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 20th, 2017, 05:20 AM   #31

Aupmanyav's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: New Delhi, India
Posts: 2,166

Quote:
Originally Posted by Devdas View Post
Tamil is relatively modern language ..
You see, Dev, the neolithic South Indians also must have been communicating with each other in a language. Languages keep on changing with time. So, it is not correct to say that this language is old and this is new. Sanskrit took its present form with Panini. At some point of time, Tamil also must have taken its current form. But what gave rise to current Tamil must have been old.
Aupmanyav is offline  
Remove Ads
Old August 20th, 2017, 06:23 AM   #32
Academician
 
Joined: Jul 2017
From: NA
Posts: 50

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aupmanyav View Post
You see, Dev, the neolithic South Indians also must have been communicating with each other in a language. Languages keep on changing with time. So, it is not correct to say that this language is old and this is new. Sanskrit took its present form with Panini. At some point of time, Tamil also must have taken its current form. But what gave rise to current Tamil must have been old.
No one disputes most of what you have said. But labelling all the ancestor languages to a language T (say) as "Ancient T" when those ancestor languages would have been the ancestor languages to other living languages of similar antiquity in addition to language T is an incredibly unfair

Let us suppose a language belonging to the Indo-Aryan family, no leave that alone, take Avestan. Now Avestan and Vedic Sanskrit got attested at roughly similar times and they two have a common ancestor too, in Proto-Indo-Iranian. They don't call the ancestor Proto-Indo-Iranian language Ancient Vedic, do they? Because doing so would be incredibly unfair to Avestan because it has its own history, taking its own route from the Proto-Indo-Iranian, mostly independent of Indo-Aryan Vedic Sanskrit.

In linguistics, a language's current name is used for the language in discourse for the time period since it's earliest historical attestation (need not be writing as Tamil chauvinists believe. Any form of verified uncorrupted attestation like in Vedic Sanskrit will do). Let's take the case of Telugu. Telugu gets attested as Telugu first in the 6th-7th centuries AD. That does not mean the language that would become Telugu did not exist before that. It is just a reasonable practice to assume that "Telugu" did not exist before that. That's why linguists use terms like Pre-Telugu, but not Old Telugu along with Old Tamil if they are talking about a period, let's say 300 AD when Old Tamil was attested but Telugu was not, yet. Pre-Telugu does the job of dealing with the period after it separated from the Proto-South-Dravidian-II but before Telugu got attested in 6th century AD.

And in an ideal situation, it has to be understood that Pre-Telugu means the language that was spoken by the linguistic ancestors of the later Old Telugus and Old Telugus only. Pre-Telugu does not refer to the linguistic ancestors of Gondi, Konda, Kui, Kuvi, Manda or Pengo speaking people. They have their own histories and Telugu people should not and they mostly do not, claim Gondi, Konda, Kui, Kuvi, Manda and Pengo as borne out of inferior dialects of some earlier form of Telugu. It's incredibly sinful to do so.

But, in a sorry practical world though, linguists may sometimes use the name of a well-known language after that Pre-, such as in the case of Pre-Tamil which is actually Proto-Tamil-Malayalam-Kodagu-Irula-Toda-Kota according to the correct linguistic definition. Using such is just a matter of ease and convenience. It does not give a license for Tamil speaking people to claim their linguistic ancestors as the ancestors of the above other languages too. In fact some Tamil people used to abuse the Irula language as some kind of a bastardised mixture of Old Tamil and Kannada thinking that the unpalatalised forms in that language were the result of Kannada "corruption", but it turned out that it was Old Tamil that massively underwent that palatalisation (k --> c before front vowels) scheme after separating from Pre-Irula. Now all scholars know Irula to be a language that resulted from a branch-off from the Proto-Tamil-Malayalam-Kodagu-Irula-Toda-Kota before Old Tamil's immediate ancestor branched off.

(Not addressed to you, speaking generally) Telugus are a highly patriotic people but their language is highly independent at the same time (one need not have to speak Sanskrit to be patriotic or Tamil to "feel close to one's Dravidian side" lol, bilingual translators exist for that reason, for example to translate the national pledge originally written in Telugu into English, Hindi, Bangla, Odia, etc. later on and use it); it resulted from an ancient branch-off from Proto-South-Dravidian-II which is categorically NOT "Ancient Tamil" or "some inferior dialect of Tamil that would go on to become Telugu" or some terribly terribly stupid thing like that. And most Telugus are not even like me. They don't even care the way I do. They just note it down in their mind that you are not that intelligent/capable of understanding and appreciating these things and start slightly pitying you if they hear you spouting stupid nonsense like "Tamil is the oldest language in the world" or "Tamil is the mother of Greek, Latin, Phoenician, Arabic, Latin, Avestan, Hittite, Elamite, Zulu, Sanskrit, Eskimo-Aleut and everything else in the world" or "Tamil is the mother of Kannada, Malayalam, Telugu, Konda, Parji, Kolami, Kurukh, Brahui, Malto, Naiki, Gondi, Kui, Tulu, Kodagu, Kota, Toda, Alu Kurumba, Irula, etc."
historumsi is offline  
Old August 20th, 2017, 06:59 AM   #33

Aupmanyav's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: New Delhi, India
Posts: 2,166

Nice post. I hope this brings some sanity in the minds of Tamil chauvinists. In North, we have to battle the Sanskrit chauvinists.
Aupmanyav is offline  
Old August 20th, 2017, 03:01 PM   #34
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2014
From: USA
Posts: 2,228

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aupmanyav View Post
Nice post. I hope this brings some sanity in the minds of Tamil chauvinists. In North, we have to battle the Sanskrit chauvinists.
But in the whole of India and the world, we have to battle Euro-centrists and Steppe chauvinists
Aatreya is offline  
Old August 20th, 2017, 03:02 PM   #35
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2014
From: USA
Posts: 2,228

Quote:
Originally Posted by historumsi View Post
No one disputes most of what you have said. But labelling all the ancestor languages to a language T (say) as "Ancient T" when those ancestor languages would have been the ancestor languages to other living languages of similar antiquity in addition to language T is an incredibly unfair

Let us suppose a language belonging to the Indo-Aryan family, no leave that alone, take Avestan. Now Avestan and Vedic Sanskrit got attested at roughly similar times and they two have a common ancestor too, in Proto-Indo-Iranian. They don't call the ancestor Proto-Indo-Iranian language Ancient Vedic, do they? Because doing so would be incredibly unfair to Avestan because it has its own history, taking its own route from the Proto-Indo-Iranian, mostly independent of Indo-Aryan Vedic Sanskrit.

In linguistics, a language's current name is used for the language in discourse for the time period since it's earliest historical attestation (need not be writing as Tamil chauvinists believe. Any form of verified uncorrupted attestation like in Vedic Sanskrit will do). Let's take the case of Telugu. Telugu gets attested as Telugu first in the 6th-7th centuries AD. That does not mean the language that would become Telugu did not exist before that. It is just a reasonable practice to assume that "Telugu" did not exist before that. That's why linguists use terms like Pre-Telugu, but not Old Telugu along with Old Tamil if they are talking about a period, let's say 300 AD when Old Tamil was attested but Telugu was not, yet. Pre-Telugu does the job of dealing with the period after it separated from the Proto-South-Dravidian-II but before Telugu got attested in 6th century AD.

And in an ideal situation, it has to be understood that Pre-Telugu means the language that was spoken by the linguistic ancestors of the later Old Telugus and Old Telugus only. Pre-Telugu does not refer to the linguistic ancestors of Gondi, Konda, Kui, Kuvi, Manda or Pengo speaking people. They have their own histories and Telugu people should not and they mostly do not, claim Gondi, Konda, Kui, Kuvi, Manda and Pengo as borne out of inferior dialects of some earlier form of Telugu. It's incredibly sinful to do so.

But, in a sorry practical world though, linguists may sometimes use the name of a well-known language after that Pre-, such as in the case of Pre-Tamil which is actually Proto-Tamil-Malayalam-Kodagu-Irula-Toda-Kota according to the correct linguistic definition. Using such is just a matter of ease and convenience. It does not give a license for Tamil speaking people to claim their linguistic ancestors as the ancestors of the above other languages too. In fact some Tamil people used to abuse the Irula language as some kind of a bastardised mixture of Old Tamil and Kannada thinking that the unpalatalised forms in that language were the result of Kannada "corruption", but it turned out that it was Old Tamil that massively underwent that palatalisation (k --> c before front vowels) scheme after separating from Pre-Irula. Now all scholars know Irula to be a language that resulted from a branch-off from the Proto-Tamil-Malayalam-Kodagu-Irula-Toda-Kota before Old Tamil's immediate ancestor branched off.

(Not addressed to you, speaking generally) Telugus are a highly patriotic people but their language is highly independent at the same time (one need not have to speak Sanskrit to be patriotic or Tamil to "feel close to one's Dravidian side" lol, bilingual translators exist for that reason, for example to translate the national pledge originally written in Telugu into English, Hindi, Bangla, Odia, etc. later on and use it); it resulted from an ancient branch-off from Proto-South-Dravidian-II which is categorically NOT "Ancient Tamil" or "some inferior dialect of Tamil that would go on to become Telugu" or some terribly terribly stupid thing like that. And most Telugus are not even like me. They don't even care the way I do. They just note it down in their mind that you are not that intelligent/capable of understanding and appreciating these things and start slightly pitying you if they hear you spouting stupid nonsense like "Tamil is the oldest language in the world" or "Tamil is the mother of Greek, Latin, Phoenician, Arabic, Latin, Avestan, Hittite, Elamite, Zulu, Sanskrit, Eskimo-Aleut and everything else in the world" or "Tamil is the mother of Kannada, Malayalam, Telugu, Konda, Parji, Kolami, Kurukh, Brahui, Malto, Naiki, Gondi, Kui, Tulu, Kodagu, Kota, Toda, Alu Kurumba, Irula, etc."
Neither is Proto-Indo-Iranian any real language nor are Vedic and Avestan sister languages. Vedic is anterior to Avestan.
Aatreya is offline  
Old August 20th, 2017, 03:04 PM   #36
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2014
From: USA
Posts: 2,228

Quote:
Originally Posted by unmai53 View Post
Dravidians spoke Tamil initially and from Tamil evolved the other dravidian language.
That is absolutely rubbish.
Aatreya is offline  
Old August 20th, 2017, 03:05 PM   #37
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2014
From: USA
Posts: 2,228

Quote:
Originally Posted by unmai53 View Post
Hope , you remember our earlier discussions on this subject. I would like to recall that , there is no any substantial proof available as per the Archaeological survey of India for the existence of Sanskrit Stone scriptures and the oldest such is dated only belongs to 150 AD.



In the above video you can see Sanskrit is placed on the second oldest language and Tamil is the oldest of all. Claiming Sanskrit as the second oldest also a false because Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Hebrew and Araimic are much much older than Sanskrit.

Claiming Sanskrit as the oldest language is a myth and false teaching which was generated by Aryans of Ancient India with the help of European Linguistic scholars like Max muller.

Even from Bible I can show the evidence that Tamil was existed well before the Abrahamic lineage. Please read Genesis 11th Chapter verses 1 to 3
Sanskrit and Tamil have no relation with any bible or Abraham.
Aatreya is offline  
Old August 20th, 2017, 03:07 PM   #38
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2014
From: USA
Posts: 2,228

Quote:
Originally Posted by prashanth View Post
No way! Give me more information. Just a statement will not do. A proto-Dravidian language is not Tamil, just by you naming it so.
So many words in Kannada are anterior to the corresponding Tamil words. Ignore this guy.
Aatreya is offline  
Old August 20th, 2017, 03:59 PM   #39

mnsr's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2014
From: Asia
Posts: 1,429

Quote:
Originally Posted by historumsi View Post
No one disputes most of what you have said. But labelling all the ancestor languages to a language T (say) as "Ancient T" when those ancestor languages would have been the ancestor languages to other living languages of similar antiquity in addition to language T is an incredibly unfair ...
I think there is no point is debating as how Tamil is the mother of all Dravidian languages or Sanskrit is the mother of all Indo-European languages or Turkish is the mother of all Turkic languages or Serbian is the mother of all known languages in the World. We can ignore the trolls.
mnsr is offline  
Old August 20th, 2017, 04:22 PM   #40

mnsr's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2014
From: Asia
Posts: 1,429

Quote:
Originally Posted by historumsi View Post
... 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?
Very nice post again. I appreciate your knowledge in Dravidian linguistics.

I think Megalithic Culture developed from the Southern Neolithic, as said by Tewari "that they had already been experimenting for centuries".

And I don't think there is any archaeological proof that Iron technology reached directly from Iran to South India by surpassing Western India. Linguistically also, Dravidian family is not showing affinity with any other Language Family, that makes this Family quite isolated to the Indian Subcontinent.

And I think originally rather than North-South it is more like East-West divide between SD-II and SD-I. Original South-Dravidian very likely developed between River Krishna and River Penneru in Southern Deccan Plateau. Here SD-II from the East moved towards North and reached till Gondwana and SD-I from the West moved towards South and reached till Tamil Nadu. It were teh sub-divisions of SD-I and SD-II that have North-South split e.g. Kannada-Tamil and Telugu-Gondi.

Last edited by mnsr; August 20th, 2017 at 04:24 PM.
mnsr is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
language, origin, puzzles, tamil



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 06:59 AM
KOREAN spoken language connection to tamil alexk345 Asian History 137 July 5th, 2016 11:52 PM
sanskrit or tamil, which one is oldest Language? Aham Brahmasmi Asian History 66 May 23rd, 2016 04:44 AM
Tamil-Japanese Language relationship 1991sudarshan Asian History 87 June 7th, 2013 11:48 AM
Words of Tamil Origin In Hindi 1991sudarshan Asian History 2 September 13th, 2011 06:13 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.