Linguistic aspects of SOURASHTRIi

Chapter- III LINGUISTIC ASPECTS
Introduction Language is
social phenomenon. Without languages we cannot think ofthe existence ofany society. The history
of language and history of society, therefore, go together. Language is the most powerful and
effective instrument ofculture, because it is the most important vehicle for the sense of belonging.
Before one begins to belong to language, language must belong to him; and this belonging comes
neither by birth nor by the study ofgrammar but by use. The deeper, the more extensive, the more
comprehensive the use of the language, the richer it becomes and the more it enriches its users.
In India, where historical evidence can hardly be said to exist, the data ordinarily available
are of three kinds: physical characters, linguistic characters and religious and social usages. Of
these the first are by far the most trustworthy. For ethnological purposes, physical characters may
be said to be of two kinds: ‘indefinite’, which can only be described in more or less appropriate
language; and “definite” which admit of being measured and reduced to numerical expression. The
former class usually called descriptive or secondary characters include such points as the colour
and texture ofthe skin; the colour, form and position of the eyes; the colour and character of the
hair; and the forms of the face and features conspicuous as these traits are, the difficulty of
observing, defining and recording them is extreme. Colour, the most striking of all, is perhaps the
most evasive.
In the absence of the traditional sources of history, it may be held that the migratory
aspects ofa people or community which is supposed to be on continuous move from one place to
another since the beginning oftheir history, can be traced ifwe can successfully trace the history or
evolution of the language now they speak.
A technique commonly used by historical linguists, will now demonstrate how the
distribution of languages can provide information on the geographical points of origin and the path
of migration of the population and their languages. The full determination and verification of the
points of origin and the path of movements of populations and their languages is complex and
requires the assembly of expertise drawn from many fields. But through a simple technique, a lay
person can make quick and remarkably valuable estimates ofthe points of origin and the direction
of the past population. Only two sets of information are required and both of which are provided
by linguists in many cases. (1) A genetic classification of related languages, distinguishing the
broader groupings of languages for earlier times from the narrower groupings of more closely
related languages for more recent times and (2) a map showing the locations of population
speaking these same languages and groups of languages.
In this chapter we are concerned only with the first set of information viz., the genetic
classification of related languages etc.,
Changes in a Language:
It is a well known fact that the Sourashtras of Tamil Nadu are the immigrant Indo-Aryans
(whether as outsiders or natives ofIndia) from the ancient land of Saurashtra in Gujarat peninsula,
which is considered to be the home ofthese people to the present area, having traversed or crossed
the soils of Maharashtra, Kanarese or Canarese and Telugu. It is but natural for any language
having come into contact with other alien languages at various points of time to absorb certain
linguistic elements like the vocabulary and or other grammatical traits following the principles of
‘Contact and convergence’, the influence or impact varying in degree depending upon the period of
contact with such alien languages. This is very significant in the case of the Sourashtras, an ‘oft-
migrating’ population ever since their earliest period of history till their permanent and firm

settlement in the Tamil soil. The greater the period of contact at a particular geographical point,
the larger will be the extent of the impact.
Some scholars are ofthe opinion that while the Brahmins were able to pre serve the purity
of Sanskrit, they were not able to prevent the transformation of the spoken language. The Aryan
speech changed with diet, mixed blood, and different climates leaving behind. Panini and Patanjali
were the first to use the degrading word, Apabhramsa for languages co-existing with Sanskrit, for
they claimed that these languages were derivations from or corruptions of Sanskrit.
Language Vs Dialect
To start with, one has to necessarily know the difference between these two terms -
‘language’ and ‘dialect.
Although the distinction is a common and indeed often a useful one, there is no general
accepted criterion for making it. There are two common senses in which the meaning ofone term is
linked with the other.
In sense A, a dialect is a sub variety ofa larger unit, which is typically a language. It may in
turn be subdivided into smaller units, or sub-dialects. These terms have equivalents in Indo Aryan
languages e.g. ‘Hindi’ bhasha is ‘language’, boli ‘dialect’, and Upaboli’ sub-dialect’. In sense B, a
dialect is unwritten, while a language possesses a written “standard” and a literature (P. Masica:
1991: 23).
Sourashtri, the language spoken by the Sourashtras in the south, is generally considered to be
a dialect ofGujarati. It seems to be a misconception that has arisen because of the fact that so far
there has been no ‘serious’ and ‘sincere’ research on Sourashtri by any scholar or any institution in
India such as the Linguistic Survey ofIndia or the Central Institute of Indian Languages (C.I.I.L)
with the full knowledge ofboth Gujarati (ancient and modern) and Southern Sourashtri. Really the
fact seems to be otherwise. It is or it should be an independent language of yore (Old Saurashtri or
Pre-Gujarati Speech of Gujarat) having undergone a tremendous change due to ‘language
convergence’ through ages. If at all it is to be considered as a dialect of any language it should be
considered as the dialect ofthe ‘Mahrashtri Prakrit’ which was commonly spoken in the north till
800 A.D.
At this juncture, it will not be improper to quote the views of Sunitikumar Chatterjji, a
famous linguist of India from Bengal, on Sourashtri that we find in the ‘Introduction’ to Dr. I.R.
Dave’s book, ‘The Saurashtrians in South India’ (1976) the following comment:
“This unpretentious little book.......on the little-known language of a small people mostly in
Tamil Country in south India, who had migrated from Lata and Saurashtra in Gujarat centuries
ago during the period when “Prakrit” or Middle Indo-Aryan was spoken in India and “Bhasha” or
NewIndo-Aryan was just coming into being ……Their home language is still a modern form of the
Old Saurashtri or Pre-Gujarati speech ofGujarat as it was over thousand years ago,which was the
language they brought with them through Maharashtra and Andhra-desa to Tamilnadu…..”. This
observation of Dr. Chatterji hints at the nature and antiquity of Sourashtri.
Before entering into any discussion on Sourashtri, let us start with the general linguistic
history of the Indo-Aryans in general and with special reference to languages of the West India.
The history and development of Sanskrit

Linguists believe in the traditional evolutionary stages in the linguistic history of the Indo-
Aryan languages viz., Indo-European >Indo-Iranian>Indo-Aryan.
Stage 1: Indo-European and Indo Iranian:
As to the stage 1 (i.e.,) on ‘Evolution of pre-Vedic Sanskrit or the language of the Indo-
Europeans including the home (Urheimat) of the Indo-Europeans, readers are requested to go
through the account given in Appendix I.
Stage 2: The arrival and stay in Saurashtra & the evolution of Sanskrit (Vedic Sanskrit):
The ‘Two wave’ theory and the ‘Outer Band’ of Aryans: Divergent opinions have been
expressed by scholars regarding the arrival of the Aryans in India. Some believe that they had
arrived in India in one single lot and later on settled in other parts ofthe country. However, others
opine that they arrived in India in two or more batches and gradually settled in various parts. The
first and foremost group of Aryans had settled in western territories and they continued moving
ahead in central and eastern territorial parts of the country. Therefore, the subsequent batches
might have settled in remote eastern areas comprising Magadh, Videh (lying to the north east of
Magadh) and Anga.
The idea that the Aryans entered India in ‘Two waves’, was first formulated by the
Orientalist A. F. R. Hoernle in 1880. This thesis was supported by George. A. Grierson, Director,
Linguistic Survey ofIndia (LSI); the two scholars agreeing that the first invasion took place in the
Punjab via the Kabul valley. The second invasion occurred later, in a drier climate period and with
greater speed as the newAryans reached the Ganga and Yamuna in a series of hordes, took wives
of non-Aryan stock and penetrated the Madyadesa (‘the mid lands’). (Brahmanic culture developed
here, and later the hymns of the Rig Veda were composed as Sanskrit de veloped as the classical
language of Aryan culture, differing from Vedic as much as did Attic from Homeric speech).
Hoernle identified two early Aryan language groups, with the two waves of invaders:
Magadhi, the tongue of the first group, and Sauraseni, of the second. These varieties of Indo-
European language extended into the Gangetic plains, but Magadhi was displaced to the east and
south by Sauraseni and it was from this second linguistic wave that the Vedic literature took its
origin.
What Grierson added to Hoernle’s theory was a precise geographical connotation of the
spread of the outer band of Aryans to Punjab, Sind, Rajaputana, Oudh, Gujarat and Bihar.
“In Sanskrit geography, India is divided into the Madhya-desa or ‘Midland’ and the
rest. The mid land is constantly referred to as the true pure home of the Indo-Aryan people, the
rest being, from the point of view of Sanskrit writers, more or less barbarous. The Midland
extended from the Himalayas on the north to the Vindyas Hills on the south, and from Sahrind
(upto Sirhind) in the Eastern Punjab on the west to the confluence ofthe Ganges and Jumna on the
east. It thus consisted ofthe Gangetic Doab and of the country immediately to its north and south;
the particular Indo Aryan dialect of these people developed into the modern language of the
Midland”. (Imp.Gaz:357)
“Round it (Mid land), on three sides-west, south, and east lay a country inhabited even in
Vedic times, by other Indo Aryan tribes. This tract included the modern Punjab, Sind, Rajasthan,
and the country to its east, Oudh, and Bihar and Rajaputana for our present purposes may be
considered as belonging to the outer band. Over this band were scattered different tribes, each with
its own dialect. These outer dialects were all more closely related to each other than any of them
was the language of the Midland. The earliest arrivals spoke one dialect and the new comers

another. According to Dr. Hoernle, who first suggested the theory, the latest invaders probably
entered the Punjab like a wedge into the heart of the country already occupied by the first
immigrants forcing the latter outwards in three directions, to the east, to the south and to the
west”.(ibid:359)
“The next process which we observe in the geographical distribution of the Indo-Aryan
languages is one of expansion. The population of the Midland increased and history shows that it
exercised an important influence over the rest of India. With the increased population and
increased power it expanded and conquered the Eastern Punjab, Rajaputana, and Gujarat (where
it reached the sea and gained accessto maritime commerce) and Oudh. With its armies and with its
settlers it carried its language, and in all these territories we now find mixed forms of speech. The
basis ofeach is that of the outer band, but its body is that of the Midland. In the country near the
borders of the Midland, the Midland language has overwhelmed the ancient language and few
traces of the latter can be recognized. As we go further from the centre, the influence of the
Midland weakens and that of the outer band becomes stronger and stronger, till the traces of the
Midland speech disappears altogether. As we go south and west, we see more and more of the
original language of the outer band, until it is quite prominent in Gujarat. In the way we find
Marathi in the Central provinces, Berar and Bombay, and to the east, Oriya, Bengali, and
Assamese, all of them true ‘Outer’ language unaffected in their essence by the speech of the
Midland”. (Ibid: 358-9)
Scholars like Allachin and Allachin (1962) view that the arrival and spread of the Indo-
Aryan languages must have been associated with the movement ofIndo-Aryan speaking people and
that their relations with the populations they encountered must be conceived as a dynamic process
of cultural contact, producing a variety of cultural responses. This process must have continued
over many centuries. Its result was to produce a cultural synthesis which we may refer to culturally
as Indo-Aryan, that is a synthesis of Indus or Indian and Aryan elements.
The ‘Encyclopedia Britannica’ (1911:712) mentions “In the articles Indo-Aryan languages
and Prakrit, the history ofthe earlier stages ofthe Indo-Aryan vernaculars is given at some length.
It is there shown that, from the most ancient times,there were two main groups ofthese forms of
speech—one, the language ofthe Midland, spoken in the country near the Gangetic-Doab, and the
other, the so-called ‘Outer Band’, containing the Midland on three sides, west, north and south ”.
This classification is indeed connected with a theory relating to the immigration ofAryan-
speaking tribes into the peninsula. The speakers ofthe dialect (ofthe Mid land) out ofwhich
classical Sanskrit was created and on which later on ‘Souraseni’ was based, are supposed to have
forced their way into the Madhyadesa sometime after a previous Aryan invasion/ immigration. The
descendants ofthose first comers provided ‘Outer Band’ oflanguages.
Outer Band Languages & Saurashtri
The non-contiguous Indo Aryan languages, that is, the Outer band languages may
be listed as Sinhalese, Maldivian, Saurashtri, Dhakkani and Parya. Like the outlying dialects of
Konkani (and apparently also Khetani in Baluchistan) all these are the result of pre modern
migrations of Indo-Aryan speakers.
According to Colin P. Masica the silk weavers living in the Tamil soil speak a language of
the ‘Outer Band’ Aryans. To quote from his work ‘The Indo-Aryan Lnaguages’,(1991:22) “The
non contiguous Indo-Aryan languages,that is those based outside the contiguous Indo-Aryan areas,
may be listed as follows: Sinhalese, the principal language ofSri Lanka; Maldivian(=Divahi), the
related language ofthe republic ofthe Maldives ( an archipelago in the Indian Ocean southwest of
India); Saurashtri, the language ofa community of silk weavers centred at Madurai in the Tamil

country;… … …..all of these are the result ofpre-modern migrations ofIndo-Aryan speakers…..”.
These remarks ofMasica hints at the fact that the Sourashtras ofTamilnadu are the descendents of
the ancient ‘Outer Band’ Aryans and the people and the language they speak are very ancient.
Saurashtri was once the language of Gujarat, before that country was overwhelmed by the
invasions from the Midland. One basic difference that can be noticed in connection with the Outer
Band languages is the presence of certain important Dravidian (?) or non–Aryan elements in
certain modern Indo-Aryan languages especially like the Sourashtri.
Stages in the linguistic History of Indo-Aryan languages
Following the theory of P. Masica, we can classify the Indo-Aryan languages as
follows:
The long internal history of Indo-Aryans in India, spanning about 3,500 years, may be
divided linguistically into three stages-the Old, the Middle, and the Neo Indo-Aryan, conveniently
abbreviated as Old Indo Aryan (O.I.A.), Middle Indo Aryan (M.I.A) and Neo Indo Aryan (N.I.A).
These may be taken corresponding, roughly to the periods 1500 B.C.-600 B.C.,600 B.C.-1000 A.D.
and from 1000 A.D. to the present day respectively.
These may be sub-divided further into Early, Middle or Second, and Late, and attempts have
been made (e.g., by S. K. Chatterji) to assign approximate dates to the latter also.
1 A- Early O.I.A.
Vedic-based apparently on a far western dialect, perhaps influenced by Iranian; further sub stages
of bookie-VII ofthe Rig Veda being the most archaic, that of the Brahmanas and Sutras the least.
1 B -Later O. I. A.
Classical Sanskrit- based on a dialect of the midland (Western Ganga valley, Eastern Punjab,
Haryana), although influenced by Vedic. Later literature, was much influenced by M.I.A. (with
which it is contemporary), remaining O.I.A., only in phonetics and morphology.
II.A. Early M.I.A:
Asokan Prakrits: They standfor the various regional dialects ofthe third century B.C. (eastern, east
central, south western, north western), with the notable exception of the Midland, recorded in the
inscriptions of the emperor Asoka on rocks and pillars in various parts of the sub continent.
2. Pali: Language of the Himalaya Buddhist canon and other literature, apparently based on a
midland dialect possibly influenced by the original eastern forms of the remembered Buddhist
discourses, and subsequently by Sanskrit. Again, the language of the metrical portion of the canon
proper, of Gathas, is more archaic than the language of the commentaries and other literature.
3. Early Ardhamagadhi: Language of the earliest Jain Sutras (Most Ardhamagadhi represents a
later M.I.A. stage, however)
II.B. M.I.A., Second stage
1. Niya Prakrit: administrative language ofan Indo- Aryan polity ( i.e. besides the Scythian and
Tocharian ones)in Chinese Turkestan, known from 3rd century A.D. documents, ‘north –western’
in type, but full of Iranian and other loan words. Akin to this but what earlier (first century) is
what is sometimescalled Gandhari, the language ofthe Kotan manuscript ofthe Dharmapada.

2. Ardhamagadhi: supposedly the ancient language of Kosala (=Oudh or modern eastern U.P)
known from the Jain canon (not finalized until the sixth century A.D.) and from early Buddhist
dramas of varying age.
3. Later (=post Asoka) inscriptional Prakrit: until replaced (fifth century) totally by Sanskrit in
inscriptions.
4. Magadhi: language of Bihar and presumably of the Mauryan Empire (fourth-second century
B.C.); stylized sub varieties represented by the conventionalized speech oflower-class characters in
Sanskrit drama.
5. Sauraseni: the standard Prakrit of the drama, it represents the stage of midland speech
succeeding Pali, mutatis mundadis; more conservative than Magadhi or Maharashtri; another
variety was cultivated by Jains.
6. Maharashtri: a southwestern dialect, vehicle of lyric poetry (and in another variety, mixe d with
Ardhamagadhi of Jain literature); phonetically the more advanced of the second stage Prakrits.
7. Sinhala Prakrit: language ofthe Sinhalese inscriptions, from the first century B.C. (to these may
be added Buddhist hybrid Sanskrit, a Middle Indo-Aryan dialect in Sanskrit garb; vehicle of
Mahayana Buddhist literature)
II-C: Late (Third stage) M.I.A.: (600A.D.-1000.A.D.) or Apabhramsa stage – (described elsewhere
in this work).
S.K. Chatterji makes the following remarks about the Old, Middle and New phases of Indo
Aryan: “The Aryan came to India, assuredly not as a single, uniform or standardized speech, but
rather as a group or groups of dialects… only one of these dialects or dialect-groups has mainly
been represented in the language of the Vedas -- other dialects…(might) have been ultimately
transformed into one or the other of the various ‘New Indo-Aryan’ languages and dialects. The
mutual relation-ship ofthese Old Indo-Aryan dialects, their individual traits and number as well as
location, will perhaps never be settled… The true significance of the various Prakrits as preserved in
literary and other records, their origin and interrelations, and their true connection with the modern
languages, forms one of the most baffling problems of Indo-Aryan linguistics… and there has been
admixture among the various dialects to an extent which has completely changed their original
appearance, and which makes their affiliation to forms of Middle Indo-Aryan as in our records at
times rather problematical.”
Based on these presumptions, our linguistic study of these people upto1000 A.D. may fall
under the following subdivisions: Evolution of Sanskrit, Prakrits, Apabrahmsa and the rise of
modern Indo-Aryan languages.
Evolution ofSanskrit
The Indo-Aryan (I.A.):
“In the greater part of India today, languages are spoken which are derived from a single
form of speech which was introduced into India by invaders /immigrants from the north-west more
than three thousand years ago. The invading/immigrant peopleswere known in their own language
as ‘ayira’ a word which is also commonly used as an adjective meaning ‘noble’, ‘honourable’.
Behind them, in Central Asia remained kindred peoples who eventually occupied the plateau of
Iran, as well as large tract of Central Asia. These peoples used the same name for themselves in
Avestan ‘airya’, and from the genitive plural of this word the modern name Iran is ultimately

derived. In conformity with this usage the term Aryan is now used as the common name of these
peoples and their language; alternately the term Indo-Iranian, is commonly used. To distinguish
the Indian branch from the Iranian, the term Indo- Aryan has been coined, and as applied to
language, it covers the totality of language and dialects derived from this source from the earliest
times to the present day.
By comparing the (early Indo-Aryan or) Indo-European language with the very closely
related Iranian, it is possible to form a fairly accurate idea of the original Indo-Iranian or Indo-
Aryan language from which both have evolved. By comparing Indo-Aryan language and Iranian
with the other Indo-European languages,it is possible also to go beyond this, and to reconstruct in
general the characteristics of the original Indo-European language from which all these are
derived.
The relation between this ancient Iranian and the language ofthe Veda is so close that
it is not possible satisfactorily to study one without the other. Grammatically, the differences are
very small; the chief differentiation in the earliest period lies in certain characteristics and well
defined phonetic changes which have affected Iranian on the one hand and Indo – Aryan on the
other. It is quite possible to find versesin the oldest portion ofthe Avesta which simply by phonetic
substitutions according to established laws can be turned into intelligible Sanskrit. This
resemblance is particularly striking in the field of culture and religion”. (T.Burrow:2001: Pp 1-4)
Rig Veda:
The earliest document of the linguistic history of Indo-Aryan is the Rig Veda, which, by
rough guess work, is placed in the region of1500-1000 B.C., But this language itself had evolved
out of a yet earlier form of speech, by precisely the same kind of slow change and alteration which
caused it to evolve later into something also. This earlier evolution is unrecorded by any direct
documentation, but it can be reconstructed in considerable detail by means of comparison with
related languages.By this method two stages in the pre-history of the language can be established.
Vedic Sanskrit:
Nature of Linguistic Evidence:
According to scholars, the oldest extensive linguistic data in the Indo-Iranian branch is
represented by the Rig Veda (dated since the days ofMax Muller to somewhere between 1500-1000
B.C.). They are followed by the Mittani treaties, dated much more securely to the 14th
century B.C.
Afterwards we have the Avestan and Old Persian materials. Finally, we may also list the Prakrits as
seen in Asokan inscriptions.
Focusing on the Rig Veda alone, we find that there were numerous stages in which this
material was created, collected, collated, edited, and preserved. We cannot deny that the incoming
Aryan speakers came in contact with certain non-Arya people in India. There is ample evidence for
such contacts. It is also held by scholars, that the authors of, at least of the Rig Veda, are largely
Aryans in linguistic, ethnic, and cultural terms, mixed perhaps with a small number of ‘Aryanised
non-Aryans’. This is what indicated by that the few Dravidian loans one finds in Rig Veda are
phonetically Aryanised. (Some scholars are of the view that the composition of the Vedas had
started after the arrival ofthe second batch ofAryans in India. Aryans of the second batch arrive d
in Central India en route Punjab and coastal areas / regions of Saraswati and Draswati rivers).
As Mr. Masica observes (1991:p.39), “In any case, it is clear that the incoming Aryans did
not find the subcontinent empty. Preceding them were peoplesspeaking language ofother linguistic

stocks, some ofwhich are still vigorously represented in the subcontinent today”. Sir Grierson has
named the regional local dialects (whom the Vedic people came in contact with) concurrent with the
Vedic period or in use prior to it, as ‘Primary Prakrits’. The period of the said primary Prakrits is
considered from 2000 B.C. to 600 B.C. It is believed that these primary Prakrits had considerable
similarities in pronunciation, phonetics,sounds ofvowels and consonants as also use of inflections
etc., with Vedic Sanskrit.
At this juncture, one may get a reasonable historical certitude why could not this language
be the reminiscence of the tongue spoken once in the Harappan sites all over the Gujarat coastal
areas up to South Gujarat areas or the areas covered by the ancient historical Saurashtra. It is
because of this factor, perhaps, some specific non-Sanskrit or non-Aryan elements are found in
Outer Band languages (esp., in Sourashtri).
Although, there is perfectly unanimity and beliefregarding the ancientness ofVedic Sanskrit, yet
it does not appear feasible that it was ever used as a medium ofspeech by people at large. Sanskrit
language was meant for accomplishing literary compositions by sages,scholars and priests. It is
quite possible that numerous dialects,having consistency and resemblance with Vedic Sanskrit
might have been in vogue. The great commentator Patanjali had elaborately discussed regarding
use ofdifferent forms ofthe same words in different regions ofthe country in his commentary.
Probably, this supports the viewthat after coming in close contact with regional dialects, either
some words ofVedic Sanskrit might have adopted different shapes or certain specific forms of
words of Vedic Sanskrit might have been adopted and included in the dialects.
Later Vedic and Classical Sanskrit
By the time ofthe Late Vedic, Epic, and Classical periods this ‘Aryanised’ element was
probably the largest segment among the users ofIndo-Aryan languages. It is during this later epoch
that one finds evidence oflarge scale ofDravidianisation ofIndo-Aryan structures.
The later Vedic is, in broad terms, the form ofthe language that Pāṇini described with such
exactness in his grammar around the fourth century B.C., thereby creating – no doubt
unintentionally – an absolute standard for the language thereafter. His work is clearly the
culmination of a long grammatical tradition, based on concern to preserve the Vedas unaltered
(hence the stress on Phonetics) and is itself intended for memorization and oral transmission as its
brevity indicates.
We get the following account on ‘Net’ (www.list india.net/Sanskrit) in the introductory part
of an article: ‘IX. Sanskrit Language: Use’ whose copy right is held by the CIIL, Mysore)
“Sanskrit is an ancient language ofIndia. India’s heritage,religion, culture and philosophy
are in Sanskrit language. J. L. Brockington says that “Sanskrit’, in its older form of Vedic Sanskrit
(or simply Vedic), was brought into the northwest of India by the Aryans sometime in the second
half of the second millennium B.C.E and was at that period relatively little differentiated from its
nearest relation within the Indo-European group, Avestan in the Iranian family of languages (these
two being the oldest recorded within the Indo-Iranian branch of Indo-European). From there it
spread to the rest of North India as the Aryans enlarged the area that they occupied, developing
into the classical form of the language, which subsequently became fixed as the learned language of
culture and religion throughout the sub-continent, while the spoken language developed into the
various Prakrits. There is ample evidence of rapid evolution during the Vedic period with the
language of the latest phase, attested for example in the Upanishads, showing considerable
grammatical simplification from that of the earliest hymns.

From the above statement ofJ. L. Brockington we can presume that Sanskrit was in use in
ancient India and it was a spoken language. Dr. H. S. Ananthanarayana, in his paper on ‘Sanskrit
and Indian heritage’ published by the Central Institute of Indian Languages, in a book entitled
“Linguistic Heritage ofIndia and Asia”, (Edited by Omkar N. Koul and L. Devaki) pp.245 says that
"Sanskrit was a spoken language and the vast literature in this language is a solid testimony to this
fact. It was not limited to any particular area, but was spoken throughout the length and breadth of
the country". Regional peculiarities observed by Pāṇini and others confirm this thesis. It was
spoken not only by the Brahmins but was equally used and understood by other social classes.Ifthe
word Samskrata is taken in the meaning 'polished', 'purified', 'correct speech', it may then be
thought of as the speech of the educated class of the Aryan society. Others must have spoken
substandard form and may have even mastered it so as to use it on occasion. The fact that Sanskrit
and Prākrit were used side by side suggests that they were mutually intelligible and the people were
bilinguals. Within their class, the members may have used their own speech as a mark of identity
and whenever it involved members of the upper class”.
Patañjali (150 A.D) in his work 'Mahābhāsya' (re quoted from the book ‘Paninian
Linguistics’ by P.S. Subramanayam (pp18) says "Even by the time of Patañjali, Sanskrit was a
living language and that there were still people for whom it was the mother tongue, but not one
acquired from grammar books and literature. Most probably, such people belonged to the upper
crust of the society and were also less in number since as evidenced by the Mahābhāsya itself, a
variety of the Prakrit language called Apabhraṁśa in that work has already come into vogue and
was spoken chiefly by the uneducated masses". (ibid)
Sanskrit was the cultural language of India. It was uniting people speaking different
languages. Cambridge Language Survey: The Indo-Aryan Language, (1991:6),remarks as follows:
“The multi lingual nature of much South Asia Society presents special challenges to the
socio-linguists. Participation of linguistically disparate regions, in a common civilization, held
together by such specific institutions as pilgrimages, as well as requirements of trade, led to the
development of lingua franca, of which Hindustani is the most notable recent example. Sanskrit
itself could be said to have played this role. In its heyday in the first millennium A.D. it linked
together – and synthesized elements from – an area vaster than Indo-Aryan itself or over the sub
continent and widely separated epoch of time”.
People in India even today respect those who speak in Sanskrit and it survives even today as the
language ofreligion and scholarship. Even today, Vedas are recited with accurate accents for the
religious purposes.Also,(to our knowledge) in this very Sourashtra community, we find one Sri. T.
G. Dwaraganath (65), (a retired government servant from the Treasury department ofTamil Nadu)
of Madurai is capable of lecturing in Sanskrit.
Vedic (Pre-Classical) Sanskrit Vs Classical (Post-Vedic) Sanskrit
Generally by term Sanskrit we mean in modern days only the ‘Classical Sanskrit’ which is
quite different from the original or ‘Vedic Sanskrit’. For those who may have some interest in
knowing the differences between the two, we hereunder give major points of differences between
the two. Also it may help scholars who may venture to take up a proper research in tracing out the
antiquity of Sourashtri and to find out if it goes as far back as the Vedic period.
We reproduce the following from an account on ‘Vedic Sanskrit grammar’, from Wikipedia,
the free encyclopaedia, on the major difference between the two:

“Vedic Sanskrit differs from Classical Sanskrit to an extent comparable to the difference
between Homeric Greek and Classical Greek.Tiwari (2005) lists the following principal differences
between the two:
*Vedic Sanskrit had a voiceless bilabial fricative (called ''upadhmānīya'') and a voiceless
velar fricative, (called ''jihvāmūlīya'')—which used to occur when the breath ''visarga'' (अः)
appeared before voiceless labial and velar consonants respectively. Both ofthem were lost in
Classical Sanskrit to give way to the simple ''visarga''.
*Vedic Sanskrit had a retroflex lateral approximant (ळ) as well as its aspirated counterpart
(ळ्ह), which were lost in Classical Sanskrit, to be replaced with the corresponding plosives (ड) and
(ढ). (''Varies by region; Vedic pronunciations are still in common use in some regions, e.g. Southern
India including Maharashtra''.)
*The pronunciations ofsyllabic (ऋ), (लृ) and their long counterparts no longer retained
their pure pronunciations, but had started to be pronounced as short and long (रि) and (ल्रि).
*The vowels e (ए) and o (ओ) were actually realized in Vedic Sanskrit as diphthongs and ,
but they became pure monophthongs and in Classical Sanskrit.
*The vowels ai (ऐ) and au (औ) were actually realized in Vedic Sanskrit as hiatus (आइ) and
(आउ), but they became diphthongs (अइ) and (अउ) in Classical Sanskrit.
*The ''Prātishākhyas'' claim that the dental consonants were articulated from the root of
the teeth (''dantamūlīya''), but they became pure dentals later. This included the, which later
became retroflex.
*Vedic Sanskrit had a pitch accent which could even change the meaning ofthe words, and
was still in use in Panini's time, as we can infer by his use ofdevicesto indicate its position. At some
later time, this was replaced by a stress accent limited to the second to fourth syllables from the
end.
*Vedic Sanskrit often allowed two like vowels to come together without merger during
Sandhi”.
Prakrits:
The oldestIndo-Aryan language is Vedic Sanskrit which is attested to as far back as 1500
B.C. It gave rise to a variety ofspoken language known as Prakrit in about 500B.C. Prakrit means
“unrefined “or “common”, a label which the language earned because ofthe large influence ofNon-
Aryan language on it. Prakrit is generally, meant as ‘original, natural, artless, normal, ordinary,
usual, vernacular, language. Prakrits were the dialects of the common man, while Sanskrit was
used by learned people. It may be pointed out noted here that Prakrits may have born out of
Sanskrit, as in later days, Apabhramsas from Sanskrit.
By the middle of the first millennium B.C. the Aryan languages of Northern India had
developed into three forms ofPrakrits. In the absence ofdefinite names were vaguely attributed to
their respective regions and later came to be recognized as Udichya (North West), Madyadesi, and
Prachiya – (East).
The Imperial Gazetteer of India gives the following information:

“The earliest Prakrit ofwhich we have any cognizance is the Midland vernacular during the Vedic
Period. We have no record ofthe contemporary Prakrits of the Outer Band. We may call all these
vernaculars (including the tongue of the Midland) the Primary Prakrits of India”.
“We have no definite information on what was the language of the Punjab; but for the rest
of India there was a Prakrit of the Midland, the so-called Sauraseni , called after the Sanskrit name
Surasena, ofthe country round Mathura (Muttra). To its south and east was a band of dialects - in
Oudh and Baghal khand, Ardha magadhi, and south of Ardha magadhi and Sauraseni,
Maharashtri with its head quarters in Berar. It is important to remember that it (under the name
of Saurashtri) was once the language of Gujarat, before that country was overwhelmed by the
invasion from the Midland” (ibid: 360-361)
Concurrently with the development of the Indo-Aryan vernaculars, we have Sanskrit, the
literary language of the Brahminical schools. In earlier times, its influence was stronger in its
proper home, the Midland allowing for phonetic corruptions, the vocabulary of Sauraseni Prakrit
is practically the same as Sanskrit.
Maharashtri Prakrit
There were four Prakrit languages: Magadhi, Shauraseni, Paishachi, and Maharashtri
current in north India in 5th century B.C. Shauraseni was spoken in the province of Mathura,
Agra. Maharashtri was the language spoken by the Central divisions of the Gangetic Valley and
the adjacent provinces ofeastern Rajasthan and Malwa. Maharashtri thus seems to have been the
principal Prakrit language in North India as it was spoken over a comparatively large area of the
country. Vararuchi, who was a famous grammarian of the Prakrit languages, lived about 250 B.C.
and wrote his famous grammar of the Prakrit language known as the “Prakriti-Prakasha”. It is a
book divided into 12 chapters and the first 9 chapters ofthe book deals with Maharashtri while the
3 chapters ofthe book are devoted to the other three Prakrits: Paishachi, Shauraseni, and Magadhi
respectively. Vararuchi terms the Maharashtri as the Prakrit proper. Generally, it is considered to
be the best Prakrit. Most authorities seem to agree with Woolner, however, who holds (1975:5) that
it is indeed ‘based on the spoken language of the country of the Godavari, and contained many
features that survive as peculiarities ofModern Marathi’. (However, ‘The Indian Antiquary’ (1882:
335) terms Maharashtri as a variety of the Sauraseni)
The oldest written work in Maharashtri as known to us is ‘Sapta-Shathi Gatha’ which was
probably edited by Hala about the year 60 A.D.
The earlier Maharashtri Prakrit was cultivated under the Satavahanas, but does not seem
to have been the only language. There is some difference ofopinion as to whether it is necessary to
be associated with Maharashtra. Sukumar Sen (1960:20) writes: “There is no reason to assign
Maharashtri to a fixed dialect area. According to A. Master “There are already words in the
Sattasa of Hala (c.400-500 A.D.) which are peculiar to Marathi”.
All this shows that in the Satavahana Kingdom a form of Prakrit called Maharashtri,
became the language ofthe court. All the dynastieswhich followed the Satavahanas were patrons of
Maharashtri. During Rashtrakuta dynasty was written one of the most voluminous books of
Maharashtri dialect, namely the ‘Harivamsha Purana’ by the court poet Pushpadanta (a Jain
monk).
It was most widely used language in Western India and Southern India from Malwa and
Rajaputana in the north to Krishna and Tungabadhra in the south and was commonly spoken till
875 A.D. Ancient Saurashtri was the language of the people of Saurashtra. (Rashiklal B. Sukhla:
1993) - It was spoken for centuries in the present day Marathi and Kannada speaking areas. For

this reason perhaps some term it as the Prakrit of greater (maha) kingdom (rashtri). It followed
rather Vedic Sanskrit accent.
Sauraseni Prakrit
In the words of Woolner, “Sauraseni, the Midland Prakrit is derived from the Old Indian
dialect of Madyadesa on which Classical Sanskrit was mainly based. (1917:3)”
Sauraseni Prakrit was a spoken colloquial language around the 5th
century B.C., It
originated (near) Mathura (or Surasena Mahajanapada) and was the main language used in drama
in North India. In the dramas ladies who spoke in Sauraseni, sang their songs in Maharashtri. This
Prakrit is nearest to classical Sanskrit. Moreover, a speaker of Sauraseni would easily learn to
recognize many Sanskrit words, and even grasp the meaning of a Sanskrit sentence without being
able to speak Sanskrit, as it follows classical Sanskrit accent. It is supposed to be an artificial
language ofprose oftheatres. The Imperial Gazetteer of India comments: “Allowing for phonetic
corruptions, the vocabulary of Sauraseni Prakrit is practically the same as that of Sanskrit.”
Pali and Prakrits
The period of Middle Indo-Aryan languages or Prakrit dialects is believed to be from 5th
century B.C. to the commencement ofthe Christian era. Pali and Prakrits were found inscribed on
rocks and stones during this period. However, the use of the Pali implying a language is not very
old. Vallabhi was the first empire in India where three languages flourished together: Sanskrit,
Prakrit (Jain) and Pali(Buddhist). These were mainly the language of the scholars.
The special problem(s) related to Sourashtri: The
speakers of this language find a special trait in their present form of language viz., the presence
(and also predominantly) of short ‘e’ and ‘o’ which are now absent in most of the modern major
Indo-Aryan languages spoken all over North India. To many among the Sourashtras it is
considered to be the influence ofthe Dravidain languages and that too only after their entry into the
Dravidian soil say after c.1300 A.D. But to the author ofthis book, it seems to be present from the
time ofthe birth of this language. Hence some sort ofdetailed study may be undertaken to find out
the truth.
On use of short vowels ‘e’ and ‘o’ in ancient periods-Certain facts related to the ‘Primary
Prakrits’:
Scholars on Agamas and Tripitakas like Muni Shri Nagrajji (2003) give certain hints on the
Phonetic changes in Pali and Prakrits:
According to Muni Shri Nagrajji, the short vowels ‘a’ ‘e’ ‘i’ ‘o’ ‘u’ are used in Pali. So
they are used in almost all the Prakritas. If the short vowel ‘a’ precedes a joint consonant in
Sanskrit then in Pali it turns into vowel ‘e’ at certain places, such as , the formation in Pali of the
Sanskrit word ‘शय्या’ (a bed) is ‘सेय्या’and ‘सेज्जा’ in Prakritas. (2003:150)
Prof. N.B. Divatia in his work Gujarati Language & Literature (1993:169-72) gives some
notice on the presence ofshort ‘e’ and ‘o’ in Indian languages. Relevant portions are quoted below:
P170 “….to take up, for a while, the Pali & Prakrit short ‘e’ and ‘o’, referred to just nowwe
need not dwell on the sound long, incidental and indirect as its connection is with our subject in
hand”. Dr. Bhandarkar has, aptly and with full analysis of the causes,
pointed out in his Lectures (pp44-47):

(a)That in Pali as also in Prakrita a long vowel is shortened when it is followed by a
conjunct e.g.: ‘मार्ग’ ‘मग्र्ो’ etc.,
(b)When the length ofthe vowel prevailed over the force ofthe contact ofthe conjoined consonants
the result was the dropping ofone ofthe conjoined consonants: ‘शीर्ग- सीस’, ‘दीर्ग- दीर्’
(c)The Pali speaker could not exert the strong pressure by forming a strong contact of the
consonants without the momentum acquired from the force and rapidity of the preceding vowel
utterances i.e.,without a short preceding vowel they could not pronounce a double consonant. The
result was:-
(1)The ‘ए’ and ‘ओ’ preceding the consonants were shortened
(2)The ‘इ’ and u ‘उ’, preceding conjunct was changed to ‘ए’ and ‘ओ’ the tongue being unable to
rise close enough to the palate or the lower lip so as to form ‘इ’ and ‘उ’ (?) thus creating ‘ए’an
‘ओ’sounds. Hence we had ‘ओड’ for ‘उष्ट्र’ and ‘पोक्खि’ for ‘पुष्ट्कि’, ‘नेक्ख’ for ‘ननष्ट्क’ etc.,
(d)That some times, even where no conjunct followed, esp., before ‘य्’, the ‘ए’ was
shortened, and to adjust the resulting lossof quantity, the single consonant was doubled e.g., र्ेय्य
for र्ेय, थेय्य for स्थेय etc.
These phenomena, pointed out by Dr. Bhandarkar are reflected in principle in
Hemachandra’s Sutras (Details not reproduced)
Any reader going through Alfred C. Woolner’s work ‘Introduction to Prakrit’ (1917) may
notice the presence of short vowels ‘e’ and ‘o’ (vide pages 14, 20, 28-note2 and page 29) in
Maharashtri and Sauraseni Prakrits.
In Sanskrit, the short vowels ‘I’ and preceding joint consonants are turned into ‘e’ and ‘o’
respectively in Pali, just as the word ‘पुष्ट्कि’ (a blue lotus) in Skt., is turned to ‘पोष्ट्कऱ’ Pali
Other non-Aryan elements in Indo-Aryan languages:
The Imperial Gazetteer of India observes:
“Other languages have contributed their quota to I.A. vernaculars’ Many words
have been borrowed from Dravidian languages, generally in a contemptuous sense. Thus the
common word ‘pilla’ a cub is really a Dravidian word meaning son. While
mentioning about the Dravidian Languages, the Imperial Gazetteer comments: “The Dravidian
race is widely spread over India, but all the members ofit do not speak Dravidian languages; In the
north, many of them have been completely Aryanised, and have adopted the language of their
conquerors while they have retained their ethnic characters….”
Bridget Raysmond Allchin, speaking of the chalcolithic, Jorwe culture which
flourished in Maharashtra between the mid second millennium and the early first millennium BCE
makes the following statement:
“We may postulate that the original population of agricultural settlers was
Dravidian speaking, and that the changes associated with the Jorve period coincided with the

arrival of immigrants from the north, speaking an I.A. language. This language must have been the
ancestors of modern Marathi”. (1982:352)
Dravidian element in Gujarat:
Sergent suggests that the Dravidians formed a pre-Harappan population in Sindh and
Gujarat, and that they were overwhelmed and assimilated, not by the invading Aryans, but by the
mature-Harappan population. (Bernard Sergent: Genèse de l’Inde,p.52.) The picture which
emergesis that ofa multi-lingual Indus-Saraswati civilization with Dravidian as the minor partner
(possibly preserved or at
-least leaving its mark in the southern metropolis ofMohenjo Daro) who ended up getting
assimilated by the major partner, a non-Dravidian population whom we may venture to identify as
Indo-Iranian and ultimately Indo-Aryan. Bernard Sergent argues against the Indian origin of
Dravidian. One element to consider is that the members ofthe Dravidian family have not diverged
very much from one another. The relative closeness ofits members suggests that they started
growing apart only fairly recently: a thousand years for Tamil and Malayalam (well-attested),
perhaps three thousand for the divergence ofNorth- from South-Dravidian. This would indicate
that Dravidian was still a single language covering a small area in the early Harappan period, after
having entered the country from the West. That the “genealogical tree” ofthe Dravidian family
seems to have its trunk in the coastal West ofIndia, i.e. to the northwest ofthe main Dravidian
area, has long been recognized by scholars ofDravidian. (A map showing this “tree” is given in G.
John Samuel, ed.: Encyclopedia of Tamil Literature, Institute ofAsian Studies, Madras 1990, p-45,
with reference to Kamil Zvelebil, who locatesthe Proto-Dravidians in Iran as late as 3500 BC.)
It also fits in with the old Brahminical nomenclature, which includes
Gujarat and Maharashtra in the Pañcha-DraviDa, the “five Dravida areas ofBrahminical
settlement” (as contrasted with Pañcha-Gauda, the five North-Indian ones). The northwestern
coast was the first part of India to be dravidianized, the wellspring ofDravidian migration to the
south, but also an area where Dravidian was gradually displaced by Indo-Aryan though not
without influencing it. Another indication for the Dravidian presence in Gujarat is the attestation in
Gujarati Jain texts ofinter-cousin marriage, typically South-Indian and quite non-Indo-European
(Bernard Sergent: op.cited.p.51.)
The IE norm was very strict in prohibiting even distant forms ofincest,a norm adopted by both
Hinduism and Christianity. (This in contrast with Biblical Judaism and especially with Islam:
Hindu converts to Islam were often required to prove their conversion by eating beefand, if
possible,marrying a cousin or niece; halfof the marriages in rural Pakistan are between cousins.
Note, however, that the Zoroastrians deviated from the IE standard by also practising marriage
within the family.) Linguists had already pointed out, and
Sergent confirms, that Dravidian has left its mark on the Sindhi, Gujarati and Marathi languages
(as with the distinction between inclusive and exclusive first person plural) and toponymy. So, it is
fairly well-established that Dravidian culture had a presence in Gujarat while spreading to South
India. It is possible that Gujarat was a way station in a longer Dravidian migration from further
west. Whether the itinerary ofDravidian can ultimately be traced to Sudan or thereabouts remains
to be confirmed, but Sergent already has some interesting data to offer in support. Africans and
Dravidians had common types ofround hut, common music instruments, common forms ofsnake
worship and tree worship. Thus, a South-Indian board game pallankuli closely resemblesthe
African game mancalal; varieties ofthe game are attested in Pharaonic Egypt and in a pre-
Christian monastery in Sri Lanka. (Bernard Sergent: op.cited.p.59).
Section-II
‘Sourashtri’–the language of the Sourashtras of Tamilnadu and its source languages:

The origin of the *Sourashtras of Tamil Nadu is to be arrived at on the basis of the
linguistic history ofthe language spoken by these people viz., ‘*Sourashtri’ (i.e., the modified form
of the ancient language of the people of the land of the Saurashtras). ‘*Saurashtri’, the ancient
language spoken in pre-Gujarati period is now extinct and out of use in the land of modern
*Saurashtra (Gujarat).
Their exact origin or the original home has not been conclusively determined or located so
far. But, as these people still remember their immediate past home, there cannot be any doubt
about their original region/area being the ancient land of Saurashtra or modern Gujarat. This is
further confirmed by these people who call themselves only by the term ‘Sourashtras’.
However since their language has a lot ofMarathi vocabulary, some Marathi scholars raise
a doubt and prefer to locate their home or guessas to their very long period of stay, somewhere in
the land of Maharashtra. The truth may be brought to light if one analyses the linguistic evolution
of ‘Gujarati’ and ‘Marathi’.
Saurashtra -the land of the modern ‘Gujarati’ language
According to Prof. Rashiklal B. Sukhla ofSaurashtra University (1993:15) perhaps quoting
from H.D. Sankalia, comments “If any part of India to be considered Aryanised earliest on the
strength ofepigraphic evidence alone, it would be Gujarat, more strictly, Saurashtra. The Aryans
were the first to occupy the Dravidian Gujarat. They poured in from the north. They either
conquered the original inhabitants and converted them to their religion (Kolis) or drove them forth
(The Bhils) to the surrounding hills and forests”.
The early Aryan settlements in Gujarat appear to have been chiefly along the coast at
Dwaraka, Somnath Patan, Kodinaror Mula-Dwaraka, Broach and Surparaka or Sopara. Aryans
poured into Gujarat after Krishna settled at Dwaraka, the capital of Anarta, (after leaving
Mathura, for some reason or other). There is evidence to show that Aryan tribe called ‘Sau’
occupied the entire coastfrom Sind to Bombay (M.R. Majumdar: 1965:50).There is every reason to
believe that their original language was ‘Saurashtri’.
The term ‘Gujarati’ referring to a modern Indo Aryan language simply refers to the
language spoken by the people living in the modern linguistic state ofGujarat. It is well known that
in ancient days this area was known by such terms as Anartha, Saurashtra, and Lata (South
Gujarat). It may be presumed that these people now living in the south never knew or were not
aware of the name or term “Gujarat”, as they might have left it a very long back before this area
got this newterm viz., Gujarat. Hence the Sourashtras ofTamilnadu don’t use the term Gujarati as
the name of their tongue.
As we have noticed earlier at least two waves of Aryans came and occupied Saurashtra
(Gujarat). The first or earlier people are considered to belong to the Outer Band of Aryans.
‘Saurashtri’ was the language of Gujarat before that country was overwhelmed by the invasion
(immigration?) from the Midland. Subsequently it seems to have become a dialect of Maharastri
Prakrit, under the caption ‘Saurashtri dialect of Maharashtri Prakrit’.
The Imperial Gazetteer of India (1909:1:368) gives the following:
“Gujarat is bounded on the west by the Indian desert beyond which we find Sindhi, one of
the Outer Languages, but to the south we enter easily into Gujarat. Gujarati, the language of this
country, is the most western ofthose over which the language ofthe Midland exercises sway, and at
its base we can see distinct traces of the old Saurashtri dialect which belonged to the Outer Band.

The Bhils and the inhabitants of Khandesi speak mixed form of speech which is a dialect of
Gujarati”
Origin of Marathi:
The same Gazetteer (pp372-73) gives the following comment on the origin of Marathi:
“South of Sindhi, the Outer Band of I.A. vernaculars is interrupted by Gujarati, the
intermediate language which has reached the sea-board South of Gujarat; extending from near
Daman along the coast of Arabian Sea to beyond Goa, we come to the great daughter of
Maharashtri Prakrit, the southern I.A. language, Marathi. The Saurashtri dialect of Maharashtri
Prakrit, once covered Gujarat, but has been superseded by the Midland language. We find
however, traces ofSaurashtri, not only in Gujarat, but probably also right down to the coast, as far
as modern Marathi extends.”
“In Bombay Presidency Marathi covers the North of Deccan plateau and the strip of
country between the Ghats and the Arabian Sea. It is also the language ofBerar and a good portion
of the north west ofthe Nizam’s Dominions. It stretches across the south of the Central Province,
(except a small portion of the extreme south, in which the Telugu is the language), and in a very
corrupt form, occupies most ofthe State of Bastar. Here it merges into Oriya, through the Bhatri
dialect of that language”…In this way we find Marathi in the Central Province, Berar, and
Bombay; and to the east Oriya, Bengali, and Assamese,all ofthem true Outer languages unaffected
in their essence by the speech of the Midland”(ibid: p359)
Maharashtri Prakrit: Incidentally it will be appropriate here to mention something more
about Maharashtri Prakrit in addition to what has been mentioned in the earlier part of this
chapter.
K.M. Munshi, however citing various authorities, says that the ancestor of Marathi was
further north in Asoka’s day, was pushed south by the ancestor ofGujarati, and was not in case the
prevailing language of present-day Maharashtra, which until at least the ninth century was
Kannada. This, he notes, explains the influence of both Maharashtri and Kannada on Gujarati. He
reminds us that Gujarat itself(to say nothing ofMaharashtra) is for some purposes(e.g. traditional
classification of Brahmanas into Pancha Gauda and Panch Dravida orders) in the “Dravida”
column.
It is generally accepted that the Marathi language is derived from Sanskrit, but the exact
language from which it originated is a matter of debate. Sanskrit>Maharashtri Prakrit>Marathi is
one sort of explanation, supported by Grierson and C.V. Vadiya. That Marathi language had its
origin in Maharashtri Prakrit was a view accepted for a long time. But the recent publications of
texts composed ofJain ‘Maharashtri Apabhramsa language’ have made available a missing link in
the historical background of Marathi.
Sauraseni Prakrit: Sauraseni
Prakrit was a spoken colloquial language around the 5th
century B.C. It originated (near)/in
Mathura (or Surasena Mahajanapada) and was the main language used in drama in North India.
In the dramas ladies who spoke in Sauraseni, sing their songs in Maharashtri. This Prakrit is
nearest to classical Sanskrit. Moreover, a speaker of Sauraseni would easily learn to recognize
many Sanskrit words, and even grasp the meaning of a Sanskrit sentence without being able to
speak Sanskrit, as it follows classical Sanskrit accent. It is supposed to be an artificial language of
prose oftheatres. The Imperial Gazetteer of India comments “Allowing for phonetic corruptions,
the vocabulary of Sauraseni Prakrit is practically the same as that of Sanskrit.”

The importance ofSauraseni will be understood by a modern scholar if he knows the fact
that modern languages such as Gujarati, Punjabi, Hindi etc., ofthe western India have sprung from
this Prakrit.
Apabrhamsas:
Time, distance, sex, caste, history, neighbourhood and various factors which slowly but
surely transforms a language, and the changed forms are called the Apabhramsas. But in course of
time the Apabhramsas gather strength and change the original language beyond recognition,
though the change is slight from day to day.
According to Pichel’s Prakrit Grammar (1999:55), each of them (Apabhramsas like
Souraseni Apabhramsa , Maharashtra Apabhramsa etc.,) was originally the popular speech of the
country with whose name it was connected, and is the mother of modern language of the same
tract.
According to K. Ayyappapanikker (1997:90), Apabhramsa is considered to have evolved
from Prakrit under the impact of the local dialects.
Prof. S.K. Chatterji, while writing on Sauraseni Apabhramsa says: “Sauraseni, the
standard Prakrit of the drama, developed in the second M.I.A. stage (200-600 A.D.) and in the third
stage (600-1000 A.D.) Apabhramsas developed. The literary language namely the western or
Sauraseni Apabhramsa based on the Midland speech is in a later stage than Sauraseni Prakrit”.
In the ‘History and culture of Indian people’ (vol.6:351) it is stated “The Apabhramsa
represents an important stage in the development of Indo-Aryan language-a stage in which the
Prakrit die and out of which the Bhasha or vernaculars are born”
Already during the period A.D. 750-1000 A.D.the western or Sauraseni Apabhramsa came
into use as a ‘Pan Indo-Aryan’ literary speech binding together the spoken provincial dialects.
The origin ofGujarati:
Gujarat under Gurjara rule: (c 550- 720 A.D.)
Under the rule ofthe Gurjaras, the people (ofGujarat) were not Gurjara by descend, being
totally different in character and features from Gurjaras of the north; yet this country has received
the name of Gujarat simply because a Gurjara dynasty ruled from about 550-720A.D. They have
left their name supplanting the older names such as Anarta, Lata etc. Gurjars, who according to P.
Masica (1991:43) “possibly of non-Aryan Central Asian origin” have probably also left their
language impressed on the people and hence the name is. The language is undoubtedly northern,
Gujarati being more akin to Sauraseni than to Maharashtri. Yet originally Maharashtri seems to
have been once predominant in Gujarat. Under Trikuta rule that language must have impressed
itself upon the people, the written characters and era were certainly theirs. In Kathiawar and
Gujarat the Jains used the Maharashtri for their sacred writings and they still use it. This fact can
only be explained by believing that the language of the common people was then Maharashtri or
some form akin to it. The name and the language of Gujarat thus date from 8th
century A. D.
though there is a point which is disputed by many Gujarati scholars.
Evolution of Gujarati:
Encyclopaedia Britannica, (1911:Vol.12: 710) writes:

“The old outer Prakrit of north Gujarat was known as Saurashtri and while the Prakrit of
the Midland invaders was Sauraseni and Gujarati is an intermediate language derived from a
mixture of the Apabhramsa forms of Saurashtri and Sauraseni.” (Gujarati is the daughter of
Saurashtri?)
From the sixth to tenth century the spoken language of Gujarat was mainly Apabhramsa in
its different forms, which developed considerably during the sixth and seventh centuries in which
the Braj bhasa prevails now and though it may also be that some of the other Prakrits may also
have been spoken in Gujarat, these have left no traces on Gujarati language that developed
thereafter (N. B. Divatia: 1993 :vol.1:40) . Hemachandra wrote in Sanskrit as well as in
Apabhramsa (ibid: 33). And between the twelfth and fifteenth century, one single widely extensive
language called ‘the latest Apabhramsa’ termed by Mr. Divatia, (ibid: 40) and ‘Old Gujarati’ or ‘
Apabhramsa’ by Diwan Bhadur K.H. Dhruva, and was used all over modern Gujarat and
Rajasthan.
K. Ayyappapnikkar (1997) has given the following account on the origin of Gujarati:
Gujarati- the language of the people of Gujarat evolved from Prakrit and Apabhramsa.
Apabhramsa is considered to have evolved from Prakrit under the impact of the Abhir and other
communities ofthe western parts ofIndia….We can trace the origin of Gujarati language from 10th
to 12th
centuries….At that time Gurjars were residing and ruling from Punjab, Rajasthan and
Central India and various parts of Gujarat. Gujarat then included Gujarat, Rajasthan and Malwa.
We can say that from the language once spoken from Dwaraka to Mathura evolved Gujarati and
Rajasthani. Tessitori names that language as ‘Old Western Rajasthani’. Other Gujarati scholars
like K. H. Dhruva and N. B. Divatia name that language ‘Old Gujarati and Gurjar Apabhramsa’
respectively. Uma Shankar Joshi names it ‘Maru gurjar’. Of course these names are given in
modern times. At that time (in the past), Rajasthan did not exist. As a matter of fact Western
Rajasthan and North Gujarat together were known as Gujaratta. Both had a common language
with some dialectical differences. Rajasthani under other influences came into its own in this
region.
Old Gujarati was also dubbed as “Old Western Rajasthani” by the Italian scholar
Tessitori, because the language was in his days used in an area including part of what is now the
state of Rajasthan.
In this connection one may take notice of the observations of The Imperial Gazetteer of
India (vol.1:1909:367-369) which runs as follow:
Turning to intermediate languages, we first deal with Rajasthani in which the language of
the Midland is the prominent feature. Rajasthani and Gujarati maybe considered together, as
representing the flow of the inhabitants of the Midland to the southwest to meet the sea.
Rajaputana, in which Rajasthani is spoken, is divided into many states and many tribes. Each claim
to have a language ofits own, but all these are really dialects of one and the same form of speech.
They fall into four groups: a northern, a southern, an eastern, and a western…Malvi, the main
dialect of southern Rajaputana, is spoken in Malwa…The western dialect Marwari is by far the
most important. It is the most typical of the Rajasthani dialects. Other offshoots of Rajasthani are
Gujar, the language ofthe Gujars wandering with their herds over the mountains of Kashmir and
Swat valley; and Labhani, spoken by the Labhanas or Banjaras , the great carrying tribe of Central
and Western India. There are numerous Gujars in the plains ofthe Punjab, where they have given
their names to two Districts but these nowadays speak ordinary Punjabi.

Marwar is bounded on the west by the Indian desert, beyond which we find Sindhi, one of
the outer languages, but to the west, we enter easily into Gujarat. Gujarati, the language of this
country, is the most western ofthese over which the language of the Midland excises sway, and at
its base we can see distinct trace of the old Saurashtri Prakrit, which belonged to the outer band.
Gujarati language abounds in Sanskrit words (tat-sama) and the words derived from
Sanskrit (tat-bhava).There are many words from the language of the early settlers and from the
language ofalien Gurjaras, whose origin is difficult to trace. There are many loan words accepted
by Gujarati from sister languages in India like Hindi, Marathi, Bengali, Urdu, and Kannada.
Modern Gujarati has incorporated several foreign words like Persian, Arabic, Portuguese and
English.
Since Gujarati was born and bred during the period ofthe Muslim rule, Persian and Arabic
words have, from the very beginning, formed a part of its vocabulary (Gujarat State Gazetteer:
360)
The four main dialects of Gujarati
Gujarati language has four main dialects spoken in different regions.
(a)The dialect ofSouth Gujarat-Surat (b) The dialect ofCentral Gujarat-Charotari (c) The dialect
of North Gujarat-Pattan (d) The dialect ofSaurashtra- ‘Saurashtri’.
The ‘Saurashtri’ dialect has four sub dialects: Jhalwadi, Gohilwadi , Sorathi, and Halari.
The Kutchi dialect ofKutch is not a dialect ofGujarati but of Sindhi. From the Apabhramsa of
Sauraseni are derived Punjabi, Western Hindi, Rajasthani and Gujarati.
The only literary Apabhramsa described in detail by the grammarian Hemachandra (1087–
1172 A.D.)is the Nagara Apabh ramsa, and is closely connected to Sauraseni and so named after
the Nagara Brahmins of that locality (in North Gujarat).
Stage 3: Stay in South Gujarat/Lata
The ‘Lata’ dialect:
Our discussion on the language of ancient Saurashtra will be incomplete unless we give
some references on certain dialects that prevailed in South Gujarat.
The Thana District Gazetteer under ‘Language’ gives the following information:
“The Arab writers of the tenth and eleventh centuries
noticed that the people ofnorth Konkan spoke a special dialect known as Ladavi, that is the dialect
of Lar, which at that time meant the country between Broach and Chaul. It seems that this was
‘Gujarati’, trade language of the coast town as it still is of Bombay.
The region ofLar referred to here is the same ‘Lar’ province of Marco Polo mentioned in
his ‘Travels in West India’. Also it may be pointed out that ‘Lar’ is the other name for Lata.
(Marco Polo’s account on ‘Lar Brahmins’ has been mentioned in some detail elsewhere in our
present work).
Inscriptions make mention of Brahmins acquainted with the ‘Karnata ‘Lata’, Dravida and
other languages of many countries (E.C. V: 130)
Udyotana in his Kuvalayamala (A.D.779) refers to distinct dialects of merchants hailing
from Madya desa, Sindhu, Malwa, Gujarat, and Lata etc.,

Rajasekara in his Kavyamimamsa says, the people of Lata spoke a kind of Prakrit and
named it as ‘Lattabham’ or ‘Lattagam’. The instance cited do indeed contains a large number of
Aspirate (a special linguistic feature of the modern Sourashtri of south India)-.
In the fifteenth century Markandeya, a Prakrit grammarian has enumerated twenty seven
Apabhramsa languages in his ‘Prakrit Sarvasa’. The list given by him includes Vrachandra, ‘Lata’,
Dravida, Gaurjar etc., It is possible that the reference to ‘Dravida Apabhramsa’, might be
pertained to Sourashtri or some such Aryan language spoken in the south. Rudrata also refers to
‘Dravida Apabhramsa’.
Section-III
Stage 4: Sourashtri as spoken in South India today:
Certain observations on Sourashtri:
With this above account in outline, on the general history on certain I.A. languages related
to our present study, which includes the migratory aspects ofthe Sourashtras ofTamilnadu, we will
now render hereunder briefaccount on Sourashtri as well as the views expressed by some modern
scholars and authors on it .
The problem of ‘nomenclature’ and ‘classification’: Generally, it has been termed by the
British officials as ‘Surati’ or’ Patnuli’, on the basis of the supposed place of their origin. These
terms might have used just as a device to make it known by some name. Subsequently the members
of this linguistic group termed it as Sourashtra(m) on the basis of their traditional belief that they
came from the land of Saurashtra or Saurashtra Des, as they usually call it.
In due course of time, their tradition as to their original home became more definite and
two theories came into existence. According to one theory, they migrated from Somnath in Gujarat
(ancient Saurashtra) and the other one fixing it at Devagiri as the original habitat or land of the
Sourashtras.
Corollary to these theories there emerged two popular classifications ofthis language-one as
a dialect of Gujarati and the other as a dialect of Marathi. (However, A. Master terms it as an
independent language). This language (wrongly described as a dialect} is generally termed by
officials, who compiled District Gazetteers and Manuals, as well by Census officials as *Surati’
(Nelson: 1850) or ‘Patnuli’, on the basis of their traditional craft of silk weaving, (Pattu=Silk,
Nul=thread) i.e., the language of silk weavers. (Anyone involved in silk weaving?)
The Linguistic Survey ofIndia (LSI) gives the following account on the language spoken by
these people under present study:
“Patnuli, also called Sourashtri, (or the language ofSurat)and Khatri is the language of the
silk weavers of Deccan and Madras….The Linguistic Survey doesnot extend to Madras presidency
and have no figures for or specimen of Patnuli have been received from that province or
Mysore……. On the other hand 6550 speakers of ‘Patwegari’ also a dialect employed by Silk
weavers,have been returned from Belgaum, Dharwar, and Bijapur. Specimens have been received
from all these districts and on examination of them shows that Patwegari of Bijapur is simply
corrupt Marathi, while that of Belgaum and Dharwar is Patnuli…..Patnuli is merely ordinary
Gujarati and does not require special examination which it is practically impossible to give”
Specimen of Patnuli (or Patwegari) have been received, it is ordinary Gujarati. No specimens are
available of Madras Patnuli, but it too according to the Census Reports is also of the standard
Gujarati…”

In the Census ofIndia (1891:322) under Gujarati is found: “….One remarkable offshoot of
Gujarati is found in the Patnuli or Sourashtri dialect of the Silk weavers of the Deccan and
Madras”.
In the same work we find (Chapter VIII: 275) “‘Khatri’ is also the language of a weaver
caste which is, quite different from the Patnul caste.”
*Fn: (Surat is in south Gujarat and covers the ancient region of Lata. As we have noted earlier,
Surati is the dialect spoken in South Gujarat)
However Mr. Edgar Thurston in his Caste and Tribes of Southern India (vol. 6:160) we
find: “The Patnulkarans are….a caste of foreign silk weavers found in all the Tamil districts, but
mainly in Madurai town, who speak ‘Patnuli’ or ‘K=hatriI’, a dialect of Gujarati”.
In G. A. Grierson’s account on ‘Patnoli’ in his Linguistic Survey of India, Volume IX-Pt. ii,
under I.A. Family –Central Group –Rajasthani-Gujarati… we find: “the language of the Surat
called also as ‘Saurashtri’ ”.
Defects of the L.S.I. in describing the language of the Sourashtras of Tamilnadu:
The grave mistake or wrong notion held by the officials of
the L.S.I. will be exposed to the readers if they come to understand the following facts or
information requiring a deep enquiry or analysis.
(1) Sourashtri is the same Saurashtri Prakrit or the Saurashtri dialect of Maharashtri Prakrit
which was in vogue in ancient land of Saurashtra till 800 A.D., of course, having
undergone a lot of changes due to the oft migrating necessity of its speakers viz., the
Sourashtras. It is pre-Gujarati and in fact Gujarati is born out of Saurashtri.
(2) There is no mutual intelligibility between the Saurashtras living in North India and
Sourashtras living in the south. Prof. T. P. Meenakshisundaram a renowned Tamil
scholar,a Linguist and former Vice-Chancellor, M.K. University, Madurai (Tamil nadu)
observed: “I don’t think any Gujarati speaker today can identify Sourashtri as Gujarati.”
(3) The Khatris ofTamil Nadu, even though till recently called themselves as Patnulkaran or
Saurashtras (as the caste bearing the term Saurashtras also were termed by the Tamils as
Patnulkaran), informed or requested their kinsmen to call themselves as members of the
S.S.K Samaj or to knowthat they all belonged to Khsatriya group whereas the other group
claimed to be Brahmins. What they wanted to inform their people is that they are a
different people speaking a different language known as “Khatri” as against the other
group (Brahmins), speaking a language which is popularly termed as “Sourashtri.”
(4) There is no unanimity among scholars as to the origin ofthese people. Scholars like Kaka
Kalelkar (J.G.R.S.1954)opine that these people are Marathi in origin. According to him “I
found no evidence to prove that the Saurashtra community came from Kathiawar except
for the fact that the community calls itself Sourashtra Brahmins”. The best evidence one
could have in this regard must be from the language. I found no words in their language
which were peculiar to Gujarati. The Sourashtra language is full of words from the north,
Hindi, Marathi, and Gujarati-all the three language group would thus call Saurashtra
language as its branch………I don’t to mean to suggest that the Saurashtra community
did not originally come from Kathiawar. All I suggest is that there are few traces in the
Sourashtra language to prove that it has any direct connection with the Gujarati language.
On the other hand there are large number of words in the Saurashtra language which
could claim to be peculiar to Marathi……..I therefore surmised that community might
have originally started from Saurashtra or Kathiawar. Then it must have migrated to

Maharashtra and stayed there for such a long time that they lost all traces of Gujarati
language and got rooted in Maharashtra and the Marathi language”
(5) According to H.N. Randle (1949) “It (the language they brought from Lata or South
Gujarat) certainly appears to belong to the Gujarati-Rajasthani linguistic type…..but it is
not possible to regard it as dialect of Gujarati…..the infiltration of Dravidian Syntax is a
deep influence… it remains true that Sourashtram is through and thorough an Indo-
Aryan language”.
At this juncture it will not be out of place to point out the view that from Mr. Jeyaprakash
Lad N.D.’s article in Deccan Herald dt.14.8.2005 and a personal interview with him at Bangalore
on it is understood that the ‘Lads’(people from Lata) spoke a dialect called Chaurasi and it is very
similar to Saurashtri (esp. in Vocabulary)*
According to the Anthropological Survey of India, on Karnataka (Vol.26:2003:57), “Ladar
from Lata-Kshatriyas- ‘Sourashtri’ was the mother tongue of Ladar merchant class. Ladars are
distributed in Mysore, Tumkur, Chitradurga, Chickamagalore and Dharwa(d)r district”.
(6) The Sourashtras of Tamil Nadu, speaking a language peculiar to themselves only, are not
found anywhere in India north of Tirupathy except those found in Bangalore who were brought
there from Tanjore (T.N) by Hyder Ali and Tipu sultan during their invasion over Tamil Nadu.
(7) A number of modern scholars find some sort ofconnection between Sourashtri and a few other
modern Indo Aryan languages or dialects.
Dr. Shanti bhai Acharya of Zamnagar observes: “After reading the ‘Saurashtra-English
Dictionary I felt that most of its entries are present in my dialect (Halari)-spoken in today’s
Saurashtra. I examined in this regard a few Marathi dialects and found that in Kudali, spoken in
Ratnagiri district many words are common with Saurashtra dialect”
(8) Some Professors at Surat whom the author happened to meet and discuss on about the linguistic
aspects ofSourashtri commented that they infered some sort of resemblance between Sourashtri
and Ahirani & Dangii
(9) Dr. I. R. Dave Prof. and Head ofDepartment-Gujarati, Saurashtra University, Rajkot, has held
that one can get the pure form of the Saurashtri language ( probably spoken by them when they
migrated from the land of Saurashtra) if all sorts of Dravidian elements (esp. vocabulary) are
eliminated from their modern spoken language.(However, he seems to be motivated by a desire to
establish the traditional theory on Origin and Migration without taking any pains to verify them
scientifically). But his mentioning ofthe fact that the speech of the people living along the coastal
regions or interior parts ofGujarat has some sort ofconnection with the speech of the Sourashtras
of Tamil Nadu hints at the Outer Band theory.
Dr. Shanttibhai Acharya has pointed out the drawback of Dr. I. R. Dave’s work in the
same review (referred to above) in the following words: “As we learn from the preface, the main
source of this dictionary (Dr. Ucido’s) are O. S .Subramanian‘s hand written Saurashtra glossary,
I. R. Dave’s ‘Dakhsina Bharatne Saurastrio: Emani Saurashtra Bhasa’ (referred to as D.S.) and the
author’s own collection. Though aware ofthe unscientificness ofthe other two collections, as their
sources are not known, the author has used them in the hope of finding their sources in future. I
should note that many words given from ‘D.S’ do not seem to be Saurashtri words. As the author is
methodical he has separated such words by affixing symbols to them. Yet the entries from this book
remain a weak point of this dictionary.

(10) According to A. Master Sourashtri does not belong to the Gujarathi-Rajasthani group, but ‘An
independent Indo-Aryan language’. This information we get from Appendix to Chapter VI on
Saurashtri script in the work of David Diringer (1948) wherein it is stated as: “However Mr. A.
Master of the London School of Oriental and African Studies does not think (according to the
personal information he gave me) that Saurashtri belongs to the Gujarati-Rajasthani group but
should be considered as an independent Indo-Aryan language.”
The author of this work is convinced of the views of Mr. A. Master. The following
additional arguments can be adduced to confirm the views of Dr. A. Master treating Sourashtri as
an independent language.
(1) The language as spoken by these people are not spoken in any other parts of India north of
Tirupati, (except in Bangalore). In this case it is mentioned in Govt. records that Hyder Ali
took a few families belonging to these people from Tanjore to Seringappatanam in 18th
century.
(2) There is no mutual intelligibility in the language between the Saurashtri of North and the
Sourashtri of South India. Moreover, Saurashtri is almost akin to Gujarati whereas
Sourashtri reflects (and recollects one) the language of yore.
(3) There are a number of Dravidian features in their cultural traits –some reflecting the
features of the Harappan Culture.
(4) The linguistic history ofSourashtri clearly points out to the fact that it is the descendent or
the same with certain modifications or external influences of the ancient Sourashtri dialect
of Maharashtri Prakrit which was in vogue till 800 A.D. in northern India.
Certain special ancient sounds are available in this language which can’t be presented properly
by any modern Indian, phonetically, as they are probably absent in the modern Indo Aryan
languages, attest to this claim. e.g.: the word for ‘curd’- the one mentioned by Panini In respect of
the Saurashtra women selling curd by pronouncing a word which is maintained by these people
even till this day. In other words these people have not forgotten the word used as early as in 500-
400 B.C.
The evolution of ‘Sourashtri’- An attempt at an historical perspective:
The Patnulkaran or Sourashtrians of Tamil Nadu can be identified beyond doubt solely by
the language they speak.Incidentally their language happens to be the chief and reliable aspect of
their cultural trait which unfailingly reflects their identity and the migratory nature of this
community as “..…it has taken the colour ofthe countries through which the caste has passed” (Sir.
A. Bains: Census 1891)
However, no linguist has, so far, thoroughly and conclusively analyzed the historical
linguistics of this language so as to determine its antiquity and historical evolution through the
centuries. Yet, some scholars have made efforts to study this language linguistically and have
furnished some tentative findings. On the basis oftheir findings, an attempt can be made tentatively
to reconstruct the past of its speakers especially in fixing their earlier home immediately before
their coming to the Tamil soil.
Right from the time of Mr. Nelson’s observation for the first time in 1850-51 on the
peculiar language spoken by the Sourashtras ofTamil Nadu and terming it as ‘Surati’, no linguist
has studied, so far, this language, systematically and in great detail, but for the preliminary
attempts or studies by a few scholars like Dr. H. N. Randle, Dr. I.R. Dave, A. Master and Dr.
Ucida Norihico. The reason seems to be lack of interest ‘and/or ‘Ability’ among the members
belonging to this caste or community even though some ofthem are very well educated in the field

of Indo-Aryan languages such as Hindi and Sanskrit as well the Dravidian language of the area
viz., Tamil.
It was a foreigner, Mr. Nelson, to be the first man to say something on the nomenclature of
the language ofthese people. Perhaps he might have come across the term ‘Sorath’ which stood for
‘Saurashtra’ the original home ofthese people. This should have led him to identify these people as
Silk weavers of Guzerat and connect their language with ‘Surat’ -the famous textile centre
(including the weaving of Silk)-ever since the earliest days of Indian History and term their
language as ‘Surati’. However, there arose another problem simultaneously viz., terming their
caste name. The Tamil society termed them as ‘Patnulkaran’-for the simple reason that these
people excelled in the art of silk weaving- but they (the Tamils) did not pay any attention to term
their language.
The British administrators of the erstwhile Madras presidency who happened to come
across a few silk weaving castes or communities of northern origin, when they wanted to give a
name to the language ofthese people, who could not understand the differencesamong the tongues
of the people belonging to various groups simply termed it as ‘Patnuli’ or ‘Khatri’ following a
simple logic that it is the language ofsilk weavers belonging to the various groups. They could not
understand in those days that there were two groups ofsilk weavers of northern origin living in
Tamil Nadu viz., the Khatris and the Sourashtra, the former belong to the Kshatriya group and
the latter to the Brahmin group. Unaware of this simple historical fact all the subsequent Govt.,
officials such as the compilers of Census Reports, District Manuals etc., including the Linguistic
Survey of India continued to use the same term i.e., Patnuli or Patnoli.
It was Dr. H.N. Randle, who under the guidance of one Ku. Ve. PadmanabaIyer a
Sourashtra from Madurai initiated the process of studying or analyzing systematically the history
of these people. His account on these people entitled ‘The Saurashtrans of South India’ was
published in the Journal ofthe Royal Asiatic Society, London, in October 1944 and the same was
published in a book form, in 1949 by the ‘Sourashtra Viprabandhu’ Ku. Ve. Padmanabaiyer
(from Madurai) . This was followed by his study on the language of these pe ople. His research
article entitled ‘An Indo-Aryan Language of south India: Saurashtrabhasa’ published in the
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 1943-46, Vol. XI. (pp104-121) can be
considered as the pioneer attempt in the field of linguistics to study this language.
The next scholarly work on the language and culture of these people entitled ‘The
Saurashtrians in South India’ was brought out by Dr. I.R. Dave, Professor and Head of the
Department of Gujarati, and published by the Saurashtra University, Rajkot, in 1976. As per the
information received by the author ofthis Dr. Dave stayed at Madurai for a month or two, and was
assisted by a group of enthusiastic members of Madurai Saurashtras. (It is a great pity that every
scholar thought that Sourashtras meant Sourashtras of Madurai only. It is absolutely a wrong
notion. Actually, Sourashtras at Trichy, Pudukkottai, Tanjore, Kumbakonam, Salem,
Paramakudy, Palayamkottai, Kancheepuram and Walajapet too are as important as the Madurai
people are, for any study on the language, history and culture of these people.
Next to him, Dr. Ucida Norihiko visited Tamil Nadu several times, and stayed on this soil
months together to study Sourashtra language and its culture and visited many parts of Tami Nadu
and published his research findings. As Mr.Ku.Ve.Padmanabaiyer guided Dr. H. N. Randle, Mr.
O. S. Subramanian of Madurai, who has dedicated himself for the development of Sourashtri and
its script, guided Uchida Norihiko. Dr. Uchida differs from other scholars in the sense that he
could converse with a Saurashtra in Sourashtri itself. His work ‘A Saurashtra–English Dictionary’
is noteworthy. He has also brought out a work on ‘Tirupathy dialect’ ofthese people, following the

principles of linguistic methodology. His works will be guiding future scholars in the field of
linguistic study on Saurashtri.
Now, the present author of this book being only a scholar in history, by virtue of his
qualification could not directly enter into the field of linguistics in detail or study or analyze the
linguistic features ofSourashtri in its strict sense. But,an attempt to trace the evolutionary aspects
of this language in a historical perspective has become a necessity for him as a tool for his study.
Evolution of ‘Sourashtri’-the language of the Sourashtras of southern India in the perspective of
the author of this work on the basis of various findings by other scholars:
Though no specific, systematic and detailed analytical study on the evolutionary aspects of
this language has so far been undertaken by any linguist, Prof. I. R. Dave’s observations on the
possible evolution ofthe language spoken by the Sourashtras ofTamil Nadu as given in his account
on these people (about which mention has been made in the early part of this chapter) will be of
some sort ofuse to future linguists who may undertake a detailed and full analysis of this language.
The following are some of the observations of Dr. I. R. Dave:
1. The language which was brought by the Saurashtrians from the land of Saurashtra in
the eleventh century was called by them ‘Sourashtra’. But really speaking, it was the language
spoken in Saurashtra, which had evolved from Souraseni Apabhramsa and was spoken with some
modifications in Gujarat as well as Rajasthan.
2. There are various stages ofevolution such as ‘Sanskrit’> ‘Prakrit’> ’Apabhramsa’> ’Old
Gujarati’> ‘Gujarati’ (modern); here in sometimesthe intermediary stage which may be missing in
the evolution ofGujarati is found in Sourashtri. Words and forms of Apabhramsa or Old Gujarati
are found in Sourashtri; and more over the intermediary stagesofevolution which are not found in
Gujarati words are found in Saurashtri words.
3. As the Sourashtri language has been evolved from the Sauraseni Apabhramsa which
itself is evolved from Sanskrit (via Prakrit) in the vocabulary of Sourashtri, many Sanskrit words
are found in usage. It is but natural that the grammar of Saurashtri is influenced by that of
Sanskrit.
4. Sourashtri is related in some way or other to Sanskrit, Hindi, Rajasthani, Souraseni
apabrhamsa, Old Gujarati, the language spoken in the modern areas ofSaurashtra (Gujarat),
Gujarathi, Marathi, Sanskrit, Kannada, Telugu, and Tamil. Particularly in the later stage, the
influence ofMarathi, Telugu, and Tamil is considerable in the modern Sourashtri ofthe southern
Sourashtras.
Since, Dr. Dave has made use of the Sourashtri literature available in this community, as
well had done a considerable field work, his observations are noteworthy to any scholar. His
analysis has made it clear that the language ofthe Sourashtras of Tamil Nadu is more antique than
it is normally believed it to be. A still more detailed and deeper analysis may lead any sincere
researcher to trace its antiquity to even Vedic times. He upholds the findings of Dr. H. N. Randle
labeling this language as belonging to the ‘Gujarati- Rajasthani’ group.
Dr. Dave (1976:105) remarks “Dr. Randle accepts its re semblance with Gujarati, in a
casual form and passive constructions. According to him, in terminations it has lesser resemblance
with Gujarati and the basic vocabulary of Sourashtri is predominantly Marathi. Taking this into

consideration, he does not believe that it is a mere dialect of Gujarati language. He shows the
connection of Sourashtri with the central linguistic group:
Following are the remarks of H. N. Randle on Sourashtri:
“The language they brought from Lata or Saurashtra may therefore have come
successively under the influence offirst and for a very long time, of Rajasthani form of speech, and
then of Marathi, Telugu and Tamil”.
“It certainly appears to belong to the Gujarati-Rajasthani linguistic type: but although it
has some forms such as a causative in –d- and passive in –a-(aa) which connect it specially with
Gujarati, its inflections are not those of Gujarati, and its basic vocabulary is predominantly
Marathi. For this reason it is not possible to regard it as a dialect of Gujarati …the infiltration of
Dravidian syntax is a deep influence…….it remains true that Saurashtram is, through and through,
an Indo-Aryan language.” (Dr. Randle: 1943:327)
There is also a difference of opinion on the origin of ‘Sourashtri’. While most scholars
agree on its Gujarati origin, some Marathi scholars prefer to connect it with Marathi. In this
connection, Dr. Dave comments: “There is no doubt that the influence of Marathi language and
social life on the Saurashtra language and society is considerable. If linguistic experts who can
impartially investigate the structure of the language come to a conclusion that the Sourashtri is a
dialect ofMarathi, there is no need ofjoy or grief. But, the analysis of the Sourashtra language will
show that this language is basically an off-shoot of the Souraseni spoken Saurashtra and Gujarat.
(1976:127)
Dravidian elements in Sourashtri (ofT. N.):
Mr. Franklin C. Southworth in his ‘Linguistic Archaeology ofSouth Asia’ (2005) while
discussing the Dravidian Elements in I.A. languages incidentally refers to the impact ofDravidian
elements on Sourashtri, too. To quote him:
“Clear evidence ofcontact with Dravidian languages begins in the middle Rig Vedic period
(c.1200B.C.)in contexts which suggest that Sindhi may be the first source area for this material
(3.22,Witzel,1999b;21ff) Dravidian loans in O.I.A. include terms related to pastoralism, agriculture,
and many indigenous plants.It is likely that many of the Dravidian loan words found in O.I.A. were
mediated by speakers of ‘Outer Band’ Indo Aryans.
The borrowings ofinflectional affices are a rather rare phenomenon in the general picture
of linguistic convergence. Virtually all members of the speech communities in question are
bilingual, and have been so for generations.
Grammatical convergence
In cases ofcontact between two languages belonging to these two (?) families, some or all of
these features undergo change to a greater or lesser extent. In order to quantify these changes I
propose the following systems:
(1)First Degree(ii) Second Degree. (iii) Third Degree convergence
3rd
Degree ofConvergence: involvestotal or nearly total convergence ofLanguages, with respect to
some features or sub system. Thus for example, Saurashtri has lost grammatical gender and now
has the same type of ‘natural gender’ found in Tamil; the rules for copula deletion in Saurashtri
also appears to be the same in Tamil (P.B. Pandit: 1972: 14-15)

4.28. Linguistic diffusion and the social conditions of language contact.
By contrast cases of medium or high grammatical convergence all involve the
symbiosis of two ethno linguistic groups, that is, an economic-cum-cultural dependence which is
part of the daily routine of life for at least one of the groups. In such situations, all or almost all
members ofat least one group generally showsome degree of bilingualism or diglossia. Looking at
the extreme cases, those showing lexical level 4 (affix borrowing) and a high degree of grammatical
convergence, something more can be said. Ofthose studied here, Saurashtri, Brahui, and Kudumbi
are isolated languages, surrounded by a majority of speakers of very different languages….
Some ofthese cases appear to show some weakening of the link between language
and ethnic identity ….Until recently the speakers ofSaurashtri in South India appear to have been
unaware of the existence of Gujarati speaking state in North India”.(For more details pl. read his
article)
It is a very significant point to be noted by every scholar that Sourashtri has undergone a
very deep influence of Dravidian languages, leading one to doubt the traditional theory on the
migratory aspects of these people. Dr. Dave’s observations may be given hereunder:
Dr. Dave has observed the following features as the result of Dravidian influence over this
language:
(1). for purposes ofduplication ofwords ‘र्’ is used in Saurashtri – भात-ग़ीत्, for ‘rice’ जमन्-गर्मन
for ‘feast’ (p109)
(2. ) ‘ऒ’-‘o’ ending in Saurashtri words ‘िामॊ’, ‘सीतॊ’ – for ‘Rama’, ‘Sita’ Telugu influence (p 125)
(3.) There are no concord forms between the noun and the adjective- . (Telugu influence
p125)
(4.) The ‘लु’-(lu)- morpheme for the plural e.g. प्रजलुfor ‘people’ (p125)
(5.) The ‘उ’-(u)- morheme for the locative plural ‘ग्रहमु’ for ‘house’(p.126)
(6.) The gender ofa noun does not influence the form ofadjective or verbs in sentences
(7).The participles ofthe pronoun-type formations (just like Tamil ) ‘जनेत्तेनॊ’ ‘knowing’
(p145)
(8). Pronominalised verbals (p145)
(For more details on ‘Saurashtri Language’ readers may go through Chapter 4 ofDr.Dave’s book
(pp-101-227). A Sourashtri reader may understand certain grave mistakescommitted by Dave in
describing ‘Sourashtri’. Probably he wanted to deliberately establish the close connection ofthis
language with Gujarati).
Besides the above, one should remember that the use of short vowels ‘e’ and ‘o’ are
considerably used in this language as in ancient Prakrits..
P. B. Pandit In his article : ‘India as a Socio linguistic Area’ in Dr. P.D. Guna memorial
Lecture, University of Poona,1972 ) says : “As the Saurashtrans have been in South India for
several centuries , their language is much influenced by Dravidian languages, in Phonology,

morphology, syntax and vocabulary. As for the syntax it has almost completed its
Dravidianisation”.
Other special features of Sourashtri:
Prof. I. R. Dave’s observations in this connection, is note worthy (1976:110):
“In Saurashrshri, the aspirate ह् (h) dominates.The theory of ह् aspirate ‘h’) propounded by
Narasimha .V Divetia is supported by the instance ofthe various movements of *ह् (h) such as
progressive,regressive and inter fixing. Like the dialect spoken in and around Surat, the aspirate
*ह् (h) is seen considerably prevalent in Saurashtri language.eg. म्हल्रळ (Guj. माछ्ली )
meaning ‘fish’, *हु म्रो(Guj. *उम्रिॊ ) meaning ‘threshold’, म्हॊि (Guj. मॊि ) meaning ‘peacock’; न्हा
(Guj. ना ) meaning ‘no’; हुनुपनन (Guj.उनुपाणी),meaning ‘hot water’; हुतिड (Guj. उतऱ ड)
meaning ‘piling of pots’ ; हुर्ुडसु(Guj.उघडे छे) , is opening; हुर्ळसु ऒर्ळेसे छे) meaning ‘is
melting’; म्हकक (Guj. माखी ), meaning ‘ a fly’. Sometimes (though rarely), the aspirates ह (h) is
dropped; eg. आसॊ (Guj. हस्य / हास ) meaning ‘laughter’); अससु (Guj. हसे छे) 'is laughing'. (* Pl.
Verify the spelling)
On other special features in the case ofsounds ofSourashtri, the account prepared and presented to
me by one T. G. Dwaraganth of Madurai is furnished below:
The examples are given in Sourashra script also.
Special sounds in Sourashtri.
Sourashtri has, like other Indian languages, …… and media as well as their aspirates in all the
varga letters.In addition to that, as a special case,it has nasals aspirate. That is, ņa, na, ma – ण, न,
म are also aspirated.
For example,
nhā ꢥꢥꢥ (not)
nhī ꢥꢥꢥ (no)
nh
anno ꢥꢥꢥꢥꢥꢥ (small)
mh
ali ꢥꢥꢥꢥ (fish)
mh
oţţo ꢥꢥꢥꢥꢥꢥꢥ (elder one)
These nasals can also become aspirated in coalescence with hakāra.
k ān+ h ā l= k ānh
āl (By ear)
dh
ūm + h āl= dhūmh
āl (by fume)

toraņ + h ōy = toranh
ōy (It will continue)
The semi vowels ya, ra, la, va are also aspiraed. Out ofthese, ra aspirate and la aspirate are in
most use. For example,
rh
ā ꢥꢥꢥ (be)
rh
undi ꢥꢥꢥꢥꢥꢥꢥ(breadth ofsomething especially ofcloth)
lh
ovvo ꢥꢥꢥꢥꢥꢥꢥ (red)
lh
ogan ꢥꢥꢥꢥꢥꢥ (iron)
The semi vowels can become aspirate in coalescence with hakāra.
vikār +hoyes = vikārh
oyes (became deformed)
t ē l +hāl = t ēlh
āl (due to oil)
kāy + hoyes = kāyh
oyes (what happened)
d ē v + hāl = d ē vh
āl (by God)
There is a separate notation “@” in Sourashtri script to
Denote nasals aspirates as well as Semivowels aspirate.
Semi yakāra
Co-articulation of yakāra with consonant
For example,
avyās (अव्यास्) z~bemB) (They came)
‘vyā’ is pronounced as a single letter That is vyā’ ia pronounced in such a way that avyās is
divided as such in two syllables as (a + vyās)
Likewise,
vinyās (विन्यास्) bv~ZemB (they wove)
bisyās (बिस्यास्) yv~memB (they sat)
There is a separate notation ~ in Sourashtri script to Denote semiyakāra.
Since there are no separate notations in Devanagari Script, either for aspirated nasals as well as
aspirated semi vowels or for the semi yakāra, it is noted as (consonant + ह) or (consonant + य), as
the case may be, eventhough it cannot be treated as representing actual pronunciation.
Cerebral ļ (ळ)ள்

In Vedic Sanskrit, we have cerebral ļ (ळ).
For example, अग्ग्नमीळे agnimīlē. But in classic Sanskrit, the cerebral ļ is lost. Sourashtri has
retained the cerebral ļ.
For example
po ļ ļo haNBNa (fruit).
Conclusion
An outline history ofthe development ofIndo-Aryan languages given above, giving special
attention to the tongue spoken by the people from the ancient land ofSaurashtra now living in most
parts of Tamil Nadu and speaking ‘Sourashtri’ clearly proves its antiquity and independent nature
as a distinct language.

Linguistic aspects of SOURASHTRIi

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à Linguistic aspects of SOURASHTRIi

Similaire à Linguistic aspects of SOURASHTRIi (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Linguistic aspects of SOURASHTRIi