Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Asian History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Asian History Asian History Forum - China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, and the Asia-Pacific Region


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old August 15th, 2017, 08:56 PM   #11
Academician
 
Joined: Jul 2017
From: NA
Posts: 89

Quote:
Originally Posted by mnsr View Post
Nice posts historumsi.


These are points given by Krishnamurti on the chronology of South Dravidian Languages. We see most of these events are pre-historic and can be placed in South Indian Megalithic culture that spreads from Vidarbha to Pandya Nadu.

~11th cen BC - The split of South Dravidian I (with Pre-Tamil as the dominant language) and of South Dravidian II (with Pre-Telugu as the dominant language)

~6th cen BC - The split of Pre-Tamil from the rest (presumably Tulu–Koraga, Kannada)

6th - 3rd cen BC - successive splits of Pre-Tamil had occurred, first Toda–Kota, Kodagu (perhaps Kurumba), then Irula, all prehistoric.

9th - 13th cen AD - the split of Malayalam from Tamil.
Thank you. I was aware of Krishnamurti's dating and I quote this scenario very often too. The reason I put Tamil to be emergent at around 6th century BC (when, in fact, all of the Nilgiri languages would have been in common stage with Tamil-Malayalam) is because the changes that happened in the Pre-Tamil language appear to be relatively minor, I'm mainly talking about phonology where only one significant change happened in Tamil-Malayalam, the palatalisation rule. 6th century BC according to Krishnamurti was definitely a pre-palatalisation period though. My point is that I was actually quite liberal in assigning an early 7th century BC date to the emergence of uniquely Tamil-like features.

Personally though, I believe this antiquity of languages is not of that any real world importance. I don't understand why Tamil nationalists want to claim Proto-Dravidian as Tamil. Won't they lose their ethnogenesis event in the birth of the magnificent literature composed in a language that is unique to them and to a large extent Malayalis? Perhaps because they think Indus Valley Civilisation spoke some ancient Dravidian and claiming that language as "Tamil" to the exclusion of Kurukh, Parji and Konda ain't bad for Tamil nationalists after all. But we don't know about that even. That script is not deciphered and there are no cultural similarities between the Indus Valley tradition and the Southern Neolithic. Even if the Indus Valley Civilisation spoke some ancient Dravidian, Dravidian nationalism can work in that context only if it turns out that the current Dravidians were "invaded" and "driven away" by Indo-Aryans from the Indus Valley but that earliest form of the theory is anyhow turning out to be not true. So, even if Indus Valley Civilisation spoke some form of Dravidian, the current Dravidians are actually those who migrated off from the IVC to the Southern Neolithic and did not stay forever in the IVC and did not experience its ultimate demise and as such, how can they lay a claim to the IVC as theirs?

Also, since Tamil-Malayalam happens to preserve the popular, easily visible and attractive linguistic features of Proto-Dravidian like phonological inventory, voicing, syllable structure, tense-voice suffixes, etc. many lay people may also be fooled easily into thinking that Proto-Dravidian is equal to Tamil. (Some Tamil nationalists have also started referring to Proto-Dravidian as "Ancient Tamil"! (don't know the original Tamil word))

In fact, there are several important features in which Tamil-Malayalam differ significantly from Proto-Dravidian too. Take for example the word for 'name': Old Kannada "pesar" actually preserves the intervocalic palatal stop (reconstructed Proto-Dravidian: *pic-ar) while Tamil makes it peyar/pEr by turning the palatal stop into a palatal glide. (Proto-South-Dravidian *pec-ar --> peyar and pEr)

And Tamil nationalists should also realise that all the South Dravidian languages from Tamil to Pengo equally participated in the umlaut rule at their common stage ("i" --> "e" and "u" --> "o" before a consonant followed by the vowel "a": Example words using PD root *viT such as Telugu "viDu" but PD *viT-al --> "veDalu" in Telugu and others) which is a huge deviation from Proto-Dravidian that ND and CD languages do not show to this day. Tamil-Malayalam actually again undergo extensive changes much later by participating in the reverse rule whereby they turn all the "e"s and "o"s before "a" into "i"s and "u"s! That's why we have words like "nila" for 'moon' in Malayalam while Telugu has the Proto-South-Dravidian but not Proto-Dravidian "nela". Doesn't this list of changes that Tamil has undergone show that Tamil was a language as subject to natural linguistic change as the other Dravidian languages? All us normal folk would agree linguistic change is a natural process and even expect it, but Tamil nationalists claim the at least 4500 year old Proto-Dravidian language as Tamil! How ridiculous really!

By the way, the spread of the megalithic culture strikingly matches the time frame given by Krishnamurti for the increasing number of splits that happen within South Dravidian starting with the South Dravidian-I and South Dravidian-II split. Do you think it was the Proto-South-Dravidian-II speakers who migrated to the Vidarbha region where the language later turned into Gondi? I find that to be likely. Also, do you happen to think that the entire undifferentiated South Dravidian (Tamil-Pengo) came from outside with the "Dravidian invasions" which brought iron and megaliths from somewhere like Iran? Or do you think that the megalithic and iron age was a development within the Southern Neolithic and undifferentiated (South) Dravidian was one major linguistic unit that was already present during the southern neolithic?

Last edited by historumsi; August 15th, 2017 at 09:03 PM.
historumsi is offline  
Remove Ads
Old August 15th, 2017, 09:33 PM   #12
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2014
From: USA
Posts: 2,311

Quote:
Originally Posted by historumsi View Post
Thank you. I was aware of Krishnamurti's dating and I quote this scenario very often too. The reason I put Tamil to be emergent at around 6th century BC (when, in fact, all of the Nilgiri languages would have been in common stage with Tamil-Malayalam) is because the changes that happened in the Pre-Tamil language appear to be relatively minor, I'm mainly talking about phonology where only one significant change happened in Tamil-Malayalam, the palatalisation rule. 6th century BC according to Krishnamurti was definitely a pre-palatalisation period though. My point is that I was actually quite liberal in assigning an early 7th century BC date to the emergence of uniquely Tamil-like features.

Personally though, I believe this antiquity of languages is not of that any real world importance. I don't understand why Tamil nationalists want to claim Proto-Dravidian as Tamil. Won't they lose their ethnogenesis event in the birth of the magnificent literature composed in a language that is unique to them and to a large extent Malayalis? Perhaps because they think Indus Valley Civilisation spoke some ancient Dravidian and claiming that language as "Tamil" to the exclusion of Kurukh, Parji and Konda ain't bad for Tamil nationalists after all. But we don't know about that even. That script is not deciphered and there are no cultural similarities between the Indus Valley tradition and the Southern Neolithic. Even if the Indus Valley Civilisation spoke some ancient Dravidian, Dravidian nationalism can work in that context only if it turns out that the current Dravidians were "invaded" and "driven away" by Indo-Aryans from the Indus Valley but that earliest form of the theory is anyhow turning out to be not true. So, even if Indus Valley Civilisation spoke some form of Dravidian, the current Dravidians are actually those who migrated off from the IVC to the Southern Neolithic and did not stay forever in the IVC and did not experience its ultimate demise and as such, how can they lay a claim to the IVC as theirs?

Also, since Tamil-Malayalam happens to preserve the popular, easily visible and attractive linguistic features of Proto-Dravidian like phonological inventory, voicing, syllable structure, tense-voice suffixes, etc. many lay people may also be fooled easily into thinking that Proto-Dravidian is equal to Tamil. (Some Tamil nationalists have also started referring to Proto-Dravidian as "Ancient Tamil"! (don't know the original Tamil word))

In fact, there are several important features in which Tamil-Malayalam differ significantly from Proto-Dravidian too. Take for example the word for 'name': Old Kannada "pesar" actually preserves the intervocalic palatal stop (reconstructed Proto-Dravidian: *pic-ar) while Tamil makes it peyar/pEr by turning the palatal stop into a palatal glide. (Proto-South-Dravidian *pec-ar --> peyar and pEr)

And Tamil nationalists should also realise that all the South Dravidian languages from Tamil to Pengo equally participated in the umlaut rule at their common stage ("i" --> "e" and "u" --> "o" before a consonant followed by the vowel "a": Example words using PD root *viT such as Telugu "viDu" but PD *viT-al --> "veDalu" in Telugu and others) which is a huge deviation from Proto-Dravidian that ND and CD languages do not show to this day. Tamil-Malayalam actually again undergo extensive changes much later by participating in the reverse rule whereby they turn all the "e"s and "o"s before "a" into "i"s and "u"s! That's why we have words like "nila" for 'moon' in Malayalam while Telugu has the Proto-South-Dravidian but not Proto-Dravidian "nela". Doesn't this list of changes that Tamil has undergone show that Tamil was a language as subject to natural linguistic change as the other Dravidian languages? All us normal folk would agree linguistic change is a natural process and even expect it, but Tamil nationalists claim the at least 4500 year old Proto-Dravidian language as Tamil! How ridiculous really!

By the way, the spread of the megalithic culture strikingly matches the time frame given by Krishnamurti for the increasing number of splits that happen within South Dravidian starting with the South Dravidian-I and South Dravidian-II split. Do you think it was the Proto-South-Dravidian-II speakers who migrated to the Vidarbha region where the language later turned into Gondi? I find that to be likely. Also, do you happen to think that the entire undifferentiated South Dravidian (Tamil-Pengo) came from outside with the "Dravidian invasions" which brought iron and megaliths from somewhere like Iran? Or do you think that the megalithic and iron age was a development within the Southern Neolithic and undifferentiated (South) Dravidian was one major linguistic unit that was already present during the southern neolithic?
You are right about Pesar (Kannada)->Peyar->PEr(Tamil). But how did we get the reconstructed PD word "*pic-ar"?

There is also a similar behavior in Usir(breath in Kannada)->Uyir (Tamil). Note that the related Sanskrit word is "asu".
Aatreya is offline  
Old August 16th, 2017, 07:24 PM   #13
Academician
 
Joined: Jul 2017
From: NA
Posts: 89

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aatreya View Post
You are right about Pesar (Kannada)->Peyar->PEr(Tamil). But how did we get the reconstructed PD word "*pic-ar"?

There is also a similar behavior in Usir(breath in Kannada)->Uyir (Tamil). Note that the related Sanskrit word is "asu".
I followed Krishnamurti's reconstruction in his 2003 book "The Dravidian Languages." (edit: Krishnamurti also thinks that at an even earlier stage or at the Proto-Dravidian level itself, the root could be *pin seeing the North Dravidian cognates, i.e. he ultimately reconstructs 'name' word to *pin-cc-ar where the nasal before the geminate stop got lost and for some reason though the geminate nature of the stop is also then lost turning it to *picar. While this may or may not be a probable scenario of -n-cc- turning to -c- at that very old stage, the vowel quality being "i" instead of "e" in Proto-Dravidian appears to be correct however seeing the North Dravidian cognates.)I think he reconstructed the vowel "i" in the root instead of "e" because the North Dravidian cognates and Central Dravidian cognates have vowel "i" in them (and the established South Dravidian umlaut rule then must have turned the vowel "i" into "e" in SD languages because it is followed by a "ca" which has the vowel "a" in it) in DEDR entry 4410. That makes the root *pic. (of course pronounced as "pis" since intervocalically stops were pronounced as their lenis allophones: k as g, c as s, t as d, T as retroflex flap (let's call it R), t as d and p as w in Proto-Dravidian)

DEDR entry 645 lists the Ka. "usir" cognates but does not make any connections to Sanskrit's "asuh"*. DEDR generally proposes connections carefully yet liberally, using question marks all the time but making a ton of connections, but it did not even use any question mark and did not proceed to make connections in this particular case. I'm not aware if any scholars consider these two to be related. So my decision is to not make a connection between them, but I'll definitely note them as you asked me to. (Personally though, I don't think they are related in anyway, not even as borrowings, because Dravidian vowel qualities are generally quite stable (except the umlaut rule in SD languages) and don't easily change from a --> u or u --> a. (even the umlaut rule changes "u" --> "o" but not "a".) and doesn't Dravidian borrow from Sanskrit without changing vowels much? Anyway, my aptitude in this particular Dravidian-Sanskrit field stops here, so I think a lot of your time will be potentially wasted if you discuss Dravidian-Sanskrit connections with me. Please know that it is I who can't contribute much worthwhile to this particular area, owing to not being much interested personally. Thanks a lot. Sorry if I was rude.)

EDIT * : By the way, I'm sorry if there is not visarga at the end of the word "asu". I assumed it might be present going by the borrowing from Sanskrit which we have in Telugu "asuvu", 'life' (used very rarely though, the native "usuru" is also quite rare. For 'life', the native "bratuku" (DEDR 5372) is used along with the Sanskrit loan "jIvitam" and for 'breath', "Upiri" (DEDR 741) is used.). (Loans in Telugu from Sanskrit words ending with the vowel u and then a visarga substitute the visarga with "vu")

Last edited by historumsi; August 16th, 2017 at 08:22 PM.
historumsi is offline  
Old August 18th, 2017, 08:06 PM   #14
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2014
From: USA
Posts: 2,311

Quote:
Originally Posted by historumsi View Post
I followed Krishnamurti's reconstruction in his 2003 book "The Dravidian Languages." (edit: Krishnamurti also thinks that at an even earlier stage or at the Proto-Dravidian level itself, the root could be *pin seeing the North Dravidian cognates, i.e. he ultimately reconstructs 'name' word to *pin-cc-ar where the nasal before the geminate stop got lost and for some reason though the geminate nature of the stop is also then lost turning it to *picar. While this may or may not be a probable scenario of -n-cc- turning to -c- at that very old stage, the vowel quality being "i" instead of "e" in Proto-Dravidian appears to be correct however seeing the North Dravidian cognates.)I think he reconstructed the vowel "i" in the root instead of "e" because the North Dravidian cognates and Central Dravidian cognates have vowel "i" in them (and the established South Dravidian umlaut rule then must have turned the vowel "i" into "e" in SD languages because it is followed by a "ca" which has the vowel "a" in it) in DEDR entry 4410. That makes the root *pic. (of course pronounced as "pis" since intervocalically stops were pronounced as their lenis allophones: k as g, c as s, t as d, T as retroflex flap (let's call it R), t as d and p as w in Proto-Dravidian)

DEDR entry 645 lists the Ka. "usir" cognates but does not make any connections to Sanskrit's "asuh"*. DEDR generally proposes connections carefully yet liberally, using question marks all the time but making a ton of connections, but it did not even use any question mark and did not proceed to make connections in this particular case. I'm not aware if any scholars consider these two to be related. So my decision is to not make a connection between them, but I'll definitely note them as you asked me to. (Personally though, I don't think they are related in anyway, not even as borrowings, because Dravidian vowel qualities are generally quite stable (except the umlaut rule in SD languages) and don't easily change from a --> u or u --> a. (even the umlaut rule changes "u" --> "o" but not "a".) and doesn't Dravidian borrow from Sanskrit without changing vowels much? Anyway, my aptitude in this particular Dravidian-Sanskrit field stops here, so I think a lot of your time will be potentially wasted if you discuss Dravidian-Sanskrit connections with me. Please know that it is I who can't contribute much worthwhile to this particular area, owing to not being much interested personally. Thanks a lot. Sorry if I was rude.)

EDIT * : By the way, I'm sorry if there is not visarga at the end of the word "asu". I assumed it might be present going by the borrowing from Sanskrit which we have in Telugu "asuvu", 'life' (used very rarely though, the native "usuru" is also quite rare. For 'life', the native "bratuku" (DEDR 5372) is used along with the Sanskrit loan "jIvitam" and for 'breath', "Upiri" (DEDR 741) is used.). (Loans in Telugu from Sanskrit words ending with the vowel u and then a visarga substitute the visarga with "vu")
Tamil Idayam and Kannada "Ede" are both derived from Sanskrit "Hrdaya". Do you see loss of sounds here?

Tamil Ayiram and Kannada "SAvira" are both derived from Sanskrit Sahasra. Do you see a loss of sound in Tamil?

Usiru is the most common word for breath in Kannada, and so is Uyir in Tamil.

Anyway, I just gave you another dimension to think outside of DEDR. If you are not interested it is OK.
Aatreya is offline  
Old August 18th, 2017, 08:41 PM   #15
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: uk
Posts: 1,349
Blog Entries: 1

I am not sure How many of you have the in depth knowledge in Tamil Literature and Grammar.
Without having this knowledge arguing about the antiquity of Tamil will be very imperfect.

Some of you , even claimed that Telegu , Kannada and Tulu also are the ancient langugae as Tamil. Please note that , there are two language trees are widely accepted by Linguistic scholars worldwide. One is Sanskrit , the Indo European language tree and another is Tamil Language tree. Telegu, Kannada , Tulu and malayalam falls under Tamil Language tree and the words of these languages are rooted only through Tamil.

Regarding Sanskrit, it was the fault of Maxmuller who claimed the SANSKRIT was the mother of all languages. Whereas as the fact is " Tamil is the oldest language and mother of all languages " and its antiquity is immortal.
unmai53 is offline  
Old August 19th, 2017, 03:57 AM   #16
Lecturer
 
Joined: Nov 2014
From: India
Posts: 343

Quote:
Originally Posted by unmai53 View Post
I am not sure How many of you have the in depth knowledge in Tamil Literature and Grammar.
Without having this knowledge arguing about the antiquity of Tamil will be very imperfect.

Some of you , even claimed that Telegu , Kannada and Tulu also are the ancient langugae as Tamil. Please note that , there are two language trees are widely accepted by Linguistic scholars worldwide. One is Sanskrit , the Indo European language tree and another is Tamil Language tree. Telegu, Kannada , Tulu and malayalam falls under Tamil Language tree and the words of these languages are rooted only through Tamil.

Regarding Sanskrit, it was the fault of Maxmuller who claimed the SANSKRIT was the mother of all languages. Whereas as the fact is " Tamil is the oldest language and mother of all languages " and its antiquity is immortal.
There no Tamil language tree. There is however a dravidian language family with Kannada, Tulu, Tamil and Malayalam in the southern sub-family. Telugu, Gondi etc in the central and Brahui and other in the northern one.
prashanth is offline  
Old August 19th, 2017, 06:06 AM   #17

Aupmanyav's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: New Delhi, India
Posts: 2,487

If so many branches, then it is a tree.
Aupmanyav is online now  
Old August 19th, 2017, 07:02 AM   #18

Dreamhunter's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Malaysia
Posts: 4,428
Blog Entries: 1

^
Oh, but what about the roots. And also the stem.
Dreamhunter is online now  
Old August 19th, 2017, 09:54 AM   #19

Devdas's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2015
From: India
Posts: 3,263

Quote:
Originally Posted by unmai53 View Post
I am not sure How many of you have the in depth knowledge in Tamil Literature and Grammar.
Without having this knowledge arguing about the antiquity of Tamil will be very imperfect.

Some of you , even claimed that Telegu , Kannada and Tulu also are the ancient langugae as Tamil. Please note that , there are two language trees are widely accepted by Linguistic scholars worldwide. One is Sanskrit , the Indo European language tree and another is Tamil Language tree. Telegu, Kannada , Tulu and malayalam falls under Tamil Language tree and the words of these languages are rooted only through Tamil.

Regarding Sanskrit, it was the fault of Maxmuller who claimed the SANSKRIT was the mother of all languages. Whereas as the fact is " Tamil is the oldest language and mother of all languages " and its antiquity is immortal.
South Indian languages have originated from Proto-Dravidian language. Besides, Vedic Sanskrit in recorded form is about 2000 years older than Tamil. Only languages that rivals Sanskrit in antiquity would be its sister language Avestan and Hittite languages.
Devdas is offline  
Old August 19th, 2017, 11:44 AM   #20

Aupmanyav's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: New Delhi, India
Posts: 2,487

Oh yes, people of South India did not speak in BC years. They used sign language.
Aupmanyav is online now  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
language, origin, puzzles, tamil



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What is the origin of the Tamil Brahmins ? Augustus04 Asian History 119 April 20th, 2017 07:59 AM
KOREAN spoken language connection to tamil alexk345 Asian History 137 July 6th, 2016 12:52 AM
sanskrit or tamil, which one is oldest Language? Aham Brahmasmi Asian History 66 May 23rd, 2016 05:44 AM
Tamil-Japanese Language relationship 1991sudarshan Asian History 87 June 7th, 2013 12:48 PM
Words of Tamil Origin In Hindi 1991sudarshan Asian History 2 September 13th, 2011 07:13 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.