In the world of words

Professor G Venkatasubbaiah (GV), who passed away at the age of 107, spent over five decades participating and supervising the compilation of the monumental eight-volume Kannada-Kannada dictionary for Kannada Sahitya Parishath.

However, what endeared him to an average Kannada speaker was the enormously popular column Igo Kannada published for 18 years in Prajavani daily and later published in three volumes. He described this work as Samajika Nighantu, a social, societal, social-linguistic dictionary of Kannada.

These two great works, one a scholarly, collectively produced lexicon focusing on the standard, literary dialect of Kannada, and the other a witty, erudite and delightful work of sociolinguistics, represent two distinctive and seminal trajectories in the history of lexicography of Kannada.

Unbounded heterogeneity

Kannada has never been a homogeneous entity at any point of history that we know. ‘Kannada’ is a signifier for an unbounded heterogeneity of so many registers, dialects and variations. To employ the useful terms coined by Ferdinand de Saussure, though we speak of an abstract system of Kannada language with fixed structures and patterns, the ‘Parole’ or actual speech we confront in everyday life is hybrid and pluralistic with loan words from several languages, regional variations in accent and pronunciation, mind-boggling local variants of most words.

The unresolved problem in the science of dictionary-making is which feature of the language it should focus on. In the first work of poetics in Kannada, Kavirajamargam (850 CE), the anonymous author says that there are so many dialects of Kannada that even Vasuki, the mythical serpent with many (forked) tongues, would be tired of analysing them and judging the correctness of their usage. His own work was aimed at constructing a standard Kannada dialect which would legitimise the Kannada empire of the Rashtrakutas. His choice was in keeping with the legacy of Indian/ Sanskrit lexicography, which recognised but excluded the so called non-standard dialectal words and expressions.

Prof G V expressed his regret that the compilation of the Sahitya Parishath dictionary was not preceded by a thorough linguistic survey, which would have helped in avoiding the excessive dependence on the literary sources. Rev Ferdinand Kittel, the first Kannada lexicographer was also confronted with the same problem. He was advised by the British officers to focus on the North Karnataka dialect of Kannada. Instead, Kittel went around many regions of Karnataka with the help of assistants to collect samples of spoken Kannada and its dialects. The result is the blend of the literary and parole sources in his dictionary. In fact, he uses proverbs and idioms which the purist would reject as non-standard, slangy and also uncouth.

Prof G V, who worked diligently on the Sahitya Parishath dictionary by mostly using literary standard dialect sources, found an outlet for his extraordinary interest in the hybrid and heterogeneous Kannada speech in Igo Kannada. The open-ended structure of a popular column allowed him to bring together etymological information about the source language, variations in the usage and most importantly the socio-cultural ambience of the words. The work forays into Kannada culture as “ordinary, everywhere” as Raymond Williams would describe culture.

For example, he tells us about the many origins of the word Seere (Sari, Sadi, worn by women) and how it has been used in everyday conversation as well as in Masti’s writings. He narrates the twists in the connotations of the word Tila (‘Yellu’ in Kannada) explaining how revered as sacrosanct, it also accumulated negative connotations such as Yellu bitta that is he gave up, neglected.

Regional variations

This is not to suggest that GV’s work makes a radical departure. He admits that he began the column with the pedagogical purpose of explaining usage to the ordinary Kannada speakers. He also argues strongly that we should explore the dialects of Kannada with greater vigour. The work heralded by M Mariappa Bhatta of compiling a dictionary of Havyaka Kannada has recently been emulated by works such as Kundapra Kannada (the Kundapur dialect of Kannada). Such emphasis on the local and regional variations of Kannada would have delighted G V, who believed in the essential democratic nature of language which nourishes plurality of usage and speech. It would also help us in negotiating with the many mother tongues of Kannada speakers.

In many interviews, G V expressed his regret at the lack of initiative and the absence of political will which had greatly reduced governmental support to Kannada lexicography. He firmly believed that language is dynamic, and now changing at a faster pace owing to the impact of technology and globalisation.

This requires any dictionary, however competent, to be continuously updated and revised. He rued the lack of interest by the government in revising the dictionary in which he had spent over 50 years of his life. His other regret was that he spent a lifetime compiling a dictionary for the common readers who could not afford to buy it — this was partially redressed by the digital technology making the work accessible.

But the great legacy of G V cannot be reduced to lexicography. The legacy is of educated interest in the language which is the ‘house we live in’, though, of course, with a huge extended family of other languages. In the modern age, the impetus for developing this came from the colonial-missionary work, from the institutions like universities and Sahitya Parishath and also from individuals like K Shivarama Karanth and many others.

But the questions then are: Should we wait for funds and initiatives from an increasingly illiterate government? Does civil society not have the responsibility of owing up Kannada and nourishing it? G V’s answer would be a resounding “Yes.”

(The writer is a literary and cultural critic based in Shivamogga)