Achtung!
Dies ist eine Internet-Sonderausgabe des Buchs„The Dhivehi Language. A Descriptive and Historical Grammar of Maldivian and Its Dialects“von Sonja Fritz (2002).
Sie sollte nicht zitiert werden. Zitate sind der Originalausgabe zu entnehmen, die als
Beiträge zur Südasienforschung, 191
erschienen ist(Würzburg: Ergon Verlag 2002 /Heidelberg: Südasien-Institut).
Attention!
This is a special internet edition of the book
“ The Dhivehi Language. A Descriptive and Historical Grammar of Maldivian and Its Dialects ”
by Sonja Fritz (2002).
It should not be quoted as such. For quotations, please refer to the original edition which appeared as
Beiträge zur Südasienforschung, 191(Würzburg: Ergon Verlag 2002 /Heidelberg: Südasien-Institut).

Alle Rechte vorbehalten / All rights reserved:
Sonja Fritz, Frankfurt 201237

The Dhivehi Language
A Descriptive and Historical Grammarof Maldivian and Its DialectsbySonja Fritz

Heidelberg
2002

For Jost
in lovePrefaceThis book represents a revised and enlarged English version of my habilitation thesis“Deskriptive Grammatik des Maledivischen (Dhivehi) und seiner Dialekte unter
Berücksichtigung der sprachhistorischen Entwicklung” which I delivered in Heidelberg, 1997.
I started my work on Dhivehi (Maldivian) in 1988 when I had the opportunity to makesome tape recordings with native speakers during a private stay in the Maldives. Shortly after,
when I became aware of the fact that there were almost no preliminary studies of a scientificcharacter on the Maldivian language and literature and, particularly, no systematic linguistic
studies at all, I started to collect material for an extensive grammatical description of the
Dhivehi language. In 1992, I went to the Maldives again in order to continue my work withinformants and to make official contact with the corresponding institutions in Māle, whom I
asked to help me in planning my future field research. During my 1992 stay, my main
informant was Mr. AHMED ABDULLA* from Fua Mulaku (Gnaviyani [Ñaviani] Atoll) who
was living in Māle at that time.
In the same year I applied for a special fellowship (Habilitanden-Stipendium) with theGerman National Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG), because
without financial supply I could neither have managed the field work in the Maldives nor thefollowing intensive studies which took all my time for four years. I am very grateful to DFG
for supporting my work with a generous three years’ fellowship and for special support
covering the expenses of a three months’ field trip to the Maldives (July-October 1993),
together with a shorter stay in Colombo (Sri Lanka) where I was concerned with archive
studies. Furthermore, I should like to thank DFG for financing the printing of this book.
During my work, I became particularly interested in the southern Dhivehi dialects which
are very different from the standard language. They were never used as a written language
and they never served as an object of linguistic interest before. In this sphere, I am deeply
indebted to Mr. HASSAN SAEED Campapūlmāgē, Hitadū, Addū (Seenu [Sı̄n] Atoll) who ishighly respected as the most reliable authority on the southernmost dialect. For six weeks he
was at my disposal for several hours every day. Thanks to his excellent knowledge of English
and his indefatigable help I was able to get a profound knowledge of the grammaticalcategories of the Addū dialect within a comparatively short time and to collect approximately
2500 lexemes. HASSAN SAEED also organised a recording session with a professional story
teller, Mr. ALI MANIKUFAANU (Ali Manikufānu, also from Hitadū), whose vivid style ofstorytelling deeply impressed me. Furthermore, HASSAN SAEED accompanied me for a ten
days’ research trip to Fua Mulaku Atoll in order to help me with the communication problems I expected visiting this atoll for the first time. Since my 1993 field research, he has
always been ready to answer the questions I sent to him, and when I returned to the Maldives
c

˙˙

˙˙

˙

c

*

In the preface, (Arabic) personal names are not given in the scientific indological transliteration (asnormally used in this book) but in a Latin transcription which is officially used in the Maldives themselves. In
accordance with Maldivian tradition, I have additionally mentioned the “house names” (ge ‘house’) used as akind of family names, as far as they have become known to me. The two official names, consisting of a firstname and a father’s name, a first name and a surname, or even two first names, are very often ambiguous
because of the high frequency of a restricted number of names and combinations of names that are met with.
Some elder people use only their house names beside their first names, sometimes even affixing the latter ones.

VI

in March 1999 and in January 2002 in order to clear up some further problems, he helped meagain. I would like to express my gratitude to him not only for his direct contribution to myresearch work – without which I could not have written this grammar in its present form –but also for introducing me to the peculiarities of daily and cultural life of the southern
Maldives.
Concerning the dialect of Fua Mulaku, I am particularly grateful to my informants Mr.
ADNAN IBRAHIM, Mr. MUHAMMAD SAEED and Ms. AMINATH MUHAMMAD SAEED (Havitta),
Mr. HASSAN SAEED (Sosan Villa), Mrs. AMINATH SHEHENAZ and Mrs. FATIMATH IBRAHIM
DIDI (Bodurage), Mr. ABDULLAH AFEEF (Luxury), Mrs. Goldan Gētu KADDĀDI and Mr.
Diggāmāge MUHAMMAD MANIKUFAANU (Manikufānu) for the fairy tales they told and fortheir contributions to my systematic collection of lexical and morphological data which wererecorded on tape as well. For some tape recordings of the dialect of Huvadū which I could
undertake in Addū and in Fua Mulaku, I am indebted to Mr. MUHAMMAD SHAKEEL (Looking
Glass, Tinadū, Gaafu Alifu [Gāf Alif] Atoll) and Mr. MUHAMMAD HASSAN (Morning Paris,
Fares, Gaafu Dhaalu [Gāf Dāl] Atoll).
My studies on the standard language of Māle were deeply stimulated by an intensive three
weeks’ cooperation with Mrs. HABIBA HUSSAIN HABIB, the director of the National Libraryin Māle, who is also a writer. I am much obliged to her for introducing me into the “palace
language” which was the colloquial and written medium of the nobility at the time of thesultans, an almost obsolete idiom she is one of the last native speakers of, and I am very
grateful for the numerous tape recordings she allowed me to take. I also owe many thanks to
Mr. MUHAMMAD WAHEED (Madulu) and Mr. ABDULLAH SAADIQ who, as professional
writers, helped me with abundant information on the language of modern Dhivehi prose andwho provided some tape recordings as well. I owe special thanks to the scholar Mr. HASSAN
AHMED MANIKU (Māle) who is one of the best authorities on history and culture of the(Northern) Maldives and who helped me with much scientific information. Furthermore, I
should like to thank Mrs NASEEMA MOHAMED (Māle) for detailed information on the colonial
periods of Maldivian history. Last but not least, I have to thank Mr. MOHAMED WAHEEDMANDHU (at that time Deputy Director of the National Centre for Linguistic and Historical
Research) and Mr. ABDUL SAMEEU HASSAN (at that time Assistant Director of the National
Centre) who in 1993 helped me to get access to the southern atolls and to receive special
permits for research on inscriptions in the National Museum of Māle and some graveyards.
It would go beyond the scope of this preface to personally express my gratitude to all
those Maldivian people who helped me during my stays on the islands. Instead, I would liketo express thanks to the Maldivians for their warm welcome and their helpfulness I experienced so many times!
For the scientific support I received in Colombo (Sri Lanka) in October 1993, I have tothank Prof. G.D. WIJAYAWARDHANA and Prof. J.B. DISANAYAKA (both from the Dept. of
Sinhala, Faculty of Arts, University of Colombo), Dr. W. Thelma T.P. GUNAWARDANE(Director of the National Museum), Mr. Kalasuri Wilfred M. GUNASEKARA (Library of theRoyal Asiatic Society), Dr. Siran U. DERANIYAGALA (Director of the Archeological Survey
Dept.) as well as the Director of the National Archive.
I am also very grateful to Mr. Sisira JAYASURIYA (at that time Māle/Colombo), who was
my main informant for colloquial Sinhalese and who helped me with Sinhalese literature formany years.
c

˙

˙

˙

˙

c

˙

˙˙

VII

I owe a special thank to Prof. Donald RAYFIELD (Queen Mary College, University of
London) who under difficult circumstances procured a copy of H.C.P. BELL’s book “TheMaldive Islands. Monograph on the History, Archeology, and Epigraphy” (Colombo 1940)
for me. Furthermore I am deeply indebted to him for proof-reading the complete English textof the present book.
I am also very grateful to Prof.Dr. Monika BOEHM-TETTELBACH (Dept. of Modern IndianStudies, South Asia Institute, University of Heidelberg) who supported my studies on Dhivehi
from the beginning and who was kind enough to present the German version of the present
book as a habilitation thesis to the Faculty of Oriental and Classical Studies of the University
of Heidelberg. Furthermore I would like to thank Prof. BOEHM-TETTELBACH very much for
proof-reading the German text.
For a proof-reading of the German version, I owe many thanks also to PD Dr. Claus PeterZOLLER (South Asia Insitute, University of Heidelberg) and to Prof.Dr. Chlodwig WERBA(Dept. of Indology, University of Vienna).
I would also like to express my gratitude to the Faculty of Oriental and Classical Studies
of Heidelberg University for having accepted the German text of the present book as a
habilitation thesis. I am particularly grateful to the late Prof.Dr. Hubert PETERSMANN who
was the Dean of the faculty at that time.
The person I have to thank most of all, however, is my husband, Prof.Dr. Jost GIPPERT, alinguist himself (Chair of Comparative Linguistics, Frankfurt University), who was myconstant companion during all my research stays in the Maldives. Without the inspiring
suggestions he made and the ongoing discussions we had over all the years, this book could
not have been written in its present form. This also holds true for his help with technicalproblems, concerning particularly hard- and software difficulties. Furthermore, my husband
made his collection of Old Dhivehi inscriptions and manuscripts (collected in 1993) available
to me which not only enlarged my knowledge of Old Dhivehi but enabled me to describe thehistorical development of different categories of this language. Furthermore, I would like tothank my husband for proof-reading both the German original and the English translation ofthis book several times and for preparing the layout and the indexes. I also have to thank myhusband for encouraging me to translate the whole book into English and stimulating me inthose moments when I was about to lose my strength and self-confidence.

Oberursel, 2 March 2002

Sonja Fritz

Table of contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1Phonology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The sound system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The vowels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Long vowels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
nasal vowels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
diphthongs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Umlaut phenomena . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
vocalic alternations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The consonants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
consonant clusters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Geminates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Loan phonemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Syllable and word structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Word accent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sandhi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
On the historical relationship of Dhivehi and Sinhalese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17
17
19
20
23
24
26
27
29
37
38
45
47
48
49
50

Morphology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
The nominal categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
The noun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Case system and stem types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
genitive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
locative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
dative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
ablative/instrumental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
i-stems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
a-stems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
consonant stems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
root nouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Number, definiteness and indefiniteness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Addū . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Fua Mulaku . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Māle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Declension types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Addū . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Fua Mulaku . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Māle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
The adjective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Adjectival comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Numerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
˙˙

c

˙˙

c

X

Cardinal numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
The duodecimal system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Ordinal numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Other categories of numerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
The pronominal system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Personal pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
The personal pronouns of the first person . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
The personal pronouns of the second person . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
The personal pronouns of the third person . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Possessive pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Reflexive pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Demonstrative pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Demonstrative adverbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Modal adverbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
Reciprocal pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
Interrogative pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
indefinite pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
The verbal system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
The finite present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
Formation of the causative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173“Double” causatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
The finite preterite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
The finite future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Addū . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
Fua Mulaku . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
Māle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
The imperative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
The infinitive in jussive function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
Imperatives with the suffix -ti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
Periphrastic imperative formations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
The infinitive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
The infinitive of the a-stems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
The infinitive of the e-stems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
The infinitive of the n-stems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
The verbal noun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
The gerund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
The participles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
The participle of the present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
The participle of the preterite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
The participle of the future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
The absolutive (converb) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
Irregular absolutives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
Reduplicated absolutives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
Compound verbs and auxiliary verbs expressing “aktionsart” concepts . . . . . . . . 220
Combinations with auxiliary verbs in Sinhalese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
Compound verbs and auxiliary verbs in Dhivehi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
The potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
˙˙

c

XI

Māle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
Addū . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
Fua Mulaku . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
Suppletive potential formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
Past forms of the potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
The potential of “root verbs” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
Suppletive and combined potential forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
Conditional formations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
Addū . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
Māle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
Suppletive verbal paradigms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
Suppletivism according to number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
Suppletivism in the formation of tense forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
Interrogative forms (“yes/no” questions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
Addū . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
Fua Mulaku . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
Māle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
Uninflected words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
˙˙

c

˙˙
˙˙

c

Syntactical sketch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
Sentence structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
subordinate clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
conjunctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
Participial subordinate clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
absolutives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
Verbal nouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
Quotation particles and interrogative particles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
Negated sentences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
Indexes** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
Grammatical terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
Languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
Geographical names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
Personal names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
Historical and sociological terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270**

Additional indexes (of text passages and word forms) have been attached to vol. II (p. 225 ff.).

Abbreviations*Panj. . .
part. . . .
partc. . .
Pers. . . .
pers. . . .
pfv. . . .
PIE . . .
Pkt. . . .
pl(ur). . .
p.n. . . .
pol. . . .
Pol. . . .
poss. . .
postpos.
pot. . . .
pred. . .
pres. . . .
pret. . . .
prev. . .
pron. . .
pron.adj.
ps. . . . .
quot. . .
R. . . . .
recip. . .
red . . . .
refl. . . .
repr. . . .
resp. . . .
rev. . . .
Russ. . .
RV . . . .
sg. . . . .
Si. . . . .
Sinh. . .
Skt. . . .
subj. . . .
subst. . .
suff. . . .
Ś. . . . . .
top. . . .
trans. . .
Turk. . .
Ved. . . .
vb.n. . . .
viz. . . .
voc. . . .
vol. . . .
West-H.

Panjabi (Pañjābı̄)participle
particle
Persianpersonal
perfective
Proto-Indo-European
Prakritpluralproper namepolitePolishpossessive
postposition
potential
predicate, predicative
present (tense)
preterite
preverb
pronounpronominal adjective
personquotationRāmāyana
reciprocal
reduplicatedreflexive
reprint
respectively
revisedRussianRgvedasingularSindhi (Sindhı̄)Sinhalese
Sanskrit
subject
substantive
suffixŚaurasenı̄
toponymtransitive
TurkicVedic
verbal noun
namelyvocational
volumeWest Huvadū dialect
˚

focus
FrenchfuturegenitivegerundGermanGujarati (Gujarātı̄)
Huvadū dialect
Hindi (Hindı̄)honorific
Indo-Aryan
the same
Insular Indo-Aryan
imperative
inactiveinanimate
Indian / Indicindefinite
infinitive
instrumental
interrogative
intransitive
imperfective
Jaina Māhārā t rı̄
long form (participle)
Latinliterally
locativeMāle standard language
Marathi (Marā ı̄h )masculine
Mahābhārata
Middle Indo-Aryan
modernmanuscript
noun
negated
Nepali (Nepāli)
New Indo-Aryan
nominative
neuternumeralobjectoblique caseobsolete
Old Indo-Aryan
Oriya (Oriyā)
ordinal number
Pali (Pāli)ṫ

˙

foc. . . .
Fr. . . . .
fut. . . . .
gen. . . .
ger. . . .
Germ. . .
Guj. . . .
H. . . . .
Hi. . . . .
hon. . . .
IA . . . .
id. . . . .
IIA . . . .
impv. . .
inact. . .
inan. . . .
Ind. . . .
indef. . .
inf. . . . .
instr. . .
interr. . .
intr. . . .
ipfv. . . .
JM. . . .
l.f. . . . .
Lat. . . .
lit. . . . .
loc. . . .
M. . . . .
Mar. . . .
m(asc). .
MBh. . .
MIA . . .
mod. . .
ms. . . . .
n. . . . . .
neg. . . .
Nep. . . .
NIA . . .
nom. . .
ntr. . . . .
num. . .
obj. . . .
obl. . . .
obs. . . .
OIA . . .
Or. . . . .
ord. . . .
Pa. . . . .

ṡ

ṁ

ḋ

*

A ū dialect
Anno Domini
Anno Hijrae
ablative
absolutive
accusative
adjective
adverbaffirmative
Ardhamāgadhı̄animateApabhra śaapproximately
ArabicAssamese
attribute
auxiliary verb
before Christ
Bengali (Baṅglā)BuddhistHybridSanskrit
botanical
cardinal number
causative
conferchapterclassical
conjunction
copula(tive)
comparedativedeclension
definitedemonstrative
diminutive
distributive
Dhivehidoubleand elsewhere
East Huvadū dialect
editor / edited / edition
editors
for example
elementemphatic
EnglishespeciallyFua’ Mulaku dialect
femininefollowing pagesḋ

A. . . . .
A.D. . . .
A.H. . . .
abl. . . .
abs. . . .
acc. . . .
adj. . . .
adv. . . .
aff. . . . .
AMg. . .
anim. . .
Ap. . . .
appr. . .
Arab. . .
Ass. . . .
attr. . . .
aux. . . .
B.C. . . .
Beng. . .
BHS . . .
bot. . . .
card. . . .
caus. . .
cf. . . . .
ch. . . . .
class. . .
conj. . . .
cop. . . .
cp. . . . .
dat. . . .
decl. . . .
def. . . .
dem. . . .
dim . . .
distr. . .
Dhiv. . .
doub. . .
e.a. . . . .
East-H. .
ed. . . . .
eds. . . .
e.g. . . .
elem. . .
emph. . .
Engl. . .
esp. . . .
F. . . . . .
f(em). . .
ff. . . . .

For L1 etc., F1 etc., RA and other abbreviations referring to the Old and Modern Dhivehi texts that wereused in the present book, cf. the Survey of historical documents contained in vol. II, p. 215 ff.

Bibliography*
BECHERT (1959): Heinz B., Bemerkungen zur Aussprache des Singhalesischen. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 14, 55-62.
BELL (1883): Harry Charles Purvis B., The Máldive Islands. An Account of the Physical Features, Climate,
History, Inhabitants, Productions, and Trade. Colombo.
— (1922-35): id., Excerpta Maldiviana 1-14. Journal of the Ceylon Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol.
XXIX, 75 (1922), 99-104 [no. 1]; 76 (1923), 194-214 [no. 2]; 77 (1924), 283-303 [no. 3]; vol. XXX, 78(1925), 132-142 [no. 4]; 79 (1926), 257-270 [no. 5]; 80 (1927), 436-447 [no. 6]; vol. XXXI, 81 (1928), 180194 [no. 7]; 82 (1929), 400-414 [no. 8]; 83 (1930), 539-578 [no. 9]; vol. XXXII, 84 (1931), 76-124 [no. 10];85 (1932), 226-242 [no. 11]; 86 (1933), 372-387 [no. 12]; vol. XXXIII, 87 (1934), 47-90 [no. 13]; 88 (1935),
169-191 [no. 14].
— (1940): id., The Máldive Islands. Monograph on the History, Archeology, and Epigraphy. Colombo.
BERGER (1953): Hermann B., Zwei Probleme der mittelindischen Lautlehre. München.
— (1992): id., Modern Indo-Aryan. In: Jadranka GVOZDANOVIĆ (ed.), Indo-European Numerals. Berlin - New
York, 243-287.
BÜHLER (1934): Karl B., Sprachtheorie. Jena.
CAIN (1992): Bruce D. C., A Grammatical Sketch of Dhivehi. (Pre-publication draft).
— (1995): id., Maldivian Prototypical Passives and Related Constructions. Anthropological Linguistics 37/4,
524-540.
CALDWELL (1875): Robert C., A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian or South Indian Family of Languages.
London. (Repr. Madras 1961).
CARTER (1936): Charles C., An English-Sinhalese Dictionary. 2nd, rev. ed. Colombo. (Repr. Colombo 1965).
CHATTERJEE (1988): Ranjit Ch., Aspect and Meaning in Slavic and Indic. Amsterdam.
CLOUGH (1892): B. C., A Sinhalese-English Dictionary. Colombo.
D.B.G.: Divehi bahuge gavāidu (ed. National Centre for Linguistic and Historical Research, Male). Male [notdated].
DE SILVA (1969): M.W.S. de S., The Phonological Efficiency of the Maldivian Writing System. Anthropologicallinguistics 11, 199-208.
— (1970a): id., Some Affinities between Sinhalese and Maldivian. Journal of the Ceylon Branch of the Royal
Asiatic Society 1970, 20-27.
— (1970b): id., Some Observations on the History of Maldivian. In: Transactions of the Philological Society
1970, 137-162.
— (1979): id., Sinhalese and other Island Languages in South Asia. Tübingen.
DISANAYAKA / MANIKU (1990): J.B. D. / Hassan Ahmed M., Say it in Maldivian (Dhivehi). Colombo.
DSL (1935-): A Dictionary of the Sinhalese Language, ed. by W. GEIGER / D.B. JAYATILAKA (1935-41,
continued by the University of Ceylon, now ed. by the Ministery of Cultural Affairs). Colombo.
ELIZARENKOVA (1974): Tat’jana Jakovlevna E., Issledovanija po diaxroničeskoj fonologii indoarijskix jazykov.
Moskva.
FRITZ (1989-90): Sonja F., Dhivehi. Eine bisher weitgehend unbekannt gebliebene neuindoarische Sprache.
Klagenfurter Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 15-16, 117-129.
— (1993): id., Wilhelm Geigers Beitrag zur Erforschung des Dhivehi, der Staatssprache der Malediven.
Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 54, 15-32.
FRITZ / GIPPERT (2000): Sonja F. / Jost G., Towards a Historical Phonology of Maldivian. In: Michaela OFITSCH/ Christian ZINKO (eds.), 125 Jahre Indogermanistik in Graz, Graz, 139-152.

*

This table lists only those titles that are quoted in abbreviated form in the present book.

XIV
GAIR (1970): James W. G., Colloquial Sinhalese Clause Structures. The Hague – Paris.
GEIGER (1900): Wilhelm G., Litteratur und Sprache der Singhalesen. Strassburg.
— (1901-02): id., Māldivische Studien. I: Sitzungsberichte der Königlich-Bayrischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-philologische und historische Klasse, München [1901], 614-684. II: Zeitschrift der
Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 55, 1901, 371-387. III: Sitzungsberichte ... 1902, 107-132.
— (1902): id., Etymological Vocabulary of the Māldivian Language. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society
1902, 909-938.
— (1916): id., Pāli. Literatur und Sprache. Strassburg.
— (1919): id., Máldivian Linguistic Studies (transl. by J.C. WILLIS / ed. by H.C.P. BELL). In: Journal of the
Ceylon Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 27, Extra Number. Colombo. (Repr. Male 1986).
— (1938): id., A Grammar of the Sinhalese Language. Colombo.
— (1941): id., An Etymological Glossary of the Sinhalese Language. Colombo.
— (1941a): id., Studien zur Geschichte und Sprache Ceylons. In: GEIGER (1973), 523-557.
— (1942): id., Beiträge zur singhalesischen Sprachgeschichte. In: GEIGER (1973), 560-636.
— (1973): id., Kleine Schriften zur Indologie und Buddhismuskunde (ed. Heinz BECHERT). Wiesbaden.
GIPPERT (1997): Jost G., Paläographische Untersuchungen mit dem Computer. Studia Iranica, Mesopotamica et
Anatolica 2, 1996 [1997], 77-100.
— (forthcoming): id., Early New Persian as a Medium of Spreading Islam. To appear in: L. PAUL (ed.),Proceedings of the conference “Early New Persian”, Göttingen.
GUNASEKARA (1891): Abraham Mendis G., A Comprehensive Grammar of the Sinhalese Language. Colombo.
(Repr. Colombo 1962).
GRIERSON (1903-27): George A. G., Linguistic Survey of India. 11 vols. Calcutta.
HACKER (1958): Paul H., Zur Funktion einiger Hilfsverben im modernen Hindi. Abhandlungen der Akademie derWissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz, Geistes- und sozialwissenschaftliche Klasse 4/1958, 189-270.
HINÜBER (1986): Oskar v. H., Das ältere Mittelindisch im Überblick. Wien.
HLSD (1988): Historical and Linguistic Survey of Divehi (ed. National Centre for Linguistic and Historical
Research, Male and Department of Sinhala, University of Colombo). Colombo (typoscript).
HOOK (1974): Peter E. H., The Compound Verb in Hindi. Michigan.
ISAČENKO (1962): Aleksandr Vasilevič I., Die russische Sprache der Gegenwart. Halle (Saale).
JAYAWARDENA-MOSER (1996): Premalatha J.-M., Aufbauwortschatz Singhalesisch-Deutsch. Wiesbaden.
— (1993): id., Grundwortschatz Singhalesisch-Deutsch. Wiesbaden.
KELLOG (1875): S.H. K., A Grammar of the Hindi Language. London. (Repr. London 1955).
LIENHARD (1961): Siegfried L., Tempusgebrauch und Aktionsartenbildung in der modernen Hindı̄. Uppsala.
MALTEN (1983): Th. M., Malediven und Lakkadiven. Materialien zur Bibliographie der Atolle im Indischen
Ozean. Wiesbaden.
MANIKU (1988-89): Hassan Ahmed M., Vanavaru. 1: Dhevi (1988). 2: Nakaiy (1989). 3: Dhekunu arumaadhu(1989). 4: Filaaveli (1989). Male.
MANIKU / WIJAYAWARDHANA (1986): Hassan Ahmed M. / G.D. W. (eds.), Isdhoo Loamaafaanu. Colombo.
MASICA (1991): Colin P. M., The Indo-Aryan Languages. Cambridge.
MATZEL (1983): Klaus M., Einführung in die singhalesische Sprache. 2. verb. Aufl., Wiesbaden.
MAYRHOFER (1951): Manfred M., Handbuch des Pāli. 2 Bde. Heidelberg.
— (1965): id., Sanskrit-Grammatik mit sprachvergleichenden Erläuterungen. 2. Aufl., Berlin.
— (1981): id., Laryngalreflexe im Indo-Iranischen; in Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und
Kommunikationsforschung 34, 427-438.
— (1986-): id., Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. Heidelberg.
MCGREGOR (1972): R.S. M., Outline of Hindi Grammar. Oxford.
MHM (1984): Māle Hukuru Miskit (ed. Divehi bahāi tārı̄xaś xidmat kurā qaumı̄ marukazu [National Center for
Linguistic and Historical Research]). Māle.

XV
MITE (1996): Glossary: English-Dhivehi, Dhivehi-English (ed. Male Institute for Teacher Education). Male.
MM: Mālēge miskittak [The Mosques of Māle] (ed. Dept. of Information and Broadcasting). Male [not dated].
NAJEEB (2001): Alı̄ Najı̄b (ed.), Danbidū lōmāfānu. Māle: Divehi bahāi tārı̄xaś xidumat kurā qaumı̄ marukazu[National Center for Linguistic and Historical Research]. (Divehı̄nge tariku, 12).
NCLHR (1985-91): Divehi basfot. Vols. 1-16 (ed. National Centre for Linguistic and Historical Research). Male[lithographed].
NESPITAL (1981): Helmut N., Das Futursystem im Hindi und Urdu. Ein Beitrag zur semantischen Analyse derKategorien Tempus, Aspekt und Modus und ihrer Grammeme. Wiesbaden.
NORMAN (1992): H.R. N., Middle Indo-Aryan. In: Jadranka GVOZDANOVIĆ (ed.), Indo-European Numerals.
Berlin - New York, 199-241.
RHYS DAVIDS (1921-25): T.W. R.D. and William Stede, The Pali Text Society’s Pali-English Dictionary.
Oxford. (Repr. Oxford 1992).
PARANAVITANA (1956): S. P., Sigiri Graffiti. 2 vols. Oxford e.a.
PISCHEL (1981): Richard P., A Grammar of the Prākrit Languages (transl. Subhadra JHĀ). 2nd rev. ed., Delhi.
POŘÍZKA (1967-1970): Vincenc P., On the perfective verbal aspect in Hindi; in: Archiv Orientální 35/1 (1967),
64-88; 35/2 (1967), 208-231; 36 (1968), 233-251; 37/1 (1969), 19-47; 37/2, 345-364.
— (1970): id., On some verbal expressions in Hindi, in: Acta Universitatis Carolinae, Philologica 5 (1970),
69-86.
PYRARD / GRAY (1878): A. G., The Maldive Islands: with a Vocabulary taken from François PYRARD DE
LAVAL. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 1878, 173-209.
RENOU (1961): Louis R., Grammaire Sanscrite. 2 vols. Paris.
REYNOLDS (1993): Christopher H.B. R., Maldives. Oxford e.a.
SHISHIDO (1983): M. Sh., English-Dhivehi Dictionary. Male [typoscript].
˙SŚ (1937-1992): Sim̆halaśabdakō a ya [Sinhalese Dictionary]. 27 vols. (ed. Ministery of Cultural Affairs).
Colombo.
STEINGASS (1929): F. S., Persian-English Dictionary. London. (Repr. London 1977).
TURNER (1966): Ralph L. T., A Comparative Dictionary of the Indo-Aryan Languages. Vols. I,II. London e.a.
— (1969): id., A Comparative Dictionary of the Indo-Aryan Languages. Indexes. London e.a.
— (1971): Ralph L. T. / D.R. T., A Comparative Dictionary of the Indo-Aryan Languages. Phonetic Analysis.
London e.a.
— (1985): Ralph L. T., A Comparative Dictionary of the Indo-Aryan Languages. Addenda and Corrigenda(ed. J.C. WRIGHT). London e.a.
VYXUXOLEV (1964): V.V. V., Singal’skij jazyk. Moskva.
WEHR (1958): Hans W., Arabisches Wörterbuch für die Schriftsprache der Gegenwart. Wiesbaden.
WERBA (1997): Chlodwig H. W., Verba Indoarica. Die primären und sekundären Wurzeln der Sanskrit-Sprache.
Wien.
WHITNEY (1885): William D. W., The Roots, Verb-Forms, and Primary Derivatives of the Sanskrit Language.
Leipzig. (Repr. New Haven/Connecticut, 1945).
WIJAYARATNE (1956): D.J. W., History of the Sinhalese Noun. Colombo.
WILSON / CHRISTOPHER (1841): Vocabulary of the Maldivian Language, compiled by Lieut. W. Chr., I.N.
Communicated to the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society by J. W. In: Journal of the Royal Asiatic
Society 6, 42-76.
YULE / BURNELL (1902): Henry Y. / A.C. B., Hobson-Jobson. A Glossary of Colloquial Anglo-Indian Words andPhrases, and of Kindred Terms, Etymological, Historical, Geographical and Discursive. New edition by
William CROOKE. (Repr. Delhi 1989).
ZOGRAF (1976): G.A. Z., Morfologičeskij stroj novyx indoarijskix jazykov. Moskva.
ZOGRAF (1990): G.A. Z., Jazyki južnoj Azii. Moskva.
ZUHAIR (1991): M. Z., Practical Dhivehi. Male.
ṡIntroduction
0.1. Dhivehi, the official language of the Republic of Maldives, represents the southernmost
Indo-Aryan language and even the southernmost Indo-European language, if we consider thehistorical distribution of the (earlier) Indo-European languages rather than the comparatively
recent expansion of some colonial languages, such as English, French, Spanish or Portuguese.
Together with the closely related Sinhalese, the Indo-Aryan language spoken by the majorpart of Sri Lanka’s population, Dhivehi establishes a special subgroup within the Modern
Indo-Aryan languages which will hereafter be called “Insular Indo-Aryan” (IIA). This term,
which is based on purely geographical facts, is legitimate insofar as the area where the two
languages are spoken is confined to the respective insular states.
Because of a high degree of isolation from the Indo-Aryan linguistic area in the Subcontinent, the two insular languages are distinguished by many particular developments affecting
different linguistic spheres. In order to understand all these peculiarities it is necessary toconsider historical facts and developments, the cultural influences and the history of thelanguages. The preconditions that characterise the study of the two languages in question are
essentially different from each other. While Sinhalese shows the longest continuous literary
and historical tradition of all Modern Indo-Aryan languages, Dhivehi has only a very scanty
written tradition. This is the reason why long periods in the history of the Maldives haveremained almost unknown even today. Inevitably, these facts are also reflected in the historyof scientific research into both languages. Without considering Sinhalese a well-founded
investigation of Dhivehi is practically impossible. Therefore, this introduction begins with ashort outline of the most important stages of the historical studies concerning the two
languages.

0.2. The foundation stone of the historical linguistic analysis of Sinhalese as well as of
Dhivehi was laid by WILHELM GEIGER (1856-1943) whose comprehensive studies of Pali and
Sinhalese are still to be taken seriously. In his 1937 article “The linguistic character ofSinhalese”, he definitively rejected all attempts to consider Sinhalese as one of the membersof the Dravidic family of languages. Although the Danish linguist RASMUS RASK had
classified Sinhalese as a language of the Sanskrit stock as early as 1821, he could not prevent
others from trying to prove a relationship between Sinhalese and Tamil.
The material GEIGER used for his etymological, morphological and syntactical investigations was taken from the rich Sinhalese literature which he divided into four main periods:
Sinhalese Prakrit (from the 2nd c. B.C. to the 3rd/4th c. A.D.; ancient Brāhmı̄ inscriptions);
Proto-Sinhalese (from the 4/5th c. to the 8th c.; later Brāhmı̄ inscriptions); Medieval Sinhalese(from the 8th c. to the middle of the 13th c.; inscriptions and the most ancient documents ofmanuscript literature); the period from the middle of the 13th c. up to the present, called“Modern Sinhalese” by GEIGER, which actually has to be subdivided into Classical Sinhalese(from the 13th c. to the 17th c.), and Modern Sinhalese proper (from then on). The latter
period comprises the contemporary literary and colloquial language.

2

Introduction

To a large extent, Sinhalese inscriptions have been collected and edited within the series
Epigraphia Zeylanica (Archeological Survey of Ceylon) since 1904. In this connection,
S. PARANAVITANA’s two volume edition of the “Sı̄giri Graffiti” which was published in 1956
is of special interest. Besides the text of the inscriptions of the rock of Sı̄giriya it also
contains a comprehensive descriptive grammar of Medieval Sinhalese and, furthermore, themost detailed paleographical description of Sinhalese that has ever been published.
0.2.1. However, the most important information on the earliest history of the Sinhalese people
is not attested in the Sinhalese language but within two chronicles written in Pali: theDı̄pavamsa (“Island Chronicle”)2 and the Mahāvamsa (“Great Chronicle”). The latter covers
the time from 544 B.C. until 362 A.D.; it was continued under the name of Cūlavamsa(“Lesser Chronicle”) which was carried on until 1781.3 While the language of the Dı̄pavamsa is still inspired by the clerical tradition and, therefore, is characterised by a ponderous
style, the Mahāvamsa which combines Buddhist tradition with a rich folklore can be calleda work of poetic artisanship. The author, Mahānāma, lived at the end of the 5th c. / beginningof the 6th c.
It is often difficult to distinguish historical facts from pure myths and legends in both ofthese chronicles. GEIGER whose investigations into the chronicles yielded numerous publications (cf. above), succeeded in filtering much information about historical events and material
culture from these texts. The details would exceed the scope of the present study and only a
few items are to be mentioned here. Thus, e.g., it is nowadays taken for granted that the firstIndo-Aryan colonisation of Sri Lanka took place at about the 5th/4th c. B.C. by tribes comingfrom the north of the subcontinent; however, the question whether their “proto-homeland”
was located in the northwest or in the northeast of India, has not yet been proved satisfactorily. Most of the toponyms mentioned in the chronicle can be interpreted in favour of bothsides. Thus, ch. VI of the Mahāvamsa which relates the colonisation of the island, informs usthat Sı̄habāhu, the father of the legendary first Sinhalese king Vijaya, migrated from the landof the Vaṅgas where he had married a royal princess, to a region called Lāta; there hefounded his residence Sı̄hapura. While Vaṅga obviously refers to Bengal, the name Lāta, inconnection with the hypothesis about the home-land, can be understood in two senses.4
Sı̄habāhu (“lion-arm”) is described as being the son of a lion and a princess; after he killed
his father, he was called Sı̄hala. Vijaya’s successors accepted this name as their ethnonym.
Furthermore we can learn from the Mahāvamsa that the island was inhabited by anaboriginal tribe of an unknown race who can presumably be identified with the ancestors of
˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

2
HERMANN OLDENBERG, The Dı̄pava s a. An Ancient Buddhist Historical Record (ed. + transl.). New DelhiMadras 1992 (1st ed. Berlin 1879).
3
WILHELM GEIGER (transl.), The Mahāva s a or Great Chronicle of Ceylon. Pali Text Society, London 1980
(1st ed. 1912). – The same (ed.), Cūlava s a being the more recent part of the Mahāva s a. Vols. I, II. Pali Text
Soc., London 1980 (1st ed. 1925). – The same (transl.) Cūlava s a Part I. Pali Text Soc., London 1973 (1st ed.
1929). – ANANDA W.P. GURUGE, Mahāva s a. The Great Chronicle of Sri Lanka. Chapters 1-37 (transl. andcommentary). Colombo 1989. – Cf. further W. GEIGER’s articles collected unter the title of “III. Ceylonesische
Chroniken” as part of his “Kleine Schriften zur Indologie und Buddhismuskunde” (ed. HEINZ BECHERT),
Wiesbaden 1973, 233-313. – WILHELM GEIGER, Culture of Ceylon in Mediaeval Times (ed. HEINZ BECHERT),
repr. Stuttgart 1986.
4
Cf. the discussion and the bibliography about the different hypotheses given in DE SILVA (1979), 16 ff.

ṁ

ṁ

ṁ

ṁ

ṁ

ṁ

Introduction

3

the present-day Vedda people.5 The Veddas who are neither a Dravidic nor an Indo-Aryan
tribe, still live, to a small extent, as hunters and gatherers. The chronicle informs us about
intensive contacts between the first Sinhalese settlers and the aborigines up to the point ofmarriage (Vijaya himself took a yakkhinı̄ as his wife), as well as about close relations with
Dravidic tribes from South India.
Soon after the immigration of the Sinhalese to Sri Lanka manifold contacts with different
regions of India started to develop. To a certain degree, these relations must have influenced
the Sinhalese language. In particular it is likely that the contacts with Tamil which lasted formany centuries left considerable traces; however, so far these interferences have scarcely been
investigated.
˙

0.2.2. The language of the immigrants was a MIA dialect which essentially developed in thesame way as the MIA vernaculars of the mainland. At the end of the MIA period, Sinhalese
Prakrit had reached a typical Apabhramśa state which is called “Proto-Sinhalese”. The
linguistic categories of Sinhalese achieved their modern form at the beginning of the 8th c.,i.e. on the threshold of the stage which GEIGER called “medieval”.
˙

0.3. The abundant early attestations of Sinhalese history have no comparable counterpart on
the Maldivian side. The official historiography starts with the year 1153 A.D. which isconsidered to be the beginning of the conversion of the Maldives to Islam. From this time ona national chronicle was written in Arabic, the so-called Tārı̄h (“history”), the original
manuscript of which was destroyed in 1752 during a firestorm in ˘Māle. Apart from that, theperiods of rulership of the sultans and sultanas,6 as well as a few important historical facts,
were listed in a short chronicle written in Dhivehi, the so-called Rādavali, which means“chronicle of the kings”. At present, three manuscripts of the Rādavali have been found in
Māle, but it can be taken for certain that originally there were more variants of the text.
˙

˙

0.3.1. With islamisation, the Maldives became an independent sultanate. They officially kept
this status even during the colonial age under the Portuguese, the Dutch and the British.
While the Portuguese period (1558-73) was characterised by an enormous brutality, therelations with the Dutch were based on an initiative which was taken by the Maldivesthemselves; being considered as a protectorate rather than a colony, their only obligations
consisted of an annual present which was sent to the Dutch government from 1645 on. Fromca. 1753 until ca. 1754/5, the Maldives voluntarily delivered themselves under the protectionof the French who were asked for help against the permanent assaults of Malabar pirates. In

5
In the chronicle this people is called yakkha-. The Pali word goes back to OIA yak á - “supernatural
being”; Cf. also Sinh. yakā “demon, devil” (TURNER 1966, II, 601, no. 10395). According to GEIGER, in thechronicle the word is used for wild tribes living in the mountains. – Cf. furthermore: C.G. SELIGMANN and B.Z.
SELIGMANN, The Veddas, Cambridge 1911; M.W.S. DE SILVA, Vedda Language of Ceylon. Texts and Lexicon,
München 1972; K.N.O. DHARMADASA and S.W.R. DE A. SAMARASINGHE, The Vanishing Aborigines. Sri
Lanka’s Veddas in Transition, New Delhi 1990.
6
In the 14th c. there were three de facto sultanas; in the middle of the 18th c. a nominal sultana was on theMaldivian throne.

ṡ4Introduction

1796, the Maldives became a British protectorate; the only result of this consisted in the factthat the addressee of the annual present changed. Only later, the British built a military baseon the island of Gan in Addū, the southernmost atoll of the Maldives. On the basis of a
special contract of lease they were allowed to keep this base until 1976, although theMaldives had been officially independent since 1965.
Although the Maldives never were an Arab colony, Arabic influence in the spheres ofculture and language is very strong. The relations with the Sinhalese which had been very
close in former times were loosened more and more by the Maldivians, obviously as aconsequence of islamisation. Only the three southernmost atolls (Huvadū, Fua Mulaku andAddū) carried on their own commercial activities with Sri Lanka until recently; however,these special relations were cut off in 1959 by the government in Māle, after the southernatolls had tried to declare their independence as a separate republic. After a first attempt in1953 to establish a republic, and an intermediate period of a reinstalled sultanate, a second
Republic of Maldives was founded in 1968, based on the laws of Islamic Sharia.
˙˙

c

˙˙

0.3.2. Regarding the time before islamisation, the Maldivians can in a certain sense be calleda “people without history”, because there are no autochthonous sources. In order to reveal
information about the more distant past of the Maldives, it is therefore necessary to refer toexternal reports which are, however, not numerous.7
It is highly probable that the Maldives were already known to the Phoenicians. The ancient
geographer, Claudius Ptolemaeus, who lived in the 2nd c. A.D., used Phoenician nauticalcharts when he compiled his tables which contain 8000 locations known at that time, alongwith their longitudinal and latitudinal degrees. In his work, he mentions 1378 islands near by
the island of Taprobane (Sri Lanka) which most probably are to be identified with theMaldives and the Lakkadives.8 In his report on the year 302, Ammianus Marcellinus informs
his emperor, Julian, about “Divae et Serendivae, nationes Indicae ...” which are located in the
Indian Ocean; without any doubt, he is referring to the Maldives and Sri Lanka.9

7

Cf. already FRITZ (1989-1990), 120-21.
Claudii Ptolemaei Geographia I-III. Ed. C.F.A. Nobbe. Leipzig 1843-45; repr. Hildesheim 1966. Lib. VII,
Cap. 4, 11., 175.
9“... inde nationibus Indicis certatim cum donis optimates mittentibus ante tempus ab usque Diuis etSerendiuis, ...” (“... from there the Indian nations, being in competition which each other, prematurely sent
aristocrates with presents from the Divis and Serendivis, ...”) quoted from: Ammianus Marcellinus, Römische
Geschichte (Latin and German, commentary by W. SEYFARTH. Part 3, book 22-25, 3rd ed., Darmstadt 1986; 1sted. Berlin 1970), 20-21. – Cf. also TOMASCHEK in Paulys Realenzyklopädie der Class. Altertumswissenschaften,
9 (1903), 1231: “Die Form Seren-divae entstammt der Vermittlung durch Perser, welche die Insel Taprobane(Sailān) Saran- oder Seren-dı̄b benannten mit dem üblichen Eintritt von r für l; d.i. skr. Siṅhala-dvı̄pa, prakr.
Sihala-diva, ‘Löwen- oder Heldeninsel’, ... Die D(ivae) des Ammian bezeichnen dagegen die zahlreichen Atolle
der Malediven, welche sich westlich von Malabār bis zum Äquator hinabziehen und von pers. Schiffsleuten
häufig besucht wurden.” (“The form Seren-divae reflects the Persian name of the island Taprobane (Sailān)which was called by the Persians Saran- or Seren-dı̄b, showing the normal substitution of l by r; i.e. Skt.
siṅhala-dvı̄pa, Pkt. sihala-diva ‘island of lions or heros’, ... Ammian’s Divae, however, refer to the numerous
atolls of the Maldives which are located in the west of Malabār, extending up to the equator; they were often
visited by Persian ships.”)8

Introduction

5

0.3.3. Some further information that might refer to the Maldive Islands is contained in chap.
VI of the Mahāvamsa which relates about the first migration of Indo-Aryans to Ceylon. The
eldest son of the legendary Sinhalese king Sı̄habāhu, prince-regent Vijaya, was of evil
conduct and became a robber; therefore, he was casted out by his father. Vijaya and his malefollowers, as well as their wifes and children, were provided with three ships. These ships put
to sea and landed on different islands. The island where the women landed was called
Mahilādı̄paka (Pali lit. “woman-island”; mahilā- “woman” + dı̄pa- ← dvı̄pá- “island” +suffix -ka).
Obviously, the Arabic name of the Maldive islands which was used in the Middle Ages by
several Arabic travellers and geographers, was derived from the Pali form Mahilādı̄paka as
well. The first author who mentioned the Maldives is Yāqūt (1179-1229) who under the nameof al-dı̄baǧāt refers to about one thousand islands, some of them inhabited, close by eachother in the middle of the Indian Ocean.10 The first extensive description of the Maldiveswas given by the traveller Ibn Battūta (1304-1377) who calls the islands dı̄bat al-mahal.11
It cannot be decided with certainty whether the toponym of the Maldives has to beunderstood as “island(s) of the women” in the sense of the Pali chronicle. Probably the firstpart of the word represents a linguistic phenomenon which is called a “popular etymology”;
nevertheless, the derivation of the second part from OIA dvı̄pa- through MIA dı̄pa- “island”
is with no doubt correct.12
˙

˙

¯

˙ ˙˙

0.4. If it is true that the toponym Mahilādı̄paka refers to the Maldives, the report on asimultaneous departure of three ships from the home country and their respective landing on
different islands, as given in the Mahāvamsa, deserves a special interest. On the one hand, thequestion arises at what time the first migration of Indo-Aryans to the Maldives took place. On
the other hand, we may wonder whether the first immigrants came directly from mainland
India or via Sri Lanka. If the legend as told in the Mahāvamsa is not purely invented, it could
be taken as an indication that the first Indo-Aryan colonists who travelled to the Maldivesarrived there at the same time as those who, coming from India, settled in Sri Lanka. Furthermore, this would imply that Dhivehi and Sinhalese are “sister languages” which developed
from a common Prakrit ancestor.
As to the questions concerning the immigration, there is no written tradition at all on theMaldivian side so that we have to rely upon other information. In the given case, the explanatory quality of historical-comparative linguistics is of special interest. With the help of theexact methods of a historical linguistic comparison which, in a few auspicious cases, can becompleted by extralinguistic data, it it possible to gain at least a very fragmentary insight into
the early periods of Maldivian history which cannot be gained in any other way. An intensive
˙

˙

c

c

10

YĀQŪT BIN ABDALLAH AR-RŪMĪ: Mu ǧam al-buldān, 2nd vol., Bairūt 1979, 495.
Voyages d’ibn Battūta. Texte arabe, accompagné d’une traduction par C. DEFREMERY et B.R. SANGUINETTI, Paris 1979 (1st ed. 1845).
12
For the derivation of the word divehi meaning “Maldivian”, lit. “island-inhabitant, islander” cf. 1.3.9.5
and 2.6.2.3.1.4. The spelling dhivehi with initial 〈dh〉 as used in the official transcription in the Maldives does
not reflect an aspirated consonant (for the general loss of aspirates cf. 1.3.1) but marks the dental stop /d/ as
against the retroflex / / spelled 〈d〉. Within this spelling system, the dental stops are generally marked by anadditional 〈h〉.
ḋ

11

6

Introduction

cooperation between philologists and archeologists will be indispensable for this task, but
until a short time ago, there were neither the necessary financial means nor a real interest in
saving the remnants of the pre-Islamic era on the Maldivian side. In the most recent past,
however, the common and the official opinion has changed; nowadays, a strong interest in the
non-Islamic period is arising.
Before they were converted to Islam, the Maldivians were Buddhists. Under the ground ofmany islands there are ruins of Buddhist temples which are still awaiting excavation. A few
monuments that have already been uncovered – in most cases in a very unprofessional way13– bear vivid testimony to this epoch of Maldivian history. As to the possibility of serious
archeological investigations, no more time must be wasted because of the permanent erosionof the monuments which is caused by the equatorial climate. Until now, no written documentsof the Buddhist period of the Maldives have been discovered. Thus, for lack of evidence, thepre-Islamic history of the Maldivian archipelago remains practically unknown.

0.5. As was mentioned above, the time following the conversion to Islam, at least withrespect to the reignal years and the names of the sultans, is documented without interruption.
There are also some older documents written in Dhivehi, but the limited number of the texts
which have been preserved cannot compete in any way with the rich tradition of Sinhalese.
0.5.1. The early Dhivehi texts are written in a script named Dives akuru (“Maldivian script”),
the oldest type of which is called Evēla akuru (lit. “script of that time”14). It is quite obvious that this syllabary must be related to the medieval Sinhalese script; like the latter, it must
be classified as a subtype of a southern Brāhmı̄ cursive. Among the oldest texts we find some
inscriptions in Evēla akuru on three statues belonging to the National Museum in Māle(approximately from the 12th / 13th c., still unedited), as well as some decrees on copperplates (lōmāfanu) issued by the early Islamic rulers, the earliest ones dating from the late
12th c. Until now, eight copper-plate documents have come to light, each of them consistingof several (up to 50) plates; some of them are in a very bad condition, though, and practicallyundecipherable. The latest plates must be dated in the 14th c. Two of the lōmāfanus, which
are in a better state, have recently been edited by representatives of the “National Centre for
Linguistic and Historical Research” in Māle in cooperation with members of the Departmentof Sinhala of the University of Colombo; in many respects, however, the quality of these
editions does not satisfy scientific requirements.15
In form, the copper-plates are an imitation of palm leaves, which were the typical writing
material of the whole region until recently. While the art of writing on palm leaves is stillpractised in Sri Lanka by a few professional calligraphers, it has been completely lost in the13

Thor HEYERDAHL’s expeditions and excavations, as attested particularly in his book “The Maldive
Mystery” (London 1986), do not meet any scientific requirements. To a large extent, his conclusions about theprehistory and the Buddhist period of the Maldives are pure illusion. – A special article on this subject is justbeing prepared by the author of this book.
14
Dem.pron. e “that”; vēla “time”; akuru “script”.
15
This is especially true for matters in historical linguistics. For further information cf. the material volumeof this book, p. 215 f.

Introduction

7

Maldives. There is good reason to believe that real palm leaves were used as a writing
material in the Maldives in older times as well; the extremely humid and hot climate there
must have destroyed them in their entirety. Even the copper-plates show many traces of
erosion.
The first lōmāfanu plates were discovered as late as 1922 during an expedition which wassupervised by the British Archaeological Commissioner for Ceylon, H.C.P. BELL, who is also
the author of the most instructive and complete survey on history, geography and ethnologyof the Maldive Islands which has ever been written and which, therefore, has not lost its
importance until the present time.16 Furthermore, BELL collected the written documents of
Dhivehi as far as they were available, and he even tried to analyse them with the active helpof Maldivians. BELL himself had no knowledge of the Maldivian script and language.
0.5.2. Two comparatively extensive inscriptions in Dives akuru date from the middle of the
17th c. They are written on a wooden beam and a board and are now stored in the National
Museum, Māle. One of these inscriptions was provisionally published by BELL again (1940).
Besides the inscriptional attestations, there are numerous manuscripts in Dives akuru written
on paper (fatkolu “leaf(piece)”, i.e. “manuscript sheet”) which date from the 16th up to the18th c. Two of these texts were edited for the first time by BELL as well. One of the threeRādavali manuscripts (cf. above) is also written in Dives akuru. Furthermore, there areapproximately 20 epitaphs and memorial inscriptions in Dives akuru written on stone; mostof them have not yet been edited (16th-18th c.). They are to be found in Māle as well as inMı̄dū and in Hitadū (Addū-Atoll).
˙

˙

˙˙

0.5.3. The written documents of the later period, to a larger extent consisting of decrees andofficial letters as well, are written in Tāna, the right-to-left script which is still in use today.
Tāna obviously represents a mixed product of modified Dives akuru characters and Arabic
elements. A curious phenomenon is the use of the Arabic digits for the first nine charactersof the Maldivian alphabet. Typologically Tāna is a mixture of a syllabary belonging to thesouthern Brāhmı̄ type and an alphabetic script which strictly follows phonological criteria. It
is not really known at what time this script emerged. It was used alongside Dives akuru fora longer period, until the latter was finally given up at the end of the 19th c. It is an interesting fact that in the south of the Maldives the old script was preserved much longer than inMāle.17 Several documents from the 18th c. are already written in Tāna (some of them havebeen published in Maldivian journals by members of the “National Centre” in Māle; cf.
above). Almost all of the numerous funeral and memorial stone inscriptions in Tāna whichdate from the 18th up to the 20th c. (in Māle, Fua Mulaku and in Gan, Hitadu and Mı̄du,Addū-Atoll) have not yet been edited. The most extended older text written in Tāna is acomplete manuscript of the Rādavali which was published in Māle in 1979.18 The oldest
literary texts, in the proper sense of the word, that are available to us date from the end of the
19th c.
c

˙˙

˙

16

Cf. the bibliography.
Cf. already FRITZ (1993), 19-20.
18
Cf. also in the material volume of this book.
17

8

Introduction

0.6. The small amount of linguistic studies (in a wider sense) that have been devoted to
Dhivehi so far19 shows that there has been but little interest in this language. In most cases,
Dhivehi is not even mentioned in general indological literature. Exceptions are R.L. TURNER’s“Comparative Dictionary of the Indo-Aryan Languages” (1966, I/II), the new edition of
G.A. ZOGRAF’s “Jazyki južnoj Azii” (1990) and C.P. MASICA’s survey “The Indo-Aryan
Languages” (1991); the information about Dhivehi as given there does not exceed a few
fragmentary notes, however. The amount of special literature having Dhivehi as its subject isvery restricted as well. Only a few publications exist, some of them having a very popularcharacter; their only value consists in the material they comprise. In most cases, studies of amore scientific character are not really informative either, and there are practically no worksof reference.
0.6.1. Thus, the very first – and still the only existing – sketch of a Maldivian grammar
which was published by W. GEIGER at the beginning of the 20th century (1901-1902 and1919), is very fragmentary. GEIGER himself never had the opportunity to visit the Maldives;
his contact with the language remained sporadic. When he was in Colombo in winter 189596, he had three short meetings with the Maldivian aristocrat and merchant A. Ebrahim Dı̄dı̄
Effendi who was the prime minister of the Maldivian Sultan and, at the same time, consul of
the Ottoman Empire and who sojourned in Colombo at that time.20 The outcome of thesemeetings was a small vocabulary and some paradigms and sentences, which GEIGER noted.
Some time later, he was able to enlarge this very restricted material on the basis of an
indirect correspondence with a native speaker of Arabic who had a certain knowledge of
Dhivehi.21 As we should expect, the results of these hasty contacts were meagre and not freefrom mistakes. Because of his brilliant knowledge of the Sinhalese language, however,
GEIGER was able to publish at least a rudimentary grammatical sketch which has remained theonly printed grammar of Dhivehi until now; its English version was reprinted in unchanged
form in 1986 in Māle. In the German original, the chapter on morphology comprises no morethan 20 pages (35 pages in the English translation; the difference is mainly due to the printing
fonts used, not by an enlargement of information).
0.6.2. Besides this, GEIGER (1902) published a small etymological vocabulary of 435 words
which has also remained the only publication of its kind so far. There exists no dictionary yet
which could be used for reliable reference. The word list of the French seafarer Pyrard deLaval who sojourned in the Maldives in the 17th c. (PYRARD/GRAY 1878), as well as the
vocabulary compiled by the British officers J. Wilson and W. Christopher in the 19th c.
(WILSON/CHRISTOPHER 1841) have a certain value for the solution of some problems concerning the historical phonology of Dhivehi, but beyond that their importance is marginal. Somemodern glossaries which contain very incomplete collections of the colloquial vocabulary of
the modern standard language (partly with mistakes) are of a restricted usability as well
(MITE 1986; SHISHIDO 1983; DISANAYAKA/MANIKU 1990). Quite recently, a monolingual
dictionary covering 16 volumes appeared in Māle (NCLHR 1985-91; ca. 125 handwritten
pages per vol.). As it contains many instances of inaccuracy, its compilers (members of the19

Cf. the list given in FRITZ (1993), 15 ff. For further bibliographical information cf. the bibliography.
Cf. GEIGER (1973), 345.
21
For details cf. FRITZ (1993), 23.
20

Introduction

9“National Centre for Historical and Linguistic Research”, Māle) already begun working on
a new edition before the project was finished; a first enhanced version has been madeavailable in electronic form in 2000.
0.6.3. Three articles by the Sinhalese philologist M.W.S. DE SILVA (1969, 1970a, 1970b) must
be considered as the first efforts to investigate Dhivehi on the basis of modern linguistic
methods. DE SILVA for the first time tried to elucidate and to explain the relationship between
Dhivehi and Sinhalese. The same goal was aimed at by a team of Sinhalese and Maldivian
authors who compiled an (unpublished) study finished in 1988 (HLSD 1988) which comprises
a small collection of phonological, morphological, syntactical and lexical correspondences
between Dhivehi and Sinhalese; the final conclusions about the genetic relation of the two
languages, which are based on poor material and contain many mistakes, do not meetscientific criteria.
0.6.4. The increasing interest of the Maldivians in their own language, history and culture
which can be observed nowadays manifests itself in the periodical Fattūra which contains
articles about Maldivian history and literature, including literary products of contemporary
Maldivian original writers as well as translated texts. In Fattūra we also find some articles
about lexical and morphological questions concerning the Dhivehi language.
0.6.5. The philological studies of the Maldivian scholar HASSAN AHMED MANIKU deserve
special interest. Most of his publications are dedicated to the cultural and linguistic heritageof the Maldives (MANIKU, 1988-1989). In more recent times, Dhivehi was the subject of anarticle on the expression of the passive voice and a provisional “Pre-Publication Draft” of aplanned “Grammatical Sketch of Dhivehi” by B. CAIN (1995 / 1992) and two articles by theauthor of the present book (FRITZ 1989-1990 and 1993).

0.7. The question concerning the approximate time of the first Indo-Aryan migration to theMaldives, which is regarded as a substantial problem by many Maldivians, has yielded twocontradictory theses which have to be discussed here.
0.7.1. Although GEIGER’s studies about Dhivehi represent the foundation stone of any
scientific linguistic investigation into this language, the material he collected did not suffice
to judge the “degree of relationship” of Dhivehi and Sinhalese. As to the presumptive periodof the Indo-Aryan migration to the Maldive Islands, GEIGER’s basic assumption can be proved
to be wrong. Relying himself on the prejudice that Dhivehi must be a dialectal offspring ofSinhalese, he concluded that the splitting time was not earlier than the 10th c. A.D. This,
however, would imply a real exodus from Sri Lanka to the Maldives to have taken place inthe middle ages. But there is no convincing reason why thousands of Sinhalese people shouldhave given up their fertile home country in order to exchange it for the comparatively sterile
Maldive Islands; the only imaginable motive for such an emigration could have been a war
or an epidemic. However, whatever the reason of such a sudden and powerful colonisation of
the Maldives might have been — the Sinhalese chronicle would certainly have mentioned it.
But in fact there is not even a short note which could support GEIGER’s assumption. Ibn

10

Introduction

Battūta who in the 14th c. spent one year and a half in the Maldives working as a cadi, noted
everything which seemed to be important to him; if the Maldives had been settled relatively
recently, he would certainly have heard about that. And, last but not least, we should expectthat the Maldivian chronicle, albeit giving more exact dates only from the year 1153 A.D.,
would have reported about such a sudden immigration at least in legendary form. Furthermore, the few Maldivian legends that refer to the pre-Islamic period do not contain any
indications which speak in favour of a recent mass immigration. None of these extralinguistic
arguments supports GEIGER’s thesis, which, however, cannot be disproved by them either.
Until there are serious archeological investigations that testify to an earlier settlement by
Indo-Aryans, we have to look for other pieces of scientific evidence.
˙ ˙˙

0.7.2. The Sinhalese philologist DE SILVA (1970b) published the hypothesis that the Maldiveswere colonised at the same time as Sri Lanka, by Indo-Aryan tribes who came from South
India.22 According to DE SILVA, a first Indo-Aryan immigration, perhaps of a larger extent,
could have taken place as early as the 5th or 4th c. B.C., the possibility of smaller migration
waves during the following centuries, probably also from Sri Lanka, not withstanding. In thisconnection, the episode about the ship used by the women which lands on the island Mahilādı̄paka, as reported in the Mahāvamsa, deserves a certain interest. It is not difficult to imagine
that some of the ships that were on the way to Sri Lanka missed their original destination
because of adverse winds or currents and thus landed on the Maldives. Comparable incidents
are well known from the more recent past. Besides the attested cases of ships or boats fromfar away, driven off course, an enormous number of ships were destroyed by reefs surrounding the islands, which are hard to locate for navigators; many of these wrecks are still to befound around the Maldives. Over the last two-three centuries, several cases of crews who
have had to stay in the Maldives after their vessels were broken are attested. Thus, theassumption that the first Indo-Aryan settlers might have reached the Maldives by accident, is
not completely unfounded.
˙

0.8. Jakob GRIMM’s famous sentence according to which “our language is also our history”23 holds true for many nations and tribes. As to the special case of the Maldivians, thehistory of the language even represents the only possible basis for investigations into theirprehistory. Both GEIGER and DE SILVA built their respective migration theses on linguistic
data. GEIGER paid special attention to the common features of Sinhalese and Dhivehi, as far
as they were known to him, while DE SILVA, without neglecting the importance of, looked
particularly for features that distinguish the two languages. He tried to find divergences
concerning the inherited categories as well as special developments in the field of areal
typology. However, neither thesis is convincing in its present state; there being but a verysmall quantity of Dhivehi material at our disposal, neither GEIGER’s nor DE SILVA’s thesis canbe proved or disproved with certainty. Some facts, however, seem to speak in favour of the22
Here, the question whether their original homeland was located in the northwest or in the northeast of the
Subcontinent was left open by DE SILVA. In a later publication (1979) he considers the “Western hypothesis”
as more probable.
23“Unsere Sprache ist auch unsere Geschichte.” Kleinere Schriften, I, 1864, 290.

Introduction

11

assumption that Indo-Aryans might already have been present on the Maldive islands for acertain period, perhaps even a long time before the 10th c. A.D. Neither GEIGER nor DE
SILVA were aware of the complicated dialectal situation that is to be found in the Maldives.
If they had had the opportunity to investigate more than the standard language, which
represents the dialect of Māle, and if they had been able to compare more than only someisolated elements of this particular idiom with Sinhalese, GEIGER’s model would be less rigid
and DE SILVA’s arguments more effective.
0.8.1. Despite some other errors and misleading conclusions, DE SILVA, when regarding thehistorical-phonological development of Dhivehi and Sinhalese, discovered two essential
features that speak in favour of a very early dialectal separation of the two languages.24 The
first feature concerned is the development of the OIA glide /y/ which in initial position ispreserved as /y-/ in Sinhalese while it is represented by /d-/ in the same position in Dhivehi´ “goes”).
without exception (cp., e.g., Sinh. yanavā vs. Dhiv. (M.) danı̄ “to go” ← OIA yātiThis sound law would be less decisive if the dialectal differentiation could not be traced backto the MIA period. The second important phonological divergence is not as archaic as the one
just mentioned. It consists in the different development in Dhivehi and Sinhalese of the OIA
and MIA affricates.25 All the other divergences (some of them great) between the phoneme
systems of the two insular languages can be assigned to the modern Indo-Aryan epoch only;
some of these, however, are already attested in the oldest Maldivian texts (12th c., cf. above).
Considering phonological features only, the amount of material which I had the opportunity
to study leaves us no doubt that GEIGER’s thesis is wrong. His assumption that the first IndoAryan settlers of the Maldives came from Sri Lanka and arrived no earlier than the 10th c.,
can no longer be maintained. In morphology, as well, there are many significant differences
between Old Dhivehi and the Sinhalese language of the late medieval period, i.e. the early
form of Classical Sinhalese. It is quite improbable that the fundamental morphologicaldifferences which characterise some verbal categories might have developed within one or
two centuries only, as GEIGER’s temporal framework considering the assumed “splitting off”
of Dhivehi would imply.26
0.8.2. A striking typological difference between Dhivehi and Sinhalese is met with in the
structure of the numeral system. Until the most recent past, Dhivehi disposed of a complete
duodecimal system which was still in use at the beginning of the 20th c. This system which
was characterised by special lexical items based on calculating operations with duodecimal
numbers, determined all weights and measures, as well. In contrast to that, there are no
attestations of a particular duodecimal system in Sinhalese in any period of its well documented history. However, apart from the obviously dominating duodecimal system, decimal
numbers have always existed in Dhivehi, attestations being found already in the old texts. In
all dialects, the duodecimal numbers have been replaced by the decimal numbers the systemof which shows many innovations as to the formation of the numerals. Some of the more

24

For details cf. 1.7.
Cf. 1.7.
26
Cf. GEIGER (1919), 100: “In one word, Máldivian must have separated from Sinhalese at a time when thelatter had already, in respect of sound, assumed the form which it has at present. And this, as I think I have
proven, was about the year 900 A.D.”
25

12

Introductionarchaic Maldivian decimal numbers obviously represent prakritisms27 which are not attested
in Sinhalese; they are of particular interest here.
0.8.3. Regarding the lexical items that were borrowed from Sinhalese into Dhivehi, theSinhalese language with its unbroken written tradition can be used as chronological parameter. Even though thorough investigations of Sinhalese loanwords in Dhivehi have not yet been
undertaken, it is to be expected that the respective diachronical layers of Sinhalese loanwords
in Dhivehi reflect different stages in the phonological development of Sinhalese; furthermore,
depending on the time when the Sinhalese words were borrowed into Dhivehi, they will also
reflect some of the particular sound changes that are exclusively characteristic for Dhivehi.
Thus, it is possible that a systematical historical investigation into the Sinhalese loanwords
will not only inform us about the intensity and the effectivity of (bilingual) contacts in thecourse of time, but will perhaps even allow us to draw our conclusions concerning thechronology of the migrations from Sri Lanka to the Maldives.
0.8.4. Despite the more extensive research work that has been devoted to Dhivehi in recent
times, and its results which also elucidate parts of the history of the language, it is still too
early to decide with certainty whether Dhivehi and Sinhalese developed at about the sametime from a common Prakrit ancestor which would allow to call them “sister languages” inthe literal sense of the word, as proposed by DE SILVA. We cannot disprove the opposite
assumption that Dhivehi might represent a “daughter language” of Sinhalese which split off
from it in prehistorical time; it is clear, however, that this time must have been much earlier
than GEIGER supposed.

0.9. The relationship between Dhivehi and Sinhalese is not only the most important objective
when the history of the language is concerned, but also an indispensable means for judging
the evolutional background of certain dialectal phenomena occurring in Dhivehi. Within thisframework it is necessary to regard the diglossia which characterises all levels of contemporary Sinhalese. The modern written language is interwoven with many influences from theearlier stages of the literary language, from poetry as well as from classical prose; furthermore, a permanent infiltration of loanwords (often in the function of mots savants) from
Sanskrit, Pali and Classical Sinhalese can still be observed nowadays. Apart from that, fromthe point of view of morphology, syntax and stylistics as well, the modern written language
is heterogeneous. This can be explained by the parallel use of different diachronical strata
which causes the great variety of concomitant stylistic levels we find in the written language.
In contrast to this, the colloquial language is characterised by manifold simplifications bothin morphology and syntax as well as comparatively reduced stylistic means of expression.
The highly developed diglossia we observe in Sinhalese is typical only for languages with along and popular literary tradition. Thus, a language like Dhivehi with its relatively meagre
literary resources is likely to exhibit a completely different picture. Concerning its vocabulary,27
Within the given context the term “prakritism” is to be understood in the sense of a “loanword from a
MIA language”. In Old Dhivehi prakritisms, in correspondence with sanskritisms, were used as mots savants (inthe written language).

Introduction

13

its grammatical categories and its stylistic possibilities, however, Dhivehi is not a “poor”
language at all, given its abundant dialectal variation on the one hand and its rich tradition oforal folklore on the other hand. It is written poetry of any kind, however, which has developed only recently as a new literary category and which has remained confined to thestandard language.
0.9.1. The speakers of Dhivehi are scattered all over a vast area, the geographical circumstances preventing them from being in very close contact with each other. This situation has
resulted in a remarkable dialectal differentiation. The archipelago which consists of ca. 1200
islands, ca. 200 of them inhabited, covers a distance of 885 km from north to south. If wetake Minicoy (Maliku) into account, an island now belonging to India which is situated at thenorthern end of the Maldivian archipelago where Dhivehi is spoken as well, the Maldivesextend to a length of about 1000 km. The numerous subdialects are divided into two maingroups: a northern and a southern one. The latter is restricted to the three southernmost atolls
with the traditional names Huvadū, Fua Mulaku and Addū.28 There are some considerable
differences between the particular subdialects of the south. The dialectal divergences between
North and South Dhivehi are of such a quality that northern Maldivians can hardly understandthe southern dialects. The opposite is much easier since the Māle standard language has
become widespread. The northern dialect group which extends from the Haddummati (Lām)
Atoll in the south up to Minicoy, is very homogeneous. The dialect of Māle is a typicalrepresentative of this group.
˙˙c0.9.1.1. It has been observable during the last years that the active knowledge of the unwritten
dialects is getting lost in favour of an increasing competence of the standard language. The
fact that the standard language is used in education and administration all over the atolls is
not the only reason for this development; the role played by the mass media, television andradio which broadcast from Māle all over the islands, is gaining more and more importance.
0.9.1.2. In many respects, the dialects of Dhivehi represent different diachronical stages in thedevelopment of the language. Especially in the field of morphology, the amount of archaic
features steadily increases from north to south. Within the three southernmost atolls, thedialect of the Addū islands which form the southern tip of the whole Maldivian archipelago,
is characterised by the highest degree of archaicity. Thus, the different classes of verb
conjugation and nominal inflection are best preserved there, morphological simplifications
and, as a consequence, irregularities increasing from atoll to atoll towards the north. From astrictly morphological point of view, the southern dialects which are still very rich in forms
correspond more to Classical Sinhalese than to northern Dhivehi which has lost many forms
and even complete morphological categories. On the other hand, the northern Maldivian
dialects, including the colloquial standard language, can be compared with colloquial Sinhalese, the morphology of which has also undergone considerable reductions.
˙˙

28

The modern official names are: Gāf-Alif / Gāf-Dāl Atoll, Ñaviyani (Gnaviyani) Atoll and Sı̄n Atoll.

14

Introduction

0.9.1.3. As is to be expected, the dialects also show many differences in their vocabularies.
In many cases different etyma are used for the same concept. But there are also divergences
concerning whole systems. A very prominent example are the personal pronouns where, to alarge extent, the northern and the southern dialects show different etyma.
0.9.1.4. In phonological development the interdialectal differences are less significant. As arule, the vowel system of the standard language is more conservative than that of the southerndialects, while the latter show some archaic features in their consonant system which are not
to be found in North Dhivehi (any longer).29 Some of the phonological divergences between
the northern and the southern area can be regarded as archaic.30
0.9.1.5. Comparative syntax does not reveal any systematical differences between the dialects.
The most decisive point of Maldivian syntax consists in the question whether a sentence
contains a finite verb or not. The basic clause structure depends on this predisposition. In
comparison with the significance of this main rule, the other syntactical rules play a subordinate role only.
0.9.2. A special development of Dhivehi which is very peculiar from a typological point ofview, is confined to the standard language. While the expression of the social status, on the
one hand, and politeness, appreciation, despise, intimacy and respect for older people, on theother hand, is not unknown to the languages of the Subcontinent in general, the hierarchicalsystem we find in the traditional language of Māle is unique within the languages of South
Asia for different reasons. The pure existence of three formally differentiated social degrees
alone would not be surprising as such within the areal context. But, in contrast to the other
Modern IA languages, the Maldivian language perfectly reflects the threefold system of social
status which originally consisted of commoners (1st honorific degree), nobles (2nd degree)
and the king and queen, nowadays replaced by the president and leaders of institutions (3rddegree). In standard Maldivian the expression of hierarchy is strictly organised and completely formalised, the social status being represented by the three honorific degrees as indicated.
The language of Māle is the only modern IA dialect where all personal pronouns, including
the first person, are systematically distinguished according to the status of the respective
person. Thus, all forms are inambiguously marked, which includes that the relation of theparticular forms to the respective social level is straight-forward and unchangeable. It isneither possible to change the stylistic level in order to express more intimacy or distance, nor
are there any special forms that refer to a hierarchy of age. The primary criterion of thissystem consists in differentiating status and nothing else. All kind of communication depends
on the social rank, acquired by birth, of the speaker, the addressee and third persons referred
to. Politeness is important but has no influence on the choice of the respective pronoun.
The expression of status is not restricted to the pronominal system, however. Thus, nouns
are integrated into the hierarchical order by help of two special suffixes. Even the use ofparticles depends on the common status criteria. One of the most remarkable features consists

29
Cp., e.g., the phonematic difference between /n/ and / / as preserved in the southern dialects as against theuniform /n/ appearing in North Dhivehi; cf. 1.3.7.
30
Cp. M. / / vs. A.F. / / as described in 1.3.7.2.

ṅ

ḋ

l̇

Introduction

15

in a very strict, hierarchically organised verbal system. Three verbal levels are expressed
mainly by causative formations, partly also by lexical means.
The systematic use of the honorific levels has always been a special feature of the capitaland its sphere of influence, where the differentiation of the three status classes was anomnipresent phenomenon. Nowadays the significance of the threefold social splitting isloosing importance even here, though, which corresponds with a decreasing competence forthe honorific system of the language. The sociolect of the sultan’s palace (“palace language”)
which represents the most elevated level from the stylistical point of view, is almost forgotten
now, because the courtly lifestyle has disappeared. In the southern Maldives where the society
has always been more homogeneous, there are even no traces whatsoever of a comparable
linguistic differentiation.31

0.10. The primary goal of the present grammar consists in a detailed comparative descriptionof the morphology of the main dialects of Dhivehi. Furthermore, without a solid knowledgeof the morphological relations it would be impossible to give a correct phonological description, because there are many morphonological processes that play an important role inModern Dhivehi.
From the morphological point of view, the dialect of Addū is the most conservative one.
It is of a special interest because of the high degree of regularity and transparency of its
forms. A good knowledge of the morphological system of the Addū dialect helps to judge andto explain many of the (secondary) developments of the other dialects which seem to beirregular; this is especially true for modern northern Dhivehi which shows a comparatively
reduced morphology. Furthermore, without the morphological background of the Addū
dialect, it would be difficult to establish the syntactical function of the oblique case in thestandard language, because this inherited case form has almost completely been lost there,
while in the southern dialects it is preserved not only as a syntactical factor but, to a certain
extent (especially in the pronominal system), also as a morphological unit. The dialect of Fua
Mulaku which essentially corresponds with that of Addū in the manifestation of the formal
categories, at the same time shows many morphological peculiarities that are characteristic fornorthern Dhivehi. As a result of these overlaps, the dialect of Fua Mulaku is less transparent
from the formal point of view. With respect to morphology, the dialect of Huvadū is a more
typical representant of southern Dhivehi. With regard to the phonology, however, there aresome special developments that are characteristic for Huvadū alone.32
˙˙

˙˙

˙˙

c

˙˙

c

31
The Maldivian honorific system will be the subject of a separate study which at present is under preparation. In it, the phenomen will be treated within an enlarged areal context.
32
Depending on the (mainly temporal) circumstances of my research stay in 1993, I had to concentrate
primarily on the two southernmost dialects as well as on the standard language. The material I could collect from
Huvadū is relatively restricted and, as a consequence, my Huvadū database is much smaller than the other datacollections. Therefore, the dialect of Huvadū plays only a small role within the framework of this book.

Phonology
1. The sound system
Except for some special developments, the sound system of Dhivehi can be regarded as
typical for a South Indian language. Among the characteristics common to Modern IndoAryan languages, the Maldivian phonemic inventory shows an opposition of long and shortvowels, of dental and retroflex consonants as well as of single and geminate consonants,
furthermore diphthongs and nasalised vowels (the latter having a phonemic value only in the
dialect of Fua Mulaku, cf. below). There are three peculiar features that Dhivehi shares with
Sinhalese, viz. the complete loss of the aspirated consonants, the emergence of prenasalised
stops and, finally, considerable vowel changes as a consequence of umlaut-processes.
c1.1. To illustrate these basic principles, a concise survey of the most important historicalsound changes that are responsible for the phonological peculiarities of modern Dhivehi incomparison with its Sinhalese sister language is required.33 The essential changes occurred
gradually, following an hierarchical order within the framework of a continuous process
which affected and transformed considerable parts of the sound system.
1.1.1. With the other modern Indo-Aryan languages Dhivehi shares the fundamental soundchanges that mark the beginning of this epoch, the earliest characteristics of which can betraced back already to late Middle Indo-Aryan times. For instance, it shows no long vowels
in inherited words which could be derived directly from corresponding Old Indo-Aryan longvowels.34 In general, the long vowels of the modern language have emerged as a secondary
result of the contraction of two originally short vowels after the loss of intervocalic consonants during the Middle Indian period.35
1.1.2. Old Dhivehi as handed down in its earliest written documents,36 the lōmāfanus, hadonly open syllables. From the fact that there were no closed syllables, it follows that theprenasalised stops have to be considered as monophonemic (cf. 1.3.4); this coincides with thefact that they were never written as sequences of nasals + stops. The writing rule also implies
that there were no consonant clusters in Old Dhivehi (cf. 1.3.8). In the language of thosedays, the contemporary (nominal and verbal) consonant stems (cf. 2.3.1.3) still ended in -u;e.g. ratu “island, land” (attested since L1 [f/2,1]; today M. [ra ] 〈raś〉) or eku “one”(attested since L3 4/1,5; today M. [e ] 〈ek〉), kotu abs. “having done, made” (attested sinceL1 [d/1,2]; today M. [ko ] 〈koś〉). The question whether the same rule applied to southern
Dhivehi in ancient times as well, or whether we have to assume a dialectal differentiation
c

˙

˙

c

c

33
For a treatise of some general features of the historical phonology of Dhivehi, cf. FRITZ / GIPPERT (2000),
139-152.
34
Cf., e.g., MASICA (1991), 189. – For concrete Dhivehi examples cf. 1.2.1.
35
For examples cf. 1.2.1.3.
36
For the different types of documents cf. introduction, 0.5.1 and furthermore vol.ii. of the present book.

18

Phonology

similar to that of nowadays,37 cannot be answered with certainty, because all linguistic
documents were written in the standard language.
1.1.3. The history of Dhivehi – as far as it is attested by written documents – shows that final-u in the position after voiceless consonants, nasals and l tended to be apocopated more andmore in the course of the centuries, while it was conserved after retroflex and voiced consonants. As a result of this development, in modern Dhivehi only the consonants /n/, /s/, /k/, /t/
and /ś ← t/ can be found in final position. While /n/ in final position is articulated as a velar[o] in all dialects (e.g. mı̄hun [mı̄huo] “people”38), the other four consonants mentioned are
subject to considerable phonetic changes which for the most part vary from dialect to dialect.
The only phoneme that is realised homogeneously is /-k/ which phonetically occurs as glottal
stop [?] in the whole Dhivehi speaking area. In the southern dialects, final /-t/ has beenchanged phonetically to [?] as well,39 while in the standard language /-t/ is realised as glide[y] forming a diphthong with the preceding vowel; for this development cp., e.g., the casus
rectus M. [foi] in comparison with A.F. [fo ] /fot/ “book”.40 In the dialect of Addū as wellas the standard language, final /-ś/ is pronounced as [?] too, while we have to state a completely different development for Fua Mulaku where the phoneme /ś/ is never met with inword-final position. Obviously, there was no tendency in this dialect to omit the following
vowel which, however, underwent some qualitative changes; cf. F. raśo “island, land” vs.
M.A. [ra ] /raś/ (← /ratu/, attested since L1 [f/2,1]).41 While final /-s/ remained unchangedin the standard language and in Addū, the dialect of Fua Mulaku shows an allophonic changeof /-s/ to [h] in the same position, followed by a weakly articulated vowel which echoes thevowel of the preceding syllable; cp., e.g., F. maha with M.A. mas “fish”.42 The Fua
Mulaku dialect is peculiar with respect to final /l/ as well, for it is the only dialect where thisconsonant has been preserved to this day in its original phonetic quality (cf. 1.2.1.6).
˙

c

˙˙

c

c

˙

c

˙˙

c

It follows from these observations that [?] has no phonemic value of its own. It only serves as an allophonicvariant of the final consonants M.A.F. /-k/, A.F. /-t/ and M.A. /-ś/. It is important to draw attention to the factthat this phonological function of the glottal stop has to be regarded separately from a pure phonetic
phenomenon typical not only for Dhivehi and Sinhalese, viz. the automatical articulation of a glottal stop [?]following inevitably every vowel in word-final position, which is a widespread phenomenon throughout theSouth Asian languages; cp., e.g., the adjective M. bo u , F. bon̆ o , A. bon̆ a “big”, which is pronounced [bo u ],[bon̆ o ] and [bon̆ a ], resp. This kind of glottal stop has neither phonological nor morphological significance.
c

ḋ

ḋ

ḋ

ḋ

c

ḋ

c

ḋ

1.1.4. The nasal m, which by apocope of the final -u came into absolute final position, waschanged into -n [o], but it remained m within the paradigm when it was not final. A tendencyof changing -m → -n can be noticed already in the earliest documents. Alongside kamu “fact,deed” which is attested in this form from L1 (d/2,3) up to the Tāna-period, the same word
was written in parallel kan, which can be found as early as L5 (5/2,2) as well; cf. also bimu

37

Cf. 2.3.1.3.4.1 below.
Cf. also 2.3.1.3.1.
39
For examples and for the spelling of the two latter phonemes cf. 2.3.1.3.1.
40
For more details and examples cf. 1.2.2.4.
41
For a detailed study on the dative ending F. -aśa cf. 2.3.1.1.3.
42
For some further examples cf. 2.3.1.3.1.
38

The sound system

19“earth, soil, ground, land” (F3,14; F6,11) with its variant bin which is attested in fatkolus in
the compounds binbai “share, portion of land” (F6,11; F8,23) and bingan̆du “id.” (F4,3).
There can be no doubt that the spelling with final -u does not reflect the actual pronunciation,
at least in later times; these forms must be explained as results of historical spelling instead.
˙˙

1.1.5. Besides the apocope of final -u we have to deal with a syncope of medial -u- and -awhich took place under the same phonological conditions. There is much evidence for thisprocess being as old as the ancient documents. Cp. the name of the island Isdū which often
occurs as isu-duvu since L1 (s/1,4), as against the variant form is-duvu appearing in L2 (7,2) and L3 (12/1,3) which already shows syncope;43 the sibilant s in isdū was preserved
because it belongs to the very few consonants in Dhivehi that are not omitted in final position (cf. 1.1.3 above). Cf. also the ancient word for “officer”, lit. “the one having received atask (to do)” which is attested in many documents as kamu-gati (L2 6,2; L6 2,4; F5,39.43;
cf. also the plural kamugatı̄n-āi “and officers” in L5 5/1,4 as well as the indef. plural forms
kamugattakun in L1 n/1,1 and kamugatyakun in L2 37,5), as against syncopated kam-gati(L4 f/1,7 and g/1,1; indef. plural kamgatyakun “officers” in L3 3/2,1).44 On the other hand, all consonants which after the loss of the originally word-final vowels could not appear in
final position themselves yielded geminates in syncope environments.45 Cp., e.g., thecontemporary name of the southernmost atoll, Addū, which has to be derived through anintermediate form at-duvu (L4 a/2,4), syncopated from *ata/atu-duvu, lit. “eight-island(atoll)”; cf. also the name of the island Toddū which is attested as totduvu (L2 11,2.3;
L3 10/2,3) from *totu-duvu, approximately “ford-island”. Another consonant that could notenter final position is t as in batteriā “rice man, rice farmer” which is attested in its geniti
ve form written bat-veriage (L2 28,3). Finally, the same kind of syncope is also responsible
for the geminates that characterise the regular formation of causatives (cf. 1.3.9.12).
˙˙

˙

˙˙

˙

˙˙

˙˙

˙

1.2. The vowels
1.2.1. The vowel system of modern Dhivehi is strictly symmetrical. It consists of five vocalic
qualities which show a phonemic differentiation of quantity: a – ā, i – ı̄, u – ū, e – ē, o – ō.
As was mentioned above, there are no inherited words with long vowels that could be derived
directly from the corresponding long vowels of Old Indo-Aryan. GEIGER (1938, 14-15) showsthat the same process is valid for Sinhalese as well where the inherited long vowels mergedwith the short ones not later than the Proto-Sinhalese period, i.e., the 5th c. A.D.; cp., e.g.,46´
Sinh. gama, stem gam- “village” vs. Pa., Pkt. gāma-, OIA grāma; Sinh. nil “blue, green,47´
dark” vs. Pa. nı̄la-, OIA nı̄la- ; Sinh. duma, stem dum- “smoke, steem” vs. Pa., Pkt.

For Dhiv. dū ← duvu “island” cf. 2.6.2.3.1.4.
/gat/, gatı̄ part.pret. of gannanı̄, originally meaning “to get”, but nowadays meaning only “to buy”; formore detailed information on this verb cf. 3.11.4.3. – For kam(u) cf. 1.1.5.
45
For details cf. 1.3.9.
46
Cf. GEIGER (1941), 53, no. 777 and TURNER (1966) I, 234, no. 4368.
47
Cf. GEIGER (1941), 89, no. 1310 and TURNER (1966) I, 426, no. 7563.
43
44

20

Phonologydhūma-, OIA dhūmá-48 etc. Cp. the equivalent words of Dhivehi, gamu “village” (L1 s/2,4etc.; L2 6,3; L3 3/2,2 and 11/1,2; L4 e/2,2 etc.; in Modern Dhivehi only preserved in theisland name Gan49), F. nil “blue” (vs. M.A. nū ← *niu ← nil50), M.A.F. dun, i.e. [duo]/dum/ “smoke, steam”.
There are several words in the basic vocabulary of Dhivehi which show medial longvowels in accordance with long vowels of their correspondents in OIA and MIA. These mustwithout doubt be classified as sanskritisms or prakritisms, resp. Cp. A.F. vēla “time” withOIA vélā- “limit, boundary, time” (cf. TURNER 1966, II, 702, no. 12115); M. un̆dōli,
A.F. in̆dōli “typical Maldivian wing hanging from the ceiling inside the house” with OIA
hindola- “wing, swing cradle” vs. Sinh. idolu-va “palanquin, sedan”, Hi. hindol(ā);51
M.A.F. jōli “a baglike seat or wing outside the house” with OIA *jhola- “bag” (cf. TURNER
1966, I, 299, no. 5415); M. dōni, A.F. dōni “boat, ship (of the common Maldivian type)”with Pkt. dōnı̄- “boat”, ← OIA dronı̄- “wooden trough” (MBh.), vs. Pa., Pkt. dona- ← dróna(cf. TURNER 1966, I, 379, no. 6641).
˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

1.2.1.1. Long vowels in initial position are extremely rare in Dhivehi. No verb begins witha long vowel, and almost all nouns that show a primary initial long vowel can be explained
as sanskritisms such as M.A.F. ādı̄tta “Sunday” (OIA ādityá- “son of Aditi, name of sevendeities, esp. of the sun”: TURNER 1966, I, 52, no. 1153), or loanwords that obviously havebeen borrowed more recently such as M.A.F. ı̄tu “roof tile” (probably from Hi. ı̄t “id.”,52
cf. Pkt. ittagā-, ittā-, OIA ístakā-; TURNER 1966, I, 72, no. 1600); M.A.F. āda “habit, norm,rule” (← Arab. cādat “id.”), or M. ōdaru “order” (← Engl. order) etc.
Only a few Dhivehi words that belong to the inherited vocabulary have a long initial
vowel, which in most cases can be explained by contractions. This is true, e.g. for the longē- of the personal pronouns of the 3.ps.sg., ēti “it” and ēnā “he, she”, of the standard
language which obviously developed by a merger of the demonstrative e “that” with a noun(ēti ← e+eti “that thing”, cf. 2.6.2.5.1.1; ēnā ← e+V(?)nā, cf. 2.6.2.5.3). — Other examples canbe explained by assuming the loss of a consonant between vowels: cf. A. ū53 “rope, thread,cord” ← *(h)u(v)u vs. Sinh. huya, stem hu/hū- “id.” ← Pkt. sūya-, Skt. sūta- “id.”,54 or
M.A.F. ūru ← *(h)u(v)uru “pig” vs. Sinh. (h)ūrā, stem (h)ūru- “id.” ← Pkt. sūara- ← OIA
˙

˙

˙˙

˙˙

˙˙

˙

48

Cf. GEIGER (1941), 78, no. 1161; TURNER (1966) I, 392, no. 6849.
Gan is the name of the southernmost island of the A ū-Atoll as well as the name of an island in
Haddummati- (= Lām-) Atoll. – For the change of final -m → -n cf. 1.1.4.
50
For the change of -l → -u cf. 1.2.1.6.
51
Cf. TURNER (1966) II, 815, no. 14094 and GEIGER (1941), 21, no. 322.
52
Although it might seem dubious that Dhivehi could have received direct loans from Hindi or Urdu, it ishighly probable that the source of Dhiv. ı̄tu has to be seen in Hi. ı̄t. The retroflex /t/ shows that the word has
been borrowed only recently, because otherwise / / would have changed to /ś/ in all dialects except Huvadū. As
in many other cases, the word seems to have been imported together with the reale it denotes. Roof tiles andnormal tiles were unknown in traditional Maldivian architecture and have come into a limited use very recently
only; they were imported from India and Sri Lanka. The traditional building material was produced from plants(mostly from the coconut tree) and from coral stone. — Cp. also the common Sinh. word for “tile”, u u (e.g. u u
kä a ya “(roof) tile”) which cannot be the source of Dhiv. ı̄ u ; the etymology of u u is not clear, however, cf.
TURNER (1966), I, 77, no. 1681 and GEIGER (1941), 29, no. 443.
53
Cf. also the case forms A. gen. ūe, dat. ūa /ū-aś/, abl. ūn /ū-un/.
54´
Cf. GEIGER (1941), 193, no. 2915; cf. also TURNER (1966) II, 781, no. 13561 s.v. OIA sūtra“id.”.
l̇

49

ḋ

˙

ḋ

˙

˙

ṫ

l̇

l̇

ṫ

ṫ

c

The vowels

21

sūkará- “boar”.55 For the initial long vowel of the presumably inherited numeral M.A.F. āhi“80” (cf. 2.5.1.4) there is no convincing explanation so far.
1.2.1.2. A special group among the words with initial long vowel is constituted by certain
nominal i-stems in Addū and, to a much higher degree, in Fua Mulaku. There, the paradigmatic loss of the stem-final -i led to a transformation of the phonetic scope of the nouns inquestion. In most cases the characteristic trait of this process is the lengthening and subsequent accentuation of the root vowel. In the dialect of Addū, this morphonological process
can be noted only sporadically, being restricted, besides a few exceptions, to single obliquecase forms and to the definite and indefinite form only.56 In Fua Mulaku, however, it has
spread throughout whole paradigms, resulting in the emergence of some nouns with initiallong vowel.57 Cf. the nom. A. ali “ash” beginning with short a- as against the gen. A. āle
← *ali-e with secondary lengthening of the initial vowel; in the Fua Mulaku equivalent of theword, this vowel spread, by analogy, not only to the nom. āli but to the whole paradigm (dat.
ālaha, abl./instr. ālen); cf. furthermore F. ı̄hi “lobster” vs. M.A. ihi. — The secondary
lengthening of the root vowel is also attested in many i-stems with word-initial consonant, cf.
A. nom.sg.def. mēhā /mehi-ā/ “the fly”, fēśā /feśi-ā/ “the box”, gen. fēśe /feśi-e/ as well as
F. nom.sg. mēhi “fly”, fēśi “box”, fı̄śi “small island, sandbank” (vs. A. nom. fiśi) etc.
c

˙˙

˙˙

c

˙

˙

c

˙

˙

˙

˙

1.2.1.3. Long vowels that appear in medial as well as final position in modern Dhivehi58
have mostly come about as a secondary result of contraction of two (identical or different)
short vowels. These vocalic contractions must have occurred after intervocalic consonants of
the MIA period had been lost. Cp., e.g., M.F. rā, A. (dō)rā “fermented juice of the liquidtaken from the palm-blossom, palm-wine, toddy” (Sinh. rā ← raha ← Pkt. rasa-, OIA rása“sap or juice of plants; taste, flavour”59); M. kı̄s “saw”, F. kı̄hā ← nom.def. *kı̄s-ā through
MIA kakaca- from Skt. krakaca- “id.” (cf. the still uncontracted correspondent in thesecondary i-stem A. kiéhi ← *kiés-i; for more details cf. 2.3.2.8.1.3); M. bı̄ru, A.F. bı̄ri“deaf”, Sinh. bı̄ri / bihiri ← Pkt. bahira- ← OIA badhirá- “id.”60; M.A. bēs, F. bēhe “medicine, medicament, drug” (← *bees ← *behaja ← *besaja) corresponding to the Sinh. plural
stem behet (with the final consonant being unvoiced) with beheta as a regular nom.sg.
(besides nom.sg. beheda, of the original stem behed- ← *besaja ← Pkt. bhesajja- “id.” ← OIA
bháisajya-.61 The final long vowels and diphthongs of most of the nouns that constitute thegroup of “root nouns” in Dhivehi62 can also be traced back to vowel contraction which mustalready have taken place in an early period in this case: cp., e.g., A.F. gē (M. ge) “house”´← MIA geha- ← OIA gehá-; M. fai, A.F. fā “foot, leg” ← Pkt. pā(y)a- ← OIA pādaetc.
˙

55

Cf. GEIGER (1941), 29, no. 444 and TURNER (1966) II, 780, no. 13544.
Cf. 2.3.2.7.1.2 and the primary paradigm in 2.3.2.11.3.2.
57
Cf. for details 2.3.2.8.1.4 ff.
58
There are a few exceptions which for the most part can be explained as borrowed or foreign words; cf.
2.3.1.4.
59
Cf. GEIGER (1902), 932, no. 351 and (1941), 145, no. 2160; TURNER (1966) II, 616, no. 10650. Cf. also
YULE/BURNELL (1902), 927 s.v. toddy.
60
Cf. GEIGER (1941), 123, no. 1832 and TURNER (1966) II, 515, no. 9130.
61
Cf. TURNER (1966), II, 549, no. 9623.
62
For some examples cf. 2.3.1.5.
56

Phonologyc22

1.2.1.4. A few examples of the dialects of Addū and Fua Mulaku show the tendency towards
vowel contraction even today. Cp., e.g., A. nēduru vs. M.F. niaduru “pomelo”; F. mēre vs.
A. miara, M. miaru “shark”,63 or F. lēnı̄, A. lēnāi vs. M. lianı̄ “write”.64 The medial longvowel of indefinite infinitives which are used in negated sentencies (cf. 5.5.4), have obviously
developed in the recent past by contraction of two short vowels as well, after the -n- of theinfinitive ending had been lost. Cp., e.g., the infinitives M. kuran “to do” and hadan “tomake, build, create” with their indefinite forms kurāka and hadāka which most probably
have to be derived from *kuran-ak-aś and hadan-ak-aś, resp.
c

˙˙

c

1.2.1.5. In the case of some isolated words the final long vowel can be explained by assuming
a merger of an originally short final vowel with the definite suffix, -ā; cp., e.g., A.F. kokkō
(vs. M. kokko) “younger brother / sister” from *kokko-ā; A. bēbē (vs. M.F. bēbe) “elder
brother” from *bēbe-ā (cf. 2.3.1.4).
1.2.1.6. In the standard language, the final long vowel appearing in the direct case of somenouns is conditioned by the loss of final -l65 which is characteristic for northern Dhivehi. In
the remaining forms of the words concerned, /l/ was preserved wherever it was in medial
position.66 In the standard language, the loss of final -l did not lead directly to a long vowel,
however. Rather, we are dealing with a continuous process here, as the development of M. -el
into -eo (but not -ē) shows. The abovementioned tendency is still more evident in the dialectof Addū where -l cannot occur in final position either. Here, final -l was vocalised both after
a and e, leading to diphthongisation (-al → -au and -el → -eo). In the position after u and o,however, the merger of -l yields the corresponding long vowel (-ul → -ū and -ol → -ō), while
the change from -il to -ū presupposes an intermediate *-iu. As opposed to this,67 the dialectof Fua Mulaku has conserved final -l even phonetically, as the following examples illustrate:/mal/ “flower, blossom” → M. mā, A. mau, but F. mal; /gal/ “stone, rock” → M. gā, A. gau,but F. gal; /al/ “new” → M. ā, A. au, but F. al; /bal/ “hole” → M. bā, A. bau, but F. bal;/bol/ “head” → M.A. bō, but F. bol; /kol/ “inner side of the cheek” → M.A. kō, but F. kol;
/lol/ “eye” → M.A. lō, but F. lol; /mul/ “root” → M.A. mū, but F. mul; /nil/ “blue” → M.A. nū
← *niu, but F. nil; /vel/ “every kind of creeper” → M. veo, A. veu, but F. vel; /tel/ “oil” →M. teo, A. teu, but F. tel etc.
In the words M. hā, A. hau, F. haul “cock” and M. vā, A. vau, F. vaul “flying fox”,
however, the final long vowel of the standard forms cannot be the result of a secondarily˙˙cCf. Sinh. mōra-/muvara- ← Pkt. magara-, mayara- “shark”. The word goes back to OIA mákara“crocodile”; for the change of meaning cf. also Pa. makara- “sea-monster” (TURNER 1966, II, 554, no. 9692).
64
Cf. Sinh. liyanavā “id.” (GEIGER 1941, 151, no. 2255).
65
It was only after the apocope of -u (cf. 1.1.3), when closed syllables reappeared in Dhivehi, that /l/ could
become a final consonant; e.g. mal ← *malu “flower”, bol ← *bolu “head” etc.
66
For examples cf. 1.2.2.3.
67This phonetic change is not restricted to Modern IA languages; a comparable vocalisation of final -l is tobe found in other languages as well, such as in South Slavic: “Vokalische Sprachen weisen die Tendenz auf,
Konsonanten zu vokalisieren. Am augenfälligsten geschieht dies im Serbokr(oatischen), wo silbenschliessendes-l zu -o wird und wo altes sonantisches l zu u wurde. Ebenso werden auch im Slovenischen, z.B. in derAussprache von Ljubljana, die Endungen ‘Vokal plus l’ und -ev zu reinem vokalischem u.” (A.V. ISAČENKO,
Versuch einer Typologie der slavischen Sprachen, in: Linguistica Slovaca 1/2, 1939/40, 64-76.)
63

˚

The vowels

23c

vocalised -l alone, as the vocalism of the corresponding Fua Mulaku forms haul and vaulshow (not †hal, val). Here, the diphthong is based on a contraction (← *savulu / *vavulu; cf.
Sinh. sävul-ā “jungle cock, gallus lafayetti” which (with unexplained umlaut) has to be
derived from OIA capala- “trembling, fickle” through Pkt. cavala-; cf. TURNER 1966, I, 253,
no. 4672 and, for Sinh. vavul-ā “flying fox”, II, 675, no. 11584).
c

1.2.1.7. The vernacular of Fua Mulaku is the only Maldivian dialect that has phonemic nasal
vowels. These vowels occur only in a very restricted area of the originally eight different
local idioms which nowadays have merged together more and more. At present only someelderly persons speaking the subdialect in question still have the necessary competence for theinherited nasal vowels which – because of the increasing influence of the standard language– has been lost by younger people in the recent past.
An example of an inherited long nasalised vowel is provided by F. b¯aśi
˛ “eggplant”. /¯a/˛here reflects the nasal consonant of OIA bhantākı̄- (TURNER 1966, II, 533, no. 9369). The
reason for the lengthening of the root vowel (cp. M.A. baśi, Sinh. batu with short a) has tobe seen in the morphonological rule of i-stems which was mentioned above (cf. 1.2.1.2 and2.3.2.8.1.4.2; cp. also Beng. bha˛tā). — A similar example is F. k¯aśi
˛ “thorn” vs. M.A. kaśi,Sinh. katu-va “id.” which corresponds to b¯aśi
˛ in its whole paradigm; it has to be derived
from OIA kántaka- “id.” (cp. Pkt. kantaa-; TURNER 1966, I, 133, no. 2668).
In the following examples, the nasal vowel is conditioned by a root-final nasal consonant:f¯a˛ni “worm, caterpillar” vs. A. fani, M. fani; Sinh. panu-vā (← OIA prānaka- “living being,
animal, worm”68); F. b¯a˛ni “bark” with nasal a¯˛ vs. A. bauni (the word has no equivalentoutside the southernmost dialects). — The same condition applies to the final nasal vowel
appearing in the present participle of numerous verbs which can be traced back to an original-n-. Examples are the a-stem F. nid¯a˛ “sleeping” vs. A.M. nidā ← *nidana (but cf. thelengthened form69 nidanı̄ where -n is preserved) or the e-stem F. rek¯e˛ vs. M.A. rekē “avoiding, escaping” ← *rekena (long form rekenı̄ “id.”)70.
There are many examples of nasal vowels whose occurrence is not easy to explain, neither
on phonological nor on phonetic grounds. This is true, e.g., for F. kudd¯a˛ “child” (← kudi-ā,
sg.def., cf. 2.3.2.8.1.4.3); F. mudi¯˛ “ring, jewellery” (Sinh. mudu- “finger-ring”; Pkt. muddā-,˛ “eagle, falcon” (← Pers. bāz “falcon, (gos-)
OIA mudrá- “seal, signet-ring”71; or F. b¯azuhawk”). In the case of F. faha˛ “five” (M.A. fas), F. h¯a,˛ hu¯˛ “yes” (M.A. hā), F. uh
˛ u˛ “no”(besides M. nūn, A.F. nun), F. fah¯e˛ “if” (cf. A. fehē) and F. mādaha˛ adv. “tomorrow” (cf.
M. mādamā, A. māduma ), we realise that the nasal vowel is preceded by h which might beresponsible for a secondary nasalisation.72 — There are also verbal forms with nasal vowels
that cannot be explained from a linguistic point of view, for example the ending of theabsolutive of the e-stems which alternates between -˛ı̄ and -ı̄; cf. the variant forms tem˛ı̄ andtemı̄ (abs. of temenı̄ “get wet”).73
˙˙

˙

˙

˙

˙˙

˙

˙

˙

˙˙

˙

˙

˙

c

68

Cf. TURNER (1966) II, 501, no. 8929; GEIGER (1941), 93, no. 1383.
For the terminology cf. 3.9.
70
For the implied formation rules cf. 3.9.1.
71
Cf. TURNER (1966) II, 588, no. 10203 and GEIGER (1941), 136, no. 2033.
72
It remains possible that the nasal vowel of F. faha˛ “five” represents a direct reflex of that in OIA páñca(cf. 2.5.1.1).
73
For details cf. 3.10.2.
69

24

Phonologyc

The nasal vowel phonemes of Fua Mulaku must be clearly distinguished from the common Maldivian trend
to pronounce short or long vowels in a nasalised way when they precede the nasal consonant n; cp., e.g., mı̄hun“people” pronounced as [mı̄hun].
¯˛ Besides this, some speakers show a general tendency to a slightly nasalised
pronounciation of vowels, irrespective of their phonological surrounding. Both these articulations represent purely
phonetic phenomena, they have no bearing on the phonological system of the language.

1.2.2. In contrast to Sinhalese,74 Modern Dhivehi possesses true diphthongs which becauseof their apparently ambiguous character need a detailed examination. Basically, we have to
distinguish phonemic diphthongs from numerous kinds of diphthongisations that represent thephonetic realisation (i.e. the pronunciation) of certain phonological structures but cannot beinterpreted as diphthongs according to phonological rules.
1.2.2.1. The occurrence of phonemic diphthongs is restricted. There are only a few words
which show an identical diphthong throughout the whole Dhivehi speaking area, with thediphthong remaining unchanged throughout the paradigm. Leaving aside obvious loanwords
such as M.A.F. sai “tea”75 this is true for examples like M.A.F. māmui “honey”76,
M.A.F. vai “wind”,77 M.A.F. gai “body”,78 or M.A.F. oi “sea current”,79 the diphthongsof which are the result of a vowel contraction of former disyllabic units.
1.2.2.2. As a rule, phonemic au- and ai-diphthongs occur only in the southern dialects,
however. In northern Dhivehi, the corresponding vowel is long monophthongic ā in bothcases. Typical examples are F. haul, A. hau “cock” and F. vaul, A. vau “flying fox”
(M. equivalents hā and vā, cf. 1.2.1.6), the diphthong of which is based on a contraction of*-avu-, but also A.F. kaiśi vs. M. kāśi80 “ripe coconut” (for cooking) and A.F. naiśi vs.
M. nāśi81 “coconut shell”. The diphthongs of these remain unchanged throughout the wholeparadigm (cf. gen. A.F. haule, vaule; kaiśe, naiśe). From an etymological point of view,
however, the two latter examples cannot be judged in the same way as the divergent root
vowels of the corresponding Huvadū-forms kauti “coconut” and noti “coconut shell” show.
˙

˙

1.2.2.3. The diphthong au as occurring in words of the type A. mau “flower, blossom” or
gau “stone, rock” (vs. F. mal, gal and M. mā, gā; cf. 1.2.1.6) is of another origin than thehomophone diphthong in the examples mentioned above. In the actual cases, au appears as
the result of a vocalisation of a word-final -l; consequently it is nothing but a phonetic variantof -al in final position. It is important to note that -al is stable in the paradigm of the words
74

Cf., e.g., the short notice in MASICA (1991), 116.
Cf. 2.3.1.5.
76māmui is most probably a compound consisting of (M.) mā “flower, blossom” and an independent word
*mui ~ Sinh. mı̄ (stem) “honey” (← Pkt. mahu-, Skt. mádhu-; cf. GEIGER 1941, 135, no. 2012.).
77
For the etymology cf. 2.3.1.5.
78
For the etymology cf. 2.3.1.5.
79
For the etymology cf. 2.3.1.5.
80
The etymology of this word is unknown.
81
The etymology of this word is not easy to establish; cf. TURNER (1966), I, 406, no. 7075 s.v. nārikēla“coconut palm and fruit”. – In HLSD (1988), 31, M. nāśi is identified with a Sinh. word na u “shell” whose
connection with Sinh. na u -va “stalk of a leaf or fruit, petiole, pedicel” (cf. CLOUGH 1892, 275; SŚ 12, 1985,5881) remains unclear.
75

ṫ

ṫ

The vowels

25

in question (cf. gen. A.F. mali, gali). Examples like M. veo, A.F. veu /vel/ “every kind of
creeper” and M. teo, A.F. teu /tel/ “oil” can be considered in the same way (cf. also 1.2.1.6).
1.2.2.4. In the standard language, word-final (phonemic) sequences of vowel + /t/ are treatedin the same manner: they are realised as (phonetic) i-diphthongs. In contrast to this, final /-t/
is articulated as a glottal stop [ ] throughout the southern dialects. Cp., e.g., M. dai vs.
A.F. da /dat/ “tooth”, M. ai vs. A.F. a /at/ “hand, arm”, M. nakai vs. A.F. naka /nakat/“lunar constellation”, M. fai vs. A.F. fa /fat/ “leaf”, M. foi vs. A.F. fo /fot/ “book”, M. goi,
A.F. go /got/ “way, manner”. This process also affects Arabic loanwords ending in -at; cp.,
e.g., M. nasēhai “advise” ← Arab. nası̄hat “id.”. In medial position -t- remains unchanged in
all these cases, e.g. gen.sg. M. fotuge, A. fote, dat. M.A. fota /fotaś/.
c

c

c

c

c

c

c

˙˙

c

1.2.2.5. In the standard language there is an increasing tendency to pronounce the diphthong¯ As mentioned in HLSD, 11, this [ä]¯ is/ai/ as a monophthongised lengthened vowel [ä].
further developing into [ē] in the northernmost atolls so that we find, e.g., [sē] and [fēvān]¯ (A.F. sai) “tea” and M. [fävān]¯
instead of M. [sä](A.F. faivān) “shoe, sandal”. These cases
must be distinguished from the development of original word-final ai-diphthongs into M. -ā
as in the locative suffix M. -gai (cf. 2.3.2.13) or in the formative of the “absolutive I”,
M. -fai (cf. 3.11.4.1 and 3.11.4.4), which are realised almost always as [gā] and [fā] today(cf. 1.2.4.3.).
1.2.3. Umlaut phenomena
In the prehistory of Dhivehi, the back vowels a, o and u of the first root syllable werechanged into the front vowels e ← *ä, e and i, when one of the following syllables contained
the front vowel i or the glide y. These “umlaut” processes followed the same principles inDhivehi as they did in Sinhalese (cf. GEIGER 1938, 13 ff.), although they were less effectivein the Maldivian language. On the other hand, an interdialectal comparison of Dhivehi showsthat in the southernmost vernaculars there are more examples with umlaut than in thestandard language.
1.2.3.1. The umlauting of a into e is the most frequent one. It is highly probable though notprovable82 that the process went through an intermediate *ä as in Sinhalese where we find
ä still today. Cp., e.g., M.A.F. den “then” (Sinh. dän “now”; Pa. (i)dāni, Skt. idānı̄m83);
M.A. mehi, F. mēhi “fly” (Sinh. mäsi-/mähi- “id.”, Pkt. macchiā-, OIA máksikā- f. “fly,bee”84); M. veo, A.F. veu /vev/ “watertank, artificial pool” (Sinh. väv- “id.”; Pkt. vāvı̄-,OIA vāp´ı̄- “id.”85); M. veo, A.F. veu /vel/ “every kind of creeper” (Sinh. väl- “id.”; Pa.,
Pkt., Skt. vallı̄- “id.”86); M.A.F. fen “water” (Sinh. pän “id.”; Pa. pānı̄ya-, OIA pānı̄ya¯ Pkt. rāı̄- ← *rātı̄- vs. Pa. ratti-; OIA rātrı̄´“id.”87); M. rē, A.F. rei “night” (Sinh. rä-,
˙

82

Neither Dives akuru nor Tāna provide a grapheme for the sound [ä].
Cf. GEIGER (1941), 74, no. 1085.
84
Cf. TURNER (1966), II, 554, no. 9696.
85
Cf. TURNER (1966) II, 672, no. 11529; GEIGER (1941), 162, no. 2415.
86
Cf. TURNER (1966), II, 666, no. 11429.
87
Cf. TURNER (1966), I, 456, no. 8082.
8326

Phonology“id.”88); M. medu, A.F. mede “mid(dle), centre” (Sinh. mäda “id.”; Pa., Pkt. majjha-, OIA
mádhya- “id.”89).
In contrast to Sinhalese, Dhivehi shows a comparatively large number of words containing
a root vowel a which was not changed by umlaut under the given condition. Cp., e.g., maśi“loam, clay” vs. Sinh. mäti- (Pkt. mattiyā-, Pa. mattikā-, Skt. mrttikā- “earth, clay”90) or
M.A.F. fani “(coconut) treacle” vs. Sinh. päni/päni “treacle, molasses, honey” (Pa., Skt. phānita- “inspissated juice of sugarcane and other plants”, Pkt. phāniya- “treacle, molasses”91).
˙

˙˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

1.2.3.1.1. From a morphonological point of view the a/e-umlaut plays an important role inverbal paradigms as well, viz. with a-stem verbs that have a as their root vowel. On the one
hand, the a of the present stem opposes itself to e in the preterite stem; cp. present stems like
M.A.F. bala- “look (at)”, jaha- “beat” and faśa- “start, begin (to do something)” with theircorresponding preterite stems M.A.F. beli-, jehi- and feśi-. The preterite participle of thea-stem verbs, identical in its form with the preterite stem, is formed with the suffix -i which
through intermediate *-ı̄ goes back to OIA -ita; this suffix vowel i causes umlaut regularly.92
The second morphonological function of the umlaut becomes apparent in the derivation of
intransitive, inactive e-stem verbs from transitive and/or active a-stems with a as their root
vowel. Here, both the a of the root and the stem marker are changed by umlaut; cf. faśanı̄
trans. “to start, begin (something)” vs. feśenı̄ intr. “to begin”, jahanı̄ trans. “to beat” vs.
jehenı̄ intr. “to fall, hit”, the causative vattanı̄ trans. “to let fall (something or somebody)”
vs. vettenı̄ intr. “to fall, be dropped”, fatanı̄ “to swim (actively, willingly)” vs. the inactive
fetenı̄ “to sink, drown (by floating)” etc.
˙˙

˙˙

1.2.3.2. There are only a few words that show umlaut-change of u to i throughout the Dhivehi
speaking area. In comparison with Sinhalese, Dhivehi provides much fewer examples for thiskind of umlaut. One of them is M.A.F. bin /bim/ “earth, soil, ground” = Sinh. bim ← Pkt.
93´
bhūmı̄-, Pa. bhūmi-, OIA bhūmi-.
As a rule, u-umlaut is more widespread in the southernmost vernaculars, the corresponding words in northern Dhivehi having preserved u as theirroot vowel, which must be regarded as a conservative trait. Cp., e.g., M. muśi vs. A.F. miśi“fist” and the Sinh. stem miti- “id.” ← Pa. mutthi-, OIA mustí- “id.”;94 M. kuli vs. A.F. kili
“pond with fresh water”, and M. dūni vs. A.F. dı̄ni “bird”.
˙

˙

˙˙

˙˙

˙

˙

1.2.3.2.1. There is but one available verb showing this type of u-umlaut, viz. M. duvanı̄ as
opposed to A.F. divanı̄ “to run” (with i in all forms). Here, too, the u of the root hasremained unchanged in the standard language. The same holds true for Sinhalese which has

88

Cf. TURNER (1966), II, 619, no. 10702; cf. also 2.3.1.5.
Cf. TURNER (1966), II, 563, no. 9804.
90
Cf. TURNER (1966), II, 594, no. 10286.
91
Cf. TURNER (1966) II, 510, no. 9070; GEIGER (1941), 103, no. 1523. – For the binary opposition of /n/
and / / in southern Dhivehi cf. 1.3.7.1.
92
Cf. the table of a-verbs in 3.1.4.1; for the derivation of the preterite participle cf. 3.9.2.1.
93
Cf. TURNER (1966), II, 545, no. 9557.
94
Cf. TURNER (1966) II, 589, no. 10221 and GEIGER (1941), 133, no. 1977.
ṅ

89

Umlaut phenomena

27

preserved the back vowel u in the present stem duva-, while the preterite stem was changed
by umlaut into divu- (← *divı̄-).95
1.2.3.3. Concerning the umlauting of o into e, Dhivehi does not show many examples either.
Cp. M. lē “blood” vs. A.F. lei with a diphthong and Sinh. lē96 (Pkt. lohiya- “red”, OIA
lóhita- “read, reddish substance, blood”). — In the case of M. dōni, A.F. dōni “boat, ship” vs.
Sinh. dena “boat, canoe” the umlauting seems to have been omitted; but the Maldivian wordrather represents a prakritism.97 — Obviously there is not even one verb showing an umlautchange of o into e (cf. 3.9.2.1).
˙

˙

1.2.4. A comparison of the Maldivian vernaculars reveals some more vocalic alternations
which can only partially be regarded as regular. This holds true for the following variations:
1.2.4.1. Where i is a root vowel in the standard language, it often corresponds with e in thesouthern dialects if followed by a in the next syllable. Cp., e.g., M. tila – A.F. tela “shallow(water); blade”; M. hila – A.F. hela “rock”; M. hima – A.F. hema “thin, fragile”; M. mila
– A.F. mela “dirt”; M. riha – A.F. reha “curry”; M. dia – A.F. dea “water, liquid” etc.
1.2.4.2. In some cases southern Dhiv. e corresponds to M. u as a root vowel. Here, too, we
observe that it is followed by a: M. nura – A.F. nera “grey hair”; M. durana – A.F. derana“ring made from rope”; M. huras – A.F. heras “across, horizontal”; M. furālu – A.F. ferāda“roof”.
˙˙

˙

1.2.4.3. A triadic correspondence of root vowels which occurs regularly is that of M. ā –F. ai – A. ei. It is represented in the pronominal adjective M. hā, F. hai, A. hei “all” and, asa second component, also in the demonstrative adverb M. ehā, F. ehai, A. ehei “so” and in
the interrogative pronoun M. kihā, F. kihai, A. kihei “how” (cf. 2.6.7.4.3). Some further
examples are M. velā, F. velai, A. velei “green water turtle”; M. kelā, F. kelai, A. kelei“sandal wood”; M. gurā, F. gurai, A. gurei “parrot”; M. furā, F. furai, A. furei “full” andprobably the ending of the “absolutive I”, M. -fā, F. -fē ← *-fai, A. -fei.98 In the given
threefold correspondence, the diphthongs that occur in the southernmost dialects must
represent an older pronunciation.
1.2.4.4. There are numerous examples that illustrate the correspondence of M. o – A. e,
F. e/ē99 Cp., e.g., M. atolu – A.F. atele “atoll”; M. toli – A. teli, F. tēli “bean”; M. gon̆di– A. gen̆di, F. gēn̆di “chair”; M. odi – A.F. vedi “type of (Maldivian) ship”; M. doli –
˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

95

For the etymology of this verb cf. GEIGER (1941), 79, no. 1175 and TURNER (1966) I, 284, no. 5168 s.v.
jávate “hastens”.
96
For the uncontracted variant lehe “blood” cf. GEIGER (1938), 86. For the etymology cf. TURNER (1966)
II, 650, no. 11165.
97
For details cf. 1.2.1 above.
98
Cf. 1.2.2.5 above.
99
The long vowel ē of some nominal i-stems is caused by paradigmatic circumstances; cf. 2.3.2.8.1.4.2.

28

Phonology

A.F. dedi100 “front part of the chin”; M. kolu – A.F. kede “piece; end”; M. o /oś/ ← *otu
– A. eśa, F. eśe “seed, nut, kernel”; M. fonu – A.F. fena “foam, surf”; M. honihiru –A.F. henahiri “Saturday”; M. honu – A. hena, F. hene “thunderbolt”; M. ośōnnanı̄ –A. veśionnei, F. veśionnaı̄ “lie (down)”.101 All these examples share a phonologicalpeculiarity in that A. e and F. e/ē are followed by a retroflex (or former retroflex) consonant.
As the early documents of Dhivehi show, the e-vocalism of the southern vernaculars represents an older stage of development as opposed to the o of the standard language. Since the14th century the language of Māle has witnessed a systematic change of /e/ into /o/, where/e/ was followed by a single retroflex consonant. Thus, e.g., atelu “atoll” is documented withe during the whole lōmāfanu-period since L1 (n/1,1), while in later times it was almost
exclusively written in the form atolu (e.g. F1,2.4; F4,3; F5,15.16.39; F13,5; F10,9.16;
IDMMM 3,6). Another example is kelu “end” (L3 6/1,2.3.4) vs. modern M. kolu. This word
occurs in the name of the atoll Kolumadulu, which is already attested in the form of thelocative kelumadule in L1 (s/1,1-2). On the other hand, the final -e of A.F. atele and otherexamples has to be considered as a secondary development. While final -u was preserved innorthern Maldivian, it was obviously adapted (across the retroflex consonant) to the e of thepenultimate syllable in the southern dialects.
c

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙
˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

1.2.4.5. For the correspondence of M. u and A.F. e in non-final position cf. 1.3.7.2. For
details on the regular dialectal differences concerning the final vowels in the direct case of
consonant stems (M. -u, F. -o, A. -a etc.) cf. the table and the examples given in 2.3.1.3.4.1.

1.3. The consonants
The consonant system Dhivehi inherited from Old and Middle Indo-Aryan corresponds inmost points with that of Sinhalese. For the phonological development of the consonant
phonemes, it will therefore be sufficient to refer to GEIGER’s comprehensive historicaldescription of the Sinhalese consonants (1938, 39 ff.). The present treatise will focus in the
combinatorial processes and special developments of the Maldivian consonant system which
are important for a general outline of Dhivehi phonology as well as morphonological relations. In this context, developments that are common exclusively to the “Insular Indo-Aryan”
languages as well as phonological tendencies that are confined to Dhivehi deserve a particularinterest.
1.3.1. The change of the inherited aspirates into their non-aspirated counterparts can be regarded as a regularprocess already of the time of Sinhalese Prakrit (from 2nd century B.C. until 4/5th century A.D.): “BIKU stands
for bhikku, SAGA for samgha ... TERA for thera, DAMA for dhamma ...” (GEIGER 1938, 40102). According
to MASICA (1991), 205, this development resulted from Tamil influence, the Tamil consonant system having noaspirates at all. Cf. also CALDWELL (1875), 130: “Tamil makes no use whatever of aspirates, and has notborrowed any of the aspirated consonants of Sanskrit, nor even the isolated aspirate h.” GEIGER (ib.) presumes
˙

100

For the correspondence M. / / – A.F. / / cf. 1.3.7.2.
For detailed information on this verb cf. 3.9.2.2.3.
102
Cf. modern Sinhalese bik 1. “community of bhikkhus”; 2. “mendicant, bhikkhu” (GEIGER 1941, 121, no.
1808), san̆ga “multitude, assembly; the community of bhikkhus” (ib. 171, no. 2565), tera “aged monk, seniormonk” (ib. 67, no. 973), dama “law, doctrine; the Buddhist sacred scriptures” (ib. 70, no. 1026).
ḋ

l̇

101

The consonants

29

that “... even Sinhalese Prakrit did not possess any aspirated consonant.” If the loss of the aspirates actually took
place in such an early period, it remains doubtful, however, whether the linguistic contact between Sinhalese andTamil could have lasted long enough before in order to provoke such an extensive change. It is possible that
already in early Sinhalese Prakrit there was a tendency towards deaspiration which then was reinforced by the
influence of the Tamil sound system.

1.3.2. The table below gives a general view of the consonant phonemes of contemporary
Dhivehi. Loan phonemes which constitute an integral part of the Maldivian consonant systemhave been included as well.103
consonants

labiallabiodental

dentalalveolarretroflex

palatalvelar

voiceless stops

p

t
ṫ

k

voiced stops

b

d

d

g

prenasalised stops

m̆b

n̆d

n̆

laryngeal

˙

n̆g
ḋ

voiceless affricatescvoiced affricates

j
m

104

n
ṅ

nasalsvibrants

ñ105

rlateralslfl̇

voiceless spirantssvoiced spirants

ś

h

z

glidesv

y1.3.3. Except for the prenasalised stops (cf. below), the consonant inventory of Dhivehi isexactly reflected by the modern Tāna script;106 cf. the following table which represents the
traditional “alphabetic” order:
Tāna

h

x

n

r

b

L

k

transcribed

h

ś

n

r

b

c

l̇

k

Tāna

v

m

f

d

t

l

g

N

transcribed

v

m

f

d

t

l

g

ñ

Tāna

s

D

z

T

y

p

j

c

=

transcribed

s

ṫ

y

p

j

c

107

ḋ

z

^

ṅ

103
Phonemes that occur only in Arabic loanwords are written by educated people in accordance with theoriginal spelling. Their pronounciation, however, may be quite distinct from the original sound. The corresponding graphemes will be shown in a special table (cf. 1.3.10.4.).
104
As an independent phoneme, / / exists only in the southernmost dialects of Dhivehi; cf. 1.3.10.
105/ñ/ is phonemic in loanwords only; cf. 1.3.7.
106
Cf. DE SILVA (1969), 205 ff.
107
The character for retroflex has become obsolete in standard Dhivehi; it occurs in older Tāna texts.
Nowadays it is used by a few writers (poets) who speak a southern dialect as their mother tongue.

ṅ

ṅ

30

Phonology

The vocalisation marks which were taken from the Arabic script are superscribed or
subscribed to the basic consonant characters:
Tāna

a
t

A
t

transcribed

ta

tā

t
i
ti

t
I
tı̄

u
t

U
t

e
t

E
t

o
t

O
t

@
t

tu

tū

te

tē

to

tō

t

1.3.4. Within the phonological framework of the Indo-Aryan languages and the Indic languages in general, the prenasalised stops represent a very particular phenomenon of the two
Insular languages, Dhivehi and Sinhalese, only.108 The articulation of the four phonemes inquestion, /m̆b/, /n̆d/, /n̆d/ and /n̆g/, is marked by a considerable shortness in contrast to the
pronounciation of the corresponding consonant clusters, -mb-, -nd- etc. In the modern
Sinhalese script the prenasalised stops are represented by special aksaras. Within Sinhalese,the nasal component of the prenasalised plosives has been noted since medieval times, while
it was still unmarked in the older Brāhmı̄ inscriptions (cf. GEIGER 1938, 68). We find a quite
different situation in written Dhivehi. Dives akuru never developed any means of writing theprenasalised stops, and Tāna has no particular characters for that purpose either. In modern
times, however, three different ways to solve the problem have been applied. The mostpopular one follows the tradition by leaving the nasalisation unmarked and writing only theplosive element; cp., e.g., M. [kurum̆ba] written as 〈kuruba〉 “young drinking coconut”,
M. [un̆dagū] 〈udagū〉 “difficult”; M. [in̆guru] 〈iguru〉 “ginger”; M. [gan̆du] 〈gadu〉“piece, thing”. – For a certain period, the nasal component was expressed by the so-called“empty nūn” (hus nūn), i.e. an 〈n〉 letter remaining without any vocalisation marks or
sukkun, the marker of unvocalised consonants.109 – Only exceptionally, the prenasalised
stops are written as a sequence of full nasal + plosive, but this way of writing is normallyregarded as a mistake. However, even now there are no absolute orthographical rules for thecorrect writing of the prenasalised stops.
Two arguments speak in favour of a monophonematic character of the prenasalised stops,
at least in the contemporary language. Support for a monophonematic interpretation of theprenasalised stops is given by the early documents as well. The oldest written specimens of
Dhivehi, the lōmāfanu inscriptions, show that the language had only open syllables in older
times, consonant clusters being systematically excluded. A good example is M. [gan̆du]“piece, thing”, written 〈gadu〉 “piece (of land)” in L2 (9,4 etc.), L3 (4/1,2 and 6/1,5),L4 (e/2,1) etc. which means that it has to be analysed as ga-n̆du, an analysis †gan̆-du being
impossible because of the given syllable structure. Another example is the syntagm 〈kuburu
iduna〉 (L2 28,4) “living in the bushes” which, according to modern usage, must represent
a syllable sequent ku-m̆bu-ru i-n̆du-na. – Further evidence for the phonemic status of theprenasalised stops can be gained from minimal pairs. Some modern Dhivehi verb roots ending
on a prenasalised plosive do not form the causative with the suffix -va-110 but by “lengthen˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

108
Cf. MASICA (1991), 105: “... the prenasalised stops of Sinhalese ... are apparently confined to that
language in NIA (although I should add that I have been unable to find any good account of Maldivian
phonology).”109
Cf. the table in 1.3.3.
110For details cf. 3.2.1.1.

The consonants

31

ing” n̆ into n, which results in phonemic oppositions of the type -n̆d- vs. -nd- etc.111 Cp.,e.g., the transitive verb an̆danı̄112 “to burn” and its verbal noun en̆dun with the causative
andanı̄ “to (let) burn” and its verbal noun, endun. Another example is the intransitive verb
en̆genı̄ “to know, understand”; its verbal noun en̆gun forms a minimal pair with the verbal
noun engun belonging to the causative anganı̄ “to inform, let know”. If we consider
GEIGER’s derivation of parallel cases in Sinhalese (1938, 71), we may well conclude, however, that the causative formation of the Maldivian verbs in question can be traced back to anunderlying suffix -va- as well: thus, anganı̄ “to let know” has to be derived through theintermediate forms *an̆gn̆ganı̄ ← *an̆g-va-nı̄ ← *an̆ga-va-nı̄ from an obsolete a-stem verb
*an̆ganı̄ with the transitive-active meaning “to understand, recognise (something)” ascorresponding to the inactive en̆genı̄ “to know, understand”.
GEIGER (1938, 67-71) who interprets the Sinhalese prenasalised stops as a sequence of“half nasals” + consonants, provides some etymologies in order to show that the prenasalised
plosives always reflect an old nasal which, on the other hand, was not necessarily combinedwith a plosive. An example for this assumption is Sinh. (= M.A.F.) kam̆buru “(black)smith”´
which, through an intermediate form like Pkt., Pa. kammāra-, goes back to OIA karmāra“id.”113 Such cases seem to be exceptional, though; cp. the counterexamples Sinh. (= A.)am̆ba, M. am̆bu, F. am̆bo “mango” with Pkt., Pa. amba- (but OIA āmrá- “mango”, fruit andtree);114 Sinh. am̆bu “wife, mother”, M.A. am̆bi, F. am̆bu “wife” with Pkt., Pa. ambā´ “mother”;115 Sinh. (= M.) in̆guru, A.F. in̆giri “ginger” with Pa. siṅgivera-,← OIA ambāOIA śrṅgavera- “id.”;116 Sinh. han̆da/san̆da, M. han̆du, A. han̆da, F. han̆do “moon” with
Pa. canda-, OIA candrá- “moon, moonlight”117 etc.
Dhivehi shows some examples of dialectal variation in the distribution of prenasalised
stops in contrast to normal plosives in the same words. In some of these cases it is hard to
decide whether an inherited nasal was lost within a certain dialectal area or whether we are
dealing with the result of a spontaneous prenasalisation here. Sometimes, both variants appear
side by side even within the same dialect. Cp. M. un̆dagū vs. A.F. udagū “difficult”;
M. kurum̆ba vs. A.F. kuruba “young drinking coconut”; F. fen̆daga vs. A. fedaga “big green
locust”. Usually the southern vernaculars show a stronger tendency towards the plain stops.
An exception to this rule is M. bodu vs. A. bon̆da, F. bon̆do “big, large”.
Contemporary Dhivehi has many words which show spontaneous prenasalisation. Foreign
words such as sin̆giretu (← Engl. cigarette) with prenasalised g (as against the variant sigaretu) are good examples for the strength of this tendency.
˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

Sinhalese has a few variants of this kind as well; cf. sidu vs. sin̆du “ocean, river” (← OIA síndhu- “river,Indus; ocean”118) or magul-a vs. man̆gul-a “happiness, good fortune, festival” (← OIA maṅgala- “auspicious
sign, happiness”119).

111
This must not be confused with the paradigmatic change of -n̆d-/-nn- occurring in the n-stem class ofverbs; cf. 3.2.2.
112
For the etymology of this verb cf. 3.9.2.2.2.
113
Cf. GEIGER (1941), 37, no. 547 and TURNER (1966) I, 147, no. 2898.
114
Cf. GEIGER (1941), 9, no. 133; TURNER (1966) I, 57, no. 1268.
115
Cf. GEIGER (1941), 9, no. 131 and TURNER (1966) I, 25, no. 574.
116
Cf. GEIGER (1941), 20, no. 306; TURNER (1966) II, 730, no. 12588.
117
Cf. GEIGER (1941), 188, no. 2849 and TURNER (1966) I, 252, no. 4661.
118
Cf. GEIGER (1941), 179, no. 2699; TURNER (1966) II, 774, no. 13415.
119
Cf. GEIGER (1941), 126, no. 1875; TURNER (1966) II, 555, no. 9706.

32

Phonology

1.3.5. Another sound change that is typical for Dhivehi as well as colloquial Sinhalese, is thetransition of /s/ to /h/ in initial and medial position. While Dhivehi has completely lost initials- in its inherited vocabulary, Sinhalese shows a large amount of double forms with s- and h-,
the variants with s- being used almost exclusively in the written language and in higher
stylistic levels. In the oldest written sources of Dhivehi we often find s when it is to be
expected from an etymological point of view; cp., e.g., *simu “border” (in the loc. sime,
L2 4,1 and L3 2/2,3, and the compound dia-sin “water line”, L3 4/1,2 etc., spelt dyasin in
L4 c/2,6), co-occurring with imu in the earliest lōmāfanus (L1 mx/2,5, L3 4/1,2 etc.) andappearing as hin (in dyahin “water line”, F4,3) and in (F4,2 etc.) in later times (cp. Sinh.
ima/hima/sima, Pa. Pkt. Skt. sı̄mā- “id.”).120 In the same documents, there are many words
with “unetymological” initial s-. These must be explained as examples of historical or
hypercorrect spelling which implies that in the period in question, written 〈s〉 was alreadypronounced as [h]. Cp., e.g., the Arabic name Husain, which besides the original orthography〈hus(s)ayn〉 (often in inscriptions, e.g. in IDMHM 2,15; ITAG 1,7; very often in RC, e.g.
26,4) is attested as 〈susein〉 in an Evēla akuru lōmāfanu (L2, 36,3).
Some further examples for s → h in initial position are M. han̆du, A. han̆da, F. han̆do“moon” vs. Sinh. han̆da/san̆da “id.” (Pa. canda-, OIA candrá- “id.”);121 M. hialu,
F. hialo, A. hivala “fox, jackal” vs. Sinh. hivalā/sivalā “id.” (Pkt. siyāla-, Pa. sigāla-, OIA
śrgālá-);122 M. huvan̆du, A. huvan̆da, F. huvan̆do “fragrance, perfume” vs. Sinh. suvan̆da“id.” (Pkt. suandha-, Pa., OIA sugandha- “id.”);123 M. hā, A. hau, F. haul “cock” vs.
Sinh. sävul-ā “jungle cock”, gallus lafayetti (Pkt. cavala-, OIA capala- “trembling,
fickle”).124
In medial position, the change s → h has infected inherited words without any exception in
all Maldivian dialects; cp., e.g., *divesi → A.M.F. divehi “islander”; *mesi → M.A. mehi,
F. mēhi “fly”; *jasanı̄ → M.A.F. jahanı̄ “beat” (trans.) etc. Medial s was conserved only
when it was geminated for morphonological reasons.125
Word-final -s has remained unchanged in northern Dhivehi and in Addū while it developed
into h in Fua Mulaku where it is followed by a secondary short (echo) vowel which is notphonemic. This echo vowel is identical with the vowel of the last syllable; cp., e.g., F. maha/mas/ “fish” (M.A. mas), F. gehe /ges/ “tree” (A. ges, M. gas), F. uhu /us/ “tall, high”(M.A. us), F. faha /fas/ (M.A. fas “ground, soil”), F. bihi /bis/ “egg” (M.A. bis), F. goho
/gos/ “going, having gone” (absolutive of danı̄ “to go”; M.A. gos) etc.126
In contrast to the inherited vocabulary, s has been preserved in loanwords and foreign
words not only on the phonemic, but also on the phonetic level. Cp., e.g., M.A.F. alanāsi“Ananas”,127 M.A.F. mūsun “monsoon, season”,128 M.A.F. gamı̄s “shirt”,129 etc. The
˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙˙

c

120

Cf. GEIGER (1941), 22, no. 341; TURNER (1966) II, 775, no. 13435.
Cf. GEIGER (1941), 188, no. 2849 and TURNER (1966) I, 252, no. 4661.
122
Cf. GEIGER (1941), 193, no. 2906 and TURNER (1966) II, 729, no. 12578.
123
Cf. TURNER (1966), II, 776, no. 13454.
124
Cf. also 1.2.1.6.
125
For details cf. 1.3.9.5 and 1.3.9.5.1; for the morphological peculiarities cf. 2.3.2.7.1.2.2.
126
For more examples cf. 2.3.1.3.1; on general tendencies and developments of final consonants, cf. 1.1.3;
for the change of /s → h/ in Huvadū cf. 1.3.6.3.
127
For the worldwide dissemination of the fruit as well as the word denoting it, cf. YULE-BURNELL (1902),
25 ff. s.v. ananas; Dhivehi most probably received it via Portuguese.
121

The consonants

33

derivation of M.A.F. sitı̄ “letter” seems to be more complicated. If the word had emerged
from OIA *cista- “message”130 directly or through an intermediate (not attested) MIA form,
we would expect neither initial s- nor medial -t-131 for contemporary Dhivehi. Even if the
Dhivehi word represented a prakritism (in the sense of a mot savant), -t- could not have beenconserved as such. Therefore, the most probable source of sitı̄ is Hi. citthı̄ “letter”;132 inthis case, the change of initial c- → s- has nothing to do with the similar sound change in theearly history of Dhivehi (cp., e.g., Old Dhiv. san̆du ← MIA canda- “moon”).
˙

˙˙

˙

˙

˙˙

˙

1.3.6. In the more recent past, Dhivehi has been affected by two remarkable sound changes:/p → f/ and /t → ś/.133 It is not possible, however, to establish the exact date of thesechanges, because 〈f〉 and 〈ś〉 were never written with separate characters before the Tānaperiod. Thus it remains uncertain, since when the Dives akuru characters for p and t can betaken to represent [f] and [ś], resp. Cp., e.g., the Dives akuru forms pasvana “fifth” (ordinal
number134; IDMD 2,4) and apuremenge “our” (pers./poss.pron., 1.pl.gen.135; RB 1,11) asagainst their Tāna equivalents fasvana (ITMHM 4,3; ITAM 1,6) and afuremenge (RC 3,13).
For Dives akuru 〈t〉 vs. Tāna 〈ś〉, cp. kotu (absolutive of kuranı̄ “to make, do”,136 attested
209 times, beginning with L1 d/1,2), ratu “island, land” (attested 84 times, beginning with
L1 [f/2,1] as well) as against kośu (ITMKM 1,13) and raśu (RC 32,12) written in Tāna.
While Maldivian documents do not provide exact information about the time of the spirantisation of /t/ and /p/ themselves, external evidence can be gained from PYRARD’s and CHRISTOPHER’s wordlists which witness both to the changes of p → f and t → ś (in initial and medial
position). PYRARD, who sojourned in the Maldives from 1602 to 1607, noted 〈p〉 in his
wordlist in all cases concerned, while CHRISTOPHER, who came to the Maldives in 1834,
already wrote 〈f〉 without any exception. Examples from PYRARD’s list are 〈alipan〉 (M. alifān) “fire”, 〈penne〉 (M. fen) “water”, 〈Bouraspaty〉 (M. burāsfati) “Thursday”, 〈piohy〉(M. fióhi) “knife”, 〈niapaty〉 (M. niafati) “finger nail” and the name of the island 〈Maspillaspoury〉 (cf. M. fuśi “small islet, sand bank”); in contrast to these spellings, CHRISTOPHER’s list shows 〈alifang〉, 〈feng〉, 〈Burasfati〉, 〈fiohi〉, 〈niafati〉. We may conclude thatthe change of p into f must have taken place not earlier than the early 17th century and notlater than the early 19th century.
˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

128
Cf. Arab. mausim “season, time of festivities and harvest” (WEHR 1958, 950); cf. also YULE-BURNELL(1902), 577.
129
← Arab. qamı̄ (cf. WEHR 1958, 704).
130
Cf. TURNER (1966), I, 262, no. 4832.
131
For details on the development of - - → -ś-, cf. 1.3.6.1.
132
Direct loans from Hindi or Urdu are quite common in modern Dhivehi. The Maldives always had bothtrading contacts and cultural relations with many parts of the subcontinent, the contacts to Pakistan being
particularly close. There are many educated people in Maldives who dispose of a good knowledge of Urdu or
Hindi. Last but not least, there is a tradition of visiting India and other countries of the subcontinent regularly
because of serious health problems.
133
For detailed information on the geminates -pp- and - - cf. 1.3.9.6.
134
For the ordinal numbers cf. 2.5.2.
135
For details cf. 2.6.2.3.1.2.
136
For details on this irregular absolutive formation cf. 3.10.4.

ṫ ṫ

ṡ

ṫ

34

Phonology

1.3.6.1. For an exact dating of the change of t → ś, however, the two wordlists do not give
any reliable indication. The only fact that can be stated with certainty is that already in
PYRARD’s time, the non-geminated phoneme /t/ was not realised as [t] any longer in medial
position. The spellings 〈caré〉 “ripe coconut” (M. kāśi), 〈tori〉 “peel, shell, bark” (M. tośi),〈ystarin〉 “hair” (M. istaśi), 〈aret〉 “eight” (M. aśe /aś-ek/, indef. form) as well as thename of the island 〈Maspillaspoury〉 indicate that medial -t- was already pronounced as apalatal fricative r sound, the articulation being somewhere in between Czech ř and Turkish-r. CHRISTOPHER indicated a similar spirant by spellings like 〈kárhi〉 “ripe coconut”, 〈rorhi〉“flat bread” (M. rośi), 〈bárhi〉 “eggplant” (M. baśi), or 〈forhi〉 “box” (M. fośi), while inthe case of 〈tori〉 “bark”, 〈istari〉 “hair” or 〈tari〉 “plate, dish” (M. taśi) he used plain 〈r〉as PYRARD did. GEIGER, who styled this spirant “a sound peculiar to Máldivian, difficult to
describe” (1919, 115 / 1986, 116; 1901-1902, III, 127), transcribed it with 〈ř〉, while BELL
used 〈r〉. The pronunciation of medial /ś/ (← /t/) as a palatal spirant similar to ř can still beheard in Fua Mulaku and also from the speakers of the “palace language” in Māle,137 whoalternate between [ř] and [ś] without phonological reasons. It is only on the basis of anintermediate pronunciation [huři] that the peculiar development of the participal form M. huri(← huti, cp. A. hiśi, F. hı̄śı̄ [long form] and H. huti, cf. below) can be explained.
˙

˙

˙

c

˙

˙

˙

c

˙

˙

1.3.6.2. In the vernacular of Huvadū, the retroflex /t/ is preserved in its original quality
without any exception, as the following examples illustrate: H. kauti “ripe coconut” (M. kāśi,
A.F. kaiśi), H. galahutte gen./loc. “(on) the island Galafuśi” (i.e. “stone-sandbank”, ← galahutye ← gala-futi-e, cf. A.F. gen./loc. fı̄śe), H. huti part.pret. “being, remaining; standing”(A. hiśi, F. hı̄śı̄, M. huri, cf. M. hunnanı̄ “to stand, remain, be”; 3.9.2.2.1). The same holds
true for the inherited ending of the dative, -ata, which is preserved in its original form ending
in a vowel as well as an apocopated variant ending in -t in Huvadū. Cp., e.g., H. dorata dat.
“(to) the door” vs. M.A. dora /-aś/, F. doraha138; H. mattat “upward(s)” vs. A. matta ,M. macca /-aś/, F. mattaha (dat. of the i-stem mati “top; above”).
˙

˙

˙˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

c

˙

˙

c

˙

c

1.3.6.3. The fricative /f/ which had emerged from /p/ in the whole Dhivehi speaking area,
finally developed into /h/ in Huvadū. While a similar sound change has remained exceptionalin the other dialects (cp., e.g., M. aharen ← afuren ← *apuren, pers.pron.1.ps., originally
meaning pl. “we”, nowadays sg. “I”,139 or M. kulan̆duru huhi, F. keran̆dul hūhi vs.
A. keran̆duru fufi “bee hive”), it spread out in Huvadū, where it has affected a wide area.
According to HLSD, 154, the subdialect of the eastern parts of the Huvadū-Atoll seems to be
more conservative in this respect; cp., e.g., East-H. fūla “navel” vs. West-H. hūla (cf.
M.A.F. fūlu). The material that has been collected so far does not suffice to draw final
conclusions yet. There is no doubt, however, that no other dialect of Dhivehi shows such astrong tendency towards despirantisation in its phonemic system as does Huvadū. This agrees
with the fact that the development of s → h which can be observed in Dhivehi in general has
reached a higher level in Huvadū than anywhere else in this language.
˙˙˙For more information on this sociolect cf. the introduction, 0.9.2.
On the particular problem of the dative ending in Fua Mulaku cf. 2.3.1.1.3.
139
For details cf. 2.6.2.3.1.2.
c

138

˙

137

The consonants

35

1.3.7. The phonemes /l/ and /n/:
In contrast to Sinhalese where the retroflex lateral /l/ coincided with /l/ in pronunciation
which led to a permanent confusion in orthography,140 Dhivehi has preserved the phonemic
difference between the laterals. The retroflex /n/, which has also phonetically coincided withits dental counterpart /n/ in Sinhalese,141 has lost its phonemic status in Standard
Dhivehi,142 while the southern dialects still provide many examples of the retroflex nasal
and, furthermore, even some minimal pairs contrasting this with dental /n/.
˙

˙

˙

˙

1.3.7.1. Thus, e.g., M. fani “worm, caterpillar” is homophone of M.A.F. fani “(coconut)
treacle”143 with dental /n/ in the standard language, while the Addū and Fua Mulaku
dialects show a distinctive retroflex /n/ in A. fani, F. f¯a˛ni “worm”144. An example of aminimal pair that is only distinguished by the two phonemes /l/ and /l/ is M.A.F. ali “light”(noun and adj.) vs. M.A. ali, F. āli “ash, grey”.145
Some further examples of words containing /l/ and /n/ are M.A.F. kukulu “hen”; M. atolu,
A.F. atele “atoll”; M. toli, A. teli, F. tēli “bean”;146 M. kuli, A.F. kili “(fresh water) pond,tank, lake”; M. finolu, A. finola, F. finolo “sandbank (island)”; M.A.F. nāli “Maldivian
weight unit of about 1 kilogram”147 etc. — For the correspondence of M. n – A.F. n cf.
M. dōni vs. A.F. dōni “common Maldivian boat type”; M. hūnu vs. A.F. hunu “warm, hot”;
M. ukunu vs. A.F. ukunu “flea, louse”; M. kuni vs. A.F. kuni “dirt; dirty, rotten”; M. dūni
vs. A.F. dı̄ni “bird”; M. dekunu vs. A.F. dekunu “south” etc.
c

˙˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

1.3.7.2. There are some isolated examples of a correspondence of M. l and A.F. d in
Dhivehi. Besides the words M. furālu / A. ferāda “roof”148 and M. ruli / A. ridi “anger,
temper”, which are doubtful from an etymological point of view, we have to note M. valu /A. vada, F. vado “well” which is related to Sinh. vala “hole, pit”. This word originates from
˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

140
Cf. GEIGER (1938), 56: “In some words there is an uncertainty concerning the spelling or l and thedictionaries ... quote alternative forms.” – MATZEL (1983), 17: “Zwischen l und besteht ein Unterschied dersprachgeschichtlichen Herkunft, der sich in den Schreibungen l und erhalten hat. Die Aussprache beider Lauteist jedoch die gleiche.”141
Cf. GEIGER (1938), 62 on the phonetic loss of Sinh. / / , often occurring in the written language evennowadays: “But owing to the fact that there is no difference now in pronunciation between and n a great
confusion has arisen in the Sinh. orthography ... and many words and forms are spelt with n by some people andwith by others.”
142
The retroflex pronunciation of /n/ as [ ] in medial position after /ā/ and before a following vowel which
is typical for Standard Dhivehi, is exclusively bound to this phonotactic position and therefore has no phonemic
basis; cp., e.g., M. /dānan/ “I shall go” (1.ps.sg.fut. of danı̄ “to go”), which is pronounced as [dā oa ] regularly.
143
Cp. Sinh. päni/pä i “treacle, honey, molasses”; for the etymology cf. 1.2.3.1.
144
Cp. Sinh. pa u -va “id.” (GEIGER 1941, 93, no. 1383).
145
For the secondary lengthening of the root vowel which is caused by a morphonological rule, cf.
2.3.2.8.1.4.2.
146
For the secondary lengthening of the Fua Mulaku variant cf. 2.3.2.8.1.4.2.
147
For details on the the traditional weights cf. BELL (1883), 118 f.
148
The etymological connection of this word with OIA, Pa. pa a la-, Pkt. pa a la- “roof” is rather problematic (cf. TURNER 1966, I, 433, no. 7694). In the Dhivehi forms, both the consonants and the long Dhiv. ā could
not be explained on this basis.

l̇

l̇

l̇

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ḋ

ṅ

ṅ

c

ṫ

36

Phonology

OIA avatá- “hole in the ground” which through Pkt. avada-149 developed directly into
southern Dhivehi A. vada, F. vado. The development of d into l which we observe both innorthern Dhivehi and in Sinhalese, must be secondary as against this.
The verb M. ulenı̄ “to live, be, behave” with its equivalents A. vēn̆denı̄ and F. v¯e˛nnaı̄ must
be considered within the same framework. While in the modern standard language and in
Addū, the inflection of this verb shares the pattern of the e-stems, the Fua Mulaku variantshows the paradigm of the n-stems. The correlation of the dialectal variants becomes evident
by means of the finite forms; cp., e.g., the 1.ps.sg.pres. M. ulen vs. A. vēn̆den and F. v¯e˛n̆din,or the 1.ps.sg.pret. M. ulunin vs. A. vēn̆denen, F. v¯e˛n̆dunin.150 We cannot take it for granted
that the northern and southern variants represent the same etymon, but we have to consider
that besides the correspondence of the retroflex sounds l and n̆d, there are also some older
variants of the verb which speak in favour of an etymological relation.151 For the older
standard language, two variant forms of the part.pres. of this verb are attested, viz. velena(L4 e/1,1) and vulena (L4 c/2,4; L2 22,3 etc.).152 It seems obvious that vu- represents a later
development here, just as -o- in atolu is opposed to -e- in older atelu. Thus we can assume
that it was the retroflex consonant which influenced and changed the quality of the preceding
vowel here in the same way as e became o in the position before a retroflex consonant (cf.
1.2.4.4).
Another example of the l-d-correspondence is provided by the dialectal variants of thepart.pret. of kuranı̄ “to make, do”. The form M. kula “made, done”, which is attested
frequently since L1 (mn/2,2) but is no longer used nowadays, opposes itself to F. kela and to
A. kede. In all probability, the e vowel of the southernmost dialects represents an earlier
phonological stage here, too, just as the retroflex plosive -d- in A. kede seems to be morearchaic than the retroflex lateral -l- of the other forms.153
˙

˙

˙

˙˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

c

˙

˙˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙ ˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

1.3.8. Like Sinhalese, Dhivehi does not tolerate consonant clusters in any position.154 Thus,
all words that show consonant clusters in initial or final position must be of foreign origin;cp., e.g., M. gasd “intention” ← Arab. qasd “aim, purpose, intention”, or the sanskritism
pratama “the first” which is attested in L2 33,2 (← Skt. prathamá- (cf. 2.5.2). In contrast tothat, consonant groups in medial position can be based on two different developments. Either
the words in question are of foreign origin as well (like haftā “week” ← Class.Mod.Pers.
hafta, ilmu “knowledge” ← Arab. cilm, uxtu “sister” ← Arab. uht), or – in all other cases – the˘ (like M. donkeo, A. donkeu,
cluster extends over a morpheme boundary of compound words
F. donkēl “banana” ← don “light, white; fairhaired, lightskinned” + /kel/ “longish fruit”;
M.A. domveli, F. domvēli “fine, white coral sand” ← don “bright, light” (s.a.) + M.A. veli,
F. vēli “sand”).
In normal pronunciation, consonant clusters occurring in sanskritisms or other foreign
words are decomposed by means of anaptyctic vowels, regardless of their position within the
˙149

Cf. TURNER (1966) I, 34, no. 774 and GEIGER (1941), 160, no. 2393.
The prenasalised stop in the southern variants of the n-stems is regular; cf. also the tables given in 3.2.2.1
and 3.3.2.
151
Cf. also 3.9.2.2.4.
152
For more details cf. 3.9.1.1.3.
153
A detailed account of this participle is given in 3.9.2.2.5. For Sinh. ka a “done” cf. GEIGER (1938), 57.
154
Cf., e.g., MASICA 1991, 125-7.
l̇150The consonants

37

word. Frequent words show these vowels even in their written form; cp., e.g., fikuru“thought, thinking, idea” ← Arab. fikr; tarujamā “translation” ← Arab. tarǧamat; vagutu“time” ← Arab. waqt; iskuru “screw” ← Engl. screw; furatama “at first” ← pratama (L2 33,2)← Skt. prathamá-; M. burāsfati (this spelling is already attested in ITAG 3,2 and ITFM 2,6),
F. berāsfati, A. berāsseti (with -sf- → -ss-) “Thursday” ← *bri/ahaspati ← Skt. b´rhaspáti“name of a deity / the planet Jupiter” (cf. also Sinh. brhaspatindā / brahaspatindā, Skt.
brhaspatidiva- / brhaspativāra- “Thursday”; cf. TURNER 1966, II, 527, nos. 9303 and 9304).
˙

˙

˙

˙

1.3.9. Geminates
DE SILVA has shown in his table (1969, 203) that in modern Dhivehi all consonants with the
exception of the prenasalised stops, the palatal spirant ś and the glottal spirant h can occur as
geminates. In contrast to DE SILVA’s statement according to which the retroflex lateral l, too,
appears only as a single consonant, there are a few examples showing geminated -ll- in
Dhivehi. It seems, however, that all the words in question are of foreign origin. None of thenumerous geminates in Dhivehi can be derived directly from a corresponding geminate in
MIA, because during the transition period between MIA and NIA all MIA geminates werereduced to single consonants.155 Most of the geminates that occur in contemporary Dhivehi
can be explained by secondary assimilations of different consonants,156 the assimilatory
processes being progressive or regressive. There are clear indications that progressive assimilations began earlier than those directed backwards; nowadays, however, Dhivehi exhibits
much more examples that are due to regressive assimilations. As a matter of fact, regressive
assimilations are regularly met with until now as a result of word formation processes or –in rare cases – by phenomena of sandhi157 combining two words. The regressive
assimilation of consonant clusters which leads to the formation of geminates has beenreflected by the writing system of the standard language in recent times only. The mostcommon spelling of geminates is 〈 C〉, while 〈CC〉158 is used less often (e.g. evvana “(the)first”,159 now written 〈e vana〉 as against original 〈ekvana〉 in ITAG 3,1 and ITAM 1,4).
In some cases, the various stages of the historical development of geminates is attested indetail in the written sources, as we will see below.
˙˙
˙

c

c

1.3.9.1. -Cv- becomes -CC- or -vv-. The occurrence of progressive assimilations as well as
regressive ones at morpheme boundaries is attested by parallel variants such as rattehi“friend, compatriot” and ravvehi “native, local, indigenous, resident”. rattehi, being obsoletein the modern standard language, is still known in the southern dialects, where it has anantiquated touch, as well. The word is attested in its indefinite form ratvesyaku already inF11,28, in the 18th century. Dhiv. *ratvehi- corresponds to Sinh. rataväsi(yā) “inhabitant or
native of a country”, which according to GEIGER has to be traced back through an intermedi˙˙

˙˙
˙

˙

˙

155

Cf., e.g., GEIGER 1938, 39 or MASICA 1991, 187.
On the historical development of the geminates cf. 1.1.5.
157
For details on the sandhi rules cf. 1.6.
158
The spelling of one and the same word can vary even nowadays, because there are no orthographicalrules.
159
For details cf. 2.5.2.
156

38

Phonology

ate form like Pa. rattha-vāsi(n)- to Skt. rāstra-vāsin- (from OIA rāstrá- “kingdom, country”+ vāsín- “inhabiting”.160 While the geminate -tt- in rattehi is the result of a progressive
assimilation of -tv-, the form ravvehi, which is no longer associated with rattehi by the native
speakers of Dhivehi, obviously has to be traced back to a regressive assimilation of -tv- into
-vv-. Considering ravvehi, there are two different ways of formation which have to be taken
into account. On the one hand, ravvehi could be derived directly from *ratvehi as well.
Although it seems rather unlikely, we cannot exclude the possibility that the two assimilation
processes in question occurred at the same time (-tv- → -tt- and → -vv-), within one and thesame dialect. On the other hand, we have to take into consideration that the form ravvehi
could represent a (relatively) recent formation, namely a compound consisting of Dhiv. ra/raś/ ← ratu “land, island” and vehi ← *vesi “inhabitant, resident; inhabiting” (= Sinh. väsiyā
“inhabitant”; cf. also divehi ← *divu-vesi “islander, inhabitant of the islands, i.e. the Maldives”, 1.3.9.5) which could have developed independently from the inherited compound*ratvehi. While ratu is well documented in Old Dhivehi (since L1), there are no attestationsof *vehi as a single word at all. This is why we cannot expect to find out at what time *vehi
became obsolete in the spoken language. By all means, even if ravvehi were of comparativly
recent origin, *vehi still must have been in use at the time of its formation. — One more
example of a progressive assimilation of -tv- → -tt- is avatteriā ← *avat-veri-ā “neighbour”(lit. “village-person”; M. ava /avaś/ ← /avat/ “village” + def. form veri-ā “the person”; cf.
2.3.2.4.1). — Further examples showing regressive assimilation of -Cv- → -vv- are, e.g.,
M. hivvaru /hit-varu/ “courage, encouragement” (hi /hit/ “heart, mind, feeling”; varu “force,
size, greatness”); M. kı̄vve /kı̄ -ve/ “why” (cf. 2.6.7.2.5), M. evves /ek-ves/, A. evvies, F. evvias “even” (cf. 2.6.7.5).
˙˙

˙˙

˙˙

˙˙

˙˙

˙˙

˙

˙

˙

˙˙

˙

c

˙

˙

˙

˙˙

˙˙

˙

˙

˙

c

c

c

1.3.9.2. In northern Dhivehi final -ti and -di were affricated when they were followed by -eor -a. Through intermediate -ty- and -dy-, they developed into the geminated affricates -ccand -jj-. In contrast, the southern dialects show a progressive assimilation in these cases,
which leads to the geminated plosives A.F. -tt- and -dd-. While the formation of the voicelessgeminate -cc-, which is attested already for the Old Dhivehi period, has survived in thestandard language as a living phonological process until nowadays, the voiced affricate -jj-,
which derived from -dy-, was restricted to some isolated examples. The same holds true forthe southernmost vernaculars, where -ti before -e and -a is phonetically realised as -tt- while
the corresponding development of the voiced geminate, -dd-, is met with in a few words only
which can be considered as frozen forms.
1.3.9.2.1. From the synchronic point of view, the occurrence of the geminates M. -cc- andA.F. -tt- is a morphonological feature in the formation of the indefinite form and the dativeof the very rare i-stems with -t as their final root consonant. In addition to this, the morphonological change in question has a paradigmatic function in deriving the following forms
in the southernmost dialects: the definite form and all the case forms based on it in Addū; thegen./loc.sg. in Addū and Fua Mulaku; the abl./instr. in Fua Mulaku. The effect of these morphonological rules may be illustrated with two nouns of this type which are in use nowadays:
˙˙

c

c

˙˙

160

Cf. GEIGER (1941), 144, nos. 2138 and 2137; 162, no. 2417. Cf. also TURNER (1966) II, 620, no. 10721
and 676, no. 11605.

Geminates

39
c

c

c

The indefinite form of the i-stem M.A.F. eti “thing”, M. ecce , F. ette but A. etta , has to be derived from*eti-ek/*eti-ak through the intermediate stage *etyek/etyak.161 Other current forms are: M. dat.sg. ecca /eti-aś/;F. gen.sg. ette /eti-e/, dat.sg. ettaha /eti-aś/, abl. etten /eti-en/; A. nom.sg.def. ettā /eti-ā/; gen.sg.def. ettāi /eti-āi/, dat.sg.def. ettā /eti-ā-aś/, abl.sg.def. ettāin /eti-ā-in/; the distributional plural form M. ecceti, A.F. etteti /etieti/ “thing by thing, all things” (cf. 2.3.2.5). Cp. the earliest attestations, etyāk (nom.indef.: sic L5 5/2,6), etyaku(obl.indef.; F5,26), etyaka u (dat.indef.; F3,1), etye (probably instead of *etyek as nom.indef.; F3,1), etyeti(distributional plural form; F3,7; F2,14; F5,41; F8,29.30). — The case forms of M.A.F. mati “top, surface”,
which are mainly used as local adverbs correspond to those of the preceding noun, cp., e.g., dat. M. macca ,A. matta , F. mattaha /mati-aś/ “to the top; up (to), upwards” (cp. the early attested form matya a in L2 5,1);
gen./loc. A.F. matte /mati-e/ “on the surface, at/on the top; above, overhead”.
c

c

ṫ

c

c

ṫ

1.3.9.2.2. In the standard language, the affrication of final -ti is due to a certain kind of
sandhi,162 when adjectives in predicative position precede the quotation marker -ē/-eve/.163 Cf. M. rı̄ti “beautiful” as against mi kotari rı̄ccē /rı̄ti-eve/ “this room is beautiful”
or M. hiti “bitter” as against sai hiccē /hiti-eve/ “(the) tea is bitter”.
˙

1.3.9.3. As was stated above, there are only a few examples of the development of -di → -jjin the standard language and of -di → -dd- in the southern vernaculars. In contrast to thechange of -ti into -cc-/-tt-, which is regularly connected with a paradigmatic function, theparallel sound change of the voiced stop is restricted to isolated unchangeable forms. Thus,in southern Dhivehi, the i-stems kudi- “child” and kalamidi- “prince” show thismorphonological process only in their definite nom.sg. and the depending case forms; cf. thenom.sg.def. A. kuddā (F. kudd¯a)˛ ← *kudi-ā “the child”. In the standard language, besides
kujjā ← *kudyā ← *kudi-ā the indefinite form is affected as well by the affrication; cp.
M. kujje ← *kudyek ← *kudi-ek “a child”.164 — The nom.sg. kalamidi “prince”, which iswell attested in the history of the language (L6 1,2 and 2,3; RA 21,1; kalamedi in F5,38 andRC 14,5), has kalamijjā as its definite form which has to be derived through *kalamidyā from*kalamidi-ā; all of the (frequent) attestations of this word show 〈-nj-〉 which was the usualspelling of [-jj-], hence the written form is regularly 〈kalaminjā〉 (e.g. RC 12,10; RC 22,11etc.). — The modern Dhivehi word for “state, empire”, originally “kingdom”, which appears
in the dialectal variants M. rājje (cf. divehi rājje as the official name of the Maldives) and
A.F. rādde, represents a sanskritism. While the form rādya (Skt. rājyá- “kingship, kingdom”,
cf. TURNER 1966, II, 619, no. 10694), which is attested already in L1 (g/2,5), L2 (6,1) andL3 (2/1,2 and 3/1,5) with the spelling 〈-dy-〉 for -jy-, represents the nominative, the numerous
variants ending in -e which appear in different spellings such as rāddye (F5,13; F6,10;
F7,13.20; F8,18; F13,2; F10,12.15; F11,9.17; IDME 3,25 and 27), rātde (F3,8.11), rāndye(F9,4; RB 1,3), rānjē (RC 8,7), rājjē (with Arab. 〈N_〉 RA 1,4) have to be explained as alocative form “in the kingdom, in the state”. In Modern Dhivehi the frozen form of thelocative has been re-interpreted as a nominative.
c161

For the distribution of the two suffixal variants cf. 2.3.2.1 (A.), 2.3.2.2 (F.), 2.3.2.3.1 and 2.3.2.3.1 (M.),

resp.
162

For the sandhi rules cf. 1.6.
Cf. 2.4.
164
For further details on the morphology and on the use of these forms in the modern language, cf.
2.3.2.7.1.2, 2.3.2.8.1.4.3 and 2.3.2.9.1.3.2.
163

40

Phonology

In standard Dhivehi, the formation of the “preterite IV” which contains danı̄ “to go” as
an auxiliary verb must be explained within this framework; cp. 1.ps.sg. -jjain ← *-diain,
2./3.ps.sg. and 3.ps.pl. -jje ← -dye ← *-dia, 1./2.ps.pl. -jjaimu ← *-diaimu.165 The historicaldevelopment is clearly shown by the early attestations of M. vejje “became”, 3.ps.sg. pret.IVof vanı̄ “become”, viz. veddya (F10,18), veddye (F5,21.24; IDMHM 4,21), vedye (F10,10),vejja (spelled 〈venja〉; RC 29,11) and 〈ve ja〉 (RC 5,3 and 30,13); the earliest attestations of
the contemporary form vejje (spelled 〈ve je〉) can be found on a tombstone of the graveyardof the Māle Hukuru Mosque (ITMHM 1,7; the dating is uncertain) and in RC (2,6).
cc1.3.9.4. The gemination and palatalisation of -n- preceding a stem-final -i in combination with
the indefinite suffix is restricted to northern Dhivehi. Cf. the indefinite forms dōññe← *dōnye ← *dōniek ← *dōni-ek166 “a boat” (M. dōni “boat, ship”) or dūññe ← *dūnye ←*dūniek ← *dūni-ek “a bird” (M. dūni “bird)”).167 The same holds true for the ending of
the dative (dōñña , dūñña /-aś/).

c

c

c

c

˙

˙

c

c

1.3.9.5. The paradigmatic interchange of -h- (← -s-) and -ss- occurring in some i-stems can befound in the whole Dhivehi speaking area, the phonological development of -si+V → -siV →-syV → -ssV being equivalent with A.F. -ti- → -tt- and -di- → -dd- (cf. 1.3.9.2). Cp., e.g.,
M.A.F. divehi “Maldivian” vs. the nom.sg.indef. M.F. divesse /divesi-ek/, A. divessa /divesiak/ (← *divu-vesi “islander”168). While the nouns ending in -hi (← -si) have survived as acomparatively homogeneous group in Addū, they were subject to morphonological simplifications in Fua Mulaku and even more so in the standard language.169 Cf. M.A. mehi, F. mēhi“fly” ← *mesi (cp. the Sinh. stem mäsi-/mähi- ← Skt. máksikā- “fly, bee”170), where in
Addū -s- is preserved within the geminate -ss- almost throughout the paradigm while we finda compensatory change of -s- to -h- in Fua Mulaku: cf. A. nom.def. messā /mesi-ā/, nom.
indef. messa /mesi-ak/ (besides mēhā / mēha ), gen. messe /mesi-e/, dat. messa /mesi-aś/ vs.
F. nom.indef. (only) mēhe /mesi-ek/, gen. mēhe /mesi-e/, dat. mēha /mesi-aś/.
c

c

˙˙

c

˙

˙˙

c

c

c

c

c

c

1.3.9.5.1. The formation of causatives from verbs with -s as their original final root consonant
is affected by the same morphonological interchange of -h-/-ss-; cf. jahanı̄ ← *jasanı̄ “beat,strike, kick; blow (wind), ring (bell)” with its causative jassanı̄ ← *jasvanı̄ ← *jasa-va-nı̄ (cf.
1.3.9.12.1 and 3.2.1.1).

165

For more details cf. 3.11.4.5.1.
For the loss of / / in the standard language cf. 1.3.7.
167
The statement of HLSD (1988), 15 according to which “a morphophonemic feature of Divehi is thatmorphemes containing the dental nasal ‘n’ in the final syllable ... replace this nasal by ‘ññ’ when they arefollowed by certain suffixes”, is not exact enough, because this is not a question of “certain suffixes”. Besides
the indefinite suffix, the phonetic process is also triggered by the ending of the dative, i.e. all nominal suffixes
with initial vowel are concerned. – On the status of the palatal nasal ñ cf. 1.3.10.
168
On *divu “island” cf. 2.6.2.3.1.4 (s.v. uren ← vuren); for *vesi “inhabitant” cf. 1.3.9.1.
169
For details and examples cf. 2.3.2.7.1.2.2 and 2.3.2.11.3.3 (A ū), 2.3.2.8.1.4.4 and 2.3.2.12.5.2 (Fua
Mulaku) and 2.3.2.9.1.3.1 (Māle).
170
Cf. GEIGER (1941), 133, no. 1975 s.v. mässā and TURNER (1966) II, 554, no. 9696 s.v. mak ā-.
166

ṅ

c

ṡ

ḋ

ḋ

Geminates

41

1.3.9.6. The geminates -pp- and -tt- are of particular interest because the inherited Old
Maldivian stops /p/ and /t/ are preserved in their original quality only within these geminatedconsonants (cf. 1.3.6). There are only a few examples as to this, which will be treated below.
˙˙˙

1.3.9.6.1. The geminate -pp- occurring in the kinship term M. bappa, A.F. bappā, A. appā
“father” cannot be analysed any further because the word obviously originated in children’s
language. – M. fuppāmē, A.F. fuppāmei “lungs” contains Dhiv. fuppā-, which does not exist
as an independent word; it second part is M. mē, A.F. mei “liver”.171 Dhiv. fuppā- can be
identified with Sinh. papu- “lungs” which, according to TURNER (1966, II, 511, no. 9090) has
to be derived from OIA phupphusa- “lungs”. In Sinhalese, we also meet with a word
pupphusa “lungs” which, like Dhiv. fuppā- (with the regular change of p- → f-), must be
explained as a sanskritism. — A few consonant stems with final /t/ which were combined withthe honorific suffix -pulu (→ -fulu) in the standard language were obviously fixed in thiscombination before /p/ developed into /f/. The geminate -pp- occurring in these words is theresult of an regressive assimilation of -Cp-; cf. appulu ← *at-pulu “hand of a person of highsocial status” and dappulu ← *dat-pulu “tooth of a person of high social status”. Most probably, the island name duppolı̄ (L2 15,1) shows the same development as well. — In a similar
way the stem final -p of some verbs was preserved in their causative forms (cf. 3.2.1.1)
because of a progressive assimilation leading to geminated -pp-. Cp., e.g., M.A.F. hifanı̄
← *sipanı̄ “to hold, catch (something)” with its causative hippanı̄ ← *hipvanı̄ ← *hipa-va-nı̄
“to let hold, let catch; stick” (cf. also the substantive M.A.F. hippi “sticker”, reflecting thepart.pret. “sticked” of the causative hippanı̄); cp. also kafanı̄ ← *kapanı̄ “to cut (something)”with the simple causative (meanwhile being obsolete) *kappanı̄ ← *kapa-va-nı̄ “to let cut”
and the double causative (cf. 3.2.1.1.1) M. kappavanı̄ “to have something cut (by someoneof a lower social class)”.
˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

1.3.9.6.2. The geminate tt in many cases has its origin in a progressive assimilation of -tv-,
as in the compound nouns rattehi ← *rat-vesi “friend, compatriot” and avatteriā ← *avatveri-ā “neighbour” (cf. 1.3.9.1). This is also true for causative formations with -tt- being
based on primary verbs with original -t- (for ś ← t cf. 1.3.6.1). Cf. M.A.F. kośanı̄ ← *kotanı̄
“to chop, cut (e.g., wood)” with the double causative M. kottavanı̄ “to let someone (belonging to a lower social class) chop”; the primary causative *kottanı̄ ← *kota-va-nı̄ does not exist
any longer (cf. 1.3.9.12.1 and 3.2.1.1).
˙

˙˙

˙

˙˙

˙

˙˙

˙˙

˙

˙

˙

˙˙
˙˙

˙

1.3.9.6.2.1. The sound change -tt- ← -ty- is attested, e.g., in puttāi ← *puti-āi “and the island”(L1 s/1,1, L2 8,4 etc.; nom. putı̄ in L1 mx/2,1, L2 9,2 etc.; cf. M. fuśi, A. fiśi, F. fı̄śi “small
island”) and kottāi ← *koti-āi “and the enclosure” (L2 15,5 etc.; L3 6/2,2; L4 d/2,5), kottakāi← *koti-ak-āi “and an enclosure” (L2 26,4), kott-evyana ← *koti-eviana “being named‘enclosure’” (L2 15,5); cf. the i-stem koti “enclosure, garden, fenced-in area” (cf. modern
M.A.F. kośi “cage”).
˙

˙˙

˙

˙˙

˙
˙˙

˙

˙˙

˙˙

˙

˙

The etymology of mē / mei is not clear.

˙

171

42

Phonology

1.3.9.6.3. The geminate -ff- must be of later origin, because it cannot have developed before
the transition of /p/ into /f/. All examples concerned can be explained by assuming regressive
assimilations; cf. M. raffu ← *raś-fuś “landscape, rural district” (for ra /raś/ “land, island”
cf. 1.3.9.1; putu as the previous form of /fuś/ “back, surface, top side” is attested, e.g., as alocative asu pute “on horse back” in L1 (d/1,4); cf. also GEIGER172 who connects 〈fuřu〉“side” (his spelling 〈ř〉 means /ś ← t/) with Sinh. pita ← OIA prsthá- “back, hind part”;
M. fuffu ← *fuś-fuś “grain, cereals” (distributive plural “corn by corn”, cf. 2.3.2.5); M. fu/fuś/ “flour” corresponds to Sinh. piti “id.”, ← OIA pistá- “crushed, ground; flour”173;
A. daffa “sole of the foot” ← *daś(u)-fā, actually “underside of the foot” (cf. the earlier form
datu in L2 22,2; L5 5/1,2; F3,6; F10,19 etc. and daśu in RC 5,12 “underside, bottom”; datun
abl. “from the underside, from below” in F6,20; F7,32.38; F9,16; F11,22 etc.; F13,18;
IDMHM 1,12; IDMEM 3,26); M. fai, A.F. fā “foot” belongs to Sinh. pā- “foot”, ← OIA´ 174; A. effahara /ek faharaś/ “one time, once (upon a time)” (e /ek/ num. “one”;
pāda/fahar-aś/ dat. of A. fahara/fāra, M. faharu “time”) etc.
c

c

˙

˙

˙˙ ˙

˙

˙

c

c

˙˙

˙

˙

˙

c

c

1.3.9.7. Different geminates emerged in recent times as a result of assimilation on themorpheme boundary of compounds; cp., e.g., M.A.F. nikkuri /nit-kuri/ “forehead” (cf. M. ni/nit/ “forehead”); M. ebbas “agreement” (/ek/ “one” + /bas/ “word, language”);
M.A.F. emme /ek-me/ “all, entire, whole”175. It cannot be excluded that M.A.F. uddan̆di/uk-dan̆di/ “sugar cane” reflects a loan compound from Sinhalese (cf. Sinh. uk, uk-danda,
also ik, ugu, in̆gu “sugar cane” ← OIA iksú- “id.”176).

c

˙

˙˙

˙

˙

1.3.9.8. As a rule, geminates that occur in foreign words are not changed in modern Dhivehi.
Cp., e.g., M.A.F. ādı̄tta “Sunday” (sanskritism; cf. 1.2.1.1); M.A.F. buddi “mind, intellect,spirit” (sanskritism; cf. Skt., Pa. buddhi-, Pkt. buddhı̄- “intelligence, discernment”177;
M. budda “old man” (mot savant; cf. Pa., Pkt. buddha- “old”)178; M.A.F. tayyāru/-a/-o“ready” (← Pers. tayyār “ready”); M. mudarris “teacher” (← Arabic “id.”); M.A.F. billūri“(of) glass” (← Arab. ballūrı̄, billaurı̄ “crystal, of glass”); M. muazzif “employee, official”(Arab. muwazzaf “id.”; cf. WEHR 1958, 960); etc.
˙˙

˙˙

˙˙

1.3.9.9. Nevertheless, many geminates remain that cannot (yet) be explained historically. Cf.
M.A.F. batteli “Maldivian type of sailing boat”179; M. datta, A.F. dattā “elder sister; older
woman”; M. bokkurā, A.F. bokkorā “small rowing boat”; M. kokko, A.F. kokkō “younger
brother or sister”; M.F. labba “yes”180; M. amilla, A. amella, F. āmillā “self, private”;
M. kullavā “mangrove”; A. baddela “green grasshopper”; M. diggā, A. diggē “hibiscus”;
M. mamma, A.F. mammā (A. also ammā) “mother”; M.A.F. assēri “beach”; M.F. mussan̆di,
˙˙

˙˙

172

(1902), 920, no. 153 and (1941), 104, no. 1539.
Cf. TURNER (1966) I, 465, no. 8218 and GEIGER (1941), 104, no. 1540.
174
Cf. GEIGER (1941), 95, no. 1417.
175
For detailed information about the pronominal adj. emme cf. 2.6.7.4.1.
176
Cf. GEIGER (1941), 24, no. 364 and TURNER (1966) I, 70, no. 1550.
177
Cf. TURNER 1966, II, 525, no. 9277.
178
Cf. TURNER 1966, II, 524, no. 9271.
179
About the Maldivian boat terms cf. 2.3.2.7.3.2.
180
In contrast to that cp. A. hā “yes”.
173

Geminates

43

A. mussanti “rich”; M.A.F. iyye “yesterday” (cf. Sinh. ı̄yē “yesterday”, Pkt. hio, hijjo, Pa.
hiyyo, Skt. hyáh “id.”181); M. falli “Christian church / Buddhist temple” (palli already in
L1 [d/2,3 and t/1,3], cf. Sinh. pallı̄va, stem pallı̄- “church” with alveolar -ll-182).
˙˙

˙˙

˙

1.3.9.9.1. Concerning the regular correspondence of certain consonant clusters and geminates,
we have to note a few specific developments that occur only in a restricted dialectal area.
Cp., e.g., M. burāsfati “Thursday” (ITAG 3,2, ITFM 2,6), F. berāsfati vs. A. berāsseti witha transition of -sf- to -ss- (cf. 1.3.8) or M. istaśi “hair” vs. A.F. issaśi with a change of -st→ -ss-. – There is also the very surprising correspondence of M. -tt- vs. A. -tt- in M. kattala,
A. kattela “sweet potato, batata” as well as A. -gg- vs. F. -jj- in A. eggon /eggom/ (nom.def.
eggomā), F. ejjun “single blossom of the coconut tree”.183 From a phonological point ofview, these correspondences cannot be explained yet.
˙˙˙˙

1.3.9.10. When a consonant stem ending in /-t/ comes into the position before a word withinitial consonant, the resulting phonetic process occurring on the morpheme boundary is not
the same in northern and southern Dhivehi. While in the standard language the development
leads to a diphthong (Vt+C- → ViC-), in the southern dialects a corresponding geminate
emerges by regressive assimilation (Vt+C- → VCC-). Cp., e.g., M. aitila /at-tila/ vs. A.F. attela /at-tela/ “palm” (/at/ “hand, arm” + M. tila, A.F. tela “shallow (water); blade”);
M. aidan̆di vs. A.F. addan̆di “arm” (/at/ “hand, arm” + dan̆di “stick”); M. daidoli vs.
A.F. daddoli “chin; jaw(bone)” (/dat/ “teeth” + doli “cheekbone”); A. dakkaśi /dat-kaśi/“alveols” (kaśi “bone”); M. raigā vs. A. raggau, F. raggal /rat-gal/ “red coral” (lit. “redstone”, /rat/ adj. “red” + /gal/ “stone”); M. raimas vs. A. rammas, F. rammaha /rat-mas/“soldier fish” (actually “red fish”, /rat/ “red” + /mas/ “fish”).
˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

1.3.9.11. While in the standard language -rr- in sirru “secret” (← Arab. sirr “secret, mystery”) is articulated as a geminated alveolar vibrant, the ablative form A. /sirrun/ shows aregular dissimilation into [sidrun]. For a similar development in external sandhi cf. 1.6.
1.3.9.12. Geminates in the verbal system
Generally speaking, the gemination of the last consonant of the verbal root has an importantmorphonologic function in the formation of causatives. In many cases the historicaldevelopment of causatives can thus be traced back both from the formal and from thesemantic point of view (for further details cf. 3.2.1.1). Cp. the following examples:
1.3.9.12.1. M.F. fattanı̄ ← *fatvanı̄ ← *fata-va-nı̄ “to sink” (trans.),184 actually “to let swim, cause to swim”,
from the basic verb fatanı̄ “to swim”; M.F. duvvanı̄, A. divvanı̄ “to drive, ride, sail”, lit. “to let run, cause torun”, from M.F. duvanı̄, A. divanı̄ “to run”; M.A.F. jassanı̄ ← *jasvanı̄ “to land, turn (on)” from M.A.F. jahanı̄
← *jasanı̄ “to beat, kick, blow”. M.A.F. dakkanı̄ “to show”, lit. “to let see” is derived from the transitive verb

181

Cf. GEIGER (1941), 24, no. 363 and TURNER (1966) II, 815, no. 14108.
Cf. CARTER 1936, 61.
183This word is unknown in the standard language. For the single blossom the common word meaning“flower, blossom”, mā /mal/, is used here instead.
184
fattanı̄ does not exist in A ū; for the causative meaning “to sink” the suppletive verb heruvanı̄ is used.
ḋ

182

ḋ

44

Phonology*dakanı̄ “to look” which is obsolete in the modern standard language (but cp. the intr. verb M. dekenı̄ “to see”
which is derived from the same stem and, furthermore, the n-stem pres. A.F. dak- “to see” (intr.), with thepres.part. (“long form”) A. dakunei, F. dakonaı̄). M. rissanı̄ “to ache”, lit. “to let ache” (e.g. bolugā /-gai/rissanı̄ “to have a headache”, lit. “to cause pain in the head”) is derived from the trans. *risanı̄ (cf.
M.A.F. rihenı̄ ← *risenı̄ intr. “to ache”). From a formal point of view, M.A.F. hu a nı̄ trans. “to stop, finish”
together with its intransitive derivative, hu e nı̄ “to stop”, are causatives of the irregular n-stem verb M. hunnanı̄,A. hinnei, F. hinnāı̄ “to stand; remain, be” (cf. the part.pret. Old Dhiv. hu i , A. hiśi, F. hı̄śı̄, and Sinh.
hi i navā185). The transitive verb M.A.F. kakkanı̄ “to cook” formally is a causative of the non-attested basic*kakanı̄; cf. the intr. verb kekenı̄ “to boil” (of liquids).
ṫ ṫ

ṫ ṫ

ṫ

ṫ

1.3.9.12.2. The whole morphological pattern of n-stem verbs such as M. bannanı̄ “to tie”,
innanı̄ “to sit, marry, be married”, dannanı̄ “to know, understand”, hunnanı̄ “to stand, stay,remain, be”, vannanı̄ “to enter” etc.186 is characterised by the geminate -nn-; cf. also 3.2.2,
3.6.5 and 3.9.1.2.
1.3.9.12.3. In the following verbs, the geminates are of different provenance. M. koppanı̄/kośfanı̄/ “to push” is composed of ko /koś/ “doing, making” (abs. of kuranı̄ “to do, make”)
and a (nowadays obsolete) verb *panı̄ with unknown meaning, which seems also to be thesecond part of M.A.F. lappanı̄ 〈la panı̄〉 “to close” (as to the verbal constituent la whichcannot yet be explained, cf. M. lagganı̄ 〈la ganı̄〉 “to float, drift ashore; toss” = A. lavvanı̄;the infixation of the negation particle ni in the negated 3.ps.sg.pres. A. la ni vei “(it) is nottossed” proves that la must be an independent word which is used as a constituent of acompound verb here). One more compound verb containing the absolutive /koś/ is M. kollanı̄/koślanı̄/. The exact meaning of this verb is “to put down (by doing)”; it only occurs in
M. dū kollanı̄ “to leave” (lit. “to put down slackening” = “to leave by slackening [theboat]”). — The first part of M. ekkuranı̄ /ek-kuranı̄/ “to add, mix” consists of the numeral e/ek/; thus, the basic meaning of the verb can be translated with “to make (in) one”. — M. hikkanı̄ “to let dry” (only in M. dia-hikkanı̄ “to bail water from a leaky boat”) obviously is adenominative verb; cf. M.A.F. hiki “dry”. — M.A.F. vikkanı̄ “to sell” goes back to thepresent stem Skt. vi-krinā- (Pa. vikkinā-, Pkt. vikkina-) “to sell”187 via *vikina-, *vikna-, thegeminate reflecting the older sequence of -kn-.
c

c

c

c

c

c

c

˙

˙

˙

1.3.10. Loan phonemes
While in HLSD (1988, 14), ñ is described as a phoneme of its own,188 DE SILVA (1969,204) analyses ñ as a cluster consisting of the phonetic components [ny] which, of course, has
no phonemic status as such. Obviously DE SILVA’s analysis starts out from such cases asdūññe ← *dūnye ← *dūniek ← *dūni-ek “a bird”, the secondary geminated ññ of which ishardly phonemic.189 There are some isolated words with initial ñ- in Dhivehi, however,
˙

c

c

185

For the etymology of hunnanı̄ cf. 3.9.2.2.1.
A complete list of the n-stem verbs is given in 3.4.2.3.
187
Cf. TURNER 1966, II, 678, no. 11640.
188“On the one hand, our corpus of data does not contain any minimal pairs in which this sound contrasts
with the dental ‘n’ ... In our analysis, the palatal nasal will be treated as a distinct phoneme on the grounds thatit occurs frequently as a geminate cluster and the Divehins recognise it as distinct unit in their system of writing(ñaviani).”
189
For details about the geminate ññ cf. 1.3.9.4.
186

Loan phonemes45

the ñ of which cannot be analysed as a sequence of n and y by means of morphonologicalcriteria. As most of these words must be explained as (presumably) old loanwords, it seems
to be adequate to see a loan phoneme here, i.e., a sound with a “low phonemic level” within
the Maldivian phonological system. There are only a few words with undisputable initial /ñ/in Dhivehi,190 M.A. ñāki “aimless, foolish talk”; ñēku “mentally retarded”; ñakas “a sexual
practice”; ñam ñam 〈ñamu ñamu〉 “a tropical fruit”, bot. “Cynometra cauliflora” (rare on
the Maldives); the corresponding tree, which was imported from Sri Lanka, is called
M.A. ñam ñam gas/ges, bot. “Fabacea leguminosa”. It cannot be excluded that the first threeof these words contain the negation particle in its original form, ni (cf. modern A.F. ni vs.
M. nu) which might have been reduced to ny in the position before a vowel.
1.3.10.1. A very frequent phoneme, which occurs exclusively in loanwords from Arabic andPersian, is /h/. In most cases it is pronounced in its original phonetic value as [x]. Cp., e.g.,
M.A.F. tārı̄x˘ “date, chronicle, history” ← Arab. tārı̄h “id.”; A.F. xādima “servant” ← Arab.
˘ alı̄ buxairı̄, A. alı̄ boxārı̄ “Bukhārāhādim “male servant”, hādima “female servant”; M.
˘plum” ← Pers. ālu-boxārā
˘ “(dried) prune” etc.
1.3.10.2. There is one more loan phoneme, which can often be heard in its original phonetic
quality, viz. /z/. Cf. M.A.F. tāzā “fresh” ← Pers. tāza “id.”, M. bāzāru, A. bāzāra “(oriental)
bazaar, market” ← Arab./Pers. bāzār etc. In contrast to that, we find the original voiced
fricative /z/ substituted by [-d-] in earlier loanwords; cp., e.g., namādu “prayer” (attested
since L1 d/2,1) ← Pers. namāz).191
1.3.10.3. All other foreign phonemes (as listed in the table below) are substituted by
autochthonous phonemes until nowadays; cp., e.g., M. hagı̄gı̄ “real” ← Arab. haqı̄qı̄ “id.”,
M. fagı̄ru, A.F. fakı̄ri “poor” ← Arab. faqı̄r “id.”; M.A.F. bagı̄cā “garden” ← Pers. bāġča“id.” etc. Only a few people with a good knowledge of Arabic try to pronounce the sounds
in question according to their original value.
˙

1.3.10.4. The following table shows Arabic characters and their transliteration into Tāna:
Tāna

X

H

>

R

S

W

G

q

Arabic

b

a

o

l

k

]

p

r

transcribed

h,x
˘

c

ḣ

d
¨

ṡ

t̄

ġ

q

Tāna

V

C

<

w

P

Y

F

Z

Arabic

j

e

p

z

f

m

n

h

transcribed

š

ġ

w

r

t
ż

ž

¨

d̄

190

The examples noted here are taken from the monolingual dictionary of Dhivehi (NCLHR 1985-91, 15, 1);c

ASSAN SA ĪD confirmed that they are used in A ū as well.
191
For this type of substitutions cf. GIPPERT (forthcoming).

ḋ

ḋ

Ḣ

46

Phonology

Examples of Arabic words transcribed into Tāna:
EnglishTānaArabicEnglishTānaArabicdust

urAbuG

Lf£G§H¯

heart

u @ a
blq

stone

urajaHambergrisurab@na>alms

u Aa atqdS

LÆG®G≈
I|£G˙G¨G-

wine

ur@maXLÃMæG˙
GÆL §GM¿ˆ
LÆMøG

uA
mdW
i
u A @unb^P?LwZG¨BG
Lx£G†N Hf

beat

u @ a
brR

L[MÆG-

book

ur@bZ
i

?LÆM†gG
L›M>ÆG%
G
L MG
ÿ#z
G
Y£¸He

filtercaptain

hand

u a
dy

LÆH¡H˜
L¨G>

middle

u a
qrY
I
u @ a
Ysw

month

ur@haVLÆM¡G$

sun

uAu
>kC

middayuruhuFroad

1.4. Syllable and word structure
As the earliest written documents of Dhivehi show, there were only open syllables in Old
Dhivehi (cf. 1.1.2 ff.). It was only because of the systematic occurrence of the processes of
apocope and syncope (cf. 1.1.3 and 1.1.5 above) that in the course of time new types ofclosed syllables emerged.
The following survey illustrates the most important patterns of word and syllable structureof modern Dhivehi. Geminates are treated like sequences of two different consonants.
c

1.4.1. Monosyllabic structures: CV (consonant-vowel): M.A.F. de “two”; VC: A.F. a /at/
(M. ai) “hand, arm”, M. o /oś/ (A. eśa, F. eśe) “seed, kernel”; M.A.F. en /em/ “bait fish”;
CVC: M.A.F. kan /kam/ “fact”; M.A.F. hun “fever”; M.A.F. tı̄r “arrow”.
c

Monosyllabic words which consist of a single long vowel in the standard language, such as ā “new”, do not
represent open syllables from a phonological point of view. Instead we have to deal with the phonetic realisationof a closed syllable here, as the correspondent forms A. au and F. al show.192 As a matter of fact, there is noword in Dhivehi which consists of only one long vowel.

1.4.2. Disyllabic structures: VCV: M.A. ihi, F. ı̄hi “lobster”; M.A.F. udu “sky”; CVCV:
M.A.F. hudu “white”; M.A. baśi, F. b¯aśi
˛ “eggplant”; VCVC: M.A. atun, F. aten (abl.)“from, by the hand”; CVCVC: M. bēnun, A.F. bēnun “wish, will”; VCCV: M.A.F. emme
/ek-me/ “all, whole”; CVCCV: M. datta, A.F. dattā “elder sister/woman”; M. bappa,
A.F. bappā “father” VCCVC: M.A.F. emmen /ek-men/ “all (persons)” (pl.).
˙

˙

192

For more details cf. 1.2.1.6.

Syllable and word structure47

1.4.3. Trisyllabic structures: VCVCV: M.A.F. in̆gili “finger, toe”; CVCVCV: M.A.F. huturu“ugly”; M. himāru, A. himāra, F. himāro “donkey”; CVCVCVC: M.A.F. miturun (nom.pl.)“friends”; CVCCVCV: M.A.F. batteli “a kind of Maldivian sailing boat”; M. bokkurā,
A.F. bokkorā “a small boat type”.
1.4.4. Word structures like CVCVCVCV as well as longer sequences of syllables occur incompound words only. Cp., e.g., M.A. vāreduni, F. vāreheduni “rain bow”.
1.4.5. The phenomenon of hiatus is met with very frequently in the southern varieties of
Dhivehi. In contrast to that there seems to be a strong tendency in the standard language to
avoid sequences of two vowels and, furthermore, to avoid hiatus by insertion of the glide yor the glottal stop [ ]. Thus, there are oppositions like M. 〈hiyā〉 – A. hiau “shadow”,
M. 〈fiya〉 – A.F. fia “1) petal, 2) wing” or M. 〈tari e , tariye 〉 – A.F. tarie /tari-ek/ “astar” which seem to be dialectal variants. In pronunciation, however, there is no clear
difference between the dialects here. The widely held view of native speakers of the standard
language that an intervocalic -y- or [ ] is audible in such cases, is obviously caused by thespelling. Palaeographic research shows that the assignment of the phonetic value y to a given
letter is a comparatively recent development in the history of Dhivehi writing. In Dives akuru
there were only two series of characters designing the initial vowels of words or syllables
which could be used at random. It is possible that one of these series has to be traced backto a row of aksaras containing y-. We have to consider in this connection that there was noword-initial y- in Dhivehi, inherited /y/ having developed into /d/ in early times (cf. 1.7.1).
c

c

c

c c

c

˙

1.5. Word accent as a rule falls on one of the first two syllables in Dhivehi. At the sametime, the following tendencies can be made out:
1.5.1. When both syllables are short, or the first syllable is long and the second short, the firstsyllable is stressed; cp., e.g., M.A.F. méhi “fly”; M. bódu, A. bón̆da, F. bón̆do “big, large”;
M.A.F. tíki “drop”; M.A.F. bákari “goat”; M. átolu, A.F. átele “atoll”. — M.A.F. nā´ li´“weight unit, ca. 1 kg”; M.A.F. mūsun“monsoon, season”; M.A.F. besveriā¯´“medical´ “clean, clear”; M.F. bokiba,
doctor; traditional naturopath”; M.A.F. sāfu¯´
A. bokoba¯´“pancake”.
˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

Because of their special accentuation, three nouns with a paradigmatic interchange of -h- and -ss- in theposition before a stem-final -i193 have to be treated as a particular group within the i-stems. Although their firsttwo syllables are short, the stress falls on the second syllable, i.e., on the vowel followed by h / ss. Cf.
M.A.F. divéhi “islander, insular”, i.e. “Maldivian”, indef.sg. M.F. divésse , A. divéssa “a Maldivian (man or
woman)”; A. fiéhi, M.F. fióhi “knife”, indef.sg. A. fiéssa , M.F. fiósse “a knife”; A. kiéhi “saw”, indef.sg.
kiéssa “a saw” (no exact M.F. equivalent194).
ccc

Cf. 2.3.2.7.1.2.2.
Cf. F. nom.sg. kı̄hā, indef. kı̄hāe and M. nom. kı̄s.

c

c

194

c

193

48

Phonology

1.5.2. When the first syllable is short and the second long, it is the second syllable which is´
stressed; cp., e.g., M.A.F. timā´ “self”; M. ufāveri,
A. ufā´ “happy”; M. furā´ lu, A. ferā´ da“roof”; A. fehe,¯´ F. fah´e˛ “if”; M.A.F. falo¯´ “papaya”. — This rule is not effective, however,when the long syllable is preceded by a geminate; cf. A.F. báppā “father”, A.F. mámmā“mother” (M. báppa, mámma).
˙˙˙

1.5.3. When the first two syllables are long, the first syllablle is stressed; cp., e.g.,´
M.A.F. m´ı̄hā “(the) man”; M.A.F. kāfūru“camphor”.
1.5.4. When in words with three or more syllables the first two syllables are short and the´ “pine apple”; M. bakathird is long, it is the latter one which is stressed; e.g. M.A.F. alanāsi´´´mūnu, A.F. bakamūnu “owl”; A. belelā (def.) “the cat”.
To sum up these observations, the basic rule of Maldivian word accentuation can be statedas follows: The first long syllable in a word is stressed. This comprises syllables that areclosed by geminates or consonant clusters.
˙

˙

1.6. Sandhi phenomena do not play an important role in Dhivehi. There are only a few rulesthat can be considered as unquestionable.
c1.6.1. On the basis of orally recorded stories from older native speakers of the Fua Mulaku
dialect we may state the rule that word-final glottal stops (← -k or -t) are realised as -d before
initial l- or r-. Cf. the following two examples:F. /ruk labāgen/ → ru labān195 → [rud-labān] (T6, 26.31) “bending the coconut trees down”
F. /enek rukaha/ → ene rukaha → [ened-rukaha] (T4, 44) “to another coconut tree”.
cc

1.6.2. The realisation of geminates196 instead of sequences consisting of glottal stop +consonant at the word boundary must be considered as a sandhi phenomenon as well; cf. e.g.:
F. /de ruk de-etere/ → de ru dētere → [de rud-dētere] (T4, 44a) “between two coconut trees”.
c

1.6.3. In the Addū dialect, final - ← /-ś, -k, -t/, occurring in the position before initial vowelor h, is changed to -u; cf. the following examples:c˙˙

A. /eage raśaś ebege/ → [eege raśau ebege] (T16, 35) “he went to his (own) island” (ebege 3.sg.pret. of (M.)
danı̄ “to go”)
A. /fin̆danā gos en̆daś arai/ → [fin̆danā gos en̆dau arai] (T1, 11) “the F.-bird, having gone (there) and having
climbed up to the bed ...” (gos abs. of (M.) danı̄ “to go”, arai abs. of aranı̄ “to climb”)

1.6.4. For the affrication of final -ti in predicative adjectives preceding the quotation marker-ē /-eve/ in the standard language, cf. 1.3.9.2.2.

195
labān ← labagen, abs.III “bending / having bent” of labanı̄ “to bend (down)”,; for the contraction of theabs. III frequently occurring in the F. dialect, cf. 3.11.4.3,
196
About the phonological rules concerning the formation of geminates cf. 1.3.9.

On the historical relationship of Dhivehi and Sinhalese49

1.7. On the historical relationship of Dhivehi and Sinhalese
DE SILVA (1970b, 157 ff.) put forward several arguments that might speak in favour of anearly dialectal differentiation of Dhivehi and Sinhalese. In the course of the present investigation, DE SILVA’s observations as to the comparative-historical phonology of the Insular IndoAryan languages deserve of being discussed in detail.
1.7.1. Although DE SILVA had only a very restricted corpus of Maldivian language material
at his disposal, he noticed that the initial Sinhalese glide y- as inherited from Old and Middle
IA y-, corresponds to the voiced dental stop d- in Dhivehi. He realised that d- must havedeveloped through the palatale affricate *j from the original glide, y. At the same time DE
SILVA recognised that the few Maldivian words which show initial y- must be of foreign
origin; cp. the following examples: yotu(-dōni) “yacht(-boat)” ← Engl. yacht, yagı̄n “certain(ty)” ← Arab. yaqı̄n “id.”; yaumı̄yā “records, chronicle” ← Arab. yaumı̄yāt “chronicle ofeveryday life”. For the regular correspondence of Dhiv. d- and Sinh. y-, DE SILVA listed thefollowing correspondences (1970b, 157-8):197˙´ “goes, proceeds, moves, walks,
M. danı̄ / Sinh. yanavā “to go”; cf. Pa. yāti, but Pkt. jāi “id.” ← OIA yāti
travels”.198 The nouns M. daturu and Sinh. yaturu- “journey”, which belong to the same root´
etymologically, are mots savants, as the consonants in medial position show; cf. OIA yātrā“journey”,
Pa. yātrā- (a sanskritism itself) “id.”, but Pkt. jattā-.199
M.A.F. da(gan̆ u /-a/-o) “iron (bar)” / Sinh. ya “iron”; cf. Pa. aya(s)-, Pkt. a(y)a-, OIA áyas- “metal,iron”.200
M.A.F. dan /dam/ “unit of time covering three hours” – Sinh. yama “(night) watch”; cf. Pkt. jāma- vs.
´
Pa. yāma-, Skt. yāma“night watch of three hours”.201
One more undisputable example which has to be treated in this context is Dhiv. daśu (RC 5,12) ← da u
(attested since L2) “underneath”202 as against Sinh. ya a adv., postpos. “below, beneath” (← OIA
adhástāt).203
ḋ

ṫ

ṫ

1.7.2. DE SILVA accordingly divides the Indo-Aryan languages into a “y-group” and a“j-group”, depending on the fact whether OIA initial /y/ was preserved or changed into /d/through intermediate /j/. He comes to the result that Sinhalese is a “y-language” in its main
stock while Dhivehi belongs to the j-languages. Without any doubt DE SILVA was right inconsidering this twofold phonological development as a dialectal differentiation which
originated in the Prakrit period. It is also right that it can be taken as an indication for acomparatively early separation of Sinhalese and Dhivehi.

197

Supplementary remarks as well as corrections as to DE SILVA’s treatise are not particularly noted.
Cf. TURNER (1966), II, 604, no. 10452.
199
Cf. GEIGER (1941), 140, no. 2087; TURNER (1966) II, 604, no. 10456.
200
Cf. GEIGER (1941), 140, no. 2081; TURNER (1966) I, 26, no. 590.
201
Cf. GEIGER (1941), 141, no. 2095; TURNER (1966) II, 605, no. 10467.
202
In modern Dhivehi this word has only a locative meaning; cf. loc. M. daśugā, A.F. daśi “below,
beneath”, abl. M.A.F. daśun “from below”, dat. M.A. daśa , F. daśaha “down”; Old Dhiv. daśu is a common
noun still.
203
Cf. GEIGER (1941), 140, no. 2085.
198

c

50

Phonology

1.7.3. One more regular difference between Sinhalese and Dhivehi that was already treatedby DE SILVA consists in the development of the palatal affricates of the Old and Middle IndoAryan period. In Sinhalese the initial /c-/ of inherited words developed into /s-/ which
regularly changed into h- later; cf. Sinh. san̆da/han̆da “moon” ← MIA canda-, OIA candrá“id.”204 An inherited initial /j-/ became /d-/ in Sinhalese, as, e.g., in divi “life” ← Pkt.
jı̄vi(y)a- ← OIA jı̄vitá- “living, life”.205 Old and Middle IA /-c-/ and /-j-/ in medial position
led to Sinh. /-d-/, which in word-final position further developed into unvoiced -t; thus, e.g.,
Skt. krakaca- “saw” at first developed, through an intermediate form like Pa. kakaca-, toSinh. *kiyad-, then (by devoicing of the stem-final d) to the modern stem kiyat-.206 Old
medial -cc- became Sinh. /s/,207 while an inherited medial -jj- developed into Sinh. /d/; cf.
Sinh. mäda “central, middle, centre” ← Pa., Pkt. majjha- ← OIA mádhya- “id.”208 The lattersound change can also be found in Dhivehi; cp., e.g., M. medu, A.F. mede “id.”.
Besides the sound change of -jj- → -d- treated above, DE SILVA realised that the heterogeneous substitution of the inherited palatal affricates in Sinhalese opposes itself to a very homogeneous development in Dhivehi. As a matter of fact, all the corresponding phonemes, whichstill existed in MIA, merged into a single phoneme in Dhivehi, viz. /s/ which in initial andmedial position subsequently changed into h.209 When the Maldivian language material isjudged comprehensively, DE SILVA’s perceptions of these historical sound changes must be
regarded as right in their main points; there are several particular problems, however, that´
cannot be solved without contradictory results even now. Thus, e.g., OIA rājan“king” (cp.
Pa. nom. rājā)210 exists in Dhivehi not only in the form ras (attested since L4 [b/2,3 etc.])
which represents the expected development of -j- → -s-, but also as the stem radun which
seems to reflect the original -n-stem reinterpreted as a pluralis maiestatis (attested sinceL5 [2/2,2: mahāradun], cf. 2.3.2.7.4.1). Besides these two variants which occur side by side
until nowadays, the singular forms rāda (L4 g/1,6; F1,3 etc.; 〈rāja〉 L2 3,1) and radu
(F10,18 etc.) are attested as well. The corresponding Sinhalese form is rada as expected (cf.
the older variants rad/rat and the inscriptional form 〈raja〉211). It must be assumed that all
Maldivian variants of this word which contain d have to be considered as mots savants. In
these cases, -d- must have substituted the Skt. phoneme -j- which did not exist as such in thesound system of Old Dhivehi.

204

Cf. GEIGER (1941), 188, no. 2849 and TURNER (1966) I, 252, no. 4661.
Cf. TURNER (1966), I, 289, no. 5252.
206
With good reasons, TURNER (1966, I, 185, no. 3570) points out that GEIGER (1941, 43, no. 635) did notrecognise that the Sinh. nom.sg. kiyata “saw” (stem kiyat-) has to be traced back to an original stem *kiyad(with -d- ← -j- ← -c-); the stem-final -t can be explained by the assumption that the pure stem was used as aplural which led to a devoicing of -d, the final result being kiyat. The modern form of the nom.sg. (cf. above)
was thus derived from this allophonic variant. For a parallel development (from the late MIA period, after early
MIA -c- ← -c- and -jj- ← -jy- had coincided into the affricate -j-), cp. the Sinh. stem behet- “medicine”, a pluralform from which the nom.sg. beheta is derived, with the variant beheda from an original stem behed- which
through *beseja emerged from Pa., Pkt. bhesajja- “id.” (cf. TURNER 1966, II, 549, no. 9623). Cf. also DE SILVA(1970b), 158 f., and 2.3.2.8.1.3 below.
207
However, there seem to be almost no examples attesting this sound change, cf. GEIGER (1938), 49.
208
Cf. GEIGER (1941), 131, no. 1958 and TURNER (1966) II, 563, no. 9804.
209
For more details cf. 1.3.5.
210
Cf. TURNER (1966), II, 618, no. 10679.
211
In the earliest inscriptions of Sinhalese, long and short vowels are usually not distinguished from eachother; cf., e.g., GEIGER (1938), 14.
205

Morphology
2. The nominal categories
The nominal system of Dhivehi comprises nouns, pronouns, adjectives and numerals as partsof speech. Despite of their partially remarkable morphological differences, all Maldivian
dialects show the same grammatical categories, viz. case, number, definiteness andindefiniteness.
2.1. In Maldivian the noun has lost grammatical gender as a category of its own. This makes
a great difference in comparison with modern Sinhalese, where the inherited grammaticaldistinction of animate masculine and feminine substantives has been preserved until nowadays, natural sexus and grammatical gender always corresponding with each other. Furthermore, the opposition of animate vs. inanimate nouns is expressed in manifold ways in themorphological categories of Sinhalese. The combination of both systems led to a threefold
distinction of grammatical gender, animate masculine and feminine nouns being opposed toinanimate neuters. In the nominal system of Dhivehi, however, the morphological expressionof the dichotomy of animateness and inanimateness plays a comparatively insignificant role.
2.1.1. Without any doubt GEIGER’s observation that the inherited case system was sharply
diminished already in Prakrit times in the prehistory of Sinhalese212 is valid for Dhivehi aswell. Basically the inherited case forms of Old Indo-Aryan were reduced to distinctive formsof a direct case (casus rectus) and an oblique case (casus obliquus), the latter one serving as
a basis for the formation of secondary case forms which developed in the period of Modern
Indo-Aryan only. While the declension of northern Dhivehi, just like the one of Sinhalese, israther agglutinative, the southern dialects show a much greater variety of inflectional declension patterns. In comparison with the paradigms of MIA, most of these case forms aresecondary, however. In particular, the case system of South Dhivehi consists of a direct andan oblique case, a genitive-locative (the two forms being formally identical), a dative and an
ablative, the latter serving as an instrumental case as well. In contrast to that, the caseinventory of North Dhivehi comprises a special agglutinative locative which is different fromthe genitive. There is no formal accusative in Dhivehi; the object is morphologically
expressed by the direct or the oblique case. Usually the direct case occurs in nominative
function as the subject case of finite predicative verbs. When the predicate is infinite,
however, the oblique case can serve as a subject case.
2.1.2. In modern Dhivehi the classification of nominal stems derives from the different
declension types. Thus, the nouns can be divided into consonant stems, a-stems and i-stems,
stems ending in other vowels being rare. On the other hand, consonant stems and i-stems
have many subtypes. However, neither the stem classes nor the declension paradigms ofmodern Dhivehi can be derived directly from corresponding Old and Middle Indo-Aryan
types, most of the formations in question being the result of secondary developments.
212“In der prākritischen Grundlage des Sgh. war der Unterschied der alten Declination bereits aufgehoben”(GEIGER 1900, 56).

52

Morphology

2.1.3. The number system, which is characterised by the distinction of singular and plural,
is interrelated inseparably with the categorical dichotomy of definiteness and indefiniteness.
The correlation of these two categories led to a very complex system which is preserved
unaltered only in the dialect of Addū. It is characterised by the fact that the pure nominal
stem as a rule functions as a plural form. This is the primary basis of the plural paradigms
from which the definite and the indefinite singular forms are derived by additional markings.
As to the formation of number, words designing human beings (persons) usually show apeculiar behaviour. In these cases the singular must be considered as primary, the plural being
marked by special suffixes. The number system of North Dhivehi differs widely from thissystem. Here, the plural is regularly formed by a uniform suffix, the original meaning of
which is “so much / many” as the earlier written documents of Dhivehi show. Furthermore,these texts reveal that in the language of Māle some hundred years ago the correlation of
number and definiteness was practically identical to that preserved in Addū to this day.
Comparing the linguistic areas in question, the treatment of number in the Fua Mulaku
dialect is of special interest, because here, both systems intermingled with each other. In Fua
Mulaku all peculiarities of the categories of number and definiteness can be found on the spot
to a certain extent; this special constellation caused the emergence of a great variety ofmorphological and morphonological irregularities. A functional overlap of the categories ofnumber on the one hand and of definiteness and indefiniteness on the other hand, which isquite similar to that of Addū, also exists in Sinhalese.213
˙˙

˙˙

c

c

˙˙

2.1.4. In function, the pronouns of Dhivehi can be divided into personal, demonstrative,
possessive, reciprocal, interrogative, reflexive and indefinite pronouns and pronominal
adjectives. In Dhivehi as in Sinhalese, the relative pronoun was lost already at an early
period; instead of relative clauses, both languages use participial constructions regularly.214
Furthermore, there are no particular negative pronouns in Dhivehi; “nobody, no one, nothing”
and the like have to be expressed periphrastically. In congruence with the noun, the pronominal system of Dhivehi distinguishes the categories of case, number, and, to some extent, also
definiteness and indefiniteness. Corresponding to what has been said about the nouns, there
is no formal expression of grammatical gender in the pronouns of the standard language andthe Addū dialect. In contrast to that, the pronominal system of the Fua Mulaku vernacularshows a few traces of gender differentiation. Some of the pronouns can be used as attributes
as well as independently. Partly the pronominal categories show considerable dialectal
divergences; thus, e.g., even some personal pronouns of the northern and southern vernaculars
represent different etyma. In Māle, where the social status of the speaker in comparison withthat of the addressee is expressed in the first person, different pronouns are used to denote thedifferent hierarchical levels. In southern Dhivehi, we do not find any traces of such asociolinguistic differentiation. Here, however, the old formal distinction of the direct and theoblique case, which was lost in northern Dhivehi, has been preserved in the pronominal
system. Despite the many differences, the Maldivian pronominal system is rather homogeneous in comparison with the “diffuse” pronouns of Sinhalese.215
c

˙˙

213

Cf. GEIGER (1900), 57 and 63.
For the invariable form yam, which can be traced back to the old relative pronoun, and for the expressionof relative clauses in Sinhalese in general cf. GEIGER (1941), 7 and 69 / (1973), 564 and 626.
215
For Sinhalese pronouns cf. GEIGER (1938), 123 ff. and (1900), 66 ff.; cf. also MATZEL (1983), 30 f.
214

The nominal categories

53

2.1.5. Neither in attributive nor in predicative position, the adjective does not show any
morphological variation of its own in both Maldivian and Sinhalese216. In particular, there
are no suffixal formations of comparatives. Degrees of comparison are expressed by quantifiers such as “big”, “great”, “more”, “rather” or “very”. Furthermore, adjectival comparison
can be expressed by purely syntactical means. When used independently, however, adjectives
have the same inflectional variety as nouns.
2.1.6. The numeral system of Modern Dhivehi is the result of a manifold restructuring. Its
most striking feature is a particular mode of counting based on a purely duodecimal system,
which attracts special attention from a typological point of view. This system which in earlier
times was used all over the Maldives, is almost lost nowadays. It is surprising that a similarsystem, built on duodecimal units, is not attested for Sinhalese at any time of its long history(cf. DE SILVA 1970b, 149). In Modern Dhivehi, as well, a decimal system prevails, in whichrelic forms of the old autochthonous numeral system are mixed with many sanskritisms andprakritisms. From the cardinal numbers (like nouns), an indefinite form can be derived bysuffixation. Ordinal numbers are derived from cardinal numbers by means of a suffix, too.
2.1.7. In Dhivehi the term “adverb” is not related to a specific part of speech; it has to beunderstood as a functional general term instead. Adverbs derived from nominal parts ofspeech, such as, e.g., nouns or adjectives, but also pronouns, will be treated in the context of
their underlying formations.
2.2. There are almost no word formation procedures in Dhivehi. As a rule, adjectives andnouns are not distinct from each other by special morphological marks. There are at least four
suffixal elements of different productivity, however, by means of which adjectives can bederived from nouns or from already existing adjectives without further morphological marks.
The frequency and the distribution of the particular suffixes within the different dialectal
areas is subject to a considerable variety. Thus, the suffix -teri is obviously restricted to North
Dhivehi (cp., e.g., M. bēnunteri “useful”), and the same holds true for the rare suffix -(v)eti
which almost exclusively occurs in the standard language (e.g. M. lōbiveti “dear”). In
contrast to that, the adjective suffix -veri, which goes back to a former independent noun,
occurs all over the dialects (e.g. M.A.F. buddiveri “wise”). By means of the adjective gada“rich, strong”, which still occurs as an independent word as well, compound adjectives arederived from nouns. These secondary adjective formations represent a reverse type ofbahuvrı̄hi compounds, cp., e.g., M.A.F. aligada “bright”, lit. “(being) rich (in) light”.217
2.2.1. For the formation of nouns, there is only one kind of productive derivation in Dhivehi.
In order to create nouns with abstract meaning, the word kan /kam/, “fact”,218 is added tosemantically corresponding adjectives and substantives. Cf. M. rı̄ti adj. “beautiful” vs. rı̄tikan“beauty”, M.A.F. ufāveri adj. “glad, happy” vs. ufāverikan “happiness”, A. bon̆da “big,˙216

Cf. GEIGER (1938), 116 f.
For more details and examples cf. 2.4.4.
218
Dhiv. kan /kam/, Sinh. kama ← Pa., Pkt. kamma(n)- ← OIA kárman- “act, work”; cf. TURNER (1966), I,
147, no. 2892, – In the local grammar, kan is also used as the term for “verb”.
217

54

Morphology

large” vs. bon̆dākan “bigness, largeness”, A. fakı̄ri adj. “poor” (← Arab. faqı̄r “poor (one)”)vs. fakı̄rikan “poverty”; cf. also veri as an originally independent nominal stem meaning“person; leader”219 vs. verikan “government”.
˙

2.2.2. There are practically no diminutive formations in Dhivehi. In all the investigated texts
there is only one attestation of a suffix with diminutive function, which is joined to a nominal
stem. In the Fua Mulaku version of the fairy tale Mākana “The Crane”, we find ralo-mana
instead of F. ralo “wave”, mas-mana instead of F. maha /mas/ “fish”, daro-mana instead of
F. daro “firewood” etc. (further examples in 5.3.3). Possibly -mana reflects Dhiv. mani
“pearl”. This word, albeit being attested already in L1 (f/1,1), is obsolete in the modern
language. Most probably the same etymon220 occurs also in M. maniku ← maniku which was
originally used as an aristocratic title (for an etymological discussion cf. 2.6.2.4.6).
˙

c

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

2.2.3. There are two honorific suffixes in Dhivehi, the usage of which is confined to thestandard language as well. -fulu ← -pulu (cf. 1.3.9.6.1) is added to nouns denoting inalienableobjects, while -kolu is joined to nouns denoting alienable objects; in both cases the functionof the suffixes is to morphologically express the high social level of the owner of the objects
in question. Cp., e.g., in̆gili-fulu “finger” or appulu /atpulu/ “hand” (of a noble person) as
against gamı̄s-kolu “shirt” or galam-kolu “pen” (of a noble person). As a consequence of theincreasing democratisation of the Maldivian society, however, the two suffixes are becoming
more and more obsolete in the modern language.
˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

2.3. The noun
2.3.1. Case system and stem types
In Dhivehi the formation of the nominal stem types is closely connected to the rules of caseformation. Within the system of nominal declension, there is a considerable divergence
between the southern and northern dialects. While there are no remarkable differences in thefunction of the case forms all over the Dhivehi speaking area, their formation is very heterogeneous. Alongside some relics of the inherited inflectional system, an agglutinative declension developed in northern Dhivehi, while the southernmost dialects have preserved morearchaic inflectional patterns until nowadays. The actual paradigms cannot be derived directlyfrom the well known declension types of Old and Middle Indo-Aryan, however. According
to GEIGER, they had already disappeared to a high degree by the time of Sinhalese Prakrit.221 Comparing the Sinhalese data with the system we find in Dhivehi, we are forced to219

For more details cf. 2.3.2.4.1, 2.3.2.4.2.
´ “a little” (Pkt.
Claus Peter ZOLLER (personal information) proposes to derive the suffix from OIA manākma ā etc., cf. TURNER 1966, II, 564, no. 9824).
221
Cf. GEIGER (1900, 56): “In der prākritischen Grundlage des Sgh. war der Unterschied der alten Declinationen bereits aufgehoben; der Process, den wir im P(āli) beobachten, ist nunmehr vollzogen. ... Die Flexion besteht ... nur noch aus spärlichen Resten. Sie beschränkt sich in der masc. und fem. Declination auf die Bildungeines Casus rectus und eines C. obliquus der beiden Numeri. Die neutr. Declination hat die alten Pluralformen
vollständig eingebüßt, im Sing. dagegen ausser dem Nominativ-Accusativ auch den Instrumental und den Locativ
220ṅCase system and stem types

55

assume that the inflectional state of the presumable Maldivian Prakrit must have been quite
similar. The case system of modern Dhivehi and Sinhalese is based on the difference between
a direct (or nominative) case (casus rectus) and an oblique case (casus obliquus), the latterbeing identical with the pure nominal stem. While the function of the direct case is restricted
to the use as a nominative, the oblique case is the basis of all the other case forms. In
Dhivehi this holds true for genitive, dative, and ablative in general. Besides this, the northerndialectal area has a particular locative case, too, while in the southernmost vernaculars thelocative morphologically coincides with the genitive.
2.3.1.1. In the following paragraphs, we will give a comprehensive survey of the casesuffixes in particular and – whenever possible – of their etymology. While the nominative
and the oblique case have no homogeneous suffix in Dhivehi, all the other cases are characterised by unambiguous formal markers.
2.3.1.1.1. In the southern dialects, two different kinds of genitive formations can be distinguished. The morpheme variants which are used in the formation of the genitive of nouns andpronouns designating “non-persons” in general (A. -e, -i; F. -e/-ei, -i222), cannot yet be
etymologised with certainty. It is quite probable, however, that they correspond with thegenitive endings -ä and -hi which PARANAVITANA (1956, I, cxi) attests for medieval Sinhalese(8th to 10th century A.D.). Following PARANAVITANA, these endings (besides the genitiveendings Sinh. -ā, -hu, -u und -yahu, occurring in the same inscriptions, which obviously haveno equivalents in Dhivehi) have to be derived from “-sya in Old Indian which, in Middle
Indian, is -ssa”.223 They are opposed to the genitive suffix -ge, which in the South Maldivian area is used exclusively with nouns and pronouns designating “persons” in a wider sense,
while it has become the only formal marker of the genitive in North Maldivian. This suffix
must be derived from the locative of ge “house” without any doubt. According to GEIGER,
the corresponding genitive ending of Sinhalese, -gē, has been contracted from geyi “in thehouse”; thus, goviyā-gē daruvō has the meaning of “the children (in the house) of the
farmer”. In this connection, the original genitive meaning of the oblique case preceding -gēis still recognisable, at least when appearing in archaic forms.224 Cf. also PARANAVITANA’s
statement (ib., cxiii): “Ge may therefore be equated with Skt. gehe ‘in the house’, i.e. ‘in theerhalten.”
222
Basically the distribution of the variant endings in the dialect of A ū depends on the different stem
types. In consonant stems, special phonological rules depend on the particularities of the phonological structureof the nouns in question; cf. 2.3.2.11.1 for details. For the dialect of Fua Mulaku which presents an even more
complicated picture, cf. 2.3.2.12.1.
223
In this connection cp. the genitive forms rasunasya (L2 1,5), rasunsya (L2 1,4 and 2,1; L3 1/1,2 etc.) andrasunusia (L2 1,2) “the king’s”, which are attested in some written documents of Old Dhivehi and which haveto be judged as sanskritisms (mots savants). In contrast to that the same documents also show the “realMaldivian” genitive rasun-ge “the king’s, of the king” which represents today’s normal genitive formation ofnouns designating persons (L1 ms/1,2; L2 34,5 and L3 15/1,5).
224
Cf. GEIGER (1942), 32 / (1973), 589: “-gē, das dem Sprachgefühl als Endung gilt, ist kontrahiert aus geyi,
in dem Hause; goviyā-gē daruvō bedeutet ‘die Kinder (im Hause) des Landmannes.’ Die urspr. genetivische Bed.
des vor -gē stehenden K.obl. ist wohl erkennbar und tritt auch in den archaischen Formen zutage.” — Cf. further
GEIGER (1941), 57, no. 841 s.v. geya “house”; GEIGER (1900), 62 and (1938), 110 as well as TURNER (1966)I, 227, no. 4240 s.v. g h á- “house”; cf. also WIJAYARATNE (1956), 143-4.
ḋ

ḋ

c

ṙ

56

Morphology

place’. The change in meaning from the loc. to the gen. is a natural one: what is one’s houseis one’s own, so the postposition ge came to denote ownership.” PARANAVITANA proves thatin early medieval Sinhalese -gē occurs only as a genitive suffix in connection with personalnames, not yet competing with the inherited synthetic formation of the genitive.225 Thisobservation agrees with what we find in the early written documents of Dhivehi which showthat in the earlier stages of the standard language genitive endings in -e226 were usual.
Furthermore they prove that the suffix -ge, originally added only to nouns designating persons
or to personal names, slowly developed into a general marker of the genitive. In the modern
standard language, genitives in -e are completely unknown.
c2.3.1.1.2. In the vernaculars of Addū and Fua Mulaku the locative of all nouns designating
inanimate objects or non-persons is formally identical with the genitive. Hence, the morphemes that denote the locative are A. -e, -i and F. -e/-ei, -i. In many cases we can decide
only by the context, whether the forms in question have to be interpreted as genitives or as
locatives (e.g. A. fen-e, F. fen-ei “of the water” or “in the water”). In older Dhivehi, mostforms in -e represent locatives, while an unambiguous genitival use of the same morphemewith inanimate nouns is comparatively rare. Some of the forms attested in L2, which aretaken by MANIKU/WIJAYAWARDHANA (1986, viii-ix) to represent the possessive function of
the locative, have to be interpreted as locative forms without any doubt in the given context,
while other examples remain ambiguous. In two of the passages in question, madule appears
together with the participles ot 〈otu〉 (pres./pret.: L2 10,4) and ovuna (pret.pres.: L2 18,4)“being (there), lying”227 and has to be translated as “(being) in the district” (in contrast to
MANIKU/WIJAYAWARDHANA, who translate “of the atoll” [in the sense of an administrative
district]). The form sime which is rendered as “of the boundaries” (ib.) can be interpreted asa genitive or as a locative as well; cf. the phrase sime sataru mūnu “(the) four sides (mūnu,
lit. ‘face’) on the border” or “(the) four sides of the border”, occurring in L2 (4,1-2) andL3 (2/2,3). geme, translated as “of the village” (ib.), rather seems to have the function of agenitive in some passages; cp., e.g., geme kulaata “to the family/lineage of the village”(attested two times in both L1 g/1,4 and L2 4,5).228
˙˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

2.3.1.1.2.1. For the formal identity of the genitive and the locative, we find an exact parallel in modern
Sinhalese: nouns meaning inanimate objects or plants have the ending -ē in the genitive and locative singular;cp., e.g., mal-ē “of/in the flower”, gam-ē “of/in the village” (cf. MATZEL 1983, 22). Following GEIGER (1938,105), the Sinh. suffix -ē, serving as a genitive and locative marker, has to be traced back to -ehi and, further, to225

In modern Sinhalese -gē has the function of a genitive ending with all animate nouns (plants excluded);cf., e.g., MATZEL 1983, 22 and 67.
226
It has not yet been proved by means of the written documents that -a- occurring in the last syllable of a
substantive could give rise to a gen./loc. ending in -i in the older language of Māle, as it is the case in the dialectof A ū (cf. 2.3.2.11.1).
227
For the suppletive distribution of the verbs onnanı̄ “lie, be (there)” and tibenı̄ “be (there)”, dependingon the number of the subjects involved, cf. the detailed information given in 3.14.1.
228
The gen./loc. gem-e of the stem gam- “village” shows a type of umlaut which is very unusual in Dhivehi.
The regular form would be gam-e. Such a form is indeed attested in L1 (mx/1,5; instr./abl. gamen in md/1,2-3
and 6), but it is not yet certain whether gam- has the meaning of “village” in these passages. The umlauted stem
gem- is well attested in other case forms too (cp., e.g., the instr./abl. gemen in 2.3.1.1.4.1), but it is the only
example of this kind of umlaut within a nominal paradigm that has become known until now.
ḋḋ

Case system and stem types

57

a common basic form (“loc. of -as- stems”), which already in the earliest period could have represented bothcase forms. For lack of convincing evidence, GEIGER’s supposition cannot be proved, however, the possibilityof a syncretism of separate formal elements characterising the genitive and the locative remaining valid. GEIGER
maintains that the locative suffix -ä (cp., e.g., bimä “on the ground”, gamä “in the village”; for the gen.suff.
-ä cf. above), which frequently occurs during the 9th century, is the “result of a contraction” of earlier -ē. This
assumption cannot be proved by examples or parallel developments, either.

2.3.1.1.2.2. At a relatively late time an analytic locative formation came into use in thestandard language of Māle which completely replaced the inherited forms in -e. The modern
locative suffix -gā /-gai/ which can be added to inanimate as well as animate nouns, represents the inherited oblique case of the noun gai “body”. The original meaning of “on, in, at(something or somebody)” was “on/in/at the body (of something or somebody)” accordingly(for more details cf. 2.3.2.13). In the standard language, this formation has already become
rigid and is no longer perceived in its original sense. But in the dialect of Fua Mulaku there
exists a special declension type constituted by a few nouns designating animals only, whichyields immediate insight into the development of the word gai into a case marking suffix (cf.
2.3.2.12.5.5).
ccc

2.3.1.1.3. The dative ending is -a /-aś/ in the standard language as well as in Addū. In Fua
Mulaku, however, it has the variants -aha, -hā, -aśa besides -a /-aś/, depending on the typeof the nominal stem and some additional phonological and phonetic criteria229. Without any
difficulties the ending M.A.F. -a /-aś/ and the variant F. -aśa can be traced back to the dative
ending -at(a) which is frequently attested in the older written documents of Maldivian. Thisis obviously identical with the Sinhalese dative ending -(a)ta which through the intermediatestages of Pkt. attham and atthāya (cf. Pa. attham and atthāya) can be derived from Skt.
ártham or árthāya, i.e., the acc./dat. of ártha- “aim, cause”.230 It is difficult to decide,
however, whether the two variants F. -aha and -hā represent pure allomorphs of the ending/-aś/, because a phonetic development of inherited t through ś into F. h (in all positions)would be an exception, as can be shown by many comparable examples (cf. 1.3.6.). Instead,
there are some indications which suggest an identification of F. -aha/-hā with a genitiveending -asa/-aha, which is attested for the most archaic stage of Sinhalese in the function ofa dative as well.
˙˙

c

c

˙

˙

˙

˙˙

˙

˙˙

˙

2.3.1.1.3.1. GEIGER (1938, 108-9) and (obviously following him) PARANAVITANA (1956, I, cxi) even assume that
all Sinhalese dative formations are based on old genitives. GEIGER tries to document the development beginningwith the Prakrit period. In the oldest inscriptions, genitives in -asa and -aha were used as datives, just like thegenitives231 in -assa of Pali and Prakrit. Beginning with the 1st century A.D., these genitives occur in combination with a following -a a (← MIA *-a h a ) or -a a ya (← MIA *-a āh ya) / -ataye (← MIA *-a āh yē). GEIGER
and PARANAVITANA demonstrate this development by means of the dative of san̆ga “multitude, assembly;
community of bhikkhus” (← Skt. sa g ha-; cf. GEIGER 1941, 171, no. 2565), which is attested in inscriptions withand without sandhi in the form 〈sagaha a 〉 (← MIA *saṅghassa h a ) besides 〈sagaha a a ya/-ye〉 (← *saṅghassa a āh ya/-yē). GEIGER postulates that Sinh. *saga a or *saga āya (← *saṅgha h a , °a āh ya) must havebeen possible forms as well. In the plural, -a a is joined to the gen.pl. in -ana (← -ānām). GEIGER illustrates this
ṫ ṫ

ṫ ṫ

ṫ

ṁ

ṫ ṫ

ṫ

ṁ

ṫ

ṫ ṫ

ṁ

ṁ

ṫ ṫ

ṫ

ṫ ṫ

ṫ

ṫ

ṫ ṫ

ṫ

229

More extensive information as to this will be given in 2.3.2.12.2.
Cf. TURNER (1966), I, 29, no. 638 and further GEIGER (1941), 59, no. 865; (1900); 62; (1938) 108 f.; forthe part the dative plays in the formation of the infinitive cf. 3.6.1.1 ff.
231
The genitives in question have the function of denoting an indirect object.
230

58

Morphology

with the formation sava satana a “to all beings”, which occurs in a 4th century inscription and which he derives
from *savva-sattāna h a 232. The co-occurrence of different formations of this type can be observed up to themedieval period of Sinhalese, where we meet with datives in -a (e.g. gama “to the village”) and -aha (e.g.
maharad’hat “to the great king”) as well as pl. forms in -anat (e.g. maha-san̆gnat “to the great community”;
minisna “to the people”). From the 11/12th century on, -a a , with a secondary final -a, comes into use again(cp., e.g., miturana a “to the friends”). In the 12th century, too, the syncopated formant - a is attested for the
first time with a plural meaning (mehe-karuvan a “to the workers”). The other variants continue to be used, aswell, together with a pseudo-suffix -ha a as in saga-ha a which must be explained by a metanalysis of the typesagaha a “to the community of bhikkhus” (cf. above).233 The given development is summed up by PARANAVITANA as follows: “Having developed so early and merging itself in the gen. ending, - a and -ha a may beconsidered as dat. case-endings; but when -ata, -hata, or -ta is abstracted from a dat. form in Sinhalese, what
remains is a gen.” — Both GEIGER and PARANAVITANA seem to postulate that every Sinhalese dative form mustnecessarily be based on a genitive. We cannot exclude, however, that the compound forms with the dativeárthāya “for the sake (of)” (cf. above), occurring so frequently in OIA, might have served as a starting pointof the formation in question, the derivation of -ha a given above notwithstanding. This can be illustrated by two
Skt. examples of compounds (with a verbal noun as their first member) taken from the Rāmāya a , viz. rak a nārthāya “for the sake / purpose of protection / shelter” (R. 3,8,7; raksana- “guarding”, of raksati “guards”;
cf. TURNER 1966, II, 610, no. 10547 and WERBA 1997, 468) and harsanārthāya “for the purpose of frightening”
a - “(state of) excitement, agitation, emotion, stimulation”, of the root h - “to bristle; get /(R. 1,48,7; har abecome / be glad, excited; shudder”; cf. TURNER 1966, II, 818, WHITNEY 1885, 208 and WERBA 1997, 387).
ṫ

ṁ

ṫ

˙

ṫ

ṫ

ṫ ṫ

˙

˙

ṫ

ṫ

ṫ

ṫ

ṫ

ṫ

ṫ

ṫ

ṫ

ṫ

˙

˙

˙

ṫ

ṡ

˙

ṅ

˙ ˙

˙

˙ ˙

ṡ ṙ

ṅ

ṡ

2.3.1.1.3.2. In particular cases, it will hardly be possible to find out the correct derivation ofa given dative form if this is not attested continuously. Even in Sinhalese with its outstanding
written tradition, this condition is fulfilled only in special cases. It goes without saying thatthe situation in Old Dhivehi, with its fragmentary documents, is much more hopeless, the few
attested dative forms offering no chance for an exact analysis. We find, e.g., only a handfulof plural dative forms such as Sinh. minisnat and Old Dhiv. mı̄sunata (L2 5,1), mı̄hunatu(L6 1,4), mı̄hunan234 (F10,21) “to the people” that can be traced back to underlying genitives without any doubt.
In the case of the dative endings -aha/-hā and -aśa/-a , occurring side by side in Fua
Mulaku, we may presume with a certain probability that the former variants are based directly
on an old genitive ending identical to Sinh. -aha/-asa, while the latter ones in all likelihood
developed in the same way as the dative endings M.A. -a /-aś/ and Sinh. -(a)ta. Considering
the fact that the vernacular of Fua Mulaku represents a melting-pot of manifold peculiarities
and influences, such a double-tracked development would not be astonishing at all.
˙

˙

c

˙

c

˙

c

c

2.3.1.1.3.3. In Dhivehi the dative has not only the function of marking indirect objects but
also of expressing local and temporal directions, responding to the questions “where (to)?”and “when, (towards) what time?”. Besides this, the dative of some nouns and adjectives
which are suited from the semantic point of view can be used for the expression of adverbial
meanings (manner) without further formal additions or changes; cp., e.g., M. barābara /-aś/as an adverb “excellently” belonging to the adj. barābaru “excellent”.
c232
Sinh. sav/hav “all” ← Pkt. savva-, OIA sárva-; cf. GEIGER (1941), 190, no. 2875. — Sinh. satā (stem sat-)“living being, irrational animal” ← Pa., Pkt. satta-, OIA sattvá-; cf. GEIGER (1941), 172, no. 2578 and TURNER(1966) II, 759, no. 13111.
233
For this case and for further evidence cf. GEIGER and PARANAVITANA (ib.). GEIGER also gives details on
the use of the suffix variants in Sinhalese.
234
About the frequent spelling of final /- / by 〈-n〉 cf. 3.6.3.2.3.

ṫCase system and stem types

59

2.3.1.1.4. The inherited ending of the ablative/instrumental is -in or -un in the standard
language and in Addū, while Fua Mulaku uses the homogeneous form -en (with only one
exception, cf. below). In Modern Dhivehi the rules governing the distribution of the given
variants are easy to define. In Addū and in the standard language, all consonant stems (cf.
2.3.1.3) as well as the stems enlarged by the indefinite suffix (cf. 2.3.2.1) build an abl./instr.
with -un; cp., e.g., the cons. stem mas “fish” with M.A. mahun /mas-un/; abl./instr.indef.
M.A. mahakun. As against this, -in is the abl./instr.-ending of all i- and a-stems (cf. 2.3.1.2.1
and 2.3.1.2.2, resp.), as well as a few stems ending in other vowels (cf. 2.3.1.4) and rootnouns (cf. 2.3.1.5); cp., e.g., the i-stem M.A. tari “star” with M. tarı̄n, A. tarin, or the a-stem
M.A. an̆ga “mouth” with M.A. an̆gain). -in is also used with those nouns in Addū that are
enlarged by the definite suffix -ā; cp., e.g., mahāin /mas-ā-in/ “from / by (means of) the(definite) fish”), as well as the frozen definite form in -ā of northern Dhivehi (cf. 2.3.2.9). In
Fua Mulaku, however, all variant endings (if they ever existed in this vernacular) coincided
into -en. In the case of stems ending in a vowel and frozen definite forms, -en is joined to thevowel in question without merging phonetically with it; cp., e.g., mahen “by/from the fish”;
tarien “by/from the star”; an̆gaen “by/from the mouth”. The only case where the variant -un
is conserved in Fua Mulaku is the abl./instr. of the indefinite form; cp., e.g., F. kedak-un “ofa piece” (F.A. kede = M. kolu “piece, end”) or the interrogative pronoun F. kōntak-un “bywhat means, through / by / with which” (cf. 2.6.7.1.3).
In all varieties of Dhivehi, the synthetic formation of the abl./instr. is confined to inanimate
nouns and pronouns (in the sense of “non-persons”) today, and there are no exceptions to thisrule235. It seems that in all dialects the use of the ablative/instrumental in -in/-un/-en isfurther restricted to the singular and the primary plural (cf. 2.3.2.1); at least, there is noevidence so far of analytic plural formations being enlarged by -in, -un or -en.
c

˙˙

˙˙

˙˙

c

c

˙

˙

˙

2.3.1.1.4.1. Considering medieval Dhivehi, MANIKU/WIJAYAWARDHANA (1986, ix) state that “only singularforms of the ablative are recorded”; they do not take into account, however, that the formal appearance of theplural in the older language was considerably different from that of the modern standard language. The early
documents show that the generic plural meaning of the pure nominal stems, which can still be found in the
dialect of A ū (cf. 2.3.2.1), was a feature of the northern Dhivehi speaking area in former times, too, while theanalytic plural formation was of comparatively little importance at that time (cf. 2.3.2.3). The statement that the
only attestations of the ablative are singular forms, is true from the point of view of the morphology of themodern standard language; but it does not consider the fact that enormous semantical changes have affected
some of the forms in question. Furthermore, MANIKU/WIJAYAWARDHANA failed to notice that the ablative in Old
Dhivehi ended not only in -en and -un, but also in -in. Cp. the following early attestations of ablatives /instrumentals:
Abl./instr. in -in: (1) i-stems: (fenāi) maśı̄n “from (water and) clay” (RC 1,6236); bolı̄n “from the shells”(L1 g/2,3; boli “shell”, obviously meaning a medium of currency here); ru ı̄n “in the manner (of)” (L2 21,1
etc.; *rudi “manner, fashion, way”). (2) A frequently attested example of an ablative in -in of an a-stem ishiǧrain “since the Hijra”. hiǧra, an Arabic loanword,237 is normally written in Arabic characters, while the
ḋ

ḋ

ḋ

˙

235

Native speakers of the Dhivehi standard language reject the form mı̄hāin "from the person" quoted in
MANIKU / DISAYANAKA (1990, 36).
236
The passage in question gives a description of the creation of the first man. — fen “water” ≈ Sinh. pän← Skt. pānı̄ya-, cf. GEIGER (1941), 103, no. 1528; maśi “clay” ≈ Sinh. mä i - “clay” ← Skt. m t tikā- “clay,
earth”, cf. GEIGER (1941), 131, no. 1952.
237
Arab. hiǧrat “emigration”; the “Hijra” of the Prophet, Mu a mmad, is normally used as the stating pointof the Islamic era in older Maldivian texts.
ṙ

ṫ

ḣ

60

Morphology

Dhivehi ending is mostly added in Dives akuru (cp., e.g., F3,7 or IDMHM 3,1) or in Tāna (e.g., ITMHM 3,1);
in a few cases only the ending is written in Arabic too (unambiguously vocalised, e.g., in F8,16; RC 30,8; IDAM
1,19; cf. also F5,11; F7,12 etc., RC 9,2 and diverse inscriptions). Cp. also makkāin “from Mekka” (← Arab.
makka), written in Dives akuru or Tāna throughout (F2,2; F3,4; F10,7; F11,7; RA 2,4).
The abl./instr. ending -en appears, e.g., with the consonant stem gam- in the form gemen “from the village”238 (cf. gemen nikume 〈nikme〉239 “coming out of the village” in L1 n/1,1, L3 3/2,1, and L2 6,2, or māgemen “from the great / large village” = “from the capital” in L1 n/1,3 etc., L2 27,3 etc.; L3 15/1,4 etc.); cp.
also disen240 (from dis-) “from the direction of” (L1 md/2,6 etc.; L3 4/1,2 etc.; L4 has the later variant dihen:
c/2,3 etc.), mi veren (from veru “land, terrain, ground”) “from this terrain” (L4 b/1,1; veren also in L3 10/1,4).
The variant ending -un occurs, e.g., in ban̆ u n 〈ba u n〉 “from / out of the womb” (L1 d/1,1, ITMHM 4,6,
RC 13,3 etc.; ban̆ u “belly, stomach”), mahun /mas-un/ “(starting) from (the) month” (RA 2,6 ≈ RB 1,13 ≈ RC
9,3 / 10,3), han̆dun 〈hadun〉 “from the moon/month” (ITAM 1,4; han̆du “moon”), reakun “from / (in) one
night” (ITAH 2,4; abl.indef. of rē “night, evening”), kauverikamun “by / under the reign” (RC 1,5; kauverikan“reign, rule”); mi uren241 atun “from the hand of these people” (ITMP 2,4). It seems that the distribution of
the suffix variants -en and -un is not governed by specific rules as some double forms show; cp., e.g., dabuduven(L3 10/2,3.5) and dabuduvun (L3 3/2,5 and 4/1,5) “from Dam̆budū” (name of a Maldivian island242) or
isduven (L4 c/2,3) / is(u)duvun (L2 6,3.4; 8,1) “from Isdū” (name of the island L2 refers to).
ḋ

ḋ

ḋ

2.3.1.1.4.2. Following GEIGER (1938, 104), the corresponding Sinhalese suffix variants -en
and -in go back to -ena, the instr. ending of the OIA a-declension. Thus, M.A. atun, F. aten,
Sinh. (medieval) atin can be derived from Skt. hástena “by / with the hand”243. For medieval Sinhalese, GEIGER claimed that “there can be no doubt that originally -in had its place
after a heavy and also after two light syllables, -en after a single light syllable”244. This rule
does not apply to Dhivehi, however, as far as we can tell by its historical development. It has
to be stated, though, that the distribution of the suffix variants as described above cannot befound in modern Sinhalese, either. Beginning with the 10th century, GEIGER registers double
forms like desen and desin “from the direction (of)” or kusen and kusin “from the womb”(≈ Dhiv. kihun, e.g. in L8 1,5, cf. Skt. kuksí- “womb”).
˙

2.3.1.1.4.3. PARANAVITANA (1956, I, cx) was certainly right in seeing the starting point of theSinh. formations with -in in the i-stems: “Äsin would be the normal development of Skt.
238

For the peculiar umlaut of the stem gam- “village” cf. fn. 228 above.
For the Mod.Dhiv. absolutive nukume of the verb nukunnanı̄ “to go / come out, leave” cf. 3.10.3.6.
240Corresponding Sinh. forms are the ablatives desen and desin “from the direction of” of desa, stem des“land, region, direction” ← OIA deśá- (cf. GEIGER 1938, 104 and 1941, 81, no. 1198; TURNER 1966, I, 374, no.
6547); in contrast to that, Dhiv. dis- seems to reflect the OIA root noun díś- “direction” (cf. TURNER 1966, I,
363, 6339).
241
For uren cf. 2.6.2.3.1.4.
242
For dū “island” and the variant forms of this word cf. 2.6.2.3.1.4. — The Maldivian island nameDam̆budū (today Dam̆bidū) means “rose-apple tree island” and corresponds to Skt. jambudvı̄pa-, Pa. jambudı̄pa-,
Sinh. dam̆badiva, all meaning “India”; its basis is Skt., Pa. jambu-, Sinh. dam̆ba “rose-apple tree” (cf. TURNER
1966, I, 283, nos. 5134 and 5131, as well as GEIGER 1941, nos. 1022 and 1021, resp.). The Maldivian island inquestion is located in Haddummati Atoll (nowadays administration district Lām Atoll). — The inherited worddam̆bu is obsolete in modern Dhivehi. Today the loanword M.A.F. jam̆bu is used for “rose-apple”.
243
For the modern equivalents of OIA hásta- cf. TURNER (1966), II, 811, no. 14024.
244
GEIGER (1938), 104 illustrates this by some “examples from medieval inscrs. (8th-12th c.): atin from thehand (P. hattha), gämin from the village (gāma), bimin from the ground (bhūmi), ambara i n with the ornament(ābhara a ); but kulen from the family (kula), diyen by the water (daka), parapuren by the lineal descent(paramparā).” For further examples cf. WIJAYARATNE (1956), 156 ff.
239

ṅ

ṅ

Case system and stem types

61

aksinā through Pkt. acchinā; but -in has been taken from words like this and used in thoselike bara (barin).”245 The other variants of the ablative ending noticed by PARANAVITANA(1956, I, cxi) for medieval Sinhalese, have no equivalents in Dhivehi (Sinh. -än, -äna, -äni,-ini, -ina, -ena, -eni, -ni, -nen). On the other hand, there is no evidence for an ablative variant
in -un in Sinhalese at any time. In modern Sinhalese the variant endings have been generally
reduced to -in and -en, with the addition of -gen as a new suffix characterising the ablative
meaning (← *gēn ← *gehen = Pa. gehena “from the house”; cf. GEIGER 1900, 62 and further
2.3.1.1.1 above).
˙˙

2.3.1.1.4.4. Besides the synthetic formation, we find also analytic expressions of ablative andinstrumental meanings in both Dhivehi and Sinhalese. In all Maldivian dialects, the ablativeof nouns denoting persons, and pronouns referring to persons can be expressed exclusively bymeans of a combination of the genitive in -ge and A. farātun, F. farāten “from the side (of),by” or F. aten “from / by the hand” (for the frozen abl./instr. forms farātun/-en and aten cf.
2.3.2.11.4 and 2.3.2.12.4); cp., e.g., A. sg. mı̄hāge / pl. mı̄hunge farātun, F. sg. mı̄hāge / pl.
mı̄hunge farāten/aten sg.“from/by the man”, pl. “from/by the people/men”.
2.3.1.1.4.5. In the modern standard language and in the older written documents there are no
ablative/instrumental forms that are based on the genitive. In Old Dhivehi the instr./abl. of
nouns denoting persons is built with kuren (sometimes written 〈kren〉) which follows theoblique case of the noun as a postposition. Cp., e.g., the plural nouns mi uren kuren “from/by
these people” (ITMP 1,3); duvesı̄n kren “from/by the islanders”, i.e. “from/by the Maldivians” (L2 25,2); darı̄n kren “from/by the children” (L2 32,3). As already noticed by GEIGER(1901-1902, II, 375), kuren corresponds in form and function to medieval Sinh. keren; cf. theexpression kämiyan keren “from/by the workers”, attested in the 10th century (kämiyan
obl.pl.; cf. GEIGER 1938, 110). Until now the etymology of keren cannot be established withcertainty. GEIGER (1941, 48, no. 704) hesitatingly follows PARANAVITANA who proposes toregard keren (in analogy with aten “from/by the hand”, cf. above) as an abl./instr. sg. of kara
“hand” with umlaut (cf. GEIGER 1941, 38, no. 560).
2.3.1.1.4.6. In modern standard Dhivehi, the postposition kuren, following the oblique case ofnouns meaning persons, must be translated as “from the side of, from the part of, from”. Cp.
the following example:
c

c

c

c

M. e hisābun aharen katı̄bu kuren ituru suvālutake kurāne bēnume o kamaka nun fenun eve. (T8, 168)
“From then on, I saw no need”, lit. “from that moment on it did not seem desirable to me,” “to ask any
further questions from the side of the mayor about the present fact.” (e dem.pron. “that”; hisāb-un abl.
of hisāb “mathematics, arithmetics; moment” (← Arab. i sāb); aharen pers.pron. 1.ps.sg., here subject ofthe part.fut. kurāne; katı̄bu obl.sg. “mayor” + kuren postpos. “from the side of” ≈ abl.; ituru “further,more” (cf. 2.4.5.2) + /suvālu-tak-ek/ “any further questions”, indef.pl. of suvālu “question” (← Arab.
su āl “question”); kurāne “going to make, do” part.fut. (kuranı̄ “to do, make”), attributed to /bēnum-ek/,
nom.indef. “a wish”; /ot/ part.pret. of onnanı̄ “be there, lie”, attributed to the indef.dat. /kam-ak-aś/ “toa fact” of the nom. kan /kam/; nu negation particle; /fenunu/ part.pret.(intr.) “(having) appeared, seemed”(fenenı̄ “appear, seem”) + eve q.partc.
ḣ

c

245

For OIA ák i - “eye” cf. TURNER (1966) I, 2, no. 43; cf. also GEIGER (1941), 19, no. 286 on Sinh.
äsa/äha, stem äs-/ähi- “eye”. For Sinh. bara “weight, load” cf. GEIGER (1941), 119, no. 1774.
ṡ62Morphology

2.3.1.1.4.7. Like the dative, the ablative/instrumental can be used to express adverbial
meanings. As an example for Old Dhivehi cp. mi tak aharun “(during) so many years” (mitak “this/so many/much”246; aharu “year”); for the modern language cf. M. e hisābun“from that moment (on), from then on, since then” (cf. above, 2.3.1.1.4.6).
2.3.1.1.5. The following table presents a concise survey of the case suffixes used in Modern
Dhivehi. The attributes “animate” and “inanimate” have to be understood in the sense of“person” and “non-person”, resp.

anim.

Māle

˙˙

gen.

c

cases

Addū

Fua Mulaku

-ge

-ge

-ge

-e, -i-e/-ei, -i-e, -i-e/-ei, -i

inan.

loc.

-gā /-gai/dat.

-a /-aś/-a /-aś/anim.

obl./gen. + kuren, farātun

gen. + farātun

gen. + farāten/aten

inan.

-in, -un-in, -un-en, indef.suff. + -un

c

c

c

abl./
instr.

-aha, -hā; -aśa, -a /-aś/

2.3.1.2. The nominal stems of Modern Dhivehi can be divided into two main groups, viz.
stems ending in a vowel and stems ending in a consonant. Within vocalic stems, stems in -i
and -a form the largest groups by far, while stems ending in other vowels are restricted to a
few words.
2.3.1.2.1. Despite of some variants which are characterised by certain morphonologicalpatterns within the declension paradigm of the southern dialects, the i-stems represent a very
homogeneous group in Dhivehi. Regarding some secondary morphological and phonologicaldevelopments, we can state that all of the real i-stems share two distinctive formal features:first, the stem of the nouns in question ends in -i without exception in all dialects; second, theablative ending is always -in in Māle and in Addū (as against -un occurring with the consonant stems); note that in contrast to the other dialects, Fua Mulaku uses -en as the ablative
suffix for all stem types (cf. 2.3.1.1.4 above). Cp., e.g., the nominal stems M.A.F. tari “star”
and M. toli, A. teli, F. tēli “bean” with their ablative forms M. tarı̄n (← *tari-in), A. tarin(but F. tari-en) and M. tolı̄n (← *toli-in), A. telin (but F. tēlen ← *tēli-en). Whenever one ofthese two characteristics is missing, the noun in question is not an i-stem but a consonant
stem which must have undergone a special development in a particular dialectal area (cf. thetable given in 2.3.1.3.4.1 below).
As was stated above, the non-enlarged form of the direct case of the i-stems is characterised by a final -i without any exceptions in all dialects; cp., e.g., M.A.F. tari “star”; A. teli,
F. tēli, M. toli “bean”; M.A. mehi, F. mēhi “fly”; M.A.F. divehi “Maldivian, islander”;
M.A. ihi, F. ı̄hi “lobster”; M.A. baśi, F. b¯aśi
˛ “eggplant”; A. gen̆di, F. gēn̆di, M. gon̆di
˙˙

c

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙
˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

For the later development of the pronominal adjective tak into a plural suffix cf. 2.3.2.3.

˙246

Case system and stem types

63“chair” etc. The i-stems can further be subdivided into different declension classes, depending on whether the stem vowel remains unchanged within the paradigm or whether it disappears because of certain morphonological rules and, as a consequence, causes a secondary
lengthening of the preceding syllable.
2.3.1.2.2. The a-stems form a large, widely homogeneous group in Dhivehi. They arecharacterised by a stem vowel -a which can be distinguished throughout the whole paradigm.
While in northern Dhivehi all nouns with a nominative in -a belong to the a-stems, in Addū
and in Fua Mulaku this stem class is not determined by the nominative alone. In these
dialects, a nominative ending in -a can represent an a-stem or a consonant stem. To ascertain
the stem class, it is necessary to know the genitive, dative or ablative forms of its primaryparadigm, i.e. the paradigm which is marked neither for definiteness nor indefiniteness. The
respective case forms of a-stems are gen. A.F. -a-i, M. -a-ige; dat. A.M. -ā ← -a-aś, F. -āśa← -a-aśa; abl. A.M. -a-in, F. -a-en; cp. the following examples (primary stems only):
M.A.F. fia “wing; petal” (abl. M.A. fia-in, F. fia-en); A.F. kuruba, M. kurum̆ba “young(drinking) coconut” (abl. A. kuruba-in, F. kuruba-en, M. kurum̆ba-in); A. farabada, F. farobada, M. farubada “mountain” (abl. A. farabada-in, F. farobada-en, M. farubada-in);
A.F. hela, M. hila “rock” (abl. A. hela-in, F. hela-en, M. hila-in); A.F. mela, M. mila “dirt”(abl. A. mela-in, F. mela-en, M. mila-in); M.A.F. an̆ga “mouth” (abl. M.A. an̆ga-in,
F. an̆ga-en); A.F. attela, M. attila [aitila] “palm (of the hand)” (abl. A. attela-in, F. attela-en,
M. attila-in); A.F. faitela, M. faitila “foot” (abl. A. faitela-in, F. faitela-en, M. faitila-in);
M.A.F. dida “flag” (abl. M.A. dida-in, F. dida-en); M.A.F. fāga “bitter gourd” (abl.
M.A. fāga-in, F. fāga-en); A.F. ohi-bada, M. mai-bada “vertebra” (abl. A. ohibada-in,
F. ohibada-en, M. maibada-in); A.F. reha, M. riha “curry” (abl. A. reha-in, F. reha-en,
M. riha-in); M.A.F. ādı̄tta “Sunday” (abl. M.A. ādı̄tta-in, F. ādı̄tta-en); M.A.F. hōma“Monday” (abl. M.A. hōma-in, F. hōma-en); M.A.F. an̆gāra “Tuesday” (abl.
M.A. an̆gāra-in, F. an̆gāra-en); M.A.F. buda “Wednesday” (abl. M.A. buda-in, F. buda-en);
M.A.F. kafa “cotton” (abl. M.A. kafa-in, F. kafa-en); M.A.F. kara “land” (abl. M.A. kara-in,
F. kara-en); A.F. dea, M. dia “water, liquid” (abl. A. dea-in, F. dea-en, M. dia-in);
M.A.F. vina “grass” (abl. M.A. vina-in, F. vina-en) etc. In some cases, we meet with words
which because of their declension have to be judged as a-stems in one dialect but must beclassified as consonant stems in another dialectal area. Cp., e.g., the noun M.F. buma “eyebrow” (abl. M. buma-in, F. buma-en) which in Māle and Fua Mulaku appears as an a-stem,
unlike Addū bema which is a consonant stem (abl. A. bem-un). Cf. also fena “foam, surf”
which is a (secondary) a-stem in Fua Mulaku, as opposed to the consonant stems A. fena,
M. fonu (abl. F. fena-en, but A. fen-un and M. fon-un).
˙˙

c

c

c

˙

˙

˙˙

c

˙

˙

2.3.1.3. In comparison with the i- and a-stems, the consonant stems form a very heterogeneous group, the divergences mostly depending on the stem-final consonant. Here we have totake into account that only a restricted subset of consonants can appear in word-final position,
all others requiring a “supporting” vowel247; the quality of these secondary vowels varies
from dialect to dialect. As we stated above, there are also some consonant stems whose directcase form ends in -i (for particular cases which are found all over the Maldives, cf. 2.3.1.2.1)

247

For the particular auslaut correspondences cf. the table given in 2.3.1.3.4.1 below.

64

Morphology

or in -a (only in the southernmost dialects, above all in Addū; cf. 2.3.1.2.2). It follows thatin the case of most consonant stems, it is impossible to deduce the stem class from an
isolated nominative alone. Hence, the correct classification of a noun with respect to aparticular stem class depends on the knowledge of certain items of the declension paradigm,
and, if available, of the corresponding stem forms of the other dialects.
˙˙

2.3.1.3.1. As a result of peculiar sound laws concerning the auslaut of words in Modern
Dhivehi, only a small number of consonant phonemes can occur in word-final position, viz.
/n/, /s/, /k/, /t/ and /ś/ (← /t/) (cf. 1.1.3 above). Furthermore, their phonetic realisation is quite
different from that in medial position, so that a remarkable variation has developed in theparadigms of stems ending in these consonants; there are also many dialectal differences. The
most consistent realisation is that of the dental nasal /n/, which is pronounced as a velar [o]throughout the Maldives when occurring in final position (cp., e.g., M.A.F. nom. mūsun[musuo] “monsoon, season”).
˙

All the other consonants mentioned above are subject to significant phonetic changes whenoccurring in final position. Thus, final /-k/ is in all dialects realised as a glottal stop, [ ] (cp.,e.g., M.A.F. nom. bo /bok/ “frog”; A.F. nom. fua , M. nom. fō /fuak/ “betel nut”). In Fua
Mulaku and in Addū, final /-t/ is represented allophonically by [?] as well, while in Māle theglide [-y] is pronounced instead (cp., e.g., A.F. nom. fo , M. foi /fot/ “book”; A.F. nom. fa ,M. nom. fai /fat/ “leaf”). In the older documents of Dhivehi, however, /k/ and /t/ are still
attested as such in word-final position; cp., e.g., the nominatives bulat “betel” (L1 g/2,2 etc.,
L2 5,3 and 25,4) and puvak “areca nut” (L1 my/1,1; L4 e/2,1), or the spelling puvak mulok
for the name of the island Fua Mulaku, lit. “areca-nut ground” (L4 e/2,1; possibly also in
L1 md/1,2, where only -ku muloku is preserved). In contrast to that, the spelling fuvaś mulaku
occurring in a later text (Tāna-inscription on a gravestone nearby the Hukuru-Miskit in Māle:
ITMHM 2,7), already indicates the phonetic change of final /-k/ (and other stops) to [ ].
c

c

c

c

c

˙˙

c

c

c

c

c

c

In Addū and Māle, [ ] also serves as an allophone of final /-ś/ (cp., e.g., M.A. nom. ra/raś/ as against F. nom. raśo “island, land” with a vocalic extension, cf. below). On the other
hand, final /-s/ is preserved in Māle and in Addū in the nominative, but within the paradigm
forms of stems in -s, there is a regular interchange with [h]; in contrast to that, in Fua
Mulaku /s/ has developed into [h] in final position as well, a secondary short vowel which is
identical with the vowel of the preceding syllable being attached (cp., e.g., M.A. nom. as vs.
F. nom. aha “horse”; M. nom. mirus, A. nom. miris vs. F. nom. mirihi “chili”; M.A. nom.
bēs vs. F. nom. behe “medicine”, M. nom. gas, A. nom. ges vs. F. nom. gehe “tree” etc.).
˙˙

˙˙

c

c

2.3.1.3.2. In auslaut position, stem-final /l/ is preserved exclusively in Fua Mulaku. In theother vernaculars, it appears only medially within the paradigm. Cp., e.g., the nominative
forms F. haul vs. A. hau, M. hā “cock”; F. bol vs. M.A. bō “head”; F. gal vs. A. gau, M. gā
“stone”; F. tel vs. A. teu, M. teo “oil” etc.).

Case system and stem types

65

2.3.1.3.3. No other consonants occur in word-final position, at least in inherited words.248
As a rule, even foreign words ending in a consonant are enlarged by secondary vowels; cp.,
e.g., the recent English loanwords M. bōtu “boat”, sigaretu “cigaret”, tı̄caru “teacher”.
˙˙˙

2.3.1.3.4. The attachment of short vowels after a given consonant stem in the formation of thenominative (direct case) can be shown to be a comparatively archaic feature of Dhivehi,249
given that the same phenomenon is met with in Modern Sinhalese in the corresponding
nouns. The interdialectal differences in the quality of these vowels must be regarded as
secondary.
2.3.1.3.4.1. The table given below shows the regular correspondences of additional vowels in
the neutral, non-enlarged form of the casus rectus of consonant stems. The first two correspondences are by far the most frequent ones, while the correspondences (3) to (7) arerestricted to a few words only.
Addū
˙˙

Fua Mulaku

Māle

(1)

-a

-o

-u

(2)

-u

-u

-u

(3)

-a

-u

-u

(4)

-e

-e

-u

(5)

-a

-e

-u

(6)

-u

-u

-i

(7)

-i

-i

-u

If nothing else is indicated, the following examples are listed in the order Māle – Fua
Mulaku – Addū.

cccorrespondence˙˙a u – a o – a a “sound, noise, voice”; aharu – aharo – ahara “year”; ba u – ba o – ba a “dog”; doru
– doro – dora “door”; fiava u – fiā o – fiava a “foot, step”; fo u – fodo (A. foda is not used as a stem
form, only the nom.sg. def. fodā and indef. foda occur) “drop”; gan̆du – gan̆do – gan̆da “vessel”; han̆du– han̆do – han̆da “moon”; himāru – himāro – himāra “donkey”; hia u – hia o – hiva a “fox, jackal”;
karu – karo – kara “neck, throat”; kon̆du – kon̆do – kon̆da “shoulder”; kośāru – kośāro – kośāra “storehouse”; kota u – kota o – kota a “bag”; massaru – massaro – massara “month”; madu – mado – mada
M.F. “kernel of the coconut”, A. “(kernel) of a nut”; nanu – na o – na a “fishing line”; nāru – nāro– nāra “vein, nerve, blood-vessel”; onu – o o – o a “bamboo”; va u – va o – va a “well”.
M. bakamūnu, F.A. bakamūnu “owl”; M. dekunu, F.A. dekunu “south”; M. faidigumakunu, F.A. fādigimaku u “spider”; M.F.A. fū u “navel”; hakuru “sugar”; hukuru “Friday”; M. hūnu, F.A. hu u “heat;hot, warm”; M.F.A. ı̄ u “tile”; javvu “atmosphere”; kāfūru “camphor”; kaduru “date(palm)”; mugu
“lentil,gram; green”; mun̆ u “sarong”; M. mūnu, F.A. mū u “face”; M.F. niaduru, A. nēduru “pomelo,
shaddock”; M.F.A. u u “sky”; un̆gu “lap”; uturu “north”; ūru “pig”; vagutu “time”; M. jam̆burōlu,
F.A. jam̆burōzu “star apple”; M.F.A. jam̆bu “rose apple”; M. kaham̆bu 〈kahabu〉, F.A. kahum̆bu“tortoise”; M. kā u , F.A. kau u “crow”. — -u as a common final stem vowel is also present in a few
l̇

l̇

˙

ḋ

˙

l̇

ḋ

˙

l̇

c

l̇

l̇

l̇

ḋ

ḋ

l̇

ṅ

ḋ

ḋ

l̇

l̇

l̇

ṅ

l̇

ṅ

ṅ

˙

(2)

l̇

(1)

˙

ṅ

l̇

ḋ

ṫ

ṅ

ḋ

ḋ

l̇

l̇

248

For more extensive information about the phonological rules implied, cf. 1.1.3.
An exception to this are the short vowels which are attached to stems in -s in Fua Mulaku: these haveto be judged as secondary. Cf. 1.3.5 and further below.
c

249

66

Morphology
words from the numerous group of nouns denoting persons that are characterised by morphologicalpeculiarities (cf., e.g., 2.3.2.1.2). Cf. M.A.F. eduru “teacher”250; haturu “enemy” (obs.)251;
M.A. keo u , F. keu u “chief of the dhoni-crew”; M.A.F. mituru “friend” (obs.)252; uxtu “sister”(← Arab. uht).
˘
fāru – fauru – favara “wall”; M.F. fēru, A. fēra “guava”. The three following words have to be seen as
exceptions within this class, because they are inflected as a-stems in A ū (two of them are loanwords):bāzu – b¯azu
˛ – (bāza) “eagle, falcon” (← Pers., Urdu bāz “falcon”); M.F. nāringu (A. nāringa) “orange”(cf. Pers. nārenǧ / nāreng / nāring “(bitter) orange”, nārangı̄ “mandarine”; Urdu nāragı̄˛ “orange”). The
contracted form A. henna ← *hen̆duna “morning”, whose original final vowel must have been -u (like in
M.F. hen̆dunu), has to be regarded as a secondary a-stem as well.
l̇

ḋ

l̇

(3)

ḋ

The following correspondences are documented by a few examples only:

ṅ

l̇

ṅ

(7)

l̇

(6)

l̇

(5)

M. ato u , F.A. ate e “atoll”; M. ko u , F.A. ke e “piece, end”; M. en̆du, F.A. en̆de “bed”; M. medu,
F.A. mede “middle”.
miaru – mēre – miara “shark”; honu – he e – he a “thunderbolt”. A. bera “drum” is a secondary
a-stem as well while M. beru, F. bere belong to the consonant stems (cp. correspondence (3) above).
In the two examples belonging to this type an original final -u, preserved in its original quality in thesouthernmost dialects, changed into -i in Māle; cf. F.A. kehuru against M. keheri “fur” and F.A. guguru
against M. guguri “thunder”.
The correspondence of the nominative endings M. -u and F.A. -i seems to suggest an intermediate
position between consonant stems and i-stems. There can be no doubt, however, that the words inquestion have to be considered as consonant stems, at least within the standard language. Most of the
Addū examples have been adapted to the i-stems as their ablative ends in -in; cf. M. havı̄ru, F.A. havı̄ri,
A. abl. havı̄rin “evening”; M. honihiru, F. he i hiri, A. he a hiri, abl. he a hirin “Saturday”; M. in̆guru,
F.A. in̆giri, A. abl. in̆girin “ginger”; M. ku u , F.A. ki i , A. abl. ki i n “saliva”; M. menduru, F.A. mendiri,A. abl. mendirin “noon”. In contrast to that, some A ū examples have preserved the old variant of theablative: M. iru, F.A. iri, M.A. abl. irun “sun”; M. kiru, F.A. kiri, M.A. abl. kirun “milk”.253
ḋ

(4)

˙˙

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

l̇

l̇

ḋ

l̇

ḋ

2.3.1.3.4.2. The phonological rules that have caused the change of the final sound can easily
be identified in the case of correspondence (4), A.F. -e vs. M. -u, where the quality of the
final vowel was obviously adapted to that of the penult in the A. and F. words, the triggering
element of the process being the retroflex consonant.254 In other cases, however, the vocalicchange has just to be noted, without a phonological reason being perceivable; cp., e.g., thenumerous examples of the correspondence of A. -a and F. -o as against the more archaic -u
we find in Māle (correspondence 1), or the correspondence of A.F. -i as against the original250
Cf. Sinh. äduru “teacher”; Jaina-Pkt. (AMg.JM.) āyariya-, other Prakrits (Ś. etc.) āaria- (Ch. WERBA,
personal communication; cf. PISCHEL 520 etc.); Pa. ācariya, OIA ācāryà-; cf. GEIGER, (1941) 17, no. 268.
251
Dhiv. haturu, Sinh. saturu / haturu represent a mot savant which has to be derived from the OIA u-stemśátru- “enemy”. The word cannot be considered as an inherited direct successor of the the original u-stem,
because the OIA cluster -tr- must have changed as early as MIA, yielding a prototype such as Pa. sattu“enemy” (P.E.D., 673). Cf. the antonym mituru which shows the same secondary development of -tr- (cf.
fn. 252).
252
Like haturu “enemy” (cf. fn. 251 above), mituru represents a mot savant; cf. the correspondent Sinh.
word mituru, which opposes itself to the synonymous Sinh. form mit which developed directly from MIA (Pa.,Pkt. mitta-, Skt. mitrá-; GEIGER (1941), 133, no. 1986).
253
From a phonological point of view, some adjectives have to be treated within this group as well; cf.
M. bı̄ru, A.F. bı̄ri “deaf”; M. digu, A.F. digi “long”; M. tūnu, A.F. tı̄ i “hot (spicy)”. They are declined only
when being used as nouns. For adjectives in general, cf. 2.4.1.
254
About the influence of retroflex consonants on the surrounding vowels in the southern dialects cf.
3.9.2.2.3 (for ośōnnanı̄), 3.9.2.3 and, further, 1.2.4.4.

ṅCase system and stem types

67-u preserved in Māle again (correspondence 7). If we compare the final vowels occurring in
the direct case of the consonant stems both interdialectally and with their equivalents attested
in Old Dhivehi, we cannot but conclude that as far as this development is concerned, thelanguage of Māle is more conservative that the southern dialects.
2.3.1.4. Vocalic stems ending in other vowels than -i and -a are confined to a few words inDhivehi. Stems with a long-vocalic ending suggest that the word in question is of foreign
origin, except for a few cases which can be explained as frozen definite forms of the nom.sg.;
cp., e.g., M.F. bēbe, A. bēbē (presumably from the def. form *bēbe-ā) “elder brother”;
M. kokko, A.F. kokkō (presumably from the def. form *kokko-ā) “younger brother / sister”.
In the case of M.A.F. falō “papaya”, it remains uncertain, however, whether its final -ō canbe interpreted as a reflex of the definite suffix. Although it seems to be sure that falō has tobe derived from OIA phála-, Pa., Pkt. phala- “fruit, seed of a fruit, grain”, the exact derivation of the Dhivehi word cannot be ascertained. While Sinh. pala “fruit” can go back directly
to an equivalent MIA form, the retroflex -l- of Dhiv. falō speaks in favour of another intermediate form; maybe Dhiv. falō is a loanword (cp., e.g., Konkani phala).255 M.A.F. jādū“magic, sorcery” reflects Persian ǧādū “id.”, either directly or via its Urdu equivalent. The
etymology of M.A.F. karā “water melon” is unknown.
˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

2.3.1.5. Words that can be classified as root nouns are very rare in Dhivehi. This category
is represented by nouns the root of which is restricted to the minimal structure of {consonantvowel} in their stem form as well as their paradigm; the vowel in question can be short orlong, but also a diphthong. Most of the root nouns belong to the inherited vocabulary. Cp.,e.g., nom.sg. M. ge, A.F. gē “house”,256 gen. A. gē, M. gēge, dat. M.A. gea , abl. A. gen,M. gein; the nom.sg. A.F. gē seems to be a frozen definite form (cf. above) ← *ge-ā. This
example demonstrates that in Māle the original declension has been replaced by the agglutinative paradigm also in the case of root nouns; hence the declensional forms of the following
examples will be given only for the Addū dialect. Cp., e.g., nom.sg. M.A.F. gai “body”257
c

˙˙

255
Cf. TURNER (1966) II, 508, no. 9051 and GEIGER (1941), 96, no. 1429. The semantic restriction from ageneral meaning “fruit” to “papaya” might have occurred because the papaya is one of the most important fruitson the Maldive islands, where only a few plants are cultivated.
256
Cf. Sinh. gē, Pkt., Pa. geha- ← OIA gehá-/g h á-; cf. BERGER (1953), 40, no. 72; GEIGER (1941), 57, no.
841 and TURNER (1966) I, 227, no. 4240.
257
GEIGER (1902), 920, no. 156 regards Dhiv. gai as a correspondent of the Sinh. nominal stem gat- “limb,´
body” which he derives from OIA gātravia MIA gatta- (cf. GEIGER 1941, 52, no. 762). In contrast, TURNER(1966) II, 822, no. 14445 associates the Dhivehi word (for which he notes an obviously non-existent variant´“gat” besides gai), with Sinh. gāya “strength of body” which he also derives from gātra“limb, member of´body” (RV); “body”. Both derivations are problematic as they stand. Via MIA gatta-, OIA gātrawould have
led to an intermediate Dhiv. *gat. As a phonological input form, however, this *gat (as posited by TURNER)¯ and A.F. *[ga ]; cp. in this connection the word /fat/ “leaf” (= Sinh.
would have yielded M. *[gay → gae, gä]pata, stem pat- ← Pkt., Pa. patta-, OIA pátra-, cf. GEIGER (1941), 93, no. 1385 and (1902), 918, no. 122), which¯ M.A.F. gai can nevertheless represent OIA gātra´
shows a similar development: M. [fai] → [fae, fä].
if we
assume that its MIA predecessor was *gāta-, not *gatta-; in this case we should compare A.F. rei, M. rē “night”´
from OIA rātrı̄which could yield MIA *rātı̄- alongside Pa. ratti- according to the MIA “law of two moras”.
For the alternative results produced by this law cf. GEIGER (1916, 42-3) and, further, n. 262 below; cf. also
1.2.3.1.

ṙ

c

68

Morphologyc(A. gen. gai /gayi/, dat. gā /gayaś/, abl. gain /gayin/); A.F. fā, M. fai “foot, leg”258(A. gen. fāi, dat. fā , abl. fāin); nom.sg. M.A.F. vai “wind”259 (A. gen. vaye, dat. vā
/vayaś/, abl. vain /vayin/); A.F. gū, M. gui “excrement”260 (A. gen. gue, dat. gua , abl.
guun); M.A.F. oi261 (besides A. oivara, M. oivaru) “current” (A. gen.sg.def. oyei, other def.
case forms missing; A. gen. oye, abl. oyin; dat. only oi-vara ); A.F. rei, M. rē “night”262(no case forms). From its root structure and its declension, the loanword M.A.F. sai“tea”263 (A. gen. saye, dat. saya , abl. sayin) must be regarded as a root noun as well.

c

c

c

c

c

2.3.2. Number, definiteness and indefinitenessIn Dhivehi, the category of number comprises singular and plural. From the formal point ofview, the morphological expression of plurality is one of the most heterogeneous elements of
Maldivian grammar and, by consequence, of great typological interest. Considering theinterdialectal divergences and overlaps of the plural formations, it seems reasonable todescribe the particular formations separately for each dialect.
The vernacular of Addū is the only dialect of Dhivehi that has preserved without restrictions the archaic system in which the formal expression of singularity is linked to that ofdefiniteness and indefiniteness. Regarding the treatment of number, the dialect of Fua
Mulaku, although belonging to southern Dhivehi as well, represents a kind of transitional
idiom between the southern and northern dialects. In the modern standard language, thesemantic distribution of the concepts of singular and plural and the morphological realisationof number deriving from them, is, to some extent, diametrically opposed to the situation wefind in Addū.
˙˙

c

˙˙

2.3.2.1. One of the most characteristic particularities of the dialect of Addū consists in thefact that the pure nominal stem is frequently used as a generic plural form, if this is notcontradicted by the semantics involved. Being unmarked from the morphological point ofview, this plural form can be regarded as the primary form of the given noun; this is why theparadigm based on it will hereafter be called the “primary” one. When the plural form is thegeneric one, singularity must be expressed by additional special suffixes added to the stem.
Generally speaking, there are two different singular forms that can be derived from a nominal
stem, viz. a definite and an indefinite one, the former being characterised by the definite
suffix -ā or its variant -(y)e (← /-yā/). The etymological origin of this suffix is not clear, as
˙˙

258
In Sinhalese the corresponding nominal stem is pā, nom. paya “foot”; cf. Pkt. pā(y)a-, Pa. pāda-, Skt.
´pāda“foot” (GEIGER 1941, 95, 1417).
259´
Cf. the Sinh. stem vā “wind”, Pkt. vā(y)a-, Pa. vāta-, Skt. vāta(GEIGER 1941, 161, no. 2394).
260
Cf. Sinh. gū, OIA gūtha- (GEIGER 1902, 921, no. 172; TURNER 1966, II, 827, no. 14449).
261
The Sinh. correspondents of the Maldivian word are the variants soya, hoya, oya, sō and ō “small river,rivulet” which by order represent the particular stages of phonological development (← Pkt. sō(y)a-, Pa. sota(s)-,Skt. srótas-; cf. GEIGER 1902, 932, no. 342 and 1941, 33, no. 486; cf. further TURNER 1966, II, 803, nos. 13889
and 13891).
262¯ nom. räya “night”, Pkt. rāı̄-, *rātı̄- as opposed to Pa. rattı̄/i-, Skt.
Cf. the corresponding Sinh. stem rä-,´
rātrı̄/i(cf. GEIGER 1941, 146, no. 2167).
263
Probably the word meaning “tea” reached Dhivehi in its Arab. form šāy (as contrasting with Pers. čāyetc.), together with the product itself; for further informations cf., e.g., YULE-BURNELL 1902, 905 ff.

Number, definiteness and indefiniteness69

GEIGER stated when he described the same phenomenon for Sinhalese264. In contrast to that,the derivation of the indefinite suffix is less problematic. Obviously, A. -a /-ak/ and -e /-ek/
developed from the stem of the cardinal number “one”, e /ek/, in the same way as the
Sinhalese indefinite suffix -ek / -k which represents the corresponding numeral.265 In Addū
the distribution of the suffixes -ā (def.) and -a (indef.) vs. -(y)e (def.) and -(y)e (indef.)
depends on a simple rule: The suffixes -e and -e which are preceded by a glide y in order toavoid hiatus, are joined exclusively to i-stems. In contrast to that, the suffixes -ā and -a occur
with all other vocalic stems and with all consonant stems. Besides this, those i-stems which
are characterised by a secondary vowel lengthening in the penult, together with a loss of thestem-final -i in the genitive and dative as well as the definite and indefinite nominative, canalso take the suffixes -ā and -a ; cp., e.g., the i-stem A. feśi “box” (nom.pl.), gen. fēśe(← *feśi-e), dat. fēśa /fēśaś/ (← *feśi-aś), nom.sg.def. fēśā (← *feśi-ā), nom.sg.indef. fēśa/fēśak/ (← *feśi-ak); for further examples cf. 2.3.2.7.1.2.3.
c

c

c

˙˙

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

2.3.2.1.1. As to the origin of the indefinite form of the a-stems, it is not clear from thesynchronic point of view whether this represents the suffix -a /-ak/ as a whole or a shortened
variant /-k/ as in Sinhalese (cf. above). In the former case we would have to assume that it
was influenced by the consonant stems, because otherwise we would expect a form *-ā */-āk/which is not even once attested in Modern Dhivehi. In the older documents of the language,
however, there are some indefinite forms of a-stems (among them some sanskritisms, possibly
also prakritisms in -a), which end in -a-ak; cp., e.g., anga-ak-un (RC 1,12) “from one limb
/ from one of the limbs”, abl./instr.indef. (Sinh. an̆ga “limb” ← Pa. aṅga-, Skt. áṅga- “limb,
body”; cf. GEIGER 1941, 3, no. 34 and TURNER 1966, I, 6, no. 114); boga-ak (L5 5/1,1,
beside boga-ek in F3,14; F5,22 etc.) “a benefit” (Dhiv. boga- obviously is a sanskritism,
because an inherited intervocalic -g- would not be preserved (Pa. bhoga-, Skt. bhóga“enjoyment, use, possession, hire, wages”, cf. TURNER 1966, II, 549, no. 9625); ma-aku
bafa-ak-ai (RC 1,5-6) “a mother and a father” (cf. 2.3.2.7.4.1.1). The meaning of thefollowing examples can be established only approximately: vellakāra-ak (L4 g/1,1, besides
vellakāra f/1,7) “an officer”, gadyāna-ak (L2 5,4) “a bag” (Skt. gadyāna-), hinna-ak (F8,25
and IDMMM 2,6) “a piece of land which is cleared, rooted out” (cf. sinya in L2 6,5 etc.),
kiba-ak-an (F6,19) “in a manner” (dat.; for the spelling of the dative ending /-aś ← -at/ in theform 〈-an〉 cf. 3.6.3.2.3). We must not conclude from the forms given above that theindefinite suffix of the a-stems has to be traced back to -ak in general, however. Variants likeboga-ak and boga-ek (cf. above) or the indef. a-stem pada-ek (F4,1) “a manner, kind”, which
are attested only with the suffix -ek, show that at least already at the time when the fatkolu
document F4 was written (17th century), a-stems could be combined also with the suffix
variant -ek.
c

c

˙˙

˙

˙

˙˙

˙

˙

2.3.2.1.2. Besides the expression of a generic plural meaning by the pure nominal stem, thedialect of Addū also shows secondary plural formations by means of two suffixes which,˙˙264“Der Casus rectus (Nominativ) der Masculina hat im Sing. jetzt die Endung -ā, deren Entstehung schwer
zu erklären ist. Es fragt sich namentlich, in was für einem Verhältnisse sie steht zu dem Ausgange -e, welchen
der N(ominativ) Sg. in den ältesten Inschriften zeigt.” (GEIGER 1900, 56).
265
Cf. Skt. éka-; note that both Dhivehi and Sinhalese presuppose a MIA variant ĕkka-. For more extensive
information cf. GEIGER (1941), 30, no. 445.

70

Morphology

however, are used only in a very restricted semantic sphere. In the case of nouns denoting
kinship terms, special social relationships and official functions, the fundamental rule, whichsays that the pure stem has to be understood as a regular plural form, is not effective. Someof the nouns in question use the pure stem as a nominative singular, while in the case ofother nouns the definite form of the direct case can be found in this role, though deprived of
its original definite meaning. The nominative plural of these nouns is formed with the suffixes-in / -un and -men which do not overlap in their range of use. The suffix -in / -un has anexact parallel in the Sinhalese ending -an / -in / -un which is used for the formation of theoblique case in the plural. Following GEIGER it reflects Old Sinh. -ana (Skt. -ānām,
Pa. -ānam, Pkt. -āna(m)) which developed into Sinh. -an regularly, -in and -un being later
variants.266 The second plural suffix of Dhivehi, -men, goes back to an adverbial element;
cf. the Sinhalese adverb men “like, similarly, exactly as” which can be derived from Pa., Skt.
samena “together”267. The Dhivehi suffix -men, which is exclusively added to the definite
singular form, is not only joined to kinship terms but also to nouns denoting animals; in
combination with the latter ones, however, -men has the special meaning of “a certain amount(of animals)” or “an assessable number of (animals)”. In order to express the unspecified
plural meaning “(many) animals”, the pure nominal stem is used in most cases. In Addū,-men does not serve as a plural formant for pronouns as it does in Māle. The only exception
is the isolated form A. miāmen “both” which obviously reflects the pronominal stem mi“this” in its definite form, miā. The first evidence for -men in combination with a pronominal
meaning is kalemen “you”, pers.pron. 2.ps.pl., attested in F6,14, a document from1123 A.H. / 1711 A.D.
˙

˙

˙˙

c

2.3.2.2. In Fua Mulaku, plural formation is less heteromorphic than in Addū. Unlike Addū
usage, in Fua Mulaku the unmarked form of a noun cannot automatically be considered asa plural form. It always represents a singular from which an explicit plural can be formed indifferent ways. This means that normally the singular is identical with the nominal stem, withsome exceptional formations recalling the situation in Addū. The fact that in Fua Mulaku thenominative singular has to be regarded as the primary form must be the main reason why theformation of a definite singular ceased to be productive in this dialect. While in Addū thedefinite suffix represents the only means of marking a singular form which is at the sametime morphologically distinct from the indefinite singular, the neutral plural or an ambivalentmeaning of number, the grammatical process of number formation has been simplified in Fua
Mulaku to a considerable extent. Here, the pure nominal stem represents the basic singularform, but also expresses definiteness (in contrast to indefinite forms which have to bemarked). Hence, it is no longer necessary in Fua Mulaku to distinguish morphologically thebasic singular and a special definite form. On the other hand, there is no reason to supposethat the definite suffix -ā might not have been productive in the older language, though in aless extensive form than in Addū; obviously the suffix -ā was only connected to nouns
denoting living beings. This is clear from those nouns which have kept the suffix in theirending as a “frozen” morpheme until nowadays, without a trace of its original meaning. In
contrast to that, the indefinite form still has the same function in Fua Mulaku as in Addū. In
both dialects, the indefinite suffix has the variants -e /-ek/ and -a /-ak/, but the distribution
˙˙

˙˙

c

c

˙˙

˙˙

c

c

˙˙

c

c

c

267

˙˙

266

Cf. GEIGER (1900), 57 and (1938), 99-100.
Cf. GEIGER (1900), 69 and (1941), 138, no. 2060; TURNER (1966) II, 762, no. 13173 s.v. samá-.

Number, definiteness and indefiniteness71
cof these variants does not follow the same strict phonological rules in Fua Mulaku as it doesin Addū: While -a is comparatively rare in Fua Mulaku, -e is here attached not only to
i-stems but to all other nominal stems as well.
c

c

c

˙˙

2.3.2.2.1. As for the use of the two suffix variants, there seems to be no connection between
the category of animateness and inanimateness in Fua Mulaku,268 such as we find in
Sinhalese, where the distribution of the indefinite suffixes is governed by strict rules. In
modern (colloquial) Sinhalese -ek is added only to animate nouns, while -ak combines withinanimate nouns; (cp., e.g., Sinh. nom.sg. minihā “the man” vs. nom.sg.indef. minihek “aman”, or nom.sg. nama “the name” vs. nom.sg.indef. namak “a name”).269cc2.3.2.2.2. In Fua Mulaku, there is no other way of forming the plural than by adding thesuffixes -un(/-in), -men and -te /-tek/ to the nominative singular form. Concerning the
distribution of the variants -un and -in, we may state the same observations as for theindefinite suffix. The original (probably purely) phonological rule is not effective any more;while -in has almost completely dissappeared in the modern dialect of Fua Mulaku, -un being
also combined with i-stems. As to the semantics of the variants, there are no differences towhat applies to Addū (cf. above, 2.3.2.1.2).
The morphological basis of the suffix -men is the same as in Addū. Normally, it is
attached to the definite singular, although the original meaning and function of this form arelost in the modern vernacular of Fua Mulaku. As we stated above, the definite singularformant -ā occurs only with nouns denoting living beings here; agreeing with this, the plural
suffix -men, morphologically depending on this element -ā, appears only in combination withanimate nouns. In contrast to the semantically restricted function that the suffix -men has in
Addū (cf. above, 2.3.2.1.2), it is used as an ordinary plural suffix in Fua Mulaku in that it
can be added to all nouns denoting animals as well as to some terms designating persons,
without expressing anything else than the purely grammatical meaning of plurality.
The suffix -te /-tek/ is the most frequent and, considering its meaning, also the mostneutral of all plural suffixes that are used in Fua Mulaku. -te is a phonetical variant of theNorth Maldivian suffix -ta /-tak/ which – except in the dialect of Addū – has become themost common Dhivehi plural suffix of today. The modern grammatical function of the suffix,
whose original meaning was “so many/much”, is the result of a relatively recent development.
c

c

˙˙

˙˙

c

c

˙˙

c

c

˙˙

c

c

2.3.2.3. During the period of the oldest written Maldivian documents, the expression of
number was not much different in the language of Māle from the system we still find in the
Addū dialect. As textual tradition shows, the radical differences delimiting the northern
˙˙

268

Cf. the examples given in 2.3.2.8.1.
For further examples from Colloquial Sinhalese cf., e.g., MATZEL (1983), 22; cf. also 2.3.2.3.1.2. In
earlier Sinhalese, however, “a differentiation was made between the three genders and between the oblique case”(GEIGER, 1938, 113 f.; masc. (dir.) -ek / (obl.) -aku, fem. (dir.) -ak / (obl.) -aka, neutr. (dir.) -ak, -ek / (obl.)-ak); for evidence from medieval inscriptions cf. WIJAYARATNE (1956), 180 ff. To a certain extent, this formal
differentiation is still reflected in the written form of Modern Sinhalese; cf., e.g., MATZEL, 1983, 78 or JAYAWARDENA-MOSER, 1993, 21.
269

72

Morphology

Dhivehi area from the southern dialects, especially from Addū, in the field of nominal
morphology, has developed only in the last centuries. In the medieval language of Māle, thepure nominal stem was still an unmarked form which in some cases could have plural
meaning. Furthermore, at that time also the formation of a definite singular was still in use.
On the other hand, there are also the first attestations of plural forms with the suffix -tak inthe early texts.
Most probably the plural formation of northern Dhivehi developed in the following way:
the more the principle of suffixation gained importance as a plural formant, the more it was
led to a re-interpretation of the pure nominal stem as a singular form. From the semantic
point of view, the suffix -men was not abstract enough to be able to serve as a general plural
suffix; in contrast to that, the pronominal adjective tak was obviously neutral enough in its
meaning to adopt the function of the generic plural which has been conserved in Addū until
nowadays. tak, an originally independent word, developed into a plural suffix which was
attached to the nominal stem by means of agglutination.
From a morphological point of view, the system of plural formation is not as rich innorthern Dhivehi as it is in the dialect of Fua Mulaku, where the formal characteristics of thenorthern area have coincided with those of the southern ones, thus establishing a very
complicated system with many synchronic irregularities. The formation of the indefinite form,
however, is similar in the modern standard language and in Fua Mulaku. The same holds true
for the occurrence of the definite singular which is confined to some isolated “frozen” forms
in both varieties of Dhivehi.
˙˙

˙˙

c

c

c

2.3.2.3.1. For the formal expression of indefiniteness in a strict sense, only the suffix -e /-ek/
is used in Māle. Besides this, however, a suffix variant -ak is preserved in several obliquecase forms. The suffix -aku, as an unenlarged form of the oblique case, is mainly added tonouns expressing undetermined or uncertain local or temporal meanings; cp., e.g., M. e
duvahaku /ek duvas-aku/ “one day”. CAIN (1992, 21) calls this suffix “the nonspecified suffix-aku”. In HLSD (1988, 36), it is documented by some examples such as mı̄haku (of mı̄hā
“man”), kujjaku (of kujjā “child”), veriaku (of veriā “person”), gahaku (of gas “tree”), or
miskitaku (of miski /miskit/ “mosque”); there is no indication, though, of the role -aku plays
within the case system (cf. 2.3.2.13.2). From the morphological point of view, the suffix -aku
is an exception, because it is obviously the only formal element of the casus obliquus which
has been preserved as such in the nominal system.270cc2.3.2.3.1.1. -aku very frequently occurs in connection with a formant -ı̄ which will be calleda “focus-marker” hereafter. Its (purely syntactical) function consists in indicating the rhematisation of the following part of the sentence. The -ı̄ element can be added only to the obliqueform of the indefinite suffix which then has the form -akı̄ (from *-aku-ı̄). Cp., e.g., aharenge
nam-akı̄ nevi kudatuttu “my name is Nevi Kudatuttu” (aharenge poss.pron. “my”, nan /nam/“name”, -ak-ı̄ indef.suff.obl. + focus-marker).271 It is important to note that there is nocorresponding enlarged suffix form †-ekı̄ which would be derived from the nominative.
˙

271

˙

270

For the syntactical use of the suffix cf. 5.2.1.
More details about the syntactical construction and more examples are given in 5.2.2.

Number, definiteness and indefiniteness73

DE SILVA (1970b, 155), who seems not to have noted that -akı̄ is an enlarged form of the indefinite suffix,
took it for “... the emphatic particle akii which often, though not exclusively, emphasises the subject noun or thenoun phrase.” According to DE SILVA, the imaginary “emphatic particle” Dhiv. akii has to be regarded as afunctional equivalent of OIA khálu, Pa. khalu “certainly” (cf. TURNER 1966, I, 202, no. 3846) with its corresponding form vuu kali in classical Sinhalese. Furthermore, DE SILVA thought to have found an extra-Maldivian
cognate of the element akii in Sinhalese Prakrit: “It has been recorded, however, that a Prakritic commentarial
work called the Hela u vā, written in Ceylon about three centuries before Christ, makes some use of an emphatic
particle akii as a subject-indicating device. Another commentarial work written in Sinhalese during the ninth
century, the Dhampiya a u vā gä a padaya, quotes some sentences from the Hela u vā containing this particle. e.g.,rahado vadānakı̄ āvā a hi nami ‘the word rahado is the name for a well’.” Concerning this latter work,272 DE
SILVA came to the following conclusion: “That the Dhampiyā atuvā gätapadaya, which does not use this particle
at all, quotes sentences with it, only to supply further explanatory notes, is to testimony to the fact that it was
no longer in use in the ninth century. This form has not been attested since. akii has not been attested in thatform in any Prakrit either. The presence of akii in Maldivian seems to suggest that it might well be a residue ofa pre-ninth century stratum of language, and if so, that stratum must have been closely related, if not contemporaneous with, the language of the Hela u vā.” The fact that DE SILVA obviously failed to analyse the enlarged
suffix form -ak-ı̄ morphologically and regarded it as an independent particle and, furthermore, as a prakritism,
may have a simple reason. With the help of the article in question, DE SILVA, having only a limited knowledgeof Dhivehi himself, wanted to support his own thesis of a very early Indo-Aryan colonisation of the Maldives273; at least he wanted to give counterevidence to GEIGER’s thesis (1902, 909) according to which theMaldives were settled by Sinhalese people at a time not earlier than in the 11th or 12th century, Dhivehi
consequently being a late dialectal offspring of the Sinhalese language only. Basically DE SILVA’s assumption,that in the case of a very early separation of Maldivian and Sinhalese we should expect to find prakritisms in
Dhivehi which could serve as evidence, is right. -akı̄, however, cannot be explained as a prakritism and,
therefore, cannot be used as a proof of DE SILVA’s theory.
ṫ

ṫ

ṫ

˙

ṫ

ṫ

˙

ṫ

2.3.2.3.1.2. Concerning the southernmost dialects, the formal difference between the direct
and the oblique case consists only in the final -u of the latter one, i.e., -ak vs. -aku. When thefocus-marker -ı̄ is added to -aku, the final -u is preserved in Fua Mulaku (cf. F. mı̄hāku-ı̄from mı̄hā “man”), while it gets lost in Addū as well as in Māle (A. mı̄hāk-ı̄).
c˙˙Sinhalese, too, shows a formal differentiation of the direct and the oblique case in the indefinite form, thedistribution being closely connected with the grammatical distinction of gender. The following table is agraphical representation of the Sinhalese system on the basis of GEIGER’s data (1938, 114):274

declension

casus rectus

casus obliquus

-ek

-aku

I f.

-ak

-aka

II n.

-ak, -ek

-ak

I m.

In modern colloquial Sinhalese, the old difference in the distribution of the suffix variants, which was purely
grammatical in the beginning, has developed into a differentiation based on semantic criteria only. Thus, in the272
Cf. GEIGER (1900), 4: “Für das älteste Prosawerk in singhalesischer Sprache gilt D a m p i y ā A u v āG ä a p a d a S a n n a y a . Es ist dies ein Glossar zu dem Commentar des Dhammapada, welches von Louis de
Zoysa i.J. 1875 aufgefunden wurde, und von dem man annimmt, dass es um die Mitte des 10. Jahrh. geschrieben
wurde.”
273
Cf. the introduction, 0.7.2 above.
274
For a similar table cf. WIJAYARATNE (1956), 180.

ṫ

ṫ

74

Morphology

spoken language the indefinite suffix -ek is only added to nouns denoting living beings, while -ak occurs withinanimate nouns.275c2.3.2.4. In comparison with the semantically neutral plural suffix -ta , which is attached tonouns of any stem class and meaning in the Dhivehi standard language, the other plural
suffixes play only a secondary role. The suffix -men has lost its productivity but is still usedin connection with kinship terms as in the southern dialects. In Māle, however, it is not added
to a (formerly) definite form as in Fua Mulaku, but directly to the pure stem. The suffix
doublets -un/-in, which in the northern area are used with the same group of words as in thesouthern dialects (kinship terms, nouns denoting occupations and titles), have been extended
to foreign words denoting living beings.
c2.3.2.4.1. The stem veri “leader, chief, head; person”, with its definite form M.A.F. veriā andits plural M.A. verin, F. vērun, must also be treated in connection with the plural formationsin -in/-un. In modern Dhivehi, veri almost never appears as an independent word; what we dofind is fix combinations such as M. beleni veriā “guardian”, occurring as an isolated formation which consists of the attribute beleni, inact. part.pres. of balanı̄ “to look”, and the“frozen” definite form veriā.276Besides this, -veri regularly occurs as the second part ofsome nominal compounds in which case it indicates special occupations or particular roles insocial life; cp., e.g., M. atolu-veriā, A. atele-veriā, F. atele-veri “atoll-chief”.277 In the early
documents of Dhivehi, the role of veri as the second part of compounds is already wellattested; cp. ma kai-veri “head of Mekka” (relating to the Prophet’s grandfather; RC 4,11);bat-veri “rice-lord” (L2 28,3: gen. -veriage); kārdda-veri “officer, official” (L4 f/2,5: indef.
-veriak); tauliyamūla-veri “chief-inspector, supervisor” (part of an abstract -veri-kan: F3,15;
F5,36; etc.); pemus-veri (with unknown meaning; F13,7); plural forms are kārdda-verı̄n“officials” (L5 5/2,5; with all probability also in L4 b/2,7 kārudaveriin); tauliya-verı̄n“inspectors” (F8,27); vāru-verı̄n “tax collectors” (L5 5/2,4). veri can also be attached toother parts of speech; cp. A. de-verin, tin-verin “two/three people; a unit of two/three people”
etc. Here the plural verin is used to substantivise the cardinal number in the sense of acollective number (cf. also 2.5.3.1).
˙

˙

˙

c

c

2.3.2.4.2. In the following three compounds, veri serves as the first part: veri-ra /-raś/ “capital”, veri-kan /-kam/“government”, veri-farāi /-farāt/ “owner”. One more function is to be found in the use of -veri as a suffixal
element in the formation of adjectives, e.g. M. lobu-veri “dear”, buddi-veri “wise” etc. (cf. 2.4.4.2). The
etymological derivation of veri is not without problems, all the more since there seems to be no direct equivalentin Sinhalese. TURNER (1985, 14, no. 2218a) derives Dhiv. “veri ‘leader, possessor’” from *uparika- “upper”,
which seems to be reasonable from the phonological and semantical point of view. Another possibility shouldat least be mentioned, however. In the earliest written documents of Dhivehi we find the forms lokapāla-varun“ministers” (L1 t/2,1), upāsaka-varun “laymen” (L3 15/2,1) and kadi-varun “cadi-people” (L3 12/2,4 etc.). The
suffix -varun, which occurs nowhere else in Dhivehi, obviously finds a parallel in the Sinhalese plural suffix-varu, obl. -varun which, besides the pure plural function, also has a honorific meaning; it expresses respect asin ammā-varu “mothers”. For this suffix cf. GEIGER (1938, 103): “There can be no doubt that -varu is pl. of275
For the use of feminine forms with -ak in modern Sinhalese cf. JAYAWARDENA-MOSER (1993), 21 and
MATZEL (1983), 22 and 78; cf. also fn. 269 above.
276
HLSD (1988, 36) mentions the indefinite forms verie and veriaku, both translated as “person”.
277
Further examples are given in 2.3.2.7.4.1.2, 2.3.2.8.2.2.1, 2.3.2.8.2.5 and 2.3.2.9.2.1.
cNumber, definiteness and indefiniteness75

st(em) vara ..., and that this vara corresponds to Pk., P(ali), Sk. vara which is so frequently used at the end of
a compound.” A relation between Dhiv. veri and O/MIA vara- “(the) best”278 cannot be completely denied;in this case, however, veri would have to be traced back to an extended form *vara/ika-, because otherwise theumlaut would remain unexplained. All in all, the derivation proposed by TURNER seems to be more probable.

2.3.2.5. According to HLSD (1988), 39, Modern Dhivehi uses the reduplication of nominal
stems for the formation of plurals at least “to a limited extent”. This statement cannot be
confirmed by linguistic facts, however. The examples listed in HLSD which will be quoted
below in the original transcription as given there, were not accepted as correct Dhivehi forms
by any one of the informants279 that were asked: “ruh ruh – trees, bas bas – buses, ...
goLi – square, goLi goLi jeh [sic]280 gamiis ‘the shirt with squares’; rogu – stripes, lines,
rogu rogu demi munDa ‘the sarong with lines’”. Nevertheless, some of these examples
coincide with a few examples appearing in a small Maldivian school grammar (DBG, 16),
viz. bas-bas “busses”, kan-kan /kam-kam/ “facts”, avaś-avaś “villages”, got-got (got“manner”), ru -ru /ruk-ruk/ “coconut trees” and raś-raś “islands”. The latter formation is
attested for Fua Mulaku in the form [rad-raśo] /raś-raś/ (F. raśo “island, land”); its meaning
is approximately “from island to island”. Without doubt, the given examples do not represent
plural formations in the literal sense but distributional forms. Such forms are also known fromthe older written documents where they do not occur frequently either, however. In thefollowing example from the Gan- or Filā-Fatkolu (F3,6), both the governing noun and aparticiple depending on it appear in a reduplicated form: fahun vı̄-vı̄ ras-ras-kalun has to betranslated as “each one of the kings who followed afterwards” ≈ “all the kings, whosoever,
who followed” (fahun “after”; vı̄ “having become”, part.pret. of vanı̄ “to become”; ras“king”, kal-un pl. of the def.nom. kalā “sir, noble, aristocrate”)281. The same documentshows one more distributional form enlarged by kalun, namely bei-bei-kalun (F3,6-7),
approximately meaning “high-ranking people, gentlemen” (lit. “sir-sir-noblemen”). Twofurther distributional plural formations are kaukalun /kal-kal-un/ (RA 1,9: dat. kaukalunaś)“all the sirs, gentlemen” and ras-ras-beikalun-āi282 (RC 8,11) “all the royal gentlemen”.
Another distributional form seems to be represented in atol-atolu “atoll by atoll” (F5,39).
c

c

c

˙

˙

˙

In this connection cf. also GEIGER (1919, 64): “Sometimes, in the formation of the plural,
the substantive is doubled: faffalō-ta ‘fruits’ (from fal-falō); mis-mı̄hun ‘human beings’.” Itshould be noted, however, that in both these cases the reduplicated nouns are enlarged bymeans of the typical plural suffixes -ta and -un. A “frozen” distributional form can also befound in the plural formation of the adverbial interrogative pronoun A. kontantāki /kon-tantan-ak-i/, F. kon-tan-tan-ek-i “where?”, “at which places” (tan “place”; cf. 2.6.7.2.1). The
pl. M. ecceti, A.F. etteti /eti-eti/ “things” (sg. eti) represents a distributional formation as
well; it is used for the plural formation of pronouns (cf., e.g., 1.3.9.2.1 and 2.6.7.1.3).
c

c

278

Cf. also TURNER (1966), II, 659, no. 11308.
For the names of the main informants cf. the preface of this grammar.
280
jeh obviously represents a misprint; the correct form would be jehi “beaten”, part.pret. of jahanı̄ “tobeat” (probably in the sense of “lined, draped with stripes”).
281
For more extensive information on this word cf. 2.6.2.4.3.1.
282
For details about bei- cf. 2.6.2.4.4.
279

76

Morphology

2.3.2.6. Words denoting “boats” or “ships” have a special position within the nominal
morphology of Dhivehi. Thus, in the dialect of Addū, all the nouns in question are invariable
concerning the categories of number, definiteness and indefiniteness; in normal usage, allthese grammatical concepts are expressed only by means of the nominal stem (cf. 2.3.2.7.3.2).
In contrast to that, in northern Dhivehi the indefinite form and, to a limited extent, also thenormal plural in -ta can be formed from the corresponding nouns. Furthermore, there exists
a special plural formation in the standard language which is confined exclusively to nouns
belonging to the semantic field of “ships”, viz. the suffixation of the element -faharu (cf.
2.3.2.9.2.4). It is hardly astonishing, though, that the words denoting ships show notableparticularities in their formal development, given that all things that are connected withnavigation play a special role in Maldivian life; in particular, the presence of ships is aguarantee of survival.
The following examples, which are meant to illustrate the categories treated above, will begiven separately for each of the dialects in question. In order to show the historical morphological changes in a more explicit way, the sequence in the description of the dialects will be
Addū – Fua Mulaku – Māle.
˙˙

c

c

˙˙

2.3.2.7. Addū˙˙

2.3.2.7.1. In the following paragraphs, the words which serve as examples for the formationof definite and indefinite forms are specified according to their stem classes. As describedabove, both the definite and the indefinite forms are derived from the pure nominal stem
which in all cases given below has a plural meaning.
cc2.3.2.7.1.1. Consonant stems: bo /bok/ “frogs”, bok-ā “the frog”, bok-a /bok-ak/ “a frog”;
fo /fot/ “books”, fot-ā “the book”; fot-a “a book”; hau /haul/ “cocks”, haul-ā “the cock”,
haul-a “a cock”; makunu “bugs”, makun-ā “the bug”, makun-a “a bug”; mı̄deu /mı̄del/“mice, rats”, mı̄del-ā “the mouse”, mı̄del-a “a mouse”; mas “fish” (pl.), “fish (as a genericterm or food)”, mah-ā “the fish”, mah-a “a fish”; mau /mal/ “flowers”, mal-ā “the flower”,
mal-a “a flower”; rala “waves”, ral-ā “the wave”, ral-a “a wave”; nana “fishing lines”,
nan-ā “the fishing line”, nan-a “a fishing line”. For the declension of the consonant stems
cf. 2.3.2.11.1.
c

c

˙

c

˙

c

˙

c

c

c

˙

˙

˙

˙

c

˙

c

˙

2.3.2.7.1.2. As to i-stems, some particular morphonological developments within the paradigm
resulted in the existence of different subgroups in modern Addū. All these groups represent
different stages of a process which, however, in the dialect of Addū has not been accomplished even in a single case, but which in Fua Mulaku consequently affected the wholeparadigm of many nouns. The differences between the particular groups depend on the fact
whether the stem-final -i which precedes the suffixes marking case forms, definiteness andindefiniteness remains unchanged within the paradigm and, furthermore, whether the root of
the noun remains unchanged as well. If the stem-marking -i gets lost, the structure of thenominal root changes; then, in most cases, the root vowel is lengthened and falls under stress.
˙˙

˙˙

c

ū
ḋ

ḋ

Number, definiteness and indefiniteness: A

77

There are a few exceptions which do not show a lengthening of the root vowel but agemination of the consonant preceding the stem-final sound. Cp. the nominal stem (withsingular meaning) kudi “child” the -i of which is preserved in its plural formation: nom.pl.
kudin, gen.pl. kudinge etc. In the indefinite form kūda /kūdak/ “a child”, the stem vowel -igets lost, the root vowel u being compensatorily lengthened to ū. In contrast to that, thedefinite form *kudi-ā, despite the expected loss of the root vowel, did not develop into †kūdā
but into kuddā. In this connection, cf. also the i-stems which show a paradigmatic interchangeof -h- and -ss- in the primary genitive and dative forms as described in 2.3.2.7.1.2.2.283
Depending on whether any forms of the paradigm lose the stem-marking -i, and how manyof them do so, the nouns in question can be divided into different groups. While in Fua
Mulaku there are many examples showing this effect throughout the paradigm, the corresponding i-stems in Addū present only individual stages of this complex development, whichsometimes cannot be clearly separated from each other.
c

c

˙˙

2.3.2.7.1.2.1. The following nouns derive the definite and indefinite forms without a changeof the root or the stem-final sound; but all of them show a lengthening of the root vowel inthe primary genitive and dative (for the complete declension paradigm cf. 2.3.2.11.3.2): tari“stars”, tarie “the star”, tarie /tari-ek/ “a star”; boli “shells”, bolie “the shell”, bolie “ashell”; madi “beetles”, madie “the beetle”, madie “a beetle”; teli “beans”, telie “the bean”,
telie “a bean”; issaśi “hair (pl.)”, issaśie “the hair”, issaśie “a hair”; mēlam̆fati “butterflies”, mēlam̆fatie “the butterfly”, mēlam̆fatie “a butterfly”; mudi “rings; jewels, jewellery”,
mudie “the ring”, mudie “a ring”; tośi “peels, bark (of fruits, vegetables, trees)”, tośie “thepeel”, tośie “a (piece of) peel”; keran̆duru fufi “beehives”, keran̆duru fufie “the beehive”,
keran̆duru fufie “a beehive”; etc.
c

c

˙

c

˙

˙

˙

˙

c

c

˙

c

c

c

c

2.3.2.7.1.2.2. A special group within the i-stems is characterised by a paradigmatic interchange of -h- and -ss- in the position before the final -i of the nominative form (cf. 1.3.9.5.).
The nouns in question belong to the same type of declension as the examples mentioned in
2.3.2.7.1.2.1, but they do not show a secondary lengthening of the vowel preceding thegeminate -ss- in the primary genitive and dative (for the complete paradigm cf. 2.3.2.11.3.3).
In some cases the definite nom.sg. ends in -ā and the indefinite nom.sg. in -a . Cp., e.g., mehi
“flies”, messā (besides secondary mēhā) “the fly” and messa (besides secondary mēha ) “afly”; fiéhi “knives (for food)”; fiéssā “the knife”, fiéssa “a knife”. Concerning the categoryof number, some words of this group are defective. In the case of kiéhi “saw(s)” and suhi
“empty coconut(s)”, the primary nominative expresses both numbers; a definite form for themorphological expression of the singular is missing, while the indefinite form exists: kiéssa“a saw”, sussa “an empty coconut”. The nominative lāhi “1/4 kg” has only a singularmeaning, contrasting with the indefinite form lassa . Three words which belong to thisdeclension type show the paradigmatic interchange of -ss- and -h- only in parts of theirparadigms, in that they preserve the final sound of the nominative both in the definite and theindefinite form: cp. nom.(pl.) ihi “(spiny) lobsters” with nom.sg.def. ihie, nom.sg.indef. ihie
but gen.pl. isse, dat.pl. issa /issaś/; nom. (pl. and sg.) fehurehi “whale shark(s)” withgen.sg.def. fehurehiei, nom.sg.indef. fehurehie but gen.pl. fehuresse, dat.pl. fehuressa ; in the
c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

283

For the parallels occurring in Fua Mulaku cf. 2.3.2.8.1.4.3, for Māle parallels cf. 2.3.2.9.1.3.2.

78Morphology

same way nom. (pl. and sg.) māvahi “large wave in the open sea” has gen.sg.def. māvahiei
and nom.sg.indef. māvahie but gen.pl. māvasse, dat.pl. māvassa .
Considering the interchange of -h- and -ss-, the words divehi “Maldivian, islander” andrattehi “friend, compatriot” have to be classed in this group as well, as the indefinite forms
divessa and rattessa suggest. Within their case formation, however, there are no traces of themorphonological interchange, both nouns showing the peculiar features of words denoting
persons (cf. 2.3.2.11.4.1).
c

c

˙˙

c

c

˙˙

2.3.2.7.1.2.3. In the case of some i-stems which also belong to the declension type mentioned
in 2.3.2.7.1.2.1, the lengthening of the root vowel in the primary dative and genitive cooccurs with a lengthening in the definite and/or indefinite forms; cp., e.g., nom.pl. feśi“boxes”, gen.pl. fēśe, dat.pl. fēśa /fēśaś/, nom.sg.def. fēśā, nom.sg.indef. fēśa /fēśak/; nom.pl.
foli “(flat) bread, pancake (as a generic term); loaves of bread”, gen.pl. fōle, dat.pl. fōla/fōlaś/, nom.sg.def. fōlā, nom.sg.indef. fōla /fōlak/; nom.pl. an̆dun huli “ulcers of the lower
eyelid”, gen.pl. a° hūle, dat.pl. a° hūla , nom.sg.def. a° hūlā, nom.sg.indef. a° hūla .
c

c

˙

c

˙

˙

c

c

˙

˙
˙

˙

c

2.3.2.7.1.2.4. In many examples the stemform serves as a nominative of both plural andsingular, while a definite form is missing; cp., e.g., nom.sg./pl. baśi “eggplant(s), brinjal(s)”,gen. bāśe, dat. bāśa /bāśaś/, nom.sg.indef. bāśa /bāśak/; nom.sg./pl. taśi “dish(es), plate(s),glass(es)”, gen. tāśe, dat. tāśa /tāśaś/, nom.sg.indef. tāśa /tāśak/; nom.sg./pl. fiśi “little
island(s)”, gen. fı̄śe, dat. fı̄śa /fı̄śaś/, nom.sg.indef. fı̄śa /fı̄śak/; nom.sg./pl. vaśi “basket(s),bin(s)”, gen. vāśe, dat. vāśa /vāśaś/, nom.sg.indef. vāśa /vāśak/; nom.sg./pl. gen̆di “chair(s)”,gen. gēn̆de, dat. gēn̆da /gēn̆daś/, nom.sg.indef. gēn̆da /gēn̆dak/; etc.
c

c

c

c

c

c

c

˙

c

c

˙

˙

c

˙

˙

2.3.2.7.1.2.5. In some isolated cases, the lengthening of the root occurs only in the indefinite
form and in the primary genitive and dative, but not in the definite form; cf. nom.pl. kaśi“(fish)bones, thorns”, gen.pl. kāśe, dat.pl. kāśa /kāśaś/, nom.sg.indef. kāśa /kāśak/, but
nom.sg.def. kaśie. A reverse example is the nom.sg./pl. fali “oar”, with a lengthening of theroot vowel in the definite nom.sg. fālā but not in the indefinite nom.sg. falie /fali-ek/. This
word obviously represents a transitional morphological stage, as can be seen not only fromthe difference in the formal realisation of the definite and indefinite form but also from theexistence of a definite singular form alongside a pure nominal stem with the meaning of asingular. The next example has a transitional character as well: of the nom.pl. gadi “hours (asa unit of time and date), watches, clocks”, we find both the more archaic definite nom.sg.
gadie and a secondary form gādā (and gen.pl. gāde, dat.pl. gāda /gādaś/).
c

c

c

˙

˙

c

˙

˙

˙

˙

2.3.2.7.2. As mentioned above (2.3.2.7.1.2.4), there are many nouns in Addū the stem ofwhich has the double function of denoting both a (generic) plural and a singular. In most ofthese cases, which are spread about all declension classes, the form of the definite nominative
singular is obsolete while the indefinite nominative singular exists. Some of the substantives
in question have only a primary declension paradigm (cf. 2.3.2.1 above) with both plural andsingular meaning, while others have developed separate paradigms for plural and singular,
although their nominative is ambivalent considering number. Thus, e.g., the nominal stems
fehurehi “whale shark” and māvahi “large wave in the open sea” represent the forms of anom.pl. and a nom.sg. at the same time, but nevertheless they show particular declension
˙˙

ḋ

ḋ

Number, definiteness and indefiniteness: Aū79

paradigms for the two numbers each. In contrast to that, there are some nouns which use thewhole primary paradigm for both singular and plural; cp., e.g., gē “house”, ra /raś/ “island,
land”, fiśi “little island”, gen̆di “chair”, vali “knife” etc.
c˙

˙

2.3.2.7.3. Besides the isolated nouns with a defective paradigm as discussed above, there exist
several semantical groups in Addū which are characterised by the absence of one or more of
the morphological categories in question.
˙˙

2.3.2.7.3.1. Thus, in the case of most nouns denoting single or paired parts of the body, thecomplete primary declension paradigm expresses both numbers; an indefinite nom.sg. can bederived, but there is no definite form. Cf. nom.sg./pl. lō /lol/ “eye(s)”, nom.sg.indef. lola ;nom.sg./pl. a /at/ “hand(s), arm(s)”, nom.sg.indef. ata ; nom.sg./pl. faitela “feet, foot”,
nom.sg.indef. faitela ; nom.sg./pl. bō /bol/ “head(s)”, nom.sg.indef. bola ; nom.sg./pl. nēfa/nēfat/ “nose(s)”, nom.sg.indef. nēfata etc.
Two nouns denoting parts of the body do not fit into this scheme, viz. nom.sg./pl. da /dat/“teeth, tooth” and in̆gili “fingers, toes” which has only plural meaning. From these stems wefind both indefinite (data and in̆gila ) and definite forms (nom.sg. datā, in̆gilā). Most
probably, the existence of a definite singular form of these stems is based on the fact thatboth nouns designate parts of the body which are not single or paired but represent something
like a set; hence, the terms in question can be understood as pluralia tantum.
c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

2.3.2.7.3.2. Special attention must be drawn to the fact that in Addū, all words denoting“boats” or “ships” are completely indifferent towards the categories of number, definitenessand indefiniteness from a formal point of view. Thus, the basic forms of the i-stems dōni,vedi, batteli and bokkorā (traditional types of Maldivian boats and ships) serve as a nominative of both singular and plural; besides that, they are also used when a definite or indefinite
singular form would be required, the actual grammatical meaning depending on the context.
On the other hand, the nominative bokkorā (M. bokkurā) most probably reflects a “frozen”
definite form (if it is not a loanword ending in a long vowel); this supposition is not only
founded on the existence of the long-vocalic ending -ā, but also on the case forms: assuming
an original consonant stem *bokkorV, the case formations could be analysed as gen.
bokkor-ā-i, dat. bokkor-ā- ← /bokkor-ā-aś/, abl. bokkor-ā-in. All other words denoting boats
have a primary paradigm which expresses both numbers, without any markings of definitenessor indefiniteness; cp., e.g., gen. dōn-e, dat. dōn-a /-aś/, abl. dōn-in).
˙˙

˙

˙

c

˙

c

˙

˙

2.3.2.7.3.3. It is not surprising that nouns denoting substances of any kind are not differentiated as to the categories of number, definiteness and indefiniteness. All the substantives inquestion have only a primary declension paradigm. Cp., e.g., fen “water”, ba /bat/ “cookedrice”, teu /tel/ “oil”, fani “treacle”, fena “foam, surf”, vāre “rain”, bin /bim/ “earth, land,
ground”, dara “firewood”, dun /dum/ “smoke”.
At least for some of the words which belong to this group, there is a way of expressing
some kind of “singularisation”. This is provided by special nouns with a basic meaning of “alittle, a bit, a piece (of)” which can be combined with the oblique case of terms harmonisingwith them from the semantical point of view. This results in the expression of the “smallest
c

˙

80

Morphology

possible unit” of the substance in question on the basis of words denoting a “counting unit”.
In combination with words denoting liquids, it is mainly foda /fodak/, def. fodā “a / thedrop”, and tika /tikak/, def. tikā “a / the tiny drop” (smaller than foda ) which are used inthis way. Cp., e.g., fen “water”, fen foda “a drop of water”, fen tika “a (tiny) drop ofwater”. In the same way, eśa /eśak/, def. eśā “a / the seed, kernel (of nut)” is added tonouns denoting a mass consisting of kernels etc. such as rice, cereals, or nuts; cf. badan“peanuts” with its definite singular badan eśā “the peanut” and its indefinite singular badaneśa , “a (single) peanut”. The indefinite singular form -gan̆da /gan̆dak/, originally an
independent word meaning “thing, piece”, does not have this status any more but has been
reduced to a suffix expressing the “singularisation” of nouns denoting solid substances; cp.,
e.g., pān “bread” with pāngan̆da “a (loaf of) bread, a piece of bread”.
c

c

c

c

c

c

˙

c

c

˙

c

˙

2.3.2.7.4. Secondary plural formation in Addū
As described in 2.3.2.1.2, in the dialect of Addū the plural formation on the basis of suffixes
is confined to a few groups of animate substantives which can easily be defined from thesemantical point of view. The suffix variants -in/-un, which are added to the pure stem, occur
only with nouns designating persons, i.e. kinship terms and terms of social relationship andoccupation. Within this framework, -in/-un are used in a wider range than the suffix -menwhich occurs only with kinship terms denoting close relatives. Besides this, however, -menis also used in the formation of a secondary, semantically restricted plural of nouns designating animals in Addū. While the pure stem expresses the general plural meaning in thesecases, the plural forms with -men have the connotation of “a certain amount of animals, thenumber of which can be estimated within one moment”. As a rule, -men can only be added
to the form of the definite nominative singular.
˙˙
˙˙

˙˙

2.3.2.7.4.1. Among the most frequent examples of the plural formation with -in/-un, we findnom.sg. mı̄hā “(the) man, human being”, nom.pl. mı̄hun; nom.sg. kuddā “(the) child”,
nom.pl. kudin; nom.sg. anhenā “(the) woman”, nom.pl. anhenun. In all these cases thenom.sg. represents “frozen” definite forms, the original stem forms mı̄s- and kudi- being
obsolete. The oblique stem anhen is still in use, but only in the function of an attributive
quasi-adjective meaning “female” (e.g. anhen geri “cows”). Some nouns can be singularisedby means of the definite nom.sg. mı̄hā “man” being added to their obliquus: cp., e.g., firimı̄hā “husband”, nom.pl. firin; vadi mı̄hā “carpenter”, nom.pl. vadin; anhen mı̄hā “woman”(besides anhenā, cf. above), nom.pl. anhenun. Some nouns use the pure stem as a nom.sg.
form; cp., e.g., nom.sg. dari “child”, nom.pl. darin; nom.sg. lian “brother-in-law”, nom.pl.
lianun; nom.sg. am̆bi “wife”, nom.pl. am̆bin; nom.sg. divehi “Maldivian”, nom.pl. divehin;nom.sg. rattehi “friend”, nom.pl. rattehin. At least three nouns which form the plural withthe ending -un have become obsolete nowadays; these are nom.sg. mituru “friend” (Skt.
mitrá-; cp. also the “frozen” definite form miturā), nom.pl. miturun; nom.sg. haturu “enemy”(Ved. śátru-), nom.pl. haturun; nom.sg. eduru “teacher” (Ved. ācāryà-), nom.pl. edurun. One
more word belonging to this group is the title “king, sultan”, nom.sg. rasgefānu, which has
the two suppletive plural forms radun and raskalun.
˙

˙

˙˙

˙˙

2.3.2.7.4.1.1. Within kinship terminology, there is a remarkable group of words denoting
subgroups within the family. These special terms occur only in the plural formed with the

ū
ḋ

ḋ

Number, definiteness and indefiniteness: A

81

suffix -in. Cp., e.g., de bofa-in “father and son”, lit. “two (together with the) father” (de“two”; bofa ← bafa “father”, now used in the def. form bafā only); tin bofa-in “father andtwo sons”, lit. “three together with the father” (tin “three”); ma-in bafa-in “parents” (lit.
“mothers [and] fathers”); kau bofa-in “forefathers, ancestors from the paternal side” (kaurepresents /kal/ “sir” with a regular change of final -l into -u, cf. 2.6.2.4.3.1); muni-kāfa-in“ancestors from the paternal side”, consisting of muni (obviously an obsolete stem; in thisconnection cp. the def. form munnā “grandmother from the paternal side” which must be
traced back to *munyā ← *muni-ā) and kāfa “grandfather from the paternal side” (today onlyused in its definite form, kāfā); muni-māfa-in “ancestors from the maternal side” (the stemmāfa- “grandfather from the maternal side” is obsolete as well; only the definite form māfā
is still in use).
2.3.2.7.4.1.2. As mentioned above (cf. 2.3.2.4.1, 2.3.2.4.2), there is a stem -veri (nom.sg.def.
A. -veriā, nom.sg.indef. -verie , nom.pl. -verin) which denotes professional or official positions when appearing as the second part of nominal compounds. In Addū, the compounds inquestion are very often used only in their definite form when a singular is meant; cp., e.g.,
nom.sg. rahumatteriā ← rahumat-veri-ā “friend” (rahumat ← Arab. rahmat “compassion,
mercy”) vs. nom.pl. rahumatterin; bēs-veriā “medical doctor” (bēs “medicine”); mas-veriā
“fisherman” (mas “fish”); atele-veriā “atoll-chief” (atele “atoll”); duā-veriā “man leading
the prayer; preacher” (duā ← Arab. ducā “prayer”); kam̆buru-veriā “blacksmith” (M. kam̆buru “id.”); fēran-veriā “weaver”; tede-veriā “honest man” (substantivisation of the adjectivetede(veri) “honest”). In one case -veri is used for the formation of a kinship term. This isfaha-veri “sister-in-law” which represents the nom.sg. form as a pure stem while the gen.sg.
fahaveriā-ge is derived from a definite form no longer occurring as a nominative as such.
c

˙˙

˙

˙

˙

c

In combination with cardinal numbers, -verin is used for the formation of collective numerals; cp. A. de-verin“two people; a group of two people”, tin-verin “three people; a group of three people”, hatara-verin “fourpeople; a group of four people”, etc. (cf. also 2.5.3.1). Beyond that, -verin also appears in the plural formationof the pronoun ea,¯˘ e “he/she/it; that”, serving as a substantivisation formant; cf. nom.pl. e-verie and obl.pl. everin “they; those” (cf. 2.6.2.5.5).

2.3.2.7.4.2. Examples of plurals with -men:
As mentioned above (cf. 2.3.2.1.2), in the dialect of Addū the plural suffix -men is found with
two semantically defined groups of nouns only, both of them having a closely delimited
character.
˙˙

2.3.2.7.4.2.1. Like the suffix -in/-un, -men is used for the plural formation of particular nouns
denoting kinship relations and, furthermore, some isolated nouns referring to other membersof the social community. Obviously, there are no cases of overlapping in the use of the two
suffixes in Addū, except for the very special compound terms which denote particular units
within the family (cf. 2.3.2.7.4.1.1). In all these cases, -men is suffixed to the form of thedefinite singular. Cf. bappā / bafā / appā “father” with pl. bappāmen / bafāmen / appāmen;
mammā / ammā “mother” with pl. mammāmen / ammāmen; māfā “grandfather from thematernal side” with pl. māfāmen; māmā “grandmother from the maternal side” with pl.
māmāmen; kāfā “grandfather from the paternal side” with pl. kāfāmen; munnā “grandmotherfrom the paternal side”, pl. munnāmen; dattā “elder sister; older women”, pl. dattāmen; bēbē
˙˙82Morphology“elder brother” (probably ← def.nom.sg. *bēbe-ā), pl. bēbēmen; kokkō “younger brother /sister; younger man (m./f.)” (probably ← def.nom.sg. *kokko-ā), pl. kokkōmen.
2.3.2.7.4.2.2. On the other hand, -men can be used in Addū in the formation of a secondary
plural of nouns denoting animals, but only under special circumstances: either the number tobe denoted is small enough so that it can be estimated at a glance, or it is a selected part ora sector of a herd, swarm, or shoal which is referred to. In all other cases the pure nominal
stem is used as plural form. With names of animals as well, -men is suffixed to the definite
nominative singular so that the plural it constitutes will best be called “definite” too.284 Cp.,e.g., bo /bok/ “frogs” vs. bokā-men “the(se) frogs (all) together”; “a certain amount offrogs” (nom.sg.def. bokā); beleu /belel/ “cats” vs. belelā-men “the cats” (nom.sg.def. belelā);bon̆da “lizards” vs. bon̆dā-men “the lizards” (nom.sg.def. bon̆dā); mas “fish” (pl.) vs. mahāmen “the fish” (nom.sg.def. mahā); mı̄deu /mı̄del/ “rats, mice” vs. mı̄delā-men “the rats ormice” (nom.sg.def. mı̄delā); boli “shells” vs. bolie-men “the shells” (nom.sg.def. bolie); ihi“lobsters” vs. ihie-men “the lobsters” (nom.sg.def. ihie) etc.
˙˙

c

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

c

2.3.2.8. Fua Mulaku
In comparison with Addū, the formation of number, definiteness and indefiniteness in Fua
Mulaku shows many simplifications. Thus, e.g., the formation of a definite singular is notproductive at all in this dialect. This agrees with the fact that the pure nominal stem, except
for some special cases, can no longer be regarded as a plural form in the modern language(cf. 2.3.2.2).

c

˙˙

2.3.2.8.1. The formation of the indefinite form still follows the same principle as in Addū
(cf. 2.3.2.1), but nowadays in many cases the distribution of the suffixes -a /-ak/ and -e /-ek/
does not depend on phonological rules (any longer) in Fua Mulaku. The suffix -e , which was
confined to the i-stems originally, more and more has taken the place of the suffix -a .
Probably this development is due to an increasing influence of the standard language where
the suffix -a has been lost completely.285 In Fua Mulaku, however, this suffix variant still
occurs in some isolated word forms like eśa “a kernel, seed” (nom.sg. eśe), foda (besides
fode ) “a drop” (nom.sg. fodo), lim̆boya “a lime” (nom.sg. lim̆boi), tela “a shoal, shallow(place in the sea)” (nom.sg. tela), lika “a manner, kind” (stem /lik/), mitura “a friend”(obsolete; nom.sg. mituru). When preceding the conjunction -ā (← -āi) “with”, the suffix -a
has preserved its productivity even without exception. When -ā is added to the indefinite formof a noun, the original final -k of the suffix is regularly geminated; cp., e.g., haul-akk-ā “witha cock” vs. the indef.nom.sg. haul-e ; mı̄del-akk-ā “with a rat” vs. the indef.nom.sg. mı̄dal-e/ mı̄del-e etc.
˙˙

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c
c

c

c

c

2.3.2.8.1.1. In Fua Mulaku, the indefinite form of consonant stems is in most cases derived
with the suffix -e (about -a cf. above) which follows the stem-final consonant, the secondary
c

285

c

284

For the formation of the definite singular cf. 2.3.2.1; for further examples cf. 2.3.2.7.1.
For the suffix -aku of the modern standard language cf. 2.3.2.3.1.

cNumber, definiteness and indefiniteness: Fua Mulaku

83

short vowels in the ending of the nom.sg.286 being eliminated. For the declension of theconsonant stems in Fua Mulaku cf. the paradigms given in 2.3.2.12.5.1.
c

2.3.2.8.1.1.1. For consonant stems without enlarging vowels in the nom.sg. cp., e.g., faivān“shoe, sandal” → faivāne ; fa /fat/ “leaf” → fate ; ihal “blossom of the coconut tree” → ihale ;hi /hit/ “heart” → hite ; kan /kam/ “fact; verb” → kame ; kan̆dul “mangrove” → kan̆dule ; kēl“banana tree” → kēle . The original s-stems, today ending in -hV in Fua Mulaku (cf. 1.3.5.),
also belong to this group; cf. aha (← as) “horse” → ahe ; maha (← mas) “fish” → mahe ; behe(← bes) “medicine” → behe ; ehe (← es) “jewel” → ehe ; gehe (← ges) “tree” → gehe .
c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

2.3.2.8.1.1.2. For consonant stems that are enlarged with final -u in the nom.sg. cp., e.g.,287b¯azu
˛ “eagle, falcon” → b¯aze
˛ ; belalu “cat” → belale ; fauru “wall” → faure ; hen̆dunu “morning” → hen̆dune ; ı̄tu “tile” → ı̄te ; jam̆bu “rose apple” → jam̆be ; kaduru “date (palm)” →kadure ; kahum̆bu “tortoise” → kahum̆be ; karunu “tear” → karune ; mı̄dalu “mouse, rat” →mı̄dale ; mūnu “face” → mūne etc.
c

c

˙

c

c

˙

c

˙
˙

c

˙

c

c

˙

c

c

˙

c

˙

2.3.2.8.1.1.3. For consonant stems that are enlarged with final -o in the nom.sg. cp., e.g.,288
ado “noise, sound, voice” → ade ; aharo “year” → ahare ; balo “dog” → bale ; doro “door”→ dore ; gan̆do “vessel, jar” → gan̆de ; han̆do “moon” → han̆de ; himāro “donkey” → himāre ;hiālo “fox, jackal” → hiāle ; karo “neck, throat” → kare ; kośāro “store-house” → kośāre ;massaro “month” → massare ; nano “fishing line” → nane ; nāro “vein, nerve, blood-vessel”→ nāre ; ono “bamboo” → one ; raśo “island, land” → raśe etc.
c

˙

c

˙

c

c

c

c

c

˙

˙

˙

c

c

c

˙

c

˙

c

˙

˙

c

˙

c

˙

c

˙

2.3.2.8.1.1.4. Consonant stems that are enlarged by -e are very rare.289 As the quantity of
the final vowel is not affected by the suffixation of -e , we may assume that the original final-e of the nom.sg. gets lost in these cases, the suffix -e which characterises the definite form
being added directly to the stem-final consonant. Cp., e.g., bere “drum” → bere ; en̆de “bed”→ en̆de ; mēre “shark” → mēre .
c

c

c

c

c

c

2.3.2.8.1.2. In a-stems, the stem vowel preceding the suffix -e is preserved, the resulting
hiatus being tolerated; cp., e.g., F. nom.sg. (but A. pl., cf. above) kaśa “spike, thorn” →F. kaśa-e (vs. A. kaśa ); F. nom.sg. (A. pl.) mada “harpoon” → F. mada-e (vs. A. mada ).
Other examples are F. attela “palm” → attela-e ; faitela “foot” → faitela-e ; buma “eye-brow”→ buma-e ; dida “flag” → dida-e ; esfia “eye-lash” → esfia-e ; fāga “bitter gourd” → fāga-e ;ifa “branch → twig” → ifa-e ; ila “fibre of the coconut” → ila-e ; nera “grey hair” → nera-e ;ohibada “vertebra” → ohibada-e . For the declension of the a-stems in Fua Mulaku cf. thetable given in 2.3.2.12.5.3.
˙

c

˙

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

˙

c

c

c

c

For the enlargement of consonant stems by means of short vowels cf. 2.3.1.3.
For the corresponding forms of the other dialects cf. 2.3.1.3.4.1, 3.4.2, 2. and 3.
288
For the corresponding forms of the other dialects cf. 2.3.1.3.4.1, 1.
289
Cf. also 2.3.1.3.4.1, 4. and 5.
287

c

286

84

Morphology

2.3.2.8.1.3. In the case of nom.sg. forms ending in a long vowel, this vowel is preserved in
the indefinite form, independently of the etymology of the words in question (cf. also 2.3.1.4).
Cp. the following examples which most probably represent “frozen” definite forms in theirbasic shape (cf. also 2.3.1.4): kokkō “younger brother / sister” → kokkō-e ; bon̆dā “lizard” →bon̆dā-e ; kı̄hā “saw” → kı̄hā-e etc.
˙

c

c

c

˙

In bon̆ ā and kı̄hā, -ā is preserved throughout the paradigm (gen. bon̆ āi, kı̄hāi; dat. bon̆ āśa, kı̄hāśa; abl.
bon̆dāen, kı̄hāen) which thus corresponds exactly with the productive declension pattern of the definite singularin A ū (cf. 2.3.2.11.1.1). F. kı̄hā represents the “frozen” definite form of the nominative kı̄s of the standard
language which must have developed directly from *kiyes ← *kiyas (through an intermediate form like Pa.
kakaca- ← Skt. krakaca- “saw”; cf. 1.7.3). The corresponding nom.pl. and sg. A. kiéhi ← *kiyesi290 obviously
shows an analogical influence of the i-stem A. fiehi “knife” (M. fiohi; cf. 2.3.2.7.1.2.2).
ḋ

ḋ

ḋ

˙

ḋ

ḋ

2.3.2.8.1.4. According to the formation of the indefinite forms, the i-stems can be divided into
two main groups in Fua Mulaku, the classification being based on morphonological criteria:
either the indefinite suffix is added to the complete stem or it is added to a shortened variantof it which lacks the final -i. In the latter case the formation of the indefinite form co-occurs
with a lengthening of the root vowel which normally effects the whole paradigm in Fua
Mulaku, while the same morphonological process has been realised only gradually in Addū
(cf. 2.3.2.7.1.2). Depending on whether the nouns in question pertain to one of the two main
paradigm types or whether they represent intermediate stages, different morphologicalsubtypes are constituted which, from a synchronic point of view, exhibit a very complicatedsystem (for the particular declension types cf. 2.3.2.12.5.2). The only way to clarify thesystem of the i-stems in Fua Mulaku consists in a diachronic comparison which must take
into account all main dialects of Dhivehi. But even if the historical development is clear, it
is not possible to predict the correct indefinite form of an actual i-stem without a doubt. Thus,
the following description of the main types is meant to yield a general synchronic view of theexisting forms rather than to give standardised rules for deriving the correct indefinite formof every i-stem.
c

c

˙˙

c

2.3.2.8.1.4.1. In the most stable type of the i-stems, the indefinite nom.sg. is formed without
any changes of the root: when -e is suffixed, the stem vowel -i is preserved. Cp., e.g.,
F. alamāri “cupboard” → indef. alamārie ; alanāsi “pineapple” → indef. alanāsie ; bakari“goat” → indef. bakarie ; boli “shell” → indef. bolie ; gadi “hour, watch, clock” → indef.
gadie ; koli “cloud” → indef. kolie ; madi “beetle” → indef. madie ; tari “star” → indef. tarieetc. While in Fua Mulaku the root vowel of all disyllabic nouns belonging to this groupremains unchanged throughout the paradigm, the corresponding Addū words show a secondary lengthening of the root vowel (cf. 2.3.2.7.1.2.1).
c

c

c

˙

c

c

c

c

˙

˙

c

˙

˙

c

˙

c

˙˙

2.3.2.8.1.4.2. In another group of nouns, the lengthening of the root vowel affects all formsof the paradigm, the stem-final -i having disappeared; hence, the indefinite suffix is added
directly to the final consonant of the root in these cases. Cp., e.g., nom.sg. b¯aśi
˛ “brinjal”(gen. b¯aśe,
˛ dat. b¯aśaha,˛abl. b¯aśen)
˛→ indef.nom.sg. b¯aśe
˛ ; tēli “bean” → indef. tēle ; dāri“child” → indef. dāre ; esnāli “inflammation of the upper eye-lid” → indef. esnāle ; fāli “oar”
˙

˙

c

c

˙

˙

c

c

c

Cp. A. nom.sg.indef. kiessa , gen. kiesse, dat. kiessa , abl. kiehin.

c

290

c

Number, definiteness and indefiniteness: Fua Mulaku

85→ indef. fāle ; f¯a˛ni “worm” → indef. f¯a˛ne ; fēśi “box” → indef. fēśe ; fı̄śi “little island” →indef. fı̄śe ; kāśi “bone, thorn” → indef. kāśe ; mudi¯˛ “ring, jewellery” → indef. mude¯˛ ; tāśi“dish, plate, glass” → indef. tāśe etc. The dialect of Fua Mulaku is the only vernacular of
Dhivehi which has systematised this morphonological process; a similar trend can be observedin Addū, but only in an initial stage (cf. 2.3.2.7.1.2.4 and 2.3.2.7.1.2.5).
c

c

c

˙

c

˙

c

c

c

c

˙˙

c

2.3.2.8.1.4.3. Even in Fua Mulaku there are a few isolated examples, however, in which thelengthening of the root vowel affects but parts of the paradigm. This is true for two i-stems
at least. One of them is the word meaning “child” with the nom.sg. kudd¯a,
˛ obviously a“frozen” definite form of the original stem kudi which is obsolete in modern Fua Mulaku(for the corresponding form in Addū cf. 2.3.2.7.1.2, 2.3.2.7.4.1). In this word, a lengthened
root vowel is found only in the indefinite form kūde and in the plural (nom.pl. kūdun, gen.pl.
kūdunge, dat.pl. kūdunna , abl.pl. kūdun aten), while in the singular forms the short vowel
preceding the geminate -dd- remains unchanged (cf. gen.sg. kudd¯age,
˛ dat.sg. kudd¯aśa,˛ abl.sg.
kudd¯a˛ aten). It is true that in inherited Maldivian words there are generally no long vowels
preceding a geminated consonant so that the vocalism of the singular paradigm cannot serve
as a definitive argument; nevertheless, this word can be taken as an indication of the fact thatthe indefinite form was the starting point of the lengthening of the root vowel, for kūde musthave been derived directly from the original stem kudi before this one became obsolete. The
other example which has to be mentioned in this connection is the word meaning “wife” with
the nom.sg. am̆bu and the indef. form ām̆be . As a former i-stem, this word shows alengthened root vowel throughout the plural as well (nom.pl. ām̆bun, gen.pl. ām̆bunge, dat.pl.
ām̆bunna , abl.pl. ām̆bun aten). The original singular paradigm does not exist any longer,
however, all singular forms being extended with mı̄hā “man” (gen.sg. am̆bu mı̄hāge etc.; thesame development can be observed in Addū, cf. the gen.sg. am̆bi mı̄hāge). The supposition
that the lengthening of the root vowel must have originated in the indefinite form is further
supported by the corresponding words in Addū where the lengthening of the vowel has
remained restricted to the indefinite forms kūda and ām̆ba (cp. the nom.sg. A. kudi, am̆bi
and the nom.pl. A. kudin, am̆bin).
c

˙˙

c

c

c

c

c

˙˙

˙˙

c

c

2.3.2.8.1.4.4. The i-stems with a paradigmatic change of -h- and -ss-, which constitute a
considerable subgroup in Addū (cf. 2.3.2.7.1.2.2), are restricted to a few examples in the
dialect of Fua Mulaku. Here, some of the words in question have been affected by analogical
adaptations. Cp., e.g., ı̄hi “lobster” and mēhi “fly”, the whole paradigm of which shows theintervocalic -h- in combination with a lengthened root vowel; the indefinite forms are ı̄he “alobster” and mēhe “a fly”. These examples must be classified as belonging to the typedescribed in 2.3.2.8.1.4.2.
Even in Fua Mulaku, however, there are some words that have preserved the old phonological change of -h- and -ss-; cp., e.g., rattehi “friend” → indef. rattesse ; divehi “Maldivian”→ indef. divesse ; fiohi “knife” → indef. fiosse ; mulehi “abscess” → indef. mulesse . Possibly,
the decisive factor to be seen here is the number of syllables of the word in question, which
seems to determine whether the older phonological stage is still preserved or the paradigm
has been simplified by the morphonological changes mentioned above. It is a striking factindeed that all words that have conserved the change of -h- and -ss- are obviously trisyllabic,
while those having generalised the intervocalic -h- are disyllabic in their basic structure.
˙˙

c

c

c

c

c

c

˙˙

˙˙

c

c

86

Morphologyc2.3.2.8.2. Plural formation in Fua Mulaku
2.3.2.8.2.1. The use of the pure nominal stem as an ordinary plural form, which is very likely
to have been common to the whole Dhivehi speaking area in former times and which is still
typical for the dialect of Addū, has become obsolete in Fua Mulaku in favour of secondary
formations. Nowadays, there are only a few stem forms that can still be used as plurals; cp.,
e.g., sg. belal(u) “cat”, pl. belal and sg. mı̄dal(u) “mouse, rat”, pl. mı̄dal. The nouns inquestion have secondary plural formations as well, however (cf. 2.3.2.8.2.3.2 and 2.3.2.8.2.4).
For the special declension of these words cf. 2.3.2.12.5.5.
c

˙˙

˙

˙

2.3.2.8.2.2. In principle, the plural suffixes -un and -in are used in the same way as in Addū
(cf. 2.3.2.7.1.2, 2.3.2.7.4.1), but the phonological distribution of the two suffix variants has
lost its productivity in Fua Mulaku (cf. 2.3.2.2.2). The suffix -in, which originally wasconfined exclusively to the i-stems, is almost obsolete now; the only example that hasconserved -in is the plural firin of firi “husband”. All the other nouns belonging to the groupin question use -un for the plural formation, independently of their stem class. Cp., e.g., mı̄hā
“man” → pl. mı̄hun; kudd¯a˛ “child” → pl. kūdun; dāri “child” → pl. dārun; am̆bu “wife” → pl.
am̆bun; mituru “friend” (obs.) → pl. miturun; rattehi “friend, compatriot” → pl. rattessun;
divehi “Maldivian” → pl. divessun; vadi “carpenter” → pl. vadiun (sic); etc.
As in Addū (cf. 2.3.2.7.4.1), the word meaning “king” shows a suppletive plural formationin Fua Mulaku as well; cf. F. nom.sg. radun “king”, nom.pl. raskalun. Originally radun wasa plural form itself, probably used in the sense of a pluralis maiestatis.
In Fua Mulaku, there are some terms designating special units within the family or among
the ancestors. These words occur only as pluralia tantum; cf. maun “mother and child”,
maun bafaun “parents” and kābafaun “ancestors” (for the formation cf. 2.3.2.7.4.1.1).
˙˙

c

˙˙

˙˙

˙

˙

˙˙

c

c

2.3.2.8.2.2.1. The stem -veri and its “frozen” definite form -veriā are used in the same way
and occur with the same nouns as in Addū (cf. 2.3.2.7.4.1.2; for the derivation of the word
cf. 2.3.2.4.1, 2.3.2.4.2). In Fua Mulaku, however, the nom.pl. has the form -vērun. Cp., e.g.,
ateleveri “atoll-chief” → nom.pl. atelevērun; fahaveri “sister-in-law” → pl. fahavērun;
masveriā “fisherman” → pl. masvērun; rahumatteriā (← rahumat-veri-ā, cf. ib.) “friend” → pl.
rahumattērun; etc.
˙˙

c

˙

˙

c

2.3.2.8.2.2.2. As in Addū (cf. 2.3.2.7.4.1.2), -verin is used in Fua Mulaku as a suffix to build
an animate plural of cardinal numbers which serves as a kind of collective numeral (cf. also
2.5.3.1); cp., e.g., aśoverin “eight people” (F. aśo “eight”), fahaverin
˛“five people” (faha˛“five”). The use of the older form -verin instead of the more recent variant -vērun underlines
the archaic character of these formations.
˙˙

2.3.2.8.2.3. Considering the morphological role of the plural suffix -men, there are nodifferences between Fua Mulaku and Addū. In both dialects, it is added exclusively to thedefinite singular in -ā, which as a rule is obsolete in modern Fua Mulaku, occurring only in“frozen” forms (cf. 2.3.2.2.2 and 2.3.2.7.4.2). As to the semantical connotation of the suffix,
both dialects agree in most points.
˙˙

c

c

c

Number, definiteness and indefiniteness: Fua Mulaku

87

2.3.2.8.2.3.1. A noteworthy difference consists in the fact that there are a few overlaps of thesuffixes -men and -un in the plural formation of kinship terms in Fua Mulaku, a feature
which has not been observed in Addū. Cp., e.g., F. nom.sg. fahaveri “sister-in-law” with theregular nom.pl. fahavērun opposing itself to the plural form fahaveri-ā-men, which, although
being semantically identical, is derived from the old definite nom.sg.
c˙˙

2.3.2.8.2.3.2. Another divergence relating to Addū is a semantical one. While in Addū thesuffix -men has the restricted meaning of “a certain amount (of animals)”, it serves as aneutral plural formant without any secondary meaning in Fua Mulaku. Cp., e.g., bo /bok/“frog” → pl. bokāmen “(many) frogs”; bakari “goat” → pl. bakariāmen “(many) goats”;
belalu “cat” → pl. belalāmen “(many) cats”; fehuressei “whale shark” → pl. fehuressey(y)āmen “(many) whale sharks”; ı̄hi “lobster” → pl. ı̄hāmen “(many) lobsters”; kakidi “crab” →pl. kakidāmen “(many) crabs”; mēhi “fly” → pl. mēhāmen “(many) flies”; mı̄dal(u) “mouse,rat” → pl. mı̄dalāmen; vaul “flying fox” → pl. vaulāmen; rehi “sprot” → pl. rehiāmen; balo
“dog” → pl. balāmen; etc.
˙˙

˙˙

c

c

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

2.3.2.8.2.3.3. From the morphological point of view, nouns forming their plural by means of
the suffix -men can be divided into two groups in Fua Mulaku. In the first group, the nom.sg.
is identical with the pure stem; this is true, e.g., for b¯azu
˛ “eagle, falcon”, bo /bok/ “frog”,
bakari “goat”. In the formation of the plural, the ending -ā of the obsolete definite singularreappears in these cases; cf. b¯az-ā-men,
˛
bok-ā-men, bakari-ā-men. In the second group, it is
the stem form itself which is obsolete. In these words the “frozen” definite form generally
functions as an unmarked nom.sg.; cp., e.g., bappā “father” → pl. bappā-men; kāfā “grandfather from the paternal side” → pl. kāfā-men; bon̆dā “lizard” → pl. bon̆dā-men (the original
nominatives bappa, kāfa and bon̆da no longer exist in modern Fua Mulaku). With allprobability, the two kinship terms kokko “younger brother / sister” and bēbe “elder brother”
with their plural forms kokkōmen and bēbēmen belong to this group as well (cp. A. kokkō← def.nom.sg. *kokko-ā, bēbē ← def.nom.sg. *bēbe-ā; cf. also 2.3.2.7.4.2.1). As a rule, words
pertaining to this group cannot have a plural in -un (cf. 2.3.2.8.2.2 above) or -te (cf.
2.3.2.8.2.4 below) because these suffixes are added immediately to the stem, but never to thedefinite form.
c

c

˙

˙

c

˙

c

c

2.3.2.8.2.4. The plural formation by means of the semantically neutral suffix -te /-tek/291 isvery common in the dialect of Fua Mulaku. The suffix is added to the nom.sg. of animate aswell as inanimate nouns; in particular cases it can also be added to nouns denoting persons(cf. 2.3.2.8.2.2.1, 2.3.2.8.2.5 below).
In many cases, -te can be used instead of -men, e.g. with most nouns denoting animals (cf.
2.3.2.8.2.3.2 above). Cp. the plural forms botte /bok-tek/ “frogs”, bakari-te “goats”, belal-te“cats”, fehuressei-te “whale sharks”, ı̄hi-te “lobsters”, kakidi-te “crabs”, kahum̆bu-te“tortoises”, mēhi-te “flies”, balo-te “dogs”, rehi-te “sprats”, vaul-te “flying foxes” etc.
In Fua Mulaku, the suffix -te is also used for the plural formation of words denoting partsof the body, while in Addū the plural meaning of these nouns is expressed by the pure
c

c

c

˙

c

c

c

c

c

˙

c

c

c

c

˙

c

c

˙˙

For the etymological background of this suffix cf. 2.3.2.2.2.

c

291

88

Morphology

nominal stem (cf. 2.3.2.7.3.1). Cp., e.g., F. a /at/ “hand, arm” → pl. at-te ; faitela “foot” →pl. faitela-te ; hi /hit/ “heart” → pl. hit-te ; in̆gili “finger, toe” → in̆gili-te ; kakul “knee” → pl.
kakul-te ; kāśi “bone” → pl. kāśi-te ; lol “eye” → pl. lō-te ; issaśi “hair” → pl. issaśi-te ; fia“wing” → fia-te etc.
The following examples represent different semantical spheres of inanimate nouns andbotanical expressions: fa /fat/ “leaf” → pl. fat-te ; gehe /ges/ “tree” → pl. ges-te ; ihal “blossom of the coconut tree” → pl. ihal-te ; kaiśi “coconut” → pl. kaiśi-te ; kēl “banana tree” → pl.
kēl-te ; kaduru “date (palm)” → pl. kaduru-te ; karā “water melon” → pl. karā-te ; jam̆bu“rose-apple” → pl. jam̆bu-te ; bere “drum” → pl. bere-te ; faro “reef” → pl. faro-te ; hene
“thunderbolt” → pl. hene-te ; in̆dōli “Maldivian wing” → pl. in̆dōli-te ; jōli “Maldivian chair”→ pl. jōli-te ; kan /kam/ (indef.sg. kame ) “fact, verb” → pl. kan-te ; kan /kan/ (indef.sg. kane )“corner” → pl. kan-te etc.
c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

˙

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

˙

c

c

c

c

2.3.2.8.2.5. As mentioned above (2.3.2.8.2.4), there are many nouns in Fua Mulaku, inparticular words denoting animals, whose plural can be built with both suffixes in question
without a difference of meaning; this is true, e.g., for bakariāmen / bakarite “goats” (←bakari) and vaulāmen / vaulte “flying foxes” (← vaul) (for further examples cf. 2.3.2.8.2.3.2
and 2.3.2.8.2.4). One more noun showing a twofold plural formation is the kinship term kāfā
“grandfather from the paternal side”; besides the original plural kāfāmen (cf. 2.3.2.8.2.3.3) wefind also kāfāte . In a few cases there are even three plural formations existing side by side
without any semantical differences. Cp. nom.sg. belal(u) “cat” with its plural forms belal(pure nominal stem), belal-ā-men and belal-te “cats”, or fahaveri “sister-in-law” with its
plural formations fahavēr-un, fahaveri-ā-men and fahaveri-te . Although both the latter form
and kāfāte “grandfathers” obviously represent exceptions, the use of -te in connection withthe two kinship terms shows that -te is becoming more and more productive in its function
as a plural suffix. Probably this development is due to the increasing influence of the standard
language. This is suggested by edurunte , the only plural form of eduru “teacher” attested in
Fua Mulaku, which is now obsolete throughout the Dhivehi speaking area, and which seems
to have been remodelled after M. edurunta vs. A. edurun. In contrast to Fua Mulaku whereformations with this type of double marking are treated as normal plural forms, their counterparts still have a special meaning in the standard language (cf. 2.3.2.9.2.3).
c

c

c

˙

˙

c

˙

˙

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

2.3.2.9. Māle
In northern Dhivehi, the nominal stem is used as a normal singular form from which theindefinite singular and plural are derived by help of the particular suffixes (cf. 2.3.2.3). As in
Fua Mulaku, the occurrence of the definite form is confined to “frozen”, “relic” formations
consisting, as a rule, of a definite singular characterised by a final -ā;292 the words in quesc

292
Not every final -ā of a nom.sg. goes back to an older definite form, however. In many cases, a final -ādeveloped from short a preceding an original word-final -l which got regularly lost in this position. Cp., e.g.,
M. mā “flower” (stem mal-; def.sg. A. malā), M. gā “stone, rock” (stem gal-; def.sg. A. galā); M. hā “cock”(stem hāl-; def.sg. A. haulā); M. mı̄dā “mouse, rat” (stem mı̄dal-; def.sg. A. mı̄delā); M. bu ā “cat” (stembu a l-; def.sg. A. be e lā). There are also many loanwords ending in a long -ā; cp., e.g., mēvā “fruits” (Class.
Mod.Pers. mı̄va “fruits”; cf. STEINGASS 1929, 1365), bagı̄cā “garden” (Class.Mod.Pers. bāġča, cf. STEINGASS

l̇

l̇

l̇

Number, definiteness and indefiniteness: Māle89

tion have been lexicalised in the modern standard language where they are used as normal
nominative singular forms.
Cp., e.g., M. mı̄hā “man” (obsolete stem mı̄s); kujjā “child” (← *kudyā ← kudi-ā,293 obsolete stem kudi);mākanā “crane” (obsolete stem mākana); -veriā (stem -veri, cf. 2.3.2.4.1) occurring as the second part ofcompounds like masveriā “fisherman” or atoluveriā “atoll-chief”. In the case of anhenā “woman” and firihenā
“man”, the definite suffix can be regarded as a marker of substantivisation, the underlying stems anhen“female” and firihen “male” being treated as adjectives. Without doubt, the honorific personal pronouns bēkalā(2nd level, 2./3.ps.sg.) and bēfu ā (3rd level, 2./3.ps.sg.)294 represent definite forms as well. It remains
uncertain, however, whether the vocational form darifu ā “Child!” can be traced back to a “frozen” definite
form as well (stem darifulu ← dari “child” + -fulu honorific suffix, designating inalienable objects; cf. 2.2.3.).
˙

l̇

l̇

˙

˙

From the grammatical point of view, the pure stem represents the unmarked singular formin the standard language, while the indefinite form, as in the southern dialects, must be
regarded as marked. In certain contexts, however, when there is no special need for amorphological expression of number, the nominal stem can also have a vague plural meaning.
Such isolated cases can be understood as relics of the system we still observe in modern
Addū (cf. 2.3.2.1); this must, therefore, be considered as more archaic. But these exceptional
forms do not contradict the general rule that in the modern standard language suffixation is
the only productive method of plural formation.
˙˙

2.3.2.9.1. In the modern standard language, the indefinite form, as the counterpart of theunmarked noun stem which is treated as a definite form, is derived by means of the suffix -e/-ek/ which is added to the pure nominal stem; the rules applied do not differ from those ofsouthern Dhivehi (cf. 2.3.2.7.1 ff. and 2.3.2.8.1 ff.). As against this, the formation of theindefinite form of the i-stems does not cause the complicated special developments we haveobserved in the southern dialects, in particular in Fua Mulaku (cf. 2.3.2.7.1.2 and 2.3.2.8.1.4).
For the suffix -aku “some, any” which in Māle occurs only in the inherited oblique form, cf.
2.3.2.3.1.

cc

2.3.2.9.1.1. For the formation of indefinite forms of consonant stems (some of them enlarged
by a short vowel, cf. 2.3.1.3) cp., e.g., nom.sg. fodu “drop” → indef.sg. fod-e ; nom.sg. jōdu“cup; pair” → indef.sg. jōd-e ; nom.sg. magu “street, road” → indef.sg. mag-e ; nom.sg. bāzu“eagle, falcon” → indef.sg. bāz-e ; nom.sg. mēzu “table” → indef.sg. mēz-e ; nom.sg. rālu“wave” → indef.sg. rāl-e ; nom.sg. mas “fish” → indef.sg. mah-e ; nom.sg. mı̄hā “man”(obsolete stem mı̄s) → indef.sg. mı̄h-e ; nom.sg. bulā “cat” → indef.sg. bulal-e (stem bulal);nom.sg. mı̄dā “mouse, rat” → indef.sg. mı̄dal-e (stem mı̄dal-); nom.sg. rū “wrinkle” →indef.sg. rul-e (stem rul-); nom.sg. ru /ruk/ “coconut tree” → indef.sg. ruk-e ; nom.sg. donkeo“banana” → indef.sg. donkel-e (stem donkel-) etc.
c

˙

c

c

c

˙

c

˙

˙

c

c

˙

c

˙

c

˙

c

c

c

c

c

1929, 148), bamiā “ocra, lady’s fingers” (Mod.Pers. bāmiya, cf. STEINGASS 1929, 152; Arab. bāmiā/bāmiat, cf.
WEHR 1958, 35), haftā “week” (Class.Mod.Pers. hafta, cf. STEINGASS 1929, 1504). In the modern language, wehave to consider the etymology or the forms of the non-nominative cases to be able to decide whether a given
word represents a “frozen” definite nominative or whether the final -ā must be explained otherwise.
293
Cf. 2.3.2.7.1.2, 2.3.2.8.1.4.3 and further 1.3.9.3.
294
For details cf. 2.6.2.4.4 f.

90Morphology

2.3.2.9.1.2. For indefinite forms of a-stems cp., e.g., nom.sg. vāhaka “story” → indef.sg.
vāhaka-e ; nom.sg. maskiba “one side of a fish” → indef.sg. maskiba-e ; nom.sg. mamma〈manma〉 “mother” → indef.sg. mamma-e ; nom.sg. bappa “father” → indef.sg. bappa-e ;nom.sg. furēta “demon” → indef.sg. furēta-e ; nom.sg. sūra “picture” (← Arab. sūrat) →indef.sg. sūra-e ; nom.sg. tila “shallow(s), shoal” → indef.sg. tila-e ; nom.sg. an̆ga “mouth”→ indef.sg. an̆ga-e ; etc.
c

c

c

c

c

˙

c

c

c

2.3.2.9.1.3. For i-stems cp., e.g., nom.sg. bakari “goat” → indef.sg. bakari-e ; nom.sg. tari“star” → indef.sg. tari-e ; nom.sg. vali “knife” → indef.sg. vali-e ; nom.sg. kotari “room” →indef.sg. kotari-e ; nom.sg. taśi “dish, plate” → indef.sg. taśi-e ; nom.sg. boli “shell” →indef.sg. boli-e ; nom.sg. kaśi “bone” → indef.sg. kaśi-e ; nom.sg. fośi “box” → indef.sg.
fośi-e ; nom.sg. fuśi “little island” → indef.sg. fuśi-e ; nom.sg. toli “bean” → indef.sg. toli-e ;nom.sg. dari “child” → indef.sg. dari-e etc.
c

c

˙

˙

˙

c

c

c

c

˙

c

˙

c

c

˙

c

c

2.3.2.9.1.3.1. From a synchronical point of view, the formation of the indefinite form seems
to be irregular in a small group of i-stems; but an interdialectal historical comparison reveals
the phonological background of the apparent irregularities. Cp., e.g., M. nom.sg. divehi“Maldivian, islander” → indef.sg. divesse ; nom.sg. gevehi “house-wife” → indef.sg. gevesse ;nom.sg. lāhi “1/4 kilogram” (traditional unit of measure) → indef.sg. lāsse etc. As was shown
above, the paradigmatic change of -h- and -ss- which in these i-stems occurs in all dialects,
is the result of a regular phonological process (cf. 2.3.2.7.1.2.2, 2.3.2.8.1.4.4 and 1.3.5).
ccc

2.3.2.9.1.3.2. In some i-stems, the addition of the indefinite suffix results in affrication andgemination of the consonant preceding the stem vowel. This, too, is a regular phonologicaldevelopment. Cf. M. nom.sg. dōni “boat, ship” → indef.sg. dōññe (← *dōnye ← *dōni-ek);nom.sg. dūni “bird” → indef.sg. dūññe (← *dūnye ← *dūni-ek); nom.sg. kujjā “child”(“frozen” definite form of *kudi-ā, stem kudi, cf. 2.3.2.9 above) → indef.sg. kujje (← *kudye← *kudi-ek); nom.sg. eti “thing” → indef.sg. ecce (← *etye ← *eti-ek; the oldest attestation ofthis form is written etyāk [sic] in L5 5/2,6; cf. also 1.3.9.2.1.) — For the declension of theparticular stem types cf. 2.3.2.13.1.
c

˙

c

c

˙

c

c

c

c

c

2.3.2.9.2. Plural formation in Māle2.3.2.9.2.1. In northern Dhivehi, the plural suffix -in/-un is added to the same class ofinherited animate nouns as in the southern dialects (cf. 2.3.2.7.4.1 and 2.3.2.8.2.2 above). Cp.,e.g., M. nom.sg. mı̄hā “man” → pl. mı̄hun; nom.sg. kujjā 〈ku jā〉 “child” → pl. kudin; nom.sg.
dari “child” → pl. darin; nom.sg. am̆bi 〈abi〉 “wife” → pl. am̆bin; nom.sg. firi “husband” →pl. firin; nom.pl. main bafain “parents” (plurale tantum); nom.sg. masveriā “fisherman” → pl.
masverin (mas “fish”); nom.sg. baiveriā “partner” → pl. baiverin (bai “part, half”); nom.sg.
ahuluveriā “inhabitant” → pl. ahuluverin (ahulu ← Arab. ahl “family”) etc.
In the modern colloquial language of Māle, the suffix -in/-un, originally confined to asmall, semantically restricted group of nouns, has been extended in its use in that it now
serves as the normal plural suffix of several foreign words denoting persons. Cp., e.g., vētaruc˙Number, definiteness and indefiniteness: Māle91← Engl. waiter → pl. vētarun; sekettrı̄ or sekretarı̄ ← Engl. secretary → pl. sekettrı̄n / sekretarı̄n; mehumānu ← Pers., Urdu mehmān “guest” → pl. mehumānun; šahı̄du ← Arab. (also Pers.,
Urdu) šahı̄d “martyr” → pl. šahı̄dun etc.
˙

˙˙

˙

˙˙

˙

2.3.2.9.2.2. In Māle the plural suffix -men occurs only with a few kinship terms. Cp., e.g.,
bappa 〈ba pa〉 “father” → pl. bappamen; mamma 〈manma〉 “mother” → pl. mammamen;bēbe “elder brother” → pl. bēbemen; kokko 〈ko ko〉 “younger brother / sister” → pl. kokkomen. As we can see from these examples, the rule of the southern dialects according to which-men can be combined only with the form of the definite nom.sg. is not applicable to theMāle standard language; here, the plural suffix is added to the nominal stem instead which isobsolete in southern Dhivehi but which has the function of a regular nom.sg. in the standard
language. There are no indications whatsoever in the older documents that this suffix wasever used outside the sphere of kinship terminology and a few other nouns or pronouns
denoting persons. Altogether, there are only two older attestations of the plural formation bymeans of -men, viz. in kalemen (F6,17, for kalēmen), originally meaning “sirs, ladies andgentlemen; high-ranking people” but nowadays used only as a pers.pron. of the 2.ps.pl.
“you” (cf. 2.6.2.4.3.1), and in the pronominal adjective emmen /ek-men/ (L2 2,5 and 34,1)“all together” (cf. 2.6.7.4.1, 2.6.7.4.2). The use of the suffix with nouns denoting animals,
which is common to the dialect of Addū and, even more so, to that of Fua Mulaku (cf.
2.3.2.7.4.2 and 2.3.2.8.2.3.2), seems to be unknown in North Dhivehi. Even though the suffix-men plays a less important role in the plural formation of the standard language, it is surprising that it has been completely ignored as a plural suffix in all treatises on Dhivehi so far.
c

c

c

˙˙

c

2.3.2.9.2.3. The suffix -ta /-tak/ has become the most frequent plural formant of northern
Dhivehi. It can be used with any animate and inanimate noun and, furthermore, be added to
any nominal stem; thus we may regard it as the most neutral plural suffix. For the derivationof -ta which originated in an originally independent word meaning “so many / much”, cf.
2.3.2.2.2 and 2.3.2.3; cp. also the declension pattern given in 2.3.2.13.3. For the use of thesuffix cp. the following examples which illustrate different semantical spheres and inflectionalclasses: nom.sg. bakari “goat” → pl. bakarita ; nom.sg. tari “star” → pl. tarita ; nom.sg. vali
“knife” → pl. valita ; nom.sg. kotari “room” → pl. kotarita ; nom.sg. taśi “dish, plate” → pl.
taśita ; nom.sg. in̆gili “finger, toe” → pl. in̆gilita ; nom.sg. fuśi “little island” → pl. fuśita ;nom.sg. duni “bow” → pl. dunita ; nom.sg. beru “drum” → pl. beruta ; nom.sg. doru “door”→ pl. doruta ; nom.sg. magu “street, road” → pl. maguta ; nom.sg. hōnu “gecko” → pl.
hōnuta ; nom.sg. bis “egg” → pl. bista ; nom.sg. mas “fish” → pl. masta ; nom.sg. gas “tree”→ pl. gasta ; nom.sg. es “precious stone” → pl. esta ; nom.sg. fan “leaf of the coconut tree”→ pl. fanta ; nom.sg. ru /ruk/ “coconut tree” → pl. rutta /ruk-tak/; nom.sg. foi /fot/ “book”→ pl. foita /fot-tak/; nom.sg. bile /bilet/ “betel (tree and leaf)” → pl. biletta ; nom.sg. ra /raś/“island, land” → pl. ratta /raś-tak/ etc.
c

c

˙

c

c

˙

c

˙

c

˙

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

˙˙

c

In a few cases, -in/-un and -ta occur side by side as a double suffix. Thus, the only correct
plural form of the nom.sg. eduru “teacher” is edurunta . In the plural form mı̄hunta , however, a special meaning is still perceivable. In correspondence with the original meaning of
the suffix -ta , mı̄hunta means “(so) many people / men” while the primary plural mı̄hun has
to be translated simply by “people / men”.
c

c

c

c

92

Morphology

2.3.2.9.2.4. As in Addū, the nouns denoting “boats” or “ships” go beyond the scope of thenormal plural formation in Māle as well (cf. 2.3.2.7.3.2 and 2.3.2.6). While in Addū thenouns in question are defective concerning the formation of the definite and indefinite
singular and of the plural form, a special formant -faharu is used for their plural formationin Māle.295 Cp., e.g., nom.sg. dōni → pl. dōni-faharu; nom.sg. odi → pl. odi-faharu; nom.sg.
batteli 〈ba teli〉 → pl. batteli-faharu; nom.sg. bokkurā 〈bo kurā〉 → pl. bokkurā-faharu;
nom.sg. bōtu → pl. bōtu-faharu; nom.sg. nā → pl. nā-faharu.
Probably -faharu is connected with the homophone faharu “times” (cp., e.g., de faharu“two times”). In two later fatkolus the word in question is attested in the indefinite form of
the dative. In the given contexts it can still be interpreted as meaning “single, one after
another”;296 cf. F13,12, where faharu has the same syntagmatic status as dōni and odi: ...
odi-ak-at dōny-ak-at pahar-ak-at ... “to an odi, a dōni, one after another” (-ak indef. suffix,-at dat. ending); cf. also F11,37: odyakan pahurakan “to an odi, to a single one”.297 Bothsyntactically and semantically, the given examples illustrate how faharu could develop into
a plural suffix. BELL (1922-35, 79/1926, 267) already noted odi-faharu and dóni-faharu (sic)as plural forms in the modern sense.
Sometimes also -ta is used as a plural suffix of words denoting ships; this, however,seems to be true for deep-sea vessels only, cp. dōni-ta or odi-ta .
˙˙

˙˙

˙

˙

c

c

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙
˙

˙

˙

c

c

˙

c

2.3.2.10. Declension types
An appropriate classification of the declension types of Dhivehi can only be given in directconnection with the stem classes, if the synchronical status as well as the most importantdiachronical developments are to be taken account of. As mentioned above, the nominal
morphology of the Addū dialect is particularly conservative but also very transparent from theformal point of view; thus, the declension types of this vernacular are predestined to serve asa general parameter for the whole Dhivehi speaking area. Therefore, the declension tables ofAddū will be given in the first place here.
In contrast to the personal pronouns which in the southernmost dialects still show theinherited morphological differentiation between the direct (nominative) and the oblique cases,
the nouns are characterised by an almost complete coincidence of these case forms whosebasic functional difference can be summarised by the following rule: If the predicate is a
finite verb, the subject of the sentence will be in the nominative; but if the predicate isexpressed by an infinite verb, the subject can only appear in the form of the oblique case (cf.
also 2.1.1.). In the modern language, this difference can only be expressed by syntacticalmeans. From a synchronical point of view, it is therefore necessary to differentiate aninherited (morphological) and a functional (syntactical) oblique case, the first being identicalwith the nominal stem and serving as a basic form from which all other cases except for thenominative are derived. The functional casus obliquus, on the other hand, can also occur asa “frozen” definite form. A purely formal differentiation between nominative and obliquecases of nouns being impossible, the latter will be neglected in the following tables.
˙˙

˙˙

295

Cf. DBG, 16 where -faharu is noted as a plural formant for words denoting “ship, boat etc.”, too.
Thus the basic meaning according to oral information by ASSAN SAcĪD as of March, 7 1999.
297
For the spelling of final - by 〈-n〉 cf. 3.6.3.2.3.
296

Ḣ

ṫ

ū
ḋ

ḋ

Declension types: A

93

2.3.2.11. Addū
In the following paragraphs, only nouns with a complete paradigm of both the singular(definite / indefinite) and plural will serve as examples of the particular declension types.
˙˙

2.3.2.11.1. On the basis of the ending of the primary (i.e. plural) genitive which represents theprimary paradigm, the consonant stems can be subdivided into two main types. The nounsof type I and Ia have a gen.pl. ending in -e, while those of type Ib end in -i. The historicalreasons for this divergency are still unknown; but from the synchronical data we can see thatthe ending in -i is confined to nouns showing -a- as the vowel of the last syllable of theirstem.298 The difference between type I and subtype Ia can be described as follows: in thecase of type I the ending -in of the abl.sg. does not merge with the final -ā of the definite
stem, while subtype Ia shows a contraction into -ān.
2.3.2.11.1.1. A. type I: cons.-stemsg. (def. form)pl. (primary paradigm)

nom.

mı̄delāmı̄deu /mı̄del/gen.

mı̄delāimı̄deledat.

mı̄delā /mı̄del-ā-aś/mı̄dela /mı̄del-aś/abl.

mı̄delāinmı̄delunsg. (def. form)pl. (primary paradigm)cmı̄del- “mouse, rat”c

2.3.2.11.1.2. A. type Ia: cons.-stemges- “tree”
nom.

gehā /ges-ā/

ges

gen.

gehāi /ges-ā-i/gehe /ges-e/
c

c

dat.

gehā /ges-ā-aś/geha /ges-aś/abl.

gehān /ges-ā-in/gehun /ges-un/

mas- “fish”

sg. (def. form)pl. (primary paradigm)nom.

mahā /mas-ā/mas

2.3.2.11.1.3. A. type Ib: cons.-stemgen.

mahāi /mas-ā-i/dat.

mahā /mas-ā-aś/maha /mas-aś/abl.

mahāin /mas-ā-in/mahun /mas-un/mahi /mas-i/
c

c

298
This rule seems not to be reversible without exceptions, however, because in A ū there are also a few
examples of consonant stems with the vowel -a- in the last syllable of the stem and the genitive of the primaryparadigm ending in -e: cp., e.g., nom.(sg.) kan̆ a “ocean, open sea” → gen. kan̆ e ; nom.(pl.) jam̆bu “rose apple”→ gen. jam̆be; nom.(sg./pl.) va a “well” → gen. va e .

ḋ

ḋ

ḋ

ḋ

ḋ

ḋ

94

Morphology

2.3.2.11.1.4. Consonant stems with a secondary final short vowel, are subject to the phonological rules as described in 2.3.2.11.1, independently from the quality of the secondary vowel
occurring in the nom.sg. Cp. the following examples:
2.3.2.11.1.4.1. A. type I: cons.-stemsg. (def. form)pl. (primary paradigm)nom.

jam̆burōzājam̆burōzu

gen.

jam̆burōzāijam̆burōzedat.

jam̆burōzācjam̆burōzaabl.

jam̆burōzāinjam̆burōzun

sg. (def. form)pl. (primary paradigm)

nom.

madā

mada

gen.

madāi

madi

dat.

madā

c

mada

abl.

madāincjam̆burōz- “star-apple”

2.3.2.11.1.4.2. A. type Ib: cons.-stemcmad- “nut, kernel”

madun

2.3.2.11.2. The characteristic feature of a-stems consists in the fact that the stem-final -a does
not change throughout the case forms of the primary declension. The (secondary) singularparadigm of this type is based on a definite form in -ā as well.
2.3.2.11.2.1. A. type II: a-stemkuruba- “young coconut”

sg. (def. form)pl. (primary paradigm)

nom.

kurubā /kuruba-ā/

kurubagen.

kurubāi /kuruba-ā-i/kurubai /kuruba-i/
c

c

dat.

kurubā /kuruba-ā-aś/kurubā /kuruba-aś/abl.

kurubāin /kuruba-ā-in/kurubain /kuruba-in/

2.3.2.11.3. Of i-stems, there are three variants. Type III, the morphologically basic type,consists of a few nouns only; it is characterised by a stable root vowel which does not change
throughout the paradigm. In contrast to that, the nouns of type IIIa show a lengthening of theroot vowel in the genitive and the dative of the primary (plural) paradigm, in conjunction
with a loss of the stem vowel -i. IIIb is a subtype of IIIa; here the stem vowel -i is precededby an original /s/ which is preserved as a geminate in the genitive and dative of the primaryparadigm (mostly also in the def. and indef. nom.sg.); the root vowel preceding this geminate
can never be lengthened. The other case forms show a regular interchange of intervocalic /s/and /h/ according to the common sound laws.

ū
ḋ

ḋ

Declension types: A

95

2.3.2.11.3.1. A. type III: i-stemsg. (def. form)

geri “cattle”

pl. (primary paradigm)

nom.

gerie /geri-ā/

geri

gen.

geriei /geri-ā-i/gerie /geri-e/

dat.

geriea /geri-ā-aś/

geria /geri-aś/abl.

geriein /geri-ā-in/gerin /geri-in/

tari- “star”

sg. (def. form)pl. (primary paradigm)

nom.

tarie /tari-ā/

tari

c

c

2.3.2.11.3.2. A. type IIIa: i-stemgen.

tariei /tari-ā-i/dat.

tariea /tari-ā-aś/tāra /tari-aś/abl.

tariein /tari-ā-in/tarin /tari-in/

sg. (def. form)pl. (primary paradigm)

messā /mesi-ā/; mēhā (secondary)mehitāre /tari-e/cc2.3.2.11.3.3. A. type IIIb: i-stemmehi- “fly”
nom.
gen.

mehiei /mesi-ā-i/dat.

mehiea /mesi-ā-aś/

messa /mesi-aś/abl.

mehiein /mesi-ā-in/mehin /mesi-in/

messe /mesi-e/cc2.3.2.11.4. From a formal point of view, the stem class of the word in question is insignificant for the declension of nouns denoting persons. The declension pattern of type IV is
distinguished from all the other paradigms by the appearance of a pronominal genitive ending-ge and by an analytic formation of the ablative which consists of the genitive form combinedwith farātun “by (means, help of), from the side of”, serving as a postposition here. Depending on their plural formation, the nouns in question can be further divided into subtypes IVa(suffix -un/-in) and IVb (suffix -men).
2.3.2.11.4.1. A. type IVa (denoting persons):mı̄s- “man”

sg. (def. form)pl. (secondary) -un/-innom.

mı̄hā /mı̄s-ā/mı̄hun /mı̄s-un/

gen.

mı̄hāge /mı̄s-ā-ge/

mı̄hunge /mı̄s-un-ge/

dat.

mı̄hā /mı̄s-ā-aś/mı̄hunna /mı̄s-un-aś/abl.

mı̄hāge farātun

mı̄hunge farātun

c

c

96

Morphology

2.3.2.11.4.2. A. type IVb (denoting persons):sg. (def. form)

kokko- “younger brother/sister”

pl. (secondary) -mennom.

kokkō /kokko-ā/

kokkōmen /kokko-ā-men/gen.

kokkōge /kokko-ā-ge/

kokkōmenge /kokko-ā-men-ge/

dat.

kokkōa /kokko-ā-aś/kokkōmenna /kokko-ā-men-aś/abl.

kokkōge farātun

kokkōmenge farātun

c

c

c

2.3.2.12. Fua Mulaku
Regarding their basic structure, the declension types of the Fua Mulaku dialect correspondwith those of Addū to a high extent. The particular declension classes occurring in Fua
Mulaku cannot be outlined with the same transparency as in the neighbour dialect of Addū,
however. This fact can be explained by interferences of different kinds; thus, on the one hand,
we observe special developments in the field of phonetics, phonology and morphology in the
different vernaculars of the eight original villages of Fua Mulaku which are merging more
and more, and, on the other hand, there is an increasing influence of the standard language.
Consequently, the tables given below cannot be more than a guideline for understanding themain types, the corresponding Addū paradigms serving as a general parameter. Without
comparing the declension patterns of Addū which are still “intact” from a diachronic pointof view, it would be hard to systematise and to describe the numerous irregularities of thecase endings and the frequent morphonological changes of the nominal roots occurring in the
dialect of Fua Mulaku.
c

c

˙˙

˙˙

c

˙˙

˙˙

c

2.3.2.12.1. In the declension of consonant stems, the ending of the gen.sg. varies between -i,-e and -ei, the two latter variants obviously emerging on the level of phonetic realisation. In
some cases, the genitive endings are exact equivalents of those of declension types I, Ia andIb in Addū,299 but there are also correspondences of (1) F. gen. -e vs. A. gen. -i, (2) F. gen.
-i vs. A. gen. -e, and (3) F. gen. -ei vs. A. gen. -e, -i, which can only to a limited degree be
traced back to phonological regularities. The rule described in 2.3.2.11.1 for Addū, according
to which for consonant stems the quality of the vowel of the last stem syllable decides
whether the genitive ends in -e or -i, is only to a certain extent applicable to the corresponding nouns in Fua Mulaku (cf. F. maha, A. mas “fish”, gen. mah-i etc.). As the following
examples show, the genitive ending is hardly predictable in Fua Mulaku, cp. for (1) A. bala,F. balo “dog” → gen. A. bal-i, F. bal-e; A. himāra, F. himāro “donkey” → gen. A. himār-i,
F. himār-e; A. nana, F. nano “fishing line” → gen. A. nan-i, F. nan-e. While in Addū a (shortor long) -a¯˘ in the last syllable of the stem is responsible for a genitive ending in -i, there aremany cases in Fua Mulaku to which this rule cannot be applied, as the given examples show.
˙˙

˙˙

c

c

˙

˙

˙˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

c

299
Cf. 2.3.2.11.1; cp., e.g., A.F. mū u “face”, gen. mū - e; A.F. bin /bim/ “earth, land”, gen. bim-e; A.F. dun/dum/ “smoke”, gen. dum-e; A. mas, F. maha “fish”, A.F. gen. mah-i; A.F. kan /kam/ “fact; verb”, gen. kam-i;
A. han̆da, F. han̆do “moon”, A.F. gen. han̆d-i; A. mau, F. mal “flower”, A.F. gen. mal-i; A.F. fua /fuak/ “arecanut”, gen. fuak-i.

ṅ

c

ṅ

c

Declension types: Fua Mulaku

97

For the divergence of A. gen. -e, F. gen. -i (2), cp. A. nom.pl. beleu /belel/ “cats” (sg.def.
belelā “the cat”) → gen.pl. belel-e vs. F. nom.pl. belal (sg. belal(u)) → gen.pl. belal-i;
A. nom.pl. mı̄deu /mı̄del/ “mice, rats” (sg.def. mı̄delā) → gen.pl. mı̄del-e vs. F. nom.pl. mı̄dal(sg. mı̄dal(u)) → gen.pl. mı̄dal-i (for the peculiar number formation characterising these two
nouns in Fua Mulaku, cf. 2.3.2.12.5.5). Note that in both these cases, the vowel of the laststem-syllable is an a in the Fua Mulaku variant which may have caused the -i of the primary
genitive.
˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

c

c

According to the sound laws, the final -e of the genitive A. be e l-e (nom. A. be e u) can be explained by thelast stem-syllable not containing an a vowel. In this case we must consider that the e occurring in the last stemsyllable of A. be e u has to be regarded as a secondary vowel as the inter-Maldivian correspondences F. be a lu
and M. bu ā /bu a l/ and extra-Maldivian cognates show; cp. Sinh. sg.def. ba a lā (stem ba a l), but also older
forms of this word such as Pa. bi āra-, bi āla-, Skt. bi āla- “cat” (cf. GEIGER 1941, 120, no. 1791 and TURNER
1966, II, 521, no. 9237). In Addū, the original a seems to have developed into e across the retroflex l, probably
under the influence of the preceding e. There are many examples of a similar adaptation among the consonant
stems enlarged with final -u.300 In the case of A. mı̄deu “mouse, rat” which has no retroflex consonant thatmight have caused such a change of the vowel, the e of the last stem syllable can possibly be explained byassuming an analogical influence of the word denoting “cat” (cp. M. mı̄dā /mı̄dal/, Sinh. sg.def. mı̄yā, stem mı̄;Pa. mūsika-, OIA m. mū´ - , mū´ i kā-; cf. GEIGER 1941, 135, no. 2015 and TURNER 1966, II, 592, no. 10258).
l̇

l̇

l̇

l̇

l̇

l̇

l̇

ḋ

˙

l̇

l̇

l̇

˙˙
ṡ

ṡ

For the divergence of the type F. gen. -ei, A. gen. -e/-i (3), there are numerous examples;
cp. A.F. kaduru “date (palm)” → gen. A. kadur-e, F. kadur-ei; A. dora, F. doro “door” →gen. A. dor-e, F. dor-ei; A. huvan̆da, F. huvan̆do “fragrance, perfume” → gen. A. huvan̆d-i,
F. huvan̆d-ei; A. kośāra, F. kośāro “store-house” → gen. A. kośār-i, F. kośār-ei). As in thecase of the genitive variants discussed above, the occurrence of the genitive ending F. -ei is
not predictable. Probably these differences can be explained by local phonetic variation.
c

2.3.2.12.2. The dative ending -aśa (← -ata), which is typical for Fua Mulaku, occurs only inconnection with the following features: 1) in the case of all stems in -ā that go back todefinite forms (cp., e.g., bappā “father” → dat. bappāśa; mı̄hā “man, person” → dat. mı̄hāśa;
kokkō “younger brother/sister” (← *kokkoā, → dat. kokkōśa) or are loanwords (cp., e.g. haftā
“week” → dat. haftāśa; fullā “deer” → dat. fullāśa); 2) as a rule, in the case of a-stems, witha concomitant lengthening of the stem-final -a into -ā (cp., e.g., fia “wing” → dat. fiāśa, dea“water, liquid” → dat. deāśa); 3) in the case of all consonant stems in -VhV (← F. *-VsV← Dhiv. -Vs) (cp., e.g., gehe ← ges “tree” → dat. gehaśa; maha ← mas “fish” → dat. mahaśa;faha ← fas “soil” → dat. fahaśa); 4) in the case of some consonant stems which either show
an archaic declension pattern or which are obsolete now; the words in question preserve thefinal -u characterising the oblique case together with the dative ending, so that they look likeu-stems. Cp., e.g., mituru “friend” (obs.) → dat. mituruśa; belalu “cat” → dat. belaluśa;midalu “mouse, rat” → dat. midaluśa.
In all other cases, the dative ending is -aha; this is true for all consonant stems (with the
exception of the original “s-stems”, cf. type 3) above) and all i-stems. It cannot be decidedwith certainty whether -aha is etymologically distinct from -aśa or whether all the variantsof the dative ending that occur in Fua Mulaku can be explained as allomorphs of an underlying -ata (cf. 2.3.1.1.3.2). — As to the i-stems, particular changes of the dative ending led tothe existence of two subgroups which can be characterised as follows: 1) The nominal root˙c˙Cp., e.g., A. ate e “atoll” vs. M. ato u ← ate u ; for this sound change cf. 1.2.4.4.

˙

˙

l̇

l̇

l̇

300

98

Morphology

remains unchanged throughout the whole paradigm (cf. also 2.3.2.7.1.2.1), the dative ending
always being -aha (cp., e.g., boli “shell” → dat. boliaha; jōli “Maldivian chair” → dat.
jōliaha; māvahi “large wave in the open sea” → dat. māvahiaha). A subtype within this groupis characterised by a reduction of the ending -aha to -hā, without a change of the root. There
are also some words showing both forms, such as jangali “jungle” (→ dat. jangaliaha andjangalihā) or aśi “low table” (→ dat. aśiaha and aśihā). Many words possess only the reduced
form of the ending; cp., e.g., ali “light” → dat. alihā; bakari “goat” → dat. bakarihā; dōni“dhoni-boat” → dat. dōnihā). 2) The root vowel of disyllabic i-stems is either lengthened
throughout the whole paradigm or (in rare cases) only in particular forms of the paradigm, thestem vowel -i being lost (cf. also 2.3.2.8.1.4.2). In these cases, the dative ending -aha remains
unchanged; cp., e.g., dēli “ink” → dat. dēlaha; b¯aśi
˛ “brinjal” → dat. b¯aśaha;
˛
dı̄ni “bird” →dat. dı̄naha. The same holds true for trisyllabic i-stems which normally do not show alengthening of the root vowel but are characterised by a loss of the stem vowel -i; cp., e.g.,
akiri “coral stone” → dat. akiraha; atiri “beach on the inner side of the atoll” → dat. atiraha;fiohi “knife” → dat. fiossaha etc.
˙

˙

˙

˙

2.3.2.12.3. While in the dialects of Addū and Māle, the vocalism of the ablative ending
depends on the stem in question, there is only a uniform ending -en in Fua Mulaku. For
consonant stems, cp., e.g., a /at/ “hand, arm” → abl. at-en; aharo “year” → abl. ahar-en;mūnu “face” → abl. mūn-en; for i-stems, cp., e.g., aśi “low table” → abl. aśi-en; akiri “coralstone” → abl. akiren (← akiri-en); dēli “ink” → abl. dēlen (← dēli-en); for a-stems, cp., e.g.,
attela “palm” → abl. attela-en, fia “wing” → abl. fia-en; buma “eyebrow” → abl. buma-en.
˙˙

c

c

˙

˙

c

2.3.2.12.4. In Fua Mulaku, there are also some cases of analytic case formation. As a rule,nouns denoting persons form their ablatives either by means of the stem form in combination
with the postposition aten (lit. “by / from the hand (of)”, abl./instr. of a /at/ “hand”) or bymeans of the genitive combined with the postposition farāten (“frozen” abl. “from the sideof”, cf. 2.3.2.11.4). Cp., e.g., dāri aten “from (the side of) the child”, dārun aten “from thechildren”; kāfāge farāten “from the grandfather”, kābafaunge farātun “from the ancestors”(for the genitive ending -ge cf. 2.3.2.11.4). In very rare cases, the stem of nouns denoting
animals is combined with the word gai “body” which, albeit being fully inflectible, has noother function than that of a formal element (cp. the examples given in 2.3.2.12.5.5 below).
c

2.3.2.12.5. The tables below will show only those declension paradigms that can be considered as prototypes in the dialect of Fua Mulaku. For the phonetical and phonologicalvariants of the genitive and dative forms cf. 2.3.2.12.1 and 2.3.2.12.2 above.
c

2.3.2.12.5.1. Consonant stemssg.

“fish”“face”“date (palm)”

nom.

mah-a

mūn-ukadur-u

˙

gen.

mah-i

mūn-e˙kadur-eidat.

mah-aśamūn-aha˙kadur-ahaabl.

mah-enmūn-enkadur-en˙cDeclension types: Fua Mulaku

99

2.3.2.12.5.2. i-stems
sg.

“shell”“goat”“brinjal”“knife”

nom.

boli

bakarib¯aśi
˛

fiohi

gen.

boli-ebakari-eb¯aś-e˛fioss-edat.

boli-ahabakari-hāb¯aś-aha
˛fioss-ahaabl.

boli-enbakari-enb¯aś-en˛fioss-en

2.3.2.12.5.3. a-stems
sg.

“shallows”

nom.

tela

gen.

tela-idat.

telāśa /tela-aśa/abl.

tela-en

2.3.2.12.5.4. Declension pattern of nouns designating persons:“mother”

nom.

“child”

singularpluralsingularpluralmammā (def.)

mammā-mendāri (i-stem)dārun301

gen.

mammā-ge

mammāmen-gedāri-gedārun-ge

dat.

mammāśa /mammā-aśa/mammāmenna /mammā-men-aś/dār-ahadārunna /dārun-aś/abl.

mammāge farāten

mammāmenge farātendāri atendārun atencc2.3.2.12.5.5. In the case of a few consonant stems designating animals (belal(u) “cat”,
mı̄dal(u) “mouse, rat”, nannigattu “snake”) which have to be regarded as exceptions, theoriginal plural meaning of the primary declension has been conserved in Fua Mulaku until
present; in these cases, a singularised paradigm cannot be built from the definite form,
however. Instead of that, the nominative ending in -u in most cases (but not always) has themeaning of a singular, while the corresponding form without u (being the original obliquecase) in most cases represents the plural. Besides that, there is an analytic declension type (sg.
II) consisting of the oblique case and the noun gai “body” which has only singular meaning.
The regular plural is formed by means of the suffixes -men and -te /-tek/. The word nannigati302 (pl.) “snake” has no primary singular (sg. I) at all, a singularised paradigm with thenom. nannigattu can only be built analytically. The following table may serve as an illustration of the complicated situation.
˙

c

c

301
302

For this formation cf. 2.3.2.8.2.2.
This noun obviously represents a taboo-word, *nam-ni-gati “the one not having received a name”.

100

Morphology“mouse, rat”

sg. I

sg. II

pl. (primary)nom.

mı̄dalumı̄dalumı̄dalgen.

mı̄dalimı̄dalu gaimı̄dalidat.

mı̄daluśamı̄dalu gāśamı̄dalahaabl.

mı̄dalenmı̄dalu gaenmı̄dalen

“cat”

sg. I

sg. II

pl. (primary)nom.

belalu˙belalu
˙

belal

gen.

belali˙belalu gai

belalidat.

belaluśa˙belalu gāśabelalahaabl.

belalenbelalu gaen

belalen“snake”

sg. I

sg. II

pl. (primary)nannigattu

nannigati

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

nom.
gen.

nannigattu gai

nannigattedat.

nannigattu gāśanannigattahaabl.

nannigattu gaennannigaten

2.3.2.13. Māle
In contrast to the numerous dialectal differences we find in the declension patterns of thesouthern dialects, the nominal inflection of northern Dhivehi is rather uniform, the paradigmsof the standard language being representative for the whole dialectal area. As against thesynthetic-inflectional declension paradigms of the southern dialects, north Dhivehi has moreagglutinative features. Only the formation of the dative and ablative follows the traditional
patterns, the case-marking suffixes (dat. -a /-aś/, abl. -in/-un) being exact correspondences of
those of the Addū-dialect. The genitive suffix -ge which in the southernmost dialects occurs
only with nouns denoting persons, has been generalised in the standard language, now
representing the only suffix with the meaning of a genitive. While in the southern dialects
locative functions are expressed by the genitive (or a common gen./loc.) or (in the case ofindefinite nouns) the oblique case, the language of Māle possesses a special locative which
is characterised by the suffix -gā /-gai/. Without a doubt this suffix must be identified withthe gen./loc. of the substantive gai “body”. Thus, M. gahu-gā originally means “at/in the
body of the tree”.303 The combination of the oblique case of a basic noun with gai “in, atthe body”, here appearing in the function of a locative, corresponds to the formation of asecondary analytic singular paradigm occurring in Fua Mulaku (cf. 2.3.2.12.5.5); in Māle,this has been restricted to the form of the locative.
Except for the nominative (or direct) case, all case forms are derived from a stem whichwith all probability originally had the function of a casus obliquus. In stems ending in avowel, this is characterised by a lengthening of the stem-final short vowel reappearing in
c

˙˙

c

303

The connection of the locative suffix -gā with Sinh. gāvā “near” which has been suggested by HLSD,
44, must be excluded because of phonological reasons, cf. GEIGER (1919), 67.

Declension types: Māle101

formation of the genitive and locative cases. In a-stems, the lengthened vowel is surprisingly
spelled with 〈-ai-〉; cp., e.g., 〈an̆gaige〉, 〈an̆gaigai〉 “of/in the mouth”. Possibly this spelling
can be explained by assuming an underlying synthetic form of the genitive as the one we findin southern Dhivehi (an̆gai), to which the suffix -ge, now serving as the only genitive ending,might have been added in a redundant way. Such a double formation of the genitive would
be imaginable for a transitional stage between the original synthetic inflection and the modern
agglutinative pattern; thus, the spelling 〈an̆gai-〉 could have conserved a “stage of formal
uncertainty”. From the point of view of historical linguistics, however, this association would
not be correct because the agglutinative genitive in -ge seems always to have been derived
directly from the stem (or the casus obliquus) as consonant stems show (cp., e.g., gahu-ge“of the tree”). Maybe the spelling 〈-ai-〉 for a lengthened before the locative suffix can be
explained by an adaptation to the spelling of the genitive as there cannot be any doubt thatin the given case the suffix -gā originally was added to the oblique case as well.
2.3.2.13.1. The following table will give an illustration of the widely uniform character of thesingular declension types of the different stem classes:
sg.

cons. stem
“tree”

i-stem“room”

a-stem“mouth”

root noun“house”frozen def.form
“man”

nom.

gas

ko a rian̆gage

mı̄hā

gen.

gahu-geko a rı̄-gean̆gā-ge 〈an̆gaige〉gē-gemı̄hā-ge

dat.

cmı̄hā /mı̄hā-aś/

c

ṫ

c

ko a ri-a /-aś/

gah-unkotarı̄n /kotari-in/an̆ga-inge-inmı̄hā-inloc.

gahu-gā /-gai/

ko a rı̄-gā /-gai/an̆gā-gā 〈an̆gaigai〉

gē-gā /-gai/mı̄hā-gā /-gai/(obl.)(gahu)(ko a rı̄)(an̆gā 〈an̆gai〉)(gē)(mı̄hā)can̆gā /an̆ga-aś/cṫgah-a /-aś/abl.

ge-a /-aś/

ṫ

˙

˙

ṫ

ṫ

2.3.2.13.2. The following table illustrates the declension of the consonant stem gas “tree” inthe indefinite singular and the plural. The suffix -aku characterising the indefinite casus
obliquus (cf. 2.3.2.3.1) is combined with the inherited case-endings of the dative, /-ak-aś/ andthe ablative/instrumental, /-ak-un/, while the nominative variant of the suffix, -e /-ek/, occurs
only in combination with the secondary case forms of the genitive, /-ek-ge/ and the locative,/-ek-gai/. The arrangement of the suffixes marking indefiniteness and plural follows a strictly
hierarchical order; this can clearly be seen in the formation of the indefinite plural which
consists of the nominal stem + plural suffix + indefinite suffix + case suffix. The example
given below can be taken as a prototype of the other stems as well.
cnom.

gahe /gas-ek/

c

obl.

gahaku /gas-aku/

gen.

gahegge /-ek-ge/

dat.

gahak-a /-aś/

indef. pl.
gastake /gas-tak-ek/
gastakegge /-ek-ge/cindef. sg.

c“tree”

gastakak-a /-aś/

c

abl.

gahak-ungastakak-un

loc.

gaheggā /-ek-gai/gastakeggā /-ek-gai/

102

Morphology

2.3.2.13.3. The following table shows the plural declension of nouns which uses the suffixes-ta /-tak/, -in/-un and -men. For the use of the two latter plural suffixes cf. 2.3.2.9.2.1 and2.3.2.9.2.2. The words serving as examples are gas “tree”, mı̄hā “man” (stem mı̄s), dari“child” and bappa “father”.
cplural“tree”“people”“children”“fathers”

nom.
gen.

gas-ta /gas-tak/mı̄hun /mı̄s-un/

darin /dari-in/

bappa-men

gas-taku-gemı̄hun-ge

darin-gebappa-men-ge

dat.

gas-tak-a /-aś/mı̄hunna /mı̄sun-aś/

darinna /darin-aś/bappa-menna /-men-aś/abl.

gas-tak-un

mı̄hun-ge farātun

darin-ge farātunbappā-men-ge farātun

loc.

gas-taku-gā /-gai/mı̄hun-gā /-gai/darin-gā /-gai/bappa-men-gā /-gai/

c

c

c

c

c

2.4. The adjective
Dhivehi is one of the few Modern IA languages (besides Sinhalese, Bengali, Assamese,
Oriya; cf. ZOGRAF 1976, 137 or MASICA 1991, 251) in which the adjective does not change
its form at all. Thus, the categories of case and number as well as the degrees of comparison
cannot be expressed by the adjective itself. From the morphological point of view, it makes
no difference whether an adjective has the function of an attribute or a predicate. The onlychanges that may occur are certain sandhi-effects concerning adjectives in predicative position
when they are followed by a word with an initial vowel, such as the quotation marker [ē],
written 〈eve〉. Cp., e.g., M. mi kotari rı̄ccē (rı̄ti + ē304) “this room is beautiful” as againstrı̄ti kotari-e /-ek/ “a beautiful room”.
˙c˙

2.4.1. In Dhivehi most of the adjectives are not morphologically distinct from substantive
stems; cp., e.g., M. ā, A. au, F. al “new”; M. bā, A. bau, F. bal “old, ancient, antique”;
M. bı̄ru, A.F. bı̄ri “deaf”; M. digu, A.F. digi “tall” (of human beings); M.A. avas, F. avaha“rapid, fast”; M. bodu, A. bon̆da, F. bon̆do “big, large”; M. ran̆galu, A. ran̆gala, F. ran̆galo“beautiful, pretty; good, right”; M.A.F. don “fair (haired and skinned)”; M.A.F. duru “far”;
M.A.F. huturu “ugly”; M. hima, A.F. hema “thin” (e.g. of pencils); M.A. hiki, F. hı̄ki “dry;thin, meagre”, etc.
As a rule, every nominal stem (i.e. the oblique case of a noun) can be used as an adjective
if this is not excluded by the meaning. Because of their specific semantics, qualifying andquantifying terms are especially apt to such a double use. Hence, in many cases it is clear
from the context only whether a given noun has to be regarded as an adjective or a substantive. Cp., e.g., the following examples which illustrate the use of ran “gold, of gold, golden”
and rihi “silver, of silver, silver(y)” as a substantive: ... mı̄ ranun o molōgan̆da “... this wasa golden axe”, lit. “of gold” (abl./instr.; T3, 35); as an attributive adjective: ... ran molōgan̆dāi rihi molōgan̆dāi ... “with the golden axe and with the silver axe” (T3, 48; molōgan̆dā-āi def. form + particle -āi “and”). For other examples of nouns of this type cp.
M. hūnu, A.F. hunu “heat; hot, warm”; M. hulan̆gu, A. hulan̆ga, F. hulan̆go “West, west
wind; western”; M.A.F. mugu “lentil, gram; green”; M. majā “amusing, exciting; fun”;
˙

c

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

c

˙
˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙
˙

˙

/rı̄ti-eve/ → *rı̄tyē → rı̄ccē; cf. 1.3.9.2.1.

˙

304

The adjective

103

M. baru, A. bara, F. baro “heavy; load”; M.F. bali (A. nikameti) “weak, sick”, M.F.A. “illness, disease” etc.
2.4.2. Loan adjectives, which to a large extent come directly from Arabic, are used without
formal changes. If necessary, they are adapted to the phonetical system of Dhivehi; in manycases, however, such adaptations do not effect the spelling because the original writing is
generally imitated. Cp., e.g., M. hagı̄gı̄ 〈haqı̄qı̄〉 “real” ← Arab. haqı̄qı̄ “real, true, original”;
M. fagı̄ru 〈faqı̄ru〉, A.F. fakı̄ri “poor” ← Arab. faqı̄r “poor (one)”; M.A.F. tāzā “fresh”← Pers. tāza (in modern pronunciation tāze) “fresh, young, new”.
˙

2.4.3. Depending on the meaning of the verbs in question, the participles of the present andthe preterite can be used as adjectives as well. In the modern language, there are many
participial adjectives that are used independently of the original verbs, which in some cases
are obsolete nowadays; cp., e.g., the participle M. gulē “fitting, appropriate, suitable”(part.pres. of gulenı̄ “to be combined (with)”), with its “frozen” negated form nu gulē now
meaning “irrelevant”, or M. dirē “being alive, living” (part.pres. of direnı̄ “to come intolife”). Some of the participial formations have become idiomatic in the modern language, in
syntagms consisting of a nominal and a verbal part. Cp., e.g., M. agu huri “expensive,
precious”, lit. “price being (there)” (agu “value, price”; huri part.pret. of hunnanı̄ “to be,stand, stay, remain”) or M. kamu nu dē “hopeless”, lit. “fact not giving” (kamu obl. “fact”,
nu “not”, dē part.pres. of denı̄ “to give”).
˙˙˙

2.4.4. There are only a few adjectives in Dhivehi that are characterised by formal features
which distinguish them morphologically from nouns. At least two suffixal elements that areused to derive adjectives from nouns must be noted in this context: first, the originallyindependent nominal stem veri occurring in this function most frequently in Māle and,second, the adjective gada which is common to all dialects of Dhivehi and is still used as anindependent adjective meaning “strong, rich”. The i-stem -teri, which occurs only in thefunction of an adjective suffix, is obviously confined to northern Dhivehi. The comparatively
rare suffix -(v)eti is also more frequent in the standard language than in southern Dhivehi.
2.4.4.1. There are many compound adjectives that are derived from nouns by means of gada“strong, rich” (cf. above). From their formation, these adjectives represent an inverse type ofbahuvrı̄hi, the adjective gada “strong, rich” serving as the second part. Cp., e.g., M. adugada, A. ada-gada, F. ado-gada “loud, noisy”, lit. “rich in noise” (M. adu, A. ada, F. ado“noise, voice”); M. varu-gada, A. vara-gada, F. varo-gada “strong, powerful” (M. varu,
A. vara, F. varo “strength, power”); M.A.F. ali-gada “bright” (ali “light”); M.A.F. vas-gada“smelly” (M.A. vas, F. vaha “smell”); M. avi-gada “sunny” (M. avi “sunshine”);
M.A.F. vai-gada “windy” (M.A.F. vai “wind”); M. bāru-gada “effective” (M. bāru “force,
power, tight”). The names of a couple of friends appearing in some fairy tales, viz.
M.A.F. an̆ga gada miturā “the eloquent friend” (lit. “the friend (having) a rich mouth”) and
M.A.F. an̆ga madu/mada/mado miturā “the taciturn friend” (lit. “the friend (having) a silent
mouth”), belong to these formations as well (M.A.F. an̆ga “mouth”; for M. madu etc. “soft,slow” cf. 2.6.7.4.6; on the mot savant mituru “friend”, being obsolete in the modern language, cf. 2.3.1.3.4.1). It cannot be excluded that there are some more (still unknown)
formations of the inverse bahuvrı̄hi-type with other adjectives in Dhivehi.
˙
˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

104

Morphology

2.4.4.2. Many adjectives use the nominal i-stem veri as a derivational suffix which originallymust have had the meaning of “leader” or “person” (cf. 2.3.2.4.2). While this particularmeaning of veri is still perceivable in composition with nouns, it is no longer transparent inadjective formation. The main function of -veri consists in the derivation of adjectives fromnouns, a large number of which represents foreign words of Arabic origin. Thus, the suffix-veri can be used to form Maldivian adjectives from any Arabic loanword, if there are no
obstacles from the semantic point of view. Cp., e.g., M. adabu-veri “polite” (M. adabu← Arab. adab “good manners, good behaviour”); M. nası̄bu-veri “happy” (M. nası̄bu ← Arab.
nası̄b “share (in the profits), happiness, chance, fate”); M. taguvā-veri “religious, devout,pious” (M. taguvā 〈taquvā〉 ← Arab. taqwā “fear of God, piety, devoutness”); M. šukuru-veri“grateful” (M. šukuru ← Arab. šukr “gratitude”); M.A.F. hasada-veri “envious, jealous”(M.A.F. hasada ← Arab. hasad “envy”); harakātteri /harakāt-veri/ “active” (← Arab. pl.
harakāt, sg. haraka “motion, action” among other meanings); amānātteri /amānāt-veri/“trustworthy, responsible” (← Arab. pl. amānāt “goods in trust”; sg. amāna “trustworthiness,fidelity, confidence”); M. zı̄natteri /zı̄nat-veri/ “magnificent, splendid” (← Arab. zı̄nat“adornment, decoration”).
Besides nouns of different, sometimes unknown origin, the first part of the compound,which contains the meaning, can also consist of adjectives. Cp. e.g., M.A.F. buddi-veri“wise” (M.A.F. buddi “mind”, possibly a mot savant, cp. Skt., Pa., Pkt. buddhi- “intelligence, discernment, mind”; TURNER 1966, II, 525, no. 9277); M. dogu-veri “false, dishonest,
lying” (M. dogu “lie, false”; cp. OIA drógha- “injurious; injury, treachery”; TURNER 1966,I, 379, no. 6640); M. aniā-veri “cruel” (M. aniā “cruelty”305); M.A.F. ōgā-veri “kind”;
M.A.F. ufā-veri “happy, lucky” (A. also ufā “id.”); M. tedu-veri, A.F. tede-veri “honest”(A. also tede “id.”; cp. the compound verb M. tedu-vanı̄ “to get up, stand”, lit. “become
upright”). M. enani-veri “lonely” is derived from the adjective M. enani “alone”. It seems
that M. lobu-veri “dear, affectionate” must be kept separate from the noun M. lōbi “love”
which can also be used as an adjective in the sense of “lovely”. Whether lobu- and lōbi are
etymologically connected with each other and of what kind their morphological relation may
be is still unknown. It seems that *lōbi-veri does not exist (any longer), but it obviously was
the basis of substantivisations such as lōbiveriā /-veri-ā/ “lover” and lōbiverikan “love affair,
proof of love”, as well as the adjective lōbiveti which is a synonym of lobuveri (cp. NCLHR
1985-91, 13, 21-2). M. hitāma-veri “unhappy, sad” is derived from the noun M. hitāma“sadness, misery” the etymology of which is unknown. The first part of M. eku-veri “kind,friendly” is identical with M. eku, an adverb reflecting the numeral “one” with the meaning“together (with), whole, entire”. M. eku obviously represents the “frozen” oblique case of thenumeral “one”, eke (/ek-ek/ indef.), from which also the locative forms M. ekugā /eku-gai/,
A.F. ekı̄ are derived with the same meaning (lit. “in one”).
˙

˙

˙

˙

c

2.4.4.3. Only a few adjectives are built with -teri, the use of which is confined to the standard
language, as their second part. Cp., e.g., ufeddun-teri “creative, productive” (ufeddun is theverbal noun of ufaddanı̄ “to create, make”); bēnun-teri “useful” (bēnun “need, want, wish”);
kiaman-teri “obedient” (cp. the complex verb kiaman vanı̄ “obey”); rakkau-teri or rakkā-teri305

C. ZOLLER (priv. inf.) proposes an etymological connection with OIA avanāyá- “putting down”, Sinh.
onā “act of throwing and pouring down” (TURNER 1966, I, 35, no. 790).

The adjective

105“safe” (cp. the complex verbs rakkau kuranı̄ “to save (money)” and rakkau vun “to bear,
give birth (to)”). A few adjectives with -teri can be substantivised; cp., e.g., ehı̄teriā /-teri-ā/“volunteer”, derived from ehı̄-teri “helpful” (ehı̄ “help”). For the enlargement of the i-stem-teri by means of the suffix -ā, the same rules apply as for /-veri-ā/ (cf. 2.4.4.2 above and2.3.2.4.1).
2.4.4.4. In the modern language, the adjective suffix -(v)eti is mostly met with in the northernarea. Cp., e.g., M. lōbi-veti “dear” (lōbi “love(ly)”); M. lobu-veti “dear, affectionate” (lobu“dear”; cf. 2.4.4.2 above); M. ladu-veti “shy” (M. ladu “id.”; A. lada, F. lado “id.”);M. dahi-veti “selfish, greedy” (M.A.F. dahi “id.”). The only adjective with -(v)eti which is
attested for southern Dhivehi is A. riveti, F. ri(v)eti “beautiful, pretty”; in the modern
standard language, this word occurs only in its contracted form, rı̄ti. GEIGER already realised
from the variants riveti and rı̄eti that the word contains an old copula form (1902, 933, no.
356); he analysed the word as consisting of the stem represented by Pa. rūpa- (← OIA rūpá“form, beauty”) and eti, the Maldivian equivalent of Sinh. äti “it is” (Skt. asti; cf. 3.11.2.4).
While the OIA (and MIA) word meaning “beauty, form” has an immediate continuant in
Sinh. ruva (stem rū- “form, image, comeliness, beauty”, cf. GEIGER 1941, 148, no. 2205), thecorresponding Dhivehi form *riv- / rı̄- is not preserved as an independent word in the modern
language. In Dhivehi the noun meaning “beauty” is in its turn derived from the adjective(M. rı̄ti-kan, NCLHR 1985-91, 3, 50). The derivation of riveti / rı̄ti from *rūpavantı̄- as
proposed by TURNER (1985, 87, no. 10804a) must be excluded for phonological reasons, eventhough many other adjectives in -(v)eti exist in Dhivehi which were unknown to TURNER. In
modern Dhivehi, -(v)eti has become a suffix which can approximately be translated as“comprising, containing, embodying”; cp., e.g., lōbi-veti “containing love”. The glide -vwhich in all the adjectives in question precedes the formant -eti, must have been abstracted
from nouns ending in -u or -v [w]; a possible source of this might be the reconstructed form
*riv- mentioned above, or a word like M. ladu “shy” before it was transferred to nouns
ending in other sounds.
2.4.4.5. Particularly in the standard language, attributive and predicative adjectives denoting
colours can be enlarged with M.A.F. kula “colour; coloured” without a change of their
meaning; cp., e.g., M. vilu (kula) “turquoise(-coloured)”. A lighter tint of a colour isexpressed by M. madu, A. mada, F. mado “a little”, while a darker shade is denoted by theadjective M.A.F. gada “strong, rich” (cf.2.4.4.1 above) preceding the designation of thecolour proper. Thus, e.g., M.A.F. fehi “green” can be associated with levels such as madu/
mada/mado fehi “light-green” and gada fehi “dark-green”. Further adjectives expressing
colours are M. kalu, A. kala, F. kalo “black, dark”; M. rai, A.F. ra /rat/ “red”; M.A.F. hudu
“white”; M.A. nū, F. nil “blue”; M.A. rı̄n̆dū, F. rı̄n̆dul “yellow, orange”; M.A.F. mugu“(pea-)green”; M.F. muśi, A. meśi “brown”.
c

˙

˙

˙

2.4.5. Adjectival comparison
As in most Modern IA languages (MASICA 1991, 251), there is no productive morphologicalmodel of building comparational forms in Dhivehi. This means that the degrees of comparison are not marked by special suffixes as in Old and Middle Indo-Aryan. Instead, comparison

106

Morphology

is expressed by means of syntax, sometimes with the additional use of quantifying terms
meaning “big”, “large”, “great”, “much”, “many”, “very” or “a few” which precede theadjective in question.
2.4.5.1. Several adverbs are used for the expression of an elative; they comprise, among
others, M.A. vara , F. varaha (dat. /var-aś/) “very”; M.A.F. mā “very”, originally meaning“great” (cf. Sinh. mā-/maha- ← MIA and OIA mahā- “great”, nowadays only occurring as apart of names or titles; GEIGER 1941, 130, no. 1944); M.A. vara gina, F. varaha gina “verymuch”; and M. nuhanu “considerably, quite (a)”. Cp., e.g., A. vara riveti “very beautiful”,
F. mā bon̆do “very big”, A. vara gina varabali “very very tired”, M. nuhanu mı̄ru “quite
tasty”, etc. The same adverbs are also used to express an excessive amount of something inthe sense of an excessive grade: e.g. M. mi kotari mā kuda “this room is too small”. Adjectives can also be used in a duplicated form to express a higher degree of quality or quantity.
Cp. the elative meaning expressed by vara “very” together with a duplicated adjective in
A. ... vara fakı̄ri fakı̄ri de mafiriakāmen ... “... a very very poor couple ...” (T3, 1; vara
/varaś/ “very”; fakı̄ri adj. “poor”; de card.num. “two”; ma-firi-ak-ā-men “couple”, lit.
“woman-(with)-a-man-together”: obl. + obl. + indef.suff. + def.suff. -ā preceding the pl.suff.
-men, cf. 2.3.2.1.2).
c

c

c

c

˙

˙

˙

c

c

c

2.4.5.2. In Dhivehi, the concept of a comparative can only be expressed by a special
syntactical construction which uses the postponed adverbial terms M. vure or vuren “rather”(in the sense of “more”) and M. ituru, A.F. itiri “more, another, increase”, the latter also
occurring in the dative without a change of meaning (M. itura , A. itira , F. itiraha /-aś/), orwith the adverbs which serve as elative markers (cf. 2.4.5.1 above). In comparative sentences,
the noun being compared (i.e., the comparational standard) appears in the dative as thefollowing examples show:ccc

A. “balafele ma an̆gai tibi au da afagē ra e hi mı̄hā an̆gai tibi datav vanı̄ mā riveti au!” “Please see thatthe new teeth in my mouth are nicer than the teeth in the mouth of my friend!”, lit. “Please look that the
new teeth being in my mouth are nicer (in comparison) to the teeth being in the mouth of my friend!”(T11, 15; bala-fele polite form of the impv. of balanı̄ “look”; ma an̆gai poss.pron. ma + gen./loc. of an̆ga“mouth”: “in my mouth”; tibi part.pret. of tibenı̄ “to be”, attr. of au da /dat/ “new teeth”, nom.pl.;afagē poss.pron. “my”; ra e hi obl. + mı̄hā obl. “friend-man”; an̆gai loc. “in the mouth”; tibi part.pret.
of tibenı̄ “to be”, attr. of datav /dataś/ dat.pl. “(compared) to the teeth”. The long form of the part.pres.
vanı̄ “becoming, being” has to be explained by interference from the standard language, the correct
A ū-form being venı̄, cp. the unenlarged part.pres. A. vē; mā riveti here: “more beautiful”).
M. 〈“re aś vuren mi rē bar ē, e re aś vure mi rē bar ē.”〉 “This night it (the jar) is heavier than last night.”
lit. “In this night (it is) heavy in comparison to the (last) night, in this night (it is) heavy in comparison
to that night.” (T12, 13; re-aś [rea ] dat. of rē “night”, here: “to the (last) night”; vure(n) “incomparison to”, lit. “rather”, correlated with the preceding dat. re-aś; mi rē dem.pron. + obl. “(in) thisnight”; bar = /baru/ “heavy”; ē quot.particle; e re-aś dem.pron + nom.dat. “to that night”).
ṫ ṫ

c

ṫ ṫ

c

c

ḋ

ḋ

c

In this connection cp. also the following sentence in the dialect of Addū, where a noun plays
the role of the comparational standard (the fairy tale in question is about two unconspicuous
fish, quarreling about the question which one of them has more bones):˙˙

A. bēkā gai fileimadieav vanı̄ ek kaśi itirau hiśei. “In the body of the bēkā-fish there is one more bone than(in that) of the flounder.” lit. “What the body of the bēkā-fish is (as) against (that of) the flounder, is toconsist of one bone more.” (T15, 10; bēk-ā obl.def. “the bēkā-fish” with postponed gai obl. “body”: “in˙Adjectival comparison

107

the body of the bēkā-fish”306; /fileima i -e-aś/ dat.sg.def. of fileima i “flounder”; part.pres. M. vanı̄“becoming, being” + focus-marker -ı̄ instead of the A.-form venı̄, cp. the preceding sentence; e /ek/“one”, attr. of kaśi “bone; thorn”; itirau /itir-aś/ dat. “more”; hiśei abs. “being” of hinnei, M. hunnanı̄
“to stand, be, stay, remain”).
ḋ

c

ḋ

2.4.5.3. The pronominal adjectives emme “all, whole, entire” (cf. 2.6.7.4.1) and muli “whole”(cf. 2.6.7.4.4) are used for expressing superlative concepts, cp., e.g., M. emme rı̄ti “mostbeautiful, the most beautiful (of all)”, or mulin ran̆galu “best, the best (of all)” (mulin abl.,lit. “from the whole”). Cp. the following two sentences in which emme, always preceding theadjective, serves as a superlative-formant:
˙

˙

˙

˙

c

A. ehen vi mei, eakı̄ e raśi hiśi emme fakı̄ri taulı̄man ne mı̄hā kamugai vege (T16, 3). “Thus it happened
that he became the poorest and least educated man of all (people) on that island.” (emme pron.adv. “all,of all”; fakı̄ri adj. “poor”; taulı̄man ne “without education”, lit. “education not being there”; taulı̄man“education, teaching”, M. ta (u)lı̄mu ← Arab. taclı̄m “id.”; ne /net/ part.pret. of the verbal noun netun“not being (there)”; mı̄hā nom.sg. “man”; for the analysis of the remaining forms cf. 2.6.5.3.1.2).
M. (with interferences from Fua Mulaku): ti bahuge tafātuge terein timā hita emme rieti mi vı̄ a ū baha.
“Best of all the different dialects of this language I like the A ū-dialect”, lit. “Within the diversity ofthis language the one which has now become beautiful (i.e. the most beautiful) of all to my heart, is thelanguage of A ū.” (T7, 9a; for the exact analysis of the particular forms cf. 2.4.5.3, 2.6.7.4.1).
c

c

c

c

ḋ

c

ḋ

ḋ

ḋ

ḋ

ḋ

2.5. Numerals
The Maldivian numeral system is characterised by a very particular typological development:
apart from the decimal system which alone is used in the modern language, Old Dhivehi
disposed of a complete duodecimal system. In the modern language, however, there are only
a few remnants reminding of the old system such as, e.g., M. (modern) fasdolas, A. fasdolos“60”, lit. “5 times 12”. As a matter of fact, “60” was the only duodecimal number that was
totally integrated into the decimal system adopted by the standard language by the turn of the
19th to the 20th century. GEIGER (1901-1902, II, 379; 1919, 73) already explained theparticular double role of fasdolos by stating that the number “60” represents the overlapping
point of the two systems. Originally, all traditional Maldivian units of measure were based on
the number “twelve” as well (cf. BELL 1883, 118-9); they were only gradually adapted to thedecimal system. Thus, e.g., the basic dry measure, a nāli, contained about 0,96 litres; nowadays, however, one nāli equals one kilogram exactly.
In the southern regions of the Maldives, the old numerals and measures were longer
preserved than in the northern parts. In southern Dhivehi, they must still have been used by
the beginning of the 20th century, alongside the already prevailing decimal system; nowadays,
however, one can hardly find even elderly people in the southernmost atolls who remember
the duodecimal numerals.
The fact that Old Dhivehi shows such a perfectly developed duodecimal system is still
more impressing as there are obviously no attestations of a corresponding mode of countingin Sinhalese at any time of its well documented history; cf. DE SILVA (1970b, 148-9) who
states: “The interesting fact about the Maldivian numeral system is not the lexical similarities
˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

c

306

A. bēkā (sg.def. of a stem bē /bēk/, M. bēn̆gu) is the only fish in the Maldives that is able to live in saltwater as well as freshwater.

108

Morphology

to one language or another but the presence, in the speech of the older generation especially,of a counting device which is not known to have been used in Sinhalese at any stage.”On the one hand, it can be taken for sure that the duodecimal system was the prevailingcounting method in the Maldives for a long period but on the other hand, it is neverthelessnot probable that the decimal system developed within a short time or was even imported oflate. Some archaisms in the decimal numbers as well as the attestations of items of thedecimal system in the early Maldivian texts force us to assume that both systems coexisted
at least for some centuries, the decimal numbers probably being less important.
There are some significant correspondences between the Maldivian and Old Sinhalesenumerals which suggest two different models concerning their origin. Thus, it is imaginable
that during the period of close commercial, religious and cultural relations between the
Sinhalese and the Maldivians not only the oldest script307 but also the decimal system
including the numerals representing it was brought to the Maldives, where, at least for awhile, it was characterised by a limited use, maybe within a particular scope. According toa second model, there might have been at least one dialectal exclave on the Maldives where
the decimal system could have been handed down without an interruption since the Prakrit
period. There is some evidence, however, that at least a considerable part of the decimal
numbers cannot be derived from the Insular Indo-Aryan Prakrit basis. Some unquestionablesound-laws show that these decimal numbers can only be explained as loanwords from an
extra-Insular-Indo-Aryan Prakrit of uncertain origin which influenced both the Maldivian and
the Sinhalese numeral systems. Besides that, there are many traces of foreign Prakrits andeven hyperprakritisms in the Dhivehi decimal system which are not known in Sinhalese.
At a later time, when the duodecimal system was becoming obsolete step by step, thedecimal system might have been strengthened by exterior influences, mainly those of medieval Sinhalese; finally, in the recent past, the decimal numbers definitely overruled their
duodecimal counterparts.
2.5.1. Cardinal numbers
The numerals from one to ten have different forms for attributive and substantival usage. In
attributive function, it is the pure stem which is used, while the substantive form of the
cardinal numbers is marked by the indefinite suffix -e /-ek/ (derived from the cardinal
number “one” itself; cf. 2.3.2.1). Cp., e.g., M.A.F. e /ek/ attr. vs. eke /ek-ek/ subst. “one”,
or M.A.F. tin attr. vs. M.A.F. tine /tin-ek/ subst. “three”. GEIGER (1919, 70) succeeded inanalysing the substantive forms of the Maldivian numerals by comparison with their Sinhalesecorrespondences: “The forms probably correspond to the substantive forms in -ak in Sinhalese, like dekak, tunak, ... The original forms are therefore *ekek, *dek, *tinek.” In themodern Sinhalese language, these substantivised forms have the function of inanimate
collective numerals (cf., e.g., MATZEL 1983, 40). Thus, Sinh. ekak means “one, one thing”,
dekak means “(a unit of) two things”, tunak “(a unit of) three things”, etc., contrasting withformations such as tun-denā “(the) three persons, a unit of three persons” (denā def. “theperson”; for more information about these formations cf. GEIGER 1938, 121-2). In comparison
to this, the Maldivian numerals in -e do not have a collective meaning; they only serve as
counting forms. While in Sinhalese, forms in -ak can also be built from higher numbers, the
c

c

c

c

Cf. the Introduction, 0.5.1.

c307

Cardinal numbers

109c

Dhivehi substantivisations with the suffix -e do not exceed the number “ten” in Dhivehi.
From “eleven” upwards, there are only the unenlarged stem-forms which are used both as
attributes and as nouns.
While in Sinhalese the positioning of the cardinal numbers before or after the governing
noun depends on several criteria (cf. GEIGER 1942, 4 / 1973, 561; MATZEL 1983, 41), thesituation is comparatively simple in Dhivehi. As already mentioned by GEIGER (1919, 73), theattributive numeral always precedes the governing noun in this language. Cp., e.g., M. fas
aharu “five years” (T9, 9), M. de tin lum̆bō “two (or) three limes” (T10, 6), A. hatara ahara“four years” (T16, 23), F. de fāli “two oars” (T4, 28).
2.5.1.1. To give a complete and detailed survey, the cardinal numbers from “one” to “ten”
will be listed below both in their (attributive) stem-form and in their enlarged substantive
form which is used for counting.308cc“One”: attr. M.A.F. e /ek/; subst. M.A.F. eke /ek-ek/. Following GEIGER (1941, 30, no. 445), the corresponding Sinh. form eka, stem ek-, cannot be traced back directly to OIA éka- and Pa. eka- but presupposes Pkt.
ĕkka- which with an optional quantitative metathesis represents a regular development from earlier MIA forms
with simple -k-; ĕkka- must be regarded as the basic form not only for Dhivehi and Sinhalese but also for theother NIA languages (cf. also TURNER 1966, I, 119, no. 2462, GEIGER 1902, 916, no. 97 and BERGER 1992,
245).
“Two”: attr. M.A.F. de; subst. M.A.F. dē /de-ek/. Dhiv. de and Sinh. deka, stem de-, go back to Pkt. duve,*de (cf. GEIGER 1941, 80, no. 1182 and 1902, 915, no. 76); cp. Pa. dve, duve and OIA (fem.) duvé (cf. also
TURNER 1966, I, 379, no. 6648).309“Three”: attr. M.A.F. tin; subst. M.A.F. tine /tin-ek/. GEIGER derives Sinh. tuna, stem tun- and Dhiv. tin
from Pkt. ti i ~ Pa. tı̄ i , Skt. (ntr.) tr´ı̄ i (GEIGER 1941, 65, no. 949 and 1920, 935, no. 384; cf. also TURNER
1966, I, 342, no. 5994).
“Four”: attr. M. hataru, A. hatara, F. hataro; subst. M.A.F. hatare /hatar-ek/. The Dhivehi forms as well´ h (cf. GEIGER 1941,
as Sinh. hatara/satara, hataru etc. must be derived from Pkt. ~ Pa. cattāro ← OIA catvāra
188, no. 2843 and 1902, 922, no. 185; TURNER 1966, I, 252, no. 4655).
“Five”: attr. M.A. fas, F. faha;
˛ subst. M.A.F. fahe /fas-ek/. Dhiv. fas and Sinh. paha/pasa, stem pas- goback to Pkt. ~ Pa. pañca, OIA páñca (cf. GEIGER 1941, 100, no. 1485 and 1902, 918, no. 120; TURNER 1966,I, 431, no. 7655). Possibly, the OIA nasal has left its traces in the final vowel of F. faha.
˛“Six”: attr. M.A.F. ha; subst. M.A.F. hae /ha-ek/. Like Sinh. haya/saya, stem ha-/sa-, Dhiv. ha can bederived from Pkt. ~ Pa. cha ← OIA á (GEIGER 1941, 189, no. 2862 and 1902, 921, no. 175; TURNER 1966, II,742, no. 12803).
“Seven”: attr. M. hai, A.F. ha /hat/; subst. M.A.F. hate /hat-ek/. Dhiv. /hat/, like Sinh. hata/sata, stem
hat-/sat-, goes back to Pkt. ~ Pa. satta ← OIA saptá (GEIGER 1941, 188, no. 2842 and 1902, 922, no. 184;
TURNER 1966, II, 760, no. 13139).
“Eight”: attr. M.A. a , F. aśo /aś/; subst. M.A.F. aśe /aś-ek/. The numeral is spelled 〈ařa〉 by GEIGER(1902, 911, no. 18) in accordance with the contemporary pronunciation.310 Dhiv. /aś/ (← a ← a a ) and Sinh.
a a can be traced back to Pkt. ~ Pa. a h a ← OIA a ā´ (cf. GEIGER 1941, 4, no. 48; TURNER 1966, I, 41,
no. 941).
c

c

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

c

˙

c

c

ṫ

c

c

c

ṫ

ṡ

c

ṫ

ṫ ṡ

ṫ ṫ

ṫ

308

For additional information on the etymology of the numerals cf. GEIGER (1938), 119 ff. and (1900), 65;
for the etymological background of the cardinals in Modern Indo-Aryan in general cf. BERGER (1992), 245 ff.
309
For the distribution of the descendent forms of Pkt. dō ← Skt. duváu and Pkt. duve ← Skt. duve in themodern languages and, particularly, a variant “with initial b- in Prakrit bē, Apabhra śa bi, which goes back to
dv- (via *db-) and is also dominant in all compounds with ‘two’ (Hi. bārah ‘twelve’, bāı̄s ‘twenty-two’, etc.)”,cf. BERGER (1992), 246.
310
For the phonetical background of this spelling, cf. 1.3.6.
ṁ

Morphology
c

110

c

“Nine”: attr. M.A.F. nuva; subst. M.F. nuvae /nuva-ek/, A. nuva /nuvak/. Dhiv. nuva, together with Sinh.
navaya, stem nava- (besides the variant namaya, stem nama-), comes from Pkt. ~ Pa. nava, OIA náva (cf.
GEIGER 1941, 83, no. 1230 and 1902, 932, no. 339; TURNER 1966, I, 401, no. 6984).
“Ten”: attr. M. diha, A.F. deha; subst. M. dihae , F. dehae /-ek/, A. deha /dehak/. diha/deha, like Sinh.
daha/dasa, goes back to Pkt. daha, dasa, Pa. dasa ← OIA dáśa (GEIGER 1941, 73, no. 1065 and 1902, 915, no.
79; TURNER 1966, I, 356, no. 6227).
ccc2.5.1.2. In Modern Dhivehi, the cardinal numbers starting with “eleven” have only one form
for attributive and substantival use (cf. 2.5.1 above). When GEIGER (1919, 71) stated about
the numbers from “11” to “20” that “the numerals are of interest from the fact that some ofthem are more closely related to the Pali than the corresponding forms in Sinhalese”, hepresumably wanted to refer to the archaicity of the forms in question. He was not aware thatmost of the numbers from “11” to “20” and also most of the higher numbers in Modern
Dhivehi represent prakritisms or hybrid formations.
The following etymological discussion of the individual numerals will show that thedecimal numbers “11”, “12”, “13”, “14”, “16”, “17”, “18” and “19” of Dhivehi whichreflect Prakrit variants have no direct cognates in Sinhalese. Even in the case of “15” (Dhiv.
fanara as against Old Sinh. panara, cf. below) we cannot definitely decide whether the twoforms represent a one-to-one correspondence.
These facts cannot be regarded as arguments against a common Prakrit source of the two
languages, however; cp., e.g., the numerals from “one” to “ten” (cf. 2.5.1.1 above) whichwith no doubt represent cognates, or Dhiv. vihi and Sinh. visi “20” which are etymologically
identical. Furthermore, it is an unquestionable fact that the duodecimal system was predominant in Dhivehi for a long time, the decimal numbers playing a secondary role only. Thus, it
is not surprising that there are unambiguous cognates between some duodecimal numbers of
Dhivehi and their etymological correspondences in Sinhalese; cp., e.g., Dhiv./Sinh. ekolos“11” and Dhiv./Sinh. dolos “12” (cf. below and 2.5.1.8). In the latter language, which
presumably never had a duodecimal system, some of the etyma in question have preserved
their original meaning as inherited from OIA; cp. Dhiv. fassihi “24” as against Sinh. pasvisi“25” or Dhiv. fanas “48” as against Sinh. panas “50” (cf. 2.5.1.8 below).
TURNER who quotes C.H.B. REYNOLDS for the scanty material on Dhivehi available to him(1985, vii311) proposed an extra-Insular-Indo-Aryan origin for the numerals “11”, “12”,“14”, “16” and “17” (and most of the higher numbers, cf. below) as well, but the source
which he had in mind was Modern Mainland Indo-Aryan. TURNER’s etymological proposals
concerning the Dhivehi numbers in question are much too vague, however, for being verifiable in detail312. The assumption that the numerals from “11” to “19” generally represent
loanwords from Hindi is widespread in the Maldives as well. With all probability it reflects
an opinion first expressed by BELL (1883, 121): “Beyond 10 a modified form of the Hindústání decimal numeration is that in common use.” BELL, who deserves well for his work on
˙

˙

˙

311
During a short stay in the Maldives REYNOLDS, the author of a short bibliography on the Maldive Islands(1993), collected material for a Dhivehi word-list which he put at TURNER’s disposal.
312
Cf., e.g., TURNER (1985), 15, 2485 on “11”: “Md. egāra (← Ind.? cf. H(indi) igārah)”; Add. 55, 6658
on “12”: “Md. bāra ← Ind.”; Add. 33, 4605 on “14”: “Md. sauda, sāda ← Ind.”; Add. 102, 12812 on “16”:“Md. sō a ← M(arathi) or G(ujarati)”; Add. 104, 13146 on “17”: “Md. satāra ← Ind.”.

l̇Cardinal numbers

111

the history, geography and ethnography of the Maldives,313 also provided a huge collectionof older material of the Dhivehi language. Being neither a philologist nor a linguist, however,
he was not able to judge the relationship between the Hindi and Dhivehi numerals which
often seem to be very similar to each other. In most cases it is easy to prove that TURNER’svague etymological proposals concerning the Dhivehi numerals (mostly consisting of indications like “← Ind.” only) have no linguistic basis. Most of the numerals in question areattested in the written documents of Old Dhivehi; hence it can easily be demonstrated that it
is not possible to explain these numerals as loans from Modern Hindi, all the more since
there are some typical phonological developments that have to be accounted for (cp., e.g.,“14”, “16” and “17”).
“Eleven”: M. en̆gāra 〈egāra〉, A.F. egāra. GEIGER (1919, 70 and 1916, 103) identifies egāra with Pa.
ekārasa (besides ekādasa). This as well as Pkt. ekkārasa, egārasa can be traced back to OIA ékādaśa “eleven”.
The same holds true for the IIA numeral stem *eko o s “eleven” which belongs to the duodecimal system (inDhivehi only; cf. 2.5.1.8).314 eko o s is attested in a Tāna inscription of the 18th century (ITAG 2,2); it isobsolete in Modern Dhivehi but still in use in Sinhalese. While eko o s represents the inherited IIA word for“eleven”, M. en̆gāra 〈egāra〉, A.F. egāra can only be explained as a loanword from a non-IIA language of
uncertain origin and unknown time (but cf. particularly Beng. and Or. egāra).
“Twelve”: M.A.F. bāra only indirectly corresponds to Old Sinh. bara which GEIGER derives from Pkt.
´bārasa/bāraha, Pa. bārasa (1941, 118, no. 1773; 1919, 70; cp. also the hybrid Pa. form dvādasa ← OIA dvādaśa“twelve”; TURNER 1966, I, 380, no. 6658). The initial b- must be taken as a clear evidence that both Dhiv. bāra
and Sinh. bara cannot be traced back to an autochthonous IIA Pkt. form, because the development of b- ← OIA
dv- (via db-), being regular for “all Indian languages and a great part of the northwestern languages” (BERGER
1992, 251; cp. Beng., Or., Ass. bāra, Hi. bārah/bārā315; cf. also fn. 309 above), never occurs in Sinhalese or
Dhivehi which show initial d- instead. Sinh. bara shows the regular shortening of MIA -ā- → -a- which allows
to assume that this numeral represents an early loanword from one of the mainland IA Prakrits. The long root
vowel of Dhiv. bāra, however, speaks in favour of a more recent prakritism or even of a loanword from a
Modern IA language. In Sinhalese, bara was completely replaced by the inherited dolos “twelve” (stem form
used attributively; the substantive form is dolaha, cf. GEIGER 1941, 82, no. 1210). For the corresponding numeral
Dhiv. do o s, which is obsolete in the modern language, and the other duodecimal numbers cf. 2.5.1.8 below.
“Thirteen”: The long root vowel of M.A.F. tēra “13” (for an earlier attestation of this form cp. tēra in theTāna inscription ITMP 2,3) indicates a Prakrit loanword (cp. Pkt. /tērasa/ → /tēraha/ → /tēra/) instead of the
expected form tera which seems to be attested in the Dives akuru inscription IDMHM 5,3,316 corresponding
to Old Sinhalese tera; cp. also Hi. terah, Nep. Ass. Beng. Or. Guj. tera, Mar. terā with regular short -e-.
According to BERGER (1992, 251), these variants “go back, not to Sanskrit trayōdaśa, but to Middle Indo-Aryan
terasa (Pa., Prakrit), teraha (Prakrit) ..., *tredaśa, with an earlier stage *trayadaśa (or, according to Turner,*trayēdaśa)”. BERGER’s supposition (ib.) according to which “the l-form, Pa. telasa ← *trelasa ← *trerasa, whicharose by assimilation ... does not survive anywhere in the Indian languages” is perhaps contradicted by a variant
te e sa (stem te e s) with retroflex - - appearing in literary Sinhalese which, however, is obsolete in the modern(colloquial) language.317 GEIGER (1938, 120) explains this form as follows: “The numeral te e s 13 seems also
to be derived from MInd. *tēdasa = Skt. trayodaśa”. BERGER (ib.), however, derives tedasa /tēdasa/ (attested
in Aśoka inscriptions) through *tredasa /trēdaśa/ from *trayadaśa as well. It cannot be decided with certainty
whether the retroflex -l- in Sinh. teles has to be explained by analogy (as described below, s.v. “sixteen”) or
whether it can be derived directly from a MIA variant containing - - , like Pa. te a sa “13” (cf. RHYS DAVIDS
l̇

l̇

l̇

˙

˙

l̇

l̇

l̇

l̇

l̇

˙

l̇

˙

l̇

313

Cf. the bibliography for details.
For the retroflex - - cf. “sixteen” below. — Cf. TURNER (1966), I, 120, no. 2485; GEIGER (1941), 30,
no. 455.
315
The variants in -ā (without a final -h) belong to the colloquial language, cp., e.g., MCGREGOR (1972), 61.
316
The e of tera (IDMHM 5,3) is not decisive as Dives akuru had no means of expressing long ē.
317
In Modern Sinhalese, only daha-tuna (stem daha-tun) is used for “13” (lit. “ten-three”, cf. GEIGER 1938,
118; MATZEL 1983, 39).
l̇

314

112

Morphology

1921-25, 297 s.v. tayo). — Cf. also GEIGER (1941), 67, no. 980; (1919), 71; TURNER (1966) I, 342, no. 6001:
OIA tráyodaśa).
“Fourteen”: M. sāda, A.F. sauda. GEIGER (1919, 71) identified the variants sauda and sāda318 with Pa.
catuddasa. Unlike this and the Pa. variant cuddasa, the Maldivian examples as well as Hi. caudah, Beng. codda
etc. are much closer to Pkt. cauddasa, caüddasa/caüddaha (besides coddasa/coddaha); all forms can be derived
from OIA cáturdaśa “14”, cf. TURNER 1966, I, 250, no. 4605). The Sinh. numeral tudusa (stem tudus) which
was used in the older literary language,319 lastly reflects cáturdaśa as well; according to GEIGER, however,tudusa is the result of a different development in the MIA period, reflecting a case where the first syllable hadalready been lost before the loss of intervocalic voiceless stops occurred.320 — The variant sauda, which is theolder form, is attested in several Dives akuru and Tāna inscriptions (IDMH 2,11, IDMEM 1,22, IDMD 1,3, and
ITAH 1,5) and in the Rādava i (RC). — At a glance, the initial s- in sauda seems to represent a generalphonological development of Insular Indo-Aryan, according to which every inherited c- of OIA and MIAchanged to s-. Whenever the affricate c- occurs in initial position in Dhivehi, the word in question can with nodoubt be categorised as a recent loanword (cf. 1.7.3.). If the Dhivehi numeral had been borrowed from Modern
Hi. caudah (as popular etymology takes it, cf. 2.5.1.2 above) or if it reflected a later prakritism (cf. Pkt.
cauddasa), the initial c- would have been preserved in its original quality, because the change of c- to s- wasrestricted to an early period in the history of the Maldivian language. M. sāda and A.F. sauda cannot represent
an inherited word, however, for the old initial s- would have developed into h- (cf. 1.3.5). In analogy with
M. hataru etc. “four” (cf. 2.5.1.1 above), we would expect *hauda which, however, never existed in Dhivehi.
Thus, the initial s- of sāda / sauda remains problematic.321 — TURNER (cf. fn. 312) supposed that the Dhivehi
variants represent an “Indic” loanword without specifying the period or the language. To sum up the facts,sauda can neither be regarded as an autochthonous IIA word, nor can it represent an immediate prakritism or aloanword from a recent period.
“Fifteen”: M.A.F. fanara corresponds to the numeral pa a ra “15” of Old Sinhalese which has to be derived(like Old Guj. panara, Beng. panera / ponera and also variants with a secondarily inserted -d- between n andr such as Hi. pandrah, Ass. pondara etc.) from a Prakrit form like pa
a rasa, pa
a raha; cf. also Pa. pa
a rasa(besides pañcadasa) ← OIA páñcadaśa (cf. GEIGER 1938, 120; TURNER 1966 I, 432, no. 7662; BERGER 1992,
252). We cannot definitely decide, however, whether Dhiv. fanara and Sinh. panara are cognates in the proper
sense because of the different results of the OIA cluster -ñc- they show. Sinh. pa a ra reflects a MIA form with- - (cf. above), while the Dhiv. word seems to go back to a Pkt. variant with -nn-; cp., e.g., Pkt. pannārasa andpannarasa (cf. BERGER ib.). As a correspondent of Sinh. pa a ra, we would expect *fa a ra with retroflex - - inthe southern dialects.
As a numeral, pa a ra is obsolete in Modern Sinhalese but the word is still in use as the name of the 15th
day of the lunar month (cf. GEIGER 1941, 93, no. 1380). With the meaning of “15”, only the Old Sinh. numeral
pahaloha/pahalosa, stem pahalos “15” is used nowadays322 which, following GEIGER (1900, 65 and 1941, 101,
no. 1496), can be identified with Pa. pañcadasa (for the retroflex - - in paha o s cf. “sixteen”).
“Sixteen”: M.A.F. sō a , as well as its literary Sinhalese correspondent so o sa/so a sa (stem so o s) which isobsolete in the modern language, can be derived directly from a preform like Pkt., Pa. so a sa ← OIA óa śa← * á ždaśa (cf. GEIGER 1941, 187, no. 2832; TURNER 1966, II, 743, no. 12812). On the basis of so o s, GEIGER
l̇

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

˙
ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

˙

l̇

l̇

ḋ

ṡ

l̇

l̇

˙

˙

l̇

l̇

l̇

l̇

ṡ

318

Cf. GEIGER (1919, 71): “Instead of sauda (which is historically correct), I heard the expression sāda.”
GEIGER’s informant Ebrahim Dı̄dı̄ was from Māle; therefore it is not surprising that he used sāda, the correct
form of the modern standard language, which from the historical point of view represents a more recent stage
than sauda. The diphthong in sauda corresponds to the phonological norm of southern Dhivehi, while the long-ā- of the Māle variant can probably be explained by an analogical development. Thus, M. sāda is to A.F. sauda
as, e.g., M. hā /hāl/ (← /haul/) “cock” is to A. hau /haul/, F. haul “id.” (cf. 1.2.1.6).
319
In Modern Sinhalese, only daha-hatara (lit. “ten-four”) is used for “14” (cf. GEIGER 1938, 118 and
MATZEL 1983, 39).
320
“Es leitet sich von einer Grundform ab, welche die erste Silbe bereits verloren hatte, ehe das Gesetz vom
Abfall intervocalischer Tenues in Kraft trat.” (GEIGER 1900, 65; cf. also 1941, 65, no. 948).
321
For another case of an initial s- which remains unexplained cp. Dhiv. si ı̄ “letter” (cf. 1.3.5).
322
Cp. also the neologisms referred to in the sections about “13” and “14”, and “16” to “19”.
ṫCardinal numbers

113

convincingly explains the retroflex - - sounds occurring in Sinh. eko o s “11” (cf. above), do o s “12” (cf.
2.5.1.8), paha o s “15” (cf. above), sata o s “17” (cf. below), a a o s “18” (cf. below) by assuming an analogicaltransfer: “The cerebralisation of the intervocalic d (→ → ) is taken from so o s 16 where it is phoneticallyjustified.” (1938, 120). In Modern Sinhalese, solos has been replaced by daha-saya “16”, lit. “ten-six” (cf.
GEIGER 1938, 118 and MATZEL 1983, 39). The supposition that Dhiv. sō a could be a loanword from Hindi isdisproved by the mere fact that the retroflex / / has the status of a phoneme in Dhivehi; this means that it cannot
appear arbitrarily neither in the inherited vocabulary nor in loanwords. Hence, we would expect Dhiv. */solā/ if
it were a borrowing from Hi. solah/solā “16”. In this connection cp. also the Prakrit variants solasa and solaha
with -l- (cf. TURNER, ib.). TURNER’s proposal to explain Dhiv. sō a as a borrowing from Mar. so ā or Guj. so(1985, 102, 12812) has to be rejected because of the differences in vowel quantity. The only way to explain thelong root vowel as well as the initial s- of Dhiv. sō a consists in assuming a prakritism (← */sō ā/ ← */sō a ha/← /sō a sa/).323“Seventeen”: M.A.F. satāra, which is attested in this form already in an early period of written Dhivehi(F2,4, document of 1627 A.D.), cannot be directly derived from a preform like Pkt., Pa. sattarasa, sattadasa(← OIA saptádaśa “17”; cf. TURNER 1966, II, 761, no. 13146). The initial s- (cf. “fourteen” and “sixteen”
above) on the one hand and the long root vowel on the other hand show with no doubt that satāra cannot be an
inherited IIA word. – As against the common popular etymology (cf. above), Hi. satrah cannot be the origin ofDhiv. satāra because of the long vowel, -ā-, either. Whenever initial or medial consonant clusters occurring inforeign words are split in Dhivehi, the resulting anaptyctic vowels can never be long or lengthened (cf. 1.3.8.).
The only way to explain the long -ā- is to assume a loanword. Although there are similar forms in the northwestern group of the Modern IA languages (cp., e.g., Panj. satār¯a),
˛ it is very improbable that Dhiv. satāra could
have been borrowed from there. The Dhivehi form might, however, be explained in a similar way as its
equivalent in Panjabi (and other languages); cf. BERGER (1992, 253), according to whom “... the long connecting
vowel is taken over from ‘eighteen’” (cf. below). Assuming a Pkt. loanword *sattara, we should expect *satara
as its outcome in Dhivehi. The lengthened medial -ā- of the actual form satāra could then be explained as theresult of an analogical transfer. – Cp. also the literary Sinh. form sata o s “17” which goes back to OIA
saptádaśa as well (cf. “sixteen” above; GEIGER 1938, 120).324“Eighteen”: M.A.F. aśāra which in inscriptions is attested also in its older form a āra (IDMMM 3,4;
IDMHM 4,11) does not correspond directly to Old Sinh. a a ra and a a rasa, the latter forms showing theregularly shortened medial -a- as against Dhiv. -ā-. Cf. also literary Sinh. atalosa/ataloha325 with short -a- (for´“18”; intermediate stages are
the retroflex -l- cf. “sixteen” above). All these forms go back to OIA astādaśarepresented by forms such as Pa. a āh dasa, Pkt. a h adasa, Pa., Pkt. a āh rasa, Pkt. a āh raha (cf. TURNER
1966, I, 41, 946; GEIGER 1941, 4, nos. 52 and 53). Dhiv. aśāra cannot be derived directly from an IIA basis,
however. With no doubt it has to be explained as a loanword. In analogy with the other numbers (from “11” to“17”), it is most probable that Dhiv. a āra → aśāra reflects a prakritism (cp. Pkt. a ārasa / a āh rasa). In the(less probable) case of an early borrowing from Hi. a āh rah, as suggested by Maldivian popular etymology (cf.
above), the result in Dhivehi would as well be aśāra¯˘ (t → ś with regular loss of the aspiration; for the soundchange involved cf. 3.6.3.2.1.2 and 1.3.6).
“Nineteen”: is denoted by two different etyma in Modern Dhivehi. The standard Dhivehi form of thenumeral, M. ona-vihi, was already known to GEIGER who wrote (1919, 71): “The form for 19 is worthy of note.
It shows that in the Prākrit foundation of Sinhalese and Māldivian a form must have existed which corresponded
to the Sanskrit ūna-viṁśati (with omission of the eka)”. It must be admitted, though, that in this case, theretroflex - - appearing in A. o a -vihi and F. u a -vihi remains as unexplained as that of Pkt. igu a vı̄saṁ,
igu ı̄vı̄saṁ and aü a vı̄saṁ (← ekūnaviṁśati-; cf. below326). *ūnaviṁśati-, which is not recorded in MIA, mustalso be the source of Hi. un(n)ı̄s and Beng. unis (cf. BERGER 1992, 253), while in Sinhalese there is noattestation of a correspondent form (cf. TURNER 1966, I, 114, no. 2411). The literary, now obsolete Sinh.
l̇

l̇

l̇

l̇

l̇

ṫ

l̇

l̇

ḋ

l̇

˙

l̇

l̇

l̇

l̇

l̇

l̇

l̇

l̇

l̇

l̇

ṫ

˙ ˙

ṫ

˙ ˙

ṫ

˙˙

ṫ ṫ

ṫ ṫ

˙

ṫ ṫ

ṫ ṫ

ṫ ṫ

ṫ ṫ

ṫ

˙

ṅ

ṫ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

323

Cf. 1.3.5 above and the other numbers beginning with s-.
In the modern language, this is replaced by daha-hata (cf. MATZEL 1983, 39 and GEIGER 1938, 118).
325
In Modern Sinhalese, only daha-a a (lit. “ten-eight”) is used for “18” (cf. MATZEL 1983, 39 and GEIGER
1938, 118).
326
Cp. also the Mar. variants eku ı̄v s, eku ı̄s, eko ı̄s (cf. BERGER 1992, 253).
ṅ

324

ṫ

ṅ

ṅ

114

Morphology

numeral ekunvisi (subst. ekunvissa) must be identified with Pa. ekūnavı̄sa(ti)-, OIA ekonaviṁśati- “19” (cf.
TURNER 1966, I, 120, no. 2499; GEIGER 1938, 121). The literal meaning of ekonaviṁśati- and its elliptic variant,*ūnaviṁśati- is “twenty lacking one”. — In Modern Sinhalese, “19”, lit. “ten-nine”, is expressed only by thetwo variants daha-nama(-ya) and daha-nava(-ya), the forms with -ya being used as substantives (cf. MATZEL
1983, 39). — The second numeral in Dhivehi with the meaning of “19”, M.A.F. navāra, seems to be a recent
analogical formation, matching the pattern of aśāra “18” and satāra “17”. A similar form can neither be
attested for Sinhalese nor for any of the texts of Old Dhivehi, while the inherited numeral M. onavihi occurs as
a part of an ordinal number in one of the early Tāna inscriptions: hāhāi duisatta onavihi-vana aharu “in thethousand and two hundred nineteenth year” (ITMHM 2,2). — It is very improbable that the Dhivehi numerals
formed with ona- (ona-/una-) might have been borrowed in this form from a Modern Indo-Aryan mainland
language (cf. TURNER 1985, 16, no. 2494: “Md. ona- ‘less by one’ (in onavihi ‘19’, onatirı̄s ‘29’, onasatta ‘69’
[sic!]327 ← Ind.”). While vihi “20” as the second part of the numeral “19” represents a regular development
according to the sound laws of Dhivehi (cf. below), the case of onatirı̄s “29” and onasatta “99” is more
complicated (cf. 2.5.1.3 and 2.5.1.6, s.v. satta “100”). — A third numeral for “19” documented in older Dhivehi
records is nuva-diha, lit. “9-10” (ITMHM 4,3 and 7,2; the ordinal number nuvadiha-vana “29th” in ITFM 2,3);
this form is obsolete in the modern language.
“Twenty”: M.A.F. vihi, Sinh. visi (subst. vissa), Hi. bı̄s, Guj. and Mar. vı̄s etc. must be traced back to OIA
viṁśatí- “20” via nasal-less variants like Pa. vı̄sati, Pkt. vı̄saï, vı̄sā (cp. also Pkt. viṁsadi, Pa. and Pkt. vı̄saṁ;
cf. TURNER 1966, II, 677, no. 11616; GEIGER 1941, 167, no. 2505 and 1938, 121; BERGER 1992, 253). In Old
Dhivehi, we find both vihi (IDMEM 4,11; ITMHM 1,3 and ITAH 4,7; vihı̄ in L5 4/2,6) and vı̄s (IDMHM 6,6).
The latter form with long -ı̄-, as well as the compound numerals containing -vı̄s (cf. 2.5.1.3 below) are irregular;
the variant vı̄s can only be explained as a prakritism. The spelling viṅśati, attested in some lōmāfanus (L3 1/1,1;
L5 1/1,2 and 4/1,2), represents a pure sanskritism.
˙

˙

2.5.1.3. The formation of the Dhivehi cardinal numbers from “21” to “28” follows theprinciple of “monadic unit plus decade”, in just the same way as the Sinhalese language didin its classical period (cf. GEIGER 1938, 119). In contrast to this, Modern Sinhalese shows areverse pattern of “decade plus monadic unit”. In Dhivehi, only the long-vocalic variant vı̄s(cf. 2.5.1.2 above) is used to denote the meaning of “twenty-...”. With no doubt, all thenumbers built on -vı̄s must be regarded as prakritisms.
“21”: M.A.F. ekā-vı̄s, lit. “1-20” cannot be equated with Class.Sinh. ek-vissa (stem ek-visi; cp. also themodern form visi-eka, stem (adj.) visi-ek; cf. GEIGER 1938, 118-9) which may be derived directly from OIA
ékaviṁśati- via a Prakrit form like ekkavı̄saı̄, ekkavı̄sa . A form *ekkihi /ek-visi/ which, according to the soundlaws, would represent an exact equivalent of Class.Sinh. ekvisi-, does not exist in Dhivehi. TURNER was right inlooking for an extra-IIA origin of ekāvı̄s, but Hi. ikkāı̄s, which he proposed, cannot be regarded as a directsource (cf. TURNER 1966, I, 119, no. 2476 and 1985, 15, no. 2476). Instead, ekāvı̄s, which has the appearanceof an artificial form, is more likely to represent a prakritism. Most probably, it presupposes a form *ekāvı̄sa, aconservative MIA variant with -k-, similar to Pa. ekavı̄sa but with a secondary lengthening of -ā- which we findin some late MIA variants (cp. egāvı̄sā, eyāvı̄sa, eāisa); NORMAN (1992, 214) explains the lengthened -ā- byanalogy with egārasa “11”. This contrasts with BERGER’s assumption according to which the lengthening of -ā(in modern forms like Hi. ikkāı̄s, Nep. ekāis and in the MIA variants mentioned above) must be explained byanalogy with “the next numeral, ‘twenty-two’ (Hi. bāı̄s, etc.)”; cf. BERGER 1992, 254 and s.v. “22” below.
“22”: M.A.F. bā-vı̄s, lit. “2-20”, is already attested in Dives akuru inscriptions, both in its cardinal form
(IDMDM 1,6) and as an ordinal number bāvı̄s-vana “22nd” (IDAH 1,3; ITAH 3,1). In principle, TURNER’s
assumption (1985, 55, no. 6672) that bāvı̄s has its origin in an Indic language (not specified by him) is right. The´ ṁśati- represents a prakritism (cp. the Pkt. variants bāvı̄saform bāvı̄s which must be derived from OIA dvāvi
etc. and Pa. bāvı̄sati-; cf. TURNER 1966, I, 381, no. 6672 and NORMAN 1992, 214). Theoretically, bāvı̄s might
have been taken over from any Prakrit language with the development of OIA dv- → MIA b- which is untypicalṁṁ

a -satta, F. uṅṅ

Obviously TURNER confused M. ona-satta (A. ohattari, F. u a -hattari “69”.

a -satta) “99” with M. ona-haiteri, A. o
ṅ

327

a -

ṅ

Cardinal numbers

115´ ṁśati- would have led to Dhiv.
for Insular Indo-Aryan (cf. 2.5.1.2). According to the sound laws, OIA dvāvi*davihi via a MIA form with initial dv- such as Pa. dvāvı̄sati-, dvāvı̄sa. Cp. also Class.Sinh. de-vissa (as against
the modern form visi-deka, stem visi-de; cf. GEIGER 1938, 119) which has no equivalent form in Dhivehi(*devihi).328“23”: M.A.F. tē-vı̄s, lit. “3-20”, must also be considered as a prakritism. Older attested variants are tevı̄su(Dives akuru; F3,8) and tēvı̄s (Tāna; ITAG 6,3). Cp. Class.Sinh. te-vissa, stem te-visi, which must be derived
through an intermediate form like Pkt. tevı̄sa , Pa. tevı̄sa (etc.) from OIA tráyoviṁśati- (cf. TURNER 1966, I,
342, no. 6004 and 1985, 49, no. 6004). The correspondent Dhivehi form would be *tevihi.
“24”: M.A.F. sau-vı̄s, lit. “4-20”, is already attested in some of the earliest written documents (sauvı̄su in
the lōmāfanus L1 d/1,2 and L8 1,2; sauvı̄s in the Tāna inscription ITAH 3,2). There are good reasons why sauvı̄scannot represent an inherited IIA word which would have developed directly through intermediate stages like
Pkt. cauvvı̄sa, Pa. catuvı̄sa from OIA cáturviṁśati- (cf. TURNER 1966, I, 250, no. 4623). -vı̄s with long ı̄ speaks
in favour of a prakritism (cf. above). But we can exclude a recent prakritism because in this case the initial cwould have been preserved. For the change of OIA and MIA c- to s- which is characteristic for early Dhivehi
but which did not result in an initial h- which would be regular in Modern Dhivehi, cf. 2.5.1.2 s.v. “fourteen”.
The diphthong -au-, occurring in all three dialects in this word cannot be inherited as such either. — TURNER’s
derivation of “sauvı̄s ← Ind.” (1985, 33, no. 4623) cannot be upheld if we consider correspondent Modern IA
forms such as Hi. caubı̄s, Beng. cabbiś. Cf. also Class.Sinh. satar(a)-vissa, stem °visi-.
a vı̄sati,“25”: M.A.F. fansa-vı̄s must be derived from OIA páñcaviṅśati-; cp. Pa. pañcavı̄sa besides papa
u vı̄sa, Pkt. pa a vı̄sa , pa a vı̄saı̄ etc. (cf. TURNER 1966, I, 432, no. 7672; NORMAN 1992, 215). Because of
its -n-, fansa-vı̄s easily reveals itself as being a prakritism, the regular outcome of OIA páñcaviṅśati- being
represented in Class.Sinh. pas-vissa (stem pas-visi) “25” as well as Dhivehi fassihi (← Old Dhiv. pas-visi) whichshows a reinterpretation of the original meaning “25” into the duodecimal number “24” within the prevailing
duodecimal system (cf. 2.5.1.8). For -vı̄s cf. above.
“26”: M.A.F. sabbı̄s, attested in the spelling 〈sa bı̄s〉 in the Tāna inscription ITAG 1,9, goes back to OIA
sádviṁśati-; cp. the MIA equivalents Pa. chabbı̄sati- and Pkt. chavvı̄sam (TURNER 1966, II, 742, no. 12796). As
in the preceding cases, Dhiv. sabbı̄s must be regarded as a prakritism, not as a loanword from a Modern IndoAryan mainland language (cf. TURNER 1985, 103, no. 12796: “Md. sabbı̄s ← Ind.”); cp., e.g., Hi. chabbı̄s, Beng.
chābbı̄ś or Guj. chavvis (cf. BERGER 1992, 255). In Dhivehi, OIA á dviṁśati- would have developed into *havihi
via *savisi, corresponding with Class.Sinh. savissa (stem savisi-).
“27”: M.A.F. hatā-vı̄s is attested in one of the earliest records of Dhivehi in the spelling a tāvı̄su (lōmāfanu
L2 33,4). The derivation of this word from OIA saptáviṁśati- is unproblematical. The Dhivehi form, a prakritism
like the preceding numerals, must represent a MIA equivalent such as Pa. sattavı̄sati or Pkt. sattāvı̄sam (cf.
TURNER 1966, II, 761, no. 13157). Thus, TURNER’s explanation of the Dhivehi numeral as a borrowing from
Guj. sattāvı̄ś (1985, 104, no. 13157) cannot be supported. According to the sound laws of Insular Indo-Aryan,
OIA saptáviṁśati- would have led to Dhiv. *hattihi ← *satvisi ← *satavisi.
“28”: M.A.F. aśāvı̄s, a prakritism which is first documented in this form in an 18th-century Tāna inscription´ ṁśati- (cf.
(ITAG 2,6), can be traced back through MIA forms like Pkt. a āh vı̄sa , Pa. a āh vı̄sati- to OIA a āvi
TURNER 1966, I, 42, no. 950). The regular Dhivehi form would be *a i hi ← *a v isi ← *a a visi.
“29”: can be expressed by two etymologically different numerals, in the same way as “19”. The prakritism
M. ona-tirı̄s, A. ona-tirı̄s F. una-tirı̄s, lit. meaning “thirty lacking (one)”, reflects OIA ūnatriṁśat- “29” (cf.
TURNER 1966, I, 114, no. 2408; for tirı̄s “30” cf. 2.5.1.4 below), thus contrasting with Class.Sinh. ekun-tisa(stem ekun-tis) “29”, an inherited IIA form which corresponds to the more “complete” variant OIA ekonatriṁśat- (cf. TURNER 1966, I, 120, no. 2496; for other variant forms cf. BERGER 1992, 256). In Dives akuru
inscriptions, we find onatiris (IDMHM 7,4), onatirı̄s (IDAH 1,8) and the ordinal number o a tirı̄svana (IDMEM
4,8, spelt with 〈n〉). For the formation cf. 2.5.1.2, 2.5.1.5.3, s.v. “nineteen”. — Of M.A.F. navā-vı̄s “29” (lit.
“9-20”), no older attestations have been found so far. At first sight, this seems to be a plain neologism built
after the pattern of the preceding numerals hatāvı̄s “27” and aśāvı̄s “28”, similar to navāra “19” which
ṁ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ṁ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

c

˙

˙

ṡ

ṡ

˙

ṫ ṡ

ṫ ṫ

ṫ

ṫ

ṁ

ṫ ṫ

ṫ ṫ

˙

ṅ

˙

˙

328
Most probably, Sinh. devisi- must be derived from a feminine form OIA *duveviṁśati- via MIA *dve/devı̄sati-. A formation by analogy with Sinh. tevisi- (cf. below) cannot be excluded either; cp. “Marā ı̄h bevı̄s(beside bāvı̄s), the e [of which] is anticipated from teı̄s ‘twenty-three’” (cf. BERGER 1992, 254).

ṫ

116

Morphology

obviously represents an analogical formation after the model of aśāra “18” etc. (cf. “nineteen”). In case ofanalogy, however, we should expect *nuvā-vis instead; cp. nuva “nine” and the analytical formation nuva-diha“19”. It is not impossible that the vocalism of the first syllable of navāvı̄s might have been caused by asecondary assimilation following navāra “19”. It is more plausible, however, that navā- represents a sanskritism
here (cp. Skt. náva “nine”). But in this case, too, the long vowel of the second syllable must have been causedby an analogical adaptation to hatā-vı̄s and aśā-vı̄s. It is true that there are not many sanskritisms among thenumerals in Dhivehi. At the period of the early written documents, however, some Sanskrit numerals were stillavailable as mots savants; cp., e.g., viṅśati “20” appearing in some lōmāfanus (L3 1/1,1; L5 1/1,2, 4/1,2) as wellas ekaviśati “21” (L2 1,2). — At least, we must consider the variants of the numeral “29” in Modern Sinhalesein this respect, viz. visi-namaya and °-navaya (stems visi-nama and °-nava), lit. meaning “20+9” (cf. GEIGER
1938, 119; MATZEL 1983, 39), which presumably substitute a reverse formation *nama-vissa/nava-vissa, lit.
“9-20”, of Classical Sinhalese (cf. “22”). If it ever existed, this form must have been a neologism, too, because
in the older documents of Sinhalese only the inherited form ekuntisa is attested.

2.5.1.4. The names of the decades from 30 to 90 are also best explained as prakritisms (or ina few cases perhaps as sanskritisms).
“30”: M.A.F. tirı̄s which already occurs in some documents of Old Dhivehi (Dives akuru inscription
IDMEM 1,19; RC 10,3), obviously represents a different development as against Sinh. tis, subst. tisa/tiha which
are derivable directly from Ap. tı̄sa, tı̄sa , Pa. ti s a(ti)- (cf. GEIGER 1941, 65, no. 944 and 1919, 71; NORMAN
1992, 213). It is still too early to definitely decide by which intermediate forms of the MIA period Modern Dhiv.
tirı̄s is related with OIA triṁśát- “30” (cp., e.g., Niya triśa). In Modern IA we find “beside the normal continuations such as Hi. [etc.] tı̄s ... forms with preserved tr- as in ... Gujarātı̄ trı̄ś, ... Bengali tris, Assamese trix, O i yātriśa, which can be explained by Sanskrit influence in the eastern languages ... and by association with ‘three’... in the western languages” (BERGER 1992, 256; cf. also TURNER 1966, I, 343, no. 6015). Whether TURNER’sreference to an (unspecified) Indic language as the presumptive source of tirı̄s can be taken seriously, is still
open to doubt (1985, 49, no. 6015). In this case, tirı̄s could be explained as borrowing with an anaptyctic vowelin the first syllable (perhaps as an “indirect” sanskritism). Considering the other designations of decades, it
seems more probable, however, that the form tirı̄s represents a learned prakritism in Dhivehi.
“40”: M.A.F. sā ı̄s is already attested in its modern form in the Dives akuru inscription IDMBM 1,5329.
Its Sinhalese equivalents are the stem variants satalis/hatalis, sata i s/hata i s, and sālis/sā i s (subst. -a) which
through Pkt. cattālı̄sam, cālı̄sam, Pa. cattālı̄sam/cattālı̄sam/cattārı̄sam can be derived from OIA catvāri ṁśát- (cf.
GEIGER 1941, 188, no. 2844; RHYS-DAVIDS 1921-25, 261; TURNER 1966, I, 252, no. 4656 and BERGER 1992,
258). According to the sound laws of Dhivehi, a regular development within IIA would have led to *sā i s withshort -i-, which we see in all Sinhalese variants mentioned above. Thus, Dhiv. sālı̄s, too, must be interpreted asa prakritism, reflecting a form like Pkt. cālı̄saṁ.
“50”: M.F. fansās, A. fansas go back to OIA pañcāśát- (with the regular change of c to s); the numeral
fanas meaning “48” in the Maldivian duodecimal system (cf. 2.5.1.8 below), which is obsolete in the modern
language, must derived from the same source. On the coexistence of these two forms cf. BELL (1883, 121):“Some confusion, however, arises from the co-existence of the two systems [i.e. the decimal and the duodecimal
system; S.F.]; thus, fanas or fansás may be either 48 or 50.” GEIGER (1919, 71) obviously failed to verify thetwo variant forms which he knew from BELL (ib.). — The phonological development of fanas and fansas¯˘ cannot
have been the same, despite of their common etymon. Dhiv. fanas exactly corresponds to Sinh. panas “50”(subst. panasa/panaha) which through forms like Pkt. pa āsa , Pa. pa āsa, paññāsa goes back to OIA
pañcāśát- (cf. GEIGER 1941, 95, no. 1402 and TURNER 1966, I, 433, no. 7682). The medial cluster -ns- of fansas¯˘reflecting OIA -ñc-, however, forces us to assume a sanskritism or a learned prakritism. At the (early) time when
the duodecimal system was developing in Dhivehi, the (inherited) form underlying the attested numeral fanas“50” must have acquired the new interpretation of “48”.
“60” is expressed by two numerals of different etymological origin. M. fas-do a s, A.F. fas-do o s “5×12” isthe only duodecimal numeral of Dhivehi that has been completely integrated into the decimal system. According
ṁ

ṁ

ṙ

l̇

l̇

l̇

˙
l̇

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

l̇

ṁ

l̇

ṅ

ṅ

ṁ

ṅ

ṅ

l̇

sālı̄su (with -l-!) in L2 37,5 refers to the prophet Sāli ; cp. the spelling sāleh in L1 mn/2,3.
ḣ329

Cardinal numbers

117

to GEIGER (1919, 73), the main reason for this can be seen in the fact that the number “60” represents the pointof overlap of both counting methods (cf. also 2.5.1.8). — The second numeral denoting “60” is M.A.F. hatti
which through Pkt. sa ı̄h , Pa. sa h i- goes back to OIA a í - “60” (cf. TURNER 1966, II, 743, no. 12804 and1985, 102, no. 12804). From the phonological point of view, Dhiv. ha i cannot be exactly identified with Sinh.
sä a /hä a “60” (cf. GEIGER 1941, 191, no. 2886) because of the geminate - - which indicates a secondary origin,presumably as a re-prakritisation; in contrast to that cp. the regular development manifesting itself in M.A. a ,F. aśo /aś/ “8” ← Pkt. attha.
“70”: M. haidiha, A.F. haddeha /hat-deha/ “7×10” represents a comparatively recent type of formation(together with a i ha “80” and nuvadiha “90”); cf. also GEIGER (1919, 71). In contrast to this neologism,
M. haiteri, A.F. hattari “70” reflect MIA forms such as Pkt. sattarim, Pa. sattari- which can be derived from¯
OIA saptatí-. Cp. also the corresponding numeral stem of Sinhalese, hättä/sättä¯ (GEIGER 1941, 191, no. 2888
and 1938, 118; TURNER 1966, II, 761, no. 13143 and 1985, 104, no. 13143).
“80”: For the formation of M. a i ha, A.F. a e ha /a - deha/ “8×10” cf. “70” above. The numeral is
attested in the spelling 〈a diha〉 in the Tāna inscription ITAG 3,6. — As against this, there is a more archaic
variant in Dhivehi, viz. M.A.F. āhi which can be traced back to OIA aśı̄tí- “80” through intermediate stages like
Pkt. ası̄/asi , Pa. ası̄ti- (cf. TURNER 1966, I, 40, no. 911 and 1985, 6, no. 911); cp. the correspondent Sinh. form
asū, subst. asūva (GEIGER 1941, 14, no. 222). The initial ā- of Dhiv. āhi still needs an explanation.
“90” M. nuva-diha “9×10” is already documented two times in Tāna inscriptions of the 18th century(ITMHM 4,3 and 7,2) as a cardinal number and, furthermore, in the corresponding ordinal form nuvadiha-vanain ITFM (2,3). Its modern dialectal variant is A.F. nuva-deha; for the formation cf. “70” above. — For thisnumeral, too, Dhivehi disposes of a more archaic equivalent in M.F. navai, A. navei which can be traced back
to OIA navatí-; cp. Pkt. nauı̄, naui, naui etc. (cf. TURNER 1966, I, 402, no. 6995 and 1985, 58, no. 6995;
NORMAN 1992, 214). As against this, a different development must be assumed for Sinh. anū, subst. anūva “90”the initial a of which “seems to be due to the analogy of asūva eighty” (cf. GEIGER 1941, 8, no. 113).
˙˙

ṫ ṡ

ṡ

ṫ ṫ

ṫ ṫ

ṫ ṫ

ṫ ṫ

c

ṫ

ṫ

˙˙

ḋ

˙

ṫ

ḋ

ḋ

ḋ

ḋ

ḋ

c

ṁ

ṁ

2.5.1.5. The monadic entities from 31 to 39, from 41 to 49 etc. can be formed both by anteposition and by postposition of the monadic units with respect to the decades in question (i.e.
in the form of 30-1 and 1-30, resp.). The postpositional formation of the monadic units occurs
regularly in adjectival as well as substantival forms, which are distinguished in the same way
as their underlying elements (cf. 2.5.1.1). From the point of view of historical linguistics,
these formations must have come into use in the relative recent past only. In contrast to that
it is very difficult to estimate the relative age of the formations that are composed in the
opposite way (“monadic units + decades”).
2.5.1.5.1. A few examples may suffice to illustrate the regular formation of the type “decade+ monadic unit”. “31”: M.A.F. adj. tirı̄s e /ek/, subst. tirı̄s eke /ek-ek/; “32”: adj. tirı̄s de,subst. tirı̄s dē /de-ek/; “39”: adj. tirı̄s nuva, subst. tirı̄s nuvae /nuva-ek/; “42”: adj. salı̄s de,subst. salı̄s dē ; “63”: adj. M. fasdolas tin, A.F. fasdolos tin, subst. M. fasdolas tine ,A.F. fasdolos tine /tin-ek/ etc.
c

˙

c

c

c

˙

c

˙

c

˙

c

˙

˙

2.5.1.5.2. The monadic units which are built according to the model “monadic unit +decade” do not show homogeneous formations. The morphological diversity of the numerals
in question can be explained by the fact that they presuppose at least three types of historicaldevelopment which cannot easily be determined. There are only a few inherited formations,most of the numerals in question representing so-called “mots savants”, i.e. learned sanskritisms or prakritisms, which were borrowed at different times. Additionally, there must also besome analogical formations dating from different periods. Besides these main types, there isa considerable number of numerals which can only be explained as hybrid formations. It

118

Morphology

would go beyond the scope of the present work to etymologise each of the numerals inquestion; thus, the following list will only provide their meaning and their equivalents in OIA.
Only in particular cases, when a direct derivation from an attested MIA form seems to bepossible or there are similar variants in other Modern Indo-Aryan languages, will these forms
be given too (without automatically considering them as direct ancestors of the Dhivehi
forms, however).330 As dialectal variation is reduced to a minimum in this part of the
Dhivehi numeral system, the list will contain only the forms of the standard language (cf.
DISANAYAKA/MANIKU 1990, 99 ff.). The numerals “39”, “49” etc. which are built on thepattern nava- + “decade” and which have no ancestral forms in OIA will be collected in aparticular chapter. For the names of the decades cf. 2.5.1.4.
2.5.1.5.2.1. Formations of the type “monadic unit + decade”:
ettirı̄s “31” (OIA ékatriṁśat-, cf. TURNER 1966, I, 119 and 1985, 15, no. 2469);´ ṁśat-, cf. TURNER 1966, I, 380 and 1985, 55, no. 6657; cp. Guj. batrı̄s);battirı̄s “32” (OIA dvātri
tettirı̄s “33” (OIA tráyastriṁśat-, cf. TURNER 1966, I, 342 and 1985, 49, no. 6000; cp. Beng. tetrı̄ś and Guj.
tetris);sauratirı̄s “34” (OIA cátustriṁśat-, cf. TURNER 1966, I, 252, no. 4651); the ordinal number “34th” isattested as sau-tirı̄s-vana in Old Dhiv. (ITAH 6,2; cp. sauvı̄s “24”, 2.5.1.3);
fansatirı̄s “35” (OIA páñcatriṁśat-, cf. TURNER 1966, I, 432, no. 7661);
sattirı̄s “36”, attested in the spelling 〈satirı̄s〉 in RC 9,3 (OIA sáttriṁśat-, cf. TURNER 1966, II, 742, no.
12786; cp. Guj. chattrı̄s);satutirı̄s “37” (OIA saptatriṁśat-, cf. TURNER 1966, II, 761, no. 13145);´ ṁśat-, cf. TURNER 1966, I, 41, no. 945; cp. Guj. ā t rı̄s);aśutirı̄s “38” (OIA a ātri
˙ ˙

ṙ

ṫ ṡ

ekā ı̄s “41” (OIA ékacatvāriṁśat-, cf. TURNER 1966, I, 119 and 1985, 15, no. 2464; cp. Pa. ekatālı̄sa);bayā ı̄s “42” (OIA dvācatvāriṁśat-, Pkt. bāyālı̄sa ; cf. TURNER 1966, I, 380 and 1985, 55, no. 6656; cp. Hi.
bayālı̄s);teyā ı̄s “43” (OIA trayaścatvāriṁśat-, Pkt. tēyālı̄sa ; cf. TURNER 1966, I, 342 and 1985, 49, no. 5998; cp.
Or. teyālisa);saurayā ı̄s “44” (OIA cátuścatvāriṁśat-, cf. TURNER 1966, I, 251 and 1985, 33, no. 4628; cp. Or. caürā i śa);fansayālı̄s “45” (OIA páñcacatvāriṁśat-, cf. TURNER 1966, I, 432 and 1985, 62, no. 7659; cp. -ns- in Old
Sinh. pansālis and -ñc- in Or. pañcā ı̄sa as against Pkt. pa a yālı̄sā, pa
a yālı̄sa);sayālı̄s “46” (OIA satcatvāriṁśat-, Pkt. chāyālı̄sam; cf. TURNER 1966, II, 742, no. 12784; cp. Or. chayālisa);satā ı̄s “47” (OIA saptácatvāriṁśat-, Pkt. sattālı̄saṁ; cf. TURNER 1966, II, 760 and 1985, 104, no. 13142);
the ordinal number satā ı̄s-vana “47th” is already attested in the Dives akuru fatko u F8,16.
´
aśā ı̄s “48” (OIA a ācatvāriṁśat-, Pa. a h atālı̄sa, Ap. a h atālı̄sa; cf. TURNER 1966, I, 41, no. 944);
l̇

ṁ

l̇

ṁ

l̇

l̇

l̇

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

˙

l̇

˙ ˙

˙

˙
l̇

l̇

ṫ

l̇

ṫ ṫ

ṫ ṡ

l̇

ekāvanna “51” (OIA ékapañcāśat-, cf. TURNER 1966, I, 119 and 1985, 15, no. 2472; cp. Pkt. ekkāvannaṁ,
ekkāvaa , ekāva
a , ekāva ā; NORMAN 1992, 217 explains the -ā- by analogy with ekkārasa “11”);bāvanna “52” (OIA dvāpañcāśat-, cf. TURNER 1966, I, 380 and 1985, 55, no. 6661; cp. Pkt. bāva
a (ṁ),
bāvannaṁ);
ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

330
In the case of the numerals discussed below, TURNER’s indication “← Ind.”, often appearing in the
Addenda and Corrigenda of his work (1985), cannot be taken seriously in general, albeit there are somephonetical convergences between Dhivehi and diverse other Indic languages; cf. also 2.5.1.2. This does notmean, however, that TURNER’s assumption of borrowings or influences from non-Insular IA languages can beruled out with certainty for all items concerned. – For the equivalent forms of MIA cf. NORMAN (1992), 215221, for those of the Modern IA languages cf. BERGER (1992), 256-274.

Cardinal numbers

119tēvanna “53” (OIA tráya p añcāśat-, Pkt. tēva
a , tēvannaṁ; cf. TURNER 1966, I, 342 and 1985, 49, no.
5995);
sauravanna “54” (OIA catu p añcāśat-, cf. TURNER 1966, I, 251, no. 4638);
fansavanna “55” (OIA páñcapañcāśat-, Pa. pañcapaññāsa, Pkt. pañcavanna ; cf. TURNER 1966, I, 432, no.
7666);
savanna “56” (OIA á p añcāśat-, Pkt. chappanna ; cf. TURNER 1966, II, 742, no. 12787);
satuvanna “57” (OIA saptapañcāśat-, Pkt. sattavannaṁ; cf. TURNER 1966, II, 761, no. 13149);´
cf. TURNER 1966, I, 42, no. 949; cp. Pkt. atthavanna);aśuvanna “58” (OIA astāpañcāśat-,
ṁ

ṅ

ṅ

ḣ

ḣ

ṁ

ṁ

˙˙

ṫ

˙˙

ṡ

˙˙

ekāha i “61” (OIA éka a i -, cf. TURNER 1966, I, 119 and 1985, 15, no. 2478; cp. also Sindhı̄ ekaha h i; forthe lengthening of -ā- cp. Dhiv. “51” above331);
bāha i “62” (OIA dvā a i -, Pkt. bāsa h i , bāsa h i; cf. TURNER 1966, I, 381 and 1985, 55, no. 6673);
tēha i “63” (Skt. traya śa i -, Pa. tēsa h i-, Pkt. tēsa h iṁ; cf. TURNER 1966, I, 342 and 1985, 49, no. 5996);
for an older attestation cf. the ordinal number tēha ı̄-vana, written 〈tēha ı̄vana〉 in a Tāna inscription(ITMHM 5,2).
sauraha i “64” (OIA catu a i -, cf. TURNER 1966, I, 249, no. 4590);
fansaha i “65” (OIA pañca a i -, Pkt. pañcasa h i ; cf. TURNER 1966, I, 432, no. 7674);
sahatti “66” (OIA satsasti-, Pa. chasatthi-, Pkt. chasatthim (cf. TURNER 1966, II, 742, no. 12790 and
NORMAN 1992, 218); cp. also Or. chaasathi, Sindhı̄ chāhathi332);
satuha i “67” (OIA sapta a i -, Pkt. sattasa h i- etc.; cf. TURNER 1966, II, 761, no. 13158 and NORMAN
1992, 218; cp., e.g., Sindhı̄ sataha h i, cf. BERGER 1992, 266);aśuha i “68” (OIA a ā´ a i -, Pa. a h asa h i-, Pkt. a h asa h i etc.; cf. TURNER 1966, I, 42, no. 953; cp.
also Panj. a h aha ) ;
ṫ ṫ

ṫ ṡ

ṫ ṫ

ṁ

ṫ ṫ

ṫ ṫ

c

ṫ

ṡ

ṫ ṡ

ṫ ṫ

ṫ ṫ

ṡ

ṫ ṡ

ṫ ṫ

ḣ

ṫ ṫ

ṫ ṫ

ṫ ṡ

ṁ

˙ ˙˙

ṫ ṫ

˙˙

˙

ṡ ḣ

ṫ ṡ

ṡ

ṫ ṫ

˙˙ ˙˙ ˙

ṫ ṫ

˙˙

˙
ṫ ṫ

ṫ ṡ

ṡ

ṫ ṫ

ṫ

ṁ

ṫ ṫ

ṫ ṫ

ṫ ṫ

ṫ ṫ

ṫ ṡ

ṡ

ṫ ṡ

ṫ

ṫ ṫ

ṫ

ekāhaiteri “71” (for the more archaic formations with °hattari such as ekāhattari etc. in the dialect of A ūcf. 2.5.1.4 above); OIA ékasaptati-, cf. TURNER 1966, I, 119 and 1985, 15, no. 2479; Pkt. ēkasattarı̄-, cf.
NORMAN 1992, 218; for Hi. ik-hattar, Beng. ekāttar etc. cf. BERGER 1992, 267);´bāhaiteri “72” (OIA dvāsaptati-,
Pkt. bāvattari ; cf. TURNER 1966, I, 381 and 1985, 55, no. 6674; for Pkt.
bāhattari- / bahattari- and Hi. etc. bahattar, Mar. bāhattar cf. BERGER 1992, 267); cp. the attestation of
the ordinal number bāhattarivanai333 in the Dives akuru inscription IDMHM 2,4.
tēhaiteri “73” (Skt. traya s aptati-, cf. TURNER 1966, I, 49 and 1985, 49, no. 5997; Pa. tēsattati-, cf.
NORMAN 1992 219; cp. also Hi. and Nep. tihattar);saurahaiteri “74” (OIA catu s aptati-, cf. TURNER 1966, I, 249, no. 4591; Pkt. cauhattari-, cf. NORMAN
1992, 219; cp. also Hi. and Nep. cauhattar; for Mar. ċaurehattar cp. BERGER 1992, 268);
fansahaiteri “75” (OIA pañcasaptati-, Pa. pañcasattati-, Pkt. pañcahattarı̄- besides pañcattarim; cf. TURNER
1966, I, 432, no. 7675 and NORMAN 1992, 219; cp. further Guj. pañjahatari);sahaiteri “76” (OIA a s aptati-, Pkt. chāvattari , Ap. chāhattari; cf. TURNER 1966, II, 742, no. 12791 andNORMAN 1992, 219);
satuhaiteri “77” (OIA saptasaptati-, Pkt. sattahattari ; cf. TURNER 1966, II, 761, no. 13159 and NORMAN
1992, 219);´aśuhaiteri “78” (OIA a āsaptati-,
Pkt. a h ahattari , a h ahattari- besides a h attari ; cf. TURNER 1966, I,
42, no. 954 and NORMAN 1992, 219);
ḋ

ḋ

ṁ

ḣ

ḣ

˙

ṁ

ṫ

ṡ

ṁ

ṁ

ṫ

ṫ ṫ

ṁ

ṫ ṫ

ṫ ṡ

ekāhi “81” (OIA ekāśı̄ti-, cf. TURNER 1966, I, 120 and 1985, 16, no. 2491; Pkt. ekkāsı̄i and ekkāsı̄ı̄, cf.
NORMAN 1992, 219; for Beng., Or. etc. ekāsi cf. BERGER 1992, 219);bayāhi “82” (OIA dvyaśı̄ti-, cf. TURNER 1966, I, 382 and 1985, 55, no. 6699; for Hi. bayāsı̄, Nep. bayāsi,
Or. bayāasi etc. cf. BERGER 1992, 270);

331
Cf. also BERGER (1992), 265, who explains the secondary -ā- of Panj. akāhat “61” by analogy with Panj.
bāha “62”.
332
For the secondary lengthening of the a in the first syllable cf. BERGER (1992), 266.
333
The form is not easily readable, therefore its analysis is uncertain. It cannot be completely excluded thatthe final -ai represents a gen./loc. or the postponed element -ai meaning “and”.

ṫ

120

Morphologytēāhi “83” (OIA tryaśı̄ti-, Pkt. tēyāsı̄- etc.; cf. TURNER 1966, I, 346 and 1985, 50, no. 6086; NORMAN 1992,
220; cp. Or. teyāasi);saurayāhi “84” (OIA caturaśı̄ti-, cf. TURNER 1966, I, 249, no. 4597; for Hi. caurāsı̄, Mar. ċauryāśı̄ etc. cf.
BERGER 1992, 270);
˛
Mar. pacyāsı̄,
˛
cf.
fansayāhi “85” (OIA pañcāśı̄ti-, cf. TURNER 1966, I, 433, no. 7683; cp. Guj. pacyāśı̄,
BERGER 1992, 271);sayāhi “86” (OIA aa śı̄ti-, Pa. cha āsı̄ti-; cf. TURNER 1966, II, 742, no. 12793 and NORMAN 1992, 220; for
Hi. chiyāsı̄, Beng. chiyāsi etc. cf. BERGER 1992, 271);
satāhi “87” (OIA saptāśı̄ti-, Pkt. sattāsı̄i ; cf. TURNER 1966, II, 761 and 1985, 104, no. 13160; cp., e.g., Hi.
etc. satāsı̄, Guj. satyāśı̄; cf. BERGER 1992, 271);´
Pkt. a āh sı̄i etc., Ap. a āsi; cf. TURNER 1966, I, 42, no. 951 and NORMAN
aśāhi “88” (OIA a āśı̄ti-,
1992, 220; cp. Beng. ātāsi and Hi. at(t)hāsı̄);
l̇

ḋ

ṡ

ṁ

ṫ ṫ

ṁ

˙˙

ṫ ṫ

ṫ ṡ

˙

ekānavai “91” (Skt. ekanavati-, cf. TURNER 1966, I, 119, no. 2471; cp. Pkt. ekka a uiṁ, ekka a uı̄, cf.
NORMAN 1992, 220; cp. also, e.g., Beng. ekānai, Hi. ekānwe, cf. BERGER 1992, 272);bayānavai “92” (Skt. dvinavati-, cf. TURNER 1966, I, 381 and 1985, 55, no. 6683; cp. also *dviyānavati- →v ˛ cf. BERGER 1992, 272);
Panj. biā e,tēānavai “93” (Skt. trayonavati-, cf. TURNER 1966, I, 342 and 1985, 49, no. 6003);
saurayānavai “94” (Skt. caturnavati-, cf. TURNER 1966, I, 250, no. 4614; cp., e.g., Mar. ċauryā
a v andBeng. curānabbai, cf. BERGER 1992, 273);
fansayānavai “95” (OIA páñcanavati-, cf. TURNER 1966, I, 432 and 1985, 62, no. 7665);
a vati-, cf. TURNER 1966, II, 742, no. 12800; cp., e.g., Hi. chiyānawe, Or.
sayānavai “96” (OIA á
chayānabe334);
satānavai “97” (OIA saptanavati-, cf. TURNER 1966, II, 761 and 1985, 104, no. 13148; cp., e.g., Pkt.
sattā a uiṁ “with -ā- by analogy with a āh -”, cf. NORMAN 1992, 221);´
aśānavai “98” (OIA a ānavati-,
cf. TURNER 1966, I, 42, no. 948; cp., e.g., Pkt. a āha uiṁ, cf. NORMAN
1992, 221).
ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ṡ

ṫ ṫ

ṅ

ṅ

ṫ ṫ

ṫ ṡ

2.5.1.5.2.2. Formations of the type “9 + decade”:
nava-tirı̄s “39”, nava-sālı̄s “49”, M. nava-fansās, A. nava-fansas “59”, nava-hatti “69”, M. nava-haiteri,
A. nava-hattari “79”, navāhi /nava-āhi/ “89”, M. navā-navai, A. navā-navei; for nava- instead of the
expected form nuva- “9” cf. “29”, treated in 2.5.1.3 above.
˙˙˙

2.5.1.5.3. Besides the formations described above, the numbers 39, 49, 59 etc. can also be
expressed by subtraction from the following decade, e.g. by formations of the type “1 lessthan 40, 50” etc. (for this archaic type cf. “19” treated in 2.5.1.2 and “29” treated in
2.5.1.3). Cp., e.g., M. ona-vihi, A. ona-vihi, F. una-vihi “19”; M. ona-tirı̄s, A. ona-tirı̄sF. una-tirı̄s “29”; M. ona-salı̄s, A. ona-salı̄s, F. una-salı̄s “39”; M. ona-fansās, A. onafansas, F. una-fansās “49”; M. ona-hatti, A. ona-hatti, F. una-hatti “59”; M. ona-haiteri,
A. ona-hattari, F. una-hattari “69”; M. ona-āhi, A. ono-āhi (sic), F. una-āhi “79”; M. onasatta (obs.), A. ona-satta, F. una-satta “99” (for satta “100” cf. 2.5.1.6 below). The numeral
denoting “89” shows the effect of haplology; cp. M. onavai ← *ona-navai, A. onavei ← *onanavei, F. unavai ← *una-navai.
˙

˙

˙
˙

˙

˙˙

˙

˙

˙
˙˙

˙

˙

˙˙
˙
˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

334

Cf. BERGER (1992), 273: “The other languages have analogical new formations on the model of the othercompounds with ‘six’; cf. Hi. chiyānawe (i from ‘sixty six’, -ya- from ‘eighty-six’) ...”

Cardinal numbers

121

2.5.1.6. In the modern language, “100” is denoted by M.A.F. satēka, a sanskritism which
obviously exists only in Dhivehi in this form (Skt. śatá- “100” + éka- “1”). For the older
language, this numeral is attested in the spelling sateka in the Dives akuru documents F4,2,
IDMDM 1,3 and RB 1,12. — Another word for “100” which is obsolete but not completely
forgotten in Modern Dhivehi, is M.A.F. satta, a form already documented in the lōmāfanus(L3 2/2,1: 〈sattha〉 and L2 12,1: 〈śata〉). The derivation of satta is problematic because thepresumptive ancestral forms of this word, OIA śatá- and Pa. sata-, cannot explain theexistence of a geminated -tt- in Dhivehi (cf. TURNER 1966, II, 711, no. 12278). Thus itremains uncertain whether we have to assume a different (emphatic?) basic form or a hyperprakritisation here. — In contrast to that, the numeral M.A.F. hia, together with Sinh. siya
“100” (subst. siyaya), a variant almost obsolete in the modern language, clearly represents theregular outcome of OIA śatá-, Pa. sata-, Pkt. sada-, saya- etc.335 As BELL (1883, 121) and
GEIGER (1901-1902, II, 378) recognised, Dhiv. hia is semantically ambiguous. Although it
was reinterpreted as meaning “96” during the period of the duodecimal system (“8×12”; thehighest number which is known within this system, cf. 2.5.1.8), the original meaning “100”did not totally fall into oblivion. Thus, when fish are counted, old people in Addū still use hia
for “100”. Nevertheless, the same people also remember the use of hia as an archaic numeral
meaning “96”.
˙˙˙In Dhivehi the stepping by hundreds is expressed by regular composition with satēka; cp.
M.A.F. tin-satēka “300”, “3(×)100”; M. hataru- / A. hatara- / F. hataro-satēka “400”;
M.A.F. fas-satēka “500”; M.A.F. ha-satēka “600”; M. hai-satēka, A.F. has-satēka /hat-/“700” (for “7” cf. 2.5.1.1 above); M.A.F. as-satēka /at-/ “800” (for “8” cf. 2.5.1.1 above);
M.A.F. nuva-satēka “900”. The only exception to the rule is A.F.M. duisatta “200” which
obviously represents a sanskritism (cp. Skt. dviśata-).
˙

2.5.1.7. “1000”: M.A.F. hās can be traced back to OIA sahásra- “1000” through an intermediate form *s ass ; cf. Pa., Pkt. sahassa-, further Pkt. sahasa-, sahāsa- (TURNER 1966, II,768, no. 13307). The Sinh. equivalent is dahas/dās (subst. dahasa/dāsa) which substitutes the
expected form, *sahas/sās ← Sinh.Pkt. sahasa- (cf. NORMAN 1992, 222). GEIGER (1900, 65
and 1941, 73, no. 1067) prefers to explain the initial d- of the Sinh. word by assuming ananalogical influence of dasa/daha “10”, arguing against the alternative derivation form MIA
dasa-sata- “10×100”. An equivalent of this is indeed attested for Old Dhivehi in the form
diha-satta-satirı̄s “1036” appearing in a 17th century Dives akuru fatkolu (F2,3); in this case,however, the reading is not absolutely certain, the manuscript being damaged.
e

c

e

˙

The stepping by thousands is performed by regular composition with hās “1000”; cp.
M.F. e , A. eu /ek/ hās “1000”, M.A.F. de hās “2000”, tin hās “3000” etc.
c

The interaction of the formations described above can easily be illustrated with thefollowing examples of higher numbers: A. satēka bāhattari “172”, A. fassatēka aśatirı̄s“538”; A. nuvasatēka aśānavei “998”; M. tirı̄s ha hās a /aś/ satēka fasdolas “36,860”;
M. haidiha hās “70,000”.
˙

c

335

Cf. GEIGER (1941), 179, no. 2708 and (1902), 923, no. 193, further TURNER 1966, II, 711, no. 12278 and
NORMAN 1992, 221.

122

Morphology

2.5.1.8. The duodecimal system
In the written documents of Old Dhivehi there are only a few numerals that can be regarded
as parts of a duodecimal system; the numerals in question will be quoted below. As alreadystated by GEIGER (1919, 73), the duodecimal method of counting “began to die out” in thelanguage of Māle at the beginning of the 20th century. Most probably, the duodecimal
numbers had the status of mere relic forms even then. In the southern Maldives, the oldnumeral system must have been preserved for a longer time (cf. 2.5 above); but here too, it
has become very difficult to find informants who still remember the duodecimal numbers. It
was only with the help of some of the oldest speakers each of the dialects of Addū and Fua
Mulaku that a complete list of the particular items of the duodecimal system could be
prepared. Most of the forms quoted below would have remained obscure without their help.

c˙˙“12”: M.A.F. do o s is the basis of the duodecimal system. The earliest attested forms are do o s and do o su
both appearing in the lōmāfanu L1 (g/2,3 and my/1,6), and the reduplicated forms do o su-to o s and do o su-to o su
in L2 (5,2 and 4) which probably have to be regarded as distributive plurals meaning “twelve each” (-s_t- being
the result of an assimilation of /-s_d-/). The interpretation of do o s-to o s as “twelve thirteen” as proposed by
MANIKU/WIJAYAWARDHANA (1986, 5) must be rejected because “13” was never attested in the form *to o s;
furthermore, this interpretation is not supported by the given context. — TURNER (1966, I, 380, no. 6658) and´
BERGER (1992, 251) are right in deriving Dhiv. and Sinh. do o s (Sinh. subst. do a ha) from OIA (RV) duvādaśa´
as against Skt. dvādaśaas proposed by GEIGER (1941, 82, no. 1210); cp. also Pa. dvādasa, Pkt. duvālasa etc.
For the Modern Dhivehi numeral bāra and Sinh. bara “12” which represent the Sanskrit variant, cf. 2.5.1.2; forthe retroflex -l- cf. 2.5.1.2 above (s.v. “sixteen”).
Within the duodecimal system, “11” is denoted by eko o s which can be traced back to OIA ékādaśa; eko o s
is to the regular e(n̆)gāra (cf. 2.5.1.2) as do o s to bāra.
The duodecimal expressions of the numbers in between the steps by twelve are based on the numerals
denoting the particular steps to which the monadic units are added. Thus, “13” is expressed by M.A.F. do o s
eke “12+1”, “14” by do o s dē “12+2”, “15” by do o s tine “12+3” etc., up to “22” which has the form of
dolos dihae “12-10”. The last number preceding the following step by twelve can be formed by a kind of
subtraction;336 cp., e.g., “23” which is expressed by F. ekuni-fassihi “24 less one” (lit. “24 lacking one”; forekuni cp. OIA ekona- “less by one” ← éka- + ūná-, cf. TURNER 1966, I, 120, no. 2494). This implies that theformation of the last units of decades in the form of “(one) less than 10, 20, 30 etc.”, which was inherited fromthe OIA decimal system, must have been transferred to the duodecimal system; cp. 2.5.1.2 for the formation of“nineteen” and 2.5.1.5.3.
“24”: M.A.F. fassihi (noted as “24 fassehi” with a question mark by GEIGER 1919, 72) is already attested
in the lōmāfanu L2 (5,4), in the archaic form pasvisi which exactly corresponds to Sinh. pasvisi “25” (cp. Pa.
pañcavı̄sa(ti)-, OIA pañcaviṁśati- “25”; cf. TURNER 1966, I, 432, no. 7672). In the given context in thelōmāfanu, however, it cannot be decided with certainty whether Old Dhiv. pasvisi meant “25” or “24”. It is
presumably under the influence of the corresponding Sinh. numeral that MANIKU/WIJAYAWARDHANA (1986, 5)translate Dhiv. pasvisi with “25”. Because of the other duodecimal numbers appearing in the same context(especially dolos-tolos, cf. above), the meaning of “24” seems to be more probable, however. In more recent
times, Dhiv. pasvisi → fassihi (meaning “24”) has been clearly confined to the duodecimal system (cf. also
TURNER 1985, 62, no. 7672; cf. 2.5.1.3 for “25”). The reinterpretation implied is not an isolated phenomenon
in the history of Dhivehi if we consider the origin of the duodecimal numbers fanas “48” and hia “96” (cf.
below).
The numbers from 25 to 34 (inclusively) are regularly built by “addition”; cp., e.g., “25”: M.A.F. fassihi
eke “24+1”; “26”: fassihi dē “24+2” etc. GEIGER (1919, 72) notes “fassehi-haye (=2×12+6)” for “30”. “35”,however, is expressed by “substraction” as “36 minus one”: ekuni-tin-do o s.
“36” tin-do o s is “3×12”; “37” tin-do o s eke is “3×12+1” etc. Cf. GEIGER (1919, 73) who noted tin do o shatare “3×12+4” for “40”. “47” ekuni-fanas literally means “one less than 48”.
l̇

l̇

l̇

l̇

l̇

l̇

l̇

l̇

l̇

l̇

l̇

l̇

˙

l̇

l̇

l̇

l̇

c

c

c

l̇

l̇

c

˙

c

˙

˙

c

l̇

c

c

l̇

l̇

l̇

Cp., however, the formation of fas-do o s eko o s “71” discussed s.v. “60” below.
l̇

l̇

c

336

The duodecimal system

123“48”: M.A.F. fanas, like fassihi “24”, presupposes the reinterpretation of an original decimal number whichmust have happened at the time of the emergence of the duodecimal system. Dhiv. fanas ← *panas corresponds
to Sinh. panas “50”; cf. TURNER 1985, 62, no. 7682, who identifies fanas (besides fansās “50”, the regularcardinal number of Modern Dhivehi) with OIA pañcāsát- “50”. For further details concerning the derivation of
the concurrent etymological variants cf. 2.5.1.4 s.v. “50” above. The Old Dhiv. numeral panasu which is attested
in L2 (26,4) is translated as meaning “50” by MANIKU/WIJAYAWARDHANA (1986, 26) who do not consider aduodecimal interpretation; this, however, imposes itself in the given context. Within the framework of theduodecimal system, “50” would have been expressed by fanas dē “48+2”.
“60”: fas-dolos “5×12” is attested for the period of Old Dhivehi in the spelling 〈fasdolos〉 appearing in theTāna inscriptions ITAG (2,2), ITAH (3,6) and ITAM (1,3). fas-do o s is the only duodecimal number which has
been integrated into the decimal system and is therefore still in use in the modern language (cf. also 2.5.1.4 s.v.
“60”). Correspondingly, the monadic numbers based on “60” such as “61”: M. fas-dolas eke , A.F. fas-dolos
eke “5×12+1”, “62”: M. fas-do a s dē , A.F. fas-do o s dē “5×12+2” etc., up to “69”: M. fas-do a s nuvae ,A.F. fas-do o s nuvae , are still used as well. The highest derivative based on fas-do o s is A.F. fas-do o s eko o s“71”, lit. meaning “5×12+11”, which appears in a Tāna inscription from Gan (A ū Atoll: ITAG 2,2).
“72”: F. fāheti. This duodecimal number which has so far been attested for the vernacular of Fua Mulaku
only, possibly represents a reinterpreted form of OIA pañcasaptati- “75” (cf. TURNER 1966, I, 432, no. 7675).
We may assume that the corresponding word for “72” in A ū and in North Dhivehi was not (much) different
from F. fāheti. — For further examples of reinterpreted duodecimal numbers cp. 24 (← 25), 48 (← 50) and 96(← 100).
“84”: A.F. haddo o s /hat-do o s/ has the meaning of “7×12”.
“96” exists in the dialectal variants F. hia dolos and A.M. hia. It represents the highest number that can befound within the duodecimal system; cf. GEIGER (1919, 73) who states: “It is concluded with hia (=100) whichcomes close to 96 (=8×12).” hia reflects the inherited word for “100” which, in the same way as “50” wasreinterpreted as a duodecimal number (cf. 2.5.1.6). — It may be interesting to note that another word meaning“one hundred”, viz. eksatēka (cf. 2.5.1.6), can be interpreted as “96” according to the duodecimal system aswell. In a Dives akuru inscription on a tombstone (IDMHM 7,1-2), we find the Arabic annual date 1196 (A.H.)
alongside the Maldivian date which is given as 〈hāhai eksatēka〉 “1000 and 96”. If we assume that a one-to-one
correspondence was intended, the monument being an epitaph, we must admit that the Maldivian form is incomplete, either “100” or “96” missing. Thus it cannot be decided with certainty whether satēka – like hia –could be used for “96” or whether this is an isolated example of mere confusion caused by the influence of hia.
c

˙

˙

l̇

c

˙

˙

c

c

c

l̇

l̇

l̇

c

ḋ

l̇

c

l̇

c

l̇

l̇

ḋ

ḋ

ḋ

l̇

l̇

˙

2.5.2. Ordinal numbers
In Dhivehi, ordinal numbers are formed by means of the suffix -vana which is added to thestem of the cardinal numbers; cp., e.g., M.A.F. de-vana “second”, tin-vana “third”, vihi-vana“twentieth”, satēka-vana “hundredth” etc. For ordinal numbers attested in Old Dhivehi cp.,
e.g., sa-vana “6th” (L4 a/1,7), satālı̄s-vana “47th” (F8,16), sau-tirı̄s-vana “34th”(ITAH 6,2), nuvadiha-vana “90th” (ITFM 2,3). The suffix -vana corresponds to -veni inModern Sinhalese which has replaced the Old Sinh. forms -vana and -vanna (cf. GEIGER
1938, 122 and 1900, 65). In Dhivehi there are no exceptions as to the formation with -vana.
Hence, also the inherited ordinal number furatama “first”, which as a sanskritism is irregularfrom the point of view of the modern language (← OIA prathamá-; cf. TURNER 1966, II, 488,
no. 8648 and GEIGER 1919, 74), has been replaced by the neologism M.A.F. evvana /ek-vana/which is derived from the cardinal number e “one”. furatama still exists in the contemporary
language, but only in the function of an adverb meaning “at first, at the beginning”. Unlike
that, the inherited ordinal numeral palamu “first” has been used without interruption until
nowadays in Sinhalese; this word goes back to OIA prathamá- as well but presupposes anintermediate form with a retroflex stop such as Pa. pathama- (cf. GEIGER 1941, 101, no.
˙

c

˙

˙

124

Morphology

1500). Furthermore, we find the secondary formation palamu-veni “first” in colloquial
Sinhalese which occurs side by side with its “allegro-variant”, palaveni. Among the ordinal
numbers of Sinhalese, there is no form derived from ek- “one” (i.e., †ek-veni; cf. MATZEL
1983, 41).
While the Sinhalese formations with -veni can only be used as adjectives (they must be
further enlarged to be usable as substantives; cp., e.g., palamu-veni-yā “the first”, tun-veni-yā
“the third”), the Maldivian ordinal numbers ending in -vana can be substantivised without
any morphological change.
˙˙˙

2.5.3. Other categories of numerals
2.5.3.1. There are special analytic forms of collective numerals in Dhivehi which are used
for the morphological expression of the correlation “animate vs. inanimate”, here meaning an
opposition of “person” and “non-person” in particular. The inanimate collective numerals are
generated by adding the noun eti “thing” to the numeral stem; this process is uniform
throughout the whole Dhivehi speaking area. Cp., e.g., M.A.F. dēti ← de “two” + eti “a unitof two things, a pair, both”; M.A.F. tin-eti “a unit of three things”; A. faheti, F. faheti
˛← fas“five” + eti “a unit of five things” etc. When the collective numeral refers to nouns denoting
persons, the numeral stem is combined with mı̄hun “people, men” (pl. of the nominal stemmı̄s- “man”; sg. mı̄hā) in the standard language. Although collective numerals that are
enlarged with mı̄hun may also occur in the southern dialects, the formation with -verin (theplural of an obsolete noun veri which originally had the meaning of “leader, person”, cf.
2.3.2.4.2) is much more common there. In general, the combination of a cardinal number with-verin is understood as one word, -verin being taken as a suffix denoting “person”. In thecase of formations with mı̄hun, however, only the context can tell whether the formation inquestion must be interpreted as a real collective number or whether it only denotes a certain“number of people” without a collective meaning. Thus, A.F. de-verin has the meaning of a“unit of two persons; both persons”, while M.A.F. de mı̄hun, depending on the context, canbe translated as “unit of two persons” or, in a more neutral sense, as “two persons (notnecessarily connected with each other)”. For the “southern” type of formation further cp.
A. fasverin, F. fahaverin
˛“unit of five persons”, A.F. havverin (ha /hat/ “seven”) “unit ofseven persons”, A. avverin “unit of eight persons” (A. a , F. aśo /aś/ “eight”), etc. In Addū
this type of formation is still productive; collective numerals ending in -verin can be derived
from any numeral stem, even if it denotes a very high number or the numeral in question isa loanword. In the modern dialect of Fua Mulaku, however, the collective formation bymeans of -verin can no longer be extended to every number. The main reason for this can beseen in the fact that -verin, originally the regular plural of an i-stem veri, has become
obsolete in this form as the second part of nouns denoting persons, -verin having been
replaced by -vērun in Fua Mulaku (cf. 2.3.2.8.2.2.2).
c

c

˙˙

c

c

2.5.3.2. Fractional numbers are formed analytically with the noun bai meaning “part” inDhivehi. Cp., e.g., M. de bai kula e /ek/ bai “1/2”, lit. “one part made two parts” (bai“part”, kula “made, done” part.pret. of kuranı̄ “to make, do”), tin bai kula e bai “1/3”,
hataru bai kula e bai “1/4”, etc.
c

c

˙

˙

˙

c

˙

Other categories of numerals

125

In Sinhalese, too, fractions are expressed periphrastically by nouns meaning “part, share, portion”, viz.
bāgaya and pamguva. Cp., e.g., aten pamguva “1/8”, lit. “(one) part of eight” (at-en abl./instr. of ata “eight”);
a e n tun-pa g uva “3/8”, lit. “three part(s) of eight”; hataren pa g uva “1/4”, lit. “(one) part of four” (cf.
GEIGER 1938, 123, and, in greater detail, GUNASEKARA 1891, 147-8).
˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

ṁ

ṁ

ṫ

2.5.3.3. Multiplicative numerals are formed with the noun M. guna, A. guna “times” which
is suffixed to the cardinal stem; cp., e.g., M. de-guna, A. de-guna “two times, twice, twofold,double”, M. tin-guna, A. tin-guna “three times”, etc. Corresponding formations also exist in
Sinhalese; cp., e.g., de-guna “twice” or te-guna “three times”, but also the sanskritisms dviguna “twice” and tri-guna “three times” which are used in the literary language.337
˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

M. guna, A. guna is also used as the nominal part of the complex verb M. guna kuranı̄, A. guna keranı̄ “tomultiply, increase, augment”, lit. “to make number, amount”; cp. also M. gunanı̄, A. gananı̄ “to count” andSinh. ga i navā “to count, reckon, enumerate” which have to be derived from Skt. ga a ya-, Pa. ga e - “to count”(cf. GEIGER 1941, 52, no. 760 and 1902, 921, no. 173).338
˙

˙

˙

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

The Maldivian numerals with -guna/-guna cannot be directly inherited from the corresponding formations of Old or Middle Indo-Aryan because the original final -a would not havebeen preserved in Modern Dhivehi. A presumptive preform *guna of IIA Prakrit or of anearly stage of Old Dhivehi would have developed into *gunu, -u being a secondary final
vowel which, at least in the northern dialects, would have been conserved in the same quality
until present.339 Old Dhiv. †gunu or, at a later time, M. †gunu, is not attested, however.
Hence, we must presume that A. guna / M. guna, both as a suffixal element and as a noun
meaning “amount, number”, represent a sanskritism or a borrowing from another Modern
Indo-Aryan language; in the latter case, Sinhalese is one of the most probable sources.340
If Dhiv. guna/guna represents the Sanskrit form proper, it must have been borrowed at acomparatively recent period so that it could not be affected by the usual change of the wordfinal vowel any longer.
˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

2.5.3.4. Approximate numerical data
Depending on the degree of uncertainty to be expressed, there are different morphologicaldevices of denoting approximate figures. If the uncertainty concerning the exact number is notparticularly important, the numbers in question can simply be arranged as a string; cp., e.g.,
M.A. de-tin “two (or) three” corresponding to Sinh. de-tun “id.”. For the expression of a337
The formations with -gu a represent only one of numerous methods of expressing numeral adjectives andnumeral adverbs in Sinhalese as equivalents of Engl. “times, -fold” etc. Cp., e.g., de-pa a “double, twice”, tunpa a “threefold” or de-varak “two times”, te-varak “three times”; for further formations cf., e.g., JAYAWARDENA-MOSER (1996), 2 f.
338
Cf. TURNER (1985), 29 who, on the one hand, puts M. gunanı̄ together with OIA gu á yati (1) “advises”(1966, I, no. 4191), while the nominal element M. guna, on the other hand, is identified with gunayati (2)“multiplies” (1966, I, no. 4191a); cf. further TURNER (1966), I, 213, 3993 s.v. ga á yati “counts” and 224, 4190
s.v. gu á - “... 2. species, quality, good quality”. The etymology of the OIA noun gu á -, which has numerous(partly contradictory) meanings, is still unclear (cf. MAYRHOFER 1986-, I, 489-490); cp. the OIA multiplicative
numerals with °gu a - “-fach, -plex” being quoted ib.: dví-gu a - “twofold”, catur-gu a - “fourfold”, pañcagu a - “fivefold”; tribhír gu á i “threefold”.
339
For the final vowels of the consonant stems cf. 2.3.1.3.4.2; for the development of OIA gu á - in diverse
NIA languages cf. TURNER (1966), I, 224, no. 4190 and BERGER (1992), 281 f.
340
Cp. also Modern Hi. gun vs. gunā in du-gunā “twofold”, ti-gunā “threefold”, das-gunā “tenfold”, etc.;
cf. KELLOG 1875, 158.

ṅ

ṫ

ṫ

˙

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ḣ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

126

Morphology

higher degree of uncertainty, the dialect of Addū uses indefinite collective numbers (cf.
2.5.3.1 above) in their dative form: cp., e.g., A. fahettaka /faheti-ak-aś/ “approximately five(pieces of ...)”. This formation can only be used for the numbers between “two” and “ten”,
however. In the standard language, a presumptive value of “approximately six” is expressedby the dative of the substantive form of the numeral; cp., e.g., M. haekka /ha-ekk-aś/“approximately six”, lit. “(up) to (a) six”. An indefinite dative can be built for the same
purpose from higher numbers as well; cp., e.g., M. dolahaka /dolas-ak-aś/ “approximately
twelve”.341 Following DISANAYAKA/MANIKU (1990, 104), this formation type cannot be
used for numbers greater than 60, however. If the number in question has a higher value, it
must be combined with varaka (“very” indef. dat.), here functioning as a postpositional
adverb (cf. DISANAYAKA/MANIKU, ib.).
˙˙

c

c

˙

c

˙

c

2.6. The pronominal system
From the formal point of view, pronouns do not represent a homogeneous morphologicalclass, neither in Dhivehi or Sinhalese nor in most other Indo-Aryan or Indo-European
languages. Hence, before trying to classify them, it will be necessary to define the generalframework which determines the morphological and semantical limits of the category “pronoun”. The main criterion for a clear distinction between the nominal and the pronominal
categories is the simple fact that nouns designate elements of extra-linguistic reality by
naming them, while the function of the pronouns consists in referring to these elements
without specifically naming them.
2.6.1. In the Insular Indo-Aryan languages, a definition and classification of the pronouns on
the basis of purely morphological criteria would not be effective because of their formal
heterogeneity. In this regard, A.V. ISAČENKO’s general statement (1962, 470) according towhich “the main feature characterising the pronouns as an independent word-class anddistinguishing them from all other parts of speech, is not their form, but their particular‘meaning’, their specific semantics”342 is valid for these languages, too.
2.6.1.1. Depending on their syntactic characteristics, the pronouns can be divided into threemain groups. The first group consists of “absolute pronouns” which have a high degree ofsubstantival function, occurring as subjects or objects of sentences. The second group isrepresented by “determinative pronouns” which have an adjectival function; these pronouns
can be used as attributes as well as predicates. The third group consists of “adverbial
pronouns” which, according to their name, are characterised by several adverbial functions.
c341

There is no particular suffix -haka as presumed by DISANAYAKA/MANIKU (1990, 104).
“Das, was die Pronomina als selbständige Wortklasse kennzeichnet und sie von allen anderen Wortarten
unterscheidet, ist nicht ihre Form, sondern ihre eigenartige ‘Bedeutung’, ihre spezifische Semantik.” Because of
their general character, ISAČENKO’s (1962, 469-520) theoretical considerations about the fundamental characteristics of pronouns, which were based on Russian material, can also be used as “coordinates” for the still
undescribed pronominal system of Dhivehi. ISAČENKO’s extended presentation and discussion of the theoreticalcontext can hardly be regarded as the scope of this chapter, however. ISAČENKO himself relied on formulations
made by KARL BRUGMANN (Die Demonstrativpronomina der indogermanischen Sprachen. Abhandlungen dersächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, Bd. 22, 1904) and KARL BÜHLER (Sprachtheorie. Jena 1934).
342

The pronominal system

127

2.6.1.2. The particular pronominal classes such as personal pronouns, interrogative pronouns,
demonstrative pronouns etc. are established by attributing these three pronominal groups todifferent deictic levels. ISAČENKO343 assumes two levels arranged as a coordinate system,with the syntactically motivated tripartition of the pronouns representing the vertical axis andthe level of the “modified references” (i.e., e.g., references to actual speech acts in the courseof which the personal pronouns of the first two persons are used, or references to the ignorance of a speaker in an interrogative situation which requires an interrogative pronoun)
appearing as the horizontal axis. The intersection nodes of the two coordinates represent thepotential pronominal meanings, the realisation of which may be different from language tolanguage. Thus, for example, there are no relative pronouns, no negative pronouns and noreflexive pronouns proper344 in Modern Dhivehi. According to their specific meaning, someof the pronominal stems (absolute, determinative and adverbial pronouns) form completesemantical rows along the vertical axis of the coordinate system.345
2.6.1.3. The following table shows a simplified variant of ISAČENKO’s (1962, 512) model toillustrate the interaction of the two axes as mentioned above. In its adaptation to Dhivehi, thepronominal formations are exemplified by means of Addū pronouns here (pers.pron. 1.ps.sg.,
interrogative pronouns, dem.pron. mi/me).
˙˙personsubstance

demonstrative
pronouns

ava,
obl. ma “I”

keyye “who?”mi (attr.)“this (here)”thing

konta “what?”quality

kon “what kind of,what a?”quantitykehei vara
“how much?”,kitaka “how many?”

mi vara“so much”

kankāge “whose?”miagē “of this”

c

c

343

adverbial
factor

afagē, ma “my”

crelation (poss.)

adverbial
pronouns

mi kahalei“such a”cdeterminative
featurepronounsinterrogative
pronounscabsolute
pronounspersonal
pronounsmoodkehei, kehenaka“how, in which
way?”

space

kontāki“where, at whichplace?”

mi tān,“here, at thisplace”

time

konkalaki “when, at
what time?”

mi kō
“now, at this time”

causality /finality

kian vegen“why, what for?”mehen“thus, in this way”

Cf. the tables given in ISAČENKO (1962), 474 and 512.
The pronoun timā cannot be assigned a reflexive function in Modern Dhivehi, cf. 2.6.4.
345“Achse der allgemeinen logischen Kategorien” according to ISAČENKO.
344

128

Morphology

2.6.1.4. From the functional point of view, the inventory of the pronominal categories is quite
homogeneous in Dhivehi. Concerning the realisation of the particular pronominal meanings,
however, there are considerable divergences not only between North and South Dhivehi. As
to the etymology of the particular pronouns, divergences occur also within the two main
dialect groups; in some cases, specific etymological heterogeneities are even met with inneighbouring atolls.

2.6.2. Personal pronouns
In Dhivehi the system of personal pronouns is characterised by the distinction of three
persons in both singular and plural. The first two persons exclusively refer to persons or
personified beings, while the third person comprises animate beings and objects as well.
The use of demonstrative pronouns as personal pronouns of the 3rd person can be regarded
as typical for the Indo-European and also for the Indo-Aryan languages. The demonstrative
pronouns in question originally represent a different deictic category than the personalpronouns (cf. 2.6.5.2 below). In Dhivehi, it is primarily the dem.pron. e “that” which has thefunction of a personal pronoun of the 3rd person; in its non-enlarged form, however, it can
only be used for inanimate objects (“it”). For the expression of an animate 3.ps.sg. (“he,she”), e must be “substantivised” with certain suffixes, while in the 3.ps.pl. (“they”), a plural
noun meaning “people, men, persons” is added to it. As the following tables show, thenominalisation is realised by different specialised suffixes or nouns meaning “people” in the
Dhivehi dialects.
2.6.2.1. In the standard language, the system of the personal pronouns is characterised by aparticular typological development which is completely unknown in southern Dhivehi. In
analogy to the three honorific levels of the verbal system (cf. 3.2.1.1.1.), the personal pronouns, too, are differentiated according to three formal levels which express the social
position and, to a certain extent, esteem and disregard. The first degree or rank is the lowest
one; the corresponding pronouns serve for addressing among (untitled) commoners and arealso used by high-ranked people in addressing commoners. The pronouns of the second
degree are reserved for the nobility; they are used by aristocrats when speaking with eachother but also by members of the first and third class when addressing nobles. The pronounsof the third degree, which represent the highest level of the society, were originally reserved
exclusively for the king or the queen; nowadays they are correspondingly used for thepresident of the Maldives, but also for people in leading positions (heads of departments,
directors, professors etc.). When representatives of the second or the third social level referto themselves, they will always use the pronominal variants of the lowest degree, however.
In the southern Maldives, we observe certain levels in the social hierarchy, too, but they
can by no means be regarded as traces of a caste-like society system recalling that of Māle.
This means that the system of the personal pronouns is confined to only one formal level.
There is, however, a peculiar development concerning the use of the personal pronouns in
Addū which has to be mentioned here. During the last years, the younger generation has more
and more lost its competence in using the personal pronouns in an adequate way which often
results in confusion and mistakes in the use of the grammatical persons. Especially in the
singular, this uncertainty is often compensated by using a proper name instead of the personal˙˙Personal pronouns

129

pronoun in question, even when referring to oneself; thus, the pronouns meaning “I”, “you”,“he” and “she”, having become taboo to some extent, are avoided. Some of the younger
Addū-speakers even characterise them as “ugly” or “embarrassing”. To the older people who
still have a full competence in using the pronouns, this taboo appears strange, however.
Probably this recent development results from a conflict caused by the fact that nowadays the
speakers of these dialects have to learn the standard language with its honorific levels which
are completely unusual to them from the point of view of their mother tongue.
˙˙

2.6.2.2. As the tables given in 2.6.2.6.2 will show, the personal pronouns of the southernmost
dialects clearly distinguish a casus rectus (nominative) and a casus obliquus, which are still
differentiated by particular forms. When the predicate verb is finite, the subject of thesentence appears in the direct case; but when the predicate verb is infinite, its subject appears
in the oblique case.346 In northern Dhivehi, this morphosyntactic differentiation exists aswell, but the forms of the direct and the oblique case coincide there. This fundamental
morphological change must have happened at a very early time as can be followed from thewritten documents of Old Dhivehi. Even in the oldest texts there are no traces of a morphological opposition of the cases rectus and obliquus in this sense.
In the following paragraphs, the personal pronouns will be treated one by one. It must be
noted right from the beginning that it is not yet possible to present an etymological derivation
for all of them.

2.6.2.3. The personal pronouns of the first person
In the dialects of Addū and Fua Mulaku, the personal pronoun of the 1.ps.sg. (“I”) has theform ava in the nominative and ma in the oblique case. Its equivalents in the standard
language are alugan̆du for the first and the second honorific level and aharen for the third
degree. The obl. A.F. ma is identical with the Sinh. obl. mā which GEIGER (1938, 124)
derives from an old instr./abl. of the 1st person pronoun; cp. Pkt. mae, Pa. mayā (for the OIA
obl. stem ma- cf. TURNER 1966, II, 554, no. 9691).
As was mentioned above (cf. 2.6.2.2), the opposition between the direct and the obliquecase must have died out in the language of Māle a long time ago. Even in the oldest texts
that have become known until today, the old oblique form ma occurs only one time (in the
16th century fatkolu F1,1.5), but in attributive position and in possessive function. Nevertheless, ma is mentioned by GEIGER (1919, 75) as a pers.pron. of the 1.ps.sg.347 DISANAYAKA/MANIKU (1990, 37) note the pronoun ma for the 1.ps.sg. besides aharen and alugan̆du aswell. As a matter of fact, ma does exist as a very familiar, unofficial form meaning “I”, but
it serves neither as an oblique case of aharen or alugan̆du, nor does it belong to a particularlevel of the threefold honorific system, which is otherwise “omnipresent” in the pronominal
categories of standard Dhivehi.348 Thus, ma represents something like an “alien element”
within the well-organised system of the personal pronoun in Māle. It is probable that its very
restricted use as well as its existence in the language of Māle can be explained by interferc

˙˙
˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

For this fundamental rule which has no exceptions cf. 5.2.
For GEIGER’s informant cf. the Introduction, 0.6.1 above.
348
Information by MUHAMMAD WAHEED (Ma u lu), Māle, 24-03-1999.
ḋ

347

˙

346

130

Morphology

ence of the southern dialects. As against this, it seems less probable, yet imaginable that ma
is a relic form from an older period which has been nearly deprived of its original function
as an oblique case form but has been secondarily “strengthened” by a later influence fromthe south. In the normal colloquial and official language as well as in modern literature, ma
is mostly used in possessive function; as an oblique case it occurs, e.g., in a fairy tale in thesentence ma im /in/ magaś la galē (T1, 50) “let it float ashore to the place (lit. ‘road’) where
I am sitting” (in part.pret. of innanı̄ “to sit”).
c˙

2.6.2.3.1. Most probably, the modern nominative forms A.F. ava and M. aharen are
etymologically connected with the form of the 1.ps.pl. “we” we find in the Sinh nom. api,
obl. apa; cf. the older Sinh. forms āp und äp.
2.6.2.3.1.1. GEIGER (1941, 8, no. 115) identifies this pronoun with the forms of the 1.ps.pl. acc. aphe, apheni,
gen. aphāka, loc. aphesu appearing in the Aśoka inscriptions. api and its variants are derived from the reflexive
pronoun Pkt. appa- which, according to PISCHEL (1981), 226, alternates with atta-. PISCHEL deduces both forms
from OIA ātmán- “breath, soul; self”. TURNER (1966, I, 43, no. 986 and 51, no. 1135), while confirming that
the Prakrit variants (“attā, ātā, ādā, āyā nom., ... appā nom.”) come from ātmán-, rejects the proposal to trace
the Sinh. pronoun api etc. back to the same form. While noting Sinh. ata “self, individuality” as a direct
successor of ātmán-, he relates api and the Aśoka forms with the oblique prononimal stem of the 1.ps.pl. OIA
asmá(d)-. On the problems involved now cf. HINÜBER (1986, 159) who states: “The acc.pl. aphe of (Eastern)Aśoka developed from Sanskrit asmān through *asvam: *as-vam, *as-pam → *appham which was latertransformed after maye [Eastern Aśoka ‘we’].”349
˙

˙

˙

˙

2.6.2.3.1.2. M. aharen “I”, also existing in the variant ahuren which is less used today, originally was a pluralform meaning “we”; accordingly, GEIGER (1919, 75) still noted aharen besides aharamen (sic) as a pronoun of
the 1.ps.pl. With all probability, aharen represents an “allegro-form” (with a change of /f/ to /h/; cf. below) ofan older afuren ← apuren, well attested in genitive forms which in most of the passages in question have apossessive function. Cp., e.g., apurenge kau “our Lord” (F3,3.7; the person in question being the Prophet
Mu a mmad; afurenge kau in Tāna, RA 2,3; RC 4,8 and 9,1). The earlier form of the modern 1.ps.pl. M. aharemen/aharumen “we”, which is enlarged with the plural suffix -men,350 is attested as well; cp. afuremenge kau“our Lord” appearing in the Rādavali (RC 4,1), which has the older spelling, apuremenge kau, in its Dives
akuru version (RB 1,11).351 The possessive genitive we find in afunge kau “our Lord” (RC 10,1) represents
the same form as the one being used in the 1.ps.pl. obl. afun “we” (nom. afū) in Fua Mulaku today. Whether
afun presupposes a pluralisation by means of the suffix -un352 or whether this is a mere “allegro-variant” ofafuren, cannot be decided with cerainty yet.
Most probably, the form apuren goes back to a combination of the oblique case of the pers.pron. 1.ps.pl.,*apa, here used in possessive function, with the plural element uren. As an independent word meaning “people”,
this element is already attested in the earliest documents of Dhivehi (e.g., L1 t/1,6). In several texts we find miuren “these people” (F1,21; F2,15; F10,11; F12,9) and e uren “those people” (dat. e urena u F3,6) used like apersonal pronoun of the 3.ps.pl., in analogy to the nominal plural formations functioning as pronouns in themodern language; cp., e.g., M. e mı̄hun “those people”. The older form of uren is vuren,353 cp. mi vuren
ḣ

˙

c

ṫ

349
Cf. HINÜBER (1986), 159: “Aus skt. asmān entwickelt sich Aśoka (östlich) acc.pl. aphe über *asva : *asvam, *as-pam → *appham, das nach maye [Aśoka östl. ‘wir’] umgestaltet wird.”
350
For the plural suffix -men cf. 2.3.2.1.2.
351
From the different spelling of Tāna as against Dives akuru texts alone we cannot tell the actual date of
the phonetical change of [p] to [f]; for this problem cf. 1.3.6.
352
For the plural suffix -un, cf. 2.3.2.1.2.
353
The development of initial vu- to u- represents a sound law within the history of Dhivehi, cp., e.g., theparticiple u u nu ← u uu “(having) lived, been” substituting older vu uu (cf. 3.9.2.3).

ṁ

ṅ

˙

l̇

ṅ

˙

l̇

l̇

˙

The personal pronouns of the first person

131“these people” appearing in the lōmāfanus (L1 t/1,6; L2 38,3). The same word is further attested in the genitive
forms mi vuren-ge “of these people” (L1 mn/2,5), mi uren-ge “id.” (F11,31), timā uren-ge raśu “the island of
the own people” (F5,17; F10,17; F11,20)354; the dative forms mi vuren-a a “to these people” (L2 36,3), miuren-atu “id.”, e uren-atu “to those people” (F3,24 and 6, resp.). In the locational dative form mi vuren-ge-ta“to these people” (L2 24,2), the genitive ending -ge still has preserved its original meaning “house”355; thus,
the exact translation is “to the house of these people”.356 The form mi urenn-āi “with these people” appears
in the Palace-inscription (preserved in the National Museum, Māle). Thus, the original meaning of apuren musthave been “our people”; in the function of a personal pronoun, it can be interpreted as an inclusive plural “we”.
At a later time, which cannot be exactly determined, afuren developed to ahuren/aharen, still meaning “we”.
The phonological change of /f/ to /h/ implied here is not an isolated process. In a considerable part of Huvadū,
this sound change is a regular phenomenon, while in the other southern dialects and, still more, in northern
Dhivehi, it can be found only in rare cases (cf. 1.3.6.3).
ṫ

˙

˙

˙

2.6.2.3.1.3. The question arises whether A.F. ava, the direct case form of the personal pronoun of the 1.ps.sg.,
can be regarded as belonging to the same etymon as afuren / aharen. Through an intermediate stage *afa, thisform can be derived from *apa “we” as well. In this case, too, the plural form “we” must have been
reinterpreted as a singular, “I” (cf. above).
2.6.2.3.1.4. Possibly uren ← vuren reflects OIA vı̄rá- “man, hero, son; male of an animal” (cf. TURNER 1966,
II, 697, no. 12056) which occurs several times as a part of the traditional Sanskrit names of the Maldivian kingsthat are attested in the early Dhivehi documents; cp., e.g., the name of the king vı̄ra-singa “man-lion” (F3,8;
F4,1; F10,14; IDMMM 1,1; IDMHM 1,2). So far there are, however, no clear examples of a change of initial
OIA vı̄- to Dhivehi vu-. The Sinh. representation of OIA vı̄rá-, viru “hero” (TURNER ib.), does not speak infavour of such an assumption either. On the other hand, there seems to be no other case of initial Modern IIA
vi- going back directly to OIA vı̄- in initial position. In some examples there is a clear correspondence of initialSinh. vi- (from MIA vı̄-/vi-) and Dhiv. vi- or vı̄- (with a secondary long vowel); cp., e.g., the following words
the MIA ancestors of which have vı̄-: Dhiv. vihi “twenty”, Sinh. vissa, stem visi-: Pa. vı̄sati-, OIA viṁśatí- (cf.
TURNER 1966, II, 677, no. 11616); Dhiv. vı̄ “unhusked rice”, Sinh. viya, stem vı̄-; Pa., Pkt. vı̄hi-, OIA vrı̄hí- (cf.
TURNER 1966, II, 708, no. 12233). An unquestionable example of the development OIA and MIA vi- → Sinh.,
Dhiv. vi- is M. vidu-varu, A.F. vidi “lightening”, Sinh. vidu, Pa. vijju-, OIA vidyút- (TURNER 1966, II, 683, no.
11742). An argument in favour of the derivation of vuren from vı̄rá- may, however, be found in the etymologyof the old Dhivehi word for “island”, even though its OIA ancestor, dvı̄pá- “island”, has a consonant cluster ininitial position. The following argumentation is mainly based on the development of the vowel; concerning thephonological development of the initial cluster, the simplified consonantism of MIA dı̄- (cf. Pa. dı̄pa-, dı̄paka-,
Pkt. dı̄va-; cf. TURNER 1966, I 382, no. 6691), representing the regular outcome of OIA dvı̄-, will serve as thestarting point of the discussion. Besides the sanskritism dvı̄paya which is used in the literary language, there areseveral variants of the same etymon in Sinhalese, reflecting different periods in the history of the language,
perhaps also dialectal variation and later Prakrit influences; cp. diva, stem divu (GEIGER 1941, 77, no. 1129);
divayina, dūpata and dūva (cf. CARTER 1936, 261). The Dhivehi word divu “island” which serves as the firstpart of the ethnonym divehi (← *divu-vesi “island-inhabitant”; cf. 1.3.9.5.), is still attested as an independent
word in some of the oldest texts (L3 7/2,3 etc.). In the modern language, however, divu has been completely
lost. The more recent variant duvu, partly occurring side by side with divu in the same texts (e.g. L3 7/2,4), hasbeen lost as an independent word as well, but is preserved as -dū in the second part of toponyms (cp., e.g.,Mı̄dū, Maradū, Hitadū, Fēdū, Makunudū etc.; cp. also the name of the southernmost atoll, A ū, which
represents a compound of Old Dhiv. a - (← *a a ) “eight”357 and -dū,358 lit. meaning “eight islands (atoll)”).
ḋ

ḋ

ṫ

ṫ

354

For the quasi-reflexive pronoun timā, cf. 2.6.4.2.
For the meaning and the derivation of the genitive ending, cf. 2.3.1.1.1.
356
A typological parallel of this can be found in the development of French chez “near(by), close to, by,
next to, at” from the Lat. abl. casā “in, from the house”; cf. W. MEYER-LÜBKE, Romanisches etymologisches
Wörterbuch, 3. vollst. neub. Aufl., Heidelberg 1939, 165, no. 1728.
357
Cf. 2.5.1.1 above s.v. “eight”.
355

132

Morphology

In Modern Dhivehi, the inherited word for “island” has been replaced by other etyma as a common noun (cp.
M.A. ra , F. raśo /raś/ “island”; M. fuśi, A. fiśi, F. fı̄śi “little island”; M. finolu, A. finola, F. finolo “island
consisting of only one sandbank” etc.). But even if the example mentioned above could be taken to prove theassumption of a development of MIA vı̄- to Dhiv. vu-, one more problem arises. The final -en of (v)uren is not
integrated into the system of the Dhivehi plural endings (cf. -in/-un in 2.3.2.1.2) which is an important argument
to look for another analysis of this plurale tantum.
˙

˙

c

˙

2.6.2.3.2. In Addū the 1.ps.pl. of the personal pronoun has the forms nom. afirie and obl.
afirin. From the etymological point of view, these forms seem to be ambiguous: on the one
hand, they could consist of the personal pronoun of the 1.ps.pl. in its older form, *apa, or inits later spirantised form, *afa, merged with the common Dhivehi word firi “man, male” (←piri, attested, e.g., in the lōmāfanus L1 f/1,4 and L2 36,1); cp. Sinh. pirimi “id.” and puris“man”; Pa. purisa-, OIA púrusa- “person, man”359. The meaning would in this case besomething like “our people” (cp. aharen treated above). The problem would arise, however,that *apa-pirin would regularly have led to *appirin; according to the sound laws, thegeminated -pp- would have been preserved in medial position (cf. 1.3.9.6.1). If we postulated
a compound of the later (spirantised) forms *afa-firin instead, the problem caused by thegeminate would be the same, because no double spirant -ff- exists in Dhivehi; in this case,too, we should expect -pp-. The single spirant -f- could also be the result of a later
reinterpretation by popular etymology, however, caused by the plural firin “men” as used in
Addū. Another derivation could start from the oblique form of *apa/afa instead, which in thiscase would have been combined with the plurale tantum (v)uren “people” (cf. 2.6.2.3.1.4
above). The two constituents of the compound would have merged into the form afuren
which is well attested in the older written documents. Perhaps, the actual form of the pronoun
in Fua Mulaku, nom. afū, obl. afun (cf. 2.6.2.3.1.2 above), goes back to the same form. The
plural in -en, which is not analysable from the modern point of view, could have been
reinterpreted as a plural in -in, which regularly occurs with nouns denoting persons. From*afur-in, however, it would be only a small step to the form afirin, which would thus beinfluenced by a popular etymology as well. The nominative form afirie “we” must be
interpreted phonologically as /afiria/, thus obviously representing the nominative of a noun
with final -a in plural function.360 It remains uncertain whether /afiria/ can reflect an old
nom.pl. preserved as an isolated form.
˙˙

˙

˙˙

c

2.6.2.3.3. In the standard language, alugan̆du serves as personal pronoun of the 1.ps.sg. in the
two lower social levels; beyond that, it is used by the representatives of the third, i.e. highest
degree, when referring to themselves in a humble way. The corresponding plural, alugan̆dumen “we”, is formed with the suffix -men which also appears in the variant form of thehighest degree, aharemen (cf. 2.6.2.3.1.2 above). The original meaning of alu-gan̆du, “servant, slave”, has been lost in the modern language. The word is a nominal compound whichliterally means “servant-piece”. The particular meaning of the element gan̆du (“thing, piece”
as a common noun; in northern Dhivehi also “vessel”) is not perceivable in this type of
˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

For the development of - + d- → - - cf. 1.3.9 above.
Cf. GEIGER (1941), 107, no. 1590 and 112, no. 1671 as well as 1902, 919, no. 136; TURNER (1966) I,
469, no. 8289 and II, 832, no. 14696.
360
For the morphological expression of the plural in A ū cf. 2.3.2.1.
ḋ

ḋ

ḋ

ṫ

359

ḋ

358

The personal pronouns of the first person

133

compound any longer. As outlined in 2.3.2.7.3.3, the originally independent noun has thefunction of a singularisation suffix in the modern language; thus, alu-gan̆du can be understood as meaning “one (belonging to the group) of the servants / vassals”. Referring tooneself as a “servant”, “slave” or “vassal” is a formal way of expressing one’s own submissive or humble position within the society.
The Old Dhiv. word alu is obsolete as an independent noun in the modern language; is has
been replaced by the loanword M. xādimu, A.F. xādima “servant” (← Arab. hādim “id.”).
˘
The noun alu, whose etymology is still unknown, often occurs as such in the documentsof
Old Dhivehi, however, where it was used as a plurale tantum meaning “submissives, vassals,(the whole) domestic staff” as well as a singular form meaning “servant, slave”. Thus, alu
appears as a neutral singular or plural form in the lōmāfanus (nom.sg.: L2 22,3 etc.;
L3 12/2,2.3; nom.pl. alun “servants, vassals”, enlarged with the suffix -un: L1 d/2,4; L2 28,2
and 32,5; L3 13/2,5), while the definite nom.sg. alā “the servant, the vassal” is met with inseveral fatkolus (F3,18; F4,5; F5,49; F6,26 etc.; gen.sg.def. alāge: F7,25; F9,5; F13,10.13.15;
cf. also de alun “two servants” in F3,12). A plural form with a double marking by thesuffixes -tak and -un (cf. 2.3.2.9.2.3) and further combined with emme “all” is attested inemme alutakun “all vassals together” (F5,36). Cp. also the derivative alukamu / alukan“domestic staff; servitude, slavery; service”361 (alikamu [!] in L3 2/1,5; alukan e.g. in
F3,17; F5,46; F8,31; cp. also the indef. form alukamak “a service” in L2 3,4), which showsa type of word-formation for abstract nouns which is still productive in the modern language.
The independent word kan /kam/ “act, deed, fact”362 can be added to any noun with aconcrete meaning; as a second part of a compound, it looses its own meaning, functioning asa derivational suffix which is approximately equivalent to the Engl. abstract suffix -ship.363
˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

2.6.2.3.4. Besides the forms that have been mentioned so far, in all dialects of Dhivehi the
pronoun M.A.F. timā can be used as a personal pronoun of the 1.ps. sg. and pl. (timā-men)
as well. It occurs mainly in direct speech. For the question of a reflexive pronoun existing in
Dhivehi cf. 2.6.4.2.

2.6.2.4. The personal pronouns of the second personc2.6.2.4.1. In Addū and in Fua Mulaku, the inherited pronoun of the 2.ps.sg. has been preserved. The direct case A.F. tō and the oblique case A.F. ta exactly correspond with Sinh. tōand tā “you (thou)”, resp. According to GEIGER (1938, 124; cf. also TURNER 1966, I, 336,
no. 5889 s.v. tuvám, tvám “thou”), the nominative Sinh. tō must be derived from a MIA
˙˙

361

In Modern Dhivehi, a u kan means “divine service, worship, prayer”.
In Modern Dhivehi, kan is also used as a grammatical term meaning “verb”. For the etymology cp. Sinh.
kama, stem kam- “occupation, act, deed, necessity”, Pa. kamma(n)-, OIA kárman- “act, work”; cf. GEIGER(1941), 37, no. 549; TURNER (1966) I, 147, no. 2892. Cf. also 2.2.1 above.
363
For the development kam(u) → kan (implying the change -m → -n, cf. 1.1.4) cp. the attestation in F8,31
where a u kan precedes a word with initial k-: buda a u kan ku a kafı̄run-ai... “... and the infidels who did service
to the Buddha”; buda dat. “to the Buddha”, ku a part.pret. “done” (cf. 3.9.2.2.5), kafı̄r-un nom.pl. “infidels,
unbelievers”, -ai “and”).
l̇

l̇

l̇

ṫ

l̇

362

l̇

ṫ

134

Morphology

genitive of the pronoun (cp. Pkt. tava, tuha, Pa. tava; OIA táva), while the origin of theoblique case Sinh. tā can be seen in an old instrumental such as Pkt. taē or Pa. t(v)ayā (cp.
´ The Addū plural forms, nom. tafirie /tafiria/ and obl. tafirin “you”, which are
OIA instr. tvā).
based on the oblique stem ta, are obviously formed by analogy with afirie /afiria/ and afirin“we” (cf. 2.6.2.3.2). Just like its presumptive model afirin, ta-firin could be based on asecondary interpretation by popular etymology as well; this means that it might have been
understood as meaning “your men/persons”, ta being an oblique case in possessive function.
In contrast to that, the 2.ps.pl. of the pers.pron. in Fua Mulaku, nom. tāmen “you”, obviously
represents a regular plural formation with the suffix -men. The long ā in tā-men can be
explained in two ways on the basis of the underlying stem ta. The first explanation, which ismore probable, considers the fact that the plural suffix -men as a rule can be added only tothe definite form of nouns, even though this formation is no longer productive in the dialectof Fua Mulaku (cf. 2.3.2.2.2). In this case, the form would have to be analysed as *ta-ā-men.
The second explanation takes into consideration that in Fua Mulaku, besides the form ta,
there must have existed a long-vocalic variant *tā from which the plural would have been
derived directly. This derivation would be supported by the corresponding form of the obliquecase in Sinhalese which is tā as well (cf. GEIGER 1938, 123).
˙˙

c

c

c

2.6.2.4.2. The F. plural nom. ti mı̄hū (← *mı̄hu¯˛ ← mı̄hun), obl. ti mı̄hun which is also used asa 2nd person pronoun “you” is a combination of the demonstrative pronoun ti in its attributive form with the plural mı̄hun “people” (stem mı̄s- “man, human being”). Its exact meaning
is “these people” (nearby the addressee; cf. 2.6.2.4.4).
2.6.2.4.3. The 2.ps.sg. pronoun kalē, which is used in the modern language of Māle for the
expression of “you (thou)” on the first (lowest) honorific level, is of nominal origin. It canbe traced back to a noun meaning “sir, lord” which is well attested in the early texts;
normally it refers to the Prophet Muhammad, to the sultan or to another high-ranking personality. In its function as a pronoun, kalē which originally was used only for males, today refers
to female persons as well. The fact that kalē represents the lowest and most neutral hierarchic
degree, is evidence of a considerable semantic change which illustrates the possibility of apronominal shift between the social levels. According to GEIGER (1919, 75), kalē is the“more respectful” form of address in comparison with tia. This implies that at the beginningof the 20th century, tia must still have served as the pronoun of the lowest rank in thelanguage of Māle. In the modern standard language, however, it has been replaced in thisfunction by kalē. In general, the occurrence of tia as a personal pronoun is restricted to the
combination with some secondary pronominal elements today which serve as honorificmarkers of the two higher degrees (for tia further cf. 2.6.2.4.4 s.v. tia bēkalē).
˙

2.6.2.4.3.1. The etymological origin of kalē is still unknown. The nominative of the underlying noun is attested
in different final variants which cannot be explained only by dialectal variation. Besides the stem variants kal(in prevocalic position) and kau (in final position, e.g. in F3,3; F5,10; F8,12; F10,6; F11,7; IDAM 1,18; RA 1,3
etc.; cp. also the abstract formation kaukan “rulership” appearing, e.g., in F3,1.2; RC 28,12) and the definite
nom.sg. kalā “the Lord” (relating to the Prophet Mu a mmad or the sultan; F7,10; RA 1,7 etc.; RC 5,3 etc.), we
find the extended forms kalo (in Dives akuru documents: F1,20.26; F6,15-16; RB 1,6) and kalō (in the Tāna
Rādava ,i RC 3,2 etc.). As against this, kale and kalē have not been attested in the old documents as isolated
forms so far. The existence of these variants must be presumed without a doubt, however, because they areḣl̇The personal pronouns of the second person

135

presupposed by the derivatives kalemen, nom.pl. “the lords” (F6,17), and kalēgefānunge, gen.pl., approximately“of the high-ranking Lord” (pluralis maiestatis, denoting the Prophet Mu a mmad; RC 10,2; ITMHM 7,6). The
older phonological variant of the latter formation, kalēgepānu, is preserved in a Dives akuru tomb inscription inMı̄dū, Addū (IDAM 1,27) and in the Rādavali again (RB 1,11). Cp. also the corresponding formations kalogepānu (nom.sg.; F10,6 and IDMHM 6,9) and kalogepānun (pluralis maiestatis, F11,7) which are based on kalo.
The etymology of the second part of these compounds, -pānu/-fānu, which obviously represents a honorificattribute meaning something like “honourable”, is still unknown.
ḣ

˙

˙˙

2.6.2.4.3.2. The variants ending in -e/-ē and -o/-ō seem to represent different forms of address. It cannot be
decided with certainty whether the long final vowels have to be explained as emphatic or whether they might be“frozen” definite forms (kalē ← *kale-ā and kalō ← *kalo-ā, cf. 2.3.1.4). It is surprising that kalo/ō, when usedin attributive function, is often postponed to the word it determines (cp., e.g., hasan364 kalo, F1,20); it cannot
be excluded that this circumstance, among others, is responsible for the distribution of -e and -o. Furthermore,
there is a noun kalo in the dialect of A ū which is used as a term of endearment when addressing beloved
persons, esp. children. According to ASSAN SAcĪD (personal communication), A. kalo cannot be regarded as apronoun, however.
ḋ

ḋ

Ḣ

2.6.2.4.3.3. The following examples may illustrate the different forms of the stem kal- “lord” appearing in Old
Dhivehi texts: apurenge kau, nom.sg., is a frequent formula meaning “our Lord” (since F3,3). In kau mu a mmad
“Lord Mu a mmad” (the Prophet; e.g. RA 1,3, RB 1,11 etc.), the attributive kau must be interpreted as an
oblique case form just as in the compound kau-kan “rulership”, where kau appears as the first part (RC 3,2 etc.;
for -kan cf. 2.6.2.3.3). The compound kalamidi (nom.sg., L6 1,2 and 2,3; RA 21,2) with its definite form
kalaminjā (RC 23,13 and 37,1; /kalamijjā ← *kalamidyā ← *kalamidi-ā/, cf. 2.3.2.9.1.3.2), which was used as atitle meaning “prince” and “princess”, is another example of the attributive function of kal-; in its enlarged
variant form, kala-, it here determines the noun -midi/-mijjā the meaning and etymology of which is still unclear.
In contrast to this, the forms kalāś /kalā-aś/ (dat.sg.def., RC 34,9365) and kalo-a (dat.sg., RB 1,14) as well as
the gen.sg. kalo-ge (F2,8; F3,3; IDMHM 6,8 etc.) are less problematic. kau-kal-un (RA 1,9: dat. -aś) represents
a distributional plural formed by reduplication of the stem,366 meaning “all the lords (to whom it may
concern)”; in the given case, the plural is additionally marked by the suffix -un.
In the gen.pl. 〈kau-kabal-un-ge〉367 (IDMHM 1,8), meaning “of the gentlemen and ladies”, we have advandva-compound kau-kam̆bal- “gentleman and lady” which is marked with the plural ending -un as well.
Because of the numerous attestations within unambiguous contexts, the meaning of the consonant stem /kam̆bal/,the etymology of which is still unclear, can be determined as “lady, Mrs.”. Cp. 〈kabau〉 (for [kam̆bau])〈mariam bibı̄〉 “Mrs. Mariam Bibı̄” occurring in a fatko u (F2,4); in a passage written in Arabic, kam̆bau〈kabau〉 refers to the Prophet Mu a mmad’s mother in the Rādava i (RC 4,13: 〈kabau wahhabu binti āminatu〉).
A nom.pl. in -un is attested in mi de kam̆balun 〈kabalun〉 “these two women” (RC 6,1.3; F2,5.6). In the same
fatko u (F2,9), we also find the gen.pl. kam̆balunge 〈kabalunge〉 “of the women”. A definite gen.sg. isrepresented in kam̆balāge 〈kabalāge〉 “of the woman” occurring in a lōmāfanu (L2 15,5). Presumably kam̆bulō
〈kabulō〉 (RC 19,12) has to be understood as a form of address approximately meaning “honourable lady”; aswith kalō (cf. above), it remains unclear whether we have to assume an underlying definite form here(← *kam̆bulo-ā?). Likewise it is not clear how we should analyse the form kam̆bō 〈kabō〉 “woman” which is
attested in the Tāna Rādava i again (RC 26,5). If it is not a mere “allegro-form” of kam̆bulō, we could also
suppose some sort of “monophthongisation” of kam̆bau here, representing a phonetic variant which depends on
the position within a syntagm. Further documented forms are the genitives (sg.) kam̆bulēge 〈kabulēge〉(ITAG 6,6) and kam̆buloge 〈kabuloge〉 (F12,6; IDMBM 1,15). The word kam̆bulo also occurs in the modern
colloquial language of Māle, but it does not mean “lady” any longer. kam̆bulo is still used as a form of address,
but on another stylistic level than in the documents of Old Dhivehi. Nowadays the use of the word is confined
ḣ

ḣ

ṫ

l̇

l̇

ḣ

l̇

l̇

364

Sic (in Dives akuru). The normal spelling of the name would be a san in Arabic script.
The spelling is 〈kalāśa〉, the ā being corrected from ō. The final -a is uncertain.
366
For this type of formation cf. 2.3.2.5.
367
Phonetically this form contains a prenasalised /m̆b/ [kaukam̆balunge]; for the prenasalised stops cf. 1.3.4.
ḣ

365

136

Morphology

to the inner circle of the family where it functions as a “generation specific” nick-name. This means thatkam̆bulo can be used by a man when addressing his daughter or his niece in a very familiar way, but he could
never use this word for a woman older than himself.368

2.6.2.4.4. In the modern language of Māle, the pronoun of the 2.ps. for the second degree ofthe social hierarchy, i.e., aristocracy, is tia bēkalē “you (thou)” in the singular and tia
bēkalun “you” in the plural. The element tia is obviously derived from ti “that” (nearby theaddressee: “iste-deixis”, cf. 2.6.5.2), with a suffix -a which is used for the substantivisationof demonstrative pronouns in other cases as well (cp. ea, 2.6.2.5.3 below). The particularmeaning of tia bēkalē is “this one near you, the honourable lord” or “the honourable lord
there, near you”. In a literary sense, tia bēkalē can thus be regarded as an indirect vocational
form which, however, is used to directly addressing the addressee in question.369 The second part of this pronoun, bē-kalē, is a compound consisting of the title bē “bey; prince,
sovereign, sir”, which is widespread in Islamic countries, and the element kalē “lord” thathas been dealt with above. In Old Dhivehi, bē is attested in the spelling 〈bei〉 as an independent word meaning “lord” (L4 g/1,6; F3,6; F6,12); when used as the first part of compounds,
it is sometimes written 〈be〉 (for /bē/). This word, which presumably entered Dhivehi throughArabic (Arab. bē, written 〈beyk〉, cf. WEHR 1958, 76), lastly reflects the Turkic etymon
beg/bey “ruler, sovereign, prince”.370 The compound is attested in older records as well; cp.
the plural forms beikalun “noble lords, gentlemen” (nom.pl.; F3,2), emme beikalun “all thenoble lords” (nom.pl.; F12,6), bekalun-aś “to the noble lords” (dat.pl., RB 1,8 written〈bekalunap〉 preceding initial p-), bekalun-āi (RB 1,7) and beikalun-āi (RC 8,11) “the noble
lords and” (-āi lit. “with”), bei-bei-kalun “the noble lords (whosoever)” (F3,6-7; reduplicateddistributional plural, cf. 2.3.2.5), and the indef. singular beikalaku “a (particular) noble lord”(obl.indef., F3,2; F12,3). — In the modern standard language, bē371 is used by the younger
members of the (extended) family as a form of addressing elder men.372
2.6.2.4.5. The 2.ps.sg. of the personal pronoun of the third degree which originally was
reserved for the king is expressed by tia bēfulā or tia manikufānu. Adequate translations forthese exclusive forms of addressing would be “your (royal) majesty” or “excellence”. As in
the case of tia bēkalē (cf. above), the first part of tia bēfulā consists of the enlarged form of
the demonstrative pronoun ti. bēfulā is a compound again, containing the loanwords bē“prince, ruler, sovereign” and the honorific element -fulu (cf. 2.2.3) which has the particular
˙

˙

˙

˙

368

Cf. DISANAYAKA/MANIKU (1990), 116; cp. also the use of bē (cf. 2.6.2.4.4).
Typological parallels can easily be found in other languages; quite frequently, high-ranking people cannot
be addressed directly. Cp., e.g., German “Möchte(n) der Herr sich nicht setzen?”, lit. “Wouldn’t the lord liketo take a seat?”. In Polish, as a matter of principle, no personal pronoun can be used when addressing in a polite
way; instead, the nouns pan “lord, sir, Mr.” and pani “lady, Mrs.” appear in the role of honorific pronouns.
Thus, the literal meaning of the question Jak sie˛ pan ma? “How are you?” is “How is the lord?” In Italian, as
in German, the 3.ps. is used as the polite form of address.
370
Cf. M. RÄSÄNEN, Versuch eines etymologischen Wörterbuchs der Turksprachen, Helsinki 1969, 67 s.v.
bäg.
371
We cannot decide so far whether there is a connection between bē “lord” and the kinship term
M.F. bēbe, A. bēbē “elder brother” (cf. 1.2.1.5). It is still unknown whether this etymon represents an original
Dhivehi word or a loanword.
372
Cf. DISANAYAKA/MANIKU (1990), 116. Cp. also the use of kam̆bulo (cf. 2.6.2.4.3.3).
369

The personal pronouns of the second person

137function of marking inalienable objects, such as parts of the body or children, of high-ranking
persons (cp., e.g., in̆gili-fulu “finger of a high-ranking person”, or dari-fulu, originally
meaning “child of an aristocratic family”; today, dari-fulu can also be used by non-aristocrats, in order to express their high esteem for their own child). Most probably, the final -ā,
which distinguishes the singular tia bēful-ā from its plural counterpart, tia bēfulun meaning“you”, “ye” (on the highest level), “your highnesses” as well as “your highness / majesty”
in the sense of a pluralis maiestatis, represents the definite suffix. In the older texts that havebeen available so far, the forms bēfulu/-ā and bēfulun are not attested.
˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

2.6.2.4.6. The addressing form manikufānu, which represents an inheritable aristocratic title, is characteristic fora particularly high style. In its original function as a title, manikufānu is postponed to first names and patronyms.
The unenlarged form maniku can be used in the same way but has no pronominal function. In the oldest
documents of Dhivehi written in Evēla and Dives akuru (i.e. lōmāfanus and fatko u s as well as the Dives akuru
manuscript of the Rādava i ), the title manikufānu seems not to be attested yet. The earliest attestations can befound in Tāna inscriptions of a relatively late period, but there are also some examples occurring in Dives akuru
inscriptions; cp., e.g., the forms manikupānu nom.sg. (IDMEM 3,31), manikupāna a dat.sg. (IDMHM 7,18; spelt
with 〈 〉 ?), manikufānu nom.sg. (ITMHM 2,8 etc.; ITAH 3,6 and 4,9), ma i kufānu/ma i kufanu nom.sg.
(ITMP 1,4; ITMHM 1,5; ITAG 1,8 and 2,5), ma i kufānuge gen.sg. (ITAG 1,6), ma i kufānunge gen.pl. pro sg.
(ITMHM 1,4; ITAG 2,4). The nom.sg. maniku is attested only twice (ITMP 1,3; ITAG 3,6). Most probably, thetitle reflects a word meaning “jewel, precious stone, ornament”; cp. OIA maní- “jewel”, “ornament”, Pa., Pkt.
ma i - (TURNER 1966, II, 557, no. 9731) as well as Sinh. mi a /mä a , (stem mi i ) “gem, precious stone” (GEIGER
1941, 133, no. 1981) and mä i ka (stem mä i k) “gem, jewel, precious stone” (← Skt. mā i kya-; cf. GEIGER 1941,
131, no. 1955). For Old Dhivehi, the form ma i is attested in L1 (f/1,1, obviously in the sense of “pearl”); thismust be explained as a sanskritism, the word being unknown in Modern Dhivehi. Thus, the original meaning of
the title ma i kufānu must have been something like “esteemed jewel” (cf. also 2.2.2; for the element -pānu/-fānu
cf. 2.6.2.4.3.1).
l̇

l̇

ṫ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

˙

˙
ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

2.6.2.5. The personal pronouns of the third person
In Dhivehi, the forms which are used for the expression of “he, she, it” and pl. “they” areno personal pronouns by origin. They are all based on the demonstrative pronoun e “that”
which refers to persons or objects that are located in a certain distance or completely out ofsight from the point of view of the speaker as well as the addressee (“ille-deixis”, cf.
2.6.5.2). The use of deictic pronouns as personal pronouns of the third person is very common in Indo-Aryan (cf., e.g., ZOGRAF 1976, 155 and MASICA 1991, 251). According to
GEIGER (1941, 31, 472 and 1938, 124-5), the corresponding Sinhalese pronominal stem e/ē“that; he” must be deduced from the old pronominal stem ay- which is represented in the
OIA nom.sg. ayám “this” as well as the nom.sg. esá “id.”. TURNER (1966, I, 26, no. 587)
notes that in post-OIA times these two stem variants were contaminated; concerning the
etymology of the Sinhalese pronominal stem e, however, he decides in favour of esá (stemetá-) as the original form (I 122, 2530 s.v. ēsá).
˙˙˙

2.6.2.5.1. In Dhivehi, the use of the unextended demonstrative stem e in substantive function
is restricted to the inanimate 3.ps.sg., “it”. Most frequently, this usage occurs within asyntactical construction which is typical for Dhivehi, the pronoun serving as a means of

138

Morphology

reference indicating the immediately following rhematic part of speech.373 In these cases,
it must be connected with the focus-marker -ı̄ as in the following two examples:
M. e-ı̄ bo u fikuru. “This indeed is deep thought.” (T8, 115) lit. “What that is, is great thought.” (bo u“great, big”, fikuru ← Arab. fikr “thinking, thought, reasoning, idea, meaning”).
A. fin̆danā be i : e-ı̄ magun ge mı̄hak-ā fua ke a din a a . (T1, 21) “The f.-bird said: ‘This is the soundproduced with a piece of betel nut by a man walking outside.’” lit. “...: ‘What that is, is (the) sound,given by a man going in the street and a piece of betel nut.’” (fin̆danā nom.def. “the f.-bird”; be i3.ps.sg.pret. “he said” (M. bunanı̄ “to say”); magun abl. of A. maga “street, road”; ge part.pret. “havinggone” (M. danı̄ “to go”); mı̄hak-ā obl.indef. “a man” + conj. “and”; fua /fuak/ obl. “betel nut”; ke a
/ke a k/ obl.indef. “a piece”; din part.pret. “given” (denı̄ “to give”); a a nom. “sound, noise”).
ḋ

ḋ

c

c

ḋ

ḋ

ṅ

ṅ

c

c

ḋ

ḋ

ḋ

2.6.2.5.1.1. In Māle as well as the southern dialects, the definite singular eā 〈eyā〉, which
consists of the pronominal stem e- enlarged with the definite suffix -ā, is often used for “it”.
In the standard language, “it” can also be expressed by the form ēti which obviously represents a merged form of the pronoun e and the i-stem noun eti “thing” (e + eti → ēti). Hence,
the original meaning of ēti must be “that thing”. The noun eti reflects the old verbal form
Skt. asti, Pa. atthi “(it) is”; cp. also the Sinhalese form äti/äta “there is/are” which isindeclinable as well (cf. GEIGER 1941, 17, 256; further cf. 3.9.2.2.5 for netunı̄).
2.6.2.5.1.2. As to the expression of the inanimate 3.ps.pl. “they”, there exist two formations
which are almost identical in northern and southern Dhivehi. These are the nom.pl.
M. e taketi, A. ettaketi and M. e ecceti /e eti-eti/,374 A. e etteti “they, those” (for the complete paradigm cf. 2.6.2.7.8).
2.6.2.5.1.2.1. The form M. e tak-eti has to be analysed as a petrified phrase meaning “those,
so many things”. Within this phrase, both ta /tak/, which later developed into a plural suffix,
and eti, a former verbal form (cf. 2.6.2.5.1.1 above), can still be understood in their original
meaning; cp. the early attested forms taketi (2 times IDMMM 4,6); mi taketi “these, so manythings” (F4,4); gen. taketige (ITMKM 1,10). The modern nom.pl. A. ettaketi obviously
represents a borrowing from the standard language; it seems that ettaketi was reinterpreted bypopular etymology as a distributional plural ettak-eti “a thing-thing” consisting of theindef.sg. etta /ettak/ ← *eti-ak and the unmarked sg. eti.375 The genitive form proves withno doubt that ettaketi cannot be an authentic Addū-formation; it seems that ettaketı̄ge is the
only example in Addū of the genitive suffix -ge, which is normally confined to nouns
denoting persons and to pronouns referring to living beings, being added to a pronominal
element that explicitly refers to inanimate objects. In contrast to that cp. the gen.sg. A. eāiwhich is regularly derived from e “that”.
c

c

˙˙

˙˙

2.6.2.5.1.2.2. The dialectal variants A. e etteti / M. e ecceti “they, those” represent real
distributional plural forms. The original meaning of the reduplicated form *e eti-eti is “thatthing-thing”, “those things”.

373

For this construction cf. 2.6.5.3.1.1 and, furthermore, 5.2.
For the phonological reasons of these developments cf. 1.3.9.2.1.
375
For the reduplicated distributional plural forms cf. 2.3.2.5.
374

The personal pronouns of the third person

139

2.6.2.5.1.2.3. It must be noted that the substantive use of the inanimate pronouns meaning“it” and “they” is comparatively restricted in Dhivehi. Most often pronominal references are
avoided, the noun in question being used twice or repeatedly without affecting the sense ofstyle.
2.6.2.5.2. In general, reference to persons can only be expressed by enlarged forms of the
pronoun, with respectable differences between the northern and the southern dialects. Unlike
the animate pronouns of Sinhalese which are still differentiated by gender (cf. nom.sg. m.
¯ GEIGER 1938, 125), Dhivehi has no gender distinction at all, not even in pronouns.
eyā, f. ä;
According to HLSD (1988, 165), F. evu (thus spelled for eu) is used for “he” while eya (for ea) means“she”. This statement cannot be confirmed by the facts of the living language, however. Considering the (notvery many) examples with eu that can be approved, the use of the two forms seems to be unsystematical andarbitrary. There is only one circumstance speaking in favour of the assumption that a former gender-specificdifference between ea and eu might have been lost in modern Fua Mulaku. From all the passages available in
Fua Mulaku texts, we may conclude that the forms miu “this one” (m.) and mia “this one” (f.) which arederived from the demonstrative pronoun F. mi “this” (cf. 2.6.5.2, 2.6.5.3.2), are kept distinct by their gender. In
the dialects of A ū and Māle, however, there are not even any traces of such a differentiation.
c

c

ḋ

ḋ

2.6.2.5.3. When used as a personal pronoun of an inanimate 3.ps.sg. (“it”), the demonstrative
element e remains formally unchanged. In the function of a personal pronoun of an animate
3.ps.sg., however, it must be enlarged with special substantivising morphemes. In the dialectsof Addū and Fua Mulaku, the direct case of the 3.ps.sg. is ede “he/she”, while the corresponding oblique case has the forms A. ea [ee] and F. ea (/eu). A.F. ea has a clear parallelin the Sinh. nom./obl. eyā “he”; for the (Sinh.) ending -ā, GEIGER (1938, 125) concisely
notes that in the given case as well as in the case of the other demonstrative pronouns, its
function consists in the substantivisation of the pronominal elements. As to the etymology ofthe final -a, it remains unexplained both for Sinhalese and southern Dhivehi. The same is true
for the etymological derivation of the formal element -de which is not only present in thenom. A.F. ede “that one; he/she” but also in the corresponding form of the pronominal stem
mi; cp. the nom. A. mide “this one” (anim.). Most probably, the demonstrative e is also
concealed in the personal pronoun M. ēnā denoting “he” or “she” on the lowest social level.
It remains unclear, however, what an element e is combined with in this case.
c˙˙

2.6.2.5.4. In the language of Māle, the personal pronouns of the 3.ps.sg. of the second and thethird degree correspond to those of the 2.ps.sg. to a large extent as far as their formation isconcerned. The main difference between the 2.ps. pronominal forms tia bēkalē and tia bēfulāand their 3rd person equivalents e bēkalā and e bēfulā consists in the deictic orientation.
While the pronoun tia originally refers to a person near by the addressee (Lat. iste), e refers
to someone further away or even out of sight of the speaker as well as of the addressee (Lat.
ille). Thus, the literal meaning of the second degree pronoun e bēkalā would be “that gentleman/lady (not present during the speech act in question)” (cf. 2.6.2.4.4) while that of the third
degree e bēfulā is “that excellence (not present)”. The 3.ps.pl. of the second and third degrees
is formed by the plural suffix -un which is added to the stem instead of the (former) definite
suffix -ā, thus yielding 2nd degree e bēkalun and 3rd degree e bēfulun “they”.
˙

˙

˙

˙

140

Morphology

2.6.2.5.5. Concerning the first, i.e., the lowest social degree, the plural of the 3rd person
pronoun is formed analytically as well. Thus, the plural of M. ēnā “he, she” is expressed
either by e mı̄hun “those people” or by e bai mı̄hun “that part (of the) people” (stem mı̄s“man, person”; bai “part, half”). Semantically, the latter formation suggests a partitive
meaning. In Fua Mulaku, the 3.ps.pl. “they” has the nominative form e mı̄hū (← *mı̄hu¯˛← mı̄hun) and the oblique case e mı̄hun, while the corresponding plural forms of Addū arebuilt by means of the noun veri, originally meaning “person” (cf. 2.3.2.4.1). Hence, thepersonal pronoun of the 3.ps.pl. A. nom. e-verie /e-veria/, obl. e-verin (with shortened varianteven) “they” can be translated with “those persons, those people”. For the final /-a/ of thenominative cf. 2.6.2.3.2.
c˙˙

2.6.2.6. The following tables give an overview of the complete forms of the personal pronouns appearing in the standard language and in the dialects of Addū and Fua Mulaku:c˙˙

2.6.2.6.1. Māle:pers.pron.

1st degree

2nd degree

3rd degree

1st sg.

“I”

alugan̆dualugan̆duaharen

2nd sg.

“you”

kalē

tia bēkalā,
tia bēkalē

tia bēfulā,
tia manikufānu
˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

(anim.)“he / she”ēnāe bēkalāe bēfulā(inan.)“it”

e, eā, ētie, eā, ētie, eā, ēti

1st pl.

“we”

alugan̆dumen
˙alugan̆dumen
˙aharemen

2nd pl.

“you”

kalēmentia bēkalun

tia bēfulune mı̄hun, e bai mı̄hune bēkalun

e bēfulun
˙˙(inan.)“they”˙(anim.)˙

3rd pl.

˙

3rd sg.

e taketi, e ecceti

2.6.2.6.2. Addū:˙˙

pers.pron.

casus rectus

casus obliquus

1st sg.

“I”

ava

ma

2nd sg.

“you”

tō

ta

“he / she”

ede

ea

3rd sg.

(anim.)(inan.)

1st pl.
2nd pl.
3rd pl.

“it”

e, eā

ea“we”

afirie /afiria/

afirin“you”(anim.)(inan.)“they”

tafirie /tafiria/

tafirineverie /everia/

everin, evenettaketi

e etteti

The personal pronouns (overview)141c

2.6.2.6.3. Fua Mulaku:
pers.pron.

casus rectus

casus obliquus

1st sg.

“I”

ava

ma

2nd sg.

“you”

tō

ta

(anim.)“he /she”

edeea, eu(inan.)

“it”

e

ea

3rd sg.
1st pl.

“we”

afū

afun

2nd pl.

“you”

tāmen; ti mı̄hū

ti mı̄hune mı̄hūe mı̄hun

3rd pl.

(anim.)“they”(inan.)

e etteti ?

2.6.2.7. The following tables illustrate the complete paradigms of the declinable personalpronouns:
2.6.2.7.1. Pers.pron. 1.ps.sg. “I”:
c

Addū

Fua Mulaku

Māle
1./2.

3.

˙˙

nom.

ava

ava

alugan̆du˙aharen

obl.

ma

ma

alugan̆duaharengen.

afagē, magē

magealugan̆dugedat.

ma /maś/maśaalugan̆da /-aś/abl.

magē farātun, ma ekuhun

mage farāten

aharengecaharenna /-aś/

˙

˙

˙

˙

c

˙

˙

˙

c

2.6.2.7.2. Pers.pron. 2.ps.sg. anim. “you”
c

Māle
2.

3.

kalē / kalā

tia bēkalā /tia bēkalē

tia bēfulā,
tia manikufānu

ta

kalē

tia bēkalē

tia bēfulu,
tia manikufānu

gen.

tagē

tage

kalēge

tia bēkalēge

tia bēfuluge,
tia manikufānuge

dat.

ta /ta-aś/

c

taśa

kale a /kale-aś/c ctia bēkale aabl.

tagē farātun;ta ekuhun

tage farāten

c c

ta

tia bēfula ,tia manikufāna
˙

obl.

1.

c

tō

c

tō

˙

nom.

˙

˙˙

Fua Mulaku

˙

Addū

142

Morphology

2.6.2.7.3. Pers.pron. 3.ps.sg. anim. “he/she”
c

Addū

Fua Mulaku

Māle
1.

2.

3.

˙˙

nom.

ede

ede

ēnā

e bēkalāe bēfulā

obl.

ea

eu, eaēnā

e bēkalē

e bēfulu

gen.

eagē

euge, eageēnāgee bēkalēgee bēfuluge

dat.

ea /ea-aś/ceuśa, eaśaēnāa /ēnā-aś/abl.

eagē farātun

euge/eage farāten

˙
˙

˙

c

e bēfulac˙ce bēkalea

2.6.2.7.4. Pers.pron. 3.ps.sg. inan. “it”c

Fua MulakuMālee, eā

ēti ← e eti

eaiēge /ea-ge/ētı̄-geeaśaea /ea-aś/ēcca /ēti-aś/

ein /ea-in/ētı̄n /ēti-in/ēgā /ea-gai/ētı̄-gā /-ga/

e, eā (sg.def.)

e

obl.

ea

ea

gen.

eāi

dat.

eā /eā-aś/abl.

eāin /eā-in/loc.

(= gen.)

c

˙˙

nom.

c

(= gen.)c

Addū

2.6.2.7.5. Pers.pron. 1.ps.pl. “we”
c

Fua Mulaku

afirie /afiriya/

afū

3.

alugan̆dumen

aharemen, mamen

˙

˙˙

nom.

Māle
1./2.
˙

Addū

obl.

afirinafun

alugan̆dumen
˙aharemen, mamen

gen.

afiringēafungealugan̆dumengeaharemenge, mamengedat.

afirinna / afinna /-aś/

afunna /-aś/abl.

afiringē farātun /afirin ekuhun

afungefarātencaharemena , mamena

c

˙

˙

c

˙

alugan̆dumena
˙

˙

c

c

c

The personal pronouns (overview)143

2.6.2.7.6. Pers.pron. 2.ps.pl. “you”
c

Addū

Fua Mulaku

Māle
1.

2.

3.

˙˙

nom.

tafirie /tafiria/tāmen, ti mı̄hū

kalēmentia bēkalun

tia bēfulunobl.

tafirinti mı̄hunkalēmentia bēkalun

tia bēfulun

gen.

tafiringē

tāmenge,ti mı̄hunge

kalēmenge

tia bēkalunge tia bēfulunge

dat.

tafirinna /-aś/,tafinnaabl.

tafiringē farātun,
tafirin ekuhun

˙˙

tia bēfuluna
˙cctia bēkalunnacckalēmenna/-aś/˙cctāmenna ,ti mı̄hunnac

2.6.2.7.7. Pers.pron. 3.ps.pl. anim. “they”
c

Addū

Fua Mulaku

Māle
1.

2.

3.

˙˙

nom.

everie /everia/

e mı̄hūe mı̄hun, e bai mı̄hune bēkalun

e bēfulunobl.

everin, evene mı̄hune / e bai mı̄hune bēkalun

e bēfulun

gen.

everingēe mı̄hungee / e bai mı̄hungee bēkalungee bēfulunge

dat.

everinna , evennace / e bai mı̄hunnace bēkalunnace bēfulunnaabl.

everingē farātun

˙
˙

˙

c

˙

e mı̄hunnacc2.6.2.7.8. Pers.pron. 3.ps.pl. “they” (inan.)c

Fua
Mulakue taketi

e etteti /eti-eti/gen.

e takettı̄gē

e ettetı̄gēdat.

e taketta /-aś/e ettetta /-aś/abl.

e takettin

e ettettin(= gen.)

c

c

loc.

?

e taketie ecceti /eti-eti/

e taketı̄gee eccetı̄ge

c

˙˙

nom.

Māle

e takecca /etaketi-aś/

c

Addū

e eccecca /eti-aś/e taketı̄n /-i-in/

e eccetı̄n /-i-in/e taketı̄gā /-gai/

e eccetı̄gā /-gai/

144

Morphology

2.6.3. Possessive pronouns
From the morphological point of view, the possessive pronouns do not represent an independent category in Dhivehi. As in Sinhalese,376 possession is expressed by the genitive of thepersonal pronouns. Only in the first person, timā “self” can be used in possessive function
as well (cf. 2.6.4.2), but only in reported speech. Cp. the following two examples:M. “tia ge-ak-ı̄ aharen-ge ge.” (T8, 71) “This is my house.” (lit. “What that house is, is my house.”; tia
dem.pron.; ge “house”, -ak-ı̄ indef. suffix + focus-marker -ı̄).
A. “te-ak-ı̄ timā-gē mo ōgan̆ a nun-āu.” (T3, 37) “This is not my axe.” (lit. “What that is, is not the self’saxe.” te dem.pron.; timā-gē gen. of timā, used in possessive function; molōgan̆da “axe”, unenlarged
nominal stem in singular function; nun “is not”; -au quotation marker).
˙

ḋ

˙

l̇

The following table illustrates all possessive forms that are based on the genitive of thepersonal pronoun.
Fua Mulaku
magea u gan̆

timāgē

timāge

3rd degreeu geaharenge

timāge

2nd sg. “your”

tagē

tage

kalēge

tia bēkalēge

3rd sg. “his/her”

eagē

eage, eugeēnāgee bēkalēge

1st pl. “our”

afiringēafungeḋ

a u gan̆u menge

tia bēfu u gee bēfu u gel̇

afagē

l̇

1st sg. “my”

Māle
2nd degreel̇ḋ

1st degree
ḋ

ū
ḋ

A

c

poss.pron.

aharemengel̇timāmengētimāmenge

2nd pl. “your”

tafiringē

tāmenge,ti mı̄hunge

kalēmenge

tia bēkalunge

timāmenge
tia bēfu u nge

3rd pl. “their”

everingēe mı̄hungee / e bai mı̄hungee bēkalungee bēfu u ngel̇l̇

2.6.3.1. In the southernmost Maldivian dialects, it is more often the pure oblique case of thepersonal pronoun than its genitive which is used in possessive function. This is one morefeature southern Dhivehi shares with Sinhalese but not with the Māle standard language. The
oblique case of the personal pronouns being lost as a category of its own in northern Dhivehi,
its occurrence as a possessive element is restricted to exceptional cases. The only example ofthe casus obliquus of a personal pronoun in possessive function that can be mentioned in thisconnection is taken from the fairy tale fūlu digu han̆dige vāhaka (“Story of the demon withthe long navel”) where it occurs in an exclamation quoted as direct speech: M. “addō 〈a dō〉,
ma fūlō!” (T13, 28) “Ouch, my navel!” The oblique case ma meaning “my” is not the only
exceptional form within this sentence. The form fūlō, which is attested only here, is not quite
clear, either; possibly it represents an (archaic) emphatic (i.e., exclamatory) form of thecommon Dhivehi word for “navel”, fūlu.377 Another way to explain the long -ō of fūlō
would be to assume a merger of fūlu and the quotation marker ē ← 〈eve〉 here (cf. 5.4).
˙

c

˙

˙

˙

˙

Cf., e.g., GEIGER (1942), 6 / (1973), 588; MATZEL (1983), 22.
The etymology of fū u is unknown.
l̇

377

˙

376

Possessive pronouns

145

2.6.3.2. The following two examples illustrate the use of the oblique case of personal pronouns as an attributive possessive element in the dialects of Addū and Fua Mulaku:c˙˙

A. “mı̄ ta molōganda tau?” ... “tē ma molōganda nunāu.” (T3, 59-60) “Is this (here, nearby me) your axe?”— “No, that (there, nearby you) is not my axe.” (mı̄ = mi-ı̄, dem.pron. mi + focus-marker -ı̄; tē = te-ı̄,
dem.pron. te + focus-marker -ı̄; ma “my”, ta “your”, obl. case forms of the pers.pron. of the 1st and 2nd
ps.sg., resp.; mo ōgan̆ a “axe”; tau question marker; nun-āu negation “is not” + quotation marker).
˙

˙

˙

ḋ

˙

l̇

F. “ta bere nu nun, ma bere nu nun, ...” (T2, 64a) “It is not my drum, it is not your drum, ...” (bere“drum”; the combination of nu (negation particle) and nun “not being” represents a quite uncommon
double negation; besides that, nu represents the northern Dhivehi variant of the negation particle, theregular equivalent in A ū and Fua Mulaku being ni).
c

ḋ

ḋ

2.6.4. Reflexive pronouns
For the Dhivehi language of his time, GEIGER (1919, 76) noted briefly: “The Reflective
Pronoun, also, is employed, clearly in more modest modes of expression, in place of the First
Person.” As far as this concerns the word timā, this statement is still true for Modern
Dhivehi; throughout the dialects, timā can be used as a personal pronoun meaning “I”, but
only in reported speech. Cp. the following text passage which is taken from the fairy tale
Molōgan̆da “The axe”, in the dialect of Addū (T3, 12):
˙˙

˙

˙

A. mi kuddā kēfi: “ammāu! timā ēnei dara hōdāśāu.” “This child said: ‘Mother! I’ll go to look for (some)fire-wood.’” (lit. “That where I shall go, is to look for fire-wood.”; mi dem.pron. “this”; kuddā sg.def.
“child”; kē-fi pret.I, 3.ps.sg. “said” ← A. kēnı̄, M. kianı̄ “to say”); ammāu sg.def. ammā “mother”, herecombined with the quotation marker -āu in vocational function; timā obl. of the pron. “I (myself)”; ē e ifor ēne-ı̄, part.fut. of enı̄ (M. annanı̄) “to come” + focus-marker; dara obj., pure nominal stem in thefunction of a generic plural “fire-wood”; hōdāś-āu inf. + quotation marker “(in order) to look for”).
˙

ṅ

˙

Though being frequent, the use of timā as a personal pronoun in reported speech is not
obligatory. This is illustrated by the following sentence, which is taken from the same fairytale:
A. “ammāu! ma enı̄ dara kośāśāu.” (T3, 17) “Mother, I want to look for some fire-wood.”; lit. “Mother!
Where I am going, is to cut fire-wood.” ma obl. case of the pers.pron. “I”, here used instead of timā withen-ı̄, part.pres. “going” (enlarged by the focus-marker).

2.6.4.1. By etymology, timā is related with the Sinhalese reflexive pronoun which in its older,
inscriptional form is attested as tumā while the modern language has tamā (cf. GEIGER 1938,130). Through an intermediate form like Pa. tuma- “oneself, himself”, this must be derived´ “vital breath, one’s own person” (TURNER 1966, I, 341,
from OIA tmán- (obl. stem of ātmā)
no. 5983). It remains doubtful, however, whether this formation can be designated as a“reflexive” pronoun in the proper sense of the word, given that it seems never be used forthe object of a verbal predicate which is co-referential with the subject of the sentence. As amatter of fact, Dhivehi possesses no formal elements at all for this function which is usuallyfulfilled by reflexive pronouns in European languages.

146

Morphology

2.6.4.2. The following table will give a general view of the dialectal variants of Dhiv. timā:“self”Addū˙˙

Fua Mulaku

c

Māle

nom./obl.sg.

timā

timā

timā

gen.sg.

timāgē

timāgetimāge, timange*, timenge*

dat.sg.

timā /timā-aś/

timāśa /timā-aśa/timā /timā-aś/

abl.sg.

timāgē farātun /timā ekuhun

timāgē ferātenccnom./obl.pl.

timāmentimāmentimāmengen.pl.

timāmengētimāmenge

timāmenge, timennāge*

timāmennatimāmennatimāmengē ferāten*) These forms are dialectal variants according to oral information byc

ASSAN SA ĪD, March 1999.

Ḣ

ctimāmengē farātun;
timāmen ekuhunctimāmenna

abl.pl.

c

dat.pl.

2.6.5. Demonstrative pronouns
In Dhivehi, there exist three rows of demonstrative pronouns which correspond to theclassical subdivision of deictic meanings as denominable after the Latin demonstratives hic,
iste and ille.378 M.F.A. mi is the common pronoun of the hic-deixis. It refers to somebody
or something in close proximity to the speaker and can be translated with “this one here
nearby myself”. The pronominal stem M.F. ti, A. te corresponds to the iste-deixis, referring
to somebody or something in close proximity to the hearer. The basic meaning of this demonstrative is “the one there nearby you”. The meaning of ti / te cannot be rendered adequately
in English though; depending from the context, it must be translated by “this” or “that”.
M.F.A. e “that” serves as a pronoun of the ille-deixis, referring to a person or an object
which is out of sight of the speaker as well as of the addressee.
2.6.5.1. The threefold deixis of Dhivehi contrasts with a fourfold one in Modern Sinhalese.
GAIR (1970, 31) describes the meaning of the Sinhalese demonstrative stems mē-, ō-/oya-, ēand ara- as follows: “mee ‘this, these’: proximity to speaker, or to both speaker and hearer.
oy ‘that, those (by you)’; proximity to hearer. ar ‘that, those (over there)’: distal [sic!] fromboth speaker and hearer; if an object, in sight. ee ‘that, those (in question)’: anaphora;reference to some preceding segmant or topic in the discourse.”379
e

e

378

For the development of the classical theory on deixis cf. BÜHLER (1934, 79 ff.) who also gave an
extensive presentation of the contemporary and previous discourse on this theme, in particular by Karl BRUGMANN (Die Demonstrativpronomina der indogermanischen Sprachen. Abhandlungen der sächsischen Gesellschaft
der Wissenschaften, Bd. 22, 1904).
379
Cf. also MATZEL (1983), 23: “mē- bezeichnet das näher zum Sprechenden Befindliche, ō-/oya- bezeichnet
das näher zum Angesprochenen Befindliche, ē- bezeichnet das Abwesende, nicht sichtbare, Gedachte, arabezeichnet das räumlich und zeitlich Entfernte.” Cf. also MASICA (1991), 251.

Demonstrative pronouns

147

2.6.5.1.1. According to GEIGER (1919, 76), Dhiv. mi “this” corresponds with Sinh. me¯˘ which
he derives from the pronominal stem ē enlarged with the prefixed pronominal stem ma(GEIGER 1938, 126), in its turn deduced from Pkt., Pa. ima-, Skt. imá-; TURNER (1966, I, 26
and 1985, 4, no. 587) agrees with this. For the derivation of the pronominal stem Sinh. e¯˘ /Dhiv. e “that” cf. 2.6.2.5. The etymology of the demonstrative M.F. ti, A. te, in its deictic
function corresponding with Sinh. ō/oya- (cf. above), is still unknown.
2.6.5.1.2. As was mentioned above, there are no particular personal pronouns for the third
person in Dhivehi (cf. 2.6.2.5). This morphological gap is filled by the demonstrative pronouns which also function as anaphoric and cataphoric pronouns. Thus, the pronouns of thethat-deixis normally serve as anaphorics, while the pronoun of the this-deixis is mainly used
in a cataphoric sense.
2.6.5.2. The table below gives a comprehensive survey of the demonstrative stems that exist in
Dhivehi:cdem.pron.attr.

Addū
˙˙

Fua Mulaku

Māle

“hic”

mi / (me)mimi“iste”

tetiti“ille”eee

For the declension of the substantivised demonstratives cf. the tables given in 2.6.2.7.3 and 2.6.2.7.4 whichshow the enlarged forms of the demonstrative e used as personal pronouns of the 3.ps.sg. The declension of theenlarged pronominal forms that are based on mi follows the same pattern.

2.6.5.2.1. A. me, which is indicated as a variant in the list above, can be explained by anassimilation of the root vowel, the form being exclusively used as an attribute of hen “mood,way”. me-hen which in Modern Addū is regarded as an inseparable morphological unit,
means “(in) this way”. In contrast to this, there is no assimilation of mi when combined withother words containing e; cp., e.g., A. mi gehā sg.def. “this tree”, mi gē sg.def. “this house”.
˙˙

2.6.5.2.2. The attributive use of the demonstrative pronouns can be illustrated by the following examples representing the different dialects.
A. mi kuddā kēfi: ... (T3, 12) “This child said: ...” (mi “this”, attr. of kuddā nom.def. “child”; kēfi
3.ps.sg.pret. “said” (M. kianı̄ “to say, speak; to tell, read”).
A. me-hen be i mei ... (T1, 10) “Having spoken this way ...” (me “this”, attr. of hen obl. “mood, way”;
be i part.pret. “(having) said, spoken” (M. bunanı̄ “to say, speak”); mei nom.loc. in conjunctional
function “(at the time) when”.
F. kihinne tai ta ti rukaha gēı̄? (T4, 39) “How did you go to that coconut-tree (near you)?” (kihinne “how,which way”; tai quest.part.; ta obl. pers.pron. 2.ps.sg. “you”; ti dem.pron. “this (one) near you”, attr. of
rukaha, dat.sg. of ru /ruk/ “coconut-tree”; gē-ı̄ part.pret. “gone” (M. danı̄ “to go”) + focus marker; lit.
“which way was it you went to that coconut-tree (there, near you)?”).
M. e de bēfu u n muśimahā duru vı̄. (T8, 140) “Those two gentlemen went mackerel fishing.” (e attr.
“those”; de “two”; bēfulun obl.pl. “gentlemen, nobles”; muśimahā for /muśimas-āi/ “with themackerels”; duru vi-ı̄ part.pret. of duru vanı̄ “to go”, lit. “be far (away)”, 2nd level + focus marker -ı̄:
“where they went (to), is ...”
ṅ

ṅ

c

˙

l̇

148

Morphology

2.6.5.3. In Sinhalese, the stem form of the demonstrative pronouns can be used in attributivefunction only. When used independently, they must be enlarged by special suffixes which at
the same time express a threefold differentiation of gender, viz. m. -ā, f. -ı̄, n. (only inanimate) -a; cp., e.g,. Sinh. eyā “that one (male person)”, ä¯ ← *eyı̄ “that one (female person)”and eya “that one (object)” (cf. GEIGER 1938, 125; cf. also 2.6.2.5.3 above). In both thesefeatures, Dhivehi is different from Sinhalese.
2.6.5.3.1. First, in all Maldivian dialects demonstrative pronouns referring to “non-persons”,
i.e. animals in general as well as plants and inanimate things, can be used in their unenlarged
form both as attributes and independently. Cp. the following example:
F. ... ebagēm mā, be a laku mi hedı̄ likı̄ goho, mi kāfi. (T4, 4) “... after she [Mēliāge Dia] had left, a cat,coming (there), ate this [a bread fruit].”; lit. “... when she had left, the way a cat acted now, was asfollows: coming (here), it ate this.” (ebagēm = ebageun verbal noun in the obl. case, “the leaving”(M. danı̄ “to go”); mā nom.loc., “when”; be a laku obl.indef. “a cat”; mi dem.pron. in adverbial function“now”; hedı̄ part.pret. “done, acted” (M. hadanı̄ “to act, do, make, create”); lik-ı̄ nom. + focus-marker“what the way was, was (as follows)”; goho abs. of “to go” (M. danı̄); mi dem.pron. used as substantive,nom., inan. “this (one)”; kāfi 3.ps.sg.pret.I (M. kanı̄ “to eat”).
l̇l̇

2.6.5.3.1.1. The demonstrative stems in their unenlarged form can also be used in the syntactic construction with the focus-marker -ı̄ emphasising the rhema, which is one of the mosttypical features of Dhivehi (cp. the sentence treated above). If this marker, which indicatesthe rhematisation of the following part of the sentence,380 is added to a demonstrative pronoun, it is usually absorbed by the final vowel of the latter which is lengthened. Cp. thefollowing examples:
A. mı̄ ta mo ōgan̆ a tau? ... tē ma mo ōgan̆ a nunāu. “Is this your axe?” ... “No, this is not my axe.”(T3, 59-60); mı̄ = mi-ı̄ “what this (here, nearby myself) is, is ...”; ta mo ōgan̆ a “your axe”; tau
quest.particle; tē = te-ı̄ “what that (there, nearby you) is, is ...”; ma mo o gan̆ a “my axe”; nun-āu
negation particle + quotation particle).
F. ... mı̄ ran fēśak ai. “... what this was, is a golden box.” (T1, 54a; mı̄ = mi-ı̄ “what this (here, nearby him)
was, was ...”; ran obl. “gold”; fēśak ← stem fēśi- + indef.suff. -ak “a box”; -ai quotation particle).
M. mi-ı̄ ves mamma-ek-ge sūra eve. 〈mi ı̄ ves manma e ge sūra eve〉 “What this [in her eyes] was, was also
the figure of a mother.” (T9, 37; mi-ı̄ “what this is, was ...”; ves “also, even, too”; mamma “mother”,-ek def.suff., -ge gen.suff.; sūra “form, figure, picture, mood” etc. ← Arab. ūrat “id.”381; evequot.particle).
ḋ

ḋ

ḋ

l̇

ḋ

l̇

l̇

l̇

c

c c

c

ṡ

Sentences like the following one can be understood within the framework of a similar
syntactic context:
A. bon̆ a nā ahafi: fin̆danu, fin̆danu, e kon a a ? “The B.-bird asked: ‘F.-bird, F.-bird, what a noise is that?’”(T1, 20-20a: bon̆ a nā nom.def.; ahafi pret.I, 3.ps.sg. (M. ahanı̄ “to ask”); fin̆danu obl. “F.-bird”; koninterr.pron. “which, what a”; a a nom. (stem form) “noise, sound”). The reason why in this sentence(frequently occurring in the given fairy tale) the focus-marker -ı̄ is not added to the pronoun e, must
obviously be seen in the fact that the rhematic element is sufficiently marked by the interrogative pronoun
kon which follows immediately after e.
ḋ

ḋ

ḋ

ḋ

380
381

For the details of this construction cf. 5.2.
For some further meanings of this word cf., e.g., WEHR (1958), 480.

Demonstrative pronouns

149

2.6.5.3.1.2. When persons are referred to, the substantivised pronominal form cannot take thefocus-marker -ı̄ itself. In such cases, the latter element is either added to the pure demonstrative stem or to the indefinite (oblique) form which is derived with the suffix -ak. In the caseof M. ēnā “that one (m./f.); he/she”, the resulting form is ēnā-ak-ı̄, while †ēnā-ı̄ does notexist. Cp. the following example:cM. ēnā akı̄ ēge nevin. (T8, 165) “(It is true), he was her captain.” lit. “(It is true) that what he was,382 isher [i.e. the ship’s] captain.” (ēge gen.sg. of e “it” (inan.) in the function of a poss.pron. “its”, here:“her”; nevin nom.sg. “captain”).

In southern Dhivehi, however, the corresponding form is derived from the oblique case; cp.
A. eāk-ı̄ (← ea-ak-ı̄) as used in the following sentence:cA. ehen vi mei, eākı̄ e raśi hiśi emme fakı̄ri taulı̄man ne mı̄hā kamugai vege. (T16, 3) “Therefore, he(probably) became the poorest and least educated man in this island.” lit. “Having become that way (ehenvi mei), it became the fact (kamugai vege) that he was the one (eāk-ı̄), who was the poorest and least
educated man of all in that island.” (e-hen adv. “(in) that way”; vi part.pret. of (M.) vanı̄ “become”; mei“when” (nom.loc.); e raśi “(in/on) that island”: e dem.pron., attr. of raśi, gen./loc. of ra /raś/ “island,
land”; hiśi part.pret. “having been” (M. hunnanı̄ “to be, stand, remain”), attr. of mı̄hā nom.sg. “man”;
emme pron.adj. “all, of all”; fakı̄ri adj. “poor”; taulı̄man ne “without education”, lit. “education not
being there”; taulı̄man “education, instruction” (M. ta (u)lı̄mu ← Arab. taclı̄m “instruction, teaching”; ne/net/ part.pret. of the verbal noun netun “not to be there”; kamu-gai nom. “fact, state”, lit. “fact-body”:
kamu obl. + gai “body”; vege “became” 3.ps.sg. pret.IV of (M.) vanı̄ “to become”).
c

c

c

c

2.6.5.3.2. The second formal difference that distinguishes Dhivehi from Sinhalese is thegrammatical expression of gender. In the dialect of Addū as well as North Dhivehi, thesubstantivised forms of the demonstrative pronouns do not show any differentiation in gender.
Only in the dialect of Fua Mulaku, there are some isolated forms that could possibly be
regarded as relics of an originally systematic differentiation of masculine and feminine pronominal forms. In the comparatively numerous texts that have been collected in Fua Mulaku,
the animate substantivised forms of the pronominal stem expressing the hic-deixis (i.e., mi“this”), shows variant endings which seem to specify gender. Thus, mi-u “this one” always
refers to a male person while mi-a only refers to females. Cp. the following examples fromthe Fua Mulaku fairy tale ālikedeā dērikedeā “The piece of ash and the piece of coal” (T6):
˙˙

c

c

˙

˙

c

˙

F. ... mi kudd¯a˛ bon̆ o vege ai. miu ahāfi ai ... “This boy grew up. He asked ...” (T6, 61-62; kudd¯a˛ “child”,
here: “boy”; bon̆ o adj. “big, great”; vege pret.IV, 3.ps.sg. (M. vanı̄ “to become”); ai quot.particle; mi-u
“this one, he” (m.); ahāfi pret.I, 3.ps.sg. (M. ahanı̄ “ask”)).
F. ... reha kakkāgen, mia mi had¯a˛ likı̄ ... “... having prepared (cooked) the curry, this one [Mēliage Dia, she]acts as follows ...” (T6, 19; reha “curry (dish)”; kakkāgen abs.III (M. kakkanı̄ “to cook, prepare”; mi-a
“this one” (f.), also “she”; mi had¯a˛ likı̄ “the way she acts is the following”: mi here used as a temporaladverb “now” (cf. 2.6.5.6 below); had¯a˛ part.pres. (M. hadanı̄ “to do, make, act”; lik-ı̄ nominal stem lik“way” + focus-marker -ı̄).
ḋḋ

The corresponding forms of the ille-deixis, F. e-u and e-a, do not show such a clear
differentiation of gender, however. In particular, the younger generation uses them without
any grammatical or semantical difference (cf. also 2.6.2.5.2). The same holds true for thesubstantivised forms ti-a and ti-u (demonstrative stem ti “iste”) which were nominated by the
informants as rarely occurring oblique case forms of the personal pronoun of the 2.ps.sg.; inthe actual Fua Mulaku text material, there is only one example attested, viz. dat. tiuśa “toc382

For the nuance of vagueness expressed by -ak-ı̄, cf. 5.2.2.2.

150

Morphologyyou”. It is more probable that tia and tiu represent relic forms than to assume an influenceof the standard language in the modern period. By the way, in the contemporary language ofMāle the occurrence of the demonstrative tia is confined to the 2nd honorific level; M. tia is
not common any longer as an unspecified pronoun of the 2.ps.sg. “you” with a neutral
meaning (cf. 2.6.2.4.3).
2.6.5.4. In Addū, the ending of the substantivised demonstrative pronoun depends on syntactical criteria only. If the pronoun in question serves as the subject of a finite verb, it appears
in the form of the nominative. If the predicate is represented by an infinite verb, the pronominal subject appears in the oblique case. Cp. the following two examples containing the
pronominal stem mi. In the first sentence, the demonstrative pronoun is in the nominative:˙˙ṅ

A. mide be a fi ... “This one said ...” (T3, 45; mi-de subst. dem.pron. nom. “this one”; be
A. be a nı̄ (M. bunanı̄) “to say”).

a fi pret.I, 3.ps.sg.,ṅṅIn the second sentence, the demonstrative pronoun appears in the oblique case, serving as the
subject of an infinite verb:
A. ās mia ehı̄-au: ... “When he came, he asked as follows: ...” (T3, 55; wtl. “coming, what this one asked,
was: ...” ās abs. of enı̄ “to come; to go” (M. annanı̄); ehi-ı̄ part.pret. (M.) ahanı̄ “to ask” + focus-marker-ı̄; -au quot.particle).

The substantivised forms of the pronominal stem e “that” are used in the same way (A. nom.
e-de, obl. e-a). As in Fua Mulaku (cf. 2.6.5.3.2), substantivisations of the demonstrative stem
te “iste” are rare in Addū. The only attested form occurring in the collected texts is te-ak-ı̄(indefinite form + focus-marker -ı̄):c˙˙

A. teakı̄ timāgē mo ōgan̆ a nun-āu., lit. “What this one nearby you is, is not my axe.” (timā-ge pron. in thegen. as poss.pron. “my (own)”; mo ōgan̆ a “axe”; nun-āu negation + quot.particle; from the fairy talemolōgan̆da “The axe”, T3, 37).
ḋ

ḋ

l̇

l̇

˙

˙

2.6.5.5. In northern Dhivehi, the substantivised demonstrative stems show particular forms for
persons and “non-persons”. There is no differentiation of gender and also no morphologicaldifferentiation of nominative and oblique case forms. In the modern standard language, thedeictic pronouns referring to persons, viz. mı̄nā “this person (here, nearby myself)”, tı̄nā
“this person (there, nearby you)”383 and ēnā “that person” (used as a pers.pron. of the
3.ps.sg. “he / she”, cf. 2.6.2.5.3), contrast with only one form that refers to non-human beingsand objects, resp., viz. eā “that, it”; with all probability, this form represents a petrified
definite singular just like the corresponding Addū form (cf. 2.6.2.7.4). The form element -nāremains unclear, both from the etymological and the semantical point of view (cf. also
2.6.2.5.3), all the more since there is no evidence in the written material as to when theenlarged pronominal forms with -nā came into use.
˙˙

2.6.5.6. Demonstrative adverbs
The demonstrative stems M.F.A. mi “hic”, M.F. ti, A. te “iste” and M.F.A. e “ille” arefrequently used as local and temporal adverbs without any further enlargement, retaining their383

Cf. DISANAYAKA/MANIKU (1990), 42.

Demonstrative adverbs

151

particular deictic function. Thus, mi means “here” when used as a local adverb and “now,just now” in the function of a temporal adverb, while ti/te means “there, nearby you” as alocal adverb and “then, afterwards” in temporal use. Sometimes it is not possible to distinguish the temporal and the local component clearly from each other. In such cases theprimary deictic meaning seems to be more important than further local or temporal connotations. The following examples will give an impression of the most characteristic uses of thedemonstrative adverbs. In the first two examples, mi occurs as a temporal adverb:
F. ... be a laku mi hedı̄ likı̄ ... (T4, 4) “what a cat did now, was the following” (for the exact morphologicalanalysis cf. 2.6.5.3.1).
A. ... mi mussanti vegen mi vēn̆denı̄. (T3, 66) “... this is (the) way we are living now, having become richnow.” (mussanti adj. “rich”; vegen abs.III of A. venı̄ “to become” (M. vanı̄); vēn̆denı̄ part.pres. “living”(M. u e nı̄) + focus-marker “that (the way) we are living”).
l̇

˙

˙

l̇

In the following examples, the adverb A. te / M. ti has a local meaning prevailing:cA. bala juhāu, ta te otı̄ kehenaka hadagen tau? (T17, 11) “Look, Juhā, what is it you are doing there?” lit.
“Look, Juhā, what are you doing down there?” (The king asks Juhā, what he is doing in the middle of
the road, i.e., “there”. — bala impv.sg. of (M.) balanı̄ “to look”; juhā-au nom. (voc.) + quot.particle; tapers.pron. 2.ps.sg. obl. “you”; otı̄ part.pret./pres. + focus-marker, (M.) onnanı̄ “to lie, be there”;
kehenaka “how, in which way”; hadagen abs.III, (M.) hadanı̄ “to make, act, create”; tau quest.particle)
M. ... damvaru mihen ti danı̄ kon tāka ? (T8, 78) “... what are you strolling about there in the middle of thenight?” lit. “where is it you are going in this way (over) there at three hours past midnight?” (damvaru〈danvaru〉 “three hours past midnight”; mi-hen dem.pron.attr. + nom.obl. “in this way”; danı̄ part.pres.
“going” + focus-marker; kon tāk-a interr.pron. kon + dat.sg.indef. 〈tākaś〉 /tān-ak-aś/ “to which place,where”).
c

c

c

The following sentence admits both a temporal and a local interpretation of the pronoun ti:
F. kontākaha tai ti enı̄? (T5, 6.11.16.20) can be translated as “Where are you going (over) there?” as wellas with “Where are you going (right) now?” (lit. “To which place is it you are going (over) there / rightnow?”) In the given fairy tale, a girl asks this question to several kinds of food (an onion, a chili, a lime
fruit etc.) which she happens to meet on her way (kontākaha “to which place, where to”, kon interr.pron.
“what a, which”, tākaha /tan-ak-aś/ dat.sg.indef. of tan “place”; tai question particle).

In the following sentence, e has the local meaning “there”:
A. e hiśi hei kāyē ede kāfi. “He ate everything eatable which was there.” (hiśi part.pret. “(having) been”,(M.) hunnanı̄ “to be, stand, remain, stay”; hiśi hei “everything”, cf. 2.6.7.4.3; kāyē “eatable, something
to eat”; ede “he”, nom. 3.ps.sg. pers.pron.; kāfi 3.ps.sg. pret.I).

2.6.5.7. Modal adverbs
Adverbial formations with a modal meaning most frequently consist of one of the demonstrative stems and a noun or pronoun. Cp., e.g., M. e-hā, F. e-hai and A. e-hei “thus, so”, allrepresenting a combination of the demonstrative e and the pronominal adjective M. hā, F. hai,A. hei “all, everything” (with an unknown etymology; cf. 2.6.7.4.3). Cp. the following
adverbial compounds the nominal elements of which are still used independently in themodern language: M.F. mi-hen, A. me-hen “thus, (in) this way”, M.A.F. e-hen “thus, (in) thatway” (hen nom.obl. “manner, way”) or M.A. mi gota , F. mi gotaha “thus, (in) this way”(/got-aś/ dative in adverbial use of M. goi, A.F. go /got/ “sort, kind, way, manner”).
c

c

152

Morphology

2.6.6. Reciprocal pronouns
According to their particular meaning, the reciprocal pronouns consist of two parts. In
Dhivehi there are animate (referring to persons) and inanimate forms (referring to things),
most of which can be analysed easily. Animate pronouns do not show a differentiation ofgender.
M. ekaku anekaka “each other; one another” consists of /ek-aku/, the obl. case of thenumeral “one”, and /anek-ak-aś/, the dat.sg.indef. of the pronoun ane /an-ek/ “another” (cp.
Sinh. an “other, foreign”, anikā / anikı̄ “the other one”; Pkt. anna-, Pa. añña-, OIA anyá“other”, cf. GEIGER 1941, 8, no. 104 and TURNER 1966, I, 19, no. 399). The corresponding
formations of the southern dialects can be explained in the same way: F. ekaku enekakuśa“each other; one another” is composed of the obl. /ek-aku/ and the dat.sg. of F. ene (≈M. ane ), /en-ek-aku-śa/. A. ehakā enehaka “each other” most probably shows a double
dissimilation. The definite nom.sg. ehakā must be explained as *ekak-ā, while the dat.sg.
enehaka “to an other” must be derived from *en-ek-ak-aś.384
With things or living beings that do not have the status of personalities (e.g., animals ina herd, flock or shoal), the reciprocal relationship is expressed by M. ekati anekacca “eachother”, lit. “the one thing to an other thing” (with an unusual, probably dissimilative soundchange of [e → a] occurring twice), /ek-eti an-ek-eti-aś/; A. eketi enekettā /ek-eti en-ek-ettāaś/ (ettā def.). In the following example, the reciprocal pronoun refers to two pigeons which,in the given fairy tale, do not appear as animate personalities but only as indifferent membersof a flock: M. ... ekati aneka caś bunā adu ive eve ... (T12, 15) “... he hears one [of thepigeons] saying to another: ...” (bunā “saying” part.pres. of bunanı̄ “to say, speak”; adu“sound, noise”; /ivē/ 3.ps.sg.pres. of ivenı̄ “to hear, come to one’s ears”; eve quot.particle).
c

c

˙˙

c

c

c

c

c

c

˙

c

˙

2.6.7. Interrogative pronouns
The interrogatives are the only pronouns in Dhivehi that form a complete row along the axisof the absolute, determinative and adverbial pronominal categories (cf. the table given in
2.6.1.3). While the main function of these pronouns consists in expressing the ignorance or
unawareness of the asking person concerning certain things, persons or situations, someinterrogatives (e.g. “how”, “what”) can also be used in exclamative function in order to utter
spontaneous emotions such as astonishment or frightening. As in the other Modern IA
languages,385 the inherited interrogative pronouns can be derived from forms reflecting the
OIA stem ká- in Dhivehi, too (cf. TURNER 1966, I, 127, s.v. ka-1; MAYRHOFER 1986-, 284;
for Sinhalese cf. GEIGER 1938, 128 ff.). In Modern Dhivehi, most of the interrogative
pronouns are compound forms the first component of which always consists of a variant of
the old pronominal stem while the second part is of nominal origin. The stem variants
M.F. ki-, A. ke- and M.A.F. kon “what a, which”, which are used when asking for a peculiar
quality and which have the same form throughout Dhivehi, always appear as the first part ofthe pronouns. According to TURNER (1985, 17, no. 2575), Dhiv. kon “which?” can be

384
Another example of the presumed dissimilation is A. lehekı̄ ← lek-ek-ı̄ “a way was (the following ...)”(from T1, 31; lek “way, manner” + indef.suff. -ek + focus marker -ı̄), as against the synonymous A. lekakı̄ (fromT3, 26; lek + indef.suff.obl. -ak + focus marker -ı̄).
385
Cf., e.g., ZOGRAF (1976), 164 and MASICA (1991), 253.

Interrogative pronouns

153

identified with OIA káh púnar “who?”, lit. “who again?” (cf. TURNER 1966, I, 127, no.
2575), but this derivation is quite improbable because of semantical reasons. A few attestations dating from the Old Dhivehi period show that kon had its modern form even then (cp.,e.g., kom-mı̄saku in L1 (mn/1,4) where kon appears as an attr. of the obl. case of /mı̄s/ “man,person”, with the meaning “anybody” in a negated sentence); such attestations do not provide
additional information as to the etymology. Because of the specific character of the texts(legal documents, decrees etc.) which do not contain dialogues, the early written material of
Dhivehi usually contains but a few interrogatives. Thus, not even one historical attestation of
the pronominal stem ki- has been found so far.
In the following paragraphs, the particular interrogative pronouns of Dhivehi will be
subdivided and described according their function and meaning.
˙

2.6.7.1. In Dhivehi, the distribution of the absolute interrogative pronouns “who” and“what” matches the semantical categories of animateness and inanimateness only to a certain
extent. The pronoun “who” is used for persons in a wider sense. Thus, if animals are
regarded as individual characters, they are treated as persons; in particular this applies to thenumerous animals acting as (human) personalities in fairy tales or fables as well as to certain
domestic animals. The pronouns meaning “what” are generally used for things, plants and all
animals that do not play an individual role, furthermore for asking about events, activities etc.
A. key(y)e and F. kēye, nom.sg. “who”, cannot (yet) be analysed as to their etymology,
while the nom.sg. M. kāku “who” obviously reflects the indefinite oblique case of theinterrogative stem (*kV-aku “what a”) which also serves as the basis of the particular caseforms of the pronoun in the standard language and in Fua Mulaku. In contrast to that, theoblique case forms met with in Addū are built from a stem variant kankā- (cf. 2.6.7.1.3).
c

˙˙

c

2.6.7.1.1. The singular forms expressing the pronominal meaning “what” – A. konta ,F. kōnteke and M. kon ecce – are compound forms which are based on the interrogative kon“what (a), which” (cf. above). Within the given context, A. /tak/ and F. /tek/ cannot be
regarded as a plural suffix. It seems more likely that these elements could have preserved theoriginal pronominal meaning of “so much” here (cf. 2.3.2.2.2, 2.6.5.7, 2.6.7.4.5).
Consequently, we must assume that konta which is the only interrogative pronoun in Modern
Addū expressing “what” in a general sense, originally had the meaning of “what so much”(/kon tak/), with a quantitative nuance. Hence, F. kōnteke “what” which contains a
supplementary indefinite suffix /-ek/ could be interpreted as “what a (..) of so many” (/kontek-ek/). In contrast to all these forms, M. kon ecce “what” can be analysed from the pointof view of the modern language, the underlying syntagm /kon eti-ek/ simply meaning “whata thing” (eti “thing”).
c

c

c

˙˙

c

c

We cannot exclude with certainty, however, that the formations that occur in the southerndialects could be explained on the basis of M. /kon eti-ek/ as well. In this case, the ancestralforms would have been A. *kon eti-ak and F. *kon eti-ek-ek which at first would havedeveloped to A. *kon etyak and F. *kon etyek-ek, resp. According to the usual sound laws,
however, we should rather expect A. *kon etta and F. *kon ettek-e for the modern languagein this case (cf. 1.3.9.2.1). In the framework of this derivation, the actual forms A. konta andF. kōnteke could perhaps be explained as representing very unusual allegro-forms.
c

c

c

c

154

MorphologyccAs against A. konta and F. kōnteke , the interrogative pronoun M. kōce “what” represents
an allegro-variant of kon ecce , kōce being the result of a normal contraction.
c

2.6.7.1.2. One more compound interrogative pronoun meaning “what a?” which is based onkon, is A. kon kahalei, M.F. kon kahala (the Māle variant is already mentioned by GEIGER
1919, 77). The pronominal adjective M.F. kahala / A. kahalei, which is unclear from theetymological point of view, means “such”.
M. kı̄nē “what” consists of a form of the interrogative stem which is enlarged by theinterrogative particle -hē/-hei (cf. 3.15.3). GEIGER’s spelling 〈kı̄ṅhē〉 “what” with ṅ386
indicates the articulation of a velar nasal in the given position which seems to have been
usual at the turn of the 20th century. We cannot decide from the phonological point of view
whether this nasal was a primary one or whether it developed from a former stop.387 The
form kı̄ “what” which also occurs in the modern standard language in questions concerninga concrete verbal action,388 seems to speak in favour of the latter possibility. We then haveto ask from which original consonant the final glottal stop of kı̄ can be derived. At a firstglance, it seems to be very doubtful that kı̄ could be connected with the interrogative kı̄k,which is one of two forms that are mentioned by TURNER without being attested anywhere
else (“Md. kiek, kı̄k ‘what?’”: 1985, 21, no. 3164 s.v. OIA kím, cf. 1966, I, 161, no. 3164).
In the old documents of Dhivehi, there are no attestations either that might support TURNER’s
forms. It cannot be excluded, however, that kiek could be the result of a corrupt spelling of
the interrogative form M. kı̄kē “what” which is used in the colloquial language as a check inthe case of non-understanding; cf. DISANAYAKA/MANIKU (1990, 74) who translate kı̄kē with“what? (of the said word)” (cp., e.g., kı̄kē ta? “What did you say?”, lit. “what” + interr.
particle ta. – ēnā bunı̄ kı̄kē ta? “What did he say?” ēnā “he”, buni-ı̄ part.pret. “said” +focus-marker). Concerning the etymology of kı̄kē, there are two imaginable explanations. At
the first glance, it seems to be quite possible that kı̄kē represents the normal interrogative
stem enlarged with an interrogative particle just as in the case of kı̄nē. As there is no particle-kē attested in Dhivehi, however, this derivation cannot be upheld. Therefore it is more likely
to assume a combination of an interrogative pronoun kı̄k (as mentioned by TURNER, cf.
above), existing as the independent word kı̄ “what” in the modern language, and the question
particle hē/hei (cf. above). The fact that this particle is used for inquiry when something is
not understandable or audible, may be taken as a striking argument speaking in favour of the
proposed explanation. Followingly, kı̄kē could be derived from *kı̄k-hē without a morphological, phonological or semantical problem.
In the southern area of Dhivehi, there exist several plural forms of the interrogatives
denoting “who” and “what” such as, e.g., the nom.pl. form A. kom̆bākin /kon-bākin/ which
can be regarded as a compound of the pronoun kon and the Arabic loanword bākin used in
Addū as an indefinite pronoun meaning “some, any” (cf. 2.6.7.3; for Arab. bāqin “remaining;
c

c

c

c

˙˙

386

GEIGER (1919), 77. For the exact notation, cf. GEIGER’s original German text in (1901-2), II, 380,
however.
387
Cp. the phonetic development of the infinitive ending in the language of Māle, the final -n of whichdeveloped through -ś from - (cf. 3.6.3.2.1.2).
388
Cf. also CAIN (1992), 142: “kı̄ is the question word referring to an activity as opposed to an object.....
kı̄ always precedes the verb.” Cp., e.g., ēnā kı̄ kuranı̄? “What is he/she doing?” (ēnā pers.pron. 3.ps.sg., kuranı̄
part.pret. + focus marker).
c

c

ṫ

c

Interrogative pronouns

155

remains, remainders, rest” cf. WEHR 1958, 61). Thus, kon bākin literally means “which(ones) / who of the rest?”. Presumably, the final -in of Arab. bāqin was here reinterpreted as
being the plural ending -in(-un) which is used for nouns denoting persons (cf. 2.3.2.1.2). In
contrast to A. kom̆bākin, the corresponding form of the nom.pl. in Fua Mulaku, kom̆baikēa,seems to be opaque from the phonological and morphological point of view. The originalformation can still be regarded in the oblique stem kom̆baiken-, however. Possibly, the Arabic
word bāqin came into the dialect of Fua Mulaku at a time when the plural ending -in had
already become obsolete and been replaced by the variant -un (cf. 2.3.2.2.2).
The plural of A. konta and F. kōnteke “what” is an analytic formation too. The forms inquestion, A. kon etteti teka /kon eti-eti tek-ak/ and F. kon etteti tekeke /kon eti-eti tek-ekek/,
can be translated with “what a so-much of things”. Their individual components must be
analysed as follows: A.F. kon “what a”, etteti distributive plural of eti “thing” (cf. 2.3.2.5),/tek/ pron.adj. “so much/many”; A. -a indef.suff., F. eke numeral “one”.
c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

2.6.7.1.3. The following tables illustrate the main interrogative pronouns and their declension in the
singular and plural:
Addū
˙˙

Fua Mulaku

c

Māle

sg.

key(y)e

kēye

kāku

pl.

kom̆bākin /kon-bākin/kom̆baikēasg.

kankāgekākagepl.

kom̆bākingekom̆baikengeckākaśa, kāka atahakākuge, kāgedat.
“to whom”sg.

kankā /-aś/pl.

kom̆bākinna /-aś/

kom̆baikenna /-ś/abl.
“from whom /by whom”

sg.

kankāge farātunkākage farāten

pl.

kom̆bākinge farātun

kom̆baikenge farāten

c

c

˙˙

Fua Mulakusg.

konta /kontak/kōnteke /kontekek/pl.

kon etteti teka
/tekak/gen./loc.
“of what” / “inwhich, on/at which”sg.

kontakikōntekipl.

kon etteti tekaki

kon etteti tekeki

dat.
“what for/to”

sg.

kontakapl.

kon etteti tekaka/-aś/

Abl.
“by what means, bywhich”

sg.

kontakunkōntakunpl.

kon etteti tekakun

kon etteti tekakun

Addū

Māle

c

c

kon etteti tekeke/tekekek/

kon ecce /eti-ek/,kōce; kı̄kē, kı̄nē, kı̄

c

c

c

kōntakahacnom. “what”

kākunkon etı̄ge

c

c

what?

kāka /-aś/

kon ecca /eti-aś/

kon etteti tekakaha
kon etı̄n /eti-in/cgen. “whose”

c

nom.
“who”

c

who?

156

Morphology

2.6.7.2. The adverbial interrogative pronouns are compounds consisting of the basic
interrogative stems M.F.A. kon and M.F. ki- / A. ke- and a nominal constituent which in mostcases is a noun, while adjectival formations are rare.389 Besides the normal singular forms,
some of these interrogatives have plural forms as well, just like the absolute interrogative
pronouns (cf. 2.6.7.1). Depending on the concrete meaning of the given question, theinterrogative pronouns adopt different case endings whose functions are strictly defined. In
some cases, there are considerable differences both in form and in function between thenorthern and the southern dialects of Dhivehi. The adverbial interrogatives are generally usedin local, temporal, modal and causal questions.
2.6.7.2.1. For local questions, a combination consisting of the pronoun kon “what a, which”
and the indefinite form of the noun tan (sometimes tān) “place” is used in the whole Dhivehi´ 390). While in the standard
speaking area (cp. the Sinh. stem tan, Pa. thāna-, OIA sthānalanguage the question “where?” is expressed by the indefinite casus obliquus, the southerndialects use the indefinite locative in this function. As with the absolute pronouns “who” and“what” (cf. 2.6.7.1.3), the local interrogative has a whole set of plural forms in South
Dhivehi; cp., e.g., the loc. A. kontantāki / F. kontantaneki, expressing the meaning of“where?”, i.e. “on which places?”, which is based on a distributional plural formation (tantan, cf. 2.3.2.5). As to the contraction of M.A. -tā- ← -tana- (e.g., in M. kontāku ← kontanaku,
obl. case), cp. the corresponding development to be observed in the ending of the part.pres.
of a-stem verbs (-ā ← -ana; cf. 3.9.1.1.1).
The following table shows the particular case forms of the composed pronoun *kon-tan-ak“what a place?”:
˙

c

Addū

Fua Mulaku

˙˙obl. “where” sg.
loc. “where” sg.

kontāki /kon-tan-ak-i/

kontaneki /kon-tan-ek-i/pl.

kontantāki/kon-tan-tan-ak-i/

kontantaneki/kon-tan-tan-ek-i/sg.

kontāka/kon-tan-ak-aś/pl.

kontantāka/kon-tan-tan-ak-aś/

kontantanakaha /kontantanekahasg.

kontākun

kontanakun / kontanekunpl.

kontantākun

kontantanakun /kontantanekuncabl. “fromwhere”

kontāku /kon-tan-aku/cdat. “where
to”

Māle

kontākaha / kontanakaha/ kontanekahac“where”kontāka/kon-tan-ak-aś/

kontākun

2.6.7.2.2. For questions referring to objects which are in immediate proximity to the speaker,
one can also use the interrogative A.F.M. kobā “where (here)?” which has no further case389
For the interrogative pronominal adverbs of Sinhalese which are formed in the same way, cf. MATZEL(1983), 100 ff.
390
Cf. TURNER (1966) II, 793, no. 13753; GEIGER (1941), 61, no. 885.

Interrogative pronouns

157

forms. GEIGER (1919, 77) mentioned the enlarged form kobāhē “where” only which contains
the interrogative particle hē/hei (cf. 2.6.7.1.2).
2.6.7.2.3. Like the adverbial pronoun meaning “where” (cf. 2.6.7.2.1 above), the temporalinterrogative “when” is a compound consisting of kon “what a” and a nominal element. In
Addū and Fua Mulaku, it is the stem kal- “time, moment” which is used here (A. nom. kō;
cp. Sinh. kal- “time”, ki-kala “when, at what time”; Pa. kāla- “time, morning”, OIA kālá“time, fixed point of time”; cf. TURNER 1966, I, 157, no. 3084; GEIGER 1941, 39, no. 569.),
while in North Dhivehi the noun iru “sun, east; time” is found in the same function (cf.
GEIGER 1902, 924, no. 214; cp. also the Sinh. stem variants (h)iri/u/a-, Pa. suriya- besides´´ iya- besides sūrasūra-, OIA sūr“sun”; TURNER 1966, II, 782, no. 13574; GEIGER 1941, 22,
no. 344). Another parallel with the interrogative pronoun “where” (cf. above) consists in thefact that the temporal interrogatives show differences between the northern and the southern
Maldivian dialects in the syntactic use of the particular case forms. Thus, the casus obliquus
M. koniraku is used in basically the same way as the locative and dative forms are used in
Addū und Fua Mulaku. The forms in question are illustrated in the following table:
c

˙˙

˙˙

c

˙˙

c

“when”Addū

Fua Mulaku

konkalaki

konkalakiobl. “when”
dat. “until when”
abl. “when” (from now on), “since when”

konirakucloc. “when”

Mālekonkalaka /-aś/

konkalakaha

konkalakun

konkalakun

konirakun

2.6.7.2.4. “How?”, which represents the least specified modal question from the semanticalpoint of view, can be expressed by two different formations in Dhivehi. The first one is
M. kihā, F. kihai, A. kihei which is not only used as an interrogative but also as an exclamative “how!”. Most probably, this pronominal form is a combination of the interrogative stem
M.F. ki-, A. ke- (cf. 2.6.7) and the pronominal adjective M. hā, F. hai, A. hei “all, everything”. The second interrogative pronoun meaning “how” is based on the stem ki-/ke- as
well, but implies the noun A.F.M. hen “manner, way”391 which is still used as an indepen-

391
Most likely, Dhiv. hen must be derived from OIA sénā- “army”; cp. Sinh. sen “multitude, army”(GEIGER 1941, 185, no. 2806; TURNER 1966, II, 783, no. 13587). The original meaning of the word is stillpreserved in Old Dhivehi texts where we find it in the compound henevi “leader of an army” (RC 9,9 and 10,8;
cp. Sinh. senevi(-rada) “chief commander of an army, general”, OIA sēnāpati-; cf. TURNER 1966, II, 783, no.
13589 and GEIGER 1941, 185, no. 2810). Accordingly, the toponym henveru, i.e. the name of the north-easternpart of Māle, must be understood as “army camp”. The word veru, often occurring in the earliest Dhivehi texts(L2 10,1; L3 2/2,1; L4 c/1,2 etc.) where it has the meaning of “Buddhist monastery (ground)”, exactly
corresponds with Sinh. vehera “Buddhist monastery, monks’ residence” and has to be identified with OIA
vihāra- denoting (among other things) “pleasure ground” and “monastery (ground)” (cf. TURNER 1966, II, 695,
no. 12033). Hence, Dhiv. hen-veru can be translated as “training camp of the army” (lit. “army(’s) trainingcamp”). With all probability, the semantic change leading from “army” to “way, manner” had its origin incompounds such as firi-hen which in the modern language is used as an adjective meaning “male” (vs. the noun
firi “man”); cp. M. firihen kujjā, A.F. firihen kuddā “boy” (lit. “male child”); M.A.F. firihen mı̄hā “man” (lit.

158

Morphology

dent word in all dialects of Dhivehi, mostly occurring in the oblique case meaning “in theway of; like”. Concerning the vocalism of the Māle und Fua Mulaku variants of the interrogative pronoun containing hen, the root vowel -e- must have been assimilated to -i- in theposition after the interrogative stem ki-. Cp. M. kihine /ki-hin-ek/ (indef.; -e indef.suff.) “in
which way? how?”, F. kihina /ki-hin-ak/ “id.” (-a indef.suff.), F. kihinake (obl.indef.? ← *kihin-eke ? eke “one”392) and F. kihinne (possibly ← dat. *ki-hin-aha ← *-aśa?). In contrast
to the dialect-internal variants occurring in Fua Mulaku, A. kehenaka /ke-hen-ak-aś/ (dat.
indef.) “in which way” is completely straightforward from the morphological and phonological point of view.
The question forms A. kehei vara ? F. kihai varakaha?, M. kihā vare , kihā varaka ? “howmuch?” are used when asking for abstract quantities, e.g. the price of something. M. varu,
A. vara, F. varo means “strength, power; quantity, amount” when used independently (with
A. vara /var-ak/, M. vare /var-ek/ as its indef. form and F. varakaha, M. varaka /var-ak-aś/as its indef. dative); the etymology of this word is still unknown.
The dialectal variants M. kita /ki-tak/, F. kite 393 /ki-tek/; M. kitake /ki-tak-ek/, A. kitaka/ki-tak-ak/ (indef. form), all meaning “how many”, are used in questions concerning a
distinguishable number of men, animals, plants and things of any kind. All these question
forms are compounds consisting of the interrogative stem ki- and the element tak/tek “somany” which originally was a pronominal form, too (cf. 2.6.7.1.1). TURNER’s proposal (1985,
21, no. 3167) to derive “Md. kitak” from *kiyatta- “how great” (cf. TURNER 1966, I, 161,
no. 3167) can hardly be upheld.
All other compound interrogatives containing a modal pronoun and a local or temporalcomponent are based on the question forms meaning “how, in which way, how many/much”.
It may suffice here to discuss just a few of the most frequently occurring formations.
c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

The temporal question “how long?” is expressed by different formations in the dialects of Dhivehi. Thus, theexact meaning of A. kehei duvahaka ? (/duvas-ak-aś/ dat.indef. of duvas “day”) and F. kite duvaha? (/ki-tek
duvas/) / kitaka duvaha? (/ki-tak-ak/) can be given as “how many days?”, while the corresponding Malē variants
kihā ire ? and kihā irakun? can be translated as “How much (a) time?” (/ir-ek/ nom.indef. of iru “time”) and“From what time (on)?” (irak-un abl.indef. of iru), resp.
The question “how long?”, “how tall?” (concerning a linear measure) is expressed by kehei digi? in A ū
(A. digi adj. “long, tall”) and by kihā dige ? in the standard language (/dig-ek/ indef. form of the adj. digu).
“How far?” is kehei duru? or kehei duraki? in A ū and kihā dure ? in the standard language (M.A.F. duru
adj. “far, remote”; A. /dur-ak-i/ (gen./)loc.indef.; M. /dur-ek/ indef. form).
c

c

c

c

ḋ

ḋ

c

c

ḋ

ḋ

2.6.7.2.5. All causal-final interrogative pronouns meaning “why?”, “what for?” in Dhivehi
are combinations of an interrogative pronoun and an absolutive form of the verb (M.) vanı̄
“to become”. M. kı̄vve 〈kı̄ ve〉 “why?”, “what for?”, lit. “what becoming”, is composed byc“male human being”); M.A.F. firihen geri “bull” (lit. “male cattle”). The original meaning of firi-hen, however,must have been “group of men” (lit. “men-group, men-army”). Cp. the corresponding adjective M.A.F. anhen“female” (e.g. in anhen mı̄hā “woman”, anhen geri “cow”) which has to be derived from *am̆bi-/am̆bu-hen“group of women” (M.A. am̆bi, F. am̆bu “woman, wife”; cf. Sinh. am̆ba, stem am̆bu “wife, mother” ← OIA´ “mother”; cf. GEIGER 1941, 9, no. 31 and TURNER 1966, I, 25, no. 574). The modern meaning of hen
ambāpresupposes a reinterpretation of such compounds, approximately in the sense of “in the way of men/woman”;
finally, a further semantic abstraction led to “way, manner”.
392
Cp. the plural form F. kon etteti tek-eke “what a so-much (of) things”, discussed in 2.6.7.1.2.
393
Thus according to HLSD 165.
c

Interrogative pronouns

159

ckı̄ “what” (cf. 2.6.7.1.2) and the primary absolutive ve (cf. 3.10.4). The exact meaning of
M. kihine vegen is “having become in which way?” (for kihine cf. 2.6.7.2.4; for ve-gen,abs.III of vanı̄, cf. 3.11.4.3). A. kian [kien] vegen and F. kuma vegen “why?”, “what for” arebuilt by means of this absolutive form as well. The interrogative A. kian, which is also usedwithout vegen in the same meaning, remains unclear from the morphological point of view
because it does not contain any of the usual case endings (dative or ablative/instrumental). A
dative with final -n as occurring in the infinitive ending of the standard language (cf.
3.6.3.2.1.2) is not attested in the dialect of Addū. kian cannot be interpreted as an ablative
either because this would presuppose a consonant stem inflected after the pattern of ges“tree” (cf. 2.3.2.11.1.2) whose definite ablative form is gehān (from *gehā-in). If kian went
back to a form *kiān, the long vowel -ā- in the last syllable would not have allowed aphonetical realisation of the word as [kien] as it is usual in modern Addū. From its syntactical
function, kian could also represent an oblique case, but the morphological background of theinterrogative would remain unclear in this case as well. F. kuma is perhaps connected with
the interrogative stem kuma- which is well attested in the Old Sinhalese language. The dative
forms of this Sinh. stem, kuma-ta and kuma-t occur frequently with the meaning “why”. The
indefinite form kumak is also to be found in the function of an interrogative pronoun meaning“what” (cf. GEIGER 1938, 129). F. kuma as occurring in kuma vegen is ambiguous from themorphological point of view. If it represents an indefinite form /kumak/, the syntagma could
be analysed as “having become what (a) ...”. If kuma reflects the old dative /kumaś/, theoriginal meaning would be “having become what / having developed into what”.
c

c

c

˙˙

˙˙

c

˙

c

˙

c

c

2.6.7.3. Except for a few exceptions, the indefinite pronouns of Dhivehi are based on theinterrogative stem kon (cf. 2.6.7). In contrast to the interrogative pronouns the main functionof which consists in the elimination of ignorance, the purpose of an indefinite pronoun is notnecessarily the expression of ignorance. ISAČENKO defines the character of the indefinite
pronouns as follows: “It is obvious that pronouns like someone, something, somebody,somehow, somewhere etc. are regarded as ‘indefinite’ pronouns for the very reason that theygenerally express the impossibility (or the incapability or the lack of will) to define theperson, the object, the quality, the manner, the place etc. in question more exactly.”394
The list given below represents the most frequent indefinite pronouns of Dhivehi. Some
examples show that it is sometimes almost impossible to make a clear distinction between
indefinite pronouns and pronominal adjectives. The conventional formal and semantic criteria
are obviously not sufficient to distinguish these two categories from each other. Without adoubt, one of the main reasons for this phenomenon consists in the fact that the pronominal
adjectives do not form a consistent system (cf. 2.6.7.4 below). Thus, for example, indefinite
pronouns like “each” can also be subsumed under the pronominal adjectives which, to acertain extent, can be regarded as a primary category whose limits, although not being exactly
definable, serve the pragmatic purpose of a grammatical subdivision.

394“Es ist wohl klar, daß Pronomina wie jemand, etwas, irgendein, irgendwie, irgendwo usw. eben deshalb
als ‘unbestimmte’ Pronomina angesehen werden, weil sie ganz allgemein die Unmöglichkeit (oder die Unfähigkeit oder den mangelnden Willen) ausdrücken, die in Frage stehende Person, den Gegenstand, die Qualität, die
Art und Weise, den Ort usw. genauer zu bestimmen” (1962, 497).

160

Morphology

As the following examples show, the indefinite pronoun M. komme /kon-me/ (for -me cf.
emme in 2.6.7.4.1), A.F. kommi “every, each” serves as the basis for the (analytic) formationof almost all the other indefinite pronouns. Only in the standard language we find huri hā“all, everything, each” (only for non-persons; for the formation cf. 2.6.7.4.2 s.v. M. hā)which occurs in the same function but less frequently.
For examples of the use of komme cp. M. komme mı̄he /kon-me mı̄s-ek/ (/-ek/ indef.suff.)“everyone, everybody”, lit. “what man so ever”; M. komme ves (ves “also, even, else, too”,
cf. 2.6.7.5) “someone, somebody, each, everyone”; M. komme ves mı̄he , often occurring inan allegro-form as kommes mı̄he , with the meaning “somebody, someone” vs. komme mı̄heves meaning “anybody (who so ever)”; A. kommı̄as mı̄ha (/kon-mi-as/, -as = M. ves, cf.
above;395 /mı̄s-ak/ indef.) “someone”; F. kommias mı̄haku (obl.indef.) or mı̄he (/mı̄s-ek/
nom.indef.) “someone”.
The formations M. komme (ves) ecce , A. kommı̄as etta /kommi-as eti-ak/, F. kommias etta
have the meaning of “something, anything”. Cp. also the variants M. kommehecce (/kon-me
eti-ek/, the intervocalic -h- either serving to avoid the hiatus or being the result of adissimilation of -k-), further kommehecce ves, A. kommi etta , F. kommi ette “everything,what so ever”, “anything”. Cp. also M. huri hā ecce /eti-ek/ lit. meaning “everything”.
Indefinite pronouns with a local meaning are, e.g., M. komme tāne “everywhere”, lit.
“what (a) place so ever” (/tan-ek/ nom.indef. “a place”396; M. huri hā tāku “everywhere”(/tan-aku/ obl.indef., lit. “at any place”). Cp. also M. komme ves tāku or kommes tāku“anywhere” (/tan-aku/ obl.indef.; kommes ← komme ves) vs. komme tāne ves “anywhere(where so ever)” (/tan-ek/ nom.indef.). In temporal function, we find the indefinite pronominal formations M. komme duvahaku and huri hā duvahaku, A. kommi duvahaki, F. kommi
duvahaku “every day, at any day” (M.F. /duvas-aku/ obl.indef.; A. /duvas-ak-i/ loc.indef.).
An example of a modal indefinite pronoun is M. komme otakun ves “(in) any way” (got-akun abl.indef. “in a way/manner”).
In contrast to the examples treated above, there is one indefinite pronoun which is notbased on /kon-me/ or huri-hā, viz. M.A. eki, F. iki “each separately”, which occurs only in
attributive function, together with a distributional plural form (cf. 2.3.2.5); cp., e.g., A. eki gēgē “each house separately”; A.M. eki mı̄s-mı̄hun, F. iki mı̄s-mı̄hun “each one (lit. ‘man’)separately”; A. eki ges-gehun, F. iki ges-gehun “each tree separately”.
In the Addū dialect, the loanword A. bākin “some (people)” (← Arab. bāqin “remaining;remains, remainders, rest”, cf. 2.6.7.1.2) can be used like an indefinite pronoun as well. bākin
occurs only in substantive function as in the following example:
c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

˙˙

c

A. ... eb bākin dara hōdā tibi vēlei ... “... when some (people) were about to seek firewood ...” (T2, 24; eb= e /ek/ num. “one”, attr. of bākin, lit. meaning “a unit of some people”; dara nom. “firewood”; /hōdāś/
inf., M. hōdanı̄ “to look for, seek”; tibi part.pret. “being”, M. tibenı̄ “to be”; vēlei “when”, lit. loc. ofvēla “time”).
c

2.6.7.4. Traditionally the term “pronominal adjective” denotes pronouns with a moregeneral meaning like “all, another, whole, many/much, a few, such”. Like real adjectives,
they are found not only in attributive function but (most of them) also in the role of substan-

395
396

For the particle -as cf. 2.6.7.4.2 s.v. A. emmennas “all”.
For the etymology of tan¯˘ “place” cf. 2.6.7.2.1.

Pronominal adjectives

161

tives. In contrast to the pronominal categories described above, the pronominal adjectives
cannot be characterised by means of common semantical or morphological features. Therefore, it is not always easy to make a clear distinction between the pronominal adjectives andother pronominal categories; this is particularly true for some of the indefinite pronouns (cf.
2.6.7.3 above). Obviously, the only common feature of the pronominal adjectives consists inthe fact that their function resembles that of the adjectives. The number of the pronouns inquestion (the most important ones being listed below) is comparatively small in Dhivehi.
2.6.7.4.1. In attributive use M.A.F. emme has the meaning of “all, entire, whole”; cp.
F. emme maun “all, mother and child(ren)”, “the whole (group consisting of) mother andchild(ren)”, i.e., “the whole family” (T6, 72; cf. 2.3.2.8.2.2). Furthermore, emme occurs inadverbial function in the sense of “(of) all, most of all; only”.397 GEIGER (1902, 917, no.
103) regards emme as a combination of the numeral e /ek/ “one” with an emphatic particle-me, corresponding with Sinh. “-ma, encl. part. emphasising the preceding word” (GEIGER
1941, 125, no. 1868). Probably the same element -me is represented in the indefinite pronoun
komme /kon-me/ “every, each” as well (cf. 2.6.7.3). Furthermore it is possible that it isidentical with the particle me which is translated as “itself” by DISANAYAKA/MANIKU (1990,90); cp. mi-adu me “today itself, just today”. In the documents of Old Dhivehi, a particle me
is often attested in the meaning of “just, as well”. For the use of emme cp. the following
examples:ccA. ... emme vati o naiśā daśun ... “... from below the coconut lying at the very bottom ...” (T1, 34a; vati
loc. of va /vat/ “bottom”; o /ot/ part.pret. of M. onnanı̄ “to lie, be, be located”; naiśā obl.sg.def. “of thecoconut”; daśun abl. “from the underside / bottom /below”).
cc

The following sentence is from a legend about a king who has to judge in a Maldivian dialectcompetition:398
cF. ti bahuge tafātuge terein timā hita emme rieti mi vı̄ a ū baha. “Within the diversity of this language theone (language) which I like best (lit. ‘having now become [the most] beautiful of all to my mind’), is the
A ū language.” (T7, 9a; ti dem.pron. “this (near by you)”; bahu-ge gen.sg. “of the language”; tafātu-ge
gen.sg. “of the diversity”, tafātu “diverse; diversity”; terein abl. “from within”; timā pron.obl. inpossessive function “(my) own”; hita /hitaś/ dat.sg. of hi /hit/ “mind, heart”; F. rieti, riveti = M. rı̄ti“beautiful”; F. emme rieti here quasi-superlative meaning “most beautiful of all”; mi dem.pron. as adv.
“here, now”; vı̄ part.pret. of M. vanı̄ “to become” + focus-marker; F. baha, M. bas nom.sg. “language”).
ḋ

ḋ

ḋ

c

ḋ

c

Other examples of superlative formations with emme are, e.g., emme gina “most (of all)”(gina “many, much”, cf. below), emme madu “less (of all)” (madu “few”, cf. below).
2.6.7.4.2. The pronominal adjective M.A.F. emmen /ek-men/ “all” (referring to living beings)
is based on the numeral “one” as well, but is enlarged with the plural ending -men (cf.
2.3.2.1.2). In Addū, the extended form emmennas /ek-men-as/ can be used with the same
meaning. Depending on the context, the suffixed particle -as (= M. ves, cf. 2.6.7.3, s.v.
komme mı̄he ) expresses the vague meanings of “even, too, ever, always, then”. It remains
unchanged throughout the whole paradigm (cp. the gen. emmenge vs. emmenge-as and thedat. emmenna /-aś/ vs. emmennaś-as; cp. also A. kommı̄as etta “something, anything”
˙˙

c

c

c

397

For the function of emme in the formation of an analytic superlative cf. 2.4.5.3.
The legend is given here in the dialect of Fua Mulaku (informant MU A MMAD SAcĪD). This is why thethird honorific level, which would be reserved exclusively for the king, is not used. Cf. the introduction, 0.9.2.
Ḣ

c

398

162

Morphology

treated in 2.6.7.3). If emmen is a plural form of “one”, we might rather expect an – at least
original – meaning of “some”; but there are no attestations in oral or written Dhivehi
speaking in favour of this supposition. For the normal usage of emmen, cp., e.g., F. mi mı̄hun
emmen ekı̄ “they (lit. ‘these people’, pers.pron.3.ps.pl.) all together”. Even in its earliest
attestations in L2 (2,5 and 34,1) emmen must be translated as “all together”.
2.6.7.4.3. In the modern language, the pronoun M. hā, F. hai, A. hei “all, everything” (n.)
occurs only in an inseparable combination with the participles meaning “(having) been”.
Thus, the literal meaning of M. huri hā, F. hı̄śı̄ hai, A. hiśi hei is “everything having been”
or “everything which was”, but in Modern Dhivehi huri hā and its dialectal variants are nolonger understood as compound forms; this is why the formation is usually written as one
word 〈hurihā〉 in the standard language. M. huri hā is also used as an indefinite pronoun“every, each” (cf. 2.6.7.3) which can be further substantivised by means of eti “thing”; cp.
huri hā ecce /eti-ek/ “every-thing”. Except for the dialectal variants of the part.pret. of (M.)
hunnanı̄ “to be, stand, remain”, the part.pret. M.A.F. tibi of (M.) tibenı̄ “to be” is used inrare cases as well. The general rule that the forms of hunnanı̄ are confined to singularsubjects while those of tibenı̄ are restricted to plural subjects (cf. 3.14.1) seems not to beeffective in the given combination with hā etc.
There are two adverbial formations that can be explained as compounds of a demonstrative
and an interrogative pronoun, resp., with M. hā, F. hai, A. hei (cf. 2.6.5.7, 2.6.7.4.5), viz.
M. ehā, F. ehai, A. ehei “thus” and M. kihā, F. kihai, A. kihei “how” (interrogative andexclamative, cf. 2.6.7.2.4).
c

2.6.7.4.4. M. muli “whole, entire” corresponds with the Sinhalese pronominal adjective mulu
“all, entire” which is regularly derived from OIA sámūdha-/sámūlha- “brought together” (cf.
TURNER 1966, II, 764, no. 13238 and GEIGER 1941, 138, no. 2053). In combination withadjectives, the ablative M. mulin “from the whole, of all” is used for the analytic expressionof a superlative form; cp., e.g., mulin ran̆galu “the best (one); best of all, excellent” (lit.
“good of all, the good one of all”; cf. 2.4.5.3, 2.6.7.4.1). Furthermore, the ablative form isused as an adverb meaning “completely, entirely, totally”.
˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

2.6.7.4.5. For the expression of “much, many”, there are several means in Dhivehi.
According to HASSAN SAcĪD (oral information), M.F.A. gina “much, many” was originallyconfined to North Dhivehi. Only in the very recent past it has spread into the southernmost
dialects and come into use also in Addū. In Modern Dhivehi, gina has become the mostfrequent word meaning “much, many”. TURNER identifies the Dhivehi word, together with
Sinh. gana “thick, dense” e.a., with OIA ghaná- “compact, firm, dense” (TURNER 1966, I,
238, no. 4424 and 1985, 31, no. 4424; cf. also GEIGER 1941, 52, no. 770). — The mainfunction of the abl. ginain “of many / much” is that of a partitive; cp. A. gina-in ni-kāheti!
“Don’t eat too much!” (ni neg. particle; for the fut. form kāheti cf. 3.4.1). In gina gina-in“(very) often, more often”, lit. “much of many [times]”, the meaning of the partitive ablative
gina-in is increased by quasi-reduplication.
M. baivaru, F. baivaro, A. baivara denotes “a lot (of), many”; cp. M. baivaru mı̄hun “alot of people, a crowd” (mı̄h-un pl. of the stem /mı̄s-/ “man, human being”). TURNER (1985,˙˙˙Pronominal adjectives

163

73, no. 9188a) proposes to derive the Dhivehi word from †bahutara- “more, many” (OIA
bahú- “much, many”, TURNER 1966, II, 518, no. 9187) which is hardly tenable though.
The old pronominal adjective tak which is frequently attested with the meaning “somuch/many” in the historical sources of Dhivehi, has developed into a plural morpheme(M. -ta , F. -te ) in the modern language (with the exception of the Addū dialect; cf.
2.3.2.2.2). Today only some special forms give an idea of the original meaning of the suffix(cf., e.g., 2.6.7.1.1).
c

˙˙

c

2.6.7.4.6. The pronominal adjective M. madu, F. mado, A. mada has the meaning of “a little,
a bit”; its common ablative form is M.F.A. madun. This word can be used for the expressionof a (negative) gradation (decreasing a quality or quantity); cp., e.g., M. madu madun “(very)
rare, rarely”, lit. “a few of a few [times]” (cp. gina ginain above). M. madu and its variants
must not be confused with the adjective M. madu, F. mado, A. mada “quiet, soft, slow”, as
GEIGER did (1902, 928, no. 287) who treated the two words under the one lemma madu
(written with a dental stop) “calm, smooth; less, few” which he, together with the Sinhaleseadjective mada/man̆da “slight, scanty, little, few”, identified with Pa., Pkt., Skt. manda- (cf.
also TURNER 1966, II, 560, no. 9754). GEIGER obviously failed to realise that madu “a few”
and madu “quiet, slow” can be distinguished both semantically and phonologically. The
difference between the retroflex stop /d/ and the dental stop /d/ is phonematic in Dhivehi justas it is in Sinhalese; overlaps or spontaneous phonetic confusions can be excluded for bothlanguages, at least from a synchronic point of view. This does not definitely mean, however,that Dhiv. madu and madu could not have developed from a common source. The phonological difference between /d/ and /d/ might be explained by a spontaneous sound change in theearly history of Dhivehi but also by dialectal developments of the same OIA etymon in the
MIA period.
˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

In this connection cp. also the dichotomy of M. kuda vs. A.F. kudu “small, little” with a difference of theintervocalic M. - - and A.F. -d- which cannot be explained from an inner-Maldivian point of view either. The
i-stem /kudi-/ “child”, which exists in all Dhivehi dialects, belongs to the same root (nom.sg. A. kudi, def.
kuddā, F. kudd¯a,
˛ M. kujjā; nom.pl. M.A. kudin, F. kūdun; cf. 2.3.2.7.1.2). GEIGER (1902, 926, nos. 258 and 259)
identifies Dhiv. kudi “little, small” and kudı̄n (sic), which he erroneously interpretes as a sg. “child”, with Sinh.
kudu “small, short, dwarfish” (“corresponds to P[ali] khudda”, cf. 1941, 46, no. 670) while Dhiv. ku a “little,
small” and Sinh. ku ā “small, little” (cf. GEIGER 1941, 45, no. 666) are derived from Pkt. khu
a , both MIA
forms representing the same Skt. etymon k u drá-. As GEIGER correctly states (1938, 55), an intervocalic - - ofModern Sinhalese always presupposes a MIA -dd- or -ddh- which can have several sources in its turn. For Sinh.
←← dd, ddh cf. GEIGER (1938), 58.
˙

ḋ

ḋ

ḋ

ḋ

ḋ

ḋ

˙˙

˙˙

ṡ

ḋ

c

c

ḋ

ḋ

c

2.6.7.4.7. The pronominal adjective M. ane /an-ek/, F. ene /en-ek/, A. ena /en-ak/ “another”
consists of the stem an- (or its South Maldivian variant, en-) and the indefinite suffix M.F. -e/-ek/, A. -a /-ak/. The corresponding pronominal stem of Sinhalese is an “other, foreign”
which goes back to OIA anyá- “other” (cf. GEIGER 1941, 8, no. 104 and TURNER 1966, I, 19,
no. 399). Cp. also Sinh. anik “another” which GEIGER (1938, 131) regards as a combinationof an with the indefinite suffix -ek as well.

cc2.6.7.4.8. The etymology of the pronominal adjective M. kahala, A. kahalei “such” isunclear. For an example of its use, cp. the following sentence:

164

MorphologycccA. eagē da nagalāi, ehen kahalei au da se a jahafi “Having removed his teeth, she inserted [him] such a
set of new teeth [as it was her (lit. ‘that’)] way” (T11, 5; ea-gē poss.pron. “his”; da /dat/ obj. “teeth”(cf. 2.3.2.7.3.1); naga-lāi abs.II of (M.) naganı̄ “to lift up, raise”, here: “to take off, remove”; e-hen“(in) that way” (cf. 2.6.5.7), here: “in her (special) way”; A. au attr. adj. “new”; /dat set-ak/ da obl.,
se a nom.indef., obj.: “a set of teeth”; jaha-fi pret.I 3.ps.sg. of (M.) jahanı̄ “to beat”, here: “to insert”).
ṫ

c

c

˙

c

ṫ

Depending on the context, the compound pronoun M. kon kahala, A. kon kahalei, whichcontains the interrogative stem kon “what a, which” (cf. 2.6.7), has either an exclamative oran interrogative nuance. Cp. the following example:
M. 〈aharenge mu ia yātaś mi aı̄ kon kahala badale bāva eve.〉 “Why such a change in my whole life?”
lit. “What a change that means that this has come into my whole life!” (T8, 40; aharenge pers.pron. gen.
= poss.pron. 1.ps.sg. “my”; mu i pron.adj. “whole” (cf. above), attr. of / a yāt-aś/ = [hayāta ] dat. “into(the) life” ← Arab. a yāt “life”; mi aı̄ “that this has come”: mi dem.pron. “this”, a-ı̄ part.pret. of (M.)
annanı̄ “to come” + focus-marker -ı̄; /badal-ek/ nom.indef. “a change” ← Arab. badal “substitute,
replacement”, badala “to change”; bāva particle expressing a rhetorical question; eve quotation particle).
c

ḣ

l̇

c

ḣ

l̇

ḣ

In combination with the demonstrative stems mi, ti, etc., however, the pronominal adjective
M. kahala etc. gains a clear demonstrative nuance. Cp. the following examples:
M. 〈mi kahala ge akaś ...〉 “to a house like this (here)”, “to such a house” (T10, 93; mi dem.pron. “this”→ mi kahala dem.pron. “this sort, such”; /ge-ak-aś/ [geaka ] dat.indef. of ge “house”).
M. tia kahala kantakugā “in such cases”, “in cases like this” (tia dem.pron. “this/that (there, nearby you)”→ tia kahala “this sort, such”, cf. 2.6.5; kantakugai loc.pl. of kan /kam/ “case”).
cc

2.6.7.5. In Dhivehi there are no negative pronouns in the literal sense. Pronominal meanings
like “nobody, nothing, nowhere, never” etc. can only be expressed by periphrastic constructions. Thus, “nobody” is expressed in the following ways: M. evves mı̄haku nūn “nobody isthere”, lit. “not even one man is there” (/ek-ves/ “even”, a compound of the num. ek- “one”,
ves “also, even, otherwise”; mı̄h-aku obl.indef. of /mı̄s-/ “man, human being”); M. evvesmı̄he nūn “not even a man is there” (/mı̄s-ek/ nom.indef.); M. evves mı̄haku ne “not evenone man was there” (/net/ part.pret. of netun (verbal noun) “not existing”); A.F. mı̄ha ne“not a man was there” (/mı̄s-ak/ nom.indef.). Correspondingly, the negative pronoun “nothing” is expressed as follows: M. evves ecce nūn or evves ecce ne “not even a thing isthere” (/eti-ek/ nom.indef.); A. etta ne , F. ette ne “not a thing is there” (A. /eti-ak/, F. /etiek/ nom.indef.). M. evves tanaka nūn has the meaning of “nowhere”, lit. “not being to any
place” (/tan-ak-aś/ dat.indef.).
c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

3. The verbal system
3.1. While the system of the verbal categories is homogeneous throughout the whole area of
Dhivehi, the realisation of the particular forms shows considerable interdialectal divergences
in many cases. Regarding the comparative morphology of the Dhivehi verb, the dialect ofAddū once again turns out to be the most conservative one; it follows that for an analysis of
the Dhivehi verb the Addū forms are of a special importance. Because of some very
particular developments in the sphere of phonology and phonetics which are typical for Fua
Mulaku, the verbal paradigm of this vernacular seems to be less transparent in many respects.
Even though they may reveal a high degree of archaicity, it is often much more difficult to
˙˙

˙˙

c

The verbal system165

cclassify Fua Mulaku forms than the corresponding Addū forms. The sociolinguistic stratification, which is generally characteristic for the language of Māle, has still stronger a bearing on
the verbal system than it has on the nominal structures, in particular where the use of theverbum finitum is concerned. At the same time, the literary language which is mainly basedon the sociolect of the aristocracy is not as different from the southern dialects with their richmorphology as the modern colloquial language of Māle is. There is a general tendency innorthern Dhivehi to prefer uninflectable nominal forms of the verb and to reduce the finite
forms at the same time. This process results in the phenomenon that many speakers ofnorthern Dhivehi show a gradual loss of their competence in parts of the inherited verbal
morphology and try to avoid special conjugational forms. Thus, for example, the finite present
forms of numerous verbs have become unusual in positive propositions in the colloquialvernacular of Māle.
˙˙

3.1.1. The most general basis for a morphological classification of the Dhivehi verb is to befound in the category of voice which can be characterised by the dichotomy of the terms“active” and “inactive”.399 The fact whether a verb is active or inactive is the main factor
determining stem formation and conjugation type on the basis of morphonological rules. All
active verbs can be subsumed under the main category of “a-stems” while the inactive verbs
constitute the class of “e-stems”. From the synchronical point of view, the n-stems which
form a small, compact group that is not productive any more, have to be regarded as a
subclass of the a-stems because of their inflection. The numerous causatives which, as amatter of principle, can be derived from any verb not belonging to the class of e-stems,
pertain to the a-stems as well. Depending on the particular verbal meaning, some causatives
also appear as secondary formations of intransitives or inactives. Some of these derivations
are lexicalised, not differing in form from the productive formations. — Besides the two large
groups of verbs with a regular inflection, there are but a few verbs that are irregular from asynchronical point of view; those which have a monosyllabic stem ending in a vowel (e.g.,
ka- “to eat”) will be treated as “root verbs” hereafter.
It must be pointed out in this connection that the terms “active” and “inactive” must be
understood primarily as morphological principles. In the modern language, it is not always
possible to classify a verb as “active” or “inactive” only by its meaning, because in several
cases morphological or semantical reinterpretations resulted in the fact that the morphologicalshape of a verb need no longer agree with its meaning.
3.1.2. In Dhivehi, every verb has a present stem and a preterite stem. Together they constitutethe basis of the whole paradigm which reflects this basic distinction both in finite and infinite
formations. The following categories are derived from the present stem: finite present, present
participle, imperative, infinitive, finite future, future participle. The forms of the finite preterite, of the past participle and of the verbal noun are derived from the preterite stem. The absolutive and the gerund, however, are not derived directly from either one of the basic stems.

399
The term “inactive” is here preferred as against “passive” because many verbs belonging to this category
do not have a passive meaning in the sense of common understanding. Furthermore, “inactive” seems to be
more appropriate as a counterpart of “active” than “involitive” which, although referring to the same class ofverbs, is less neutral in its meaning.

166

Morphology

3.1.2.1. The category of tense, including a present, a preterite and a future formation,
characterises both finite verbs and participles. Within the category of mood, we have todifferentiate an indicative, an imperative and a formally heterogeneous, analytic conditional.
There is no subjunctive in Dhivehi. The finite verb is characterised by a three person system
distinguishing singular and plural.
3.1.2.2. The Dhivehi verb has no differentiation of aspect; there is no grammatical category
for the morphological expression of aspectual differences in the sense of a binary opposition
as we find it in “classical” aspect languages, particularly in Russian.

3.1.3. Dhivehi has a large number of infinite forms. Each of the participles of the present, thepreterite and the future has a short and a long form the difference of which is based on theirsyntactic use. When the participles occur in substantive function they are inflected like nouns.
In accordance with the other nominal forms, they do not distinguish gender.
3.1.3.1. The other infinite verbal formations are not directly related to the category of tense.
This is true for the infinitive, the verbal noun and the converb which functions as an “absolutive” form. The latter category includes four further enlarged stems which can be derived
from the basic absolutive; these secondary stems, being formed by means of auxiliary verbs,
have an additional semantical nuance expressing concrete aktionsart-type meanings. Furthermore, these four stems serve as a derivational basis of four secondary finite preterite forms,
together with the corresponding preterite participles and four further absolutives which arecharacterised by just the same aktionsart (“preterite, preterite participle and absolutive I-IV”).
3.1.3.2. The formation of a so-called “double absolutive” which is derived by simply reduplicating the converb, is a very productive process in Dhivehi; the double absolutive is used forthe expression of a durative-intensive course of action or state.
3.1.3.3. In Modern Dhivehi, the “potential” must be regarded as an infinite category which,by its formation but not by its function, can be connected with the absolutive. The potential
is a compound form consisting of the absolutive of the inactive causative and the 3.ps.sg.fut.
of the auxiliary verb meaning “to become”; in accordance with these formal preconditions,the subject of a “potential” sentence appears in the dative case.
3.1.3.4. Another infinite verbal category is the gerund proper which represents a verbal nounin the ablative/instrumental case, derived from the present stem.

3.1.4. In order to illustrate the basic formal categories and their derivation from the present
and the preterite stems, resp., the following tables contain an exemplary survey of the a-stemverb balanı̄ “to look (at), watch, observe”, of the n-stem verb vannanı̄ “to enter, come/goin”, and of the e-stem verb temenı̄ “to get wet”. As a rule, the verbs are quoted in the longform of the present participle here which serves as a general lemmatic form in Dhivehi.
Participial forms are given both in short and long forms in the tables.

The verbal system

167

3.1.4.1. a-stem (M.A.F.) balanı̄ “to look (at), watch, observe”
c

Addū

a-stemFua Mulaku

Māle

˙˙

present stem

bala-

bala-

bala-

pres. 1st sg.

balan

balan

balan

pres. participlebalā; balanı̄bala/ā; balanı̄balā; balanı̄imperative 2nd sg.

balainfinitivebalā

future 1st sg.

bala

balā

balannabalanbalāśunbalannen(in)balānanfut. participlebalāne; balāneibalannen; balannenı̄balāne; balānı̄

absolutivebala(i)

balā

balā

gerundbalamunbalamunbalamunc˙˙preterite stem

beli-

beli-

beli-

pret. 1st sg.

belin

belin

belin

pret. participle

beli; belı̄

belı̄

beli; belı̄verbal noun

belun

belun

belun

Addū
˙˙

Fua Mulaku

Mālepresent stem

van- / vad-van- / van̆d-van- / vad-pres. 1st sg.

vanun / vadun

van̆dinvannanpres. participle

vanne; vannei

vann¯a;˛ vannaı̄

vanna; vannanı̄

imperative 2nd sg.

vanu / vadu

van̆divadē

vannahavanna / vannan

3.1.4.2. n-stem (M.) vannanı̄ “to enter, come/go in”

c

c

c

n-steminfinitive

vanna

future 1st sg.

vannaśunvann¯ahinin˛vannānan

fut. participle

vannane; vannanei

vann¯ahin;˛
vann¯ahinı̄˛vannāne; vannānı̄

absolutive

vedi / vede-

ven̆devadegerundvedemunvan̆dimun

vannamun

van-

van-

van-

˙

˙

preterite stem
pret. 1st sg.

vanin

vanin

vanin

pret. participle

van; vanı̄van; v¯anı̄
˛van; vanı̄verbal noun

vanun

vanun

vanun

168

Morphology

3.1.4.3. e-stem (M.A.F.) temenı̄ “to get wet”
˙˙

Fua MulakuMāletemetementemē; temenı̄
teme
temē
temēśuntemēne; temēneitemi
tememuntemenetemenen
temene; temenei
temun

temetementem¯e;
˛ temen˛ı̄(temı̄ gan)temennatemenn¯e˛temennen; temennenı̄
temı̄ / tem˛ı̄temetementemē; temenı̄
temē
temen
temēnantemēne; temēnı̄
temi
tememuntemuntemunin
temunu; temunı̄
temun

c

˙

˙

temuntemunin
temun; temunı̄
¯˛
temun

˙
˙

˙

˙

present stempres. 1st sg.
pres. participle
imperative 2nd sg.
infinitive
fut. 1st sg.
fut. participle
absolutive
gerundpreterite stemfin. pret. 1st sg.
pret. participle
verbal noun

c

Addū

e-stem

3.2. The finite present
The finite present is built from the present stem by addition of the personal endings which are
identical for all classes of verbs. The formation agrees exactly with that known from literary
Sinhalese as the comparative table following below will show. The archaic character of theSinhalese personal endings becomes obvious by comparing them with the corresponding
forms of MIA, especially with those of Pali.400 To what extent in Dhivehi – in accordancewith the development in Sinhalese as demonstrated by GEIGER401 – the inherited personalendings were adapted to the forms of the auxiliary “to be” (from the OIA root √as) and what
the original Maldivian copula forms were like at all can only be reconstructed fragmentarily.
In Sinhalese, the personal endings in question generally occur in all tenses (with only a few
restrictions) and with all conjugation types. In Dhivehi, however, the endings of the present
differ very much from those being used for the other tenses, at least for parts. There are also
some differences depending on the conjugation types and, furthermore, some considerable
dialectal divergences.
cpersonal endings

Addū
˙˙

Fua Mulaku

MāleSinhalese

1st ps.sg.
2nd ps.sg.
3rd ps.sg.
1st ps.pl.
2nd ps.pl.
3rd ps.pl.

-n-i / -y-i / -y
-mā
-tā
-tā

-n
-ie / -yye[-:] (← *-y?), -i
-mā
-va
-tta

-n
[-:] (← *-y?)[-:] (← *-y?)-mu-mu[-:] (← *-y?)-m, -mi-hi / -yi
-y / -yi-mu, -mha-vu / -hu-t, -ti

400
401

Cf. GEIGER (1938), 142 and (1900), 75 ff.
For the Sinhalese data cf. GEIGER (1900), 76.

The finite present

169c

The dialect of Fua Mulaku is the only one that has entirely preserved a complete set of
distinct personal endings. Here, in analogy with the archaic Sinhalese literary language, every
person is characterised by its particular personal suffix. In Addū, however, the forms of the
2nd and 3rd ps.sg. and, correspondingly, those of the 2nd and 3rd ps.pl., coincided. The
original suffix of the 2.ps.pl., -vā, is almost obsolete nowadays.402 In the standard languageof Māle, the syncretism of the forms in question is still more advanced, there being a clear
formal identity of the 2nd and the 3rd ps.sg. as well as of the 3rd ps.pl. on the one hand anda common form of the 1st and 2nd ps.pl. on the other hand. M. kuranı̄ “to do, make” mayserve as an example of the multiple syncretism of the plural forms; thus, besides the 1.ps.pl.
kuramu, also kuran can be used. It is not clear, whether this form can be explained byanalogy with the singular or whether the -n developed according to the sound laws becauseof the apocope of the word-final -u. Alongside the expected kuramu, there is a form kurē forthe 2.ps.pl. which presumably originated in an analogical adaptation of the 2.ps.sg. form. The
reduction of the inherited complete set of different forms coincides with an increasing
uncertainty on the part of many speakers. Especially in the colloquial language of Māle, theinflected forms of the present tense are becoming obsolete more and more. Their regularusage is now almost confined to the negated paradigm of the present, while in positive
sentences the long form of the present participle has practically replaced the finite forms.
˙˙

3.2.1. In the finite present of the a-stems, the personal endings are joint to the stem-final
vowel -a. The a-stems of Dhivehi agree with the “first conjugation” of Sinhalese which ischaracterised by a short /a/ functioning as a stem vowel as well. The a-stems, representing thelargest crop of verbs in both Sinhalese and Dhivehi, have in most cases developed directlyfrom OIA verbs with thematic present classes.403
cfinite present (a-stems)

Addū

Fua Mulaku

Māle

1st ps.sg.

balan

balan

balan

2nd ps.sg.

balaibalayyebalā*

3rd ps.sg.

balai

balā

balā*

1st ps.pl.

balamābalamābalamu

2nd ps.pl.

balatābalāvabalamu

3rd ps.pl.

balatābalattabalā*˙˙*) In Māle some verbs belonging to the a-stems show a final -ē in the 3.ps.sg. (and the 2.ps.sg. and the 3.ps.pl.)which still remains unexplained; cp., e.g., bunanı̄ “to speak”: bunē (but A. be a i); duvanı̄ “to run”: duvē
(A. divai); minanı̄ “to measure”: minē (A. minai); halanı̄ “to stir”: halē; duruvanı̄ – 2nd hon. degree of annanı̄
“to come” / danı̄ “to go”: duruvē; kuranı̄ “to do, make”: kurē.
ṅ

402
403

For the homophone interrogative suffix -vā cf. 3.15.1.3.
Cf. GEIGER (1938), 138.

170

Morphology

3.2.1.1. Formation of the causative
The causatives constitute a special subgroup within the a-stems with which they share theirinflection. They represent a very productive formation type which is inherited through MIA
from OIA where the causative suffix -aya- was added to the verbal root. An enlarged variantof the suffix, -paya-, which was originally restricted to verbal roots ending in -ā (cp., e.g.,sthāpayati 3.ps.sg.pres. “causes to stand”), in the course of time expanded to other roots. A
further abstracted variant of the same suffix was -āpaya-; in late Sanskrit this variant
extended to roots ending in a consonant.404 In MIA, -aya- mostly developed into -e-, andsimilarly -(ā)paya- changed into -(ā)pe- in Pali and into -(ā)ve- in Prakrit.405 These latter
suffix variants, which became more and more frequent in MIA and, at least, came to replace
the original formation with -e- in MIA, are directly continued in the causative suffix -va- of
both Sinhalese and Maldivian406.
In the regular causative formation of these two languages, the suffix -va- is inserted
between the present stem and the ending. If the last stem syllable is open, its -a-vowel is
syncopated, thus bringing about a phonetical change of the stem which results in two different
possibilities of forming the causative. In most cases, a short u appears after the syncopation
as an anaptyctic vowel between the consonant, now in stem-final position, and the causative
suffix: cp., e.g., (M.) faśanı̄ “to begin, start” vs. faśuvanı̄ “to let begin, cause to begin”. A
less frequent development consists in the assimilation of the initial v- of the causative suffix
to the consonant in stem-final position. An example for this process is provided by thecausative jassanı̄ ← *jasvanı̄ ← *jasa-va-nı̄,407 which is derived from jahanı̄ “to strike, beat”.
Obviously, there are only very few cases of causatives that exist in both phoneticalvariants. One such example is the pair of faśuvanı̄ and *fattanı̄ “to let begin, cause to begin”,
with the restriction that only the first variant is used as a regular causative in all dialects of
Dhivehi (cf. above). The variant *fattanı̄ which, according to the sound laws, has preserved
the old retroflex in its geminated form,408 does not occur any longer as an independent verb,
but it still exists in Addū as the first part of the compound verb fatta-gannanı̄ “to start”(intr.), with fatta- representing an absolutive form. In Addū, this combination is today
regarded as synonymous with faśa-gatun,409 which is a compound verb as well.
The inflection of the causatives is generally that of the primary a-stems.
˙˙

˙˙

˙˙

˙˙

˙˙

˙˙

3.2.1.1.1. “Double” causatives and their special function as verbal honorificators
In Dhivehi there are numerous examples of causatives that are marked twice. The verbs inquestion show the causative suffix two times in turn, first in its assimilated variant and thenin its unchanged form; cp. jassavanı̄ which represents a secondary (repeated) causative
formation of the existing causative jassanı̄. Many of the “reduplicated” or “double” causatives occur only in the language of Māle, where they have a very special function in that they404

Cf. RENOU (1961), 468.
Cf. GEIGER (1916), 139 ff. and PISCHEL (1981), 442 ff.
406
For the Sinhalese causative cf. GEIGER (1938), 154 ff. and (1900), 81 f.
407
This causative, having developed into an independent lemma in Modern Dhivehi, has the meaning of “toland, to turn” today.
408
Cf. 1.3.9.12.1.
409
For compound verbs that are built with gannanı̄, cf. 3.11.4.3.
405

“Double” causatives

171

serve as the most productive grammatical medium for the expression of the second and thethird honorific degree, corresponding with the two aristocratic levels of the threefold social
hierarchy which was particularly characteristic for the language of the capital.410 Cp., e.g.,
the 1st degree verb fihanı̄ “to roast, cook, bake” with its honorific 2nd/3rd degree equivalentfissavanı̄ which is a double causative, the primary form *fissanı̄ ← *fisa-va-nı̄ “to cause tocook” being obsolete today. A parallel case is happavanı̄ which is the honorific 2nd/3rd
degree equivalent of hafanı̄ “to chew”; the primary causative *happanı̄ ← *hapa-va-nı̄ does
not exist any longer either.
In some special cases, the morphological framework of the causative formation is used fora semantic differentiation; cp., e.g., gulanı̄ “to contact, connect” with its primary causative
guluvanı̄ which serves as a normal verb of the honorific 2nd and 3rd degree. Besides thishonorific verb, however, there exists also a formally identical causative guluvanı̄ meaning “tojoin, attach”, which functions as a verb of the 1st degree; furthermore, a double causative,
guluvvanı̄, is derived from guluvanı̄, which is used in honorific function for the 2nd and 3rd
degree.
Sinhalese has no comparable use of secondary causatives motivated by social stratification;in general, the Sinhalese verb is no medium for the expression of honorific levels.411 Thus,
GEIGER was right in stating that the existence of double causatives in Sinhalese has only
morphological reasons (1938, 156): “In those causatives, in which by assimilation of the v,
the causative character is obscured, a second syllable -va- can be inserted so that a double
causative is resulted”.
˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

3.2.1.1.2. GEIGER further states that in Sinhalese, causatives can only be derived from the firsttwo conjugation classes (1938, 156): “A causative of Conj. III does not exist at all, since theverbs in -enu are themselves derivatives. The causative must always be formed out of baseverbs in -anu”. In accordance with this rule, we would expect that in Dhivehi, too, theformation of causatives might be confined to a-stems and n-stems, the latter constituting a
subgroup of the former. There are numerous verbs such as the e-stems jessenı̄ and jessevenı̄,
however, which seem not to fit into the system because they show the typical formal structureof causatives, albeit e is their stem-vowel. Only a step-by-step analysis of the successive
verbal derivations and their historical interrelationship can give a clear picture of the wholeprocess.
The basic form of the example mentioned above is the transitive a-stem jahanı̄ meaning“to beat, kick; blow (of the wind)”. From this primary verb the simple causative jassanı̄ “toland, turn; switch on” is derived. The secondary causative formation jassavanı̄ exists only inMāle, where it occurs as a honorific verb of jahanı̄ as well as jassanı̄, denoting the 2nd and3rd degree. The inactive verb jehenı̄ “to fall (down upon)” is derived directly from jahanı̄;the umlaut of the root vowel is typical for inactive e-stems that are derived from a-stems.
jessenı̄ “to come in touch (with), touch” is the corresponding inactive form of the simple
causative jassanı̄. In this case as well, the morphological criteria determining the formationof an inactive from a primary active verb are visible: the a-stem is changed into an e-stem,
together with a simultaneous umlauting of the root-vowel. In the same way, jessevenı̄ is

410
411

For the system of social structures in Māle cf. the introduction, 0.9.2.
Cf. GUNASEKARA (1891), 174 ff.

172

Morphology

derived from jassavanı̄. By its function, however, it represents the 2nd or 3rd degree equivalent of jehenı̄; hence, its literal meaning as a honorific verb can be given as “It happens to thegentleman/lady or to the king/queen that he/she causes him-/herself to fall”.
It is not always possible to establish a complete list of causative and inactive derivatives
as in the example just mentioned. There are many verbs where one ore more links in thederivational chain are missing. On the one hand, it seems to be very plausible that not every
form that might have existed has been preserved. On the other hand, however, it is also likelythat forms which would conform with morphological rules were not realised because of
semantical reasons.
3.2.1.1.3. Several verbs build their higher honorific degrees in a suppletive way. An exampleof this is the verb “to come”. M. annanı̄ refers to the 1st degree. The 2nd degree is represented by the suppletive causative duruvanı̄, lit. “to let run, cause to run” (from M. duvanı̄
“to run”). The 3rd degree, too, is formed by a suppletive verb, viz. the compound formation
vaday gannavanı̄, lit. approximately “to cause to take by strutting”. The basic verb underlying the petrified absolutive vaday has been lost in Dhivehi;412 vaday occurs in honorific
function with other verbs as well, however.
˙˙˙

3.2.2. The n-stems, representing a very archaic, closed subgroup within the framework of the
Dhivehi verb, generally correspond with the 2nd conjugation type of Modern Sinhalese which
is characterised by a final -i in the present stem. For the case of Sinhalese, GEIGER provesthat this stem vowel -i is the result of a relatively recent development (1938, 138): “We canonly say that the stem vowel i has the character of a svarabhakti-vowel and is of later origin.
For, it never produces umlaut of the preceding syllable, and in the medieval language forms
without i are numerous.” Examples mentioned by GEIGER are, e.g., the archaic present form
danmi “I know” as against the variant danimi attested in a later period, or the old infinitive
vadnā “enter” as against its more recent counterpart vadinu. GEIGER’s hypothetical assumption that this conjugation type might have its basis in the second verbal class of Sanskrit ishighly improbable, however, because of the statistics of the latter, as GEIGER himself concedes;413 what is more, it cannot be upheld because of phonological reasons (for further
considerations cf. 3.2.2.3).
Dhivehi shows a parallel development of the n-stems; here, however, the anaptyctic vowel
corresponding to Sinh. i differs systematically from dialect to dialect. As the table in 3.2.2.1
shows, the stem-final consonant n is followed by an u vowel in Addū and by an i vowel in
Fua Mulaku. In Māle, however, we find not a secondary vowel but a gemination of the stem
consonant, -n-.
˙˙

c

412
The etymologically corresponding Sinh. verb still exists: va a navā “to increase, augment; to take up (andcarry a child in the arms)”; cf. GEIGER (1941), 154, no. 2297; cf. also TURNER (1966) II, 663, no. 11376 s.v.
várdhate “grows, increases” and 664, no. 11382 s.v. vardháyati “makes grow or increase”, “rears”.
413
Cf. GEIGER (1938), 138: “The prototype of conj. II seems to be the 2nd class of Sk.: type: han-mi, han-ti,
but it is hardly intelligible how this type which is very rare in Middle-Indian could occur in Sinh. to such an
extent.”ḋ173n-stem verbs

3.2.2.1. From a synchronical point of view, all verbs that are characterised by the following
formal features must be treated as n-stems in Dhivehi: 1) the co-occurrence of the infinitiveendings A. -a , F. -aha, M. -a (besides -an)414; in the conjugation of the present tense, theparadigmatic change of stem-final n and d or n̆d in Addū and of geminated nn and d in Māle;this corresponds with the prenasalised stop n̆d occurring in Fua Mulaku in all persons. Cf. thefollowing table which illustrates the finite present forms of (M.) vannanı̄ “to enter”:
c

c

˙˙

c

c

Addū
˙˙

finite present

Fua Mulaku

Māle

1st ps.sg.

vanun / vadun

van̆dinvannan

2nd ps.sg.

vadi

van̆dı̄yyevade

3rd ps.sg.

vadiv¯an̆di˛vade

1st ps.pl.

vadumāvan̆dimā

vannamu

2nd ps.pl.

vadutāvan̆divva

vannamu

3rd ps.pl.

vadutāvan̆ditta

vade

A similar change of consonants in stem-final position can be found in the imperative (cf.
3.5.1.3), the absolutive (cf. 3.6.5, 3.10.3) and the gerund (cf. 3.8.2).
3.2.2.2. From a historical point of view, we must distinguish between primary and secondaryn-stems. While the primary n-stems go back directly to OIA nasal presents, the secondary
formations obviously represent not inherited n-stems but original a-stems which completely
or only to a certain extent were adapted to the paradigm of the n-stems. An example for asecondary n-stem is vannanı̄ “to enter” (cf. above) which does not go back to a nasal present
of OIA415 but which in all dialects of Modern Dhivehi appears as an exemplary n-stem in
all its forms.
3.2.2.3. There are but a few verbs with a pure n-stem paradigm. Besides vannanı̄, these verbs
are an̆danı̄ “to burn” (trans.); bannanı̄ “to tie”; binnanı̄ (in Māle also bin̆danı̄) “to pluck”;
innanı̄ “to sit; to marry, be married”; iśı̄nnanı̄ (A., F. irı̄n-) “to sit”. The particular forms of
the other verbs belonging to this inflection type may differ very much from the n-conjugation
proper; nevertheless, all these verbs are characterised by the typical infinitive ending of then-stems. In each case, we must decide separately whether a verb which belongs to the n-class
was formally adapted to the a-stems or whether the verb in question might be an “unetymological” n-stem. The modern conjugation pattern of n-verbs does not suffice to prove that itreally developed from an OIA nasal present. Besides a methodically correct reconstruction,
only the evidence of the OIA material itself can serve as a final proof (cf. 3.9.2.2).

414

Cf. 3.6.5, 3.10.3.
The origin must be seen in OIA vrájati “goes, wanders”, Pa. vajati, the forms of which obviously mergedwith those of the nasal stem verb OIA v á kti “twists”; cf. P.E.D., 593 s.v. vajati, WHITNEY (1885), 163 s.v.
v j and 213, and WERBA (1997), 263 s.v. v j . Cf. also TURNER (1966, II, 707, no. 12225 s.v. vrájati) who
postulates a nasal present *vrañjati as the basis of Pkt. vam̆jai “goes”, Sinh. vaña u , Lahndā vañja and Panj.
vañj ā “to go, depart, die”. Obviously, Dhiv. vannanı̄ must be derived from the same source.
ṅ

415

ṅ ṙ

ṙ

ṅ

ṅ

ṙ

174

Morphology

We must state here by the way that the authors of HLSD, in their subdivision of the
conjugation patterns of Sinhalese and Dhivehi, obviously failed to realise the existence of theMaldivian n-stems as a special type of conjugation; cp. their statement: “All [Sinhalese, S.F.]
verbal bases containing two or more syllables and ending in ‘i’ fall into this [third, S.F.]
conjugation. Dhivehi does not have this conjugation....” (HLSD, 56).
3.2.3. The e-stem class exclusively consists of inactive verbs. To a certain extent these verbs
are intransitive derivatives of transitive a-stems, expressing a passive, medial or reflexive
meaning. There are many inactive verbs, however, which have no active or transitive equivalent; in these cases, the e-stem has to be considered as primary. Cp., e.g., ivenı̄ “to hear”,
libenı̄ “to receive, get”, or edenı̄ “to want, wish, demand”.
The e-stems of Dhivehi exactly correspond with the third conjugation class of Sinhalese;
cp. GEIGER’s statement (1938, 141): “The verbs of conj. III are generally intransitive formations corresponding to transitive verbs of conj. I or II. They sometimes assume reflexive or
passive meaning. ... Intransitive verbs of conj. III are frequently formed after the e-type, buthave no corresponding transitive verb in conj. I or II.” The stem vowel -e- which in Dhivehi,
as well as Sinhalese, is generally associated with an intransitive, inactive verbal meaning, canbe derived from MIA -iya- and OIA -yá-, i.e. the suffix of “passive” presents (cf. GEIGER
1938, 138).
The following table illustrates the present paradigm of the e-stem temenı̄ “to get wet”:
Fua Mulaku

c

Māle

temen

temen

temen

temei

temeyyetemēfinite present

Addū

1st ps.sg.
2nd ps.sg.

˙˙

3rd ps.sg.

temei

tem¯e˛temē

1st ps.pl.

tememātememātememu

2nd ps.pl.

temetātem¯eva˛

tememu

3rd ps.pl.

temetātemettatemē

3.3. The finite preterite
The finite preterite is built by adding the personal endings to the preterite stem which isformally identical with the preterite participle from which it developed (cf. 3.9.2 below). The
finite forms of the Maldivian a- and n-stems exhibit the same formation as the so-called“shorter form of the preterite” in literary Sinhalese, the latter being based on the past
participle416 which in the first conjugation is marked by a suffix -u ← -ū, in the second bya suffix -i ← -ı̄. According to GEIGER, -ı̄ as well as -ū go back to -ita.417 As medieval Sinhalese texts show, the diversification of the two suffixes is the result of a gradual process. In
contrast to that, Dhivehi shows a clear differentiation only between a- and n-stems; thus, e.g.,
the preterite (or past) participle of the a-stem verb balanı̄ “to look” is bel¯˘i in all dialects(≈ Sinh. bälu, cf. GEIGER 1938, 135; for the umlaut cf. 3.9.2.1 below), while the correspon-

416
417

For this communis opinio cf. MATZEL (1983), 118; for details cf. GEIGER (1938), 146.
Cf. GEIGER (1938), 135; cf. also 1.2.3.1.1, 3.9.2.1.

The finite preterite

175

ding participle of the n-stem vannanı̄ “to enter” has the form van throughout (≈ Sinh. van;cf. GEIGER 1941, 156).
Both in Sinhalese and in Dhivehi, the verbs of the e-conjugation build their past participlewith a particular suffix the original form of which was -unu (cf. 3.3, 3.9.2). In Dhivehi, thissuffix underwent a dialectal differentiation which in the case of temenı̄ “to get wet” led to
the forms M. temunu, F. temun, and A. temene (Sinh. temunu; cf. GEIGER 1938, 136).
˙˙

˙

3.3.1. In Dhivehi, the personal endings of the preterite are identical with those of the present
tense to a certain extent only. Unlike the equivalent forms of the present tense, the 2nd andthe 3rd person plural of the preterite have different endings in Modern Addū; the old endingof the 2.ps.pl., -vā, is obviously confined to the a- and e-conjugation and will be met with
only rarely.418 While in Fua Mulaku, the 3.ps.pl. is still different from the corresponding
present form, the paradigm of the standard language shows the same reduced inventory as in
the present tense. The following table gives a comparative survey of the personal endings ofthe preterite:
˙˙

c

-n

ḋ

a-st.

ḋ

1st ps.sg.

Acpersonal
endings

ū
n-st.
-in

Fua Mulaku
e-st.

a-st.

-n

-n
1)

Māle

n-st.

e-st.

-in

4)

-in

-ı̄yye/-yye/

a-st.

Sinhalese(short form)419

n-st.

e-st.

-n

-ı̄n

4)

-ı̄n4)

-∅

-∅

-∅

-hi

-∅

-∅

-∅

-∅

-mā

-mu1)

-ı̄mu

-ı̄mu4)-mu; -mō, -mha

1)-m; -mi2nd ps.sg.

-∅

3rd ps.sg.

-∅

1st ps.pl.

-mā

-mā1)
1)

-va

-va

-mu

-ı̄mu

-ı̄mu4)-hu-a2)/-ya/?

-∅

-∅

-∅

-ha

-yye

-∅

2nd ps.pl.

-e /-a/, -vā-ā-ā, -vā

-va

3rd ps.pl.

-e /-a/

-ā

-ā3)

-a1)

-mā

1) concurrent with a lengthening of the stem final vowel;
2) concurrent with a gemination of the stem final -n;3) ending -ā based on /-ea/, cp. teme ā ← *teme e a;4) unetymological -ı̄-: obviously, the ending was abstracted from the n-stems and transferred to the e-stems.
ṅṅ

3.3.2. The following tables show the preterite conjugation of the verbs balanı̄, vannanı̄ and temenı̄:Fua Mulaku

c

Māle

belin

belin

belin

beli

belı̄yye

beli

beli

beli

beli

1st ps.pl.

belimābelı̄mābelı̄mu

2nd ps.pl.

belie /belia/, belivā

belı̄vabelı̄mu

3rd ps.pl.

belie /belia/

belı̄abeli

fin. preterite a-stems

Addū

1st ps.sg.
2nd ps.sg.
3rd ps.sg.

419

˙˙

418

For the ending -vā further cf. 3.2.
Thus GEIGER (1938), 146.

176

Morphology

fin. preterite n-stems

Addū
˙˙

Fua Mulaku

c

Māle

1st ps.sg.

vanin

vanin

vanı̄n

2nd ps.sg.

vanvanı̄yyevan

3rd ps.sg.

van

van

van

1st ps.pl.

vammā

vammā

vanı̄mu

2nd ps.pl.

vanā

vanva

vanı̄mu

3rd ps.pl.

vanā

vanna

van

fin. preterite e-stems

Addū
˙˙

Fua Mulaku

Māle

1st ps.sg.

temenen˙

temunintemunı̄n

2nd ps.sg.

temene˙temunnetemunu

3rd ps.sg.

temene˙

temu¯˛temunu

1st ps.pl.

temenemā˙

temummātemunı̄mu

2nd ps.pl.

temenā / temenevā

temuva¯˛temunı̄mu

3rd ps.pl.

temenātemunnatemunuc˙˙˙

3.4. The finite future
The formation of the finite future tense is not homogeneous in Dhivehi. Only in the dialectof Addū it is morphologically transparent both from the synchronic and the diachronic pointof view. At a glance, the formation of the future forms seems to be clear in the standard
language of Māle as well, at least on a synchronic level; concerning the historical development and the dialectological evidence, however, the future forms reveal themselves as theresult of a process of diversification. The most complex and complicated situation can befound in the vernacular of Fua Mulaku where the morphological mechanism of the futureformation is obviously heterogeneous within the particular verbal classes, the derivation ofsome formal components still being unclear.
The future formation of the different conjugation types can be illustrated cross-dialectallyby the following tables:
˙˙

c

Addū

1st ps.sg.
2nd ps.sg.

cfinite future a-stems

Fua MulakuMālebalāśunbalannen(in)balānanbalāhebalannē / balanneyyebalāne

3rd ps.sg.

balāhebalannenbalāne

1st ps.pl.

balāśumābalannābalānan / balānū

2nd ps.pl.

balāśie /balāśia/balannēvabalāne / balānū

3rd ps.pl.

balāśie /balāśia/balannenābalāne˙˙The finite future

177
c

Addū
˙˙

Fua Mulaku

Māle

1st ps.sg.

vannaśunvann¯ahinin˛vannānan

2nd ps.sg.

vannahevann¯ahinne
˛vannāne

3rd ps.sg.

vannahevann¯ahin˛vannāne

1st ps.pl.

vannaśumā

vann¯ahimmā˛

vannānan

2nd ps.pl.

vannaśie /vannaśia/vann¯ahimva
˛vannāne

3rd ps.pl.

vannaśie /vannaśia/vann¯ahinna
˛vannānefinite future e-stems

Addū
˙˙

Fua Mulaku

Māle

1st ps.sg.

temēśuntemenn¯e˛temēnan

2nd ps.sg.

temēhetemennē / temenneyetemēne

3rd ps.sg.

temēhetemennentemēnecfinite future n-stems

1st ps.pl.

temēśumā

temennātemēnan

2nd ps.pl.

temēśie /temēśia/temennēvatemēne

3rd ps.pl.

temēśie /temēśia/temennenātemēneA rough analysis yields the following table of personal endings:cpersonal
endings

Addū

Fua Mulaku

Māle

a-st.

n-st.

e-st.

1st ps.sg.

-un /-n/-en(in)-in-in-¯e˛-an

2nd ps.sg.

-e-ē, -eyye-in-n-e ← -yye-ē, -eyye?

-e

3rd ps.sg.

-e

-en

-in-∅

-en?

-e

1st ps.pl.

-umā /-mā/-ā-in-mā ← -emā-ā?

-an, -ū-an-an

2nd ps.pl.

-ie /-ia/-ēva-in-vā ← -ēva-ēva?

-e, -ū-e-e

3rd ps.pl.

-ie /-ia/-enā

-in-na ← -enā-enā?

a-st.

n-st.

e-st.

-e

˙˙

3.4.1. At a glance, the morphological analysis seems to be simple in Addū. There, the futuretense of all stem types is obviously derived from the infinitive (cf. 3.6.3.1) to which a set of
special future endings is added (cf. the table given above); with all probability, these endings
reflect forms of a previous copula whose stem can no longer be reconstructed. The original
meaning of the underlying infinitive construction in Addū is easy to understand, A. balāś-u-n
being equivalent with English “I am to look”. The question whether the endings go back toindicative present forms of the copula as this interpretation suggests, however, is not supported unambiguously by the facts of the language. An important counter-argument resultsfrom the comparison with another verbal category, the potential, which obviously contains aformally identical morphological element but which can hardly have originated from theindicative.
˙˙

˙˙

178

Morphology

The basis of the future formation can be found in the forms of the 2nd and 3rd ps.sg.fut.
of all three conjugation types, which are identical with each other; here, the copula occurringin the function of a personal ending is likely to reflect not the indicative but another mood,provided the ending of balāhe, vannahe and temēhe really is the same as in the case of thepotential (cf. 3.12.3.2). It is not important in this respect that the latter category is infinite (cp.
the forms A. beliēhe, vediēhe and temiēhe which are used for all persons, being composed of
the inactive absolutive and the formant -ēhe) and that the agent of verbs in the potential
appears in the dative case, for potential forms can, in principle, be derived only from inactive
stems. Hence, it is no contradiction that the future forms balāhe etc., which are built with thesame auxiliary verb, has a nominative construction (cp. A. tō / ede balāhe “you will / he willlook”), balanı̄ being a transitive, active verb.
Thus, it is likely that the ending -ēhe represents a petrified optative form of the copula. To
which verbal element -ēhe was added in the case of balāhe etc. remains unclear, however. A
derivation of balah- from the infinitive would be less probable for phonological reasons. It
would presuppose that in the given position the infinitive ending -ś ← -t would have developed into -h-; such a development is otherwise unknown in Addū, however, and the otherfuture forms show ś unaltered. On the other hand, we cannot exclude the influence of anotherfuture formation which only occurs in the second person of both numbers, where it iscombined with the oblique case as in ta / tafirin balāheti; this construction literally means “itis visible for you (sg./pl.); it is to be looked (for/at) by you”.420 Here, -eti corresponds
exactly with the petrified Sinhalese copula form äti “it is” (← Skt. asti; cf. GEIGER 1941, 17,
no. 256). In this formation, it seems even more likely that balah- reflects the infinitive; but
the phonological problem that was mentioned above remains the same.
After all, we cannot exclude that the forms balāhe, vannahe and temēhe are based on thepresent participle. In this case the forms in question would have to be analysed as *balā-ēhe,*vanna-ēhe and *temē-ēhe. From a phonological point of view, this solution would even be
preferable. Furthermore, there seem to exist morphological parallels in Sinhalese (cf. 3.4.2.1)
and, for the n-stems, in Fua Mulaku as well (cf. 3.4.2.3). Hence it follows that the future
paradigm of the Addū-dialect probably represents a suppletive mixture of two morphologically different formations in that the 1st person singular and all persons of the plural must bederived from the infinitive while the 2nd and the 3rd person of the singular are more likely
to have developed from the present participle.
The ending -ie /-ia/, which is identical in the 2nd and 3rd person plural, possibly represents an analogous formation based on the homophonic ending of the same persons in thefinite preterite. In this case, it presupposes that the vowel -i- which originally was a markerof the preterite stem has been reinterpreted as a part of the ending (beli-e → bel-ie).
˙

˙˙

c

˙˙

c

3.4.2. Regarding the formation of the finite future in Fua Mulaku, there are considerable
formal divergences that distinguish the three conjugation types from each other. It is impossible to find out with certainty whether we have to assume a future formation which is similar
to that of literary Sinhalese, or whether it is more plausible to take the infinitive as a basis of
the formation as we had proposed for Addū (cf. above). Cp. the future paradigms of thea-stem balanı̄ in Fua Mulaku and its Sinhalese equivalent, balana- (cf. GEIGER 1938, 148):
˙˙

c

420

Cf. the German translation which is more similar: “es ist für dich/euch zu sehen”.

c

The finite future: Fua Mulaku

179c

Fua Mulaku:
1st ps.sg.

balannen(in)1st ps.pl.

2nd ps.sg.

balannē / balanneyye

2nd ps.pl.

balannēva

3rd ps.sg.

balannen

3rd ps.pl.

balannenā

1st ps.sg.

balannem

1st ps.pl.

balannemu

2nd ps.sg.

balannehi

2nd ps.pl.

balannāhu

3rd ps.sg.

balannē

3rd ps.pl.

balannō, balannāhabalannāSinhalese:

3.4.2.1. The Sinhalese future is explained by GEIGER as a secondary formation that cameabout by analogy with the full form of the preterite (1938, 148): “The formation of the Future
Tense corresponds to that of the preterite. The personal affixes are annexed to the inflected
form of the pprs. [present participle] ... It is obvious that the future meaning of the forms ...
is not primary. Originally they were to express not an action but a state of longer duration inpresent or in preterite time: balannemi means, I am (or was) one who looks, I am (or was)looking.”421 In other words, GEIGER sees the basis of the formation in present participles
such as balana “looking” or rather their substantivised, inflected variant (balannā, with -nnā
← -niyā or -nuvā, i.e. the stem of the participle enlarged by a suffix *-ka).422 In analogy
with the 1st person of the preterite, bäluv-em, the future form was then built as balann-em.
3.4.2.2. In the a-stems, there is a striking phonetic similarity indeed between the singularforms of Sinhalese and those of the Dhivehi dialect of Fua Mulaku. It cannot be proved,
however, that the formation of the future tense in Fua Mulaku is based on the present
participle as in Sinhalese. In this case, we would have to assume that the participle wasenlarged in the way GEIGER proposed for Sinhalese and, furthermore, the personal endings
reflect old copula forms. This formation is not without morphological and phonologicalcontradictions, however, which do not arise at all when we consider a derivation based on theinfinitive.
ccc

3.4.2.2.1. Taking the infinitive as the basic form in Fua Mulaku as in Addū, the personalendings could be identified with the present forms of (M.) annanı̄ which in the southerndialects has the meaning of “to go”. Cp. the paradigm of the present of this verb in modern
Fua Mulaku:
˙˙

c

421
For more details cf. GEIGER (1900), 78: “Die Bildung entspricht durchaus der des Prät(eritums). Wie
dieses aus einer Verbindung des Part.Prät. mit dem Hilfsverbum hervorgeht, so ist das Fut(ur) eine Verbindung
des ... Part.Präs. mit dem Hilfsverbum, bzw. den Personalendungen. Die 3. Sg. und Pl. entbehren wieder der
Copula und sind reine Nominalformen. Auch für diese Fut.-bildung bieten die MIAV. Analogien. Zunächst
bedeutet also kapannemi ‘ich bin welcher schneidet’ und hat von Haus aus noch keine futurale Bedeutung. In
der That findet sich denn auch das sog. Fut. in der E u -Litteratur als Durativ, selbst als erzählendes Tempus
gebraucht.”
422
Cf. GEIGER (1938), 134 and (1900), 73.

l̇

180

Morphology

1st ps.sg.

en

1st ps.pl.

2nd ps.sg.

eyye

2nd ps.pl.

ēva

3rd ps.sg.

ē ← e¯˛ ← *en

3rd ps.pl.

etta

emā

If this assumption is right, the original meaning of F. balannen would be “I am going tolook”.423 It is a well-known typological phenomenon that verbs denoting “to go” can occur
in the function of auxiliaries within future constructions (cp., e.g., French je vais voir).
3.4.2.2.2. On the basis of the derivation outlined above, the particular future forms of botha-stem and e-stem verbs can be explained for all persons except the 3.ps.pl., the vowel epreceding the endings proper being identifiable with the present stem of the verb “to go”.424
Cp. the following analysis:
1st ps.sg.

balanna + en → balannen

1st ps.pl.

balanna + emā → *balannemā →balannā (contracted)

2nd ps.sg.

balanna + eyye → balanneye

2nd ps.pl.

balanna + ēva → balannēva

3rd ps.sg.

balanna + *en → balannen

3rd ps.pl.

(cf. below)

According to this model, we would expect *balannetta for the 3.ps.pl. In contrast to this, theexisting form balannenā could have emerged by analogy after the 3.ps.sg. This would not be
surprising, given that there is a common Maldivian trend for finite verbs to use the 3.ps.sg.
instead of the 3.ps.pl. which has already resulted in a paradigmatic change in Māle.
3.4.2.2.3. We cannot exclude with certainty that an original construction which was based onan enlarged form of the present participle as in the Sinhalese formation mentioned above
could have been reinterpreted as a combination of the normal infinitive with present forms ofthe verb “to go”. In Dhivehi, however, the existence of such an enlarged participle cannot be
proved for any dialect, nor is it attested in the older stages of the language. Regarding the aand e-stems, which are morphologically connected with each other, this is one more argumentthat speaks in favour of the derivation from an underlying infinitive construction.
c

3.4.2.3. The derivational process which yielded the future forms of the n-stems in Fua
Mulaku is not yet clear in every detail. But it is more likely that the formation of the futuretense of this very special and archaic conjugation type is based on the present participle thanon the infinitive. The vowel [¯a],˛ which is still pronounced as a nasal vowel by the older
people in Fua Mulaku but realised as a plain long [ā] by most part of the younger generation,corresponds exactly with the final vowel of the present participle in its short form. In contrast
to that, neither the nasalised nor the long-vocalic pronunciation could be explained on thec423This derivation does not imply that the same verb might be reflected in the homophonic present endingsof e-stem verbs.
424
In the southern dialects, the present participle of this verb, corresponding with the “Māle form” annanı̄,
has the long form enı̄. For the use of annanı̄ in auxiliary function cf. 3.6.3.2.2, 3.11.4.6.

c

The finite future: Fua Mulaku

181

basis of the infinitive form, however phonetically tempting the following -h- might be, sincein the given verbs the infinitive ending is always -aha (with a short a).
In the following list of n-stem verbs, the transcription shows the original pronunciation
with [¯a]˛ and [ā], resp., as depending on the particular informants; the lemmatic entries are
given in their “Māle form” followed by the most characteristic forms of the 1.ps.sg. future,
the present participle and the infinitive as recorded in Fua Mulaku:425can̆danı̄ 1.“to burn”; 2. “to wear (a sarong)”: F. 1.ps.sg.fut. annāhinin; pres.part. ann¯a;
˛ inf. annaha.
bannanı̄ “to tie”: bannāhinin; bann¯a;
˛ bannaha.
innanı̄ “to sit; to marry, be married”: innāhinin; inn¯a;
˛ innaha.
iśı̄nnanı̄ “to sit”: irı̄nnāhinin; irı̄nnā; irı̄nnaha.
dannanı̄ “to know”: dennāhinin; denn¯a;˛ (no infinitive).
donnanı̄ “to wash”: donnāhinin; donnā; donnaha.
gen gu e nı̄ “to care for (somebody)”: dagonāhinin; dagon¯a;
˛ dagonaha.
gannanı̄ “to buy”: gannāhinin; gannā; gannaha.
hehenı̄ “to husk”: sahunāhinin; sahunā; sahunaha.
hunnanı̄ “to stand, stay, remain; be”: hinnāhinin; hinn¯a;
˛ hinnaha.
˛¯
ka a;
˛¯ ka
a ha.
konnanı̄ “to dig”: ka ahinin;
dekenı̄ “to see”: dakunāhinin; dakon¯a;
˛ dakonaha.
kulenı̄ “to play”: kelenāhinin; kelenā; kelenaha.
nukunnanı̄ “to come out”: nukunnāhinin; nukunnā; nukunnaha.
onnanı̄ “to lie, be there”: onnāhinin; (part.pres. = part.pret.) o /ot/; onnaha.
ośōnnanı̄ “to lie (down)”: veśionnāhinin; veśionn¯a;
˛ veśionnaha.
vannanı̄ “to enter”: vann¯ahinin;˛
vann¯a;˛ vannaha.
u e nı̄ “to live; behave”: v¯e˛ ahinin;˛¯v¯e˛ a;˛¯ v¯e˛ a ha.
bin̆danı̄ / binnanı̄ “ to pluck, break”: binn¯ahinin;
˛binna; binnaha.
l̇

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

˙

ṅ

ṅ

˙

ṅ

˙

˙

c

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

l̇

3.4.2.3.1. Whatever the diachronic basis of 3.ps.sg.fut. forms such as vann¯ahin
˛may be, theymust be analysed as forms with a “zero-ending” today. This implies that -hin- cannot
represent a part of the ending. Comparing the forms in question from this point of view withthe finite forms of the preterite and the present tense, we arrive at the conclusion that the(copula-based) personal endings of the latter categories are just the same as the endings of the
future paradigm.
3.4.2.3.2. The complicated historical implications notwithstanding, we can describe theformation of the finite future forms of the n-stems by a simple rule: the common personalendings are added to the short form of the future participle, with the typical assimilations
occurring at the morpheme boundary. Cp., e.g., vann¯ahin-in,˛
vann¯ahin-y(y)e,˛vann¯ahin-∅˛
etc.
3.4.3. In the standard language of Māle, the formation of the future is very homogeneous. As
in the other tenses, the set of endings underwent a maximal reduction resulting in actually
two different forms, one for the 1.ps.sg. and pl. (-an), and another for the 2nd and 3rd ps.sg.
and pl. (-e); these endings are agglutinated to the stem of the future participle. The only
exception from this rule concerns the a-stems for which a special ending of the 1st and 2nd
ps.pl. (-ū) has been preserved in the sociolect of the palace language and in the literarylanguage, which has an archaic touch even for the native speakers of this ideolect.

425

For the etymology of these verbs cf. 3.9.2.2.

182

Morphology

3.4.3.1. According to CAIN (1992, 76), “the future is formed by lengthening the final vowelof the verb root and adding -nan ... and -ne ...”. Although this rule does not correspond withthe historical development, it may well be taken as a guideline for building the correct forms
synchronically.
3.4.3.2. With no doubt, the future participle of northern Dhivehi is based on the infinitive
which emerged from the analytical dative of the MIA verbal noun. In the early written
documents of Dhivehi, there are two finite future forms attested which can be taken as an
unambigous proof supporting the data of the modern language. These forms, which belong to
the verb lianı̄ “to write”, deserve a particular interest because they occur in a combination
with the verb ulenı̄ “to live, be (there)” which is still used as an auxiliary today (cf.
3.11.4.7). The two forms in question are liyāt-ulemā (RB 1,10, with its spelling variant liyāśulemā in RC 9,1 and 10,1) and liāś-ulemā-ve (RA 2,2). liyāt/ś is the most ancient attestationof the infinitive of lianı̄ we dispose of (cf. 3.6.3.2.1.2). ul-emā represents an archaic variantof the 1.ps.pl.pres. of the e-stem verb ulenı̄ which in Māle became obsolete already at an
early time; in Modern Addū, however, the corresponding forms are completely regular eventoday.426 The final -ve occurring in the second example is a sandhi variant of the quotation
particle eve which is still used in the modern standard language (cf. 5.4).
˙

˙ ˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙˙

3.4.3.2.1. The origin of the finite future of the modern standard language must as well beseen in the infinitive (in an allophonic variant with final -ān or -ēn) which developed fromthe original dative in -āś ← -āt (cf. 3.6.3.2.1.2). This analysis presupposes that the -n- occurring in the future is a reflex of the old dative ending -t in prevocalic position which in final
position developed into a glottal stop [ ]. The first and, at the same time, only attestation ofa finite future form of the modern type in Old Dhivehi texts is represented in a (causative)
verb of the 2nd/3rd honorific degree, viz. kuravvānem “I shall build” (lit. “I shall cause tobuild”; F3,11).
˙

˙

c

˙

3.4.3.2.2. The future formation on the basis of the infinitive to which the personal endings areadded exhibits a high degree of typologic and genetic conformity between the standard
language and the dialect of Addū (except for the 2nd and 3rd ps.sg.fut., cf. 3.4.1).
˙˙

3.5. The imperative
Like Sinhalese,427 Dhivehi shows several formations that are used to express jussive andhortative meanings. Besides the imperative proper, which is comparatively homogeneous inits form throughout the Maldives, there are also some peculiar secondary formations which
differ from dialect to dialect. While the inherited imperative still is a productive category inall dialects of Dhivehi, its counterpart in Modern Sinhalese occurs only in the literarylanguage. This restriction must be considered as one of the main reasons why in Sinhaleseother verbal forms, in particular the infinitive or the lemmatic form ending in -navā (the so-

In A ū, however, the verb in question is not u e nı̄ but vēn̆ e nı̄; cf. also 3.2.3.
Cf. GEIGER (1938), 149 ff.; (1900), 78 f.; (1942), 48 ff. / (1973), 605 ff.
l̇

ḋ

ḋ

427

ḋ

426

The imperative

183

called “basic verbal form”), are most frequently used when a jussive meaning is to be
expressed today. Functional changes of this kind can also be found in Dhivehi but the role
they play within the system of jussive constructions is comparatively marginal.
3.5.1. The inherited imperative of Dhivehi corresponds to a high degree with that of literary
Sinhalese; cp. the following table which shows the imperative forms of the a-stems:c

Fua Mulaku

Māle

bala

bala

balā

bala

balau

balau

balā

balav

balamābalama¯˘balamhaAddū˙˙

imperative: a-stems
2nd ps.sg.
2nd ps.pl.
1st ps.pl. (cohortative)

balamāSinhalese

3.5.1.1. As GEIGER demonstrated, the form of the 2.ps.sg. imperative in Sinhalese, whichmust be derived from the MIA imperative, shows a formal identity with the pure present stemin all conjugation types.428 Besides this, Sinhalese has a concurrent form of the 2.ps.sg.
imperative which is enlarged by an ending -va, in the older literature also by a variant -ga
which GEIGER left unexplained. This formation (for which cp. Sinh. balava = bala “look!”)seems to have no parallel in Dhivehi. Considering the final -v of the 2nd person plural inSinhalese, GEIGER stated: “In Pl. 2 a form in -va occurs in older books ... It is hardly dubiousthat the suffix -va, -v corresponds to the old -tha and that there is only a difference ofspelling between it and the suff. -hu, -vu of pres. pl. 2.”429 The form of the cohortative isidentical with the first person plural of the present tense.430 All these rules concerning
Sinhalese are also true for the corresponding forms of the conservative Dhivehi dialects
spoken in the Southern Maldives.
3.5.1.2. In Māle, some details have changed as against this because of the extensive formal
simplifications of the personal endings. Thus, the cohortative is preserved in its old form, butthere is no more formal correspondence with the 1.ps.pl. of the present (cf. 3.2). The quantityof the final -a of the cohortative fluctuates; the occasional lengthening of the vowel seems to
imply emphatic usage. Within the imperative pattern, the form of the 2.ps.pl. was adapted tothat of the 2.ps.sg., the latter being formally identical with the 2nd and 3rd ps. of the presentindicative (cf. ib.). It cannot be decided whether this change which has affected all verbs ofModern Standard Dhivehi today, was brought about by a functional extension of the 2.ps.sg.
pres.431 or whether there are some other reasons responsible for it as well. Concerning thisquestion the written documents of Old Dhivehi are not informative at all because they do notcontain any imperative forms.

428

Cf. GEIGER (1938), 149 and (1900), 78.
GEIGER (1938), 149-150; cf. also (1900), 78 and (1916), 108 f.
430
Cf. GEIGER (1938), 150.
431
Cp. German “Du machst das!” expressing an imperative meaning.
429

184

Morphology

3.5.1.3. The formation of the imperative of the other conjugations follows the same principles
as that of the a-stems as the following tables show:
Fua Mulaku

c

Māle

vanu / vadu

van̆di

vadē

vadu

van̆diuvadē

1st ps.pl. (cohortative)

vadumāvan̆dima

vannamaimperative: e-stems

Addū

Fua Mulaku

Māle

˙˙

2nd ps.pl.

Addū

c

2nd ps.sg.

˙˙imperative: n-stems

2nd ps.sg.

teme(temı̄ gan)temē

2nd ps.pl.

temeu(temı̄ gan̆du)temē

1st ps.pl. (cohortative)

tememātememā ?

tememā3.5.1.4. A prohibitive (negated imperative) is produced by means of the element M. nu- /A.F. ni- which is prefixed to the forms in question; cf. also 5.5.2.1.
3.5.1.5. hin̆gā, the 2nd person imperative form of M. hin̆ganı̄ “to walk”, is sometimes added
as a facultative auxiliary element to cohortative forms; cp., e.g., M. nukunnama (hin̆gā)“Let’s go out!”; M. iśı̄nnama (hin̆gā) “Let’s sit down!”; A. sitı̄ lēma (hin̆ga) “Let’s write
letters!” On the other hand, damā which is the imperative of damanı̄ “to pull”,432 can be
added to the cohortative of hin̆ganı̄; cp. M. hin̆gama damā “Let’s go (for a walk)!”.
˙

3.5.2. The infinitive in jussive function
3.5.2.1. In Sinhalese, as a matter of principle, all forms of the infinitive (cf. 3.6.1.) can beused in jussive function. GEIGER (1938, 150) demonstrates this rule with the sentence “Tellhim this circumstance!”, mē bava ohu-ta kiyan / kiyanu / kiyanna / kiyanta / kiyannata!, lit.
“this circumstance (direct case) [is] to be told to him (dative)”. In this constellation it makes
no syntactical and, obviously, no semantical difference whether the infinitive appears in thedative case or not. The dative of the infinitive (type kiyannata) is still used in Modern
Sinhalese as a form expressing a polite demand (cf., e.g., MATZEL 1983, 26).433
˙

˙

˙

˙

3.5.2.2. In Dhivehi, the infinitive can be used in jussive function as well. However, thepeculiar developments characterising the situation in Dhivehi do not match exactly what we

432

Etymologically, damanı̄ corresponds to Sinh. damanavā; cf. GEIGER (1902), 914, no. 61; cf. also 3.11.2.2.
Concerning this, cf. also GEIGER’s statement on the same example in (1942), 31 / (1973), 588, in thiscase only containing the dative of the infinitive: “Eine Ellipse ist anzunehmen, wenn in der V(olks)sprache derdativische Infinitiv als Imperativ gebraucht wird. Es ist ‘ich bitte,’ zu ergänzen. ... mē bava ohu a kiyan a(kiyanna a ), teile ihm die Sache mit!” The given sentence is elliptic only with respect to the copula which does
not exist in the modern language.
ṫ

433

ṫ

ṫ

The infinitive in imperative function

185

find in Sinhalese. Furthermore, there are considerable differences between the two main
Maldivian dialect groups.
3.5.2.2.1. For southern Dhivehi, only a few infinitive forms are attested in a clear jussivefunction, all of them occurring in indirect speech. In all these cases, in Addū as well as in
Fua Mulaku, the infinitive is syntactically connected with the absolutive form A. kei, F. kē
(M. kianı̄ “to say, speak”), as the following two parallel examples taken from dialectal
variants of the same fairy tale (T1, 8) show:
˙˙

c

c

A. bon̆danā benafi, bon̆da āśe veśionna kei. “The b.-bird said, he should lie down on the big table”, lit.
“The b.-bird said, telling (him) to lie down on the big table.”
F. be ā be i -ai, bon̆ o aśi matte veśiōnnaha kē. “Saying [this], he said, telling (him) to lie down on the big
table.”
˙

ḋ

˙

ṅ

˙

ṅ

3.5.2.2.2. In Māle, the infinitive can be found in jussive function, too, but only within a
special formation which presumably represents an original combination of a dative infinitive
and an old imperative of annanı̄ “to go”, *e, which is obsolete in the modern colloquial
language of the capital but still occurs in southern Dhivehi.434 Without a further remark,
GEIGER (1919, 89 and 97) mentioned a few forms of this type which express a jussive
meaning, viz. nu marāśe “Do not kill!” (maranı̄ “to kill”) and annāśē (sic, for annāśe)“Come!” (annanı̄ “to come”).435
From a synchronic point of view, the authors of HLSD (1988, 69) and, obviously following them, CAIN (1992) interprete the final -śe as a separate infinitive suffix; cf. HLSD (1988,
68): “In classical Divehi, the suffix ‘śe’ has also been used, particularly in poetic writing.”
The example given there must be understood as a demand asking God for a son:“ ... firihen
kujjā devvaśe! (sic, for devvāśe) ‘.. please give me a male child!’” The verbal form devvāśesignals a high honorific level, being morphologically marked as a double causative formation(cf. 3.2.1.1.1.).
For the meaning of these imperative forms in the modern language cf. CAIN (1992, 104):“In terms of usage, this form is common in instructions in school books, etc. But, in spoken
speech it is regarded as impolite and very forceful. Sometimes -še forms are used whencommand is repeated.”

3.5.3. Imperatives with the suffix -ti
The standard language of Māle has a particular imperative form expressing an order which
has to be accomplished in the future, a so-called “posterior imperative”; cf. CAIN (1992,
106): “... Dhivehi features a way in verb inflections of commanding someone to do something in the more distant future, the -ti future imperative suffix.” DE SILVA sees the mainfunction of the suffix -ti in prohibitive utterances (1970b, 152-3): “In negative imperative
sentences, Maldivian makes a distinction between the prohibition of actions already begun
and the prohibition of actions not yet begun.” According to DE SILVA, the form nukan̆dāti!
“Do not cut!” has the meaning of “Do not do what you plan to do (on some future occa˙

434
435

For the analysis of these formations and for some more examples cf. 3.6.3.2.2, 3.11.4.6.
The other forms GEIGER (ib.) noted are probably not correct; for more extensive information cf. 3.6.3.2.2.

186

Morphologysion)” while nukan̆dā!, translated by him with “Do not cut!” as well, expresses the demand
to stop an action that has already begun.
˙

3.5.3.1. DE SILVA explains the difference between the two forms as an aspectual one, thesuffix -ti operating as a marker of the imperfective aspect. “This is comparable to theperfective and imperfective distinction in the imperfective mood in languages like Russian,but not identical from the point of view of the total meaning.” The semantic side of DE
SILVA’s argumentation may be convincing but the comparison with the verbal aspect ofRussian is completely unfounded.436 The actual difference rather consists in a formal distiction between an “inhibitive” and a “preventive” mood as in the case of the injunctive present
and the injunctive aorist in the Vedic period of OIA. According to Karl HOFFMANN, “thedifference between an inhibitive and a preventive sentence consists in the question (which inmost cases is objectively provable) whether a prohibited action has already begun (inhibitive)
or whether it has to be expected for the future (preventive).”437
3.5.3.2. DE SILVA also provided an etymological explanation of the suffix which he considered to be a Dravidic borrowing: “The imperfective affix -ti is lexically similar to the
futuritive affix -ti known in Dravidian, and may be explained as a Dravidian borrowing” (ib.,153). This assumption has to be rejected, however, given that the borrowing of flectional
elements is typologically highly improbable. On the other hand, there is no offhand derivationfrom an Indo-Aryan basis for this suffix either; in particular, we can neither exclude nor
prove that the suffix -ti might be related to the noun M. eti “thing” which most likely reflects
a petrified form of the copula, approximately meaning “(that what) is” (cp. Sinh. äti “it is”,
Pa. atthi, Skt. asti; cf. 3.11.2.4.).
3.5.3.3. The formation of the ti-imperative remains as unclear as the derivation of the ending
itself. It is certain, however, that -ti cannot be suffixed directly to the basic form of theimperative as form doublets like balāti / balā “look!”, govāti / govā “call!” etc. mightsuggest. Pairs such as kurāti vs. kurē “do!”, bunāti vs. bunē “speak!”, kāti vs. kē “eat!”, dāti
vs. dē “go!” etc. prove that the given formation is not necessarily based on the imperative
proper. The rule given by CAIN according to which “this suffix is added to the verb root withthe final vowel of the verb root lengthened” may be taken as a synchronic statement but it
does not take the historical background of the formation into account.
3.5.3.4. The formation with -ti is confined to North Dhivehi. There are no traces of comparable imperative formations in the southern dialects. Its use may be illustrated by the following
examples:438

436
In Russian, a general or very strict prohibition is expressed by the negated form of the imperfective
imperative while the negated perfective imperative is used for the expression of anxious warnings or cautious
acts of prohibitions. Cf., e.g., E. TAUSCHER – E.G. KIRSCHBAUM, Grammatik der russischen Sprache. 10. Aufl.,
Düsseldorf 1974, 306 f.
437“Der Unterschied zwischen Inhibitivsatz und Präventivsatz beruht auf der meist objektiv feststellbaren
Gelegenheit, daß die verbotene Handlung sich bereits im Verlauf befindet (Inhibitiv) oder daß sie erst für die
Zukunft erwartet wird (Präventiv).” Cf. Karl HOFFMANN, Der Injunktiv im Veda, Heidelberg 1967, 44.
438
The sentences and their translation are taken from ZUHAIR (1991). The respective page numbers are notedat the end of each example.

187

Imperatives with the suffix -ti

M. bēs kāti! (69) “Take (lit. ‘eat’) the medicine!” — avas kurāti! (48) “Be (lit. ‘do’) quick!” — hen̆dunu
un̆dagū nu-kurāti! (58) “Don’t disturb in the morning!” (un̆dagū kuranı̄ “to disturb”).

3.5.4. Periphrastic imperative formations
Apart from the imperative forms described above, there are several periphrastic formations in
Dhivehi that express jussive meanings. The formations in question differ from region toregion, some of them also representing different degrees of politeness or urgency.
3.5.4.1. Form and function of periphrastic imperatives in Māle
The northern dialect area of Dhivehi shows a well-developed system of imperative formations
that are based on a combination of finite verbs and special absolutive forms.439 As usual,the first part of these formations consists of the main verb occurring in the form of an
absolutive; the auxiliary verb appears as the finite member of the combination.
3.5.4.1.1. In the standard language, there are basically two verbs that are regularly used forbuilding complex imperatives, viz. balanı̄ “to look” (imperative balā) and denı̄ “to give”(imperative dı̄). Astonishingly enough, neither of these verbs occurs otherwise in auxiliary
function. As the following examples show, dı̄ and balā can occur separately as imperatives
but also combined with each other; in the latter case, the absolutive dı̄440 is, as a rule, followed by the imperative balā. The imperatives that are built with balā indicate urgency; they
are used towards people belonging to the same or to a lower social degree in comparison withthe speaker.441 A less strict order is expressed by dı̄. As example (8) below illustrates, devvā
can be used as an imperative of devvanı̄ (2nd / 3rd degree of denı̄) in the same sense,
differing from dı̄ only in the degree of politeness. Sentences with devvā thus express polite
demands and requests, regardless of the social position of the addressee.
3.5.4.1.2. For the use of the periphrastic imperatives, cp. the following examples:442

439

si ı̄
letternoun
nom./obl.
ṫ

e
that
dem.pron.
attr.

e si ı̄ vaige magun fonuvālā dı̄! (57)
vaige
magun
of airby waynoun
noun
gen.sg.
abl.sg.
“Send that letter by air mail!”ṫ

(1)

fonuvālā
sending
verb+aux.
abs.II

dı̄!
give!
aux.
impv.

For the formation and function of the absolutive cf. 3.10.
In North Dhivehi, the absolutive dı̄ is homophonous with the imperative; cf. 3.10.4.
441
Cf. also CAIN (1992), 104, who, from a purely synchronic view, interprets -bala (sic) as a simple“imperative suffix”.
442
All the examples noted here are taken from ZUHAIR (1991), the respective page numbers being mentioned
at the end of the sentences. ZUHAIR’s transcription has been adapted to that of the present grammar. Misprints
have been corrected without further notice.
440

188

Morphologyc(2)

mi si ı̄ge baru vazan ko dı̄ balā! (57)
baru
vazan
ko
weightweightmakingnoun
noun+
verb443
obl.
obl.
abs.
“Find out the weight of this letter!”ṫsi ı̄geof letternoun
genitive

c

mi
this
dem.pron.
attr.

dı̄
givingaux.
abs.

balā!
look!
aux.
impv.

ṫ

c

(3)

mi ahanna kiālā dı̄ balā! (68)ahannakiālāto mereading aloudpers.pron. 3rd degree
verb+aux.
dat.
abs.II“Read this for me!”
c

c

(4)

ahanna gon̆ i e genes dı̄! (64)gon̆ i echair anoun-num.
obj.indef.
“Bring me a chair!”
ḋ

c

ḋ

dı̄!
give
aux.
impv.

c

c

c

aharenna
to mepers.pron. 3rd degree
dat.

balā!
look
aux.
impv.

genes
bringing
verb+aux.
abs.

aharenna fenfode genes dı̄ balā! (58)
fen
fode
genes
water
drop abringing
noun
noun
verb+aux.
obl.
obj. indef.
abs.
“Bring me some (lit. ‘a drop of’) water!”
c

(5)

c

ahannato me
pers.pron. 3rd degree
dat.

dı̄
giving
aux.
abs.

c

mi
this
dem.pron.
obj.

dı̄
givingaux.
abs.

balā!
look
aux.
impv.

c

ko a rita dakkālā dı̄ balā! (51)dakkālādı̄
showing
givingverb+aux.
aux.
abs.II
abs.
“Show (me) the rooms!”

(6)

ṫ

c

ko a rita
the rooms
noun-pl.
obj.
ṫ

hu ālā dı̄! (50)hu ālāstopping
verb+aux.
abs.IIṫ ṫ

(7)balā!
look
aux.
impv.

dı̄!
give
aux.
impv.

ṫ ṫ

“Stop, please!”
(8)
e
that
dem.pron.
obj.

443

e dakkālā devvā! (55)dakkālā
showingverb aux.
abs.II“Show that, please!”devvā!
give
aux. 2nd degree
impv.

vazan kuranı̄ “to weigh”, lit. “to make weight”, is a complex verb the first part of which consists of theArab. noun wazn “weight”.

Periphrastic imperative formations

189

3.5.4.2. Another auxiliary verb that occurs in a periphrastic imperative formation in Dhivehi
can only be explained by considering its Sinhalese equivalent.
3.5.4.2.1. In Sinhalese, the formation of imperatives by means of auxiliary verbs is a very
common feature indeed, although the majority of the verbs that are used in this function is
not the same as in Dhivehi. Thus, balanavā “to look” and denavā “to give” are not used as
auxiliary verbs. As GEIGER argued,444 the periphrastic imperatives of Sinhalese are mainly
built with the following auxiliary verbal forms: sg. -pan / pl. -pallā, sg. -yan / pl. -yallā, sg.
-piya(va) / pl. -piyav. The latter form is the regular imperative of piyanu, a verb with thebasic meaning “to put” which in auxiliary function adds the semantical nuance of thedefinitive “conclusion or completeness of an action”445 to the main verb. In -yan GEIGER(1900, 78) sees the imperative of yanu “go”. Although the derivation of -pan from -piyan as
proposed by GEIGER (1938, 150) yields certain phonological problems, it remains very
probable. The same author’s argument that the variant -panna, which occurs alongside theform -pan, suggests that we are dealing with infinitives with an “imperative” (jussive)
meaning here, is highly convincing.446 For the use of -piya etc. as imperative auxiliaries cp.
the following examples:
S. balāpiya / balāpiyav “look!” (sg./pl.), dı̄piya / dı̄piyav “give!” (sg./pl.), kiyāpiya / kiyāpiyav “speak!”(sg./pl.); balāpan / balāpallā “look!” (sg./pl.), dı̄pan / dı̄pallā “give!” (sg./pl.), kiyāpan / kiyāpallā
“speak!” (sg./pl.); diyan / diyallā “give!” (sg./pl.)447

3.5.4.2.2. Regarding the choice of auxiliary verbs that are used for the formation of periphrastic imperatives, Sinhalese and Standard Dhivehi differ from each other in many respects.
There is a common feature, however, in the complex imperative constructions in North
Dhivehi which obviously correspond with the Sinh. formations using the auxiliary -pan. In
polite demands, the sequence of a main verb in absolutive form and the auxiliary absolutivedı̄ is often completed by an element -fānan the original meaning of which has been forgottenin the modern language. Actually, -fānan must be regarded as a petrified finite future form
which, besides the basic meaning of “completing an action”, has the function of a formal“mark of politeness”. The 1.ps.sg. dakkāfānan “I shall show” which in the literary style isused synonymously with the primary future form dakkānan, represents a relic form of a(previously) regular periphrastic future formation built by means of *fianı̄ (the same holds
true for the other personal forms of the type dakkāfānan). For syntactic reasons, the form
-fānan, when occurring in a jussive context, has to be considered as a 2.ps.sg. future, although
this does not agree with its morphological shape (cf. 3.4.3.1.). The form -fānu probably
represents an archaic form of the 2.ps.pl.; in the given example (cf. (3) below), the elevatedstyle is also expressed by the question particle of the 2nd degree, -to.448 Neither in themodern literary language nor in Old Dhivehi is *fianı̄ attested as an independent verb. In the444

Cf. GEIGER (1900), 78 and (1938), 150; cf. also MATZEL (1983), 103.
“... einen Abschluß oder eine Vollständigkeit der Handlung ...”; cf. GEIGER (1900), 83.
446“.. da neben -pan auch -panna vorkommt, könnte es sich um Infinitive mit imperativischer Bedeutung
handeln.” Cf. GEIGER (1942), 49 / (1973), 606 and also GUNASEKARA (1891), 201.
447
Cf. GEIGER (1942), 49 / (1973), 606 and (1938), 150 as well as MATZEL (1983), 103. GEIGER derives theplural forms -pallā and -yallā from -pan-lā and -yan-lā; for the formation cf. GEIGER (1900), 78.
448
Cf. 3.4.3, and, for more extensive information, 3.15.3.
445

190

Morphology

function of an auxiliary, however, it still plays an important role in the whole Dhivehi
speaking area.449
3.5.4.2.3. The following sentences illustrate the use of polite imperative forms with -fan- in
the standard language:450c

e hen ho a le bune dı̄ fānan ta? (51)ho a lebunedı̄
fānanhotel asayinggivingwill you finish
noun
verb
aux.
verb
obj.indef.
abs.
abs.
2.ps.sg.fut.
“Would you please recommand another hotel?”
ṫ

hen
way
noun
obl.

c

e
that
dem.pron.
attr.

ta?
?
quest.-particle, 1st degree

c

(2)
c

adi
again
conj.

ṫ

(1)

e
one
num.
attr.

(3)
mi
this
dem.pron.
obj.

hama
just
adv.

faharu
time
noun
obl.

adi e faharu – balālā dı̄ fānan ta? (57)balālādı̄
fānanlooking
givingwill you finish
verb-aux.
aux.
verb
abs.IIabs.
2.ps.sg.fut.
“Would you please look once more?”mi hama mihāru fonuvālā dı̄ fānu to? (58)mihārufonuvālā
dı̄
fānu
at this time
sending giving
will you finish
adv.
verb-aux
aux.
verb
abs.IIabs.
2.ps.pl.fut.
“Would you please send this just now?”ta?
?
quest.-particle, 1st degree

to?
?
quest.-particle, 2nd degree

3.5.4.3. Polite forms of the imperative in Addū
In the dialect of Addū, there are several formal possibilities to express an order or a demandin a more polite way as well. Apart from the normal imperative, there exist three morehierarchic degrees of politeness, all of them consisting of a main verb in the form of an
absolutive and the finite form of an auxiliary verb. All in all, this yields a fourfold systemexpressing nuances from a strict command up to a very polite request. These nuances ofpoliteness are completely independent from the social status of the addressee, they havenothing in common with the honorific degrees characterising the language of Māle.
˙˙

˙˙

3.5.4.3.1. The use of auxiliaries in building polite imperatives exhibits a strict system without
any variation. It seems that this system of imperative forms exists only in Addū.
˙˙

449
Cf. furthermore 3.11.4.1. — The verb in question is probably attested as part of the forms dinpanti(L5 5/2,3) and lı̄panti (IDMHM 4,22), both of them written in Dives akuru, and lı̄fanti (RA 2,8; RC 9,6) written
in Tāna. Obviously, din- and lı̄- represent the preterite participles of denı̄ “give” and lianı̄ “write”, resp.; theending -ti still being unclear , the two verbal forms cannot be fully analysed. Possibly, -ti can be connected withthe homophone imperative suffix (cf. 3.5.3).
450
The sentences are taken from ZUHAIR (1991) again (cf. above).

Periphrastic imperative formations

191

A 2nd degree of politeness is characterised in the 2.ps.sg. and pl. by the suffixes -fele and-feleu, resp., which are added to a shortened variant of the absolutive of the main verb.
Presumably, these forms are originally imperatives of the auxiliary verb *fianı̄, too, which in
Addū, as in the other atolls, is only preserved as a formant of the “absolutive I” (cf. 3.11.4.1)
and of the “preterite I” (cf. 3.11.4.1). The formation of the imperative forms cannot yet be
explained in detail, however.
The imperative of a 3rd degree of politeness consists of the absolutive of a main verb in
its full form, combined with the absolutive of the auxiliary denı̄ “to give”, dere, and again-fele / -feleu.
The imperative of a 4th degree of politeness is built on the unshortened absolutive of amain verb in combination with dı̄ēśi, the question form of the potential (cf. 3.15.1.3.5) of theauxiliary denı̄; the meaning of dı̄ēśi is approximately “could/would you please ...”.
˙˙

3.5.4.3.2. The following examples may suffice to demonstrate the distinction of the four
different levels of politeness in Addū, the basic meaning being the same throughout:˙˙“Look after the boat!”“Please look after the boat!”“Would you please look after the boat?”“Would you please be kind enough to look after the boat?”

1st degree: dō i bala!
2nd degree: dōni balafele!
3rd degree: dō i balai derefele!
4th degree: dō i balai dı̄ēśi!
ṅ

˙
ṅ
ṅ

3.6. The infinitive
3.6.1. In his “Grammar of the Sinhalese Language”, GEIGER gives an extended descriptionof the Sinhalese infinitive forms used in the different periods of the literary language.451 He
derives all of these forms from the OIA/MIA verbal noun with the suffix -ana- or -anaka(the latter form enlarged with the suffix -ka-). Concerning conjugations I and III (a- ande-stems), GEIGER distinguishes four different formation types which are partly connected witheach other; conjugation II (i-stems) is characterised by a special formation, however.
3.6.1.1. An example from the a-conjugation may illustrate the four infinitive types of Sinhalese. As shown by GEIGER (1938, 162), the verb balanavā “to look” distinguishes all four
infinitives described above: (1) balan, going back to the MIA acc.sg. *bhalanam; (2) balanu
which has to be derived from the same form enlarged by -ka, *bhalanakam; (3) balanta, theregular dative case of balan, with its more archaic variant balanata, the origin of which isseen by GEIGER in MIA *bhalanattham;452 and (4) the infinitive balannata which represents
a dative form of balanu according to GEIGER again who derives the infinitive ending-annat(a) (attested since the 9th/10th century A.D.) via an uncontracted preform -anuvata(attested in the older literature as well) from MIA *-anakattham (← OIA -anaka- + ártham“aim”, cf. 2.3.1.1.3).
˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙˙

˙

˙

˙˙

GEIGER (1938), 162 f.; cf. also (1900), 75.
For the dative ending - a going back to *a
ṫ ṫ

ṫ

452

h a , cf. GEIGER (1900), 62.
ṁ

451

192

Morphology

3.6.1.2. Following GEIGER, there is an even more archaic infinitive formation in Sinhalese
which uses the suffix -nā. This formation is frequently attested in inscriptions datable between
the 10th and 12th centuries A.D., but it survived only as a relic form of some verbs belonging
to the 2nd conjugation; cp., e.g., vadnā “to enter”. GEIGER supposes “that the inf. in -nā isderived from the dat. c. in -āya of the verbal noun. Forms such as dassanāya, karanāya etc.
are used as infinitives also in Pali. This -āya must become -aya, -ay, -ā” (1938, 163).
˙

3.6.2. Given this colourful picture, the question arises to what extent the infinitive forms of
Dhivehi are connected with those of Sinhalese. As already claimed by GEIGER (1919, 79),
there is no doubt at all that the origin of the infinitive formations in Dhivehi must be thesame as in Sinhalese. Thus, the central problem consists in the question whether the infinitives of the Maldivian dialects go back to only one prototype or whether they represent
heterogeneous formations, corresponding with the different infinitive types of Sinhalese. In
this respect, we are mostly concerned with the peculiarities of the a- and e-stem verbs.

3.6.3. The infinitive of the a-stems
The following table illustrates the regular formation of infinitives of a-stem verbs in the
dialects of Dhivehi:
c

Addū
˙˙

c

balā

Fua MulakuMālebalannabalan

3.6.3.1. Addū
In the dialect of Addū, the formation of the infinitive is unproblematical and transparent.
Without any doubt, the a-stem infinitives go back to a form in *-anata corresponding withthe more archaic form of the Sinhalese infinitive balanata (mentioned as (3) in 3.6.1.1),
which is based on a MIA quasi-dative containing *-attham ← OIA ártham (acc.sg. “aim”, cf.
2.3.1.1.3). The phonological development resulting in the actual forms can be traced back asfollows: A. balā ← balāś(a) ← *balāt(a) ← *balanata (bala- “to look”, kerā ← kerāś(a)← *k(V)rāt(a) ← *k(V)ranata (k(V)ra- “to do, make”. The immediate predecessors of balā andkerā , viz. balāś(a) and kerāś(a), are still preserved in another context in that they regularly
occur in the function of interrogative forms of the infinitive (cf. 3.15.1.3.6). Besides that, thesame forms serve as the basis of the future formation in Addū (cf. 3.4.1).
˙˙

˙˙

˙

˙

˙

c

˙˙

˙

c

c

˙

˙

˙

c

˙˙

3.6.3.2. MāleOn the basis of only a few examples of infinitives in the standard language that were known
to him, GEIGER stated (1919, 79): “In Maldivian, ..., the infinitive ends in -aṅ (perhaps
written -eṅ), more frequently -āṅ, -ēṅ. These forms doubtless correspond to the S. -anu, -enu,
and, like them, go back to the verbal forms in -ana of Páli. Short end vowels, which are stillpreserved in the Sinhalese ..., appear, according to the law of sound, to fall off in Máldivian.”Obviously, GEIGER identified the formant in question with that of the Sinhalese infinitive typein -anu mentioned as (2) in 3.6.1.1 above. In the same paragraph, however, he noted that

The infinitive of the a-stems

193“examples of the use of the infinitive in our texts are kuráṅ ... = S. karanta ‘in order tomake’; as well as baháṅ ... = S. bedanta ‘to divide’ ...” It seems that GEIGER suggested adouble origin of the infinitive without stating this explicitly. The spelling of the infinitiveending with a long vowel can probably be explained by assuming a lengthened stem vowelin the infinitives of the a- and e-stems at that time. In the modern pronunciation such alengthening is not usual. It remains unclear whether the long-vocalic variant of the infinitiveending as noted by GEIGER is the phonematic reflex of a morphological difference or whether
this is the result of a sporadic, perhaps emphatic lengthening.
˙˙˙˙

3.6.3.2.1. It seems that the infinitive in -an of the modern standard language represents anamalgam of two originally distinct forms. Thus, the infinitive balan “to look” can basicallybe derived in two different ways which do not exclude but complete each other.
3.6.3.2.1.1. With all probability, “balan 1” developed immediately from the verbal noun in-ana. As there are no intermediate stages attested in Old Dhivehi, we cannot decide whether“balan 1” corresponds with Sinh. balan ← MIA *bhalanam (cf. infinitive (1) in 3.6.1.1), with
Sinh. balanu ← *bhalanakam (infinitive (2) in 3.6.1.1), or perhaps with both formations.
˙˙

3.6.3.2.1.2. Historical reasons and interdialectal comparisons lead to the conclusion that there
exists a homophonous form “balan 2” which has to be derived as balan ← balān ← *balāś← *balāt ← *balāta ← *balanata. It is obvious that the basis of this form is the quasi-dativeof a MIA verbal noun. The corresponding infinitive in Sinhalese is balan(a)ta (cf. infinitive(3) in 3.6.1.1). If it is true that this second balan of North Dhivehi has developed from anolder balān, it must have been phonetically adapted to the other infinitive type mentioned
before. “balan 2” would thus represent a direct parallel of the Addū infinitive balā , althoughthese two forms seem not to be easily identifiable with each other from a purely synchronic
point of view.
˙

˙

˙

˙

c

˙˙

3.6.3.2.1.3. The written documents of Old Dhivehi show two attestations of the infinitive here treated as “balan2”, in its earlier form ending in -āś; in both cases, the form in question is liāś “to write” (as against modern
M. lian). The final consonant remained unchanged in these cases because it is combined with an auxiliary verb
with an initial vowel (thus yielding a finite future, cf. 3.4.3.2); the combinations in question are liyāt/ś-ulemā andliāś-u e mā-ve “we shall write”.
˙

˙

l̇

3.6.3.2.2. Within a special syntactic construction, the final (dative) ending -ś of the infinitive
has been preserved up to the present day. This is true for the comparatively rarely attested
forms in -śe which occur as infinitives and imperatives (cf. 3.5.2.2.2). HLSD treats -śe as a
special “suffix” in the formation of these two categories.453 From a historical point of view,
however, this is rather the old infinitive ending preserved before a following vowel which in
the given case is best explained as a petrified imperative form of the verb M. annanı̄ “tocome” / A. enı̄ “to go, come”, given that an equivalent of this form can be found in thesouthern dialects. In Addū, e is still preserved in prohibitive environments; cp., e.g., gē ni e!
c

˙˙

453

HLSD (1988), 68-70. Cf. also CAIN (1992), 104: “Imperatives that take the -śe lengthen the final vowelof the verb root and add the suffix.”194

Morphology“Don’t go home!”, contrasting with the prefixed form of the same verb appearing in thepositive order, gē bai! “Go home!”. Thus, M. balāśe can be analysed as a combination of
the infinitive balāś- and an imperative form *e with the literal meaning of “Go (in order) to
look!”. Within the a- and e-stems, this type of formation is still productive.
Apart from the infinitives in -an/-en, HLSD (1988, 69) lists the following forms in -śe:kāśe (vs. kān) “to eat”, dēśe (vs. dēn) “to give”, bōśe (vs. bōn) “to drink”, duvāśe (vs.
duvan) “to run”, kurāśe (vs. kuran) “to do”, liyāśe (vs. liyan) “to write”, vehēśe (vs. vehen)“to rain”, libēśe (vs. liben) “to receive”. Cp. also the sentence aharen kāśe bunifime “I told
(someone) to eat” (ib., 70).
c

GEIGER (1919, 89 and 97) noted six imperative forms of this type only two of which show the expected
spelling, viz. nu marāśe “do not kill!” and annāśē (sic, for annāśe) “come!” (cf. 3.5.2.2.2). The other examples
are nagahaśe “take up, lift”, nu talahaśe (sic, with l instead of l) “do not strike”, deheśe “give” and dahaśe;most likely, the sequences -aha- and -ehe- contained in these forms must be interpreted as representing a longvocalic -ā- and -e-, resp. The expected forms would be nagāśe (M. naganı̄ “to take, lift, remove”); nu ta āśe(M. ta a nı̄ “to hit, hammer, strike, fight, beat”); dēśe (M. denı̄ “to give, offer”); dāśe (M. danı̄ “to go”).
˙

l̇

l̇

3.6.3.2.3. The historical facts too speak in favour of a common origin of the infinitive in -anof the standard language and the infinitive of the Addū dialect. The most important argument
is provided by some dative forms which are attested in the documents of Old Dhivehi.
The grapheme 〈n〉 is only one of the spelling variants occurring in the earlier Dives akuru
texts when the phoneme /t/ in final position is meant; the other spelling variants are 〈-t, -t,-n〉 and 〈-k〉. The unsteadiness in the spelling shows that /t/ must still have been in thewriters’ mind in its inherited quality as a retroflex stop, while its articulation was alreadytransitional. The exact pronunciation of that time can only be guessed. As Dives akuru had
no particular grapheme for rendering the sound 〈ś〉, it remains unclear when and under which
conditions the phonetic realisation of the previous phoneme /t/ changed into that of a sibilant[ś] in the language of Māle. Only in the period of the Tāna script, [ś] could be represented
graphically in an unambiguous form. The rendering of an original final /t/ by the graphemes〈n〉 and 〈k〉 leads to the supposition that already at that time the phonetic realisation of /t/
in final position must have been similar to the glottal stop prevailing in this position in themodern language. In this connection, we may compare the pronunciation of the former /t/ inModern Fua Mulaku which in medial position varies between a very weakly articulated [ś]
and a sound similar to Czech [ř], as well as the transition of -Vt into -VhV in word-final
position occurring in the same dialect.454 The written documents from different centuries
that could be examined so far show several dative forms with a final 〈n〉; the chronologicalevidence of these forms remains uncertain though, given that a historical spelling can never
be completely excluded. In the following list of attested dative forms, the older spelling with-t(a) will be quoted as well:
˙˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

c

˙

˙

( a?) (L2 22,1; 12th century, oldest form); da a 〈da a u 〉 (L6 2,1; approximately 14th-16th centuries);
datan (F8,20.33; 18th century) – “down, to the bottomside” (mod.Dhiv. /daśaś/: A. daśa , F. daśaha,
M. daśa ).
geaka , doraka (F13,11); geakan, dorakan (F11,37) “to a house, to a door”.
haddummattyan (F5,13; 16th century) “to Haddummati”.
ku a ima (F1,8; 16th century), ku a ima u (F4,4.5; 17th century), ku a iman (F6,14; 18th century) of the verbal
noun ku a in (mod. M. kurun, verbal noun of kuranı̄) “to do, make”.
ṫ

ṫ

ṫ

˙

ṫ

ṫ

c

ṫ

ṫ

l̇

ṫ

ṫ

l̇

l̇

For more details cf. 1.3.5.

l̇

ṫ

454

c

da a

The infinitive of the a-stems

195

hedduman (ITMP 1,4) “for the making” (verbal noun of the causative of hadanı̄ “to make, create”);
madı̄na(y)a u (F3,4), madı̄nāa (F2,3; F7,11; F11,7), madı̄naya (F5,11), madı̄nāāan (sic F10,8); madı̄nāan(RA 2,5), madı̄naaś (RC 8,2) “to Madı̄na”.
ṫ

ṫ

ṫ

Of all the dative forms that are attested for Old Dhivehi by now, there is only one infinitive which is still written with a final 〈-ta〉, viz. kuranata 〈kranata〉 (L3 2/1,5) “(in order)
to do”. Within the whole framework of Maldivian linguistic data, this single form is one
more indication that the second infinitive ending in -an of northern Dhivehi goes back to thedative of the old verbal noun, just as in the case of its Addū equivalent.
˙

˙

˙

˙˙

c

3.6.3.3. The infinitive of the a-conjugation of Fua Mulaku is much harder to fit into thescheme given by the Sinhalese forms. It is very probable, however, that infinitives such asbalanna, keranna etc. have their origin in a dative form too; otherwise the geminate -nnwould remain unexplained. Hence, the ancestor of balanna presumably corresponds to the 3rd
or the 4th infinitive type of Sinhalese (cf. 3.6.1.1 above). If *balan(a)ta was its basic form,
the retroflex t must have been assimilated to the preceding nasal. But if the basic form was*balannata in correspondence with the 4th type of Sinhalese, we would have to assume atransitional phonetic stage such as [*balannaśa / -řa / -ha]. It follows that the a-stems once
presumably had the same infinitive ending we nowadays find only with n-stems. This
derivation still leaves one problem in that in word-final position, we would expect a reflex of
the old dative ending in form of a phonematic glottal stop or a lengthening of the preceding-a.455 The question whether we may suggest a shortening of -a or -ā into -a in word-final
position must remain unsolved.
˙

˙

˙

c

3.6.4. The infinitive of the e-stems
In its formation, the infinitive of the e-stems corresponds with that of the a-stems; the only
formal difference consists in the quality of the stem vowel. Cp. the following table:
c

Addū
˙˙

c

temē

Fua MulakuMāletemennatemen

3.6.5. The infinitive of the n-stems
With n-stem verbs, the following formations of infinitives are met with in Dhivehi:c

Fua MulakuMālevannahavanna ; vannan

c

Addū
˙˙

c

vanna

With no doubt, the infinitives of the n-stems in Modern Dhivehi can be traced back to thesame basic forms as those of the a-stems. Thus, the starting point must have been the MIA
verbal noun in -ana- (with or without a suffix -ka-) to which the word *attham (acc.sg. ←
˙

˙˙

455

Cp. F. nom. hūhi “empty coconut”, (keran̆dul) hūhi “bee hive” – dat. hūhā; nom. ı̄hi “lobster” – dat.
ı̄hā; nom. rihi “silver” – dat. rihā; mēhi “fly” – dat. mēha (← dative ending /-aś/).
c196Morphology

OIA ártham, cf. 2.3.1.1.3)456 was added. Infinitives such as the Sinhalese relic form vadnā
which are likely to go back directly to MIA dative forms cannot be attested in any of theMaldivian dialects (cf. 3.6.1.2). The infinitive vanna , which is homophonous in the modern
dialects of Addū and Māle, obviously developed from *vad(V)nat (cp. M. 〈vaduna-〉); thecorresponding infinitive in Fua Mulaku, vannaha, must be derived from a preform*vadVnata.
c

˙

˙˙

c

˙

3.7. The verbal noun
3.7.1. In contrast to the diverse verbal nouns of Sinhalese, which differ both formally andsemantically,457 Dhivehi disposes of but one equivalent. In all dialects and conjugation
types, this is built in the same way, viz. by adding a suffix -un to the preterite stem; inaccordance with the sound laws, this suffix must have developed from *-um, thus being
identical with the Sinhalese suffix -uma. In the function of a nomen actionis,458 the Sinhalese verbal noun in -uma competes with different other formations which have no equivalents
in Dhivehi. Thus, Dhivehi belun contrasts with the Sinhalese forms bäl(u)ma, bälı̄ma andbälilla. The formation of the Dhivehi verbal noun is illustrated for the three stem types by thefollowing table:
verbal noun

Addū
˙˙

Fua Mulaku

c

Māle

a-stem

belun

belun

belun

e-stem

vanun

vanun

vanun

n-stem

temun

temun

temun

3.7.2. The origin of the Dhivehi formation in -un ← *-um(a) is unclear. GEIGER offers no
explanation of the Sinhalese suffixes -uma and -ı̄ma either. He just states that the verbal
nouns, different from the “gerund” (cf. below), are inflected like neutral substantives.459
The same holds true for the Maldivian verbal noun, with the restriction that there is nodifferentiation of gender in Dhivehi.

3.8. The gerund
The term “gerund” is not used equally in the linguistic literature concerning Sinhalese andDhivehi. In GEIGER’s treatises,460 the form in question which is characterised by the456

Cf. GEIGER (1900), 62, in particular fn. 2.
Cf., e.g., GEIGER (1900), 75 and MATZEL (1983), 105.
458
MATZEL (1983, 105) draws an interesting typological comparison between Sinhalese and German: “dieVerbalnomina auf -ı̄ma entsprechen unseren substantivierten Infinitiven (das Schneiden, Fließen, Tanzen, Töten,Sehen usw.), die auf -uma ... unseren Verbalnomina actionis (der Schnitt, Fluß, Tanz, Tod, Blick usw.) und die
auf -illa in einigen Fällen unseren Verbalnomina auf -ung ...”.
459“Sie werden flectirt als neutrale Substantiva” (GEIGER 1900, 74).
460
GEIGER (1938), 158 ff. and (1900), 73 f.; (1919), 79 ff.
457

The gerund

197

formants -min in Sinhalese and -mun in Dhivehi is called “gerund I” or “gerund of thepresent”, while the same author unites the absolutives under the title “gerund II”. In contrast
to that, MATZEL calls the form in -min an “absolutive I” or “absolutive of the present”(1983, 72). In HLSD (1988, 73-4 and 98-9), the same category will be found under the term
“concurrent” which is explained as follows: “... this verb ... expresses an action that takes
place concurrently with the action expressed by the finite verb of the sentence.” In thepresent work, the term “gerund” will be reserved for these formations.
3.8.1. According to GEIGER, the gerund is based on the instrumental case of a verbal noun in*-ma461. Another possible etymology that might be worth considering was rejected by
GEIGER, presumably for phonological reasons, viz. the derivation from the OIA medial
participle in -māna.462 Recent studies speak in favour of the latter etymological connection,
both for the Sinhalese gerund in -min and its Dhivehi counterpart in -mun, after a suffix
variant -mı̄na- has been detected in MIA.463
3.8.2. In Dhivehi at least, the gerund characterises an action that runs parallel, i.e. at the sametime as the main action. This feature clearly distinguishes this category from absolutives in
the literal sense which do not express a fix temporal relationship with respect to the main
action (cf. 3.10). The following table shows the formation of the gerund in Dhivehi which isbased on the present stem:cgerundAddū˙˙

Fua MulakuMālea-stembalamunbalamunbalamunn-stemvedemunvan̆dimun

vannamune-stemtememun(*tememun)

tememun3.8.2.1. The following sentences464 may suffice to illustrate the use of the gerund:

ṅ

461

balamunlookingverb
ger.

dō i balamun ma fen bonı̄.
ma
fen
bonı̄
I
water
drinking
pers.pron.
noun
verb
obliquusobj.
part.pres.l.f.
“(While) looking for the boats I am drinking water.”
ṅ

A.
dō i
boats
noun
obj.

“... der Instrumental eines Verbalnomens auf -ma” (GEIGER 1900, 74).
“Die Form entspricht aber nicht, wie man vermuten könnte, dem alten Part.Präs. auf -māna.” (GEIGER
1900, 74).
463
Cf. HINÜBER (1986, 197): “In den östlichen Aśoka-Inschriften und in der Amg [Ardhamāgadhı̄] findet
sich ein Partizip des Präsens auf -mı̄na: palakamamı̄nena [...]: Amg āgamamı̄na [...], ...; im P [Pali] kommt es
nicht vor” (additional remarks by S.F.). Both this -mı̄na and OIA -māna can be derived from a Proto-IndoEuropean *-mh1no-; cf. MAYRHOFER (1981), 135.
464
The examples for the standard language are taken from HLSD (1988), 74.
462

198

Morphology

M.
ēnā
he
pers.pron.
obl.

bai
rice
noun
obj.

ēnā bai kamun fen bonı̄.
kamun
fen
bonı̄
eatingwater
drinking
verb
noun
verb
ger.
obj.
part.pres.l.f.
“(While) eating rice, he is drinking water.”

3.8.2.2. To express that a secondary action accompanying the main action is performed in avery intensive way, at least for a certain while, the gerund often is used twice, the meaning
being the same as in the case of the reduplicated absolutive (cf. 3.10.5). In contrast to
Dhivehi, the reduplication of the gerund is not usual in Sinhalese. Cp. the following
examples:kukula kā demun demun gos varabali vege.
demun
demun
gos
varabaligivinggivinghaving gone
tired
verb
verb
verb
adjective
ger.
ger.
abs.
pred.
“By giving and giving food to the chickens (I) got tired”.
˙

c

c

l̇

M.
ēnā
he
pers.pron.
nom.

c

kā
to eatverb
inf.

liamunwriting
verb
ger.

c

A.
kuku ato the chickens
noun
dativeēnā liamun liamun gos varubali vejje.
liamungos
varubali
writinghaving gone
tired
verb
verb
adjective
ger.
abs.
pred.
“By writing and writing he got tired.”

vege
got
verb
pret.IV, 3.ps.sg.

vejje
got
verb
pret.IV, 3.ps.sg.

3.9. The participles
From a synchronic point of view, two participial forms must be distinguished in each tenseof Modern Dhivehi, viz. a short form and a long form which are clearly kept distinct by theirsyntactic use. The long vowel -ı̄ appearing in the long form is a morphological element
characterising the rhematisation of the following part of speech; within this construction
which is typical for Dhivehi, the long form must be regarded as predicative. In contrast tothat, the short form is only used in attributive function. The following tables will illustrate theshort and long forms of the regular participles; in the case of Fua Mulaku, the phonetic
variants that occur in this dialect have been listed throughout.
c

c

Addū

Fua Mulaku

˙˙participle a-stemMālepresentbalā; balanı̄

bal¯a/-ā;˛balanı̄balā; balanı̄

futurebalāne; balāneibalann¯e/-en;
˛balannenı̄balāne; balānı̄

preterite

beli; belı̄

belı̄

beli; belı̄˙˙The participles

199
c

Addū
˙˙

Fua Mulaku

Mālepresent

vanne; vannei

vann¯a;˛ vannaı̄

vanna; vannanı̄

futurevannane; vannanei

vann¯ahin;˛
vann¯ahinı̄˛vannāne; vannānı̄

preterite

van; vanı̄van; v¯anı̄
˛van; vanı̄

Addū

Fua Mulaku

˙

c

˙˙

participle e-stem˙participle n-stemMālepresenttemē; temenı̄

tem¯e;
˛ temen˛ı̄temē; temenı̄

futuretemēne; temēneitemennen; temennenı̄temēne; temēnı̄

preterite

temene; temenei

temun; temunı̄¯˛temunu; temunı̄

˙

˙

˙

˙

3.9.1. The participle of the present
The formation of the present participle of the a- and e-stems, but also the n-stems in Dhivehi
clearly corresponds with that of Sinhalese where the formation is the same for all stem types.
GEIGER describes the process as follows:465 “The participle of the present has the ending-na which is added to the present stem ... The prototype of these formations is the medialpresent participle which in Pali ends in -āna.” Examples given by him are, among others,balana “looking” (conjugation I = a-stem), badina “frying” (conjugation II = n-stem) andpenena “appearing” (conjugation III = e-stem).
3.9.1.1. The Sinhalese participle balana corresponds with the homophonous form *balana of
Old Dhivehi. The lengthening of the final -ā of the short form balā and the emergence of anasal vowel in the dialect of Fua Mulaku can be explained as reflexes of the original n being
lost in the position between two identical vowels. As against this, the same intervocalic n has
been preserved in the long form balanı̄ because of the different quality of the vowels. An
influence of analogy can be seen in the formation of the present participle of the e-stems. If
in the case of the exemplary verb temenı̄ “to get wet” the original participle form must bereconstructed as *temena, this must first have been assimilated to *temene before yieldingtemē / tem¯e.
˛c

3.9.1.1.1. The derivational process as described above is documented by some present
participles which are attested in Old Dhivehi. Cp., e.g., the following archaic forms ofa-stems with -ana preserved:
eviana, evyana466 “naming, calling; (being) named, called” (L1 f/2,4.5, mx/2,4; L2 8,3 etc.; L3 5/2,4 etc.).
evana “id.” (L8 1,1; F3,3; F7,9; F8,13; F10,6; F11,7).
dakvana “showing” (L1 t/2,5; L2 21,2): → M. dakkā, of dakkanı̄ “to show”.

465“Das Particip des Präs. hat die Endung -na, welche an den Präsensstamm angefügt wird ... Der Typus fürdiese Bildungen ist das mediale Part.Präs., das im P(āli) auf -āna ausgeht” (GEIGER 1900, 73; cf. also 1938,
134).
466
In the printed editions of L2 and L3, vyana / viyana was erroneously transcribed as an independent word,
the initial e- being treated as a part of the preceding word. — The only relic form of this verb in the modern
language of Māle is the absolutive eve “saying”; in the function of a “quotation particle” it marks the end of
direct speech. For the derivation of the verb cf. 5.4.

200

Morphology

krana “making, doing” (L2 3,4 etc.); kurana “id.” (F5,15; F6,3; F11,16; IDMHM 2,9; IDMEM 3,14;
RC 4,7): → M. kurā, of kuranı̄ “to make, do”.
kuravana “causing to do” (causative, here 2nd honorific degree; F3,10): → M. kuravā, of kuravanı̄ (causativeof kuranı̄, cf. above).
kuravvana (double causative, 2nd/3rd honorific degree; IDMMM 1,3): → M. kuravvā, of kuravvanı̄; 1stdegree kuranı̄ “to do” (cf. above).
govana “calling” (F3,16): → M. govā, of govanı̄ “to call”.
darana “holding” (F4,2 etc.; IDMMM 4,6): → M. darā, of daranı̄ “to owe”.
vasana “inhabiting, settling (down), being there” (L2 4,3); in Modern Dhivehi the basic verb *vasanı̄ is lost,
but cf. Sinh. vasanavā “to inhabit, reside”.

3.9.1.1.2. The following examples represent the earliest attestations of present participles of
a-stems which already exhibit the contraction of -ana into -ā:evyā “calling, naming” (L3 5/1,3; cf. eviana above).
kurā “doing” (F2,7; F3,12; F9,11; IDMMM 3,4; cf. krana above).
kuravvā “causing to do” (double causative; ITMP 1,3 and 2,3; cf. kuravvana above).
dā “going” (F1,2; F5,14; F7,20.21; F13,3.4; → M. danı̄ “to go”).
arā “climbing up, entering (the mosque)” (F11,25; → M. aranı̄ “to climb up”).
aruā “causing to climb up / enter” (F4,2; causative of M. aranı̄, cf. above).
gahā “pushing against, bordering” (F4,2; → M. jahanı̄ “to push, to strike”).
vā “becoming” (L6 2,5; F1,25; F4,3; RC 16,2; → M. vanı̄ “to become”).
kiā “(being) named, called” (L1 f/1,5 and f/2,2; F6,11; F10,16; F11,22 etc.), kyā (F1,17; F3,11; F4,3.4;
F13,17 etc.; → M. kianı̄ “to name”).

3.9.1.1.3. The oldest attestations of present participles of e-stems with -ena preserved are:dena “being given” (L1 my/1,4.5; L2 5,2 etc.; L3 3/1,3): → M. dē, of denı̄ “to give”. It is not clear whether
dene (L1 d/2,6 etc.; L4 c/1,3 etc.) represents a (later) variant of dena; if it does, this would be the only
attested form showing an assimilated -ne.
negena “being raised” (L1 g/2,6 etc.; L2 6,1 etc.; L3 3/1,5 etc.; L4 d/1,5): → M. negē, of negenı̄, inactive
counterpart of naganı̄ “to lift, take (up), raise”.
vu e na “living, being” (L2 22,3 etc.), gene vu e na (L4 c/2,4) besides gen ve e na (L4 e/1,1), but also vu e in
L1 d/2,3) and gen vu e (L4 c/1,7 and f/1,1; read /vu ē/) “being taken”: → M. u ē, of u e nı̄ “to live, be”.
gu e na “joining, meeting” (L2 34,1): → M. gu ē, of gu e nı̄ “to join”.
tibena “being” (L7 2,5): → M. tibē, of tibenı̄ “to be”.
venā “becoming”, attested only once (in F11,5). The more frequent form of the pres.part. of vanı̄ “tobecome” is 〈vana〉 (cf. above). Today, the form venā is continued only in the southern dialects, cf.
A. vē, F. v¯e.
˛ In the standard language the pres.part. has the short form vā.
l̇

l̇

l̇

l̇

l̇

l̇

l̇

l̇

l̇

l̇

l̇

3.9.1.2. There is no reason to assume that the present participle of the n-stems might havetaken a different development than that of the other stems, even though the Addū forms,
ending in -ne, do not seem to fit into the general scheme at first glance; cp. A. vanne“entering” with its long form variant vannei ← *vanneı̄. The surprising e-vocalism of theending can perhaps be explained by umlauting. In this case, the final -ı̄ of the long form
would have caused the change of a into e, -naı̄ developing into -neı̄; subsequently, the shortform was adapted to this by analogy (-na → -ne), resulting in A. vanne as the primary form
instead of *vanna.
The corresponding present participles of Fua Mulaku and Māle show no unexpected
vocalism in their ending; cp., e.g., F. vann¯a,
˛ vannaı̄ and M. vanna, vannanı̄. Without doubt,
the short form F. vann¯a˛ must be explained by an analogical adaptation to the short forms of˙˙cThe participle of the present

201

the a-stems, given that its ancestral form can hardly have been something like *vannana. If
this is true, the final nasalised vowel -¯a˛ is not a reflex of -an here but a formation following
the model of bal¯a.
˛As against this, the short form of the present participle of the Māle standard language,
vanna, conforms to the morphological rules. On the other hand, the long form of this participle, vannanı̄, is appearently built after the model of the corresponding form of the a-stems.
3.9.1.2.1. These assumptions presuppose that the formation of the present participle of then-stems is based on the present stem to which the suffix -na is added. In the oldest Dhivehi
texts, there are several examples attesting this process unambiguously, among them vaduna“entering” (L2 17,5 etc.; L3 12/1,1; F2,18; F5,41.47; F8,30.32); the form consists of thepresent stem vad-, an anaptyctic vowel -u- and the suffix -na. Cp. also vadunaı̄ which occurs
twice in combination with kotu, the absolutive of kuranı̄ “to make, do” (F3,16.17); it is notcompletely clear whether this constellation has to be understood as a periphrastic causative“causing to enter”.
˙

3.9.1.2.2. Other early attested forms of present participles of n-stems are:ganna “receiving, getting” (L2 2,5 and 27,5; L3 15/2,2; L4 b/2,7 and f/2,3); cp. also gannaı̄ (negated by nu,
in combination with ko u “doing” used as a periphrastic causative “causing not to get” in L5 5/2,6 andF13,18); cp. M. gannanı̄ “to buy”, but Sinh. gannavā “to take”.
higā “going (there)” (F4,2); cp. M. hin̆ganı̄ “to walk; happen”.
iduna “sitting”, also “living, residing” (L2 11,2 etc.; L3 3/2,4 etc.); cp. M. innanı̄ “to sit”.
basuna “setting, descending (of the sun)” (L4 f/1,5; F4,2); cp. Sinh. bahinavā “to set, descend” (cf. GEIGER
1941, 120, no. 1790).
va u na (L4 a/1,7; L5 4/2,2; F3,12; F4,1; ITMKM 1,7); in Modern Dhivehi, this verb is preserved only in thestandard language, in the form of the absolutive va a i which is used in the analytical formation of verbs
of motion as a formant characterising the two higher honorific degrees.467
nikunnai, attested in combination with vi “having become” in the sense of a passive of the periphrastic
causative, “having been caused to go out” (F3,14); the short form of this present participle must bereconstructed as *nikunna, cp. M. nukunnanı̄ “to go out”.
ṫ

ḋ

ḋ

3.9.2. The participle of the preterite
As in Sinhalese, the past participles of Dhivehi have to be divided into two main groups
representing two different formation types. The larger group consists of the regular participles
which, as a rule, build the basis for the formation of the finite past tense forms.468 The
second group, which is less numerous, consists of a set of archaic participial forms which canbe derived directly from the corresponding irregular forms of MIA or OIA. In Sinhalese, onlya small number of these participles is used in the formation of the finite preterite. For
Dhivehi, however, we must assume a compensatory process resulting in the fact that, as amatter of principle, each of these past participles can occur as a preterite stem, even if it isirregular from the synchronical point of view. On this basis, we arrive at the synchronical rulethat the short form of the participle is always identical with the third person singular of the467
Cf. 0.9.2. — Cp. Sinh. va a navā “to increase, augment; to take up” (GEIGER (1941), 154, no. 2297). In
Dhivehi, the preterite form vo i is attested besides the older variant ve i ; M. vo i is to ve i as M. ato u is to
A. ate ,e cf. 1.2.4.4.
468
In the present book, the terms “preterite” and “past” are used synonymously.

l̇

ḋ

ḋ

ḋ

ḋ

ḋ

l̇

202

Morphology

preterite.469 In all dialects of Dhivehi, this form can be taken as a basic from which all theother personal forms can be derived by adding the respective personal endings.
3.9.2.1. In Dhivehi, the past participle of a-stems is built with the suffix -i which through anintermediate *-ı̄ goes back to OIA -ita. In the course of history, the front vowel i caused anumlaut of back vowels in the preceding syllable; in the given case, this is true for the vowela which developed into e, cp. Dhiv. *bal-i → *bäli → beli “(having) looked”, *tal-i → *täli →teli “(having) beaten, hammered”, *nat-i → *näti → neśi “(having) danced” etc. (cf. 1.2.3.1.1).
In Dhivehi there are no traces of a special development of the inherited suffix -ita as in
Sinhalese where a secondary splitting of the suffix led to the long vowels -ı̄ and -ū whichwere later shortened into -i and -u. That the latter variant is secondary is proved by umlautof a occurring in the syllables preceding the suffix in all verbs in question, even when thesuffix vowel is ū / u. As Sinhalese textual history shows, the use of the two suffix variants
was still undifferentiated in the Middle Ages; in the course of time, the u-variant became
typical for verbs of the first conjugation while -i was preferred for verbs of the second conjugation.470 Cp., e.g., the Modern Sinhalese past participles bälu “looked”, tälu “beaten”
and nätu “danced” whose umlaut can only be explained by an original -i-vowel of the suffix.
The formation of the past participle with the suffix -ı̄ / -i in Sinhalese is characterised byan umlaut of all back vowels of the verbal root, leading to a change of o to e and of u to i.
In Dhivehi, however, the umlaut process effected only the vowel a which changed into e;
most likely, e was preceded by an intermediate stage *ä. This corresponds with the development in Sinhalese where ä has persisted as independent phoneme in the modern language. In
Dhivehi there are but a few verbs that have a back vowel other than a in their root, at leastin the standard language;471 they do not show a change of the quality of this vowel in theirpreterite. Cp., e.g., Sinh. kotanavā “to mash, cut, bruise” with its part.pret. ketu vs. Dhiv.
kośanı̄ “to chop, cut; reap, whittle” with its part.pret. kośi; Sinh. duvanavā “to run”:
part.pret. divu vs. Dhiv. M. duvanı̄ “id.”: part.pret. duvi.472 Thus we may conclude that in
the formation of the Dhivehi past participle, as a rule only the vowel a is affected by umlaut.
˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

3.9.2.2. The formation of the past participle of the n-stems does not follow a general rule.
Only a few verbs of this class build the participle with the suffix -i ← -ita; most others havepreserved other participial forms which have to be discussed in detail. In most cases, theverbs in question are the same verbs in Dhivehi and Sinhalese; cf. GEIGER (1938, 136) who,
referring not only to the past participles of n-stems but also to those belonging to irregularverbs that cannot be classified by synchronical rules, stated: “A considerable number of oldparticiples in -ta or -na are preserved as historical forms in Sinhalese. They are conventionally but erroneously called irregular forms.”
Except for some isolated verbs, it will be sufficient here to specify the short form of theparticiples. It must be stated, though, that some verbs in the dialect of Fua Mulaku show ac469

The only exception from this rule is the preterite of M. kuranı̄, cf. 3.9.2.2.5.
Cf. 3.3. For details on the past participle in Sinhalese cf. GEIGER (1900), 73 and (1938), 135 f.; cf. also
MATZEL (1983), 53 ff.
471
It is still unclear whether (and in which way) this fact may be connected with the OIA ablaut.
472
The southern variant of this verb shows umlaut in the whole paradigm: A.F. divanı̄ : divi; cf. 1.2.3.2.1.
470

The participle of the preterite

203

syncretistic development in that their long form definitely took over the syntactic function of
the short form which morphologically no longer exists.

3.9.2.2.1. The past participle of several n-stem verbs ends in -i in southern Dhivehi. In thestandard language, the past participles of the corresponding verbs exhibit other endings withthe only exception of huri (of hunnanı̄ “to stand”). Cp. the following list of examples:cdekenı̄ “to see”: In A ū and Fua Mulaku, the past participle of this verb is diśi. There is no older attestation of the corresponding M. form du /duś/ ( ← /du ( u)/ ?), but cf. the Sinhalese participle du u (ofdakinavā “to see”). Both the Maldivian and the Sinhalese form go back to an old participle with thesuffix -ta; cp. Pa. di h a-, Skt. d
á - “seen”.473
hunnanı̄ “to be, stand, remain, stay”: A. hiśi; F. hı̄śı̄ (long form). The modern form M. huri must be ofrecent origin; it is for the first time attested in the Tāna version of the Rādava i . The earlier form hu i is
attested 35 times, beginning with later lōmāfanus (L6 2,5; L7 2,5; F1,9 etc.; F10,11 etc.). It corresponds
to Sinh. hi i (of hi i navā “to stand; be”)474 which must be related with Pa. h ito- and Skt. sthitá- (ofti h ati “to stand”, root sthā-) although its phonetic shape remains unclear.475 — In Dhivehi this preterite
participle often expresses a contemporary state as if it were a present participle “being”; concerning this,cp. the early attested combination hu n a-hu i (F1,10 etc.) containing the present participle of the sameverb which obviously underlines the present meaning (lit. “being – having been”).476
konnanı̄ (A. ka e i, F. ka
ı̄a ) “to dig”: A. ke i ; F. k¯e˛ ı̄ (long form). The short form M. konunu is obviously formed by analogy after the e-stems. — The corresponding Sinhalese verb is kaninavā “to dig,
excavate” which is also attested in a spelling with retroflex , 〈ka i navā〉; it belongs to the 2nd
conjugation and must be identified with Pkt. kha a i, Pa. khanati, and Skt. khanati (1st present class; rootkhan-), part.pret. khātá-.477 — Obviously the past participle is not preserved in Sinhalese, but it can bereconstructed as *känı̄ / *kä ı̄ on the basis of the preterite kännā.
ku e nı̄ (A. ko o nei, F. ke e naı̄) “to play”: A. ko i ; F. kē ı̄ (long form). Unlike the preceding example, this verb
has been completely adapted to the e-stems in the Māle standard language; hence, the participle
M. ku u nu has to be regarded as a regular form. As to the A ū and Fua Mulaku forms, cp. the Sinh.
i-stem ke i navā with its past participle ke i . — The etymology of this verb is still unclear.478
hehenı̄ (A. sahunei, F. sahunāı̄) “to husk”: A. sehi; F. sēhı̄ (long form). Like ku e nı̄, M. hehenı̄
(part.pret. hehunu) follows the model of the e-stems. It remains uncertain whether there is a corresponding verb in Sinhalese; the etymology of hehenı̄ is unknown as well.
The compound verb M. gen gu e nı̄ “to care for” (lit. “to join by taking”), which belongs to the e-stems as
well, need not be dealt with in the given framework. Its semantic counterparts in the southernmost
dialects must be mentioned, however, because they formally belong to the n-stems; cp. the infinitive
forms A. daguna and F. dagonaha. The past participles are A. degi and F. dēgı̄ (long form). — So far,both the Sinhalese correspondents and the etymology of this verb are unknown.
ḋ

c

ṫ

ḋ

ṫ

ṫ ṡ ṙ

ṫ

ṫ ṫ

l̇

ṫ

ṫ

ṫ

ṫ ṡ

ṫ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

l̇

l̇

l̇

l̇

l̇

c

ḋ

ḋ

l̇

l̇

l̇

l̇

l̇

c

473
Cf. GEIGER (1938), 137 and (1941), 68, no. 993; TURNER (1966) I, 371, no. 6507 and 372, no. 6518;
MAYRHOFER (1986-), I, 704 ff. s.v. DARŚ. Cf. further RHYS-DAVIDS 1921-1925, 316 s.v. dassati.
474
Cf. MATZEL (1983), 55; GEIGER (1941), 192, no. 2897.
475
According to the Indic classification, the verb is a representative of the 1st present class; from a modern
perspective, however, the verb is a reduplicated root present which was secondarily thematised. Cf. MAYRHOFER(1965), 66; (1951), I, 170; WHITNEY (1885), 194. — TURNER (1966, I, 775, no. 13432) erroneously derives theinfinitive M. hunnan “to stand, be” from sad- “to sit” and puts it together with M. innan “to sit, be”.
476
As a semantic parallel cp. German gelegen meaning “liegend, seiend” in local contexts.
477
Cf. GEIGER (1941), 36, no. 535; TURNER (1966) I, 200, no. 3811; WHITNEY (1885), 32.
478
Cf. GEIGER (1941), 49, no. 718 and TURNER (1966) I, 207, no. 3918 s.v. *khē - “to play” and 186, no.
3592 s.v. kr´ı̄ a ti.

ḋ

ḋ

204

Morphology

3.9.2.2.2. Considering the formation of the preterite participle, the rest of the n-stems can bedivided into two groups. The first group is formed by those verbs which represent the mosttypical n-stems because they completely or almost completely fulfil the morphological criteria
outlined above; in particular, these are the only verbs showing the characteristic n-stem
paradigm of the present (cf. 3.2.2.1). We must admit, however, that these are purely
synchronic criteria; they do not adduce any evidence for the particular present class the given
verbs had in earlier periods. Thus, the conjugation pattern of an n-stem in Modern Dhivehi
does not prove by itself that the verb in question must go back to an OIA nasal present.
The verbs concerned do not show any special suffix that would be used in building thepast participle, which always ends in the stem-marking final -n; hence, these participles arecharacterised by a “zero-morpheme” from a synchronic point of view. All together, there areseven verbs totally fitting into this scheme; they will be discussed in detail here below. The
equivalents of their past participles contain the suffixes -ta- or -na- in OIA and MIA which,however, cannot be automatically considered as being continued in the modern forms.
an̆danı̄ (F. annaı̄, A. annei) “to burn”: part.pret. M.A.F. an. — Neither the transitive verb an̆danı̄ “to burn”
nor its causative form andanı̄ “to (let) burn” seem to have an etymological correspondent in Sinhalese.
Most likely, the verb must be identified with OIA (RV) sáminddhe (3.ps.sg.pres.med.) “sets fire to, takes
fire”; if this is true, an̆danı̄ cannot be considered as an inherited nasal present. The OIA preterite
participle, built with the suffix -ta, is sámiddha- “ignited”.479
an̆danı̄ (F. annaı̄, A. annei) “to wear (a sarong)”: part.pret. an. In the modern language this verb ishomophonous and morphologically identical with an̆danı̄ “to burn”, without being etymologicallyconnected with it. In contrast to the latter, an̆danı̄ “to wear” has an etymological cognate in Sinhalese,viz. an̆dinavā with its older variant han̆dinavā “to don, attire, wear”, part.pret. (h)än̆di. GEIGER480
identifies (h)an̆dinavā with OIA sá d yati “to tie, fasten” (sam- + root dā- “to bind”481), while TURNER
also takes into consideration a connection with sañjayati “attaches to” (root sañj- “to hang”).482
bannanı̄ (A. bannei, F. bannaı̄) “to tie, bind”: part.pret. ban. GEIGER derives the Sinhalese past participle
bada “bound, tied” from a form with the suffix -ta; cp. Pa. baddha, Skt. baddhá- ← *badh-ta483. —´ 9th presentbannanı̄ and Sinh. ban̆dinavā can lastly be traced back to an OIA nasal present (badhnāti,class) but presuppose a reshaping of its stem for the MIA period (cp. Buddhist Hybrid Skt., Pkt.
bandha-).
bin̆danı̄ / binnanı̄ (A. binnei, F. binnaı̄) “to pluck, break”: part.pret. bin. This participle corresponds to Sinh.
bun “broken, splitted; expanded (as flowers)” belonging to the i-stem verb bin̆dinavā; cp. Pa., Pkt.
bhinna, Skt. bhinná- ← *bhid-na484. The verb is based on an old nasal present (7th class); cp. Ved.
bhinátti (root bhid- “split”), later thematised into bhindati (MIA, Buddhist Hybrid Skt.).
innanı̄ (A. innei, F. innaı̄) “to sit, marry, be married”: part.pret. in. The corresponding Sinh. participle is un“seated” (of (h)in̆dinavā, innavā) which can be traced back to a participial formation with the suffix -na;
cp. Pa., Pkt. sanna, Skt. sanná- ← *sad-na- (root sad-)485.
ṁ

479

Cf. TURNER (1966), II, 764, no. 13225; for indh- “to kindle” cf. ib., I, 71 and further MAYRHOFER(1986-), I, 267 s.v. EDH “entflammen, anzünden”.
480
Cf. GEIGER (1941), 7, no. 100.
481
Cf. WHITNEY (1885), 72 and WERBA (1997), 294 s.v. dā- “binden, fesseln”.
482
Cf. TURNER (1966), II, 757, no. 13085 and 748, no. 12906; cf. furthermore 758, no. 13098. Cf. also
WHITNEY (1885), 182.
483
Cf. GEIGER (1938), 137 and (1941), 117, no. 1755; further MAYRHOFER (1965), 83 f. and 96; WHITNEY(1885), 105.
484
Cf. GEIGER (1938), 137 and (1941), 122, no. 1814 and 123, no. 1838; MAYRHOFER (1951) I, 173;
WHITNEY (1885), 111; TURNER (1966) II, 541, no. 9496.
485
Cf. GEIGER (1938), 137, (1941), 21, 324 / 26, 393, and (1916), 148; cf. also MAYRHOFER (1951) I, 173
and (1965), 66.

The participle of the preterite205

iśı̄nnanı̄ “to sit” (F. irı̄nnaı̄, A. irı̄nnei): part.pret. M. iśı̄n, A.F. irı̄n. — GEIGER suggested a connection of thisparticiple with Sinh. hi i nu,486 but the most probable derivation presupposes a compound verb. In thiscase, the first part is most likely to consist of the absolutive of the verb hunnanı̄ (cf. 3.9.2.2.1 above) in
its older form hiśe (preserved until today in southern Dhivehi as against the more recent variant M. hure),from *hi .e The finite part of the verb may then be taken from innanı̄ “to sit” (cf. above). Thus, the total
meaning can be translated with “being sitting”. — As to the formation, cp. ośōnnanı̄ (3.9.2.2.3).
vannanı̄ (A. vannei, F. vannaı̄) “to enter”: The past participle M.A.F. van has a homophonous equivalent inSinhalese about which GEIGER wrote: “Appears to be pprt. of v. vadinavā, but I cannot explain the form”(1941, 156, nos. 2326 and 2319). The common Sinhalese and Maldivian form van cannot be explainedon the basis of the OIA past participle vrajita- (root v j - “to proceed”487). Possibly van represents aformation by analogy after one of those verbs that show the -n of the present stem as the final consonantof the past participle (cf. above).
There is at least one further verb which builds the participle of the preterite in the way described here, viz.
M.A.F. denı̄ “to give” with its participle din; here, too, the final -n is part of the stem to which no further
suffix is added. All the other forms of this verb do not show any common features with the conjugationof the n-stems, however. denı̄ can hardly be an inherited n-stem if it reflects OIA dádāti “gives”, which
is a reduplicative root present (root dā-).488 din is well attested in the early documents of Dhivehi where
it sometimes still appears in the spelling 〈dinu〉 (L1 s/1,6 etc.; L2 6,4 etc.; L3 3/2,3 etc.; L4 b/2,7 etc.;
L6 2,1; F4,3). — The corresponding participle of Sinhalese is dun; cp. Pa., Pkt. dinna vs. Skt. dattá← *tta- (with suffix -ta)489.
ṫ

ṫ

ṙ

3.9.2.2.3. The past participle of the second group of Dhivehi n-stems is not formed with thesuffix -i but with a final -t which, as a rule, is phonetically realised as a glottal stop in thesouthern dialects.490 In the long form, however, the inherited stop is preserved in the position before -ı̄. The following verbs exhibit this feature:cgannanı̄ (A. gannei, F. gannaı̄) “to buy”: /gat/ M. gai, A.F. ga ; cp. the long forms M.A. gatı̄, F. gātı̄. The
Sinhalese equivalent is gat as well; GEIGER derives this form from an OIA past participle variant *gh p ta´ 492“taken”,491 contrasting with the attested form g ( b)hı̄tá- of the nasal present (9th class) g ( b)h āti.
Although the etymological development is not clear in every detail, gannanı̄ seems to be one of theinherited n-stems of Dhivehi.
nukunnanı̄ (A. nukunnei, F. nukunnaı̄) “to come/go out, leave”: /nukut/ → M. nukui, A.F. nuku ; long form
M.A. nukutı̄, F. nukūtı̄. In Sinhalese, the corresponding participle nikut “gone away, departed, dead” still
exists as an isolated form while the verb itself has not been preserved. The participle is based on its OIA
equivalent ni k rānta-, of ni k ramati “goes out” (se root krami-, belonging to the 1st present class of the
Indian grammar).493
onnanı̄ (A.F. —) “to lie, be there”: /ot/ → M. oi, A.F. o ; long form M.A. otı̄, F. ōtı̄. The etymologicalequivalent in Sinhalese is hovinava, hōnavā “to lie down, repose, sleep” which can be traced back to the
ṙ

ṅ

ṙ

ṙ

c

ṫ

ṡ

ṡ

c

486

Cf. GEIGER (1902), 924, no. 215.
For the etymology of the verb cf. fn. 415.
488
Cf. WHITNEY (1985), 71 and WERBA (1997), 292.
489
Cf. GEIGER (1916), 148; HINÜBER (1986), 197; MAYRHOFER (1986-) I, 713 ff.
490
For the phonetic development of word final plosives cf. 1.1.3.
491
Cf. GEIGER (1941), 52, no. 761 and further TURNER (1966) I, 244, no. 4509.
492
Cf. GEIGER (1941), 53, no. 773; TURNER (1966) I, 227, no. 4236. Cf. also MAYRHOFER (1965), 83 and,more recently, (1986-) I, 505 s.v. GRABH.
493
Cf. MAYRHOFER (1986-), I, 409 f.; TURNER (1966) I, 423, no. 7492 and GEIGER (1941), 87, no. 1274. —The Sinh. verb nikmenavā “to come forth, issue”, which belongs to the e-stems, goes back to ni + krami- as
well (GEIGER 1941, ib., no. 1275). Cp. also the causative nikmavanavā “to send forth”.
ṡ

487

206

Morphology

OIA root svap- “to sleep”. The past participle (h)ot continues a participle with the suffix -ta, cp. Skt.
suptá-, Pa. sutta.494
ośōnnanı̄ (A. veśionnei, F. veśionnaı̄) “to lie (down)”: M. /ośōt/ → ośōi, A.F. /veśiot/ → veśio ; long form
M. ośōtı̄, A. veśiotı̄, F. veśiōtı̄. This verb is a compound with onnanı̄ (cf. above) as its second part. In
A.F. veśi-, the first part preserves the regular absolutive of an e-stem not existing any longer as anindependent verb in Dhivehi, viz. *veśenı̄ ← older *ve e nı̄. The Sinhalese equivalent of this is vä e navā“to fall (down), drop”. According to GEIGER (1941, 161, no. 2400), this is a “passive (with peculiar
meaning) of vatanavā” meaning “to turn round” which goes back directly to the OIA root vrt- “toturn”495. The phonological equivalent of the Sinh. causative va a navā is preserved in Modern Dhivehi
in the semantically restricted verb M. vaśanı̄ “to rub in, embrocate (with circling movements)”.
Presumably Dhiv. *veśenı̄ had the same meaning as Sinh. vä e navā and was replaced by ve e nı̄ which is
the only verb in the modern language meaning “to fall”. Morphologically ve e nı̄ is the inactive equivalent of the causative va a nı̄ “to cause to fall, let fall”. Thus, the compound veśi-ot- literally means “lying(having) fallen (down)” or “lying by falling”. — The phonological structure of M. ośōnnanı̄ can be easily
explained on this basis. While the conservation of /e/ in the position before a single retroflex consonant
is typical for southern Dhivehi, this vowel regularly developed into /o/ in the northern dialects as earlyas the 14th century A.D. (cf. 1.2.4.4); cp. M. ato u vs. A. ate e “atoll” or M. o i vs. A. ve i “larger
Maldivian boat” which shows the same additional loss of v- in the position before -o- as oś- ← voś- ← vo ← veś-. In contrast to that, the initial ve- of M. ve e nı̄ has not changed because the following retroflex isa geminate. — The compositional structure of ośōnnanı̄ has a parallel in iśı̄nnanı̄ (cf. 3.9.2.2.2 above).
In the case of donnanı̄ “to wash” (cp. Pa. dhovati, Skt. dhāvati “washes”; root dhāv-496), North and South
Dhivehi show a different formation of the past participle; cf. A.F. /dot/ → do , long form A. dotı̄, F. dōtı̄
as against the short form M. dovunu, long form dovunı̄, which formally presupposes an inactive verb.497— The Sinhalese equivalent of this verb is dōvanavā, an a-stem which is obsolete in the modern language.
The past participle which has obviously been lost in Sinhalese must be reconstructed as *devu (cp. thepreterite devuvā) if it was built regularly.498 The ancestor of this form can be seen in the OIA participle
dhautá- which is built with the suffix -ta; the phonological development implied is Sinh. *dōvı̄ → *dēvı̄
→ *devu499 The form /dot/ we find in southern Dhivehi is even more problematic because a final /-t/ inDhivehi or in Sinhalese cannot go back to a simple medial /-t-/ of OIA. It seems most probable that theform in question must be explained by an analogous adaptation on the model of other verbs such as, e.g.,
onnanı̄, gannanı̄ (cf. above) with a final /-t/ in their past participles; in these cases, /-t/ reflects a combination of the OIA suffix -ta with at least one preceding consonant.
c

ṫ

ṫ

˙

˙

ṫ

ṫ ṫ

ṫ

ṫ ṫ

ṫ ṫ

ḋ

ḋ

l̇

l̇

ṫ

ṫ ṫ

c

3.9.2.2.4. There are two more verbs which, to judge by their paradigm, must partly be considered as n-stems. Their forms show many irregularities within the pattern and, furthermore,
many interdialectal differences. In the formation of the past participle they are irregular too.
c

One of these verbs is M. ulenı̄ with its southern equivalents, F. v¯e˛nnaı̄, A. vēndenı̄ “to live, be”. In Fua
Mulaku, the verb has the forms of an n-stem, with the only exception of the past participle v¯en̆
˛ u n, long formv¯en̆
˛ unı̄¯˛ which is built after the model of the e-stems. In A ū as well as the standard language, all forms follow
the pattern of the e-stems; hence, the forms of the past participle are vēn̆ e e , long form vēn̆ e e i in A ū andu u nu, long form u u nı̄ in Māle. — All the dialectal variants of this verb are etymologically unclear, all the moresince no Sinhalese cognate has been detected so far. It even remains uncertain whether M. u e nı̄ and A. vēn e nı̄
can be derived from the same etymon; from the point of view of historical phonology, however, there are somedetails which seem to speak in favour of a common origin (cf. 1.3.7.2).
˙

˙˙

˙

ḋ

ḋ

ḋ

ḋ

ṅ

ḋ

ṅ

ḋ

ḋ

ḋ

l̇

ḋ

l̇

l̇

494

Cf. TURNER (1966) II, 803, no. 13902; GEIGER (1941), 195, no. 2946 and 32, no. 481.
Cf. GEIGER (1941), 154, no. 2293; WHITNEY (1885), 164; WERBA (1997), 237.
496
Cf. WHITNEY (1885), 83; GEIGER (1941), 81, no. 1206; TURNER (1966) I, 394, no. 6886 s.v. *dhauvati
and particularly MAYRHOFER (1986-) I, 782-3.
497
Cp. ku e nı̄ treated in 3.9.2.2.1.
498
For the rules of this formation cf., e.g., MATZEL (1983), 54.
499
For the change of -i → -u in the past participles cf. GEIGER (1938), 135.
l̇

495

The participle of the preterite

207

A completely irregular verb is M. dannanı̄, A. dennei, F. dennaı̄ “to know”. In the southern dialects, theconjugation of the present of this verb is in accordance with the n-stems; in Fua Mulaku this is also true for thepattern of the finite future, but not the infinitive. — Etymologically, dannanı̄ is a real n-stem going back to an
old nasal present, viz. Skt. jānāti which belongs to the 9th present class (root jñā- “to know”).500 — In Addū
and Fua Mulaku, the past participle of this verb is built periphrastically by combining its absolutive with thepast participle of hunnanı̄ (cf. 3.9.2.2.1), here functioning as an auxiliary verb (A. dene hi , F. dene hı̄śı̄, longform); in Māle, the verb has no past participle at all. — In Sinhalese, the past participle of dannavā “to know”
is dat which GEIGER explains as a formation by analogy: “The pprt. dat is formed after the model of gat :gannavā.”501
c

˙˙

c

c

3.9.2.2.5. Apart from the n-stems treated above, there are some more verbs which are
irregular from a synchronical point of view because their past participles go back directly toparticipial forms of MIA and OIA.
The past participle of M. annanı̄ “to come”, A.F. enı̄ “to go, come” has the following short and long forms:
M. ai / aı̄; F. ā / āı̄; A. ā / ai. The corrresponding form in Sinhalese is ā (of enavā “to come”) which´
goes back to a past participle formed with the suffix -ta; cp. Pkt. āaa- (3.ps.sg. ēï), Skt. āgata(root ay/i-; 2nd present class).502
Because of a semantic overlap as well as for formal reasons, the verb M. danı̄ cannot be treated separatelyfrom annanı̄. In the standard language where danı̄ is the only verb meaning “to go”, it shows a complete
paradigm. In South Dhivehi, however, all forms which are derived from the present stem have been
supplementarily replaced by the correponding forms of enı̄ which conveys the meaning of both “to come”
and “to go” today. The past participle has the forms M. dia / diaı̄, A. ge / gei, F. gē / gēı̄. Its Sinhaleseequivalent giya (of yanavā “to go”) is derived by GEIGER from an old participle in -ta-, cp. Pkt. gaa-, Pa.
gata-, Skt. gatá-.503 With no doubt, A. ge and F. gē have the same origin. The initial d- of M. dia canperhaps be explained by assuming a sporadic adaptation to the initial consonant of the present stem in an
early period of Dhivehi. In the oldest written documents, there are no forms in question showing initial
g- but two attestations with d-, viz. in diame (loc.sg. of the verbal noun; L3 3/2,1 and L2 6,2). — The´ “goes,present stems of Dhiv. danı̄ and Sinh. yanavā can be derived from the OIA root yā-504 (yāti
approaches, comes to”, 2nd present class505).
The past participle of bonı̄ “to drink” has the forms M. bui / buı̄, A. bi / bı̄, F. bı̄ (long form); cp. theSinhalese equivalent bı̄, of bonavā.506 Its basic form is the OIA past participle pı̄tá- belonging to thepresent píba- “to drink” (root pā-).507

500

Cf., e.g., WHITNEY (1885), 56 and further WERBA (1997), 403.
Cf. GEIGER (1941), 70, no. 1018 (for gannanı̄ cp. also 3.9.2.2.3). A comparison with the corresponding
participial forms of other Modern IA languages, especially of the northwestern group, raises the question whether
Sinh. dat really does represent an analogous adaptation. Irregular past participles like Sindhı̄ jjātō (cf. GRIERSON
1903-1927, VIII, 1, 50), Lahndā jātā (ib., 264), Hindkı̄ jjātā (besides jjā āi ; ib., 344) etc. perhaps support theassumption that Sinh. dat has its origin in the same form as the Northwest IA participles mentioned above. We
still do not know whether there are any further coincidences of this type between Northwest IA and Insular
IA. Supposing that there might exist some more synchronic irregularities which are common to both groups andwhich by an exact historical analysis could be traced back to a common origin, this would speak in favour ofa Northwest Indian origin of the common ancestors of Sinhalese and Maldivians (cf. DE SILVA 1979, 14 ff. forthe “Eastern” amd “Western” hypotheses).
502
Cf. GEIGER (1938), 136; (1941), 15, no. 237 and 31, no. 463. Cf. also WHITNEY (1885), 7; TURNER(1966) I, 70; 121, no. 2515 and 123, no. 2534; MAYRHOFER (1986-) I, 102.
503
Cf. GEIGER (1938), 137 and (1941), 56, no. 814.
504
Cf. DE SILVA (1970b), 157-58; cf. also 1.7.1.
505
Cf. TURNER (1966), II, 604, no. 10452; WHITNEY (1885), 131.
506
Cf. MATZEL (1983), 56; GEIGER (1941), 125, no. 1863.
507
Cf. WHITNEY (1885), 95 f.; MAYRHOFER (1986-), I, 113 f.; TURNER (1966), I, 464, no. 8209 and (1985),
66, no. 8209.
ṅ

501

208

Morphology

The past participle of kanı̄ “to eat” has the forms M.F. kē / kēı̄ and A. ke / kei which exactly correspond´with Sinh. kä¯ (of kanavā).508 Its ancestral form is the OIA participle khāditá- (cp. khādati“chews, bites,eats”, root khād-509); the umlaut appearing in Sinhalese and Dhivehi was caused by the suffix -ita.
From a synchronic point of view, the past participle of M. kuranı̄, A.F. keranı̄ “to make, do” presents acomplex of irregularities; cp. the forms M. kuri / kurı̄ contrasting with kula / kulaı̄, an archaic form
occurring only in Old Dhivehi texts (e.g., L1 mn/1,6) and, as a stylistic variant, in poetic diction, F. ke a
/ ke āı̄ and A. ke e / ke ı̄e . From a diachronic perspective, the manifold forms can be explained satisfactorily. In Sinhalese the past participle is ka a with a dialectal variant ke a today510; according to thesound laws, both these variants correspond with M. ku a , F. ke a and A. ke e . The basic form of thisformation must be seen in the OIA participle k t á- “done” (root k - , pres. stem k ó -/karó-511). The
forms appearing in Sinhalese, North Dhivehi and Fua Mulaku imply the following phonological development: after a root containing - - , the dental plosive /t/ of the participial suffix first changed to a retroflex/ / which later, according to the sound laws, developed through voiced / / into / / . Some MIA idioms
show parallels which, however, cannot be regarded as direct “genetic” ancestors of the modern IIA forms
in question; cp. Pa. kata / ka a and AMg. ka a (besides kaya).512 In contrast to that, the voiced retroflex/ / is preserved in A ū in this case as well as in all comparable examples.513 — The modern variant
kuri cannot be derived from the OIA ta-participle; it represents a secondary formation modelled after thepresent stem. The formation of the finite preterite is based on this new form as well. There is no pasttense derived from ku a in the modern standard language.
vanı̄ “to become; be” (A.F. venı̄) has the past participle M.A. vi / vı̄, F. vı̄. Its Sinhalese equivalent is vū (ofvenavā “to become”) which goes back to a ta-participle, cf. Skt. bhūtá-, Pa. bhūta-, Pkt. bhū(y)a- (OIA
root bhū- “to be”, pres. bháva-).514
The verb netunı̄ “not being there” is a secondary formation which, particularly in the standard language, ischaracterised by a very contradictory paradigm. In Addū, the past participle is ne / netı̄. In North
Dhivehi, netı̄ serves as a participle of the present as well as of the preterite, occurring alongside
M. netunu which appears as past participle and as a finite form of the 3.ps. sg./pl. pret. and which ismodelled after the e-stems (cf. below). Presumably, it was the latter form from which the modern verbal
noun netun and the “pseudo-lemmatic” form netunı̄ were derived. — The basis of the whole verbal
paradigm must be seen in the form /net/ which is the Dhivehi equivalent of Sinhalese näti, nät. This was´ “isidentified by GEIGER as an adverbial phrase meaning “not existing, no, not”; its origin is OIA nāsti
not”, consisting of the particle ná “not” and the finite present form ásti “is”); cp. also Pa. natthi, Pkt.
a tthi.515
˙

˙

l̇

ḋ

l̇

ḋ

l̇

ṅ ṙ

ḋ

l̇

l̇

l̇

ṙ

c

ṙ

ṙ

l̇

ḋ

ṫ

ḋ

ṫ

ḋ

ḋ

ḋ

l̇

c

˙˙

ṅ

3.9.2.3. The past participle of the e-stems is not derived by means of the formants which arecharacteristic for the a- and n-stems but by a special suffix -unu ← -unu occurring only withinactive verbs. Sinhalese disposes of a homophonous suffix -unu which characterises the past
participle of the 3rd conjugation; according to GEIGER (1938, 136), “it is a type of later
origin than the participles in -i, -u, and its sphere has immensely grown in the modern
language. ... Frequently the older forms in -i, -u exist side by side with the more modern
˙

˙

508

Cf. MATZEL (1983), 56; GEIGER (1941), 36, no. 532.
Cf. TURNER (1966), I, 203, no. 3865; WHITNEY (1885), 32.
510
Cf. BECHERT (1959), 62, note 3.
511
Cf. GEIGER (1941), 38, no. 558; TURNER (1966) I, 142, no. 2814; WHITNEY (1885), 21; MAYRHOFER(1986-) I, 307 ff.
512
Cf. GEIGER (1938), 57.
513
For more details cf. 1.3.7.2.
514
Cf. GEIGER (1938), 136; (1941), 167, no. 2512 and 168, no. 2518; WHITNEY (1885), 113; TURNER (1966)
II, 536, no. 9416 and 545, no. 9552; MAYRHOFER (1986-) II, 255 ff.
515
Cf. GEIGER (1941), 85, no. 1256; cf. ib. 17, no. 256 s.v. äti, äta “there is, there are”. — TURNER (1966)I, 407, no. 7091.
509

The participle of the preterite

209

forms in -unu: ... temi wet (timita) and temunu.” The prototype of this participial formation
was identified by GEIGER with forms like Pa. parihı̄na “wasted” which corresponds with
Sinh. pirihunu, although “in this case the traditional spelling with the cerebral (n) would beunintelligible. The correct derivative of parihı̄na is pirihun, which really exists in the language.” The spelling of the nasal (dental 〈n〉 vs. retroflex 〈n〉) cannot be regarded as a final
proof of the etymologically correct form, however, because in Sinhalese the two phonemes
had coincided phonetically into [n] by the 16th century when they were often confused as
GEIGER himself stated in another context.516 The spelling with the retroflex 〈n〉 is proved
to be historically correct by the existence of the homophonous suffix -unu which is attested
in the documents of Old Dhivehi and by the retroflex /n/ the suffix still has today as anindependent phoneme in the Addū dialect.517
The past participle of the e-stems in Modern Dhivehi shows regular dialectal variation. The
participial forms of temenı̄ “to get wet”, A. temene, F. temun and M. temunu, can be traced
back to a common basis *temunu which is identical to the Sinhalese form in its traditional
spelling with retroflex 〈n〉. The change of final -u → -e in the position after a retroflex n in
the Addū variant agrees with the sound laws (cf. 1.2.4.4) whereas the change of the suffixinitial u into e can be explained by an analogical adaptation to the present stem, teme-,
because there is no reason for a spontaneous sound change here. There are good examples toshow that an u is not automatically changed into e in the position before n in Addū; cp., e.g.,
A. dekunu “south”, hunu “heat; hot”, karuni “tear”, kuni “dirt; rotten”, makunu “bed bug”,
mekunu “grey (or blue tail) mullet” (crenimugil crenilabis) or ukunu “flea, louse”. The
analogical adaptation of the preterite stem to the present stem as assumed here is not isolated
in Addū but rather usual; cp., e.g., the past participle of (M.) nimenı̄ “to get finished, cometo an end” which in Addū is nimene “finished”, thus contrasting with the dialectal variants
F. nimun, M. nimunu and the older form nimunu which is attested in a document of the 17th
century (F3,2). For some further examples of past participles with -unu that are attested in
Old Dhivehi texts, cp. negunu “raised” (L2 9,3 and 22,1), vulunu (L1 mn/2,5; L4 d/2,1) andulunu “lived, been” (F3,16), or vunu (L1 d/2,2.4; L2 2,1) and vevunu (L2 38,2) “become”(for the latter formation cf. also 3.12.5.3). It is impossible to find out when the two special
developments occurred in the history of Addū speech because there are no written documentsof this dialect available to us.
˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙˙

˙˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙˙

˙

˙˙

˙

˙

˙ ˙

˙

˙

˙

˙ ˙

˙˙

3.9.3. The participle of the future
The future participle of Dhivehi, which obviously has no equivalent in Sinhalese,518 is likely
to represent a new formation dating from a relatively recent period. In standard Dhivehi andin Fua Mulaku, the short form of the participle is formally identical with the 3.ps.sg. of thefinite future.519 This statement can also be taken as a synchronic rule for the formation of
the future participle in these dialects. In Modern Addū, however, there is no comparable
c

˙˙

516

Cf. GEIGER (1938), 62 ff.
For the loss of the phonemic status of the retroflex in North Dhivehi cf. 1.3.7.
518
At least there is no indication of such a category in GEIGER’s and GUNASEKARA’s grammars of Sinhalese(GEIGER 1900 and 1938; GUNASEKARA 1891).
519
For the derivation of these forms, cf. 2.3.1.3.4.1, 3.4.2 and 3.4.3.
ṅ

517

210

Morphology

morphological coincidence at all (if it ever existed); here, the 3rd person has formallycoincided with the 2nd person (cf. 3.4.1).
3.9.3.1. Considering all available data, we arrive at the conclusion that in North Dhivehi and
Fua Mulaku, the finite future tense developed from the future participle in the same way as
the preterite and the present participles were the basis of the corresponding finite forms. As
against this, the future participle of the Addū dialect cannot be derived satisfactorily, albeit
it seems to be identical with the corresponding form of the standard language; the impressionof homophony need not be based on morphological identity though. As there is obviously no
Sinhalese equivalent and as there are no attestations in the earliest texts of Dhivehi, a serious
historical investigation into this subject is not possible at present.
c˙˙

3.9.3.2. The earliest attestations of the future participle date from the 16th century A.D. At
that time they already had their modern form so that they do not give any information about
their morphological and phonological prehistory. So far, only four examples are attested, viz.
kurāne (of kuranı̄ “to make, do”; F5,17.18), vāne (of vanı̄ “to become”; F11,20), hunnānē
(of hunnanı̄ “to stand, remain, stay, be”; ITMKM 1,6), haddavānē (of haddavanı̄ causative,
2nd/3rd honorific degree, “to (cause to) make, build”; RC 3,12). All these participles are used
as attributes.
˙

˙

˙

˙

3.9.3.3. For Addū we may at least formulate a simple synchronic rule for the formation of the
future participle according to which the infinitive ending /- /, which reflects the dative ending/-ś/ ← /-t/ itself, is replaced by -ne / -nei (long form); cp., e.g., balāne(i), vannane(i),temēne(i), kerāne(i), hinnāne(i), vēne(i); the corresponding infinitives are balā “to look”,
vanna “to enter”, temē “to get wet”, kerā “to make, do”, hinna “to stand, remain, stay,be”, vē “to become”. This rule suggests that the future participle was built from the infinitive in its oldest form ending in a retroflex -t by adding a suffix -ne; the resulting sequence*-tne was then simplified by a loss of the stop t which left its retroflex articulation in thefollowing -n (*balāt-ne → *balātne → balāne). It remains unclear, however, what the origin of
the suffix *-ne was.
˙˙

c

˙

˙

˙

c

c

˙
˙

˙

˙

c

˙

˙

c

c

c

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙˙

˙

˙

3.10. The absolutive (converb)
In the present treatise, the term “absolutive” is used for the category which GEIGER called the“gerund of the preterite” or “gerund II”520 while MATZEL preferred the term “absolutive
II (absolutive of the preterite)”.521 As against this, the term “gerund” is here reserved forthe form which was called “gerund I” by GEIGER and “absolutive I” by MATZEL (cf. 3.8.
above). A consistent distinction of the terms is necessary because the latter formation (“gerund”) is diachronically not connected with the category of the absolutive proper. Furthermore,
GEIGER’s (and MATZEL’s) terminology which refers to the preterite can be misleading because
the absolutive (in Dhivehi as well as in Sanskrit, Pali, Prakrit) is not tied to a specific520

Cf. GEIGER (1900), 74, (1938), 159 and (1919), 79.
“Für diese grammatische Kategorie ist die in der Grammatik der indischen Sprachen eingebürgerte
Bezeichnung Absolutivum gegenüber Gerundium zu bevorzugen, da ihre Funktion nichts mit den Gerundien
europäischer Sprachen zu tun hat” (MATZEL 1983, 47).
521

The absolutive (converb)

211

category of tense; depending on the context, it can be used for the expression of anterior aswell as contemporary actions.
Although it is not possible to track the historical development of the absolutive in Dhivehi
in detail, many questions can be solved by comparing the Sinhalese material. From asynchronic-morphological point of view, the regular as well as the irregular absolutives of
Dhivehi and Sinhalese can generally be deduced from a common basis. This implies that thehistorical derivation of the absolutive in Dhivehi cannot differ in many respects from thedevelopment GEIGER assumed for Sinhalese: “It is certain that all formations in question are
based on [OIA] gerunds [i.e. absolutive forms, S.F.] in -ya. This, however, is very important.
We see in Pkt. that these forms are of a more recent origin in comparison with those endingin -ttā, -ittā (= Skt. -tvā, -itvā), and the gerunds in -i/ı̄ are based on them as well. Once again,
Sinhalese fits perfectly with the historical development of the Prākrit languages.”522
As to Modern Sinhalese, GEIGER gives a synchronic rule for the formation of the absolutives: they are built from the present stem by adding the final vowels which characterise theparticular conjugation types. This rule is not applicable as such to Dhivehi, however, since
there are too many interdialectal differences and, furthermore, also formal variations withina given dialect. The only exception is constituted by the e-stems with their regular morphology, which is equivalent to that of the 3rd conjugation of Sinhalese.
3.10.1. The regular formation of the absolutive of the a-stem verbs in Dhivehi can be illustrated by the following example:
Addū
˙˙

c

absolutive
a-stems

Fua Mulaku

Māle

balai

balā

balā

3.10.1.1. As a rule, the absolutive is formally identical to the 3.ps.sg. of the present (cf.
3.2.1). The only exception is represented by those verbs of the standard language which end
in -ē in the 3.ps.sg. In these cases, the absolutive has a final short -e; cp. bunē “he says” withthe absolutive bune “saying”. — In the formation of reduplicated absolutives (cf. 3.10.5), thefinal -i of the first member can be apocopated in the dialect of Addū; cp. bala balai “bylooking and looking” existing alongside “regular” balai balai. In the same dialect, a shortening of the diphthong occurs whenever the absolutive is combined with an auxiliary verb; cp.,
e.g., balagen, balafei, balalāi (cf. 3.11.4 below).
˙˙

3.10.1.2. The historical development of the regular absolutive forms of Dhivehi is likely tobe the same as that described for Sinhalese by GEIGER (1938, 160): “The frequent use of thegerund [= absolutive, S.F.] allows us to trace the development, at least, of the forms in -ā
(conj. I) from the Prakritic Sinhalese up to the modern times. In Sinh. Pk. it ends in -aya:
KADAYA having detached, ... KARAVAYA having caused to be constructed, ... KANA˙

522“Sicher aber ist, daß allen Bildungen die Gerundialformen [i.e. absolutives, S.F.] auf -ya zugrunde liegen.
Dies ist aber von großer Wichtigkeit. Wir beobachten im Pkt., daß diese Formen gegenüber denen auf -ttā, -ittā
(= skt. -tvā, -itvā) die jüngeren sind, und die Gerundien auf -i/ı̄ stammen ebenfalls von ihnen her. Das Sgh. fügt
sich also wieder vollkommen in die geschichtliche Entwicklung der Prākrits ein” (GEIGER 1900, 74).

212

Morphology

VAYA having caused to be dug ... I believe that -aya is spelt for -āya and that forms like P.
ādāya, utthāya are the prototype of the Sinhalese gerund [abs.]. In Pali such formations are
not confined to the ā-roots. ... In the medieval period -āya became -ay: karay having done,
nimavay having finished, ... balay having looked ... This -ay alternates with -ā in the 10th c.:balā, nimavā ... and -ā becomes the regular ending from the 12th c.: asā having heard ...”
Thus, the absolutive ending -ai which in Sinhalese disappeared as early as the medieval
period, has remained unchanged in Addū until present while the absolutive in -ā of Fua
Mulaku and Māle corresponds exactly with its modern Sinhalese counterpart. As against this,it must be stated that there are no Sinhalese equivalents of the exceptional absolutives in -e
we find among the a-stems in Māle.
˙˙

c

˙˙

3.10.2. The formation of the absolutive of the e-stems is as homogeneous in all Dhivehi
dialects as that of the a-stems. The synchronical rule can be easily formulated: the final -e ofthe present stem is replaced by -i (/-ı̄) as the following example shows:c˙˙

absolutive
e-stemsAddū

Fua Mulaku

Māle

temi

tem˛ı̄ / temı̄

temi

3.10.2.1. In the standard language, the final -i is sometimes lengthened in the absolutive; in
Fua Mulaku, the lengthening of -i → -ı̄ is even regular for all e-stems. Cp., e.g., nimenı̄ “tofinish (intr.), come to an end”: A.M. nimi, F. nimı̄; vettenı̄ “to fall”: A.M. vetti, F. vettı̄.
c

˙˙

˙˙

˙˙

3.10.2.2. In Sinhalese, the corresponding absolutive of the 3rd conjugation has a final -ı̄ aswell; cp. the forms tibı̄ (of tibenavā / tiyenavā “to be (there), exist”), pipı̄ (of pipenavā “tocome into flower, open (as a flower)”).523 According to GEIGER (1938, 161) again, thisabsolutive form has developed only recently. In inscriptions of the medieval period and in theolder literature, there are still many absolutives of e-verbs which end in -ä and -a, thus
following the model of the 2nd conjugation.
3.10.3. For the absolutive of the n-stems, it is impossible to provide a general rule of its
synchronical formation because it is too manyfold in its forms. This is why the following
table cannot be valid for all cases, although the ending -e is statistically the most frequent one
among the absolutive formations of this verbal type.
Addū
˙˙

c

absolutive
n-stems

Fua MulakuMālevedi, vede-

ven̆devade

3.10.3.1. On the basis of certain formal correspondences which characterise the 3.ps.sg.
present as well as the absolutive, a set of particular subtypes can be established which will be

523

For further forms of this type cf., e.g., MATZEL (1983), 48.

The absolutive (converb)

213

listed below. Considering these correspondences it is possible in most cases to derive thecorrect form of the absolutive from the finite 3.ps.sg. present. The main basis for thiscomparison is represented by the Addū forms; to a large extent, the corresponding forms of
Fua Mulaku agree with those of the Addū dialect. In the standard language, however, theabsolutive forms often show other developments or compensatory innovations.
˙˙

c

˙˙

c

3.10.3.2. A considerable group of n-stem verbs in Addū and Fua Mulaku, but not in thestandard language, enables us to set up the following rule: If the root vowel of a verb is aand the ending of the 3.ps.sg. present is -i, the absolutive is characterised by an umlaut of theroot vowel, changing a into e, and by an ending appearing as -e as well.
The historical reason which caused the umlaut of these forms can be seen in the fact thatthe suffix is based on the same formant as that represented in the a-stems; cf. GEIGER who
noted the same constellation for Sinhalese: “... the MInd. gerunds in -ya, -iya are the prototype of the 2nd gerund in Sinh.”524 In the Modern Sinhalese language, the corresponding
absolutives show a final -a, but in the medieval inscriptions and in the older literature, thenormal ending was still -ä. The latter ending was productive in the early Middle Ages andbegan to be replaced by -a only since the 12th century. Cp., e.g., bändä525 “having bound”(8th c.), däkä “having seen” (12th c.) vs. bän̆da and däka (both 12th c.). The archaic
Sinhalese ending -ä exactly agrees with the -e we find in Modern Dhivehi.
The verbs listed below build the absolutive according to the morphonological rule given
above. The examples show that there are, at least for parts, considerable differences between
the forms of North and South Dhivehi.
˙˙an̆danı̄ 1. “to burn”; 2. “to wear (a sarong)”: 3.ps.sg.pres. A. an̆di, F. ān̆di – abs. A.F. en̆de, but M. abs. =3.ps.sg.pres. an̆dā (of 1.“to burn”).
bannanı̄ “to tie”: 3.ps.sg.pres. A. ban̆di, F. bān̆di — abs. A.F. ben̆de. The corresponding form in Māle has noumlaut: abs. ban̆de — 3.ps.sg.pres. ban̆dē.
konnanı̄ “to dig”: 3.ps.sg.pres. A. kani, F. kānı̄ – abs. A.F. kene. — M. 3.ps.sg.pres. konē – abs. kone.
hehenı̄ “to husk”: 3.ps.sg.pres. A. sahi, F. sāhi – abs. A.F. sehe; M. hehi.
dekenı̄ “to see”: 3.ps.sg.pres. A. daki, F. dāki – abs. A.F. deke. — M. 3.ps.sg.pres. dekē – abs. deki.
A. dagunei, F. dagonaı̄ “to care for”: 3.ps.sg.pres. A. dagi, F. dāgi – abs. A.F. dege. (M. gen gu e nı̄).
vannanı̄ “to enter”: In A ū, both the 3.ps.sg.pres. (vadi) and the absolutive end in -i today but only thelatter form shows umlaut (vedi). It is clear that this must be considered as an innovation, given that the
expected absolutive form vede still occurs in the compounds vedefei, vedelāi, vedegen (cf. 3.11.4.4
below). The 3.ps.sg.pres. F. v¯an̆di˛is regular as is the abs. ven̆de. — The Māle equivalents of both theabsolutive and the finite form have no umlaut (3.ps.sg.pres. vadē – abs. vade).
With respect to its present conjugation and its absolutive, gannanı̄ “to buy”, which represents an inherited
nasal present (cf. 3.9.2.2.3), seems to belong to this group as an exception; cp. the 3.ps.sg.pres. A. gani,F. g¯ani˛ and the abs. gine. In this case, however, the front root vowel i cannot be traced back to an aumlaut and remains unclear. The equivalent forms of the M. standard language, the 3.ps.sg.pres. ganē andthe abs. gane, do not show umlaut either. — An archaic variant of this absolutive is gen (← Old Dhiv.
gena = Sinh. gena), which in Modern Dhivehi occurs in compound verb forms only (cf. 3.11.4.5.5).
˙

˙

˙

l̇

ḋ

ḋ

3.10.3.3. There is another subtype of n-stem verbs with an absolutive ending in -e; in thisgroup, the ending of the 3.ps.sg. present is -i in Addū and Fua Mulaku and -ē in the standard
language. This type is represented by the following verbs:
˙˙

525

c

524

GEIGER (1938), 160; cf. also (1900), 74. For the terminology cf. 3.10
Sic; cf. GEIGER (1941), 117, no. 1755.

214

Morphology

dannanı̄ “to know”: 3.ps.sg.pres. A.F. deni – abs. dene. — M. 3.ps.sg.pres. danē – abs. dene.
ku e nı̄ “to play”: 3.ps.sg.pres. A. ko i – abs. ko e ; 3.ps.sg.pres. F. kē i – abs. ke e . — M. 3.ps.sg.pres. ku ē –abs. ku .ebinnanı̄ “to pluck”: 3.ps.sg.pres. A.F. bin̆di – abs. A.F. bin̆de. — M. 3.ps.sg.pres. bin̆dē – abs. bin̆de.
iśı̄nnanı̄ “to sit”: 3.ps.sg.pres. A.F. irı̄n̆di – abs. A.F. irı̄n̆de. — M. 3.ps.sg.pres. iśı̄n̆dē – abs. iśı̄n̆de.
l̇

l̇

l̇

l̇

l̇

l̇

l̇

3.10.3.4. A third subgroup of n-stems with an absolutive ending in -e consists of two verbs
whose 3.ps.sg. present ends in A. -ei, F. -e, M. -ē:innanı̄ “to sit; marry, be married”: 3.ps.sg.pres. A. in̆dei, F. in̆de – abs. F. in̆de; A. *in̆de is not attested
because in today’s language only the suppletive form irı̄n̆de is used (cf. 3.10.3.3 above s.v. iśı̄nnanı̄). —M. 3.ps.sg.pres. in̆dē – abs. in̆de.
hunnanı̄ “to stand; be; remain, stay”: 3.ps.sg.pres. A. hiśei, F. hiśe – abs. A.F. hiśe. — M. 3.sg.pres. hurē –abs. hure.

3.10.3.5. Another type is constituted by the following three verbs:
donnanı̄ “to wash”: 3.ps.sg.pres. A. dōi, F. doe, M. dovē. In A ū, the primary absolutive has the form dōiwhile a variant dō- appears in compound formations such as dōfei etc. In Fua Mulaku too, the simple
absolutive is dōi but the compound absolutives still show an uncontracted form; cp. dove-fē etc. Thislatter form (dove) is the regular absolutive while the 3.ps.sg.pres. is dovē in the standard language.
onnanı̄ “to lie, be (there)”: In Addū, the prefixed, contracted form of the 3.ps.sg.pres. teb-ō contrasts withthe uncontracted absolutive ove. The equivalent forms of Fua Mulaku and the standard language are
identical to the latter: abs. ove – M.F. 3.ps.sg.pres. ovē.
ośōnnanı̄ “to lie (down)”: this compound verb contains onnanı̄ as its second member (cf. 3.9.2.2.3); its
absolutive forms are almost identical with those of the latter verb: abs. A. veśiōi (cf. also veśiōfei,
veśiovefei), F. veśiove, M. ośōve – 3.ps.sg.pres. A. veśiōi, F. veśiovē, M. ośōve.
ḋ

c

ḋ

˙˙

c

3.10.3.6. In the case of two verbs, the co-occurrence of a 3.ps.sg. present ending in -ei andof an absolutive ending in -i is confined to the dialect of Addū:˙˙(u e nı̄) “to live, be”: A. 3.ps.sg.pres. vēn̆ e i – abs. vēn̆ i ; F. 3.ps.sg.pres. v¯en̆
˛ i – abs. v¯en̆
˛ ı̄. — (M. 3.ps.sg.
pres. u ē – abs. u e ; cf. 3.9.2.2.4 above).
nukunnanı̄ “to leave, come/go out”: A. 3.ps.sg.pres. nukumei – abs. nukumi. — Fua Mulaku and Māle haveidentical forms: 3.ps.sg.pres. nukumē – abs. nukume.
ḋ

ḋ

c

ḋ

ḋ

l̇

l̇

l̇

3.10.4. Irregular absolutives
Apart from the absolutives mentioned so far, which can be classified according to the threeverbal classes, there also exist some isolated absolutive formations which belong to so-called
irregular verbs. Some of these absolutives, which cannot be explained from the synchronic
point of view, have exact equivalents in Sinhalese. As far as the forms in question are attested
in historical Sinhalese, GEIGER was able to trace them back to OIA predecessors (cf. GEIGER
1938, 159 f. and 1900, 74).
M. danı̄ “to go” has an absolutive form M.A. gos, F. goho which agrees with Sinh. gos (cp. also the variant
gosin, colloquial gohin, gihin) belonging to the verb yanavā “to go”. GEIGER derives gos via MIA *gacca
from the old absolutive form -gatya (Skt. gam- “to go”; cf. below); the development of -cc- into -sagrees with the sound laws of both Insular IA languages.526 Although GEIGER offers no explanation forthe o-vocalism in Sinh. gos, he suggests a parallel with the o-vocalism of the absolutive ko a (← Sinh.
karanu; cf. below s.v. kuranı̄).
ṫ

526

Cf. DE SILVA (1970b), 158 and 159. Cf. also 1.7.3.

Irregular absolutives

215

M. annanı̄, A.F. enı̄ “to come” has the absolutive forms M. ais, A. ās, F. āho which correspond to Sinh.
avut, ävit. Via an intermediate *ā-gacca, GEIGER traces the latter forms back to the Skt. absolutiveā-gatya (ā + gam- “to come near, approach”527); on the final -t which contrasts with the final -s in gos,
he states: “Here [i.e. in gos, S.F.] cc has become s, but it seems to be represented by d (through j) inavut, ävit.” Both intermediate forms, avuj as well as avud, are attested in medieval Sinhalese.528 In
contrast to that, the final consonant of the Dhivehi equivalents is unproblematical because it shows that
there was a regular change of -cc- ( → -j) into -s, just as in gos.529
kuranı̄ “to make, do” has the absolutive forms M.A. ko /koś/, F. kō. The Old Dhivehi documents show
variant spellings such as ko u or ko which exactly correspond with Sinh. ko a (but not with its synonym
kara which represents a different formation). In Sinhalese Prakrit, the form katu is attested since the
2nd c. A.D., ko u appearing as a later variant. In medieval Sinhalese, there is a chronological successionof the forms ko (9/10th c.), ko ä (12th c.) and, lastly, ko a . The basis of all these formations must be seen´
in Skt. k t vā.
vanı̄ “to become” has the absolutive forms M. ve, A. vei (but ve-gen etc., cf. below), F. vē, which, like theabsolutives of the a-stems and most of the n-stems, is correlated to the form of the 3.ps.sg.pres. (M. vē,
A. vei, but F. ve) from a synchronical point of view. — In medieval Sinhalese, (9/10th c.), the corresponding absolutive is attested in the form vä, but in the modern language only the variants va and vı̄ are used(cf., e.g., MATZEL 1983, 49). According to GEIGER (1938, 160), the forms vä and va “belong toconj(ugation) II”; vä, however, is the only variant that can be identified with M. ve etc.
The absolutive of bonı̄ “to drink” is M. boe, A. bōi (but bō-gen etc., cf. below), F. bō. This absolutive too
is nearly identical with the 3.ps.sg. pres.; cf. M. boe (besides boi), F. bō and A. boi. The Sinh. equivalentbı̄ is explained by GEIGER (1938, 160) as analogous to dı̄ (cp. denı̄ “to give” treated below).
kanı̄ “to eat” has the absolutive forms M. kai, A. kāi (but kā-gen etc., cf. below), F. kā. In Fua Mulaku, theform of the 3.ps.sg. present is identical with the absolutive; but cf. A. kai, M. kē. — The Sinhaleseequivalent of the absolutive is kā, which, according GEIGER (1938, 159), is a regular formation of the 1st
conjugation.
In the standard language, the absolutive of denı̄ “to give” (cf. 3.9.2.2.2) is dı̄ which is completely identicalwith its Sinh. counterpart, dı̄. In contrast to that, the absolutive has the unexpected form dere in A ū and
Fua Mulaku. Possibly, this form, which has remained unexplained so far, represents an original compound.
c

˙

ṫ

ṫ

ṫ

ṫ

ṫ

ṫ

ṫ

ṙ

c

ḋ

ḋ

c

3.10.5. Reduplicated absolutives
Both gerunds and absolutives can be reduplicated for the expression of a prolonged orintensive action or process (cf. 3.8.2.2); cp. the following typical formations:
Addū

c

˙˙

reduplicated absolutive

Fua MulakuMālea-stembala(i) balaibalā balā

balā balān-stemvedi vedi

ven̆de ven̆devade vadee-stemtemi temi

tem˛ı̄ tem˛ı̄temi temi

As GEIGER stated (1938, 159), reduplicated absolutives are also frequently used in Sinhalese:“The Gerund II [i.e. absolutive; S.F.] is often doubled: bala-balā, kapa-kapā, däka-däka,
527

Cf. MAYHOFER (1965), 99.
GEIGER (1938), 159; cf. also DE SILVA (1970b), 158.
529
Cf. DE SILVA (1970b), 159; cf. also 1.7.3.
528

216

Morphology

peni-penı̄ etc. Such formations have approximately the same meaning as the present gerund‘while looking, while cutting, while seeing, while appearing’.” In Sinhalese, the final longvowel of the first absolutive is regularly shortened (conjugation I: -ā → -a, conjugation III: -ı̄→ -i) in these formations. In contrast to that, the shortening of the vowel is facultative inDhivehi; it mostly concerns the monophthongisation of the diphthong -ai into -a in absolutives of the a-conjugation in Addū (cf. also 3.10.1.1).
In HLSD (1988, 74) the reduplicated absolutive is called “recurrent suffix” with thesecond absolutive being regarded as a suffix, an opinion which can hardly be upheld if thehistorical facts are considered.
˙˙

3.11. Compound verbs and auxiliary verbs expressing “aktionsart” concepts
GEIGER’s term “composite verbs” denotes a grammatical category which is typical not only
for Sinhalese and Dhivehi but for all modern IA languages in general. According to GEIGER(1900, 83), the “composite verbs” were already characteristic of the MIA vernaculars; hestates that “the gerund [absolutive, S.F.] is frequently used to form composite verbs. An
auxiliary verb of somewhat general meaning is annexed to it and this gives the verb apeculiar shade of meaning” (1938, 161). The same type of formation appears under different
names in the Indological literature; it will be called “compound verbs” in the present treatise.
To clarify the “peculiar shade of meaning” GEIGER referred to, it is necessary to provide a
consistent discussion of the terms “(verbal) aspect” and “aktionsart” in this context.
3.11.1. Some general remarks on “aspect” and “aktionsart”
From a strictly structuralistic point of view, “aspect” is defined as a binary category which
involves the whole verbal system. In real aspect languages such as the Slavic languages andRussian in particular, there is no verbal form which does not participate in the binary opposition of the imperfective and the perfective aspect.530 This does not mean, however, thatevery verb must have an aspect partner; there are always some verbal meanings which occur
only in the imperfective or in the perfective aspect because of purely semantical reasons.
Such verbs are called “perfectiva tantum” and “imperfectiva tantum”, resp. Normally neither
the perfective nor the imperfective aspect is represented by a complete verbal paradigm;
instead, the paradigm is constituted by a suppletive addition of the perfective and imperfective
forms. The perfective aspect, as the marked member of this opposition, is defined by theexistence of one or more particular qualities, while the imperfective aspect can simply be
defined by the absence of the same qualities. The verbs are marked grammatically as
perfective or imperfective by the presence or absence of special morphological features531
530

For the theoretical background cf. ISAČENKO 1962, 347-355.
In Modern Russian as well as the other Slavic languages, aspect formation is formally heterogeneous.
Basically three techniques can be distinguished: 1) suffixation: imperfective forms are derived from perfective
verbs by special suffixes (cp., e.g., Russ. otkryt’ pfv. – otkryvat’ ipfv. “to open”; this method is very productive); 2) lexical suppletivism: in rare cases two etymologically unrelated verbs function as a correlative aspectual
pair (cp., e.g., Russ. govorit’ ipfv. – skazat’ pfv. “to speak, say”); 3) prefixation: every imperfective primaryverb (verbum simplex) which is prefixed becomes perfective. In contrast to suffixation and suppletivism,prefixation is not generally accepted as a regular aspect-building method, however. Different from suffixes which
never change the meaning of the verb to which they are connected, prefixes generally keep their own meaning.
This implies that besides the change of aspect, there is also a semantic difference distinguishing primary531

Compound verbs and auxiliary verbs expressing “aktionsart” concepts

217

which, on a formal level, inambiguously express the actual aspect, i.e., the view of the
speaker towards the action or process in question. It has meanwhile been accepted as acommunis opinio that the main characteristic of the perfective aspect consists in thecompleteness or totality of a verbal action or process which is virtually witnessed by the
speaker from a position outside of this process. So to speak, the speaker assumes a perspective view on the whole process from its beginning to its end. In contrast to that, theimperfective aspect is defined by the absence of this total view from outside. It follows thatan imperfective verb expresses the position of an actant right in the middle of a process from
where he or she sees neither the beginning nor the end nor the course of events in their
totality.
Apart from the speaker’s perspective, there is no semantic difference between the two
aspects of a verb; thus, the aspectual pair consisting of a perfective and an imperfective
partner is characterised by semantic identity which leads to the conclusion that both aspects,
as a grammatical doublet, represent only one lexeme. Within the framework of this aspectmodel which is mainly based on Russian, the category of tense is of no significance.532
It is true that some other theories on aspect exist which are not developed exclusively on
the basis of the Slavic system but take into account Semitic and Turkic as well as someWest-European and Oriental Indo-European languages. These models usually include tense as
an important coordinate as well. In this connection, Jerzy KURYŁOWICZ’s observations andideas are of a particular interest.533 From a formal point of view, they are less strict but alsoless consistent. Within the framework of a more open but, at the same time, less consistentaspect system, many languages which do not have aspect as a systematic category in thesense of the strict morphological and semantical criteria outlined above, can be regarded as“aspect languages” too. This implies that the pure meaning of the perfective and imperfective
aspect can be expressed to a certain extent also in languages which do not dispose of acomplementary morphological aspect system. In such languages, aspect is not a primarycategory that could be kept formally distinct from the temporal system; instead, the only way
to express certain nuances of the aspect dichotomy consists in using categories that are(basically) temporal. Thus, the languages in question are characterised by an inseparable
coexistence of aspectual and temporal meanings and functions. E.g., English and Hindi belong
to this type of languages which possess but a reduced set of features to express aspectual
nuances without being aspect languages in the strict sense of the word.
3.11.1.1. S. LIENHARD (1961, 21) whose studies on tense and aktionsart in Modern Hindi
represent an extension of KURYŁOWICZ’s theses (cf. above) in many respects, considers Hindi
imperfective verbs and prefixed perfective verbs; a constellation which is contradictory to the main definition of
aspectual pairs. Basically, prefixation always causes the formation of different types of aktionsart (cf. below).
532
Cf. particularly Ferdinand DE SAUSSURE, Cours de linguistique générale (1916), 162. – Cf. ISAČENKO(1962), 347-352, with further bibliographical indications.
533
Jerzy KURYŁOWICZ, Aspect et temps dans l’histoire du Persan, in: RO XVI, 531 ff., 1953; repr. in
Esquisses linguistiques, 1960), and Le système verbal de l’Indoeuropéen (as a “Note liminaire” in J.K’s
L’apophonie en Indo-Européen, 1956). – Cf. furthermore Erwin KOSCHMIEDER, Studien zum slavischen
Verbalaspekt I-II, in: KZ 55, 1928, 280 ff.; KZ 56, 1929, 78 ff.; id., Zeitbezug und Sprache, 1929; id., Zu den
Grundfragen der Aspekte, in: IF 53, 1935, 280 ff.; Wolfgang SCHLACHTER, Der Verbalaspekt als grammatische
Kategorie, in: MSS 13, 1959, 22 ff. – Bernard COMRIE, Aspect, Cambridge 1976 tries to treat the category of
aspect as a linguistic universal.

218

Morphology

to be a real aspect language characterised by a binary opposition which is formally expressedby means of the participial system, with the present participle as the “constitutive element”
of the imperfective aspect and the past participle as the “constitutive element” of theperfective aspect.534 According to LIENHARD, the temporal system must be understood asa secondary phenomenon which generally results from a “localisation” of forms originallyexpressing aspect onto certain temporal levels; in the case of Hindi, the participles occur inthis function. In LIENHARD’s opinion, this universal change of the originally aspectual
meaning into a more temporal one did not yield homogeneous results in the particularlanguages, but he claims the category of aspect to be still present in all languages, either
occurring as a grammatically unambiguous form or as “aspectual qualities” preserved indifferent degrees within the framework of the temporal system. LIENHARD considers the Latin
system of the consecutio temporum as the most perfect example of a “temporalisation” of the
aspects. He compares the “purely aspectual” meaning of the temporal forms of Modern Hindi
with what we find in Modern English and in the Romance languages where, according toKURYŁOWICZ (cf. above), aspect is rather a syntactical than a morphological category (cf.
LIENHARD, 1961, 21-27).
It must be stated here, however, that the “aspectual” function of the participles in Hindi
is the result of a secondary development. It is not connected with the aspectual opposition ofaorist and imperfect met with in the Old Indo-European languages.535
It is evident that in the sense of a structuralistic definition as given by ISAČENKO (cf.
above), Hindi and other modern IA languages536 which have a comparable verbal system
are no “aspect languages”. Despite the aspectual nuances which are mainly expressed byparticiples (cf. above), it is not the whole verbal system which is governed by a strictly
organised binary aspectual opposition here; cp., e.g., the infinitive which is not involved inany way by the category of aspect. Hindi can be called an “aspect language” in the sameright as English, however. At the same time it must be underlined that “aspect” in thisconnection is not the same as the homonymous category in Slavic; nevertheless, it would be
too simple to reduce this very complex linguistic problem to a purely terminological question.
As there is no aspectual differentiation in the Insular IA languages,537 it is unnecessary to
go into further details of this discussion within the present book.
3.11.1.2. As in the other modern IA languages, the category of “aktionsart” plays an important role in Sinhalese and Dhivehi. In order to avoid a terminological and factual mix-up of
the two distinct categories of aspect and aktionsart, it will be necessary to give an exact
description of the functional and semantic character of the latter category which is best named
534
Cf. also MCGREGOR (1972), 17: “-tā, -ā and their concord variants ... form imperfective and perfective
participles respectively. These characterise verbal actions aspectually as not completed, or as completed.”
535
For the imperfective meaning of the injunctive present in contrast with the perfective meaning of the
injunctive aorist in prohibitive function which is characteristic for the Vedic period of OIA, cf. 3.5.3.1.
536
Within the framework of Indological studies, most of the literature in question deals only with Hindi or
Urdu; cf. MASICA (1991), 262-279.
537
In his grammar of Sinhalese, VYXUXOLEV (1964, 51 ff.) erroneously calls the present participle an“imperfective participle”, and the past participle, a “perfective participle”. However, the Sinhalese participles
have no aspectual nuances at all. Furthermore, VYXUXOLEV opposes the absolutive (e.g., balā “looking, having
looked”) as a “perfective gerund” to the gerund in -min (e.g., balamin “looking”) which he calls “imperfective
gerund”. This “aspectualisation” of the Sinhalese verbal categories is without any foundation.

Compound verbs and auxiliary verbs expressing “aktionsart” concepts

219

by its German term, “aktionsart” literally meaning “kind or way of action”. It was A.V.
ISAČENKO again who, on the basis of the Russian system, exactly defined the peculiar
characteristics of aktionsart and who revealed the complicated interrelations between aspect
and aktionsart without any contradictions (1962, 386). He came to realise that the prefixationof an imperfective verb in Russian not only results in the perfectivation of the verb inquestion but, as a consequence of the specific meaning of the prefix, always gives rise to asemantic re-specification. According to ISAČENKO, an aktionsart can only be derived fromalready existing verbs.538 There are three parameters which qualify the category of aktionsart in Russian inambiguously, both from the morphological and the semantic point of view:
1) The particular meaning of a given verb is modified by an additional semantic nuance; 2)
this modification is grammatically expressed by a specialised prefix or suffix; 3) the verbs
which express a particular aktionsart are aspectually defective, i.e. they can only be perfective
or imperfective.539 The demand for aspectual defectivity of verbs that are determined withrespect to their aktionsart is still a subject of discussion within the framework of Slavic
studies; as it does not play any role for modern Indic languages, it can be ignored here.
Furthermore, it is important to make a distinction between the morphological category of“aktionsart” and the so-called “verbal character”. ISAČENKO (1962, 397) uses the latter termfor verbs that are characterised by common semantic features but are not formally marked ashaving a peculiar “aktionsart”; this is true, e.g., for “frequentative verbs”, i.e. verbs denoting
an action which can be regarded as a continuous sequence of many separate steps (cp., e.g.,
Engl. to hammer).
3.11.1.2.1. Although it is obvious that the Russian scheme of aktionsart formation cannot betransferred directly to the verbal system of the modern IA languages, the function of theprefixes in Russian has to be discussed in a more comprehensive way. The theoreticalperceptions which are based on the rich and morphologically consistent system of aktionsart
in Russian can indeed serve as a model for understanding and analysing the character ofaktionsart in Modern IA. Furthermore, only a good knowledge of the theoretical backgroundcan help to avoid a misinterpretation of aktionsart as being an aspectual phenomenon, which
has all too often occurred in linguistic literature.
In the Slavic languages, the formation of aktionsart is a very productive morphologicalprocess expressing semantic nuances which are added to the basic meaning of a verb. In mostcases, these nuances refer either to a particular phase or temporal segment of the whole verbal
action or process (e.g., to the beginning, to the end or to a temporal delimitation within theoccurrence), or to gradations of quantity and intensity within the course of action.
There are numerous types and subtypes of aktionsart in Russian. Cp., e.g., the “ingressive
aktionsart” which concentrates the attention to the initial point of an action (cp. Russ.

538
Cf. also Jurij S. MASLOV (Sistema osnovnyx ponjatij i terminov slavjanskoj aspektologii, in: Voprosy
obščego jazykoznanija, Leningrad 1965) who in his studies on the Slavic aspect did not differentiate clearlyenough between aspect and aktionsart. In his rather diffuse theory, all Russian verbs represent some kind of“aktionsart”, no matter whether they are morphologically marked. He distinguishes three types of “aktionsart”:
a “characterised” type which is marked by particular morphemes, a “non-characterised” type which is notespecially marked, and an “inconsequently characterised” type which can be marked or not.
539
This would mean that from a verb which expresses an “aktionsart” meaning, no secondary imperfectiveor perfective aspect partner can be derived.

220

Morphology

govorit’ ipfv. “to speak” and za-govorit’ (pfv.) “to start speaking”), or the “delimitative
aktionsart” which draws the attention to a certain phase within the course of action (cp.
rabotat’ ipfv. “to work” and po-rabotat’ “to work for a certain time, for a while”). There aredifferent kinds of “resultative aktionsart” which concentrate on the final phase plus the resultof an action; this is true, e.g., for the “perdurative-resultative aktionsart” which expresses thefinishing moment of an intensive procedure that takes a certain time (cp. pro-rabotat’ pfv. “towork through (without a break) for a certain time and come to a result”). All the examples
given here emphasise a certain segment of the process. The aktionsart in question brings a
special phase of the action into the visual field of the speaker; this is expressed grammaticallyby the perfectivisation of the verb.540
In Russian, the diverse prefixes modify the basic meaning of the imperfective primaryverbs they combine with to a different extent. The more the meaning of a verb is changed by
the particular prefix, the more the aktionsart which results from the prefix becomes transparent. Thus, the aktionsart formations can be distinguished not only semantically but also by
their particular derivational relation with the underlying verb.
3.11.1.2.2. From this it follows that there are two main aktionsart types, viz. lexical andmodifying ones541, both occurring in numerous subtypes. In the case of a lexical aktionsart,
the prefix adds a new semantic element to the original verbal meaning, while in the case ofa modifying aktionsart the prefix is semantically closely related to the verb. Thus, a more
concrete or more abstract meaning of a given prefix predestines it to create either lexical or
modifying aktionsart meanings, but the decisive factor which determines the actually resulting
type of aktionsart consists in the combination with the respective verbal meaning. Different
kinds of lexical aktionsart are represented, e.g., in Russ. za-govorit’, po-rabotat’ and prorabotat’ (cf. above). Typical examples of the modifying type are, e.g., na-pisat’ (vs. pisat’
ipfv.) “to write”, na-risovat’ (vs. risovat’ ipfv.) “to paint, draw”, or na-mazat’ (vs. mazat’
ipfv.) “to spread, grease”, all of them expressing a resultative aktionsart. The prefix na- has
the basic meaning “on (the surface of something / somebody)”; the verbs adapting it have theunderlying meaning of “to mark (out) the surface of an object; to put marks on the surface
of an object”. The special meaning of the prefix is already inherent in the semantical content
of these verbs; this is why the prefix does not add a new semantic nuance to their original
meaning. Prefixes occurring in this constellation are usually called “empty prefixes” (“préverbes vides”), but there is no prefix which is specialised to be “empty” – the presupposition
always consists in a highest possible semantic overlap with the respective imperfective verb.
The more the particular meaning of a prefix corresponds with the verbal meaning to which
it is added, the more the prefix is semantically neutralised and the deeper it merges with themain semantic characteristics of the verb in question. Only in such cases, a prefix can occur
540
Thus, in this connection perfectivisation is nothing more than a concomitant phenomenon, accompanying
the aktionsart formation in those cases where the primary verb is imperfective and the aktionsart meaning is
expressed by a particular prefix. The prefixation of a perfective verb does not change the aspect as the case ofthe (“quantitative”) “attenuative aktionsart” shows which expresses a deduction of the intensity of an action andwhich can be built only from perfective verbs (cp. Russ. nažat’ pfv. “to press” vs. pri-nažat’ pfv. “to press alittle bit, not intensively”; zabyt’ pfv. “to forget” vs. pod-zabyt’ pfv. “to forget temporarily”). – For more details
and other types of aktionsart cf. ISAČENKO (1962), 388 ff.
541
Cf. especially O. MÜLLER, Zur Stellung der Verben mit préverbes vides im russischen Aspektsystem, in:Zeitschrift für Slawistik IX, 1964, 213-220.

Compound verbs and auxiliary verbs expressing “aktionsart” concepts

221

in the purely grammatical function of a “préverbe vide”. Because of this semantical neutrality
with respect to the primary imperfective verb, a modifying resultative aktionsart of this kindcan take over the function of constituting a perfective aspect partner. There is a strong
tendency to avoid such provisional aspect pairs, however; in many cases we find a secondary
imperfective verb instead which is derived by suffixation from the prefixed perfective
verb.542 In Russian, this represents a very productive development. It follows that theperfectivisation by means of “préverbes vides” must be considered as a provisional solution
in the evolution of the historically rather young binary category of aspect in Modern Russian.
Within this morphological development, the part of the modifying aktionsart type is that ofa temporary “donor”.543 The analysis of the diachronic interrelationship of aspect andaktionsart shows that prefixation in general – and the formation by means of “préverbes
vides” in particular – cannot be regarded as an aspect-building method although this is stilla widely held doctrine.
3.11.1.2.3. Vincenc POŘÍZKA’s544 and Helmut NESPITAL’s545 understanding of “aspect” in
Hindi and Urdu must be dealt with within this context too. NESPITAL, who in the main pointsof his argumentation follows POŘÍZKA (as against KURYŁOWICZ, LIENHARD e.a., cf. above)
explicitly denies the original present participle (“Partizip I”) to be the imperfective partner
and the past participle (“Partizip II”) to be the perfective partner of an aspectual opposition.
Influenced by MASLOV’s inefficient theory on aspect and aktionsart (cf. fn. 538 above),
NESPITAL is convinced of the existence of an aspect system in Hindi and Urdu which isequivalent to the Slavic system. In his opinion, the “préverbes vides” represent the central
point of Slavic aspect formation. Following POŘÍZKA, he calls a “sequence of two verbs thefirst one of which appears in the form of the normal absolutive while the second one is as an
inflected form” a “modified verbal expression”; if this verbal sequence satisfies certain
semantic requirements, the modifying verb is grammaticalised like a “préverbe vide”.
Although NESPITAL is right in considering the “modifying verbal expression” as a phenomenon which corresponds to the combination of an imperfective verb with a préverbe vide in
Slavic, his conclusions are wrong because he confuses “aktionsart” and “aspect” concepts.
Another term used for those verbs in auxiliary function for which POŘÍZKA created theexpression “modifying verbs”, is “vector verbs”.546 The combination consisting of an
absolutive form of a main verb and a vector verb is called “compound verb” or “compositeverb” (cf. 3.11 above). Essentially, the compound verbs of Indo-Aryan languages represent
different kinds of aktionsart. Although this category is semantically less manifold and, fromthe formal point of view, less consistent in Modern Indo-Aryan than in the Slavic languages,
there is a wide range of aktionsart meanings that can be expressed by compound verbs, viz.
542
Cp., e.g., Russ. bagrit’ ipfv. “to turn something (purple) red” with its resultative aktionsart derivative
o-bagrit’ which is well attested in the early 19th century as a perfective aspect partner of bagrit’; in Modern
Russian, however, the aspect pair is obagrjat’ ipfv. – obagrit’ pfv., obagrjat’ representing a secondary imperfective.
543
For a detailed synchronical and historical description of this development and for a comprehensive
bibliography on this subject, cf. Sonja FRITZ, Zur Problematik der “préverbes vides” im Russischen, in:Klagenfurter Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 6, 1980, 139-159.
544
POŘÍZKA (1967-1970 and 1970); cf. also HACKER (1958).
545
NESPITAL (1981), particularly 61 f.
546
Cf. also HOOK (1974); CHATTERJEE (1988); MASICA (1991), 327 ff.

222Morphology

completion, resultativity, suddenness, intensity, progressivity or duration of a verbal action orprocess. In the Slavic languages, it is not possible to combine all prefixes with all verbs; thesame holds true for the combination of main verbs and modifying auxiliary verbs in theModern IA languages. The selection of the modifying verbs that can be used always depends
on the meaning of a given main verb. Each auxiliary verb which can appear as a modifiermust have a concrete meaning which overlaps with that of the main verb. Depending on the
degree of the semantic overlap or “harmony” between the main verb and the auxiliary verb,
the original meaning of the latter usually becomes more or less pale; sometimes it gets evenlost completely. Combinations of main verbs and auxiliary verbs which are frequently used
can be treated as independent lexical units.
3.11.1.2.4. Most linguistic investigations into compound verbs of Modern IA languages areconcerned with Hindi or Urdu. The number of auxiliary verbs with a modifying function
assumed in these treatises varies from author to author. In his grammar of Modern Standard
Hindi, MCGREGOR (1972, 99-105) lists the following 13 verbs which regularly occur in thisfunction:jānā “to go” (stresses the completion of an action or process);lenā “to take” (reflexive-medial meaning);denā “to give” (often used in contrast with lenā, suggesting that the action particularly concerns a person
other than the actant);
pa ān “to fall, be found” and u h nā “to rise” (are often used with verbs denoting “to fall” and “to rise”
themselves; in stressing “a change of circumstance, particularly a sudden one”, these verbs come near to
the ingressive aktionsart of Slavic (cf. 3.11.1.2.1 above);ālnā “to throw down” (stresses the violent, decisive or drastic course of an action or, that it is done in acasual way);
bai h nā “to sit” (suggests, e.g., something anticlimactic or deteriorative, or the feeling that an action is done
foolishly, thoughtlessly or maliciously);ānā “to come” (complementary to jānā, cf. above; suggests completion; as common with verbs of motion,ānā emphasises “the carrying through of actions directed towards a place, literal or figurative, from which
they are considered”);
calnā “to move, go” (sometimes stresses the progressive element in an action);
nikalnā “to emerge” (expresses the suddenness or inexpectedness of an action);pahuṁcnā “to reach, arrive at” (has a resultative meaning in the sense of Slavic; cf. 3.11.1.2.2 above);pānā “to get, find” (“stresses not so much the ability to perform an action as the possibility of performingit”);
rakhnā “to put, place, keep, hold” (“underlines the fact that the action results in the achievement of a stateof some duration”).547
ṫ

ṙ

ḋ

ṫ

As against MCGREGOR, HOOK who in his exhaustive study on compound verbs only deals
with popular Hindi, even assumes the enormous number of 35 vector verbs of this type (1974,
19). R. CHATTERJEE enumerates 18 vector verbs for Bengali (1988, 76-7).
3.11.1.2.5. In contrast to this, the Insular IA languages possess but a small number ofauxiliary or vector verbs which combine with main verbs in the form of absolutives or
gerunds. But in spite of the small variety of auxiliaries, the role compound verbs play inmodern Sinhalese and Dhivehi is not less important than in Hindi, and their use is extremely

547

All the direct quotations are taken from MCGREGOR (1972), 99-105; for more details about the different
kinds of aktionsart meaning which is expressed by the given modifying verbs cf. ib.

Compound verbs and auxiliary verbs expressing “aktionsart” concepts

223

frequent; cp. MATZEL’s observations on Sinhalese which are true for Dhivehi as well: “Suchcombinations are of a great importance for the Sinhalese language. The different kinds of
combinations which can express reflexivity, the beginning, course, repetition and conclusionof an action, have compensated the loss of forms which had a modifying function in theverb[al system of] the older language.”548
As in the other Indo-Aryan languages, the combination of auxiliaries and main verbs is nota matter of free choice but of semantic harmony in Sinhalese and Dhivehi. Many compoundverbs are used like lexical units as GEIGER already stated speaking about Sinhalese.549

3.11.2. Combinations with auxiliary verbs in Sinhalese
In Sinhalese, five types of verbs can be used in auxiliary function. All these verbs are
combined with the absolutive, in particular cases also with the gerund of a main verb.550
3.11.2.1. gannavā “to take, buy” gives the main verb a kind of medial-reflexive meaning: “itexpresses that the action refers to the actant, that it is useful for him ... Thus, dannu means‘to know’, but däna-gannu ‘to get to know, recognise’; dakinu ‘to see’, but däka-gannu ‘tofind out (something) for oneself ...’”551 Cp. also hōdanavā “to wash” vs. hōdā-gannavā “towash oneself”; ban̆dinavā “to bind, tie” vs. bän̆da-gannavā “to tie (something) aroundoneself” etc.552
3.11.2.2. Besides some special meanings, all verbs in auxiliary function which basically mean
“to put” emphasise the finishing phase or the completion of an action in the sense of a“resultative aktionsart”. This is true for the following three verbs:
piyanavā “to close, shut”; the meanings “to put, set” and “to leave” are obsolete in Modern Sinhalese.553
In auxiliary function, piyanavā stresses the completion or the perfect realisation of an action in the senseof a resultative aktionsart. Cp. dı̄-piyanavā which is derived from denavā “to give”, or däka-piyanavā
from dakinavā “to see”. In the older language, piyanavā was often used in combination with causatives,
cp. karavā-piyanu “to cause (somebody) to do (something) completely”. — The past participle ofpiyanavā, which does not occur independently, has the form pı̄ in the written language, while thecolloquial form is pū / pu. In combination with the absolutive of a main verb, it is frequently used tobuild a secondary past participle; especially the forms ending in -pu are considered as the most important
type of past participles in the colloquial language. Cp., e.g., liyā-/liya-pu “written”, from liyanavā “towrite”; hi a -pu “been”, of hi i navā “to be”; ā-pu “(having) come”, of enavā “to come”; bı̄pu“drunken”, of bonavā “to drink”.554 — The old imperative forms of piyanavā, sg. pan, piya, pl. pallā,
ṫ

ṫ

548
MATZEL (1983), 81: “Derartigen Zusammensetzungen kommt in der singhalesischen Sprache eine große
Bedeutung zu. Durch die verschiedenen Arten von Zusammensetzungen, die Reflexivität, Beginn, Verlauf,
Wiederholung und Abschluß der Handlung bezeichnen können, ist der Verlust von Formen, die in der älteren
Sprache der Modifikation des Verbs dienten, ausgeglichen worden.”549“Viele Verbindungen werden freilich stereotyp und in ihrem Ursprung kaum mehr gefühlt” (GEIGER
1941a, 28 / 1973, 549).
550
Cf. GEIGER (1900), 83 f.; (1941a), 28 / (1973), 549; (1938), 161 f. Cf. also MATZEL (1983), 82 f.
551“... es wird ausgedrückt, daß die Handlung sich auf den Agens bezieht, ihm Nutzen bringt ... So heißt
dannu: wissen, aber däna-gannu: sich ein Wissen aneignen, erkennen; dakinu: sehen, aber däka-gannu: etwas fürsich ausfindig machen ...” GEIGER (1941a), 28 / (1973), 549.
552
For further examples cf. MATZEL (1983), 81.
553
Cf., e.g., JAYAWARDENA-MOSER (1993), 138.
554
Cf. GEIGER (1900), 83 and (1938), 161; 137. Many examples can be found in MATZEL (1983), 91.

224

Morphology

piyav, only occur in combination with the absolutive of a main verb too; they are used to build very
intensive, strict imperative forms (cf. 3.5.4.2.1).
In the modern Sinhalese language, lanavā “to put, set, place” is but rarely used as a main verb. As an
auxiliary, it is almost synonymous with piyanavā. The past participle lū / lu, in the literary language lı̄,is used like pū / pu / pı̄ (cf. above); it occurs very frequently. In combination with the absolutive of amain verb, the absolutive lā is regularly used for the formation of the colloquial absolutives in -lā, cooccurring with a shortening of the long final vowels of primary absolutives of the 1st and the 3rd
conjugation. Cp., e.g., balalā ← balā-lā (of balanavā “to look (for)”, conjugation I), or pipilā ← pipı̄-lā(of pipenavā “to bloom”, conjugation III); däkalā (absolutive däka, of dakinavā “to see”, conjugation II)
remains without a change. — In combination with a few verbs, lanavā gives rise to causative-likemeaning; cp., e.g., gotā-lanu “to let plait, weave”, from gotanu “to plait, weave” (cf. GEIGER 1900, 83).
In auxiliary function, damanavā / dānavā “to put, place, fix; subdue, tame, overpower” is generally used in
the same sense as piyanavā and lanavā. In combination with the absolutive of transitive verbs, it yields
the nuances of resultativity and completion of an action; cp., e.g., kapā-damanavā “to cut (completely)
through”, bän̆da-damanavā “to tie / bind up”, etc.

3.11.2.3. yanavā “to go” and enavā “to come” are only rarely used as auxiliary verbs inSinhalese. GEIGER (1938, 161) attests a similar nuance for yanavā as for piyanavā etc.; cp.,
e.g., virı̄-yanu “melted (completely)” (of virenavā “to melt”). According to MATZEL (1983,81), the combination of yanavā with the absolutive of a main verb expresses “the complete
execution of an action which extended over a certain period”, i.e. a kind of resultativedurative aktionsart. In a purely periphrastic use, this nuance cannot be distinguished any
longer, however. In this connection, special attention should be drawn to two compound verbs
which are frequently used in the modern language. In both these cases, it is gannavā “totake” which functions as the main verb; the verbs in question are gena-yanavā, also appearing in the phonetic variant geniyanavā, with the meaning “to take away”, lit. “to go having
taken”, and gena-enavā, contracted to genēnavā and furthermore shortened by haplology togēnavā, meaning “to bring”, lit. “to come having taken”.555
3.11.2.4. In combination with the absolutive of a main verb, Sinh. äti “is (there)”, which
represents a petrified relic form of the old copula (cp. Pa. atthi, Skt. asti), has a twofold
function: On the one hand, it can add the nuance of completion, on the other hand it can also
express the speaker’s assumption that an action has probably taken place; cp., e.g., ohu
gedara gihillā äti “Probably he has gone home”556 (gihillā being a compound of thecolloquial absolutive form gihin and the absolutive lā; cf. 3.10.4 and 3.11.2.2). According to
GEIGER (1938, 161), both meanings are represented together in the sentence um̆ba aran-äti“you have (or may have) taken” (with aram being a colloquial absolutive form of aragannavā “to take (for oneself)”; cf. MATZEL 1983, 49).
˙

3.11.2.5. From a morphological point of view, three verbs establish a special set in theformation of compound verbs in that they do not combine with the absolutive but with thegerund or the reduplicated absolutive in auxiliary function. They add a pronounced nuance ofduration to the main verb. The verbs in question are in̆dinavā / innavā “to sit; be (there), bepresent, exist”, sitinavā / hitinavā “to stand; be, remain, stay” (both verbs referring only to
˙

˙

555
Cf. GEIGER 1938, 162 and 1900, 84; cf. also MATZEL 1983, 49. Hindi has exact parallels in le jānā, lit.
“to go having taken”, and le ānā, lit. “to come having taken”.
556
Cf. MATZEL (1983), 85.

Combinations with auxiliary verbs in Sinhalese225

living beings) and tiyenavā / tibenavā “to be, exist, be located” (of inanimate things). In thecase of tibenavā, GEIGER reconsidered the character of the aktionsart it expresses in thecourse of time; in 1900, he still wrote that “tibenu ‘be’ expresses the completion of anaction”,557 but about fourty years later he regarded the same verb as an auxiliary adding adurative meaning to the main verb (GEIGER 1938, 161). Both GEIGER and MATZEL compare
the periphrastic function of the three auxiliary verbs with that of the English progressive
form.558 Cp., e.g., kapamin in̆dim “I am cutting”; kapamin (kapa-kapā) unim “I have been
cutting”.
3.11.3. Paradigmatic combinations which consist of the absolutive of a main verb and a
twofold auxiliary verb are usual in Sinhalese; their use is not as systematised as it is in
Dhivehi, however (cf. below). The most important formations in Sinhalese are colloquialabsolutives ending in -lā, past participles ending in -lū / -lu, -lı̄ (aux. verb lanavā; cf.
3.11.2.2) and -pū / -pu, -pı̄ (aux. verb piyanavā; cf. 3.11.2.2). Cp., e.g., gena-gihillā “having
taken away”, the colloquial compound absolutive of gena-yanavā “to take away”, lit. “to go
having taken”, (gena absolutive of the main verb gannavā “to take”; gihillā, a reduplicatedabsolutive consisting of gihin from yanavā “to go” and -lā from lanavā “to put, set, place”),
but also the colloquial (infinite) preterite of the same verb, gena-giyapu¯˘(absolutive gena +infinite pret. giyā + infinite pret. -pu; cf. MATZEL 1983, 49 and 92.)

3.11.4. Compound verbs and auxiliary verbs in Dhivehi
In Dhivehi, the combination of the absolutive of a main verb and an auxiliary verb is used forthe systematic formation of compound participles and finite forms of the preterite and thefuture as well as compound absolutive forms. The finite and the infinite preterite forms andthe absolutive formations occur very frequently while the corresponding future forms are used
but rarely. Composite present formations are built by a few auxiliary verbs only. Some
auxiliary verbs play an outstanding role as morphological elements constituting periphrastic
formations, while others are only used within unchangeable idiomatic phrases.
Those verbs which regularly occur in modifying function together with absolutives will be
discussed below. Most of the auxiliary verbs will be found in all dialects and used in thesame way throughout the Dhivehi speaking area; exceptional cases will be noted.
3.11.4.1. Dhivehi must once have possessed a verb *fianı̄ which presumably meant “to put,set, place; close, shut” in accordance with Sinh. piyanavā (cf. 3.11.2.2). In the standard
language, *fianı̄ has become obsolete as a main verb today; even in the earliest written
documents it is not attested independently. The same holds true for the southern dialects, theverb meaning “to shut, close” being lappanı̄ everywhere in Modern Dhivehi.
In the modern language, *fianı̄ is a very productive auxiliary verb with a mainly morphological function; it does have a semantical component too, however, which can be paraphrasedwith “just having got (something) completely finished”. This nuance, which can easily be

557
558

GEIGER (1900), 83: “tibenu ‘sein’ drückt den Abschluß einer Handlung aus.”
GEIGER (1938), 161; MATZEL (1983), 72.

226Morphology

regarded as a resultative aktionsart, cannot be associated with all verbs; nevertheless *fianı̄ is
one of the most frequent auxiliaries, being used for the periphrastic formation of a special setof categories which will hereafter be called “absolutive I”, “past participle I” and “(finite)
preterite I”. The formation of a “future I” with the respective forms of *fianı̄ remains
exceptional though; cp. the first person singular dakkā-fānan which in a more elevated styleof the standard language has the same meaning as the normal future form dakkānan “I shallshow” (M. dakkanı̄ “to show”). The unalterable forms -fānan and -fānu which in thelanguage of Māle are used for the formation of a polite imperative, must have originated as
future forms of *fianı̄ as well (cf. 3.5.4.2.2). The endings of the finite preterite I are identicalwith the finite forms of the primary preterite paradigm of *fianı̄ which is preserved only
within this constellation where they are added to the absolutive of the main verb. A
representative example of the a-stems, from which preterite I can be regularly derived, is the
Addū-paradigm of balanı̄ “to look” with the forms 1.ps.sg. bala-fin, 2nd/3rd ps.sg. bala-fi;
1.ps.pl. bala-fimā, 2nd/3rd ps.pl. bala-fia [balafie]. — The short form of the past participle I,bala-fi, is identical with the 3.ps.sg. of the finite preterite I. — Formations of a preterite I
generally occurs with the n-stems as well; cp. M. hure-fin (hunnanı̄ “to stand, be”), in̆de-fin(innanı̄ “to sit; marry, be married”). — Furthermore, preterite I can also be derived from somee-stems; cp. M. ule-fin (ulenı̄ “to be, live”), A. edi-fin (M. edenı̄ “to wish”).
˙˙

˙

˙

3.11.4.2. From a formal point of view and from its meaning, Dhiv. lanı̄ “to wear, put”
corresponds with Sinh. lanavā in auxiliary function (cf. 3.11.2.2). Just like *fianı̄, lanı̄ is used
for the systematic formation of periphrastic forms which will be called “absolutive II”, “pastparticiple II” and “preterite II” below. In auxiliary function lanı̄ occurs as frequently as*fianı̄; it gives the main verb a nuance of “completion of the action”, together with aconnotation of urgency. The combinations with lanı̄ are formed by the same morphologicalrules as those with *fianı̄; cp. the preterite II of balanı̄ “to look” in the dialect of Addū with
1.ps.sg. bala-lin, 2./3.ps.sg. bala-li; 1.ps.pl. bala-limā, 2./3.ps.pl. bala-lia [balalie] where thepreterite forms of lanı̄ are added to the absolutive without any further change. The short formof past participle II is bala-li. With the n-stems, preterite II is as common as with the a-stems(cp., e.g., M. hure-lin from hunnanı̄ “to stand, be”, in̆de-lin from innanı̄ “to sit; marry, bemarried”), while e-stems use it only to a small extent (cp., e.g., M. teme-lin from temenı̄ “toget wet”). — The formation of a “future II” is rare although lanı̄ is apt to add a certain
semantic nuance to the pure future meaning; cp., e.g., M. nimmā-lānan “I shall finish(something) as usual” as against the primary future form nimmānan “I shall finish (something)”.
˙˙

3.11.4.2.1. The semantic difference distinguishing the two most productive auxiliary verbs of
Dhivehi, *fianı̄ and lānı̄, can be demonstrated by two examples from Addū. In 1) ava dōnibala-fin / ava dōni bala-lin, both variants of the secondary preterite express a kind of
resultative aktionsart as against the normal past tense ava dōni belin “I looked after thedhonis”. While ava dōni bala-fin means “I have looked after the dhonis just right now (andI know everything about their actual condition)”, ava dōni bala-lin means “I looked after thedhonis (doing what I had to do)”. — The other example is 2) fūna-fin “I have just dived”
contrasting with fūna-lin “I had to dive, so I did it” (cp. M. fı̄nanı̄ “to dive”). It is obvious
from both examples that the preterite I with -fi comes close in meaning to the English present
perfect.
˙

˙˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

Composite verbs and auxiliary verbs in Dhivehi

227

3.11.4.3. gannanı̄ which as a main verb means only “to buy” in Modern Dhivehi, is used as
an auxiliary in the periphrastic formation of an “absolutive III”, a “past participle III” anda finite “preterite III”. All these forms, especially absolutive III, are very productive. In manycases the compound verbs which are built by means of gannanı̄ show complete paradigms.
There are essentially two different semantic nuances that are added to the meaning of themain verb by gannanı̄ used as an auxiliary. In combination with intransitive verbs, gannanı̄
produces a reflexive-medial meaning just as its Sinh. counterpart gannavā does (cf. 3.11.2.1);
cp. the examples A. teduvi-ga /gat/ “he/she got up (by him-/herself)” (3.ps.sg. pret. III of
teduvanı̄ “to get up”); F. temı̄ gatin “I got (myself) wet” (1.ps.sg. pret. III of temenı̄ “to getwet”); F. temı̄ gan! “get (yourself) wet!” (2.ps.sg. imperative III); A. ava nukumi-gatin “Icame/went out (by myself)” (1.ps.sg. pret. III of nukunnanı̄ “to come/go out”).
In the preterite and in absolutive constructions, gannanı̄ in combination with certain verbal
meanings yields the semantic nuance of “to manage to do something, achieve” which canclearly be regarded as a “resultative aktionsart”. Cp., e.g., A. muhummā bē en damaga“Muhammā Bē managed to catch bait fish (all at once)” (T2, 9; dama-ga /gat/ 3.ps.sg. pret.
III of damanı̄ “to pull (out)”; en “bait fish” (as a primary plural).
“Absolutives III” of a-stems, with -gen following the absolutive ending (M.F. -ā, A. -a← -ai), often appear in contracted form, -ā-gen (A. -a-gen, cf. 3.10.1.1) being shortened to-ān. This phonetic phenomenon which frequently occurs with the a-stems in general but alsowith the “root verbs” (cf. 3.1.1) lanı̄ “to put, place” (lāgen → lān) and kanı̄ “to eat” (kāgen→ kān), seems to be unattested in the literary language; it is particularly characteristic of thedialect of Fua Mulaku. Cp. the following example:
c

c

c

c

F. kēfē, mi ōtı̄ ai vago jahān (← jahāgen). “Having said (this), he acted like a thief” (T1, 21a; kē-fē abs.I ofkēnı̄, M. kianı̄ “to speak, say”; mi adv. “now”; ōtı̄ part.pret. of M. onnanı̄ “to lie, be” + focus-marker-ı̄: “the way he was now, was ...”; ai quotation particle; vago nom. “thief”; jahān ← jahā-gen abs.III of
jahanı̄ “to beat”; vago jahanı̄ “to act as/like a thief”.)

3.11.4.4. The following table shows some typical secondary absolutives which are built byaddition of *fianı̄, lanı̄ and gannanı̄:

II

III

˙˙

I

Addū

c

absolutive derivations

Fua MulakuMālea-stembalafeibalāfēbalāfā / balāfain-stemvedefeiven̆defē

vadefā / vadefai

e-stemtemifeitem˛ı̄fē

temifā / temifai

a-stembalalāibalālāibalālāin-stemvedelāiven̆delāivadelāie-stem†temilāitemı̄lāitemilāia-stembalagenbalāgenbalāgenn-stemvedegenven̆degenvadegene-stemtemigentemı̄gentemigen

228

Morphology

3.11.4.5. In the standard language of Māle, there is one more auxiliary that is used in theformation of a compound preterite, viz. danı̄ “to go”. In accordance with its basic meaning,
this verb can be combined with most intransitives, constituting a complete paradigm of finite
preterite forms. In contrast to that, the systematic formation of this preterite variant isconfined to the 3.ps.sg. in Addū und Fua Mulaku. This “preterite IV” is often used for the
expression of a “definitive completion of an intransitive action”; thus it serves as a formantof a terminative-resultative aktionsart.
As a rule, a preterite IV can be derived from all e-stem verbs. The characteristic paradigmof the standard language can be illustrated with nimenı̄ “to finish, come to an end”:c˙˙

1st ps.sg.

nimijjain

1st ps.pl.

nimijjaimu

2nd ps.sg.

nimijje

2nd ps.pl.

nimijjaimu

nimijje

3rd ps.pl.

nimijje

3rd ps.sg.

3.11.4.5.1. In all these forms, -jj- has developed from -di-: 1.ps.sg. nimi-jjain ← *nimi-diain,
2nd/3rd ps.sg. and 3rd ps.pl. nimi-jje ← *nimi-dia via an intermediate form -dye, 1./2.ps.pl.
nimi-jjaimu ← *nimi-diaimu559. In the southernmost dialects, the only form we find is the
3.ps.sg. (A. nimige, F. nimı̄ge). A typical feature of this formation is the dative construction
it brings about in sentences like A. ma nimige or M. ahanna nimijje (ma / ahanna pers.
pron. 1.ps.sg. dat. “to me”); the semantic nuance thus achieved can be rendered by “it hascome to an end for me”, i.e., “I have managed to come to an end”. In contrast to this, thenominative construction we find in M. aharen nimijjain “I have come to an end” (aharen
pers.pron. 1.ps.sg. nom.) has no direct equivalent in Addū. As a further example of thedative-agent cp. A. ma temige, F. maśa temı̄ge, M. ahanna temijje “it has become wet forme”, i.e. “I have got wet” (from temenı̄ “to get wet”). In the standard language, we again
find the corresponding construction with the agent in the nominative, i.e., aharen temijjainmeaning “I have got wet (by myself)”. It has to be kept in mind that to a smaller extent, everbs also show forms of preterites I and II which have a nominative construction throughout;cp., e.g., M. aharen teme-lin “I got wet” (pret. II).
c

c

c

c

˙˙

c

c

3.11.4.5.2. Apart from other secondary preterite formations, preterite IV regularly occurs withintransitive n-verbs as well. Cp., e.g., M. 1.ps.sg. hurejjain, 2./3.ps.sg. hurejje etc. (of hunnanı̄
“to stand, be”), or M. 1.ps.sg. in̆dejjain, 2./3.ps.sg. in̆dejje etc. (of innanı̄ “to sit, marry, bemarried”). Like iśı̄nnanı̄ “to sit”, onnanı̄ “to lie, be there”, and ośōnnanı̄ “to lie (down)”,hunnanı̄ and innanı̄ build forms of preterites I and II as well.560 As against this, the n-verbs
nukunnanı̄ “to come/go out” (M. nukumejje etc., F. nukumege, A. nukumige) and vannanı̄ “toenter” (cf. A. vedege) obviously have only forms of preterite III (with nominative construction) besides preterite IV; cp. A. ma nukumi-ge “I went out (having definitely left)” asagainst preterite III ava nukumi-gatin “I finally managed to go out”.
c

559
560

For further considerations on the history of this formation cf. 3.12.5.4.2.
For the suppletive paradigms of these verbs cf. 3.14.

Composite verbs and auxiliary verbs in Dhivehi

229

3.11.4.5.3. For verbs belonging to the a-stem class, the formation of preterite IV seems to beunusual (for morphological reasons?) even if their meaning is undoubtedly intransitive. Cp.,e.g., the verbs fı̄nanı̄ “to dive” or nı̄danı̄ “to sleep” which, like the n-stems, form a preterite
I or II by means of *fianı̄ and lanı̄ but which obviously have no preterite IV. The only
attested examples of preterites IV which have to be considered within this framework arebuilt from a-verbs expressing some kind of spatial motion; cp., e.g., F. arāge, A. arage “(he)came up, climbed up” occurring besides the usual inactive form F. erı̄ge, A. erige (M. aranı̄
“to climb (up), get (up)”) or A. divage “(he) ran” (M. duvanı̄ “to run”).561
3.11.4.5.4. It seems that preterite IV cannot be derived from verbs with an unambiguouslytransitive meaning. In many cases where an active a-verb opposes itself to an inactive e-verb
belonging to the same root, we find a complementary distribution of preterite I and II on the
one hand and preterite IV on the other hand; cp., e.g., M. aharen huttaifin [huttāfin] “I havestopped (somebody/-thing)”, 1.ps.sg. pret.I of huttanı̄ “to stop (trans.)”, vs. M. aharen
huttijjain “I have stopped (myself)”, 1.ps.sg. pret.IV of huttenı̄ “to stop (intr.)”; A. ava
fihalin “I have baked (something, because I had to do it)”, 1.ps.sg. pret.II of fihanı̄ “to fry,bake (trans.)”, vs. A. ma fihige “I have baked (something; now it is finished)”, 3.ps.sg.
pret.IV of fihenı̄ “to fry, bake (intr.)” with dative agent ma (pers.pron.1.ps.sg.).
˙˙

˙˙

˙˙

˙˙

˙˙

c

c

3.11.4.5.5. The verb gendanı̄ “to take (something) out / away” consists of gen, an archaic
absolutive form of the main verb gannanı̄, and danı̄ “to go” used in auxiliary function. Froma semantic point of view, the two components with the original meaning “to go taking /having taken” merged to such a degree that they must be regarded as one verbal unit inModern Dhivehi. In the standard language, gendanı̄ shows a full paradigm, while in thesouthern dialects the corresponding forms exist only to the same extent as danı̄ is used as anindependent verb.562 gendanı̄, which corresponds exactly with Sinh. gena-yanavā,563
represents a very archaic compound as the shape of the absolutive shows. The regularabsolutive of gannanı̄ is A.F. gine, M. gane (cf. 3.10.3.2 s.v. gannanı̄ “to buy”). In themodern language, the occurrence of gen is confined to a few verbal compounds which can all
be regarded as semantic units; besides gendanı̄, this is true for gennanı̄ “to bring, fetch, gofor” (cf. 3.11.4.6) and gen gulenı̄ “to look after, care for (somebody / something)”, the latteroccurring only in the standard language. The earliest attestations of this absolutive appear
already in the copper-plate documents where we find gene (L1 d/2,3 etc.; L2 34,2 etc.;
L3 4/2,2 etc., L4 a/2,2; L5 4/2,3), gen (L1 t/2,1 and L2 2,5 preceding ais “coming”, cf.
3.11.4.6 below; L4 e/1,3 etc.), and the pret.I genfi (RC 7,12). gene gosu (L1 d/1,4) represents
the oldest attested form of the absolutive of gendanı̄; the modern form M. gengos is firstattested in 1759 A.D., in the so-called “Palace Inscription” written in Tāna (ITMP 1,3).
˙

3.11.4.6. As an auxiliary verb, annanı̄ “to come” agrees with danı̄. In the modern language,
gennanı̄ “to bring, fetch” is considered to be an independent verb; it is no longer analysed as
a combination of the petrified absolutive gen and annanı̄, meaning “to come taking / having

561

It is not clear whether hin̆ganı̄ “to walk” can form a preterite IV besides preterite I.
For details cf. 3.14.2.
563
GEIGER (1902), 921, no. 161: gendān; cf. also 3.11.2.3.
562

230

Morphology

taken”. The oldest attestation of this compound is the absolutive gen-ais “coming having
taken / taking”, which is to be found in the copper-plate inscriptions L1 (t/2,1) and L2 (2,5).
gennanı̄ has an exact parallel in the Sinhalese compound gena-enavā.564 Apart from that,annanı̄ occurs in auxiliary function only in isolated cases which can be regarded as idiomatic;
cp., e.g., am̆burā annanı̄ “to return (something)”, lit. “to come returning” (M. am̆buranı̄ “totwist, turn, steer”) with the corresponding inactive em̆buri annanı̄ “to return; come returning”(M. em̆burenı̄ “turn”).
In its most frequent use as an auxiliary, annanı̄ is not combined with the absolutive of amain verb, however. This is true for the dialect of Fua Mulaku where the present forms ofannanı̄, together with the infinitive of a main verb, are used for the formation of the future
paradigm of a-stems (cf. 3.4.2.2.1, 3.4.2.2.2).
c3.11.4.7. In connection with special verbs M. ulenı̄, with the original meaning “to live;
behave”, can be used as an auxiliary verb meaning “to be”. The function of such combinations is similar to that of the English continuous present. Thus, besides the normal present
paradigm of the verbs nukunnanı̄ “to come / go out” and vannanı̄ “to enter”, there is asecondary finite present consisting of the absolutive of of these verbs and the conjugatedpresent forms of ulenı̄; thus, we have nukume / vade ulen, ulē, ulē; ulemu, ulē, ulē “(I am)
coming out / entering” etc.
In the older language, there are two attestations of ulenı̄ occurring in auxiliary function
together with an infinitive. The formation in question is similar to a periphrastic future: liāśulemā “we are to write”, i.e. “we shall write” (cf. 3.4.3.2). The corresponding verb ofsouthern Dhivehi (A. vēn̆denı̄, F. v¯e˛nnaı̄) does not show a comparable use (cf. also 3.9.2.2.4).
˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙˙

˙

3.11.4.8. denı̄ “to give” and balanı̄ “to look” also occur in auxiliary function, but only inNorth Dhivehi where they are used, e.g., in the formation of a periphrastic imperative (cf.
3.5.4.1.1); cp. also the combination of denı̄ with ko , absolutive of kuranı̄ “to do, make”,
appearing in conditional clauses (cf. 3.13.2.3.1).
c3.11.4.9. When used as an auxiliary with iśı̄nnanı̄ “to sit” as a main verb, innanı̄ has the
special meaning of “be seated for a longer time”. This combination is especially typical forthe standard language of Māle; cp. M. pres.part. iśı̄n̆de inna(nı̄), past part. iśı̄n̆de in(ı̄),
absolutive iśı̄n̆de in̆de. Not only in Māle but in all Dhivehi dialects, we find an idiomatic
phrase that is built by means of innanı̄, viz. bali ve innanı̄ “to be pregnant”, lit. “to sit
having become sick” or “having fallen sick” (with ve, absolutive of vanı̄ “to become”); cp.
A. bali ve in̆dige “she became pregnant” (T3, 3; in̆di-ge pret. IV, 3.ps.sg.).
3.11.4.10. In GEIGER’s fragmentary chapter on the Maldivian verb565 he noted some compound verbs as well; this is true, e.g., for hadaifı̄n in timan iyye hadaifı̄n “I made yesterday”,
but also for the remaining forms of the paradigm of preterite I of M. hadanı̄ “to make”. As
to kanı̄ “to eat” and balanı̄ “to look”, GEIGER gives paradigms that are mixtures of the

564
565

Cf. GEIGER (1902), 921, no. 162: gennan; further cf. 3.11.2.3.
Cf. GEIGER (1901-1902), III, 109-112 / (1919), 94-97.

Composite verbs and auxiliary verbs in Dhivehi

231

primary preterite and preterite I; for dekenı̄ “to see”, he notes preterite I as well but without
the 1.ps.sg. which is substituted by belı̄mu, the older form of the 1.ps.sg. of the primary
preterite. Another mixed paradigm is listed among the examples which illustrate the future
forms, consisting of the regular future and future I of hadanı̄: timan mādan hadāfānan “I
shall make tomorrow” etc. GEIGER obviously did not realise that these are compound verb
forms: at least he did not discuss their peculiar shape. However, he recognised the composite
forms containing lanı̄: under the special heading of “compound verb paradigm”,566 he notes
the paradigm of the compound verb vattailān “to cause to fall, fell, drop”, quasi “infinitive
II”, but once again he mixes finite and infinite forms.
˙˙

3.12. The potential
In Dhivehi, we find one more verbal category that is derived from the absolutive, viz. the“potential”. It is used for the formal expression of modal meanings like “can”, “be able to”,
“be possible”. Because of its semantic restriction to only one modal nuance, the term
“potential” seems to be preferrable as against a more general term like “subjunctive”. In theexisting literature on Dhivehi, this category has been neglected throughout.
The potential has two variants, viz. one formally distinct form for the preterite and one
indifferent form that can be attributed to the present as well as the future.
3.12.1. The basis for the formation of the present/future potential is the inactive absolutive
which combines with a petrified auxiliary verb. In the standard language of Māle as well as
the dialects of Addū and Fua Mulaku, the latter function is fulfilled by the same auxiliary
which is used for the formation of the future as well. In Māle and in Fua Mulaku, this is true
for the auxiliary verbs (M.) danı̄ “to go” and (F.) enı̄ (M. annanı̄) “to come; go”. In Addū,
however, the constituent in question is most probably a modal form of the old copula. The
formation rules imply that the potential is an exclusively inactive category, independent fromthe original voice of the verb. It does not play any role whether the verbs in question are
primary inactive verbs such as e.g. temenı̄ “to get wet”, or whether they represent secondary
inactive (passive) verbs such as belenı̄ (from balanı̄ “to look”). The agent of potential
constructions always appears in the dative. Because of the inactive character of the category,
the auxiliary verb of the present potential has the form of the 3rd person singular throughout.
c

˙˙

c

˙˙

3.12.2. The potential of the preterite, which has the function of an irrealis, is primarily
expressed by the past participle of the inactive (passive) verb. Besides that, the elevatedlanguage of Māle also uses some combined forms.
3.12.3. A contrastive comparison of the potential formations of the standard language and thesouthern dialects shows that the formal inventory of northern Dhivehi is essentially moreelaborate than that of the south. The following table exhibits the potential formations of thepresent / future:566

In the German original (1901-1902, III, 111), GEIGER writes: “Ich füge hier noch das Paradigma deszusammengesetzen Verbums va a ilān ‘fallen machen, fällen, hinwerfen’ bei.”ṫ ṫMorphology

˙˙potential

c

232

Addū

Fua Mulaku(positive/negated)(positive / negated)Mālepositive

negateda-stem(ni) beliēhe(ni) belı̄ennen

belidānenu belēnen-stem(ni) vediēhe(ni) ven̆devı̄ennen

vadevidānenu vadevēnee-stem(ni) temiēhe(ni) tem˛ı̄ennen

temividānenu temevēne3.12.3.1. In the standard language of Māle, the formation of the potential has preserved its
transparency despite its synthetical character; this means that it can easily be analysed. In thepresent tense, the formant -dāne is added to the inactive absolutive; dāne is simply the finite
3rd person future form of danı̄ “to go”. The absolutive contained in the formation differs; it
depends on the transitivity or intransitivity of the verb from which the potential is derived.
This means that in the case of the a-stems and, partly, also the n-stems the simple absolutiveof the corresponding inactive is used when transitive verbs are concerned. In the case of mostof the e-stems and of intransitive n-stems, however, the potential is derived from the absolutive of the causative of the corresponding inactive. Exceptions from this rule can be found inall stem classes (cf. below). The fact that some of the verbs in question seem not to fit into
this model can only partly be explained by semantic reasons. Cp. the following examples:
a-stems: beli-dāne from balanı̄ “to look (at)”, essi-dāne from assanı̄ “to tie (up), fasten”,
hutti-dāne from huttanı̄ “to stop” (trans.), etc.
Potentials of e-stems based on the absolutive of the causative (“regular” formation):
huttevi-dāne from huttenı̄ “to stop” (intr.), temevi-dāne from temenı̄ “to get wet”, ulevidāne from ulenı̄ “to live, be”, etc. To this group may be added the intransitive root
verb (cf. 3.1.1) vanı̄ “to become” the potential of which has the form vevidāne.
Potentials of e-stems based on a primary inactive absolutive: en̆gi-dāne from en̆genı̄ “toknow, understand”, heri-dāne from herenı̄ “to pierce”, libi-dāne from libenı̄ “toreceive, get”.
˙˙

˙

˙˙

˙˙

˙˙

˙

3.12.3.1.1. The only n-stem which uses a primary inactive absolutive in the formation of thepotential is the transitive verb bin̆danı̄ / binnanı̄ “to break (especially flowers); pluck, pick”
with its potential form bin̆di-dāne. Potentials of other n-stems are based on the inactive
absolutive of the causative; cp. the following examples:ban̆devi-dāne from bannanı̄ “to bind, tie (in the sphere of shipbuilding)”; dovevi-dānefrom donnanı̄ “to wash”; in̆devi-dāne from innanı̄ “to sit, marry, be married”; iśı̄n̆devidāne from iśı̄nnanı̄ “to sit”; hurevi-dāne from hunnanı̄ “to stand, be”; konevi-dānefrom konnanı̄ “to dig”; nukumevi-dāne from nukunnanı̄ “to go / come out”; ośōvevidāne from ośōnnanı̄ “to lie (down)”; ovevi-dāne from onnanı̄ “to lie, be”; vadevi-dānefrom vannanı̄ “to enter”.
Except for the first two examples, all cases belonging to this group can be classified
unambiguously as intransitive verbs. bannanı̄ and donnanı̄ are basically transitive but inspecial contexts, the transitivity tends to become insignificant.
In the case of bannanı̄, the transitive meaning is completely restricted to the sphere of shipbuilding. dōnibannanı̄ “to build a ship”, i.e. “to bind together (in the traditional way)”, has to be considered as a “complex
verb” the respective nominal and verbal components of which can be regarded as a verbal unit; in North

The potential: Māle233

Dhivehi, bannanı̄ can no longer be separated semantically from dōni (or any other term denoting traditional boats
or ships). ahanna /ahannaś/ dōni ban̆devidāne then means “I can / am able to build ships”, and the elliptic
sentence ahanna ban̆devidāne has exactly the same meaning. In any other connection, the verbal concept of “tobind, tie” is expressed by assanı̄. Possibly it is this narrow union of bannanı̄ with only one nominal word field
which gave rise to the potential of bannanı̄ being built like that of an intransitive verb. — In most cases, donnanı̄
is used as a transitive verb; cp., e.g., ādavegen ēnā gamı̄s dove nu u ē “He never washes (his) shirt” (ādavegenadv. “usually”; ēnā nom., pers.pron. 3.ps.sg. m./f.; gamı̄s dir. obj.; dove absolutive of donnanı̄; nu negation
particle; u ē 3.ps.sg.pres., used as an aux.verb; cf. 3.11.4.7). But donnanı̄ can also be used in an intransitivereflexive meaning; cp., e.g., ēnā abadu dovē ta? “Does he always wash (himself)?” (abadu “always”; dovē
3.ps.sg.pres.; ta question particle).
c

c

l̇

l̇

3.12.3.1.2. The potential forms of the “irregular” root verbs (cf. 3.1.1) kanı̄ “to eat” and bonı̄“to drink”, kevi-dāne and bovi-dāne, are derived from the absolutive of the causative as well,although these verbs seem never to be used intransitively. Even in the unspecified meaningof “to eat” and “to drink”, Dhivehi uses the transitive combinations bai kanı̄, lit. “to eatrice”, and fen bonı̄, lit. “to drink water”. The same holds true for the “irregular” a-stem verb
kurani “to do, make” which, albeit exclusively appearing as a transitive, derives its potentialfrom the absolutive of the causative; this is kurevi-dāne “it can be done”, lit. “being caused
to be done it will pass”.
3.12.3.1.3. In northern Dhivehi, a different form of the potential is normally used in negatedsentences. This form can be identified with the plain 3rd person singular of the future of thecorresponding inactive verb. In the same way as the potential built with dāne is derived fromthe absolutive of the causative, the negated form of the potential is mostly derived from thecausative as well; cp., e.g., nu kurevēne lit. “(it) will not be caused to be done”, i.e. “(it)cannot be done”, “it is not possible to do (it)” (cp. positive kurevidāne); nu vadevēne “it is
not possible to enter” (cp. vadevidāne); nu huttevēne “it is not possible to stop” (intr.) (cp.
huttevidāne), etc. — No causative forms are nu essēne “it will not be tied up”, “one cannot
tie up” (cp. essidāne); nu huttēne “it will not stop”, “one cannot stop (it)” (cp. huttidāne);nu bin̆dēne “it will not be plucked”, “one cannot pluck (it)” (cp. bin̆didāne), etc. In a few
cases, this potential formation can also be used in positive sentences. In these cases, the(positive) possibility is even underlined; cp. ahanna sigaretu biun huttēne lit. “smoking will
be stopped for me”, i.e. “I am able to stop smoking”.
˙˙

˙˙

˙˙

˙˙

˙˙

˙

c

3.12.3.2. In the dialect of Addū, the formant of the potential is -ēhe for the present-future;most probably this is the same element as that which in Addū is used for the formation of thefinite future forms of the 2nd and 3.ps.sg. (cf. 3.4.1). Presumably -ēhe represents a petrified
modal form – maybe an optative – of the copula which does not exist any longer as such in
Dhivehi; the original meaning must have been something like “it will be, it may be”.
Normally -ēhe is added to the inactive form of the absolutive; this rule has an exception
though, which can be explained on semantic grounds. For aranı̄ “to go up, climb up” we find
not only the expected regular form eri-ēhe “it is possible to climb up, one can climb up”, lit.
“climbing up it will be” but also a second potential form which is based on the active
absolutive, viz. arai-ēhe meaning “climbing up it will be (possible)” as well. The maindifference between the two formations consists in the fact that eri-ēhe expresses an action
which will (possibly) be done unwillingly while arai-ēhe means that an action will (possibly)
be done willingly, following a plan. — In Addū it makes no formal difference for the potential
˙˙

˙˙

˙˙

234

Morphology

whether the verb from which it is derived is transitive or intransitive. Furthermore, the formin -ēhe is also used for the negated potential; cp., e.g., ma dōni (ni) beliēhe “I can(not) lookafter the dhonis.”
A peculiarity of the Addū dialect is the existence of a special interrogative form of thepotential in the present tense. This form is characterised by the formant -ēśı̄ which, as a rule,is used instead of -ēhe in interrogative sentences; -ēśı̄ which combines with the inactive
absolutive as well, is identical with the ending of the 3.ps.sg. future of the normal interrogative form (cf. 3.15.1.1.). It probably reflects a 3.ps.sg. of the obsolete modal verb whichis also represented in the element -ēhe. Cp., e.g., ma dōni beli-ēśı̄? “Can I look after thedhonis?”; ma mēze kaveri irı̄ndi-ēśı̄ “Can I sit down to table?”; ta masakka vēśı̄ (← *ve(i)ēśı̄; M. vanı̄ “to become”) “Can you do the work?” (lit. “will the work become to you?”; cf.
3.12.3.2.1, 3.12.4 below).
˙

c

˙˙

c

˙

c

c

c

3.12.3.2.1. The very few potential forms which in Addū are derived from the absolutive of
the inactive causative do not give a systematical picture. Cp., e.g., bēviēhe ← bānanı̄ “tofish”, dēviēhe ← dānı̄ “to bite”, gēviēhe ← gānanı̄ “to rasp (coconut)”, gineviēhe ← gennanı̄
“to bring, fetch”, veviēhe ← vanı̄ “to become”.
˙˙

3.12.3.2.2. As in the standard language, there are also some potential formations in Addū thatare derived from the absolutive of primary inactive verbs. Cp. for a-stems: beliēhe ← balanı̄
“to look”, lı̄ēhe ← (M.) lianı̄ (A. lēnei) “to write”, beniēhe ← (M.) bunanı̄ (A. benanı̄) “tospeak, say”, demiēhe ← damanı̄ “to pull”, hōdiēhe ← hōdanı̄ “to look for”, nidiēhe ← nidanı̄
“to sleep”, etc.; for e-stems: temiēhe ← temenı̄ “to get wet”, ediēhe ← edenı̄ “to wish”,
libiēhe ← libenı̄ “to receive”, etc.
The potential of those e-stems which represent the regular inactive equivalents of given
a-stems is identical with the potential of the latter; cp., e.g., feśiēhe representing the potential
form of both faśanı̄ “to begin” (trans.) and feśenı̄ “to begin” (intr.); hediēhe pertaining bothto hadanı̄ “to make, build” and hedenı̄ “to grow; pretend”, etc. — This is an essential
difference as against the standard language where the potential of intransitive verbs is derived
from the absolutive of the inactive causative so that formal coincidences are excluded (cf.
3.12.3.1 and 3.12.3.1).
˙˙

˙

˙

3.12.3.2.3. In Addū the derivation of the potential is completely regular even with n-stems,-ēhe being added to the primary inactive absolutive, independently from the transitivity or
intransitivity of the given verb; cp., e.g., vediēhe ← (M.) vannanı̄ “to enter”, ben̆diēhe ← (M.)
bannanı̄ “to bind, tie”,567 nukumiēhe ← (M.) nukunnanı̄ “to go / come out”, keniēhe ← (M.)
konnanı̄ “to dig”, vēn̆diēhe ← (M.) ulenı̄ “to live, be”, hiśiēhe ← (M.) hunnanı̄ “to stand, be
there”, bin̆diēhe ← (M.) binnanı̄ “to pluck”, etc.
˙˙

˙

˙

˙

3.12.3.2.4. The potential of root verbs (cf. 3.1.1) in Addū is based on the primary inactive
absolutive as well. Cp., e.g., kı̄ēhe / kiēhe ← kanı̄ “to eat”; bı̄ēhe ← bonı̄ “to drink”; gı̄ēhe ←(M. danı̄ “to go”); dı̄ēhe ← denı̄ “to give”; liēhe ← lanı̄ “to wear, put”.568
˙˙

567
568

This verb belongs to the ship (building) terminology; cf. 3.12.3.1.1 above.
For (M.) vanı̄ “to become” cf. 3.12.3.2.1, 3.12.4.

c

The potential: Fua Mulaku

235c

3.12.3.3. In Fua Mulaku the potential is built by means of the verb enı̄ “come” (M. annanı̄)which also functions as auxiliary verb in the formation of the finite future of the a- ande-stems (cf. 3.4.2.2.1, 3.4.2.2.2). For the formation of the potential of the present/future, the3.ps.sg. of the future tense of this verb, ennen, is added to the inactive absolutive of the
primary verb or the causative. Different from the language of Māle where the potential of
intransitive verbs is in most cases derived from the absolutive of the inactive causative whiletransitive potentials are normally based on the primary inactive absolutive (cf. 3.12.3.1), there
are no clear tendencies concerning the distribution of the two types of formation in Fua
Mulaku. Thus, it is practically impossible to establish an explicit rule for the derivation of thepotential in this dialect; instead all forms that could be recorded are listed below. As in Addū,there is no formal differentiation between a positive and a negated potential in the dialect of
Fua Mulaku.
c

˙˙

c

3.12.3.3.1. Potential forms of a-stems: ōlı̄ennen ← F. ōlanı̄ “to call” (M. govanı̄), huı̄ennen ←huanı̄ “to look for” (M. hōdanı̄), ken̆dı̄ennen ← kan̆danı̄ “to cut (trees)”. The potential
erı̄ennen of aranı̄ “to go / climb up” can be used both transitively and intransitively (cf.
3.12.3.1). It seems that the a-stems derive their potential only from the primary inactive
absolutive; this holds true also for the few intransitive verbs belonging to this stem class suchas ihı̄ennen ← F. ihanı̄ “to smile, lough” (M. henı̄) or nidı̄ennen ← nidanı̄ “to sleep”.
˙

˙

3.12.3.3.2. The potential forms of e-stems can be based on the primary absolutive (cp., e.g.,tem˛ı̄ennen ← temen˛ı̄ “to get wet”) as well as the absolutive of the causative (cp., e.g. rekevı̄ennen ← rekenı̄ “to avoid, escape”, vettevı̄ennen ← vettenı̄ “to fall”). There are no obvious
semantical reasons for the distribution of these two formation types.
˙˙

˙˙

c

3.12.3.3.3. With n-stems too, both types of potential formations are found in Fua Mulaku,
obviously without regard of the transitivity or intransitivity of the given verb.
The absolutive of the inactive causative is used by the following verbs: innaı̄ (M. innanı̄) “to sit, marry, bemarried” → in̆devı̄ennen; gannaı̄ (M. gannanı̄) “to buy” → ginevı̄ennen; nukunnaı̄ (M. nukunnanı̄) “to come / goout” → nukumevı̄ennen; vannaı̄ (M. vannanı̄) “to enter” → ven̆devı̄ennen; v¯e˛ ı̄a (M. u e nı̄) “to live” → v¯en̆˛ e vı̄ennen; hinnāı̄ (M. hunnanı̄) “to stand, be” → hiśevı̄ennen.
The primary inactive absolutive is used with annaı̄ (M. an̆danı̄) 1. “to burn”; 2. “to wear (a sarong)” →en̆dı̄ennen; bannaı̄ (M. bannanı̄) “to bind, tie (parts of) ships” → ben̆dı̄ennen; irı̄nnaı̄ (M. iśı̄nnanı̄) “to sit” →irı̄n̆dı̄ennen; binnaı̄ (M. bin̆danı̄) “to pluck, break (flowers)” → bin̆dı̄ennen; dagonaı̄ (M. gen gulenı̄) “to carefor” → degı̄ennen; donnāı̄ (M. donnanı̄) “to wash” → doı̄ennen; sahunāı̄ (M. hehenı̄) “to peel” → sehı̄ennen;kaı̄a (M. konnanı̄) “to dig” → ke ı̄ennen; ke e naı̄ (M. ku e nı̄) “to play” → ke ı̄ennen; (M. onnanı̄)569 “to lie,be” → ovı̄ennen; veśionnaı̄ (M. ośōnnanı̄) “to lie (down)” → veśiovı̄ennen.
ḋ

l̇

ṅ

ṅ

˙

l̇

l̇

l̇

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

3.12.3.3.4. From a synchronic point of view, the potential of the root verbs (cf. 3.1.1) isrepresented by irregular formations throughout in Fua Mulaku. The following forms are
based on the absolutive of the inactive: (M.) denı̄ “to give” → dinı̄ennen; lanı̄ “to wear, put”
→ liennen / lı̄ennen; bonı̄ “to drink” → bı̄ennen; kanı̄ “to eat” → kı̄ennen. The intransitive verb
venı̄ (M. vanı̄) “to become; be” derives its potential from the absolutive of the inactive
causative, yielding vevı̄ennen.
c

c

569

The equivalent of this present participle is missing in Fua Mulaku where it is substituted by the past
participle.

236

Morphology

3.12.4. Suppletive potential formation
In all dialects of Dhivehi, there are some isolated verbs which have no potential formationsof their own but express the meaning of the potential by corresponding forms of other –mostly synonymous – verbs. One of these verbs is dekenı̄ (A. dakunei, F. dakonaı̄) “to see”
which in no dialect shows a regular potential formation; in Māle the forms belidāne (ofbalanı̄ “to see”) or fenidāne (of fennanı̄ “to be seen, appear”) are used, while the potentialof the causative dakkanı̄ “to let see; show” occurs as a suppletive form in A. dekkiēhe andF. dekkı̄ennen. — In Addū the verb dannanı̄ (A. dennei, F. dennaı̄) “to know, understand” hasno potential form at all while in Fua Mulaku the missing form is substituted by en̆gı̄ennen(of anganı̄ “to inform” or en̆genı̄ “to be informed, to understand”). — kuranı̄ “to make, do”
has a regular potential form in North Dhivehi only, viz. kurevidāne or kurevēne. In Addū andin Fua Mulaku, however, the potential of keranı̄ is substituted by the diverse potential formsof the auxiliary verb (M.) vanı̄ “to become”. Thus, in Fua Mulaku the potential forms vevı̄ennen and vēnnen are used as substitutional forms, maśa vevı̄ennen meaning “I am able to dosomething” vs. maśa vēnnen “I have the possibility to do something”. The Addū dialect has
an equivalent of the latter formation in ma vēhe “I can do (something)”. Obviously,
F. vēnnen and A. vēhe are original future forms of vanı̄, the Fua Mulaku form consisting of
the primary absolutive of vanı̄, vē to which, as usual, the form of the 3rd person singular of“to come / go”, ennen, is added. vēnnen is not used as a potential form of vanı̄ itself though(cf. 3.12.3.3.4). A. vēhe is based on the absolutive of vanı̄ (vei, appearing as ve- in combined
forms) as well, with -ēhe added which obviously represents a relic modal form of the obsolete
copula (cf. 3.12.3.2). — Another suppletive formation is found in the southern dialects in thecase of (M.) annanı̄ “to come, go”, the potential forms F. gı̄ennen, A. gı̄ēhe belonging to theverb (M.) danı̄ “to go” which in South Dhivehi is defective from a formal point of view.
˙˙

c

˙˙

c

c

˙˙

c

c

3.12.5. Past forms of the potential
In all Maldivian dialects, the form of the inactive (passive) past participle570 serves unaltered as the basic form of the potential of the preterite; cp., e.g., M. ahanna /-aś/ belunu “I
could see”, lit. “it was seen to (i.e. ‘by’) me”. Beyond this, there are combined formationsin the standard language which, however, are semantically identical with the basic form. Cp.
the following examples of the past potential of a-stems: M. belunu, F. belun, A. belene ←balanı̄ “to look”; M. liunu, F. liun, A. liene ← (M.) lianı̄ “to write”; M. nidunu, F. nidun,
A. nidene ← nidanı̄ “to sleep”; M. jehunu, F. jehun, A. jehene ← jahanı̄ “to beat, kick”, etc.
c

˙

˙

˙

˙

3.12.5.1. From their formation, the potential forms of the e-stems cannot be kept distinct fromthose of the a-stems; this is especially true for diverse e-stem verbs which represent original
passive forms of the corresponding a-verbs but lost the direct semantical connection with
their active counterparts. In the modern language, the meaning and function of these verbs israther inactive than passive; cp., e.g., jehenı̄ “to fall” the preterite potential forms of which
are identical with those of the primary active verb jahanı̄ “to beat, kick” (cf. above). — For
potential forms of semantically independent or primary inactive e-verbs cp., e.g., M. en̆gunu,
F. en̆gun, A. en̆gene ← en̆genı̄ “to know, understand” (cp. anganı̄ “to inform”); M. edunu,
F. edun, A. edene ← edenı̄ “to wish”; M. temunu, F. temun, A. temene ← temenı̄ “to get wet”.
˙˙For the synchronic formation of this form and its derivation cf. 3.9.2.3.

˙570

Past forms of the potential

237

3.12.5.2. In Addū, the potential forms of n-stems are formally identical to “passive” past
participles as well, even though the corresponding inactive (e-stem) verbs do not exist. In
Māle and in Fua Mulaku, however, we find secondary forms in many cases (especially withintransitive n-stem verbs) which can best of all be explained as being combinations of theabsolutive of the given verb and vunu which represents the inactive past participle of vanı̄ “tobecome”. In Modern Dhivehi the past participle of vanı̄ has the form vi throughout; the form
vunu does not exist any longer but is attested as such in Old Dhivehi (L1 d/2,2.4; L2 2,1). In
contrast to that, Sinhalese has preserved both the equivalent forms of the past participle ofvenavā “to become, be”, viz. vunu and vū (cf., e.g., MATZEL 1983, 57).
The following list of preterite potential forms of n-stems will suffice to illustrate theirderivation:
˙˙

c

˙

˙

˙

an̆danı̄ 1. “to burn (intr.)”: A. en̆de e , F. en̆dun, M. endunu / en̆de-vunu (abs. + -vunu)571.
an̆danı̄ 2. “to wear (a sarong)”: A. en̆de e , F. en̆dun (M. /).
bannanı̄ “to bind, tie (in ship building)”: A. ben̆dene, F. ben̆dun, M. ban̆de-vunu.
binnanı̄ / bin̆danı̄ “to pluck”: A. bin̆de e , F. bin̆dun / bin̆de-vun(?), M. bin̆dunu / bin̆de-vunu.
(M. gen gu e nı̄) “to care for”: A. dege e , F. degun.
donnanı̄ “to wash”: A. dove e , F. dovun, M. dovunu / dove-vunu.
innanı̄ “to sit, be married, marry”: (A. irı̄n̆de e ), F. in̆de-vun, M. in̆de-vun(u).
iśı̄nnanı̄ “to sit (down)”: A. irı̄n̆de e , F. irı̄n̆dun, M. iśı̄n̆de-vun(u).
gannanı̄ “to buy”: A. ginene, F. gine-vun, M. gane-vunu.
(M. hehenı̄) “to husk”: A. sehe e , F. sehun.
hunnanı̄ “to stand, be, remain, stay”: A. hiśe e , F. hiśe-vun, M. hure-vun(u) in hure-vun-ı̄s572.
konnanı̄ “to dig”: A. ke e e , F. ke u n, M. kone-vunu.
kulenı̄ “to play”: A. kolene, F. keleun, M. kule-vunu.
nukunnanı̄ “to come / go out”: A. nukumene, F. nukume-vun, M. nukume-vunu.
onnanı̄ “to lie, be (there)”: A. ove e , F. ovun, M. ove-vunu.
ośōnnanı̄ “to lie (down)”: A. veśiove e (negated veśi ni ove e ), F. veśiovun (negated veśi ni ovun),
M. ośōve-vunu.
vannanı̄ “to enter”: A. vedene, F. ven̆dun, M. vade-vunu.
˛ e -vun573.
(M. u e nı̄) “to live, behave, be”: A. vēn̆ e e , F. v¯en̆
ṅ

ṅ

˙

ṅ

ṅ

l̇

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

˙

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

˙

ṅ

˙

˙ ˙
ṅ

˙

˙

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

˙

ḋ

ṅ

ḋ

l̇

3.12.5.3. The potential of “root verbs”
Obviously, the past potential of root verbs (cf. 3.1.1) is based on the past participle of theinactive (passive) as well; only M. bovunu seems to be an exception which can presumably
be explained as a formation consisting of the absolutive boe + -vunu (cf. 3.12.5.2). Cp. thefollowing list of examples:denı̄ “to give”: A. die e , F. dinun, M. devunu.
kanı̄ “to eat”: A. kiē e , F. kiun, M. kevunu.
bonı̄ “to drink”: A. bie e , F. biun, M. bovunu (← boe-vunu?).
lanı̄ “to wear, put”: liene, F. liun, M. lie-vunu.
vanı̄ “to become”: A. veve e , F. vevun, M. vevunu (cf. 3.9.2.3).
danı̄ “to go”: A. gie e , F. giun; M. gie-vunu.
ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

˙

ṅ

ṅ

571

Hereafter, this type of combination will be marked by a hyphen only.
The form hurevijj(e) (3.ps.sg. pret.IV) in hurevijj-ās 〈-ais〉 is used synonymously (cf. 3.12.5.4). For theparticle -is contained in these formations, cf. 3.12.5.4.1.
573← v¯en̆˛ ı̄-vun(?); this formation is problematic because of the usual absolutive ending in -ı̄.
ḋ

572

238

Morphology

3.12.5.4. Suppletive and combined potential forms of the preterite
Like the corresponding present formations, A. giene, F. giun and M. gievunu represent
suppletive potential forms of M. annanı̄ “to come”, A.F. enı̄ “to come, go” which have their
origin in the paradigm of danı̄ “to go” (cf. 3.12.4).
In the southern dialects, the potential of the preterite of kuranı̄ “to make, do” is substitutedby the 3.ps.sg. pret. of vanı̄ “to become”; cp. A. ma masakka (ni) vi “I could (not) work”,
lit. approximately “a work emerged (did not emerge) for me”. In the standard language thecorresponding sentence is ahanna masakka kurevunı̄s “I could do the work” and ahannamasakkate nu kurevunı̄s “I could not do the work”, resp. (with /ahannaś/ pers.pron. 1.ps. dat.
“to me”). kurevunı̄s obviously consists of kurevunu and an element is; the latter presumablyreflects a particle meaning “also, too”. It is not certain whether kurevunu represents a
combination of the absolutive and the participial form *vunu, given that the inherited absolutive of kuranı̄ is ko /koś/ (cf. 3.10.4). It is not impossible, however, that a secondary“regular” absolutive *kure was built after the 3.ps.sg. present kurē; thus, the formation kurevunu would represent the same pattern as that occurring with n-stem verbs (cf. 3.12.5.2
above). The absolutive form M. *kure as postulated here is supported by Sinhalese where we
find, besides the “irregular” absolutive kota (of Sinh. karanavā “to make, do”) which is´ a more recent formation kara which
derived directly from a MIA predecessor (←← OIA krtvā),is used in the literary language (cf. MATZEL 1983, 48).
˙

c

c

c

c

c

c

˙

c

˙

˙

3.12.5.4.1. There are many other verbs in the standard language whose potential forms areenlarged in the way proposed for kurevunı̄s above. In all these cases, we find the alternationof -i and -e where we would expect an absolutive ending in -i. Cp. the following examples:ahanna /ahannaś/ hu e vunı̄s “I could stop” (hu e vunı̄s from hu e - ← abs. hu i of hu e nı̄ “to stop” (intr.)+ -vunu ← vunu + is).
ahanna /ahannaś/ temevunı̄s “I could get wet” (temevunı̄s from teme- ← abs. temi of temenı̄ “to get wet” +-vunu + is).
iyye ahanna /ahannaś/ mitāgā /mitanugai/ hurevunı̄s “I could be there (lit. ‘on this place’) yesterday”, i.e.
“I had the right to be there” (iyye “yesterday”; /mitanugai/ consisting of mi dem.pron. “this” + tanu obl.
“place” + -gai loc.suffix; hurevunı̄s from hure abs. + -vunu + is).
c

ṫ ṫ

ṫ ṫ

ṫ ṫ

ṫ ṫ

ṫ ṫ

˙

c

c

Another extended variant of potential forms is found with some verbs which add theparticle is directly to the inactive past participle. Cp. the following examples:cahanna temunı̄s (← temunu, part.pret. of temenı̄ “to get wet”, + is) “I could get wet”;
ahanna hu u nı̄s (← hu u nu, of hu a nı̄ trans. “to stop” and hu e nı̄ intr. “to stop”) “I could stop (somebody)” or “I could stop (myself)”, etc.
c

ṫ ṫ

ṫ ṫ

ṫ ṫ

ṫ ṫ

3.12.5.4.2. Furthermore, the particle is is likely to be concealed in a more complex variant of
the potential. This is to be seen in formations like kurevijjās /kurevijjais/574 and hurevijjās/hurevijjais/ which in positive sentences have the same meaning as kurevunı̄s or hurevunı̄s but
cannot be used in negative sentences. These forms are obviously based on the “preterite IV”
which is an extension of the absolutive of the inactive causative (cf. 3.11.4.5). In the case ofkuranı̄, this preterite has the form kurevijje “it could be done” (lit. “it passed being caused
to be done”); the corresponding form of hunnanı̄ is hurevijje “it could remain / be” (lit. “it574

Native speakers of the “Palace language” (cf. 0.9.2) accept the formation kurevijjās only from a formal
point of view; they try to avoid it because of stylistical reasons.

Suppletive and combined potential forms

239

passed having been placed (there)”). As the examples show, the preterite IV has the ending-jje in the modern standard language; this has to be derived from dia, the 3.ps.sg. pret. “he/ she went” (of danı̄ “to go”) which is based on the homophonous past participle (cf.
3.3, 3.9.2.). In auxiliary function the form *dia was changed phonologically because of its
enclitic connection with the main verb, developing first into -jja (through an intermediatestage -dya), then into -jje in word-final position.
The intermediate stages of this phonological process are well attested in Old Dhivehi. dia is to be found, e.g.,in RC 5,9; cf. also diame, the locative of the verbal noun which is attested in two lōmāfanus (L3 3/2,1 andL2 6,2), furthermore the forms veddya-ve (F10,18; -ve is the quotation particle, cf. 5.4) and veddye (F5,21.24)
as the earliest attestations of the “preterite IV” of vanı̄ “to become”. In 1089 A.H. = 1678 A.D., vejje is alreadyattested in its modern form (in a gravestone inscription on the cemetery of the Māle Hukuru Miskit).

Thus, the examples kurevijje and hurevijje developed through the intermediate forms*kurevijja and *hurevijja from *kurevi-d(i)ya and *hurevi-d(i)ya, resp. While the inherited
vowel -a became -e in word-final position, -a was preserved in its original quality in thoseparadigm forms to which an additional personal ending was attached; in accordance with the
conjugation pattern of the modern standard language (cf. 3.3.1), this is true for the 1.ps.sg.
and pl. and the 2.ps.pl. Thus, in the case of hunnanı̄, the 1.ps.sg. is hurejja-in while for the
1st and the 2nd ps.pl. we have tibejja-imu575; the other persons are formally identical to the
3.ps.sg. Cp. the finite preterite forms of danı̄ used as a main verb, viz. 1.ps.sg./pl., 2.ps.pl.
dia-in; all other personal forms are identical to the 3.ps.sg. dia.

3.13. Conditional formations
In Dhivehi, there is no distinct formal category that might be styled a conditional. Conditionalclauses are mainly built using participles in combination with some special conjunctions
which are placed at the end of the respective syntagms; they will hereafter be called “conditional conjunctions”. The agent of this type of conditional clauses appears in the oblique case.
The conditional of the present is expressed by the short form of the present participle whilethat of the preterite uses the short form of the past participle. If the verb of the corresponding
main clause appears in a finite future form, the condition can be real or irreal depending on
the context. But if the verb of the main clause has the form of the potential of the present, thecondition is always irreal. In the formation of conditional clauses, the dialects of Dhivehi use
different conjunctions with a conditional meaning; cp. A. fehē, fehēnnā, ettennā; F. fah¯e,˛fahenā; M. nama, (i)yā “if”.
The interrelationship of morphological elements and syntactical structures which sometimes
is quite complicated will be illustrated by some examples from the dialect of Addū and thestandard language below. In order to simplify matters, the particular formal elements that areused are summed up under the respective types of conditional formations.
˙˙

3.13.1. Addū˙˙

3.13.1.1. The following examples illustrate the conditional of the present which expresses
a real condition. This conditional is formally marked by the participle of the present in

575

For the suppletive distribution of hunnanı̄ (sg.) and tibenı̄ (pl.), cf. 3.14.1.

240

Morphology

combination with the conjunction fehē. The fact that fehē can be combined with participles
suggests a nominal origin of this conjunction; it is possible that fehē reflects an old verbal
noun (maybe of *fianı̄, cf. 3.11.4.1). The verb of the respective main clause appears in thefinite future:cma dō i balā-fehē, ea vara ufā vēhe. “If I (ma obl.) look after the dhonis, he/she will be very happy.”
ma kuku ā kā dē-fehē, e vara ufā vēhe. “If I give food (lit. ‘to eat’) to the hen, she will be very happy.”
c

c

ṅ

c

l̇

3.13.1.2. The conditional of the preterite which always expresses an irreal condition, ischaracterised by different formation types. In one type, the meaning of an irreal conditional
is expressed by the “past participle I” in combination with the conjunction fehē, the verb of
the main clause appearing in the finite future again:cma dōni balafı̄-fehē, ea vara ufā vēhe. “If I had looked after the dhonis, he would be very happy.”
ma kukulā kā derefı̄-fehē, e vara ufā vēhe. “If I had given food to the hen, she would be very happy.”ma masakka koffı̄-fehē, ea vara ufā vēhe. “If I had done the work, he would be very happy.”
˙

c

c

c

c

˙

c

In a second type, an irreal condition is expressed by the past participle combined with afollowing conjunction again, the predicate of the main clause appearing in the form of thepotential of the present.
cdō i ā-fehē, ma dō i beliēhe. “If the dhonis had come, I could have looked after the dhonis.”dō i ā-ettennā, ma dō i beliēhe. “If the dhonis had come, I could have looked after the dhonis.”
ṅ

ṅ c

ṅ

ṅ

3.13.1.3. In the dialect of Addū, there is one more variant of a conditional clause the morphological components of which suggest an irreal meaning. The nucleus of this formation is
the syntagm kama vē-fehē consisting of vē “becoming; being”, the part.pres. of vanı̄ “tobecome; be”, and kama , the indefinite nominative of the stem kan /kam-/ “fact”. Thus, kamavē-fehē can be translated as “if it becomes a fact that ...” In this construction, kama is either
combined with a primary past participle or a “past participle II” (cf. 3.11.4.2). While theprimary past participle expresses a real condition (in the present), the past participle II
expresses an irreal condition (in the past). The participles which are enlarged by -li as in thesentences listed below are indicators of a “resultative aktionsart” (cf. 3.11.1.2 and 3.11.4.2);
they indicate that the intention to bring the action in question to an end was not realised in
the given conditional environment. Cp. the following pairs of sentences:
˙˙

c

c

c

c

ṅ

c

˙

c

c

ḋ

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

ṫ

ṫ

(3a)
(3b)

c

(2b)

ma dō i beli kama vē-fehē, ea vara ufā vēhe. “If I looked after the dhonis, he would be very happy.”(lit. “If it became a fact that I looked after the dhonis, he would be very happy.”)ma dōni balali kama vē-fehē, ea vara ufā vēhe. “If I had looked after the dhonis, he would be very
happy.” (lit. “If it were a fact that I had looked after the dhonis, he would be very happy.”)ma masakka ke e kama vē-fehē, ea vara ufā vēhe. “If I did a job, he would be very happy.” (“If it
became a fact that I do a job, he would be very happy.”)ma masakka kolli kama vē-fehē, ea vara ufā vēhe. “If I had done (i.e. ‘finished’) a job, he would bevery happy.”
ma si i a le kama /let kamak/ vē-fehē, ea vara ufā vēhe. “If I wrote a letter, he would be very happy.”
ma si i a lēli kama vē-fehē, ea vara ufā vēhe. “If I had written a letter, he would be very happy.”
c

(2a)

c

(1b)

c

(1a)

3.13.2. Māle
In North Dhivehi, as in Addū, conditional meanings are in most cases expressed by participial
forms which are combined with special conjunctions meaning “if”, viz. nama and (i)yā which˙˙Conditional formations: Māle241

are obviously used without any semantical differences. In certain cases, the standard languageof Māle uses absolutives instead of participial forms in the formation of conditional clauses.
This is a structural feature which is common to northern Dhivehi and colloquial Sinhalese.
The same holds true for the conjunction M. nama which has an etymological and functional
equivalent in Sinhalese (cf. (3) in 3.13.2.1 below); this is why a short survey of the conditional formations of Modern Sinhalese is given below.
3.13.2.1. Apart from the particular conditional paradigms of the present and the preterite (cf. GEIGER 1938,
152-3), Sinhalese possesses an analytical conditional formation which uses the conjunction nam “if”. GEIGER
identifies this with the Sinhalese word nama “name” in its stem form, nam- (1941, 83, no. 1229): “As particle-nam is used for emphasising the preceding word, or it stands at the end of a conditional sentence. — Pk. āma,
P. nāma, Sk. nāman ...” — In the function of a “conditional conjunction”, nam appears in a wide sphere of usesin the modern colloquial language. (1) In combination with the infinite present-future form, it can express acondition which is just going to be completed, as well as an irreal conditional. As an example of a condition
which is going to (or can) be realised in near future, cp. ada havasa nuvara yanavā nam, ma a -t katā-karan a !
“If you go to town this afternoon, tell (it) to me too!” (ada havasa “today afternoon”; nuvara obl. “town”;
yanavā unchangeable basic verbal form of the present-future “to go”; ma a “to me”, -t “also, too, as well”; katā“speech”, karan a infinitive in imperative use “do!”). Depending on the extralinguistic situation, the following
example can be understood as a real or as a potential condition: lamayā yanavā nam, mama-t yanavā “If the boy
goes off, I(’ll) go too” or “If the boy went off, I would go too” (lamayā def. nom. “the boy”; mama-t “metoo”). (2) Together with an infinite preterite form which is derived from the past participle and used for all
persons, nam serves as a formant of an irreal conditional of the past. Cp. oyā ı̄yē rä¯ nuvara giyā nam, perahära
balanta tibunā “If you had gone to Kandy last night, you could have seen the procession” (oyā “you (sg.)”; ı̄yērä¯ “yesterday night”; nuvara, as a short form of maha nuvara “great town”, here used as a name for Kandy;giyā infinite preterite of yanavā “to go”; perahära “procession”; balan a infinitive of balanavā “to see”; tibu āinfinite preterite of tibenavā “to be (there)”). (3) In combination with an absolutive, nam expresses a realcondition. Cp. the sentence ohu nuvara gihillā nam, ma a katā-karan a ! “If he went to Kandy, tell me!” (ohu“he”; gihillā ← gihin-lā composite absolutive of yanavā “to go”.)576
ṅ

ṫ

ṫ

ṫ

ṫ

˙

ṅ

˙

ṫ

ṫ

ṫ

3.13.2.2. The derivation of the conjunction M. (i)yā, which is used less often than nama, is
unknown. It seems to have no etymological equivalents in the southern dialects of Dhivehi orin Sinhalese. DE SILVA suggested that -yyaa (sic) might have developed directly from a MIA
ancestor (1970b, 156): “This affix bears a close resemblance to Pa. -yya, both in form as wellas in function”. This view cannot be uphold, however, given that OIA and MIA /y/ was neverpreserved in its original quality in Dhivehi but developed into /d/ initially and disappeared
completely in medial position (cf. 1.7.1). Furthermore, DE SILVA gives no attestations of thepresumed correspondent of Pali and its usage.
3.13.2.3. The following examples may illustrate the formation of conditional clauses in the
Dhivehi standard language.
3.13.2.3.1. Most often the conditional is built with the different variants of the past participle
combined with one of the two conjunctions mentioned. All the examples given below can betranslated in the same way: “If I did the job (lit. ‘a job’), he would be happy”.
caharen masakke kuri nama, ēnā ufā vāne (kuri primary part.pret. of kuranı̄ “to do, make”).

576

For the Sinhalese examples given here and for further examples cf. MATZEL 1983, 83 and 149 f.

242Morphology

aharen masakke koffi nama, ēnā ufā vāne (koffi ← /koś-fi/ part.pret. I of kuranı̄ “to do, make”).
aharen masakke koddı̄fi nama, ēnā ufā vāne (/koś-dı̄-fi/, abs. /koś/ of kuranı̄, combined with with dı̄-fi,
part.pret.I of denı̄ “to give” as an auxiliary577).
aharen masakke koddı̄fı̄-ā, ēnā ufā vāne. (/koś-dı̄-fi-yā/, same as above, with conj. yā “if”).
aharen masakke koddin-iā, ēnā ufā vāne. (/koś-din-yā/, abs. /koś/ of kuranı̄, combined with din, part.pret. ofdenı̄ “to give” as an auxiliary, cf. above).
(masakke /masakk-ek/ indef. “a work, job”; aharen “I” pers.pron. 1.ps.sg. nom.; ēnā 3.ps.sg.pers.pron.
nom. “he / she”; ufā “happy”; vāne 3.ps.sg. future of vanı̄ “to become”).
c

c

c

c

c

3.13.2.3.2. The following example, which illustrates the formation of a conditional clause bymeans of the “past participle IV” and the conjunction nama, is taken from the modern
literary language (short story muda ris vantakamuge lōbi “A Teacher’s love” by cABDULLĀH
SĀDIQ, T10, 62):
c

˙

c

c

M. geaś gosfai vagute libi je nama mirē ha gadi bai ehākaś hā iru aharenge geaś goslai dı̄ fan! “If you
have time, after you’ve finished work and gone home, come to my house around 6:30 p.m.!” (/ge-aś/ dat.
“to the house”; gos-fā abs.I of danı̄ “to go”; /vagut-ek/ indef. nom. “a time”; libijje part.pret.IV“(having) received”, of libenı̄; mi dem.pron., rē “night, evening”; ha card.num. “six”, ga i “hour”, bai“half”; /ehākaś/ “approximately, about”, dat. of ehā “so, that way”; hā “all, whole”, iru “sun; time”;
aharen-ge pers.pron. gen. = poss.pron., 2nd/3rd hon. degree “my”; gos-lā abs.II of danı̄ “to go”, dı̄fan
2.sg.impv.I (polite) of denı̄ “to give” (cf. 3.5.4.2.2): goslā dı̄fan “(would you) please go!”).
˙ḋ

3.13.2.3.3. The conditional of the following sentence is built with the present participle incombination with the conjunction (i)yā:
M. mi raśugai nū e ññā, mihā danvaru mihen ti danı̄ kon tākaś? (T8, 78) “If you do not live here, why are
you strolling around this house at three o’clock after midnight?”, lit.: “If you do not live on this island,
where is it that you are going to in this way at three o’clock after midnight?” (mi dem.pron., raśu-gai loc.
“on this island”; nū e ññā, i.e. /nu u e n-yā/,578 represents the negated part.pres. of u e nı̄ “to live” in its
original short form in -n, contrasting with the modern variant u ē, and yā “if”; mi-hā dem.pron. mi +pron. hā “all, whole”; danvaru noun, obl. “three hours after midnight”; mi-hen dem.pron. mi + hen obl.
“sort”; ti dem.pron. “this”; danı̄ part.pres. “going” + focus-marker; kontākaś dat. “to which place?”).
l̇

l̇

l̇

l̇

l̇

3.13.2.3.4. Different from Addū, there is a type of conditional in Māle which consists of theabsolutive co-occurring with the conjunction nama. A parallel formation which is used for the
expression of a condition that is just going to be realised is found in Sinhalese, however (cf.
(3) in 3.13.2.1 above). Cp. the following example:
˙˙koddı̄ nama, ēnā ufā vāne. (koś-dı̄, abs. /koś/ of kuranı̄ “to make, do”, combined with dı̄, abs. of denı̄ “togive”, as an auxiliary?) “Having done (that), he / she will be happy.”ēnā koddı̄ nama, aharen ufā vānan. “After he will have done (that), I’ll be happy.”

3.14. Suppletive verbal paradigms
3.14.1. Suppletivism according to number
In Dhivehi all verbs that belong to the semantic sphere of “to lie, sit, stand; be (there)” arecharacterised by peculiar morphological features. From the verb tibenı̄ meaning “to be
577
578

For the use of denı̄ as an auxiliary verb cf. 3.11.4.8.
For the geminate [ññ] resulting from n + i (+V), cf. 1.3.9.4.

Suppletivism according to number

243(there)”,579 no singular forms can be derived throughout the Dhivehi dialects, while theverbs innanı̄ “to sit, be married, marry”, iśı̄nnanı̄ “to sit”, hunnanı̄ “to be, stand, remain”,
onnanı̄ “to lie, be there” and ośōnnanı̄ “to lie (down)” are defective in their plural formation,
at least in particular dialectal areas. Where the plural forms of the latter verbs are missing,
they are systematically substituted by the corresponding forms of tibenı̄. Thus, the finite andinfinite plural forms of tibenı̄ constitute a mixed paradigm together with the singular formsof the other verbs belonging to the same semantic field. Cp., e.g., the paradigm of hunnanı̄
“to stand, be, remain” where we find a 1.ps.sg. pret. M. hurin, F. hı̄śin, A. hiśin “I stood”
etc. vs. the 1.ps.pl. pret. M. tibı̄mu, F. tibimā / tibı̄ma, A. tibimā “we stood” etc.580
While tibenı̄ has no singular forms at all, the other verbs concerned show a non-uniform
behaviour in their plural formation. hunnanı̄ “to stand” has no plural forms of its own in any
Dhivehi dialect; this means that the corresponding forms of tibenı̄ represent the only pluralforms available of this verb. For onnanı̄ “to lie” the same holds true in the dialects of Addū
and Fua Mulaku whereas the standard language has a special plural paradigm of this verb
which, however, is only used when there is a particular stress on the meaning of “lying(prostrate)”; when it has the unspecified meaning of “being there”, the suppletive pluralforms of tibenı̄ are used as well. ośōnnanı̄ exhibits a complete paradigm in Addū and Mālewhile the dialect of Fua Mulaku has no other plural than that of tibenı̄. While iśı̄nnanı̄ has
a plural paradigm of its own in Māle and in Fua Mulaku, its Addū equivalent prefers the
suppletive forms in the plural; exceptions are only met with when the state of “sitting” isunderlined (e.g., in contrast to “standing upright”). In Māle, the (original) plural forms ofinnanı̄ can only be used in this sense (alongside the suppletive forms) while in the southernmost dialects this verb has no other plural than that of tibenı̄ again.
With the exception of tibenı̄, all verbs with a suppletive distribution according to number
are n-stems. It is not clear whether this fact is connected with the special development of themorphological suppletivism, apart from the basic meaning of “to be there” they share. Within
the Indo-Aryan languages, this typological peculiarity seems to be confined to Dhivehi. The
etymological equivalents of Sinhalese, as far as they exist, do not show any parallels.
˙˙

c

˙˙

c

c

˙˙

3.14.2. Suppletivism in the formation of tense forms
In Dhivehi, we find another type of suppletion in a verbal paradigm which is restricted to thesouthern dialects though. In Addū and in Fua Mulaku, all forms of the verb (M.) danı̄ “togo” which would belong to the present stem have been completely lost; as a rule they aresubstituted by the corresponding forms of enı̄ “to come” (M. annanı̄). This is the reason why
the present stem of enı̄ and all forms which are derived from it share the two meanings; cp.
the sentence A. ma ādavegen kāu (← kā ← /kāś/) enı̄ gē (← gea ← /geaś/) which can mean“usually I go home for eating” as well as “usually I come home for eating” (ma pers.pron.
1.ps.sg.obl. “I”; ādavegen “always, usually”; /kāś/ infinitive of kanı̄ “to eat”; enı̄ part.pres.
+ focus-marker -ı̄ “that where I come / go to”; /geaś/ dat. of gē “house”). Thus, the exacttranslation of enı̄ depends on the context or extralinguistic information.
c

c

c

˙˙

c

579
Cp. the Sinh. equivalent tibenavā / tiyenavā “to be (there) (of inanimate things)” representing theintransitive variant of tabanavā / tibanavā “to put, place” ← OIA sthā- “to stand” (causative sthāpayati); cf.
GEIGER (1941), 61, no. 890.
580
Cp. also the tables illustrating the interrogative forms of A ū in 3.15.1.3.1.

ḋ

ḋ

244

Morphology

In contrast to that, it is still possible to distinguish the meanings of “to come” and “to go”
in the preterite; many speakers are giving up this distinction, however, especially when using
finite forms. In order to avoid semantic overlaps, two preverbs are used in the finite pasttense which make the verbal form in question unambiguous. The preverb tebe- signals a“motion from an external point towards the agent”; it can be combined with the finite past
forms of annanı̄ as well as those of danı̄. The preverb ebe- which denotes a motion “awayfrom the spectator” can only be combined with the preterite of danı̄. Cp. the following three
examples from the dialect of Addū all of which mean “I have come / came home”. The
construction without a preverb is restricted to the infinite preterite: A. ma geu ai... “that I
have come home ...” (ma obl. “I”; geu (← gea ← /geaś/) in prevocalic position (cf. 1.6.3) “to(the) house, home”; ai part.pret. ā of enı̄, M. annanı̄ “to come” + -ı̄). The sentences ava gē
tebe-ain and ava gē tebe-gen, both containing the preverb tebe-, are synonymous in modern
Addū in the sense of “I’ve come / came home” (ava nom. “I”; tebe-ain “I have come / came(here)” vs. tebe-gen “I went (there)”.) Neither A. -ain (1.ps.sg.pret. of enı̄ / annanı̄) nor
A. -gen (1.ps.sg.pret. of danı̄) can be used without a preverb. With ebe-, only the preterite
forms of danı̄ are used as in A. ava geu ebe-gen “I went away (from somewhere).”
˙˙

c

c

c

˙˙

3.15. Interrogative forms (“yes/no” questions)
In Dhivehi, the formation of yes/no questions is a matter of morphology. In the standard
language and in Fua Mulaku there are special question particles which mark a sentence as
being a yes/no question. In Addū, however, the procedure is quite different; here we findparticular interrogative paradigms for almost all verbal categories even though in some partsof the verbal system the question forms do not differ very much from the corresponding
declarative forms. Furthermore, questions are usually stressed in Addū by a typical intonation
ascending towards the end of the sentence. There is no special interrogative word order inDhivehi; thus, the morphological means of expression are especially important. The interrogative paradigms, which are characteristic for Addū, and the question particles of the otherdialects, which mostly occur in combination with the interrogative pronouns, are also used forthe formation of questions that need a more complex answer (cf. 2.6.7).
c

˙˙

˙˙

˙˙

3.15.1. Addū
In comparison with their declarative counterparts, the endings of the interrogative forms show
some enlargements (cf. the tables given below). In the present tense, we find an additional
long -ı̄ in the ending of the 1.ps.sg. of all conjugations; with certain n-stems, this -ı̄ is also
met with in the other singular persons. The remaining personal endings do not show any
visible changes. A greater variety is found in the paradigm of the preterite where all singularforms have a final -ı̄, the 2.ps.pl. in most cases shows the older ending -vā, and the 3.ps.pl.
always has a long final -ā. In the future paradigm too, all persons of the singular have a final-ı̄; the 2nd and the 3rd ps.pl. show a long final -ā without any exceptions. The 1.ps.pl. is the
only form that is never changed in questions.
˙˙

3.15.1.1. The interrogative paradigms are likely to represent an earlier stage in the phonological development in comparison with the corresponding declarative forms581 in that they581

Cf. the tables given in 3.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2.1, 3.2.3, 3.3.1, 3.3.2 and 3.4.

ū
ḋ

ḋ

Interrogative forms: A

245

have preserved final vowels of the personal endings which were partly lost in the syntactic
environment of declarative sentences; the typical interrogative intonation consisting of a
special accentuation of the last syllable may be responsible for this effect. The lengthening of
the respective vowels which sometimes even influences the quantity of the preceding syllable,
its vowel being lengthened as well, can presumably be explained by secondary emphasis
resulting from the interrogative intonation. Because of the preservation of the final vowels theconsonants immediately preceding them remained unchanged as well. This is true, e.g., forthe ending of the 1.ps.sg. of all conjugation types in all tenses; in its interrogative variant, theoriginal -m which, according to the sound laws of Modern Dhivehi, would have developed
into -n [o] in word-final position, reappears before the final -ı̄ (cf. below). Similarly, theinterrogative form of the infinitive has preserved the final -śa ← -ta which reflects the old
dative ending; the emphatic lengthening of the final vowel lastly led to all interrogative
infinitives ending in -śā (cf. 3.6.3 and below). Furthermore, the formant of the interrogative
form of the 2nd and 3rd ps.sg.fut. as well as the potential, -ēśı̄, shows a -ś- which corresponds to the -h- of its declarative equivalent (for the phonological problems concerning thelatter forms cf. 3.4.1 and 3.12.3.2).
It is not certain, however, whether the lengthening of the plural endings of the finite
interrogative forms yielding a long final -ā can be explained by an emphatic interrogative
intonation only in those cases where the corresponding declarative forms end in a short -a;
as against this, the lengthened interrogative endings might as well contain another (unknown)
formant. The infinite forms to which an -ā is suffixed in interrogative sentences could be
regarded as an argument speaking in favour of the latter possibility which takes both emphasis and suffixation into account.
˙

3.15.1.2. The following two examples illustrate the use of the long form of the present
participle enlarged by -ā in Addū:
˙˙

c

c

(1) ta masakka keranı̄ā? “Are you working (right now)?” (ta pers.pron. 2.ps.sg. obl.; masakka /masakkat/ obj.,“work”; keranı̄-ā part.pres. + focus-marker -ı̄ of M. kuranı̄ “to make, do”; -ā interrogative element).
(2) ta si i a lēnayā nun “Are you not writing a letter (right now)?” (si i a /si i -ak/ indef. obj.; lēnei ← /lēna-ı̄/,
part.pres.of M. lianı̄ “to write” + focus-marker; nun “no, not”).
c

ṫ

ṫ

c

ṫ

The following sentence contains an absolutive that is enlarged with the suffix -ā:ea [ee] ā kō ta inı̄ mēze kavere [kaverı̄] irı̄ndegenā “When he came, were you just sitting at table?”, lit. “At
the time when he came, was that what you were (doing), to sit nearby the table?” (ea pers.pron. 3.ps.sg. obl.;ā part.pret. “(having) come” of enı̄, M. annanı̄ “to come”; kō conj. “at the time when”; inı̄ part.pret.
“having been sitting” + focus-marker -ı̄; mēze gen. of mēzu “table”; kaverie (gen./)loc. “near (by)”;irı̄ndegen abs.III of M. iśı̄nnanı̄ “sit” + interrogative element -ā).

In another example, -ā is suffixed to a noun in the oblique case:ma mi hiśı̄ bagı̄cāi etereā? “Was I in the garden (at that time)?”, lit. “(The place) where I was at that time,
was that inside of the garden?” (ma pers.pron. 1.ps.sg. obl.; mi adv. “just, (right) now”; hiśı̄ part.pret. of
hinnei, M. hunnanı̄ “to stand, be” + focus-marker -ı̄; bagı̄cāi gen. of bagı̄cā “garden”; etere obl. “inside of,in” + interrogative element -ā).

3.15.1.3. In the following tables those interrogative forms of the Addū dialect that are derived
from verbal forms are listed systematically, the morphonological differences as against theirdeclarative equivalents being marked by bold type (M. balanı̄ “to look”; lianı̄ “to write”;
iśı̄nnanı̄ / innanı̄ “to sit”; hunnanı̄ / tibenı̄ “to stand, be”; temenı̄ “to get wet”; fenenı̄ “toappear”; annanı̄ “to come”; denı̄ “to give”):
˙˙

246

Morphology

3.15.1.3.1. Regular stems: present
present

a-stemsn-stems

e-stems

1st sg.

balamı̄lēmı̄

irı̄ndumı̄hiśumı̄tememı̄

2nd sg.

balai

lēi

irı̄ndı̄hiśeitemei

hiśei

3rd sg.

balai

lēi

irı̄ndı̄

1st pl.

balamālēmā

irı̄ndumā

tibemātememā2nd pl.

balatālētā

irı̄ndutātibetātemetā3rd pl.

balatālētā

irı̄ndutātibetātemetātemei

Example:ava ādavegen si ı̄ ni lēmı̄? “Do I not always write letters?” (ava pers.pron. 1.ps.sg. nom.; ādavegen“always, usually”; si ı̄ obj. pl. “letters”; ni “not”).
ṫ

(1)

ṫ

3.15.1.3.2. Regular stems: preterite
preterite

a-stems

1st sg.

belimı̄lemmı̄ ← *letimı̄

immı̄ ← *inmı̄

hiśimı̄temenemı̄˙

fenenemı̄

2nd sg.

belı̄

letı̄

inı̄

hiśı̄

temenei˙fenenei

3rd sg.

belı̄

letı̄

inı̄

hiśı̄

temenei˙fenenei

1st pl.

belimālemmā ←*letimā

(tibimā)temenemā˙

fenenemā

2nd pl.

belivālevvā ← *letivā

(tibivā)temenevā˙fenenevā

3rd pl.

beliā

letā

(tibiā)temenāfenenāe-stems
˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

†

˙

n-stems˙

Examples:c

ava iyye si i a ni lemmı̄? “Didn’t I write a letter yesterday?” (iyye adv. “yesterday”).
everie iyye dōni beliā “Did they look after the dhonis yesterday?” (everie /-ia/ pers.pron. 3.ps.pl. nom.
“they”; dō i here generic pl. “boats”)
ṫ

˙

(1)
(2)

ṅ

3.15.1.3.3. Regular verbs: future
futurea-stemsn-stems

e-stems

1st sg.

balāśumı̄

lēneśumı̄

irı̄nnaśumı̄

hinnaśumı̄

fenēśumı̄

2nd sg.

balāśı̄lēneśı̄

irı̄nnaśı̄hinneśı̄

feniēśı̄hinneśı̄

3rd sg.

balāśı̄lēneśı̄

irı̄nnaśı̄

1st pl.

balāśumā

lēneśumā

irı̄nnaśumā

tibēśumā

feniēśumā

2nd pl.

balāśiā

lēneśiā

irı̄nnaśiātibēśiāfeniēśiā

3rd pl.

balāśiā

lēneśiā

irı̄nnaśiātibēśiāfeniēśia

Example:c

ava māduma si i a lēnaśumı̄? “Shall I write a letter tomorrow?”ṫ

(1)

feniēśı̄

ū
ḋ

ḋ

Interrogative forms: A

247

3.15.1.3.4. Root verbs: present / preterite / future
present

preterite

future

1st sg.

emı̄

demı̄ tebe-āmı̄ ← *tebe-aimı̄ dimmı̄ ← *dinimı̄

2nd sg.

ei

dei

tebe-āibēśumı̄ ← be-ēśumı̄ dēśumı̄

dinı̄

bēśı̄dēśı̄

3rd sg.

ei

dei

tebe-āidinı̄

bēśı̄dēśı̄

1st pl.

emā

demā

tebe-āmādimā

bēśumādēśumā

2nd pl.

evā

detā

tebe-āvā / tebe-ātā

dimvā ← dinvā /dinā

bēśuvā

dēśuvā

3rd pl.

etā

detā

tebe-ātādinā

bēśiādēśiā

Examples:cctō kuku a kā dei? “Do you give the chicks (something) to eat?” (tō pers.pron. 2.ps.sg. nom. “you”;/kuku a ś/ dat.pl. “to the chicks”; /kāś/ inf. “to eat”).
tafirie māduma kuku a kā dēśuvā? “Will you give the chicks (something) to eat tomorrow?” (tafirie/-ia/ pers.pron. 2.ps.pl. nom.; māduma adv. “tomorrow”).
l̇

c

l̇

c

l̇

c

(2)

c

(1)

3.15.1.3.5. Potential
a-stemsn-stems

e-stemsbelı̄ēśı̄

irı̄ndiēśı̄temiēśı̄root verbs
gı̄ēśı̄dı̄ēśı̄

Examples:
c

c

ṅ

c

(2)

ma nidā e tān libiēśı̄? “Can I have a place for sleeping?” (T1, 7; /maś/ pers.pron. 1.ps.sg. dat. “to me”;
¯˘ nom. “place”).
nidā e part.fut. of nidanı̄ “to sleep”; tanma gē gı̄ēśı̄? “Can I go home?” (/geaś/ dat. of gē “to (the) house”).
ṅ(1)

3.15.1.3.6. Infinitivea-stemsn-stems

e-stemsbalāśā

irı̄nnaśātemēśā

root verbsēśā

dēśā

Example:ea ākō ma inı̄ dō i balāśā? “When he came, was I sitting (there) to look after the dhonis?”
ṅ

(3)

c

3.15.2. Fua Mulaku
In the dialect of Fua Mulaku, “yes/no” questions are only marked by the particle tai whichis added to the end of the given sentence or clause without any further morphological orsyntactical changes of the verb forms contained. The only function of tai is to signal that thesentence must be understood as a question; it has no further meaning. The following
examples are sentences of direct speech which are taken from different fairy tales:c(1)haulāu, timāi ekı̄ hajjaha ni ennen tai? “Cock, will you not come on a hajj together with me?” (T4, 13;
haul-āu haul + quotation particle “Cock!”; timāi pron.obl. + conj. -ai “with self”; ekı̄ “together”; hajjaha dat. “hajj (Islamic pilgrimage)”; ni “not”; ennen 2.ps.sg. future of enı̄ “to come, go”, ≈ M. annanı̄).

248ctaśa ni fenen tai, timā kari o tasbı̄ha (gan̆ o )? “Do you not see (it), the rosary being on my neck?”(T4, 16; taśa pers.pron. 2.ps.sg. dat. “to you”; fenen 3.ps.sg.pres. “it is visible”, of F. fenenı̄ “to bevisible”; kari (gen./)loc. of F. karo “neck”; /ot/ “being” part.pret. of (M.) onnanı̄ “to lie, be”; tasbı̄haobl. “rosary”; gan̆do nom. “piece”).
ammāve, ammāśa timā nun fah¯e,
˛ kūdaku ni libun’ tai? “Mother, when I was not yet there, did you (lit.
‘mother’) not receive a child?” (T6, 62; ammā nom. (voc.) “Mother!” + quot. particle (Māle-form!) eve;ammāśa dat. “to the mother”; nun “not being”; fah¯e˛ ≈ A. fehē (cf. 3.13) conj. “when, if”, here: “when”;
kūdaku obl.indef. “child”; libunu part.pret. of libenı̄ “to receive, get”; lit. “.. was a child not received tothe mother?”).
ḋ(2)Morphology

˙(3)

3.15.3. MāleIn the standard language, “yes/no” questions can be marked with four different particles, eachof them having a particular function. The particles that are most frequently used are ta andtō; like F. tai, they signal neutral questions. ta and tō are only distinguished by the honorificlevel they pertain to. While questions marked with ta refer to the lowest level, tō, in
combination with verbs of the 2nd and 3rd degree (cf. 3.2.1.1.1), traditionally refers to nobles
and the sultan, in the modern language also to other people in a leading position. Apart fromany context of social hierarchy, tō-questions can in special cases be used for “normal”
people, too, in order to express respect towards the addressee. Besides their grammatical
function as a morphological question marker, the two other particles, hei/hē and bā, express
additional semantic nuances. hei/hē is used in repeated questions when a given answer was
not well conceivable for different reasons; beyond that it is used to confirm presuppositions
or well-known facts. Presumably hei is etymologically identical with the adj. heyo “good,enough”. The particle bā which is also used in repeated questions expresses surprise about
what has been said or asked. Concerning the honorific levels, hei and bā are unspecified.
3.15.3.1. Usage and meaning of the different particles can be illustrated by contrasting four
versions of just one sentence, all rendering the English question “Can I do this job?” or“Shall I be able to do this job?”:cca u gan̆ a mi masakka kurevidāne tō?
ahanna mi masakka [masakkai] kurevidāne ta?
ahanna mi masakka kurevidāne hei?
ahanna mi masakka kurevidāne bā?
(/ahannaś/ pers.pron. 3.ps.sg. dat. “to me”; mi dem.pron. “this”; /masakkat/ nom. “work, job”; kurevidāne pot.pres./fut. of kuranı̄ “to make, do”)
c

c

c

c

ḋ

c

c

l̇

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

With respect to their meaning, (1) and (2) are the most neutral versions. Sentence (1) is usedby members of the two higher degrees when talking to each other but also when members ofa low social status address nobles, the sultan, the president or any person in a leading position(directors etc.). Question (2) can be produced by members of the lower social levels whencommunicating with each other; it can also be uttered by representants of a higher social
status when speaking with members of a lower status. Question (3) means: “Would you(please) repeat, I could not understand quite well, can I do this job?”, while (4) expresses a
doubt: “Can I really do this job?”.
3.15.3.2. Some further examples may suffice to illustrate the use of the question particles:“... aharenge darifu u duśin ta?” “... Have you seen my child?” (T9, 29; aharen-ge pers.pron. gen. =poss.pron. 1.ps.sg., 2./3. hon. degree, attributive “my”; dari-fu u , consisting of dari obl. “child” +
l̇

l̇

(5)

Interrogative forms: Māle249

honorificator -fu u ; duśin 2.ps.sg.pret. of dekenı̄ “to see”.) This question is asked by a mother who is very
anxious about her daughter; the addressee is a person in the street. Even without any further context, thissentence makes it evident that the question is directed by someone belonging to the upper class to aperson of a lower social status; apart from the interrogative particle ta, this is clearly indicated by the
pronoun, the verb and the element -fulu (cf. 2.2.3). — The two final sentences of the same story illustrate
a repeated question marked with the particle hei. In this case, the topic is a horrible accident; just at the
moment when a young girl is dying in the street, with all eyes upon her, someone of the people asks:
hašiš heyy eve? maruvı̄ heyy eve? “Was it hashish?582 (Is she) dead?”, lit. “Has she died?” (T9, 61-62;
maru vı̄ 3.ps.sg.pret., with an emphatic lengthening of vi, the finite part of maru vanı̄ “to die”; evequotation particle). — In the following example, the particle tō together with a verb in the 2nd hon. degreeindicates an elevated social position of the addressee:vakaru ballavai [ballavā] gannavamu tō? “Would you like to buy some firewood?” (T10, 15; vakaru“(fire)wood”; ballavai gannavamu 2.ps.pl.pres. of ballavai gannavanı̄, 2nd/3rd hon. degree of gannanı̄
“to buy”). A young salesboy asks this question in the Māle market; the addressee is a man passing by
who is well known and respected as a teacher.
l̇

˙

(6)

(7)

4. Uninflected words
This paragraph will give a survey of Dhivehi word forms which from the point of view of themodern language are uninflected and can therefore be regarded as particles. Conjunctions
such as M. iru, A. vēlei, F. vēlai583 “when, while” or M. ekugā /eku-gai/, A.F. ekı̄584“(together) with” which represent petrified nominal forms will not be treated within thiscontext. As in most cases adverbial qualifications are nouns or pronouns in the ablative,
dative, locative or oblique case,585 only a few words remain that must be treated here.
4.1. Depending on the context, the postponed particle A. -āi, M.F. -ā means either “and” or“with”. In the southern dialects, -ā(i) can be added separately to all parts of the sentence thatare to be combined in the function of a coordinative conjunction; sometimes it can betranslated as “both ... and” or “as well as”. Cp. A. fin̆danāi bon̆danāi de verin ... gē edā/edāś/ nimmalie /-ia/ “Both the f.-bird and the b.-bird (the f.-bird as well as the b.-bird) ...
finished building (their respective) houses” (/fin̆danā-āi bon̆danā-āi/ sg.def. + -āi);
F. fin̆danu-ā bon̆danu-ā de verin ebage-ai “both the f.-bird and the b.-bird went off” (T1, 1).
In the modern standard language, however, -ā “and” is used in rare cases only; cp. thefollowing sentence where the particle is suffixed only to the first noun: M. eba ulē fin̆danfulak-ā bon̆danfule /-ek/ “Once there lived a f.-bird and a b.-bird” (T1, 1). As the form
fin̆danful-ak-ā shows, the conjunction -ā combines not with the nominative case of theindefinite suffix (as contained in bon̆danfule ) but with the oblique case form which is no

c

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙

c

˙

˙

˙

˙

c

ABĪBAḢ˙

According to (oral) information of the author of the short story in question (Mrs.

USSAINḢ˙

582

ABĪB), hašiš denotes a stronger drug in this case (M. drag); in the Engl. translation by ABDULLAH SAEEDḢKOSHY (in Finiashi 3, 26), the word “heroin” is used instead.
583
For the derivation of these conjunctions from M. iru obl. “time” and A. vēlei / F. vēlai loc. “at the time
(when)”, cf. 5.3.1. Cp. also the other conjunctions mentioned there.
584
M. eku-gai and A.F. ekı̄, lit. “in one”, represent the respective locatives of the numeral ek(u) “one”.
585
Cf., e.g., 2.6.5.6 for demonstrative adverbs and 2.6.5.7 for modal adverbs. For the dative functioning as
an “adverbial case” cf. 2.3.1.1.3.3; for the ablative/instrumental cf. 2.3.1.1.4.7. For adverbial interrogative
pronouns cf. 2.6.7.2 ff. For adverbial formations that are based on indefinite pronouns cf. 2.6.7.3. For the use
and derivation of the conditional conjunctions cf. 3.13.

250

Morphology

longer used independently in this form in the standard language.586 In South Dhivehi -ā(i)can be used for combining any part of speech; cp., e.g., F. ... hauluā, kukuluā, mı̄daluā tin-eti
ekı̄ deāśa fummāli ai. “the cock as well as the hen and the rat (lit. ‘the cock and the hen andthe rat’), all three together jumped into the water” (T4, 31).
In southern Dhivehi the particle -ā(i) is often used in the sense of “with”, while it has
been more or less replaced in this meaning by ekugā in the standard language (cf. above). Cp.
some examples taken from a fairy tale again:˙

F. duve e¯˛ vēlai, lāigātı̄, emme feratamāśa haulakkā /haulak-ā/. “While going along, the one she met with firstof all was a cock” (T4, 12) ... den e¯˛ vēlai, laigatı̄, mı̄delakkā /mı̄delak-ā/ “... then, while going along, what
they met with was a rat” (T4, 19), ... kuku a kkā /kuku a k-ā/ “... with a hen” (T4, 26).587l̇l̇

4.2. The main meaning of M. adi is “and”. When adi is used as a double conjunction, it canbe translated with “as well as”; depending on the context, it can also have the meaning of“also, too, again, else, yet”. It often functions as an introductional element of a sentence. In
Addu and Fua Mulaku, adi sometimes appears in the speech of educated people, but it neveroccurs in folkloristic texts; this suggests that the use of adi in southern Dhivehi must be
explained by interference from the standard language. Cp. M. ... ran rihi adi nū kulaige ali... “... light of golden, silver and blue colour” (T9, 24).
c

˙˙

˙

4.3. The postponed particle M. ves, A.F. as “also, too, else, even” appears in combination
with numerous pronominal formations and conjunctions; cp., e.g., M. adi-ves “and also” andnama-ves “but, even if” (nama conditional conjunction “if”, cf. 3.13.2). For combinations
with indefinite pronouns cf. 2.6.7.3, for pronominal adjectives, 2.6.7.4.2.
4.4. For the emphatic particle -me “just, right” (e.g. M. miadu-me “just today”) and its
presumable background cf. 2.6.7.4.1.
4.5. The temporal adverb M.A.F. den corresponds with Sinh. dän “now” (cf. GEIGER 1941,
74, no. 1085). Introducing a sentence, den has the meaning of “then, now”, while postponed
after temporal expressions it means “until”; cp., e.g., M. fahe /-ek/ jahan den “until it strikes
five” i.e. “until five o’clock”588.
c4.6. Being of fundamental syntactic importance, the quotation and question particles willbe treated separately in 5.4; for their function as conjunctions cf. 5.3.1.3.
4.7. For the preponed negation particles M. nu, A.F. ni cf. 5.5.2. The independent negation
particle corresponding to Engl. “no!” is M.A. nun,
¯˘F. uh
˛ u˛ (less often nun); “yes” isexpressed by M.A. hā, F. h¯a,˛ hu.
¯˛ 589586

For the development of the indefinite suffix in Māle cf. 2.3.2.3.1.
The gemination of /k/ in the position before -ā is one of the cases of spontaneous gemination which ischaracteristic for Fua Mulaku. This is a phonetic, not a phonemic process which is not connected with the“historical” geminates described in 1.3.9.
588
Example taken from DISANAYAKA/MANIKU (1990), 91.
589
M. labbā /labbai/ and āde which are used in the standard language as more polite variants meaning “yes”
are likely to be of verbal origin.
587

cSyntactical sketch
5. Sentence structure
In its syntactical structure, Dhivehi fits well into the general framework of the Modern IA
languages the most typical feature of which consists in the “right-to-left construction” ofthe sentence. As MASICA states (1991, 332) “the central fact of NIA syntax is the final
position of the verb”. This holds true for Dhivehi, too, but only as far as finite verbs areconcerned. This means that the structure of the whole sentence depends on whether it
contains a finite verb or not. Without understanding this basic issue of the syntacticalcorrelations of Dhivehi it would be impossible to analyse the morphological structures,
especially of the verb and the pronoun. This is why the present chapter also contains, froma syntactic perspective, additional information on morphological phenomena that have alreadybeen treated before within the respective paragraphs.
5.1. In Dhivehi, the occurrence of finite verbs is strictly confined to sentences which do notshow a rhematic forgrounding of any of its parts. In this connection it does not play any role
whether the given sentences are primitive or rather complicated by their syntactic structure.
The subject of such sentences regularly appears in the nominative case; cp. the following
examples:i lmı̄ māruke a ś dān gein nukumejje eve “Hilmı̄ walked to the market from his house”, lit. “Hilmı̄ left
the house (in order) to go to the market” (T10, 2; pred. nukumejje 3.ps.sg.pret.IV of nukunnanı̄ “to come/ go out, leave” + quotation particle eve; subj. i lmı̄ p.n. nom.; gein abl.sg. “from (the) house”; dān inf.
of danı̄ “to go”).
M. šarı̄fu kuriaś hin̆gamun dia eve “Šarı̄f continued on walking”, lit. “Šarı̄f went (on) walking further”(T9, 12; pred. dia 3.ps.sg.pret. of danı̄ “to go” + quotation particle eve; subj. šarı̄fu p.n. nom.).
A. den, e kala /ek kalaś/ kalēge kōra /-aś/ fummali “Then, all at once, the lord jumped into the pond”(T3, 33; pred. fummali 3.ps.sg.pret.II of fummanı̄ “to jump”; subj. kalēge nom. “lord, sir”).
A. vēla gan̆ a kun, mo ōgan̆ a k-āi arage “After a while, (he) came up with an axe” (T3, 34; pred. arage
3.ps.sg.pret.IV of aranı̄ “to climb / go / come up”; the subject is not expressed explicitly).
F. ed duvaheki, ed duvaheki, Mēliage Dia gē in̆dōle in̆du vēlai dombaumkēle˛/don-baun-kēl-ek/
˛vettı̄ge “Oneday, when Mēliage Dia was sitting on the swing bed of (her) house, a light-coloured breadfruit fell
down” (T4, 1; pred. ve ı̄ge 3.ps.sg.pret.IV of ve e nı̄ “to fall (down)”; subj. Mēliage Dia nom., lit.
“Mēlia’s daughter”).
ṫ

ḣ

M.

ḣ

c

ḋ

˙˙

c

l̇

c

ḋ

c

ṫ ṫ

ṫ ṫ

5.2. For the focussing of rhematic parts of a sentence, Dhivehi has a very effective andcomplex procedure which consists of maximally four different formal elements in wellorganised syntactical cooperation. Firstly the parts of a sentence are arranged in a way thatthe rhematic part (usually but not in all cases, cf. 5.2.3 below) is moved to the end of thesentence and thus represents the only part that follows the verbal predicate. In this constellation, the latter does not appear as a finite verb but only in participial form (active or inactive).
The participial predicate is further enlarged by an element -ı̄ which “announces” the following rhema; this -ı̄ is here called a “focus-marker” while the enlarged participial form itself isnamed “long form” (cf. 3.9 above). Finally, the subject of the construction appears in theoblique case which has special forms only with personal pronouns, and only in southern
Dhivehi, however, the oblique and the direct (nominative) case having merged to a large

252

Syntactical sketch

extent.590 With but one exception which consists in the oblique form of the indefinite suffix(-aku, e.g. in mı̄haku “a person”),591 the modern standard language does not show any
formal differences between these two case forms today.
5.2.1. Concerning the length and the semantical content of rhematical parts of a sentence
focussed in this way, there are no restrictions at all. Cp. the following examples with participial predicates that are enlarged with the focus-marker, -ı̄, the rhematic structure being translated with relative constructions.
F. bon̆ a nu ken̆ ı̄ hai vakar-ai “The b.-bird cut only timber”, lit. “(What) the b.-bird cut, was (/is) all
timber.” (T1, 2; pred. ken̆ ı̄ part.pret. l.f. of kan̆ a nı̄ “to cut”; subj. bon̆ a nu obl. “the b.-bird”).
A. mi gehā hiśı̄ kōraki kaverie “This tree was (standing) near by a pond”, lit. “(That where) this tree was(standing), was near by a pond” (T3, 24; pred. hiśı̄ part.pret. l.f. of (M.) hunnanı̄ “to stand, be, remain”;
subj. mi gehā obl.def. “this tree”).
M. a u gan̆ u vaki vı̄ skūlge grē 4C-in “I left school when I was in grade 4C (4C-in abl.)”, lit. “(The level)
I abandoned (from) was (from) grade 4C of the school” (T10, 36; pred. vaki vi+ı̄, part.pret. l.f. of vaki
vanı̄ “to separate, abandon”; subj. a u gan̆ u obl. humble “I”, 1st hon. degree).
M. ma u ma u n e ivenı̄ mı̄haku rō a - eve “I heard a man’s faint, weak cry”, lit. “What was perceivable very
weakly was the moaning noise of a man.” (T8, 99; pred. ivenı̄ part.pres. l.f. “hearing”, inact., here “tobe heard, perceivable”; mı̄h-aku obl.sg.indef. “a man”; rō part.pres. short form “moaning”; a u “noise”).
ḋ

ḋ

ḋ

ḋ

ḋ

ḋ

ḋ

ḋ

l̇

l̇

ḋ

ḋ

ḋ

ḋ

In the following sentence, the subject remains formally unexpressed:
M. annanı̄ ellemun anna gotakaś eve “(She) came zigzagging (along the street)”, lit. “(The way she) came,
was in a way of going zigzagging” (T9, 20); pred. annanı̄ part.pres., l.f. “to come”).

5.2.2. When there is no predicative verb (i.e. in the case of nominal sentences), the focusmarker -ı̄ is added to the (nominal) subject of the sentence. In this position the focus-marker
functions as a kind of copula. From the formal point of view, these cases reveal somedifferences between northern and southern Dhivehi. While in the southern dialects the focuselement can be joined directly to the respective noun (cp., e.g., A. mı̄hā-ı̄, cf. below), thiswould be unusual in the standard language. Instead of -ı̄, only the particle -akı̄ is here used
for focussing nouns. In the southern dialects, -akı̄ expresses an additional nuance of uncertainty, in contrast to the unenlarged -ı̄ which has no other function than announcing therhematic part of the sentence. In the standard language, a semantic differentiation of this kindcannot be expressed by the focus-element. Here, the particle -ı̄ can be added directly only tothe demonstrative pronouns mi “this (here)”, ti “that (there, near by you)” and e “that”, inagreement with their deictic meaning. Thus, mı̄ ← mi-ı̄ can be translated approximately with“this here is ...”, eı̄, similarly, with “that there is ...”. Although something which can bepointed at leaves hardly any room for uncertainness, even demonstrative pronouns can beenlarged by -akı̄ within particular contexts. In such cases, the correct translation will not be“this is” but “this seems to be; this probably is ...”. Cp. the following examples of verblessconstructions with -ı̄ and -akı̄:
5.2.2.1. Deictic pronouns with -ı̄:
M. mi-ı̄ ves mamma-ek-ge sūra eve “She was a mother too”, lit. “(What this one) was [in her eyes], wasalso the figure of a mother” (T9, 37).

590
591

Cf. 2.6.2.2 ff. — For the use of the casus obliquus cf. already FRITZ (1993), 31.
Cp. the obl.indef. mı̄haku in T8, 101; cf. further 2.3.2.3.1.

Sentence structure

253

A. mı̄ /mi-ı̄/ ta mo ōgan̆ a tau? ... tē /te-ı̄/ ma mo ōgan̆ a nunāu. “Is this your axe?” ... — “No, this is not
my axe”, lit. “What this (here, near by myself) is, (is this) your axe?” — “What that (there, near by
yourself) is, (is) not my axe” (T3, 59-60).592
ḋ

l̇

ḋ

l̇

5.2.2.2. The following two examples show substantivised deictic pronouns combined with-akı̄, in the sense of a reference object which is located outside of the concrete deictic
environment593; this implies that the hearer to a certain extent depends on presumptions:594
M. ēnā-akı̄ ēge nevin “He presumably was the ship’s captain”, lit. “Who that one, i.e. a person not being
present, obviously was, is her (i.e. the ship’s) captain” (T8, 165).
A. ehen vi mei, eākı̄ /ea-akı̄/ e raśi hiśi emme fakı̄ri taulı̄man ne mı̄hā kamugai vege “Thus it happened thathe (probably) became the poorest and least educated man on that island”, lit. “Having become that way,
it became a fact that what he was, was, the poorest and least educated man of all on that island ...”
(T16, 3).
c

5.2.2.3. The element -akı̄ is most probably combined of the oblique stem of the indefinite
suffix, -ak-, and the focus-element -ı̄. This derivation, which from the morphological point ofview is well justified,595 agrees with the fact that the nouns with -akı̄ exhibit a nuance of
uncertainness in South Dhivehi which clearly distinguishes them from nouns or demonstrative
pronouns with the focus-marker -ı̄. The meaning of uncertainness can then be explained by
the fact that the forms with -akı̄ are derived from the indefinite stem. The circumstance thatthe differentiation between definite nouns with -ı̄ and indefinite ones marked by -ak-ı̄ hasbeen lost in North Dhivehi, is presumably connected with the fact that the morphologicalexpression of definiteness has become obsolete in the modern standard language while it has
been preserved until present in the southern dialects, particularly in Addū (cf. 2.3.2.3). The
fact that -akı̄ is exclusively added to nominal parts of speech but never to verbal items, i.e.,
participles, can be taken as a further proof that -ak represents the indefinite suffix in its
oblique form.
˙˙

5.2.2.4. The difference between nominal constructions with the simple focus-element -ı̄ andthose marked by -akı̄ is not only interesting as a formal relic of South Dhivehi but also
because of the semantic differentiation it has preserved. Cp. the following two sentences
whose rhematic part is represented by xādimā “the servant” (sg.def.):
A. iyye geu /ge-aś/ ā mı̄hā-ı̄ xādimā “The man who came home yesterday, is the servant”, lit. “(Who) theman (who) came (ā part.pret.) home yesterday is, is, the servant”.
A. denaka /den-ak-aś/ geu ē mı̄hā-ı̄ xādimā “The man who is just coming (ē part.pres.) home is theservant.”c

In the following sentence, too, the rhematic part which is announced is the servant. In
contrast to the two preceding examples, however, this is an event in the future which implies
a certain extent of uncertainty; this factor is obviously expressed morphologically by theoblique indefinite suffix -ak:
A. māduma geu ē e mı̄h-ak-ı̄ xādimā “The (lit. ‘a’) man who will come (ē e part.fut.) tomorrow is, I
suppose, the servant.”
ṅ

ṅ

592

For a detailed analysis of these examples cf. 2.6.5.3.1.1.
“Zeigfeld” in the sense of BÜHLER (1934), 149 ff.
594
For an exact analysis of the two examples and for morphological details, cf. 2.6.5.3.1.2.
595
Cf. the arguments given in 2.3.2.3.1.1.
593

254

Syntactical sketch

If in the same context there is no doubt that the person who is expected to come home is theservant, the construction with plain -ı̄ will be preferred:
A. ... geu ē e mı̄hā-ı̄ xādima “The man who will come (ēne part.fut.) tomorrow is the servant.”
˙ṅ

5.2.2.5. In the standard language, there is no semantic differentiation of this kind available.
As a rule, only the enlarged focus-element -ak-ı̄ can be added to nouns in North Dhivehi; thesame holds true for substantives in pronominal use such as alugan̆du “I”. Cp. the following
sentence representing the answer of a boy who was asked by his former teacher, Hilmı̄:
˙

˙

˙

c

M. a u gan̆ a kı̄, i lmı̄ge darivare /-ek/ “I was your student”, lit. “(Who) I am is, a pupil ofi lmı̄.”(T10, 34). — Another example from the same short story is
M. main bafain nagāfai dunie matı̄gai tibē emme gāt mı̄hunnakı̄ kiavai dē mı̄hun “Apart from parents,
teachers are the most dependable people in the world”, lit. approximately “(Who) the people that are themost dependable in the world, are, exempting parents, is, teaching people.” (T10, 100).
Ḣ

ḣ

ḋ

l̇

5.2.3. The part of a sentence which is marked by the focus-marker referring to the rhema
need not precede the latter in all cases. In particular colloquial situations, especially in
exclamations or questions, the focussed part can even appear at the end of a sentence. Cp.,e.g., M. “kon name /-ek/ ta kianı̄ 〈kiyanı̄〉?” “‘What is your name?’”, lit. “(What they) callyou, is what name?” (T10, 32). In this case, the rhema consists of the introductory syntagm
which is marked by the interrogative pronoun kon “which”.
c5.3. As a rule, Maldivian sentences cannot have more than one finite verb (if we exclude
cases of direct speech where a finite predicate verb of its own can appear in the embedded
sentence; cf. below). Instead of finite forms, the predication of subordinate clauses, esp.
temporal or adverbial clauses of all kinds requires nominalised categories such as participles,absolutives (converbs), gerunds, or verbal nouns. Conditional clauses (as described in 3.13)
are built with participles and special conjunctions as well. Final clauses are usually expressedby infinitive constructions. Frequently one and the same sentence shows combinations of two
or even more of the categories mentioned, rendering sequences of subordinate clauses. For the
expression of very intensive or durative verbal actions, absolutives and gerunds, also in combination with each other, are often reduplicated.596 If the type of a given subordinate clauseis clear from the context, the use of introductory conjunctions is facultative in many cases.
5.3.1. By their etymology, most of the conjunctions in Dhivehi reveal themselves as petrified
nominal forms or infinite verbal forms. Thus, A. vēlei, F. vēlai “when, while” represents thelocative of the noun A.F. vēla “time” which is obsolete in the modern standard language but
is well attested in Old Dhivehi. A. vēlei, F. vēlai is postponed to participles; cp. F. e¯˛ vēlai“while she is going” (e.g. in T4, 8; e¯˛ part.pres.) or A. kē vēlei “when he said (so) / by saying(so)” (e.g. in T1, 51; kē part.pres.). The same holds true for the conjunction A. kō, F. kal“when, after” which is confined to South Dhivehi as well. kō / kal reflects the pure stem of596

For details cf. 3.8.2.2 and 3.10.5; cf. further the example given in 5.3.5.

Conjunctions

255

a word meaning “time” which is still used in the southern dialects.597 Examples are A. belikō “when (he) looked” (T1, 33; beli part.pret.); F. balāli kal “when (she) looked (around)”(T4, 7; balāli part.pret.II). In the standard language, the noun iru “time” is used in the samefunction as a conjunction meaning “when, while”; cp., e.g., em̆burili iru “when I turned
around” (em̆burili part.pret.II)598. As to the conjunction A. mei, F. mā ← *mai599 “when”,
it is possible that this too reflects a noun in the locative case.
5.3.1.1. The conjunction A.F. hedi/-ı̄, M. hedi “because” must be derived from thehomophonous absolutive of the inactive verb hedenı̄ “to be done”; cp. A. ta ā hedi “because
you have come” (ta obl. “you (thou)”; ā part.pret.). In the same way, M.A.F. vegen, theabsolutive III of vanı̄ “to become”, is frequently used as a conjunction meaning “because(of)” or “in order to”; cp., e.g., F. etta /-ak/ huanna vegen ebage “she went off in order tolook for something”. The noun kan /kam/ “fact” occurs in the function of the English
conjunctions “that” and “whether”; when it is reduplicated it also means “whether – or”.
Cp. the following two examples with the petrified absolutive formation A.F. dēneti “notknowing”:
cF. ka o ra o ma ā kan dēneti “not knowing that it is your wave”;
A. ta ra a /-ak/ kan, ma ra a kan dēneti “not knowing whether (it is) your wave or my wave” (bothexamples taken from T2, 12).
ṅ

c

c

l̇

l̇

l̇

l̇

5.3.1.2. After participles, the particle tō which in the standard language occurs as one of theinterrogative particles (cf. 3.15.3), is used as a conjunction meaning “whether” throughout
Dhivehi. Cp. the following examples:
F. reha kakkāgen mia mi had¯a˛ likı̄, kūdun en tō balanna ... “while cooking a curry, she looked whether thechildren were (already) coming ...”, lit. “what she did, was, to look ...” (T6, 19; en/¯e˛ part.pres.
“coming”)
M. ... katı̄bu dabas gennan tō suvālu kośli eve “The island chief asked whether to fetch (my) bag (or not)”(T8, 152; genna(n) part.pres. “fetching, bringing”).

5.3.1.3. When the interrogative particle A. tau / F. tai is reduplicated, it has the meaning “or”
in a question, while in a declarative sentence it represents a disjunctive “either-or”. Cp. thefollowing sentence in the dialects of Addū and Fua Mulaku which can be understood both asa question and as a statement:
c

˙˙

c

c

c

A. ta /taś/ dē e i maha /-ak/ tau, ema /-ak/ tau andF. kalōśa dennēnı̄ masmanā tai, emmanā tai (both from T2, 21).
˙

ṅ

˙

597
Cp. Sinh. kala “when, while” reflecting the stem kal “time” (cf. GEIGER 1941, 39, no. 569 and MATZEL
1983, 151). Because of its F. equivalent, kal, it is not very probable that A. kō would correspond to the Sinh.
conjunction ko a , which is identical with the homophonous absolutive of karanavā “to make, do”; its equivalentis A. ko , F. kō /koś/. We cannot exclude, however, that both the absolutive /koś/ and the noun /kal/ coexisted
for a while, at least in A ū, and then merged into one form. The fact that the modern A ū form is kō and not*kau as we should expect because of F. kal, supports this assumption (cf. 1.2.1.6). On the other hand, aspontaneous phonetic change of au → ō remains possible, although this would not represent a normal development in A ū.
598
For the complete sentence cf. 5.4.3.
599
For the use of this conjunction cf. 5.3.6; for the phonetic correspondence of (M. ā) – F. ai – A. ei which
presumably is represented here cf. 1.2.4.3.

ḋ

ṫ

ḋ

ḋ

c

ḋ

ḋ

ḋ

256

Syntactical sketch

As a question, the sentence means “Is it a (A.) / the (F.) fish or a/the bait fish what is to begiven to you?”; as a statement it must be translated with “What is to be given to you, iseither a/the fish or a/the bait fish.”
5.3.2. For the conjunctions which are used in conditional clauses cf. 3.13.
5.3.3. Participial subordinate clauses are mainly used for the expression of concurrence,
anteriority or posteriority of a verbal action. The noun which is qualified by a participle ispreceded by it in attributive position. If the noun represents the subject of the verbal action
expressed by the participle, these constructions can be translated into English directly as
participial clauses; in all other cases, relative clauses will have to be substituted. Cp. thefollowing examples from Addū with the participles pres. lēna, pret. le /let/ and fut. lēnane(M. lianı̄ “to write”):
c

˙

˙˙

A. mi si ı̄ lēna mı̄hā-ı̄ xādima “The man (who is) writing this letter is (a) servant”.
A. mi si ı̄ le /let/ mı̄hā-ı̄ xādima “The man who wrote (lit. ‘having written’) this letter is (a) servant.”
A. mi si ı̄ lēna e mı̄hā-ı̄ xādima “The man who will write this letter is (a) servant.” 600
ṫ

c

ṫ

ṅ

ṫ

The following sentence taken from T7 (6a.7a.8a601) shows a threefold chain of participial
clauses which furthermore contains an integrated absolutive. This very complex sentence isa typical example of the so-called “right-to-left construction of the sentence” (cf. 5 above).
c

c

c

c

c

A. āśaki matte hiśi vāśaki etere o eśakudu rukaki maśafei o kaiśaki naiśa .
F. aśieki matte hı̄śi vaśieki etere o eśekudu rukeki maśafē o kaiśeki naiśe .
H. a a ku matte hu i va a ku etere ote o ākude rukaku ma a ifai ote kau a ku no e ke.
M. attegge mattı̄gā huri vattegge terēgā oi okkuda rukegge maśāfai oi kāttegge nātte .
“(This is) a shell of a small polished coconut of a coconut tree with small seeds, lying in(side) a basket(which is) standing on the table.” (abs. A. maśafei etc. “being polished”, /ot/ part.pret.(/pres.) of (M.)
onnanı̄ “to lie, be (there)”, A. hiśi etc. part.pret. of (M.) hunnanı̄ “to stand, be, remain”).
c

ṫ ṫ

˙˙

ṫ

˙˙

c

ṫ

ṫ

˙

ṫ ṫ

˙˙

ṫ

˙˙
ṫ ṫ

c

The Fua Mulaku version of the fairy tale Mākana “The crane” (T2, 60-60a) exhibits an
example of an extreme sequence of participial clauses with additional absolutives dependingon them; the translation of the participial chain which represents the crane’s direct speech
must start from the end:cccF. āho beni ai: timan kalō galaka /-ak/ lı̄ guimana dı̄fā ga /gat/ ralomana dı̄fā gat emmana dı̄fā gamasma a dı̄fā ga daroma a dı̄fā ga fanima a dı̄fā ga kubusma a dı̄fā ga ūtērima a kobā heye?
“Coming (āho abs.) he said (be i 3.ps.sg.pret. + quotation particle): Where is the yarn reel (ūtērima a )which I received (ga part.pret.) by giving (dı̄fā abs.I) the pancake (kubusmana) which I received bygiving the treacle (fanima a ) which I received by giving the firewood (daroma a ) which I received bygiving the fish (masma a ) which I received by giving the bait fish (emma a ) which I received by giving
the wave (ra o ma a ) which I received by giving the dropping (guima a ) which I myself (lit. the lord(him)self) laid to a rock.”602
˙

˙

˙

c

ṅ

ṅ

˙

c

ṅ

˙

c

ṅ

c

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

˙
ṅ

c

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

l̇

600

The examples given in 5.2.2.4 show similar participial constructions (A. enı̄ / M. annanı̄ “to come”).
The tale contrasting the southern dialects of the Maldives with this sentence is about a competition which
was undertaken in order to find out the most beautiful dialect. To complete things, the Huvadū variant is
mentioned here as well. The Māle version was contributed by ASSAN SAcĪD.
602
This sentence contains some clear interferences of the standard language; cp. the interrogative particle
heye ← M. hei (cf. 3.15.3) and the abs.I dı̄fā used instead of F. derefē “giving / having given” (cf. 3.11.4.4 and3.10.4). For the diminutive suffix -ma a which is attested only in this version of the Mākana-story, cf. 2.2.2.
601

Ḣ

ṅ

Absolutives

257

5.3.4. In relation to the principal sentence, subordinate clauses that are based on absolutives
are either concurrent or anterior. Different from participles, however, the respective temporaltaxis cannot be predicted from the form of the absolutive only; without a clarifying context,
the temporal correlation of the absolutive and the main clause cannot be estimated unambiguously.603 Apart from the primary absolutives, there are also secondary absolutive formations;these “compound verbs”,604 consisting of combinations of absolutives and auxiliary verbs
very frequently occur in the colloquial language. In contrast to the syntactical restrictions
concerning participles, the position of absolutives in a sentence is free. Cp. the following
examples:M. en̆dun teduvegen hus gayā /gai-ai/ hure bēraś nukumejjaı̄m-eve “I got up and went outside. I had no shirton”, lit. “Having got up from the bed” (teduvegen abs.III of tedu-vanı̄ “to get up”), standing there with
the naked (upper part of the) body (hure abs. of hunnanı̄ “to stand, be, remain”), I went outside (nukumejjaı̄n 1.ps.sg.pret.IV605 of nukunnanı̄ “to go / come out”) (T8, 8).
A. kan̆ a gen ās de verie de gē e a fie “After they came (back) from cutting (wood), the two (people) built
two houses”, lit. “Having cut (kan̆ a gen abs.III of kan̆ a nı̄ ‘to cut’), coming / having come (ās abs. of(M.) annanı̄ ‘to come’), the two (people) built two houses (e a fie /-ia/ 3.ps.pl.pret.)” (T1, 3).
ḋ

ḋ

ḋ

ḋ

ḋ

In the following sentence, the sequence of absolutives represents the rhematic element:
F. haulu udihı̄fē goho eggamaha /ek-gamaha/ jehı̄ “The cock reached the land by flying”, lit. “(The wayhow) the cock (haulu obl.) hit (jehi+ı̄ part.pret. + focus-marker of jahanı̄, lit. ‘to strike, beat’) (to) theland, was (by) flying (and) going (udihı̄fē abs.I of (M.) uduhenı̄ ‘to fly’; goho abs. of (M.) danı̄ ‘to go’)”(T4, 33).

5.3.5. In contrast to absolutives, gerunds imply a fix temporal relation with the main action,
the secondary action which is expressed by them always being parallel to that of the primary
one.606 Besides that, gerunds are not different in use or meaning from the absolutive, as thefollowing example shows:ccA. den gōvamun dememun fēru kalēge ekaha /-aś/ gos, kaśie naguvagen kināra assēria /-aś/ gos, in̆de mikēnı̄ ... “Then, crying (and) struggling (along), he reached the weaver; after having caused (him) to pullout the thorn, he went out to the beach, sat down and said ...”, lit. “Then, crying (gōvamun ger. of
A. gōvanı̄ ≈ M. ronı̄ ‘to cry, howl’), struggling (dememun ger. of demenı̄ ‘to pull oneself, struggle’),having gone (gos abs. of (M.) danı̄ ‘to go’) close to the weaver(’s person), having caused (him) to pullout the thorn (nagu-va-gen abs.III of the caus. naguvanı̄ ‘to cause to raise, lift up’), having gone to theinner beach-edge (gos abs.), sitting (down) (in̆de abs. of (M.) innanı̄ ‘sit’), what he said, is (the following
words) ...” (kēnı̄ part.pret. + focus-marker -ı̄ of (M.) kianı̄ ‘to say’)” (T1, 49).

Furthermore, the use of reduplicated gerunds, combined with an absolutive, for the expressionof a durative and intensive action is very typical for Dhivehi; cp. the following example:
M. ēnā liamun liamun gos varubali vejje “Having been writing for a long time he became tired”, lit.
“Writing writing going he got tired”. (lianı̄ “to write”; cf. 3.8.2.2 above).

5.3.6. Verbal nouns in the literal sense (i.e., formations such as belun “to see”; cf. 3.7.1) canrepresent subordinate clauses as well. In such cases they always appear at the beginning ofa sentence, expressing a secondary action which happens simultaneously with the main action.

603

Cf. also 3.10.
Cf. 3.11.4.
605
For this formation cf. 3.11.4.5.
606
Cf. also 3.8.2.
604

258

Syntactical sketch

In all such cases, the verbal noun is combined with the element F. mā, H. mai “when” which
presumably represents a petrified noun with a locative meaning. In the recorded texts, thisconstruction most frequently appears in the phrase F. benum /benun/ mā beni ai “when he/ she said (so), (that one) answered (lit. ‘said’)” (beni 3.ps.sg.pret.; cf. M. bunun of bunanı̄
“to say, speak”); it is often used in stories that are told spontaneously and contain a highpercentage of direct speech. Cp. the following example:
˙

˙

˙

˙

F. be u m mā be i ai, timāśa dennēnı̄ ra o ma āk-ai (T2, 7) “When that one said so, (the crane) answered:‘Give me a wave’”; lit. “... what is to be given to me is a wave”. (dennēn-ı̄ part.fut. + focus-marker;
ra o -ma - ak + ai “wave” + diminutive suff. -ma a + indef.suff. + quotation particle).
ṅ

l̇

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

ṅ

l̇

It is a remarkable fact that the combination of verbal nouns and mā in the function of an
introducing syntactical element seems to be restricted to spontaneous narration only. In thoseoral tales that are stylistically polished as well as literary texts of the standard language, thisconstruction is practically unknown.
5.4. Quotation particles and interrogative particles
The varieties of Dhivehi have a special particle which because of its syntactic use is best
called a “quotation particle” or “quotation marker”. The particle concerned is eve [ē] in thestandard language, au/āu in Addū and ai/āi in Fua Mulaku. Essentially, two different
functions of the quotation particle must be distinguished: on the one hand it serves as aparticle of direct speech, on the other hand it has the function of an inferential particle, i.e.
a particle which indicates that the speaker knows only by hearsay what he is talking about.
The quotation particle is used only in statements, thus contrasting with the question particle
which is tau in Addū and tai in Fua Mulaku; in the standard language there are even four
different interrogative particles (ta, tō, hei, bā) the use of which depends on the given
interrogative situation and the honorific levels implied.607 In contrast to the interrogative
particles, the occurrence of the quotation particles is confined to literary texts in a wider
sense. There are considerable differences in their use between the modern prose of thestandard language and short stories, fairy tales and legends of popular poetry.
c

˙˙

c

˙˙

5.4.1. In oral reports and stories, the quotation particle normally appears at the end of
passages of direct speech where it can be translated with “... he/she says/said” or the like,equalling an absolutive “by saying”. At least the form M. eve can indeed be regarded as thepetrified absolutive of an obsolete verb *ev(i)anı̄ “to call, name” several forms of which areattested in lōmāfanu documents (L1, L2, L3). The use of eve in the sense of “saying” and thepart.pres. eviana / evyana / evyā in the sense of “called” (cf. 3.9.1.1.1) can be direct remnants of prototypical OIA constructions containing vi-khyā “to tell” + iti such as, e.g., iti
vikhyāta, often appearing in the Mahābhārata.608 Similarly, the absolutive A. kē, F. kei“saying” is used like a quotation particle in Addū and in Fua Mulaku, both representing an
c

˙˙

c

607
For the use of the interrogative particles, especially in yes/no questions, cf. 3.15.2 (Fua Mulaku) and3.15.3 (Māle). For the special question forms of finite verbs and, to a certain extent, also of infinite verbs in
A ū cf. 3.15.1.
608
Cp., e.g., M. 1,61,6. For the etymological background cf. MAYRHOFER (1986-), I, 456 s.v. khyā andfurthermore TURNER (1966), I, 210 s.v. khyā; 47, no. 1040 ff.; (1985), 7, no. 1043 and 102, no. 12842. Cf.
further 3.9.1.1.1.

ḋḋQuotation particles and interrogative particles

259

absolutive of M. kianı̄ “to say, speak” which reflects the same OIA root, khyā.609 In thegiven connection, kē / kei often has the exhortative meaning of “to tell somebody to do something”. This use of particles referring to explicit speech acts will be referred to as “internal”
hereafter. When the quotation particle appears at the end of an inferential clause or as an
insertion between two parts of a sentence in vernacular texts, it signals that the speaker istalking about something which he only knows by hearsay so that he cannot witness to it.
Used like this, the quotation particle can be rendered as “... (as) it is told, (as) they say, as
people tell, as the saying goes” etc. This use will from now on be called “external”. Furthermore, the particle is often found in vocational function at the end of a clause of exclamationconsisting of a personal address or a name only. The following examples, taken from various
fairy tales, will illustrate the different functions of the quotational and interrogative particles.
5.4.2. Sentences with a pure narrative or interrogative function where the “external” particle
appears at the end of the clause:cA. mi tibı̄ vara /-aś/ fakı̄ri fakı̄ri de mafiriakāmen āu “Once there was a very very poor couple, as peoplesay”, lit. “(What) there once was, is a very poor, poor couple, telling” (T3, 1).
F. kuku u filāge ai “The hen hid away, they say” (T4, 36).
M. balāli iru hurı̄ ran eve “When he looked (inside), there was gold (in it), they say”, lit. “When he looked,(what) there was, is gold, they say” (T1, 65).
l̇

5.4.2.1. When the rhematic part of a sentence is moved to the end of a clause (cf. 5.2.3
above), the quotation particle immediately precedes it in most cases:cF. mi kudd¯a˛ hitaha erı̄ ai gaśāi ba tavā kakkānēne “(What) arose to the mind of this child, was, – they say[external] – that she should prepare a pan of gaśāi-rice.” (T5, 2).

If the order of the sentence parts is inverted (cf. 5.2.3 above), the particles will be placed in
between too:
A. mi tau ta mo ōgan̆ a kı̄? ... te au ma mo ōgan̆ a kı̄ “Is this your axe?” — “That (one) is my axe”, lit.
“What your axe is, (he) asked [internal], is it this one near by myself?” ... — “What my axe is, (he) said
[internal], is that one (near you).”610 (T3, 44-45).
F. kon tākaha tai ti enı̄? “Where are you going (to)?”, lit. “That where you are going to, is, (he) asked[internal], to which place?” (T5, 6.11.16).
ḋ

l̇

ḋ

l̇

In the following examples, the quotation particle appears in a position after sentences which
consist of only one element:
A. mi kuddā kēfi: ammāu! timā ēnei dara hōdāśāu 611 “The child said: ‘Mother, I am going to look for
firewood’”, lit. “This child said: ‘Mother, (he) said [internal], (where) I shall go is to look for firewood.’— (telling [internal] or they say [external]).” (T3, 12)
A. den, mi kuddā be a fi: nun-āu, tē /teı̄/ ma mo o gan̆ a nun “Then the child said: ‘No, this is not my axe’”,
lit. “Then this child said: ‘No saying [internal], (what) that is near by you, is not my axe.’” (T3, 41).
˙

ḋ

l̇

ṅ

5.4.3. Modern prose writing, as it is cultivated in Māle today, is no longer based on the oral,
vernacular literary tradition. Instead it is mainly influenced by foreign literary genres such as,

609

Cf. GEIGER (1902), 926, no. 247 and (1941), 43, no. 636.
For the deictic elements involved cf. 2.6.5.2.
611
For the function of the reflexive pronoun in the role of a personal pronoun within the framework of directspeech, cf. 2.6.4.
610

260

Syntactical sketche.g., the short story. Within such new literary conceptions, the function of the quotation
particle eve has changed completely. As a matter of principle, it is now attached to every
narrative sentence, even if the whole short story is written in the first person and tells about
personal experiences. Thus, the use of the quotation particle has become independent from thequestion whether the subject that is told about can be testified by the speaker’s own experience or not. Obviously it is the written form of story-telling which brings in some distance
between the story-teller and his “own” experiences so that he refers to them from the viewof another person. In this function, the quotation particle represents a newly-developed
stylistic device within the comparatively recent genre of belle-lettres in Dhivehi. In order toillustrate this, a small passage of a short-story written in the first person is given below; its
subject is a terrifying encounter with a ghost (Fini mendamegge madu hūnu, “The warmth ofa cool midnight”, by MUHAMMAD WAHĪD (MA U LU); T8, 53-57):
˙Ḋ

M. kuda-koś jehilun vefai fahataś em̆berilaifı̄m eve “Anxiously, I glanced behind me”, lit. “I turned around,having become a little bit nervous, saying.”
M. evves mı̄haku net eve. “Nobody was there, saying.”
M. kurimaccaś mūnu am̆burā-nu-lā ulenı̄ koś nubai kunivahegge /kuni-vas-ek-ge/ vas nēfatugai jehijje eve“But I felt a foul stench”, lit. “Although I did not turn (my) face in front, the stench of a bad rotten
smell hit on (my) nose, saying.”
M. kurin in gotaś em̆burili iru, varaś kairı̄gai mı̄haku hu i gen ahannā dimā-aś balan hu - eve /hu i eve/
“Turning around, I faced a man starring at me”, lit. “When turning around in the way (I had been sitting)
before, a man having stopped very close by me stopped (in order) to look into my direction, saying.”
M. hurihā istaśita /-tak/ kolaś jehijje eve “My hair rose”, lit. “All (my) hair hit upwards, saying.”
˙

˙

ṫ ṫ

ṫ ṫ

ṫ ṫ

c

˙

5.5. Negated sentences
For the expression of negation, Dhivehi has different morphological and syntactical means.
5.5.1. The particle M.A.F. nun¯˘ has the meaning of the negative clause “it is not”; it corresponds with Engl. “no” as an answer to yes/no questions. Cp., e.g., M. ingirēsi dannan ta?
— nūn.612 “Do you know English?” — “No”. In this sense, the dialect of Fua Mulaku
prefers uh
˛ u˛ to nun in most cases.
c5.5.1.1. Another important function of M.A.F. nun¯˘ is that of a verb negating the rhematic partof a sentence; cp., e.g., M. mi-ı̄ fote /-ek/ “this is a book”, lit. “(what) this is, is a book”, incontrast to mi-ı̄ fote nūn “this is not a book”, lit. “(what) this is, is not a book”. Within thiscontext, nūn equals a negated copula meaning “is not”. The following example shows nun¯˘ inboth functions:ccA. mı̄ /mi-ı̄/ tau koyyāge molōgan̆dakı̄? — nun-āu. tē /te-ı̄/ ma molōganda nun. (T3, 40-41) “‘Is this theboy’s axe?’ — ‘No, this is not my axe’”, lit. “(What) this (here) is, is – (I) suppose (cf. 5.2.2.4) – theboy’s axe?” — “No. What that (there) is, is not my axe.”
˙

˙

˙

˙

5.5.2. The particle M. nu, A.F. ni “not” serves as a negation prefix of finite verbs, sometimes
also of infinite verbal forms (cf. 5.5.4 below). When a participle which introduces a rhematicpart of speech with the focus-marker -ı̄ is to be negated, it must be transformed into the612This and the following example are taken from DISANAYAKA/MANIKU (1990), 82 and 83, resp.

Negated sentences261

corresponding finite form; this causes a change of the whole syntactical construction. In
accordance with the rules given in 5.2, the respective transformations must be done graduallyby reversing the order of elements, as illustrated in the following example in the Addū
dialect: As a positive sentence with the part.pres. enı̄ in the long form functioning as a predicate verb, A. ma ādavegen kāu /kāś/613 enı̄ gē /ge-aś/ “Normally I go home for eating”, lit.
“That where I am normally (ādavegen) going to eat (inf. kā ), is to (the) house”, has its
subject in the oblique case (ma pers.pron. 1.ps.sg.), the rhematic part being placed at the endof the sentence. In the negated version of the same sentence, the predicate verb is transformed
into the finite 1.ps.sg. pres., en “I go” and, furthermore, it is placed to the end of the clause.
The subject is accordingly transformed into the nominative ava: A. ava ādavegen gea /-aś/kā /kāś/ ni en. “Normally I do not go home for eating.”
˙˙

c

c

c

c

5.5.2.1. In order to express negated requests and prohibitions, the negation prefix M. nu / A.F.
ni precedes the imperative; cp., e.g., M. balā! 2.ps.sg./pl. “look!” vs. nu-balā! “don’t look!”or A.F. 2.ps.sg. bala! “look!”, 2.ps.pl. balau! “look!” vs. ni-bala! and ni-balau! “don’tlook!”. — For the formal differentiation of inhibitive and preventive forms cf. 3.5.3.
5.5.3. The negated variant of a verbum substantivum meaning “to be there, exist” is based onDhiv. /net/ (M. nei, A.F. ne ) “is/was not there” which, with its “pseudo-lemmatic form”´ 614 In most cases,
netunı̄ “not being there, not existing”, must be derived from OIA nāsti.
nei/ne is used in like manner as nun¯˘ (cf. 5.5.1.1 above), but it can also occur in the functionof a participle (pret. and pres.) or an absolutive. In the southern dialects the paradigm of
netunı̄ is well developed, while it has remained fragmentary in the standard language. netunı̄
is regarded as the negative equivalent of the verbs hunnanı̄ “to be, stand, remain”, onnanı̄ “tolie, be there”, innanı̄ “to sit, be there” and tibenı̄ “to exist, be there”; cp., e.g., M. mēze /-ek/
eba huri “there is a table” as against mēze nei “there is not a table, there is no table”.615
In the sentence A. gē kō, bon̆danā geaki ne /net/616 “When he went (there), the b.-bird
was not at home” (T1, 55), the syntactic position of ne can be compared to that of nun¯˘ in theexamples mentioned in 5.5.1.1; cp. also A. ... taulı̄man ne mı̄hā ... “the man without education”, lit. “the education-not-being-there man” (T16, 3; cf. 5.2.2.2). In the following twoparts of a sentence (T2, 15), neti- appears in absolutive function:
c

c

c

c

c

˙

c

c

F. ... baiken en nētı̄ maha ni bēvvigen tibi tākaha ... “...to a place where some people failed to catch fish
because they had no bait fish”, lit. “... to a place (tākaha) (where) some people (baiken) were present(tibi ‘being’), fish (maha) not being catchable (ni bēvvigen ‘not being catchable’, abs.III), bait fish (en)not being (there) (nētı̄ abs.)”.
A. ... en netigen, mas ni bēvigen ... “... catching no fish because of bait fish lacking ...”, lit. “.. bait fish not
being (there) (netigen abs.III), fish not being catchable ...”.

5.5.4. Finally, Dhivehi is characterised by a syntactical peculiarity which plays an importantrole in the negation of impersonal sentences with an infinite predicate verb or with a noun inpredicative function. In this case, that part of a sentence which is to be negated appears in an
613

For this phenomenon of sandhi cf. 1.6.3.
For more information on the secondary verb netunı̄, cf. 3.9.2.2.5.
615
Examples taken from DISANAYAKA /MANIKU (1990), 85.
616
For geaki cf. also 5.5.4.1.
614

262

Syntactical sketch

indefinite form. It makes no difference whether the negation concerns the existence or only
a particular quality of something; furthermore, it is indifferent from the formal point of view
whether the subject of negation is a noun, an adjective, a pronoun, a verbal noun or an
infinitive. Cp. the following examples:cccM. mi dōni vara /-aś/ bo u “This boat is very big” vs. mi dōni vara bo e /-ek/ nūn “This boat is not verybig”, lit. “a very big (one)”;M. fansure /-ek/ bēnun ta?617 “Do you want a pencil?”, lit. “(Is) a pencil (the object of) desire?” vs.
fansure bēnume /-ek/ nūn ta? “Wouldn’t (you) like a pencil?”, lit. “(Is) a pencil not (an object of)desire?”618
ḋ

ḋ

c

c

c

In the following sentence, it is the infinitive of kuranı̄ “to make, do” which appears in an
indefinite (dative) form, immediately preceding the negation particle nu:ccM. iyye ahanna /-aś/ masakkai /-at/ kurāka /kurākaś/ nu jehunu619 “Yesterday I could not work”, lit.
“Yesterday it did not turn out possible (jehunu potential pret. of jehenı̄ ‘to hit’ intr.) for me to do thework”. The indefinite form kurāka of the infinitive kuran “to make, do” must be analysed as *kuran-akaś, with regular loss of the intervocalic -n-.620cThis type of construction was already noted by DE SILVA (1970b, 153-4) who did not realisethat this is a regular formation with the indefinite suffix appearing in the dative, however. He
proposed that these form variants might be borrowings: “In negating sentences with the dative
affix, -aś is changed to -kaś. ... Although -aś corresponds to Sinh. -at, -kaś has no equivalentin Sinhalese either in form or in use. -kaś [ka ] is reminiscent of the Tamil dative Suffix -kku,
and may well be a Tamil borrowing.” On the basis of the material provided here, this viewhas nothing in its favour and must be rejected.
˙

c5.5.4.1. Three further examples (from the Addū fairy tales Molōgan̆da “The axe” andFin̆danāi bon̆danāi “The f.-bird and the b.-bird” and the Huvadū story Mākana “The crane”)
may suffice to illustrate the use of indefinite forms in connection with the negation. In thefirst example it is the verbal noun jehun /jehum/, of jahanı̄ “to beat, strike”, which appears
in the indefinite form:
˙

˙

˙˙

˙

c

c

A. arai, mi hedi lekakı̄, kan̆ ā /-āś/ jehum-ak-āi ni lāi mo ōgan̆ a kōra /-aś/ va a li (T3, 69) “Having
climbed up, he dropped the axe into the pond without even striking one blow”, lit. “Having climbed up,(what) he now did, was, he dropped the axe into the pond, not putting (negation particle ni + abs. lāi)with a stroke (jehum-ak-āi obl.sg.indef. + particle ‘with’) in order to cut (inf. /kan̆ āś/)”.
A. gē kō, bon̆danā geaki ne /net/ (T1, 55) “When621 he came / went (there), the b.-bird was not at home”,
lit. “in a (!) house” (ge-ak-i loc.sg.indef.; cf. 5.5.3).
ṫ ṫ

ḋ

l̇

ḋ

ḋ

c

˙

In the following sentence, the indefinite form of the noun kan has the function of the conjunction “whether” (cf. 5.3.1.1):
H. mākanayā bo i ai, guake denne kāeke /kam-eke/ nen̆ge /nu-en̆ge/, ra e ke denn-āi. (T2, 7) “The cranesaid, (I) do not know whether a dropping is to be given or a wave”, lit. “The crane said, it is not known(nu en̆ge) (to me) whether (kam-eke nom.sg.indef., lit. ‘a fact’) to give a dropping (guake, obl.indef.) or(‘and’) to give a wave (raleke obl.sg.indef.).”
l̇

ṅ

˙

617
The noun M. bēnun, A.F. bē u n “wish, will” is one of the most frequent predicate nouns of thecolloquial language; in all dialects of Dhivehi it is used like an infinite, unchangeable verb.
618
Both examples are taken from DISANAYAKA/MANIKU (1990), 83 and 84, resp.
619
Sentence provided by ABĪBA USSAIN ABĪB, personal communication.
620
For this development cf. 1.2.1.4.
621
For the conjunction kō cf. 5.3.1.

Ḣ

ṅ

Ḣ

Ḣ

Indexes
Grammatical terms
archaicity . . . . . 13, 14, 26, 66, 68, 86, 89, 110, 164, 181
areal typology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
colloquial language . . . . 12, 90, 130, 135, 154, 165, 169
decimal system . . . . . . 53, 107, 108, 110, 116, 122, 123
deixis . . . . . 127, 128, 136, 137, 139, 151, 252, 253, 259
dialectal variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13, 14, 18, 31
diglossia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
duodecimal system . . . . . 11, 53, 107, 108, 110, 111, 115,
116, 121-123
emphasis . . . . 73, 121, 135, 144, 148, 161, 183, 193, 245,
249
father’s names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V
first names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V, 137
historical phonology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 17, 49
honorific degrees → honorific levels
honorific levels . . 15, 128, 129, 134, 161, 171, 172, 182,
185, 187, 190, 200, 201, 210, 248, 258
honorific system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 129
house names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V
hyperprakritisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108, 121
kinship terms . . . . . . . . . 70, 74, 80, 81, 87, 88, 91, 136loans from Arabic . . . . . . 25, 36, 45, 103, 104, 136, 154loans from Hindi/Urdu . . . . . . . . . 20, 33, 110, 113, 115loans from Persian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
loans from Sinhalese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12, 125
loanwords . . . 12, 20, 24, 25, 29, 32, 36, 42, 45, 59, 60,
65, 66, 68, 79, 88, 90, 103, 104, 108, 110-113, 115, 124, 133, 136, 154morpheme boundary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36, 37, 42, 43
Morphology: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-13, 15, 51-250
a-stem nouns . . . . 51, 59, 62, 63, 66, 69, 83, 90, 94,
97-99, 101a-stem verbs . . . 23, 26, 156, 165-167, 169-171, 173181, 183, 184, 191, 192, 193-202, 206, 208, 211-213
215, 216, 226, 227, 229, 230, 232-236, 246, 247
ablative case . . . 51, 55, 59, 61-63, 95, 98, 100, 159,
162, 249
ablative/instrumental . . 38, 59, 61, 62, 101, 102, 159,
166, 249
absolute interrogative pronouns . . . . . . . . . 153, 156
absolute pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126, 127, 152absolutive . . . 158, 165, 166, 170, 173, 178, 185, 187, 189-191, 197, 198, 201, 205-207, 210-216, 218, 2
21-227, 229-238, 241, 242, 245, 254-258, 261
absolutive I . . . . . . . . . . 27, 166, 191, 197, 210, 226absolutive II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166, 210, 226absolutive III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166, 227
absolutive IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
accusative case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
action nouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
active . . . . . . . 26, 165, 171, 178, 229, 233, 236, 251
adjectival comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53, 102, 105
adjectives . 53, 58, 66, 74, 81, 89, 102-105, 107, 124,

156, 160, 162, 262
adverbial interrogative pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
adverbial pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126, 127, 152
adverbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53, 62, 106, 161, 162
agglutinative . . . . . . . . 51, 54, 67, 72, 100, 101, 181
aktionsart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166, 216-221, 225
alienable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
analytic . . . 57, 59, 61, 95, 98-100, 160-162, 166, 241
animate . . . 51, 56, 57, 62, 71, 74, 80, 86, 87, 90, 91,
124, 128, 139, 149, 152
animateness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51, 71, 153aorist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186, 218
approximate numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
attenuative aktionsart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
auxiliary verbs . . . 40, 166, 168, 178, 180, 182, 187,
189-191, 193, 207, 211, 216, 221-231, 235, 242, 257
bahuvrı̄hi compounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53, 103
basic verbal form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183, 202, 241
cardinal numbers . . . . . 53, 69, 74, 86, 108-110, 114case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51, 52
case suffixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55, 62
case system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51, 54, 55
casus obliquus → oblique casecasus rectus → direct casecausal-final interrogative pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . 158
causative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
causative formation . . 15, 19, 30, 31, 40, 41, 43, 170,
171
causative suffix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31, 170
causatives . . . 165, 170-172, 182, 200, 201, 205, 223,
232-236
cohortative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183, 184
collective numbers . . . . . . 74, 81, 86, 108, 124, 126
comparative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53, 105, 106
complex verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104, 125, 188, 232
composite verbs → compound verbs
compound adjectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53, 103
compound verbs . . 170, 172, 203, 205, 206, 213, 214,
216, 221-225, 227-231, 257
compounds 36, 42, 44, 47, 74, 81, 89, 104, 133, 135,
136, 151, 152, 154, 156, 158, 162
concurrent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
conditional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166, 239, 241, 242
conditional clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
conditional conjunctions . . . . . . . 239-242, 249, 254
conjugation classes → conjugation types
conjugation patterns → conjugation types
conjugation types . 165, 168, 172, 176, 178, 180, 183,
184, 196, 211, 245
conjunctions . . . . . . . . . 239-242, 249, 250, 254-256
consecutio temporum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
consonant stem nouns . . 28, 41, 43, 51, 55, 59, 62-67,
69, 76, 82, 83, 89, 93, 94, 96, 97-99, 101, 125, 135

264

Indexes

continuous present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
converb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166, 210, 254
coordinative conjunctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
copula verb . . 105, 168, 177-179, 181, 184, 186, 224,
231, 233, 236, 252, 260
counting units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
dative case . . . 18, 51, 55, 57, 58, 62, 63, 69, 77, 78,
94, 97, 98, 100, 101, 106, 126, 157, 159, 166, 178,
182, 184, 185, 191-195, 249
dative ending . . . . . . . . . . . . 40, 193, 195, 210, 245
decades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116, 117
declarative forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244, 245
declension . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51, 54, 62, 94-96, 98, 99
declension classes . . . . . . . . . . . . 92, 93, 95, 96, 101
defective paradigms . . . . . . . . . . . . 79, 92, 236, 243
definite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
definite form . . . 21, 38, 39, 52, 67-72, 74, 76-84, 87-89, 91-94, 99, 101, 134
definite plural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
definite singular . 52, 70-72, 78, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86-88,
92
definite suffix . . . . . 22, 59, 67, 68, 70, 89, 137, 139
definiteness . . . . . . . . . 51, 52, 63, 68, 70, 76, 79, 82
deixis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146, 149, 150delimitative aktionsart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
demonstrative adverbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150, 249
demonstrative pronouns . 52, 127, 128, 136, 137, 139,
146-151, 162, 252, 253
derivational suffixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53, 103, 104
derivative verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171, 172
determinative pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . 126, 127, 152
diminutives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
direct case . 18, 22, 51, 52, 55, 62, 65, 67, 70, 73, 92,
100, 129, 131, 133, 140, 141, 251
distributional plural . . . . 75, 122, 135, 136, 138, 156,
160
double absolutive → reduplicated absolutive
double causatives . . . . . . . . . 41, 170, 171, 185, 200
durative aktionsart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225, 254
durative-intensive aktionsart . . . . . . . . . 166, 254, 257
dvandva compounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
e-stem verbs . . . 23, 26, 36, 165, 166, 168, 171, 174177, 180, 182, 184, 191, 192-197, 199, 200, 203, 205,
206, 208, 209, 211, 212, 215, 226-229, 232, 23
4-237, 246, 247
elative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
emphatic particle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73, 161
ending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
excessive grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
feminine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51, 74, 149
finite . . . 165, 166, 168, 169, 173, 174, 176-178, 180182, 187, 189, 190, 193, 201, 205, 207-210, 213, 2
25-228, 231, 232, 235, 239, 240, 243-245, 251, 254,
258
finite verbs . . 51, 92, 129, 150, 165, 166, 169, 174,
180, 187, 251, 254, 258, 260
focus-element → focus-marker
focus-marker . . . . . . 72, 73, 138, 148, 149, 251-254
fractional numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
frequentative aktionsart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

frozen definite forms . . 59, 67, 70, 72, 74, 79, 80, 8
4-90, 92, 97, 101, 135, 150
future . . . 165, 166, 176-182, 185, 186, 189, 192, 193, 198, 199, 207, 209, 210, 225, 226, 230-236, 239,
240, 244, 246
future I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226, 231
future II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
future participle . . . . . . 165, 166, 181, 182, 209, 210
future potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231, 233, 235
gender . . . . . 51, 52, 73, 139, 148-150, 152, 166, 196
generic plural . . 59, 68-70, 72, 76, 78, 82, 86, 88, 94,
133, 246
genitive case . . . 51, 55-58, 61, 63, 69, 77, 78, 94-98,
100, 101, 144
genitive-locative . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38, 51, 55, 56, 100
gerund . 165, 166, 173, 196-198, 210, 211, 215, 216,
218, 222-224, 254, 257
gerund I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197, 210
gerund II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197, 210, 215
honorific suffixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54, 89
i-stem nouns . . . 21, 23, 27, 38-41, 47, 51, 59, 60, 62, 63, 66, 69, 71, 76, 77, 78, 79, 82, 84-86, 89, 90,
94, 95, 97-99, 101, 124, 138, 163
i-stem verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191, 203, 204
imperative . . . 165, 166, 173, 182-187, 189-191, 193,
194, 223, 224, 226, 230, 261
imperfect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
imperfectiva tantum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
imperfective aspect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186, 216-221
inactive . . 26, 165, 171, 172, 174, 178, 200, 206, 208,
229, 231-238, 251, 255
inactive of the causative . . . 166, 206, 234, 235, 238inalienable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54, 89, 137
inanimate 51, 56, 57, 59, 62, 71, 74, 87, 88, 91, 108,
124, 128, 137, 138, 139, 148, 152, 243
inanimateness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51, 71, 153
indefinite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53, 59, 149, 253, 262
indefinite form . . 21, 52, 68-70, 72-74, 76-80, 82, 84,
85, 88-90, 92-94, 101, 158
indefinite infinitive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22, 262
indefinite plural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88, 101
indefinite pronouns . . . . . 52, 154, 159-161, 249, 250
indefinite singular . . . . . . . . . 52, 70, 79, 88, 92, 101
indefinite suffix . . 40, 59, 62, 69-73, 84, 88, 90, 108,
249, 250, 253, 262
indefiniteness . . . . 51, 52, 63, 68, 72, 76, 79, 82, 101
indicative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166, 177, 178, 183
infinite . 165, 166, 178, 225, 231, 241, 243-245, 254,
260-262
infinite verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51, 92, 129, 150
infinitive . . 22, 57, 154, 159, 165, 166, 177-182, 184,
185, 189, 191, 192, 193-196, 203, 207, 210, 218, 230, 245, 247, 254, 262
infinitive endings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173, 178
infinitive II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
inflectional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51, 54, 55, 100
ingressive aktionsart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219, 222
injunctive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186, 218
instrumental case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51, 61, 197
interrogative forms . . . . . . . . 192, 234, 243-245, 258

Grammatical terms: Morphology
interrogative particles → question particles
interrogative pronouns . . . 52, 127, 148, 152-159, 162, 164, 244, 249
intransitive . . . 26, 165, 174, 227-229, 232-235, 237,
243
involitive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
irregular verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202, 214
lexical aktionsart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
local adverbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
local interrogatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
locational dative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
locative case 39, 51, 55, 56, 100, 101, 156, 157, 249,
255, 258
long form . . . 23, 166, 169, 198, 200, 201, 203, 205207, 210, 245, 251
masculine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51, 149
medial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174, 223, 227
modal adverbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151, 249
modal interrogatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
modal pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
modifying aktionsart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220, 221
monadic units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
mood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166, 178, 186
multiplicative numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
n-stem nouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
n-stem verbs . . 36, 44, 165-167, 171-178, 180, 181,
184, 195-197, 199, 200, 201-208, 212-215, 226-229,
232, 234, 235, 237, 238, 243, 244, 246, 247
nasal presents . . . . . . . . . . . 173, 204, 205, 207, 213
negation . . . . . . . . 153, 169, 184, 233-235, 260-262
negation particles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250, 260, 262
negative pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52, 127, 164
neuter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
nominal stem classes → nominal stem types
nominal stem types . . . . . . . . . 54, 55, 57, 62, 92, 95
nominal system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
nominative case . . . 51, 55, 63-65, 92, 150, 249, 251
number . . . 51, 52, 56, 68, 70, 71, 76-79, 82, 89, 97,
102
oblique case . . . 15, 21, 51, 52, 55, 57, 61, 70, 72, 73, 79, 92, 97, 99-102, 104, 129, 130, 133-135, 140,
141, 144, 145, 149, 150, 153, 156-159, 178, 239, 245,
249, 251, 261
optative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178, 233
ordinal numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53, 123participles . . . 166, 198, 199, 201, 202, 207, 209, 218, 225, 239, 240, 251, 253-257, 260particles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249, 250
passive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165, 174, 231, 236, 237
past → preterite
past participle → preterite participle
perdurative-resultative aktionsart . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
perfectiva tantum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
perfective aspect . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186, 216-219, 221
perfectivisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220, 221
periphrastic constructions . . . . . . . . . . 52, 125, 164
periphrastic formations . 187, 189, 201, 207, 225-227,
230
personal endings . . . 168-170, 174, 175, 177-183, 202, 239, 245

265

personal names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
personal pronouns 14, 20, 52, 92, 127-130, 133, 134,
136, 137, 139-141, 144, 145, 147, 149, 251
plural . . . 52, 59, 61, 68, 70, 71, 76, 78-80, 82, 87-90, 92, 93, 99, 101, 102
plural suffixes . 52, 62, 69, 72, 74, 75, 80, 81, 86-88,
90-92, 138, 153, 163
pluralia tantum . . . . . . . . . 79, 86, 90, 132, 133, 145
possessive pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52, 144
posterior imperative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
postpositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61, 95, 98, 249
potential . . . . . . . . 166, 177, 178, 191, 231-239, 247
present . 165, 166, 168, 169, 173-175, 177, 179, 181,
183, 186, 197, 198, 199, 204, 207, 208, 213, 214,
218, 230, 232, 234, 239, 244, 246, 247
present conditional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239, 241
present participle . . . 23, 103, 165, 166, 169, 178-181, 199-201, 203, 205, 208, 210, 218, 221, 235, 239,
242, 245, 261
present perfect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
present potential . . . . . . . . . . 231, 233-235, 239, 240
present stem . 26, 165, 166, 168, 170, 172, 180, 183,
197, 199, 201, 205, 207, 208, 209, 211, 243preterite . 165, 166, 174-176, 178, 179, 181, 198, 199,
201, 202, 208, 210, 225-228, 231, 236, 238, 239,
241, 244, 246preterite conditional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240, 241preterite I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166, 191, 226, 228-231
preterite II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166, 226, 228, 229
preterite III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166, 227, 228preterite IV . . . . . . . . . . 40, 166, 228, 229, 238, 239
preterite participle . 26, 103, 165, 166, 174, 175, 190,
201-210, 218, 221, 223, 225, 231, 235-241, 261
preterite participle I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166, 226, 240preterite participle II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166, 226preterite participle III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166, 227
preterite participle IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166, 242
preterite potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231, 236-238
preterite stem . . 26, 165, 166, 174, 178, 196, 201, 209
préverbes vides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220, 221
preverbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
progressive form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
pronominal adjectives . . . 52, 62, 91, 107, 154, 157,
159, 160, 162-164, 250
pronominal adverbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
pronominal system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52, 126
pronouns . 52, 59, 61, 70, 75, 91, 126, 151, 152, 249,
251, 262
question particles . 154, 157, 189, 244, 247, 248, 250,
255, 256, 258
quotation marker . . . . . 182, 199, 239, 250, 258-260
quotation particle → quotation marker
reciprocal pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52, 152
recurrent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
reduplicated absolutive . . . . 211, 215, 216, 224, 225
reduplicated gerund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
reduplication . . 75, 135, 136, 138, 162, 166, 170, 198
reflexive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174, 223, 227, 233
reflexive pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . 52, 127, 133, 145
relative pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52, 127

Indexes
alternation M. - A.F.
. . . . . . . . . . 14, 28, 35, 36
alternation M. - A.F. n̆ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
alternation M.F. -u - A. -a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65, 66
alternation of final vowels in consonant stems . 28, 63
alternation of prenasalised and plain stops . . . . . . . 31
anaptyctic vowels . . . . . . 36, 113, 116, 170, 172, 201
apocope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 19, 22, 34, 46, 169
aspirates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 17, 28
assimilation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158, 170, 195
au-diphthong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24, 112, 115
change -ai → -ā . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
change -al → -au . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22change au → ō . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
change -avu- → -au- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
change c- → s- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33, 50, 112, 115
change -c- → -s- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
change -c-/-j- → -d- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
change -cc- → -s- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50, 214, 215
change -Cp- → -pp- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
change -Cv- → -CC-/-vv- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
change -Cv- → -vv- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
change -di- → -dd- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38-40
change -di- → -dy- → -jj- . . . . . . . . . . . 38, 39, 239
change -di- → -jj- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
change dv- → b- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111, 114
change → . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36, 194
change e → a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
change e → o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36, 201, 206
change -el → -eo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22change -el → -eu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22change -il → -ū . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22change j- → d- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
change -j- → -s- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
change -jj- → -d- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
change -k → - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 64
change -k- → -h- by dissimilation . . . . . . . 152, 160
change -kn- → -kk- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44change -l → -u . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20, 22, 64, 81
change -m → -n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 20, 133change -ni- → -ny- → -ññ- . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40, 242
change -ol → -ō . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22change p → f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33, 34, 42, 130change p → f → h . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34, 130, 131change -rt- → -r - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
change s → h . . . . . . . . . . . . 32, 34, 60, 64, 83, 97
change s- → h- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50, 112, 113, 115
change -sf- → -ss- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37, 43
change -si- → -sy- → -ss- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
change -st- → -ss- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43change -ś → - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 64
change -t → -y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 64
change -t → - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 64, 205change -ti- → -tt- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38-40
change -ti- → -ty- → -cc- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38, 39
change → ś18, 20, 33, 34, 41, 42, 113, 194
change → ś → h . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57, 178, 194
change u → e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
change -ul → -ū . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22change vı̄- → vi- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131change vı̄- → vu- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
ḋ

l̇
l̇

l̇

c

ḋ

ṫ

c

c

ṫ

ṫ

resultative aktionsart . . . . . . . 220-223, 226, 227, 240
resultative-durative aktionsart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
rhematisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252, 253root nouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21, 59, 67, 68, 101root verbs . . . . . . . . . . 165, 227, 232-235, 237, 247
s-stem nouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83, 97
short form . . . 166, 180, 181, 198-203, 206, 209, 226,
239, 242
singular . . . . . . . . . 52, 59, 68, 70, 77-79, 88, 89, 93
singularisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68, 79, 80, 133
subjunctive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166, 231
substantive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53, 160
substantivisation . . . 81, 89, 105, 109, 128, 136, 139,
150, 253superlative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107, 161, 162
suppletion . . . 172, 178, 216, 228, 236, 238, 239, 242, 243
syncretism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
synthetic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56, 59, 61, 100, 101
temporal adverbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150, 151
temporal interrogatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
tense . . . . . . . . . . 166, 168, 198, 201, 211, 217, 243
terminative-resultative aktionsart . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
thematic present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
transitive . . . . . . . . . 26, 174, 178, 224, 229, 232-234
u-stem nouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
uninflected words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
vector verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221, 222
verbal aspect . . . . . . . . . . . . 166, 186, 216-219, 221
verbal character . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
verbal noun . . 165, 166, 182, 191, 193, 195-197, 254,
257, 262
verbal system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
vocalic stems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62, 67, 69, 100
vocational forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89, 135-137, 145
voice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
word formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
mots savants . . 12, 33, 42, 49, 50, 55, 66, 103, 104, 116,
117
nick-names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
numeral system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 53, 107
patronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
personal names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Phonology: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-50
affricates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 38, 50
affrication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38, 39, 48, 90
ai-diphthong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24, 25
allegro forms . . . . . . . . 124, 130, 135, 153, 154, 160
alternation A. -gg- - F. -jj- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
alternation M. -i - A.F. -u . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65, 66
alternation M. -tt- - A. - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
alternation M. -u - A. -a - F. -e . . . . . . . . . . . 65, 66
alternation M. -u - A. -a - F. -o . . . . . . . . . . . 65, 66
alternation M. -u - A.F. -e . . . . . . . . . . . 65, 66, 209
alternation M. -u - A.F. -i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65-67
alternation M. - - - A.F. -d- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
alternation M. ā - F. ai - A. ei . . . . . . . . . . . 27, 255
alternation M. i - A.F. e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
alternation M. o - A. e - F. e/ē . . . . . . . . . . . . 27, 97
alternation M. u - A.F. e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27, 28

ḋ

266

ṫ ṫ

ḋ

Grammatical terms: Phonology

opposition of n and. . . . . . . . . 26, 29, 35, 40, 209
opposition of n̆d and nd etc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
palatal affricates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
palatalisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
paradigmatic interchange of -d- and -nn- . . . . . . . 173
paradigmatic interchange of -h- and -ss- . . 40, 47, 77, 78, 85, 90
paradigmatic interchange of -s- and -h- . . . . . . 64, 94
paradigmatic interchange of -n̆d- and -nn- . . . 31, 173prenasalised stops . . . . . . 17, 29-31, 36, 37, 135, 173
progressive assimilation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37, 38, 41
realisation of - → -d in sandhi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
realisation of - → -u in sandhi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
regressive assimilation . . . . . . . . 37, 38, 41-43, 132retroflex consonants . . . . . . . 5, 17, 18, 28, 35-37, 97
retroflex stops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
sandhi . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37, 39, 48, 57, 102, 182, 261
secondary nasalisation by -h- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
spelling system → writing system
spirantisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33, 132spontaneous prenasalisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
substitution of -j- by -d- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
substitution of -z- by -d- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
substitution of foreign phonemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
syllable structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
syncope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19, 46, 170
trisyllabic word structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
umlaut . . . . . . . . 17, 23, 25, 26, 200, 202, 208, 213umlaut a/e in a-stem verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26, 202
umlaut a/e in the derivation of intransitives . . 26, 171
umlaut in nominal paradigms . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56, 60
umlauting of a → ä . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25, 202
umlauting of a → e 25, 26, 56, 60, 75, 171, 202, 213umlauting of o → e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27, 202
umlauting of u → i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26, 202
vocalic alternations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27, 238
vocalisation of -l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22-24
voiced consonants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
voiceless consonants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
vowel adaptation u → e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28, 97
vowel contraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17, 20-24
vowel system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14, 19
word accent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47, 48, 245
word structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
palace language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI, 15, 34, 181, 238
pluralis maiestatis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50, 86, 135, 137
politeness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187, 190, 191
popular etymology . . . . . . . . . 5, 112, 113, 132, 134, 138
prakritisms . . . . 12, 20, 27, 33, 53, 69, 73, 108, 110-117
re-prakritisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Sanskrit names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
sanskritisms . 12, 20, 36, 39, 41, 42, 49, 53, 55, 69, 114,
116, 117, 121, 123, 125, 131, 137
social levels . . . 14, 52, 54, 128, 129, 134, 139, 140, 165, 171, 187, 190
status levels → social levels
stylistic levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12, 14, 32, 135
stylistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
surnames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vṅccchange -VtC- → -VCC- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43change -VtC- → -ViC- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43change vu- → u- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
change -y- → -∅- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
change y- → d- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 47, 49, 241change - → -u . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244, 261
change - → - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
change - v - → -vv- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
change - v - → - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38, 41
change - y - → - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
closed syllables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17, 22, 46, 48
consonant clusters . . 17, 30, 36, 37, 43, 44, 48, 113,
116, 131
consonant system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14, 28
consonants in word-final position . . . . . . . . . . 18, 64
contraction -ana- → -ā- . . . . . . . . 156, 199, 200, 262
deaspiration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 17, 28, 29, 113
dental consonants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
dental stops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
despirantisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
diphthongisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22, 24, 43
diphthongs . . . . . . . . . . . . 17, 18, 21, 23, 24, 27, 67
dissimilation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152, 160
disyllabic word structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
echo vowel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 32
emphatic lengthening of vowels . . 183, 193, 245, 249
epenthetic vowels . . . . . . 64, 65, 83, 89, 94, 97, 125
equivalence M.A.F. -u . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
fricative r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34, 42, 109, 194
front vowels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
geminates . . 17, 19, 33, 37, 38, 41-44, 46, 48, 77, 85, 94, 117, 132, 170, 195, 250
gemination . . . . 32, 40, 43, 77, 82, 90, 172, 173, 250
glides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 25, 47, 49, 64, 105glottal stop . . . . . . 18, 25, 47, 48, 64, 194, 195, 205
hiatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47, 69, 83, 160
i-diphthongs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
influence of retroflex consonants on surrounding
vowels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28, 66, 97, 201, 206interrogative intonation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
laterals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
lengthening of root vowels in i-stems . 21, 23, 27, 35,
69, 76-78, 84, 85, 94, 98
loan phonemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29, 44, 45
long nasalised vowels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
long vowels . . . 17, 19-22, 46, 50, 67, 79, 84, 85, 88,
111, 113, 115, 116, 135, 183, 193, 202, 216, 244
loss of affricates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5loss of aspirates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
loss of intervocalic consonants . . . . . . 17, 20, 21, 262
loss of v- before o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
loss of word-final -l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
monophthongisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25, 135, 216monosyllabic word structures . . . . . . . . . . . . 46, 165
nasal consonants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 23
nasal vowels . . . . . . . . . . 17, 23, 24, 180, 199, 201
open syllables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17, 30, 46
opposition of d and. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
opposition of l and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35, 111, 113

267

l̇

ḋ

c

c

ṫ
ṫ

ṫ ṫ
ṫ ṫ

ṫ
ṫ

Indexes

Syntax: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12, 14, 251-262
adverbial clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
agent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178, 228, 229, 231, 239
anaphoric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
attribute . . . 52, 53, 102, 105, 108-111, 126, 129, 134,
135, 145, 147, 148, 160, 198, 210, 256
cataphoric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
conditional clauses . . . . . . . . . . . 239-241, 254, 256
dative construction . . . . . . . . . . . 178, 228, 229, 231
declarative sentences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245, 255
direct speech . . . . . 133, 144-145, 199, 247, 254, 258
exclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254, 259
exclamative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152, 157, 162, 164
exhortative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
external quotation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
final clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251, 252, 254
hortative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
impersonal sentences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
indirect object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57, 58
indirect speech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
inferential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258, 259
inhibitive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186, 261
internal quotation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
interrogative sentences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
irrealis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
jussive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182-185, 187, 189
local directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
local questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
modal questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258-260
negated sentences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233, 238, 260
nominal sentences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
nominative construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178, 228
object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126, 145participial clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
participial constructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
partitive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140, 162predicate . 51, 92, 102, 105, 126, 129, 145, 150, 198,
240, 251, 252, 254, 261
preventive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186, 261
prohibitive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184, 185, 218, 261
questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244, 245, 247, 254
relative clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52, 256
reported speech → direct speechrhematisation . . . . . . . . . 72, 138, 148, 198, 251, 259
subject 51, 56, 92, 126, 129, 145, 150, 166, 178, 251,
252, 256, 261
subordinate clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254, 256, 257
temporal clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
temporal directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
temporal questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
vocational . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
word order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244, 251
yes/no questions . . . . . . . . . 244, 247, 248, 258, 260
taxis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
verbal levels → honorific levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
vocabulary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Writing system:alphabet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Arabic script . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 30, 135
Brāhmı̄ script . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 7, 30, 108
Dives akuru6, 7, 25, 30, 33, 47, 60, 111, 112, 114-116,
118, 119, 121, 123, 130, 134, 135, 137, 190, 194
empty nūn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Evēla akuru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 32, 137
historical spelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19, 32
mixed spelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39, 59
orthography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30, 37
Sinhalese script . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
spelling of final - by -n . . 58, 69, 92, 154, 159, 194
Tāna . 7, 18, 25, 29, 30, 33, 45, 46, 60, 64, 111, 112,
114, 115, 117, 119, 123, 130, 134, 135, 137, 190,
194, 203, 229
transcriptional spelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
vocalisation marks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
ṫ

268

Texts
legal documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
letters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
lōmāfanu . . . . . 6, 7, 17, 28, 30, 32, 114-116, 121, 122,
131-133, 135, 137, 203, 229, 239, 258
Mahābhārata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
Mahāva s a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 4, 5, 10
manuscripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
oral poetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
palace inscription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131, 229
palm leaf documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
poetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Rādava i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 7, 112, 130, 134, 135
137, 203Rāmāya a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
short stories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
Tārı̄h . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
˘
ṅ

l̇

ṁ

Aśoka inscriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111, 130, 197
belle-lettres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
copper-plate documents → lōmāfanu
Cūlava s a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
decrees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 153
Dhammapada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Dhampiya a u vā gä a padaya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Dı̄pava s a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
epitaphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
fatko u documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 19, 69, 92, 118,
121, 129, 133, 135, 137
Filā-Fatko u . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
folklore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Gan-Fatko u . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Hela u vā . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
inscriptions . 6, 7, 30, 50, 60, 64, 111-117, 119, 123, 135,
137, 192, 212, 213, 239
ṫ

ṁ

ṫ

ṁ

l̇

l̇

l̇

ṫ

Languages
Apabhra śa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Arabic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 5, 25, 29, 32, 45, 46, 59
Ardhamāgadhı̄ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
Assamese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Bengali . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102, 222
Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
Classical Sinhalese . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 11-13, 73, 114, 116
Colloquial Sinhalese . . . . . . 13, 32, 71, 73, 111, 124, 241
Czech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
Dravidic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 3, 186
English . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217, 218, 225, 226, 230
Fua Mulaku idioms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23, 96
Hindi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20, 33, 217, 218, 221, 222, 224
Hindkı̄ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
Indo-Aryan languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
Indo-European languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
Insular Indo-Aryan . 1, 108, 112, 115, 126, 207, 214, 218,
222
Insular Prakrit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 12, 108, 113, 125
Lahndā . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
Latin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
Literary Sinhalese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168, 178, 182, 191
Mainland Prakrits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108, 111

269

Maldivian Prakrit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Medieval Sinhalese . 1-3, 55, 61, 174, 202, 212, 213, 215
Modern Sinhalese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 112, 114, 146
North Dhivehi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13, 14
Northwest Indo-Aryan languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
Oriya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Pali . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12, 110
Persian
45
Portuguese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Proto-Sinhalese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 3, 19
Romance languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
Russian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166, 186, 216, 217, 219, 221
Sanskrit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Semitic languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
Sindhı̄ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
Sinhalese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102, 107, 110
Sinhalese Prakrit . . . . . . . . . . 1, 3, 28, 29, 73, 211, 215
Slavic languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216-219, 221, 222
South Dhivehi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Tamil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 3, 28, 29, 262
Turkic languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
Urdu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20, 33, 218, 221, 222
Vedic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186ṁc

Geographical names
Lā a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Madı̄na . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
Mahilādı̄paka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 10
Makka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Makunudū . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Malabār . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Māle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 11, 13, 14
Maliku . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Maradū . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Mı̄dū . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 131, 135
Minicoy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Ñaviyani Atoll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Serendivae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Sı̄hapura . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Sı̄n Atoll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Taprobane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
To ū . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Vaṅga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
ṫ

ḋ

ḋ

A ū . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 7, 13, 15, 19, 20, 123, 131
Bengal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Dam̆bidū . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Divae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Fēdū . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Fua Mulaku . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 7, 13, 15, 64
Gāf-Alif Atoll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Gāf-Dāl Atoll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Gan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 20, 123
Gnaviyani Atoll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Haddummati . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13, 20, 60, 194
Henveru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Hitadū . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 131
Huvadū . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 13, 15
Isdū . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19, 60
Jambudvı̄pa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Ko u ma u lu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Lakkadives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Lām Atoll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13, 20, 60
ḋ

ḋ

c

ḋ

l̇

Personal names
Pyrard de Laval, F. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 33, 34
Sāli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Sı̄habāhu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 5Sı̄ha a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Vijaya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 3, 5Vı̄rasinga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Wilson, J. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Yāqūt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5l̇ḣ

Ammianus Marcellinus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Bell, H.C.P. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 110
Christopher, W. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 33, 34
Claudius Ptolemaeus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Ebrahim Dı̄dı̄ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Geiger, W. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 et passim
Ibn Ba ū a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 10Juhā . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Mu a mmad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59, 130, 134, 135
ṫ

ṫ ṫ

ḣ

270

Historical and sociological terms

archeology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 6, 10
British dominion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 4
Buddhism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
caste system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Dutch dominion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
French dominion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Hijra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
homeland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 10
islamisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 4, 6

Islamic era . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Malabar pirates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5, 9, 10, 12, 73, 207
Phoenicians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Portuguese dominion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
pre-Islamic era . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 10
prehistory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 10, 25, 51
Sharia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Vedda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3