Table Of ContentPresentedto the
LIBRARY
ofthe
UNIVERSITYOFTORONTO
by
PROF. A. GLEASON
OF THE
KANNADA LANGUAGE
IN ENGLISH
BY
THE REV. DR. F. K ITT EL
MANGALORE
BASEL MISSION BOOK AND TRACT DEPOSITORY
1903
PREFACE.
The present Grammar is chiefly based on Kesava's Sabdamanidarpana.
The terminology of this his Grammar is simple, and fit for the three
dialects of Kannacla. At the same time it will be interesting to learn
the general way of an ancient native scholar's teaching Kannada
grammar.
In Kesava's age most of the rules of Kannada grammar were fixed. That
before him there had been grammarians who had not deserved that name, seems
to follow from his quoting a part of a Kanda verse that is fully quoted in the
Sabdanusasana (under its sutra 469), from which we translate it as follows
1Remain, daughter! Could the unprofitable grammarian (sushkavaiyakarana),
the unprofitable sophist and the rustic have as (their) subject matter the gem of
poetical composition which is the subject matter of the assemblage of very clever
poets?'
Some specific statements of Kesava concerning bis predecessors or contempo-
raries are the following
He considered it a matter ofnecessity to caution literary writers against using
final 1 in several Kannada words, as only rustics would do so ( 228).
He teaches ( 252) that ifthere existTadbhavasoftwo words compounded, both
words ought to be in their Tadbhava form. In this respect he quotes an instance
from his great predecessor Hamsaraja (of A, D. 941, according to Mr. B. Lewis
Rice), viz. taravel manikyabhandarada putikegalam, which, he says, is a mistak
(tappu), as manikabhandarada would be right (suddha).
He says that in satisaptami ( 365) which always refers to two subjects, the
letter e is to be used; by some (of his predecessors or contemporaries^ al has.
without hesitation, been employed for it; clever people do not agree to that.
Then he quotes two sentences with al, and calls them wrong <abudda:0.
He states (very probably in order to counteract a tendency ofthat kind) that to
form kanike, teralike, punike of kan, pun, teral (which formations are frequently
found at least in the mediaeval dialect) is faulty, as the suffix ike should not be
added to verbs ending in a consonant (see 243, A, 5).
IV PREFACE.
When introducing the suffix tana, he teaches that it is not to be used for
Samskrita words, as e. g. arohakatana would be wrong (abaddha, 243, 4, 14).
That he certainly has done so for the above-mentioned reason becomes evident by
the fact that the Sabdanusasana (under its sutra 431) adduces unnatatana and
pannatatana as instances ofancient usage.
He states that to form a causative verb, e. g. khandisisu, to cause to cut,
from khandisu, to cut, a verb derived from a Samskrita noun, is not allowed
( 150, remark), which statement probably also opposes a tendency of grammarians
(or poets) towards doing so.
Hesays that nouns ending in a consonant do not insert in before the a of the
genitive, except pagal and irul\ to form e. g. bemarina, manalina, mugalina is a
fault (dosha, 121, a 6). It follows from his opposition to such forms as bemarina
that they hadalready come or were coming into use.
He states that forms like nodidapam, madidapam are not used as declinable
krillingas ( 194, remark 2); but according to the Sabdanuiasana (sutras 447. 448.
544) they were used as such, because its author Bhattakalankadeva adduces
nodidapanam, kudidapanam, madidapange, irdapana as ancient formations.
He says (see 240, remark) that some (grammarians or poets) who are fond
of a practice that is connected with grass (satrinabhyavahariga]), do not consider
that abnormity does not enter in poetical prose, and use a short letter followed by
an initial letter which is a compound with repha, as sithila, such disgustful persons
(aroeigal)do put it in poetical prose without calling it a blame (tegal).*
The author hopes that the remarkable fact that Kannada and the
other Dravida languages have no relative pronoun ( 174), has been
satisfactorily explained and established by him ( 330), and that the
origin of the negative form of the verb in Dravida has been made evident
by him ( 210), two subjects wbich (he may remark) used to puzzle
European scholars. See also his explanation of the participles ( 169.
185) and of the infinitive ( 188).
As to the age of Kannada poets Mr. Rice's Introduction to his edition
of the Sabdanusasana (p. 11 seq.) should be consulted.
*Here the remark may be added that according to the Sabdanusaaana (under its sutra
288) the pronounnam (which is not mentioned by Kdsava, 137) was agreed to by some
ofthe great poets of the northern way, whereas those of the southern one were siding with
am. According to Nripatuuga's Kavirajamarga (1, 36) of the 9th century the region in
which Kannada was spoken, extended from theKaveri as far as the Godavari.
I'i:I.FACE. T
Regarding the comparison of Dravida languages see 'A Comparative
Grammar of the Dravidian or South-Indian Family of Languages, by the
Rev. R. Caldwell, D.D., LL.D, etc., 2nd edition, 1875, London, Trtibner it-
Co.' Dr. Caldwell in his work is inclined to think that Dravida exhibit-
close traces of relationship to the languages of the Scythian group.
The Publications consulted for the present grammar are, besides the
Sabdamanidarpana, the following
1. The Karnataka Sabdanusasana (see p. 4, note).
2. Nudigattu. A Kannada ManualofSchool-Grammar, by Dhondo Narasimha
Mulbagal, Kannada Teacher, Training College. 2nd edition. Mangalore, Basel
Mission Press, 1894.
3. Kannada Schoolbooks, by native authors. Bombay, the Department of
Public Instruction. Printed at the Basel Mission Press, Mangalore, 1882 1898.
4. An Elementary Grammar of the Kannada Language, by the Rev. Thomas
Hodson, "Wesleyan Missionary. 2nd edition. Bangalore, 1864.
5. A Practical Key to the Canarese Language, by the Rev. F. Ziegler. 2nd
edition. Mangalore, Basel Mission Press, 1892.
6. NAgavarma's Karnataka Bhashabhushana (of about the beginning of the
12th century), edited by B. Lewis Rice, M.R.A.s., etc. Bangalore, 1884.
7. A Kannada-English Dictionary, by the Rev. F. Kittel. Mangalore, Basel
Mission Press, 1894.
8. Very valuableInscriptionspublishedintheIndianAntiquaryandEpigraphia
Indica, by J. F. Fleet, PH. D., c.i.E., etc.
9. Elements of South-Indian Palaeography, by A. C. Burnell, HOS. PH. D. ofthe
University ofStrassburg, etc. Mangalore, Basel Mission Press, 1874.
10. A Sanskrit Grammar for Beginners, by Professor Max Muller, M. A.,
London, 1866.
Special thanks are due to the SECRETARY OP STATE FOR INDIA for his
generous aid by ordering a certain number of copies of the forthcoming
Grammar for the Home Department in Calcutta and by inducing the
Governors of Madras and Bombay and the Governments of Mysore and
of His Highness the Nijam to take a considerable number of copies of
the work in advance whereby the Publishers have been enabled to cany
it through the Press.
VI PREFACE.
The author would also gratefully acknowledge the encouragement
he has received from the interest that several gentlemen have taken in
his composing the present Grammar, of whom he may mention Mr. B.
Lewis RICE, c. i. E., M. R. A. s., Director of the Archaeological Researches
in Mysore; the Rev. G. RICHTER, late Inspector of Schools in Coorg
;
Dr. E. HULTZSCH, Government Epigraphist, Bangalore; Dr. J. F. FLEET,
BO. c. s., M. R. A. s.. c. i. E., and Professor R. GARBE, PH. D., Tubingen.
As the author lived in Germany, the printing was carried on in India,
and proof-sheets could not be sent to him for correction, there occurs
an unusual number of misprints; but a corrected list of the errata will
enable the student to set them right before perusing the Grammar.
Finally the author quotes for his work the words of Kesava (sutra
and vritti 4) "If there are anymistakes (dosha) in this (my) Sabdamani-
darpana, may the learned (first) thoughtfully listen, and (then) with
mercy combined with gladness of heart rectify them."
Tubingen, 5th February 1903.
