The Sanskrit Origin Theory

A close look at the Sanskrit Origin Theory

Early Misconceptions

Before the development of modern linguistic studies, scholars in India believed that all Indian languages originated from Sanskrit. This misconception was also prevalent among early European scholars and colonial administrators. The belief stemmed from several factors, including the prominence of Sanskrit in ancient Indian literature and religious texts, as well as its influence on many modern Indian languages.

The elite status of Sanskrit in India was largely due to its religious significance. It served as the liturgical language for Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism and was extensively used in classical literature, philosophy, and science. This prestigious status led to the assumption that Sanskrit was the progenitor of all Indian languages.

Both Indian and early colonial scholars failed to fully account for the diversity and historical complexity of Indian languages. Their observations were primarily based on the most prominent literary and liturgical language they encountered. Since Sanskrit was a liturgical language, almost all Indian languages had borrowed extensively from it, leading scholars to assume that all Indian languages originated from Sanskrit.

However, the Tholkappiyam, a treatise on the Old Tamil language, clearly distinguished between Sanskrit/Prakrit and Old Tamil.

Classification

While the Tholkappiyam sheds light on the early distinct classification of languages, its scope is restricted to the region known as Ancient Tamilakam, comprising today's Kerala and Tamil Nadu, where Old Tamil served as the lingua franca. Consequently, it provides no information about other languages or language families in India.

It was only after colonial scholars began studying Indian languages that a broader understanding emerged. In the late 18th century, Sir William Jones, who studied Sanskrit, was struck by its sophistication and its structural and lexical similarities to Greek and Latin. Jones famously noted the deep connections between these languages, leading to the recognition of the Indo-European language family.

In 1816, Francis Whyte Ellis proposed that Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam, Tulu, and Kodava originated from a common, non-Indo-European ancestor. He supported this theory by comparing non-Sanskrit vocabulary in Telugu, Kannada, and Tamil, demonstrating that these languages shared similar grammatical structures. In 1844, Christian Lassen identified Brahui as related to these languages. In 1856, Robert Caldwell published "Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian or South-Indian Family of Languages," which greatly expanded the Dravidian classification and established it as one of the major language groups in the world.

In 1961, T. Burrow and M. B. Emeneau published the "Dravidian Etymological Dictionary," with a significant revision in 1984, further advancing the study of Dravidian languages.

Sanskrit origin theory

As previously discussed, this theory is not exclusive to Malayalam; the misconception existed for a long time among Indian scholars. In modern times, there is a political narrative suggesting that the classification of languages into Indo-European and Dravidian is part of Western colonial propaganda. While a prudent person might easily dismiss this argument as ludicrous and irrational, its proponents are often politically motivated to establish such a narrative. Therefore, it becomes necessary to demonstrate that this narrative lacks academic validity and serves merely as political fodder for certain factions.

It is worth noting that works such as the Tholkappiyam are essential in disproving this narrative. Later works by Hindu sages, such as Chattambi Swamikal, also refute it entirely. Proponents of the Sanskrit origin theory would find it difficult to defend the political affiliations of Tholkappiyar and the Hindu scholar Chattambi Swamikal.

While Caldwell and subsequent scholars dismissed the Sanskrit origin theory, none delved as deeply as native scholars like Chattambi Swamikal. This might be due to their limited knowledge of the literature in these languages. Chattambi Swamikal's work "Adibhasha" successfully established that Malayalam did not originate from Sanskrit and elaborated on how Sanskrit and Malayalam belong to two different language groups.

Demonstration

According to Ulloor S. Parameswara Iyer, the genetic relationship between two languages is defined by specific conditions. Regardless of how many words a language borrows from another, it does not lose its identity.

Pronouns, numbers, affixes etc in Dravidian languages are distinct from that of Sanskrit, Let's run a comparison with Malayalam, Tami, Kannada, Telugu, Sanskrit and Lithuanian

• I - ñāṉ (mal), nāṉ (tam), nānu (kan), nēnu (tel), aham‌ (san), aš (lit)

• He - avaṉ (mal), avaṉ (tam), avanu (kan), atanu (tel), saḥ (san), jis (lit)

• You - nī (mal), nī (tam), nī (kan), mī (tel), tvam‌ (san), tu (lit)

• What - entŭ (mal), eṉṉa (tam) , ēnu (kan), ēmi (tel), kim‌ (san), ką (lit)

what trees are those?

mal - ava entu maraṅṅaḷāṇŭ?

tam - avai eṉṉa maraṅkaḷ?

kan - avu yāva maragaḷu?

tel - avi ē ceṭlu?

san - te ke vrukshah santi?

lit - kokie tai medžiai?

numbers	Malayalam, Tamil, Kannada, Telugu	Sanskrit, Lithuanian, Latin,
one	onnŭ, oṉṟu, ondu, okaṭi	ekam‌, vienas, unus
two	raṇṭŭ, iraṇṭu, eraḍu, reṇḍu	dvau, du, duo
three	mūnnŭ, mūṉṟu, mūru, mūḍu	trayaḥ, trys, tria,
four	nālŭ, nāṉku, nālku, nālugu	catvāraḥ, keturi, quattuor,
five	añcŭ, aintu, aidu, aidu	pañca, penki, quinque,
six	āṟŭ, āṟu, āru, āru,	ṣaṭ, šeši, sex,
seven	ēḻŭ, ēḻu, ēḷu, ēḍu,	sapta, septyni, septem,
eight	eṭṭŭ, eṭṭu, eṇṭu, enimidi,	aṣṭa, aštuoni, octo,
nine	onpatŭ, oṉpatu, ombattu, tom'midi,	nava, devyni, novem,
ten	pattŭ, pattu, hattu, padi,	daśa, dešimt, decem,
eleven	patinonnŭ, patiṉoṉṟu, hannondu, padakoṇḍu	ēkādaśa, vienuolika, undecim,
twelve	pantraṇṭŭ, paṉṉiraṇṭu, hanneraḍu, panneṇḍu	dvādaśa, dvylika, duodecim,
twenty	irupatŭ, irupatu, ippattu, iravai	viṁśatiḥ, dvidešimt, viginti

While these are some basic aspects, the definition of a language cannot be solely based on such evidence. This is where syntax comes in. It involves how words are used to form sentences, what kinds of sound changes occur, and how affixes are added to words.

Differences in detail

One thing worth noting is the concept of a Sprachbund. Languages of India have interacted with each other for so long that they possess certain common characteristics and qualities. However, this does not necessarily mean that all Indic languages are related to each other. One example of this is the feature of Dravidian languages to have more than one past participle in a sentence, this feature has spread from Dravidian to Sanskrit and modern Indo-Aryan.

Phonology

Tholkappiyam, in its first part, discusses the phonology of Tamil-Malayalam. It states that there are a total of 30 letters, excluding the 3 secondary phonemes, while in Sanskrit, there are a total of 42 phonemes. In K.M. Narayana Menon's "Historical Grammar of Early Old Malayalam," he rationally divides Malayalam phonology into two systems: the main system (native) and the sub-system (loan)For those who argue that Malayalam phonology is derived from Sanskrit, they often overlook the fact that Malayalam was traditionally written using scripts such as Vatteluttu, Koleluttu, and Malayanma, which had only 21 letters. This contrasts with the writing systems used for Sanskrit, which comprise around 51 letters (the original 42 letters were expanded to 51 by Panini). When Sanskrit words were borrowed into Malayalam, they underwent phonological and orthographic adjustments. For instance, the Sanskrit word "r̥ṣabha" becomes "iṭavaṁ" in Malayalam, due to the absence of the phonemes r̥, ṣ, and bh in Malayalam phonology. Additionally, Sanskrit lacks three phonemes found in Malayalam: /r/ (റ), /t/ (ഺ, half-റ്റ), and /ɻ/ (ഴ).

D. N. Shankara Bhat and Ulloor S. Parameswara Iyer list several major differences between Sanskrit and Dravidian languages.

Differences according to Ulloor

• Demonstrative nouns, pronouns, interrogatives and numbers in Dravidian languages are different from that of Sanskrit; ñān (I) nī (you) avan (he remote) ivan (he near), ārŭ‍ (who) entŭ (what), onnŭ (one) raṇṭŭ (two)

• The similarity of word stems between two languages is irrelevant if the affixes show no similarities; in such cases, those languages cannot be considered related. This distinction is particularly evident when comparing Dravidian and Indo-Aryan languages.

• Dravidian languages are agglutinative, while Sanskrit is a fusional language. In agglutinative languages, each morpheme remains individually identifiable as a meaningful unit even after being combined into a word. Examples of agglutinative languages include Dravidian languages, Turkish, Finnish, Basque, and Hungarian. In simple terms, agglutination involves adding suffixes to the stem one after the other. For example, consider how "miṭukkanmārōṭŭ" (to the smart males) is formed. "Miṭukk" (smart) is the stem, followed by the masculine suffix "-an," then the rational plural marker "-mār," and finally the sociative case marker "-ōṭŭ." In Sanskrit, words are not combined in this manner.

• The passive voice is absent in Dravidian languages; any occurrences are due to Sanskrit influence.

  • Bhadriraju Krishnamurthy noted in his work Dravidian Languages that "The passive voice is rarely used in modern Dravidian languages".

• Sanskrit has a third voice called "bhave prayoga" (stative usage), which is used when the verb has no object. Malayalam lacks this type of voice, and while there are some rare alternative formations, they do not resemble those in Sanskrit.

  • Sanskrit example of stative usage : kumbhakarṇena supyate (Kumbhakarna sleeps) There is sleeping by Kumbhakarna.

• Additionally, conjunctive elements in Malayalam differ from those in Sanskrit.

  • In Malayalam, "makanum makaḷum" translates to "son and daughter" (literally: son-and daughter-and). The terms maṟṟum, mattu, and mariyu, used in Tamil, Kannada, and Telugu respectively, were introduced later. Tamil still employs the older conjunct "-um," similar to Malayalam.

• In Dravidian languages, inanimate nouns and the pronouns denoting them do not have gender. However, in Sanskrit, all nouns, whether they refer to sentient beings or inanimate objects, have gender. A single noun can sometimes have two or even three genders. This means that objects such as water, table, and chair are assigned a gender in Sanskrit, which is not the case in Dravidian languages.

• Additionally, modifiers do not take gender in Dravidian languages, while they do in Sanskrit.

• The phonology of Dravidian and Sanskrit languages shows clear differences, and the Sandhi rules (rules for sound combination) also differ between the two language families.

Differences according to D.N Shankara Bhat

The renowned linguist and Kannada scholar D.N. Shankara Bhat, in his book "Kannadake Beku Kannadadde vyakarana", provides an in-depth analysis of the differences between Kannada and Sanskrit. Since Kannada is closely related to Malayalam, the differences these languages exhibit when compared with Sanskrit are quite similar. Here, some of the differences pointed out by D.N. Shankara Bhat are explained with Malayalam examples.

Sandhi rules

Sandhi rules greatly differ in Sanskrit and Malayalam. According to Keralapanineeyam there are four Sandhis in Malayalam; 1) letter drop 2) letter addition 3) letter doubling 4) letter transformation. In Sanskrit there are 3 types of Sandhi; 1) Vowel Sandhi 2) Consonant Sandi 3) Visarga Sandhi (:) and these are further sub-divided into many

Malayalam Sandhi	Examples
letter drop	taṇuppu + uṇṭŭ = taṇuppuṇṭŭ (cold exists)
letter drop	kaṇṭu + illa = kaṇṭilla (didn't see)
letter drop	alla + ennŭ = allennŭ (is/was not)
letter addition	kara + uḷḷa = karayuḷḷa (having land)
letter addition	pū + ennŭ = pūvennŭ (is/was flower)
letter doubling	tala + keṭṭŭ = talakkeṭṭŭ (head tie)
letter doubling	tan + il = tannil (in self/you)
letter transformation	atŭ + koṇṭŭ = atukoṇṭŭ (cause of that)
letter transformation	kēḷ + tu = kēṭṭu (heard)
letter transformation	maram + um = maravum (tree as well/tree and)
letter transformation	maram + inṯe = marattinṯe (of tree)

Sanskrit Sandhi	Examples
savarna deergha	dēva + ālayaḥ = dēvālayaḥ
savarna deergha	kavi + īśaḥ = kavīśaḥ
savarna deergha	bhānu + udayaḥ = bhānūdayaḥ
savarna deergha	mātr̥ + r̥ṇam = mātr̥̄ṇam
guna	mama + iva = mamēva
guna	rājā + r̥ṣiḥ = rājarṣiḥ
vriddhi	jana + ēkatā = janaikatā
vriddhi	tava + audāryam = tavaudāryam
yann	iti + asti = ityasti
yann	vadhū + ādēśaḥ = vadhvādēśaḥ
ayadi	vardhatē + ēva = vardhatayēva
poorvaroopa	vanē + atra = vanē’tra
pragruhya	munī + āgatau = munī āgatau (no sandhi)
visarga	saḥ + bālakaḥ = sa bālakaḥ
visarga	manaḥ + śāntiḥ = manaśśāntiḥ
visarga	pāṭhaḥ + ṣōḍaśaḥ = pāṭhaṣṣōḍaśaḥ

The Sanskrit sandhis such as svarasandhi, vyanjanasandhi, etc are not used in Malayalam, they are only used with Sanskrit loan words.

Gender

Gender rules in Dravidian languages and Sanskrit differ significantly. Sanskrit, like German, has grammatical gender, meaning every word has a gender. This includes inanimate objects and abstract concepts. For example, mati (knowledge) is feminine, madhu (honey) is neuter, dārā (wife) is masculine, and varṇṇaḥ (color) is masculine.

Sanskrit classifies nouns into three genders: masculine, feminine, and neuter. Most nouns have a predefined gender, but some can be used in two or more genders depending on the context.

In contrast, gender in Dravidian languages operates similarly to English, where gender is determined based on meaning. For example, talavan (male leader) is masculine, talavatti (female leader) is feminine, amma (mother) is feminine, appan (father) is masculine, and maram (tree) is genderless. Therefore, in Malayalam, nouns such as aṟivŭ (knowledge), tēn (honey), and niṟam (color) do not have any gender.

Gender system of Malayalam

The gender system of Malayalam is primarily classified into two categories: human generic and non-human generic. The human generic category includes nouns that have human characteristics or possess rationality, while the non-human generic category includes nouns that do not possess any human characteristics. The rational gender is subdivided into three: masculine, feminine, and gender-neutral. For example, talavatti is rational feminine, talavan is rational masculine, and talayāḷ is rational neutral. According to Tholkappiyam, the gender-neutral noun is defined with a plural marker, so talavar (leaders) can also be a gender-neutral singular noun.

The irrational gender includes all non-living things and animals, such as dogs, soil, trees, books, and colors.

Another difference between Sanskrit and Malayalam is that Sanskrit has three number markers: singular, dual, and plural, while Dravidian languages only have singular and plural markers.

In Sanskrit, modifiers (adjectives and adverbs) must agree with the gender and number of the noun. In Dravidian languages, modifiers do not have to agree in gender and number with the noun. Instead, gender and number can be indicated in the verb, as in amma vannāḷ (mother came) and appan vannān (father came). The plural forms do not carry gender, as in ammamār vannār (mothers came) and appanmār vannār (fathers came). In Malayalam, even the verb agreement is very rarely used and is prevalent only in old literary works.

Take a look at how modifiers and nouns change in Sanskrit

tatra ēkaḥ kr̥ṣṇaḥ sarpaḥ asti (there is a black snake)

hariḥ ēkaṁ kr̥ṣṇaṁ sarpaṁ dr̥ṣṭavān. (Hari saw a black snake)

Now see how the same sentences go in Malayalam

aviṭe oru kaṟutta pāmp uṇṭŭ (there is a black snake)

hari oru kaṟutta pāmpine kaṇṭu (Hari saw a black snake)

In Malayalam the number oru (one) and the adjective kaṟutta (black) did not take any suffixes

The same in Telugu

akkaḍa oka nallapāmu undi (there is a black snake)

hariki oka nalla pāmu kanipin̄cindi (Hari saw a black snake)

Grammatical cases

Declension of a noun in Sanskrit depends on its gender and number. In Malayalam, there are no such complexities.

Malayalam Case	Example kutira (horse)
nominative	kutira veḷḷam kuṭiccu (horse drank water)
accusative	kutiraye veḷḷam kuṭippiccu (made horse drink water)
dative	kutiraykku veḷḷam koṭuttu (gave water to the horse)
instrumental	kutirayāl pōruti nēṭi (won war with horse)
comitative	kutirayōṭŭ paṟaññu (said to horse)
genitive	kutirayuṭe tala (head of horse)
locative 1	kutirayil (in/on horse)
locative 2	kutirayiṅkal (near the horse)

In addition to this other cases can be formed by using the combining the above case markers

Sanskrit case	Example aśva (horse)
nominative	aśvaḥ pibati jalaṁ
accusative	aśvaḥ pibati jalaṁ
dative	aśvāya jalaṁ dattavān
instrumental	aśvēna saha yuddhaṁ jitvā
ablative	aśvāt (from horse)
vocative	dayāṁ kuru mayi aśva (have mercy on me, horse)
genitive	aśvasya śiraḥ (head of horse; horse's head)
locative	aśvē (in horse)

Other Major Differences

Dravidian languages do not employ prefixes; any prefixes observed in Dravidian languages are borrowed from Sanskrit and are exclusively used with Sanskrit loanwords. Instead, Dravidian languages utilize cuṭṭeḻuttu (pointing letters) to indicate the proximity or remoteness of objects. There are three such cuṭṭeḻuttu: a- (remote), u- (between), and i- (near). Although the u- cuṭṭeḻuttu was historically found in Tamil, it is not used in Modern Tamil.

In Sanskrit, 'ā' functions as a prefix meaning 'to come', whereas in Malayalam, it serves as a cuṭṭeḻuttu. 'ā' can stand alone or combine with a noun or pronoun, often shortening to -a. For instance, "that place" can be expressed as 'ā iṭaṁ' or 'aviṭam' (alternative form being 'avviṭam'). Similarly, the same principle applies to 'ī'. In Sanskrit, -a can serve as a negative marker, as seen in a + samaya (time) = asamaya (unfavorable time, unreasonable time). However, adding the same marker to a pure Malayalam word can alter its meaning.

Parts of speech

In Malayalam, words are classified into three; nouns, verbs and modifiers (perchol, vinachol, uricol). In Sanskrit, there are only two main groups; nouns and verbs.

It is not possible in Malayalam to place the modifiers and nouns at different places, but in Sanskrit it is very much possible, In Dravidian languages, an adjective can only be placed before the noun.

He is making a beautiful mat

avan aḻakuḷḷa pāy uṇṭākkukayāṇŭ [he beautiful mat making is]

In Sanskrit, the adjective can be placed even after the verb.

saḥ caṭakaṁ karōti sundaraṁ [he mat+m making beautiful+m]

It is possible to use modifiers as independent nouns in Sanskrit. This is because there is no difference between nouns and adjectives in Sanskrit. But in Malayalam, adjectives are their own class.

Conclusion

It is often argued that the grammar conventions of other Indian languages follow Sanskrit, including Tholkappiyam. However, this assertion does not hold true upon closer examination. Both Tholkappiyam and even Leelathilakam, while structurally resembling Panini's Astadayayi in their content headers, exhibit little to no similarity in their actual content when compared to the Panineeyan style of specifying grammar.

Proponents of the Sanskrit Origin Theory heavily emphasize vocabulary. Undeniably, Sanskrit boasts a vast vocabulary, and its profound religious and scholarly influence has made it a significant contributor to various languages. Sanskrit loanwords are prevalent in Southeast Asian languages such as Indonesian and Thai, largely due to its religious significance.

Nevertheless, those familiar with rudimentary linguistics understand that the relationship between languages cannot be solely defined by vocabulary. For instance, despite the abundance of Latin words, English is classified as a Germanic language.

This can be further elaborated with the help of an example sentence

She coloured

avaḷ niṟam aṭiccu (pure Malayalam)

avaḷ kaḷar aṭiccu (English loan colour)

avaḷ varṇṇam aṭiccu (Sanskrit loan varṇa)

Even though three different words from three different languages were used, the phrase remains as Malayalam. With the amount of English words Indian languages are using, one may argue that English is the mother of all Indian languages.

Swaminatha Iyer, a proponent of the Sanskrit origin theory, has stated that all Dravidian languages are corruptions of Sanskrit, and the limited characters (alphabets) have led to the corruption of Sanskrit words beyond recognition in Dravidian languages such as Tamil. However, this is such an irrational statement; a writing system is merely a tool to graphically represent a language, and a single language can have multiple writing systems. To say that the limited characters in Tamil made way for the corruption of Sanskrit words comes with two problems:

1. A writing system may develop much later for a language, and letters are usually added or modified according to the phonology of that language, except for languages using ideograms or similar writing conventions.

2. Tholkappiyam mentions the loaning of Sanskrit words into Tamil.

Chattambiswamikal in 'Adibasha' disapproves this argument of Sanskrit Origin Proponents: "Some people may come up with the argument that letters were intentionally reduced so that Sanskrit words cannot be accurately pronounced to make it appear that Sanskrit and Tamil are really far from each other. Such a doubt is irrational because Sanskrit loanwords such as karam, kalapakam, naran, karuṇa, and many other loanwords are used as they are in Tamil."

In Sanskrit phonemes are of 3 matras (length of sound), but in Tamil, as Tholkappiyar defines, mū aḷa picaittal ōrēḻuttinṯē - No letter exists in 3 matra. Tamil only have two letter compounding, but in Sanskrit 5 letter compoundings are found.

Further, R. Narayana Panicker in 'Keralabhashasahityacharitram' asserts that the intention of scholars like Kovunni Nedungadi is to fabricate the notion that Sanskrit is the father and Damila is the mother of Malayalam. This statement maybe true in the case of Manipravalam, but does not adequately explain the origin of Malayalam. He goes on to state, "There are a few people who believe that Malayalam originated from Sanskrit. However, if we apply any measure that linguistics use to determine the genetic characteristics of both languages, none substantiates this theory. It is apparent that these fanatics are driven more by piety than rationality". Narayana Panicker further presents several points to refute the Sanskrit origin theory. Some of them are provided hereunder;

• Body parts and the verbs associated with them (kaṇṇŭ, cevi, nākkŭ, mūkkŭ, kāṇuka, kēḷkkuka, tinnuka, maṇakkuka etc)

• Things that are used to refer to our life utilities (vīṭŭ, muṯṯaṁ, pura, tīy, ari, cōṟŭ, nellŭ etc)

• Animals that we depend upon on a daily basis (nāya, āṭŭ, māṭŭ, kāḷa, kutir )

• Terms associated with relatives (amma, makaḷ, tanta)

• Pronouns and numbers

• Common verbs

Grammatical differences

• Gender in Malayalam is semantic (it relies on meaning of a word). In Sanskrit its different

• Malayalam doesn't have dual noun form like Sanskrit

• Unlike Sanskrit, Malayalam doesn't have gender agreement in modifiers.

  • Sanskrit: satyavānbālakaḥ satyavatibālikaḥ satyavasantaḥ bālakāḥ

  • Malayalam: nēruḷḷa kuṭṭi, nēruḷḷa peṇṇŭ, nēruḷḷa payyan

The Sanskrit Origin Theory is discarded by Modern Linguists and similar takes were also found in Europe, where many argued that all European languages came from Latin. This was because of the religious and scholarly significance of these languages and a comparative analysis can disapprove these weak arguments.

References

1. The Study of Language, George Yule, Fourth Edition

2. Contemporary Linguistics: An Introduction, 5 th edition, Chapter 7: Early linguists, 1

3. Tholkappiyam in English, Dr. V. Murugan, 2000

4. The Dravidian Languages, Bhadriraju Krishnamurthi

5. Malayalam History of Literature, Ulloor, 1953

6. Adibhasha, Chattambiswamikal

7. P.S. Subrahmanyam, in Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (Second Edition), 2006

8. Why Kannada Needs Its Own Grammar, D.N.S Bhar, Translation Malati Bhat, 2022

9. Catechism of Malayalam Grammar, H. Gundert, Translation L. Garthwaite, 1867

10. A Grammar of Malayalim In The Language Itself, Rev. George Matthan, 1868

11. A Sanskrit Grammar, Including Both The Classical Language, And The Older Dialects, Of Veda and Brahmana, William Dwilight Whitney, 1879

12. Kerala Panineeyam, A.R. Rajarajavarma, 1917

13. Language And Society In Kerala: The Origin And Growth Of Malayalam Language (1300 CE To 1800 CE), Vincy C.K, 2020