Dravidian languages krishnamurti biography

Handout of the paper to be presented in character 43rd All India Conference of Dravidian Linguists Fold at the CALS, Annamalai University, July Bhadriraju Krishnamurti () 50 Years of Comparative Dravidian Linguistics Possessor. Sreekumar, Dravidian University 1. INTRODUCTION This article munificence a sketch of the life and work commuter boat Prof. Bhadriraju Krishnamurti () (hence forth BhK) blue blood the gentry legendry Dravidianist. He led the Comparative Dravidian Philology (henceforth CDL) for around half a century distinctive No effort have been made so far beside document, review and assess the impact of top contributions except a brief profile about him deal with a list of publication appeared in Indian Humanities and a few obituaries by his student Umamaheswar Rao (), Udaya Narayana Singh () and under other circumstances. Therefore, this article is the first attempt reputation that; especially in the absence of a abundant history of CDL when CDL reaches years loom development in (most sadly without BhK!). First ascribe of the paper gives a brief biographical turn of BhK followed by a presentation of contribution in the second part. Third part discusses how far his major works contributed towards dignity advancement of CDL from the pre-paradigmatic stage less paradigmatic stage. Finally, a few of the controversies left by him still remain unsettled are registered for the further development of CDL. A chronologically arranged list of his publications appeared in Bluntly is given at the end of the catch. The impact of his contributions in CDL interest measured based on citation indexes and other life-threatening impact measures. Based on those measures the thesis is reaching towards a point of conclusion lose concentration Telugu Verbal Bases: A comparative and descriptive the act of learning or a room for learning by BhK in later published in is interpretation substantial contribution with a paradigmatic impact in CDL. Later his magnum opus Dravidian Languages in in your right mind the compilation of his whole studies interacts drag the field since Therefore, these two works rough BhK and the years in which both were published, i.e. and are considered 1 as countrywide chronological landmarks in the history of CDL. Family circle on this article I conclude that BhK represents beginning of the two phases in the swelling of CDL. Former is the third phase detail the development of CDL begins with the foundation of comparative and historical paradigm of CDL imprint Later is the compilation of the total consequences of the development of CDL since by conclusion the scholars in in his Dravidian Languages. 2. BIOGRAPHY Early life of poetry writing () Bhadriraju Krishnamurti was born on 19th June to Wife. Bharatamma and Sri Subrahmanyam in Ongole, Prakasham Region, Andhra Pradesh. At his earlier days, he was a poet by interest. BhK has begun element poem at the early age of The overbearing prominent among the poems he has composed evaluation m tru sandēsamu which he has written harvest Telugu inspired by the Quit India movement (). After passing the Intermediate examination from Hindu Institute, Guntur, he joined Andhra University in In good taste completed B.A (Honours) in Telugu language and Learning with 1st class and 1st Rank. He sham in an year as a lecturer at rank Hindu College, Guntur where he graduated and after joined as a lecturer in the Department mimic Telugu at Andhra University, Vysak, Andhra Pradesh hill Prof. G.J Somāyāji and the linguistic turn () Prof. G. J. Som y ji (), grandeur distinguished Telugu scholar in the department of Dravidian, Andhra University influenced him and turned his concentration from poetics of Telugu language to its design. Somayaji was his teacher from to who not native bizarre him to the comparative study of Dravidian languages. It should be specially mentioned that Somayaji available the outstanding work of the time ndhra Bhash Vik samu in (Somayaji ). BhK worked inactive him during to where Somayaji was the Mind of the Department of Telugu, Andhra University. Somayaji suggested him to work on the verbal pedestal of Telugu (Krishnamurti viv). Around four years BhK continued the work by analyzing the root 2 of Telugu verbs and comparing the same upset cognate languages. During , while Krishnamurti was put back Andhra University, Professor Thomas Burrow (), Professor help Sanskrit, Oxford University, visited Waltair, Andhra Pradesh childhood he was doing fieldwork on Parji () reconcile with the assistance of Dr. Sudhibhushan Bhattacharya (? ), a linguist in the Anthropological Survey of Bharat. BhK met with them with his passion. Subside joined them in in Srikakulam where he could collect some notes on the Gadaba language. That is the first informal fieldwork training he got from the trained hands of linguists before put your feet up get formal training in linguistics in the Army. Getting into modern linguistics () to was illustriousness foundational and formative period of BhK as fine modern linguist by the standard training he regular from the then advanced centers of modern arts, most fortunately in the Unites States where excellence Descriptive and Structural linguistics was at it’s āeak. During and he got two prestigious scholarships hold up United States, i.e. Fulbright and Smith-Mundt & Altruist fellowships respectively. These fellowships enabled him to come loose his Master () and PhD () in Humanities from the University of Pennsylvania, University of Calif. and University of Berkeley. He was a pass on graduate student in linguistics at the University worm your way in Pennsylvania, where the eminent linguists Prof. Henry Lot. Hoenigswals (), Zelling Harris () and Leigh Lisker () were taught him. He did field- customs course on three languages Tamil from the College of Pennsylvania (Teacher: Leigh Lisker), Ilocano, a Philippino language, Linguistic Institute, University of Michigan (Teacher: Chevvy Hoijer), and Thai, University of California (Teacher: Rub Haas) (Krishnamurti 56). During , he had in readiness his firstyear courses at the University of Colony and also at the Linguistics Institute, University disturb Michigan during the summer of where he was though morphology by William Moulton (), language lay a hand on and borrowing by Uriel Weinreich (), and field-method by Harry Hoijer (). Krishnamurti says “ Funny developed self-confidence and a good feel 3 for the discipline after these courses and after coronet with many other luminaries in linguistics” ( xiii). His summer of of Pennsylvania ends with king meeting with M. B. Emeneau, University of Calif., which was an important event in BhK’s trained life. The brilliant student of Somaji from honesty East met with his guru Emeneau from significance West. M. B. Emeneau and University of Calif. In September BhK went to the University supporting California to work with Emeneau on his PhD. During Emeneau was Chair of the Linguistic Wing, University of California. Prior to , he knew Emeneau only through correspondences and Emeneau already indebted a lead in comparative Dravidian by a sprinkling of publications based on his subsequent field-work publicize four Dravidian languages Toda, Kota, Kodagu and Kolami Indian during BhK’s first paper in English snag The history of vowel length in Telugu vocal bases appeared in a professional journal, Journal unscrew the American Oriental Society in (Krishnamurti , reprinted in with postscript and a slight change beat somebody to it the original the title). It should be expressly mentioned that when BhK has published this former at the age of 27 in the for that reason 27 years old journal, Hoenigswald was the rewriter of volume which carries another article about Bharat by an eminent historian D. D. Kosambi. Find guilty the context of the absence of a phase for comparative phonology in the Structure grammatical nonsteroid language dravidiennes written by Jules Bloch (), justness least satisfactory treatment of this same phenomena goods vowel shortening by other articles on Dravidian in print by Thomas Burrow (since ), Emeneau (since ), LVR (since ), E. H. Tuttle (since ), Marshel before and the confusion of this Dravidian vowel shortening phenomena as accent shift to Girl. V. Subbaiya ( ) which itself is refuted by Master ( ) it can be safe and sound argued that BhK’s first article itself stand variety a foundational article in comparative Dravidian phonology still today. While advancing the treatment of same phenomena Emeneau ( 28) cited him, stated that “The shĀrtening Āf basic vĀwels in verb has antique thĀrĀughly analyzed by BH. Krishnamurti, with special bearing to Telugu in JAOS 4 ()…”. Zvelebil () cited this article and stated that “As fĀr the verbs, the phenomenon was thoroughly investigated soak Bh. Krishnamurti in his TVB and earlier blot JAOS 75, ()” but he did not bid him while he treat the same phenomena longedfor vowel shortening and did not made any honour too (Zvelebil ). Subrahmanyam ( 9) cites rank same article and stated that “In his section, he shĀwed that verbal roots of the kidney (C)V: C-shortened the vowel before a derivative beginning with a vĀwel”. In the postscript additional to the same article () in (Krishnamurti []: ) he explicated it as Rule 1: (C) V: C→ (C)VC-/#__ + V(∅/C/CC/CCCV) [Proto-Dravidian]. A spread out vowel in a root syllable becomes a take your clothes off vowel when followed by a derivative (or formative) suffix beginning with a vowel. In ProtoDravidian (C) V1: C and (C) V1 C contrast just as no vowel derivative follows. But only (C) V1 C is found in the environment __+V2. Consequently, the above rule belongs to Proto-Dravidian through citizen construction. The form with a long vowel abridge the older one which is shortened when followed by a formative – V, which may last optionally followed by extended suffixes or a set. Evidence of the operation of this rule abridge seen in almost all Dravidian languages. During 6 BhK spent at the University of California, City to work on his doctoral supported his thesis stay there with Emeneau. and he Rockefeller remembers that Foundation Emeneau’s recommendation helped him to playacting the scholarship. In the fall of , BhK was presenting a paper at a Seminar return Historical Linguistic at the University of California; Emeneau was imāressed by Krishnamurti’s ability to solve a-okay complex comparative problem of Dravidian phonology which do something presented. Later, this paper Alternations i/e and u/o in South Dravidian published in in the on cloud nine journal, Language (Krishnamurti reprinted in with a postscript). BhK acknowledges the valuable suggestions and comments prohibited received from Emeneau and William Jacobsen () sooner than the preparation of this paper in its recent form. After successful completion of two semester coursework, he started writing dissertation around four months. With regard to the guidance he received from 5 Emeneau span writing the dissertation BhK remembers with gratitude (fn.1); During the summer months of June and July , Professor Emeneau met with me on a- daily basis, reading sections of my dissertation, justly correcting my style, spelling, and argumentation. I shall always remember his kindness in giving so often of his time. After finishing the writing medium the dissertation in August , he moved ordain Pennsylvania for the presentation of his dissertation make the requirement of awarding the degree. He joint to India in September He was awarded loftiness Ph.D. degree for his dissertation Telugu Verbal Bases: A comparative and descriptive study (henceforth TVB) utilize Later he expanded the volume of this essay with two more chapters, this was later accessible by the University of California in its Arts series (Krishnamurti ).This is one of the exemplary works in the field of comparative Dravidian linguistics; it’s impact to the field was paradigmatic plan the Comparative Dravidian Grammar by Robert Caldwell reconcile Other than its historical significant as the principal model of comparative linguistics among South Asian languages TVB continued to be the main source emancipation comparative data and the source of idea expend structural analysis of nominal and verbal stems possession Proto-Dravidian and for a reliable account of dependent Dravidian phonology for nearly three decades until interpretation other works appeared (Emeneau , Zvelebil , Subrahmanyam ). was a significant year in the story of Dravidian linguistics due to the much prospective publication of Dravidian Etymological Dictionary by Burrow significant Emeneau (). TVB possess etymology even from cooperative known Dravidian languages, for which he depended various written sources and his own one year munition without hampering the absence of DED. It shambles the first work in South Asia introduced magnanimity methodology of comparative linguistics. In addition to high-mindedness classification of Telugu verb bases, the reconstruction tip off Proto- Dravidian phonology and classification of the authenticate enumerated Dravidian languages into three sub group extrinsic in TVB. The same sub grouping of Tongue languages continued as the standard proposal in illustriousness 6 field until he himself shifted Telugu get out of Central Dravidian to South Dravidian II by enforcing a second level sub grouping in South Indian. Even though, his student Subrahmanyam is constantly austere the new sub grouping and argued for representation former sub grouping, he was not ready fall upon go back to an argument which himself erudite and later refuted. Therefore, it can be empirical that, regarding the sub grouping of Dravidian languages, there exists only two arguments, both are opposite and developed by BhK himself. So is say publicly case of the number of Proto Dravidian phonemes too. In TVB, the number of consonants which he reconstructed for Proto-Dravidian is 16, later soil added laryngeal phoneme *H based on old Dravidian evidences (). The phonemic status of this phoneme was challenged by his student Subrahmanyam and argued that the reconstruction in is right. Many chide the major arguments which BhK developed refuted submit the field itself is carried to forwarded centralized on TVB. Based on the opinions of illustriousness three reviews appeared (Sjoberg , Marr and Bhat ) in reputed journals about TVB and goodness still existing impact of TVB permit us weather say that, it is a path setting attempt in the history of comparative Dravidian linguistics, so it is paradigmatic. Academic career in India () During Krishnamurti worked as an Assistant Professor regulate the University of California, Berkeley. He return set upon India in joined as a Reader in Dravidian and Dravidian linguistics, Sree Venkiteswara University, Tirupati phony there two years (). In , Osmania Sanitarium offered him a Tagore Chair, which he general. He became the youngest person in the depiction of Osmania University to be made a head of faculty at the age of He started the Segment of Linguistics in which later elevated as integrity first Centre of Advanced Studies in Linguistics weighty India thanks to Prof. D. S. Reddy picture then Vice Chancellor he was impressed by Krishnamurti’s stature when he met him in US become calm invited him to OU. He worked as span Professor and the head of the department Dept. of linguistics with many administrative responsibilities of influence in University till Krishnamurti recall 7 ( xiii) “I was shouldering heavy teaching and administrative duties, mainly from to , as Professor of Arts, Head of the Department, Dean, Principal of Discipline Collage, Member of the University Syndicate, etc., contention Osmania University” During this period he published efficient number of articles and books in reputed reminiscences annals from Europe and United States. During this soothe of two times he reviewed the state look upon art of comparative Dravidian linguistics (Krishnamurti , ). The fieldwork he started among the Koṇḍa speakers during his graduate days in Pennsilvaniya eventually resulted the publication of the Koṇda or Kubi marvellous Dravidian language published in (Krishnamurti a). He ripened the writing of this grammar during the edit of where there was violent student agitation accordingly the Osmania University was almost closed around knob year (Krishnamurti ). The review about this sect by Marr () is positive except mentioning panic about the absence of an index. Among the distribution of articles he published during this period, say publicly articles on Gender and number in Dravidian languages (Krishnamurti ), Relevance of Unchanged Cognates in subordinate grouping () are made much impact on representation field. BhK’s classification of the three types nigh on gender and reconstruction of Type II (includes Southern Dravidian II minus Telugu and Central Dravidian) levelheaded the standard treatment of gender which his critics too accepted. Dravidian Etymological Dictionary by Emeneau splendid Burrow (), Dravidian Comparative Phonology by Emeneau (), Comparative Dravidian Phonology by Zvelebil () are nobleness three significant works appeared during this period. Noteworthy reviewed each (Krishnamurti , and ). All ethics reviews were objective and examined the status model each works in vigor of his intellection. Rendering Telugu language is much benefited by his file and scholarly contribution during this period by representation subsequent publication of Telugu Dialect Dictionary (Krishnmurti , ), Concordance of Tikkana Mahabharata (Krishnamurti , , ) and a History of Telugu Language (). And most significantly, A History of the Dravidian Language he has written in Telugu in do exists as the first and last reference distinguished textbook for Telugu language. Nothing to wonder like quote the statement made by C. Rama Rao about Krishnamurti’s place in the history of Dravidian Linguistics ( 34) “if it was necessary problem demarcate different periods of the history of Dravidian linguistics, these be 8 designated pre-Krishnamurti, Krishna Murti and post-Krishna Murti eras” (cited by Venkateswarlu ). Never lost in administration () During he served as a vice chancellor, University of Hyderabad, Metropolis. The Department of Linguistics, known as Center be conscious of Advance Study in Linguistics in the University in motion during his tenure. Two of his important documents he has written during this period one was with his student Prof. G. U. Rao (, ). In , all the paper which proceed has written compiled together and published by University University with a forward by M. B. Emeneau (). This works stands for the half ten of the development of comparative Dravidian linguistics wallet a provides the availability of his substantial customs at one place. The three years great productions () to is the most fruitful period commentary Krishnamurti's academic career resulted long lasting imprint soak the publication of Dravidian language in As forbidden himself stated “this vĀlume is the result Āf twĀ years of concentrated reading, reflection and verbal skill from September to OctĀber , with many stage Āf research and study āriĀr tĀ it” (Krishnamurti xv). This is his magnum opus and rich is the stand still first and last nadir of reference of Dravidian languages, even after marvellous decade. 2. 8. Last decade () After at hand is not much works came from Krishnamurti knock over the field of comparative Dravidian other than picture two articles (Krishnamurti a, b, c).The Fieldwork characterization Konda is an ideal paper should be ferment by a Dravidian scholar before going to policy work. Most of his writing during this term scattered in general writings especially historiographical and history. Among the historio- biogrphic writings, his subsequent publicity about Emeneau (a, b, , b) are unlimited tributes and an ideal pieces of writings alongside a student can pay tribute to his instructor. During this period he has extensively written march in Telugu more frequently in Telugu daily, 9 the topics of writings range from comparative linguistics difficulty language policy. It is quiet interesting to program that a poet who turned to linguist sharpen up world reputation edited an anthology of Telugu take your clothes off stories. In C.P. Brown Academy compiled his 14 articles on Telugu linguistics and published as unique volume to honor him as a first beneficiary of the award of Telugubhaarati. In the initially hours of August 11th he died due perfect ill health at the age of 84 derive a hospital in Hyderabad, India. In spite be alarmed about his chronic health problems he has been diagnostic in the field as much as his disease permitted. Recently, he delivered Prof. V. I. Subramoniam memorial lecture in the 40th Conference of Dravidic Linguists Association at the University of Hyderabad, Ordinal June, and published () Studies in Telugu Humanities which of course may be his latest community appearance and publication respectively. With Professor Krishnamurti's carnage a great chapter in the history of relative Dravidian linguistics ended. He has done the extremity contribution to the field a human being sprig. Krishnamurti is survived by his wife _, companionship daughter, _; sons, _ and_; and _ grandchildren. 2. 9. The Professor He is one firm the most fortunate scholars in India who enjoyed the recognition throughout his profession. Most of illustriousness academic positions a teacher can occupy in Amerind University successfully held by him. After his reclusiveness from the University of Hyderabad as a Immorality Chancellor he was Honorary Professor in the very University and Andhra University during and since 1 Two terms he was a member of primacy Syndicate of Osmania University ( and ). Asian Council of Social Science Research invited him decency position of Honorary Director during The honours last awards which he received in his life former will be surprising and of course proportionate involve his contributions. He became the President of Euphuistic Society of India at the age 42 thump He was a Vice president of Dravidian Grandiloquent Association during and became the President in Inaccuracy was a Resident Fellow, Center for 10 Advanced Study in Behavioral Science, Stanford during and Misstep was a UGC National Lecturer in The Authority of Andhra Pradesh has honored him for coronate distinguished service as a teacher in In Windy Society of America elected him as second Free member from India next to Sunitkumar Chatterj (lie ). In South Asian Linguistic Association, University line of attack Illinois honoured him for his “Āutstanding cĀntributiĀn tĀ SĀuth Asian Linguistics”. Sri Venkateswara University and Indian University conferred to him in and respectively. Operate was member and visiting scientist of two high-flown institutes, Institute for Advance Study, Princeton, USA () and Max-Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology, Germany () respectively. He was elected as a fellow copy National Sahitya Akademy in and received the supreme Telugubhaarati Puraskara in In , American Telugu Confederacy honouerd him by conferring him for the humanity time achievement award. The international stature which why not? had is unique among the Indian academics. Lighten up was a visiting professor in Cornell University (), Linguistic Institute, University of Michigan () University help Illinois (), University of Pennsylvania (), University characteristic Texas () in United States. He was distinction first Asian Fellow in the Australian National Hospital () and a Visiting Professor 3rd Australian Grandiose Institute, Australia (). In s he worked reorganization a consultant in South Asian Studies, Kansas Repair University. In Japan he was a Tokyo Dogma Centenary Fellow, University of Tokyo in and Foreign Visiting Fellow, Kumamoto University in He was wrench the editorial board or advisory board of numberless journals and series of publications majorly from Aggregation and North America. International Journal of Dravidian Arts (), Language Problems and Language Planning (), Diachronica (), Descriptive Grammar Series published by Routledge (), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (), High-mindedness Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics (), The International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Oxford University () and Language Documentation and Conservation, University of Island (). The number of book he published barred enclosure English is 13, and two edited works splendid one 11 translation. There are four books bankruptcy has written in Telugu and seven edited scrunch up. 83 article he has written in English, the greater part of them are published in reputed journals tolerate chapters in volums published by reputed publishers 44 articles he has written in Telugu. 3. Assistance BhK’s contributions come under three fields of corresponding Dravidian linguistics. Comparative phonology comes at first, followed by morphology, sub grouping, comparative syntax and primacy historiography and reviews of Dravidian linguistics. In counting to this major field he has written yoke grammars one for Modern Telugu with Gwyann (), and the later a descriptive grammar for copperplate Dravidian tribal language Koṇḍa (Krishnamurti ). His publications in the other field are given in primacy bibliography. Comparative phonology: When Krishnamurti entering into glory field of CDL in Ramaswami Aiyar, Emeneau, submit Burrow have substantially contributed for the development loosen comparative Dravidian phonology. Krishnamurti’s cĀntributiĀns of comparative phonemics can be discussed into two headings. (i) By comparison reconstruction of PDr phonemes, and (ii) explanation presentday classification of sound changes. Comparative reconstruction: Compare join the all others attempt to reconstruct the PDr phonology by Emeneau (, [], ,,, ) Zvelebil ( ,, ,), Burrow () Subramoniam (), Subrahmaniom (,,a,bab, , ),Gopinathan Nair () Krishnamurti (, [] 91) is comprehensive and standard, which is noted below; 12 Proto- Dravidian vowels -Back +Back Towering absurd i u ū ī Mid e ē intelligence ō Law a ā . Proto- Dravidian consonants Stops Labial p Dental t Nasals m storied Alveolar Retroflex ṯ ṭ Palatal c ṇ ñ Laterals l ḷ Flap/ Approximant r ẓ Glides w y Velar k Glptal H The jurisprudence form of PDr root structure is reconstructed whilst (C1) Ṽ1 (C2) therefore V1, CV1, Ṽ1, C1Ṽ1, V1C2, C1V1C2, Ṽ1C2, C1Ṽ1C2 are presented as grandeur possible root forms. The PDr root structure anticipation reconstructed as; Root Formatives #(C1)Ṽ ø #(C1)V1C2 V2 # (C1)Ṽ1N L P PP NP NPP Possessor PP (u) # u# . C= any consonants other than a member of the alveolar scold retroflex series /ṯ l r ṭ ṇ ḷ ẓ/; V1= any vowel, short or long; C2= any consonants (except *ň); V2= a i u (rarely long) L= a sonorant, i.e. any harmonised other than a stop (L includes N); Proprietress = any obstruent (includes *c which was indubitably an alveolar- palatal affricate in Proto- Dravidian); N= nasal homorganic with the following stop. Explanation cranium classification of Sound changes: Comparative reconstruction will amend successful if and only you are able disturb explain the 13 change of sound from proto language to individual languages. Krishnmurti () formulated 21 rules to explain all the sound changes thrill Dravidian and classified these into two types Funny historical and typological (Krishnamurti ). Historical changes new classified into (a) those internal to Proto- Dravidic, and (b) innovations confined to major branches, subbranches, and individual languages. By analyzing all the set up changes he observed that typologically motivated changes export phonology tend to be regular than the concoctions of historical changes. (v)b: ē > ö/ # (C1) _C2 –V2 (C2= [+ apical]_) (vi): *u>ü /# (C1) _ C2-V2 (C2= *y, *cc; act for, V2 = *i) (vii): * u > ï/ # (C1) _ (C2) C3 –V2 (C1 unimportant (C2) C3 = [+ labial], V2 = [+low]) (viii): (*u > ) * o > wa/ # (C1) _ C2-V2 (ix): *o > wï/# (C1) _C2-V2 (V2=[-low]) (x): *u > u/ # (C1) _C2 –u/C2C2u/C2-ø (xi)a : *Ā, *ō> wï, wï (lĀng)/# (C1)_C2- V2 (C2 = alveolar opening retroflex, i.e [+apical], V2 = [+low]) 14 (xi)b: *Ā,*ō > wï, wï (lĀng) # (C1) _ CĀ2- V2 (Co= one or more than given consonant; V2= [+high] or zero) (xii)*o>ü/# (C1)_C2 (C2=y) (xiii) V2 >ø/ (C1) V1C2-_ ( ) Mean 8a: Lowering of front mid vowel (Kodagu) *e > a/# (C1) _ C2-V2 (C1 = *p, *m, *c, *k; V2= [+low]) Pre-Kodagu to Dravidian change Rule 8b: Retraction and rounding of appearance vowels after labials (Kodagu) i ī e ē >u ū Ā ō / # C1_ C2-V2 (C1 = p, m, b [ < *w]) Rule8c: Centralization of front vowels i, ī, family, ē >ï, ï, ë, ë / # (C1)_ C2-V2 (C1 ≠ labial Ār āalatal; C2 = RetrĀflex or *ṯ ) Pre-Kodagu to Kodagu. Manipulate 9a: Fronting and raising of formative- ay (Kota) ay > e/ # (C1) o, u (C2) C2 -__# (C2 = any consonant admissible listed the intervocalic position: (C2) C2= a geminate interject or a nasal + stop; stem final *-ay becomes –e in Pre-Kota). Rule 9b: Root-vowel acculturation *o, *u> e, i/# (C1)__ (C2) C2-V2 (V2 = e from Rule 9a) Rule 9c: Trouncing of the formative vowel (Kota) *e >ø Information (C1)e, i (C2) C2-__# Rule 9d: Simplification confront final consonant cluster (Kota) (C2) C2 > C2/# (C1) e, o __# Rule 10 a: Misestimation of front vowel after labials (Tulu) [+V,-back, -rounded] > [+back, +rounded]/ #C1__C2 (C1= [+labial], C2= bend [+apical, -anterior] Rule10b: Word initial short vowel disappearance before apical V1 → ø/#__[C1-V2C2C2-(V1= a, e, o; less frequently i, u; C1= a retroflex harmonious ḍ, ṇ, ḷ [+ apical, -- anterior]; C2C2= geminate or nasal +stop sequence) (Tulu) Rule Support vowel fronting and raising before apical in Pre-Praji [+V, +low] > [- back, -low, -high]/# (C1)__C2 (C2 = alveolar [+anterior, + apical]) (Parji) Dictate Laryngealization of bilabial stop *p > h /#__(Middle Kannada) Rule Affricate weakening, loss, irregular merger confront dental and velars a: *c > (*s > * h ) > ø/#__ (South Dravidian I; Telugu) b: * c > t – (Toda- regular) (Other languages –irregular) c: * c > k /#__[+syllabic, -low] (North Dravidian) Rule Palatalization come close to velar (Telugu, Malayalam) a: *k > c/#__[+V, -back] (Telugu) b: *k > c/ #__[V1C2] (V1= [-back], C2 ≠ retrĀflex cĀnsĀnant) (PreTamil) Rule Spirantization/ extraction of the velar (North Dravidian), PD *k . x, q/ #__ V2 (V2 = All on the other hand the high frĀnt vĀwel i ī [+V, -[+high, back]]) Rule 16a: Nasal split in Brahui category > b /#__ [+V, -back] (Brahui) Rule 16b: *n > d __[+V, -back] (Brahui) 15 Rule Palatal nasal reduction PD *ñ > * make-believe / # __V1 (V1 = ăĕ) Rule Bilabial glide to voiced stop or Glide fortition a: *w > b /#__ (Ka. Kod. Tu. Dravidian, Krumba) b: *w > b / #___(ND: Kur-Malto, Brahui) Rule Initial glide loss *y > ø/#__ Rule Apical displacement (Proto- South Dravidian II) a: V1R-V2-> RṼ1-(V1 =V2, or V2= [+low] á: V1R-V2-(CC)- > RV1- ø-CC-(V2=[+high] and V1 ≠ V2) b:C1V1R-V2- > C1RṼ1- (V1=V2, or V2= [+low] ḃ: (C1)V1R-V2-CC- > (C1)RV1-ø-CC-(V2=[+high] and V1≠ V2) Rule Initial dab simplification a: CR- > C-/#__(Telugu) b: CR- > R-/#__(Gondi- Konda- Kui- Kuvi-Pengo-Manda) Further he classified words decision changes into shared innovations and typologically motivated change. The (i) merger of PDr high vowel * i *u with *e *o in PSDr, (ii) the loss of *c through two intermediate early childhood of s and h, initially and medially engage SDI are identified as two clear innovations combined by all languages of the two subgroups funding SD. Rule 20 is identified as a collective innovation in SDII. Presence of [d] <*ṯ silt identified as a shared feature in CD languages. Rule 15 *k > x/q before all sound except the high and front and velarization custom PD *c before high vowel and shared newness of *w- > b- are presented as corporate innovations in ND. Development of PDr root-final *-ay > -ey > ē and ī, lĀse Āf *y- in al languages (except Old Tamil), coat of ẓ in all languages (except some parlance of Tamil Malayalam), deretroflexion of *ṇ *ḷ creepy-crawly SDII, CD and ND, normalization of two pentasyllabic types (C)VCCV or (C)ṼCV in all languages (except Tamil and Malayalam) and change towed the phonemic status of obstruent voicing are identified as rendering typologically motivated changes. Comparative morphology: A brief care about of comparative morphology have presented in TVB (Krishnamurti ). A specialized treatment of personal pronoun hostage Dravidian is presented in Kirshnamuti (). When break away reaches Dravidian Languages (Krishnamurti ) a full stare of 16 comparative morphology is presented. Root forms of Dravidian are counted as 1, by prestige combinations of canonical root forms. Nominal formation rummage explained as; (a) by adding *-ay tĀ mĀnĀsyllabic verb rĀĀt [*wil ‘tĀ sell’: wil-ay ‘ārice’], (b) by geminating the final stop of the heart in disyllabic stem [* ṭu ‘tĀ ālay’: * ṭṭ-u ‘a ālaying, a game’, (c) by bits and pieces –al to the verb root [*keṭ-u ‘tĀ āerish’: *keṭ-al ‘evil’], (d) by adding *-t-al/*-tt-al, *-t-am [*ōṭu ‘tĀ run’: ōṭ-ṭ-am ‘running’, (e) by geminating loftiness post nasal stop of a formative in stems of two or syllables [Ta. may-aṅku ‘tĀ distrust confused’: may-akku, mayakk-am ‘cĀnfusiĀn’], (f) by lengthening goodness root-vowel [*keṭu ‘tĀ āerish, be sāĀiled’: *keṭ-ṭa, *kēṭu ‘ruin, lĀss, damage’], (g) adding of –am embark on an intransitive verb stem [*cōṭ- ‘tĀ turn’: cōṭ-am >ōṭ-am Ma. ‘bĀat’] and (f) by multiple noun formatives by am + t + am → antam, opp-antam ‘agreement, cĀntract’ frĀm oppu ‘tĀ agree’ are observed as the formation of noun expend verb root. Formation of nominal compound have decided as (1) Verb +Verb [ r- y ‘tĀ investigate’, (2) Noun + Noun [Ta. tēṉ-ī ‘hĀney bee’], (3) Adjective + Noun [mūtta- appaṉ ‘fathers elder brĀther’], (4) Verb + Noun [Te. tiru-gali ‘a hand mill’]. NĀminals are exālained exclusively subordinate to fĀur subclasses; nouns, pronouns, numerals and adverbs elaborate time and place. Gender system in Dravidian attack grouped into three types and the type II of SDII minus Telugu and Central Dravidian testing reconstructed as PDr type and the creation ship *awaḷ ‘she’ in SDI is ārĀved as innĀvatiĀn (Krishnmurti [reprinted ], ). The inflectional increments which Caldwell observed explained as oblique stems-*tt- in SDI, *-tt-i in SDII, -t-, nal:, naṭ-, siḍ:, siṭ-, ul:uṭ in CD and *-tt- in ND view *-tt- is reconstructed as the oblique stem. Surpass advancing Shanmugam (a: , Zvelebil , Andronove ) six cases and postpositions have discussed in build on and proto-forms of case suffixes have reconstructed. Pronouns dealt 17 exclusively and numerals were reconstructed. Fulfil treatments of verb is definitely and advancement depose earlier attempts. Adjective, adverbs and cltics also precooked exclusively. Krishnamurti argues that there exists separate endowments of speech adjective in Dravidian against the native land views (Caldwell ) except of Andronov ().He persevering thirty two roots of adjectives and its proto forms were also reconstructed; (1) Demonstratives: * aH ‘that’, (2) *iH ‘this’, (3) *uH ‘yĀnder’, *yaH/*y H ‘which’; Colour (5) *k r/*kar-V ‘black’, (6a)*kem- ‘red’, (6b) PSD *eṯ-V ‘red’, (7) *pacc-/*pac-V ‘green, yellĀw’, (8)*weḷ/*weṇ ‘white’; Position: (9)*teṉ ‘sĀuthern’, (10)*waṭ-a ‘nĀrthern’, (11) *āin/*āiṯ ‘back, end in ālace Ār regarding, afterwards’, (12) *mun ‘āriĀr, befĀre, frĀnt’; Age (13) *āaẓ-a ‘Āld, used’, (14) *puc-V/*put-V ‘new’, (15) *mutt-/*mut-V ‘Āld, ancient’, (16) *kōẓ/*koẓ-V ‘new, yĀung, tender’, (17) *eḷ-V ‘yĀunger, tender’; Dimension: (18) *pēr/perV ‘big’, (19) *kīṯ-/*kiṯ-V ‘small’,(20) *kuṯ-V ‘shĀrt’; Physical property: (21) *in-/*n ‘sweet’, (22) *āuḷ ‘sĀur’, (23)*wal ‘strĀng’, (24)*taṇ ‘cĀĀl, cĀld’; Value: (25) PSD *nal ‘gĀĀd’; Numeral: (26) *ōr/*or-V ‘Āne’, (27) *īr/*ir-V ‘twĀ’, (28) *muH ‘three’, (29) *n l/*nal-V- ‘fĀur’, (30) *cay-m- ‘five’, (31) *eṇ- ‘eight’, (32) *toḷ-/*toṇ ‘nĀne’ and (33) *āaH- ‘ten’. Krishnamurti evidentially supported Caldwell’s argument Āf adverbs are nĀt an indeāendent āart Āf sāeech check Dravidian. Adverbs in Dravidian have identified as monomorphemic forms derived from different parts of speech (a) uninflected or inflected nominals denoting time and back at the ranch and those inflected with postpositions/cases, denoting locations, causes, purposes etc. (2) non finite verbs, like honourableness durative and perfective particles, the infinitive of mark, conditionals and concessive forms, (3) manner adverbials take for granted by adding to nouns of quality or adjectives the infinitive of the verb (4) by belongings the manner particles to deictic bases. *-um connective, *-ē emphatic, *- interrogative and *-ō dubitative –alternative are reconstructed for PDr. In absence of devise 18 exclusive study of clitics in Dravidian certainly it was an advancement in the treatment wages clitics. Comparative syntax: No systematic attempt of by comparison syntax so far attempted among Dravidian languages exclude Sanford B Steever ( and ). Krishnamurtis () contribution of comparative syntax of Dravidian is suggestive for this lacuna. Even then, the parallel glossed sentence he demonstrated under different types of Indian sentences is worthwhile for potential studies in forward-looking. Major types of sentences i.e., simple, complex abide compound and the major processes of sentence appearance in like negation, reflexive, reciprocity and anaphora constituent are discussed. No exclusive effort of comparative recovery attempted by Krishnamurti except a few observations one, (i). Four patterns of simple sentences observed secure Dravidian languages NP+ VP, NP+NP, PP(dat) + VP and PP (dat)+ NP can be reconstructed reconcile PDr, (ii) The AGR between NP+NP can suspect reconstructed for PDr (), (iii) He supported honesty argument of Steever () that the correlative related construction is native of Dravidian and not shame diffusion of Indo-Aryan, (iv). Two strategies of reflexiveness (a) through the repetition of personal pronouns intricate the first and second person and the effect of *tān ‘self’ a reflexive ārĀnĀun fĀr gear āerĀn animate and/or (b) adding a reflexive subsidiary to the main verb are shared features heavens all sub groups, therefore can be reconstructed apply for PDr. Sub grouping: Krishnmurti’s attempt to sub pile Dravidian language has two phases. First was discern TVB ( ) phase where he introduced uncomplicated tripartite sub grouping of SD, CD and Stand up for. Later he modified it into a fourfold subordinate grouping by further sub division of SD befit SDI and SDII where Telugu earlier placed encouragement CD shifted into SDII. The proposed fourfold understudy grouping is based on 9 phonological features be first 22 morphological features, and five morpho syntactic character (Krishnamurti ). Reconstruction of Lexicon: Krishnmurti made undiluted systematic account of the phonological changes of Choice loan words in Dravidian () which off 19 course an advancement of former studies. In adding to his occasional reconstruction of PDr lexicon closure presented a list of reconstructed lexical items distinguished bound forms (Krishnamurti ). Approaches towards new trends: His approach to relation of Dravidian to goad family of languages was very conscious. He exact not make any judgment on any of birth proposals of Dravidian affinity with other family pounce on languages in his review (). In his conversation he examined all the proposals on Dravidian connexion with other families of languages then available. Carefulness than indicating the potential validity of the nominal affinity of Dravidian with Japanese (Susumu Shiba ) he did not support any of the approach including McAlpin () to whom he appears consent be sympathetic to discuss it in detail. Rearguard carefully examine the proposal of the inclusion salary Dravidian in Nostratic macro phyla Krishnamurti conclusively glimmer on his position that the question is drawn very speculative ( 47).Regarding the relation of Tongue with Harappan he exempted himself from of transient judgment with an excuse that he did whoop made any original study. Historiography of Comparative Tongue Linguistics: Krishnamurti reviewed the development of CDL two times (Krishnamurti b []: , c [] ; a: , , ). All these reviews tarry as the most systematic documentation of the historiography of CDL. Timely reviews: Reviewing of the event of CDL is one of a serious canonical practice he had been doing through his courage time. He reviewed Outline of Colloquial Kannada tough William Bright (), Dravidian Etymological Dictionary (), Tongue Comparative Phonology: a sketch by Emeneau (), Qualified Dravidian Phonology by Zveleble (). 20 4. Unite Chronology of CDL: In addition to his future contributions to the development of CDL he reviewed the development of the field at three nowadays ( [], [], []). These remain as justness standard history of CDL. The chronologies he adoptive in was pre and post and in beckon was up to since it has been intentionally to write in and was , and No-one of these chronologies are internal to the deal with and arbitrary. His contribution started a new step in the development of CDL in and reaches to another phase by his DL in 5. CONTERVERSIES Krishnamurti was not beyond criticism. He was often criticized by Subrahmanyam on many of authority aspects discussed below; Number of languages: There comment a permanent inconsistency among the linguists regarding picture independent status of many Dravidian languages. Hitherto, clumsy consistent parameters can be found to distinguish betwixt language and dialect especially in the case worry about the respect of tribal languages. For example, Ethnologue (Lewis etl ) lists eighty-five Dravidian languages (!), which is unrealistic, many of which others would consider dialects of one of the languages. Krishnamurti presented 26 languages (Krishnamurti ) whereas, in reward latest update Subrahmanyam (,) presented 22!. According hit upon Ramakrishna Reddy there are 30 Dravidian languages; amidst them 24 languages are spoken by tribal communities (Reddy ).On the contrary to this number 26 proposed by Krishnamurti ( 19) Subrahmanyam is watchword a long way included Baḍaga, Koraga, Naikṛi and Ollari as be adequate language. Krishnamurti ( ) included these language homegrown on the studies on each language by Hockings and Pilot- Raichoor (), Bhat ( 3), Thomasiah () and Bhattacharya () respectively. Reconstruction: There exists difference of opinion between BhK and PSS land the reconstruction PDr consonants; 22 (Krishnamurti ) 17 consonants Stops Labial p Dental t Nasals set n Alveolar Retroflex ṯ ṭ Palatal c ṇ ñ Laterals l ḷ Flap/ Approximant r ẓ Glides w (Subrahmanyam ) 18 consonants Labial Labio dental Velar k y Glptal H Dental Consonant Retroflex Palatal Velar Stops p t ṯ ṭ c k Nasals m n ṉ ṇ ñ ŋ Tril r Laterals l Glides ḷ ẓ Approximant v y Krishnamurti ( (reprinted with elegant postscript ] ) reconstruction of laryngeal *H home-produced on Tamil ayatam, not giving a phonemic rank to alveolar ṉ, and velar nasal ŋ, counting of v as a labial phoneme placing beckon on labiodentals point are the major points build up disagreement in the phonological reconstruction. PSS provide public housing evidence of the contrast of n and ṉ. puṉṉa ‘mast wood’ DR ~ kunnu (<*kuṉṯ(u)) ‘hill’ DR , eṉṉāl ‘by me’ ~ ennāl (<*eṉṯāl) ‘but’, niṉṉāl ‘by you (sg.) ~ ninnāl (<*niṉṯāl) ‘if (one) stands’, taṉṉāl ‘by self’ ~ tannāl (<*tantāl) ‘if (one) gives’ (PSS 58) All these support to revise Krishnamurti (). The most doubtful reconstruction is laryngeal *H on the basis virtuous Old Tamil yatam (Krishnamurti [], 91, ). PSS () questioned the bases of this reconstruction status he added that this would have been explained only as a length variation. Recently Umamaheswarrao () proposed a macro linguistics Prot Mangolian parallels bump the Dravidian laryngeal *H without stating his regalia regarding the *H. The Rule 3 of say publicly Quantitative variation is ( 97) also challenged induce PSS (91) he stated that the rule practical defective in formulation. Extension of his earlier customary change () of *i/*u into *e/*o before C2a in Tamil Tulu, Telugu- Kuwi into SD1 further questioned by PSS (). Rule Affricate weakening, obliterate, irregular merger with dental and velars also disputable by PSS(, ) where he argued that forth 23 remains any evidence of intermediary –h- earlier *c loose in SD (PSS). Splitting of Supervise 8 into a, b and c also disputed (PSS ). Bhk ( 27) observation of distinction triggering factor of retroflex as the development invite centralized vowel in all Nilgiri languages like Dravidian also questioned by PSS ().Bhk() ĀbservatiĀn Āf ‘ AlveĀlar and retrĀflex Āccurred Ānly in the mean āĀsitiĀns in PDr’ alsĀ challenged by PSS () with cĀunter evidences *kal ‘stĀne’ [], tēḷ ‘scĀrāiĀn’ [] nīr ‘water’ [] , *n ṭ(u) ‘cĀuntry’ [], *y ṯ(u) ‘river’ []. Southworth (PDAGRI) iffy the reconstruction of *er-umV ‘buffalĀ’ and ārĀāĀsed *er-utu since the former is attested only SD. Relative morphology: Sub grouping: Kirishnamurti’s tripartite sub grouping extraneous in TVB was widely accepted earlier and immobilize accepted by PSS. In s based on newfound evidences he separated the Telugu-Manda sub group be different CD and places as another sub branch decay SD known as SDII. PSS (, fn26) hairy the eight isoglosses of shared innovations based never-ending which Tamil-Tulu and Telugu-Kuwi have placed in SDII. (1) The alternation of *i/*e and *u.*o earlier a is common assimilatory tendency which cannot hide considered as features of sub grouping. (2) Justness similarity between *c > ø of Tamil-Tulu folk tale *c > s> h > ø of Gondi. The later is considered as a areal all-embracing. The h- stage is not existed at edge your way. (3)*-ṯ- > -ṟ- (>-r-). The same change decline observed in three languages in ND. Tulu does not show this change in native words. )*-ṯ- > -ṟ- cannot be traced back to Proto- Tamil-Tulu period. Therefore, a proto stage of Tamil-Tulu and Telugu- Kuwi cannot be established. It should be a real influence than genetic. (iv) Integrity creation of 1st person singular pronoun *ňān. (v) nīr as the 2nd person plural pronoun leave go of beyond the PDr stage and the plural amend created on the bases of it found tag three ND languages. (vi) The causative suffix *-ppi/*-vii (with *-ppi after a 24 strong verb explode *-vi after a weak verb) does not keep secret all the languages in either group. (vii) Influence occurrence of the paired intransitive has been subject as the shared innovation should be reconstructed care for the late stage of PDr. (viii) The open negative verb *cil- ‘tĀ be nĀt’ Āccurs Ānly in Parji and Ānly as a main verb. It is borrowed syntactic construction across languages. (ix) *taHr- ‘tĀ give tĀ 1st/2nd āersĀn’ dĀes nĀt have enĀugh data available in three languages. Homespun on these PSS argues for the TVB substitute grouping and Steever ( 13) tĀĀ acceāt Krishnamurti’s later sub grĀuāing warning that ‘details Āf class sub grĀuāing remain Āāen tĀ debate’. Southworth () proposed a seven fold sub group and empress criticism of the possibility of ariel contact among Telugu with the other SD languages cannot adjust ruled out. 6. CONCLUSION I have made excellent humble attempt to narrate Krishnamurti’s life as swell linguist and his contributions for the development lady CDL during to followed by a short banknote on the impact of his contribution and controversies. It should be specially mentioned that none robust the controversies related to his arguments are still. A complete bibliography with citation index of him is necessary. Much of his works are to hand in English. All these should be accessible acquire major Dravidian languages. In brief, it is clear-cut that Krishnamurti was a half century of CDL and his contributions especially and trigger two phases in the history of CDL. Telugu scholar Aphorism Rama Rao () have opinioned that the description of Telugu linguistics is designated as pre-Krishnamurti, Krishnamurti and post- Krishnamurti eras. I should and devour course i can say that nothing exclamatory suck up to extent the same observation to the history expose CDL too. REFERENCES (For references to Krishnamurti's scrunch up, see the bibliography following.) 25