Jump to content

Talk:Tamil language/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

History

I have studied a lot about Dravidian language and culture. Even Wikepedia accepts that the original Dravidian language and culture is nothing but Tamil which later branched off into the other languages like Kannada. I have studied a lot about Dravidian language and culture. Even Wikepedia accepts that the original Dravidian language and culture is nothing but Tamil which later branched off into the other languages like Kannada.


[1]]

- Tamil has its own names for Hindu Gods like Vishnu (called Perumal) Does any other Dravidian language have one? + Tamil has its own names for Hindu Gods like Vishnu (called Perumal) Does any other Dravidian language have one?

For your information, not only in Tamil (Southern Dravidian) but also in Telugu (Central Dravidian) there are some pure words. They are called Accha Telugu. Vishnu is called as Nallanayya (Black Man). Lord Krishna is called Gollavaadu/Nallavaadu. Lord Venkateswara is called Venkanna Babu. Lord Siva is called Mukkanti (3-Eyed one). Lord Kartikeya is called Subbayya or Subbaaraaya. Goddess Parvati is called Mulaputamma or Ammaalagannamma. (User:Bsskchaitanya)
Chaitanya, ignore such pointless rants. :-) -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

- The above words drive home the point and should be written in letters of gold as they even quote Wikepedia itself!

- This is something which every North Indian or non-TAMIL should know. I was under the wrong impression that "Dravidian" was a Sanskrit word. If you see any Indian History Book they dont tell this important fact. Also they neglect the whole of South India and for them, the boundary of India stops with the Vindya Mountains. They tell so much about Ashoka, Kanishka etc but neglect equally great if not greater Kings like Raja Raja Chola.

- From above it is may be a possibility that the original sons of the soil of India were the Dravidians who were none other than Tamils and Tamil is the only original Indian language, if the theory of Aryan invasion of India is correct. - - I also went through the discussion below by some linguists and there seems to be a lot of bias against Tamil in this site. - Also someone called Sarvaganya kept on erasing the above ground breaking facts, which shows favoritism to Kannada. - Someone called Arya Rajya Maharashtra clearly mentioned this in the Talk and I appreciate his neutrality. We need more such neutral people for Wikepedia to prosper. - - Sameer Khan's arguments about paal, hogai etc are clearly not factual. There is nothing like Tamil Kannada or Proto Dravidian. PROTO DRAVIDIAN is and only is TAMIL or THAMIZH. - - It also makes me think that what Bharatidasan told about Tamil may be correct. - Someone neutral and modern like George Hart hit the nail on the head by saying that TAMIL and TAMIL alone is the classical language. Just a look at one of the million poems like Thirukkural will clearly reveal this and since the Kannadigas dont want to accept this may be, the Thiruvalluvar statue at Bangalore is still not unveiled? - Tamil and Tamil alone should have been granted classical status long back. They have been patiently fighting and at last won after 45 years! It also shows "Truth alone Triumphs", which is incidentally the motto of Tamilnadu! - - Sunil Kumar--68.197.128.134 20:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


Kannada and Telugu did not evolve from Tamil. Kannada and Tamil originated from the same source ie; southern branch of proto dravidian language. They have a common source. Never has there been a case when Kannada language was written in Tamil script either. Kannada continued to use Brahmi/prakrit untill emergence of Kadamba script.

a) http://www.omniglot.com/writing/kannada.htm
b) http://www.ancientscripts.com (refer to http://www.ancientscripts.com/sa_ws.html for timeline).
c) http://www.kamat.com/kalranga/kar/literature/history1.htm -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.42.208.182 (talk • contribs)

Yes. You're right. Someone added by mistake and it has been reverted. Thanks. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 10:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  • okay since kannada and tamil originated from the same source, ie southern branch of proto dravidian...and since you also hold tha tamil originated independent of sanskrit, is is safe to conclude kannada also *ORIGINATED* independent of Sanskrit?? i certainly would think so.
Most linguists are pretty clear that Kannada's origins are independent of Sanskrit. Hence the article's current wording: "The origins of Tamil, like the other Dravidian languages, but unlike most of the other established literary languages of India, are independent of Sanskrit." -- Arvind 12:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
If Kannada's origin's are unique from Sanskrit and Tamil then it would probably be considered a classical language but it's pretty safe to say that Sanskrit and Tamil are the two Dravidian languages that have independent roots. Disagreements? --Guruparan 02:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

doubts, doubts, doubts

The origins of Tamil, like the other Dravidian languages, but unlike most of the other established literary languages of India, are independent of Sanskrit.

- a sweeping statement and a POV...will remove it if somebody doesnt clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.180.28.6 (talk • contribs)

It is a commonly agreed view among linguists. Did you see the linguistic classification in the table on the right side? It places Dravidian languages as a family distinct from Indo-European languages. Please see Ethnologue report on Tamil. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 10:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Tamil has the longest unbroken literary tradition amongst the Dravidian languages.

-- fuzzy logic again. who is to sit and decide what 'unbroken literary tradition' is...and once that is decided, how to say, tamil has the 'longest' unbroken traditon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.180.28.6 (talk • contribs)

This line can be discussed and reworded, if necessary. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 10:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Tamil tradition dates the oldest works to several millennia ago, but the earliest examples of Tamil writing we have today are in inscriptions from the 3rd century BCE,

In the first half of the sentence u speak about 'Tamil tradition' and in the second half u speak about 'Tamil writing'. where is the connection??

also, if the earliest examples u have are 3rd century BCE, why do u want to say 'several' millenia ago?? *ANYBODY* can make this claim!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.180.28.6 (talk • contribs)

Yes. It precisely means what is intended. The phrase "Tamil tradition" collectively stands for intrinsic references in literature, folklore, legends etc., and "earliest examples of Tamil writing we have today" put a bound of at least 3rd century BCE. What's wrong with this? -- Sundar \talk \contribs 10:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

...which are written in an adapted form of the Brahmi script... first inscription in 300 BCE and that too in Brahmi script. What is the earliest inscription/work in tamil script?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.180.28.6 (talk • contribs)

Why that too in Brahmi script? You seem to be not aware that most languages shared and continue to share scripts. Why don't you ask this question to Sanskrit or German language? -- Sundar \talk \contribs 10:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The Tamil script of the period was the Tamili variant of the Brahmi script. This script evolved into the modern Tamil script over time, much as modern Devanagari also evolved from the Northern variant of the Brahmi script.

... though some linguists see coded Tamil words in deciphering Indus valley seals and scripts....

who are these 'some linguists'?? what is the veracity/credibility of their POVs?? people see/can see what they want to see in anything they see. some see tamil...some see brahmi...some see greek...some see telugu...yet it hasnt been deciphered!!! so dont foist hoaxes on innocent wiki readers by throwing in subtle albeit totally misleading suggestions for good measure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.180.28.6 (talk • contribs)

I'm open to removing this reference (added recently) if no citations are available. But, I do not see anything wrong if we mention hypotheses where no theory exists, as long as we cite sources and indicate clearly that these are hypotheses. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 10:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you, Sundar, but I think a very brief mention here is all that is appropriate, as I've tried to do now. This article is already quite long, and spending too much time on the debate as to the antiquity of Tamil is quite out of place here. I think a better place to discuss current, unproven hypotheses would be an article on the History of Tamil. -- Arvind 12:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

"However, prevailing views on the origins of Tamil require to be revisited in the light of new understanding created through genetics and Tamil remaining as a substratum in other languages of South East Asia and Australia. The Australian aboriginal languages that have been largely isolated from the rest of the world, pose a new clue in this respect as sharing an ancient link with Tamil going back almost to the dawn of modern human civilization 50,000 years ago. There are ongoing studies on the relationship between Tamil and Kamilaroi also known as Gamilaraay as well as on links between ancient Tamil and the modern English language. With a 50,000 year of relationship, Tamil along with other Dravidian Langauges, and Kamilaroi of Australia may very well prove to be the treasure houses for recreating the primal language of all humans."

ROTFL.

this 'new understanding through genetics' thing itself is something that is being debated and shows no signs of hitting a consensus any time soon.

so again, so dont foist hoaxes on innocent wiki readers by throwing in subtle albeit totally misleading suggestions for good measure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.180.28.6 (talk • contribs)

This was recently added by an anon and I can't defend/oppose it. Let's wait if someone has any citations and otherwise remove that. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 10:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

'Dating the earliest literary works in India or Sri Lanka is difficult, in large part because they were preserved either in palm leaf manuscripts (implying repeated copying and recopying) or through oral transmission. Internal linguistic evidence, however, indicates that the oldest extant works were probably composed sometime between the 5th century BCE and the 2nd century CE. The earliest available text is the Tolkāppiyam, a work on poetics and grammar which describes the language of the classical period, portions of which date back to around 500 BCE. Linguists say that for any language to have a well laid out Grammar work, it should have been atleast a 1000 years old by then.

Purananuru, a collection of poems on kings, people, culture and social customs of that time, documented on a Chera king sending food supplies to the warring sides in the Mahabharatha war's Kurukshetra battlefield (c.900 BCE). It also mentions on the invasion of a Nanda king successfully driven back (c.450 BCE), and an unbeatable alliance of Tamil kings which stopped the Mauryan attack in 272-271 BCE (king Kharavela of Kalinga mentions in a stone inscription of 157 BCE that he broke that alliance which had lasted for 113 years).

Mahavamso, a Sinhalese chronicle, mentions a Chola prince Ellaalan conquering the island in 205 BCE.The Sumerian kinglist from stone tablets excavated by archaeologists mention an ante-deluvian king by name Tammuzi whose emblem was a fish who came from Kuadam, and seized the throne of Ur in 2600 BCE - that correlates with the legend of Kuadam being the capital in the second Sangam period before the second flood ( c.1750 BCE flood in Sangam -comparable with c.2050 BCE deluge in the Holy Bible and the Sumerian texts ).

Archaeological evidence obtained from Tamil Brahmi inscriptions excavated in 2005 shows the language flourishing around 1000 BCE and establishes that Brahmi script was first used for writing Tamil much earlier than for Pali or Sanskrit( earliest inscriptions of the latter is dated to the 3rd century in the Ashoka reign ).[1] The most significant epic written in the ancient Tamil language are the Cilappatikaram composed around 100-113 CE and the Manimegalai composed around 115-118 CE. Ettuthogai and Paththupaattu are significant collections of ancient Sangam Tamil literature.

Ancient poet-scholar Nakkeerar (c.60-130 CE) documented that the ancient Tamil academy of Pandyan kings were classified into 3 periods: from 9875 BCE to the first "Flood" in 4450 BCE at Tenmadurai; from 4450 BCE to the second flood in 1750 BCE at Kuadam or Kapadapuram; from 1750 BCE till the present day(140 CE) at Madurai. Ancient Tamil literature glorify a lost continent ("Kumari kandam" of the East, similar to the Atlantis of the West). Linguists categorise Tamil literature and language into three periods: ancient (500 BCE to 700 CE), medieval (700 CE to 1500 CE) and modern (1500 CE to the present). During the medieval period, a number of Sanskrit loan words were absorbed by Tamil, which many 20th century purists, notably Parithimaar Kalaignar and Maraimalai Adigal, later sought to remove. This movement was called thanith thamizh iyakkam (meaning pure Tamil movement). As a result of this, Tamil in formal documents, public speeches and scientific discourses is largely free of Sanskrit loan words. Between 800 and 1300 CE, Malayalam is believed to have evolved into a distinct language.

  • woah....woah...waoh...can someone clarify the above paragraphs more clearly...like can someone write a timeline in no uncertain terms. this very article says elsewhere that the earliest inscription/work available today is 300 BCE.... but in the lines i've quoted above all kinds of dates are thrown around...800, 500, 1750....blah blah blah...
  • whats going on...can somebody make a table with three columns...first column should be "DATE" (ie 300 bc, 600 BC, 6000 BC, 60000....BC etc), second column should be "NAME OF THE WORK/TEXT/INSCRIPTION" (i.e., tolkappiyam, purananuru, tirukural, silappadikaram...etc) , third column should be "SCRIPT" (ie., brahmi, old tamil, tamil...etc).......
  • .....and then once you prepare this table, can you please sort it by DATE...so that we have a 'timeline' to refer to which is in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.180.28.6 (talk • contribs)
A timeline of Tamil may be appropriate in the Tamil literature article - or even better, in a dedicated History of Tamil article - but it's way too much detail for an article on the Tamil language. -- Arvind 12:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

and finally in that table...somebody please mark all those works for the existence of which we have incontrovertible proof (like an inscription in stone...or a surviving palm manuscript etc) and those works which are mythology/legend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.180.28.6 (talk • contribs)

Much of the above text has been added by anons recently and it can be discussed upon. However, the first paragraph as given below is very clear (emphasis mine).

Dating the earliest literary works in India or Sri Lanka is difficult, in large part because they were preserved either in palm leaf manuscripts (implying repeated copying and recopying) or through oral transmission. 'Internal linguistic evidence, however, indicates that the oldest extant works were probably composed sometime between the 5th century BCE and the 2nd century CE. The earliest available text is the Tolkāppiyam, a work on poetics and grammar which describes the language of the classical period, portions of which date back to around 500 BCE. Linguists say that for any language to have a well laid out Grammar work, it should have been atleast a 1000 years old by then.

Only the last line seems to be loosly stated. We can definitely have a constructive discussion on all the above points. But, I may be away until Monday. You can invite other experienced wikipedians who might know different points of view for the discussion, if you want. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 10:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I've drastically shortened and edited the history section (we are exhorted to be bold, after all!). The diff is here[2], in case someone feels I went a little too far. Articles related to Tamil history and culture on the English wiki are always likely to be targeted by some of our more enthusiastic comrades - I guess we need to keep a close watch on this one to make sure that it makes no claims that are not supported by objective scholarly studies. -- Arvind 12:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a ton, Arvind. I think of you and you arrive! :-) I've read your views written inline above and am in full agreement with them. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 12:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Tolkappiyam

  • The article says,
Internal linguistic evidence, however, indicates that the oldest extant works were probably composed sometime between the 5th century BCE and the 2nd century CE. The earliest available text is the Tolkāppiyam, a work on poetics and grammar which describes the language of the classical period, and portions of which may date back to around 500 BCE. The earliest concrete examples of Tamil writing we have today, however, are rock inscriptions from the 3rd century BCE, which are written in an adapted form of the Brahmi script (Mahadevan, 2003).
  • Hart, the American guy who tamilians somehow, tell the rest of the world, is the guy who is most qualified to make a case for tamil's antiquity says,
Its oldest work, the Tolkappiyam, contains parts that, judging from the earliest Tamil inscriptions, date back to about 200 BCE. The greatest works of ancient Tamil, the Sangam anthologies and the Pattuppattu, date to the first two centuries of the current era. They are the first great secular body of poetry written in India, predating Kalidasa's works by two hundred years.

"...contains parts that...." which means TK was probably written over a period of time with many people contributing to it...and the oldest part of which is dated to 200 BCE. so where the HELL did 500 BCE come from!!

i will be making necessary changes unless someone clarifies.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.180.28.6 (talk • contribs)

As you can see from this old version[3], the article did indeed say 200 BC when we first wrote it. An anonymous user seems to have changed it to 500 B.C. somewhere along the line, probably mixing it up with the Adichannalur pottery-graffiti. I'll restore something close to the original version. -- Arvind
  • you dont know where i am quoting from?!! i am quoting from a link to hart's page which is provided on this very page!! makes me wonder if you even read an article before jumping into the fray to fanatically support it.
  • ...but even if he's said so, your implication above is wrong. It only means that, according to Hart, some (not the oldest) portions were written around 200 BCE. Since such datings are approximate, the article rightly uses the phrase, portions of which may date back to around 500 BCE. -- Sundar 06:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • what a convenient explanation. alas! english language has a syntax and it means what it means. In the article, hart takes pains to point out tamil's antiquity...and in doing so, he remarks that, tamil language is SO old, that in fact, parts of the TK go as far back as upto 200 BCE!!
  • If it was the 500 BCE that u mentioned, he would just have used 500 BCE and not 200 BCE. when somebody is trying to make a case for a language's antiquity, they wont refer to 'some' portion of a antique work, but to the 'oldest' portion of an antique's work, when they talk about it.
  • I suggest you read his article once again and make use of the services of an english language expert before you comment again. As for me, I will make the necessary changes if nobody clarifies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.180.28.6 (talk • contribs)
Thanks for your suggestion. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 03:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Hart is not the only person to say so. But, non-Tamils weigh his opinion more than Tamil linguists who may be perceived to be biased. Hart on the contrary has learnt Greek, Latin and Sanskrit apart from Tamil. ::Sundar06:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Non-tamils dont trust tamil linguists...Yes! and how naive of u not to see why...no where else in the world do linguists, literateurs, movie screenplay writers, political activists et al double up as historians except in TN. thats why!! apart from hart and tamil linguists-cum-historians, how many indian historians from other states hold this view?? can u provide references?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.180.28.6 (talk • contribs)
  • The role of linguists in analysing history is quite well established, particularly when it is the history of a language one is dealing with. Seriously, have you not heard of the field of historical linguistics - or, for that matter, of the work of Michael Witzel, Steve Farmer, Murray Emeneau? In an article dealing with the history of a language, what on earth should we look to but historical linguistics?
  • You may also note that no "Tamil literateurs, movie screenplay writers, political activists" have been cited here. Iravatham Mahadevan and VS Rajam, the only two Tamils whose views are relied upon by the article, are scholars with international reputations in their fields (respectively, epigraphy and the Old Tamil language). Do you have any concrete basis for rubbishing their work? Which other scholars from other states of India have written about the history of the Tamil language (note: we are not dealing with the history of Tamil Nadu in this article)? -- Arvind 12:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • B.G.L Swamy has. and his book got banned in TamilNadu, for reasons unknown(I do not know if it still is)...maybe the government had something to hide. and Iravatham Mahadevan, Rajam and Neelakanta Shastry are only three among the many historians whose theories he has demolished. These historians are yet to answer the questions he has raised in his book and its been over two decades since he wrote the book. The book is called "Tamilu talegaLa naDuve" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.180.28.6 (talk • contribs)
I have read and greatly enjoyed BGL Swamy's Pradhyapakana Pithadalli. I have not read Tamilu Talegala naduve in its entirety, but I have read a summary of his argument and several excerpts from the book in a Kannada pamphlet. As I understand it, his work seeks to:
  • rebut the argument that Tamil is the "oldest" of the Dravidian languages,
  • disprove the "theory" that Tamil is the mother of all Dravidian languages, and
  • demonstrate that there is no historical basis for the Tamil legends of Kumari Kandam.
No serious scholar would today advance any of the assertions he sought to refute, and this article itself does not. For example, it states that existing Tamil literature is older than existing Kannada literature, without making any claim as to the relative antiquity of the two languages. Similarly, it says that Tamil and Kannada are both Dravidian languages, not that Kannada emerged from Tamil. It also expressly states that the Kumari Kandam legends are not accepted by mainstream scholars.
BGL Swamy's work does not speak to what Iravatham Mahadevan's career has focused on, namely, the decipherment of the old Brahmi script used to write Tamil. Swamy's text does seek to refute the views of people like Gift Siromey, but Mahadevan himself has publically tried to explain why those views are unsustainable. Similarly, VS Rajam's work focuses on obscure points of the grammar of Old Tamil, and nothing more. The theorists BGL Swamy's work is aimed at are primarily those of the "Pavanar school". The article here does not present or reflect their views - in point of fact, it contradicts nearly every one of their claims. BGL Swamy's anecdotes on how his colleagues sought to prevent him from furthering his researches are amusing, but they are not relevant to this article although they might be if we were to write an article on Tamil linguistic devotion (a subject on which there have actually been some academic works written). -- Arvind 15:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Dr. Swamy's book talks nothing about Pavanar or his school(of thought). Infact I dont even remember Dr.Swamy mentioning Pavanar's name in that book. You havent read the book and yet you have no qualms drawing 'conclusive' conclusions as to what his book is about. I strongly suspect that you have even read any excerpts from any pamphlet. Whatever u've written here is probably flicked from somewhere else on the net. Stop your BS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balnanmaga (talk • contribs)
You'll find nothing of use about "Tamil talegalu naduve" on the net if you search for it in any language, English, Kannada, or Tamil. Like I said, I have read a (printed) Kannada summary of the book, but not the original. The impression I got from the summary was that the book severely criticised the unscientific nationalistic mentality that many Tamils have, even those of high education, and tries to refute the version of Tamil history which that attitude promotes. The link between what BGL Swamy criticises and the Pavanar school is not directly made (at least, not in the summary I read), but is very apparent to someone who is familiar with the Pavanar school, and the effect it had on intellectuals in Tamil society. Incidentally, saying "Stop your BS" is not a particularly productive way to further a discussion. -- Arvind 23:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Spoken and Literary Variants -doubts

Spoken dialects did not have much prestige: The grammatical rules of literary centamil were believed to have been formulated by the gods and therefore seen as being the only correct speech (see, for example, Kankeyar, 1840). In contrast to most European languages, therefore, Tamil had a standard spoken form for much of its history.'

so if we rephrase that, this is what we get - 'Gods' formulated Tamil's grammar, so people adhered/followed it religiously/faithfully ...and this proves that unlike most European languages, Tamil had a standard form for much of its history.

so are u implying that

  • for a language to have 'standard form for much of its history' divine intervention is required.
  • that European languages lacked this divine intervention...(How unfair of God!!)
  • that tamil has had a standard form for much of its history and because according to tamil legend the reasons for this are divine, he rest of the world should accept this 'divine hypothesis'??
  • and lastly, that, for a language to have a standard form for much of its history is somehow a virtue worth being envied??

GUYS!! this is a web encyclopaedia...not an essay writing contest. stick to the facts, stick to the tangibles, stick to the provables and the verifiables....dont bring in lore, legend, mythology and great grandma stories. there are such legends all over the world and especially in india and if you start bringing in every such thing, the article will lose all sense of objectivity and instead of being an encyclopaedia, it will become a novel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.180.28.6 (talk • contribs)

You've got all your implications wrong. The paragraph simply talks about the prestige for literary Tamil in the local culture in that they believed (wrongly according to me) that it was god-given. It does not say that it was god-given. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The grammatical rules of literary centamil were believed to have been formulated by the gods ..... In contrast to most European languages, therefore, Tamil had a standard spoken form for much of its history.'
  • In the first sentence(Statement A) u speak about grammar being formulated by Gods. The second statement(Statement B) talks of Tamil, unlike European languages, having a standard spoken form for much of its history. Now the only way anybody can make any sense of two sentences being together is when it reduces to the form -- Statement A=True. Therefore, Statement B=True. So stop acting naive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.180.28.6 (talk • contribs)
  • Firstly, you're referring to a version which an anonymous editor inserted. The article was very quickly reverted. The current version reads "Tamil did not have a standard spoken form".
  • Secondly, the article says "were believed to have been formulated by the gods". i.e., it reports what Tamils of the time believed. Obviously an encyclopedia cannot claim that Tamil grammar was in fact formulated by the gods, and the article does not say that.
  • In point of fact, no Tamil dialect ever acquired the prestige that, say, Parisian French did in comparison with Norman French, or English Received Pronunciation did in comparison with other British dialects, or Khariboli did in comparison with Bhojpuri and other Hindi dialects. Linguistically, this is an interesting phenomenon, which is not very common in literary languages. It is therefore worth pointing out that the reason behind it is the Tamil folk-belief that the written language was a creation of the gods. I must confess I do not understand what you are objecting to. -- Arvind 21:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I've amended the article to say "Tamils believed that the grammatical rules of literary centamil had been formulated by the gods and they were therefore seen as being the only correct speech (see, for example, Kankeyar, 1840). In contrast to most European languages, therefore, Tamil did not have a standard spoken form for much of its history". This, I think, makes it crystal-clear that the article is not making any claims about the divine origins of Tamil, and is merely seeking to state the sociological reasons (i.e., a folk belief) underlying a peculiar linguistic phenomenon (i.e., the absence of a dominant dialect). Does that address your concerns? -- Arvind 21:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thiru Vi Ka AfD

It would be good if someone comments on Thiru Vi Ka which is listed for AfD, or improve the article. Tintin (talk) 01:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Changes by 209.180.28.6 (talk · contribs)

209.180.28.6 (talk · contribs) made the following changes to this article:

  • The following sentence was removed:
"The language is also spoken in other parts of these two countries, most notably in the Indian states of Karnataka, Kerala and Maharashtra, and in Colombo and the hill country in Sri Lanka"
with the comment: "removed some tall claims. show authentic sources for your bullshit claims"
The communities being referred to here are the Palakkad Iyers in Kerala, the Hebbar and Mandyam Iyengars in Karnataka, the Pune Iyengars in Pune, the West Country Tamils in Colombo, and the Upcountry Tamils in the hill country. I have therefore reinserted the sentence. I'm not very sure what is being objected to here. For the sake of abundant clarity (although it was clear enough as it stood), I've also added a further clarification that these are minorities.
LOL!! i did not know flat out lies could be funny too. hebbar iyengars and mandyam iyengars are tamilians!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.180.28.6 (talk • contribs)
The article does not claim that Hebbar and Mandyam Iyengars are Tamilians or ethnic Tamils. It claims that they speak Tamil. There is a difference, you know. Not all native speakers of Tamil are Tamilians, just as not all native speakers of English are ethnic Englishmen.
Linguists are quite clear that the language spoken by the Hebbar and Mandyam Iyengars is a dialect of Tamil. See, for example, the Ethnologue's entry on Tamil[4], where "Hebbar" and "Mandyam" are listed as dialects of Tamil. -- Arvind 12:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
dont go and say this to a hebbar or a mandyam iyengar. they might take it as an insult. even the hebbar and mandyam pages on WP state that their origins are still a subject of debate, and we have a enlightened brihaspati here who thinks he knows best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.180.28.6 (talk • contribs)
Since I am part Hebbar Iyengar myself, and have many Mandyam relatives, I am quite aware of the various views members of the communities have about their identity. It's far from being as simple as you make it out to be, but that's not a discussion I propose to get into here, since whether or not they identify as Tamils is quite irrelevant to the question of what language they speak. -- Arvind 12:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • you might be a 'part' hebbar. i am a 'full' hebbar. and i have as many or many more relatives and friends who are hebbar and mandyam iyengars than you. i myself speak Kannada at home and so do an overwhelming majority of my hebbar and mandyam relatives and friends. i dont need some 'Ethnologue.com' to tell me what language i speak. what are its credentials as far as linguistics is concerned anyway?? anybody can have a website and can write anything - doesnt make them authoritative experts in the field. does it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.180.28.6 (talk • contribs)
We can't do original research or put our personal opinions and anecdotes here. Arvind cited his personal experience only because you mentioned about Hebbar Iyengars' views. Ethnologue is a respected source in Wikipedia. If you have better sources like peer-reviewed journals, conference papers etc., please present them to make a claim. And, please sign your talk page edits with ~~~~. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 04:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • and even if we assume for a moment that the language that hebbars and mandyams speak is indeed tamil or a dialect of tamil even, how many such speakers live in Karnataka(count me and many many more like me out - we all speak Kannada)? and how is it a significant enough number for you to conclude on the strength of those numbers alone, that 'Tamil is spoken in Karnataka'. If you were to count that way, you can go ahead and say, Tamil is spoken in U.S.A, U.K, Timbuktu and Somalia too. coz am sure there will be a handful of tamilians in all those places. and i can say the same of Kannada too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.180.28.6 (talk • contribs)
  • The article says that Tamil is spoken by emigrant groups in the US, Canada, Australia and Western Europe, if you move two paragraphs below the one you're complaining about. "Geographic distribution" isn't just about mentioning where the language is spoken by a majority - if there're over 50,000 or 1,00,000 speakers, it's worth mentioning. It would be excellent if you could add equivalent information in the article on Kannada - e.g., other states in India where Kannadigas live, countries where there are significant Kannadiga emigrant communities, etc. The article on Kannada should be brought up to Featured Article quality, and any improvements you can make would be much appreciated. -- Arvind 11:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
first of all the language that the hebbars and the mandyam iyengars speak is NOT tamil.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.180.28.6 (talk • contribs)
The consensus amongst academic linguists is it is - see above. -- Arvind 12:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
in fact many hebbars speak havyaka.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.180.28.6 (talk • contribs)
There is more than one Brahmin community in Karnataka which calls itself "Hebbar". The Tuluva Hebbars speak Tulu. We're talking about the Hebbar Iyengars, not the Tuluva Hebbars or the Havyakas. -- Arvind 12:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
and even those who dont speak havyaka do NOT speak tamil. in fact all these iyengars themselves call themselves kannadigas. it is not for nothing that the few iyengar bakeries in madras take the pains to name their bakeries 'Bangalore' Iyengar bakeries instead of just 'Iyengar' Bakeries.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.180.28.6 (talk • contribs)
See above. The question is not whether the Hebbar Iyengars identify as Tamils - it is merely about the language they speak. -- Arvind 12:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The following two sentences relating to Malayalam were removed:
"Malayalam, spoken by the people of Kerala state (which borders Tamil Nadu) closely resembles Tamil in vocabulary, syntax and writing system"
and
"Between 800 and 1300 CE, Malayalam is believed to have evolved into a distinct language."
With the comments: "removed some more nonsense" and "removed stuff that was irrelevant to the topic".
These statements are factually true - take a look at the Concise Britannica, for example. I've reinserted the sentences under "classification", where they belong. -- Arvind 22:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Inclusive/Exclusive Pronouns

Telugu exhibits one of the rare features that Dravidian languages share with few others: the inclusive and exclusive we. The bifurcation of the First Person Plural pronoun (we in English) into inclusive (మనము; manamu) and exclusive (మేము; memu) versions can also be found in Tamil, Kannada and Malayalam.

What are the words for Tamil. (is it Naangal and Naam) Can some one be kind enough to add the related words in the main article

Engalathu, Emathu and Namathu,

Doctor Bruno 19:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if we need to add this to the article. But, yes it's naangaL and naam as well as emathu and namathu. See also the last para in this section. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 08:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not so sure that the inclusive/exclusive distinction is all that rare. It happens not to be found in the usual European languages, but from a larger perspective I don't know that it is. Note, in particular, that this distinction is found in Mandarin Chinese (咱们/咱們 zánmen inclusive vs. 我们/我們 wǒmen exclusive), though it is true that many people who are not true "Standard Chinese" speakers don't observe the distinction.Bill 20:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia has an article about the Inclusive and exclusive we which seems to suggest that it isn't that rare. -- Arvind 22:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The map

I don't like the map that was created (although it isn't used yet, I don't know why). Too many colors are making the information harder to read. Also, there should be a small worwide map which shows what region this map is emphasising. CG 20:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Website for learning Tamil

This site could be useful to the visitors for learning Tamil in other Indian languages http://www.languageshome.com/English-Tamil.htm

first recognized classical language?

The article asserts that "Tamil was recognised as a classical language by the Government of India in 2004" and that "[Tamil] was the first Indian language to be so recognised". If I'm reading this right, Tamil was recognized as a classical language by the government before Sanskrit. Can that be right? When did Sanskrit get recognized? 2006? Never? -lethe talk + 16:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You're reading it right. Tamil was declared a classical language on 17 September 2004[5]. Sanskrit was declared a classical language on 28 October 2005[6]. -- Arvind 22:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand. Why did the Indian government even have such a classification if no language was so classified until 2004? -lethe talk + 23:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
They didn't - as it says in the first link I provided, the classification was created in 2004, at the same time that Tamil was listed as a classical language. -- Arvind 00:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining. I made an edit to the text to make this clear. Is it acceptible to you? -lethe talk + 00:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
It seems fine. -- Arvind 22:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
That is because of the politics played by Tamil politicians..forcing the Indian government to recognize Tamil as a classical language first, and tell them that no other language (including sanskrit) be given that status until at least one year from that date. Traditionally Tamil people always have had the tendency to eulogize themselves, due to an inherent inferiority complex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.97.37 (talk • contribs) Nov 13, 2006
that's true, how Tamil alone can be a classical language? Sanskrit is the oldest language and considered as Devabhasa (language of Gods, all the great Hindu Epics were wrtitten in Sanskrit). Tamil is one of the Dravidian languages, there are other 3 of them Telugu, Malayalam, Kannada which have rich heritage and each of them have vast literature background(even Kannada language has 7 Jnanapeeth Award to its credit which is highest for any Indian language). Also the exact age of oldest Tamil literature is debatable, it should be after 500-700 AD and not before BC as Tamil linguists proclaim. I feel Tamil is an unscientific language in the sense it lacks some of the phonetics like sa, ga, ha etc. They say Mogan for Mohan, Barotta for Parotha, Kovinda for Govinda, Changa for Sanga etc

The above post by mr.unsigned is a pointed attack on Tamil culture and an attempt to somehow "explain away" the fact that Tamil was named a classical language before Sanskrit as nothing but politics.Obviously Mr.unsigned is the one who seems to have an inferiority complex, as evidenced by his postings throughout this talk-page.

I would also like to remind Mr.unsigned that it was in a way very apt to have Tamil named as a classical language in India before Sanskrit was similarly named because Tamil is a language that belongs to the Dravidian language family thats the Native language family of India, whereas Sanskrit belongs to the Indo-European language family and is not native to India.Mr.unsigned should keep that fact in mind when trying to critique this subject.

Tamil loan words

We need to create a sub category for Tamil loan words in other South Asian and East Asian languages.RaveenS 18:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


The date of atticudi

the lead section mentions that atticudi was written in the first century CE. Is there any reference that can be cited for this date? Auvaiyar to whom this book is attributed to is a confusing character. There was an ancient Auvaiyar who has written several poems in Purananuru and there was a later age Auvaiyar who was a contemporary of Kambar in the thirteenth century CE. Which Auvaiyar wrote atticudi. If there is no reference that could be cited to supporting the first century CE date, then this claim shoul dbe removed. - Parthi 03:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

What is the reference that it is the Auvaiyar of 13th century Doctor Bruno 12:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The Purananuru Auvaiyar and the author of aathicudi are two different people. See Mu. Varadarasanar's A History of Tamil literature. The latter Auvaiyar was a contemporary of Kamban and Ottakuttar, who lived during the reign of Kulothunga Chola III - Parthi 19:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
ThanksDoctor Bruno 01:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ancient loan words in Tamil

Sumerian and Uralic [7] [8]loan words have been talked about indicating an ancient link specifically with Tamil unlike other Dravidian languages. Tamil seems to have maintained these ancient loan words. We may need to add a section on that ?RaveenS 15:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Images referring to Christian legacy in Tamil

I have deleted the 2 images of Bible text in Tamil as this is not representative in anyway of a Tamil language the majority of whose speakers are Hindu. I see that these 2 images are being added despite my repeated edits. Is there a way to report Vandalism?

The article is about the Tamil language, not the Tamil people. The illustrations provide useful examples of how the language looked in the 17th century, and of the medium on which it was traditionally written. Please feel free to change the images if you can find any other examples from that period, but until then these images need to stay as their removal removes useful information from the article. -- Arvind 15:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
See Talk:Tamil language/Archive0#Images used in the article. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 11:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tamil_language/Archive_2&oldid=390334362"