Handout of the paper to be presented in the 43rd All India Conference of Dravidian

Linguists Association at the CALS, Annamalai University, 2015 July 18-20

Bhadriraju Krishnamurti (1928-2012)

50 Years of Comparative Dravidian Linguistics

P. Sreekumar, Dravidian University

1. INTRODUCTION

This article presents a sketch of the life and work of Prof. Bhadriraju
Krishnamurti (1928-2012) (hence forth BhK) the legendry Dravidianist. He
led the Comparative Dravidian Linguistics (henceforth CDL) for around half a
century of 1955-2003. No effort have been made so far to document, review
and assess the impact of his contributions except a brief profile about him
with a list of publication appeared in Indian Linguistics and a few obituaries
by his student Umamaheswar Rao (2012), Udaya Narayana Singh (2012)
and else. Therefore, this article is the first attempt towards that; especially
in the absence of a comprehensive history of CDL when CDL reaches 200
years of development in 2016 (most sadly without BhK!).

First part of the paper gives a brief biographical sketch of BhK followed by a
presentation of his contribution in the second part. Third part discusses
how far his major works contributed towards the advancement of CDL from
the pre-paradigmatic stage to paradigmatic stage. Finally, a few of the
controversies left by him still remain unsettled are listed for the further
development of CDL. A chronologically arranged list of his publications
appeared in English is given at the end of the paper. The impact of his
contributions in CDL is measured based on citation indexes and other
standard impact measures. Based on those measures the paper is reaching
towards a point of conclusion that Telugu Verbal Bases: A comparative and
descriptive study by BhK in 1957 later published in 1961 is the substantial
contribution with a paradigmatic impact in CDL. Later his magnum opus
Dravidian Languages in 2003 is the compilation of his whole studies
interacts with the field since 1957. Therefore, these two works by BhK and
the years in which both were published, i.e. 1961 and 2003 are considered
as internal chronological landmarks in the history of CDL. Based on this
article I conclude that BhK represents beginning of the two phases in the
development of CDL. Former is the third phase of the development of CDL
begins with the establishment of comparative and historical paradigm of
CDL in 1961. Later is the compilation of the total results of the development
of CDL since 1961 by all the scholars in 2003 in his Dravidian Languages.

1
2. BIOGRAPHY

1.1. Early life of poetry writing (1928-1948)

Bhadriraju Krishnamurti was born on 19th June 1928 to Mrs. Bharatamma

and Sri Subrahmanyam in Ongole, Prakasham District, Andhra Pradesh. At
his earlier days, he was a poet by interest. BhK has begun composing poem
at the early age of 13. The most prominent among the poems he has
composed is mātru sandēsamu which he has written in Telugu inspired by
the Quit India movement (1942-43). After passing the Intermediate
examination from Hindu College, Guntur, he joined Andhra University in
1945. In 1948 he completed B.A (Honours) in Telugu language and
Literature with 1st class and 1st Rank. He worked in an year as a lecturer at
the Hindu College, Guntur where he graduated and later joined as a lecturer
in the Department of Telugu at Andhra University, Vysak, Andhra Pradesh
in 1949.

2.2. Prof. G.J Somāyāji and the linguistic turn (1949-1953)

Prof. G. J. Somāyāji (1900-1987), the distinguished Telugu scholar in the

department of Telugu, Andhra University influenced him and turned his
attention from poetics of Telugu language to its structure. Somayaji was his
teacher from 1945 to 1948 who introduced him to the comparative study of
Dravidian languages. It should be specially mentioned that Somayaji
published the outstanding work of the time Āndhra Bhashā Vikāsamu in
1947 (Somayaji 1947). BhK worked with him during 1949 to 1961 where
Somayaji was the Head of the Department of Telugu, Andhra University.
Somayaji suggested him to work on the verbal base of Telugu (Krishnamurti
1961: viv). Around four years BhK continued the work by analyzing the root
of Telugu verbs and comparing the same with cognate languages. During
1951, while Krishnamurti was in Andhra University, Professor Thomas
Burrow (1909-1986), Professor of Sanskrit, Oxford University, visited
Waltair, Andhra Pradesh while he was doing fieldwork on Parji (1950-65)
with the assistance of Dr. Sudhibhushan Bhattacharya (? ), a linguist in the
Anthropological Survey of India. BhK met with them with his passion. He
joined them in 1953 in Srikakulam where he could collect some notes on the
Gadaba language. This is the first informal fieldwork training he got from
the trained hands of linguists before he get formal training in linguistics in
the USA.

2.3. Getting into modern linguistics (1954-56)

1954 to1956 was the foundational and formative period of BhK as a modern
linguist by the standard training he received from the then advanced centers
of modern linguistics, most fortunately in the Unites States where the
Descriptive and Structural linguistics was at it’s peak. During 1954-55 and
1955-56 he got two prestigious scholarships from United States, i.e.
Fulbright and Smith-Mundt & Rockefeller fellowships respectively. These
fellowships enabled him to do his Master (1955) and PhD (1957) in

2
Linguistics from the University of Pennsylvania, University of California and
University of Berkeley. He was a post graduate student in linguistics at the
University of Pennsylvania, where the eminent linguists Prof. Henry M.
Hoenigswals (1915-2003), Zelling Harris (1909-1992) and Leigh Lisker
(1918-2006) were taught him. He did field- methods course on three
languages Tamil from the University of Pennsylvania (Teacher: Leigh Lisker),
Ilocano, a Philippino language, Linguistic Institute, University of Michigan
(Teacher: Harry Hoijer), and Thai, University of California (Teacher: Mary
Haas) (Krishnamurti 2007: 56). During 1954-55, he had completed his first-
year courses at the University of Pennsylvania and also at the Linguistics
Institute, University of Michigan during the summer of 1955 where he was
though morphology by William Moulton (1914-2000), language contact and
borrowing by Uriel Weinreich (1926-1967), and field-method by Harry Hoijer
(1904-1976). Krishnamurti says “ I developed self-confidence and a good feel
for the discipline after these courses and after meeting with many other
luminaries in linguistics” (2001: xiii). His summer of 1955 of Pennsylvania
ends with his meeting with M. B. Emeneau, University of California, which
was an important event in BhK’s professional life. The brilliant student of
Somaji from the East met with his guru Emeneau from the West.

2.4. M. B. Emeneau and University of California

In September 1955 BhK went to the University of California to work with

Emeneau on his PhD. During 1953- 1958 Emeneau was Chair of the
Linguistic Department, University of California. Prior to 1955, he knew
Emeneau only through correspondences and Emeneau already made a lead
in comparative Dravidian by a handful of publications based on his
subsequent field-work on four Dravidian languages Toda, Kota, Kodagu and
Kolami Indian during 1935-38. BhK’s first paper in English on The history of
vowel length in Telugu verbal bases appeared in a professional journal,
Journal of the American Oriental Society in 1955 (Krishnamurti 1955: 237-
52, reprinted in 2001: 1-41 with postscript and a slight change of the
original the title). It should be specially mentioned that when BhK has
published this article at the age of 27 in the then 27 years old journal,
Hoenigswald was the editor of volume which carries another article about
India by an eminent historian D. D. Kosambi. In the context of the absence
of a chapter for comparative phonology in the Structure grammatical des
language dravidiennes written by Jules Bloch (1946), the least satisfactory
treatment of this same phenomena of vowel shortening by other articles on
Dravidian published by Thomas Burrow (since 1936), Emeneau (since
1936), LVR (since 1936), E. H. Tuttle (since 1927), Marshel before 1955 and
the confusion of this Telugu vowel shortening phenomena as accent shift to
K. V. Subbaiya (1909: 160) which itself is refuted by Master (1948: 341-2) it
can be safely argued that BhK’s first article itself stand as a foundational
article in comparative Dravidian phonology even today. While advancing the
treatment of same phenomena Emeneau (1970: 28) cited him, stated that
“The shortening of basic vowels in verb has been thoroughly analyzed by
BH. Krishnamurti, with special reference to Telugu in JAOS 75.237-52
(1955)…”. Zvelebil (1970) cited this article and stated that “As for the verbs,

3
the phenomenon was thoroughly investigated by Bh. Krishnamurti in his
TVB and earlier in JAOS 75, 237-252 (1995)” but he did not cite him while
he treat the same phenomena of vowel shortening and did not made any
advancement too (Zvelebil 1970: 44-46). Subrahmanyam (1983: 9) cites the
same article and stated that “In his 1955 article, he showed that verbal
roots of the type (C)V: C-shortened the vowel before a derivative suffix
beginning with a vowel”. In the postscript added to the same article (1955) in
2001 (Krishnamurti 2001 [1955]: 23-25) he explicated it as Rule 1:
(C) V: C→ (C)VC-/#__ + V(∅/C/CC/CCCV) [Proto-Dravidian]. A long
vowel in a root syllable becomes a short vowel when followed by a
derivative (or formative) suffix beginning with a vowel. In Proto-
Dravidian (C) V1: C and (C) V 1 C contrast when no vowel derivative
follows. But only (C) V1 C is found in the environment __+V 2. Therefore,
the above rule belongs to Proto-Dravidian through internal
construction. The form with a long vowel is the older one which is
shortened when followed by a formative – V, which may be optionally
followed by extended suffixes or a zero. Evidence of the operation of this
rule is seen in almost all Dravidian languages.

During 1955- 6 BhK spent at the University of California, Berkeley to work

on his doctoral dissertation with Emeneau. Rockefeller Foundation
supported his stay there and he remembers that Emeneau’s
recommendation helped him to get the scholarship. In the fall of 1955, BhK
was presenting a paper at a Seminar in Historical Linguistic at the
University of California; Emeneau was impressed by Krishnamurti’s ability
to solve a complex comparative problem of Dravidian phonology which he
presented. Later, this paper Alternations i/e and u/o in South Dravidian
published in 1958 in the prestigious journal, Language (Krishnamurti 1958:
458-68 reprinted in 2001: 29-41 with a postscript). BhK acknowledges the
valuable suggestions and comments he received from Emeneau and William
Jacobsen (1931-) during the preparation of this paper in its original form.
After successful completion of two semester coursework, he started writing
dissertation around four months. Regarding the guidance he received from
Emeneau while writing the dissertation BhK remembers with gratitude
(2005:481fn.1);

During the summer months of June and July 1956, Professor Emeneau
met with me on a daily basis, reading sections of my dissertation,
meticulously correcting my style, spelling, and argumentation. I shall
always remember his kindness in giving so much of his time.

After finishing the writing of the dissertation in August 1956, he moved to

Pennsylvania for the presentation of his dissertation for the requirement of
awarding the degree. He returned to India in September 1956. He was
awarded the Ph.D. degree for his dissertation Telugu Verbal Bases: A
comparative and descriptive study (henceforth TVB) in 1957. Later he
expanded the volume of this dissertation with two more chapters, this was
later published by the University of California in its Linguistics series
(Krishnamurti 1961).This is one of the classical works in the field of
comparative Dravidian linguistics; it’s impact to the field was paradigmatic

4
like the Comparative Dravidian Grammar by Robert Caldwell in 1956. Other
than its historical significant as the first model of comparative linguistics
among South Asian languages TVB continued to be the main source for
comparative data and the source of idea for structural analysis of nominal
and verbal stems of Proto-Dravidian and for a reliable account of
comparative Dravidian phonology for nearly three decades until the other
works appeared (Emeneau 1970, Zvelebil 1970, Subrahmanyam 1983).
1961 was a significant year in the history of Dravidian linguistics due to the
much awaited publication of Dravidian Etymological Dictionary by Burrow
and Emeneau (1961). TVB possess 1236 etymology even from lesser known
Dravidian languages, for which he depended many written sources and his
own one year fieldwork without hampering the absence of DED. It is the first
work in South Asia introduced the methodology of comparative linguistics.
In addition to the classification of Telugu verb bases, the reconstruction of
Proto- Dravidian phonology and classification of the then enumerated
Dravidian languages into three sub group introduced in TVB. The same sub
grouping of Dravidian languages continued as the standard proposal in the
field until he himself shifted Telugu from Central Dravidian to South
Dravidian II by introducing a second level sub grouping in South Dravidian.
Even though, his student Subrahmanyam is constantly challenging the new
sub grouping and argued for the former sub grouping, he was not ready to
go back to an argument which himself developed and later refuted.
Therefore, it can be observed that, regarding the sub grouping of Dravidian
languages, there exists only two arguments, both are antithetical and
developed by BhK himself. So is the case of the number of Proto Dravidian
phonemes too. In TVB, the number of consonants which he reconstructed
for Proto-Dravidian is 16, later he added laryngeal phoneme *H based on old
Tamil evidences (1997:145-95). The phonemic status of this phoneme was
challenged by his student Subrahmanyam and argued that the
reconstruction in 1961 is right. Many of the major arguments which BhK
developed refuted and the field itself is carried to forwarded centered on
TVB. Based on the opinions of the three reviews appeared (Sjoberg 1966,
Marr 1963 and Bhat 1963) in reputed journals about TVB and the still
existing impact of TVB permit us to say that, it is a path setting contribution
in the history of comparative Dravidian linguistics, therefore it is
paradigmatic.

2.5. Academic career in India (1960-1985)

During 1960-61 Krishnamurti worked as an Assistant Professor in the

University of California, Berkeley. He return to India in 1961 joined as a
Reader in Telugu and Dravidian linguistics, Sree Venkiteswara University,
Tirupati worked there two years (1961-62). In 1962, Osmania University
offered him a Tagore Chair, which he accepted. He became the youngest
person in the history of Osmania University to be made a professor at the
age of 34. He started the Department of Linguistics in 1964 which later
elevated as the first Centre of Advanced Studies in Linguistics in India
thanks to Prof. D. S. Reddy the then Vice Chancellor he was impressed by
Krishnamurti’s stature when he met him in US and invited him to OU. He

5
worked as a Professor and the head of the department Dept. of linguistics
with many administrative responsibilities of the in University till 1986.
Krishnamurti recall (2011: xiii) “I was shouldering heavy teaching and
administrative duties, mainly from 1962 to 1985, as Professor of Linguistics,
Head of the Department, Dean, Principal of Arts Collage, Member of the
University Syndicate, etc., at Osmania University” During this period he
published a number of articles and books in reputed journals from Europe
and United States. During this period of 1960-1985 two times he reviewed
the state of art of comparative Dravidian linguistics (Krishnamurti 1969,
1985). The fieldwork he started among the Koṇḍa speakers during his
graduate days in Pennsilvaniya eventually resulted the publication of the
Koṇda or Kubi a Dravidian language published in 1969 (Krishnamurti
1969a). He finished the writing of this grammar during the period of 1968-
69 where there was violent student agitation therefore the Osmania
University was almost closed around an year (Krishnamurti 2007). The
review about this grammar by Marr (1971:671) is positive except mentioning
about the absence of an index. Among the number of articles he published
during this period, the articles on Gender and number in Dravidian
languages (Krishnamurti 1975), Relevance of Unchanged Cognates in sub
grouping (1983) are made much impact on the field. BhK’s classification of
the three types of gender and reconstruction of Type II (includes South
Dravidian II minus Telugu and Central Dravidian) is the standard treatment
of gender which his critics too accepted. Dravidian Etymological Dictionary
by Emeneau and Burrow (1963), Dravidian Comparative Phonology by
Emeneau (1970), Comparative Dravidian Phonology by Zvelebil (1970) are
the three significant works appeared during this period. He reviewed each
(Krishnamurti 1963, 1975 and 1976). All the reviews were objective and
examined the status of each works in vigor of his intellection. The Telugu
language is much benefited by his editorial and scholarly contribution
during this period by the subsequent publication of Telugu Dialect
Dictionary (Krishnmurti 1962, 1972), Concordance of Tikkana Mahabharata
(Krishnamurti 1971, 1974, 1977) and a History of Telugu Language (1974).
And most significantly, A History of the Telugu Language he has written in
Telugu in 1974 still exists as the first and last reference and textbook for
Telugu language. Nothing to wonder to quote the statement made by C.
Rama Rao about Krishnamurti’s place in the history of Telugu Linguistics
(1972: 34) “if it was necessary to demarcate different periods of the history
of Telugu linguistics, these be designated pre-Krishnamurti, Krishna Murti
and post-Krishna Murti eras” (cited by Venkateswarlu 2012:14).

2.6. Never lost in administration (1985-2001)

During 1986-1993 he served as a vice chancellor, University of Hyderabad,
Hyderabad. The Department of Linguistics, known as Center for Advance
Study in Linguistics in the University started during his tenure. Two of his
important papers he has written during this period one was with his student
Prof. G. U. Rao (1989, 1991). In 2001, all the paper which he has written
compiled together and published by Oxford University with a forward by M.
B. Emeneau (2001). This works stands for the half decade of the

6
development of comparative Dravidian linguistics and a provides the
availability of his substantial contribution at one place.

2.7. The three years great works (2001-2003)

2001 to 2003 is the most fruitful period of Krishnamurti's academic career

resulted long lasting imprint by the publication of Dravidian language in
2003. As he himself stated “this volume is the result of two years of
concentrated reading, reflection and writing from September 1999 to
October 2001, with many years of research and study prior to it”
(Krishnamurti 2003: xv). This is his magnum opus and it is the stand still
first and last point of reference of Dravidian languages, even after a decade.

2. 8. Last decade (2003-2012)

After 2003 there is not much works came from Krishnamurti in the field of
comparative Dravidian other than the two articles (Krishnamurti 2007a,
2007b, 2007c).The Fieldwork on Konda is an ideal paper should be read by a
Dravidian scholar before going to field work. Most of his writing during this
period scattered in general writings especially historiographical and
biographic. Among the historio- biogrphic writings, his subsequent writings
about Emeneau (2005a, 2005b, 2006, 2007b) are best tributes and an ideal
pieces of writings by a student can pay tribute to his teacher. During this
period he has extensively written in Telugu more frequently in Telugu daily,
the topics of writings range from comparative linguistics to language policy.
It is quiet interesting to see that a poet who turned to linguist at world
reputation edited an anthology of Telugu short stories. In 2009 C.P. Brown
Academy compiled his 14 articles on Telugu linguistics and published as
single volume to honor him as a first recipient of the award of
Telugubhaarati.

In the early hours of August 11th 2012 he died due to ill health at the age of
84 in a hospital in Hyderabad, India. In spite of his chronic health problems
he has been active in the field as much as his health permitted. Recently, he
delivered Prof. V. I. Subramoniam memorial lecture in the 40 th Conference of
Dravidian Linguists Association at the University of Hyderabad, 18 th June,
2012 and published (2009) Studies in Telugu Linguistics which of course
may be his latest public appearance and publication respectively. With
Professor Krishnamurti's death a great chapter in the history of comparative
Dravidian linguistics ended. He has done the maximum contribution to the
field a human being can. Krishnamurti is survived by his wife _, one
daughter, _; sons, _ and_; and _ grandchildren.

2. 9. The Professor

He is one of the most fortunate scholars in India who enjoyed the

recognition throughout his profession. Most of the academic positions a
teacher can occupy in Indian University successfully held by him. After his
retirement from the University of Hyderabad as a Vice Chancellor he was

7
Honorary Professor in the same University and Andhra University during
1993-99 and since 2003 respectively. Two terms he was a member of the
Syndicate of Osmania University (1971-76 and 1985-86). Indian Council of
Social Science Research invited him the position of Honorary Director
during 1978-82. The honours and awards which he received in his life time
will be surprising and of course proportionate to his contributions. He
became the President of Linguistic Society of India at the age 42 in 1970. He
was a Vice president of Dravidian Linguistic Association during 1975-79 and
became the President in 1980. He was a Resident Fellow, Center for
Advanced Study in Behavioral Science, Stanford during 1975-76 and 2000-
2001. He was a UGC National Lecturer in 1979-80. The Government of
Andhra Pradesh has honored him for his distinguished service as a teacher
in 1980. In 1985 Linguistic Society of America elected him as second
Honorary member from India next to Sunitkumar Chatterj (lie ). In 1991
South Asian Linguistic Association, University of Illinois honoured him for
his “outstanding contribution to South Asian Linguistics”. Sri Venkateswara
University and Dravidian University conferred D.Litt to him in 1998 and
2007 respectively. He was member and visiting scientist of two prestigious
institutes, Institute for Advance Study, Princeton, USA (1999-2000) and
Max-Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology, Germany (2003)
respectively. He was elected as a fellow in National Sahitya Akademy in 2004
and received the first Telugubhaarati Puraskara in 2008. In 2008, American
Telugu Association honouerd him by conferring him for the life time
achievement award. The international stature which he had is unique
among the Indian academics. He was a visiting professor in Cornell
University (1967), Linguistic Institute, University of Michigan (1967)
University of Illinois (1978), University of Pennsylvania (1983), University of
Texas (1995) in United States. He was the first Asian Fellow in the
Australian National University (1974) and a Visiting Professor 3 rd Australian
Linguistic Institute, Australia (1996). In 1970s he worked as a consultant in
South Asian Studies, Kansas State University. In Japan he was a Tokyo
University Centenary Fellow, University of Tokyo in 1982 and Overseas
Visiting Fellow, Kumamoto University in 1992. He was in the editorial board
or advisory board of many journals and series of publications majorly from
Europe and North America. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics
(1960-80), Language Problems and Language Planning (1977-97),
Diachronica (1984-98), Descriptive Grammar Series published by Routledge
(1985), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (1988-1994), The
Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics (1998-), The
International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Oxford University (2003-2004) and
Language Documentation and Conservation, University of Hawaii (2006-).
The number of book he published in English is 13, and two edited works
and one translation. There are four books he has written in Telugu and
seven edited works. 83 article he has written in English, majority of them
are published in reputed journals and chapters in volums published by
reputed publishers 44 articles he has written in Telugu.

8
3. CONTRIBUTIONS

BhK’s contributions come under three fields of comparative Dravidian

linguistics. Comparative phonology comes at first, followed by morphology,
sub grouping, comparative syntax and the historiography and reviews of
Dravidian linguistics. In addition to this major field he has written two
grammars one for Modern Telugu with Gwyann (1985), and the later a
descriptive grammar for a Dravidian tribal language Koṇḍa (Krishnamurti
1969). His publications in the other field are given in the bibliography.

3.1. Comparative phonology: When Krishnamurti entering into the field of

CDL in 1955 Ramaswami Aiyar, Emeneau, and Burrow have substantially
contributed for the development of comparative Dravidian phonology.
Krishnamurti’s contributions of comparative phonology can be discussed
into two headings. (i) Comparative reconstruction of PDr phonemes, and (ii)
explanation and classification of sound changes.

3.1.1. Comparative reconstruction: Compare to the all others attempt to

reconstruct the PDr phonology by Emeneau (1953:98-112, 1959[1970],
1971,1980,1981, 1988) Zvelebil (1965: 367-396,1968, 252-294,1970),
Burrow (1968:62-69) Subramoniam (1968:344-7), Subrahmaniom (1971:36-
34,1976,1977a,b.1979ab, 1983, 2008),Gopinathan Nair (1979)
Krishnamurti (1978, 1998 [2001:307-322] 2003: 91) is comprehensive and
standard, which is given below;

Proto- Dravidian vowels

-Back +Back
High i ī u ū
Mid e ē o ō
Law a ā

.
Proto- Dravidian consonants
Labial Dental Alveolar Retroflex Palatal Velar Glptal
Stops p t ṯ ṭ c k
Nasals m n ṇ ñ
Laterals l ḷ
Flap/ Approximant r ẓ
Glides w y H

The canonical form of PDr root structure is reconstructed as (C1) Ṽ1 (C2)

therefore V1, CV1, Ṽ1, C1Ṽ1, V1C2, C1V1C2, Ṽ1C2, C1Ṽ1C2 are presented
as the possible root forms.

The PDr root structure is reconstructed as;

Root Formative (u) #

#(C1)Ṽ s

9
 ø
#(C1)V1C2 V2 L
P
PP
NP u#
NPP
P
# (C1)Ṽ1N PP
.
C= any consonants other than a member of the alveolar and 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 consonant other than a stop (L includes N);
P = any obstruent (includes *c which was probably an alveolar- palatal affricate in Proto- Dravidian);
N= nasal homorganic with the following stop.

3.1.2. Explanation and classification of Sound changes: Comparative

reconstruction will be successful if and only you are able to explain the
change of sound from proto language to individual languages. Krishnmurti
(2003) formulated 21 rules to explain all the sound changes in Dravidian
and classified these into two types I historical and typological (Krishnamurti
2001: 307-322). Historical changes further classified into (a) those internal
to Proto- Dravidian, and (b) innovations confined to major branches, sub-
branches, and individual languages. By analyzing all the sound changes he
observed that typologically motivated changes in phonology tend to be
regular than the products of historical changes. All the sound changes he
stated are given below;
Rule 1a: Alternation in root-final consonants {l,n}: ṯ: ṯṯ: nṯ (Dr)
Rule 1b: Alternation of root-final consonants {ḷ,ṇ}:ṭ: ṭṭ: ṇṭ (Dr)
Rule 2: Syllable contraction (C1) V1 {y, w, k} - V2- > (C1) V1 [+ long] (Dr)
Rule 3: Quantitative variation (C) Ṽ1C-/(C) V1CC-→ (C) V1 C-/#_+V2- (Dr)
Rule 4: South Dravidian umlaut
(a) PD *i * u > *e * o/# (C1) _ (C2-a (Proto- South Dravidian)
(b) PSD *e *o > i u / # (C1) _ C2-a (Proto- Tamil)
(c) Lowering of long mid vowels in Kui- Kuvi
ē, ō > ā / # (C1) (C2) _ (Pre- Kui- Kuvi)
Rule 5: Mid- to –high vowel harmony
e, o > i, u / # (C1) _ C2- V2 (V2= [+high]
Rule 6: Metathesis and vowel contraction

PD PSD
(C1)V1C2-V2 (C1)C2Ṽ
1
i i > ī
u u > ū
a a > ā
i/e a > ē
u/o a > ō

Rule 7a: Low vowel rounding in Pre- Toda

PD *a *ā > o, ō /# (C1) _ (C2)- V2

10
Rule 7b: Splits of front and back vowel
(i): *i > ï/ # (C1) _ C2 (C1 and C2 are not palatal or sibilant in pre- Toda)
(ii): *e> ö/ # (C1) _ C2 (C2 = [-alveolar]; Pre-Toda)
(iii): *e > i /# (C1)_ C2-V2 (V2 = [+high] or C2 is [+palatal])
(iv): * e > ï is said to occur in the remaining environments
(v)a: ē >ö / # (C1) _C2-V2 (C2 ≠ y); elsewhere, ē remains.
(v)b: ē > ö/ # (C1) _C2 –V2 (C2= [+ apical]_)
(vi): *u>ü /# (C1) _ C2-V2 (C2= *y, *cc; or, V2 = *i)
(vii): * u > ï/ # (C1) _ (C2) C3 –V2 (C1 or (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 : *o, *ō> wï, wï (long)/# (C1)_C2- V2 (C2 = alveolar or retroflex, i.e
[+apical], V2 = [+low])
(xi)b: *o,*ō > wï, wï (long) # (C1) _ Co2- V2 (Co= one or more than one
consonant; V2= [+high] or zero)
(xii)*o>ü/# (C1)_C2 (C2=y)
(xiii) V2 >ø/ (C1) V1C2-_ (2003: 111)
Rule 8a: Lowering of front mid vowel (Kodagu)
*e > a/# (C1) _ C2-V2 (C1 = *p, *m, *c, *k; V2= [+low]) Pre-Kodagu to
Kodagu change
Rule 8b: Retraction and rounding of front vowels after labials (Kodagu)
i ī e ē >u ū o ō / # C1_ C2-V2 (C1 = p, m, b [ < *w])
Rule8c: Centralization of front vowels
i, ī, e, ē >ï, ï, ë, ë / # (C1)_ C2-V2 (C1 ≠ labial or palatal; C2 = Retroflex
or *ṯ ) Pre-Kodagu to Kodagu.
Rule 9a: Fronting and raising of formative- ay (Kota)
ay > e/ # (C1) o, u (C2) C2 -__# (C2 = any consonant admissible in the
intervocalic position: (C2) C2= a geminate stop or a nasal + stop; stem
final *-ay becomes –e in Pre-Kota).
Rule 9b: Root-vowel assimilation
*o, *u> e, i/# (C1)__ (C2) C2-V2 (V2 = e from Rule 9a)
Rule 9c: Loss of the formative vowel (Kota)
*e >ø / (C1)e, i (C2) C2-__#
Rule 9d: Simplification of final consonant cluster (Kota)
(C2) C2 > C2/# (C1) e, o __#
Rule 10 a: Rounding of front vowel after labials (Tulu)
[+V,-back, -rounded] > [+back, +rounded]/ #C1__C2 (C1= [+labial],
C2= retroflex [+apical, -anterior]
Rule10b: Word initial short vowel loss before apical
V1 → ø/#__[C1-V2C2C2-(V1= a, e, o; less frequently i, u; C1= a
retroflex consonant ḍ, ṇ, ḷ [+ apical, -- anterior]; C2C2= geminate
or nasal +stop sequence) (Tulu)
Rule11: Low vowel fronting and raising before apical in Pre-Praji
[+V, +low] > [- back, -low, -high]/# (C1)__C2 (C2 = alveolar [+anterior,
+ apical]) (Parji)
Rule 12: Laryngealization of bilabial stop
*p > h /#__....(Middle Kannada)
Rule 13: Affricate weakening, loss, irregular merger with dental and velars
a: *c > (*s > * h ) > ø/#__.... (South Dravidian I; Telugu)

11
 b: * c > t – (Toda- regular) (Other languages –irregular)
c: * c > k /#__[+syllabic, -low] (North Dravidian)
Rule 14: Palatalization of velar (Telugu, Malayalam)
a: *k > c/#__[+V, -back] (Telugu)
b: *k > c/ #__[V1C2] (V1= [-back], C2 ≠ retroflex consonant) (Pre-
Tamil)
Rule 15: Spirantization/ retraction of the velar (North Dravidian),
PD *k . x, q/ #__ V2 (V2 = All but the high front vowel i ī [+V, -[+high, -
back]])
Rule 16a: Nasal split in Brahui
m > b /#__ [+V, -back] (Brahui)
Rule 16b: *n > d __[+V, -back] (Brahui)
Rule 17: Palatal nasal reduction
PD *ñ > * n / # __V1 (V1 = ăĕ)
Rule 18: Bilabial glide to voiced stop or Glide fortition
a: *w > b /#__ (Ka. Kod. Tu. Badaga, Krumba)
b: *w > b / #___(ND: Kur-Malto, Brahui)
Rule 19: Initial glide loss
*y > ø/#__Ā
Rule 20: 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 21: Initial cluster simplification
a: CR- > C-/#__(Telugu)
b: CR- > R-/#__(Gondi- Konda- Kui- Kuvi-Pengo-Manda)

Further he classified sound changes into shared innovations and

typologically motivated changes. The (i) merger of PDr high vowel * i *u with
*e *o in PSDr, (ii) the loss of *c through two intermediate stages of s and h,
initially and medially in SDI are identified as two clear innovations shared
by all languages of the two subgroups of SD. Rule 20 is identified as a
shared innovation in SDII. Presence of [d] <*ṯ is identified as a shared
feature in CD languages. Rule 15 *k > x/q before all vowel except the high
and front and velarization of PD *c before high vowel and shared innovation
of *w- > b- are presented as shared innovations in ND. Development of PDr
root-final *-ay > -ey > ē and ī, lose of *y- in al languages (except Old Tamil),
lose of ẓ in all languages (except some dialect of Tamil Malayalam),
deretroflexion of *ṇ *ḷ in SDII, CD and ND, normalization of two syllabic
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 the
typologically motivated changes.

3.2. Comparative morphology: A brief account of comparative morphology

have presented in TVB (Krishnamurti 1961). A specialized treatment of
personal pronoun in Dravidian is presented in Kirshnamuti (1968). When it
reaches Dravidian Languages (Krishnamurti 2003) a full account of
comparative morphology is presented. Root forms of Dravidian are counted

12
as 1,496 by the combinations of canonical root forms. Nominal formation
are explained as; (a) by adding *-ay to monosyllabic verb root [*wil ‘to sell’:
wil-ay ‘price’], (b) by geminating the final stop of the root in disyllabic stem
[*āṭu ‘to play’: *āṭṭ-u ‘a playing, a game’, (c) by adding –al to the verb root
[*keṭ-u ‘to perish’: *keṭ-al ‘evil’], (d) by adding *-t-al/*-tt-al, *-t-am [*ō ṭu ‘to
run’: ōṭ-ṭ-am ‘running’, (e) by geminating the post nasal stop of a formative
in stems of two or syllables [Ta. may-aṅku ‘to be confused’: may-akku, may-
akk-am ‘confusion’], (f) by lengthening the root-vowel [*keṭu ‘to perish, be
spoiled’: *keṭ-ṭa, *kēṭu ‘ruin, loss, damage’], (g) adding of –am to an
intransitive verb stem [*cōṭ- ‘to turn’: cōṭ-am >ōṭ-am Ma. ‘boat’] and (f) by
multiple noun formatives by am + t + am → antam, opp-antam ‘agreement,
contract’ from oppu ‘to agree’ are observed as the formation of noun from
verb root. Formation of nominal compound have identified as (1) Verb +Verb
[ār-āy ‘to investigate’, (2) Noun + Noun [Ta. tēṉ-ī ‘honey bee’], (3) Adjective +
Noun [mūtta- appaṉ ‘fathers elder brother’], (4) Verb + Noun [Te. tiru-gali ‘a
hand mill’]. Nominals are explained exclusively under four subclasses;
nouns, pronouns, numerals and adverbs of time and place. Gender system
in Dravidian are grouped into three types and the type II of SDII minus
Telugu and Central Dravidian is reconstructed as PDr type and the creation
of *awaḷ ‘she’ in SDI is proved as innovation (Krishnmurti 1975: 328-50
[reprinted 2001:133-153], 2003). 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 and *-tt- is reconstructed as the oblique
stem. By advancing Shanmugam (1971a: 256, Zvelebil 1972: 272-76,
Andronove 1976:716-37) six cases and postpositions have discussed in
detail and proto-forms of case suffixes have reconstructed. Pronouns dealt
exclusively and numerals were reconstructed. His treatments of verb is
definitely and advancement of earlier attempts. Adjective, adverbs and cltics
also treated exclusively. Krishnamurti argues that there exists separate
parts of speech adjective in Dravidian against the predecessors views
(Caldwell 1956:308-18) except of Andronov (1972:167-9).He identified thirty
two roots of adjectives and its proto forms were also reconstructed; (1)
Demonstratives: * aH ‘that’, (2) *iH ‘this’, (3) *uH ‘yonder’, *yaH/*yāH
‘which’; Colour (5) *kār/*kar-V ‘black’, (6a)*kem- ‘red’, (6b) PSD *eṯ-V ‘red’,
(7) *pacc-/*pac-V ‘green, yellow’, (8)*weḷ/*weṇ ‘white’; Position: (9)*teṉ
‘southern’, (10)*waṭ-a ‘northern’, (11) *pin/*piṯ ‘back, end in place or time,
afterwards’, (12) *mun ‘prior, before, front’; Age (13) *paẓ-a ‘old, used’, (14)
*puc-V/*put-V ‘new’, (15) *mutt-/*mut-V ‘old, ancient’, (16) *kōẓ/*koẓ-V
‘new, young, tender’, (17) *eḷ-V ‘younger, tender’; Dimension: (18) *pēr/per-
V ‘big’, (19) *kīṯ-/*kiṯ-V ‘small’,(20) *kuṯ-V ‘short’; Physical property: (21)
*in-/*n ‘sweet’, (22) *puḷ ‘sour’, (23)*wal ‘strong’, (24)*taṇ ‘cool, cold’; Value:
(25) PSD *nal ‘good’; Numeral: (26) *ōr/*or-V ‘one’, (27) *īr/*ir-V ‘two’, (28)
*muH ‘three’, (29) *nāl/*nal-V- ‘four’, (30) *cay-m- ‘five’, (31) *eṇ- ‘eight’, (32)
*toḷ-/*toṇ ‘none’ and (33) *paH- ‘ten’. Krishnamurti evidentially supported
Caldwell’s argument of adverbs are not an independent part of speech in
Dravidian. Adverbs in Dravidian have identified as monomorphemic forms
derived from different parts of speech (a) uninflected or inflected nominals
denoting time and place and those inflected with postpositions/cases,
denoting locations, causes, purposes etc. (2) non finite verbs, like the

13
durative and perfective particles, the infinitive of purpose, conditionals and
concessive forms, (3) manner adverbials formed by adding to nouns of
quality or adjectives the infinitive of the verb (4) by adding the manner
particles to deictic bases. *-um conjunctive, *-ē emphatic, *-ā interrogative
and *-ō dubitative –alternative are reconstructed for PDr. In absence of an
exclusive study of clitics in Dravidian definitely it was an advancement in
the treatment of clitics.

3.3. Comparative syntax: No systematic attempt of comparative syntax so

far attempted among Dravidian languages except Sanford B Steever (1988
and 1993). Krishnamurtis (2003) contribution of comparative syntax of
Dravidian is symptomatic for this lacuna. Even then, the parallel glossed
sentence he demonstrated under different types of Dravidian sentences is
worthwhile for potential studies in future. Major types of sentences i.e.,
simple, complex and compound and the major processes of sentence
formation in like negation, reflexive, reciprocity and anaphora construction
are discussed. No exclusive effort of comparative reconstruction attempted
by Krishnamurti except a few observations i.e., (i). Four patterns of simple
sentences observed in Dravidian languages NP+ VP, NP+NP, PP(dat) + VP
and PP (dat)+ NP can be reconstructed for PDr, (ii) The AGR between NP+NP
can be reconstructed for PDr (422), (iii) He supported the argument of
Steever (1988:33) that the correlative relative construction is native of
Dravidian and not through diffusion of Indo-Aryan, (iv). Two strategies of
reflexivity (a) through the repetition of personal pronouns in the first and
second person and the use of *tān ‘self’ a reflexive pronoun for third peron
animate and/or (b) adding a reflexive auxiliary to the main verb are shared
features in all sub groups, therefore can be reconstructed for PDr.

3.4. Sub grouping: Krishnmurti’s attempt to sub group Dravidian language

has two phases. First was in TVB (1961: 236-74) phase where he introduced
a tripartite sub grouping of SD, CD and ND. Later he modified it into a
fourfold sub grouping by further sub division of SD into SDI and SDII where
Telugu earlier placed into CD shifted into SDII. The proposed fourfold sub
grouping is based on 9 phonological features and 22 morphological features,
and five morpho syntactic features (Krishnamurti 2003: 494-97).

3.5. Reconstruction of Lexicon: Krishnmurti made a systematic account

of the phonological changes of IA loan words in Dravidian (475) which off
course an advancement of former studies. In addition to his occasional
reconstruction of PDr lexicon he presented a list of 600 reconstructed lexical
items and 100 bound forms (Krishnamurti 2003: 523-33).

3.6. Approaches towards new trends: His approach to relation of

Dravidian to other family of languages was very conscious. He did not make
any judgment on any of the proposals of Dravidian affinity with other family
of languages in his 1969 review (2001:116-119). In his 1985 review he
examined all the proposals on Dravidian affinity with other families of
languages then available. Other than indicating the potential validity of the
proposed affinity of Dravidian with Japanese (Susumu Shiba 1980) he did

14
not support any of the proposals including McAlpin (1974) to whom he
appears to be sympathetic to discuss it in detail. After carefully examine the
proposal of the inclusion of Dravidian in Nostratic macro phyla
Krishnamurti conclusively remains on his position that the question is still
very speculative (2003: 47).Regarding the relation of Dravidian with
Harappan he exempted himself from of passing judgment with an excuse
that he did not made any original study.

3.7. Historiography of Comparative Dravidian Linguistics: Krishnamurti

reviewed the development of CDL four times (Krishnamurti 2001b [1969]:
99-120, 2001c [1985] 243-260; 2001a: 370-382, 2003:30-35, 2005:19-36).
All these reviews remain as the most systematic documentation of the
historiography of CDL.

3.8. Timely reviews: Reviewing of the development of CDL is one of a

serious academic practice he had been doing through his life time. He
reviewed Outline of Colloquial Kannada by William Bright (1960), Dravidian
Etymological Dictionary (1963), Dravidian Comparative Phonology: a sketch
by Emeneau (1975), Comparative Dravidian Phonology by Zveleble (1976).

4. IMPACT
4.1. Chronology of CDL: In addition to his subsequent contributions to the
development of CDL he reviewed the development of the field at three times
(1969:309-33 [2001:99-120], 1985:212-31 [2001:243-260], 1999 [2001:370-
82]). These remain as the standard history of CDL. The chronologies he
adopted in 1969 was pre 1947 and post 1947 and in 1969 it was up to
1966 since it has been asked to write in 1965 and 2001 was 1900-1950,
1947-1980 and 1980-1998. None of these chronologies are internal to the
discipline and arbitrary. Therefore, an alternate chronology based on the
internal development of the discipline is proposed below;

Chronology Major works

Medieval period Thiruvai mozhi, LTM,
upto 1816-1856 [Ellis 1816]
1856-1961 [Caldwell 1856]
[Emeneau 1956] Linguistic Area
1961-1971 [BhK 1961,
[Burrow & Emeneau 1961 DED
Emeneau 1967] South Dravidian languages
Agestialingo & [Kumaraswami Raja 1969: Dravidian linguistics
Seminar papers GKPanickr Numerals
[Kumaraswami Raja 1969] Post Nasal Plosive

Zvelebil 1970

1971-1933 [Subrahmanyam 1971]

[Shanmugham 1971]
[Subrahmanyam 1983]
[Sanford B Steevr 1988]
[Agethialingom 1976, 1980]

15
 [Ramakrisha Reddy 1989] Contact studies

1993-2003 [Sanfrod B Steevr1993]

[Krishnamurti 2001]
[Umamaheswar Rao 2000] Dravidian and Mongolian
2003-2013 [BhK 2003] Dravidian Languages
[Ramakrishna Reddy 2003 Agreement]
[BhK 2012] Papers in Dravidian Linguistics
[Subrahmanyam 2006,(conjunctive particle in ILA)
[Subrahmanyam, 2005, 2006, 2008] Dravidian Comparative
Grammar I
[Subrahmanyam 2008] DEDR Supplement

2013-2016 [PSS 2013] The morpho- syntax of Dravidian

[UMRao 2014,

In this chronology BhK contributed in the three phases start with his TVB in
1961 to Dravidian Languages 2003. His contribution started a new phase in
the development of CDL in 1961 and reaches to another phase by his DL in
2003.

5. CONTERVERSIES
Krishnamurti was not beyond criticism. He was often criticized by
Subrahmanyam on many of the aspects discussed below;

5.1. Number of languages: There is a permanent inconsistency among the

linguists regarding the independent status of many Dravidian languages.
Hitherto, no consistent parameters can be found to distinguish between
language and dialect especially in the case of the respect of tribal languages.
For example, Ethnologue (Lewis etl 2013) 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 2003:19) whereas, in his latest update Subrahmanyam
(2013,) presented 22!. According to Ramakrishna Reddy there are 30
Dravidian languages; among them 24 languages are spoken by tribal
communities (Reddy 2006: 205).On the contrary to this number 26
proposed by Krishnamurti (2003: 19) Subrahmanyam is not included
Baḍaga, Koraga, Naikṛi and Ollari as separate language. Krishnamurti
(2003: 25-26) included these language based on the studies on each
language by Hockings and Pilot- Raichoor (1992), Bhat (1971: 3), Thomasiah
(1986) and Bhattacharya (1961) respectively.

5.2. Reconstruction: There exists difference of opinion between BhK and

PSS about the reconstruction PDr consonants;

(Krishnamurti 2003) 17 consonants

Labial Dental Alveolar Retroflex Palatal Velar Glptal

Stops p t ṯ ṭ c k
Nasals m n ṇ ñ
Laterals l ḷ
Flap/ Approximant r ẓ
Glides w y H

16
 (Subrahmanyam 2008) 18 consonants

Labial Labio Dental Alveolar Retroflex Palatal Velar

dental
Stops p t ṯ ṭ c k
Nasals m n ṉ ṇ ñ ŋ
Tril r
Laterals l ḷ
Approximant ẓ
Glides v y

Krishnamurti (1997:145-65 (reprinted with a postscript 2001: 323-344]

2003) reconstruction of laryngeal *H based on Tamil ayatam, not giving a
phonemic status to alveolar ṉ, and velar nasal ŋ, inclusion of v as a labial
phoneme placing it on labiodentals point are the major points of
disagreement in the phonological reconstruction. PSS provide an evidence of
the contrast of n and ṉ. puṉṉa ‘mast wood’ DR4343 ~ kunnu (<*kuṉṯ(u)) ‘hill’ DR
1864, 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 (2003). The most controversial reconstruction is laryngeal
*H on the basis of Old Tamil āyatam (Krishnamurti 1997 [2001:323-44],
2003: 91, 265). PSS (63-4) questioned the bases of this reconstruction and
he added that this would have been explained only as a length variation.
Recently Umamaheswarrao (2015:4) proposed a macro linguistics Prot
Mangolian parallels to the Dravidian laryngeal *H without stating his
position regarding the *H. The Rule 3 of the Quantitative variation is (2003:
97) also challenged by PSS (91) he stated that the rule is defective in
formulation. Extension of his earlier established change (1958) of *i/*u into
*e/*o before C2a in Tamil Tulu, Telugu- Kuwi into SD1 also questioned by
PSS (115). Rule 13: Affricate weakening, loss, irregular merger with dental
and velars also questioned by PSS(125-126, 134) where he argued that there
remains any evidence of intermediary –h- before *c loose in SD
(PSS134).Splitting of Rule 8 into a, b and c also questioned (PSS 171).Bhk
(2003: 27) observation of the triggering factor of retroflex as the development
of centralized vowel in all Nilgiri languages like Kodagu also questioned by
PSS (295).Bhk(2003:28) observation of ‘ Alveolar and retroflex occurred only
in the medial positions in PDr’ also challenged by PSS (297) with counter
evidences *kal ‘stone’ [1298], tēḷ ‘scorpion’ [3470] nīr ‘water’ [3690] , *nā ṭ(u)
‘country’ [3638], *yāṯ(u) ‘river’ [5159]. Southworth (PDAGRI) questioned the
reconstruction of *er-umV ‘buffalo’ and proposed *er-utu since the former is
attested only SD.

5.3. Comparative morphology:

5.6. Sub grouping: Kirishnamurti’s tripartite sub grouping introduced in

TVB was widely accepted earlier and still accepted by PSS. In 1970s based
on further evidences he separated the Telugu-Manda sub group from CD
and places as another sub branch of SD known as SDII. PSS (2004, 2008:
25-27 fn26) questioned the eight isoglosses of shared innovations based on
which Tamil-Tulu and Telugu-Kuwi have placed in SDII. (1) The alternation
of *i/*e and *u.*o before a is common assimilatory tendency which cannot
be considered as features of sub grouping. (2) The similarity between *c > ø

17
of Tamil-Tulu and *c > s> h > ø of Gondi. The later is considered as a areal
spread. The h- stage is not existed at all. (3)*-ṯ- > -ṟ- (>-r-). The same
change is 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 must be a real influence than genetic. (iv) The creation of
1st person singular pronoun *ňān. (v) nīr as the 2nd person plural pronoun go
beyond the PDr stage and the plural suffix created on the bases of it found
in three ND languages. (vi) The causative suffix *-ppi/*-vii (with *-ppi after a
strong verb and *-vi after a weak verb) does not cover all the languages in
either group. (vii) The occurrence of the paired intransitive has been given as
the shared innovation should be reconstructed for the late stage of PDr. (viii)
The given negative verb *cil- ‘to be not’ occurs only in Parji and only as a
main verb. It is borrowed syntactic construction across languages. (ix)
*taHr- ‘to give to 1st/2nd person’ does not have enough data available in three
languages. Based on these PSS argues for the TVB sub grouping and
Steever (1988: 13) too accept Krishnamurti’s later sub grouping warning
that ‘details of the sub grouping remain open to debate’. Southworth (1976)
proposed a seven fold sub group and his criticism of the possibility of ariel
contact between Telugu with the other SD languages cannot be ruled out.

6. CONCLUSION
I have made a humble attempt to narrate Krishnamurti’s life as a linguist
and his contributions for the development of CDL during 1955 to 2012
followed by a short note on the impact of his contribution and controversies.
It should be specially mentioned that none of the controversies related to his
arguments are settled. A complete bibliography with citation index of him is
necessary. Much of his works are available in English. All these should be
accessible in major Dravidian languages. In brief, it is unequivocal that
Krishnamurti was a half century of CDL and his contributions especially
1961 and 2003 trigger two phases in the history of CDL. Telugu scholar C
Rama Rao (1972:39) have opinioned that the history of Telugu linguistics is
designated as pre-Krishnamurti, Krishnamurti and post- Krishnamurti eras.
I should and off course i can say that nothing exclamatory to extent the
same observation to the history of CDL too.

REFERENCES

(For references to Krishnamurti's works, see the bibliography following.)

18