Re: Telangana Telugu an offshoot of Dakhni?

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:12 pm

Rashmun wrote:

when one says that a synthesis took place between dakhini and telugu one is not denying the contribution of telugu in the synthesis.

one is however back pedaling at a rather alarming rate of knots. tut tut.

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:12 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:do i now have to click-ini my tongue in sympathy at the now scrambled egg-ini thesis about dakh-ini?

do not forget that the paper gives grammar rules which are peculiar to Dakhini and Telangana Telugu, but not to Coastal Andhra Telugu.

by charvaka Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:17 pm

Rashmun wrote:This paper, which we are now discussing, gives certain rules of grammar which are peculiar to Telangana Telugu and Dakhini (also known as Dakhini urdu); but not to the telugu of coastal andhra.

Read it carefully. Most of the examples are peculiar to Dakhini Urdu but missing in Standard Urdu, while present in both Telangana Telugu and Standard Telugu.

As the paper unambiguously concludes:

Such examples provide particularly clear evidence for the modification and accommodation of Indo-Aryan grammatical structures in the direction of Dravidian patterns within relatively recent times.

This paper conclusively proves that you were wrong when you said the following:

dakhni telugu is closer to dakhni than to telugu because the grammar of dakhni telugu is closer to dakhni than to telugu

Yet another instance of the monkey with internet connection and keyboard spouting nonsense that it has no idea about just because someone else wrote it on the internet.

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:19 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:Let us review who those "scholars" and "experts" are. One is the unnamed author of a website called explohyd.com. Another is a Toilet Paper article written by a guy called Kingshuk. And someone else who can't even spell Telangana right. Between those three, that's a lot of Telugu expertise and scholarship right there!

go to google.com and type 'evidence of grammatical convergence of dakhini urdu and telugu'. click on the first link. the author makes it clear that when he refers to telugu in his article , he is referring to Telangana Telugu.

Charvaka, your complete silence on this issue of the grammatical convergence of dakhini urdu and telangana telugu is a little puzzling.
The paper argues the exact opposite of what you have been talking about. It says:

During this period [starting in the 15th century CE], Dakhini Urdu has undergone a number of changes which have resulted in a grammatical system more similar in many respects to that of the Dravidian languages with which it has been in contact.

The evidence is primarily of convergence of Dakhini Urdu toward the Telugu pattern, although there is some evidence of convergence in the other direction as well...

In other words, Dakhni grammar became more like Telugu grammar than Telangana Telugu grammar became like Dakhni grammar. The paper says as much in its conclusion:

Such examples provide particularly clear evidence for the modification and accommodation of Indo-Aryan grammatical structures in the direction of Dravidian patterns within relatively recent times.

This paper suggests that the distance between Standard Urdu and Dakhini Urdu is greater than the distance between Telangana Telugu and Standard Telugu. This completely demolishes everything you have said on this thread, including its very title. Hope this helps.

i only said that a synthesis of telugu and dakhini took place and i speculated that this may have given rise to telangana telugu. this was on the basis of another article whose link i gave which said that Telangana Telugu is an offshoot of Dakhini.

This paper, which we are now discussing, gives certain rules of grammar which are peculiar to Telangana Telugu and Dakhini (also known as Dakhini urdu); but not to the telugu of coastal andhra.

when one says that a synthesis took place between dakhini and telugu one is not denying the contribution of telugu in the synthesis.

A very important sentence in the paper is this:

The following sections present some of the evidence of grammatical convergence between Dakhini Urdu and Telugu, more specifically, Telangana Telugu.

In other words, unless otherwise stated, wherever the author uses the word 'Telugu' the reader should substitute it with the words 'Telangana Telugu'.

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:24 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:This paper, which we are now discussing, gives certain rules of grammar which are peculiar to Telangana Telugu and Dakhini (also known as Dakhini urdu); but not to the telugu of coastal andhra.
Read it carefully. Most of the examples are peculiar to Dakhini Urdu but missing in Standard Urdu, while present in both Telangana Telugu and Standard Telugu.

As the paper unambiguously concludes:

Such examples provide particularly clear evidence for the modification and accommodation of Indo-Aryan grammatical structures in the direction of Dravidian patterns within relatively recent times.

This paper conclusively proves that you were wrong when you said the following:

dakhni telugu is closer to dakhni than to telugu because the grammar of dakhni telugu is closer to dakhni than to telugu

Yet another instance of the monkey with internet connection and keyboard spouting nonsense that it has no idea about just because someone else wrote it on the internet.

what i meant was that the grammar of dakhini and telangana telugu are more similar to each other than the grammar of telangana telugu and coastal andhra telugu. your bizarre behavior which started off by your questioning whether i had read Alberuni even though i had posted an extract from his book and we had discussed him six years ago continues.

by charvaka Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:27 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

go to google.com and type 'evidence of grammatical convergence of dakhini urdu and telugu'. click on the first link. the author makes it clear that when he refers to telugu in his article , he is referring to Telangana Telugu.

Charvaka, your complete silence on this issue of the grammatical convergence of dakhini urdu and telangana telugu is a little puzzling.
The paper argues the exact opposite of what you have been talking about. It says:

During this period [starting in the 15th century CE], Dakhini Urdu has undergone a number of changes which have resulted in a grammatical system more similar in many respects to that of the Dravidian languages with which it has been in contact.

The evidence is primarily of convergence of Dakhini Urdu toward the Telugu pattern, although there is some evidence of convergence in the other direction as well...

In other words, Dakhni grammar became more like Telugu grammar than Telangana Telugu grammar became like Dakhni grammar. The paper says as much in its conclusion:

Such examples provide particularly clear evidence for the modification and accommodation of Indo-Aryan grammatical structures in the direction of Dravidian patterns within relatively recent times.

This paper suggests that the distance between Standard Urdu and Dakhini Urdu is greater than the distance between Telangana Telugu and Standard Telugu. This completely demolishes everything you have said on this thread, including its very title. Hope this helps.

i only said that a synthesis of telugu and dakhini took place and i speculated that this may have given rise to telangana telugu. this was on the basis of another article whose link i gave which said that Telangana Telugu is an offshoot of Dakhini.

This paper, which we are now discussing, gives certain rules of grammar which are peculiar to Telangana Telugu and Dakhini (also known as Dakhini urdu); but not to the telugu of coastal andhra.

when one says that a synthesis took place between dakhini and telugu one is not denying the contribution of telugu in the synthesis.

A very important sentence in the paper is this:

The following sections present some of the evidence of grammatical convergence between Dakhini Urdu and Telugu, more specifically, Telangana Telugu.

In other words, unless otherwise stated, wherever the author uses the word 'Telugu' the reader should substitute it with the words 'Telangana Telugu'.

And most of the examples are ones where a grammatical feature of Telugu (more specifically, Telangana Telugu) became part of Dakhini Urdu although it is absent in Standard Urdu.

BTW, this paper disagrees with you on your theory for the origin of Urdu and Hindi; it does not argue that Hindi and Urdu came from Dakhni, but the other way round: ... Dakhini Urdu, an Indo-Aryan language originating in North India ...

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:28 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:This paper, which we are now discussing, gives certain rules of grammar which are peculiar to Telangana Telugu and Dakhini (also known as Dakhini urdu); but not to the telugu of coastal andhra.
Read it carefully. Most of the examples are peculiar to Dakhini Urdu but missing in Standard Urdu, while present in both Telangana Telugu and Standard Telugu.

As the paper unambiguously concludes:

Such examples provide particularly clear evidence for the modification and accommodation of Indo-Aryan grammatical structures in the direction of Dravidian patterns within relatively recent times.

This paper conclusively proves that you were wrong when you said the following:

dakhni telugu is closer to dakhni than to telugu because the grammar of dakhni telugu is closer to dakhni than to telugu

Yet another instance of the monkey with internet connection and keyboard spouting nonsense that it has no idea about just because someone else wrote it on the internet.

what i meant was that the grammar of dakhini and telangana telugu are more similar to each other than the grammar of telangana telugu and coastal andhra telugu. your bizarre behavior which started off by your questioning whether i had read Alberuni even though i had posted an extract from his book and we had discussed him six years ago continues.

a clarification: Telangana Telugu is also called hybrid telugu, and it is also called Dakhini Telugu.

by charvaka Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:29 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:This paper, which we are now discussing, gives certain rules of grammar which are peculiar to Telangana Telugu and Dakhini (also known as Dakhini urdu); but not to the telugu of coastal andhra.
Read it carefully. Most of the examples are peculiar to Dakhini Urdu but missing in Standard Urdu, while present in both Telangana Telugu and Standard Telugu.

As the paper unambiguously concludes:

Such examples provide particularly clear evidence for the modification and accommodation of Indo-Aryan grammatical structures in the direction of Dravidian patterns within relatively recent times.

This paper conclusively proves that you were wrong when you said the following:

dakhni telugu is closer to dakhni than to telugu because the grammar of dakhni telugu is closer to dakhni than to telugu

Yet another instance of the monkey with internet connection and keyboard spouting nonsense that it has no idea about just because someone else wrote it on the internet.

what i meant was that the grammar of dakhini and telangana telugu are more similar to each other than the grammar of telangana telugu and coastal andhra telugu. your bizarre behavior which started off by your questioning whether i had read Alberuni even though i had posted an extract from his book and we had discussed him six years ago continues.

Telangana Telugu an offshoot of Dakhni? - Page 3 Backpedal

PS: Please feel free to "interpret" this emoticon. Thank you.

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:32 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

Charvaka, your complete silence on this issue of the grammatical convergence of dakhini urdu and telangana telugu is a little puzzling.
The paper argues the exact opposite of what you have been talking about. It says:

During this period [starting in the 15th century CE], Dakhini Urdu has undergone a number of changes which have resulted in a grammatical system more similar in many respects to that of the Dravidian languages with which it has been in contact.

The evidence is primarily of convergence of Dakhini Urdu toward the Telugu pattern, although there is some evidence of convergence in the other direction as well...

In other words, Dakhni grammar became more like Telugu grammar than Telangana Telugu grammar became like Dakhni grammar. The paper says as much in its conclusion:

Such examples provide particularly clear evidence for the modification and accommodation of Indo-Aryan grammatical structures in the direction of Dravidian patterns within relatively recent times.

This paper suggests that the distance between Standard Urdu and Dakhini Urdu is greater than the distance between Telangana Telugu and Standard Telugu. This completely demolishes everything you have said on this thread, including its very title. Hope this helps.

i only said that a synthesis of telugu and dakhini took place and i speculated that this may have given rise to telangana telugu. this was on the basis of another article whose link i gave which said that Telangana Telugu is an offshoot of Dakhini.

This paper, which we are now discussing, gives certain rules of grammar which are peculiar to Telangana Telugu and Dakhini (also known as Dakhini urdu); but not to the telugu of coastal andhra.

when one says that a synthesis took place between dakhini and telugu one is not denying the contribution of telugu in the synthesis.

A very important sentence in the paper is this:

The following sections present some of the evidence of grammatical convergence between Dakhini Urdu and Telugu, more specifically, Telangana Telugu.

In other words, unless otherwise stated, wherever the author uses the word 'Telugu' the reader should substitute it with the words 'Telangana Telugu'.
And most of the examples are ones where a grammatical feature of Telugu (more specifically, Telangana Telugu) became part of Dakhini Urdu although it is absent in Standard Urdu.

BTW, this paper disagrees with you on your theory for the origin of Urdu and Hindi; it does not argue that Hindi and Urdu came from Dakhni, but the other way round: ... Dakhini Urdu, an Indo-Aryan language originating in North India ...

Hindi and urdu originated in north india and then they traveled to the south in the form of Dakhini. The southerners polished this language. Then later this Dakhini travelled to the north and gave rise to modern Hindustani.

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:32 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:This paper, which we are now discussing, gives certain rules of grammar which are peculiar to Telangana Telugu and Dakhini (also known as Dakhini urdu); but not to the telugu of coastal andhra.
Read it carefully. Most of the examples are peculiar to Dakhini Urdu but missing in Standard Urdu, while present in both Telangana Telugu and Standard Telugu.

As the paper unambiguously concludes:

Such examples provide particularly clear evidence for the modification and accommodation of Indo-Aryan grammatical structures in the direction of Dravidian patterns within relatively recent times.

This paper conclusively proves that you were wrong when you said the following:

dakhni telugu is closer to dakhni than to telugu because the grammar of dakhni telugu is closer to dakhni than to telugu

Yet another instance of the monkey with internet connection and keyboard spouting nonsense that it has no idea about just because someone else wrote it on the internet.

what i meant was that the grammar of dakhini and telangana telugu are more similar to each other than the grammar of telangana telugu and coastal andhra telugu. your bizarre behavior which started off by your questioning whether i had read Alberuni even though i had posted an extract from his book and we had discussed him six years ago continues.

PS: Please feel free to "interpret" this emoticon. Thank you.

Interpreting one emoticon caused you so much grief that i have vowed not to interpret another emoticon lest you suffer from permanent mental damage.

by charvaka Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:34 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:This paper, which we are now discussing, gives certain rules of grammar which are peculiar to Telangana Telugu and Dakhini (also known as Dakhini urdu); but not to the telugu of coastal andhra.
Read it carefully. Most of the examples are peculiar to Dakhini Urdu but missing in Standard Urdu, while present in both Telangana Telugu and Standard Telugu.

As the paper unambiguously concludes:

Such examples provide particularly clear evidence for the modification and accommodation of Indo-Aryan grammatical structures in the direction of Dravidian patterns within relatively recent times.

This paper conclusively proves that you were wrong when you said the following:

dakhni telugu is closer to dakhni than to telugu because the grammar of dakhni telugu is closer to dakhni than to telugu

Yet another instance of the monkey with internet connection and keyboard spouting nonsense that it has no idea about just because someone else wrote it on the internet.

what i meant was that the grammar of dakhini and telangana telugu are more similar to each other than the grammar of telangana telugu and coastal andhra telugu. your bizarre behavior which started off by your questioning whether i had read Alberuni even though i had posted an extract from his book and we had discussed him six years ago continues.

a clarification: Telangana Telugu is also called hybrid telugu, and it is also called Dakhini Telugu.

Telangana Telugu an offshoot of Dakhni? - Page 3 Computer-monkey-3D

by charvaka Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:37 pm

Rashmun wrote:i have vowed not to interpret another emoticon

This is a grave loss to the SuCH community. I hope you will keep all your other antics up though -- we don't want your entertainment factor to disappear altogether.

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:37 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:This paper, which we are now discussing, gives certain rules of grammar which are peculiar to Telangana Telugu and Dakhini (also known as Dakhini urdu); but not to the telugu of coastal andhra.
Read it carefully. Most of the examples are peculiar to Dakhini Urdu but missing in Standard Urdu, while present in both Telangana Telugu and Standard Telugu.

As the paper unambiguously concludes:

Such examples provide particularly clear evidence for the modification and accommodation of Indo-Aryan grammatical structures in the direction of Dravidian patterns within relatively recent times.

This paper conclusively proves that you were wrong when you said the following:

dakhni telugu is closer to dakhni than to telugu because the grammar of dakhni telugu is closer to dakhni than to telugu

Yet another instance of the monkey with internet connection and keyboard spouting nonsense that it has no idea about just because someone else wrote it on the internet.

what i meant was that the grammar of dakhini and telangana telugu are more similar to each other than the grammar of telangana telugu and coastal andhra telugu. your bizarre behavior which started off by your questioning whether i had read Alberuni even though i had posted an extract from his book and we had discussed him six years ago continues.

a clarification: Telangana Telugu is also called hybrid telugu, and it is also called Dakhini Telugu.

Charvaka, you are looking cute.

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:39 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:i have vowed not to interpret another emoticon
This is a grave loss to the SuCH community. I hope you will keep all your other antics up though -- we don't want your entertainment factor to disappear altogether.

Well, i could never provide as much entertainment as you are capable of. For instance questioning whether i have read Alberuni when in fact i have posted an extract from his book and we have had a discussion about him on sulekha.

by charvaka Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:42 pm

Rashmun wrote:Hindi and urdu originated in north india and then they traveled to the south in the form of Dakhini. The southerners polished this language. Then later this Dakhini travelled to the north and gave rise to modern Hindustani.

In these travels, did they travel second class sleeper or AC three-tier? Did they share the same berth or did they get their own individual berths? Did the pantry car serve idli and sambar as part of its meals?

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:43 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Hindi and urdu originated in north india and then they traveled to the south in the form of Dakhini. The southerners polished this language. Then later this Dakhini travelled to the north and gave rise to modern Hindustani.
In these travels, did they travel second class sleeper or AC three-tier? Did they share the same berth or did they get their own individual berths? Did the pantry car serve idli and sambar as part of its meals?

.

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:45 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:The paper argues the exact opposite of what you have been talking about. It says:

During this period [starting in the 15th century CE], Dakhini Urdu has undergone a number of changes which have resulted in a grammatical system more similar in many respects to that of the Dravidian languages with which it has been in contact.

The evidence is primarily of convergence of Dakhini Urdu toward the Telugu pattern, although there is some evidence of convergence in the other direction as well...

In other words, Dakhni grammar became more like Telugu grammar than Telangana Telugu grammar became like Dakhni grammar. The paper says as much in its conclusion:

Such examples provide particularly clear evidence for the modification and accommodation of Indo-Aryan grammatical structures in the direction of Dravidian patterns within relatively recent times.

This paper suggests that the distance between Standard Urdu and Dakhini Urdu is greater than the distance between Telangana Telugu and Standard Telugu. This completely demolishes everything you have said on this thread, including its very title. Hope this helps.

i only said that a synthesis of telugu and dakhini took place and i speculated that this may have given rise to telangana telugu. this was on the basis of another article whose link i gave which said that Telangana Telugu is an offshoot of Dakhini.

This paper, which we are now discussing, gives certain rules of grammar which are peculiar to Telangana Telugu and Dakhini (also known as Dakhini urdu); but not to the telugu of coastal andhra.

when one says that a synthesis took place between dakhini and telugu one is not denying the contribution of telugu in the synthesis.

A very important sentence in the paper is this:

The following sections present some of the evidence of grammatical convergence between Dakhini Urdu and Telugu, more specifically, Telangana Telugu.

In other words, unless otherwise stated, wherever the author uses the word 'Telugu' the reader should substitute it with the words 'Telangana Telugu'.
And most of the examples are ones where a grammatical feature of Telugu (more specifically, Telangana Telugu) became part of Dakhini Urdu although it is absent in Standard Urdu.

BTW, this paper disagrees with you on your theory for the origin of Urdu and Hindi; it does not argue that Hindi and Urdu came from Dakhni, but the other way round: ... Dakhini Urdu, an Indo-Aryan language originating in North India ...

Hindi and urdu originated in north india and then they traveled to the south in the form of Dakhini. The southerners polished this language. Then later this Dakhini travelled to the north and gave rise to modern Hindustani.

When Wali Dakhni (also known as Wali Aurangabadi and Wali Gujarati), a famous poet of Dakhni visited Delhi in 1700, he astonished the poets of Delhi with his ghazals. He drew wide applause from the Persian-speaking poets, some of who, after listening to Wali, also adopted the language of the people, ‘Urdu’, as the medium of their poetic expressions. Prominent poets -- Shah Hatem, Shah Abro and Mir Taqi Mir -- were among his admirers.

At that time in Delhi, the court poets were composing in Persian and Arabic. For others, Braj and Awadhi were the languages of literary and religious expressions. The spoken language of all was Khari Boli. When the poets listened to Wali in Dakhni language (which is also a variant of Khari Boli) they were struck by the fact that the spoken language of the people was capable of such rich literary expression.

Wali Dakhni, born as Wali Muhammad (1667-1731 or 1743) was born in Aurangabad and went to Gujarat in search of a Guru. He became a disciple of Wajihuddin Gujarati and soon became famous. He came back and settled in Aurangabad but travelled twice to Delhi. His first trip produced the dramatic results and made him known as father of Urdu poetry.

http://www.bangalorenotes.com/dakhni.htm

by charvaka Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:58 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Hindi and urdu originated in north india and then they traveled to the south in the form of Dakhini. The southerners polished this language. Then later this Dakhini travelled to the north and gave rise to modern Hindustani.

When Wali Dakhni (also known as Wali Aurangabadi and Wali Gujarati), a famous poet of Dakhni visited Delhi in 1700, he astonished the poets of Delhi with his ghazals. He drew wide applause from the Persian-speaking poets, some of who, after listening to Wali, also adopted the language of the people, ‘Urdu’, as the medium of their poetic expressions. Prominent poets -- Shah Hatem, Shah Abro and Mir Taqi Mir -- were among his admirers.

At that time in Delhi, the court poets were composing in Persian and Arabic. For others, Braj and Awadhi were the languages of literary and religious expressions. The spoken language of all was Khari Boli. When the poets listened to Wali in Dakhni language (which is also a variant of Khari Boli) they were struck by the fact that the spoken language of the people was capable of such rich literary expression.

Wali Dakhni, born as Wali Muhammad (1667-1731 or 1743) was born in Aurangabad and went to Gujarat in search of a Guru. He became a disciple of Wajihuddin Gujarati and soon became famous. He came back and settled in Aurangabad but travelled twice to Delhi. His first trip produced the dramatic results and made him known as father of Urdu poetry.

http://www.bangalorenotes.com/dakhni.htm

Thank you for posting something that immediately contradicts your own thesis. First you say, Hindi and Urdu originated in the north. Then you post something that says Braj and Awadhi were used in the north along with Persian and Arabic. Urdu as a literary language, per the article you posted, came from the south. If only you were a little better at logic, you would see this for yourself. But you are condemned to be the monkey at the keyboard, I guess.

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 9:00 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

i only said that a synthesis of telugu and dakhini took place and i speculated that this may have given rise to telangana telugu. this was on the basis of another article whose link i gave which said that Telangana Telugu is an offshoot of Dakhini.

This paper, which we are now discussing, gives certain rules of grammar which are peculiar to Telangana Telugu and Dakhini (also known as Dakhini urdu); but not to the telugu of coastal andhra.

when one says that a synthesis took place between dakhini and telugu one is not denying the contribution of telugu in the synthesis.

A very important sentence in the paper is this:

The following sections present some of the evidence of grammatical convergence between Dakhini Urdu and Telugu, more specifically, Telangana Telugu.

In other words, unless otherwise stated, wherever the author uses the word 'Telugu' the reader should substitute it with the words 'Telangana Telugu'.
And most of the examples are ones where a grammatical feature of Telugu (more specifically, Telangana Telugu) became part of Dakhini Urdu although it is absent in Standard Urdu.

BTW, this paper disagrees with you on your theory for the origin of Urdu and Hindi; it does not argue that Hindi and Urdu came from Dakhni, but the other way round: ... Dakhini Urdu, an Indo-Aryan language originating in North India ...

Hindi and urdu originated in north india and then they traveled to the south in the form of Dakhini. The southerners polished this language. Then later this Dakhini travelled to the north and gave rise to modern Hindustani.

When Wali Dakhni (also known as Wali Aurangabadi and Wali Gujarati), a famous poet of Dakhni visited Delhi in 1700, he astonished the poets of Delhi with his ghazals. He drew wide applause from the Persian-speaking poets, some of who, after listening to Wali, also adopted the language of the people, ‘Urdu’, as the medium of their poetic expressions. Prominent poets -- Shah Hatem, Shah Abro and Mir Taqi Mir -- were among his admirers.

At that time in Delhi, the court poets were composing in Persian and Arabic. For others, Braj and Awadhi were the languages of literary and religious expressions. The spoken language of all was Khari Boli. When the poets listened to Wali in Dakhni language (which is also a variant of Khari Boli) they were struck by the fact that the spoken language of the people was capable of such rich literary expression.

Wali Dakhni, born as Wali Muhammad (1667-1731 or 1743) was born in Aurangabad and went to Gujarat in search of a Guru. He became a disciple of Wajihuddin Gujarati and soon became famous. He came back and settled in Aurangabad but travelled twice to Delhi. His first trip produced the dramatic results and made him known as father of Urdu poetry.

http://www.bangalorenotes.com/dakhni.htm

Khari Boli is the language of the common man in large parts of India, particularly urban India. It is also the hindi dialect used in hindi movies. It is sometimes referred to as Hindustani.

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 9:05 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Hindi and urdu originated in north india and then they traveled to the south in the form of Dakhini. The southerners polished this language. Then later this Dakhini travelled to the north and gave rise to modern Hindustani.

When Wali Dakhni (also known as Wali Aurangabadi and Wali Gujarati), a famous poet of Dakhni visited Delhi in 1700, he astonished the poets of Delhi with his ghazals. He drew wide applause from the Persian-speaking poets, some of who, after listening to Wali, also adopted the language of the people, ‘Urdu’, as the medium of their poetic expressions. Prominent poets -- Shah Hatem, Shah Abro and Mir Taqi Mir -- were among his admirers.

At that time in Delhi, the court poets were composing in Persian and Arabic. For others, Braj and Awadhi were the languages of literary and religious expressions. The spoken language of all was Khari Boli. When the poets listened to Wali in Dakhni language (which is also a variant of Khari Boli) they were struck by the fact that the spoken language of the people was capable of such rich literary expression.

Wali Dakhni, born as Wali Muhammad (1667-1731 or 1743) was born in Aurangabad and went to Gujarat in search of a Guru. He became a disciple of Wajihuddin Gujarati and soon became famous. He came back and settled in Aurangabad but travelled twice to Delhi. His first trip produced the dramatic results and made him known as father of Urdu poetry.

http://www.bangalorenotes.com/dakhni.htm
Thank you for posting something that immediately contradicts your own thesis. First you say, Hindi and Urdu originated in the north. Then you post something that says Braj and Awadhi were used in the north along with Persian and Arabic. Urdu as a literary language, per the article you posted, came from the south. If only you were a little better at logic, you would see this for yourself. But you are condemned to be the monkey at the keyboard, I guess.

Hindi-Urdu (Hindustani or Khari Boli) travelled to the south from the north, and then later returned to the north in a more developed form.

-----
What the north failed to achieve, strangely enough, the Deccan accomplished. Alauddin Khilji's conquests had opened the country, and numerous Sufi saints and Dervishes visited the south in order to spread their message. In the south Persian was an almost unknown tongue, and they were compelled to use the dialect of Delhi, which they knew, in order to carry on their work. Among these saints the one who created the greatest impression was Khwaja Gesu-daraz Banda-nawaz. He left the north when Timur invaded the Punjab in 1398, and settled down in the Deccan. He probably is the first writer of the Khari Boli who made it a literary language. His Risala, Mi’raj-ul Ashiquin, edited from a manuscript of 1500 AD, gives an example of his language. Here are a few sentences from the Risala: Insan ke boojoe kon panch tan. Har ek tan ko panch darwaze hain hor panch darban hain. Pahla tan wajbul wajood. Muqam iska shaitani nafs iska ammara. (The authenticity of this Risala is doubted.)

Next to him is Shams-ul-Ushshaq Shah Miranji, who died in 1496. Many of his works have been preserved, and they illustrate the language of the 15th century.

The 15th century produced quite a number of writers of this language. Bahauddin Bajan, who lived at Berhampur, was a Sufi poet. He wrote:

Yun bajan baje re asrar chhaje
Mandal man men dhamke, rabab rang men jhamke, soofi un par thumke.

Nizami was a poet at the court of Sultan Ahmad Shah III, and lived in the 15th century. He is the author of the first known allegorical poem (Masnavi) in the language, entitled Masnavi Kadorn Rao aur Padam.

From this period—that is, the end of the 14th century—this language, which may be called Hindustani, continues to progress rapidly. When Aurangzeb began the conquest of Bijapur and Golkonda in the 17th century, the poets of the Deccan began to visit the North, and the consequence was that Hindustani poetry became known to the writers of Delhi and other places. The return of the prodigal to the paternal home led to a new development. The courtiers of the Emperors of Delhi were mainly speakers and writers of Persian, but the Hindustani which came to them from the Deccan was the true representative of the mixture of Hindu-Muslim culture which prevailed among the peoples of India.

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00urduhindilinks/tarachand/02medieval.html

by charvaka Sun Apr 15, 2012 11:23 pm

Rashmun wrote:Hindi and urdu originated in north india and then they traveled to the south in the form of Dakhini. The southerners polished this language. Then later this Dakhini travelled to the north and gave rise to modern Hindustani.

Rashmun wrote:Hindi-Urdu (Hindustani or Khari Boli) travelled to the south from the north, and then later returned to the north in a more developed form.

You need to get your story straight, and that requires some thinking instead of monkey-like copy-pasting. First you posit that Hindi and Urdu originated in the north, they traveled south (in second class sleeper or AC three-tier, sleeping in one berth or two, yet to be ascertained through further googling), merged and got polished in the south, and moved back north to give rise to Hindustani. Then you change your tune to say that Hindi-Urdu (urf Hindustani) traveled south and then north after benefiting from the developmental influence of the south (in this case not requiring two separate berths because the merger had already been accomplished when the travels began). Which is it, now?

by Guest Mon Apr 16, 2012 6:55 am

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Hindi and urdu originated in north india and then they traveled to the south in the form of Dakhini. The southerners polished this language. Then later this Dakhini travelled to the north and gave rise to modern Hindustani.

Rashmun wrote:Hindi-Urdu (Hindustani or Khari Boli) travelled to the south from the north, and then later returned to the north in a more developed form.
You need to get your story straight, and that requires some thinking instead of monkey-like copy-pasting. First you posit that Hindi and Urdu originated in the north, they traveled south (in second class sleeper or AC three-tier, sleeping in one berth or two, yet to be ascertained through further googling), merged and got polished in the south, and moved back north to give rise to Hindustani. Then you change your tune to say that Hindi-Urdu (urf Hindustani) traveled south and then north after benefiting from the developmental influence of the south (in this case not requiring two separate berths because the merger had already been accomplished when the travels began). Which is it, now?

In this context, 'Hindi and Urdu' are equivalent to 'Hindi-Urdu' and should be read as 'Hindi-and-Urdu'. 'Hindi-Urdu' is an alternative term for 'Hindustani'.

----
Hindi-Urdu (हिंदी उर्दू, هندی اردو) is an Indo-Aryan language and the lingua franca of North India and Pakistan.[5][6] It is also known as Hindustani (हिन्दुस्तानी, ہندوستانی, Hindustānī, IPA: [ɦɪ̃n̪d̪ʊsˈt̪aːni], literally: "of Hindustan"),[7] and historically, as Hindavi or Rekhta. It derives primarily from the Khariboli dialect of Delhi, and incorporates a large amount of vocabulary from Persian, Arabic, Sanskrit and Turkic.[8][9] It is a pluricentric language, with two official forms, Standard Hindi and Standard Urdu,[10] which are standardized registers of it. Colloquial Standard Hindi and Urdu are all but indistinguishable, and even the official standards are nearly identical in grammar, though they differ in literary conventions and in academic and technical vocabulary, with Urdu retaining stronger Persian, Central Asian and Arabic influences, and Hindi relying more heavily on Sanskrit.[11][12] Before the Partition of British India, the terms Hindustani, Urdu and Hindi were synonymous; all covered what would be called Urdu and Hindi today.[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindi-Urdu

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Apr 16, 2012 12:00 pm

in this context hindi and urdu and everything else we may have to say about it should be read as:

Telangana Telugu an offshoot of Dakhni? - Page 3 220px-Viipurinrinkeli22

would you like some salt to go with that?

by Guest Mon Apr 16, 2012 12:07 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:in this context hindi and urdu and everything else we may have to say about it should be read as:

would you like some salt to go with that?

Max, were you surprised to learn that Telugu grammar follows sanskrit grammar? Have you changed your opinion about the pivotal place Sanskrit occupies in the evolution of Indian languages? In my opinion you need to start respecting the sanskrit language and acknowledging the fact that it is a part of Tamil culture instead of saying 'it is not my language'.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Apr 16, 2012 12:14 pm

rashmun: based on the discussions between charvaka and you and the paper you linked, i learned that you make up anything that advances your agenda regardless of whether it has the slightest connection to reality.

yes i have changed my opinion. i used to think that you took a small shred of information and magnified it a million-fold and shaped it to anything that fits your agenda. now i know that even that small shred of a tenuous connection to reality is not required in your world. fabricating complete falsehoods out of vacuum is perfectly alright. i have also come to know that you don't carefully read your own links. your linking is based on the rather optimistic expectation that others to whom your links are addressed will simply read your excerpts, and not make the effort to read the whole article you linked to, many portions of which contradict your theses in a direct way.

by Guest Mon Apr 16, 2012 12:30 pm

Rashmun wrote:

Max, were you surprised to learn that Telugu grammar follows sanskrit grammar? Have you changed your opinion about the pivotal place Sanskrit occupies in the evolution of Indian languages? In my opinion you need to start respecting the sanskrit language and acknowledging the fact that it is a part of Tamil culture instead of saying 'it is not my language'.

Rashmun, will be pls stop talking abt sanskrit? Pls stick to dakhni, urdu, hindi, akbar, aurangazeb, etc. Sanskrit is a highly respected language. Yes, it has its heavy influence on the grammar, vocabulary, literature, etc of telugu and other south indian languages. It's in its pristine form in the south than in the persian influenced north indian languages. It's close to our hearts. So pls, leave Sankrit alone. Uska maila mat karo. The less you talk abt it, the better it is. Thnx.

by Guest Mon Apr 16, 2012 12:37 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:rashmun: based on the discussions between charvaka and you and the paper you linked, i learned that you make up anything that advances your agenda regardless of whether it has the slightest connection to reality.

yes i have changed my opinion. i used to think that you took a small shred of information and magnified it a million-fold and shaped it to anything that fits your agenda. now i know that even that small shred of a tenuous connection to reality is not required in your world. fabricating complete falsehoods out of vacuum is perfectly alright. i have also come to know that you don't carefully read your own links. your linking is based on the rather optimistic expectation that others to whom your links are addressed will simply read your excerpts, and not make the effort to read the whole article you linked to, many portions of which contradict your theses in a direct way.

Max, Here are all the dogmas you were subscribing to which have been demolished:
1. Sanskrit is not your language. (Well, it is because sanskrit is a part of Tamil culture. People from all parts of India have contributed to sanskrit literature as have Tamilians. )
2. Sanskrit should be treated on par with dravidian languages. (No, it is more important than dravidian languages because dravidian languages are localized while sanskrit is a national language.)
3. Dakhini is a minor unimportant language of south india because you had never heard of it. (Actually it is an important language particularly in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh)
4. Hindustani has nothing to do with South India. (Actually Hindustani developed in South India through the activities of the sufi saints who did all their preaching using Hindustani which is also known as Dakhini in South India. Many kings of South India patronized this Hindustani.This developed Hindustani then returned to North India after South Indian poets started visiting Delhi following the conquests of Aurangzeb. The outcome was that the mughal poets who had been writing poetry in persian started writing in Hindustani. Even the court language of the mughal court changed from Persian to Urdu. The terms Hindustani, hindi, and urdu were synonymous before the partition of India. )

------

by Guest Mon Apr 16, 2012 12:41 pm

kinnera wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

Max, were you surprised to learn that Telugu grammar follows sanskrit grammar? Have you changed your opinion about the pivotal place Sanskrit occupies in the evolution of Indian languages? In my opinion you need to start respecting the sanskrit language and acknowledging the fact that it is a part of Tamil culture instead of saying 'it is not my language'.

Rashmun, will be pls stop talking abt sanskrit? Pls stick to dakhni, urdu, hindi, akbar, aurangazeb, etc. Sanskrit is a highly respected language. Yes, it has its heavy influence on the grammar, vocabulary, literature, etc of telugu and other south indian languages. It's in its pristine form in the south than in the persian influenced north indian languages. It's close to our hearts. So pls, leave Sankrit alone. Uska maila mat karo. The less you talk abt it, the better it is. Thnx.

Upto 70% of words in Hindustani are of sanskrit origin. Moreover, the verb in a Hindustani sentence will almost invariably be of sanskrit origin. So sanskrit cannot be separated from Hindustani. Max claims that 'sanskrit is not my language' and i disagree with him because sanskrit belongs to Tamil Nadu as much as it belongs to the rest of India. After all, many Tamil scholars have contributed to sanskrit literature just as scholars across India have contributed to this literature.

by Guest Mon Apr 16, 2012 12:47 pm

Rashmun wrote:
kinnera wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

Max, were you surprised to learn that Telugu grammar follows sanskrit grammar? Have you changed your opinion about the pivotal place Sanskrit occupies in the evolution of Indian languages? In my opinion you need to start respecting the sanskrit language and acknowledging the fact that it is a part of Tamil culture instead of saying 'it is not my language'.

Rashmun, will be pls stop talking abt sanskrit? Pls stick to dakhni, urdu, hindi, akbar, aurangazeb, etc. Sanskrit is a highly respected language. Yes, it has its heavy influence on the grammar, vocabulary, literature, etc of telugu and other south indian languages. It's in its pristine form in the south than in the persian influenced north indian languages. It's close to our hearts. So pls, leave Sankrit alone. Uska maila mat karo. The less you talk abt it, the better it is. Thnx.

Upto 70% of words in Hindustani are of sanskrit origin. Moreover, the verb in a Hindustani sentence will almost invariably be of sanskrit origin. So sanskrit cannot be separated from Hindustani. Max claims that 'sanskrit is not my language' and i disagree with him because sanskrit belongs to Tamil Nadu as much as it belongs to the rest of India. After all, many Tamil scholars have contributed to sanskrit literature just as scholars across India have contributed to this literature.

there is one other thing: sanskrit is an anti-dote to regionalism.

by Guest Mon Apr 16, 2012 12:50 pm

Rashmun wrote:
kinnera wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

Max, were you surprised to learn that Telugu grammar follows sanskrit grammar? Have you changed your opinion about the pivotal place Sanskrit occupies in the evolution of Indian languages? In my opinion you need to start respecting the sanskrit language and acknowledging the fact that it is a part of Tamil culture instead of saying 'it is not my language'.

Rashmun, will be pls stop talking abt sanskrit? Pls stick to dakhni, urdu, hindi, akbar, aurangazeb, etc. Sanskrit is a highly respected language. Yes, it has its heavy influence on the grammar, vocabulary, literature, etc of telugu and other south indian languages. It's in its pristine form in the south than in the persian influenced north indian languages. It's close to our hearts. So pls, leave Sankrit alone. Uska maila mat karo. The less you talk abt it, the better it is. Thnx.

Upto 70% of words in Hindustani are of sanskrit origin. Moreover, the verb in a Hindustani sentence will almost invariably be of sanskrit origin. So sanskrit cannot be separated from Hindustani. Max claims that 'sanskrit is not my language' and i disagree with him because sanskrit belongs to Tamil Nadu as much as it belongs to the rest of India. After all, many Tamil scholars have contributed to sanskrit literature just as scholars across India have contributed to this literature.

If some tamilians don't feel close to Sanskrit, so be it. Why are you trying to shove it down their throats? Anyway, a humble request. Please don't bring Sanskrit into your topics of discussion. Thnx.

by Guest Mon Apr 16, 2012 12:51 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
kinnera wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

Max, were you surprised to learn that Telugu grammar follows sanskrit grammar? Have you changed your opinion about the pivotal place Sanskrit occupies in the evolution of Indian languages? In my opinion you need to start respecting the sanskrit language and acknowledging the fact that it is a part of Tamil culture instead of saying 'it is not my language'.

Rashmun, will be pls stop talking abt sanskrit? Pls stick to dakhni, urdu, hindi, akbar, aurangazeb, etc. Sanskrit is a highly respected language. Yes, it has its heavy influence on the grammar, vocabulary, literature, etc of telugu and other south indian languages. It's in its pristine form in the south than in the persian influenced north indian languages. It's close to our hearts. So pls, leave Sankrit alone. Uska maila mat karo. The less you talk abt it, the better it is. Thnx.

Upto 70% of words in Hindustani are of sanskrit origin. Moreover, the verb in a Hindustani sentence will almost invariably be of sanskrit origin. So sanskrit cannot be separated from Hindustani. Max claims that 'sanskrit is not my language' and i disagree with him because sanskrit belongs to Tamil Nadu as much as it belongs to the rest of India. After all, many Tamil scholars have contributed to sanskrit literature just as scholars across India have contributed to this literature.

there is one other thing: sanskrit is an anti-dote to regionalism.

Not when ppl like you try to talk abt it. Leave Sankrit ALONE!

by Guest Mon Apr 16, 2012 12:53 pm

kinnera wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
kinnera wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

Max, were you surprised to learn that Telugu grammar follows sanskrit grammar? Have you changed your opinion about the pivotal place Sanskrit occupies in the evolution of Indian languages? In my opinion you need to start respecting the sanskrit language and acknowledging the fact that it is a part of Tamil culture instead of saying 'it is not my language'.

Rashmun, will be pls stop talking abt sanskrit? Pls stick to dakhni, urdu, hindi, akbar, aurangazeb, etc. Sanskrit is a highly respected language. Yes, it has its heavy influence on the grammar, vocabulary, literature, etc of telugu and other south indian languages. It's in its pristine form in the south than in the persian influenced north indian languages. It's close to our hearts. So pls, leave Sankrit alone. Uska maila mat karo. The less you talk abt it, the better it is. Thnx.

Upto 70% of words in Hindustani are of sanskrit origin. Moreover, the verb in a Hindustani sentence will almost invariably be of sanskrit origin. So sanskrit cannot be separated from Hindustani. Max claims that 'sanskrit is not my language' and i disagree with him because sanskrit belongs to Tamil Nadu as much as it belongs to the rest of India. After all, many Tamil scholars have contributed to sanskrit literature just as scholars across India have contributed to this literature.

there is one other thing: sanskrit is an anti-dote to regionalism.

Not when ppl like you try to talk abt it. Leave Sankrit ALONE!

Sorry. Sanskrit is as much my language as it is your language. I have as much right to talk about it as you do.

by Guest Mon Apr 16, 2012 12:54 pm

kinnera wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
kinnera wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

Max, were you surprised to learn that Telugu grammar follows sanskrit grammar? Have you changed your opinion about the pivotal place Sanskrit occupies in the evolution of Indian languages? In my opinion you need to start respecting the sanskrit language and acknowledging the fact that it is a part of Tamil culture instead of saying 'it is not my language'.

Rashmun, will be pls stop talking abt sanskrit? Pls stick to dakhni, urdu, hindi, akbar, aurangazeb, etc. Sanskrit is a highly respected language. Yes, it has its heavy influence on the grammar, vocabulary, literature, etc of telugu and other south indian languages. It's in its pristine form in the south than in the persian influenced north indian languages. It's close to our hearts. So pls, leave Sankrit alone. Uska maila mat karo. The less you talk abt it, the better it is. Thnx.

Upto 70% of words in Hindustani are of sanskrit origin. Moreover, the verb in a Hindustani sentence will almost invariably be of sanskrit origin. So sanskrit cannot be separated from Hindustani. Max claims that 'sanskrit is not my language' and i disagree with him because sanskrit belongs to Tamil Nadu as much as it belongs to the rest of India. After all, many Tamil scholars have contributed to sanskrit literature just as scholars across India have contributed to this literature.

If some tamilians don't feel close to Sanskrit, so be it. Why are you trying to shove it down their throats? Anyway, a humble request. Please don't bring Sanskrit into your topics of discussion. Thnx.

i have the right to point out to such tamilians that they are mistaken while giving my reasons. they are then free to accept or reject my opinion.

by doofus_maximus Mon Apr 16, 2012 1:16 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote: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.
Let us review who those "scholars" and "experts" are. One is the unnamed author of a website called explohyd.com. Another is a Toilet Paper article written by a guy called Kingshuk. And someone else who can't even spell Telangana right. Between those three, that's a lot of Telugu expertise and scholarship right there!

I am reading this thread and enjoying my quiet lunch.

In your list of experts, you left out a post from Bollywhat forum lol!

which was copy pasted umpteen number of times.

Thought I should give you a heads up

by Guest Mon Apr 16, 2012 1:22 pm

doofus_maximus wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote: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.
Let us review who those "scholars" and "experts" are. One is the unnamed author of a website called explohyd.com. Another is a Toilet Paper article written by a guy called Kingshuk. And someone else who can't even spell Telangana right. Between those three, that's a lot of Telugu expertise and scholarship right there!

I am reading this thread and enjoying my quiet lunch.

In your list of experts, you left out a post from Bollywhat forum which was copy pasted umpteen number of times.

Thought I should give you a heads up

twice conveniently becomes umpteen number of times for Doffus.

by doofus_maximus Mon Apr 16, 2012 1:28 pm

So quoting something only twice doesn't make the 'Expert' grade I guess.

I will change my stance. Thanks for the clarification.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Apr 16, 2012 1:48 pm

kinnera wrote:

If some tamilians don't feel close to Sanskrit, so be it.

i recognize that sanskrit has a special place in indian linguistics. i have never denied it. i have also said on several occasions that of all the carnatic trinity's compositions, dikshitar's, nearly all which are in sanskrit are my favorite for their majesty and musical beauty. however, i can never consider it on par with tamil which is deeply deeply etched in my spiritual, mental, and emotional DNA. not even close! it is rashmun insisting that i should feel otherwise which you and others should find remarkable and idiotic, not my response to it.

by Guest Mon Apr 16, 2012 2:14 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
kinnera wrote:

If some tamilians don't feel close to Sanskrit, so be it.

i recognize that sanskrit has a special place in indian linguistics. i have never denied it. i have also said on several occasions that of all the carnatic trinity's compositions, dikshitar's, nearly all which are in sanskrit are my favorite for their majesty and musical beauty. however, i can never consider it on par with tamil which is deeply deeply etched in my spiritual, mental, and emotional DNA. not even close! it is rashmun insisting that i should feel otherwise which you and others should find remarkable and idiotic, not my response to it.

i have no problem with you having a sentimental and emotional attachment for Tamil. i took objection with your claim that dravidian languages should be treated on par with sanskrit because in my opinion sanskrit is a national language unlike any of the dravidian languages which are localized. i also object to your claim that 'it is not my language' and that many tamilians do not consider it to be their language. in my opinion Sanskrit is the language of all Indians and is not confined to any particular region in India. If many tamilians do not consider it to be their language then i have the right to point out that they should consider it to be their language while giving my reasons for why i say so. they are free to accept or reject my opinion.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Apr 16, 2012 2:26 pm

you can take your objection and stuff it. sanskrit is not my language.

and here's more. better scholars than you who have dedicated entire lifetimes to the study of indian comparative lingustics are quite clear that the dravidian languages are quite separate from sanskrit in their origin. absorbing a lot of linguistic material from sanskrit doesn't change that essential fact. so their kinship to each other and to the proto-dravidian language (to which tamil bears the closest resemblance today) from which they emerged, is in my opinion far greater than the debt they owe to sanskrit which i agree is considerable. you can disagree with my opinion but we can't both operate from a different set of facts. we are only entitled to our opinions, not our own facts. if that bothers you, i am happy that i've played a role in creating your bothered state.

by Guest Mon Apr 16, 2012 2:29 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:you can take your objection and stuff it. sanskrit is not my language.

on your maternal side you belong to Rig Vedic brahmins and on your paternal side you belong to Yajur Vedic brahmins. I am confident that your ancestor were well versed in Sanskrit. Moreover, many of the rituals in your family would be performed in sanskrit. For instance, funeral rites in your family would be performed in Sanskrit and not in Tamil.

if it is not your language then why are funeral rites in your family performed in Sanskrit?

by Guest Mon Apr 16, 2012 2:46 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:you can take your objection and stuff it. sanskrit is not my language.

and here's more. better scholars than you who have dedicated entire lifetimes to the study of indian comparative lingustics are quite clear that the dravidian languages are quite separate from sanskrit in their origin. absorbing a lot of linguistic material from sanskrit doesn't change that essential fact. so their kinship to each other and to the proto-dravidian language (to which tamil bears the closest resemblance today) from which they emerged, is in my opinion far greater than the debt they owe to sanskrit which i agree is considerable. you can disagree with my opinion but we can't both operate from a different set of facts. we are only entitled to our opinions, not our own facts. if that bothers you, i am happy that i've played a role in creating your bothered state.

it has recently been brought to your attention that Telugu grammar is based completely on sanskrit grammar (with a few minor modifications); in fact, the standard text on Telugu grammar has been written in Sanskrit. Additionally, 60% of words in classical telugu and kannada are of sanskrit origin. Now here is something on Kannada grammar:

Nagavarma II was a Kannada language scholar and grammarian of the 11th or 12th century Western Chalukya court centred in Basavakalyan, modern Karnataka state, India. He was the earliest among the three most notable and authoritative grammarians of Old-Kannada language (Keshiraja of c. 1260 and Bhattakalanka Deva of c. 1604 being the other two).[1] Nagavarma II's reputation stems from his notable contributions to various genres of Kannada literature including prosody, rhetoric, poetics, grammar and vocabulary.[2] According to the scholar R. Narasimhacharya, Nagavarma II is unique in all of ancient Kannada literature, in this aspect. His writings are available and are considered standard authorities for the study of Kannada language and its growth.[2][3]...

Nagavarma II's grammatical model is based on the Katantra school of Sanskrit grammar and the author styles himself Abhinava Sarvavarma ("Modern Sarvavarma"), Sarvavarma being a noted Sanskrit grammarian to a Satavahana king.[7][8]....

Nagavarma II's authoritative Kannada grammar, Karnataka Bhashabhushana, which is based on his Sabdasmriti, and follows the general framework of Sanskrit grammar, is actually written in Sanskrit language.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagavarma_II

-----
so, although, the dravidian languages may have had an independent origin from sanskrit, they have become sanskritised over a very long period of time. They have become united with sanskrit, they have inter-mingled with Sanskrit. It is therefore bewildering that you should try and somehow divide sanskrit from dravidian languages.

by Guest Mon Apr 16, 2012 3:19 pm

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.

---
"Hindu Dharma" is a book which contains English translation of certain invaluable and engrossing speeches of Sri Sri Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi MahaSwamiji (at various times during the years 1907 to 1994).

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

by Guest Mon Apr 16, 2012 3:23 pm

In the stanza [in the previous chapter ] we saw that the poet calls Siva "Candravatamsa". It means the god who has the moon for a head ornament. "Candrasekhara" and "Indusekhara" mean the same. Remarkably enough, "Indusekhara" occurs in the titles of two grammatical works. One is Sabdendusekharam, and the other pariposendusekharam. A student who has read grammar up to Sabdendusekharam is considered master of the subject.

If there are thirty books on Siksa, there are any number on grammar. Foremost among them are Panini's sutras, Patanjali's bhasya for it and vararuci's vartika (mentioned earlier). I make this statement in the belief that Vararuci and Katyayana are the same person. Some think that they are not. Vararuci was one of the "Nine gems" of Vikramaditya 's court.

Bhartrhari's Vakyapadiyam is also an important grammatical treatise. There are said to be nine [notable] Sanskrit grammar works, "nava- vyakarana". Hanuman is believed to have learned them from the sun god. Sri Rama praises him as "nava-vyakarana -vetta ". One of these nine works is Aindram authored by Indra. It is said that the basic Tamil grammar book, the Tolkappiyam, follows Aindram.

http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part7/chap3.htm

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Apr 16, 2012 4:07 pm

i tend to trust academic scholars more than articles written by a matam dweller who is bound to have his/her own axe to grind re sanskrit. you really should read krishnamurthi and zvelebil.

by charvaka Mon Apr 16, 2012 6:59 pm

Rashmun wrote:If many tamilians do not consider it to be their language then i have the right to point out that they should consider it to be their language while giving my reasons for why i say so. they are free to accept or reject my opinion.

Guess whether the one you are "relentlessly" making the point to is accepting or rejecting your opinion. Hint: the dictionary has many meanings for stuff.

by charvaka Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:00 pm

Rashmun wrote:there is one other thing: sanskrit is an anti-dote to regionalism.

Assuming it is: as a regionalistic bigot, please don't damage that "antidote" by your contact with it.

by charvaka Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:05 pm

Rashmun wrote:it has recently been brought to your attention that Telugu grammar is based completely on sanskrit grammar (with a few minor modifications)

Yesterday you were wrong so you changed your tune this morning, but you are back to your false claims again. Here is a remarkable example of Telugu borrowing from Dakhini.

కుక్క తోక వంకర = kukka tOka vankara = dog's tail is bent
कुत्ते की दुम ठेडी = kuttE kI dum ThEDi = dog's tail is bent

All my efforts at straightening out the tail were a waste.

by charvaka Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:14 pm

Rashmun wrote:2. Sanskrit should be treated on par with dravidian languages. (No, it is more important than dravidian languages because dravidian languages are localized while sanskrit is a national language.)

Next few topics for you to give five-point arguments on:

Why father is more important than mother
Why heart is more important than liver
Why carburetor is more important than cylinder

The very notion of ranking languages based on five-point lists of supposedly objective criteria is distasteful, and indicates a narrow, biased and parochial mindset. Every person has a reason to feel good about their own language, because that language shapes their very thoughts. For you to actually posit that some language is superior to some other language is not just ignorant, but also stupid.

by charvaka Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:17 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:rashmun: based on the discussions between charvaka and you and the paper you linked, i learned that you make up anything that advances your agenda regardless of whether it has the slightest connection to reality.

yes i have changed my opinion. i used to think that you took a small shred of information and magnified it a million-fold and shaped it to anything that fits your agenda. now i know that even that small shred of a tenuous connection to reality is not required in your world. fabricating complete falsehoods out of vacuum is perfectly alright. i have also come to know that you don't carefully read your own links. your linking is based on the rather optimistic expectation that others to whom your links are addressed will simply read your excerpts, and not make the effort to read the whole article you linked to, many portions of which contradict your theses in a direct way.

I realized the exact same thing (above in bold) a few months ago. That's when I coined the term Rashmun Method as shorthand for his up-is-down arguments.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Apr 16, 2012 9:05 pm

Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:you can take your objection and stuff it. sanskrit is not my language.

on your maternal side you belong to Rig Vedic brahmins and on your paternal side you belong to Yajur Vedic brahmins. I am confident that your ancestor were well versed in Sanskrit. Moreover, many of the rituals in your family would be performed in sanskrit. For instance, funeral rites in your family would be performed in Sanskrit and not in Tamil.

if it is not your language then why are funeral rites in your family performed in Sanskrit?

since you have chosen to talk about my ancestors, of all the ones that i know of, the one to whom i feel the deepest sense of reverence and fealty was a singular scholar. he was responsible for "discovering" many of the forgotten classical tamil literature works and bringing them back to light. he was single handedly responsible for collating and rescuing many palm leaf manuscripts which would have been destroyed by the ravages of nature but not for his intervention. his is a household name for many tamilians. i'll let you google and find out more about him. given that kind of a family background you could scarcely expect me to stay silent when you blather on about dravidian languages. your favorite poet-crutch has sung about him.

by Sponsored content