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 22nd, 2017, 10:40 PM   #51
Academician
 
Joined: Jul 2017
From: NA
Posts: 50

Actually, the "Limitations" section in the Comparative method wikipedia page has its first sub section titled "Problems with the history of historical linguistics" which discusses exactly the topic of, the soundness or the lack thereof, involved in the association of archaeological cultures with languages.

So I think we can perhaps consider what we're doing here to actually fall under the purview of philology loosely, using some help from the comparative method.
historumsi is offline  
Remove Ads
Old August 23rd, 2017, 12:27 AM   #52
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: uk
Posts: 1,347
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Devdas View Post
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.
I give a research paper which was submitted in the World conference of Sanskrit held in 2009 . This paper confirms that Dravidian language (Tamil) had an important effect on the development of Sanskrit.

The influence of Dravidian on Indo-Aryan phonetics | Ferenc Ruzsa - Academia.edu

For the past several years ,it is one of our hot topic that Whether it is Tamil or Sanskrit is the ancient language. Again I would like to stress upon that, Sanskrit is NOT A LANGUAGE EVOLVED TO COMMUNICATE AMONG COMMON PEOPLE , BUT , IT WAS THE LANGUAGE DEVELOPED BY TAMILIANS to SPREAD THE SPIRITUAL PHILOSOPHIES OF SAIVISM & VAISHNAVISM to NORTH INDIA.That is the reason why the UPANISHADS(Vedanthas) are in Sanskrit and was verbally taught to Sishyas(Student/Pupil) by Gurus.
unmai53 is offline  
Old August 23rd, 2017, 12:29 AM   #53
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: uk
Posts: 1,347
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Devdas View Post
Vedic Sanskrit- pre-2000BC to 1500BC
Prakrit - 500BC
Tamil- 200BC to 1st century AD

As you can notice, not just Vedic Sanskrit but even her daughter language Prakrit is older in recorded form than any other language of India.
please read my Post 52
unmai53 is offline  
Old August 23rd, 2017, 01:03 AM   #54

tornada's Avatar
Wind Lord
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: India
Posts: 14,961
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by unmai53 View Post
I give a research paper which was submitted in the World conference of Sanskrit held in 2009 . This paper confirms that Dravidian language (Tamil) had an important effect on the development of Sanskrit.

The influence of Dravidian on Indo-Aryan phonetics | Ferenc Ruzsa - Academia.edu
For the past several years ,it is one of our hot topic that Whether it is Tamil or Sanskrit is the ancient language. Again I would like to stress upon that, Sanskrit is NOT A LANGUAGE EVOLVED TO COMMUNICATE AMONG COMMON PEOPLE , BUT , IT WAS THE LANGUAGE DEVELOPED BY TAMILIANS to SPREAD THE SPIRITUAL PHILOSOPHIES OF SAIVISM & VAISHNAVISM to NORTH INDIA.That is the reason why the UPANISHADS(Vedanthas) are in Sanskrit and was verbally taught to Sishyas(Student/Pupil) by Gurus.
Are you sure you've read this paper? May I give some important quotations to you? The very title of the paper challenges your premise. How can Dravidian have an influence on Indo-Aryan languages such as Sanskrit, if these languages are descended from the Dravidian Tamil? Influence only comes in if two distinct and different entities have an exchange of features. A language descended from Tamil wouldn't be "influenced" by Dravidian languages, it would be a Dravidian Language itself!
Quote:
It is now a widely accepted opinion that Dravidian languages had an important effect on the development of Sanskrit
This statement alone negates your assertion. Nowhere in this paper is it suggested that Sanskrit evolved FROM Tamil, or was evolved by Tamilians. Instead the paper argues the exact opposite. Which is that Sanskrit, a language completely different from Dravidian Languages, over some 2000 years, was influenced by said Dravidian Languages. Sanskrit of the Indo-Aryan Family and Dravidian are thus completely different entities according to the author of this paper, his argument merely being that the former was influenced by the latter.

This can once again be gauged here
Quote:
Of course it is far from improbable that some of the older hymns of the RV were composed in a language earlier than that (in Proto-Vedic or even in Proto-Aryan), butthis fact and this phase of the language must remain unknown to us.
This would be impossible if Sanskrit, or the Indo-Aryan language family were derived from Tamil. The Author is clearly accepting that a pre-Tamil influenced ancestor/predecessor of Sanskrit could have existed, although we today cannot confirm this as we don't possess this older variant. This would not be possible naturally if Tamil was the said ancestor of Sanskrit. This whole statement would be redundant.


Moreover, in further refutation of your statement, it can be seen that not only does the author disagree with your notions of time, seeing as how he argues that Dravidian influenced Indo-Aryan from Old IA to Middle Indic languages over 20 centuries - which substantiate his acceptance of the Antiquity of Sanskrit.

Lastly, contrary to your assertions, the author is very careful to NOT argue that it was Tamil which influenced Sanskrit. He repeatedly emphasizes that it was a language which was LIKE Tamil or similar to Tamil. How then can Sanskrit be derived from Tamil?

Lets be clear. I'm not evaluating the validity of the author's assertions. I don't know Linguistics, or Tamil and Sanskrit, well enough to determine whether or not his claims are correct. What I can however see is that what you believe, and claim the paper supports is at wide variance with what the paper actually contends

If you're going to quote a paper, make sure that it supports what you say rather than contradicting you and your beliefs.

Last edited by tornada; August 23rd, 2017 at 01:05 AM.
tornada is offline  
Old August 23rd, 2017, 01:56 AM   #55
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: uk
Posts: 1,347
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aupmanyav View Post
Kindly cite the Archaeological Survey of India reference. What is a Sanskrit stone sculpture and a Tamil stone sculpture? Wikipedia dates Panini to 600-400 BC. Yaska preceded him and my clansman Aupamanyava preceded Yaska (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aupamanyava). So naturally, the progenitor of my clan Upamanyu (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upamanyu) preceded all of them. Upamanyu has a hymn in RigVeda.

There are millions of videos on internet, they are not all words of God. I could not find any information on https://youtu.be/, therefore I take it to be a shady organization.

Ah, Bible, another of your authentic historical sources! Did Adam live for 999 years? And when was the universe created? Don't bring non-historical things in this forum discussions. Basically, talk history and not bull.
When you are able to believe Panini and Upamanyu(Abimanyu?) as historical persons what's wrong if I bring the Bible as the Historic source my friend?

Yes, Bible also can be referred as an Historical source. While it speaks about the history of Israel, Jews , Palestine and Persia(present Iran & Iraq) and Egypt for your information , Deep study of The old testament Chapter 1 to 11 reveals that Adam, Eve, Nova were the people of Tamil origin and their names by which they are called has a reason as per Tamil Grammar. It also reveals from where your ancestors came to India.

I am talking only the history and Not bull.
unmai53 is offline  
Old August 23rd, 2017, 03:41 AM   #56

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by unmai53 View Post
For the past several years ,it is one of our hot topic that Whether it is Tamil or Sanskrit is the ancient language. Again I would like to stress upon that, Sanskrit is NOT A LANGUAGE EVOLVED TO COMMUNICATE AMONG COMMON PEOPLE , BUT , IT WAS THE LANGUAGE DEVELOPED BY TAMILIANS to SPREAD THE SPIRITUAL PHILOSOPHIES OF SAIVISM & VAISHNAVISM to NORTH INDIA.That is the reason why the UPANISHADS(Vedanthas) are in Sanskrit and was verbally taught to Sishyas(Student/Pupil) by Gurus.
Let us have a big laugh on it. You send all the Indo-European research down the Adyar, Koovam, Kosasthalaiyar, Swarnamukhi rivers or in the Pulicat lake. You are right, Sanskrit is not a peoples' language. It is the language of Gods, Deva bhasha. Of course, Adi Shakti, Murugan and Iravan talk in Tamil, that is why I love Tamil too.
Aupmanyav is offline  
Old August 23rd, 2017, 04:44 AM   #57

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by unmai53 View Post
When you are able to believe Panini and Upamanyu(Abimanyu?) as historical persons what's wrong if I bring the Bible as the Historic source my friend?

Yes, Bible also can be referred as an Historical source. While it speaks about the history of Israel, Jews , Palestine and Persia(present Iran & Iraq) and Egypt for your information, Deep study of The old testament Chapter 1 to 11 reveals that Adam, Eve, Nova were the people of Tamil origin and their names by which they are called has a reason as per Tamil Grammar. It also reveals from where your ancestors came to India.
Upamanyu and Abhimanyu are different personages. Upamanyu is supposed to have been a Kamboja sage, Abhimanyu is supposed to have been Arjuna's son. I cannot say this with any certainty as to which Upamanyu my gotra refers to. My clan name (gotra) is known as Bhoota Upamanyu (the earlier/older Upamanyu), so there must have been other Upamanyus also. Famous names are repeated.

However, Aupmanyav, Yaska and Panini are historical personages. They were Sanskrit grammarians and their reference is found in many books. Of course, we do not know exactly when they lived. Panini is mentioned in 6-400 BC. Yaska was prior to and is cited by Panini and is placed around 700 BC by Wikipedia. Aupmanyav is cited by Yaska, so he should be from an even earlier age, say 800 BC.

I do not deny that Bible, particularly the Old Testament may have a historical value when they write about Babylonians, where as there seems to be none in the New Testament. Science absolutely rubbishes the idea of an Adam or Eve, also that of the great flood covering the whole world by so many cubits and the great survivor saving two of all species, animals and vegetation in his great ark. All that is religious hyperbole and we too have lots of it in our books.
Aupmanyav is offline  
Old August 23rd, 2017, 08:04 PM   #58
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2014
From: USA
Posts: 2,228

Quote:
Originally Posted by historumsi View Post
You are basically right that one should exercise a lot of caution while attempting to attach languages to archaeological sites. From now on, I will include a disclaimer every time I engage in this sort of a discussion. All that out of the way, however, I think we can still infer about the linguistic affiliation of a particular archaeological culture, strongly even, in certain conditions. Take the case of the earliest Old Tamil literature. Now that literature was available from the second century BC onwards or so (I have a very rough idea only. So please pardon me if I've mistaken. And I know next to nothing of Old Tamil literature personally, except reading it referred to in some stuff that I read.) and that literature, I read, describes details of megalith construction and such stuff. So I think we can at least conceive of a scenario where the beginnings of the iron age in the region (1200 BC onwards) also had Dravidian languages, just by linking the observed cultural continuity (which is undeniably strong) with a linguistic continuity, because it is quite likely generally in the world. Also, not just megaliths or iron or steel, linguists generally attempt to connect other culturally salient items, fruits, crops, etc. found archaeologically with the native vocabularies of the languages they are having in mind. They then proceed to report on how much percentage of the archaeologically found items match the linguistic stuff. It goes without saying that linguists, just like other scientists, do not make any claims of absolute certainty in these matters; they only evaluate and report the likelihoods making the best use of whatever simple statistics useful in these cases like percentages, and write their papers in an extremely conservative tone.

Now, you somehow appear, to me, to be agreeing with the scenario that the current South Dravidian languages can be associated with the iron age of South India (pardon me if I'm wrong), seeing that you have mainly questioned how we come to know what people spoke in the neolithic. Now your challenging is not without merits, because it is definitely harder to associate the South Indian Neolithic with the Dravidian languages than to associate the succeeding Iron Age with those languages. In fact, there are proposals that there were no Dravidian languages in India before the iron age, implying that the Ashmound Tradition spoke entirely different languages. They try to arrive at these proposals by some reasonable reasoning too. And as you pointed out, Dravidian literature is definitely not available from the period that corresponds to the South Indian Neolithic. In such cases, as I mentioned earlier, linguists do studies of fruits, vegetables, crops, etc. found from the archaeological sites and compare them with the earlier linguistic stages reconstructed of the languages they have in mind, and report the results. One such study that proposed a connection between the Phases II and III of the South Indian Neolithic with the Proto-Dravidian language was a study by Franklin Southworth which actually reported an overall 73% figure of matching of the archaeologically found items with the reconstructed vocabulary from the Proto-Dravidian language. Now while this is all still hypothesising, and this even the linguist in question I'm sure does not deny, it is still a valuable addition to the general discourse I think, considering that the alternatives are to either assume with certainty that these were Dravidian languages that were spoken during the Neolithic or that they were not, or hold an extremely sceptical view and assert that since we will never know, there is no point in discussion; all of these alternatives I personally believe are quite inferior to the method of advancing and testing hypotheses, even if based on a kind of educated guesswork in this type of situations (I'm mainly talking about these lexical reconstructions and their association with archaeological cultures part; not the entire historical linguistics whose bulk is based on subjects like phonetics that are much closer to natural sciences like chemistry or physics and on very scientifically formulated methodologies to do reconstructions, such as the comparative method)

Now the 1100 BC number. Again, the idea is to somehow try to get a chronological picture of the splits within a language family, observed after basic reconstruction is completed. In this light, I'll reproduce Krishnamurti's reasoning and you decide if it is worthy of your consideration or not. First of all, Krishnamurti like many mainstream linguists never trusted the method of glottochronology whose basic premises are held to be suspect by mainstream historical linguists (see "Additional models" subsection in the "Limitations" section of Comparative method.) Krishnamurti therefore makes use of Sanskrit textual evidence from the 7th century BC Aitareya Brahmana and the 4th century BC Natyashastra (now I don't know how these dates were assigned to these Sanskrit texts. They do seem to be the accepted numbers. Anyway does not directly bother with the matter in hand I think). Now, Aitareya Brahmana mentions a group called "Andhras" by name and Natyashastra an "Andhra" language alongside a "Dramila" language. Krishnamurti, then, associates the Andhra language with his reconstructed Pre-Telugu (since it is 7th century BC) and the Dramila of 4th century BC with Pre-Tamil (Proto-Tamil-Malayalam-Kodagu-Irula-Toda-Kota) and infers that the split in South Dravidian that gave rise to the Andhra language recorded by Sanskrit speakers in 7th century BC might have preceded it by four or five centuries, arriving at the 1100 BC number (his reasoning being that it would take a long time for the observed phonological and morphological changes from the ancestral Proto-South Dravidian to develop in the South Dravidian-II.) Now that is Krishnamurti's reasoning. You can question it all you want, pose all kinds of questions about the identity of "Andhras" and argue that they were literally the cursed fifty originally-Sanskrit-speaking sons of Vishwamitra and all that. To such arguments, I don't have counter arguments. I'm not competent at all. There is no way for me other than to once again ask you to relieve me of the duties that I'm admittedly not competent to perform. But in my defence, I'd still point out that, in most, if not all posts I wrote earlier, I clearly indicated from which scholar I scavenged off the relevant ideas, using phrases like "Krishnamurti's dating" or "Southworth's study" or such things. (I'll try to include the page numbers of the books too, from now on, so that enthusiasts can take at a look at the reasoning behind a particular inference and evaluate that reasoning in all its entirety.) There is nothing more I can do really. I'm definitely not competent enough to do original research in these fields and discuss my research in these forums. And my general thinking is such that even in the exceptionally unlikely event that I did do some original research, I would never discuss it or would discuss it with bold disclaimers included at the least, unless I considered it to be somewhat well received and accepted in the scholarly community. Also, from now on, I'll try to find and include here, what particular criticisms each and every viewpoint that I present had already attracted from other reputed scholars.

But at the end though, if what you did in your post was to reject the legitimacy of the entire field of historical linguistics too in addition to the association of archaeological sites with languages (the latter I tried to discuss, above), then I must be extremely stupid to not recognise it till now, but even after so recognising, I don't know if I can do anything more, as I don't think I'm not competent or energetic enough. In such case, perhaps the best bet for us is to go for the old principle of agreeing to disagree.
Hi historumsi,

Regardless of the differences in our opinions, I must say you are a very sensible and balanced poster. Thank you for a very detailed and reasonable answer.

Yes, I rejected the association of linguistics with archaeology in my post, for I find that it is not at all science, much less being accurate.

The most primary reason I consider the branch of modern or comparative linguistics flawed is because the result it produces does not tally with reality. In my view, any theory is valid when every case it is applied to is valid. If it does not, then the theory is simply not valid. This is why I view the proto language constructions with great suspicion.

Be that as it may, I now understood how these 1100 / 1200 BCE are coming. Invariably, we had to depend on an imaginary dating of Aitareya Brahmana for coming up with dates for Dravidian languages
Aatreya is offline  
Old August 23rd, 2017, 09:57 PM   #59
Academician
 
Joined: Jul 2017
From: NA
Posts: 50
Smile


Quote:
Originally Posted by Aatreya View Post
The most primary reason I consider the branch of modern or comparative linguistics flawed is because the result it produces does not tally with reality.
Could you please provide examples for the blunders that the comparative method has helped people commit? Because, from what I've read, several reconstructed proto-languages have in fact matched closely with the historically attested ancestor languages, like Proto-Romance reconstructed by the comparative method, matching closely with Latin and with Vulgar Latin more so. I've read some really cinematic stories too, that involved anticipation of some (three distinct ones if I remember correctly) laryngeals in Proto-Indo-European by historical linguists based entirely on the application of phonetic and phonological principles on the data from the modern Indo-European languages, and these laryngeals were later discovered, fully attested in writing, as anticipated, in Hittite! (Don't know the details at all. Just read cursorily. But sorry for my example since you might not appreciate it anyway lol.)

And even if they are blunders currently, I wonder why we shouldn't give a chance at least, for improvement in the future? Science generally happens that way only, no? Refining or overthrowing current models of reality with the availability of more and more data? Are there alternatives that are better in this particular case? (Again, never in the name of the holy dear heavens to influence you in any one direction or the other; just wondering out aloud.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aatreya View Post
In my view, any theory is valid when every case it is applied to is valid. If it does not, then the theory is simply not valid. This is why I view the proto language constructions with great suspicion.
If I'm understanding you correctly (I had a lot of a problem doing that. I'm really quite stupid.), you are questioning the accuracy of data recording in this discipline itself and arguing that if the data collected itself is inaccurate, then all other analyses of that data and if they lead to a theory, that, are all invalid? If I'm wrong which I think I'm, could you please elaborate, perhaps with illustrations?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aatreya View Post
Invariably, we had to depend on an imaginary dating of Aitareya Brahmana for coming up with dates for Dravidian languages
ayyO AtrEya gArU, who in their right mind denies the inherent superiority of the Indo-Aryan people, churning out anthropological research literature too alongside their massive amounts of general literature output, over all the other letterless contemporaries of theirs in the entire ancient world, ceppaNDi?

EDIT: Does anyone know what that little grey ghost-like smiley at the top of my post is? EDIT 2: Oh okay, I now remember checking some radio button having a smiley or something, don't I? Anyway, thanks y'all for the help.

Last edited by historumsi; August 23rd, 2017 at 10:18 PM.
historumsi is offline  
Old August 24th, 2017, 04:00 PM   #60
Suspended until October 2nd, 2017
 
Joined: Jul 2017
From: USA
Posts: 169

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinothindie View Post
1) Vivekananda said, Tamil the oldest Indian language
The only thing that matters really!
Vayu 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.