Tamil modal verbs and their sources
Handout for LING519 Grammaticalization

  1. The modal laam 'may, have permission; hortative'. Like all other modals, this suffix is added to the infinitive of a verb. It probably has its origin in a reanalysis of an older relic situation:

    Older form Reanalysis in LT ST situation
    infinitive in -al + aakum Inf-al+aa(hu)m Infinitive + -laam
    Ex: pookal+aakum 's.t. may go' pooka+laam poo(ha)+laam

    Thus the older infinitive form, ending in -al e.g. pook+al 'to go' etc. had suffixed to it aakum (phonetically [aahum]) 'it will become' which underwent deletion of the [h], resulting in pookalaam 'let s.o. go' or 'it may go' or '(s.o.) may go.' In ST this may be shortened to [po:la:~] because of deletion of intervocalic [h] (from -k-). Reanalysis of this moves the morpheme boundary to before the laam because the infinitive in -l is no longer found anywhere else in modern usage.

    Conclusion: So -laam then becomes the form of the modal expressing permission, possibility, probability, etc. Not clear when the reanalysis took place, whether it's in LT or in ST; traditional grammarians don't want to posit any reanalysis, so they hold to an analysis that retains -aam (from aakum ) against all evidence that something has happened to change this.

    There is often ambiguity in the use of laam if subjects are deleted, i.e. poohalaamaa? can mean either 'May I go?' or 'Let's go!'

  2. The modal muDi 'be able, can.' This modal has an analogous lexical verb muDi which means 'end, come to conclusion.' Its past tense in ST is muDinj- and its future would be muDiyum , which is the same as the usual positive form of this modal. The lexical verb can also be marked for PNG, but isn't usually used with persons, because it would mean 'someone ended'. But some PNG marking can occur, e.g. muDinjiingaLaa 'did (you) finish it?' More probably, it would have a completive aspect marker attached, e.g. muDinjiTTiingaLaa?

    The syntax of this verb is that it follows an infinitive, but the subject can either be in the nominative, the dative, or the instrumental, with slightly different meanings. It can be positive negative, with a meaning of 'habitual' ability (to do or not do s.t.), or in the past, with the meaning of having been unable to do s.t. at one time, but now able.

    The meaning differences between nominative-marked and dative-marked subjects are minimal, but the instrumental conveys a different meaning, that of not only being able, but of being willing to do something, i.e. 'willing and able'. It may be used pragmatically to ask a favor, which requires excruciating tact and politeness, i.e. complex circumlocutions, in which case the English equivalent might be expressed by s.t. like 'Could you make an effort to do X?', or 'Is it within your power to do X?' or 'Could you put yourself out to do X?' It might even be conveyed by 'Can I trouble/bother you to make the effort to do X?' or 'Would you be so kind as to do X?'

    enakkaaha ungaLaale DairekTar-kiTTe edaavadu solla-muDiyumaa?
    my-sake for you-instr. Director-to something speak be able Q?
    Could I trouble you to put in a good word for me with the director?

  3. The modal (vee)Num 'must, should, ought to, have to' In isolation, this form is veeNum but when affixed to the infinitive of the verb, the first syllable gets deleted (by the -v- deletion rule), leaving just Num. veeNDaam, its negative form, is never subject to the v-deletion rule, but it may be reduced to veeNaam , with an implication of anger or impatience, i.e. as used to discourage a street vendor. These two forms are habitual in meaning; the past form, veenDiyadulle , is formed by making a verbal noun out of the stem, and adding -lle , to imply that something wasn't wanted in the past (but now is.)

    The lexical source of this modal is a verb veeNDu which means 'entreat, implore, beg', e.g. veeNDukireen 'I beg (you)' to do (s.t.) It is probably rare in ST, and used in LT mainly to address people with more power.

  4. The modal aTTum 'let s.o. do s.o.' This auxiliary is used in limited contexts, usually with either a first or third person subject, e.g. naan varaTTumaa? May I come? (used actually to mean naan pooyTTu varaTTumaa 'May I go now?) The answer to such a request is just the imperative, i.e. vaanga '(please) come, i.e. go' It can also be used with third persons, e.g. avan varaTTumaa? 'May he come?' in which case the answer can be varaTTum! or varaTTumee! (emphatic). A very common form is irukkaTTum 'Let it be; leave it alone.'

    This form is derived from an older LT verb oTTu 'permit' of which this would be the neuter-future form oTTum '(it) is permitted.'

  5. kuuDaadu 'Don't; not permitted; shouldn't' This verb is the negative form of a now archaic (in ST) verb kuuDu(m) which has the meaning (in LT) 'it is possible, it is fitting, it is suitable.' Arden's grammar says it is used then with the instrumental case. As a lexical verb, it has an analog kuuDu which has many meanings in LT, but probably the most pertinent are 'be capable, be opportune, be fitting.' There is also an adjectival participle sometimes used in ST kuuDiya meaning 'fitting, appropriate' e.g. idu seyya kuuDiya X 'This is an appropriate X'.

    View JPG files of 3 pages from Tamil Grammar.

  1. First page.
  2. Page 2.
  3. Page 3.