Comprising the Three Dialects of he Language (Ancient,
Mediaeval and Modern)
A Grammar of the Kannada Language: In English" by Ferdinand Kittel, published in 1903, offers a thorough examination of Kannada, a prominent Dravidian language in southern India. Kittel, a German missionary, meticulously details Kannada grammar, syntax, vocabulary, and pronunciation, catering to students and scholars alike. Accessible in English, the book provides abundant examples and exercises for practice. Kittel's dedication to linguistic studies in India underscores the book's significance, fostering cross-cultural exchange and advancing understanding of Indian languages.
About the Author
Ferdinand Kittel (1832-1903), a Lutheran priest and Indologist, made significant contributions to the Kannada language. He compiled a vast Kannada-English dictionary in 1894 and penned numerous Kannada poems. Despite facing marginalization in the Basel Mission due to his academic background, Kittel immersed himself in Kannada culture and literature.
Notable works include "Kathamale," portraying Jesus Christ's life in Indian musical meter, and a Kannada grammar book.
Preface
The present Grammar is chiefly based on Ke sava's Sabdamaņidarpana. The terminology of this his Grammar is simple, and fit for the three dialects of Kannada. At the same time it will be interesting to learn the general way of an ancient native scholar's teaching Kannada grammar.
In Kesava's age most of the rules of Kannada grammar were fixed. That before him there had been grammarians who had not deserved that name, seems to follow from his quoting a part of a Kanda verse that is fully quoted in the sabdanu sasana (under its sutra 469), from which we translate it as follows-Remain, O daughter! Could the unprofitable grammarian ( sushkavaiyakarana), the unprofitable sophist and the rustic have as (their) subject matter the gem of poetical composition which is the subject matter of the assemblage of very clever poets?'
Some specific statements of Ke sava concerning his predecessors or contemporaries are the following-
He considered it a matter of necessity to caution literary writers against using final Į in several Kannada words, as only rusties would do so (§ 228).
He teaches ($252) that if there exist Tadbhavas of two words compounded, both words ought to be in their Tadbhava form. In this respect he quotes an instance from his great predecessor Hamsarûja (of A. D. 941, according to Mr. B. Lewis Rice), viz. travel manikyabhandarada puțikēgalam, which, ho says, is a mistake (tappu), as manikabhandarada would be right (suddha).
He says that in satisaptami (§ 365) which always refers to two subjects, the lotter è is to be used; by some (of his predecessors or contemporaries) al has, without hesitation, been employed for it; clever people do not agree to that. Thon ho quotes two sentences with al, and calls them wrong (abaddha).
He states (very probably in order to counteract a tendency of that kind) that to form kaņikō, teralíke, půņike of kân, pûn, teral (which formations are frequently found at least in the medieval dialect) is faulty, as the suffix ikë should not be added to verbs ending in a consonant (seo § 243, 4, 5).
