Grammar can be compiled for a language in two ways. One way is to observe closely the inflections and interrelationships of the basic units of the language at a particular period and arrive at certain conclusions regarding the same. This has its basis abhyuuha (inference) and is called the abhyuuhika (inferential) way. The other way is to trace the history of the language from its origin, find out the changes it had at the various stages of its development and formulate rules to suit them. This being based on aagama (history), is called the aagamika (historical) way. The former is easier to compile, but the latter is more useful. If grammar is to be treated as a science, it should be historical.
The real function of grammar is not to suggest how a form should be used. Native language speakers do not have to rely on grammar for such purposes. They will have mastery over such forms through the familiarity of the language they have been using. If bestowed with ingenuity, a little practice may even enable them for versification. However, to adjudge an usage as correct or incorrect, to present new ideas effectively, to preserve traditions and protect ancestral assets, to be free from external pressures, to keep away from anxieties consequent to negation of rules resulting from ill-used freedom- all these can be achieved by grammar only. In short, a language without grammar is like a land without a king. Ways of administration vary. This is true in the case of grammar too. Inferential grammar is equivalent to dictatorship and Historical grammar to that of democracy.
Kerala Paaniniiyam in its original form itself was a grammar in the historical method. However, true to its name Paaniniiyam, it gave some importance to the Inferential method as well. As has been clearly established in the work Lakhu Paaniniiyam - Part II, the method adopted by the great grammarian Sage Panini was generally speaking, Historical. It was the commentators following the author of the Mahaabhaasya, who attributed to the preceptor mastery in dictatorship. As evidenced by the multiplicity of rules, prescription of separate forms for various classes and lack of systematicality, the sage was endowed with some dictatorial tendencies. Strictness in formulation of rules, unwillingness to accept exceptions, concept of the universal nature of elision of the affixes, etc. have to be taken as manifestations of his dictatorial tendencies.
Kerala Paaniniiyam was cast in the old mould devised by the sage Panini. So some of the defects mentioned above have found place in it. This second edition is presented to the great public rectifying such defects to the extent possible. Not only in appearance and nature, but also in the form and content, considerable changes were made in this edition of Kerala Paaniniiyam. Excepting the personal matters pertaining to the author all that remains in this edition is its title. As such, it can hardly be considered as a second edition of the Kerala Paaniniiyam published in 1071. I had thought of changing the title also, but did not do it, as some of my friends were not in favour of it. It may also be stated that some of the portions in the early edition have been retained here.
Kerala Paaniniiyam by A.R.Raja Raja Varma (A.R.) is a classic in Malayalam grammatical literature. In the late 19 and early 20th century there were no compeers to A.R. in Malayalam and certainly not in Tamil, Kannada and Telugu.
A.R. had an analytical mind. He was well versed in Paaniniiyam of Sanskrit. He had the exceptional capacity for self-criticism and thoroughness. He did not follow Paanini blindly. Where Paaniniiyam is not applicable, he followed an independent course of analysis. He says in more than one place why should we hang on to the tail of Sanskrit when it is not applicable to Malayalam or when we have alternate ways of simplifying the rules.
A.R. was acquainted with the Tamil Grammar, Nannuul. His citations from Tamil are largely accurate. In some places the citations are incorrect. Who is responsible for this cannot be guessed now. He also recalls the feeling of some scholars against applying the rules of Tamil to Malayalam. The sister or the daughter metaphors in the genetic relationship of Tamil and Malayalam has created a resentment which later became a dominant note in Malayalam among some scholars who want to politicalize an academic hypothesis. This has happened in Assam and Orissa in relation to Bengali. As far as early Tamil is concerned one third of the Sangham literature belongs to Cheras and many poets were from Kerala or Malanaatu. To dissociate from Tamil is to deny Kerala one of its great heritage, the Sangham poems now in Tamil. Any king of repute like Raja Raja or Rajendra had a consort from Kerala. The Pandyas and Cholas had the assistance of the army of the Keralites to fight against their enemies. But past history is seldom remembered when a preposition for language identity and ancientness of the language and culture is put forth. A balanced view is adopted by A.R. in this regard.
Understanding Kerala Paaniniiyam in its original in Malayalam is not easy. Even for Malayalees it needs a close and repeated reading of the text, to have an unambiguous understanding. A translation into English, it was felt by several scholars, will enhance the merit of Kerala Paaniniiyan. We were looking for one who can do the work.
Soon after Dr.C.J.Roy's retirement from the Chair of Malayalam at the Madurai Kamaraj University, he called on us in the I.S.D.L. He was requested to undertake the translation which he readily agreed. The committee of Direction of the I.S.D.L. also awarded him a Non-Residential Fellowship of a nominal amount. Dr.C.J.Roy did a good job in translating the text and commentary in a readable form and with as maximum accuracy as possible for a difficult text. He has also prepared a glossary of technical terms used in the translation.
The I.S.D.L. thanks Dr.C.J.Roy for this strenuous work which will be long remembered by Scholars of Grammatology in India and elsewhere.
To enquirers in the field of sociology, ethnography, history and kindred subjects, Malabar has afforded ample food for speculation. The present volume is devoted to a subject, no less interesting, namely, the origin and growth of the Malayalam language. This is the second edition of Kerala Paaniniiyam, the memorable publication of which took place nearly 21 years ago. Though it professes only to be a second edition, a superficial reader may fail to discover much ground common to both the editions. To all appearance the present edition with the alterations and additions, amounts to what one may call an 'allotropic modification' of the original work.
Before the publication of Kerala Paaniniiyam, a number of works with varying pretensions to accuracy and completeness had appeared in the field of Vernacular Grammar. Such works may roughly speaking be associated with two stages in the development of our language and appear to be profoundly influenced by the dominant characteristic of those stages. After separating itself from the parentstock and setting out on an independent course, Malayalam could not help deviating more from its original Dravidian ties, owing to the all together dissimilar influence exerted over it by Sanskrit. It appears to have pervaded our language to such a depth at one period, as to produce extravagant consequences. Sufficient light is thrown on this period by the discovery of Unnunilisandesam, a work composed about the middle of the sixth century M. E. while struggle in the earlier works such as Ramacharitham, is to assimilate Sanskrit words to Dravidian forms the attempt is quite the other way in Unnunilisandesam in which Sanskrit suffixes appear freely glued on to Dravidian roots and nouns, entirely leaving out of account the fundamental differences between the two languages. For example one may quote, "paalavum pinniiteethaa", "karam kontutaan pottayitva", "maatampiinaamavite vasataam" and other instances occurring in the work under reference. We would view them as sheer vagaries at this distance of time. Probably as Dr. Johnson's dictum goes "to use two languages familiarly and without contaminating one by the other is very difficult". Such disturbance at the very foundation of our language could not last long; for we see the author of Lilathilakam, which also has been happily brought to light just recently, entering a serious protest against those innovating tendencies. The wave of Sanskrit influence which thus pressed on our mother-tongue though some what subsequently checked, has not passed away yet. We need not pause to examine all the results brought about by this action of the one language on the other. The relevant aspect of the situation is that the principles of Dravidian Grammar become gradually submerged and though their cryptic operation continued in every thing our ancestors said or wrote, consciousness prevailed that Malayalam had nothing to do with its Dravidian Kindreads. The system of education then in vogue only tended to accentuate the position. Sanskrit was the chief subject of study. The medium of instruction being the mother-tongue some device was found necessary for the appropriate representation of Sanskrit case-endings and bewildering conjugations. In this way the eight Sanskrit cases inclusive of the vocative, brought into existence that corresponding counterparts in Malayalam. The Verbs proved more difficult to be dealt with. The active and passive voices were easily assimilated and were denoted respectively by the names 'karttari prayoogam and karmani prayoogam' of course borrowed from Sanskrit. Sanskrit has a third voice called 'bhaaveeprayogam'. With some difficulty this also appears to have been managed by equivalence such as 'patippu ennullatunțaayi, gamippuennullatuntaayi' and similar formations. Regarding the tenses there was fortunately no attempt to import the ten lakarams into our language with their delicate distinction of 'adyatanam, anadyatanam, parooksam' and other shades of difference. Such subtle distinctions could only be classified under the three broad heads of past, present and future, the terminology being again taken from Sanskrit. As to desideratives, frequentatives and other complicate formations, imitation must have appeared hopeless. Structure of sentences also caused some trouble. For example some Verbs in Sanskrit govern two Nouns in the objective case. In translating such it was evidently thought desirable to preserve a similar structure in Malayalam as well, see for instance, the example in balaprabodhanam "goopaalan paśuveppaalee karakkunniprakaaramaam". It is strange that the author could not realise the grotesqueness of the construction. When this process of assimilation was complete it was readily assumed that 'prathama, dvitiiya' and other inflexions as well as 'karttariprayoogam, karmaniprayoogam' and other conjugations are really inherent in Malayalam Grammar. A more fallacious assumption could not have been made. All the same not only was it made, but has been seriously set forth as the basis of their works by writers on Malayalam Grammar belonging to the Sanskrit School. See for example how deeply these preconceived ideas have coloured the work of Patcoo Muthathoo and Kovunny Nedungady. It was left to the learned author of Kerala Paaniniiyam to examine this persistent theory and to explode it once for all.
Send as free online greeting card
Email a Friend
Manage Wishlist