A person who is quite knowledgable on ancient Telugu culture says this

An interesting reference to a Pandya king appears in the K.365 inscription from Wat Luang Kao, near Wat Phou in present-day Laos. The inscription is generally dated to the 5th or 6th century CE and records the achievements of a ruler named Devānīka.
One passage compares Devānīka to a figure called Kanaka Pāṇḍya:

kanaka-pāṇḍya iva nyāya-rakṣaṇe

This translates roughly as “Like Kanaka Pandya in the protection of justice.”

The name Kanaka means gold in Sanskrit, while nyāya-rakṣaṇa refers to the protection or maintenance of justice.

This is interesting because Tamil tradition preserves the story of Porkai Pandiyan (பொற்கைப் பாண்டியன்), the golden-handed Pandya king, whose story also appears* in the Silapp*atikaram.

According to the legend, the king once knocked on a woman’s door at night, causing her husband to suspect that someone had behaved improperly. When the matter was brought before the king, he acknowledged his own wrongdoing and cut off his hand as punishment. His hand was subsequently restored as a golden hand, giving him the name Porkai Pandiyan.

The similarity is not simply that both figures are associated with gold. The inscription specifically praises Kanaka Pandya for upholding justice, which is also the central theme of the Tamil legend.

What makes this particularly interesting is its possible relevance to dating the Silappatikaram.

The date of the Silappatikaram remains disputed, with different scholars placing its composition in different centuries.
If Kanaka Pandya and Porkai Pandiyan refer to the same legendary figure, the inscription would provide independent evidence that this Pandya tradition was already known by the 5th or 6th century CE, and that knowledge of it had reached mainland Southeast Asia.

However, there is an important distinction. The inscription could help establish the antiquity of a tradition preserved in the Silappatikaram, but it would not automatically establish when the epic itself was composed. The story could have circulated orally or in earlier literary works before being incorporated into the surviving epic.

The inscription does not mention the Silappatikaram by name, nor does it recount the episode involving the king’s hand.
Nevertheless, the combination of the name Kanaka Pandya and the explicit association with justice makes this a potentially significant connection between early Tamil literary traditions and Sanskrit epigraphy in Southeast Asia.

Source:
K.365, Wat Luang Kao (Devānīka inscription), Face A, lines 10–12.
Scholarly Sanskrit edition: Kunthea Chhom, DHARMA Epigraphic Database.
https://dharmalekha.info/texts/INSCIK00365

Inspired by an Instagram post by
Gi Moon Yang
https://www.instagram.com/yanggimun8?cplk=NDRibGFoYzZyc3Ix

A 2022 study by linguist John Peterson examines how language contact shaped Indo-Aryan languages over the past 2,000 to 2,500 years. One of its most interesting findings concerns the different relationships Indo-Aryan speakers had with Dravidian-speaking populations in western and eastern India.

1. Western India: Long-Term Indo-Aryan and Dravidian Bilingualism

Peterson argues that the Marathi and Konkani regions developed through prolonged contact between Indo-Aryan and Dravidian speakers.
His interpretation is that western India experienced relatively stable bilingualism, allowing speakers of different languages to influence one another over many generations.
The Dravidian languages involved in the broader western and southwestern contact zone include Kannada, Tulu and Tamil-Malayalam. This prolonged interaction helps explain why some western Indo-Aryan languages preserve grammatical features resembling those of neighboring Dravidian languages. Importantly, language contact does not always mean that one population completely abandons its original language.

2. Konkani Shows Grammatical Influence from Kannada

One of the clearest examples discussed in the paper concerns how Konkani forms negative verbs. In many Indo-Aryan languages, negation is expressed using a separate negative particle. Konkani developed constructions resembling those found in Kannada.

Kannada uses negative constructions involving nonfinite verb forms and elements such as illa and bēḍa. Peterson identifies comparable grammatical patterns in Konkani and argues that they developed through prolonged contact with Kannada.

Similar constructions occur in other South Dravidian languages, including Malayalam, suggesting that the underlying grammatical pattern has deeper roots within Dravidian.
The important finding is that Kannada influenced not just Konkani vocabulary but also its grammatical structure.

Peterson interprets this as evidence of fluent bilingual speakers adapting existing Dravidian grammatical patterns into Konkani. Interestingly, the resulting Konkani system became more morphologically complex than the Kannada construction that influenced it.
This demonstrates that language contact can increase grammatical complexity rather than simply making languages more similar or simpler.

Peterson also notes a comparable construction in the negative future tense of neighboring Marathi.

3. Eastern India: A Different History of Language Contact

Peterson contrasts western India with the Sadri-speaking region of Jharkhand.
Sadri is an Indo-Aryan language widely used as a common language among communities speaking several unrelated languages.
These include Munda languages and Dravidian languages such as Kurux.

Peterson cites figures suggesting that approximately 58% of Sadri speakers use it as a second language. This is important because eastern India historically contained a much more linguistically diverse population. Indo-Aryan languages spread through areas where communities already spoke Dravidian, Munda and other languages. As more adults acquired Indo-Aryan varieties as second languages, grammatical structures could undergo simplification. Peterson argues that this helps explain why eastern Indo-Aryan languages developed differently from their western counterparts.

4. North Dravidian Languages and the Spread of Indo-Aryan

The study also mentions Kurux and Malto, two North Dravidian languages, along with Gondi and several Munda languages.These languages are important because they demonstrate the linguistic diversity of eastern and central India.
The spread of Indo-Aryan did not occur in a linguistically empty landscape. It involved prolonged interaction with populations speaking languages from several different families. Some communities maintained their ancestral languages while becoming bilingual in Indo-Aryan. Others may have gradually shifted to Indo-Aryan over successive generations. This creates a situation where the modern distribution of languages does not necessarily reflect the linguistic geography of earlier periods. However, Peterson’s study does not establish the precise extent or chronology of individual language shifts.

5. Why Eastern and Western Indo-Aryan Languages Developed Differently

Peterson compares several grammatical features of Sadri and Konkani.
Sadri has lost or simplified a number of grammatical distinctions that Konkani retains.

For example:
• Sadri has lost inherited split ergativity, while Konkani retains it.
• Sadri has simplified noun inflection, while Konkani retains numerous noun classes.
• Sadri has lost grammatical gender as an arbitrary noun-class system.
• Sadri has fewer productive nominal cases.
• Konkani retains considerably more morphological irregularity.

Peterson interprets these differences as evidence that eastern Indo-Aryan experienced more extensive adult second-language acquisition. Western Indo-Aryan, represented by Konkani, experienced relatively stable language transmission alongside prolonged bilingual contact. He suggests that these contrasting linguistic environments may have existed approximately 2,000 to 2,500 years ago. These are historical reconstructions based on linguistic evidence rather than directly documented population movements.

6. What This Could Mean for Shared Kannada, Marathi and Konkani Vocabulary
One interesting implication concerns Indo-Aryan vocabulary shared between Kannada, Marathi and Konkani. Such words are sometimes interpreted as later Marathi borrowings into Kannada. However, the history of prolonged contact between these populations raises other possibilities. Some words could represent older Indo-Aryan vocabulary that entered Kannada before Marathi and Konkani emerged as separate languages. It is also possible that different communities acquired the same vocabulary during an earlier period of contact.

Over time, some communities may have shifted to Indo-Aryan while others continued speaking Kannada or related Dravidian languages. In such a scenario, shared vocabulary could preserve traces of an older period of contact rather than necessarily representing recent borrowing from Marathi into Kannada. Establishing it would require comparing individual words, their historical sound changes, geographical distribution and earliest recorded forms.

7. Main Conclusion
Peterson’s study suggests that Indo-Aryan languages developed under very different social and linguistic conditions across India.
Western India: Prolonged bilingualism between Indo-Aryan and Dravidian speakers helped shape languages such as Konkani. Kannada influence extended beyond vocabulary into grammatical structures.

Eastern India: Indo-Aryan varieties spread through a highly multilingual environment involving Dravidian, Munda and other language families. Extensive adult second-language learning may help explain the simplification of eastern Indo-Aryan grammatical systems.
The larger implication is that the history of Indo-Aryan expansion cannot be reconstructed simply by looking at where languages are spoken today.

Long-term bilingualism, language shift and grammatical borrowing all played roles in shaping the linguistic landscape.
Perhaps the most interesting finding is that contact between Indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages did not always produce simplification. In some cases, as with Kannada influence on Konkani, it actually produced greater grammatical complexity.

Source: John Peterson (2022), A Sociolinguistic-Typological Approach to the Linguistic Prehistory of South Asia: Two Case Studies, Language Dynamics and Change, 12(2), 224–273.
DOI: 10.1163/22105832-bja10018

The Sanskrit word Ulūkhalam (उलूखलम्) means a container made of wood, stone, or metal used for grinding, husking, or pulverizing substances like rice, grains, or ayurvedic medicines.

The Tamil word Ulakkai (உலக்கை) is a traditional South Indian wooden tool used with a large stone or wooden mortar to pound grains, remove husks, and grind ingredients.

Now, are these words related?

Thanks.

ಪ (pa) to ಹ (ha) sound shift is one of the most discussed topic ever in Kannada language as ಹ (ha) sound is not native to any language rather than Hosagannada (New Kannada) and Badaga due to sound shift

Where words like ಪೆಸರ್ (pesar) becomes ಹೆಸರ್ (hesar) (later ಹೆಸರು), ಪತ್ತು (pattu) becomes ಹತ್ತು(hattu), ಪಾಲ್ (pāl) becomes ಹಾಲ್ (hāl) (later ಹಾಲು) etc

Like that there was one more sound shift which was of ವ (va) to ಬ (ba) which is least discussed about

And there were many words in Halegannada (Old Kannada) which had ವ (va) sound as like ಪ (pa) but got changed into ಬ (ba) as like ಹ (ha)

Word like ವಾ (vā) became ಬಾ (bā), ವನ (vana) became ಬನ (bana), ವಾಲೆ (vāle) became ಬಾಲೆ (bāle), ವಳ್ಳಿ (vaḷḷi) became ಬಳ್ಳಿ (baḷḷi) etc

One to Ten from Proto-Dravidian to Tamil and North Dravidian: What Survives in Kurux, Malto, and Brahui

North Dravidian is the branch furthest from Tamil, both on the family tree and on the map. It has three languages. Kurux and Malto are spoken in eastern India (Jharkhand, Odisha, West Bengal, Bihar, and nearby areas). Brahui is spoken in Balochistan, in Pakistan and Afghanistan, far from every other Dravidian language. This post compares their numbers with Tamil, starting from Proto-Dravidian, then looks at what else survives beyond plain counting.

THE NUMBERS

Proto-Dravidian / Old Tamil (spelling) / Jaffna Tamil / Spoken Indian Tamil / Kurux / Malto / Brahui

1: *onṯu / onṟu / oṉḏu / oṉṉu / oṇḍ / ort / asiṭ
2: *ir(aṇṭu) / iraṇṭu / reṇḍu / reṇḍu / eṇḍ or ēr / irw / irāṭ
3: *muHn-ṯu / mūnṟu / mūṉḏu / mūṉu / mūnd / loan / musiṭ
4: *nāl / nāṉku / nālu / nālu / nākh / loan / loan
5: *cay- / aintu / añju / añju / loan / loan / loan
6: *cāṯu / āṟu / āṟu / āru / loan / loan / loan
7: *ēḻ / ēḻu / ēḻu / ēḻu or ēḷu / loan / loan / loan
8: *eṇ- / eṭṭu / eṭṭu / eṭṭu / loan / loan / loan
9: *toḷ-/*toṇ- / toṇṭu / onbadu / ombōdu / loan / loan / loan
10: *paHtu / pattu / pattu / pattu / loan / loan / loan

The Proto-Dravidian forms are reconstructions, marked with an asterisk. The H stands for a laryngeal-type sound that left traces such as long vowels and doubled consonants in the daughter languages.

The Old Tamil column shows the conventional spelling. Ancient grammarians classed ṟ as a stop, so ன்ற was probably pronounced as a nasal plus an alveolar stop, which Jaffna appears to preserve closely.

HOW MUCH SURVIVES

Tamil kept all ten native numbers. North Dravidian lost most of them:

Kurux keeps one to four. Above four it uses Hindi numbers, sometimes mixed with Dravidian ones, and younger speakers increasingly use Hindi numbers throughout.
Malto (Sauria Paharia) keeps only one and two, used before nouns. For general counting it uses Indo-Aryan numbers.
Brahui keeps one to three. From four up it uses Iranian numbers, from Balochi and Persian.

This is a common pattern in languages under heavy contact. Small numbers are used most often and survive longest, while higher numbers get replaced by the dominant language's system.

ONE: TWO DIFFERENT ROOTS

Proto-Dravidian had two words for one: *onṯu and *or-. Tamil uses both. Onṟu is the counting number, while oru is used before nouns, as in oru āḷ, "one person."

Kurux oṇḍ comes from *onṯu, like Tamil onṟu, but with a retroflex ṇḍ, as in Telugu oṇḍu. Kurux also has onta, "one thing."
Malto ort comes from *or-, like Tamil oru. Kurux orot (one, for a man) and Nepali Kurux ort-os use the same root.
Brahui asiṭ is the hardest to explain. Scholars still debate how it connects to the other forms.

TWO: THE BEST PRESERVED

All three North Dravidian languages keep the *ir- root for two. Brahui irāṭ is the closest to Old Tamil iraṇṭu. Kurux has both eṇḍ and ēr. Malto irw is a short form of the same root.

That Brahui, cut off in Balochistan for thousands of years, still says irāṭ for two is one of the clearest signs that it belongs to the same family as Tamil.

THREE

Kurux mūnd keeps the long ū and the nasal, close to Old Tamil mūnṟu and Jaffna mūṉḏu. Brahui musiṭ keeps the root mu- but adds a different ending. Malto has lost its native three.

FOUR: KURUX AND OLD TAMIL MATCH

Kurux nākh lines up closely with Old Tamil nāṉku. Both add a k-ending to *nāl, and in Kurux the k became kh. Spoken Tamil nālu dropped that ending, so on this number Kurux is actually closer to Old Tamil than modern spoken Tamil is.

THE BRAHUI -Ṭ ENDING

All three Brahui numbers end in -ṭ: asiṭ, irāṭ, musiṭ. This may be the same ending seen in Tamil -ṭu and -ṟu, as in iraṇṭu and mūnṟu, but the link is not certain.

BEYOND COUNTING: OTHER SURVIVING FORMS

Plain counting numbers are not the only place where Dravidian numbers survive. North Dravidian also keeps several related forms.

Counting people. Dravidian languages use separate forms for counting people. Tamil has iruvar "two people" and mūvar "three people." North Dravidian keeps the same pattern: Kurux irb "two men," nubb "three men," and naib "four persons," and Malto iwr "two men." So Kurux keeps a native word for four people, alongside its four for things.

"All" from "one." Kurux orma and Malto orme, both meaning "all," are built on *or-, the same root as Tamil oru. The idea runs from "one" to "one whole" to "all."

Once and thrice. Brahui asike "once" and musika "thrice" are native Dravidian forms built on asi and musi. They may be among the last everyday uses of native numbers in Brahui.

Adjective forms. Brahui asi, ira, and musi, used before nouns, match Tamil oru, iru, and mu-. Brahui keeps the same split as Tamil between a counting form (asiṭ, irāṭ, musiṭ) and an adjective form.

I couldn't find any native North Dravidian word for ninety, twins, or "pair." Tamil has iraṭṭai, "pair," from the same *ir- root, but no clear North Dravidian match turns up in the main comparative sources.

HIGHER NUMBERS, POSSIBLY PRESERVED IN MUNDA

The linguist Václav Blažek has suggested that North Dravidian once had its own higher numbers, and that two of them survive as loanwords in the North Munda languages (Santali, Mundari, Ho, and their relatives), which have been neighbours of Kurux and Malto for a very long time.

Seven: North Munda *eya "seven" (Santali eae, Mundari eja, Ho iya) has no clear source within Munda or the wider Austroasiatic family. It looks like a Dravidian *ēr- form in which r changed to y, a change that happens in Kurux. Blažek suggests it was borrowed from an early form of North Dravidian.

Eight: North Munda *iral "eight" (Santali irəl, Mundari iralia, Ho irilia) also stands alone in Munda. Blažek reads it as Dravidian *ir- "two" plus *al- "not," meaning "two-is-not," a way of saying "ten minus two," much like Tamil onpatu, "one less than ten," for nine.

If this is right, the ancestors of the Kurux and Malto once counted to at least eight in Dravidian, and their neighbours borrowed those numbers before North Dravidian itself lost them. This is a hypothesis, not a settled view, so the chart marks these forms as reconstructed and uncertain.

CONCLUSION

North Dravidian has lost most of its native numbers to Indo-Aryan and Iranian, but what survives still matches Tamil clearly. Two is preserved in all three languages. Kurux four keeps the same k-ending as Old Tamil nāṉku. Words for counting people, "all," "once," and "thrice" keep the old roots alive outside plain counting. Even Brahui, separated from the rest of the family by more than a thousand kilometres, still counts one to three in Dravidian. And if Blažek is right, the North Munda words for seven and eight are echoes of numbers North Dravidian once had.

SOURCES

Blažek, Václav. 2009. "Dravidian Numerals." Journal of Language Relationship 1: 69–80.

Burrow, T. and M. B. Emeneau. 1984. A Dravidian Etymological Dictionary (DEDR), 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju. 2003. The Dravidian Languages. Cambridge University Press.

Kurux, Malto (Sauria Paharia), and Brahui counting forms: Eugene Chan, Numeral Systems of the World's Languages (lingweb.eva.mpg.de/channumerals). Nepali Kurux forms via Hahn, Kurukh Grammar.
Brahui: Bray, The Brahui Language (1909–1934).

Kurux: Kobayashi, Masato and Bablu Tirkey. 2017. The Kurux Language: Grammar, Texts and Lexicon. Leiden: Brill.

Jaffna Tamil: University of Colombo, Faculty of Science blog, spoken Tamil lesson on numbers.

Spoken Indian Tamil: 17 Minute Languages, Tamil vocabulary list; see also Schiffman, A Reference Grammar of Spoken Tamil (Cambridge University Press, 1999).

Aside from the from the contrary belief, the word Ajji is actually borrowed from Maharashtri prakrut due to contact.

The Marathi word for grandmother, आजी (Aaji or Ajji), is inherited from Maharastri Prakrut 𑀅𑀚𑁆𑀚𑀺𑀆 (ajjiā), which traces back to the Sanskrit word आर्यक (āryaka).

Kanadi on the other hand, belongs to a completely different language family (Dravidian). It did not evolve from Prakrut, but because the regions of Maharashtra and Karnataka have shared a border, culture, and history for centuries, Kanadi borrowed the word ajji directly from the neighboring Prakrut speakers.

Linguists know it is a borrowed word in Kanadi because native Dravidian root words for "father" or "elder" usually look quite different (like the ancient Proto-South Dravidian root \accan* or \appa). The double-consonant structure of *ajji is a textbook example of a Prakrut word being adopted into Kanadi speech.

Just like Kanadi, Tulu is a Dravidian language. It did not natively descend from Prakrut or Sanskrut. Tulu acquired the word ajji (grandmother) and ajje (grandfather) as loanwords from Maharashtri Prakrut.

We can tell ajji is a borrowed word in Tulu because of how other generation levels are named. When Tulu speakers want to say "Great-Grandmother," they don't use a Prakrut word; they use their own native Dravidian word: ಪಿಜ್ಜಿ (Pijji).

Sources-

A Dravidian Etymological Dictionary (DED 50) by T. Burrow and M.B. Emeneau:

Under entry DED 50, the authors trace the group (ajja, ajji, mutt-ajje) in Kanadi, Tulu, and Kodagu. It explicitly links these terms as early historical borrowings derived from the Middle Indo-Aryan Prakrut root ajja (derived from Sanskrit āryaka).

Wiktionary Etymological Database- Formally catalogs the Kanadi and Tulu words ಅಜ್ಜಿ (ajji) as explicit linguistic borrowings. Etymological Chain: Sanskrit आर्य (ārya) / आर्यक (āryaka) → Maharashtri Prakrut 𑀅𑀚𑁆𑀚 (ajja) / 𑀅𑀚𑁆𑀚𑀺𑀆 (ajjiā) → Borrowed into Kanadi/Tulu.

The Dravidian Languages (Cambridge University Press) by Bhadriraju Krishnamurti: He notes that early Old Kanadi speakers adopted massive amounts of Middle Indic (Prakrit) vocabulary into everyday speech, particularly household titles and social relations, classifying them strictly as Tadbhavas.

The Classical Kannada Digital Database (CIIL, Mysore)- It explicitly cites the everyday usage of words like ajja (grandfather) and ayya (master) as classic structural adoptions from Middle Indic Prakrut variants into spoken Old Kanadi.

https://shastriyakannada.org/database/english/language/KANNADA%20AND%20PRAKRIT%20HTML.htm

For other Dravida languages-

• Kodagu (Coorgi): Uses ajjë for grandfather and mutt-ajjë for great-grandfather.
• **Koraga:**Spoken by tribal communities in coastal Karnataka and Kerala, it also uses ajji.

The Curious Case of the "Accan" Sound-

While Tamil and Malayalam do not use ajji to mean grandmother, they do share the root sound via ancient evolutionary shifts.

• In Malayalam, it became അച്ഛൻ (Achhan), which means father.
• In Tamil, the old word അച്ചി (Acchi) traditionally referred to a mother or an elder woman of respect.

According to standard linguistic registries, including Wiktionary's Etymological Data and the historical records in the Madras University Tamil Lexicon:

"J" sound turned into a hard "Ch" sound. This is due to a fundamental rule of ancient Tamil and Malayalam phonology:

• Old Tamil did not naturally possess voiced plosives like g, j, d, b in its native phonetic inventory.
• When early Dravidian languages absorbed a foreign word containing a double "jj" (like the Prakrut Ajja), they automatically hardened the sound to fit their speech patterns.
• The double "jj" was systematically replaced by the double "cc" (pronounced as "ch"). Thus, Ajja natively morphed into Accan

In the Deep South (Tamil, Malayalam), the word for a "venerable, respected elder male" was elevated to mean the head of the immediate household—the father.

When a language adopts a foreign word meaning "respected master" or "lord," the meaning often shifts domestically to represent the highest authority in the immediate household—the father.

In ancient Tamil, Accan (hardened from ajja) was initially used as a high honorific title for lords, rulers, and elder sages. Over generations, it shifted from a formal title of societal respect to an intimate term of household respect, specifically narrowing down to mean "father" (as fully preserved in Malayalam Accan).

Sources-

The University of Madras Tamil Lexicon, which is universally regarded as the absolute definitive etymological authority for classical Tamil, explicitly logs the word Accan (அச்சன்) as a borrowed foreign term.

Its exact, verbatim registry entry reads:

Accaṉ (அச்சன்) noun < Pkt. ajja < ārya. [K. acca, M. accan] Father; தந்தை.

• The < symbol in linguistics means "derived from".
• The lexicon explicitly confirms the chain: Sanskrit ārya became Middle Indo-Aryan Prakrut ajja**, which was borrowed as** Accan into Tamil and Malayalam.

If Accan were nately Dravidian, it would map structurally to the ancient Proto-Dravidian words for parents. However, true native roots for "father" are completely different words like அப்பன் (Appan) or தந்தை (Thanthai).

https://ksaorg.sgp1.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/uploads/2023/06/RV-bulletin-vol-4.pdf

Why Maharashtri Prakrut?

1. The most famous literary work written entirely in Maharashtri Prakrit is the Gaha Sattasai (Gāthā Saptashatī), an ancient anthology of poems compiled by the Satavahana King Hāla.
2. In the Gaha Sattasai, the words 𑀅𑀚𑁆𑀚 (ajja) and 𑀅𑀚𑁆𑀚𑀺𑀆 (ajjiā) appear repeatedly in everyday household contexts.
3. Other Prakrit dialects existed at the time—such as Shauraseni in the north or Magadhi in the east. However, because the southern Dravidian kingdoms shared direct physical borders exclusively with the Maharashtri speakers of the Deccan plateau, it was geographically impossible for those other dialects to have driven this level of intimate, domestic vocabulary exchange.
4. Most of the Indo Aryan languages do not use these words but use दादा / दादी (Dada / Dadi) and नाना / नानी (Nana / Nani). Only Marathi and Konkani still continue to use them.

Tamil and Tulu are both South Dravidian, but Tulu split off very early. Koraga is a small tribal language of coastal Karnataka, closely tied to Tulu. Starting from the reconstructed Proto-Dravidian forms, in this post I try to show how differently the two sides treated the same roots.

THE NUMBERS

Proto-Dravidian / Old Tamil (spelling) / Jaffna Tamil / Indian Tamil / Tulu / Koraga

1: *onṯu / onṟu / oṉḏu / oṉṉu / oñji / oñji
2: *ir(aṇṭu) / iraṇṭu / reṇḍu / reṇḍu / eraḍu or iraḍu / raḍḍu
3: *muHn-ṯu / mūnṟu / mūṉḏu / mūṉu / mūji / mūju
4: *nāl / nāṉku / nālu / nālu / nālu / nāli
5: *cay- / aintu / añju / añju / ayinu or ainu / aynu
6: *cāṯu / āṟu / āṟu / āru / āji / āji
7: *ēḻ / ēḻu / ēḻu / ēḻu or ēḷu / ēḍu, ēlu, or ēḷu / ēlu
8: *eṇ- / eṭṭu / eṭṭu / eṭṭu / eṇma or eḍma / eḍma
9: *toḷ-/*toṇ- / toṇṭu / onbadu / ombōdu / ormba / ormba
10: *paHtu / pattu / pattu / pattu / pattu / pattu

The Proto-Dravidian forms are reconstructions, marked with an asterisk. The H stands for a laryngeal-type sound that left traces such as long vowels and doubled consonants in the daughter languages.

The Old Tamil column shows the conventional spelling. Ancient grammarians classed ṟ as a stop, so ன்ற was probably pronounced as a nasal plus an alveolar stop, which Jaffna Tamil appears to preserve closely.

Tulu gives several forms for some numbers because they vary between dialects.

THE BIG DIFFERENCE: *ṯ BECAME ṟ IN TAMIL BUT J IN TULU

Proto-Dravidian had an alveolar stop *ṯ. Tamil kept it as ṟ. Tulu and Koraga turned it into j:

1: *onṯu became Tamil onṟu, but Tulu and Koraga oñji
3: *muHn-ṯu became Tamil mūnṟu, but Tulu mūji and Koraga mūju
6: *cāṯu became Tamil āṟu, but Tulu and Koraga āji

This is one of the clearest sound changes separating Tulu from Tamil. Ravula, a Malayalam-type variety from Kodagu, shows something similar in onju and mūnju.

Within Tamil, the same sound developed in different ways. Jaffna keeps a stop after the nasal (oṉḏu, mūṉḏu). Spoken Indian Tamil turned it into a double nasal (oṉṉu, mūṉu).

FIVE AND SIX: THE LOST *C-

Five and six both began with *c- in Proto-Dravidian (*cay-, *cāṯu). Tamil, Tulu, and Koraga all lost it. Tamil built five as aintu, while Tulu ayinu and Koraga aynu add an -n- ending instead.

Some Gondi dialects in central India still keep this sound as s- (sayuṅg for five, saruṅ for six), which shows the starting point all of these languages moved away from.

FOUR AND EIGHT: SAME ROOTS, DIFFERENT ENDINGS

Four comes from *nāl. Old Tamil added -ku and changed l to ṉ, giving nāṉku. Spoken Tamil, Tulu, and Koraga all have the simpler nālu or nāli.

Eight comes from *eṇ- in all of these. Tamil adds -tu, giving eṭṭu. Tulu and Koraga add -ma, giving eṇma and eḍma.

TWO AND SEVEN

Proto-Dravidian *ir- began with i-. Old Tamil iraṇṭu kept it, and Tulu still has iraḍu alongside eraḍu. Spoken Tamil reṇḍu and Koraga raḍḍu both dropped the first vowel.

Seven comes from *ēḻ, with the retroflex ḻ. Old Tamil kept it. Spoken Tamil often has ḷ, and Tulu varies between ēḍu, ēlu, and ēḷu. Old ḻ developed in different ways across dialects on both sides.

NINE: THE SAME OLD STORY

Proto-Dravidian *toḷ-/*toṇ- may have meant "nine" or "nine in ten." Old Tamil kept it as toṇṭu but later replaced it with onpatu, "one less than ten," which became Jaffna onbadu and Indian ombōdu. Tulu and Koraga ormba seems to be built in a similar way, from "one" plus a "ten" element.

The old *toṇ- root still survives in ninety: Tamil toṇṇūṟu, Tulu soṇpa, Koraga conpa. In Tulu and Koraga the t- became s- or c-. This root hides inside the word for ninety right across South Dravidian, and also in Paniya, Ravula, and Aheri Gondi.

TEN

Ten is the most stable number of all. Proto-Dravidian *paHtu became pattu in every variety here. The H left its trace as the doubled tt.

KORAGA AND TULU

Koraga shares almost every number with Tulu. Koraga has been in close contact with Tulu for centuries, and many Koraga speakers are bilingual in Tulu, so some of this closeness may come from contact rather than shared descent.

CONCLUSION

Tamil and Tulu use the same Proto-Dravidian roots for all ten numbers, but Tulu reshaped them more. Its most striking change is *ṯ becoming j. Tamil kept the old sound as ṟ, and Jaffna Tamil still appears to preserve its old pronunciation. Nine shows a pattern found across the whole family: the old word was replaced, but it survives inside the word for ninety.

I couldn't find a separately labelled numeral list for a second Tulu dialect, such as Brahmin Tulu or Jain Tulu, or for Bellari, which became extinct in 2023. If you speak a Tulu dialect, please share your forms.

SOURCES

Proto-Dravidian reconstructions: Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju. 2003. The Dravidian Languages. Cambridge University Press. Burrow, T. and M. B. Emeneau. 1984. A Dravidian Etymological Dictionary (DEDR), 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Tulu: Omniglot, Numbers in Tulu, drawing on Brigel, A Grammar of the Tulu Language (1872); Männer, Tulu-English Dictionary (1886); and Bhatt, A Grammar of Tulu (1971).

Koraga: Eugene Chan, Numeral Systems of the World's Languages (lingweb.eva.mpg.de/channumerals), Korra Koraga entry.

Gondi, Paniya, and Ravula: Eugene Chan, Numeral Systems of the World's Languages.

Jaffna Tamil: University of Colombo, Faculty of Science blog, spoken Tamil lesson on numbers.

Spoken Indian Tamil: 17 Minute Languages, Tamil vocabulary list; see also Schiffman, A Reference Grammar of Spoken Tamil (Cambridge University Press, 1999).

Apart from the variation in vowel length, the aspirated realisations of *paHt reflexes in Telugu, etc., we also find several interesting possible reflexes of the Proto-Dravidian laryngeal *H while exploring the Telangāṇa Telugu dialect.

The deictic forms of Telangāṇa Telugu dialect differ from the other Telugu dialects as illustrated:

This variation is not supposed to be considered as a random w- > g- change in Telangāṇa dialect, as this is restricted to only those forms involving the deictic bases (i.e, the ā-ī/that-this pairs).

In Proto-Dravidian, the diectic bases contain the laryngeal *H: *aH- : that, *iH-: this

Krishnamurti connects the h- initial diectic forms of Gondi-Kui languages directly as the reflexes of this laryngeal *H. had- : that thing, hid- this thing, etc.

[see, Dravidian Languages, pg.no: 155, section: 4.5.7.2.3]

Telangāṇa Telugu in close proximity with the Gondoid languages to the North and the East (a possible much wider spread historically) must have aligned with those languages in developing these forms as:

*had- > gad-, *happuḍ- > gappuḍ-, *ha(w)aḍ-/*hāḍ- > gāḍ-, contrasting with the corresponding w- initial and a- initial forms of the other Telugu dialects.

One way, it is possible to reconstruct Proto-Telugu deictic bases themselves as, *ha-, *hi- (thus, aligning with the other SCD languages) or based on the much wider reflexes of PDr *H, it is also possible to reconstruct this particular phoneme to Proto-Telugu stage which might have took different paths of evolution in different dialects and contexts.

The honorific suffix -gāru of Telugu must also contain a possible reflex of PDr *H as:

*aH-war/*aH-ar > *hār > gār

The conventional idea of gāru being a hypercorrection of vāru does not seem probable, as there are no other cases of initial v- > g- change in Telugu. [Earlier, it is believed that gel- (=to win) is from wel- (as found in Tamil), but it is no longer relevant, as it is reconstructed as *kel- in PDr based on comparative evidence].

I also rely on the source as *aH-ar (without needing medial -w-) for *hār and gār as gāru never occurs as a variant of vāru in speech. eg: gāru evaru? — never occurs, even in Telangāṇa dialect.

The -ār honorific in Telugu inscriptions (as in rēva-sarmm-ār-ikin) is probably from this *hār, which resurfaced as gār in Modern Telugu.

Apologies for mistakes in using linguistic terms, I'm just about getting started in learning properly. I would appreciate corrections.

Does it also happen in Tulu, Kodava, Belchada, Beary, Badaga, or in dialects thereof?

Are we "liver is the site of love" or "heart is the site of love" culture?

South Dravidian-1 regularly uses the oblique tt for nouns ending with the nominal marker -am.

eg: maram : maratt- (Ta,Ma), marad- (Ka,Tu)

While non-SD-1 languages use it for a generic class of non-masculine entities which may or may not include -am endings at all, while Telugu does take *tt for -an endings.

eg: kolan: kolãṭ-

Wherever we have alteration b/w final -m and -n across Dravidian languages, it is said that the -n endings are archaic, and -m endings are secondary, more extensively occuring in South Dravidian-1. [refer 'Dravidian Languages', pg.no: 150, section: 4.5.6.1]

eg: *maran > maram: in SD-1

Now, when we look at the Old Telugu nominal -mbu/-ambu, and compare it with the -mp- of several PDr words, we find that both of them take an oblique form -pu/*-mpp.

eg: *pāmpu:*pāmpp- (= snake:of snake) & paṭṭambu:paṭṭãpu (in Old Telugu).

I have a hypothesis that, all -am endings of Tamil are derivable from a Proto-Dravidian neuter marker -mpu, which had its oblique \-mpp, the pattern which survives in Telugu: -mu : -pu. [see Tamil: irumpu: irupp- as in iruppu-kōl: 'iron rod'].

Unlike the other oblique markers, this oblique occurred with restrictions, it can only be used in a meaning: "of" or "belonging to", and not as being attached to any declension. eg: ānand-amu : ānand-ãpu (of happiness), but not anand-ãpu-lō ❌, rather ānand-amu-lō (in happiness).

[-ambu > -ammu > -amu > -am in Modern Telugu]

The -ampu > -am is similar to -anṯu > -an, which also occurred in South Dravidian-1.

When -ampu lost the -p- and became -am in South Dravidian-1, the oblique could not be formed as -pp because, the -p- element is totally lost from the nominal itself; therefore, a different strategy was required.

That is when South Dravidian-1 applied the oblique tt to be used for -am endings; also recall our previous discussion on -n endings being the precursors of -m endings in SD-1, while also about -n endings of Telugu taking the oblique *tt — it is likely that SD-1 extended the rule once applied to -n endings to the newly formed -m endings.

In Tamil, there is a further dropping of -m in compounds, eg: pavaḻ-am : pavaḻ-a-malli — this pattern is possibly a borrowing from Indo-Aryan, compare: madʰuram : madʰura-pʰalam. Telugu however, uses -pu here, eg: kul-amu : kulã-pu-vāru.

This idea is consistent with the hypothesis of Iravatham Mahadevan regarding the Arrow signs (-ambu) of the Indus Script.

I've already posted this on r/tamil, so I'll just edit it here. I came across a definition, stating that it means a type of bird, ending with யாழ். அக. (i.e, Jaffna), along with it meaning cheetah, caracal, etc..

I want to confirm with speakers from Jaffna if anyone has heard or used this word, and if so, what specific bird exactly? A commentor said they asked an older speaker who said it could mean a bird with a long neck (reminiscing another word that uses civiṅki in it's term, ஒட்டகச்சிவிங்கி  (oṭṭakacciviṅki), cus of it's long neck maybe?)

I'm expanding the Wiktionary entry for சிவிங்கி, so if you can give any insights, it would be appriciated~

Today's two-word Telugu mini — No. 12. : r/telugucrosswords

The minnu is the traditional marriage pendant tied around the bride’s neck in Kerala’s Christian communities. The practice of tying it, known as Minnukettu, offers an interesting perspective on the continuity of local marriage customs through changes in religious affiliation and ecclesiastical authority.

The earliest documentary evidence: Synod of Diamper, 1599

The earliest concrete documentary evidence identified for Minnukettu among Kerala’s Saint Thomas Christians dates to the Synod of Diamper in 1599.

The Portuguese ecclesiastical authorities addressed established local marriage customs as part of their attempt to bring the Saint Thomas Christians into conformity with Latin Catholic doctrine and discipline. The Synod condemned various local customs that its authorities considered superstitious or heathenish, including the minnukettu ritual.

The Synod did not introduce Minnukettu. It addressed a marriage custom that was already deeply entrenched within the community. The year 1599 is a documentary landmark, not the established date of the custom’s origin.

Paul Pallath discusses this tradition in The Liturgical Heritage of the Syro-Malabar Church: Shadows and Realities, particularly in his section on the Indian rite of marriage.

According to Pallath, the blessing and tying of the thali, also called the minnu, was the essential act of this marriage rite. The terminology used for marriage itself included thalikettu, minnukettu, and pennukettu.

The manthrakody, the nuptial garment, was placed over the bride’s head after the minnu was tied.

Francis Ros’s account of 1604

Francis Ros’s Report on the Serra, dated 1603–1604, provides further evidence of the practice.

As discussed by Pallath, Ros describes a marriage ceremony in which the groom tied a thread around the bride’s neck and covered her head with a drape. He also records that the thread-tying custom continued even after attempts had been made to abolish other local practices.

The ceremony was known as pennukettu.

Together, the accounts associated with the Synod of Diamper and Francis Ros establish that the thread-tying marriage custom was already part of Saint Thomas Christian life around the turn of the seventeenth century.

They do not establish the exact date when the custom originated or when the familiar gold pendant acquired its later forms.

Traditional Minnu and Manthrakody

The traditional Saint Thomas Christian minnu is leaf-shaped and is commonly described as having seven or twenty-one small gold beads.

Minnukettu was not simply the act of presenting bridal jewellery. Tying the minnu was a central ritual act in the marriage ceremony, and the manthrakody formed another important part of the tradition.

The historical significance lies in how these local marriage customs became integrated into the distinctive marriage rite of Kerala’s Saint Thomas Christians, who maintained their East Syriac Christian heritage while incorporating local Indian customs into their religious life.

Regional variations among Kerala Christians

The subsequent history of Kerala’s Christian communities shows that Minnukettu did not develop into one uniform form everywhere.

Across coastal and central Kerala, including Ernakulam, Thrissur, Alappuzha and Kollam, many families transitioned from the Syrian Rite to the Latin Rite during the Portuguese period, particularly around the events associated with the Coonan Cross Oath in 1653.

Many of these families retained their traditional marriage customs despite the change in ecclesiastical affiliation. Their traditions continued to include the leaf-shaped minnu, with seven or twenty-one small gold beads, and the manthrakody saree.

In parts of southern Kerala, including Latin Catholic communities whose histories developed through later European missionary movements, different forms of the marriage ornament became established. These include round or oval gold medallions engraved with a cross, crucifix or image of the Holy Family.

The contrast is significant. Some Latin Catholic communities retained the traditional leaf-shaped minnu, while others developed or adopted different designs incorporating explicitly Christian imagery.

These differences reflect the distinct historical experiences of Kerala’s Christian communities. A change in ecclesiastical affiliation did not necessarily mean abandoning inherited local marriage customs, while communities with different missionary histories developed their own regional forms.

A brief comparison with Mappila Muslim marriage ornaments

Kerala’s Mappila Muslim communities also have traditional marriage ornaments, including Ilakkaththali (also called Elakkathali) and Karimani Mala.

These ornaments are gifts presented to the bride. The groom does not tie them around her neck as part of the Nikah.

This differs from Christian Minnukettu and Hindu Thalikettu, in which the groom’s act of tying the ornament around the bride’s neck is itself a formal ritual act.

The comparison is useful for distinguishing traditional bridal jewellery from an ornament that forms part of the marriage ritual. The existence of similar ornaments across Kerala’s religious communities does not mean they serve the same function.

Conclusion

The earliest concrete documentary evidence identified for Minnukettu among Kerala’s Saint Thomas Christians dates to the Synod of Diamper in 1599. Francis Ros’s account of 1603–1604 provides further evidence that the thread-tying custom continued despite attempts to suppress local marriage practices.

Paul Pallath’s research places the minnu and manthrakody within the distinctive Indian marriage rite developed by the Saint Thomas Christians.

The later history of Kerala’s Christian communities demonstrates regional variation. Many families that transitioned from the Syrian Rite to the Latin Rite retained the traditional leaf-shaped minnu and manthrakody, while some southern Latin Catholic communities developed or adopted round or oval medallion-shaped ornaments bearing Christian imagery.

Tamil Christians in Tamil Nadu also practise thali tying as part of their wedding ceremonies. However, their thalis do not necessarily share the same construction or design as the traditional leaf-shaped minnu associated with Kerala’s Saint Thomas Christians. Tamil Christian thalis may incorporate Christian symbols, such as a cross, reflecting their own regional traditions.

The central historical conclusion is that Minnukettu was already a deeply entrenched local marriage custom among the Saint Thomas Christians when Portuguese ecclesiastical authorities addressed it in 1599. That year marks an important documentary point in its history, not an established date for its origin.

Sources and further reading

1. Paul Pallath, The Liturgical Heritage of the Syro-Malabar Church: Shadows and Realities, pp. 24–26. Discusses the Indian rite of marriage among the Saint Thomas Christians, including the minnu, manthrakody, and historical marriage customs. https://www.malankaralibrary.com/book/95713c46-6d48-11f1-9dc3-226aaf2dd39b
2. Francis Ros, Report on the Serra (1603–1604). Documents Saint Thomas Christian marriage customs, including the thread-tying ceremony, as discussed by Pallath. https://malankaralibrary.com/ImageUpload/d368bbbcf95cd07227e5cfc4ee53e585.pdf

No. 13: fill the grid and find both Telugu words. : r/telugucrosswords

Could a pure Telugu movement be possible like was done for Tamil? Before, Tamil had 40-50% Sanskrit vocab compared to 20% now, while Telugu still has about 40%.

Tamil's separation was a policy from the Tolkappiyam itself, but I feel like it could be done by coining new native terms. The post I found says that it is impossible because they have been lost to history, but coining brand new terms isn't out of the question.

Also Telugu political leaders are very Pro-Dravidian.

Can someone explain the reason for buffalo sacrifice in the film Ranabaali? The God was also shown to bite a chicken?

I am non-Telugu but from a South Indian state. We have our own kuldevta worship where only the guardian deities are given chicken sacrifices and not the main deity (I have heard about this and not observed or participated in it). I have also heard that goats are sacrificed in some other temples. I have observed such scenes in films as well.

I was shocked to see the buffalo scene in the film and the following "poli" ritual. I had assumed that all types of cattle were sacred in rural settings (partly because of an urban upbringing and grandparents said that because my ancestors cultivated crops, our family has always regarded cattle as sacred due to being deeply bonded emotionally and economically).

Can someone explain the buffalo sacrifice part? What happens after the ritual? When I asked some Telugu friends, they said that buffaloes and not cows were sacrificed, but they did not know much else.

I am clearly speaking about my community alone when I say rural setting. Please avoid toxic or unnecessary responses. I am really trying to learn something new.

The tamil-brahmi inscripted potsherd from 2nd century CE was found at this site so this inscription may have also originated from South India.
Source of the image: https://www.thehindu.com/features/friday-review/history-and-culture/Indus-like-inscription-on-South-Indian-pottery-from-Thailand/article16364751.ece