In their efforts to create accessible pedagogical grammars of Tamil, early missionaries applied the reference model of Latin and Portuguese grammars and other missioners’ works to the nominal and verbal paradigms they constructed of the language. In so doing, they met with difficulties in formulating the terminology to express the phenomena they encountered. For example, the early missionary grammarians regularly classed several distinct Tamil terminations as ‘ablatives’, because the various senses of these are subsumed in Latin within one ablative case (itself historically derived from three Proto-Indo-European cases: separative ablative, comitative/instrumental, and inessive locative). Different configurations were proposed over the centuries, but, despite the emerging knowledge of the native Tamil grammatical tradition, which had long been influenced by Sanskrit declensional standards, always with a Latinate foundation. The missionaries’ grammars created among Europeans a perception of Tamil that its declensional patterning was akin to that of Latin, and that morphologically realised divergent senses are related because their equivalents in Latin are, readings which persist in many modern didactic descriptions.

中文翻译：

---

讨厌的剥夺者：早期的欧洲传教士对泰米尔语“剥夺者”的对待

早期传教士在努力创建可访问的泰米尔语教学语法时，将拉丁文和葡萄牙文语法的参考模型以及其他传教士的作品应用到他们所用语言的名义和口头范例中。在这样做时，他们在制定表达他们遇到的现象的术语时遇到了困难。例如，早期的传教语法学家经常将几种不同的泰米尔语终止词归类为“烧蚀词”，因为它们的各种含义都包含在一个烧蚀词中的拉丁语中（其历史上源于三个原始印度-欧洲案例：分离式烧蚀词，定语/工具性和单义的处所）。几个世纪以来，人们提出了不同的配置，但是，尽管对泰米尔语的原始语法传统有了新的认识，长期以来受梵文规范标准的影响，并且始终以拉丁文为基础。传教士的语法在欧洲人中间创造了一种泰米尔人的观念，认为泰米尔人的十足模式与拉丁语相似，并且形态上实现的歧义也有关联，因为它们在拉丁语中的等同词在许多现代的教学描述中都存在。