Influence of sanskrit over Tamil – breaking the dravidian racism
Posted on July 6, 2010 by senthil
I had a debate in this blog post of sukumar about the world tamil conference and parpola’s paper on Dravidian roots to IVC (which is also called Saraswathi Civilization). I argued that Tholkappiar, who wrote the first known tamil grammar book called “Tholkappiam”, himself is a brahmin, and this fact is often concealed or suppressed in various forums. Sukumar had challenged me to give a proof that tholkappiar was a brahmin, and while sourcing information for this, i happened to learn many things, which i want to consolidate in this post.

Preface poem in Tholkappiam book:

The whole book of tholkappiam can be downloded from Project Madurai website.

I am reproducing the preface of this book..

வட வேங்கடம் தென் குமரி
ஆயிடைத்
தமிழ் கூறும் நல் உலகத்து
வழக்கும் செய்யுளும் ஆயிரு முதலின்
எழுத்தும் சொல்லும் பொருளும் நாடிச்
செந்தமிழ் இயற்கை சிவணிய நிலத்தொடு
முந்து நூல் கண்டு முறைப்பட எண்ணிப்
புலம் தொகுத்தோனே போக்கு அறு பனுவல்
நிலம் தரு திருவின் பாண்டியன் அவையத்து
அறம் கரை நாவின் நான்மறை முற்றிய‌
அதங்கோட்டு ஆசாற்கு அரில் தபத் தெரிந்து
மயங்கா மரபின் எழுத்து முறை காட்டி
மல்கு நீர் வரைப்பின் ஐந்திரம் நிறைந்த‌
தொல்காப்பியன் எனத் தன் பெயர் தோற்றிப்
பல் புகழ் நிறுத்த படிமையோனே..

I am listing out the following inferences that we can make.

முந்து நூல் கண்டு முறைப்பட எண்ணிப் –> This line indicates, that tholkappiam is NOT the first tamil grammar book. Tholkappiar says, that he is wanting to refining an already existing grammar book.

நிலம் தரு திருவின் பாண்டியன் அவையத்து
அறம் கரை நாவின் நான்மறை முற்றிய‌
அதங்கோட்டு ஆசாற்கு அரில் தபத் தெரிந்து

the mention of vedas.. i think tholkappiar mentions about his guru in pandian court, who is a learned men of all four vedas..

மல்கு நீர் வரைப்பின் ஐந்திரம் நிறைந்த‌
தொல்காப்பியன் எனத் தன் பெயர் தோற்றிப்

Here, the word ஐந்திரம் indicates the Aindram School of Sanskrit grammar, which is the first of the eleven sanskrit schools of grammar. All these grammars had preceded Panini’s grammar, and is mentioned by himself in his work Ashtadhyayi.

The following are the conclusions that we can make.

Tholkappiar knew about vedas.
Tholkappiar could have learned about aindram school of grammar.
Tholkappiar’s guru is a scholar of four vedas, and hence Tholkappiar should have learned vedas.
Tholkappiar should be a brahmana, since he learnt vedas.
A vedic brahmana had written grammar for Tamil, which is used till now.
Tamil had extensive relation with Sanskrit.
Since Tholkappiar mentions about Aindram school of grammar, he might have lived much before Panini, who wrote modern sanskrit grammar.
Grammars of Modern sanskrit and Tamil might have evolved from a common school of grammar. This doesnt mean, tamil is derived from sanskrit. Rather, the grammatical concepts might have been sourced from the common school and the scripts might have been independant.
There can be many other inferences that we can make. But let me move on.

The website of tamil Virtual University mentions the name of tholkappiar as ThiranaDhoomaggini (திரணதூமாக்கினி) and tamil translation of this name comes to “Pulathiyan” (புலத்தியன்).

Tholkappiyam mentions about loaning words from Sanskrit:

While i was randomly going through the original tholkappiyam book, i came across the lines, where it is mentioned that words can be borrowed from sanskrit for the literary poems.

In page# 63 of the tolkappian book referred in previous comment, the following lines appear under topic எச்சவியல்..

இயற்சொல் திரிசொல் திசைச்சொல் வடசொல் என்று
அனைத்தே செய்யுள் ஈட்டச் சொல்லே..

If my understanding is correct, tolkappiar says, words borrowed from sanskrit (வடசொல்), can also be used in composing the poems..

If we scroll Further, the following lines is seen which mentions about how Sanskrit words can be used.

வடசொல் கிளவி வட எழுத்து ஒரீஇ
எழுத்தொடு புணர்ந்த சொல் ஆகும்மே – pg-64

This contradicts the popular racial tamil theory propagated by Dravidar Kalagam and particularly by Dr. Ramdass of PMK, who attempts to create new tamil word for every foreign words. For eg, they are attempting to create a word “vazhuval katti” for soap, which is horrible one. The niceties of the tamil words in sanga poetry is lost with such attempts. We have to realise that it is the racial western society which believes in the linguistic exclusive concept, and many indic languages have mutual influences over words.

Further, in the same book, tholkappiar also details about the other three types of words that he says can be incorporated in the Poems.

அவற்றுள்
இயற்சொல்தாமே
செந்தமிழ் நிலத்து வழக்கொடு சிவணி
தம் பொருள் வழாமை இசைக்கும் சொல்லே..

ஒரு பொருள் குறித்த வேறு சொல் ஆகியும்
வேறு பொருள் குறித்த ஒரு சொல் ஆகியிம்
இரு பாற்று என்ப திரிசொல் கிளவி

செந்தமிழ் சேர்ந்த பன்னிரு நிலத்தும்
தம் குறிப்பனவே திசைச்சொல் கிளவி

So, there is a always a relation b/w tamil and sanskrit even before sangha period, and the relationship is indeed healthy. More importantly, we could not find anything racial tone in all these references.

There is no mention of Aryan imposition over tamil or any reference to dravidian exclusivism.

Other Sanskrit words widely in tamil:

The tamil – sanskrit linkages has been further understood from the following sanskrit words in tamil.

Tolkappiam is divided in three books. – ezhuthathikaram ( எழுத்ததிகாரம்) , porulathikaram (பொருளதிகாரம்) and sollathikaram (சொல்லதிகாரம் ) .. here the word “athikaram” is a sanskrit word.
The word “kaappiyam” (காப்பியம்) itself is from the sanskrit word “kaavya” ..
We often use the word “Sanga Tamil”.. however, the term “sangha” itself is a prakrutha word.. meaning assembly.. for eg, in budhist history, they have established baudha sangha at various places to promote budhism
The word “kathai” (கதை) is a sanskrit word “Katha”
The word kalai (கலை) from the sanskrit word “Kala”
manithan (மனிதன்) from “manushya”
the word “aasaan” has no tamil equivalent.
We can list out so many such sanskrit words which has been used widely in tamil, for which we dont have any equivalent tamil word.

Conclusion:

The very fundamentals of Dravidian Ideology could be shaken from the simple truth that tholkappiar has been a Brahmin who knew veda, and who knew aindram school of grammar. So what could be the fact?

Tamil might have evolved independantly. And at the same time, the concept of grammar has been simultaneously evolving with various schools of grammar being established. Tamil could have very well utilised these advancements to finetune itself. The tamil kings would have invited those grammarian scholars to either create grammar for tamil, or to refine an already evolving tamil grammar, as we could see in tholkappiam, where tholkappiar says he wanted to improve an already existing book.

The truth may be anything, but we can identify it only when we free from the narrow racial ideology of aryan – dravidian divide.

What do you think? Please share your thoughts, and also any mistakes in this post.

http://psenthilraja.wordpress.com/2010/07/06/influence-of-sanskrit-over-tamil/

Just as "illakanam", the Tamil word for grammar, is derived from the Sanskrit "laksana", so too a number of other words that have to do with grammar in that language are of Sanskrit origin. For instance, there are two terms used in Tamil grammar, pakuti (pahuti) and vikuti (vihuti). To illustrate in the word "Ramanukku" (for Raman ), "Raman " is pakuti and "ku" is "vikuti". Both terms pakuti and vikuti are derived from Sanskrit grammar. "How do you say so? " it might be asked. "Is it not pakuti an original tamil word derived from "pakuttal? "

Pakuti in the sense of that which has been divided is indeed a Tamil word. But I say that there is another pakuti that is a corrupt form of the Sanskrit "prakarti". It is in the sense of "prakarti" that the word "Raman" in "Ramanukku" is described as pakuti. As for "vikuti" it is from the Sanskrit "vikriti": there is no such word as "vikuttal" in Tamil corresponding to pakuttal. From the undisputed fact that vikuti is from vikriti, we may conclude for certain that pakuti is from prakrti.

(Vikrti also called "pratyaya", that which gives many meanings to the same prakrti. When it is said "Ramanai aditten"-(I) beat Raman-the pratyaya "ai" added makes Raman the person who is beaten. If it is said Ramanal adipatten-(I) was beaten by Raman-the prakrti Raman with the al makes him the one who beat. )

It is not my purpose to claim that Sanskrit is superior to Tamil. When do feelings of superiority arise to make us happy? When we are conscious of differences between what we believe is "ours" and what we believe is "theirs". Where we to have racial bias, we could be tempted to speak in appreciative terms of what is "ours" and to deprecate what is "theirs". If we realise that to harbour feelings based on racial differences is itself wrong, that our languages have sprung from the same family, from the same cultural tradition, there will be no cause for speaking highly of one language at the expense of another.

On the subject of grammar I have mentioned certain facts and it is not my intention to elevate one language above another.


http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part7/chap4.htm

No. No. This senthil guy doesa not know what he is talking about.

Sanskrit stole lot of words from Tamil. Here are examples:

from Tamil ............ to Sanskrit

Kaappiyam ----- kaavya
Kathai ---- katha
Manithan ------ manushya
Ilakkiyam ---- lajsana


Note: I hope people are intelligent enough to understand the underlying message of this post.

It is stupid to say Tamil borrowed it from Sanskrit because a Tamil word and a Sanskrit word look similar. There is a 50% probability that Sanskrit borrowed from Tamil unless you can show by etymological reasoning it originated in Sanskrit.

In face, Pavanar, Aruli and a few have shown 1000s of words supoosed to have been borrowed from Sanskrit are of Tamil origin.

Rashmun wrote:Influence of sanskrit over Tamil – breaking the dravidian racism
Posted on July 6, 2010 by senthil
I had a debate in this blog post of sukumar about the world tamil conference and parpola’s paper on Dravidian roots to IVC (which is also called Saraswathi Civilization). I argued that Tholkappiar, who wrote the first known tamil grammar book called “Tholkappiam”, himself is a brahmin, and this fact is often concealed or suppressed in various forums. Sukumar had challenged me to give a proof that tholkappiar was a brahmin, and while sourcing information for this, i happened to learn many things, which i want to consolidate in this post.

Preface poem in Tholkappiam book:

The whole book of tholkappiam can be downloded from Project Madurai website.

I am reproducing the preface of this book..

வட வேங்கடம் தென் குமரி
ஆயிடைத்
தமிழ் கூறும் நல் உலகத்து
வழக்கும் செய்யுளும் ஆயிரு முதலின்
எழுத்தும் சொல்லும் பொருளும் நாடிச்
செந்தமிழ் இயற்கை சிவணிய நிலத்தொடு
முந்து நூல் கண்டு முறைப்பட எண்ணிப்
புலம் தொகுத்தோனே போக்கு அறு பனுவல்
நிலம் தரு திருவின் பாண்டியன் அவையத்து
அறம் கரை நாவின் நான்மறை முற்றிய‌
அதங்கோட்டு ஆசாற்கு அரில் தபத் தெரிந்து
மயங்கா மரபின் எழுத்து முறை காட்டி
மல்கு நீர் வரைப்பின் ஐந்திரம் நிறைந்த‌
தொல்காப்பியன் எனத் தன் பெயர் தோற்றிப்
பல் புகழ் நிறுத்த படிமையோனே..

I am listing out the following inferences that we can make.

முந்து நூல் கண்டு முறைப்பட எண்ணிப் –> This line indicates, that tholkappiam is NOT the first tamil grammar book. Tholkappiar says, that he is wanting to refining an already existing grammar book.

நிலம் தரு திருவின் பாண்டியன் அவையத்து
அறம் கரை நாவின் நான்மறை முற்றிய‌
அதங்கோட்டு ஆசாற்கு அரில் தபத் தெரிந்து

the mention of vedas.. i think tholkappiar mentions about his guru in pandian court, who is a learned men of all four vedas..

மல்கு நீர் வரைப்பின் ஐந்திரம் நிறைந்த‌
தொல்காப்பியன் எனத் தன் பெயர் தோற்றிப்

Here, the word ஐந்திரம் indicates the Aindram School of Sanskrit grammar, which is the first of the eleven sanskrit schools of grammar. All these grammars had preceded Panini’s grammar, and is mentioned by himself in his work Ashtadhyayi.

The following are the conclusions that we can make.

Tholkappiar knew about vedas.
Tholkappiar could have learned about aindram school of grammar.
Tholkappiar’s guru is a scholar of four vedas, and hence Tholkappiar should have learned vedas.
Tholkappiar should be a brahmana, since he learnt vedas.
A vedic brahmana had written grammar for Tamil, which is used till now.
Tamil had extensive relation with Sanskrit.
Since Tholkappiar mentions about Aindram school of grammar, he might have lived much before Panini, who wrote modern sanskrit grammar.
Grammars of Modern sanskrit and Tamil might have evolved from a common school of grammar. This doesnt mean, tamil is derived from sanskrit. Rather, the grammatical concepts might have been sourced from the common school and the scripts might have been independant.
There can be many other inferences that we can make. But let me move on.

The website of tamil Virtual University mentions the name of tholkappiar as ThiranaDhoomaggini (திரணதூமாக்கினி) and tamil translation of this name comes to “Pulathiyan” (புலத்தியன்).

Tholkappiyam mentions about loaning words from Sanskrit:

While i was randomly going through the original tholkappiyam book, i came across the lines, where it is mentioned that words can be borrowed from sanskrit for the literary poems.

In page# 63 of the tolkappian book referred in previous comment, the following lines appear under topic எச்சவியல்..

இயற்சொல் திரிசொல் திசைச்சொல் வடசொல் என்று
அனைத்தே செய்யுள் ஈட்டச் சொல்லே..

If my understanding is correct, tolkappiar says, words borrowed from sanskrit (வடசொல்), can also be used in composing the poems..

If we scroll Further, the following lines is seen which mentions about how Sanskrit words can be used.

வடசொல் கிளவி வட எழுத்து ஒரீஇ
எழுத்தொடு புணர்ந்த சொல் ஆகும்மே – pg-64

This contradicts the popular racial tamil theory propagated by Dravidar Kalagam and particularly by Dr. Ramdass of PMK, who attempts to create new tamil word for every foreign words. For eg, they are attempting to create a word “vazhuval katti” for soap, which is horrible one. The niceties of the tamil words in sanga poetry is lost with such attempts. We have to realise that it is the racial western society which believes in the linguistic exclusive concept, and many indic languages have mutual influences over words.

Further, in the same book, tholkappiar also details about the other three types of words that he says can be incorporated in the Poems.

அவற்றுள்
இயற்சொல்தாமே
செந்தமிழ் நிலத்து வழக்கொடு சிவணி
தம் பொருள் வழாமை இசைக்கும் சொல்லே..

ஒரு பொருள் குறித்த வேறு சொல் ஆகியும்
வேறு பொருள் குறித்த ஒரு சொல் ஆகியிம்
இரு பாற்று என்ப திரிசொல் கிளவி

செந்தமிழ் சேர்ந்த பன்னிரு நிலத்தும்
தம் குறிப்பனவே திசைச்சொல் கிளவி

So, there is a always a relation b/w tamil and sanskrit even before sangha period, and the relationship is indeed healthy. More importantly, we could not find anything racial tone in all these references.

There is no mention of Aryan imposition over tamil or any reference to dravidian exclusivism.

Other Sanskrit words widely in tamil:

The tamil – sanskrit linkages has been further understood from the following sanskrit words in tamil.

Tolkappiam is divided in three books. – ezhuthathikaram ( எழுத்ததிகாரம்) , porulathikaram (பொருளதிகாரம்) and sollathikaram (சொல்லதிகாரம் ) .. here the word “athikaram” is a sanskrit word.
The word “kaappiyam” (காப்பியம்) itself is from the sanskrit word “kaavya” ..
We often use the word “Sanga Tamil”.. however, the term “sangha” itself is a prakrutha word.. meaning assembly.. for eg, in budhist history, they have established baudha sangha at various places to promote budhism
The word “kathai” (கதை) is a sanskrit word “Katha”
The word kalai (கலை) from the sanskrit word “Kala”
manithan (மனிதன்) from “manushya”
the word “aasaan” has no tamil equivalent.
We can list out so many such sanskrit words which has been used widely in tamil, for which we dont have any equivalent tamil word.

Conclusion:

The very fundamentals of Dravidian Ideology could be shaken from the simple truth that tholkappiar has been a Brahmin who knew veda, and who knew aindram school of grammar. So what could be the fact?

Tamil might have evolved independantly. And at the same time, the concept of grammar has been simultaneously evolving with various schools of grammar being established. Tamil could have very well utilised these advancements to finetune itself. The tamil kings would have invited those grammarian scholars to either create grammar for tamil, or to refine an already evolving tamil grammar, as we could see in tholkappiam, where tholkappiar says he wanted to improve an already existing book.

The truth may be anything, but we can identify it only when we free from the narrow racial ideology of aryan – dravidian divide.

What do you think? Please share your thoughts, and also any mistakes in this post.

http://psenthilraja.wordpress.com/2010/07/06/influence-of-sanskrit-over-tamil/

It is interesting to note the views on sanskrit of the author of the first text on tamil grammar. It is sad that fanatics like KV prefer to ignore the contents of the first text on tamil grammar and instead prefer to spew their nonsense.

just a correction to rashmun's post. tholkappiam is not the first text on tamil grammar. as usual he is posting nonsense without knowing the underlying subject

It is a fact that Tholkappiam is the earliest existing text on tamil grammar. KV is twisting in all directions now.

Rashmun wrote:It is a fact that Tholkappiam is the earliest existing text on tamil grammar. KV with her forked tongue is twisting in all directions now.

This is not what you posted before. Aplogize for posting nonsense before.

When I said first text on tamil grammar I implicitly meant first existing text on tamil grammar. Apologize for asking me to apologize unnecessarily.

i posted this q on a lingustics website where i got a lot of support for the following research methodology. when trying to determine the origin of a sanskritic word, do an exhaustive search on cognates that exist in all the other extant and dead IE languages. if a congnate cannot be found it's a good bet that the word came into sanskrit from a dravidian or munda source and was not part of vedic sanskrit. a lot of the words discussed here i suspect could ultimately be traced to a dravidian source. one needs to keep an open mind about this and not fall prey to pre-conceived notions about the relationship between dravidian languages and sanskrit. the research on this is still evolving.

i also find it remarkable that rashmun posts tamil script without being able to read a single letter. i feel embarrassed for him. very cringe inducing, but different folks different strokes.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i posted this q on a lingustics website where i got a lot of support for the following research methodology. when trying to determine the origin of a sanskritic word, do an exhaustive search on cognates that exist in all the other extant and dead IE languages. if a congnate cannot be found it's a good bet that the word came into sanskrit from a dravidian or munda source and was not part of vedic sanskrit. a lot of the words discussed here i suspect could ultimately be traced to a dravidian source. one needs to keep an open mind about this and not fall prey to pre-conceived notions about the relationship between dravidian languages and sanskrit. the research on this is still evolving.

i also find it remarkable that rashmun posts tamil script without being able to read a single letter. i feel embarrassed for him. very cringe inducing, but different folks different strokes.

i don't agree with the methodology you mention. Even the Rig Veda contains some words of dravidian origin. So these words or derivatives of these words could have percolated down into languages like modern hindustani. I gave the tamil words from the Tolkappiyam because the author keeps referring to them in making his case in the article. I was hoping someone who knows tamil and who disagrees with the position taken by the author of the article could offer an alternative explanation for the tamil words.

A phenomenon akin to 'Horizontal Gene Transfer' has taken place both from sanskrit to dravidian and from dravidian to sanskrit but the direction seems to be a lot more in the sanskrit --> dravidian direction. This is evident from the fact that the first grammar texts of Kannada and Telugu are in Sanskrit and the first grammar text in Tamil (Tolkappiyam) openly admits its debt to sanskrit grammar and encourages the use of sanskrit origin words in tamil. On the question of usage of sanskrit words in tamil, Tolkappiyam expresses complete disagreement with the Tamil fanatics who wish to purge Tamil of all words of sanskrit origin. And Malayalam, of course, is the most sanskritised of all the south indian languages.

Rashmun wrote:[
i don't agree with the methodology you mention.

your disagreement is irrelevant. i gave a logical procedure and linguistics scholars and students agree with me. you are not a disinterested party. therefore your views should be taken with a sack of salt. what is your objection to my methodology?

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Rashmun wrote:[
i don't agree with the methodology you mention.

your disagreement is irrelevant. i gave a logical procedure and linguistics scholars and students agree with me. you are not a disinterested party. therefore your views should be taken with a sack of salt. what is your objection to my methodology?

on these kind of questions, my mind works like a scientist. I am not trying to minimize the importance of dravidian languages; rather i am giving them more importance than you are giving them. My argument is that the Rig Veda, Upanisads, and other ancient sanskrit texts contain some words of dravidian origin (as per linguistic scholars) and there is no reason why such words (or modifications of such words) could not have been inherited by more modern languages like Hindustani. Sanskrit influenced dravidian languages and dravidian languages influenced sanskrit but the debt of the dravidian languages to sanskrit is greater as i explained in my previous post. Also, please do some reading on Horizontal Gene Transfer and understand the difference between Horizontal and Vertical Gene transfer. This will help you gain a better understanding of the evolution of languages.

Rashmun wrote:

on these kind of questions, my mind works like a scientist.

no it doesn't. it works like a mind that has absorbed, digested, and fully polluted with preconceived notions. the procedure i outlined is scientific. you are unable to come up with a reasonable argument, hence the logorrhea. there is no logical reason to accept that sanskrit has influenced dravidian languages more than the other way around. this is just a common assumption similar to the once common assumption at the end of the 19th century that newtonian physics was the last point in our understanding of physics. i came up with one method to get out of this logjam. carefully look for cognates of sanskritic words in other IE languages. if none can be found, the word becomes a candidate dravidian/munda word which went to sanskrit. i am yet to see you argue why this is not a good methodology other than parroting the commonly held view that sanskrit has given more to dravidian than the other way round.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

on these kind of questions, my mind works like a scientist.

no it doesn't. it works like a mind that has absorbed, digested, and fully polluted with preconceived notions. the procedure i outlined is scientific. you are unable to come up with a reasonable argument, hence the logorrhea. there is no logical reason to accept that sanskrit has influenced dravidian languages more than the other way around. this is just a common assumption similar to the once common assumption at the end of the 19th century that newtonian physics was the last point in our understanding of physics. i came up with one method to get out of this logjam. carefully look for cognates of sanskritic words in other IE languages. if none can be found, the word becomes a candidate dravidian/munda word which went to sanskrit. i am yet to see you argue why this is not a good methodology other than parroting the commonly held view that sanskrit has given more to dravidian than the other way round.

1. sanskrit has influenced dravidian languages more than the other way around because the earliest grammarians of dravidian languages have bowed before sanskrit and openly acknowledged their debt to sanskrit.

2. I have now explained twice why your procedure is fallacious in my previous two posts. I am not going to do this explaining a third time. But i will reiterate that your procedure involves minimizing the influence of dravidian languages on sanskrit and other IE languages.

[quote="Rashmun"][quote="MaxEntropy_Man"]

Rashmun wrote:
1. sanskrit has influenced dravidian languages more than the other way around because the earliest grammarians of dravidian languages have bowed before sanskrit and openly acknowledged their debt to sanskrit.

and who is to say that their view is the final word on the topic? i trust modern methods of linguistic research which employ logic and computational tools more than i trust a view that has been passed down and is assumed to be true. you have explained nothing other than parrot institutional assumptions. don't flatter yourself.

>> the first grammar text in Tamil (Tolkappiyam) openly admits its debt to sanskrit grammar and encourages the use of sanskrit origin words in tamil.



How many times I have to drive into your head Tholkappiam is not the first. There is more than one grammar text before; they could even predate Sanskrit grammar.

Max, rash, anybody,

What is the sanskrit word for ginger?

Kayalvizhi wrote:>> the first grammar text in Tamil (Tolkappiyam) openly admits its debt to sanskrit grammar and encourages the use of sanskrit origin words in tamil.



How many times I have to drive into your head Tholkappiam is not the first. There is more than one grammar text before; they could even predate Sanskrit grammar.

I have clarified earlier that by first text on tamil grammar I mean earliest existing text on tamil grammar.

Rashmun wrote:

Kayalvizhi wrote:>> the first grammar text in Tamil (Tolkappiyam) openly admits its debt to sanskrit grammar and encourages the use of sanskrit origin words in tamil.

How many times I have to drive into your head Tholkappiam is not the first. There is more than one grammar text before; they could even predate Sanskrit grammar.

I have clarified earlier that by first text on tamil grammar I mean earliest existing text on tamil grammar.

Rashmun Sutra:

First text MEANS earliest test

Earliest text SHOULD READ early written text of Grammar

Early written text IMPLIES contemporary text of grammar

Contemporary text indicates First text.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Kayalvizhi wrote:>> the first grammar text in Tamil (Tolkappiyam) openly admits its debt to sanskrit grammar and encourages the use of sanskrit origin words in tamil.

How many times I have to drive into your head Tholkappiam is not the first. There is more than one grammar text before; they could even predate Sanskrit grammar.

I have clarified earlier that by first text on tamil grammar I mean earliest existing text on tamil grammar.

Rashmun Sutra:

First text MEANS earliest test

Earliest text SHOULD READ early written text of Grammar

Early written text IMPLIES contemporary text of grammar

Contemporary text indicates First text.

Extrapolation, extrapolation. tut tut.

Who let the "dog" out ? Who who ?

i have communicated with this guy (http://borissoff.wordpress.com/) on another board. he thinks the method i suggested is an excellent way to make progress in this area.

he is an expert on congnates in sanskrit and russian.
http://borissoff.wordpress.com/2012/11/18/russian-sanskrit-verbs-3/
http://borissoff.wordpress.com/2012/12/13/russian-sanskrit-nouns/

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i have communicated with this guy (http://borissoff.wordpress.com/) on another board. he thinks the method i suggested is an excellent way to make progress in this area.

he is an expert on congnates in sanskrit and russian.
http://borissoff.wordpress.com/2012/11/18/russian-sanskrit-verbs-3/
http://borissoff.wordpress.com/2012/12/13/russian-sanskrit-nouns/

Your method fails because it does not take into account the existence of words in Hindustani and other modern IE languages which were derived from Sanskrit and which in turn were derived from proto Dravidian. Also, consider this:

But the origin of Tamil, the language spoken by the southern neighbours, is still unclear.

It seems to have some relationship with, of all languages, Finnish, Hungarian and Basque. And Malayalam, which has commonality with Tamil, has several words common with Finnish; for example the words for basket (vatti in Malayalam, vatin in Finnish), flower (puu, puu), house (kudi, koti). Here then is a puzzle waiting to be resolved by the next generation Krishnamurti on the proto-Tamil/Malayalam language. That would be a fitting tribute to this outstanding scholar.

http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/war-of-words-on-the-origin-of-words/article3836320.ece

Rashmun wrote:
Your method fails because it does not take into account the existence of words in Hindustani and other modern IE languages which were derived from Sanskrit and which in turn were derived from proto Dravidian. Also, consider this:

my method provides a way to distinguish between:

(a) words in modern dravidian languages that went from vedic/pre-vedic sanskrit to dravidian languages, and

(b) words that went from proto dravidian or dravidian languages or munda into sanskrit.

i'm saying that if cognates of sanskritic words don't exist in any extant IE languages (e.g. russian, english, german etc.) or in any dead IE languages, (e.g. latin), that word becomes a candidate for examining the hypothesis that it went dravidian --> sanskrit or munda -->sanskrit. it is my contention that if such a method is used in a careful study, many words originally thought to be sanskritic in origin, and hence used to promote the idea that sanskrit is the alpha of indian languages may be found to be dravidian or munda in origin.

you either have actual reading comprehension issues, or are pretending not to understand what i wrote because you are afraid of where the conclusions of such a study might lead you.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
Your method fails because it does not take into account the existence of words in Hindustani and other modern IE languages which were derived from Sanskrit and which in turn were derived from proto Dravidian. Also, consider this:

my method provides a way to distinguish between:

(a) words in modern dravidian languages that went from vedic/pre-vedic sanskrit to dravidian languages, and

(b) words that went from proto dravidian or dravidian languages or munda into sanskrit.

i'm saying that if cognates of sanskritic words don't exist in any extant IE languages (e.g. russian, english, german etc.) or in any dead IE languages, (e.g. latin), that word becomes a candidate for examining the hypothesis that it went dravidian --> sanskrit or munda -->sanskrit. it is my contention that if such a method is used in a careful study, many words originally thought to be sanskritic in origin, and hence used to promote the idea that sanskrit is the alpha of indian languages may be found to be dravidian or munda in origin.

you either have actual reading comprehension issues, or are pretending not to understand what i wrote because you are afraid of where the conclusions of such a study might lead you.

edited to add: perhaps you are referring to words like pundit or guru which are used in english these days quite freely. the origin of those words in english is fairly modern, easy to trace and to attribute to the recent colonial era. the subset of these words is quite small. i don't see that in itself presenting a huge problem to the application of my method. in any case words like that have been incorporated wholesale without undergoing modification thereby indicating that the presence of such words is very recent.

hindi is not relevant to this discussion because it was derived completely from sanskrit. the only IE languages of interest in this discussion are non-south asian IE languages which have had no recent contact with sanskrit.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
Your method fails because it does not take into account the existence of words in Hindustani and other modern IE languages which were derived from Sanskrit and which in turn were derived from proto Dravidian. Also, consider this:

my method provides a way to distinguish between:

(a) words in modern dravidian languages that went from vedic/pre-vedic sanskrit to dravidian languages, and

(b) words that went from proto dravidian or dravidian languages or munda into sanskrit.

i'm saying that if cognates of sanskritic words don't exist in any extant IE languages (e.g. russian, english, german etc.) or in any dead IE languages, (e.g. latin), that word becomes a candidate for examining the hypothesis that it went dravidian --> sanskrit or munda -->sanskrit. it is my contention that if such a method is used in a careful study, many words originally thought to be sanskritic in origin, and hence used to promote the idea that sanskrit is the alpha of indian languages may be found to be dravidian or munda in origin.

you either have actual reading comprehension issues, or are pretending not to understand what i wrote because you are afraid of where the conclusions of such a study might lead you.

With respect to your point b the number of such sanskrit words which have a counterpart in any or all Dravidian languages but not in any existing or extinct IE language is zero in my opinion. I have no objection to such a study but this is my preliminary opinion. There are many more useful and exciting ideas to increase our understanding of Dravidian languages than to go on wild goose chases for several years, waste a lot of research funding, and come up with no results.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
Your method fails because it does not take into account the existence of words in Hindustani and other modern IE languages which were derived from Sanskrit and which in turn were derived from proto Dravidian. Also, consider this:

my method provides a way to distinguish between:

(a) words in modern dravidian languages that went from vedic/pre-vedic sanskrit to dravidian languages, and

(b) words that went from proto dravidian or dravidian languages or munda into sanskrit.

i'm saying that if cognates of sanskritic words don't exist in any extant IE languages (e.g. russian, english, german etc.) or in any dead IE languages, (e.g. latin), that word becomes a candidate for examining the hypothesis that it went dravidian --> sanskrit or munda -->sanskrit. it is my contention that if such a method is used in a careful study, many words originally thought to be sanskritic in origin, and hence used to promote the idea that sanskrit is the alpha of indian languages may be found to be dravidian or munda in origin.

you either have actual reading comprehension issues, or are pretending not to understand what i wrote because you are afraid of where the conclusions of such a study might lead you.

edited to add: perhaps you are referring to words like pundit or guru which are used in english these days quite freely. the origin of those words in english is fairly modern, easy to trace and to attribute to the recent colonial era. the subset of these words is quite small. i don't see that in itself presenting a huge problem to the application of my method. in any case words like that have been incorporated wholesale without undergoing modification thereby indicating that the presence of such words is very recent.

hindi is not relevant to this discussion because it was derived completely from sanskrit. the only IE languages of interest in this discussion are non-south asian IE languages which have had no recent contact with sanskrit.

No no. The most exciting Dravidian words in Sanskrit are those which are in the Rig Veda as held by philologists.

here are two example hypotheses:

the word tAlA for lock. there seems to be no non-south asian IE congate for tAlA. however there is a tamil word, தாழ்ப்பாள் (thAzhppAL) meaning latch, i.e. the object below:



is it likely that this that common indian word went (proto)dravidian --> sanskrit and eventually came to stand for both the integral latch and the self-standing lock?

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:here are two example hypotheses:

the word tAlA for lock. there seems to be no non-south asian IE congate for tAlA. however there is a tamil word, தாழ்ப்பாள் (thAzhppAL) meaning latch, i.e. the object below:



is it likely that this that common indian word went (proto)dravidian --> sanskrit and eventually came to stand for both the integral latch and the self-standing lock?

I know a professor of Sanskrit very well. I will ask him this question. Meanwhile, this is from another list:

Am writing in a bit of a hurry, but check out Madhav Deshpande's "Sanskrit and Prakrit: Sociolinguistic Issues" which has a decent overview of this give and take of vocab between Sanskrit and non-Sanskritic languages in the subcontinent (in short his argument is that there is traffic both ways, but more from Sanskrit-to-non than the other way.) He also has an article in Tom Trautmann's "Aryan Debate" which discusses the methodological grounds on which many of these conclusions are reached = dentals, retroflexes and all that sweet stuff. This question is very much a part of comparative linguistics. Your tala example sounds valid to me, prima facie (as in I know jack about the details of this method but it sounds plausible! :-))

---

Deshpande's views on this issue seem to be in harmonious agreement with mine.

i know all these so called "views". these are just commonly held assumptions passed down through generations and parroted from teacher to student. it's time linguists with more computational and analytical muscle got into this area and as a colleague of mine would say, rattled the cages a bit.

i think the tAlA exaple is more than likely because in tamil the thAzhppAL is often shortened to a thAzh and sometimes (in informal language) even becomes thAL. that brings it even closer to tAlA

forgot my second example. the word taNdA for coldness. i haven't done an extensive search, but from my limited explorations there seems to be no cognate for this word in any non south-asian IE language. but the tamil word for water, thaNNIr is a composite word made from thaNmai (cold) and nIr (another word for water). thaNNIr means water but its constituent words mean cold water. did taNdA or taNdAi move from (proto)dravidian --> sanskrit?

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i think the tAlA exaple is more than likely because in tamil the thAzhppAL is often shortened to a thAzh and sometimes (in informal language) even becomes thAL. that brings it even closer to tAlA

What is the word for lock in Malayalam?

pooTu

Hellsangel wrote:pooTu

Thank you. Max how do you explain this?

the self standing lock is also poottu in tamil. the latch is the thing called thAzhppAL.

Rashmun,

You posted something about vatti (basket) in Malayalam. It is used in Tamil also. It comes from the Tamil word vattam (circle). Words for some circular objects are derived from the word vattam. Examples are vattu (circular disk), vattil (a circular eating utensil)

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:the self standing lock is also poottu in tamil. the latch is the thing called thAzhppAL.

another malaylam word for lock is thAz(eh).

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:the self standing lock is also poottu in tamil. the latch is the thing called thAzhppAL.

another malaylam word for lock is thAz(eh).

I asked the proprietor of the persian grocery store nearby whether the words tala for lock or thand for cold are present in persian and he said no. But he also said that there are various persian dialects and it is possible these words are present in one of the dialects.

if anything needs to be broken, it is the dogmatic view passed down through generations that sanskrit is the alpha of indian languages. in the final analysis it may well be the final conclusion that the relationship between sanskrit and (proto) dravidian languages is one of symbiosis, each influencing the other in more or less equal measure. the final word on this is yet to be written.

there is no such thing as dravidian racism, but there is certainly such a thing as institutionalized sanskritic dogma. we need a fresh infusion of ideas and individuals who have worked in other languages and indeed people who come to linguistics from other fields, to seed and pursue new research directions. knowledge in many fields has sometimes progressed much faster when people from other fields have jumped in and rattled the institutional cages.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:the self standing lock is also poottu in tamil. the latch is the thing called thAzhppAL.

another malaylam word for lock is thAz(eh).

Il Professore, since you are such a stickler for thamizh as opposed to tamil, any reason you wrote it as thazeh instead of thazhe?

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:the self standing lock is also poottu in tamil. the latch is the thing called thAzhppAL.

another malaylam word for lock is thAz(eh).

Il Professore, since you are such a stickler for thamizh as opposed to tamil, any reason you wrote it as thazeh instead of thazhe?

trigger fingers. i am ok with tamil and i am also ok with thamizh. i am not ok with thamiz which sounds like some urdu word.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:the self standing lock is also poottu in tamil. the latch is the thing called thAzhppAL.

another malaylam word for lock is thAz(eh).

Il Professore, since you are such a stickler for thamizh as opposed to tamil, any reason you wrote it as thazeh instead of thazhe?

trigger fingers. i am ok with tamil and i am also ok with thamizh. i am not ok with thamiz which sounds like some urdu word.

This topic of Sanskrit influencing Tamil gets you very worked up, doesn't it? Every 3 months or so you get into it with Rashmun.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:if anything needs to be broken, it is the dogmatic view passed down through generations that sanskrit is the alpha of indian languages. in the final analysis it may well be the final conclusion that the relationship between sanskrit and (proto) dravidian languages is one of symbiosis, each influencing the other in more or less equal measure. the final word on this is yet to be written.

there is no such thing as dravidian racism, but there is certainly such a thing as institutionalized sanskritic dogma. we need a fresh infusion of ideas and individuals who have worked in other languages and indeed people who come to linguistics from other fields, to seed and pursue new research directions. knowledge in many fields has sometimes progressed much faster when people from other fields have jumped in and rattled the institutional cages.

There can be little doubt about the fact that Sanskrit is a national language and all aspects of Indian culture are directly or indirectly connected with it. Dravidian languages are also great but they remain regional languages. They can be compared to Bengali which is also a great regional language. Here is an example: all the great philosophical works in India, barring very few exceptions, are in Sanskrit. Using Sanskrit in their writings enabled our thinkers and scholars to communicate with each other wherever in India they were based.

The dogma associated with Sanskrit really has to do with certain dogmas associated with hinduism. For instance the claim by many orthodox hindus that all knowledge, past or present or future, is contained within the Vedas and that the thing to do is to interpret the Vedas correctly so as to ascertain this. Sanskrit is not to blame for this dogma.

When a Tamil or Telugu or Bengali Hindu dies then the funeral rites are in Sanskrit and not in Tamil, Telugu, or Bengali. This is the ultimate tribute of a Hindu to Sanskrit.

Rashmun wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:if anything needs to be broken, it is the dogmatic view passed down through generations that sanskrit is the alpha of indian languages. in the final analysis it may well be the final conclusion that the relationship between sanskrit and (proto) dravidian languages is one of symbiosis, each influencing the other in more or less equal measure. the final word on this is yet to be written.

there is no such thing as dravidian racism, but there is certainly such a thing as institutionalized sanskritic dogma. we need a fresh infusion of ideas and individuals who have worked in other languages and indeed people who come to linguistics from other fields, to seed and pursue new research directions. knowledge in many fields has sometimes progressed much faster when people from other fields have jumped in and rattled the institutional cages.

There can be little doubt about the fact that Sanskrit is a national language and all aspects of Indian culture are directly or indirectly connected with it. Dravidian languages are also great but they remain regional languages. They can be compared to Bengali which is also a great regional language. Here is an example: all the great philosophical works in India, barring very few exceptions, are in Sanskrit. Using Sanskrit in their writings enabled our thinkers and scholars to communicate with each other wherever in India they were based.

The dogma associated with Sanskrit really has to do with certain dogmas associated with hinduism. For instance the claim by many orthodox hindus that all knowledge, past or present or future, is contained within the Vedas and that the thing to do is to interpret the Vedas correctly so as to ascertain this. Sanskrit is not to blame for this dogma.

When a Tamil or Telugu or Bengali Hindu dies then the funeral rites are in Sanskrit and not in Tamil, Telugu, or Bengali. This is the ultimate tribute of a Hindu to Sanskrit.

your post is an example of institutionalized sanskritic dogma. thanks for providing a very timely example.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:if anything needs to be broken, it is the dogmatic view passed down through generations that sanskrit is the alpha of indian languages. in the final analysis it may well be the final conclusion that the relationship between sanskrit and (proto) dravidian languages is one of symbiosis, each influencing the other in more or less equal measure. the final word on this is yet to be written.

there is no such thing as dravidian racism, but there is certainly such a thing as institutionalized sanskritic dogma. we need a fresh infusion of ideas and individuals who have worked in other languages and indeed people who come to linguistics from other fields, to seed and pursue new research directions. knowledge in many fields has sometimes progressed much faster when people from other fields have jumped in and rattled the institutional cages.

There can be little doubt about the fact that Sanskrit is a national language and all aspects of Indian culture are directly or indirectly connected with it. Dravidian languages are also great but they remain regional languages. They can be compared to Bengali which is also a great regional language. Here is an example: all the great philosophical works in India, barring very few exceptions, are in Sanskrit. Using Sanskrit in their writings enabled our thinkers and scholars to communicate with each other wherever in India they were based.

The dogma associated with Sanskrit really has to do with certain dogmas associated with hinduism. For instance the claim by many orthodox hindus that all knowledge, past or present or future, is contained within the Vedas and that the thing to do is to interpret the Vedas correctly so as to ascertain this. Sanskrit is not to blame for this dogma.

When a Tamil or Telugu or Bengali Hindu dies then the funeral rites are in Sanskrit and not in Tamil, Telugu, or Bengali. This is the ultimate tribute of a Hindu to Sanskrit.

your post is an example of institutionalized sanskritic dogma. thanks for providing a very timely example.

No it is not. I am criticizing those who claim that all knowledge is contained within the Vedas. At the same time I am explaining how when we juxtapose sanskrit with the Dravidian languages we immediately conclude that the comparison is incongruous. One is a national language while the others are regional languages comparable to the great regional language Bengali.

Rashmun wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:if anything needs to be broken, it is the dogmatic view passed down through generations that sanskrit is the alpha of indian languages. in the final analysis it may well be the final conclusion that the relationship between sanskrit and (proto) dravidian languages is one of symbiosis, each influencing the other in more or less equal measure. the final word on this is yet to be written.

there is no such thing as dravidian racism, but there is certainly such a thing as institutionalized sanskritic dogma. we need a fresh infusion of ideas and individuals who have worked in other languages and indeed people who come to linguistics from other fields, to seed and pursue new research directions. knowledge in many fields has sometimes progressed much faster when people from other fields have jumped in and rattled the institutional cages.

There can be little doubt about the fact that Sanskrit is a national language and all aspects of Indian culture are directly or indirectly connected with it. Dravidian languages are also great but they remain regional languages. They can be compared to Bengali which is also a great regional language. Here is an example: all the great philosophical works in India, barring very few exceptions, are in Sanskrit. Using Sanskrit in their writings enabled our thinkers and scholars to communicate with each other wherever in India they were based.

The dogma associated with Sanskrit really has to do with certain dogmas associated with hinduism. For instance the claim by many orthodox hindus that all knowledge, past or present or future, is contained within the Vedas and that the thing to do is to interpret the Vedas correctly so as to ascertain this. Sanskrit is not to blame for this dogma.

When a Tamil or Telugu or Bengali Hindu dies then the funeral rites are in Sanskrit and not in Tamil, Telugu, or Bengali. This is the ultimate tribute of a Hindu to Sanskrit.

your post is an example of institutionalized sanskritic dogma. thanks for providing a very timely example.

No it is not. I am criticizing those who claim that all knowledge is contained within the Vedas. At the same time I am explaining how when we juxtapose sanskrit with the Dravidian languages we immediately conclude that the comparison is incongruous. One is a national language while the others are regional languages comparable to the great regional language Bengali.

In the 20th century Bengali produced stars like Sharad Chandra Chattopadhyaya, Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyaya, and Tagore. If we seek literary figures of equal stature in Tamil and Hindi we find that the former only produced Subramanya Bharati while the latter produced Premchand.

Max do you think Bengali is inferior to any of the Dravidian languages?

Rashmun wrote:
In the 20th century Bengali produced stars like Sharad Chandra Chattopadhyaya, Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyaya, and Tagore. If we seek literary figures of equal stature in Tamil and Hindi we find that the former only produced Subramanya Bharati while the latter produced Premchand.

there is bharathidasan, akilan, kalki, and many many others. please rectify this annoying habit of yours to create noxious flatulence about things you have no clue about it.

Rashmun wrote:Max do you think Bengali is inferior to any of the Dravidian languages?

i am not in the habit of ranking languages. my knowledge of bengali is equal to your knowledge of tamil, i.e. both are identically equal to zero. i can however say that literary tamil is the equal of literary sanskrit in its richness.