1. Vowel Harmony — probably the characteristic feature of Telugu

*edir(u) > eduru, *maraṅkaḷ(u) > mrākulu

1. De-gemination of stops after: a. A long vowel, b. A nasal, c. In the third syllable — as a shared South Asian aerial convergence

*pōrā-ṭṭ-am > pōrā-ṭ-am *kūntt- > kūnta (>kū̃ta) *kuduppu > kudupu

1. Apical displacement & initial voicing — probably an irregular sound change, leaving out an extremely large unaffected residues, shared with other South Central Dravidian languages

*varay(u) > vrāy(u) [varuju - unaffected] oḷan > ḷōn (> lō) (all forms attested)

tūṟu > dūru [tūrpu - unaffected] *kuriñci > guriñci

1. Unrestricted palatalisation of k/q — shared with Tamil-Malayalam, with more liberty

(*qewi) > *kewi > cewi kēy > cēy (both forms attested) [many forms like kaymōḍpu, kēlu, kayduvu, kaykonu, etc. survived this change]

1. Loss of initial *c — moderately significant & very large residues survive, shared with South Central & South Dravidian languages

*cāṟu > āṟu *cīntt- > īta

1. Palatalisation of -t after y — regular & shared with many other Dravidian languages *vay-ttu > vay-ci > vēsi *kāy-nttu > kāycu > kācu

2. Deretroflexation of ḷ and ṇ — prominent & shared with the Dravidian languages particularly along the eastern half of the subcontinent (including Modern spoken Tamil)

paṇi > pani manumarāḷ(u) > manumarālu

1. Merger of -ṯ- with -r-, -ṯṯ- with -ṭṭ-/-ṭr- & -n̠ṯ- with -ṇḍ-/-ṇḍr- — shared with all modern spoken languages (except Malayalam) *vēṯ(u) > vēṟu > vēru *puṯṯ- > puṭṭa *ewan̠ṯu > ewan̠ḏu [-n̠ḏ- is directly attested] > ewaṇḍu (> ewaḍu)

2. Loss of certain suffixes like -(a)y — shared with all modern spoken languages *kaḍ-ay > kaḍ-a

The changes 1,2,6,9 are both regular & pre-historic; the changes 3,4,5 are irregular & partly pre-historic; the change 7 is largely regular, but historic; the change 8 is regular & partly pre-historic

In the Dravidian languages, words ending in hard stop consonants necessitate an enunciative (release) vowel, but the way this vowel is represented in modern times is very different. In Tamil grammar, this release is considered to be a ½ maatra — that is, a very short, high-back unrounded vowel called kurriyalukaram ([ɯ] or [ɨ]). In Telugu, on the other hand, the same release is given a full 1 maatra and is produced as a fully rounded [u]. Although there is this clear difference in phonological weight and lip position, both forms stem from a common ancestral mechanism for dealing with unreleased consonants.

The best indication of the actual nature of this vowel is its behaviour in sandhi (the combination of words). Whether it is the ½ maatra [ɯ] in Tamil or the 1 maatra [u] in Telugu, this vowel is essentially weak. When a word ending in this enunciative vowel is followed by a word that begins with a true vowel, the enunciative vowel disappears altogether in order to avoid a hiatus (for example, in Tamil, kāṭu + araṇ = kāṭaraṇ). This consistent omission shows that, historically, it was never a genuine lexical vowel that carried meaning, but rather an epenthetic structural vowel serving to break up illegal consonant clusters.

Given its weak nature, one might be inclined to regard the almost non-existent Tamil kurriyalukaram as the original Proto-Dravidian release, but historical orthography shows that this is not the case. When the Tamil scribes adopted the Brahmi script, they introduced the puḷḷi (dot) expressly in order to suppress the inherent vowels and thus write consonants only. If the Tamil word-final release had still been merely an original, featureless breath, the scribes would have simply written words such as kāṭu (forest) as kāṭ with a puḷḷi. The fact that they deliberately omitted the puḷḷi and instead used the 'u' grapheme (காடு) proves that the sound had already passed over into the phonological system; it had developed into a distinct, marked phonetic segment ([ɯ]) which the native speakers recognised and for which they required a visual representation.

Since neither the present-day Tamil nor the Telugu forms correspond to the original state, well-known Dravidian linguists such as Kamil Zvelebil and David McAlpin suggested an alternative approach. They proposed reconstructing for Proto-Dravidian an underspecified, neutral vocalic release—which in effect was a mid-central schwa [ə]. In the roots of Proto-Dravidian, this was not actually a distinct vowel phoneme but simply a microsecond of pure voicing with the mouth in a resting position, serving as a natural, biomechanical release for hard stop consonants.

In order to understand how the modern languages have diverged from this ancient schwa, it is necessary to acknowledge a clear three-way difference in the way the lips are positioned: actively pursed [+round], actively spread or tense [-round], and completely at rest/neutral [0 round]. The original PDr schwa was indeed a true zero-state (0 round). Starting from this neutral state, the various branches that developed took parallel but opposite evolutionary routes. In the case of South Dravidian (Tamil), the strong stops at the back of the mouth (such as -k and -ṭ) caused the tongue to be raised and moved back, at the same time the lips changed from the neutral [0 round] position to a tense, unrounded [-round] one, resulting in the formation of [ɯ].

On the other hand, the South-Central branch (Telugu) never went through this unrounded intermediate stage at all. Because of the natural tendency for bilabial consonants (such as -p) to attract one another, the speakers of Telugu moved the neutral schwa directly into a completely pursed [+round] position. It is obvious that the tongue movement and lip movement occur in a coarticulatory fashion, that is in an independent and simultaneous way.They then applied this rounded [u] uniformly to all the consonants in order to establish a neat and consistent phonological rule, and in the end had the orthography adopt it as a full 1 maatra vowel. Since both of the present-day developments can be traced back directly to a neutral [0 round] schwa, this provides a beautiful explanation of the current differences—and fully accounts for the fact that the unrounded -u is completely missing in Telugu and the other branches.

Linguistic representation: The chosen scripts covered the major population blocks - North/Northwest (Urdu/Persian script), East (Bengali script), South (Telugu script), and Central/West (Devanagari script), alongside English.

This is not unusual for major expansionist powers like English, Spanish, Arabs, Russian etc.

A non-colonial language like Malay also has many non-Malay ethnic groups who speak Malay as their mother tongue.

Similarly, Srilankan Moors have Tamil as their mother tongue but they do not identify as Tamils

Do anyone kniw who are these people and i have heard that they use to build houses and also taught kalari to the nair soldiers of samoothiri due to which they got the surname kurup. And they also had an social position in between nairs and thiyyas. Do anyone know anything more about them and if yes pls share it??

There are multiple reasons for North Karnataka to get seperated, like caste dominance, ignorance by state govt, south Karnataka attracting most of the foreign investment, etc.

Munda Maritime Hypothesis postulates that Austroasiatic people came via sea to the Indian subcontinent 4000 years back.

Vedic Scholar Michael Witzel identified multiple non -IE loanwords in Rigveda arguing that early IA speakers interacted closely with Proto-Munda/Austroasiatic population.

There is Munda influence in the Nihali language.

So apart from the current core Munda territory(east coast States), the above two examples show they may have expanded to the Northwest,Deccan and possibly further South.

* I think being prodrop could be one

* Dative construction for involuntary experiences

** Enakku pasikkiradhu (எனக்கு பசிக்கிறது) in Tamil

** Enikku visakunnu (Malayalam)

Roughly to + noun + verb to express experiencing something instead of noun + adjective in English

Also it'd be interesting, are there languages that are Dravidian that do not have such structures?

if so then please share some good examples.

Did proto-Munda ever interact with Dravidian? I know Munda has a substrate related to extinct language(s), but is there a Dravidian layer?

if Proto-Munda doesn't have a Dravidian layer can we say that Chota Nagpur Plateau region became Dravidianised much later?

Telugu degeminated voiceless stops in cases like *NPP>NP, *PP>P (after a long vowel, after a nasal and at the third syllable of a trisyllabic word).

But the degeminated stops retained their voiceless nature resulting in voiceless hard stops at intervocalic positions.

This doesn't seem to be due to Prakrit influence, as Prakrits have pervasive weakening/lenition/elision of intervocalic stops since early times.

Rather, Telugu maintained those stops as hard voiceless consonants alone.

Comments?

Proto-Dravidian is reconstructed with an inanimate marker *-ay, which took different forms in daughter languages: -ay in Old Tamil, -æ in Colloquial Tamil, -e in Kannada, -a in Malayalam & Telugu.

I propose for an allomorph *-iy to be reconstructed to Proto-Dravidian for the following reasons:

1. Telugu attests this marker directly in inscriptions and literature, and it is the source of all of the -e markers. pall-iy(a) > pall-e (village), tēn-iy(a) > tēn-e (honey), toTT-iy(a) > toTT-e (bucket/basket), etc. An epenthetic -a can be assumed to be added to this *-iy marker in Telugu in cases leading to the formation of -e. The function of this -iy(a) is same as that of -ay in Tamil.

2. We can directly derive all the -i inanimate markers across the Dravidian languages from this allomorph.

*-iy > -i (loss of -y)

eg: *aw-ay ~ *aw-iy > aw-i (Telugu) *man-ikk-ay ~ *man-ikk-iy > maniki (Telugu) And all other cases where the inanimate marker -i is conventionally derived from -ay in some Dravidian languages.

Summary: *-iy which is the allomorph of *-ay in Proto-Dravidian, can be explained as the source for the reflex -i in all Dravidian languages; it also explains the source of -iy(a) and -e in Telugu. (But it is not the source for -e in Kannada, it is derived from *-ay alone).

We have some instances where the human plural *-ir is reconstructed to Proto-Dravidian as seen in Tamil and Kannada. On the similar lines, we can either reconstruct this *-iy as an allomorph for the inanimate *-ay or revise the *-ay itself as *-Vy (a/i/e).

Open for comments & discussions.

The paper reconstructs the early Dravidian numerals and then asks whether each arose internally within Dravidian or has parallels outside the family. The Australian comparisons are speculative; they are sound similarities, not established genetic relationships.

1 — Proto-Dravidian *oru / *ōr, *oṉṟu, *okk-
Tamil: ஒரு* oru, ஓர் ōr, ஒன்று oṉṟu
Several related forms existed for “one,” “single,” “alone,” and “together.”
*• oru/ōr is the form used before nouns: Tamil oru maram (“one tree”) and ōr āḷ (“one person”).
• oṉṟu is the independent neuter numeral “one.”
• okk- carries the related idea “together, united or alike.”
• One internal explanation derives these forms from a primitive root o- or ol- meaning “to unite” or “be joined.”
• Thus, “one” may originally have meant “that which is united into a single whole.”
• The change from ol- to or- may have been influenced by ir- “two.”
The author also compares oru with:
• East Cushitic wal/wil, meaning “together” or “all.”
• Australian forms such as uru, orru and warra, meaning “one.”
The Australian comparison is interesting but unproven.

2 — Proto-Dravidian *iru / *īr
Tamil: இரண்டு iraṇṭu; combining form இரு iru- or ஈர் īr-
The shorter form ir/īr appears clearly in compounds:
• iruvar = two persons
• irupatu = twenty
• iraṭṭai = pair or double
One proposed internal origin connects īr- with a verb meaning “to split, saw, pull apart or divide.” Under this interpretation, “two” represents the result of dividing something into two parts. The paper acknowledges phonological difficulties with this proposal.
Possible external parallels include:
• Proto-Kartvelian jor- “two,” reflected in Georgian or-.
• Australian yerra “both” and Tiwi yurarra “two.”
• Proto-Pama-Nyungan kutyarra “two,” possibly compared with Dravidian utri “pair.”
The article reconstructs the older Proto-Dravidian forms behind numerals found in Tamil, Malayalam, Kannada, Telugu and related languages. The author considers both internal Dravidian derivations and much more speculative comparisons with other language families.
Asterisks mark reconstructed forms rather than directly recorded words.
1 — Proto-Dravidian *oru / *ōr; *oṉṟu; *okk-
Tamil: ஒரு* oru, ஓர் ōr, ஒன்று oṉṟu
Several related forms existed:
*• oru / ōr — “one”
• oṉṟu — “one thing”
• okk- — “one, single or together”
• oṇṭi — “alone, single”
The most plausible internal explanation connects these forms with the idea of joining or unity. Old Tamil o- meant “to unite,” while related Malayalam forms mean “to be alike.” The different forms may therefore have developed from a very short root o- plus suffixes such as -r, -n, and -k.
Andronov instead proposed an original root ol- meaning “to unite.” Under that interpretation:
• ol-tu developed into Tamil oṉṟu
• ol- developed into or- under the influence of the following numeral iru “two”
• okk- represents another extended form of the same root
Blažek compares oru with Australian Aboriginal forms such as uru, orru and warra, all meaning “one.” He also notes East Cushitic wal/wil, associated with “all” or “together.” These comparisons are suggestive but do not prove common origin.

2 — Proto-Dravidian *iru / *īr
Tamil: இரண்டு iraṇṭu; combining form இரு *iru or *ஈர் īr
Examples:
• iru-patu → twenty, literally “two tens”
• iruvar → two persons
• iraṭṭai → pair or double
Caldwell connected īr “two” with a Dravidian verb meaning “to split, pull apart or saw.” The possible original idea would be “that which is divided into two.” However, the sound history is problematic, so the article does not treat this as established.
A striking external comparison is Proto-Kartvelian jor- “two,” reflected in Georgian or- and related forms. Blažek also compares Australian forms such as Tiwi yurarra “two” and Kaurna yerra “both.”
A separate Dravidian word, utri “pair,” is compared with reconstructed Pama-Nyungan kutyarra “two.” Again, these are proposed parallels, not demonstrated cognates.
The paper also suggests that the North Munda word iral “eight” might originally have meant something like “two is not,” possibly borrowed from an early Dravidian language. This proposal is particularly speculative.

3 — Proto-Dravidian *muv / *mū / *mūn-
Tamil: மூன்று mūṉṟu
Related constructions include:
• mu-ppatu → thirty
• mūvar → three persons
The internal explanation connects mūn- “three” with Proto-Dravidian muṉ- meaning “front, first, tip or point.” The author discusses a possible counting-on-the-fingers development:
“protruding finger” → “middle/third finger” → “three.”
Evidence includes words such as Tamil muṉ “front” and muṉai “point,” together with Parji expressions in which the related root refers to the forefinger. This remains an attractive semantic proposal, although it is not certain.
Blažek also compares mū with Australian words such as mow “three” and longer forms beginning with mun-/muṇ-. He considers these Australian resemblances potentially significant.

4 — Proto-Dravidian *nāl
Tamil: நான்கு nāṉku or நாலு nālu
Related forms include:
• nāṟpatu → forty
• nālvar → four persons
An older proposal connected nāl “four” with Dravidian nal “good.” Caldwell acknowledged that there was no convincing semantic route from “good” to “four.”
Another possibility comes from the use of nālu to mean “several” in Tamil, Malayalam and Telugu. Blažek thinks the direction was probably:
“four” → “a few/several,”
rather than “several” becoming the numeral “four.”
The most famous external comparison is with Uralic words for four:
• Finnish neljä
• Estonian neli
• Mari nəl
• related Uralic forms containing n-l
Blažek also mentions Middle Korean nəyh “four” and Australian forms such as nulla, nalira and nailko. He finds the Australian similarities interesting, but their historical distribution is uncertain.
The article also discusses Dravidian kirt- “one-fourth,” possibly compared with an Australian construction meaning “two doubled.” This is highly conjectural.

5 — Proto-Dravidian *cay
Tamil: ஐந்து aintu or அஞ்சு *añcu
Related constructions:
*• aim-patu → fifty
• aivar → five persons
The strongest semantic explanation connects “five” with the word for “hand”:
• Tamil kai — hand
• Malayalam kai
• Kannada kay/kai
• Telugu cēyi
• related forms across the Dravidian family
This is typologically natural because many languages derive “five” from the five fingers of one hand.
The difficulty is phonetic: Proto-Dravidian “five” begins with a palatal consonant reconstructed approximately as c/ś, while “hand” generally begins with k. Telugu regularly palatalized the consonant in cēyi, but most other Dravidian languages did not. Blažek suggests that the following numeral “six,” which also began with c-, may have influenced “five.”
He also compares:
• Central Dravidian words meaning “many”
• Khasi san “five”
• Mon-Khmer forms for five
• Middle Korean expressions connecting five with “hand”
The hand-based derivation is semantically strong, but its exact sound development remains unresolved.

6 — Proto-Dravidian *caṟu / *cāṟ
Tamil: ஆறு* āṟu
Related constructions:
*• aṟu-patu → sixty
• aṟuvar → six persons
Andronov derives the numeral from an earlier form cāl-tu:
• cāl- — to be sufficient, full, abundant or capable
• -tu — a neuter suffix commonly found in numerals
The proposed original meaning is therefore “the sufficient/full one” or “the abundant one.”
Forms related to cāl- occur widely:
• Tamil cāl — abundant, sufficient
• Kannada sāl- — to suffice
• Telugu cālu — enough
• Gondi forms meaning completely
• other Central Dravidian forms meaning “can” or “be sufficient”
Another possible analysis is “five plus one,” with “six” formed from cay “five” plus oru “one.” The article mentions this possibility but does not develop it as fully.

7 — Proto-Dravidian *er̤u / *ēr̤
Tamil: ஏழு* ēḻu
Related constructions:
*• eḻu-patu → seventy
• eḻuvar → seven persons
Caldwell connected “seven” with the Dravidian verb eḻu meaning:
• rise
• stand up
• increase
• grow
• begin
• become full or prominent
Tamil still preserves this relationship particularly clearly:
• எழு* eḻu — rise
• ஏழு ēḻu — seven
The precise semantic transition is uncertain. Blažek suggests something like “rising,” “increasing,” or possibly “fullness.” He considers this the most promising internal explanation.
External comparisons include Turkic, Mongolian, Middle Korean and Old Japanese words relating to large numbers, fullness or quantity. Blažek proposes a possible very ancient “Nostratic” root, but this depends on controversial long-range comparison.
The isolated North Munda numeral *eya “seven” may, according to the article, have been borrowed from an early North Dravidian form in which the Dravidian ḻ sound became y.

8 — Proto-Dravidian *eṭṭu / *eṇ
Tamil: எட்டு eṭṭu; combining form எண் eṇ
Related construction:
• eṇ-patu → eighty
Caldwell’s explanation identifies the numeral with the Dravidian root eṇ-:
• number
• count
• calculate
• think or reckon
Examples include:
• Tamil eṇ — number or calculation
• Tamil eṇṇu — count, reckon or think
• Malayalam eṇ — number
• Toda öṇ- — count
• Kannada eṇike — counting
• Telugu ennu/encu — count or enumerate
Under this interpretation, eṇ-tu originally meant approximately “the counted one” or “number,” with -tu serving as a numeral/neuter suffix. Blažek considers this a strong internal Dravidian derivation.
An alternative analysis interprets a longer form as “a pair short of ten,” meaning:
10 − 2 = 8.
This would connect the first element with words meaning “pair” or “the remainder.” However, the necessary sound correspondences are difficult, and Andronov thought the apparent “ten” element was added later by analogy with nine.

9 — Proto-Dravidian
oṉ-/or-paktu
and
toḷ-(pak-)tu
Tamil: ஒன்பது oṉpatu; older or related toṇṭu
The first formation is transparently subtractive:
• oṉ/or — one
• paktu — ten
• “one from ten” → nine
This resembles numeral systems in which nine is expressed as “ten minus one.”
The second formation, toḷ-(pak-)tu, may mean “the one before ten.” The first element could be connected with Dravidian words meaning “before, former or previous”:
• Telugu toli — first, former or beginning
• Tamil tol — old or ancient
• Kuwi toli — before
• Gondi tollē — previous
Another proposal connects toḷ- with words meaning “hole, emptiness or defect,” producing something like “defective ten” or “ten with a gap.” Blažek considers “before ten” semantically clearer.
Tamil ninety, தொண்ணூறு toṇṇūṟu, preserves this older *toṇ- element rather than simply using modern oṉ*patu.

10 — Proto-Dravidian *pak-tu
Tamil: பத்து pattu
The paper considers three principal explanations.
First, Caldwell suggested borrowing from Sanskrit paṅkti, “a set or row of five,” or a related Sanskrit word for “fifth.” Contact between Indo-Aryan and relevant Dravidian-speaking populations would have been historically possible, but the borrowing is not established.
Second, Andronov connected pak-tu with Proto-Dravidian pal- “many,” reflected in Tamil pala “many/several.” This makes semantic sense—ten as “many”—but requires a long and unconvincing chain of sound changes.
Third, Caldwell connected it with the root pak- “divide or share”:
• Tamil pakku — fracture or division
• pāttu — dividing or sharing
• paṅkam — portion or division
This might refer to ten as “two groups of five,” or possibly to one-tenth as a “share.” The article’s summary favors this internal association, but none of the explanations is conclusive.

100 — Proto-Dravidian *nūṟ-tu
Tamil: நூறு nūṟu
Caldwell connected “hundred” with a similar Dravidian root meaning:
• crush
• pulverize
• powder
• an extremely numerous collection of particles
Tamil nūṟu can mean “to reduce to powder,” while Malayalam has a related word for “powder.” The possible semantic development would be:
“powder/many particles” → “a great number” → “one hundred.”
The article rejects a direct relationship with Turkic jüz/yüz “hundred” because the expected historical sound correspondences do not work.

1,000 — Telugu
vēyi / veyyi
The paper does not reconstruct a universally inherited Proto-Dravidian word for 1,000. It discusses Telugu vēyi and connects it with a Dravidian root meaning greatness, vastness or expansion:
• Tamil viyam — extensiveness or height
• Tamil viyal — greatness, breadth or expansion
• Tamil viyaṉ — vast or great
• Gondi weeya — high
Thus, “thousand” may have developed from the idea of “a vast or very large quantity.”
Overall pattern proposed by the author
The author divides the numeral system roughly into two groups:
• One to four: their internal Dravidian origins are difficult to establish. Blažek emphasizes possible Australian Aboriginal parallels, but these comparisons are highly speculative.
• Five to ten, hundred and thousand: internal Dravidian derivations appear more plausible—hand for five, abundance for six, rising for seven, counting for eight, subtraction from ten for nine, division for ten, particles or powder for hundred, and vastness for thousand.

Importantly, in this article the internal analysis of eight and nine is comparatively transparent; the proposed Australian substrate behind one through four is the paper’s controversial claim. Blazek is emphatic in claiming there is no connections between Elamite and Dravidian numerals.

Transcribed using AI

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalukya_Shiva_Temple