiala. 1981. i/e and u/o alternation in South Dravidian and Telugu. In Papers in Linguistics (Dr. R.C Hiremath Felicitation Volume. ed. Sunkapur and Kulli. Pp. 302-18. Mysore. 1982. Plosive in medial position in Dravidian. Proceedings of the All India Tamil Teachers Conference 14 (part 2): 165-69. 1983. Dravidian comparative phonology. Annamalainagar: Annamalai University. 1985. Review of Burrow and Emeneau 1984. Indian Linguistics 46.3&4: 71-74. 1987. The non-literary languages and their contribution to Dravidian comparative grammar. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 16.1:22-30. 1988. Comparative Dravidian Studies from 1980. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 17.1:59-71. 1991. Tense formation in Kota-Toda: a comparative study. In: Studies in Dravidian and General Linguistics: a Festschrift for Bh. Krishnamurti ed. Lakshmi Bai and Ramakrishna Reddy Pp. 49-72. Hyderabad: Osmania University, Department of Linguistics. 1993. The personal pronouns in Dravidian. PILC Journal of Dravidic Studies 3.1:27-52. 1994 a The translation of Mahabharata into Telugu: some observations. In Art and science of translation, ed. Venkateswara Sastry. Pp. 123-27. Hyderabad: Osmania University and Booklinks Corporation. b. Change in Dravidian grammatical system. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 23.2:1-6. c. Evolution and development of the Telugu language. In, Seminar Papers on Telugu language and literature (World Telugu Federation First Conference, December 28, 30, Madras, 1994): 10-24. 1998. Kolami. In Dravidian Languages (ed) Steever, B, Pp. 301-27. London and New York: Routledge. 1999. Paniniyan Linguistics. Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies: Tokyo. 2002. Bālavyākaraṇamu of Paravastu Cinnaya Sūri (Old Telugu Grammar with English Translation and Notes) Thiruvananthapuram: Dravidian Linguistics Association. 2003. Review of Krishnamurti 2001. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 32.1:227-38. 2004 a. Review of Krishnamurti 2003. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 33.1: 185-204. b. Voicing and degemination of original stops in Kannaḍa. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 33.2:125-44. 2005. Historical Study of Toda morphology (continuation of Emeneau’s work). International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 34.2:71-80. 2006 a. Dravidian personal pronoun (the interplay of sound change and analogy). International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 35.1:167-201. b. Verb bases as non-past adjectives in Old Tamil and Old Telugu. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 35.2:171-74. c.“Brahui”. In Encyclopaedia of Language & Linguistics vol. 2, ed. Brown, Pp. 104-07. Elsevier: Amsterdam. d. Dravidian languages. In Encyclopaedia of Language & Linguistics vol. 5, ed. Brown, Pp. 99-103. Elsevier: Amsterdam. e. Gondi. In Encyclopaedia of Language & Linguistics vol. 6, ed. Brown, Pp. 267-70. Elsevier: Amsterdam. f. Kurux. In Encyclopaedia of Language & Linguistics vol. 5, ed. Brown, Pp. 267-70. Elsevier: Amsterdam. g. The role of the conjunctive participles in Indian linguistic area. Indian Linguistics 67: 215-35. 2007. Dravidian linguistics since the 1960’s . In Research trends in lexicography, Sanskrit and Linguistics (Proceedings of the Professor S. M. Katre birth centenary seminar) ed. Nagaraja et al, Pp. 201-22. Pune: Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute. 2008 a. Dravidian Comparative Grammar-I. Mysore: Centre of Excellence for Classical Tamil and Central Institute of Indian Languages. b. Trends in Dravidian linguistics. Indian Linguistics 71:183-206. 2009. The Telugu dialect of Bangalore area. Indian Linguistics 70: 387-409. 2010 a. The Evolution of finite verb in Dravidian. Indian Linguistics 71: 183-206. b. The finite verb in Dravidian. Indian Linguistics 71:183-206. c. “Kolavagoṭṭi (Kolami of Adilabad)”. Bulletin of the Deccan College Research 70: 231-306. 2011 a. A Supplement to Dravidian Etymological Dictionary (R). Chennai: Central Institute of Classical Tamil. b. Phonological change. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 40.1:17-37. 2012. Auxiliaries in Dravidian. In Morphosyntax of Dravidian languages (proceedings of national seminar on morphosyntax of Dravidian languages), eds. Gnaesan et al. Pp. 141-60. Annamalainagar: Annamalai University. 2013 a.The Morphosyntax of Dravidian Languages. Thiruvananthapuram: Dravidian Linguistics Association. b. The position of IruỊa in South Dravidian. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 42.1:25-35. 2015. The Dravidian Family: Characteristics Features. In. V.I Subramoniam Commemoration Volume - I, Studies on Dravidian eds. G.K. Panikkar, B. Ramakrishna Reddy, K. Rangan, B.B. Rajapurohit, Pp. 19-42. International School of Dravidian Linguistics: Thiruvananthapuram.