Telangana Telugu an offshoot of Dakhni?

by Guest Fri Apr 13, 2012 3:48 pm

The Hyderabadi Urdu is more like city's dialect of Hindi- a 'la
Ebonics Language you see. It is in the world of its own.

Like the Mumbayya 'tapori',Hyderabadi lingo too has its
own distinct sound and flavour.and yes, it is more varied as it has its
own dialects in different parts of the city.

If the real Hyderabadi is laced with Urdu and typical to
the old city, the new city has a fair mix of English and Telugu to it.
In Secunderabad Cantonment area, there is a Tamil touch to it.

Do not be confused if some one says "Nakko", it means "Nahi
Chahiye". Then we come across tenses, "Abhi" never means "Now" and "Parson"
never means "day before yesterday". "Parson" can run upto last six months
back.

Hyderabad is the land of abuses. Ditch anybody with your
vehicle and you have the choicest of the blessings from the person at
the receiving end .

Reflecting legacy of its pre-colonial cultural plurality,
its lingua franca, Dakhni was a combination of at least five Indian languages:
Marathi, Telugu, Kannada, Hindi and Urdu.
Dakhni's syntactic template is common to its two subsequent
off-shoots: Telangana Telugu and Hyderabadi Urdu. Hyderabadi Urdu is different
from the Persianized Urdu of the North and its Telugu is different from
the Sanskritized Telugu of the South.

http://www.explohyd.com/hyderabad-specials/dialect.html

by charvaka Fri Apr 13, 2012 10:37 pm

You -- and the nameless "expert" who came up with this article -- should look up the definition of the word "offshoot." For years you have blindly copy-pasted articles that said Hindi-Urdu was an offshoot of Dakhni. And the article you copy-pasted without sans your own thinking contradicts itself in just two sentence. If Dakhni is a combination of Telugu with other languages, a dialect of Telugu cannot be an offshoot of Dakhni!

If only you paid more attention to the logic and content of what you read rather than to bolding and underlining, I wouldn't have to explain such basic problems with the balderdash you copy-paste to you!

by Guest Fri Apr 13, 2012 11:07 pm

charvaka wrote:You -- and the nameless "expert" who came up with this article -- should look up the definition of the word "offshoot." For years you have blindly copy-pasted articles that said Hindi-Urdu was an offshoot of Dakhni. And the article you copy-pasted without sans your own thinking contradicts itself in just two sentence. If Dakhni is a combination of Telugu with other languages, a dialect of Telugu cannot be an offshoot of Dakhni!

If only you paid more attention to the logic and content of what you read rather than to bolding and underlining, I wouldn't have to explain such basic problems with the balderdash you copy-paste to you!

Dakhni could have arisen from a synthesis of hindi,urdu, telugu, marathi over a long period of time and then modern Telananga Telugu could have evolved from Dakhni. It is a fact that Telangana Telugu with its hindi-urdu (and a little marathi) words is very different from sanskritised urdu of coastal andhra. (In telugu movies, the comedians and villains speak Telangana telugu while the heroes speak sanskritised telugu.) Telangana telugu, originally at least, did not even have its own script.

by charvaka Fri Apr 13, 2012 11:18 pm

Rashmun wrote:It is a fact that Telangana Telugu with its hindi-urdu (and a little marathi) words is very different from sanskritised urdu of coastal andhra.

And how do you know this fact?

The truth is, Sanskritization is a feature of literary Telugu, and it is not a function of which part of Telangana the writer is from.

Rashmun wrote:Telangana telugu, originally at least, did not even have its own script.

This is so laughable. Keep them coming, Rashmun. You are at your best when you make shit up.

by Guest Fri Apr 13, 2012 11:29 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:It is a fact that Telangana Telugu with its hindi-urdu (and a little marathi) words is very different from sanskritised urdu of coastal andhra.
And how do you know this fact?

The truth is, Sanskritization is a feature of literary Telugu, and it is not a function of which part of Telangana the writer is from.

Rashmun wrote:Telangana telugu, originally at least, did not even have its own script.
This is so laughable. Keep them coming, Rashmun. You are at your best when you make shit up.

PP Method: when shown to be an ignoramus, attack the person or sources who are more knowledgeable than you.

-----

When Malik Kafur, Alauddin Khilji's favourite general sacked the Yadava kingdom of Devagiri (present-day Aurangabad) and made inroads into the Kakatiya kingdom at Warangal at the fag-end of the 13th century, little did he realize that his incursions would change this part of the world forever. Kafur was happy making away with gold-laden horses and the Kohinoor. But in the series of invasions that followed, Muhammad bin Tughlak set up his capital in the area before he was forced to retreat north. This sowed the seeds of a Deccani (Dakhni) culture, which reached its zenith in the 20th-century Hyderabad state of the Nizams. It sprawled across present-day Maharashtra, north Karnataka and Telangana. "A distinctive culture evolved. It was a synthesis of north and south, of Hindu and Muslim traditions, and also tribal culture as part of the area was populated with Gonds," says former minister Basheeruddin Babu-khan. A new way of life came into being with a distinct language, Dakhni, a synthesis of Urdu and Telugu; food habits; music and festivals that included Id, Dussehra and tribal feast days revolving around jungle cults.

Meanwhile, south of the Krishna river, the prosperous Vijayanagar kings held sway. Their kingdom, in present-day north-central Karnataka, controlled large parts of what is now Andhra Pradesh. The kings were great proponents of culture and built magnificent temples such as Lord Balaji's in Tirumala. Thus, they spawned a distinctive way of life. "The two cultures were poles apart," says Bharat Kumar who recently wrote a book on Telangana. From the 18th century, much of the area under Vijayanagar came into British hands. Madras was their regional headquarters. This brought English education to the region. As well as an irrigation system. All of this accentuated the differences with people in the Deccan region.

Unfortunately, the Nizams ran a military-feudal system, focused on revenue collection rather than mass education and development. Soon, the economic and cultural gap between the two peoples was enormous. "There was no common meeting ground, except for the Telugu language. But in Telangana the Telugu spoken was different and had no script.The Telugu in parts of the erstwhile British dominion was Sanskritised and classical," says a former state chief secretary...

Andhra Pradesh itself was a union of the Telugu-speaking area of Telangana and the other part that was under the British. Interestingly, the creation of Andhra Pradesh ran counter to the recommendations of the States Reorganization Commission. It advised separate states. "But those were the heady days of integration and states on linguistic basis. Language was considered the basis of culture. So nobody thought that things could go amiss. Although things did not go awry in that sense, it was an uneasy alliance between two unequal economic partners," says the former chief secretary.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-12-13/special-report/28066950_1_telugu-telangana-culture

by charvaka Fri Apr 13, 2012 11:34 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:It is a fact that Telangana Telugu with its hindi-urdu (and a little marathi) words is very different from sanskritised urdu of coastal andhra.
And how do you know this fact?

The truth is, Sanskritization is a feature of literary Telugu, and it is not a function of which part of Telangana the writer is from.

Rashmun wrote:Telangana telugu, originally at least, did not even have its own script.
This is so laughable. Keep them coming, Rashmun. You are at your best when you make shit up.

PP Method: when shown to be an ignoramus, attack the person or sources who are more knowledgeable than you.

-----

When Malik Kafur, Alauddin Khilji's favourite general sacked the Yadava kingdom of Devagiri (present-day Aurangabad) and made inroads into the Kakatiya kingdom at Warangal at the fag-end of the 13th century, little did he realize that his incursions would change this part of the world forever. Kafur was happy making away with gold-laden horses and the Kohinoor. But in the series of invasions that followed, Muhammad bin Tughlak set up his capital in the area before he was forced to retreat north. This sowed the seeds of a Deccani (Dakhni) culture, which reached its zenith in the 20th-century Hyderabad state of the Nizams. It sprawled across present-day Maharashtra, north Karnataka and Telangana. "A distinctive culture evolved. It was a synthesis of north and south, of Hindu and Muslim traditions, and also tribal culture as part of the area was populated with Gonds," says former minister Basheeruddin Babu-khan. A new way of life came into being with a distinct language, Dakhni, a synthesis of Urdu and Telugu; food habits; music and festivals that included Id, Dussehra and tribal feast days revolving around jungle cults.

Meanwhile, south of the Krishna river, the prosperous Vijayanagar kings held sway. Their kingdom, in present-day north-central Karnataka, controlled large parts of what is now Andhra Pradesh. The kings were great proponents of culture and built magnificent temples such as Lord Balaji's in Tirumala. Thus, they spawned a distinctive way of life. "The two cultures were poles apart," says Bharat Kumar who recently wrote a book on Telangana. From the 18th century, much of the area under Vijayanagar came into British hands. Madras was their regional headquarters. This brought English education to the region. As well as an irrigation system. All of this accentuated the differences with people in the Deccan region.

Unfortunately, the Nizams ran a military-feudal system, focused on revenue collection rather than mass education and development. Soon, the economic and cultural gap between the two peoples was enormous. "There was no common meeting ground, except for the Telugu language. But in Telangana the Telugu spoken was different and had no script.The Telugu in parts of the erstwhile British dominion was Sanskritised and classical," says a former state chief secretary...

Andhra Pradesh itself was a union of the Telugu-speaking area of Telangana and the other part that was under the British. Interestingly, the creation of Andhra Pradesh ran counter to the recommendations of the States Reorganization Commission. It advised separate states. "But those were the heady days of integration and states on linguistic basis. Language was considered the basis of culture. So nobody thought that things could go amiss. Although things did not go awry in that sense, it was an uneasy alliance between two unequal economic partners," says the former chief secretary.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-12-13/special-report/28066950_1_telugu-telangana-culture

Toilet Paper again!

by Guest Fri Apr 13, 2012 11:36 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:It is a fact that Telangana Telugu with its hindi-urdu (and a little marathi) words is very different from sanskritised urdu of coastal andhra.
And how do you know this fact?

The truth is, Sanskritization is a feature of literary Telugu, and it is not a function of which part of Telangana the writer is from.

Rashmun wrote:Telangana telugu, originally at least, did not even have its own script.
This is so laughable. Keep them coming, Rashmun. You are at your best when you make shit up.

PP Method: when shown to be an ignoramus, attack the person or sources who are more knowledgeable than you.

-----

When Malik Kafur, Alauddin Khilji's favourite general sacked the Yadava kingdom of Devagiri (present-day Aurangabad) and made inroads into the Kakatiya kingdom at Warangal at the fag-end of the 13th century, little did he realize that his incursions would change this part of the world forever. Kafur was happy making away with gold-laden horses and the Kohinoor. But in the series of invasions that followed, Muhammad bin Tughlak set up his capital in the area before he was forced to retreat north. This sowed the seeds of a Deccani (Dakhni) culture, which reached its zenith in the 20th-century Hyderabad state of the Nizams. It sprawled across present-day Maharashtra, north Karnataka and Telangana. "A distinctive culture evolved. It was a synthesis of north and south, of Hindu and Muslim traditions, and also tribal culture as part of the area was populated with Gonds," says former minister Basheeruddin Babu-khan. A new way of life came into being with a distinct language, Dakhni, a synthesis of Urdu and Telugu; food habits; music and festivals that included Id, Dussehra and tribal feast days revolving around jungle cults.

Meanwhile, south of the Krishna river, the prosperous Vijayanagar kings held sway. Their kingdom, in present-day north-central Karnataka, controlled large parts of what is now Andhra Pradesh. The kings were great proponents of culture and built magnificent temples such as Lord Balaji's in Tirumala. Thus, they spawned a distinctive way of life. "The two cultures were poles apart," says Bharat Kumar who recently wrote a book on Telangana. From the 18th century, much of the area under Vijayanagar came into British hands. Madras was their regional headquarters. This brought English education to the region. As well as an irrigation system. All of this accentuated the differences with people in the Deccan region.

Unfortunately, the Nizams ran a military-feudal system, focused on revenue collection rather than mass education and development. Soon, the economic and cultural gap between the two peoples was enormous. "There was no common meeting ground, except for the Telugu language. But in Telangana the Telugu spoken was different and had no script.The Telugu in parts of the erstwhile British dominion was Sanskritised and classical," says a former state chief secretary...

Andhra Pradesh itself was a union of the Telugu-speaking area of Telangana and the other part that was under the British. Interestingly, the creation of Andhra Pradesh ran counter to the recommendations of the States Reorganization Commission. It advised separate states. "But those were the heady days of integration and states on linguistic basis. Language was considered the basis of culture. So nobody thought that things could go amiss. Although things did not go awry in that sense, it was an uneasy alliance between two unequal economic partners," says the former chief secretary.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-12-13/special-report/28066950_1_telugu-telangana-culture
Toilet Paper again!

PP Method!

by scoutfinch Sat Apr 14, 2012 2:14 am

Yes, telangana telugu does not have a script of its own. Yes, it is basically telugu+urdu+hindi+marathi because of the population mix in the region.

And yes, the rest of Andhra speaks a "purer" form of the language, simply because of the concentration of Telugu people, and the lack of people from other cultures there.

But what is the point of this thread? All this is very well known.

by charvaka Sat Apr 14, 2012 2:27 am

scoutfinch wrote:Yes, telangana telugu does not have a script of its own.

Just like American English and Khariboli do not have scripts of their own. Like American English is a dialect of English, Telangana Telugu is a dialect of Telugu. The idea of a dialect having a script of its own is quite detached from reality; dialects of a language typically share the same script. The only exceptions I can think of is German where Swiss German continues to use characters that have been done away with "high" German. Chinese could be another one, but there the traditional vs. simplified script divide is more geographical (mainland China vs. elsewhere) rather than dialect-based. Within India, I don't know of any dialect that has "a script of its own." The same Punjabi language is written in Gurmukhi in India and Shahmukhi in Pakistan, but I don't know if the divide is dialect-based.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sat Apr 14, 2012 7:29 am

rashmun: don't give up your day job yet. comparative linguistics is not for you. the scary thought is if you are actually a comparative linguist.

by Guest Sat Apr 14, 2012 12:54 pm

scoutfinch wrote:Yes, telangana telugu does not have a script of its own. Yes, it is basically telugu+urdu+hindi+marathi because of the population mix in the region.

And yes, the rest of Andhra speaks a "purer" form of the language, simply because of the concentration of Telugu people, and the lack of people from other cultures there.

But what is the point of this thread? All this is very well known.

Thanks for agreeing that Telangana telugu does not have a script of its own. Regarding your question 'what is the point of this thread?' the point here is this:

did Telangana Telugu evolve out of classical sanskritised Telugu, or did it evolve out of Dakhini? Let me quote from the article again:

Dakhni's syntactic template is common to its two subsequent
off-shoots: Telangana Telugu and Hyderabadi Urdu. Hyderabadi Urdu is different
from the Persianized Urdu of the North and its Telugu is different from
the Sanskritized Telugu of the South.

http://www.explohyd.com/hyderabad-specials/dialect.html

by Guest Sat Apr 14, 2012 12:55 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:rashmun: don't give up your day job yet. comparative linguistics is not for you. the scary thought is if you are actually a comparative linguist.

on the question of comparative linguistics, your old friend Luke Warmus is clearly superior to you. One example is Luke's recognition of the central importance of the sanskrit language in the development and evolution of all Indian languages. He does not lampoon sanskritophiles like you do.

by Guest Sat Apr 14, 2012 12:58 pm

Rashmun wrote:
scoutfinch wrote:Yes, telangana telugu does not have a script of its own. Yes, it is basically telugu+urdu+hindi+marathi because of the population mix in the region.

And yes, the rest of Andhra speaks a "purer" form of the language, simply because of the concentration of Telugu people, and the lack of people from other cultures there.

But what is the point of this thread? All this is very well known.

Thanks for agreeing that Telangana telugu does not have a script of its own. Regarding your question 'what is the point of this thread?' the point here is this:

did Telangana Telugu evolve out of classical sanskritised Telugu, or did it evolve out of Dakhini? Let me quote from the article again:

Dakhni's syntactic template is common to its two subsequent
off-shoots: Telangana Telugu and Hyderabadi Urdu. Hyderabadi Urdu is different
from the Persianized Urdu of the North and its Telugu is different from
the Sanskritized Telugu of the South.

http://www.explohyd.com/hyderabad-specials/dialect.html

Telangana Telugu is also called Hybrid Telugu and even Dakhni Telugu. Since it did not have a script of its own, there is no reason why it cannot be written in devanagari or urdu script besides telugu script. A good example in this connection is the Kashmiri language which originally did not have any script of its own and hence is now written in various scripts.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sat Apr 14, 2012 1:27 pm

Rashmun wrote:He does not lampoon sanskritophiles like you do.

you must have a very creative memory. i have never lampooned sanskritophiles. i have never even spoken insultingly of sanskrit! i have only questioned your sanskrit obsessed views as if nothing else existed, and lamberdar's outright erroneous notion that all indian languages can trace their origins to sanskrit.

i have often posted links to vocal renditions of dikshitar's beautiful sanskrit compositions. amongst the trinity of carnatic musical composers, dikshitar who composed almost exclusively in sanskrit is my favorite.

by Guest Sat Apr 14, 2012 1:49 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:He does not lampoon sanskritophiles like you do.

you must have a very creative memory. i have never lampooned sanskritophiles. i have never even spoken insultingly of sanskrit! i have only questioned your sanskrit obsessed views as if nothing else existed, and lamberdar's outright erroneous notion that all indian languages can trace their origins to sanskrit.

i have often posted links to vocal renditions of dikshitar's beautiful sanskrit compositions. amongst the trinity of carnatic musical composers, dikshitar who composed almost exclusively in sanskrit is my favorite.

i seem to recall you talking about the 'sanskritophiles' contemptuously. if you never did this, then i retract my statement. with respect to sanskrit, Luke's enthusiasm for this language is on par with my enthusiasm. For instance, Luke once told me that he wanted to learn sanskrit. when i asked why he said doing so would help him understand the structure of other Indian languages.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sat Apr 14, 2012 2:04 pm

i have been very consistent in what i've said about sanskrit and my relationship to it. read this thread: (http://forums.sulekha.com/forums/coffeehouse/sanskrit-the-language-of-all-indians-776367.htm)

it's been five years. there is no point rehashing all that.

by Guest Sat Apr 14, 2012 2:19 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i have been very consistent in what i've said about sanskrit and my relationship to it. read this thread: (http://forums.sulekha.com/forums/coffeehouse/sanskrit-the-language-of-all-indians-776367.htm)

it's been five years. there is no point rehashing all that.

the primary difference in our views is that i consider sanskrit to be a national language. it belongs to all Indians and no region can lay claim to it exclusively. the reason is that we have had scholars from all parts of India writing in Sanskrit. Thus i find your following words in that thread whose link you provide a little foolish:

MaxEntropy_Man posted Re:Sanskrit: The Language of All Indians on 5 yrs ago
borrowing of words is a trivial thing as george hart points out. i have no objections to someone stating that languages have exchanged words. but i do find his claim of sanskrit being the parent language of all indian languages, preposterous. many tamilians do not accept sanskrit as their language. i am one of them. i am interested in finding out more about sanskrit. muthuswami dikshitar composed in sanskrit; however, it is distinct from my native tongue. it is not my language. i don't dislike it, but i don't appreciate others speaking for me and saying it is my language. it isn't. i don't accept it as my language.

by Guest Sat Apr 14, 2012 3:10 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
scoutfinch wrote:Yes, telangana telugu does not have a script of its own. Yes, it is basically telugu+urdu+hindi+marathi because of the population mix in the region.

And yes, the rest of Andhra speaks a "purer" form of the language, simply because of the concentration of Telugu people, and the lack of people from other cultures there.

But what is the point of this thread? All this is very well known.

Thanks for agreeing that Telangana telugu does not have a script of its own. Regarding your question 'what is the point of this thread?' the point here is this:

did Telangana Telugu evolve out of classical sanskritised Telugu, or did it evolve out of Dakhini? Let me quote from the article again:

Dakhni's syntactic template is common to its two subsequent
off-shoots: Telangana Telugu and Hyderabadi Urdu. Hyderabadi Urdu is different
from the Persianized Urdu of the North and its Telugu is different from
the Sanskritized Telugu of the South.

http://www.explohyd.com/hyderabad-specials/dialect.html

Telangana Telugu is also called Hybrid Telugu and even Dakhni Telugu. Since it did not have a script of its own, there is no reason why it cannot be written in devanagari or urdu script besides telugu script. A good example in this connection is the Kashmiri language which originally did not have any script of its own and hence is now written in various scripts.

go on google.com and type 'evidence of grammatical convergence in dakhini urdu and telugu'. the first link is to an interesting article. The author clarifies in that article that in his comparative analysis whenever he refers to Telugu he is referring specifically to Telangana Telugu.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sat Apr 14, 2012 4:56 pm

highly respected comparative linguists bhadriraju krishnamurti and kamil zvelebel have opined about the dravidian substratum influence on sanskrit and the profound ways in which contact with dravidian langauges have altered the syntax of vedic sanskrit to its current form. so do you rashmun accept any of the dravidian languages as your language?

by scoutfinch Sun Apr 15, 2012 5:34 am

Rashmun wrote:

Telangana Telugu is also called Hybrid Telugu and even Dakhni Telugu. Since it did not have a script of its own, there is no reason why it cannot be written in devanagari or urdu script besides telugu script. A good example in this connection is the Kashmiri language which originally did not have any script of its own and hence is now written in various scripts.

Nope. It is called telangana Telugu for a reason - 95% of the words are from classical Telugu. Recall that Telangana was a part of the Nizam's dominions which also included some parts of Maharshtra and Karnataka. Hence the use of words from other languages. But to use this fact to conclude or even argue that Telangana Telugu has nothing to do with classical Telugu is stretching things a little too far.

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 1:03 pm

scoutfinch wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

Telangana Telugu is also called Hybrid Telugu and even Dakhni Telugu. Since it did not have a script of its own, there is no reason why it cannot be written in devanagari or urdu script besides telugu script. A good example in this connection is the Kashmiri language which originally did not have any script of its own and hence is now written in various scripts.

Nope. It is called telangana Telugu for a reason - 95% of the words are from classical Telugu. Recall that Telangana was a part of the Nizam's dominions which also included some parts of Maharshtra and Karnataka. Hence the use of words from other languages. But to use this fact to conclude or even argue that Telangana Telugu has nothing to do with classical Telugu is stretching things a little too far.

the fact that telangana telugu is also called dakhni telugu tells its own story. it means that a synthesis of dakhni and telugu took place which gave rise to dakhni telugu, also known as hybrid telugu or telangana telugu. secondly, dakhni telugu is closer to dakhni than to telugu because the grammar of dakhni telugu is closer to dakhni than to telugu as per the article whose reference i gave in an earlier post in this thread. Some more interesting info here:

There is a general influence of Hindi on Telugu, as there is with other Indian languages, but this is much less than from Sanskrit. The exception is the area known as Telengana, which is roughly the area encompassed in the former Nizamate of Hyderabad. This dialect is known as Telengana Telugu, rather than Hyderabadi. (I'm more used to hearing the adjective "Hyderabadi" applied to the style of Urdu spoken there.) The Telengana Telugu not only has a very high percentage of Urdu words in its vocabulary, but its grammar has also been transformed to be more like Urdu grammar. One of the most telling examples of this is the way the verb endings are not gender specific, having the same verb form for both a male or a female subject. Until I learned a little about Urdu grammar, I couldn't figure out how this happened. When I first heard/read it, Telengana was almost totally incomprehensible to me, but by dint of sustained exposure, I no longer have that problem. In a funny way, because of my exposure to Telengana, I could better understand the Urdu words in Hindi films when I started to watch them again.

http://www.bollywhat-forum.com/index.php?topic=8158.5;wap2

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Apr 15, 2012 1:10 pm

think about what you are doing for a second. just put away the keyboard and think!

why do you wade into a discussion about a language you know jack shit about and then proceed to challenge native speakers of the language? that's about the most asinine thing imaginable! it's like deepak chopra talking about quantum mechanics and challenging physicists about it.

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 1:17 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:highly respected comparative linguists bhadriraju krishnamurti and kamil zvelebel have opined about the dravidian substratum influence on sanskrit and the profound ways in which contact with dravidian langauges have altered the syntax of vedic sanskrit to its current form. so do you rashmun accept any of the dravidian languages as your language?

i will just remind you what the great Tamil poet Subramanya Bharati has said: Bharata Mata speaks multiple languages but her thoughts and her mind are one. Hence it goes without saying that i have respect for all Indian languages along the lines of Subramanya Bharati.

with respect to sanskrit grammar and syntax, i believe the grammar and syntax of classical sanskrit (i.e. sanskrit after Panini) was not influenced by dravidian languages because the grammar that Panini gave was so elegant and so widely accepted that it quickly became rigid and with the exception of a few modifications by Patanjali and Katyayana no further changes to Panini's grammar were made. It is well known that Vedic sanskrit (which includes pre-Panini sanskrit) has dravidian words in it but i am unable to comment on whether the grammar of pre-Panini sanskrit was influenced by the grammar of the dravidian languages.

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 1:23 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:think about what you are doing for a second. just put away the keyboard and think!

why do you wade into a discussion about a language you know jack shit about and then proceed to challenge native speakers of the language? that's about the most asinine thing imaginable! it's like deepak chopra talking about quantum mechanics and challenging physicists about it.

the native speakers of telugu on this forum are challenging the views of scholars and experts and also other speakers of telangana telugu (also known as hybrid telugu or dakhni telugu) and i am just pointing this out. would you not say that the fact that telangana telugu shares its grammar with Dakhni than with classical telugu is of capital importance?

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Apr 15, 2012 1:23 pm

Rashmun wrote:
i will just remind you what the great Tamil poet Subramanya Bharati has said: Bharata Mata speaks multiple languages but her thoughts and her mind are one. Hence it goes without saying that i have respect for all Indian languages along the lines of Subramanya Bharati.

that's a copout. and here's why. the idea of a national language goes well beyond this kind of feel good nonsense and you know it. in fact it is a highly emotionally and politically charged issue. so you better address the question in a direct and personal way today instead of leaning of the crutch of a long dead poet. if you will accord to dravidian languages the same and equal place in your heart as you would accord to sanskrit, then we can begin to have a conversation.

Rashmun wrote:with respect to sanskrit grammar and syntax, i believe the grammar and syntax of classical sanskrit (i.e. sanskrit after Panini) was not influenced by dravidian languages because the grammar that Panini gave was so elegant and so widely accepted that it quickly became rigid and with the exception of a few modifications by Patanjali and Katyayana no further changes to Panini's grammar were made. It is well known that Vedic sanskrit (which includes pre-Panini sanskrit) has dravidian words in it but i am unable to comment on whether the grammar of pre-Panini sanskrit was influenced by the grammar of the dravidian languages.

your belief is irrelevant until you address the issues raised by people who have spent an entire career carefully studying this issue. i'd rather believe them instead of an agenda driven weekend linguist like you.

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 1:40 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
i will just remind you what the great Tamil poet Subramanya Bharati has said: Bharata Mata speaks multiple languages but her thoughts and her mind are one. Hence it goes without saying that i have respect for all Indian languages along the lines of Subramanya Bharati.

that's a copout. and here's why. the idea of a national language goes well beyond this kind of feel good nonsense and you know it. in fact it is a highly emotionally and politically charged issue. so you better address the question in a direct and personal way today instead of leaning of the crutch of a long dead poet. if you will accord to dravidian languages the same and equal place in your heart as you would accord to sanskrit, then we can begin to have a conversation.

i have equal respect for all languages in India. I consider sanskrit to be more pivotal than any other Indian language because the structure and syntax of many if not most indian languages were influenced by sanskrit. for instance, 60% of words in classical telugu are of sanskrit origin; and the grammar of classical telugu follows from the grammar of sanskrit.

The Telugu Grammar is called vyākaranam (వ్యాకరణం), .
The first treatise on Telugu grammar, the Andhra Sabda Chintamani was written in Sanskrit by Nannayya, considered the first Telugu poet and translator, in the 11th century A.D. This grammar followed the patterns which existed in grammatical treatises like Aṣṭādhyāyī and Vālmīkivyākaranam but unlike Pāṇini, Nannayya divided his work into five chapters, covering samjnā, sandhi, ajanta, halanta and kriya. Every Telugu grammatical rule is derived from Pāṇinian concepts.
In 19th century, Chinnaya Suri wrote a simplified work on Telugu grammar called Bāla Vyākaranam by borrowing concepts and ideas from Nannayya's grammar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telugu_language#Grammar

So my respect for tamil, telugu, kannada, and malayali is on par with my respect for hindi/hindustani, bengali, gujarati, kashmiri, assamese, marathi, etc.

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 1:41 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
i will just remind you what the great Tamil poet Subramanya Bharati has said: Bharata Mata speaks multiple languages but her thoughts and her mind are one. Hence it goes without saying that i have respect for all Indian languages along the lines of Subramanya Bharati.

that's a copout. and here's why. the idea of a national language goes well beyond this kind of feel good nonsense and you know it. in fact it is a highly emotionally and politically charged issue. so you better address the question in a direct and personal way today instead of leaning of the crutch of a long dead poet. if you will accord to dravidian languages the same and equal place in your heart as you would accord to sanskrit, then we can begin to have a conversation.

Rashmun wrote:with respect to sanskrit grammar and syntax, i believe the grammar and syntax of classical sanskrit (i.e. sanskrit after Panini) was not influenced by dravidian languages because the grammar that Panini gave was so elegant and so widely accepted that it quickly became rigid and with the exception of a few modifications by Patanjali and Katyayana no further changes to Panini's grammar were made. It is well known that Vedic sanskrit (which includes pre-Panini sanskrit) has dravidian words in it but i am unable to comment on whether the grammar of pre-Panini sanskrit was influenced by the grammar of the dravidian languages.

your belief is irrelevant until you address the issues raised by people who have spent an entire career carefully studying this issue. i'd rather believe them instead of an agenda driven weekend linguist like you.

At least make a distinction between pre-Panini sanskrit and post-Panini sanskrit. Note that post-Panini sanskrit is also known as classical sanskrit.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Apr 15, 2012 1:53 pm

i'll make such distinctions after i end my regular working career and decide to devote a very significant portion of my retired time to studying indian comparative linguistics.

until then i am happy to acknowledge that i have at least as much of a political interest in not giving in to the likes of you as you have in not conceding these matters.

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 1:58 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i'll make such distinctions after i end my regular working career and decide to devote a very significant portion of my retired time to studying indian comparative linguistics.

until then i am happy to acknowledge that i have at least as much of a political interest in not giving in to the likes of you as you have in not conceding these matters.

did it come as a surprise to you to learn that classical telugu grammar follows sanskrit grammar completely, or did you know this already?

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Apr 15, 2012 2:06 pm

Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i'll make such distinctions after i end my regular working career and decide to devote a very significant portion of my retired time to studying indian comparative linguistics.

until then i am happy to acknowledge that i have at least as much of a political interest in not giving in to the likes of you as you have in not conceding these matters.

did it come as a surprise to you to learn that classical telugu grammar follows sanskrit grammar completely, or did you know this already?

i know very little telugu and i know precious little sanskrit, so i have no idea. i am sure you know a lot of sanskrit and NO telugu, zippo. so what you are essentially doing is parroting someone else's view. and yeah don't bother with bolded and underlined and reddened excerpts from elsewhere. i am happy to accept what you've said as the truth if a credible native telugu speaker who also knows sanskrit and is not similarly agenda driven like you supports it.

edited to add: an important requirement for me before i go off and make absolutist statements about a language is that i should know the language well. as a simple requirement, i should at least have had some exposure to it and be able to speak it with some reasonable fluency, and certainly be able to read it. since you have no such requirements for yourself (very similar to deepak chopra and quantum mechanics), you'll always have the advantage of me.

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 2:19 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i'll make such distinctions after i end my regular working career and decide to devote a very significant portion of my retired time to studying indian comparative linguistics.

until then i am happy to acknowledge that i have at least as much of a political interest in not giving in to the likes of you as you have in not conceding these matters.

did it come as a surprise to you to learn that classical telugu grammar follows sanskrit grammar completely, or did you know this already?

i know very little telugu and i know precious little sanskrit, so i have no idea. i am sure you know a lot of sanskrit and NO telugu, zippo. so what you are essentially doing is parroting someone else's view. and yeah don't bother with bolded and underlined and reddened excerpts from elsewhere. i am happy to accept what you've said as the truth if a credible native telugu speaker who also knows sanskrit and is not similarly agenda driven like you supports it.

edited to add: an important requirement for me before i go off and make absolutist statements about a language is that i should know the language well. as a simple requirement, i should at least have had some exposure to it and be able to speak it with some reasonable fluency, and certainly be able to read it. since you have no such requirements for yourself (very similar to deepak chopra and quantum mechanics), you'll always have the advantage of me.

in my opinion, it is permissible to state that russian is a slavic language without knowing any russian because one is only stating a well accepted fact.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Apr 15, 2012 2:24 pm

Rashmun wrote:
in my opinion, it is permissible to state that russian is a slavic language without knowing any russian because one is only stating a well accepted fact.

oh come come now. that's not an accurate analogy. saying that russian is a slavic language is equivalent to saying quantum mechanics is a branch of physics which anyone can do. but saying that telugu grammar is completely based on sanskrit grammar is like saying commutators play the same role in QM as poisson brackets do in classical mechanics, something that only someone who has taken a first course in both classical mechanics and QM can say.

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 2:30 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
in my opinion, it is permissible to state that russian is a slavic language without knowing any russian because one is only stating a well accepted fact.

oh come come now. that's not an accurate analogy. saying that russian is a slavic language is equivalent to saying quantum mechanics is a branch of physics which anyone can do. but saying that telugu grammar is completely based on sanskrit grammar is like saying commutators play the same role in QM as poisson brackets do in classical mechanics, something that only someone who has taken a first course in both classical mechanics and QM can say.

i said that the grammar of classical telugu is completely based on sanskrit grammar (i.e. Panini's grammar) based on the wikipedia article on telugu whose extract and link i gave in my earlier post. Let me give it again:

The Telugu Grammar is called vyākaranam (వ్యాకరణం), .
The first treatise on Telugu grammar, the Andhra Sabda Chintamani was written in Sanskrit by Nannayya, considered the first Telugu poet and translator, in the 11th century A.D. This grammar followed the patterns which existed in grammatical treatises like Aṣṭādhyāyī and Vālmīkivyākaranam but unlike Pāṇini, Nannayya divided his work into five chapters, covering samjnā, sandhi, ajanta, halanta and kriya. Every Telugu grammatical rule is derived from Pāṇinian concepts.
In 19th century, Chinnaya Suri wrote a simplified work on Telugu grammar called Bāla Vyākaranam by borrowing concepts and ideas from Nannayya's grammar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telugu_language#Grammar

there is one other thing to note: the standard text on telugu grammar, according to the wikipedia article on telugu, is in sanskrit.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Apr 15, 2012 2:34 pm

Rashmun wrote:

there is one other thing to note: the standard text on telugu grammar, according to the wikipedia article on telugu, is in sanskrit.

the standard text on calculus in the english speaking world, thomas and finney is written in english. but many of the ideas therein were first discovered and written about by mathematicians like parameshvara and brahmagupta in indian languages.

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 2:54 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

there is one other thing to note: the standard text on telugu grammar, according to the wikipedia article on telugu, is in sanskrit.

the standard text on calculus in the english speaking world, thomas and finney is written in english. but many of the ideas therein were first discovered and written about by mathematicians like parameshvara and brahmagupta in indian languages.

every telugu grammatical rule given in the Andhra Sabda Chintamani of Nannayya is derived from Panini's grammar. We know that Nannayya was familiar with sanskrit because he wrote the Andhra Sabda Chintamani in sanskrit. It is reasonable to think that the grammatical rules Nannayya gave, all of which are derived from Panini, are because he was following Panini closely and not because he was coming up with these rules independently. after all, there is not a single rule given by Nannayya which does not follow from Panini's grammar.

sure, the indian mathematicians anticipated many ideas related to calculus but they did NOT anticipate all of calculus.

at any rate, the matter will be settled beyond reasonable doubt if Nannayaa acknowledges Panini by name in the Andhra Sabda Chintamani (as i suspect he would be doing lest he be accused of plagiarizing from Panini without any acknowledgement).

by charvaka Sun Apr 15, 2012 4:50 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:you must have a very creative memory.

And a penchant for distorting the words of other people.

by charvaka Sun Apr 15, 2012 4:52 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:think about what you are doing for a second. just put away the keyboard and think!

why do you wade into a discussion about a language you know jack shit about and then proceed to challenge native speakers of the language? that's about the most asinine thing imaginable! it's like deepak chopra talking about quantum mechanics and challenging physicists about it.

Excellent advice, but goes wasted as usual.

The Rashmun Method: read one or two articles, preferably from the Toilet Paper, and assert that the claims in those articles are universally accepted truths. Case in point: Madras was ruled by the Nawabs, Telengana Telugu is closer to Dakhni than to Telugu, etc.

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 4:57 pm

charvaka wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:think about what you are doing for a second. just put away the keyboard and think!

why do you wade into a discussion about a language you know jack shit about and then proceed to challenge native speakers of the language? that's about the most asinine thing imaginable! it's like deepak chopra talking about quantum mechanics and challenging physicists about it.
Excellent advice, but goes wasted as usual.

The Rashmun Method: read one or two articles, preferably from the Toilet Paper, and assert that the claims in those articles are universally accepted truths. Case in point: Madras was ruled by the Nawabs, Telengana Telugu is closer to Dakhni than to Telugu, etc.

PP Method!

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 4:57 pm

charvaka wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:you must have a very creative memory.
And a penchant for distorting the words of other people.

PP Method!

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 4:57 pm

Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

there is one other thing to note: the standard text on telugu grammar, according to the wikipedia article on telugu, is in sanskrit.

the standard text on calculus in the english speaking world, thomas and finney is written in english. but many of the ideas therein were first discovered and written about by mathematicians like parameshvara and brahmagupta in indian languages.

every telugu grammatical rule given in the Andhra Sabda Chintamani of Nannayya is derived from Panini's grammar. We know that Nannayya was familiar with sanskrit because he wrote the Andhra Sabda Chintamani in sanskrit. It is reasonable to think that the grammatical rules Nannayya gave, all of which are derived from Panini, are because he was following Panini closely and not because he was coming up with these rules independently. after all, there is not a single rule given by Nannayya which does not follow from Panini's grammar.

sure, the indian mathematicians anticipated many ideas related to calculus but they did NOT anticipate all of calculus.

at any rate, the matter will be settled beyond reasonable doubt if Nannayaa acknowledges Panini by name in the Andhra Sabda Chintamani (as i suspect he would be doing lest he be accused of plagiarizing from Panini without any acknowledgement).

.

by charvaka Sun Apr 15, 2012 5:00 pm

Rashmun wrote:did it come as a surprise to you to learn that classical telugu grammar follows sanskrit grammar completely, or did you know this already?

One more time: काला अक्षर भैंस बराबर. If you come across something written in Telugu, you won't be able to tell one character apart from another. But based on reading some random Toilet Paper articles and such, you make absolute statements like the above.

If Telugu grammar "follows Sanskrit grammar completely," there ought to be the dual number variation for case in Telugu as there is in Sanskrit. There isn't. Telugu verb declensions do not follow the Sanskrit pattern either. Most educated Telugus who are highly fluent in their language will be hard-pressed to name the ten forms of Sanskrit declension.

Telugu grammar was codified by Nannaya many centuries after the language crystallized -- just like Sanskrit grammar was codified by Panini centuries after the most famous works in Sanskrit -- the vedas -- were written. As such, that grammar applies mostly to literary works, not to the living spoken tongue. Literary Telugu borrows heavily from Sanskrit, in its vocabulary, grammar, forms of meter and syntax, in its figures of speech, and finally even in its subject matters and dominant themes.

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 5:01 pm

Rashmun wrote:
scoutfinch wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

Telangana Telugu is also called Hybrid Telugu and even Dakhni Telugu. Since it did not have a script of its own, there is no reason why it cannot be written in devanagari or urdu script besides telugu script. A good example in this connection is the Kashmiri language which originally did not have any script of its own and hence is now written in various scripts.

Nope. It is called telangana Telugu for a reason - 95% of the words are from classical Telugu. Recall that Telangana was a part of the Nizam's dominions which also included some parts of Maharshtra and Karnataka. Hence the use of words from other languages. But to use this fact to conclude or even argue that Telangana Telugu has nothing to do with classical Telugu is stretching things a little too far.

the fact that telangana telugu is also called dakhni telugu tells its own story. it means that a synthesis of dakhni and telugu took place which gave rise to dakhni telugu, also known as hybrid telugu or telangana telugu. secondly, dakhni telugu is closer to dakhni than to telugu because the grammar of dakhni telugu is closer to dakhni than to telugu as per the article whose reference i gave in an earlier post in this thread. Some more interesting info here:

There is a general influence of Hindi on Telugu, as there is with other Indian languages, but this is much less than from Sanskrit. The exception is the area known as Telengana, which is roughly the area encompassed in the former Nizamate of Hyderabad. This dialect is known as Telengana Telugu, rather than Hyderabadi. (I'm more used to hearing the adjective "Hyderabadi" applied to the style of Urdu spoken there.) The Telengana Telugu not only has a very high percentage of Urdu words in its vocabulary, but its grammar has also been transformed to be more like Urdu grammar. One of the most telling examples of this is the way the verb endings are not gender specific, having the same verb form for both a male or a female subject. Until I learned a little about Urdu grammar, I couldn't figure out how this happened. When I first heard/read it, Telengana was almost totally incomprehensible to me, but by dint of sustained exposure, I no longer have that problem. In a funny way, because of my exposure to Telengana, I could better understand the Urdu words in Hindi films when I started to watch them again.

http://www.bollywhat-forum.com/index.php?topic=8158.5;wap2

.

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 5:03 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:did it come as a surprise to you to learn that classical telugu grammar follows sanskrit grammar completely, or did you know this already?
One more time: काला अक्षर भैंस बराबर. If you come across something written in Telugu, you won't be able to tell one character apart from another. But based on reading some random Toilet Paper articles and such, you make absolute statements like the above.

If Telugu grammar "follows Sanskrit grammar completely," there ought to be the dual number variation for case in Telugu as there is in Sanskrit. There isn't. Telugu verb declensions do not follow the Sanskrit pattern either. Most educated Telugus who are highly fluent in their language will be hard-pressed to name the ten forms of Sanskrit declension.

Telugu grammar was codified by Nannaya many centuries after the language crystallized -- just like Sanskrit grammar was codified by Panini centuries after the most famous works in Sanskrit -- the vedas -- were written. As such, that grammar applies mostly to literary works, not to the living spoken tongue. Literary Telugu borrows heavily from Sanskrit, in its vocabulary, grammar, forms of meter and syntax, in its figures of speech, and finally even in its subject matters and dominant themes.

This can be explained if we agree that the standard Telugu grammar of Nannaya is a sub-set of Panini's grammar. After all, according to the wikipedia article on Telugu whose link and relevant extract i gave earlier, every rule given by Nannaya follows from Panini's grammar. PP Method fails yet again!

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Apr 15, 2012 5:08 pm

charvaka wrote:काला अक्षर भैंस बराबर.

hahaha. but unlike rashmun's absolute inability to be able to read anything written in telugu combined with complete willingness to spout inanities about it, i can totally read what you've written above and even enjoy its meaning. i must remember that!

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 5:09 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
charvaka wrote:काला अक्षर भैंस बराबर.

hahaha. but unlike rashmun's absolute inability to be able to read anything written in telugu and yet spout inanities about it, i can totally read what you've written above and even enjoy its meaning. i must remember that!

Max, always remember about the pivotal role of sanskrit in the development and evolution of other Indian languages when you do your research on comparative indian linguistics after your retirement.

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 5:11 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
charvaka wrote:काला अक्षर भैंस बराबर.

hahaha. but unlike rashmun's absolute inability to be able to read anything written in telugu combined with complete willingness to spout inanities about it, i can totally read what you've written above and even enjoy its meaning. i must remember that!

also, as mentioned earlier, one does not need to speak russian in order to state that it is a slavic language.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Apr 15, 2012 5:20 pm

rashmun remember this well: kAlA akshur bhains barAbar.

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 5:24 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:rashmun remember this well: kAlA akshur bhains barAbar.

now that your fond hopes of dravidian languages being for the most part insulated from sanskrit have been destroyed you are taking out your anger on me.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Apr 15, 2012 5:25 pm

Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:rashmun remember this well: kAlA akshur bhains barAbar.

now that your fond hopes of dravidian languages being for the most part insulated from sanskrit have been destroyed you are taking out your anger on me.

angry? not at all. i'm thoroughly enjoying making fun of you in a language other than english that we both understand.

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 5:30 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:rashmun remember this well: kAlA akshur bhains barAbar.

now that your fond hopes of dravidian languages being for the most part insulated from sanskrit have been destroyed you are taking out your anger on me.

angry? not at all. i'm thoroughly enjoying making fun of you in a language other than english that we both understand.

only in an angry and incoherent state of mind would you start talking of the Dakhni language in a thread about food:

https://such.forumotion.com/t5752-scrambled-eggs-and-omelette

i am sorry for arousing your anger!

by Sponsored content