VXfW/

*>J

<' l I
 CHAPTER II

The Origins of Aryan Speech

An Introduction to Sri Aurobindo’s Linguistic Theory

II.1. Introduction

The problem that the origin of human speech is unsolved, is the

one thing on which all linguists are fully agreed. Several attempts have
been made to answer the question - how did language originate? Much
attention has been put to solve this problem, several theories with
regard to this have been provided, the problem has been looked upon
from different angles and view-points, yet it is a major question that the
science of language seeks to answer.

Ancient people thought much and widely about the origin of

language. Many considered it not a human invention but a divine gift.
To the Egyptians the creator of speech was Toth; the Babylonians
believed that their language was received form the god Nabu. In the
Indian tradition the goddess Sarasvatl is the inventress of Sanskrit,
which is not only the original human tongue (of which all others are
corruptions), but also the language of the gods themselves. Tamil is said
to be a gift of Siva to the people of South India. The Hebrew writers of
the genesis narrative observed that language is the most significant gift
that god has bestowed on man. The Bible says that 'the Word was God'.
Modem linguists having brushed aside these statements, thought
language to be man-made and have tried to discover various theories of
its origin.1 There are others who describe language to be purely a human
art. Some even believe that it is both divine and human.2 Max Muller
once remarked: "We cannot tell as yet what language is. It may be a
production of nature, a work of human art, or a divine gift. But to
whatever sphere it belongs, it would seem to stand unsurpassed - nay,
unequalled in it - by anything else. If it be a production of nature, it is
her last and crowning production, which she reserved for man alone. If
it be a work of human art, it would seem to lift the human artist almost
to a level of divine creator. If it be the gift of god, it is god's greatest gift;
for through it god spoke to man and man speaks to god in worship,

1 The theories put forward by the modem philologists with regard to the origin of
language are as follows.
(a) The 'Bow-wow' theory, otherwise called onomatopoeic theory is based on the
supposition that language arose in imitation of the sounds occurring in
nature.
(b) The 'Ding-dong' or pathogenic or nativistic theory sustains that there is a
mystic correlation between sound and meaning.
(c) The 'Pooh-pooh' theory is to the effect that language at first consisted of
ejaculation of surprise, fear, pleasure, pain etc.
(d) The 'yo-he-ho' theory, also called Noire's theory, holds that language arose
from grunts of physical exertion.
(e) The 'Sing-song' theory supposes that language took birth from primitive
inarticulate chants.
(f) The 'Tata' theory maintains that language comes from imitation of bodily
movements.
(g) Darwin held the view that language was, in origin, nothing but mouth
'pantomime' in which the vocal organs unconsciously attempted to mimic
gestures by the hands.
(h) E.H.Sturtevant presents a novel theory where he says that language must
have been invented for the purpose of lying or deceiving.
Similarly there are also various other theories like 'Gesture theory', 'Contact
theory' etc.
2 Cf. "The origin of language is divine in the same sense in which man's nature, with
all its capacities and acquirements, physical and moral, is a divine creation; it is
human, in that it is brought about through that nature by human instrumentality."
Whitney, Language and the Study of Language, p. 400

30
prayer, and meditations."3 There has been nothing final with regard to
the origin of language. The Western scholars have looked upon this
question — How language must have originated-in different ways. But
results have always been disappointing, not leading to some sure
regions where, at least, one can find some support. It so happened that
in 1886 and 1911 the Linguistic Society of Paris banned papers
concerning the origin of language. Nevertheless, man's interest in this
subject continues unabated.

The modem linguists as well as psychologists attempt to provide

some answers to the questions related to the origin of language by
approaching the problem differently. Among all the hypotheses
available at present one prominent hypothesis is the natural selection
approach. This claims that speech was selected by gradual natural
selection of genetic changes, made possible by the selective advantage of
speech itself or by genetic assimilation.4 Another prominent approach is
that of Noam Chomsky. He says that all children have a language
acquiring device that uses innate universal grammar. The argument of
this hypothesis is that syntactical skills are novel to human
communication, arising in each variety of human language from
parameters set in an innate universal grammar.5 Some believe in the

3 Lectures on the Science of Language, 1962, p. 3

4 For details about this hypothesis, see: T.W. Deacon, The Symbolic Species: The Co­
evolution of Language and Brain, W.W. Norton and Cy; New York, 1997; S. Pirtkar, The
Language Instinct: How the mind creates Language, Morrow, New York, 1990; J.M.
Smith and E. Szathmary, The Major Transitions in Evolution, Freeman, Oxford, 1995.
5 For details see: N. Chomsky, Syntactic Structures, Mouton, The Hague, 1957;
Language and the Problems of Knowledge, MIT, Cambridge, 1988

31
memetic origin of language.6 This hypothesis is based on the idea that
the origin of speech lies in man's ability to sing. Some others advocate
the 'Motor theory' of language origin and function.7 There has been a
good amount of research in this field and the exponents of this motor
control research unanimously agree that the motor programming and
speech programming are inseparably related.8 However/ a glance at the
recent advances in neuro-science, cognitive science, speech phisiology,
pateontology, primatology, linguistics and related fields, shows that
much has been attempted and achieved with regard to the question -
What is the Origin of Language? Yet there has been no answer which
can satisfy to a greater extent.

6 For details, see: M. Vaneechoutte and J.R. Skoyles, The Memetic Origin of Language,
1998, http: //www.q>m.mmu.ac.kk. /jom-emit/1998/Vol.12/
vaneechoutte_m&skoyes_jr.html. This article also provides a good summary of some
of the presently available hypotheses on origin of language.
7 According to this 'Motor Theory', language originated as a transfer from or
translation of the elements and system of combination of elements of the neural
motor, system. This theory proposes that the original structures of word-forms were
derived from the neural processes linking perception and action. In this way a
theory of this kind fits well with the current trend of research into neural motor
control and the neural basis of perception. (For details, see: Languages of the Brain by
K.H. Pribram, New Jersey, 1971).
8 The following research works are significant with regard to the role of motor
control system in the origin of language.
(a) The Physical Foundation of Language, R.M. Allott, Secaford, 1973
(b) Brain Mechanism Underlying Speech and Language, Edited by C.H.Millikan and
F.A.Darley, New York, 1981
(c) The Neural Basis of Motor Control, V.B.Brooks, Oxford University Press,
Londin, 1986
(d) Studies in Neuro-linguistics, edited by H.Whitaker, New York, Academic Press,
1976

32
II.2. Sri Aurobindo's Approach

Sri Aurobindo's ideas about the origin of language are a synthesis

of the divine, the human and the evolutionary theories. To him the
ultimate source of human speech was the divine reality. He says, "The
language of man is not framed on earth, but in heaven, as indeed are all
things that the earth-soul uses in this mortal, journey."9 But Sri
Aurobindo also recognised the role played by man in the process: "It
[Language] diversely developed by the more discursive but less sure­
footed agencies of intellectual mind..." Then he confirms: "Therefore
mankind has one original language based on certain eternal types of
sounds developed by certain laws of rhythmic variation, perfectly
harmonious and symmetrical in its structure and evolution."10

Modem philologists also have agreed on the existence of a parent

tongue as the source of all languages. They have called it Primitive or
Proto-Indo-European. They have followed various methods to
reconstruct this parent tongue.*11 Yet it has failed to show the origin of
language and to establish the laws and processes governing the
development and growth of language.

Sri Aurobindo calls the original language Devabhasa,12 and says

that this original language was spoken of in the Satyayuga. The Satyayuga

9 Sri Aurobindo, SABCL., Vol. 11, p. 505

10 Ibid. ,
11 For details, see: Language, Leonard Bloomfield, pp. 297-320
12 Devabhasa, literally means 'The Language of Gods'. This term is often used as a
synonym for 'Sanskrit'. But here it is not used for the Sanskrit language but a name
given to the original language which is the source of all human languages.

33
mentioned here refers to an age of harmony, perfection and purity.13 So
the language of this age, Devabhasa was "the first and the earliest
vibration, pure and transparent. It was, rather, close and true
transcription of the experience of the Supreme. It was the most direct
sound-formation of the manifesting God-head. In its purity and
flexibility, in its wealth and depth of signification and in its adaptability
and application, Devabhasa was close to Vagdevi, the goddess of Speech.
It was greatly fluid and richly subtle. It was pliable and flexible; its
words were vehicles of life power, creative and correctly expressive. It
carried with it the purity and warmth of the original experience; there
was perfect and complete intimacy between the language and the
content of the language."14 The Devabhasa was "based on the true and
perfect relation of Vak and Artha'.15 "Everyone of its vowels and
consonants", observes Sri Aurobindo, "has a particular inalienable force
which exists by the nature of things and not by development or human
choice; these are the fundamental sounds which lie at the basis of the
Tantric bijamantras and constitute the efficacy of the mantra itself. Every
vowel and every consonant in the original language had certain primary

13 The Satyayuga mentioned here is not the golden Age of the Hindu mythology, but
an age of Truth or true existence'. According to Sri Aurobindo "... Satyayuga is a
period of the world in which a harmony, stable and sufficient, is created and man
realizes for a time, under certain conditions and limitations, the perfection of his
being. The harmony exists in his nature, by the force of a settled purity; but
afterwards it begins to break down and man upholds it, in the Treta, by the force of
will, individual and collective, it breaks down further and he attempts to uphold it
in the Dwapara by intellectual regulation and common consent and rules; then in the
Kali it finally collapses and is destroyed. But the Kali is not merely evil; in it the
necessary conditions are progressively built up for a new Satya, another harmony, a
more advanced perfection." (SABCLp. 412)
14 Madhusudan Reddy, Vedic Epiphany, Vol. 1, p.32
15 Cf. wrafc ...of Kalidasa or ■stkrt: of the Mimamsakas.

34
meaning which arose out of" some "essential Shakti or force, and were
the basis of other derivative meanings."16

This original language according to Sri Aurobindo, is the source of

all human languages. Through the processes of evolution it eventually
suffers 'change, detrition, collapse' and innumerable languages, dialects
and vernaculars are bom. There are, however, 'guardians of the sacred
language' who attempt to restore it to its purity. They reconstruct it
imperfectly from time to time, "preserve something of the skeleton, lose
the flesh, blood, sinew, much of the force and spirit".17 This
reconstructed language in India is called Sanskrit, a word which means
'refined, polished, correct'. Sanskrit both in its Vedic and Classical
forms, is not the original language as such. But it has preserved much of
the force, spirit, purity, transparency, simplicity, flexibility and
directness of the original Devabhasa. Moreover, it has also preserved the
original working system of etymons or simple root-sounds which make
it a self-sufficient and independent language in the etymological sense.
These root-sounds form a common element in the languages of the
world which have not lost touch with the Devabhasa, appearing in all in
slightly varying forms and carrying with them some residuum of their
root-significances. One of the chief points of Sri Aurobindo's theory is
that the relation between these significances, or rather 'sense-values',
and the root-sounds which correspond to them is "in no way artificial."18
In this way the growth of different languages in different parts of the

16 Sri Aurobindo, SABCL., Vol. 11, p. 449

17 Ibid., Vol. 10, p. 48
is Ibid., Vol. 10, p. 48

35
world is not an arbitrary phenomenon. It is not by any chance that Greek
and Latin took birth and developed in one part of the earth and Sanskrit
and Tamil flourished in another. In the present days also the research
works done by P.K.Kuhl19, B.F.Lindblom20, R.M.Allot21, R.Brown22,
W.Kohler23, P.Lieberman24, and many others reveal that language cannot
be in any way arbitrary.

Now since the root-sounds form the common elements in the

languages of the world, it is of primary importance to recognise these
root-sounds in order to establish the common origin of all languages.
For this a primitive language has to be caught which has preserved
much of these root-sounds of the original Devabhasa. The outwardly
formed words are in no way helpful in establishing the origin of any
language. "Just as from the study of the formed outward man, animal,
plant, the great truths of evolution could not be discovered or, if
discovered, not firmly fixed,... if the origin and unity of human speech
can be found and established, if it can be shown that its development
was governed by fixed laws and processes, it is only by going back to its
earliest forms

19 "Perception of Speech and Sound in early Infancy", Handbook of Infant Perception,

Vol. 2, pp. 275-382, New York, Academic Press, 1987
20 "Economy of Speech Gestures", The Production of Speech, edited by P. Macneilage,
pp. 217-245,1983, New York
21 The Physical Foundation of Language, Seaford, 1973
22 Words and Things, New York, 1958
23 Psychologic de la Forme, Paris, 1964
24 The Biology and Evolution of Language, Cambridge, 1984

36
that the discovery is to be made and its proofs established/'25

Sri Aurobindo maintains that it is Sanskrit language which can

provide sufficient material and the right material based on which a true
science of language can be founded and the origin of speech can be
traced out. He says: "Law and Process must have governed the origins
and developments of language. Given the necessary clue and sufficient
data, they must be discoverable. It seems to me that in the Sanskrit
language the clue can be found, the data lie ready for investigation."26
Max Muller too believed that the study of Sanskrit can supply all that is
necessary for the Science of Language.27 Whitney acknowledged
Sanskrit as the 'most valuable means and aid' to the Comparative
Philology.28 It is the study of Sanskrit or investigation of the words of
Sanskrit as available today both in its Vedic and Classical forms can
provide satisfactory answer to the questions related to the origin of
language. Sri Aurobindo says: "Sanskrit is the key to the problem. In
most other languages, we have a secondary or tertiary speech formation;
we have to go beyond the actual form before us and reconstruct its
parent tongue, to find again perhaps that the parent tongue has to be
subjected to a similar reconstructive process. We have not sufficient
materials for such a task; no instruments we possess can go deep

25 Sri Aurobindo, SABCL., Vol. 10, p. 563; cf. "...if we are to understand how
language originates, and what distinctive novelty merges with it, we must go
beyond language to trace its antecedents...", See also Erich Lenneberg, The Biological
Foundations of Language, 1967, p. 4; "Language is a complex affair. It cannot be
explained in terms of its spoken and written forms alone. Its origin needs to be
explained in relation to its antecedants." Ibid., p. 8
26 Sri Aurobindo, SABCL., Vol. 10, p. 47
27 Lectures on the Science of Language, 1873, p. 45
28 Language and the Study of Language, p. 4

37
enough. But, Sanskrit, by a peculiar fidelity to its origins, presents us
with a true primary form of speech, in which the vocabulary indeed is
late - a new structure of word flesh tissue, but the bases of the structure
is primitive, and reveals the roots of its being and betrays the principles
of its formation."29

II.3. Sri Aurobindo's Methodology

Sri. Aurobindo, "plunged into" the "interesting research of the

origins and the laws of the development of human language" based on
Sanskrit. He aimed to trace out the inner life of language, to discover its
origin, to follow its successive steps of growth, and to deduce laws and
processes that guided its growth and development. His acquaintance
with the Tamil vocabularies also widened the scope of his research. He
began the research work under the title "The Origins of Aryan Speech."
Along with Sanskrit he chose three other cognate languages — Greek,
Latin and Tamil — for his research. By origin of Aryan Speech he meant
the origin of human speech. In his own words, "...my subject... is the
origin, growth and development of human language as it is shown to us
by the embryology of the language ordinarily called Sanskrit... I base my
conclusions on the evidence of the Sanskrit language helped out by
those parts of Greek, Latin and Tamil tongues which are cognate to the
word families of Sanskrit, and by the origins of Aryan speech I mean,
properly, the origin of human speech as used and developed by those
who fashioned these word-families and their stocks and offshoots."30

29 Sri Aurobindo, SABCL., Vol. 27, p. 164

30 Sri Aurobindo, SABCL., Vol. 10, p. 562

38
 The scientific way of dealing with a subject today (not only in the
field of linguistics but in all fields) has been to examine it in the most
objective way, as something pure and independent, existing in and by
itself. But we understand things best, and said Aristotle, if we trace them
back to their origins and then follow them in their development.31 Sri
Aurobindo too believed that the true method of science is to go back to
the origins, the embryology, the elements and more obscure processes of
things. Then only laws and processes which must have governed the
origin and development of language can be discovered with a pure
scientific approach.

In the process of discovering a true science of language Sri

Aurobindo felt that what is necessarily important is "a kind of linguistic
embryology."32 This linguistic embryology meant going back to the
earliest forms of language. Hence Sri Aurobindo divided his whole
research into two parts — embryonic and structural — and gave
primary importance to the embryonic part.® He observed that in the
embryonic part it is not at all important to enquire why, for example, the
Sanskrit word vrka means 'tearer', or dalanam means 'crushing'. What is
important here is to note the roots of these words and enquire how vrc
(the root of vrka) came to mean 'to tear', dal (the root of dalanam) came to
mean 'to crush or split', "whether arbitrarily or by the operation of some

31 see Eric Lenneberg, Biological Foundations of Language, p. 22

32 Sri Aurobindo, SABCL., Vol. 10, p. 562
33 Ibid., p. 566

39
law of nature."34 In the structural type the 'modifications and additions
by which those roots grow into developed words, word groups, word-
families and word clans' have to be noted, and it has to be enquired
"why those modifications and additions had the effect on sense and use
which we find them to have exercised, why the termination ana turns dal
into an adjective or a norm and what is the source and sense of the
various terminations..."35

So the basic point of Sri Aurobindo's linguistic theory is "to get

back always to the root as the determining unit of the language."36 As a
result of this two points are gained. First, one 'gets rid of the idea of a
conventional fixed connection between the sound and its sense', and
second, one 'perceives that a certain object is expressed by a certain
sound because for some reason it suggested a particular and striking
action or characteristic which distinguished that object to the earlier
human mind.'

II.4. The Growth of Language: Laws and Processes

Sri Aurobindo considers Sanskrit alphabet as a wonderful

"instrument out of which the majestic and expressive harmonies of the
Sanskrit language have been formed."37 Since alphabet forms the very

34 Ibid..-, cf. "How can sound express thought? How did roots become the signs of
general ideas? How was the abstract idea of measuring expressed by md, the idea of
thinking by man? How did gam come to mean going, stha standing, sad sitting, da
giving, mar dying, car walking, kar doing?" Max Muller, Lectures on the science of
Language 1862, p. 391
35 Sri Aurobindo, SABCL., Vol. 10, pp. 566-67
36 Ibid., p. 566
37 Ibid., p. 572

40
base of a language it plays an important role in the enquiry of the origin
and development of language. Sri Aurobindo observed that 'the Sanskrit
alphabet represents the original vocal instrument of Aryan Speech/ The
'regular, symmetrical and methodical character' of the alphabet of
Sanskrit is 'evident' and it has 'a creation of some scientific intellect' in
it. He further clarifies that 'Nature in a certain portion of her pure
physical action has precisely this regularity, symmetry and fixity.' In the
process of formation of words the use of instruments by the earlier
Aryans 'seems to have been equally symmetrical and methodical and in
close touch with the physical facts of vocal expression.'

The letters in the Sanskrit alphabet "are used as so many seed-

sounds/'38 From these seed-sounds, Sri Aurobindo says, the "primitive
root-sounds are formed by the simple combination of the four vowels or
less frequently the modified vowels with each of the consonants...." 39

Thus with ^ (d)40 as a base sound, the early Aryans were able to make

for themselves root-sounds which they used indifferently as nouns,

adjectives, verbs or adverbs to express root-ideas, - ^ {da)41,

38 Ibid.
39 Ibid., p. 573
40 The root-sound \{d) in its pure consonantal form has, as Sri Aurobindo suggests,
'hard and forcible impact or action' as its quality or original inherent sense.
41 ^ (da) is not used as a separate root in Sanskrit or it may be that Sanskrit has lost
this root. It is mainly used at the end of a compound in the following senses: giving,
granting, producing, as seen in words like ’5FR, tr^ etc. The Ekarthandmamald
(1.64) of Saubhari notes the following meanings of ^ (da). (without fault or
disease or offence), (action), (gift/giving), (less), wr (beautiful) and
wi (refuge).

41
W*)42, ft (di)43, ^ (di)44, 3 (du)®\(du)«> \ {dr)47 \ (df)4*... In addition the

Aryans could form if they chose the modified root-sounds de (%)49, dai

(%)50, do (^)51, dau (tf)52." The most important thing to note here, as Sri

Aurobindo observes, is that these root-sounds were used by Aryans

'indifferently as nouns, adjectives, verbs or adverbs to express root-

42 {da) in Sanskrit is used as a particular root which means 'to give'. From this the
words etc. are derived. Saubhari, in his Ekdrthandmamdla (1.62) notes
srcofr (earth) and vprr (shining, auspicious) as to be the meanings of {da).
43 Saubhari (1.62) notes (giver/donors) as to be a meaning of h {di)
44 (dt) in Sanskrit has been used as a root which means 'to be destroyed', 'gone
down', 'die' as seen in the words ## (dxyate), ^Ff (dim) etc. (A Higher Sanskrit
Grammar, Dhdtukosha, p.62)
45 The root 1 (du) in Sanskrit means 'to bum', 'to consume with fire', 'to torment',
afflict, distress, pain etc. from which we get sutler {dunoti), {duta) etc. (A Higher
Sanskrit Grammar, Dhdtukosha, p.63)
46 The root \{du) is similar to 1 (du) in meaning. From this the words like (duta),
(dutaka) etc. meaning a messenger are formed. \ 4Rdih (A Higher Sanskrit
Grammar, Dhdtukosha, p.63)
47 The root ^ (dr), in Sanskrit means 'to respect, honour, worship, care for' etc. It is
generally used with a prefix as seen in the words like (ddrta) 'revered' etc.
^ sfht (A Higher Sanskrit Grammar, Dhdtukosha, p.63)
48 \ (df) in Sanskrit means 'to burst, split, tear, break,' etc. Words like (dirna) tom,
rent, frightened etc. are derived from this root. It also means 'to grow,
fear'. \ Rkr^, ^ ^ wt ^ (A Higher Sanskrit Grammar, Dhdtukosha, p.64)
49 The root ^ (de) gives the meaning 'to protect, cherish'. ^ (A Higher Sanskrit
Grammar, Dhdtukosha, p.64)
50 The root % (dai) is used in the sense of purifying, cleaning etc. % (A Higher
Sanskrit Grammar, Dhdtukosha, p.65)
51 (do) means 'to cut, divide, reap, move', ^ (A Higher Sanskrit Grammar,
Dhdtukosha, p.65)
521 (dau) as a separate root or word does not exist in Sanskrit

42
ideas.'53

Further 'a class of secondary root-sounds and root-words grew up

from the primitive root' by adding to it 'any of the consonant sounds
with its necessary or natural modifications of the already existing root-
idea.' Thus on the basis of the... primitive root ^ (da) 'it was possible to

have four guttural short secondary roots, ^ (dak), ^S^(dakh), ^\(dag), ^

(dagh)', and four long, ^ (dak), ^ (ddkh),Wl(%)/ ^(ddgh).. .so also

eight palatal, eight cerebral, with the two nasal forms ^ (dan) and

(dan) making ten, ten dental, ten labial liquid, six sibilant and two
aspirate secondary roots. It was possible also to nasalise any of these
forms, establishing for instance, ( dank), (dankh), (dang)

^\(dangh).54

Again rby the addition of the semi-vowels to the seed-sounds in

their primitive or secondary root', or else T)y the addition of another
consonant to the final of the secondary root' some illegitimate tertiary
roots like ^ (dhyai), ^\(dhvan), (sru), fT\(hldd), (stu), (scyu),

(hrad), or else (vail), (majj), are formed. Then Sri Aurobindo

53 SABCL. Vol. 10, p. 576; cf."...we may say that no root was ever used as a noun or
as a verb. But originally roots were thus used, and in Chinese we have fortunately
preserved to us a representative of that Primitive radical stage which, like the
granite, underlies all other strata of human speech. The Aryan root DA, to give,
appears in Sanskrit ddnam, Greek donam, gift, as a substantive, in Sanskrit dadami,
Greek didomi, ‘l give', as a verb, but the root DA can never be used itself. In Chinese,
on the contrary, the root TA as such is based in the sense of a noun, greatness; of a
verb, to be great; of an adverb, greatly or much. Roots therefore are not, as is
commonly maintained, merely scientific abstractions, but they were used originally
as real words." Max Muller, The Science of Language. 1861, p. 364
w Sri Aurobindo, SABCL., Vol. 10, p. 573

43
notes that some other illegitimate tertiary roots are also formed by the
vowel and consonantal modifications. 3T^(Arc) or (ark) replacing

(rc), and (marj) replacing ^ (mTj)> are some examples of vowel

modification.55 Replacing (k) and ^(g) for palatal ^(c), ch), ^(/), ^

(jh) is the example of consonantal modification. "The main consonantal

modifications in Sanskrit are structural and consist in the assimilation of
like consonants, a hard sound becoming soft by association with a soft
sound, as soft sound hard by association with a hard sound, aspirates
being replaced by the corresponding unaspirated sound and modifying
their companion in return..."56 For example ^4-^ (lapsyate) and

(labdhum) from (labh) 'to get, gain, obtain' substituted for

(labh-syate) and (labh-tum). This principle of modification

or guna, notes Sri Aurobindo, "is of great importance in the study of the
physical formation of the language and of its psychological
development, especially as it introduces a first element of doubt and

55 "(The vowel guna or modification works by the substitution either of the modified
vowel, y (e) for ? (z), air (o) for 3 (u), so that we have from fa (vi) the case form (ves),
%: (veh), from (janu) the case form mt: (janoh), or of the pure semi-vowel sound
\(y) for ? (i),\(v) for a (u),\(r) for ^ (r), or a little impurely rr (ra), so that from fa (vi)
we have the verbal form (vyantah), from ^ (su),, the verbal form am: (asvah), from
y (vr) or ^ (vrh) the noun w(vraha), or else of the supported semi-vowel sound,
SR.(ay) for ? (i), ary(av) for ~s (u), ary(ar) for W (r), any(al) for cj (Ir), so that we have
from vi the noun (vayas), from % (sru) the norm m^(sravas), from ^ (sr) the noun
w^(saras), from (klrp) the norm w (kalpa). These forms constitute the simple
gunation of the short vowel sounds ar (a), 1 (i), a (u), (r), ^ (Jr); in addition we have
the long modification or vrddhi, an extension of the principle of lengthening which
gives us the long forms of the words; we have ^ (at) or any (ay) from f (z), # (au) or
any (ay) from a (u), ary (ar) from w (r), any (al) from y (Ir), while ar (a) has no vrddhi
proper but only the lengthening arr (a). (Sri Aurobindo, SABCL., Vol. 10, p. 574)
56 Ibid., p. 575

44
confusion into an otherwise crystal clearness of structure and perfect
mechanic regularity of formation."57 The doubt or confusion that takes
place 'is the frequent uncertainty between a regular secondary root and
the irregular gunated root.' For example W{(ar) is the regular root

deriving from the primitive root W (a), and W^(ar) deriving from the

primitive root W. (r) by the principle of gum is the illegitimate or

irregular root. With "these elements of variation", Sri Aurobindo says

that "we are in a position to follow the second stage in the flowering of
speech from the root-state to the stage in which we pass on by a natural
transition to the structural development of language."58

Hence, according to Sri Aurobindo, we have the seed-sounds, the

alphabet, from which the primitive root-group is formed. For example
from the root-sound k (^r) we get the primitive-root group (ka), efiT (ka),

% {ki)f eft (ki), ^ (ku), ■*£ (ku), f (fcr), (kf), % (ke), % (kai), Wt (ko),

(kau). Each primitive group has its own family of secondary roots. For
example, the primitive (k) has in its family, (kak), (kakh), W\

(kag), W\ (kagh), ^ (kah), (kac), ^ (kach), (ka)), (kajh),

(kan) WE (kat), WE^ (kath), W\ (kad), W\ (kadh), W\ (ikan), W^ (kat), W\

(kath), W\ (kad), W% (kadh), W% (kan), W% (kap), W^ (kaph), W\ (kab), W\

(kabh), W\ (kam), w\ (kay), W\ (kar), W^ (kal), W^ (kav), W^l (kas), w\ (kas),

(kas), (kah), and also a certain variable number of tertiary roots

such as (kahc), W^ (kahg), (kand), (kalg), (karhs),

57 Ibid., p. 574
58 Ibid., pp. 575-76

45
(kank),W\(kraj), etc. According to Sri Aurobindo eight or more families

of this group would form a root-clan, and "forty of these clans would
constitute the whole range of primitive language."59 The seed-sounds,
eight vowels and their modifications four in number; five classes of
consonants and the nasals; one quaternary of liquids or seini-vowels;
three sibilants; one aspirate based on each of these various root-clans of
the primitive Aryan Speech would have been formed. From this we
come to a point that since words are not 'artificial products' but 'living
growths of sound', so, the development of the human intellect would
have compelled a 'fresh growth of language and a more intricate
flowering of forms' from these root-clans. Now here is given a picture of
one root-clan with the seed-sound (k) to show how, according to Sri

Aurobindo, the early Aryans would have formed root-sounds by the

possible addition of vowels and consonants.

+ sr + Consonants

■gjqj

^ ^

oRXfT cfi^ ^rq^

3
' ^

All these can also have their long forms such as^T^, ^T^etc.

59 Ibid., p. 576

46
 + f + Consonants

f^. f^
f^; f^

te;

f^

T^ 1^ FF^ FRT^
fv rv. rv rv_____
TpF^ 1q^ iqi^

f^l + their long forms

^ + ^ + Consonants

w*k Wl Wl

H H K

ws, Wl

^ m ^ ^ wx
Wi ^ SPl
^ n^ ^
$Pt + their long forms

+ 5ft + Consonants

1p\ W®k

WN

^ Wl

^
7J!
¥*l
7r"OT y!j r-i vl'CT
”
?r"a'

47
 ^ Wi
Wi Wl
+ their long forms

The other consonants and semivowels can have same amount of

secondary roots in the above manner.

^ + Semivowel primary roots (^T and ^ + Consonants

cF|c^ wm, Wf wt ^FTST

cp^

wt wi; wt
cH|hi

wi ; w(i
+ their long forms

^ being the modification of f it is unnatural to have forms like f^T

m
m ^ ^ ^^
^ *3* *3* *3* *3°l
^ ^ ^ ^m

^ ^31 ^

^33 ^33. ^3^ + their long forms

48
With ^i it seems to be very rare

^7 + T + Consonants

^5^ w% w\
9F^ sffl,

W sF^

"37^ w% W. sF^

SF^ ^F7 sF^ sF*^ sF^

W ■$7^

37^ "37^ sFi^ + their long forms

(sb«t> fsb<^ fe\ fe\ f^V§V

fe\ felF Hf^ fe\

fez fsF^ fe\ fe\ fe\
fe% fe\ fe% fe%
fe\ fe\ fsF<^ fe\ fe%
fe\ fH fsFc* fsP^

fe\ fe^ fe^ + their long forms

Wi Wi
wi Wi Wi wn, Wi
wi w. i^, Wi Wi
Wi Wi W\ Wi Wi
Wi W*i Wi Wi Wi

49
m k p; m

IPX f*X + their long forms

^ + Consonants

W^X cHjJmX «tcJ5X 'W'H.

we ws;
w<x wx w«x wx
w^x ^X
cfcji'X w\

W?X W*X WIT + their long forms

PchjJct) t^X

f^Xf^y^f^Xf^Xf^X
f«W<X Pro <x Rw4. f^'X f^uk
f^TcX f^cJ-SX f^X

fw&\ ft^xtw^x
Pro\ Pt^X I'teic’X Pro<x

f^?Xiw\ fW^X Pro 5, + their long forms

^T + X[ + Consonants

^ ^PX ^

^X ^*X ^PX ^X

^X ^ ^ ^X

50
^ ^^

^ ^^

^ ^ ^
+ their long forms

+ ^ + Consonants

<*C^ «+c4^ ehJ^ ef^o§^

^cr cf^ ^s; w^pi;

oF^q; cF^ ^q;

<*c>%{ °F^\ ^5^ ^cpr + their long forms

^r+ ^ + Consonants

cppf Wt
wq; cf«t§f ^3^
to; ^rs;

toi; wt

^nq; wt
wt ^

^Pfl; + their long forms

51
 + fa + Consonants
RRRfr fwf fa?^ Rrtst

Rw^ Rn^ Rw$f Rw^

Rrtz fagn; Rrts

faRF^ fpR^

Rrh? 1^rr^ f^RT^c f^l

fa^ fa^fa?-^

Rh^ Rra\ Rw^ foRTfr + their long forms

Each of these words, says Sri Aurobindo, "would in the primitive

nature of language, like each man in the primitive constitution of human
society, fulfill at once several functions, noun, verb, adjective and
adverbs at once.. .m

According to Sri Aurobindo as the Aryans could form the root-

words by adding consonant sounds to the primitive root-sounds, so by
the. aid of the same device they could have proceeded in making
appendage sounds and structural sounds "by adding to the developed
root-word any of the same consonant sounds, pure or conjunct with
others, with an enclitic sound either as the connective support or a
formatory support or both, or else by adding the enclitic sound alone as
a substantial appendage."61 Thus, having the root ^ (vad) meaning to

speak they could form from it at their will by the addition of the
consonant (t), (vadat), (ivadit), (vadut), cfcpf (vadrt), or

60 Ibid.
61 Ibid., p. 577

52
(vadata), (vadita), ^cf (vaduta), or ^fcT (vadati), "3f<fd (vaditi), ^fcT

(vaduti), (vadrti), or (vadatu), (vaditu), (vadutu), °T5[cJ

(vadrtu), or else (vadatri), or (vaditri), (vadutri),

(vadrtri), or else they could use the enclitic only and form ^ (vada), crf^

(vadi), (vadu), ^ (vadr), or they could employ the conjunct sound \

(tr), (ft/), (tv), (tm), vf (tn), and produce such forms as

(vadatra), (vadatya), (vadatva), (vadatma), ^rT (vadatna)"62

The same principle was also employed in the variations of the

verbs and in the formations of the cases. This is the first step showing
'the way in which the instrument of the vocal sound has been
determined and used by the agent/ The next step is to examine 'the
relation of the particular ideas to be expressed to the particular sound or
sounds which express it/ 'There must be these two elements, the
structure of the language, its roots, formations and the growth, and the
psychology of the use of the structure/

62 Ibid., pp. 577-578; The actual use of all these possibilities in the case of a single
word is not found and one would not expect to find them. The richness of forms is
much greater in earlier Aryan speech than in later literature. The reason behind this
may be, as Sri Aurobindo notes, that "with the growth of intellectual richness and
precision there would be a corresponding growth in the mental will-action and the
supersession of the mechanical mind processes by more clearly and consciously
selective mind processes," (SABCL., Vol. 10, p. 578). Cf. "The number of these
phonetic types must have been almost infinite in the beginning and it was only
through the same process of natural elimination.. .that clusters of roots, more or less
synonymous, were gradually reduced to one definite type," (Max Muller, The Science
of Language, 1862, p. 393). A through investigation of the words in the Vedic and later
Sanskrit shows that 'a wide and free natural labour of formation' is always followed
by 'a narrowing process of rejection and selection'. "But always the same original
principle either simply or complexly applied, with modification or without
modification of the root vowels and consonants, is and remains the whole basis and
means of noun-structure," (Sri Aurobindo, SABCL., Vol. 10, p. 576).

53
 Once the above step is covered then one must 'find an equal
regularity, an equal reign of fixed process on the psychological side, in
the determining of the relation of particular sense to particular sound/
Without this the first step is incomplete. Sri Aurobindo observes that it is
not any "arbitrary or intellectual choice but a natural selection that has
determined the growth and arrangement of the sounds."63 As an
example he explains that first the seed-sound ^ (v)64 must have

something inherent in it which connected it with the actual senses borne

by the primitive roots ^ (va)65, (vd)66,

63 Ibid., P. 580; "...substantially the whole of the language with all its forms and
inflexions is the inevitable result of the use by Nature in man of one single rich
device, one single fixed principle of sound formation employed with suiprisingly
few variations, with an astonishingly fixed, imperative and most tyrannous
regularity but also a free and even superfluous original abundance in the formation.
The inflexional character of Aryan speech is itself no accident but the inevitable
result, almost physically inevitable, of the first seed selection of sound-process, that
original apparently trifling selection of the law of the individual being which is at
the basis of all Nature's infinitely varied regularities. Fidelity to the principle already
selected being once observed the rest results from the vary nature and necessities of
the sound-instrument that is employed. Therefore, in the outward form oflanguage,
we see the operation of a regular natural law proceeding almost precisely as Nature
proceeds in the physical world to form a vegetable or an animal genus and its
species." (Ibid., pp. 579-80)
64 \ (v) in its pure consonantal form according to Sri Aurobindo has 'manifestation',
'existence' as its essential sense.
65 ^ (va) in Sanskrit means 'strong', 'powerful' (see A Practical Sanskrit English
Dictionary, V.S.Apte, p. 823).
66 In Sanskrit (Va) as root means 'to blow, go, move, strike, dry' etc. It is also used
as an indeclinable and has the following senses 'or', 'and', 'as well as', 'also', 'like',
'as', 'indeed', 'truly', 'only', (see V.S. Apte, p. 839)

54
fa (vi)67, (vt)68, ^ (vu), \(vu)69, f (vr)70, ^ (vr)71. Secondly, the variations

in sense between these roots must have taken place because of the
inherent tendency of significance in the variable or vowel element
within them. "Thirdly, the secondary roots depending in ^ (v), ^ (vac),

^ (vakh), ^ (van]), ^ (vam), ^ (val), (vap), ^ (■vah), ^ (ws), ^

(vas), etc. must have a common element in their significances and, so far
as they varied originally, must have varied as a result of the element of
difference, the consonantal termination ^(c), \(j), ^(w), ^(/), \(p), \(h),

(s), ^ (s), respectively. Finally in the structural state of language,

although as a result of the growing power of conscious selection other

determining factors may have entered into the selection of particular
significances for the particular words, yet the original factor cannot have
been entirely inoperative and such forms as (vadana), (vadatra),

(vada), etc. must have been governed in the development of their

67 The primary fa (vi) means -to appear, burst out, be divulged, to split open,
separate'; and transitively, 'to see, know, discriminate, separate, divulge, repose,' etc.
These meanings can be traced through a host of derivatives in Sanskrit, Latin and
Tamil. Sanskrit has the root fa^. (vid) 'to know'; fa^ (vi]) 'to separate, discriminate'.
Latin vile means common, cheap; villa means open place, country place, country seat;
vendo means I sell; venalis means to be sold; but especially video means I see. Tamil
fao* (vil) means to give light, shine; fa^J (vil) means eye. (see Sri Aurobindo Archives and

Research, April 1978, p. 56; December 1978, pp. 151-52). There is no root as fa (vi) in
Sanskrit but when used with a visarga it means 'a bird, a horse, a rein'; (see V.S. Apte,
p. 847)
68 # (vi) as a root exists and means 'to go, move, approach, bring,' etc. (see Apte, p.
881
69 ^ (vu) and (vu) are altogether lost in Sanskrit.
70 T (vf) exists in its verbal forms and means 'to choose, select as a boon, cover, keep
away', etc. (see Apte, p. 883)
71 ^ (vf) is similar with f (vr) and is confined only to the meaning 'to choose, select'.

55
sense dominantly by their substantial and common sound-element, to a
certain extent by their variable and subordinate element."72

Sri Aurobindo, further observes that the "first instrument in such a

growth, the first in urgency, importance and time, would be the impulse
towards distinguishing more formally between the action, the agent and
the object, therefore of establishing some sort of formal distinction,
however vague at first, between the noun-idea and the verb-idea. The
second impulse, possibly simultaneous, would be towards
distinguishing structurally, ...between the various lines and shades of
action, of establishing in modem language, tense forms, voices, moods.
The third impulse would be towards the formal distinction of various
attributes, such as number and gender, and various relations of the
subject and object themselves to the action, of establishing case forms
and forms of singularity, duality, plurality."73

These are the lines upon which Sri Aurobindo has conducted his
enquiry. But the full proof of the results depends upon 'a larger labour
of minute classification both of root-families and word-families in all the
greater Aryan tongues'. Some of the works done by Sri Aurobindo show
that he did attempt a minute classification of the above kind.74 But all his
works in this field are left incomplete. Yet what he has presented

72 Sri Aurobindo, SABCL., Vol. 10, p. 580-81

73 Ibid., pp. 76-77
74 "Aryan Origin - AN ROOTS", Sri Aurobindo Archives and Research, April, 1979,
Vol.3, No. 1, pp. 38-44; "The Origins of Aryan Speech", Sri Aurobindo Archives and
Research, April, 1978, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 58-64; "The Origins of Aryan Speech",
SABCL., Vol. 27, pp. 163-179; "Elementary Roots of language", Sri Aurobindo Archives
and Research, Dec. 1978, Vol. 2, No.2, pp. 55-56; "The Root Mai in Greek", Sri
Aurobindo Archives and Research, Dec. 1979, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 153-154

56
through these works "will", in his own words, "be judged sufficient for
a secure foundation. If it does no more, it may possibly lead to a deeper
and freer approach to the problem of the origin of speech, which once
undertaken in the right spirit and with an eye for the more subtle clues,
cannot fail to lead to a discovery of the first importance to human
thought and knowledge."75

75 Sri Aurobindo, SABCL., Vol. 27, p. 166

57