MaxEntropy_Man wrote:why haven't you guys thought of taking your basic chapati and stuffing it with all kinds of weirdness? it's probably more robust anyway.

Vidya Bagchi wrote:Note kiya jaye me lord, "This is chef Niladri Chakraborty, whom I first got to know when he was at the Kenilworth Hotel in Calcutta. The chef, who is now moving to north India".

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

Vidya Bagchi wrote:Note kiya jaye me lord, "This is chef Niladri Chakraborty, whom I first got to know when he was at the Kenilworth Hotel in Calcutta. The chef, who is now moving to north India".

it's milord not me lord. yes, this is north indian creativity at it's zenith! that CCCD with an "i" looks utterly delicious!

Vidya Bagchi wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:why haven't you guys thought of taking your basic chapati and stuffing it with all kinds of weirdness? it's probably more robust anyway.

We do have different types of naans, rotis, paratha, and kulchas. But they still count as 'bread', not entree. There are special places which are totally based on variety of parathas or Kati rolls, but those, while good and popular, are not high end places. Dosa otoh is an popular entree.

Besides I think rice is much more universal than wheat is, and matches with different cuisines easily. Also, I guess the dosa presentation looks much better too.

Vidya Bagchi wrote:

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

Vidya Bagchi wrote:Note kiya jaye me lord, "This is chef Niladri Chakraborty, whom I first got to know when he was at the Kenilworth Hotel in Calcutta. The chef, who is now moving to north India".

it's milord not me lord. yes, this is north indian creativity at it's zenith! that CCCD with an "i" looks utterly delicious!

I googled me lord and saw entries and assumed it is correct. What I was trying to point out was that Calcutta is not north India like many people here try to believe.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:for most dravidian languages speaking people, bengal is very much in the north. they speak a sanskrit-derived langauge. their script resembles devnagari. for all intents and purposes they are north indians. i do realize their culture is different from the heartland and from haryanavis and punjabis.

smArtha wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:for most dravidian languages speaking people, bengal is very much in the north. they speak a sanskrit-derived langauge. their script resembles devnagari. for all intents and purposes they are north indians. i do realize their culture is different from the heartland and from haryanavis and punjabis.

And which Dravidians don't speak Sanskrit derived or inspired languages?

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:why haven't you guys thought of taking your basic chapati and stuffing it with all kinds of weirdness? it's probably more robust anyway.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

smArtha wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:for most dravidian languages speaking people, bengal is very much in the north. they speak a sanskrit-derived langauge. their script resembles devnagari. for all intents and purposes they are north indians. i do realize their culture is different from the heartland and from haryanavis and punjabis.

And which Dravidians don't speak Sanskrit derived or inspired languages?

i only said derived. you added a word i did not use, namely, inspired and i don't even know what you mean by that in this context. to my knowledge no dravidian language is derived from sanskrit. and before we get into any long winded discussion about what has been discussed to death at sulekha, unless you present some startling new information you are not going to change accepted knowledge.

smArtha wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

smArtha wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:for most dravidian languages speaking people, bengal is very much in the north. they speak a sanskrit-derived langauge. their script resembles devnagari. for all intents and purposes they are north indians. i do realize their culture is different from the heartland and from haryanavis and punjabis.

And which Dravidians don't speak Sanskrit derived or inspired languages?

i only said derived. you added a word i did not use, namely, inspired and i don't even know what you mean by that in this context. to my knowledge no dravidian language is derived from sanskrit. and before we get into any long winded discussion about what has been discussed to death at sulekha, unless you present some startling new information you are not going to change accepted knowledge.

There is still a lot of disagreement in the academic and scholarly circles, regarding the origins of 'Dravida' languages. I can firmly say the verdict is not out and final yet for anyone to claim it as an 'accepted knowledge'. If we sample the literature of the last Millennium - Telugu, Kannada and to a larger extent even Malayalam display more Sanskrit roots than the so called Dravida ones. Tamizh is an exception to this. Heavy Sanskrit influence is evident in other 3 languages from their alphabet sequence, basic phonetics to grammar rules for prose and poetry. IMO, it is better to use the well established knowledge of directions to classify what makes up North, East, West or South India than relying on still-in-dispute language-origin theories.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
at the risk of repeating everything that's already been said over and over again at sulekha, 'influenced-by' is a very different thing than 'derived from'. to say that english has been heavily influenced by french is a true statment. to say that it is derived from french is a joke.

all dravidian languages including thamizh have been influenced to a greater or lesser extent by sanskrit and have in turn influenced sanskrit. but the preponderance of evidence as to the origin of these languages points away from sanskrit. to my knowledge there is NO respected academic scholar, indian or non-indian who has written anything that suggests that any of the dravidian languages were derived from sanskrit.

smArtha wrote:
There is still a lot of disagreement in the academic and scholarly circles, regarding the origins of 'Dravida' languages.