Page:An introduction to Dravidian philology.djvu/37

Rh them 'vaikritas'. But the pity is, they have not worked up their contention and taken pains to show how the two are connected It is not strange that they did not do it, because no direct connection could be perceived on the surface in point of grammar between the two. However, they contented themselves by showing a direct connection in point of vocabulary, by formulating the "Tatsama' and 'Tadbhava' divisions of each of the Dravidian languages, and contented themselves with relegating the rest to the class of 'desya'. Under 'tatsama' and 'tadbhava' again, they made a distinction between Samskritsama and Prakritasama and Samskritabhava and Prakritabhava. on the other. Indeed their Prakritasamas and Samskritabhavas could be traced to Prakrit originals. But in the affiliation of languages, vocabulary does not count, unless analogies and derivations could be established