u/e9967780

The paper reconstructs the early Dravidian numerals and then asks whether each arose internally within Dravidian or has parallels outside the family. The Australian comparisons are speculative; they are sound similarities, not established genetic relationships.

**1 — Proto-Dravidian \*oru / \*ōr, \*oṉṟu, \*okk-**
Tamil: ஒரு* or*u, ஓர*் *ōr, ஒன*்று *oṉṟu
Several related forms existed for “one,” “single,” “alone,” and “together.”
*• oru/ōr* is the form used before nouns: Tamil *oru maram* (“one tree”) and *ōr āḷ* (“one person”).
*• oṉṟu* is the independent neuter numeral “one.”
*• okk-* carries the related idea “together, united or alike.”
• One internal explanation derives these forms from a primitive root *o-* or *ol-* meaning “to unite” or “be joined.”
• Thus, “one” may originally have meant “that which is united into a single whole.”
• The change from *ol-* to *or-* may have been influenced by *ir-* “two.”
The author also compares *oru* with:
• East Cushitic *wal/wil*, meaning “together” or “all.”
• Australian forms such as *uru, orru* and *warra*, meaning “one.”
The Australian comparison is interesting but unproven.

**2 — Proto-Dravidian \*iru / \*īr**
Tamil: இரண்ட*ு iraṇ*ṭu; combining form இ*ரு i*ru- or *ஈர்* īr-
The shorter form *ir/īr* appears clearly in compounds:
*• iruvar* = two persons
*• irupatu* = twenty
*• iraṭṭai* = pair or double
One proposed internal origin connects *īr-* with a verb meaning “to split, saw, pull apart or divide.” Under this interpretation, “two” represents the result of dividing something into two parts. The paper acknowledges phonological difficulties with this proposal.
Possible external parallels include:
• Proto-Kartvelian *jor-* “two,” reflected in Georgian *or-*.
• Australian *yerra* “both” and Tiwi *yurarra* “two.”
• Proto-Pama-Nyungan *kutyarra* “two,” possibly compared with Dravidian *utri* “pair.”
The article reconstructs the older Proto-Dravidian forms behind numerals found in Tamil, Malayalam, Kannada, Telugu and related languages. The author considers both internal Dravidian derivations and much more speculative comparisons with other language families.
Asterisks mark reconstructed forms rather than directly recorded words.
**1 — Proto-Dravidian \*oru / \*ōr; \*oṉṟu; \*okk-**
Tamil: ஒரு* or*u, ஓர*் *ōr, ஒன*்று *oṉṟu
Several related forms existed:
*• oru / ōr* — “one”
*• oṉṟu* — “one thing”
*• okk-* — “one, single or together”
*• oṇṭi* — “alone, single”
The most plausible internal explanation connects these forms with the idea of joining or unity. Old Tamil *o-* meant “to unite,” while related Malayalam forms mean “to be alike.” The different forms may therefore have developed from a very short root *o-* plus suffixes such as *-r, -n,* and *-k*.
Andronov instead proposed an original root *ol-* meaning “to unite.” Under that interpretation:
*• ol-tu* developed into Tamil *oṉṟu*
*• ol-* developed into *or-* under the influence of the following numeral *iru* “two”
*• okk-* represents another extended form of the same root
Blažek compares *oru* with Australian Aboriginal forms such as *uru, orru* and *warra*, all meaning “one.” He also notes East Cushitic *wal/wil*, associated with “all” or “together.” These comparisons are suggestive but do not prove common origin.

**2 — Proto-Dravidian \*iru / \*īr**
Tamil: இரண்ட*ு iraṇ*ṭu; combining form இ*ரு *iru or *ஈர*் īr
Examples:
*• iru-patu* → twenty, literally “two tens”
*• iruvar* → two persons
*• iraṭṭai* → pair or double
Caldwell connected *īr* “two” with a Dravidian verb meaning “to split, pull apart or saw.” The possible original idea would be “that which is divided into two.” However, the sound history is problematic, so the article does not treat this as established.
A striking external comparison is Proto-Kartvelian *jor-* “two,” reflected in Georgian *or-* and related forms. Blažek also compares Australian forms such as Tiwi *yurarra* “two” and Kaurna *yerra* “both.”
A separate Dravidian word, *utri* “pair,” is compared with reconstructed Pama-Nyungan *kutyarra* “two.” Again, these are proposed parallels, not demonstrated cognates.
The paper also suggests that the North Munda word *iral* “eight” might originally have meant something like “two is not,” possibly borrowed from an early Dravidian language. This proposal is particularly speculative.

**3 — Proto-Dravidian \*muv / \*mū / \*mūn-**
Tamil: மூன்*று mū*ṉṟu
Related constructions include:
*• mu-ppatu* → thirty
*• mūvar* → three persons
The internal explanation connects *mūn-* “three” with Proto-Dravidian *muṉ-* meaning “front, first, tip or point.” The author discusses a possible counting-on-the-fingers development:
“protruding finger” → “middle/third finger” → “three.”
Evidence includes words such as Tamil *muṉ* “front” and *muṉai* “point,” together with Parji expressions in which the related root refers to the forefinger. This remains an attractive semantic proposal, although it is not certain.
Blažek also compares *mū* with Australian words such as *mow* “three” and longer forms beginning with *mun-/muṇ-*. He considers these Australian resemblances potentially significant.

**4 — Proto-Dravidian \*nāl**
Tamil: நான்*கு nā*ṉku or *நாலு* nālu
Related forms include:
*• nāṟpatu* → forty
*• nālvar* → four persons
An older proposal connected *nāl* “four” with Dravidian *nal* “good.” Caldwell acknowledged that there was no convincing semantic route from “good” to “four.”
Another possibility comes from the use of *nālu* to mean “several” in Tamil, Malayalam and Telugu. Blažek thinks the direction was probably:
“four” → “a few/several,”
rather than “several” becoming the numeral “four.”
The most famous external comparison is with Uralic words for four:
• Finnish *neljä*
• Estonian *neli*
• Mari *nəl*
• related Uralic forms containing *n-l*
Blažek also mentions Middle Korean *nəyh* “four” and Australian forms such as *nulla, nalira* and *nailko*. He finds the Australian similarities interesting, but their historical distribution is uncertain.
The article also discusses Dravidian *kirt-* “one-fourth,” possibly compared with an Australian construction meaning “two doubled.” This is highly conjectural.

**5 — Proto-Dravidian \*cay**
Tamil: ஐந்த*ு ain*tu or அஞ*்சு *añcu
Related constructions:
*• aim-patu* → fifty
*• aivar* → five persons
The strongest semantic explanation connects “five” with the word for “hand”:
• Tamil *kai* — hand
• Malayalam *kai*
• Kannada *kay/kai*
• Telugu *cēyi*
• related forms across the Dravidian family
This is typologically natural because many languages derive “five” from the five fingers of one hand.
The difficulty is phonetic: Proto-Dravidian “five” begins with a palatal consonant reconstructed approximately as *c/ś*, while “hand” generally begins with *k*. Telugu regularly palatalized the consonant in *cēyi*, but most other Dravidian languages did not. Blažek suggests that the following numeral “six,” which also began with *c-*, may have influenced “five.”
He also compares:
• Central Dravidian words meaning “many”
• Khasi *san* “five”
• Mon-Khmer forms for five
• Middle Korean expressions connecting five with “hand”
The hand-based derivation is semantically strong, but its exact sound development remains unresolved.

**6 — Proto-Dravidian \*caṟu / \*cāṟ**
Tamil: ஆறு* āṟ*u
Related constructions:
*• aṟu-patu* → sixty
*• aṟuvar* → six persons
Andronov derives the numeral from an earlier form *cāl-tu*:
*• cāl-* — to be sufficient, full, abundant or capable
*• -tu* — a neuter suffix commonly found in numerals
The proposed original meaning is therefore “the sufficient/full one” or “the abundant one.”
Forms related to *cāl-* occur widely:
• Tamil *cāl* — abundant, sufficient
• Kannada *sāl-* — to suffice
• Telugu *cālu* — enough
• Gondi forms meaning completely
• other Central Dravidian forms meaning “can” or “be sufficient”
Another possible analysis is “five plus one,” with “six” formed from *cay* “five” plus *oru* “one.” The article mentions this possibility but does not develop it as fully.

**7 — Proto-Dravidian \*er̤u / \*ē**r̤
Tamil: ஏழு* ēḻ*u
Related constructions:
*• eḻu-patu* → seventy
*• eḻuvar* → seven persons
Caldwell connected “seven” with the Dravidian verb *eḻu* meaning:
• rise
• stand up
• increase
• grow
• begin
• become full or prominent
Tamil still preserves this relationship particularly clearly:
• எழு* eḻ*u — rise
• ஏழு* ēḻ*u — seven
The precise semantic transition is uncertain. Blažek suggests something like “rising,” “increasing,” or possibly “fullness.” He considers this the most promising internal explanation.
External comparisons include Turkic, Mongolian, Middle Korean and Old Japanese words relating to large numbers, fullness or quantity. Blažek proposes a possible very ancient “Nostratic” root, but this depends on controversial long-range comparison.
The isolated North Munda numeral *eya* “seven” may, according to the article, have been borrowed from an early North Dravidian form in which the Dravidian *ḻ* sound became *y*.

**8 — Proto-Dravidian \*eṭṭu / \*eṇ**
Tamil: எட்ட*ு eṭ*ṭu; combining form எ*ண்* eṇ
Related construction:
*• eṇ-patu* → eighty
Caldwell’s explanation identifies the numeral with the Dravidian root *eṇ-*:
• number
• count
• calculate
• think or reckon
Examples include:
• Tamil *eṇ* — number or calculation
• Tamil *eṇṇu* — count, reckon or think
• Malayalam *eṇ* — number
• Toda *öṇ-* — count
• Kannada *eṇike* — counting
• Telugu *ennu/encu* — count or enumerate
Under this interpretation, *eṇ-tu* originally meant approximately “the counted one” or “number,” with *-tu* serving as a numeral/neuter suffix. Blažek considers this a strong internal Dravidian derivation.
An alternative analysis interprets a longer form as “a pair short of ten,” meaning:
10 − 2 = 8.
This would connect the first element with words meaning “pair” or “the remainder.” However, the necessary sound correspondences are difficult, and Andronov thought the apparent “ten” element was added later by analogy with nine.

**9 — Proto-Dravidian**
**oṉ-/or-paktu**
**and**
**toḷ-(pak-)tu**
Tamil: ஒன்பத*ு oṉpa*tu; older or relate*d toṇ*ṭu
The first formation is transparently subtractive:
*• oṉ/or* — one
*• paktu* — ten
• “one from ten” → nine
This resembles numeral systems in which nine is expressed as “ten minus one.”
The second formation, *toḷ-(pak-)tu*, may mean “the one before ten.” The first element could be connected with Dravidian words meaning “before, former or previous”:
• Telugu *toli* — first, former or beginning
• Tamil *tol* — old or ancient
• Kuwi *toli* — before
• Gondi *tollē* — previous
Another proposal connects *toḷ-* with words meaning “hole, emptiness or defect,” producing something like “defective ten” or “ten with a gap.” Blažek considers “before ten” semantically clearer.
Tamil ninety, தொண்ண*ூறு toṇ*ṇūṟu, preserves this ol*der *toṇ- element rather than simply using mod*ern oṉ*patu.

**10 — Proto-Dravidian \*pak-tu**
Tamil: பத்த*ு pat*tu
The paper considers three principal explanations.
First, Caldwell suggested borrowing from Sanskrit *paṅkti*, “a set or row of five,” or a related Sanskrit word for “fifth.” Contact between Indo-Aryan and relevant Dravidian-speaking populations would have been historically possible, but the borrowing is not established.
Second, Andronov connected *pak-tu* with Proto-Dravidian *pal-* “many,” reflected in Tamil *pala* “many/several.” This makes semantic sense—ten as “many”—but requires a long and unconvincing chain of sound changes.
Third, Caldwell connected it with the root *pak-* “divide or share”:
• Tamil *pakku* — fracture or division
*• pāttu* — dividing or sharing
*• paṅkam* — portion or division
This might refer to ten as “two groups of five,” or possibly to one-tenth as a “share.” The article’s summary favors this internal association, but none of the explanations is conclusive.

**100 — Proto-Dravidian \*nūṟ-tu**
Tamil: நூற*ு nū*ṟu
Caldwell connected “hundred” with a similar Dravidian root meaning:
• crush
• pulverize
• powder
• an extremely numerous collection of particles
Tamil *nūṟu* can mean “to reduce to powder,” while Malayalam has a related word for “powder.” The possible semantic development would be:
“powder/many particles” → “a great number” → “one hundred.”
The article rejects a direct relationship with Turkic *jüz/yüz* “hundred” because the expected historical sound correspondences do not work.

**1,000 — Telugu**
**vēyi / veyyi**
The paper does not reconstruct a universally inherited Proto-Dravidian word for 1,000. It discusses Telugu *vēyi* and connects it with a Dravidian root meaning greatness, vastness or expansion:
• Tamil *viyam* — extensiveness or height
• Tamil *viyal* — greatness, breadth or expansion
• Tamil *viyaṉ* — vast or great
• Gondi *weeya* — high
Thus, “thousand” may have developed from the idea of “a vast or very large quantity.”
**Overall pattern proposed by the author**
The author divides the numeral system roughly into two groups:
**• One to four:** their internal Dravidian origins are difficult to establish. Blažek emphasizes possible Australian Aboriginal parallels, but these comparisons are highly speculative.
**• Five to ten, hundred and thousand:** internal Dravidian derivations appear more plausible—hand for five, abundance for six, rising for seven, counting for eight, subtraction from ten for nine, division for ten, particles or powder for hundred, and vastness for thousand.

Importantly, in this article the internal analysis of eight and nine is comparatively transparent; the proposed Australian substrate behind one through four is the paper’s controversial claim. Blazek is emphatic in claiming there is no connections between Elamite and Dravidian numerals.

Transcribed using AI

The paper reconstructs the early Dravidian numerals and then asks whether each arose internally within Dravidian or has parallels outside the family. The Australian comparisons are speculative; they are sound similarities, not established genetic relationships.

1 — Proto-Dravidian *oru / *ōr, *oṉṟu, *okk-
Tamil: ஒரு* oru, ஓர் ōr, ஒன்று *oṉṟu
Several related forms existed for “one,” “single,” “alone,” and “together.”
• oru/ōr is the form used before nouns: Tamil oru maram (“one tree”) and ōr āḷ (“one person”).
• oṉṟu is the independent neuter numeral “one.”
• okk- carries the related idea “together, united or alike.”
• One internal explanation derives these forms from a primitive root o- or ol- meaning “to unite” or “be joined.”
• Thus, “one” may originally have meant “that which is united into a single whole.”
• The change from ol- to or- may have been influenced by ir- “two.”
The author also compares oru with:
• East Cushitic wal/wil, meaning “together” or “all.”
• Australian forms such as uru, orru and warra, meaning “one.”
The Australian comparison is interesting but unproven.

2 — Proto-Dravidian *iru / *īr
Tamil: இரண்டு iraṇṭu; combining form இரு iru- or ஈர் īr-
The shorter form ir/īr appears clearly in compounds:
• iruvar = two persons
• irupatu = twenty
• iraṭṭai = pair or double
One proposed internal origin connects īr- with a verb meaning “to split, saw, pull apart or divide.” Under this interpretation, “two” represents the result of dividing something into two parts. The paper acknowledges phonological difficulties with this proposal.
Possible external parallels include:
• Proto-Kartvelian jor- “two,” reflected in Georgian or-.
• Australian yerra “both” and Tiwi yurarra “two.”
• Proto-Pama-Nyungan kutyarra “two,” possibly compared with Dravidian utri “pair.”
The article reconstructs the older Proto-Dravidian forms behind numerals found in Tamil, Malayalam, Kannada, Telugu and related languages. The author considers both internal Dravidian derivations and much more speculative comparisons with other language families.
Asterisks mark reconstructed forms rather than directly recorded words.
1 — Proto-Dravidian *oru / *ōr; *oṉṟu; *okk-
Tamil: ஒரு* oru, ஓர் ōr, ஒன்று *oṉṟu
Several related forms existed:
• oru / ōr — “one”
• oṉṟu — “one thing”
• okk- — “one, single or together”
• oṇṭi — “alone, single”
The most plausible internal explanation connects these forms with the idea of joining or unity. Old Tamil o- meant “to unite,” while related Malayalam forms mean “to be alike.” The different forms may therefore have developed from a very short root o- plus suffixes such as -r, -n, and -k.
Andronov instead proposed an original root ol- meaning “to unite.” Under that interpretation:
• ol-tu developed into Tamil oṉṟu
• ol- developed into or- under the influence of the following numeral iru “two”
• okk- represents another extended form of the same root
Blažek compares oru with Australian Aboriginal forms such as uru, orru and warra, all meaning “one.” He also notes East Cushitic wal/wil, associated with “all” or “together.” These comparisons are suggestive but do not prove common origin.

2 — Proto-Dravidian *iru / *īr
Tamil: இரண்டு iraṇṭu; combining form இ*ரு *iru or ஈர் īr
Examples:
• iru-patu → twenty, literally “two tens”
• iruvar → two persons
• iraṭṭai → pair or double
Caldwell connected īr “two” with a Dravidian verb meaning “to split, pull apart or saw.” The possible original idea would be “that which is divided into two.” However, the sound history is problematic, so the article does not treat this as established.
A striking external comparison is Proto-Kartvelian jor- “two,” reflected in Georgian or- and related forms. Blažek also compares Australian forms such as Tiwi yurarra “two” and Kaurna yerra “both.”
A separate Dravidian word, utri “pair,” is compared with reconstructed Pama-Nyungan kutyarra “two.” Again, these are proposed parallels, not demonstrated cognates.
The paper also suggests that the North Munda word iral “eight” might originally have meant something like “two is not,” possibly borrowed from an early Dravidian language. This proposal is particularly speculative.

3 — Proto-Dravidian *muv / *mū / *mūn-
Tamil: மூன்று mūṉṟu
Related constructions include:
• mu-ppatu → thirty
• mūvar → three persons
The internal explanation connects mūn- “three” with Proto-Dravidian muṉ- meaning “front, first, tip or point.” The author discusses a possible counting-on-the-fingers development:
“protruding finger” → “middle/third finger” → “three.”
Evidence includes words such as Tamil muṉ “front” and muṉai “point,” together with Parji expressions in which the related root refers to the forefinger. This remains an attractive semantic proposal, although it is not certain.
Blažek also compares mū with Australian words such as mow “three” and longer forms beginning with mun-/muṇ-. He considers these Australian resemblances potentially significant.

4 — Proto-Dravidian *nāl
Tamil: நான்கு nāṉku or நாலு nālu
Related forms include:
• nāṟpatu → forty
• nālvar → four persons
An older proposal connected nāl “four” with Dravidian nal “good.” Caldwell acknowledged that there was no convincing semantic route from “good” to “four.”
Another possibility comes from the use of nālu to mean “several” in Tamil, Malayalam and Telugu. Blažek thinks the direction was probably:
“four” → “a few/several,”
rather than “several” becoming the numeral “four.”
The most famous external comparison is with Uralic words for four:
• Finnish neljä
• Estonian neli
• Mari nəl
• related Uralic forms containing n-l
Blažek also mentions Middle Korean nəyh “four” and Australian forms such as nulla, nalira and nailko. He finds the Australian similarities interesting, but their historical distribution is uncertain.
The article also discusses Dravidian kirt- “one-fourth,” possibly compared with an Australian construction meaning “two doubled.” This is highly conjectural.

5 — Proto-Dravidian *cay
Tamil: ஐந்து aintu or அஞ*்சு *añcu
Related constructions:
• aim-patu → fifty
• aivar → five persons
The strongest semantic explanation connects “five” with the word for “hand”:
• Tamil kai — hand
• Malayalam kai
• Kannada kay/kai
• Telugu cēyi
• related forms across the Dravidian family
This is typologically natural because many languages derive “five” from the five fingers of one hand.
The difficulty is phonetic: Proto-Dravidian “five” begins with a palatal consonant reconstructed approximately as c/ś, while “hand” generally begins with k. Telugu regularly palatalized the consonant in cēyi, but most other Dravidian languages did not. Blažek suggests that the following numeral “six,” which also began with c-, may have influenced “five.”
He also compares:
• Central Dravidian words meaning “many”
• Khasi san “five”
• Mon-Khmer forms for five
• Middle Korean expressions connecting five with “hand”
The hand-based derivation is semantically strong, but its exact sound development remains unresolved.

6 — Proto-Dravidian *caṟu / *cāṟ
Tamil: ஆறு* āṟ*u
Related constructions:
• aṟu-patu → sixty
• aṟuvar → six persons
Andronov derives the numeral from an earlier form cāl-tu:
• cāl- — to be sufficient, full, abundant or capable
• -tu — a neuter suffix commonly found in numerals
The proposed original meaning is therefore “the sufficient/full one” or “the abundant one.”
Forms related to cāl- occur widely:
• Tamil cāl — abundant, sufficient
• Kannada sāl- — to suffice
• Telugu cālu — enough
• Gondi forms meaning completely
• other Central Dravidian forms meaning “can” or “be sufficient”
Another possible analysis is “five plus one,” with “six” formed from cay “five” plus oru “one.” The article mentions this possibility but does not develop it as fully.

7 — Proto-Dravidian *er̤u / *ēr̤
Tamil: ஏழு* ēḻu
Related constructions:
• eḻu-patu → seventy
• eḻuvar → seven persons
Caldwell connected “seven” with the Dravidian verb eḻu meaning:
• rise
• stand up
• increase
• grow
• begin
• become full or prominent
Tamil still preserves this relationship particularly clearly:
• எழு eḻu — rise
• ஏழு ēḻ*u — seven
The precise semantic transition is uncertain. Blažek suggests something like “rising,” “increasing,” or possibly “fullness.” He considers this the most promising internal explanation.
External comparisons include Turkic, Mongolian, Middle Korean and Old Japanese words relating to large numbers, fullness or quantity. Blažek proposes a possible very ancient “Nostratic” root, but this depends on controversial long-range comparison.
The isolated North Munda numeral eya “seven” may, according to the article, have been borrowed from an early North Dravidian form in which the Dravidian ḻ sound became y.

8 — Proto-Dravidian *eṭṭu / *eṇ
Tamil: எட்டு eṭṭu; combining form எண் eṇ
Related construction:
• eṇ-patu → eighty
Caldwell’s explanation identifies the numeral with the Dravidian root eṇ-:
• number
• count
• calculate
• think or reckon
Examples include:
• Tamil eṇ — number or calculation
• Tamil eṇṇu — count, reckon or think
• Malayalam eṇ — number
• Toda öṇ- — count
• Kannada eṇike — counting
• Telugu ennu/encu — count or enumerate
Under this interpretation, eṇ-tu originally meant approximately “the counted one” or “number,” with -tu serving as a numeral/neuter suffix. Blažek considers this a strong internal Dravidian derivation.
An alternative analysis interprets a longer form as “a pair short of ten,” meaning:
10 − 2 = 8.
This would connect the first element with words meaning “pair” or “the remainder.” However, the necessary sound correspondences are difficult, and Andronov thought the apparent “ten” element was added later by analogy with nine.

9 — Proto-Dravidian
oṉ-/or-paktu
and
toḷ-(pak-)tu
Tamil: ஒன்பது oṉpatu; older or related toṇṭu
The first formation is transparently subtractive:
• oṉ/or — one
• paktu — ten
• “one from ten” → nine
This resembles numeral systems in which nine is expressed as “ten minus one.”
The second formation, toḷ-(pak-)tu, may mean “the one before ten.” The first element could be connected with Dravidian words meaning “before, former or previous”:
• Telugu toli — first, former or beginning
• Tamil tol — old or ancient
• Kuwi toli — before
• Gondi tollē — previous
Another proposal connects toḷ- with words meaning “hole, emptiness or defect,” producing something like “defective ten” or “ten with a gap.” Blažek considers “before ten” semantically clearer.
Tamil ninety, தொண்ணூறு toṇṇūṟu, preserves this older toṇ- element rather than simply using modern oṉpatu.

10 — Proto-Dravidian *pak-tu
Tamil: பத்து pattu
The paper considers three principal explanations.
First, Caldwell suggested borrowing from Sanskrit paṅkti, “a set or row of five,” or a related Sanskrit word for “fifth.” Contact between Indo-Aryan and relevant Dravidian-speaking populations would have been historically possible, but the borrowing is not established.
Second, Andronov connected pak-tu with Proto-Dravidian pal- “many,” reflected in Tamil pala “many/several.” This makes semantic sense—ten as “many”—but requires a long and unconvincing chain of sound changes.
Third, Caldwell connected it with the root pak- “divide or share”:
• Tamil pakku — fracture or division
• pāttu — dividing or sharing
• paṅkam — portion or division
This might refer to ten as “two groups of five,” or possibly to one-tenth as a “share.” The article’s summary favors this internal association, but none of the explanations is conclusive.

100 — Proto-Dravidian *nūṟ-tu
Tamil: நூறு nūṟu
Caldwell connected “hundred” with a similar Dravidian root meaning:
• crush
• pulverize
• powder
• an extremely numerous collection of particles
Tamil nūṟu can mean “to reduce to powder,” while Malayalam has a related word for “powder.” The possible semantic development would be:
“powder/many particles” → “a great number” → “one hundred.”
The article rejects a direct relationship with Turkic jüz/yüz “hundred” because the expected historical sound correspondences do not work.

1,000 — Telugu
vēyi / veyyi
The paper does not reconstruct a universally inherited Proto-Dravidian word for 1,000. It discusses Telugu vēyi and connects it with a Dravidian root meaning greatness, vastness or expansion:
• Tamil viyam — extensiveness or height
• Tamil viyal — greatness, breadth or expansion
• Tamil viyaṉ — vast or great
• Gondi weeya — high
Thus, “thousand” may have developed from the idea of “a vast or very large quantity.”
Overall pattern proposed by the author
The author divides the numeral system roughly into two groups:
• One to four: their internal Dravidian origins are difficult to establish. Blažek emphasizes possible Australian Aboriginal parallels, but these comparisons are highly speculative.
• Five to ten, hundred and thousand: internal Dravidian derivations appear more plausible—hand for five, abundance for six, rising for seven, counting for eight, subtraction from ten for nine, division for ten, particles or powder for hundred, and vastness for thousand.

Importantly, in this article the internal analysis of eight and nine is comparatively transparent; the proposed Australian substrate behind one through four is the paper’s controversial claim. Blazek is emphatic in claiming there is no connections between Elamite and Dravidian numerals.

Transcribed using AI

Summary
A new ancient DNA study analyzed approximately 75,000 genetic markers (SNPs) from human remains recovered at Keeladi, Konthagai, Adichanallur, and Sivagalai, providing one of the most detailed genetic reconstructions of ancient populations from Tamil Nadu to date.

The study found that:

•	Ancient individuals from Tamil Nadu show **strong genetic continuity** with present-day Tamil and other South Indian populations.  
•	Their ancestry is predominantly derived from **deep indigenous South Asian lineages**, suggesting long-term population continuity in the region.  
•	The results indicate that the people who lived in the **Vaigai Valley and surrounding regions** were part of an established local population that persisted over many centuries.  
•	The genetic findings align with archaeological evidence of an advanced Iron Age society featuring urban settlements, iron technology, craft specialization, trade, and early literacy.  
•	By combining archaeology and ancient DNA, researchers have produced one of the clearest biological links yet between ancient inhabitants of Tamil Nadu and modern South Indian populations. 

While reading about the smaller Dravidian-speaking communities of southern India, I noticed an intriguing cluster of names:

Irula – Irular – Iravular – Eravallar – Ravular – Yerava – Yerukula

The resemblance is striking, particularly because these communities speak Tamil-related languages and historically occupied a connected geographical zone extending from the Nilgiris and Anaimalai Hills through Palakkad, Wayanad and Kodagu, and eastward into Andhra Pradesh.

Does this mean they were once branches of the same people?

The evidence does not yet prove that, but it suggests a more complicated history than the modern tribal labels imply.

Irula and the name Iruḷar
The Irula call themselves approximately ërla or ïrla in their own language. The conventional explanation derives the name from Tamil iruḷ, “darkness,” combined with a community or human suffix:
iruḷ + ar → Iruḷar → Irular

The contracted native pronunciation ërla/ïrla demonstrates how vowels and syllables can disappear in ordinary speech.

Irula is not simply “corrupt Tamil.” K. V. Zvelebil classified it as a distinct tribal language belonging historically to the Tamil–Malayalam group of South Dravidian. It contains conservative Tamil-related features alongside innovations of its own.

The especially interesting Eravallan evidence
The Eravallan live primarily around Palakkad and the adjoining Coimbatore–Anaimalai region. Their language is also a distinct Tamil-related South Dravidian language.

The Government of India’s Scheme for Protection and Preservation of Endangered Languages records the following alternative names for them:

Iṟava, Iṟavuḷar, Eṟavallar, Eravāḷar, Vilvēṭar and Ampuvilluvēṭar

The form Iṟavuḷar is remarkably close to both Iruḷar and Ravular.

The same documentation states that the community’s internal name is actually Karivināḷu, while its language is called Karivināḷu paḷama. Approximately 70% of the recorded Eravallan basic vocabulary is reportedly shared with Tamil.

This raises an important possibility: names such as Iravular, Eravallar and Irular may have been regional outsider names applied inconsistently to neighbouring forest communities.

A recent study of the Eravallar also lists variants including Irulu, Irular, Iruliga, Irava and Erukala. Some of these are otherwise associated with the Irula or Yerukula. This could reflect a genuine historical relationship, but it could also result from administrators confusing relatively small communities with similar languages, occupations and names.

Could Iravular have become Ravular?
Ravula is the language and community name associated with people called Yerava in Kodagu and Adiya in Wayanad.

The following development is linguistically plausible:
Iravular → Ravular
The process would involve aphaeresis, or loss of an unstressed initial vowel. Such changes are common in orally transmitted names, especially when a name passes between speakers of Tamil, Malayalam, Kannada and Kodava.

This does not establish that Ravula and Irula are the same name. We would need older recorded forms and regular sound correspondences before claiming an etymology. Nevertheless, the chain is worth investigating:
Iruḷar – Iṟavuḷar – Iravular – Ravular

The alternative Ravula names appear to reflect later social conditions.

Adiyan means a subordinate, servant or someone “at the feet” of another. The name corresponds with the historical incorporation of the Adiya into Wayanad’s system of agricultural servitude and bonded labour.

Yerava has been connected with Kannada or Kodava eravalu, meaning something borrowed, possibly referring to borrowed or transferred labour. Whether this etymology is historically exact requires further investigation, but Yerava and Adiya appear more likely to be imposed social names than ancient ethnonyms.

Yerukula looks similar—but has a different explanation
Yerukula, also called Kurru Basha or Kulavatha, is a Tamil-related Dravidian language spoken mainly in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.
At first sight, the sequence appears compelling:

Irula – Erukala – Yerukula
However, historical sources give Yerukula a convincing Telugu occupational derivation.
The community called itself Kurru, Kura or Kulavaru. Telugu speakers called them Yerukalavāṇḍlu, apparently from Telugu eruka/yeruka, meaning knowledge, acquaintance or prophecy. Yerukula women were traditionally associated with fortune-telling and reportedly called out:

“Yeruko, amma, yeruku” — “Prophecies, mother, prophecies.”
Edgar Thurston’s Castes and Tribes of Southern India records that Korava and Yerukula were widely regarded as regional names for the same mobile community. They shared basket-making, fortune-telling and a Tamil-related language, while calling one another Kurru or Kura.

Modern linguistic classification supports a distinct:
Yerukula–Korava–Kaikadi subgroup
Kaikadi, spoken principally in Maharashtra, appears to represent a northern branch of this mobile Korava–Yerukula complex. Its continued Dravidian character, despite extensive Marathi influence, supports a historical migration from farther south.

Therefore, the name Yerukula probably does not descend directly from Irula. Its resemblance may be partly coincidental and partly the result of different administrators confusing similarly placed communities.
The common endings can create misleading similarities

South Indian ethnonyms frequently contain human or plural suffixes:

• Tamil –ar: people or respectful plural
• Tamil/Malayalam –āḷar: persons or members of a community
• Kannada/Kodava –aru: human or respectful plural
• Telugu –lu: plural
• Telugu –vāṇḍlu: people or persons

Consequently:
Iruḷ-ar = Irula people
Erav-āḷar = Eravallan people
Yerukala-vāṇḍlu = Yerukula people
Some of the similarity therefore comes from ordinary Dravidian community suffixes rather than a shared root.

What the language evidence establishes
All four languages belong to the broad South Dravidian linguistic world, but they are not currently placed in one immediate subgroup.

• Irula belongs to the Irula side of the Tamil–Malayalam continuum.
• Eravallan is normally classified as a Tamiloid language, sometimes grouped with Malasa.
• Ravula is usually placed in a Paniya–Ravula or Malayalamoid subgroup.
• Yerukula belongs directly with Korava and Kaikadi.

Claims of mutual intelligibility among Ravula, Irula and Yerukula are approximately:

• 53–81% lexical similarity among different Yerukula varieties
• 33–38% between Yerukula and Irula
• 28–45% between Yerukula and Ravula
• 27–45% between Yerukula and modern Tamil

A possible historical model
A cautious reconstruction would be that southern India formerly contained a broad continuum of small Tamil-related forest, hill and mobile communities. Their speech varieties developed outside the major literary traditions of Tamil, Malayalam, Kannada and Telugu.

Political and economic pressures may then have produced different outcomes:

• Irula communities retained livelihoods connected with forests, hunting, gathering, snake catching and agricultural work.
• Eravallan communities moved from hunting and gathering toward landless agricultural labour.
• Ravula communities were incorporated into agrarian servitude and became known regionally as Yerava and Adiya.
• Korava–Yerukula–Kaikadi communities retained greater mobility through basket-making, salt trading, animal dealing and fortune-telling before colonial authorities restricted and criminalized their movement.

Deforestation, plantation agriculture, the loss of customary land, forest laws and the Criminal Tribes Act would subsequently have deepened these divisions.

This model does not require all four to have been one tribe. They could instead represent different sections of a much older Tamil-related tribal continuum whose identities were later reshaped by geography, occupation, slavery, migration and administrative classification.

Summary
The resemblance between Iruḷar, Iṟavuḷar, Iravular and Ravular is linguistically interesting and may preserve a real historical connection. In particular, the documented Eravallan variant Iṟavuḷar forms a possible bridge between Irula and Ravula.

However, this remains a hypothesis. Older forms and systematic sound correspondences are needed before treating the names as proven cognates.

Yerukula probably has a separate origin, deriving from Telugu eruka, “knowledge or prophecy.” The community’s older self-name was Kurru/Kura, connecting it directly with Korava and Kaikadi.

The most defensible conclusion is that these communities belong to the same broad South Dravidian historical world, but only Yerukula–Korava–Kaikadi currently constitutes a securely demonstrated immediate ethnolinguistic complex. A possible Irula–Eravallan–Ravula connection deserves further linguistic, oral-historical and genetic investigation.

References

1. Central Institute of Indian Languages, Scheme for Protection and Preservation of Endangered Languages, “Eravallan Documentation.”
2. https://www.sppel.org/eravallandoc.aspx
3. K. V. Zvelebil, “Irula Riddles,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies.
4. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bulletin-of-the-school-of-oriental-and-african-studies/article/abs/irula-riddles/44419665C24F998AC16AC27E606C47AF
5. R. Perialwar, Phonology of Irula with Vocabulary, Annamalai University, 1979.
6. B. Mallikarjun, A Descriptive Analysis of Yerava, Central Institute of Indian Languages, Mysore, 1993. Comparative Ravula data:
7. https://lingweb.eva.mpg.de/channumerals/Ravula.htm
8. George A. Grierson, Linguistic Survey of India, Volume IV, pp. 318–347.
9. Edgar Thurston and K. Rangachari, Castes and Tribes of Southern India, Volume III, “Korava.”
10. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Castes_and_Tribes_of_Southern_India,_Volume_3.djvu/485
11. Glottolog, “Yerukula–Korava–Kaikadi.”
12. https://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/yeru1242
13. G. Srinivasa Varma, Yerukula Dialect, Department of Linguistics, Annamalai University, 1978.
14. Bharath Kumar and Mala Sambramalla, A Descriptive Grammar of Yerukala: An Endangered South Dravidian Language, Dravidian University, 2024.
15. Sylvia Ernest, Clare O’Leary and Juliana Kelsall, A Sociolinguistic Survey of Nilgiri Irula, SIL International Electronic Survey Report 2018-010.
16. Bijumon Varghese, The Tribes of Palakkad, Kerala: A Sociolinguistic Profile, SIL International Electronic Survey Report 2015-028.
17. “Plachimada Struggle and the Environmentalism of the Poor,” discussing Eravallar alternative names and migration history.
18. https://doi.org/10.1080/1013929X.2024.2410071
19. Atlas of Endangered Alphabets, “Yerukula.”
20. https://www.endangeredalphabets.net/alphabets/yerukula/

Inspired by this older post
https://www.reddit.com/r/Dravidiology/s/bkMCrAtkl4

>The inscription records the death of a local warrior named Sivamarenadi, a retainer of Maramman, the Nadagowda of Mannenadu. It states that Sivamarenadi lost his life while fighting a tiger, an act of valour that earned him a commemorative hero stone.

>Written in early Kannada language and script, the inscription has been assigned to the ninth century, a period when the region was under the rule of the Ganga and Rashtrakuta dynasties.

>The inscription also contains an important reference to Mannenadu, identified by researchers with present-day Manne village in Nelamangala taluk, one of the prominent administrative centres of the Western Ganga dynasty.

Any one with access to exactly what the inscription is ?