Re: Telangana Telugu an offshoot of Dakhni?

by Guest Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:42 am

charvaka wrote:
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.

After he got caught with his pants down for questioning my claim that i had read Alberuni's book in parts--even though i had posted an extract from Alberuni's book on Sulekha and the resident Telangan had discussed the book with me on Sulekha CH--demented Telangan PP goes completely berserk.

When i had posted Alberuni's views on Sulekha CH, PP opined that he had been reading Alberuni himself and indicated that he was very impressed by Alberuni. But recently when i referred to Alberuni in a reply to Max (in this thread itself), PP sought to undermine Alberuni's credibility for only one reason: to try and somehow throw mud at me because i had referred to Alberuni's views.

On another note, CH Poster Seva has called PP Mudboy because of PP's propensity to try and throw mud at people he disagrees with. The Alberuni episode validates Seva's view that PP is a Mudboy.

by Guest Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:48 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
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.

Thanks for sharing this information. I will try to find out more about him. Besides the precise nature of the palm leaf manuscripts which were preserved because of his intervention, there are three specific things i would like to know about him:
1. His attitude towards the sanskrit language
2. His attitude towards the Hindustani language
3. His attitude towards the non-tamil cultures of India.

with respect to the third point, since India is an ancient country, no major culture in India (like the Tamil culture) can be studied in depth without also an understanding of the other Indian cultures because something like the Tamil culture did not develop in isolation but was shaped and influenced by other cultures just as it shaped and influenced the other cultures of India.

by Guest Tue Apr 17, 2012 8:56 am

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

Weekend Linguist - haha...BTW the language you're probably referring to is Malayalam.

by Guest Tue Apr 17, 2012 8:57 am

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

Weekend Linguist - haha...BTW the language you're probably referring to is Malayalam.

Thanks for correcting my mistake. Malayalam it is.

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:06 am

his autobiography does not mention hindi or whatever you want to call the thing or any other culture. i don't remember what if anything he says about sanskrit. you can try and find out if there is an english translation of his autobiography.

however, you sure are an odd duck. if you want to understand neville cardus you read his writings about cricket. the first question you ask is not what he thought about baseball or rounders or worse still ice hockey. my ancestor spent most of his life in a single-minded pursuit, namely the study of tamil, the preservation of original manuscripts, and making available print versions of ancient works in tamil. he didn't have time for much else. i doubt he gave much thought to hindi let alone develop an attitude towards it.

by Guest Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:20 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:his autobiography does not mention hindi or whatever you want to call the thing or any other culture. i don't remember what if anything he says about sanskrit. you can try and find out if there is an english translation of his autobiography.

however, you sure are an odd duck. if you want to understand neville cardus you read his writings about cricket. the first question you ask is not what he thought about baseball or rounders or worse still ice hockey. my ancestor spent most of his life in a single-minded pursuit, namely the study of tamil, the preservation of original manuscripts, and making available print versions of ancient works in tamil. he didn't have time for much else. i doubt he gave much thought to hindi let alone develop an attitude towards it.

i personally know people who have spent all or part of their lives in the kind of intellectual activity your ancestor pursued. Invariably these people were nationalists and not regionalists. the reason is that these intellectuals quickly realize that all major Indian sub-cultures did not grow in isolation but shaped and influenced each other. For instance, your ancestor would i am reasonably confident have been aware of the following:

This is a Shaiva sect found in North India, especially Kashmir. It is also known as the Kashmiri school....Abhinavagupta, the greatest thinker of the sect, considered the Malinivijayottara Tantra the fundamental scripture of the Trika and the essence of multi-branched Shaivism. In his Malinivijayavarttika he expanded this claim and argued for paramadvayavada, supreme nondualism, with the Absolute being self-represented in both plurality and unity. The Trika was shown to be the embodiment in revelation of this Absolute, transcending and containing the dichotomy between orthodox (dualist) and heterodox (nondualist) aspects of Shaivism which were confronting each other in the early eleventh century CE. Abhinavagupta's great Tantraloka expounded all the theoretical, yogic, and ritual aspects of the Trika. His Paratrimsikavivarana studies the Kaula cult of the Trika with its worship of the goddess Tripurasundari or Srividya.
With the spread of Abhinavagupta's lineage to Tamil Nadu, the belief was propagated that Abhinavagupta was not a mortal but an avatara, incarnation, of Shiva....

Aesthetic study was a traditional Shaiva subject in Kashmir because of the importance of dance and music in liturgies and the aestheticism of the Kaula mystical cults. Abhinavagupta's disciple Ksemaraja popularised his works in simpler writings.
After Ksemaraja, Abhinavagupta's lineage spread to Tamil Nadu, where Sanskrit works by Tamils on Trika and associated forms of Shaivism were produced from the eleventh to the nineteenth century, thus maintaining the Kashmir tradition. The main centre for this was the great Shaiva temple of Cidambaram. The Trika tradition in Tamil Nadu influenced the cult of Shri Vidya. The Kashmirian tradition of the Shri Vidya reached Tamil Nadu in the twelfth century and was adopted by the Trika. The Trika became through this more a mixture of metaphysics and soteriological theory rather than a system of Tantric worship.

http://www.philtar.ac.uk/encyclopedia/hindu/devot/trika.html

by Guest Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:48 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:his autobiography does not mention hindi or whatever you want to call the thing or any other culture. i don't remember what if anything he says about sanskrit. you can try and find out if there is an english translation of his autobiography.

however, you sure are an odd duck. if you want to understand neville cardus you read his writings about cricket. the first question you ask is not what he thought about baseball or rounders or worse still ice hockey. my ancestor spent most of his life in a single-minded pursuit, namely the study of tamil, the preservation of original manuscripts, and making available print versions of ancient works in tamil. he didn't have time for much else. i doubt he gave much thought to hindi let alone develop an attitude towards it.

besides his attitude towards hindustani, sanskrit, and non-tamil cultures, i did say that i am also interested in knowing about the precise nature of the palm leaf manuscripts which were preserved because of his intervention.

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:16 am

Rashmun wrote:

besides his attitude towards hindustani, sanskrit, and non-tamil cultures, i did say that i am also interested in knowing about the precise nature of the palm leaf manuscripts which were preserved because of his intervention.

that's a homework exercise for you. you can rest assured that these are works that the tamils consider central to their culture (not not the thirukkuraL or the kamba ramAyaNam). hint: have you heard of the story of the mistaken anklet?

by Guest Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:21 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

besides his attitude towards hindustani, sanskrit, and non-tamil cultures, i did say that i am also interested in knowing about the precise nature of the palm leaf manuscripts which were preserved because of his intervention.

that's a homework exercise for you. you can rest assured that these are works that the tamils consider central to their culture (not not the thirukkuraL or the kamba ramAyaNam). hint: have you heard of the story of the mistaken anklet?

of course i know about Kannagi.

by doofus_maximus Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:24 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

besides his attitude towards hindustani, sanskrit, and non-tamil cultures, i did say that i am also interested in knowing about the precise nature of the palm leaf manuscripts which were preserved because of his intervention.

that's a homework exercise for you. you can rest assured that these are works that the tamils consider central to their culture (not not the thirukkuraL or the kamba ramAyaNam). hint: have you heard of the story of the mistaken anklet?

are you really his descendent?

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:25 am

whose descendant d_m? if you mean the author of that epic, then no.

by Guest Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:28 am

Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

besides his attitude towards hindustani, sanskrit, and non-tamil cultures, i did say that i am also interested in knowing about the precise nature of the palm leaf manuscripts which were preserved because of his intervention.

that's a homework exercise for you. you can rest assured that these are works that the tamils consider central to their culture (not not the thirukkuraL or the kamba ramAyaNam). hint: have you heard of the story of the mistaken anklet?

of course i know about Kannagi.

do you mind my using your ancestor's name on this forum?

by doofus_maximus Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:29 am

my linkify didn't work well.

http://sangampoemsinenglish.wordpress.com/u-v-swamintha-iyer/

Interesting stuff from the website pertinent to this thread:

My relatives wanted me to learn Sanskrit. They did not see a good
future for me in Tamil. My father wanted me to learn music. Despite
what others wanted for me, even from a young age, my heart was stuck on
the beauty of Tamil goddess. I wanted to get her grace. I had no
interest in Sanskrit, Telugu or English. Music was in my family, and I
liked it, but that feeling was not there all the time. Tamil has
grabbed the peak of my mind. Music occupied a small space in a corner,
and even that could be lost to Tamil any moment”.

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:31 am

doofus_maximus wrote:my linkify didn't work well.

http://sangampoemsinenglish.wordpress.com/u-v-swamintha-iyer/

Interesting stuff from the website pertinent to this thread:

My relatives wanted me to learn Sanskrit. They did not see a good
future for me in Tamil. My father wanted me to learn music. Despite
what others wanted for me, even from a young age, my heart was stuck on
the beauty of Tamil goddess. I wanted to get her grace. I had no
interest in Sanskrit, Telugu or English. Music was in my family, and I
liked it, but that feeling was not there all the time. Tamil has
grabbed the peak of my mind. Music occupied a small space in a corner,
and even that could be lost to Tamil any moment”.

haha. thanks for posting that! hope this answers some of the weekend linguist's q's. yes that man. a great grand uncle on the paternal side.

by doofus_maximus Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:34 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

haha. thanks for posting that! hope this answers some of the weekend linguist's q's. yes that man. a great grand uncle on the paternal side.

cool Max. Good to know.

by Guest Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:39 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
doofus_maximus wrote:my linkify didn't work well.

http://sangampoemsinenglish.wordpress.com/u-v-swamintha-iyer/

Interesting stuff from the website pertinent to this thread:

My relatives wanted me to learn Sanskrit. They did not see a good
future for me in Tamil. My father wanted me to learn music. Despite
what others wanted for me, even from a young age, my heart was stuck on
the beauty of Tamil goddess. I wanted to get her grace. I had no
interest in Sanskrit, Telugu or English. Music was in my family, and I
liked it, but that feeling was not there all the time. Tamil has
grabbed the peak of my mind. Music occupied a small space in a corner,
and even that could be lost to Tamil any moment”.

haha. thanks for posting that! hope this answers some of the weekend linguist's q's. yes that man. a great grand uncle on the paternal side.

Having no interest in learning sanskrit personally does not mean having no respect for sanskrit literature. For instance:

Tamil gained a literal translation of the Ramayana by C.R. Srinivasa Iyengar and the 18 Parvas of the Mbh were published by M. Rangachariar with the help of a team of translators.

The work of MR was truly a superhuman achievement. He says that it was when he worked as a Tamil Pandit at the native school, Kumbakonam, that he used to listen often to U.V. Swaminatha Iyer who had some Sanskrit scholars translate passages from the epics orally for helping his research work. Iyer used to tell him: Villipputturar is a peerless epic poet. It would have been wonderful if he had translated the entire Mbh without leaving anything. The immediate provocation for him to take up the task of translating the Mbh was the lecture series of Mahavidwan Bharatham Ramachar, a scholar of the Madhwa Sampradaya. When he wrote to Iyer for advice, that noble soul encouraged him in the project and sent as a first instalment Rs.30 my money order. Soon there were monetary offers and if inadequate still, it was enough for MR to take up the task, especially because he came to know that both Prof. K. Sundararama Iyer and U.V. Swaminatha Iyer were actually offering prayers during their sandhyavandana for the success of this grand design.

http://mahabharata-resources.org/prema1.html

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Apr 17, 2012 12:17 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Having no interest in learning sanskrit personally does not mean having no respect for sanskrit literature.

the rest of your post is superfluous. who exactly is being disrespectful to sanskrit literature? icelandic is not my language, but i've enjoyed reading a few of the sagas in translation. you really need to get to the bottom of this terrible insecurity that you have. not healthy.

by Guest Tue Apr 17, 2012 12:22 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Having no interest in learning sanskrit personally does not mean having no respect for sanskrit literature.

the rest of your post is superfluous. who exactly is being disrespectful to sanskrit literature? icelandic is not my language, but i've enjoyed reading a few of the sagas in translation. you really need to get to the bottom of this terrible insecurity that you have. not healthy.

would he have offered daily prayers for the success of the project if an icelandic text was being translated into tamil?

by charvaka Tue Apr 17, 2012 1:09 pm

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

Weekend Linguist - haha...BTW the language you're probably referring to is Malayalam.

LOL @ Weekend Linguist. What will be the next installment in The Exciting Adventures of the Weekend Linguist series? Watch this space for more... next installment coming up on Thursday.

by Guest Tue Apr 17, 2012 1:17 pm

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

Weekend Linguist - haha...BTW the language you're probably referring to is Malayalam.
~~LOL @ Weekend Linguist.~~ What will be the next installment in The Exciting Adventures of the Weekend ~~Linguist~~ Alberuni series? Watch this space for more... next installment coming up on Thursday.

by charvaka Tue Apr 17, 2012 1:27 pm

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

Weekend Linguist - haha...BTW the language you're probably referring to is Malayalam.
~~LOL @ Weekend Linguist.~~ What will be the next installment in The Exciting Adventures of the Weekend ~~Linguist~~ Alberuni series? Watch this space for more... next installment coming up on Thursday.

Ah, Alberuni. You lost the argument on everything else on this thread you started, so let's talk about Alberuni instead. Did you read his book -- to use your a word you like -- completely, or did you read it "in parts"? Hahaha. Based on a reading "in parts" you concluded that Alberuni was "impartial and neutral." When you posted excerpts from the book all those years ago, why did you neglect to mention that you had only read it "in parts"? (Excuse me... hahaha.) Were you trying to pretend to have read the whole thing?

by Guest Tue Apr 17, 2012 1:55 pm

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

Weekend Linguist - haha...BTW the language you're probably referring to is Malayalam.
~~LOL @ Weekend Linguist.~~ What will be the next installment in The Exciting Adventures of the Weekend ~~Linguist~~ Alberuni series? Watch this space for more... next installment coming up on Thursday.
Ah, Alberuni. You lost the argument on everything else on this thread you started, so let's talk about Alberuni instead. Did you read his book -- to use your a word you like -- completely, or did you read it "in parts"? Hahaha. Based on a reading "in parts" you concluded that Alberuni was "impartial and neutral." When you posted excerpts from the book all those years ago, why did you neglect to mention that you had only read it "in parts"? (Excuse me... hahaha.) Were you trying to pretend to have read the whole thing?

When i posted the except from Alberuni's book i never claimed i had read the entire book. Moreover, Sachau in his introduction gives specific examples from the text to show that Alberuni was not biased against hindus or against India.

Did you change your mind about Alberuni after six years because you wanted to try and throw mud at me by attacking him since i had referred to his views? Was Seva justified in calling you Mudboy?

by charvaka Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:03 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:Ah, Alberuni. You lost the argument on everything else on this thread you started, so let's talk about Alberuni instead. Did you read his book -- to use your a word you like -- completely, or did you read it "in parts"? Hahaha. Based on a reading "in parts" you concluded that Alberuni was "impartial and neutral." When you posted excerpts from the book all those years ago, why did you neglect to mention that you had only read it "in parts"? (Excuse me... hahaha.) Were you trying to pretend to have read the whole thing?

When i posted the except from Alberuni's book i never claimed i had read the entire book. Moreover, Sachau in his introduction gives specific examples from the text to show that Alberuni was not biased against hindus or against India.

Did you change your mind about Alberuni after six years because you wanted to try and throw mud at me by attacking him since i had referred to his views? Was Seva justified in calling you Mudboy?

So Sachau's preface (what you call "introduction") is one "part" of the book you certainly read. And you formed your opinion of Alberuni's "impartial and neutral" manner based on that preface. Why read the book for yourself and form your own opinion, when you can rely on another person's "introduction" to make sweeping judgments? I understand the Rashmun Method, and I bow before it.

PS: I didn't change my mind on Alberuni. I don't think Alberuni was particularly biased for the time and place he came from. He wasn't even particularly biased by the standards of the 19th century, when Sachau read him. But a modern reader would have to be blind to think he was impartial and neutral. But in order make that judgment, the modern reader would have to read the book, not just the "part" of it titled "Preface." I am not attacking Alberuni at all; I am attacking your Method (e.g. judging a book -- and its author -- by its ~~cover~~ preface).

by Guest Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:11 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:Ah, Alberuni. You lost the argument on everything else on this thread you started, so let's talk about Alberuni instead. Did you read his book -- to use your a word you like -- completely, or did you read it "in parts"? Hahaha. Based on a reading "in parts" you concluded that Alberuni was "impartial and neutral." When you posted excerpts from the book all those years ago, why did you neglect to mention that you had only read it "in parts"? (Excuse me... hahaha.) Were you trying to pretend to have read the whole thing?

When i posted the except from Alberuni's book i never claimed i had read the entire book. Moreover, Sachau in his introduction gives specific examples from the text to show that Alberuni was not biased against hindus or against India.

Did you change your mind about Alberuni after six years because you wanted to try and throw mud at me by attacking him since i had referred to his views? Was Seva justified in calling you Mudboy?

So Sachau's preface (what you call "introduction") is one "part" of the book you certainly read. And you formed your opinion of Alberuni's "impartial and neutral" manner based on that preface. Why read the book for yourself and form your own opinion, when you can rely on another person's "introduction" to make sweeping judgments? I understand the Rashmun Method, and I bow before it.

I read Sachau's introduction, and i also read portions of Alberuni's book. The extract i gave from the book, for instance, was from the text of the book and not from the introduction. You yourself had only read a few extracts from Alberuni's book when we discussed the book six years ago, and yet based on the few extracts you read you claimed to have deciphered how Adi Sankara's views were adversely affecting Indian science. Now, six years later, you say Alberuni is biased. PP Method!

by charvaka Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:16 pm

Rashmun wrote: You yourself had only read a few extracts from Alberuni's book when we discussed the book six years ago

Actually I had read the first few chapters, and as I clearly mentioned in my post I was reading the book. You never let on that you were only reading "extracts" of the book. (Hahaha!)

by Guest Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:22 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote: You yourself had only read a few extracts from Alberuni's book when we discussed the book six years ago
Actually I had read the first few chapters, and as I clearly mentioned in my post I was reading the book. You never let on that you were only reading "extracts" of the book. (Hahaha!)

The focus of my post was not Alberuni but Indian astronomy. I read whatever Alberuni had to say on Indian astronomy. I never claimed to have read his entire book.

You conveniently forged and sprouted opinions on Adi Sankara's adverse affect on Indian science based on reading a few passages of Alberuni and now six years later denounce the same Alberuni. Of course, the passages in the text revealing Alberuni to be unbiased (pointed out by Sachau in his introduction) are to be ignored by you in accordance with the PP Method. One has to say that Seva was spot on when he called you Mudboy.

by charvaka Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:26 pm

Rashmun wrote:One has to say that Seva was spot on when he called you Mudboy.

The irony in all this is that in your eagerness to fling mud at me as you lost all the points of argument on this thread, you are doing exactly what Seva wrongfully accused me of doing. If you want to make Seva your new guruji, please refer to all the nasty things he has said about you as part of the GOD (Guru Opportunity Due-Diligence) process. Good luck with finding a new guruji.

by Guest Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:32 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:One has to say that Seva was spot on when he called you Mudboy.
The irony in all this is that in your eagerness to fling mud at me as you lost all the points of argument on this thread, you are doing exactly what Seva wrongfully accused me of doing. If you want to make Seva your new guruji, please refer to all the nasty things he has said about you as part of the GOD (Guru Opportunity Due-Diligence) process. Good luck with finding a new guruji.

After getting caught with his pants down throwing mud at me, the mudboy wants to somehow squirm out of the impossible position he finds himself in. Sure, Seva and I have said nasty things to each other in the course of our debates, but we are also polite to each other. For instance, when you questioned my claim about you revealing some details about your uncle on CH, i had posted this on Sulekha CH and Seva had immediately replied confirming that not just your uncle but you have claimed many members of your family indulge in the malpractice of being priests without knowing proper sanskrit.

by charvaka Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:34 pm

Rashmun wrote:Sure, Seva and I have said nasty things to each other in the course of our debates, but we are also polite to each other. For instance, when you questioned my claim about you revealing some details about your uncle on CH, i had posted this on Sulekha CH and Seva had immediately replied confirming that not just your uncle but you have claimed many members of your family indulge in the malpractice of being priests without knowing proper sanskrit.

Oh, that's good to know. Good luck with the GOD process, and hope you pick him for your new guruji then.

by Guest Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:37 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Sure, Seva and I have said nasty things to each other in the course of our debates, but we are also polite to each other. For instance, when you questioned my claim about you revealing some details about your uncle on CH, i had posted this on Sulekha CH and Seva had immediately replied confirming that not just your uncle but you have claimed many members of your family indulge in the malpractice of being priests without knowing proper sanskrit.
Oh, that's good to know. Good luck with the GOD process, and hope you pick him for your new guruji then.

After the self-inflicted Alberuni wound, PP concedes defeat.

by Guest Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:39 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Sure, Seva and I have said nasty things to each other in the course of our debates, but we are also polite to each other. For instance, when you questioned my claim about you revealing some details about your uncle on CH, i had posted this on Sulekha CH and Seva had immediately replied confirming that not just your uncle but you have claimed many members of your family indulge in the malpractice of being priests without knowing proper sanskrit.
Oh, that's good to know. Good luck with the GOD process, and hope you pick him for your new guruji then.

not just Seva, sandilya was also around when you claimed that your uncle does not know proper sanskrit and does not chant mantras properly and yet continues to function as a priest (and collect fat daksinas).

by Hellsangel Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:41 pm

What does anyone's mamaji have to do with all this?

by charvaka Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:42 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Sure, Seva and I have said nasty things to each other in the course of our debates, but we are also polite to each other. For instance, when you questioned my claim about you revealing some details about your uncle on CH, i had posted this on Sulekha CH and Seva had immediately replied confirming that not just your uncle but you have claimed many members of your family indulge in the malpractice of being priests without knowing proper sanskrit.
Oh, that's good to know. Good luck with the GOD process, and hope you pick him for your new guruji then.

After the self-inflicted Alberuni wound, PP concedes defeat.

Yes I concede defeat. Here is your prize for reading "in parts" (hahaha!)

Telangana Telugu an offshoot of Dakhni? - Page 4 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSh0qXCF9UiS6w-X8UE6GE1R45eUWEYDerV0oeWnPjMkEClU85p

Telangana Telugu an offshoot of Dakhni? - Page 4 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSh0qXCF9UiS6w-X8UE6GE1R45eUWEYDerV0oeWnPjMkEClU85p

by Guest Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:43 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Sure, Seva and I have said nasty things to each other in the course of our debates, but we are also polite to each other. For instance, when you questioned my claim about you revealing some details about your uncle on CH, i had posted this on Sulekha CH and Seva had immediately replied confirming that not just your uncle but you have claimed many members of your family indulge in the malpractice of being priests without knowing proper sanskrit.
Oh, that's good to know. Good luck with the GOD process, and hope you pick him for your new guruji then.

After the self-inflicted Alberuni wound, PP concedes defeat.
Yes I concede defeat. Here is your prize for reading "in parts" (hahaha!)

Your uncle is proud of you today for talking highly of Alberuni six years ago, and then slamming him six years later simply because i referred to his views.

by Guest Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:45 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Sure, Seva and I have said nasty things to each other in the course of our debates, but we are also polite to each other. For instance, when you questioned my claim about you revealing some details about your uncle on CH, i had posted this on Sulekha CH and Seva had immediately replied confirming that not just your uncle but you have claimed many members of your family indulge in the malpractice of being priests without knowing proper sanskrit.
Oh, that's good to know. Good luck with the GOD process, and hope you pick him for your new guruji then.

After the self-inflicted Alberuni wound, PP concedes defeat.
Yes I concede defeat. Here is your prize for reading "in parts" (hahaha!)

Your uncle is proud of you today for talking highly of Alberuni six years ago, and then slamming him six years later simply because i referred to his views.

hahaha@ you and your uncle.

by charvaka Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:46 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Sure, Seva and I have said nasty things to each other in the course of our debates, but we are also polite to each other. For instance, when you questioned my claim about you revealing some details about your uncle on CH, i had posted this on Sulekha CH and Seva had immediately replied confirming that not just your uncle but you have claimed many members of your family indulge in the malpractice of being priests without knowing proper sanskrit.
Oh, that's good to know. Good luck with the GOD process, and hope you pick him for your new guruji then.

After the self-inflicted Alberuni wound, PP concedes defeat.
Yes I concede defeat. Here is your prize for reading "in parts" (hahaha!)

Your uncle is proud of you today for talking highly of Alberuni six years ago, and then slamming him six years later simply because i referred to his views.

Is this your Personal Subjective Opinion or Absolute Opinion?

by Guest Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:47 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:Oh, that's good to know. Good luck with the GOD process, and hope you pick him for your new guruji then.

After the self-inflicted Alberuni wound, PP concedes defeat.
Yes I concede defeat. Here is your prize for reading "in parts" (hahaha!)

Your uncle is proud of you today for talking highly of Alberuni six years ago, and then slamming him six years later simply because i referred to his views.
Is this your Personal Subjective Opinion or Absolute Opinion?

why not ask your uncle?

by charvaka Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:48 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:Oh, that's good to know. Good luck with the GOD process, and hope you pick him for your new guruji then.

After the self-inflicted Alberuni wound, PP concedes defeat.
Yes I concede defeat. Here is your prize for reading "in parts" (hahaha!)

Your uncle is proud of you today for talking highly of Alberuni six years ago, and then slamming him six years later simply because i referred to his views.

hahaha@ you and your uncle.

Alright... looks like I have managed to provoke some competitive hahahaing. This is a good sign. I shall await the results of your next google-adventure. I guess we will have an advance issue of The Exciting Adventures of the Weekend Linguist this week.

by charvaka Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:49 pm

Hellsangel wrote:What does anyone's mamaji have to do with all this?

Worshiping the elders is an ancient Indian tradition. Almost every Indian philosopher did it in one way or another. Rashmun, in the fine tradition of Indian philosophy, always indulges in ancestor worship when all else fails.

by Guest Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:51 pm

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

After the self-inflicted Alberuni wound, PP concedes defeat.
Yes I concede defeat. Here is your prize for reading "in parts" (hahaha!)

Your uncle is proud of you today for talking highly of Alberuni six years ago, and then slamming him six years later simply because i referred to his views.

hahaha@ you and your uncle.
Alright... looks like I have managed to provoke some competitive hahahaing. This is a good sign. I shall await the results of your next google-adventure. I guess we will have an advance issue of The Exciting Adventures of ~~the Weekend Linguist~~ me and my Uncle, and the Alberuni mistake this week.

.

by Guest Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:57 pm

charvaka wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:What does anyone's mamaji have to do with all this?
Worshiping the elders is an ancient Indian tradition. Almost every Indian philosopher did it in one way or another. Rashmun, in the fine tradition of Indian philosophy, always indulges in ancestor worship when all else fails. I had earlier admitted on Sulekha CH that my uncle is a fraudulent priest. He continues to collect fat daksinas without knowing proper sanskrit and without chanting mantras properly. Seva and sandilya know all about this because they were present when i revealed this. I should have full freedom to attack posters using unscrupulous and fraudulent methods--like my Alberuni Manoeuvre which sadly backfired on me-- but nobody has the right to talk about my uncle.

.

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:25 pm

Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Having no interest in learning sanskrit personally does not mean having no respect for sanskrit literature.

the rest of your post is superfluous. who exactly is being disrespectful to sanskrit literature? icelandic is not my language, but i've enjoyed reading a few of the sagas in translation. you really need to get to the bottom of this terrible insecurity that you have. not healthy.

would he have offered daily prayers for the success of the project if an icelandic text was being translated into tamil?

i was talking about myself. when did i say anything disparaging about sanskrit? i don't ever remember such an occasion. i've only belittled your desire that i should accord it a superior status. as a tamilian, i recognize sanskrit as having played an important role in the evolution of indian languages. in the case of northindian languages, that role is central and of a parental nature. in the case of tamil my understanding gleaned from my sporadic reading over the years, of scholars like zvelebil, krishnamurthi, and hart is that they've had a symbiotic relationship. there is no question of assigning a superior role to sanskrit. they are both equally rich classical languages of india. i just happen to speak one of them and so feel a lot closer to it.

by Guest Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:55 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Having no interest in learning sanskrit personally does not mean having no respect for sanskrit literature.

the rest of your post is superfluous. who exactly is being disrespectful to sanskrit literature? icelandic is not my language, but i've enjoyed reading a few of the sagas in translation. you really need to get to the bottom of this terrible insecurity that you have. not healthy.

would he have offered daily prayers for the success of the project if an icelandic text was being translated into tamil?

i was talking about myself. when did i say anything disparaging about sanskrit? i don't ever remember such an occasion. i've only belittled your desire that i should accord it a superior status. as a tamilian, i recognize sanskrit as having played an important role in the evolution of indian languages. in the case of northindian languages, that role is central and of a parental nature. in the case of tamil my understanding gleaned from my sporadic reading over the years, of scholars like zvelebil, krishnamurthi, and hart is that they've had a symbiotic relationship. there is no question of assigning a superior role to sanskrit. they are both equally rich classical languages of india. i just happen to speak one of them and so feel a lot closer to it.

i have never asked you to accord a superior status to sanskrit i.e. sanskrit being superior to tamil. i have no problem with you feeling closer to tamil. on the other hand, i have reservations when you say 'it is not my language' and when you give the example of icelandic literature in a discussion on sanskrit literature. your ancestor offered daily prayers when a major sanskrit text was being translated into tamil for the success of the project. He would surely not offered daily prayers if an icelandic text was being translated into tamil. you are proud of the fact that your ancestor did path breaking work in Tamil but why not also remember the fact that he had immense respect for sanskrit.

would the kambaramayanam have been possible without sanskrit literature? Would works like the Panchali Sabadam have been possible without sanskrit literature? Moreover, all the serious philosophical literature by Tamil philosophers are in Tamil. A good example is Ramanuja, and also others like Vedanta Desika.

i gave a link to a site where the predecessor of the current Kamakoti Sankaracharya had given some evidence of words in Tamil grammar being borrowed from Sanskrit. There is also a persistent view (referred to by the Shankaracharya), which deserves to be investigated further, that the Tolkappiam follows the Aindra school of sanskrit grammar.

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

you acknowledge the fact that sanskrit played an important role in the development of north indian languages, but i showed that the major grammar works in telugu and kannada are in sanskrit and moreover they follow for the most part the rules of sanskrit grammar. 60% of the words in classical telugu and classical kannada are of sanskrit origin.

-----
while i praise and acknowledge the greatness of sanskrit i would also like to disassociate myself from sanskrit fanatics who claim that the Rig Veda is 40,000 or 50,000 years old. Or who claim that the people in the Indus Valley Civilization spoke sanskrit. Or who claim that all scientific knowledge is to be found in the Vedas. I have as much discomfort with such people as you do.

by charvaka Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:01 pm

Rashmun wrote:they follow for the most part the rules of sanskrit grammar.

I won't speak for Kannada, but Telugu does not follow the rules of Sanskrit grammar "for the most part." The rules of Sanskrit grammar have been added to the body of Telugu grammar, but many Telugu rules that do not occur in Sanskrit continue to exist in Telugu. I will give a few examples in my next post.

Rashmun wrote:i would also like to disassociate myself from sanskrit fanatics who claim that the Rig Veda is 40,000 or 50,000 years old. Or who claim that the people in the Indus Valley Civilization spoke sanskrit. Or who claim that all scientific knowledge is to be found in the Vedas. I have as much discomfort with such people as you do.

There will always be worse fanatics than you; that won't make you less of a fanatic. Just because there's a Sadhvi Rithambara doesn't mean Narendra Modi is less of a Hindu-chauvinist.

by Guest Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:04 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:i would also like to disassociate myself from sanskrit fanatics who claim that the Rig Veda is 40,000 or 50,000 years old. Or who claim that the people in the Indus Valley Civilization spoke sanskrit. Or who claim that all scientific knowledge is to be found in the Vedas. I have as much discomfort with such people as you do.
There will always be worse fanatics than you; that won't make you less of a fanatic. Just because there's a Sadhvi Rithambara doesn't mean Narendra Modi is less of a Hindu-chauvinist.

The reason why you have become unbalanced and are now talking nonsense is because i called you a bigot for indulging in 'Tribal Loyalty' and closing your eyes when your Gult Brother gave a death threat to another poster and then cracked joked about the death threat with your Gulti Brother who had given the death threat.

by Guest Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:07 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:they follow for the most part the rules of sanskrit grammar.
I won't speak for Kannada, but Telugu does not follow the rules of Sanskrit grammar "for the most part." The rules of Sanskrit grammar have been added to the body of Telugu grammar, but many Telugu rules that do not occur in Sanskrit continue to exist in Telugu. I will give a few examples in my next post.

you can spin as much as you want to, but you cannot deny that the standard text of Telugu grammar is in Sanskrit and not in Telugu. If Sanskrit is unimportant for the development of dravidian languages, then there was no need for the standard Telugu grammar text (and also the standard Kannada grammar texts) to have been written in Sanskrit instead of Telugu.

by Guest Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:10 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:i would also like to disassociate myself from sanskrit fanatics who claim that the Rig Veda is 40,000 or 50,000 years old. Or who claim that the people in the Indus Valley Civilization spoke sanskrit. Or who claim that all scientific knowledge is to be found in the Vedas. I have as much discomfort with such people as you do.
There will always be worse fanatics than you; that won't make you less of a fanatic. Just because there's a Sadhvi Rithambara doesn't mean Narendra Modi is less of a Hindu-chauvinist.

The reason why you have become unbalanced and are now talking nonsense is because i called you a bigot for indulging in 'Tribal Loyalty' and closing your eyes when your Gult Brother gave a death threat to another poster and then cracked joked about the death threat with your Gulti Brother who had given the death threat.

Incidentally, i was not the first person who accused you of 'Tribal Loyalty'. Luke Warmus was the first person who coined this term and who claimed that rarely had he seen the kind of parochialism exhibited by you. And Seva had called you a Mudboy because of your propensity to try and throw mud at people who disagree with you.

by Guest Tue Apr 17, 2012 8:01 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:i showed that the major grammar works in telugu and kannada are in sanskrit and moreover they follow for the most part the rules of sanskrit grammar.
Since the dog's tail is bent, let me list some ways in which Telugu grammar is fundamentally different from Sanskrit grammar.

1. Number: For declensions of nouns and conjugations of verbs, Sanskrit has
three forms, singular, dual and plural. Telugu has two, singular and
plural.

2. Gender: in Sanskrit, gender does not follow meaning; there is a masculine
word for wife दारा:, dArAh.
In Telugu, gender follows meaning, and most inanimate objects have neuter
gender.

3. Verb conjugations: the verb system of Sanskrit is very complex, while the
verb system in Telugu is much simpler. This is the reason that students of
Sanskrit to spend a lot of time memorizing verb conjugations, while students of
Telugu do not. The difference is like the difference between French (with a
complex verb system) and English (with a simpler verb system).

4. Sandhis: in Telugu there are two types of sandhis. The
Sanskrit sandhi rules apply to tatsama (literally, "equal to
that") words borrowed from Sanskrit, while separate Telugu sandhi rules
apply to Telugu words that are not borrowed from Sanskrit. A simple
illustration is what happens when a word that ends in the short sound a
(అ, अ) is followed by another word that
begins in the same sound. Per Sanskrit rules, the connecting sound has to
become a dIrgha ("long") vowel A (ఆ, आ). Per Telugu rules, the sandhi results in the
short sound a, not the dIrgha A. Let me illustrate with an
example.
Sanskrit sandhi: పుండరీక
+ అక్షుడు = పుండరీకాక్షుడు punDarIka
+ akshuDu = pundarIkAkshuDu
Telugu sandhi: రవ్వ
+ అంత = రవ్వంత ravva
+ anta = ravvanta
Crucially, when a tatsama joins a Telugu word, the Telugu sandhi
rule applies (e.g. rAma + akka
= rAmakka, not rAmAkka, although rAma
is a tatsama word).

5. Clusivity: Telugu has a distinction between the exclusive and inclusive
variants of the first person plural pronoun ("we" in English).
Sanskrit does not.

Telugu grammar has incorporated significant elements of Sanskrit grammar. That
much is beyond question. But to suggest that Telugu grammar completely follows
Sanskrit grammar is wrong. To suggest that Telugu grammar follows Sanskrit
grammar for the most part with minor modifications, is also wrong. The truth
is, Telugu grammar absorbed some elements of Sanskrit grammar into it, but
those elements did not displace other elements of Telugu grammar. What happened
is not "taking of Sanskrit grammar rules and making some changes around
the edges." What happened is that Telugu had its own grammar which was not
codified just like Vedic Sanskrit had a grammar which was not codified until
Panini came along. When Nannaya came along, he codified grammar for literary
purposes, borrowing liberally from Panini's constructs. But the spoken language
still follows pre-Sanskritized rules, and Nannaya is said to have written about
this grAmya ("of the village") variant as well.

The role of
the grammarian is not of creating language, but of codifying and structuring
patterns of what is in use to make it more easily understandable by students of the
language. Nannaya did not create Telugu anymore than Panini created Sanskrit.Finally, even Sanskrit, with all its fine rules, was not always used in a
grammatical fashion. Literary Sanskrit was always grammatical, but the term apabhramSa
was used to describe non-grammatical variants of the language in popular use.
Hindi arose out of one of those apabhramSas.

This, incidentally, is also the reason why that Berkeley researcher could do a
meaningful comparison between Dakhini Urdu and Telugu. If Telugu grammar had
followed Sanskrit grammar for the most part, then there would be no huge differences
in the first place between the grammars of Hindi-Urdu and Telugu, and the similarity would be via Sanskrit rather than because Telangana Telugu absorbed grammatical constructs from Dakhini Urdu. The two claims you are making are therefore mutually contradictory.

-------
The wikipedia entry on Telugu grammar says:
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.

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

[In the above, by 'Paninian concepts', the grammar of the great Sanskrit grammarian Panini is being referred to.]

-----
Now go to page 3 of this PhD Thesis on Telugu grammar:
http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00077060/00001/18j

The very first sentence on page 3 of this PhD thesis says: "Telugu grammars in general are based on Sanskrit grammar".

by charvaka Tue Apr 17, 2012 8:19 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:i showed that the major grammar works in telugu and kannada are in sanskrit and moreover they follow for the most part the rules of sanskrit grammar.
Since the dog's tail is bent, let me list some ways in which Telugu grammar is fundamentally different from Sanskrit grammar.

1. Number: For declensions of nouns and conjugations of verbs, Sanskrit has
three forms, singular, dual and plural. Telugu has two, singular and
plural.

2. Gender: in Sanskrit, gender does not follow meaning; there is a masculine
word for wife दारा:, dArAh.
In Telugu, gender follows meaning, and most inanimate objects have neuter
gender.

3. Verb conjugations: the verb system of Sanskrit is very complex, while the
verb system in Telugu is much simpler. This is the reason that students of
Sanskrit to spend a lot of time memorizing verb conjugations, while students of
Telugu do not. The difference is like the difference between French (with a
complex verb system) and English (with a simpler verb system).

4. Sandhis: in Telugu there are two types of sandhis. The
Sanskrit sandhi rules apply to tatsama (literally, "equal to
that") words borrowed from Sanskrit, while separate Telugu sandhi rules
apply to Telugu words that are not borrowed from Sanskrit. A simple
illustration is what happens when a word that ends in the short sound a
(అ, अ) is followed by another word that
begins in the same sound. Per Sanskrit rules, the connecting sound has to
become a dIrgha ("long") vowel A (ఆ, आ). Per Telugu rules, the sandhi results in the
short sound a, not the dIrgha A. Let me illustrate with an
example.
Sanskrit sandhi: పుండరీక
+ అక్షుడు = పుండరీకాక్షుడు punDarIka
+ akshuDu = pundarIkAkshuDu
Telugu sandhi: రవ్వ
+ అంత = రవ్వంత ravva
+ anta = ravvanta
Crucially, when a tatsama joins a Telugu word, the Telugu sandhi
rule applies (e.g. rAma + akka
= rAmakka, not rAmAkka, although rAma
is a tatsama word).

5. Clusivity: Telugu has a distinction between the exclusive and inclusive
variants of the first person plural pronoun ("we" in English).
Sanskrit does not.

Telugu grammar has incorporated significant elements of Sanskrit grammar. That
much is beyond question. But to suggest that Telugu grammar completely follows
Sanskrit grammar is wrong. To suggest that Telugu grammar follows Sanskrit
grammar for the most part with minor modifications, is also wrong. The truth
is, Telugu grammar absorbed some elements of Sanskrit grammar into it, but
those elements did not displace other elements of Telugu grammar. What happened
is not "taking of Sanskrit grammar rules and making some changes around
the edges." What happened is that Telugu had its own grammar which was not
codified just like Vedic Sanskrit had a grammar which was not codified until
Panini came along. When Nannaya came along, he codified grammar for literary
purposes, borrowing liberally from Panini's constructs. But the spoken language
still follows pre-Sanskritized rules, and Nannaya is said to have written about
this grAmya ("of the village") variant as well.

The role of
the grammarian is not of creating language, but of codifying and structuring
patterns of what is in use to make it more easily understandable by students of the
language. Nannaya did not create Telugu anymore than Panini created Sanskrit.Finally, even Sanskrit, with all its fine rules, was not always used in a
grammatical fashion. Literary Sanskrit was always grammatical, but the term apabhramSa
was used to describe non-grammatical variants of the language in popular use.
Hindi arose out of one of those apabhramSas.

This, incidentally, is also the reason why that Berkeley researcher could do a
meaningful comparison between Dakhini Urdu and Telugu. If Telugu grammar had
followed Sanskrit grammar for the most part, then there would be no huge differences
in the first place between the grammars of Hindi-Urdu and Telugu, and the similarity would be via Sanskrit rather than because Telangana Telugu absorbed grammatical constructs from Dakhini Urdu. The two claims you are making are therefore mutually contradictory.

-------
The wikipedia entry on Telugu grammar says:
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.

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

[In the above, by 'Paninian concepts', the grammar of the great Sanskrit grammarian Panini is being referred to.]

-----
Now go to page 3 of this PhD Thesis on Telugu grammar:
http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00077060/00001/18j

The very first sentence on page 3 of this PhD thesis says: "Telugu grammars in general are based on Sanskrit grammar".

Rashmun, don't be the monkey in front of the keyboard and copy-paste mindlessly. Think carefully why the very first sentence of that PhD thesis says "Telugu grammars." And next time, before you post something, read it in full, not just the first sentence or the first three pages.

I have given multiple examples of clear contrasts between the grammars of Telugu and Sanskrit. You are ignorant of this subject, and all you can do is google for something and misinterpret it out of your ignorance to further your asinine agenda. So I will leave you to wallow in your ignorance. Bhartrihari was right: न खलु मूर्खजनचित्तमाराधयेत्!

by Guest Tue Apr 17, 2012 8:24 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:i showed that the major grammar works in telugu and kannada are in sanskrit and moreover they follow for the most part the rules of sanskrit grammar.
Since the dog's tail is bent, let me list some ways in which Telugu grammar is fundamentally different from Sanskrit grammar.

1. Number: For declensions of nouns and conjugations of verbs, Sanskrit has
three forms, singular, dual and plural. Telugu has two, singular and
plural.

2. Gender: in Sanskrit, gender does not follow meaning; there is a masculine
word for wife दारा:, dArAh.
In Telugu, gender follows meaning, and most inanimate objects have neuter
gender.

3. Verb conjugations: the verb system of Sanskrit is very complex, while the
verb system in Telugu is much simpler. This is the reason that students of
Sanskrit to spend a lot of time memorizing verb conjugations, while students of
Telugu do not. The difference is like the difference between French (with a
complex verb system) and English (with a simpler verb system).

4. Sandhis: in Telugu there are two types of sandhis. The
Sanskrit sandhi rules apply to tatsama (literally, "equal to
that") words borrowed from Sanskrit, while separate Telugu sandhi rules
apply to Telugu words that are not borrowed from Sanskrit. A simple
illustration is what happens when a word that ends in the short sound a
(అ, अ) is followed by another word that
begins in the same sound. Per Sanskrit rules, the connecting sound has to
become a dIrgha ("long") vowel A (ఆ, आ). Per Telugu rules, the sandhi results in the
short sound a, not the dIrgha A. Let me illustrate with an
example.
Sanskrit sandhi: పుండరీక
+ అక్షుడు = పుండరీకాక్షుడు punDarIka
+ akshuDu = pundarIkAkshuDu
Telugu sandhi: రవ్వ
+ అంత = రవ్వంత ravva
+ anta = ravvanta
Crucially, when a tatsama joins a Telugu word, the Telugu sandhi
rule applies (e.g. rAma + akka
= rAmakka, not rAmAkka, although rAma
is a tatsama word).

5. Clusivity: Telugu has a distinction between the exclusive and inclusive
variants of the first person plural pronoun ("we" in English).
Sanskrit does not.

Telugu grammar has incorporated significant elements of Sanskrit grammar. That
much is beyond question. But to suggest that Telugu grammar completely follows
Sanskrit grammar is wrong. To suggest that Telugu grammar follows Sanskrit
grammar for the most part with minor modifications, is also wrong. The truth
is, Telugu grammar absorbed some elements of Sanskrit grammar into it, but
those elements did not displace other elements of Telugu grammar. What happened
is not "taking of Sanskrit grammar rules and making some changes around
the edges." What happened is that Telugu had its own grammar which was not
codified just like Vedic Sanskrit had a grammar which was not codified until
Panini came along. When Nannaya came along, he codified grammar for literary
purposes, borrowing liberally from Panini's constructs. But the spoken language
still follows pre-Sanskritized rules, and Nannaya is said to have written about
this grAmya ("of the village") variant as well.

The role of
the grammarian is not of creating language, but of codifying and structuring
patterns of what is in use to make it more easily understandable by students of the
language. Nannaya did not create Telugu anymore than Panini created Sanskrit.Finally, even Sanskrit, with all its fine rules, was not always used in a
grammatical fashion. Literary Sanskrit was always grammatical, but the term apabhramSa
was used to describe non-grammatical variants of the language in popular use.
Hindi arose out of one of those apabhramSas.

This, incidentally, is also the reason why that Berkeley researcher could do a
meaningful comparison between Dakhini Urdu and Telugu. If Telugu grammar had
followed Sanskrit grammar for the most part, then there would be no huge differences
in the first place between the grammars of Hindi-Urdu and Telugu, and the similarity would be via Sanskrit rather than because Telangana Telugu absorbed grammatical constructs from Dakhini Urdu. The two claims you are making are therefore mutually contradictory.

-------
The wikipedia entry on Telugu grammar says:
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.

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

[In the above, by 'Paninian concepts', the grammar of the great Sanskrit grammarian Panini is being referred to.]

-----
Now go to page 3 of this PhD Thesis on Telugu grammar:
http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00077060/00001/18j

The very first sentence on page 3 of this PhD thesis says: "Telugu grammars in general are based on Sanskrit grammar".

Rashmun, don't be the monkey in front of the keyboard and copy-paste mindlessly. Think carefully why the very first sentence of that PhD thesis says "Telugu grammars." And next time, before you post something, read it in full, not just the first sentence or the first three pages.

I have given multiple examples of clear contrasts between the grammars of Telugu and Sanskrit. You are ignorant of this subject, and all you can do is google for something and misinterpret it out of your ignorance to further your asinine agenda. So I will leave you to wallow in your ignorance. Bhartrihari was right: न खलु मूर्खजनचित्तमाराधयेत्!

So i should ignore the PhD scholar who has done a special study on this subject and who says that Telugu grammars in general are based on Sanskrit grammar, and instead listen to someone who confesses that he has neither read the standard text on telugu grammar nor the standard texts (together with commentaries) of sanskrit grammar? Nobody is denying that there are differences between telugu grammar and sanskrit grammar, but these are minor. The fact is that all the Telugu grammarians had deep reverence for the sanskrit language and for sanskrit grammar and they consciously used the rules of sanskrit grammar in formulating the rules of telugu grammar. the fact that the standard text on telugu grammar is in sanskrit, and not in telugu, tells its own story.

by Sponsored content