A Nose for Nasalisation

ಅನುವಾದದ ಕುರಿತು / About Translation

ಈ ಲೇಖನವು ಮೊದಲು ಕನ್ನಡದಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರಕಾಶಿತವಾಗಿದ್ದು, ಆ ಕನ್ನಡದ ಆವೃತ್ತಿಯನ್ನು ಇಲ್ಲಿ ನೋಡಬಹುದು.

This document was originally published in Kannada and that original Kannada version can be seen here.

Content

A Nose for Nasalisation
ಅನುವಾದದ ಕುರಿತು / About Translation
Content
ಪರವಾನಗಿ / License
ಬರೆಹಗಾರರು / Authors
Introduction
- Note
Context
On the trail of anusvāra/nasalisation
Nasalisation in the accusative case suffix
Nasalisation in the instrumental case suffix
Some loose ends
Revisions

ಪರವಾನಗಿ / License

ಬರೆಹಗಾರರು / Authors

Amshuman K R

Introduction

There is some disagreement among the ancient and modern scholars regarding the pronunciation of the anusvāra found at the end of the accusative, instrumental and ablative case suffixes in Old Kannada. Here is an attempt to search for the true nature of this anusvāra which reconciles the differences among ancient and modern scholars, while dissenting with their propositions where necessary. I beg the readers' patience and indulgence, given the length of the document and the complexity of its content.

Note

In the examples given in this document, I have used the ISO 15919 m̐ and/or IPA ̃ for mere nasalisation (as against a full-blown nasal consonant or anusvāra) where applicable and ṁ is used for anusvāra.

Context

Ancient Scholars

kēśirāja, in the verse 103 of his śabdamaṇidarpaṇaṁ, has codified the case suffixes of Old Kannada as "mamiṁkeyadadoḷḷeṁdirpuvu saptavidha vibhaktigaḷ".

Verse 103

saṁdisi mamiṁkeyadado-
ḷḷeṁdirpuvu saptavidha vibhaktigaḷavu mā-|
rgaṁdappadarthavaśadiṁ
piṁdeṇisida  vividhavidhada liṁgakkellaṁ||

vr̥tti - piṁte pēḻda nānā teṟada liṁgaṁgaḷge paramāgi nāma vibhaktigaḷ m, am, im, ke, at, ad, oḷ, eṁdu prathamegaṁ, dvitīyegaṁ, tr̥tīyegaṁ, caturthigaṁ, paṁcamigaṁ, ṣaṣṭhigaṁ, saptamigaṁ ēḻāgi kārakavaśadiṁ pattuguṁ. ...

prayōgaṁ - maraṁ, maranaṁ, maradiṁ, marakke, maradattaṇiṁ, marada, maradoḷ, maranē - iṁtarthavaśadiṁ vibhakti pariṇamipuvu; vibhaktigaḷ vikāramaneyduvudaṟiṁ padaṁ nānārūpamappudu.

  maranirdudu maranaṁ kaḍi
  maradiṁ māḍāneyaṁ marakkere nīraṁ|
  maranattaṇinele biḻdudu
  maradadu paṇ maradoḷiru taḷirtiru maranē||

Summary

For all the grammatical genders, the case suffixes for the nominative, accusative, instrumental, dative, ablative, genitive and locative cases are m, am, im, ke, at, ad, oḷ, respectively.

For example,

maraṁ: nominative - maravu in Modern Kannada
maranaṁ: accusative - maravannu in Modern Kannada
maradiṁ: instrumental - maradiṁda in Modern Kannada
marakke: dative - marakke in Modern Kannada
maradattaṇiṁ: ablative - Though grammar textbooks prescribe that the Modern Kannada equivalent is marada deseyiṁda, it is not really in usage outside of grammar textbooks. Sediyapu Krishna Bhat's article "paṁcamī vibhakti" has a deep analysis of this topic. Dr. Padekallu Vishnu Bhat has included this article in the collection of Sediyapu Krishna Bhat's writings that he edited, titled "vicāraprapaṁca".
marada: genitive - marada in Modern Kannada
maradoḷ: locative - maradalli in Modern Kannada. It may be noted that northern dialects of Kannada seem to prefer maradoḷage instead.

These suffixes undergo and/or trigger different transformations in different contexts.

For example,

maraṁ + irdudu => maranirdudu; the nominative suffix (ṁ/m) is replaced by the consonant n.
mara + aṁ => maranaṁ; the consonant n is infixed before the accusative suffix aṁ.
māḍāne + aṁ => māḍāneyaṁ; the consonant y is infixed before the accusative suffix aṁ.
mara + iṁ => maradiṁ; the consonant d is infixed before the instrumental suffix iṁ.
mara + ke => marakke; the consonant k of the dative suffix ke is geminated.
maradattaṇiṁ + ele => maradattaṇinele; the trailing anusvāra in the ablative suffix attaṇiṁ is replaced by the consonant n.
mara + a => marada; kēśirāja seems to have mentioned the consonant d in the genitive suffix ad to merely euphonise the codifying verse into the leading vowel of the next locative suffix oḷ. Similar technique is used in Sanskrit grammar rules; for example, Panini's rule adēṅ guṇaḥ
mara + oḷ => maradoḷ; the consonant d is infixed before the locative suffix oḷ.

That the nominative ṁ is specified as m, the accusative aṁ as am and the instrumental iṁ as im in the vr̥tti section, indicates that it may be kēśirāja's opinion (and probably earlier scholars' too) that a trailing anusvāra (ṁ)is to be pronounces as m. However, though it is clearly mentioned that the anusvāra is transformed into different forms during sandhi, the linguistic processes producing these forms are not clear.

Modern Scholars

The authors of "kannaḍa kaipiḍi" (the list of authors can be seen in the pages iii and iv) differ from the ancient scholars regarding the case suffixes (nominative, accusative and instrumental) that end in anusvāra. To completely understand their position on this topic, it is necessary to quote substantial parts from pages 407 through 414. I beg for the readers' patience for this lengthy quotation.

I have given the translation of the quoted Kannada text from kannaḍa kaipiḍi. The original Kannada text for the same can be seen here.

kannaḍa kaipiḍi, page 407

This is a translation of the Kannada text from page 407 of kannaḍa kaipiḍi. The original Kannada text can be seen here.

(2) There is no specific suffix for the nominative case; The original word-fragment/root is itself used in the nominative sense. m has been mentioned as the nominative suffix in the old Kannada grammar. This suffix is seen with word-fragments/roots ending with the vowel a, that too only in the singular. The same old Kannada grammar mentions that the nominative case suffix disappears in other scenarios. This position becomes necessary if the rule that case forms are not produced without case suffixes is to be honoured. But this doesn't seem appropriate. Why should the nominative case suffix m apply and then disappear in the singular and plural forms of word-fragments/roots without an ending vowel a and in the plural forms of word-fragments/roots ending in the vowel a? There is no good answer for this in old Kannada grammar. Therefore, it must be that the word-fragment/root itself is used in the nominative sense and the nominative case suffix m applies only in the singular form of the word-fragments/roots ending with the vowel a.

It is not just that the nominative case suffixes m and n apply for the word-fragments/roots ending with the vowel a. The case suffix m does not apply for all word-fragments/roots ending with the vowel a. It is true that it applies for Sanskrit neuter gender word-fragments/roots ending with the vowel a and for most of the Kannada neuter gender word-fragments/roots. But some Kannada neuter gender word-fragments/roots such as koḷa, all Kannada masculine gender word-fragments/roots and some feminine gender word-fragments/roots such as akka, all of which end with the vowel a, take the nominative case suffix n instead of m. It is said in old Kannada grammar that the nominative case suffix m is substituted by an anusvāra in word-fragments ending with the vowel a and this anusvāra further transforms into the nasal consonants n or m. Saying that an anusvāra transforms into the nasal consonant n doesn't seem appropriate. Because, when the nominative case suffix m is applied on rāma, it becomes rāmam. This can be written as rāmaṁ. But how is to be pronounced? As rāmam, right? For this word fragment [rāmam/rāmaṁ], when the accusative case suffix aṁ is applied,

_{[Continues in page 408.]}

kannaḍa kaipiḍi, page 408

This is a translation of the Kannada text from page 408 of kannaḍa kaipiḍi. The original Kannada text can be seen here.

_{[Continued from page 407.]}

how can it become rāmanaṁ instead of naturally becoming rāmamaṁ? Besides, consonant-ending words in old Kannada gain the ending vowel u in modern Kannada. According to this, how can rāmaṁ become rāmanu instead of rāmamu? Reality is that it [the nominative case suffix] is not m, but n. This is not a mere hypothesis. The forms like kaliyuga viparītan, munipravaran which end with the nasal consonant n are found in the ancient inscriptions. Besides, in Tamil, the nominative forms for word-fragments ending with the vowel a such as rāma, kr̥ṣṇa are rāman, kr̥ṣṇan, both while writing and speaking. Therefore, it becomes necessary to say that two nominative case suffixes m and n apply for word-fragments/roots ending with the vowel a*; But are they really case suffixes?

The nasal consonants m and n are not case suffixes. There is some basis for saying that the nasal consonants m and n are not case suffixes :- (1) the m suffix does not apply for masculine and feminine gender word-fragments/roots; the n suffix does not apply for many neuter gender word-fragments/roots. Thus the nominative case forms differentiate based on grammatical gender. Other case forms do not differentiate based on grammatical gender. The nominative case seems to be an exception to this rule. There is no good explanation for why this is so. (2) Besides, whenever the gaḷ suffix is applied for the plural forms of word-fragments/roots ending with the vowel a, it is applied after the nominative m or n suffix. In the examples like aṇṇaṁgaḷ, maraṁgaḷ, the anusvāra infixes,

_{[Continues in page 409.]}

--- [Footnote]

* There is no doubt that the masculine word-fragments/roots ending with the vowel a used to end with the nasal consonant n in earlier times. But it is worth pondering if, overtime, with the habit developing of writing the trailing nasal consonant n as ṁ and the pronunciation of the nasal consonant n falling to disuse, the illusion that it must be the nasal consonant m might have set in, or the pronunciation of the trailing nasal consonant n turned into that of the nasal consonant m in the times of old Kannada. Looking at modern Kannada, the former hypothesis seems right.

kannaḍa kaipiḍi, page 409

This is a translation of the Kannada text from page 409 of kannaḍa kaipiḍi. The original Kannada text can be seen here.

_{[Continued from page 408.]}

it is said. (3) The nasal consonant n remains even when the accusative and the instrumental case suffixes apply on the singular forms of the word-fragments/roots that end with the vowel a. The old grammar says these two are also infixes. When the accusative case suffix aṁ applies for neuter gender word-fragments m infixes, (maram+aṁ = maramaṁ); it is said in the old grammar that instrumental case onwards, the consonant d is infixed (mara+d+iṁ = marada etc.). Why the n infix when case suffixes starting with a vowel is applied for masculine word-fragments/roots? Why m or d infix for neuter gender word-fragments? The old Kannada grammar does not have a good answer for this. Taking all these together, it is clear that the nasal consonants m and n are not case suffixes.

They seem to indicate grammatical gender. If the nasal consonants m and n are not case suffixes, what are they? There are some tools for guessing their true nature :- (1) the nasal consonant n applies for the singular forms of word-fragments/roots that end with a, right? For these r suffix (ar, dir, vir etc.) applies in the plural forms. It is rare in old Kannada for gaḷ suffix to apply in the plural forms and not at all done in modern Kannada. The (a)n, (a)r suffixes appear in the pronouns like avan, ivan, avar, ivar; in inflected numerals like ōrvan, irvar; in inflected adjectives like nallan, nallar and gerunds like bēḍuvan, māḍuvar, bēḍuvar; and in finite verb forms like māḍidapan, kolvan, māḍidapar; they indicate the masculine gender there. Here too [for word-fragments ending with the vowel a], it may not be inappropriate to consider that the n, r or an, ar suffixes indicate the masculine gender. Though neuter gender words like mara, koḷa also get the n suffix in the singular, they do not get the ar or r suffix in the plural. If n or an suffixes indicate the masculine gender then m or am

_{[Continues in page 410.]}

kannaḍa kaipiḍi, page 410

This is a translation of the Kannada text from page 410 of kannaḍa kaipiḍi. The original Kannada text can be seen here.

_{[Continued from page 409.]}

suffixes must indicate the neuter gender. Dr. Gundert argues that the am suffix is a neuter gender pronoun indicating a meaning like that in English. Dr. Caldwell agrees with this position. The fact that the t, d, ṟ infixes apply in the instruments, ablative, genitive and the locative inflexed forms for neuter gender word-fragments/roots that end in the vowel a supports the argument that the am suffix indicates the neuter gender, because these infixes too indicate neuter gender. Therefore, puram, koḷam, nelam, teṟam etc. must be considered the original forms and maran, koḷan, nelan, teṟan the modified forms.

_{[The next section titled "vibhakripratyayagaḷu svataṁtra śabdagaḷē?" has not been quoted because it may not be relevant here.]}

kannaḍa kaipiḍi, page 411

This is a translation of the Kannada text from page 411 of kannaḍa kaipiḍi. The original Kannada text can be seen here.

_{[̛The section title "vibhakripratyayagaḷa caritre" at the beginning of this page has not been quoted because it might be a digression here.]}

- The Nominative Case -

Use of the original word-fragment/root in the nominative sense. There is no nominative suffix in Kannada; The original word-fragment/root by itself in the singluar and with the plural suffixes in the plural indicate the nominative semantics. In the singular, the n, m suffixes are seen for some word-fragments/roots; writing them as an anusvāra is matter of script; it has already been explained that these are not case suffixes.* Usage of these words without anusvāra is considered incorrect in old Kannada grammar. Such usage is rare in old Kannada works.

_{[Continues in page 412.]}

--- [Footnote]

* If the n, m suffixes are part of the word-fragment/root in words like akkan, aṇṇan, nelan, nelam, āṭam or suffixes applied to the word-fragments/roots ending with the vowel a, the readers should consider and decide for themselves.

kannaḍa kaipiḍi, page 412

This is a translation of the Kannada text from page 412 of kannaḍa kaipiḍi. The original Kannada text can be seen here.

[Continued from page 411.]

But such usage seems to have come into use in the spoken dialects at that time. Because that usage is seen in old Kannada words here and there. In middle Kannada it is seen even more; it is in use especially in the spoken dialects of modern Kannada.

Word-fragments/roots with the nasal consonant n and m are in middle Kannada too. An additional vowel u gets appended to them to produce the forms with nu, vu. When m is appended with the u suffix, the m gets replaced with a v. vr̥kṣaṁ of old Kannada becomes vr̥kṣavu, never vr̥kṣamu.

Besides the middle Kannada forms ending with u, forms without the ending nasal consonants are also in use in old Kannada. Alternate forms like nelanu etc. are not found. A special usage not found in old and middle Kannada - appending a u to even word-fragments/roots not ending with the vowel a - can be seen in the written dialects of modern Kannada. The misconception of u being a nominative suffix is the reason for this. Because all words ending with a consonant in old Kannada are changed to end with a vowel, especially with the vowel u, it is wrong to consider that u is a nominative suffix.

- The Accusative Case -
Old Kannada-aṁ, āṁ; Middle Kannada-aṁ, anu; Modern Kannada-annu, anna.

The accusative suffix is said to be am in old Kannada grammar; but it seems to be an. *because:-(1) It [the anusvāra] becomes n when suffixed with anything starting with a vowel. (2) Is never used as m in any other Dravidian language. Only as n.

_{[Continued in page 413.]}

--- [Footnode]

* Like in the nominative case, the m seems to be a misconception because of writing it as anusvāra.

kannaḍa kaipiḍi, page 413

This is a translation of the Kannada text from page 413 of kannaḍa kaipiḍi. The original Kannada text can be seen here.

_{[Continued from page 412.]}

(3) In the ancient inscriptions an, ān suffixes ending with n can be seen. E.g. :- siṁghaman, pīṭhamān etc.

The ān suffix is not found in old Kannada as much as it is found in pre-old Kannada. In old Kannada, the an suffix is used exclusively. In middle Kannada, the an suffix is also found with an appended u as anu. In modern Kannada, annu is found in the written dialects and anna in spoken dialects. E.g. :- Old Kannada rāmanaṁ. Middle Kannada rāmanaṁ, rāmananu; Modern Kannada rāmanannu, rāmananna.

The trailing nasal consonant of the an suffix may even disappear sometimes in middle and modern Kannada. It may be supposed that such usage was present even in old Kannada. kēśirāja mentions the usage nīnenna koṁday and says that enna is the genitive case, yet used in the accusative sense. Switching of case forms does happen. But on this occasion it seems appropriate to say that enna is an accusative form with the trailing nasal consonant being dropped based on the middle and modern Kannada usage. E.g.:-nanage koḍuva haṇā (haṇava) tā. haṇavaṁ > haṇava > (haṇa ā) > haṇā > haṇa. In the spoken dialects, such elongated vowel is heard at the end of accusative forms. E.g.: haṇā tā; kurī(=kuriya) kāyi. karū(=karuva) biḍu. manē (=maneya) kaṭṭu.

- The Instrumental Case -
Old Kannada-iṁ, iṁdaṁ, iṁde, e.* Middle Kannada-iṁ, iṁdaṁ, iṁde, i, iṁda. Modern Kannada-iṁda.

_{[Continues in page 414.]}

--- [Footnote]

* Though this is said to be the instrumental case in grammar, it seems to be the locative case. Compare with oḷagu+e=oḷage.

kannaḍa kaipiḍi, page 414

This is a translation of the Kannada text from page 414 of kannaḍa kaipiḍi. The original Kannada text can be seen here.

_{[Continued from page 413.]}

iṁ is said to be an instrumental case suffix in old Kannada grammar. Since the nasal consonant n results when it is suffixed with anything that starts with a vowel and since the in form is seen the ancient inscriptions, it seems correct to consider this [the instrumental suffix] as in.*

There are two differences between old and middle Kannada :-(1) e becoming i; (2) the trailing anusvāra/nasal consonant of iṁdaṁ disappearing. Only iṁda has remained in modern Kannada.

--- [Footnote]

* This is also the work of anusvāra.

_{[Things mentioned in "kannaḍa kaipiḍi" about the other cases have not been quoted because they may not be relevant here.]}

Masti Venkatesha Iyengar in "namma nuḍi"

Masti Venkatesha Iyengar, in his insightful book "namma nuḍi", having considered both ancient and modern scholarly positions on the topic of the pronunciation of the trailing anusvāra in the case suffixes, says the following (namma nuḍi, page 50). I have given the translation of the quoted Kannada text from "namma nuḍi". The original Kannada text for the same can be seen here.

... In fact, rāman is not a form exclusive to Tamil. It is a form common to both Kannada and Tamil. If Kannada uses it, it is not that Kannada is borrowing from Tamil. rāman is the word's correct form in Kannada. ...

A small correction is required to this. This n is not the clear pronunciation of the nasal consonant n. Tamil folks, while speaking, pronounce the word rāma, sometimes with half of and sometimes half of a half of the nasal consonant n. This is sometimes heard even in Kannada. The tip of the togue has to touch the gums at the base of the [front] teeth. If it does not fully touch then it sounds like half of an n. This might have been written as anusvāra and also come to be pronounced as such. When the case suffixes are applied, it inevitably had to become a full anusvāra.

An example for a half anusvāra [nasalisation] being present in Dravidian languages can be seen in Telugu. This nasalisation is in use there even now.

In grammar, it is said that the nasal consonant n is infixed for the ease of pronunciation. But on such occasions, really, there is no infixing. Sometimes it gets pronounced half-way, that is all.

Sediyapu Krishna Bhat's Lecture Notes

Dr. Padekally Vishnu Bhat, in the collection of writings of Sediyapu Krishna Bhat "vicāraprapaṁca" that he edited, has included the lecture notes for a planned lecture "kannaḍavyākaraṇada kelavu samasyegaḷu" (the lecture did not materialise because of health reasons) under the title "kannaḍavyākaraṇada kelavu samasyegaḷu (upanyāsagaḷa rūparēkhe)". It is unfortunate that nothing more substantial than these lecture notes are available of Sediyapu Krishna Bhat's thinking on this topic. But some points in these lecture notes are relevant to the topic of the pronunciation of trailing anusvāra in the case suffixes. So, I have quoted them here. But I must make it clear that these are just lecture notes and what I understood from them and not necessarily representative of Sediyapu Krishna Bhat's thinking on this topic. I have given the translation of the quoted Kannada text. The original Kannada text for the same can be seen here.

vicāra saṁpuṭa, page 235

... m=vu - avu of Tulu - nasalised consonant v - avu=aṁ - tāṁvu - n or m - subrahmaṇyam - ṇyan - nasalised last syllable ...

On the trail of anusvāra/nasalisation

As quoted above, Masti Venkatesha Iyengar has said that the nominative suffix is less an anusvāra and more a nasalisation and that such nasalisation can be heard in some spoken dialects of Tamil, Kannada and Telugu even today. Sediyapu Krishna Bhat has pointed out the close relationship between the nasalised (and even non-nasalised) consonant v and the nasal consonants n and m in the context of the nominative case suffix. Let us try to look for the features of such nasalisation in light of these points.

Nasalisation and the process of it turning into n in Havigannada dialect

Havigannada, one of the western dialects of Kannada, retains many features of Old Kannada even today. It uses nasalisation (as against anusvāra or other nasal consonants) exclusively for the nominative case suffix. For example, avaṁ baṁdaṁ of old Kannada (avanu baṁdanu in modern Kannada) becomes avam̐ baiṁdam̐/əʋə̃ bəɪ̃d̪ə̃ in Havigannada. It is common to say ava baṁda even in some modern spoken dialcts of Kannada. This can be seen even in Dasa literature; for example, "dēva baṁdā, namma svāmi baṁdānō", "taṁbūri mīṭidava, bhavābdhi dāṭidava" etc. It must be noted that even though written as ava without any nasalisation, in some modern spoken dialects, it is indeed pronounced with a trailing nasalisation (though baṁda is rarely pronounced with a trailing nasalisation). Even in some spoken dialects of Tamil, yār avan is sometimes pronounced with a nasalisation instead of the nasal consonant n (i.e. as yāravam̐/jɑːɾəʋə̃) This must be the same nasalisation in Telugu that Masti Venkatesha Iyengar mentions.

Since, like in Kannada, in Havigannada too the nasal consonant n appears in many case inflected forms and full anusvāra (may even be called the nasal consonant ṅ) appears in the dative case, if we consider that case suffixes are mediated by nasalisation in Havigannada, the same nasalisation can be considered to have turned into the nasal consonant n on encountering a following vowel and into a full anusvāra (or the appropriate nasal consonant) on encountering a following consonant. I.e.,

In ISO 15919,

avam̐ + iṁda => avaniṁda - The nasalisation turns into the nasal consonant n on encountering a following vowel (i).
avam̐ + ge => avaṁge - On encountering a following consonant, the nasalisation turns into a full anusvāra in script and into the suitable nasal consonant (ṅ because of g), i.e., avaṅge. It is notable that, though the form avanige is found in modern Kannada, old Kannada has the same avaṅge form.
avam̐ + a => avana - The nasalisation turns into the nasal consonant n on encountering a following vowel (a).
avam̐ + alli => avanalli - The nasalisation turns into the nasal consonant n on encountering a following vowel (a).

In IPA,

əʋə̃ + ɪ̃d̪ə => əʋən̪ɪ̃d̪ə - The nasalisation turns into the nasal consonant n̪ on encountering a following vowel (ɪ).
əʋə̃ + ge => əʋə̃ge - On encountering a following consonant, the nasalisation turns into a full anusvāra in script and into the suitable nasal consonant (ŋ because of g), i.e., əʋəŋge. It is notable that, though the form əʋən̪ɪge is found in modern Kannada, old Kannada has the same əʋə̃ge/əʋəŋge form.
əʋə̃ + ə => əʋən̪ə - The nasalisation turns into the nasal consonant n̪ on encountering a following vowel (ə).
əʋə̃ + əllɪ => əʋən̪əllɪ - The nasalisation turns into the nasal consonant n̪ on encountering a following vowel (ə).

Since the accusative form resembles the genitive form (though it can be different yet still close to the genitive form) in Havigannada, it is not shown here. It can be seen later that nasalisation is the reason for this peculiarity too.

Like in Kannada, iṁda is the ablative suffix in Havigannada too. Since the instrumental case too (as described by Sediyapu Krishna Bhat in "paṁcamī vibhakti") relies on, in some places, the iṁda or alli suffixes, these two suffixes (iṁda, alli) are shown only once each in the list above.

Since, in the examples from Havigannada given above, most are similar to the corresponding Kannada forms (and since n is not found in the one different form avaṁge), to say that nasalisation turns into the nasal consonant n seems to need a clearer example. Luckily, such a clearer example is found at the end of finite verb forms. In Havigannada, when the above mentioned finite verb form baiṁdam̐/bəɪ̃d̪ə̃ is appended with the interrogative suffix ā, it becomes baiṁdanā. I.e.,

In ISO 15919,

baiṁdam̐ + ā => baiṁdanā

In IPA,

bəɪ̃d̪ə̃ + ɑː => bəɪ̃d̪ən̪ɑː

It is notable that the cognate baṁdanā? is found in (old, middle and modern) Kannada also.

On the nature of and relationship between the cases and the case suffixes

It is my impression that, in linguistics and grammar, the suffixes have primacy over cases. I.e., if a single suffix is used to indicate two difference cases, that shows the speciality and wider range of the suffix and not of the cases. As kāḷidāsa stikingly described pārvatī paramēśvara as "vāgarthāviva saṁpr̥ktau", languages are made of syntax and semantics, inseparably combined. Amongst them, if the suffixes belong to the world of syntax and sound, the cases belong to the world of semantics. All languages develop to be able to carry all kind of semantics. But there is variety in the mechanisms they use to convey different kinds of semantics. The suffixes can perhaps be said to be one class of such mechanisms. But for various reasons, our ancient and modern scholars have given the cases more importance than necessary.

Nasalisation and the way it turns into the nasal consonant n in Persian, Urdu and Hindi

Persian words (distant from Dravidian languages) ending with nasalisation, are found in Urdu and Hindi. For example, āsamām̐/ɑːs̪əmɑ̃ː, zamīm̐/zəmĩː etc. That such words are prunounced with an ending nasalisation can be seen in the old Bajaj scooter add starting with the line yaha zamīm̐ yaha āsamām̐/jəɦə zəmĩː jəɦə ɑːs̪əmɑ̃ː. But on encountering a following vowel (sometimes on a following consonant too, optionally), the nasalisation turns into the nasal consonant n. I.e.,

In ISO 15919,

āsamām̐ + ī => āsamānī
āsamām̐ + ēm̐ => āsamānēm̐
āsamām̐ + ōm̐ => āsamānōm̐
zamīm̐ + ī => zamīnī
zamīm̐ + ēm̐ => zamīnēm̐
zamīm̐ + ōm̐ => zamīnōm̐

In IPA,

ɑːs̪əmɑ̃ː + iː => ɑːs̪əmɑːn̪iː
ɑːs̪əmɑ̃ː + ẽː => ɑːs̪əmɑːn̪ẽː
ɑːs̪əmɑ̃ː + õː => ɑːs̪əmɑːn̪õː
zəmĩː + iː => zəmiːn̪iː
zəmĩː + ẽː => zəmiːn̪ẽː
zəmĩː + õː => zəmiːn̪õː

Thus, nasalisation turning into the nasal consonant n on encountering a following vowel is not limited to only Dravidian languages. It seems to be a natural transformation for nasalisation.

Does nasalisation turn into m or v?

Though there is some disagreement among the ancient and modern scholars on whether the nasal consonant n and m are the modified forms of the original nominative suffix or whether they are part of the original word-fragment/root indicating grammatical gender, one has to accept that n is used mostly in the masculine gender and that m and v are used mostly in the neuter gender (though there may be exceptions as mentioned in the quotation from "kannaḍa kaipiḍi").

Let us examine the different case inflected forms in Havigannada, taking mara (tree) as a representative for the neuter gender.

In ISO 15919,

maram̐ + aṁ => marava - This form with the consonant v is seen sometimes even in Kannada.
maram̐ + iṁda => maraṁda - The consonant d and the vowel i found in the equivalent Kannada form maradiṁda being absent here seems peculiar to Havigannada.
maram̐ + ke => marakke - It can be seen later that the nasalisation is the reason for the gemination of the consonant k in this form, which is common to Kannada also.
maram̐ + a => marada - Like in Kannada, the consonant d appears here.
maram̐ + alli => maradalli - Though this form seems to be the same as in Kannada, I have heard the form maralli also. It is notable that the consonant l seems to be nasalised in the pronunciation of maralli. It is worth pondering over if this form is specific to Havigannada like instrumental form maraṁda or a form without the consonant d which may have been present even in Kannada at some point in time. The matter of the consonant d appearing as an infix is not discussed further in this document to avoid digression.

In IPA,

məɾə̃ + ə̃ => məɾəʋə - This form with the consonant ʋ is seen sometimes even in Kannada.
məɾə̃ + ɪ̃d̪ə => məɾə̃d̪ə - The consonant d̪ and the vowel ɪ found in the equivalent Kannada form məɾəd̪ɪ̃d̪ə being absent here seems peculiar to Havigannada.
məɾə̃ + ke => məɾəkke - It can be seen later that the nasalisation is the reason for the gemination of the consonant k in this form, which is common to Kannada also.
məɾə̃ + ə => məɾəd̪ə - Like in Kannada, the consonant d̪ appears here.
məɾə̃ + əllɪ => məɾəd̪əllɪ - Though this form seems to be the same as in Kannada, I have heard the form məɾəllɪ also. It is notable that the consonant l seems to be nasalised in the pronunciation of məɾəllɪ. It is worth pondering over if this form is specific to Havigannada like instrumental form maraṁda or a form without the consonant d̪ which may have been present even in Kannada at some point in time. The matter of the consonant d̪ appearing as an infix is not discussed further in this document to avoid digression.

Here, the consonant v is found only in the accusative case. Even in Kannada, the consonants m and v appear only in the nominative and accusative case forms of neuter gender word-fragments/roots that end with the vowel a. For example, phalavu, phalamaṁ, phalavannu etc. Only the consonant d is seen in the instrumental, dative, ablative, genitive and the locative case forms. For example, phaladiṁda, phalada, phaladalli.

The relationship between the nasal consonant m and a nasalised consonant v, as indicated by Sediyapu Krishna Bhat (as quoted above), is also described by kēśirāja (please see verse 26). The nasal consonants m and v being alternatively used in place of each other can be seen in the various forms in different languages such as tāmarai/tāvare, sēmage/sēvam̐ge/s̪eːʋə̃ge, amuku/avum̐ku/əʋũku etc.

The relationship between anusvāra, m, v, o and between n and e

In the spoken dialects of Tamil, neuter gender words ending with the vowel a followed by anusvāra can be heard pronounced as ending with the vowel o instead. For example, aparaṁ as aprom̐/əpɾõ and phalaṁ as phalom̐/pʰəlõ. Here, it is notable that, as against the way the tip of the tongue does not touch the gums at the base of the front teeth in the pronunciation of half of a half of the nasal consonant n, as Masti Venkatesha Iyengar described, the lips do not fully touch each other in the pronunciation of half of a half of the nasal consonant m.

In Tulu also, the nominative forms of neuter gender words ending with the vowel a, end with the vowel o. For example, maro, phalo, nelo, ākāśo etc. It is notable that, unlike in Tamil, these forms do not have the ending nasalisation. We will see later that this too is one of the features of nasalisation.

Given that pronunciation of m, v and o involves the lips, it is not surprising that they often substitute one another. So, it may not be wrong, in this context, to suppose that all three are transformations of the original nasalisation.

Next, it is notable that the nominative forms of the masculine gender words that end with the vowel a, in Tulu, end with the vowel e. For example, rāme, kr̥ṣṇe etc. The pronunciation of the vowel e is closer to the pronunciation of the palatal or alveolar (though the tongue does not touch the palate or the alveolar ridge like it does in the palatal or alveolar consonants, the tip of it does indeed rise towards them) consonants unlike in the labial consonants. But the nominative forms of the masculine gender words ending with the vowel a get the n suffix in Kannada and Tamil. The pronunciation of n is alveolar or dental. Considering that pronunciation of alveolar and dental consonants is quite close (the tip of the tongue rises up in both the cases) and the tip of the tongue rises up similarly in the pronunciation of the vowel e, the close relationship between nasal consonant n and the vowel e is not hard to see. Thus, n and e may also be supposed as the transformations of the original nasalisation.

Are there two different kinds of nasalisations which lean towards n and m respectively?

As shown above, in Dravidian languages, even though nasalisation can be considered to turn into n or e on one side and m, o or v on the other, it is hard to decide if all these are transformations of the same original nasalisation without considering the pronunciation of nasalisation (or perhaps nasalisations) in more detail. Is such pronunciation (pronunciations?) seen in the languages prevalent now? Even if seen, will we be able to recognise it as such? The light of the world of sound doesn't seem to light this path any further.

As quoted from "kannaḍa kaipiḍi" above, the masculine and neuter gender semantics difference between n and m has to be accepted. But the exposition that n and m are gender suffixes and anusvāra is not a nominative suffix seems incorrect. Because, the series of arguments (as quoted above) consider only m pronunciation for anusvāra and not the other variations of anusvāra pronunciation shown here.

Because, the following argument,

... when the nominative case suffix m is applied on rāma, it becomes rāmam. This can be written as rāmaṁ. But how is to be pronounced? As rāmam, right? For this word fragment [rāmam/rāmaṁ], when the accusative case suffix aṁ is applied, how can it become rāmanaṁ instead of naturally becoming rāmamaṁ?

in "kannaḍa kaipiḍi" seems to be based on the fact that in modern times, the m pronunciation of anusvāra is more prominent in South India. For example, saṁyama can be seen pronounced like samyama; But even in South India, older generation could be heard pronouncing it with a nasalised y, i.e., like sam̐yyama/s̪ə̃jjəmə/s̪əj̃jəmə. This pronunciation seems originally correct. So, it must be said that the arguments in "kannaḍa kaipiḍi" regarding sound changes largely do not hold water. Besides, the further variety in the nasalisation-mediated transformations in the case forms (to be seen later), supports the case for anusvāra.

Overall, it is safe to say that nasalisation (or two kinds of nasalisations), appears before the case suffixes (as the nominative suffix itself or as the end of the word-fragment/root as mentioned in "kannaḍa kaipiḍi").

I leave this thread here reluctantly.

Nasalisation appearing before other case suffixes

Let us see some examples to see how nasalisation appears before other case suffixes.

Masculine word ending with vowel a, rāma.

In ISO 15919,

rāma + m̐ => rāmam̐
rāmam̐ + aṁ => rāmanaṁ => rāmananu / rāmanannu - Nasalisation turns into n.
rāmam̐ + iṁ => rāmaniṁ => rāmaniṁda - Nasalisation turns into n.
rāmam̐ + ke / ge => rāmaṁge (old Kannada) => rāmanige (modern Kannada) - Nasalisation turns into full anusvāra (or the suitable nasal consonant for the following consonant) in old Kannada and n before the vowel i in modern Kannada. The reason for the vowel i here is discussed later.
rāmam̐ + a => rāmana - Nasalisation turns into n.
rāmam̐ + alli => rāmanalli - Nasalisation turns into n. The other locative suffixes oḷ, oḷu, oḷage, ali etc. are not mentioned here because they do not show any additional variations related to nasalisation.

In IPA,

ɾɑːmə + ̃ => ɾɑːmə̃
ɾɑːmə̃ + ə̃ => ɾɑːmən̪ə̃ => ɾɑːmən̪ən̪u / ɾɑːmən̪ən̪n̪u - Nasalisation turns into n̪.
ɾɑːmə̃ + ɪ̃ => ɾɑːmən̪ɪ̃ => ɾɑːmən̪ɪ̃d̪ə - Nasalisation turns into n̪.
ɾɑːmə̃ + ke / ge => ɾɑːmə̃ge (old Kannada) => ɾɑːmən̪ɪge (modern Kannada) - Nasalisation turns into full anusvāra (or the suitable nasal consonant for the following consonant) in old Kannada and n̪ before the vowel ɪ in modern Kannada. The reason for the vowel ɪ here is discussed later.
ɾɑːmə̃ + ə => ɾɑːmən̪ə - Nasalisation turns into n̪.
ɾɑːmə̃ + əllɪ => ɾɑːmən̪əllɪ - Nasalisation turns into n̪. The other locative suffixes oḷ, oɭu, oɭəge, əli etc. are not mentioned here because they do not show any additional variations related to nasalisation.

Neuter gender word ending with the vowel a, kada.

ISO 15919,

kada + m̐ => kadam̐
kadam̐ + aṁ => kadamaṁ / kadavaṁ => kadavanu / kadanannu - Nasalisation turns into m, v.
kadam̐ + iṁ => kadadiṁ => kadadiṁda - The consonant d has been infixed. But it is not possible to say that this is a transformation of the nasalisation.
kadam̐ + ke / ge => kadakke - The consonant k of the ke suffix is geminated.
kadam̐ + a => kadada - The consonant d has been infixed. But it is not possible to say that this is a transformation of the nasalisation.
kadam̐ + alli => kadadalli - The consonant d has been infixed. But it is not possible to say that this is a transformation of the nasalisation.

In IPA,

kəd̪ə + ̃ => kəd̪ə̃
kəd̪ə̃ + ə̃ => kəd̪əmə̃ / kəd̪əʋə̃ => kəd̪əʋən̪u / kəd̪ən̪ən̪n̪u - Nasalisation turns into m, ʋ.
kəd̪ə̃ + ɪ̃ => kəd̪əd̪ɪ̃ => kəd̪əd̪ɪ̃d̪ə - The consonant d̪ has been infixed. But it is not possible to say that this is a transformation of the nasalisation.
kəd̪ə̃ + ke / ge => kəd̪əkke - The consonant k of the ke suffix is geminated.
kəd̪ə̃ + ə => kəd̪əd̪ə - The consonant d̪ has been infixed. But it is not possible to say that this is a transformation of the nasalisation.
kəd̪ə̃ + əllɪ => kəd̪əd̪əllɪ - The consonant d̪ has been infixed. But it is not possible to say that this is a transformation of the nasalisation.

Feminine words ending with the vowel a (e.g., akka) show the same forms as the equivalent masculine words (akkanannu, akkaniṁda etc.).

Word ending with the vowel i (gender variations are not effective here), aḍi.

In ISO 15919,

aḍi + m̐ => aḍim̐
aḍim̐ + aṁ => aḍiyaṁ => aḍiyanu / aḍiyannu - The consonant y has infixed after the vowel i.
aḍim̐ + iṁ => aḍiyiṁ => aḍiyiṁda - The consonant y has infixed after the vowel i
aḍim̐ + ke / ge => aḍige - Nasalisation has disappeared. It can be seen later that this too is a feature of nasalisation.
aḍim̐ + a => aḍiya - The consonant y has infixed after the vowel i.
aḍim̐ + alli => aḍiyalli - The consonant y has infixed after the vowel i.

In IPA,

əɖɪ + ̃ => əɖɪ̃
əɖɪ̃ + ə̃ => əɖɪjə̃ => əɖɪjən̪u / əɖɪjən̪n̪u - The consonant j has infixed after the vowel ɪ.
əɖɪ̃ + ɪ̃ => əɖɪjɪ̃ => əɖɪjɪ̃d̪ə - The consonant j has infixed after the vowel ɪ.
əɖɪ̃ + ke / ge => əɖɪge - Nasalisation has disappeared. It can be seen later that this too is a feature of nasalisation.
əɖɪ̃ + ə => əɖɪjə - The consonant j has infixed after the vowel `ɪ``.
əɖɪ̃ + əllɪ => əɖɪjəllɪ - The consonant j has infixed after the vowel ɪ.

Word ending with the vowel e (gender variations are not effective here), eḍe.

In ISO 15919,

eḍem̐ + m̐ => eḍem̐
eḍem̐ + aṁ => eḍeyaṁ => eḍeyanu / eḍeyannu - The consonant y has infixed after the vowel e.
eḍem̐ + iṁ => eḍeyiṁ => eḍeyiṁda - The consonant y has infixed after the vowel e.
eḍem̐ + ke / ge => eḍege - Nasalisation has disappeared. It can be seen later that this too is a feature of nasalisation.
eḍem̐ + a => eḍeya - The consonant y has infixed after the vowel e.
eḍem̐ + alli => eḍeyalli - The consonant y has infixed after the vowel e.

In IPA,

eɖẽ + ̃ => eɖẽ
eɖẽ + ə̃ => eɖejə̃ => eɖejən̪u / eɖejən̪n̪u - The consonant j has infixed after the vowel e.
eɖẽ + ɪ̃ => eɖejɪ̃ => eɖejɪ̃d̪ə - The consonant j has infixed after the vowel e.
eɖẽ + ke / ge => eɖege - Nasalisation has disappeared. It can be seen later that this too is a feature of nasalisation.
eɖẽ + ə => eɖejə - The consonant j has infixed after the vowel e.
eɖẽ + əllɪ => eɖejəllɪ - The consonant j has infixed after the vowel e.

The consonant y infixing before the vowels i and e is natural because of the similarity in the pronunciation of i, e and y. This is also described by kēśirāja in śabdamaṇidarpaṇa. But the nasalisation disappearing in these cases can be understood in two ways.

Nasalisation indeed disappears. It can be seen later that this too is a feature of nasalisation.
The infixed y is nasalised (kēśirāja describes nasalised y in the verse 26).

Word ending with the vowel u (gender variations are not effective here), maḍu.

In ISO 15919,

maḍu + m̐ => maḍum̐
maḍum̐ + aṁ => maḍuvaṁ => maḍuvanu / maḍuvannu - The consonant v has infixed after the vowel u.
maḍum̐ + iṁ => maḍuviṁ => maḍuviṁda - The consonant v has infixed after the vowel u.
maḍum̐ + ke / ge => maḍuviṁge / maḍuvige - The consonant v has infixed after the vowel u. The reasons for the vowel i and the the optional anusvāra after the vowel i found here is discussed later.
maḍum̐ + a => maḍuvina - The consonant v has infixed after the vowel u. The reasons for the vowel i and the n after the vowel i found here is discussed later.
maḍum̐ + alli => maḍuvinalli - The consonant v has infixed after the vowel u. The reasons for the vowel i and thea n after the vowel i found here is discussed later.

In IPA,

məɖu + ̃ => məɖũ
məɖũ + ə̃ => məɖuʋə̃ => məɖuʋən̪u / məɖuʋən̪n̪u - The consonant ʋ has infixed after the vowel u.
məɖũ + ɪ̃ => məɖuʋɪ̃ => məɖuʋɪ̃d̪ə - The consonant ʋ has infixed after the vowel u.
məɖũ + ke / ge => məɖuʋɪ̃ge / məɖuʋɪge - The consonant ʋ has infixed after the vowel u. The reasons for the vowel i and the the optional anusvāra after the vowel ɪ found here is discussed later.
məɖũ + ə => məɖuʋɪn̪ə - The consonant ʋ has infixed after the vowel u. The reasons for the vowel i and thea n after the vowel ɪ found here is discussed later.
məɖũ + əllɪ => məɖuʋɪn̪əllɪ - The consonant ʋ has infixed after the vowel u. The reasons for the vowel i and thea n after the vowel ɪ found here is discussed later.

The consonant v infixing before the vowel u is natural because of the similarity in the pronunciation of u and v. This is also described by kēśirāja in śabdamaṇidarpaṇa. But the nasalisation disappearing in these cases can be understood in two ways.

Nasalisation indeed disappears. It can be seen later that this too is a feature of nasalisation.
The infixed v is nasalised (kēśirāja describes nasalised v in the verse 26).

I have not seen Kannada words ending with the vowel o. If they were there, they probably would have got the v infix like the words ending with the vowel u.

Word ending with a consonant (gender variations are not effective here), kāl. Though this ends with the vowel u as kālu in modern Kannada, in old Kannada it ends with a consonant as kāl. Since anusvāra follows only a vowel, as the name anusvāra indicates, nasalisation does not apply on words ending with a consonant.

In ISO 151919,

kāl + m̐ => kāl
kāl + aṁ => kālaṁ => kālanu / kālannu
kāl + iṁ => kāliṁ / kāliniṁ => kāliṁda / kāliniṁda - The reason for the optional in infix found here will be discussed later.
kāl + ke / ge => kālge / kāliṁge / kālige - The reasons for the optional vowel i and the optional anusvāra after the vowel i found here will be discussed later.
kāl + a => kāla / kālina - The reason for the optional in infix found here will be discussed later.
kāl + alli => kālalli / kālinalli - The reason for the optional in infix found here will be discussed later.

In IPA,

kɑːl + ̃ => kɑːl
kɑːl + ə̃ => kɑːlə̃ => kɑːlən̪u / kɑːlən̪n̪u
kɑːl + ɪ̃ => kɑːlɪ̃ / kɑːlɪn̪ɪ̃ => kɑːlɪ̃d̪ə / kɑːlɪn̪ɪ̃d̪ə - The reason for the optional ɪn̪ infix found here will be discussed later.
kɑːl + ke / ge => kɑːlge / kɑːlɪ̃ge / kɑːlɪge - The reasons for the optional vowel ɪ and the optional anusvāra after the vowel ɪ found here will be discussed later.
kɑːl + ə => kɑːlə / kɑːlɪn̪ə - The reason for the optional ɪn̪ infix found here will be discussed later.
kɑːl + əllɪ => kɑːləllɪ / kɑːlɪn̪əllɪ - The reason for the optional ɪn̪ infix found here will be discussed later.

Possible traces of anusvāra in even word-fragments/roots not ending with the vowel a in Tulu

There are reasons to say that nasalisation or anusvāra exists within the case inflected forms of word-fragments/roots ending with the vowel a in Kannada. This seems to be the case in Tulu also, based on the Tulu case inflected forms like maroṁkŭ (dative), maroṁtŭ/marattŭ (ablative), maroṁta/maratta (genitive), maroṁṭŭ/maraṭṭŭ (locative) etc. The optional geminated forms seen here (marattŭ, maraṭṭŭ) are nothing but the transformations of the forms with anusvāra (maroṁtŭ, maroṁṭŭ).

In the traditional Kannada grammar, it is a convention to say that the nominative suffix (really, just a nasalisation) disappears in the case of word-fragments/roots that do not end with the vowel a. But in the case inflected forms of some Tulu words that do not end with the vowel a, traces of anusvāra seem to be left, even though anusvāra itself has disappeared.

For example,

naḍuṭu/naḍuṭṭu - naḍu ends with u.
puḍeṭŭ/puḍeṭṭu - puḍe ends with e.
bariṭu/bariṭṭu - bari ends with i.

Though anusvāra is absent in these examples, anusvāra may be the reason for the optional gemination found in them.

Anusvāra occasionally seen in the dative case

As already noted above, anusvāra (or a nasal consonant suitable to the starting consonant of the dative ke/ge suffix) is optionally seen (rāmaṁge) in the dative case. Nasalisation or anusvāra turning into a suitable nasal consonant on encountering a following consonant is natural. For example, in the dēvanāgarī script, paṁkaja, paṁca etc. are written as paṅkaja, pañca respectively because of the same reason. For the non-plosive consonants (y, r etc.), the nasalisation of the same consonant is also natural. (kēśirāja describes the nasalised forms of ya, ra, la, va etc. in the verse 26)

Therefore, nasalisation before the dative ke/ge suffix turning into a full anusvāra (in script) or the suitable nasal consonant ṅ is natural. I.e.,

In ISO 15919,

rāmam̐ + ke / ge => rāmaṁge - Pronounced rāmaṅge

In IPA,

ɾɑːmə̃ + ke / ge => ɾɑːmə̃ge - Pronounced ɾɑːməŋge

If the argument from "kannaḍa kaipiḍi", as quoted above, that n, m indicate gender and that anusvāra is not a nominative suffix, is followed, it may be necessary to say that n turns into anusvāra or ṅ here. As against the way anusvāra (as shown above) undergoing different transformations in different circumstances, n, m similarly undergoing such transformations is not seen as much in usage or in scholarly studies (if there are exceptions to this, readers are humbly requested to correct the author).

Therefore, such optional anusvāra seen in the dative case strengthens the case being made in this article for nasalisation being present before the the case suffixes.

Gemination sometimes seen in the dative case

As seen above, the starting consonant k of the dative ke suffix is geminated in marakke, kadakke. Such gemination is seen only in neuter gender words that end with the vowel a (if there are exceptions, readers are humbly requested to correct the author). The following production rule was proposed above while arguing for nasalisation being present before the case suffixes.

In ISO 15919,

maram̐ + ke => marakke

In IPA,

məɾə̃ + ke => məɾəkke

Then, has the nasalisation before the datie ke suffix turned into gemination of the starting consonant k of the ke suffix?

Consonant clusters involving two different consonants changing into a gemination of the last of the two consonants is common in Kannada (and to some extent in other Dravidian languages). For example, aḻtu => attu, kīḻtu => kittu, bīḻtu => bittu, kaḻtu => kattu, kaḷdu => kaddu, bīḻdu => biddu, ēḻdu => eddu etc.

We have already seen that, when anusvāra is followed by a plosive consonant, it turns into a suitable nasal consonant. Seen together, this and the feature of Kannada of consonant clusters turning into the gemination of the last consonant of the cluster, it is not surprising if a nasal plosive consonant when followed by the corresponding plosive consonant results in the gemination of the following plosive consonant. I.e.,

In ISO 15919,

mara + m̐ + ke => mara + ṅ + ke => mara + k + ke => marakke

In IPA,

məɾə + ̃ + ke => məɾə + ŋ + ke => məɾə + k + ke => məɾəkke

Further support for nasalisation being originally present here which then results in the gemination of the starting consonant of the following dative ke suffix, is found in Tulu. marakke becomes maroṁk/maroṅk in Tulu (like in Tamil, k seems to be the dative suffix and indeed seems to be the original dative suffix for all Dravidian languages; the vowel e being appended to this suffix seems to be specific to Kannada). Tamil and Tulu examples for an ending vowel a when followed by anusvāra turning into o are already seen above.

The alternate forms with anusvāra or gemination, maroṁta/maronta, maratta in the genitive case (equivalent of marada in Kannada) and maroṁṭ/maroṅṭ, maraṭṭ in the locative case (equivalent of maradalli in Kannada) are in use in Tulu even today. Similarly, such alternate forms with anusvāra (goṁtu/gontu) or gemination (gottu) are seen in Tulu and Havigannada, outside of the case inflected forms too.

Considering that dative forms including anusvāra are sometimes seen in Kannada (rāmaṁge/rāmaṅge,naviliṁge/naviliṅge), and Havigannada (kāliṁge/kāliṅge), no doubt remains that nasalisation is present (like maram̐ke/məɾə̃ke/maraṁke) and turns into the gemination of the starting consonant k of the ke suffix, in the production of the marakke form.

The gemination described here happens when the dative ke suffix is appended to neuter gender word-fragments/roots that end with the vowel a (the pronouns adu, idu, udu being exceptions ending with the vowel u) but rarely for the dative ge suffix. Though a single counter example beḷagge comes to mind, it is not used in the dative sense. Despite this, here too, maybe we can speculate that a form like beḷam̐ge/beɭə̃ge/beḷaṁge/beḷaṅge existed originally but is now lost.

Now the matter of gemination of the starting consonant k of the dative ke suffix in the dative forms of the neuter gender signular pronouns adu, idu, udu that end in the vowel u remains. I.e., adakke, idakke, udakke (yāvudakke, māḍuvudakke) etc. This will be discussed later in the context of the accusative case suffix.

Thus, looking for nasalisation or consonant clusters where gemination exists now in Kannada can be productive.

Why is nasalisation not seen in the dative case, many times?

Like the form with anusvāra or nasal consonant rāmaṁge/rāmaṅge, the form rāmage without it also is in use. Similarly, like the form with gemination marakke, the form marake without gemination also exists (kadakke/kadake etc. also).

To reconcile these alternate forms, we need to consider the feature of nasalisation sometimes disappearing in Kannada. For example, kēśirāja in the vr̥tti section for the verse 46 of śabdamaṇidarpaṇa, lists words that are always found with anusvāra and some which are optionally found with anusvāra.

First, consider the words that are optionally found with anusvāra. Only some of them are listed below. The remaining can be seen in page 55, 56 of śabdamaṇidarpaṇa.

jinuṁgu - jinugu

tuḷuṁkidaṁ - tuḷukidaṁ

beḷaṁtige - beḷatige

musuṁkidaṁ - musukidaṁ

Next, consider the words that kēśirāja says are always found with anusvāra. Only some of them are listed here. The rest can be seen in pages 54 and 55 of śabdamaṇidarpaṇa.

aḍaṁgu

avuṁkidaṁ

oraṁṭu

tuṟuṁbu

dāṁṭu

nāṁdu

beḍaṁgu

bēṁṭe

mīṁṭu

It is notable that not only the words listed to be found optionally with anusvāra, but also the words listed as always found with anusvāra are now mostly found without anusvāra in modern Kannada. For example,

aḍagu
avuku (amuku form is also there)
oraṭu
turubu
dāṭu
nādu
beḍagu
bēṭe
mīṭu

Seeing this overall, there is no doubt that anusvāra disappearing is a natural process in Kannada at least. That this process had already started in kēśirāja's time is evidenced by his listing of the words found optionally with anusvāra. Thus, when anusvāra itself can disappear, it cannot be surprise if mere nasalisation too disappears.

Therefore, the dative forms like rāmage without anusvāra and like marake, kadake without gemination, can be said to be produced by the included nasalisation disappearing. I.e.,

In ISO 15919,

rāma + m̐ + ke / ge => rāmam̐ge => rāmage
mara + m̐ + ke => maram̐ke => marake
kada + m̐ + ke => kadam̐ke => kadake

In IPA,

ɾɑːmə + ̃ + ke / ge => ɾɑːmə̃ge => ɾɑːməge
məɾə + ̃ + ke => məɾə̃ke => məɾəke
kəd̪ə + ̃ + ke => kəd̪ə̃ke => kəd̪əke

Here, we must consider the criticism by the authors of "kannaḍa kaipiḍi", as quoted above, of the ancient grammarians' position that the nominative suffix applies but disappears in the case of word-fragments/roots not ending with the vowel a.

Why should the nominative case suffix m apply and then disappear in the sigular and plural forms of word-fragments/roots without an ending vowel a and in the plural forms of word-fragments/roots ending in the vowel a? There is no good answer for this in old Kannada grammar.

When nasalisation disappears in the non-nominative case forms (as shown above), it is not so surprising that it disappears in the case inflected forms of word-fragments/roots that do not end with the vowel a. Mostly the nominative case forms without nasalisation, anusvāra or nasal consonants are found in the spoken dialects (form example, rāma baṁda). The presence of nasalisation in the case forms of word-fragments/roots ending with vowel a has already been described above.

So, I hope that the discussion here successfully answers the question of "why should the nominative suffix apply and then disappear".

Features of nasalisation

The main features of nasalisation seen so far include the following.

Turning into the nasal consonant n on encountering a following vowel (rāmam̐ + aṁ => rāmanaṁ/ɾɑːmə̃ + ə̃ => ɾɑːmən̪ə̃). Also naturally turning into the vowel e in Tulu (rāmam̐ => rāme/ɾɑːmə̃ => ɾɑːme).
Turning into the nasal consonant m or (possibly nasalised) consonant v on encountering a following vowel (phalam̐ + aṁ => phalamaṁ => phalavannu/pʰələ̃ + ə̃ => pʰələmə̃ => pʰələʋən̪n̪u). In Tamil and Tulu, turning into nasalised or non-nasalised vowel o. For nasalised vowel o, in Tamil, aparaṁ => aprom̐/əpəɾə̃ => əpɾõ, in Tulu, maram̐ + k => maroṁk/maroṅk/məɾə̃ + k => məɾõk/məɾoŋk and for non-nasalised vowel o, in Tulu, maram̐ => maro/məɾə̃ => məɾo.
On encountering a following consonant, turning into full anusvāra or a suitable nasal consonant (rāmam̐ + ge => rāmaṁge/rāmaṅge/ɾɑːmə̃ + ge => ɾɑːmə̃ge/ɾɑːməŋge), or causing gemination of the following consonant (maram̐ + ke => marakke/məɾə̃ + ke => məɾəkke).
Sometimes disappearing (rāmam̐ => rāma, rāmam̐ + ge => rāma + ge => rāmage, maram̐ + ke => mara + ke => marake/ɾɑːmə̃ => ɾɑːmə, ɾɑːmə̃ + ge => ɾɑːmə + ge => ɾɑːməge, məɾə̃ + ke => məɾə + ke => məɾəke).

As seen above, such nasalisation applies not only as the nominative case suffix but also before the other case suffixes apply. Now let us examine if the anusvāra or nasalisation at the end of some of the other case suffixes (described as ending with anusvāra by ancient grammarians), also exhibits the same features.

Nasalisation in the accusative case suffix

As quoted above, kēśirāja mentions the accusative case suffix as aṁ and the authors of "kannaḍa kaipiḍi" as an. To determine if the suffix ends with an anusvāra/nasalisation or with the nasal consonant n, let us follow the same approach as above.

In the alternative accusative forms of the word kāḍaṁ (accusative form of the root kāḍ/kāḍu), like kāḍanu, kāḍannu, n is found. But are there forms without n?

Nasalisation disappearing in the accusative suffix

As already shown above, the accusative forms in Havigannada look like the genitive forms or closely resemble the genitive forms, when different. For example, avana (i.e., avanannu), marava (i.e., maravannu), adara (i.e., adannu), hiṭṭina (hiṭṭina kalasu; i.e., hiṭṭannu kalasu) etc.

Such usages (except for a handful of exceptions like adara, hiṭṭina etc.) can also be found in Kannada. For example, see "vaṁdisuvudādiyali gaṇanāthana", a famous line from purandaradāsa.

kēśirāja, in śabdamaṇidarpaṇa, calls such usages of seemingly genitive forms in the accusative sense, switching of cases, in the verse 145.

But, in the example marava, the real genitive form is marada. Also, the equivalent to the Havigannada accusative form adara, is ada in Kannada (see the famous line "ada kuḍideneṁda halaruṁṭu taṇideneṁdavara kāṇenayya" from Gopalakrishna Adiga's poem "idu-bāḷu"). Here ada means adannu. But the real genitive form is adara. These two exceptions complicate the kēśirāja's explanation of switching of cases (genitive and accusative, here). A different approach seems needed to resolve this complication.

The accusative forms that resemble the genitive forms, could be produced by the trailing anusvāra/nasalisation in the accusative suffix (aṁ) disappearing. I.e.,

In ISP 15919,

avam̐ + am̐ => avanam̐ => avana
maram̐ + am̐ => maravam̐ => marava
kadam̐ + am̐ => kadavam̐ => kadava
adum̐ + am̐ => adu + am̐ => adam̐ => ada
manem̐ + am̐ => maneyam̐ => maneya

In IPA,

əʋə̃ + ə̃ => əʋən̪ə̃ => əʋən̪ə
məɾə̃ + ə̃ => məɾəʋə̃ => məɾəʋə
kəd̪ə̃ + ə̃ => kəd̪əʋə̃ => kəd̪əʋə
əd̪ũ + ə̃ => əd̪u + ə̃ => əd̪ə̃ => əd̪ə
mən̪ẽ + ə̃ => mən̪ejə̃ => mən̪ejə

By this process of the anusvāra/nasalisation disappearing, not only the accusative forms resembling the common genitive forms of masculine and feminine word-fragments/roots ending with the vowel a, but also the exceptional accusative forms of neuter gender word-fragments/roots (mara, kada, adu etc.) like marava, kadava, ada which do not resemble their corresponding genitive forms (marada, kadada, adara), are produced.

Now only the analysis of the accusative forms unique to Havigannada like adara (i.e., adannu) and hiṭṭina (i.e., hiṭṭannu) remains. Nasalisation disappearing would produce only ada (as shown above). But adara seems identical to the genitive form. The consonant r seen here presents a complication, because the consonant r is found as an infix in all the non-nominative case forms of the adu pronoun, except in the accusative form adannu.

But the accusative form adaṟaṁ with the consonant ṟ (as against r) is found in old Kannada. For example, a section from muddaṇa, manōrameyara sallāpa is as follows.

muddaṇa: appudappudu. ādoḍaṁ sakkadamoṁde, rannavaṇiyaṁ ponniṁ bigidaṁtesaguṁ; adaṟaṁ karmaṇisaradoḷ ceṁbavaḷamaṁ kōdaṁtire, rasamosare, lakkaṇaṁ mikkire, eḍeyeḍeyoḷ sakkadada nalnuḍi meṟeye ! tiruḷgannaḍadoḷe kateyanusirveṁ eṁballige muddaṇa pēḻda śrī rāmāśvamēdhadoḷ kathāmukhameṁba prathamāśvāsaṁ saṁpūrṇaṁ

I trust that it is clear that adaṟaṁ is used here in the accusative sense (i.e., like adannu). Also, it is already known that the consonant ṟ turned into r at some point in time in Kannada. Taking all this together, the steps that produce the accusative form adara via the disappearance of nasalisation become clear.

In ISO 15919,

adum̐ + am̐ => adaṟam̐ => adaṟa => adara

In IPA,

əd̪ũ + ə̃ => əd̪ərə̃ => əd̪ərə => əd̪əɾə

The remaining accusative forms like hiṭṭina (i.e., hiṭṭannu) seem to be the same as the genitive forms and do not resemble normal accusative forms at all. The feature of nasalisation disappearing being discussed here produces only a form like hiṭṭa.

In ISP 15919,

hiṭṭum̐ + am̐ => hiṭṭu + am̐ => hiṭṭam̐ => hiṭṭa

In IPA,

ɦɪʈʈũ + ə̃ => ɦɪʈʈu + ə̃ => ɦɪʈʈə̃ => ɦɪʈʈə

The full explanation for the way the hiṭṭina form in the accusative sense is produced by a process involving the nasalisation disappearing can be sen later in the context of the in infix.

So, because not only the forms mentioned by kēśirāja as examples for switching of the cases where the forms looking like genitive forms are used in the accusative sense, but also the forms that are exceptions to such case-switching are produced by the disappearance of the nasalisation at the end of the accusative suffix, it is safe to conclude that the disappearance of the nasalisation at the end of the accusative suffix is a natural process and that the case-switching of genitive forms being used in the accusative sense it not.

Though the matter of the ṟ/r infix in the instrumental and other case forms of the pronoun adu is worth thinking about, it is not discussed further to avoid digression.

So, when the same word/form is produced by the genitive and accusative suffixes, it must be considered to be produced by the genitive suffix when used in the genitive sense and by the accusative suffix when used in the accusative sense. In other words, when a word/form is produced by multiple linguistic/grammatical processes, the word/form absorbs all those corresponding multiple semantics.

We have already seen above that, though the authors of "kannaḍa kaipiḍi" have maintained that the accusative suffix is an, they have described the disappearance of the trailing n in forms like enna. This is partially correct. But this process (of disappearance of the trailing n) is not made clear by the examples (haṇā tā) given there. Besides, because the trailing elongated vowel described there is not only heard in some regional dialects of Kannada, but also in non-accusative forms (Sediyapu Krishna Bhat gives the example rāmāśāstri in the above mentioned lecture notes titled "kannaḍavyākaraṇada kelavu samasyegaḷu"), it seems to be region/dialect-specific feature that is unrelated to the accusative case.

The nasal consonant ṇ sometimes seen in directional words

kēśirāja describes the nasal consonant ṇ sometimes seen in directional words as "aṇ infix" in the verse 120. For example, the instrumental forms like mūḍaṇiṁ, teṁkaṇiṁ, paḍuvaṇiṁ, baḍagaṇiṁ, naḍuvaṇiṁ etc., the genitive forms like mūḍaṇa, teṁkaṇa, paḍuvaṇa, baḍagaṇa, naḍuvaṇa etc. Though the v infix sometimes seen before the ṇ seems to be the transformation of the nasalisation before the case infix already mentioned above, the phenomenon of aṇ infix hints at a deeper grammatical/linguistic process.

Because, the above mentioned process involving the nasalisation before ther other case suffixes, produces different forms (not much seen in Kannada). For example,

In ISO 15919,

mūḍum̐ + im̐ => mūḍiṁ / mūḍim̐
paḍum̐ + im̐ => paḍuviṁ / paḍuvim̐
teṁkum̐ + a => teṁka
baḍagum̐ + a => baḍaga
naḍum̐ + a => naḍuva

In IPA,

muːɖũ + ɪ̃ => muːɖɪ̃
pəɖũ + ɪ̃ => pəɖuʋɪ̃
t̪ẽkũ + ə => t̪ẽkə
bəɖəgũ + ə => bəɖəgə
n̪əɖũ + ə => n̪əɖuʋə

Here, there is neither ṇ nor the a before the ṇ (mūḍa, paḍuva etc.). So, this additional ṇ and the a before it, seems to be because the accusative suffix aṁ/am̐/ə̃ comes as an infix, with its trailing nasalisation turning into ṇ and the leading a being the a before the ṇ. I.e.,

In ISO 15919,

mūḍum̐ + am̐ + im̐ => mūḍu + am̐ + im̐ (the first nasalisation disappears) => mūḍam̐ + im̐ => mūḍaṇiṁ (trailing nasalisation of the accusative am̐ turns into ṇ)
paḍum̐ + am̐ + im̐ => paḍuvam̐ + im̐ (the first nasalisation turns into v) => paḍuvaṇiṁ (trailing nasalisation of the accusative am̐ turns into ṇ)
teṁkum̐ + am̐ + a => teṁku + am̐ + a (the first nasalisation disappears) => teṁkam̐ + a => teṁkaṇa (trailing nasalisation of the accusative am̐ turns into ṇ)
baḍagum̐ + am̐ + a => baḍagu + am̐ + a (the first nasalisation disappears) => baḍagam̐ + a => baḍagaṇa (trailing nasalisation of the accusative am̐ turns into ṇ)
naḍum̐ + am̐ + a => naḍuvam̐ + a (the first nasalisation turns into v) => naḍuvaṇa (trailing nasalisation of the accusative am̐ turns into ṇ)

In IPA,

muːɖũ + ə̃ + ɪ̃ => muːɖu + ə̃ + ɪ̃ (the first nasalisation disappears) => muːɖə̃ + ɪ̃ => muːɖəɳɪ̃ (trailing nasalisation of the ə̃ infix turns into ɳ)
pəɖũ + ə̃ + ɪ̃ => pəɖuʋə̃ + ɪ̃ (the first nasalisation turns into ʋ) => pəɖuʋəɳɪ̃ (trailing nasalisation of the ə̃ infix turns into ɳ)
t̪ẽkũ + ə̃ + ə => t̪ẽku + ə̃ + ə (the first nasalisation disappears) => t̪ẽkə̃ + ə => t̪ẽkəɳə (trailing nasalisation of the ə̃ infix turns into ɳ̪)
bəɖəgũ + ə̃ + ə => bəɖəgu + ə̃ + ə (the first nasalisation disappears) => bəɖəgə̃ + ə => bəɖəgəɳə (trailing nasalisation of the ə̃ infix turns into ɳ)
n̪əɖũ + ə̃ + ə => n̪əɖuʋə̃ + ə (the first nasalisation turns into ʋ) => n̪əɖuʋəɳə (trailing nasalisation of the ə̃ infix turns into ɳ)

The same process can be seen in action in some non-directional words too, producing forms like maduvaṇagitti.

Other such instances of two suffixes (affixes?) applying to produce a single case form can be seen later. When two suffixes apply to produce a single case form (in these examples, the accusative am̐/ə̃ followed by the instrumental im̐/ɪ̃ or the genitive a/ə), usually, the semantics of the trailing suffix is dominant and the semantics of the leading suffix is secondary at best; sometimes the leading suffix does not make much of a difference to the semantics at all. In these examples, the leading accusative suffix am̐/ə̃ does not seem to make too much of a contribution to the semantics of the produced forms.

The vowel a seen in enage of Kannada and the gemination in enakkŭ of Tamil

As a first impression, the a in enage of Kannada and the gemination in enakkŭ of Tamil might seem to be due to the nasalisation before the case suffixes that is already discussed above. But is it really?

The pronominal root of both the Kannada enage and the Tamil enakkŭ is eṁ/em̐/ẽ which already has a trailing anusvāra/nasalisation. This nasalisation should turn into a full anusvāra (or the nasal consonant ṅ suitable for the following g), right? I.e.,

In ISO 15919,

em̐ + ke / ge => eṁke (pronounced eṅke) / eṁge (pronounced eṅge), em̐ + k => eṁk (pronouced eṅk)

In IPA,

ẽ + ke / ge => ẽke (pronounced eŋke) / ẽge (pronounced eŋge), ẽ + k => ẽk (pronounced eŋk)

The equivalent word in Tulu indeed being eṁk/eṅk, supports this process being viable.

Considering that eṅge has different (non-dative) interrogative semantics in Tamil and that the dative forms in Tamil usually have the k suffix (as against the ke/ge suffix of Kannada), the form enakkŭ seems to be produced by a different process. That is, the reason for the n and a in enage, and the gemination in enakkŭ seems to be that the accusative aṁ/am̐/ə̃ infixes before the dative suffix. I.e.,

In ISO 15919,

em̐ + am̐ + ke / ge => enam̐ge => enage (the nasalisation disappears).
em̐ + am̐ +k => enam̐k / enaṁk => enakk (the nasalisation produces gemination of the following consonant k).

In IPA,

ẽ + ə̃ + ke / ge => en̪ə̃ge => en̪əge (the nasalisation disappears).
ẽ + ə̃ +k => en̪ə̃k / en̪ə̃k => en̪əkk (the nasalisation produces gemination of the following consonant k).

The intermediate forms seen here (enam̐ge/en̪ə̃ge, enam̐k/en̪ə̃k) are not seen in Kannada or Tamil. But enam̐ge/en̪ə̃ge may perhaps be seen in Havigannada. Tamil does not have enam̐k/en̪ə̃k. But when the dative suffix k when applied directly to the eṁ/em̐/ẽ pronominal root, produces the eṁk/eṅk of Tulu and not the enakkŭ of Tamil. So, given the already seen phenomenon of nasalisation producing gemination of the following consonant, and the nasalised equivalen, but variant, form eṁk/eṅk being present in Tulu, the process em̐ + am̐ +k => enam̐k / enaṁk => enakk/ẽ + ə̃ +k => en̪ə̃k / en̪ə̃k => en̪əkk seems to be correct, in spite of enam̐k/en̪ə̃k being not found in Tamil.

Though eṁge/ẽge (em̐ + ke / ge/ẽ + ke / ge) is not found in Kannada, both the forms nanage/n̪ən̪əge (nam̐ + am̐ + ke / ge/n̪ə̃ + ə̃ + ke / ge) and naṁge/naṅge/n̪ə̃ge/n̪əŋge (nam̐ + ke / ge/n̪ə̃ + ke / ge) being in use, supports both the possibility of the accusative aṁ/am̐/ə̃ infixing (nanage) and not infixing (naṅge) before the dative suffix.

That the gemination found in the dative forms (adakke, idakke, udakke) of the neuter gender singular pronouns (adu, idu, udu) also supports the thesis that the accusative aṁ/am̐/ə̃ may infix before the dative suffix sometimes, will be discussed later.

As seen above in the process producing the "aṇ infix", the accusative aṁ/am̐/ə̃ infixing before the dative suffix does not seem to contribute much to the semantics of the produced forms.

The vowel a and the optional gemination in the dative forms of the neuter gender singular pronouns

As already seen, the dative forms of the neuter gender singular pronouns (adu, idu, udu) has an additional vowel a and an optional gemination of the consonant k. With gemination,

adakke
idakke
udakke

Though the form udakke is not found independently in modern Kannada, it is still found as a suffix or a fragment of other words. For example, yāvudakke, māḍuvudakke etc.

Without gemination,

adake
idake
udake

Supposing that the accusative aṁ/am̐/ə̃ infixes before the dative suffix, as seen above in the processes producing enage and enakkŭ, the process producing these forms with or without gemination could be as follows.

For the trailing nasalisation of the accusative aṁ/am̐/ə̃ producing gemination of the following consonant,

In ISO 15919,

adu + am̐ + ke => adam̐ + ke => adaṁke => adakke
idu + am̐ + ke => idam̐ + ke => idaṁke => idakke
udu + am̐ + ke => udam̐ + ke => udaṁke => udakke

In IPA,

əd̪u + ə̃ + ke => əd̪ə̃ + ke => əd̪ə̃ke => əd̪əkke
ɪd̪u + ə̃ + ke => ɪd̪ə̃ + ke => ɪd̪ə̃ke => ɪd̪əkke
ud̪u + ə̃ + ke => ud̪ə̃ + ke => ud̪ə̃ke => ud̪əkke

For the trailing nasalisation of the accusative aṁ/am̐/ə̃ infix disappearing,

In ISO 15919,

adu + am̐ + ke => adam̐ + ke => adam̐ke => adake
idu + am̐ + ke => idam̐ + ke => idam̐ke => idake
udu + am̐ + ke => udam̐ + ke => udam̐ke => udake

In IPA,

əd̪u + ə̃ + ke => əd̪ə̃ + ke => əd̪ə̃ke => əd̪əke
ɪd̪u + ə̃ + ke => ɪd̪ə̃ + ke => ɪd̪ə̃ke => ɪd̪əke
ud̪u + ə̃ + ke => ud̪ə̃ + ke => ud̪ə̃ke => ud̪əke

The nasalised intermediate forms seen here (adam̐ke/əd̪ə̃ke, idam̐ke/ɪd̪ə̃ke, udam̐ke/ud̪ə̃ke) are not found in modern Kannada. Probably not in old Kannada either. But Robert Caldwell, in his seminal work A Comparative grammar of the Dravidian Languages, says that such forms are found in High Tamil (high Tamil is Robert Caldwell's terminology; I presume that it is used to refer to old literary Tamil).

A Comparative grammar of the Dravidian Languages, page 333,

... In addition to 'adu' and 'idu', the High Tamil sometimes uses 'adan' and 'idan'. These forms are probably derived from the annexation to 'ad' and 'id' of 'am,' which is dialectically and and ordinarily convertible to 'an.' ... 'am' is a formative of neuter nouns; and I conceive that it was not added to 'ad-u' and 'id-u,' till it had ceased to be known and felt that 'd' was itself a sign of the neuter singular. 'dan,' the final portion of 'adan' and 'idan' is sometimes used in the high dialect, instead of 'du,' as the pronominal termination of third person neuter singular of the participial noun, especially in the dative; e.g., 'śeÿgiRadan-ku' (euphonically 'śeÿgiRadaR-ku'), instead of 'śeÿgiRadu-kku,' for or to the doing.

The form adaṟke/adarke, mentioned by Caldwell here, is also found in old Kannada. For example, the usage adarkaṁjade (adarke + aṁjade => adarkaṁjade) can be seen in the verse 248 of kēśirāja's śabdamaṇidarpaṇa. Caldwell proposes that adaṟk/adark (the original form of adaṟke/adarke), must originally be adaṁk/adaṅk, which he claims is seen in high Tamil. Though Caldwell has used n instead of anusvāra or ṅ in adank, it seems better to use anusvāra or ṅ. But I do not know of any process of anusvāra or ṅ (or n, for that matter) turning into ṟ or r. Caldwell's scholarship, diligence and achievements are great; he has paved the way for the comparative analysis of Dravidian languages. But not all of his analysis, results and proposals regarding the Dravidian languages is acceptable (at least about the languages known to me like Kannada and Tulu), So, I am unable to decide if his proposal of the process of anusvāra or ṅ or n turning into ṟ or r is correct or not without further evidence. I humbly request readers who know Tamil to shed light on this matter. But if his analysis and proposal is correct, it might support the validity of the nasalised forms like adam̐ke/əd̪ə̃ke, idam̐ke/ɪd̪ə̃ke, udam̐ke/ud̪ə̃ke and hence, the validity of the process involving the accusative aṁ/am̐/ə̃ infixing before the dative suffix.

The gemination found in accusative suffix annu

The feature of the trailing nasalisation in the accusative aṁ/am̐/ə̃ is already discussed above (rāmam̐ + am̐ + u => rāmanam̐ + u => rāmananu / rāmanannu/ɾɑːmə̃ + ə̃ + u => ɾɑːmən̪ə̃ + u => ɾɑːmən̪ən̪u / ɾɑːmən̪ən̪n̪u). Here, the gemination in ramanannu might be produced in two different ways.

Firstly, according to the rules for gemination mentioned by kēśirāja (see verses 79, 80, and 81), if the syllable in a consonant-ending monosyllabic word-fragment/root is light (discounting the trailing consonant), then the trailing consonant is geminated on encountering a following vowel. If the monosyllable is strong or if the word-fragment/root is polysyllabic, discounting the trailing consonant, then there is no gemination. I.e.,

In ISP 15919,

am̐ + u => an + u => annu (gemination because the monosyllable a is light)

In IPA,

ə̃ + u => ən̪ + u => ən̪n̪u (gemination because the monosyllable ə is light)

The alternate form anu without gemination also being in use can be explained by the fact that it is always found as a suffix and hence towards the end of words, where it is likely to have multiple syllables before it (it is to be noted that there is no gemination in a polysyllabic context). I.e.,

In ISO 15919,

rāmam̐ + am̐ + u => (rāmam̐ + am̐) + u => rāmanam̐ + u => rāmananu (no gemination in a polysyllabic context)

In IPA,

ɾɑːmə̃ + ə̃ + u => (ɾɑːmə̃ + ə̃) + u => ɾɑːmən̪ə̃ + u => ɾɑːmən̪ən̪u (no gemination in a polysyllabic context)

But annu also is found as a suffix and hence at the end of words where it is likely to have multiple syllables before it. This incongruity can be explained by the possibility that the form annu is already produced according to the above mentioned gemination rules, before it is used as suffix in polysyllabic contexts. I.e.,

In ISO 15919,

rāmam̐ + am̐ + u => rāmam̐ + (am̐ + u) => rāmam̐ + (an + u) => rāmam̐ + annu (gemination because the monosyllable a is light) => rāmanannu

In IPA,

ɾɑːmə̃ + ə̃ + u => ɾɑːmə̃ + (ə̃ + u) => ɾɑːmə̃ + (ən̪ + u) => ɾɑːmə̃ + ən̪n̪u (gemination because the monosyllable ə is light) => ɾɑːmən̪ən̪n̪u

Thus, the order of reducing different sub-branches of the syntax tree may produce different final forms of the word.

There seems to be a close relationship between the rules of gemination discussed here and the aṁśagaṇa metrical units that are unique to Dravidian prosody, Sediyapu in his path-breaking and insightful work on Kannada prosody, titled "kannaḍachaṁdassu", analyses the reason for the feature of the aṁśagaṇa metrical units that they should start with either a heavy syllable or with two consecutive light syllables but never with a single light syllable (that is not followed by another light syllable), as being an aversion to a daDUM rhythm at the start of a word (especially, at the beginning of a line or metrical unit) that is natural to not just Kannada but generally to the other Dravidian languages as well. This analysis seems correct. The rhythmic pattern daDUMda being avoided (or done with care for metrical unit boundaries) in also the imported meters in Kannada seem to be because of the same reason. The gemination being discussed here also seems to be produced to turn the starting single light syllable into a heavy syllable. It is to be noted here that a gemination renders the previous syllable heavy.

Secondly, though the proposal of the different order of application of the gemination rules to different part of the syntax tree producing the alternate forms anu, annu seems correct, a completely different explanation may also be viable. Of the transformations of nasalisation already seen, except in the case of nasalisation disappearing, in all the other cases, it is notable that the remaining transformed form retains a nasal component. For example,

In ISO 15919,

rāmam̐ + u => rāmanu - n is a nasal consonant.
phalam̐ + u => phalavu - It can be noted from Sediyapu Krishna Bhat's lecture notes that the v here might be nasalised.
aparaṁ => aprom̐ is nasalised in Tamil.
In maram̐ + k => marom̐ + k => maroṁk of Tulu, the nasalisation turns into a nasalised o and then into a full anusvāra, which, of course, is nasal.

In IPA,

ɾɑːmə̃ + u => ɾɑːmən̪u - n̪ is a nasal consonant.
pʰələ̃ + u => pʰələʋu - It can be noted from Sediyapu Krishna Bhat's lecture notes that the ʋ here might be nasalised.
t̪əmɪɭɪn̪əllɪ, əpəɾə̃ => əpɾõ is nasalised in Tamil.
In məɾə̃ + k => məɾõ + k => məɾõk of Tulu, the nasalisation turns into a nasalised o and then into a full anusvāra, which, of course, is nasal.

So, the transformed forms of the nasalisations retaining the nasal quality may produce the alternate forms of anu and annu. I.e.,

In ISO 15919,

am̐ + u => an + u => anu
am̐ + u => anm̐ + u => annu

In IPA,

ə̃ + u => ən̪ + u => ən̪u
ə̃ + u => əñ̪ + u => ən̪n̪u

Of these two possible processes, the first one of gemination rules seems more reasonable.

The alternate forms ali and alli of the locative suffix also seem to be generated from the original locative suffix al, by optional gemination when the vowel i is appended. I.e.,

In ISO 15919,

al + i => alli
rāmam̐ + al + i => rāmam̐ + (al + i) => rāmam̐ + alli => rāmanalli
rāmam̐ + al + i => (rāmam̐ + al) + i => rāmanal + i => rāmanali

In IPA,

əl + ɪ => əllɪ
ɾɑːmə̃ + əl + ɪ => ɾɑːmə̃ + (əl + ɪ) => ɾɑːmə̃ + əllɪ => ɾɑːmən̪əllɪ
ɾɑːmə̃ + əl + ɪ => (ɾɑːmə̃ + əl) + ɪ => ɾɑːmən̪əl + ɪ => ɾɑːmən̪əlɪ

The fact that alli is used both as an independent word as well as a locative suffix, whereas ali is only used as a locative suffix supports this thesis.

Though it may be tempting to invoke the same process to explain the already seen optional gemination in the dative case (marakke/marake), it is unlikely because mara is not monosyllabic. So, it is probably better to say that the mediating nasalisation is the cause of the gemination there.

Features of the nasalisation in the accusative case suffix

Considering all the points discussed above, it seems correct to say that the accusative case suffix is originally aṁ/am̐/ə̃ and not an (as proposed in "kannaḍa kaipiḍi"). The main features of the nasalisation in this original accusative case suffix are as follows.

Turning into the nasal consonant n on encountering a following vowel (kāḍum̐ + am̐ + u => kāḍam̐ + u => kāḍanu / kāḍannu/kɑːɖũ + ə̃ + u => kɑːɖə̃ + u => kɑːɖən̪u / kɑːɖən̪n̪u).
Sometimes disappearing (maram̐ + am̐ => maravam̐ => marava/məɾə̃ + ə̃ => məɾəʋə̃ => məɾəʋə).
Turning into the nasal consonant ṇ when infixed before other case suffixes in directional words (mūḍum̐ + am̐ + im̐ => mūḍu + am̐ + im̐ => mūḍam̐ + im̐ => mūḍaṇiṁ/muːɖũ + ə̃ + ɪ̃ => muːɖu + ə̃ + ɪ̃ => muːɖə̃ + ɪ̃ => muːɖəɳɪ̃, naḍum̐ + am̐ + a => naḍuvam̐ + a => naḍuvaṇa/n̪əɖũ + ə̃ + ə => n̪əɖuʋə̃ + ə => n̪əɖuʋəɳə)
Sometimes disappearing when infixed before the dative suffix, leaving behind only the leading vowel a of the accusative suffix (em̐ + am̐ + ke / ge => enam̐ge => enage/ẽ + ə̃ + ke / ge => en̪ə̃ge => en̪əge)
Producing the gemination of the following consonant k when infixed before the dative k suffix (em̐ + am̐ +k => enam̐k / enaṁk => enakk/ẽ + ə̃ +k => en̪ə̃k / en̪ə̃k => en̪əkk)

Nasalisation in the instrumental case suffix

As quoted above, kēśirāja mentions the instrumental case suffix as iṁ and the authors of "kannaḍa kaipiḍi" as in. To determine if the suffix ends with an anusvāra/nasalisation or with the nasal consonant n, let us follow the same approach as above.

Though anusvāra is found in the form iṁda, it is pronounced as the nasal consonant n. But are there other forms without n?

Nasalisation disappearing in the instrumental case suffix

There are quite a few examples of the trailing nasalisation in the instrumental suffix disappearing. The authors of "kannaḍa kaipiḍi" (as quoted above) have noted this, calling it "disappearance of n". For example, see Purandaradāsa's line "dinakarakōṭi tējadi hoḷeyuva" from his famous composition "bhāgyada lakṣmī bārammā". Here, tējadi clearly means tējadiṁda. This form is clearly produced by the trailing nasalisation in the instrumental suffix disappearing. I.e.,

In ISP 15919,

tējam̐ + im̐ => tēja + im̐ => tējadim̐ => tējadi

In IPA,

t̪eːd͡ʒə̃ + ɪ̃ => t̪eːd͡ʒə + ɪ̃ => t̪eːd͡ʒəd̪ɪ̃ => t̪eːd͡ʒəd̪ɪ

Such a form being used in the locative sense (in the Amar Chitra Katha edition of the "naḷadamayaṁti" story, where the damayaṁti's riddle to identify deformed naḷa has the segment "neladi hoḷeva ratuna bittu", if I recall correctly; in the same "bhāgyada lakṣmī bārammā" of Purandaradāsa quoted above, a later line goes "cittadi hoḷeyuva putthaḷi boṁbe"), has been acknowledged by all ancient and modern grammarians and scholars. Sediyapu Krishna Bhat has resolved this puzzle to some extent, as mentioned in "ekārada āvēśa" (please note that the article is written in Kannada and yet to be translated to English).

As quoted above, the authors of "kannaḍa kaipiḍi" propose that the suffix e, which is sometimes used in the locative sense, has turned into i in middle Kannada. This unlikely to be correct; based on the wide scope of the process of nasalisation disappearing already seen above, it seems safer to say that the suffix form of i is produced by the disappearance of the trailing nasalisation in the instrumental iṁ/im̐/ɪ̃ suffix. A additional supporting argument for this thesis can be seen in the discussion of the i suffix appearing at the end of the locative suffixes ali and alli.

The vowel i and the optional nasalisation following it before the dative case suffix

As already seen above, the vowel i (in maḍuvige, kālige, rāmanige etc.), with an optional following anusvāra/nasalisation (in maḍuviṁge/maḍuviṅge, kāliṁge/kāliṅge,naviliṁge/naviliṅge etc.), is sometimes seen before the dative suffix ge. The cause for this seems to be the instrumental iṁ/im̐/ɪ̃ infixing before the dative suffix ge. Because without the iṁ/im̐/ɪ̃ infix, different forms are produced.

In ISO 15919,

kāl + ke / ge => kālge - This forms also is found in Kannada.
maḍum̐ + ke / ge => maḍuṁge => maḍuge - This form is not found in Kannada.

In IPA,

kɑːl + ke / ge => kɑːlge - This forms also is found in Kannada.
məɖũ + ke / ge => məɖũge => məɖuge - This form is not found in Kannada.

But with a iṁ/im̐/ɪ̃ infix, the forms with the vowel i and an optional following anusvāra/nasalisation can be produced. I.e.,

In ISO 15919,

kāl + im̐ + ke / ge => kālim̐ + ke / ge => kāliṁge => kālige
maḍum̐ + im̐ + ke / ge => maḍuvim̐ + ke / ge => maḍuviṁge => maḍuvige
rāmam̐ + im̐ + ke / ge => rāmanim̐ + ke / ge => rāmaniṁge => rāmanige

In IPA,

kɑːl + ɪ̃ + ke / ge => kɑːlɪ̃ + ke / ge => kɑːlɪ̃ge => kɑːlɪge
məɖũ + ɪ̃ + ke / ge => məɖuʋɪ̃ + ke / ge => məɖuʋɪ̃ge => məɖuʋɪge
ɾɑːmə̃ + ɪ̃ + ke / ge => ɾɑːmən̪ɪ̃ + ke / ge => ɾɑːmən̪ɪ̃ge => ɾɑːmən̪ɪge

Here, it is clear that the non-nasalised forms (maḍuvige, kālige, rāmanige etc.) are produced from their corresponding nasalised forms by the trailing nasalisation in the iṁ/im̐/ɪ̃ infix disappearing. It is notable that these nasalised forms are still sometimes found in Kannada (even more so in Havigannada). Here too, the instrumental iṁ/im̐/ɪ̃ infix does not contribute much in terms of semantics to the produced dative form.

The in infix found in many case forms

As already seen above, the in infix can be seen in many case forms (kāliniṁda/kālininda, maḍuvina, kāḍinalli etc.). kēśirāja has described this as the "in infix" in the verse 118 of śabdamaṇidarpaṇa. As seen in the context of the aṇ infix, the phenomenon of in infix too hints at a deeper grammatical/linguistic process. Because (as described above), normally the case forms without the in infix are produced. For example,

In ISO 15919,

kāl + im̐ => kāliṁ => kāliṁda
maḍum̐ + a => maḍuva
kāḍum̐ + alli => kāḍalli

In IPA,

kɑːl + ɪ̃ => kɑːlɪ̃ => kɑːlɪ̃d̪ə
məɖũ + ə => məɖuʋə
kɑːɖũ + əllɪ => kɑːɖəllɪ

These forms are also found in Kannada. So, the instrumental iṁ/im̐/ɪ̃ infix seems to be instrumental in producing the forms with the in infix. I.e.,

In ISO 15919,

kāl + im̐ + im̐ => kālim̐ + im̐ => kāliniṁ => kāliniṁda - Here the iṁ/im̐/ɪ̃ infix comes before the iṁ/im̐/ɪ̃ suffix.
maḍum̐ + im̐ + a => maḍuvim̐ + a => maḍuvina
kāḍum̐ + im̐ + alli => kāḍim̐ + alli => kāḍinalli

In IPA,

kɑːl + ɪ̃ + ɪ̃ => kɑːlɪ̃ + ɪ̃ => kɑːlɪn̪ɪ̃ => kɑːlɪn̪ɪ̃d̪ə - Here the iṁ/im̐/ɪ̃ infix comes before the iṁ/im̐/ɪ̃ suffix.
məɖũ + ɪ̃ + ə => məɖuʋɪ̃ + ə => məɖuʋɪn̪ə
kɑːɖũ + ɪ̃ + əllɪ => kɑːɖɪ̃ + əllɪ => kɑːɖɪn̪əllɪ

Here, iṁ/im̐/ɪ̃ infix seem to add a hint of its own semantics to the semantics of the main case suffix that follows it. For example, in the phrase "kaṇṇinalli kaṇṇiṭṭu", the instrumental semantics of the iṁ/im̐/ɪ̃ infix (or locative semantics; the use of i suffix in the locative sense is already seen above), seems to add a kind of emphasis to the locative sense of the main suffix (alli); more so than in the equivalent usage "kaṇṇalli kaṇṇiṭṭu" without the in infix. Similarly, the semantics of the iṁ/im̐/ɪ̃ infix (the usage of this affix in the locative sense is already seen above) in the phrase "kālina uṁgura" seems to add to the main genitive suffix to make the meaning clearer than in the phrase "kāla uṁgura" without the in infix, which is similar in form to the phrase "kāla kasa". But in the tatpuruṣa construct kāluṁgura, the root kāl is found without any case affixes, so the question of difference in semantics does not arise. Furthermore, in the phrase "kāliniṁda/kālininda odda" the repeated instrumental affixes seem to emphasise the instrumental semantics more than in the phrase "kāliṁda/kālinda odda". Even more clearly, the instrumental iṁ/im̐/ɪ̃ infix in the phrases "maṇṇina maḍike", "haṇṇina rasa", "halasina haṇṇu" seems to make the instrumental semantics stronger (maybe even stronger than the main genitive semantics) than in the phrases "maṇṇa maḍake", "haṇṇa rasa", "halasa haṇṇu", thus ably carrying the intended meaning. Perhaps this is the reason for the phrases like "maṇṇa maḍake", "haṇṇa rasa", "halasa haṇṇu" being found less in colloquial use when compared to the forms with the in infix.

Before concluding the discussion on the in infix, the matter of the peculiarity of using the seemingly genitive forms with an in infix in the accusative sense in Havigannada (for example, hiṭṭina kalasu, i.e. hiṭṭannu kalasu) remains to be addressed. The form hiṭṭina seems indeed to be the genitive form (with the in infix) and not very much like any accusative form at all. But if we consider the two phenomena of the in infix being discussed here and of the trailing nasalisation of the accusative suffix disappearing together, the possibility of the form hiṭṭina being produced by the disappearance of the trailing nasalisation of the accusative suffix becomes clear. I.e.,

In ISP 15919,

hiṭṭum̐ + im̐ + am̐ => hiṭṭim̐ + am̐ => hiṭṭinam̐ => hiṭṭina

In IPA,

ɦɪʈʈũ + ɪ̃ + ə̃ => ɦɪʈʈɪ̃ + ə̃ => ɦɪʈʈɪn̪ə̃ => ɦɪʈʈɪn̪ə

It is notable that there is no genitive suffix involved in this process. But this phenomenon of the in infix in the accusative forms is seen only in the Havigannada (as far as I know) and not seen in other dialects and branches of Kannada.

Thus, given that the form hiṭṭina (and the other similar forms) is produced by the accusative as well as genitive suffixes (with the mediation of the instrumental infix), it must be considered to be produced by the genitive suffix when used in the genitive sense and by the accusative suffix when used in the accusative sense.

The trailing vowel i in the locative suffixes ali and alli

As already mentioned above in the context of the optional gemination in the alternate forms anu and annu of the accusative case suffixes, the locative suffix forms ali and alli are probably produced by the varition in the order of precedence for reducing different viable syntax tree sub-branches while suffixing the vowel i to the original locative suffix al. The vowel i in this case also seems to be produced by the, ostensibly instrumental, iṁ/im̐/ɪ̃ suffix losing its trailing nasalisation. I.e.,

In ISO 15919,

al + im̐ => allim̐ => alli
rāmam̐ + al + im̐ => rāmam̐ + (al + im̐) => rāmam̐ + allim̐ => rāmanallim̐ => rāmanalli
rāmam̐ + al + im̐ => (rāmam̐ + al) + im̐ => rāmanal + im̐ => rāmanalim̐ => rāmanali

In IPA,

əl + ɪ̃ => əllɪ̃ => əllɪ
ɾɑːmə̃ + əl + ɪ̃ => ɾɑːmə̃ + (əl + ɪ̃) => ɾɑːmə̃ + əllɪ̃ => ɾɑːmən̪əllɪ̃ => ɾɑːmən̪əllɪ
ɾɑːmə̃ + əl + ɪ̃ => (ɾɑːmə̃ + əl) + ɪ̃ => ɾɑːmən̪əl + ɪ̃ => ɾɑːmən̪əlɪ̃ => ɾɑːmən̪əlɪ

Here the ostensibly instrumental suffix iṁ/im̐/ɪ̃ is the last suffix. As already mentioned above, generally, when two suffixes are applied one after another, the trailing suffix is semantically dominant with the infix being at best being semantically secondary. But in this case the first suffix (infix?) al is not secondary at all! But the iṁ/im̐/ɪ̃ suffix also seems to be semantically significant. Because, the i suffix is used in the locative sense by itself ("neladi hoḷeva ratuna bittu", "cittadi hoḷeyuva putthaḷi boṁbe") and Sediyapu Krishna Bhat (in the article, "paṁcamī vibhakti") discusses in detail the reasons for the close relationship between the instrumental and the locative forms and semantics. More details about this can be seen above and in "ekārada āvēśa" (please note that the article is written in Kannada and yet to be translated to English). So, given that the instrumental suffix itself is a part of some of the locative suffixes, it is no great surprise that the locative forms are used in the instrumental sense.

This is a very good example of suffixes (affixes) being more effective as a concept than cases, in matters of linguistics and grammar.

Features of the trailing nasalisation in the instrumental case suffix

Considering all the points discussed above, it seems correct to say that the instrumental case suffix is originally iṁ/im̐/ɪ̃ and not in (as proposed in "kannaḍa kaipiḍi"). The main features of the nasalisation in this original instrumental case suffix are as follows.

Turning into the nasal consonant n on encountering a following vowel (aucityadim̐ + aṟivudu => aucityadinaṟivudu/əut͡ʃɪt̪jəd̪ɪ̃ + ərɪʋud̪u => əut͡ʃɪt̪jəd̪ɪn̪ərɪʋud̪u)
Turning into the anusvāra (in writing) or a suitable nasal consonant on en countering a following consonant (maradim̐ + da => maradiṁda pronounced maradinda/məɾəd̪ɪ̃ + d̪ə => məɾəd̪ɪ̃d̪ə pronounced məɾəd̪ɪn̪d̪ə).
Sometimes disappearing (tējadim̐ => tējadi/t̪eːd͡ʒəd̪ɪ̃ => t̪eːd͡ʒəd̪ɪ).
Sometimes turning into anusvāra (in writing) or a suitable nasal consonant ṅ or losing the trailing nasalisation when infixed before the dative suffix ke/ge (kāl + im̐ + ke / ge => kālim̐ + ke / ge => kāliṁge => kālige/kɑːl + ɪ̃ + ke / ge => kɑːlɪ̃ + ke / ge => kɑːlɪ̃ge => kɑːlɪge).
Turning into the nasal consonant n and producing the in infix when infixed before other case suffixes that start with a vowel (instrumental, genitive, locative etc.) (kāl + im̐ + im̐ => kālim̐ + im̐ => kāliniṁ => kāliniṁda/kɑːl + ɪ̃ + ɪ̃ => kɑːlɪ̃ + ɪ̃ => kɑːlɪn̪ɪ̃ => kɑːlɪn̪ɪ̃d̪ə, maḍum̐ + im̐ + a => maḍuvim̐ + a => maḍuvina/məɖũ + ɪ̃ + ə => məɖuʋɪ̃ + ə => məɖuʋɪn̪ə, kāḍum̐ + im̐ + alli => kāḍim̐ + alli => kāḍinalli/kɑːɖũ + ɪ̃ + əllɪ => kɑːɖɪ̃ + əllɪ => kɑːɖɪn̪əllɪ).
Disappearing when suffixed to the original locative suffix al, producing the i-ending alternative derived locative suffix forms ali and alli.

Some loose ends

Why does the accusative am̐/ə̃ produce ṇ and the instrumental im̐/ɪ̃, n?

As already seen above, when the trailing nasalisation of the accusative am̐/ə̃, when infixed, turns into ṇ (teṁkum̐ + am̐ + a => teṁku + am̐ + a => teṁkam̐ + a => teṁkaṇa/t̪ẽkũ + ə̃ + ə => t̪ẽku + ə̃ + ə => t̪ẽkə̃ + ə => t̪ẽkəɳə), and of the instrumental im̐/ɪ̃, into n (kāl + im̐ + a => kālim̐ + a => kālina/kāl + im̐ + a => kālim̐ + a => kālina). There seems to be a logic to this difference. Let us begin the search for this logic by examining the fragments involving ṇ and n in these examples.

In ISO 15919,

For ṇ, teṁkam̐ + a => teṁkaṇa, kam̐ + a => kaṇa is the relevant part.
For n, kālim̐ + a => kālina, lim̐ + a => lina is the relevant part.

In IPA,

For ɳ, t̪ẽkə̃ + ə => t̪ẽkəɳə, kə̃ + ə => kəɳə is the relevant part.
For n̪, kɑːlɪ̃ + ə => kɑːlɪn̪ə, lɪ̃ + ə => lɪn̪ə is the relevant part.

Even the leading consonant is irrelevant and can be discarded.

In ISO 15919,

For ṇ , am̐ + a => aṇa
For n, im̐ + a => ina

In IPA,

For ɳ, ə̃ + ə => əɳə
For n̪, ɪ̃ + ə => ɪn̪ə

Here, it is notable that am̐ + a/ə̃ + ə pronounced as is, i.e. separately, sounds closer to ṇ than n and im̐ + a/ɪ̃ + ə pronounced as is, i.e. separately, soundes closer to n than ṇ. There is a phonological reason for this. The main difference here is the vowel (a, i) that is nasalised (i.e., the leading vowel).

It is notable that the shape of the mouth is similarly open in the pronunciation of both the a and ṇa. In fact, out of all the consonants, only the retroflex consonants (and ṇ is one) can be pronounced with the mouth open as in pronouncing the vowel a, without moving the lower jaw. The lower jaw moves in pronouncing all the other consonants.

On the other hand, the tip of the tongue is raised towards the base of the front teeth or the alveolar ridge in the pronunciation of the vowel i, much like in the pronunciation of the consonant n (as described in the context of the pronunciation of the vowel e) .

Considering these two facts together, the phonological reason behind the am̐ + a => aṇa/ə̃ + ə => əɳə and im̐ + a => ina/ɪ̃ + ə => ɪn̪ə processes becomes clear.

But this logic does not hold in cases like rāmam̐ + a => rāmaṇa/ɾɑːmə̃ + ə => ɾɑːməɳə which are not found in Kannada. I cannot think of any better reason for this than that the pronunciation of n is generally more economical, comfortable and euphonic than ṇ for the Kannada tongue (for the same reason n is found a lot more frequently than ṇ in most of the languages in the world) and that even in the other Dravidian languages the feature of the nasalisation turning into n is more dominant than turning into ṇ.

The first nasalisation before the am̐/ə or ̃im̐/ɪ̃ infix optionally disappearing or turning into v

As already seen in the context of the aṇ and in infixes, the nasalisation before the infix sometimes disappears or turns into v.

For example, for ṇ,

In ISO 15919,

mūḍum̐ + am̐ + im̐ => mūḍu + am̐ + im̐ (the first nasalisation disappears) => mūḍam̐ + im̐ => mūḍaṇiṁ
paḍum̐ + am̐ + im̐ => paḍuvam̐ + im̐ (the first nasalisation turns into v) => paḍuvaṇiṁ
teṁkum̐ + am̐ + a => teṁku + am̐ + a (the first nasalisation disappears) => teṁkam̐ + a => teṁkaṇa
baḍagum̐ + am̐ + a => baḍagu + am̐ + a (the first nasalisation disappears) => baḍagam̐ + a => baḍagaṇa
naḍum̐ + am̐ + a => naḍuvam̐ + a (the first nasalisation turns into v) => naḍuvaṇa

In IPA,

muːɖũ + ə̃ + ɪ̃ => muːɖu + ə̃ + ɪ̃ (the first nasalisation disappears) => muːɖə̃ + ɪ̃ => muːɖəɳɪ̃
pəɖũ + ə̃ + ɪ̃ => pəɖuʋə̃ + ɪ̃ (the first nasalisation turns into ʋ) => pəɖuʋəɳɪ̃
t̪ẽkũ + ə̃ + ə => t̪ẽku + ə̃ + ə (the first nasalisation disappears) => t̪ẽkə̃ + ə => t̪ẽkəɳə
bəɖəgũ + ə̃ + ə => bəɖəgu + ə̃ + ə (the first nasalisation disappears) => bəɖəgə̃ + ə => bəɖəgəɳə
n̪əɖũ + ə̃ + ə => n̪əɖuʋə̃ + ə (the first nasalisation turns into ʋ) => n̪əɖuʋəɳə

For n,

In ISO 15919,

kāḍum̐ + im̐ + a => kāḍim̐ + a (the first nasalisation disappears) => kāḍina
maḍum̐ + im̐ + a => maḍuvim̐ + a(the first nasalisation turns into v) => maḍuvina
haḍagum̐ + im̐ + a => haḍagim̐ + a (the first nasalisation disappears) => haḍagina

In IPA,

kɑːɖũ + ɪ̃ + ə => kɑːɖɪ̃ + ə (the first nasalisation disappears) => kɑːɖɪn̪ə
məɖũ + ɪ̃ + ə => məɖuʋɪ̃ + ə(the first nasalisation turns into ʋ) => məɖuʋɪn̪ə
ɦəɖəgũ + ɪ̃ + ə => ɦəɖəgɪ̃ + ə (the first nasalisation disappears) => ɦəɖəgɪn̪ə

It is to be noted that the whenever the preceding nasalisation disappears, there is either a single heavy syllable or two consecutive light syllables before the syllable that is nasalised. On the other hand, whenever the preceding nasalisation turns into v, there is a single light syllable before the syllable that is nasalised. This feature (as discussed in the context of the gemination in the accusative suffix form annu) is the same as what is seen in the gemination rule and at the beginning of the aṁśagaṇa metrical units.

As already seen above, aṁśagaṇa metrical units start only with either a single heavy syllable or two consecutive light syllables and never with a single light syllable (that is not followed by another light syllable). Similarly, the gemination rule specifies that gemination of the trailing consonant of a consonant-ending word-fragment/root happens (when a following vowel is encountered), only if the trailing consonant is preceded by a single light syllable and not if preceded by a single heavy syllable or by multiple syllables.

When there is a single light syllable before an ending consonant, the gemination rule avoids the possiblity of producing a starting daDUM rhythm by geminating the trailing consonant, which converts the leading single light syllable into a single heavy syllable (the syllable before a gemination or consonant cluster is heavy). But here, in the case of the trailing nasalised syllable being preceded by a single light syllable (paḍum̐/pəɖũ, naḍum̐/n̪əɖũ, maḍum̐/məɖũ etc.), the possibility of producing a starting daDUM rythm is avoided by turning the nasalisation into v, which converts the leading single light syllable into two consecutive light syllables. If the trailing nasalised syllable is preceded by a single heavy syllable (mūḍum̐/muːɖũ, teṁkum̐/t̪ẽkũ, kāḍum̐/kɑːɖũ etc.) or by multipe syllables (baḍagum̐/bəɖəgũ, haḍagu/ɦəɖəgu), then (as in the case of the gemination rule) there is no possibility of a starting daDUM rhythm at all and hence, there is no need for the nasalisation to turn into v; so, the trailing nasalisation simply disappears.

As against this, if the nasalisation does not turn into v even when the trailing nasalised syllable is preceded by a single light syllable, then there is a possibility of producing a starting daDUM rhythm (unnatural/undesirable in Kannada and other Dravidian languages). For example,

In ISO 15919,

maḍum̐ + am̐ => maḍam̐ => maḍaṁ - daDUM
maḍum̐ + am̐ => maḍam̐ => maḍaṁ => maḍanu - dadada
maḍum̐ + am̐ => maḍam̐ => maḍaṁ => maḍannu - daDUMda
maḍum̐ + am̐ => maḍam̐ => maḍa - dada - Only two light syllables is also not natural/desirable in Kannada.
naḍum̐ + am̐ + a => naḍam̐ + a => naḍaṇa - dadada

In IPA,

məɖũ + ə̃ => məɖə̃ => məɖə̃ - daDUM
məɖũ + ə̃ => məɖə̃ => məɖə̃ => məɖən̪u - dadada
məɖũ + ə̃ => məɖə̃ => məɖə̃ => məɖən̪n̪u - daDUMda
məɖũ + ə̃ => məɖə̃ => məɖə - dada - Only two light syllables is also not natural/desirable in Kannada.
n̪əɖũ + ə̃ + ə => n̪əɖə̃ + ə => n̪əɖəɳə - dadada

Not just when there are infixes, generally in all case forms, whenever a v infix happens, it must be to avoid the possibility of producing a starting daDUM rhythm. Whenever word/word-fragments are combined, if the trailing syllable of the first word is preceded by a single light syllable (for example, as in maḍuvannu, maḍuva, karuvannu, karuva etc.) and there is no v infix and the vowel of the trailing syllable (of the first word/word-fragment) disappears (according to the rules of lōpasaṁdhi), then a leading daDUM rythm could be produced (as in maḍannu, karannu etc.). This is unnatural/undesirable in Kannada. But if the trailing syllable of the first word is preceded by a single heavy syllable (kāḍa) or multiple syllables (haḍaga), lōpasaṁdhi happens and not the v infix because there is no possibility of producing a starting daDUM rhythm.

Taking all these things together, the starting daDUM rhythm is so unnatural/undesirable in Kannada that not just the starting daDUM rhythm but even the processes that have a mere possibility of producing it are avoided. It is amazing that languages hold on to their deep-seated phonological features even in seemingly disparate or unrelated contexts.

For example, even the trailing consonants of English consonant-ending words (bus, car etc.) are geminated to avoid the starting daDUM rhythm in Kannada, when appended with the euphonic vowel u.

bas + u => bassu - The trailing consonant is geminated because there is only one light syllable preceding it.
kār + u => kāru - The trailing consonant is not geminated because there is a heavy syllable preceding it.

Answers to some possible objections

Since the features and the processes described here are not only relatively novel and speculative, but also may, at times, conflict with established positions in ancient and modern linguistic and grammatical scholarly works, a few objections are to be expected. A few possible answers are given below, to address some of the objections that can be anticipiated at this point in time. I will be grateful if knowledgeable readers point out any further objections to, criticism of, exceptions to or any other kind of deficiency in, the exposition here. A field of study cannot progress without subjecting old and new theories to criticism.

Is nasalisation an affix? Is the trailing n a part of the word-fragment/root, indicating grammatical gender?

The position taken in "kannaḍa kaipiḍi" is already mentioned above. This document has not taken any definite position about the nasalisation or the trailing consonant n being the nominative suffix (or a mediating infix in other case forms) or being part of the word-fragment/root, indicating the grammatical gender. Furthermore, the exposition of the various transformations of the nasalisation like disappearing, turning into n, m, v, full anusvāra, gemination of the following consonant etc. is for the simplicity of narration and understanding. The opposite narrative of the trailing consonants n or m undergoing the transformations like turning into v, full anusvāra, mere nasalisation and disappearing also does not make any qualitative difference to the processes described here.

Overall, the main thesis of this document is the analysis of the close relationship betwen the features of the consonants n, m, full anusvāra, gemination of the following consonant, nasalisation, disappearance and the necessity of invoking them in producing the variety of the case forms found in Kannada. The terminology of nasalisation and its various associated transformations have been used, considering that it seems suitable to the purpose here and there is no qualitative difference to the processes described here if any other terminology (including that of the the transformations associated with the consonants n and m) is used.

The rarity of nasalisation in Kannada and Tamil

The processes described in this document, invoke intermediate nasalised forms to explain the production of the final forms in Kannada (and a few in Tamil), which may not be nasalised. It is a valid objection that some of these intermediate nasalised forms are not found in Kannada.

For example,

In ISO 15919,

avam̐ + u => avanu - The form avam̐ is found only in some regional spoken dialects of Kannada.
maram̐ + ke => maraṁke => marakke - The form maraṁke is not found in Kannada.
em̐ + am̐ + ke => enam̐ + ke => enam̐ge => enage - The form enam̐ge is not found in Kannada.
em̐ + am̐ + k => enam̐ + k => enam̐k => enaṁk => enakk - The form enam̐k/enaṁk are not found in Tamil.
rāmam̐ + im̐ + ke => rāmanim̐ + ke => rāmanim̐ge => rāmanige - The form rāmanim̐ge (or rāmaniṁge) is not found in Kannada.

In IPA

əʋə̃ + u => əʋən̪u - The form əʋə̃ is found only in some regional spoken dialects of Kannada.
məɾə̃ + ke => məɾə̃ke => məɾəkke - The form məɾə̃ke is not found in Kannada.
ẽ + ə̃ + ke => en̪ə̃ + ke => en̪ə̃ge => en̪əge - The form en̪ə̃ge is not found in Kannada.
ẽ + ə̃ + k => en̪ə̃ + k => en̪ə̃k => en̪əkk - The form en̪ə̃k is not found in Tamil.
ɾɑːmə̃ + ɪ̃ + ke => ɾɑːmən̪ɪ̃ + ke => ɾɑːmən̪ɪ̃ge => ɾɑːmən̪ɪge - The form ɾɑːmən̪ɪ̃ge is not found in Kannada.

The following can be said in defence. Evolution of languages is a multi-faceted or multi-directional process. During such evolution, different branches inherit many of the features of the ancestral language, but also develop their own unique features and peculiarities. While one branch may retain some ancestral features and modify some other features, another branch may retain some other features and modify some other features yet. Without such differentiation, they cannot evolve into distinct dialects and eventually languages.

For example, let us consider a simple word like mane, instead of linguistic processes or grammatical rules. As far as I know, this word is seen only in Kannada among the Dravidian languages. Furthermore, it seems to be the only word in popular use to indicate its semantics. The equivalent word for it in Tamil might be vīṭ. The cognate of vīṭ, bīḍu, is found in Kannada but is rarely used in place of mane. Also, it is notable that mane and bīḍu have differentiated in semantics in Kannada. The equivalent word for mane in Tulu might be ill. Considering that the word ill is not found in Kannada and Tamil, which are spoken by orders of magnitude more people than Tulu, which contains the word ill, would it be reasonable to conclude that ill is a neologism that developed in Tulu after it split off from the common ancestor of Kannada and Tamil? But the word illu, clearly a cognate of the Tulu ill, is found in Telugu. Considering that Telugu and Tulu among the Dravidian languages, branched off earlier than the common ancestor of Kannada and Tamil, it seems more reasonable to say that ill/illu was part of the ancestor all these languages but fell to disuse somewhere in the Kannada-Tamil sub-branch, than to say that it developed independently in the two separate branches of Tulu and Telugu.

Similarly, we may consider the thesis in the allied domain of biological evolution that all the reptiles, birds and mammals, which breath air through the lungs, evolved from a branch of fish, most of which breath water through gills. But all the reptiles, birds and mammals for millions of years have only had lungs, not gills; so, one can object that the gills of fish and the bones in the ears of reptiles, birds and mammals cannot be related in any way.

But on seeing that the life-cycle of amphibians, like frogs, involves an initial aquatic stage where they breath water through gills as tadpoles and a later amphibious stage where they develop lungs and that in developmental biology, the same parts of the embryo/foetus develop/differentiate into gills in fish and some parts near the ear in reptiles, birds and mammals, no doubt can remains about the common origins of reptiles, birds, mammals and fish. This thesis could have been ignored if it did not shed light on any other aspect of biological evolution or developmental biology. But considering the implication of the link between the fields of biological evolution and developmental biology, there is no option left but to accept that the thesis that the reptiles, birds and mammals evolved from fish.

With this insight, going back to the objection that some of the nasalised intermediate forms invoked in the processes described in this document are not found in Kannada and Tamil, one cannot ignore the facts and their implication that nasalisation is readily found in the nominative forms in Telugu and Havigannada (avam̐/əʋə̃), that it can clearly turn into n (baiṁdanā of Havigannada), that the intermediate nasalised forms are found in other dialects (enam̐ge/en̪ə̃ge of Havigannada) or languages of the same family, that when the intermediate nasalised forms are not found even in other dialects and languages, cognate forms produced by similar processes in the other languages are nasalised (maroṁk in Tulu as a cognate of maraṁke), that nasalised and geminated (without nasalisation) alternate forms are found for the same case in some languages (maroṁta/maronta, maratta, maroṁṭ/maroṇṭ, maraṭṭ in Tulu), that there is dissimilarity of cognate forms and processes as well as similarity across languages and this dissimilarity can also be elightening (the similarity of form and processes betwen enage of Kannada and enakkŭ of Tamil and the dissimilarity with eṁkŭ/eṅkŭ of Tulu). Here too, this thesis could be ignored if it did not shed any light on the processes producing the variety of case forms across Dravidian languages. But on seeing, as shown above, that it explains the variations in case forms as well as semantics (subtle semantic difference between the pairs like maṇṇa/maṇṇina, haṇṇa/haṇṇina, halasa/halasina), it seems reasonable to accept that these processes are indeed ancient and only the final forms they produce survived in Kannada and Tamil branches.

The thesis and the argumentation here is speculative

As already mentioned above, there is no denying that the thesis in this document is speculative. So, given that the origins of these linguistic processes are buried in antiquity and their written records unlikely to be found, it is reasonable to question if they can be accepted based only on speculation.

The following can be said in defence. Relying on speculation is unavoidable in matters of linguistics and grammar. Even the already accepted results, findings and the processes described in these fields also rely on speculation.

Here, one of the 20th century's great philosophers and epistemologist, Karl Popper's work in showing that not only is it possible to criticise conjectures with other conjectures, for example, by finding inconsistencies in them, but also that this is indeed the way all fields of study develop, is notable.

Conjectures and Refutations, Page 37

Neither observation nor reason is an authority. Intellectual intuition and imagination are most important, but they are not reliable: they may show us things very clearly, and yet they may mislead us. They are indispensable as the main sources of our theories; but most of our theories are false anyway. The most important function of observation and reasoning, and even of intuition and imagination, is to help us in the critical examination of those bold conjectures which are the means by which we probe into the unknown.

But there is no need to be pessimistic that mere conjecture is not enough to acquire knowledge. With collective and creative use of conjectures and criticism, knowledge can be acquired. Every bit of the knowldge acquired so far by humanity has been acquired in this way alone.

Inspired by Karl Popper, the quantum physicist, David Deutsch, goes on to say the following.

The Beginning of Infinity, Page 3, 4

Scientific theories are explanations: assertions about what is out there and how it behaves. Where do these theories come from? For most of the history of science, it was mistakenly believed that we 'derive' them from the evidence of our senses - a philosophical doctrine known as empiricism: ...

But, in reality, scientific theories are not derived from anything. We do not read them in nature, nor does nature write them into us. They are guesses - bold conjectures. Human minds create them by rearranging, combining, altering and adding to existing ideas with the intention of improving upon them. We do not begin with 'white paper' at birth, but with inborn expectations and intentions and an innate ability to improve upon them using thought and experience. Experience is indeed essential to science, but its role is different from that supposed by empiricism. It is not the source from which theories are derived. Its main use is to choose between theories that have already been guessed. That is what 'learning from experience' is. ...

The difference explained here by David Deutsch, between the prediction or recognition of some feature of a phenomenon and explanation for it is crucial to making progress in any field of study. For example, when all the chemical elements are arranged in the periodic table, in chemistry, their chemical properties might be easy to recognise, but it does not help recognise the reasons and the processes that cause those chemical properties. Only the explanation of those chemical properties based on the composition of the atoms of the elements from protons, electrons and the structure and capacity of the orbitals that are occupied by the electrons can explain the reasons and processes behind those chemical properties and their variations. The periodic table can at best be a compact depiction of an aspect of chemical phenomena.

This process of acquiring knowledge by conjectures and criticisms is not limited to science. All fields including linguistics, grammar, history, music etc. progress by the same process.

Let us analyse the following statement made above, in this light.

Even the already accepted results, findings and the processes described in these fields also rely on speculation.

As already seen above, the consonant ṇ is sometimes infixed in the case forms of directional words. This phenomenon has been called "aṇ infix" in ancient grammatical tradition (verse 120). The aṇ infix found here (mūḍu + aṇ + a => mūḍaṇa, teṁku + aṇ + iṁ => teṁkaṇiṁ etc.) is not found independently or in any other process in Kannada. In fact, none of these processes or the word-fragments/roots and affixes invoked in them are found in any language; only the final forms like mūḍaṇa, teṁkaṇiṁ etc. are. The case suffixes aṁ, iṁ, a etc. are also not found in any language; only the final case forms like rāmanaṁ, maradiṁ, mūḍaṇa etc. are. Similarly, the "in infix" found in some case forms is not found independently anywhere; only the final forms like maṇṇina, kālina are found. So, it is reasonable to say that these word-fragments/roots, affixes and the processes that invoke them are also speculative.

The question to be asked here is not if these conjectures are speculations or not; but if they contain some amount of truth. This must be decided by assessing if these conjectures, in their full scope, satisfactorily make sense or if there are any exceptions or contradictions or if there are better conjectures that make more sense and have less exceptions and contradictions. Such analysis can give us confidence in the conjectures about the case suffixes and the linguistic processes that invoke them, even if they are but mere speculation.

But such a satisfaction may not be found in the matters of the aṇ and in infixes. Because, the aṇ and in infix is but a mere labelling of a closely related subset of linguistic phenomena in Kannada and does not shed light on the reasons and the processes behind it. In the case of the in infix, the terminology of in infix does not even begin to explain the semantic difference (minor or major) between the variant forms with or without the in infix in the same case (the semantic difference between "maṇṇa maḍake", "haṇṇa rasa", "halasa haṇṇu" vs. "maṇṇina maḍake", "haṇṇina rasa", "halasina haṇṇu" etc., as already seen above).

This is just a trick of dressing up a phenomenon as its explanation or a problem as its solution. The search for the explanation needs to proceed further. I hope that the thesis in this document has brought some such deeper explanations to light. The success of it is in the explanation of the variety and scope of linguistic, grammatical and semantic processes; the failure is not in its speculativeness.

All the variations in case forms are explained if they are produced from the corresponding genitive case forms

Though not mentioned explicitly in ancient and modern scholarly words, there is a popular thesis that "all the variations in case forms of a word/fragment/root can be produced by taking the corresponding genitive case form as a base and applying the case suffix to it". I.e.,

From the genitive form adara,

adara + iṁda => adariṁda
adara + alli => adaralli

From the genitive form marada,

marada + iṁda => maradiṁda
marada + alli => maradalli

From the genitive form maṇṇa,

maṇṇa + annu => maṇṇannu
maṇṇa + iṁda => maṇṇiṁda
maṇṇa + ige => maṇṇige
maṇṇa + alli => maṇṇalli

From the genitive form maṇṇina,

maṇṇina + iṁda => maṇṇiniṁda
maṇṇina => maṇṇina
maṇṇina + alli => maṇṇinalli

From the genitive form kāla,

kāla + annu => kālannu
kāla + iṁda => kāliṁda
kāla + ige => kālige
kāla => kāla
kāla + alli => kālalli

From the genitive form kālina,

kālina + iṁda => kāliniṁda
kālina => kālina
kālina + alli => kālinalli

From the genitive form maḍuva,

maḍuva + annu => maḍuvannu
maḍuva + iṁda => maḍuviṁda
maḍuva + ige => maḍuvige
maḍuva => maḍuva
maḍuva + alli => maḍuvalli

Considering that this thesis does explain much of the variety in case forms in a simple process, it is reasonable to question the need for the more complex set of processes proposed in this document. The following can be said in defence.

Though it might appear that the variety of case forms is explained by basing their derivation on the corresponding genitive form, the vowel i found in the dative forms like maṇṇige, kālige, maḍuvige cannot be explained (maṇṇa + ige => maṇṇige) by this thesis. If ige is also considered as an alternative dative case suffix (it is notable that such alternative case suffix forms are recognised in the Kannada grammatical tradition, like aṁ/anu/annu, iṁ/iṁda/iṁde, ke/ge/ige/akke, oḷ/oḷage/al/ali/alli etc.), it would again be merely dressing up the phenomenon as its explanation or the problem as its solution. It can explain neither the reason for the variety of case suffix forms nor the nasalisation sometimes found in the dative forms like naviliṁge.
It cannot explain the genitive form appearing in some variants of the case forms of the same word-fragment/root and not in other variants. For example, the genitive form kāla can be seen in the dative form kālige but not in kālge variant. Also, as already seen above, adakke of modern Kannada is derived from adaṟke/adarke of old Kannada (please see the usage adarkaṁjade in the verse 248 of śabdamaṇidarpaṇa). The thesis of the variations in case forms being based on the corresponding genitive forms cannot explain the reason for the ṟ/r infix found in adaṟke/adarke (adaṟ + ke => adaṟke/adarke), because the genitive form adaṟa/adara (adaṟa => adara) ends with a vowel a after the consonant ṟ/r and the process of the trailing vowel a disappearing on encountering a following consonant is not found in Kannada.
It cannot explain the variations in the genitive forms. For example, the pairs of variants like maṇṇa/maṇṇina, kāla/kālina, haṇṇa/haṇṇina, halasa/halasina. Additionally, it cannot explain the semantic difference in such variations in the genitive forms either. For example, it cannot explain the reason for a hint of semantics of the instrumental case in genitive usage like "maṇṇina maḍike", "haṇṇina rasa", "halasina haṇṇu" which is not found in the equivalent usage like "maṇṇa maḍike", "haṇṇa rasa", "halasa haṇṇu", for usage like "maṇṇina maḍake", "haṇṇina rasa", "halasina haṇṇu" being preferred to usage like "maṇṇa maḍike", "haṇṇa rasa", "halasa haṇṇu" colloquially.
It cannot explain the reason behind the particular form of some of the genitive forms. For example, it cannot explain the reason for the the genitive form of the word maḍu being maḍuva with a v infix whereas the same v infix does not apply in the genitive form kāla of the word kāl/kālu.

So, not only the variations of the case forms explained by the thesis of them being based on their corresponding genitive forms, but also the variations not explained by it, are produced by the processes mediated by nasalisation as described in this document.

But it must be admitted that the reasons for the d infix in the case forms of neuter gender words ending with the vowel a and ṟ/r infix found in the case forms of the neuter gender pronoun like adu, are not explained by the thesis in this document. I humbly submit that more work is required in these two phenomena. However, the case forms with the d or ṟ/r infixes are explained by the thesis of them being based on their corresponding genitive forms, only because these infixes are already taken for granted in the genitive forms and the reason for those infixes is left unexplained; it must be noted that this too is merely dressing up the problem as the solution.

Final remarks

I have described here the features and processes related to or mediated by nasalisation and the forms produced by them that I found while following the trail of anusvāra/nasalisation to try and resolve the differences between the ancient and modern scholars regarding the anusvāra/nasalisation in some of the case suffixes. Here, some positions of the ancient and modern scholars is criticised and other positions reconciled.

I hope that much of the commonality as well as variety and some peculiarities in the case forms have been successfully explained in terms of features and processes related to or mediated by nasalisation. Some peculiarities remain to be explained, though. Some of them are briefly listed below for reference.

The d infix found in the case forms of neuter gender words with an ending vowel a. For example, marada.
The ṟ/r infix found in the case forms of the neuter gender pronouns like adu. For example, adaṟa/adara.
The variations in the locative suffix forms (oḷ, oḷage, al, ali, alli).

Revisions

A more detailed revision history can be seen here.

Files

A Nose for Nasalisation.md

Latest commit

History

A Nose for Nasalisation.md

File metadata and controls

A Nose for Nasalisation

ಅನುವಾದದ ಕುರಿತು / About Translation

Content

ಪರವಾನಗಿ / License

ಬರೆಹಗಾರರು / Authors

Introduction

Note

Context

Ancient Scholars

Verse 103

Summary

Modern Scholars

kannaḍa kaipiḍi, page 407

kannaḍa kaipiḍi, page 408

kannaḍa kaipiḍi, page 409

kannaḍa kaipiḍi, page 410

kannaḍa kaipiḍi, page 411

kannaḍa kaipiḍi, page 412

kannaḍa kaipiḍi, page 413

kannaḍa kaipiḍi, page 414

Masti Venkatesha Iyengar in "namma nuḍi"

Sediyapu Krishna Bhat's Lecture Notes

vicāra saṁpuṭa, page 235

On the trail of anusvāra/nasalisation

Nasalisation and the process of it turning into n in Havigannada dialect

On the nature of and relationship between the cases and the case suffixes

Nasalisation and the way it turns into the nasal consonant n in Persian, Urdu and Hindi

Does nasalisation turn into m or v?

The relationship between anusvāra, m, v, o and between n and e

Are there two different kinds of nasalisations which lean towards n and m respectively?

Nasalisation appearing before other case suffixes

Possible traces of anusvāra in even word-fragments/roots not ending with the vowel a in Tulu

Anusvāra occasionally seen in the dative case

Gemination sometimes seen in the dative case

Why is nasalisation not seen in the dative case, many times?

Features of nasalisation

Nasalisation in the accusative case suffix

Nasalisation disappearing in the accusative suffix

The nasal consonant ṇ sometimes seen in directional words

The vowel a seen in enage of Kannada and the gemination in enakkŭ of Tamil

The vowel a and the optional gemination in the dative forms of the neuter gender singular pronouns

The gemination found in accusative suffix annu

Features of the nasalisation in the accusative case suffix

Nasalisation in the instrumental case suffix

Nasalisation disappearing in the instrumental case suffix

The vowel i and the optional nasalisation following it before the dative case suffix

The in infix found in many case forms

The trailing vowel i in the locative suffixes ali and alli

Features of the trailing nasalisation in the instrumental case suffix

Some loose ends

Why does the accusative am̐/ə̃ produce ṇ and the instrumental im̐/ɪ̃, n?

The first nasalisation before the am̐/ə or ̃im̐/ɪ̃ infix optionally disappearing or turning into v

Answers to some possible objections

Is nasalisation an affix? Is the trailing n a part of the word-fragment/root, indicating grammatical gender?

The rarity of nasalisation in Kannada and Tamil

The thesis and the argumentation here is speculative

All the variations in case forms are explained if they are produced from the corresponding genitive case forms

Final remarks

Revisions