Re: Telangana Telugu an offshoot of Dakhni?

by charvaka Sun Apr 15, 2012 5:40 pm

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

S said something. Because S said something about Indian languages, it goes without saying that you have respect for all Indian languages. This is the sort of leap that makes the Rashmun Method so illogical and unreliable.

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 5:43 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:i will just remind you what the great Tamil poet Subramanya Bharati has said: Bharata Mata speaks multiple languages but her thoughts and her mind are one. Hence it goes without saying that i have respect for all Indian languages along the lines of Subramanya Bharati.
S said something. Because S said something about Indian languages, it goes without saying that you have respect for all Indian languages. This is the sort of leap that makes the Rashmun Method so illogical and unreliable.

Idiot Charvako, Max had asked me a question--do i respect dravidian languages? My answer is that yes i do because i agree with Subramanya Bharati's views on this issue. PP Method fails yet again!

by charvaka Sun Apr 15, 2012 5:46 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:i will just remind you what the great Tamil poet Subramanya Bharati has said: Bharata Mata speaks multiple languages but her thoughts and her mind are one. Hence it goes without saying that i have respect for all Indian languages along the lines of Subramanya Bharati.
S said something. Because S said something about Indian languages, it goes without saying that you have respect for all Indian languages. This is the sort of leap that makes the Rashmun Method so illogical and unreliable.

Idiot Charvako, Max had asked me a question--do i respect dravidian languages? My answer is that yes i do because i agree with Subramanya Bharati's views on this issue. PP Method fails yet again!

You, sir, are seriously challenged in the logic department. There is nothing wrong with that... it's just that when thusly challenged, you should refrain from debates in which logic is required.

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 5:47 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:i will just remind you what the great Tamil poet Subramanya Bharati has said: Bharata Mata speaks multiple languages but her thoughts and her mind are one. Hence it goes without saying that i have respect for all Indian languages along the lines of Subramanya Bharati.
S said something. Because S said something about Indian languages, it goes without saying that you have respect for all Indian languages. This is the sort of leap that makes the Rashmun Method so illogical and unreliable.

Idiot Charvako, Max had asked me a question--do i respect dravidian languages? My answer is that yes i do because i agree with Subramanya Bharati's views on this issue. PP Method fails yet again!
You, sir, are seriously challenged in the logic department. There is nothing wrong with that... it's just that when thusly challenged, you should refrain from debates in which logic is required.

After getting caught with his pants down, YET AGAIN, PP goes berserk.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Apr 15, 2012 5:48 pm

Rashmun wrote:
i am sorry for arousing your anger!

google asperger's syndrome.

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 5:51 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
i am sorry for arousing your anger!

google asperger's syndrome.

a good explanation of why you would start babbling about the Dakhini language in a thread about food.

by charvaka Sun Apr 15, 2012 6:00 pm

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

It is however foolish to make statements about the relationships between the Smolensk dialect of Russian and the Lithuanian, Polish and Ukrainian languages. It would be doubly foolish to make statements about the grammatical structure of Russian and its origins, particularly if you don't understand what grammar is. Of course, it is very much possible to make some statements on those topics based on internet searches, but they risk sounding ignorant and foolish to native speakers.

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 6:03 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:in my opinion, it is permissible to state that russian is a slavic language without knowing any russian because one is only stating a well accepted fact.
It is however foolish to make statements about the relationships between the Smolensk dialect of Russian and the Lithuanian, Polish and Ukrainian languages. It would be doubly foolish to make statements about the grammatical structure of Russian and its origins, particularly if you don't understand what grammar is. Of course, it is very much possible to make some statements on those topics based on internet searches, but they risk sounding ignorant and foolish to native speakers.

I had given an extract and the relevant link from the wikipedia article about the Telugu language which stated that all the rules in the standard text on Telugu grammar follow the rules of the sanskrit grammarian Panini. PP Method: Keep ignoring truth, keep ignoring facts, keep making up lies, keep talking shit.
PP Method fails yet again!

by charvaka Sun Apr 15, 2012 6:04 pm

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

No, it cannot be explained in that manner. For each case in Sanskrit, nouns take three forms: singular, dual and plural. In Telugu, there is no dual form; nouns take two forms, singular and plural. Whether Nannaya borrowed from Panini is irrelevant to this point.

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 6:05 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:This can be explained if we agree that the standard Telugu grammar of Nannaya is a sub-set of Panini's grammar. After all, according to the wikipedia article on Telugu whose link and relevant extract i gave earlier, every rule given by Nannaya follows from Panini's grammar. PP Method fails yet again!
No, it cannot be explained in that matter. For each case in Sanskrit, nouns take three forms: singular, dual and plural. In Telugu, there is no dual form; nouns take two forms, singular and plural. Whether Nannaya borrowed from Panini is irrelevant to this point.

Is there a single rule given by Nannaya which he did not take from Panini's grammar? According to the wikipedia article on Telugu, the answer is No. All the rules which Nannaya gave were taken from Panini's grammar.

by charvaka Sun Apr 15, 2012 6:08 pm

Rashmun wrote:I had given an extract and the relevant link from the wikipedia article about the Telugu language which stated that all the rules in the standard text on Telugu grammar follow the rules of the sanskrit grammarian Panini. PP Method: Keep ignoring truth, keep ignoring facts, keep making up lies, keep talking shit.
PP Method fails yet again!

I gave specific examples where Telugu grammar differs from Sanskrit grammar; those examples disprove the Wikipedia claim. You are the one ignoring facts, and repeating the words of others ad nauseam.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Apr 15, 2012 6:16 pm

Rashmun wrote: According to the wikipedia article on Telugu.....

this in essence is your problem. wikipedia is no substitute for intimate everyday usage of a language and familiarity with its grammar. how can you hope to debate a person who is a native speaker of one of the two languages which are the subject of the debate, and at least as competent as you in the other? do you realize your folly now?

by charvaka Sun Apr 15, 2012 6:18 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:For each case in Sanskrit, nouns take three forms: singular, dual and plural. In Telugu, there is no dual form; nouns take two forms, singular and plural. Whether Nannaya borrowed from Panini is irrelevant to this point.

Is there a single rule given by Nannaya which he did not take from Panini's grammar? According to the wikipedia article on Telugu, the answer is No. All the rules which Nannaya gave were taken from Panini's grammar.

Sorry Rashmun, you were just plain wrong when you said "Telugu grammar completely follows Sanskrit grammar." I have conclusively demonstrated that it does not. You are now repeating a different claim that Nannaya's rules follow from Panini's -- that is not something I am qualified to discuss because I have read neither work.

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 6:25 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote: According to the wikipedia article on Telugu.....

this in essence is your problem. wikipedia is no substitute for intimate everyday usage of a language and familiarity with its grammar. how can you hope to debate a person who is a native speaker of one of the two languages which are the subject of the debate, and at least as competent as you in the other? do you realize your folly now?

the advantage that i have is that i do not suffer from regional bias or regional chauvinism. this is why Alberuni's writings on India are considered of great historical significance--because he was able to analyze Indian culture in an impartial, neutral manner which Indians themselves could not. For instance, no Indian points out the inherent contradiction in Brahmagupta's writings when he praises the scriptural writings about Rahu and Ketu (with reference to the eclipses) and viciously attacks Varahmira and Aryabhata, while at the same time carrying on his astronomical calculations according to the methods of Aryabhata and Varahmira (who he denounces as heretics!) and not according to any scriptural writing. Alberuni's explanation is that Brahmagupta behaved in this manner to preserve himself and his science because he was faced with circumstances similar to what Socrates faced.

Moreover, i am reasonably confident that Charvaka has not read Panini's 'Ashtadhyayi' (together with the commentaries on this text by Katyayana and Patanjali), and also Nannaya's 'Andhra Sabda Chintamani'. So i do not consider Charvaka to be an expert on this issue, and am not prepared to accept whatever he might say on this issue.

by charvaka Sun Apr 15, 2012 6:25 pm

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!

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 6:27 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:For each case in Sanskrit, nouns take three forms: singular, dual and plural. In Telugu, there is no dual form; nouns take two forms, singular and plural. Whether Nannaya borrowed from Panini is irrelevant to this point.

Is there a single rule given by Nannaya which he did not take from Panini's grammar? According to the wikipedia article on Telugu, the answer is No. All the rules which Nannaya gave were taken from Panini's grammar.
Sorry Rashmun, you were just plain wrong when you said "Telugu grammar completely follows Sanskrit grammar." I have conclusively demonstrated that it does not. You are now repeating a different claim that Nannaya's rules follow from Panini's -- that is not something I am qualified to discuss because I have read neither work.

The differences could have arisen because Nannaya only used a sub-set of Pannini's grammar in his own grammar.

What the wikipedia article is saying is that there is no rule given by Nannaya which is original, and which he did not take from Panini.

by charvaka Sun Apr 15, 2012 6:29 pm

Rashmun wrote:the advantage that i have is that i do not suffer from regional bias or regional chauvinism.

No, you suffer from bigotry. A worse affliction of the mind, if you ask me.

Rashmun wrote: this is why Alberuni's writings on India are considered of great historical significance--because he was able to analyze Indian culture in an impartial, neutral manner which Indians themselves could not.

Hahaha. Alberuni disparages the Indian civilization at the outset of his book. I will post an excerpt from his book when I have some time.

Rashmun wrote:Moreover, i am reasonably confident that Charvaka has not read Panini's 'Ashtadhyayi' (together with the commentaries on this text by Katyayana and Patanjali), and also Nannaya's 'Andhra Sabda Chintamani'. So i do not consider Charvaka to be an expert on this issue, and am not prepared to accept whatever he might say on this issue.

Well, even before you asked I happily said I haven't read any of those works. I don't need to. I know enough Sanskrit grammar to know that Sanskrit has singular, dual and plural noun forms. And I know enough Telugu grammar to know that it has only two forms, singular and plural.

by charvaka Sun Apr 15, 2012 6:29 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:For each case in Sanskrit, nouns take three forms: singular, dual and plural. In Telugu, there is no dual form; nouns take two forms, singular and plural. Whether Nannaya borrowed from Panini is irrelevant to this point.

Is there a single rule given by Nannaya which he did not take from Panini's grammar? According to the wikipedia article on Telugu, the answer is No. All the rules which Nannaya gave were taken from Panini's grammar.
Sorry Rashmun, you were just plain wrong when you said "Telugu grammar completely follows Sanskrit grammar." I have conclusively demonstrated that it does not. You are now repeating a different claim that Nannaya's rules follow from Panini's -- that is not something I am qualified to discuss because I have read neither work.

The differences could have arisen because Nannaya only used a sub-set of Pannini's grammar in his own grammar.

What the wikipedia article is saying is that there is no rule given by Nannaya which is original, and which he did not take from Panini.

Doesn't matter. You were wrong when you said: "Telugu grammar completely follows Sanskrit grammar." It does not.

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 6:30 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!

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.

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 6:31 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:For each case in Sanskrit, nouns take three forms: singular, dual and plural. In Telugu, there is no dual form; nouns take two forms, singular and plural. Whether Nannaya borrowed from Panini is irrelevant to this point.

Is there a single rule given by Nannaya which he did not take from Panini's grammar? According to the wikipedia article on Telugu, the answer is No. All the rules which Nannaya gave were taken from Panini's grammar.
Sorry Rashmun, you were just plain wrong when you said "Telugu grammar completely follows Sanskrit grammar." I have conclusively demonstrated that it does not. You are now repeating a different claim that Nannaya's rules follow from Panini's -- that is not something I am qualified to discuss because I have read neither work.

The differences could have arisen because Nannaya only used a sub-set of Pannini's grammar in his own grammar.

What the wikipedia article is saying is that there is no rule given by Nannaya which is original, and which he did not take from Panini.
Doesn't matter. You were wrong when you said: "Telugu grammar completely follows Sanskrit grammar." It does not.

Telugu grammar completely follows sanskrit grammar in the sense that there is not a single rule in telugu grammar which is not taken from Panini's grammar (i.e. sanskrit grammar).

by charvaka Sun Apr 15, 2012 6:34 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i am sure you know a lot of sanskrit and NO telugu, zippo. so what you are essentially doing is parroting someone else's view.

Rashmun has no given no reason for us to believe that he has a good knowledge of Sanskrit. I won't be surprised if his knowledge of Sanskrit is on par with his knowledge of the history of Madras -- i.e. based on Toilet Paper articles and such.

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

Yeah, the key is set the bar low enough for oneself, and one can speak as an expert on anything.

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 6:34 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:the advantage that i have is that i do not suffer from regional bias or regional chauvinism.
No, you suffer from bigotry. A worse affliction of the mind, if you ask me.

--> Ironically enough, you never accused me of bigotry for years and years when i was writing on indian history and philosophy. so your claim that i am a bigot, after you developed a dislike for me because of my posts on Diggy Raja, rings hollow. in fact, it is you who is the bigot for the reason that you close your eyes whenever any fellow gult uses extreme language in heated debates but tend to become agitated occasionally when a non-gult does the same.

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 6:35 pm

Rashmun 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!

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, did you read this article which i am referring to? or will you continue to behave in a bizarre manner?

by charvaka Sun Apr 15, 2012 6:37 pm

Rashmun wrote:Telugu grammar completely follows sanskrit grammar in the sense that there is not a single rule in telugu grammar which is not taken from Panini's grammar (i.e. sanskrit grammar).

You are wrong. There is at least one rule in Telugu grammar which is not taken from Sanskrit grammar. The rule about number -- singular and plural vs. singular, dual and plural. So let me repeat, slowly this time... you are W... R... O... N... G! Hope you got it this time.

by charvaka Sun Apr 15, 2012 6:39 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:the advantage that i have is that i do not suffer from regional bias or regional chauvinism.
No, you suffer from bigotry. A worse affliction of the mind, if you ask me.

--> Ironically enough, you never accused me of bigotry for years and years when i was writing on indian history and philosophy. so your claim that i am a bigot, after you developed a dislike for me because of my posts on Diggy Raja, rings hollow.

I accused you of being a bigot when you based one of your own statements on the idea that Telugu people's faces looks like butts. That is a bigoted statement. I am not the only one who called you out on the hate-speech you peddled here. Many non-Telugus did too.

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 6:40 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote: this is why Alberuni's writings on India are considered of great historical significance--because he was able to analyze Indian culture in an impartial, neutral manner which Indians themselves could not.
Hahaha. Alberuni disparages the Indian civilization at the outset of his book. I will post an excerpt from his book when I have some time.

Alberuni writes both good and bad things about Indian civilization. The point is that his analysis of why Brahmagupta behaved in a self-contradictory manner is a sensible one.

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 6:45 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:the advantage that i have is that i do not suffer from regional bias or regional chauvinism.
No, you suffer from bigotry. A worse affliction of the mind, if you ask me.

--> Ironically enough, you never accused me of bigotry for years and years when i was writing on indian history and philosophy. so your claim that i am a bigot, after you developed a dislike for me because of my posts on Diggy Raja, rings hollow.
I accused you of being a bigot when you based one of your own statements on the idea that Telugu people's faces looks like butts. That is a bigoted statement. I am not the only one who called you out on the hate-speech you peddled here. Many non-Telugus did too.

you developed a dislike for me and started attacking me after you did not like my posts on Diggy Raja. The fact that Gulti stands for 'Gaand Ulti' is something that is said by samosapedia and urban dictionary sites. These sites say many things about north indians also. These sites are basically just fun sites, and not hate sites as you seem to think. I did not even want to elaborate on the meaning of what 'Gulti' stands for(according to these sites) but you forced my hand by bringing the subject up in the middle of a discussion on Kabir's poetry.

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 6:51 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Telugu grammar completely follows sanskrit grammar in the sense that there is not a single rule in telugu grammar which is not taken from Panini's grammar (i.e. sanskrit grammar).
You are wrong. There is at least one rule in Telugu grammar which is not taken from Sanskrit grammar. The rule about number -- singular and plural vs. singular, dual and plural. So let me repeat, slowly this time... you are W... R... O... N... G! Hope you got it this time.

the explanation is that Nannayya could have taken a sub-set of Panini's rules and moreover nobody is disputing that he could have made minor modifications to the rules he took from Panini. Here is what C.P. Brown says on the issue of sanskrit and telugu:

Telugu originated from a hypothesized Proto-Dravidian language. Although Telugu belongs to the South-Central Dravidian language subfamily, it is a highly Sanskritized language. As Telugu savant C.P Brown states in page 35 of his book "A Grammar of the Telugu language": "if we ever make any real progress in the language the student will require the aid of the Sanskrit Dictionary, and cannot even talk or write Telugu with any ease or precision, unless he masters the first principles Sanskrit orthography."

http://www.learningtelugu.org/sanskrit.html

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Apr 15, 2012 6:53 pm

is there a nice hindi proverb for shifting the goalpost as and when needed?

by charvaka Sun Apr 15, 2012 6:53 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote: this is why Alberuni's writings on India are considered of great historical significance--because he was able to analyze Indian culture in an impartial, neutral manner which Indians themselves could not.
Hahaha. Alberuni disparages the Indian civilization at the outset of his book. I will post an excerpt from his book when I have some time.

Alberuni writes both good and bad things about Indian civilization. The point is that his analysis of why Brahmagupta behaved in a self-contradictory manner is a sensible one.

Have you read Alberuni's book? If you did, how on earth did you end up thinking he was "impartial and neutral" about India? A couple of instances from the first few pages:

The Hindus, like other people, boast of this enormous range of their language [Sanskrit], whilst in reality it is a defect.

Mahmud [of Ghazna] utterly ruined the prosperity of the country, and performed there wonderful exploits, by which the Hindus became like atoms of dust scattered in all directions, and like a tale of old in the mouth of the people.

by charvaka Sun Apr 15, 2012 6:57 pm

Rashmun wrote:I did not even want to elaborate on the meaning of what 'Gulti' stands for(according to these sites) but you forced my hand by bringing the subject up in the middle of a discussion on Kabir's poetry.

Yeah, you are not a bigot who compulsively expresses his bigotry. Your bigotry only comes out in "heated debates" and such. But that doesn't make you any less of a bigot. BTW, note that I didn't call you a bigot for posting stuff from samosapedia and urbandictionary. I called you a bigot for specifically making your own argument for that ridiculous smiley interpretation -- hahahaha! -- based on your notion that Telugu people's faces looks like butts. That is what makes you a bigot in this matter.

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 6:57 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote: this is why Alberuni's writings on India are considered of great historical significance--because he was able to analyze Indian culture in an impartial, neutral manner which Indians themselves could not.
Hahaha. Alberuni disparages the Indian civilization at the outset of his book. I will post an excerpt from his book when I have some time.

Alberuni writes both good and bad things about Indian civilization. The point is that his analysis of why Brahmagupta behaved in a self-contradictory manner is a sensible one.
Have you read Alberuni's book? If you did, how on earth did you end up thinking he was "impartial and neutral" about India? A couple of instances from the first few pages:

The Hindus, like other people, boast of this enormous range of their language [Sanskrit], whilst in reality it is a defect.

Mahmud [of Ghazna] utterly ruined the prosperity of the country, and performed there wonderful exploits, by which the Hindus became like atoms of dust scattered in all directions, and like a tale of old in the mouth of the people.

i have read the book in parts and moreover i have quoted from this book in the past on sulekha. at that time you told me you had been reading the book yourself and were greatly enjoying reading it. you never complained about alberuni having any bias.

in the first statement, Alberuni is complaining that the hindu scholars he encountered exhibited arrogance. in the second, he is disassociating himself from the antics of Mahmud of Ghazni when he says that Mahmud destroyed the prosperity of the people.

by charvaka Sun Apr 15, 2012 7:01 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Telugu grammar completely follows sanskrit grammar in the sense that there is not a single rule in telugu grammar which is not taken from Panini's grammar (i.e. sanskrit grammar).
You are wrong. There is at least one rule in Telugu grammar which is not taken from Sanskrit grammar. The rule about number -- singular and plural vs. singular, dual and plural. So let me repeat, slowly this time... you are W... R... O... N... G! Hope you got it this time.

the explanation is that Nannayya could have taken a sub-set of Panini's rules and moreover nobody is disputing that he could have made minor modifications to the rules he took from Panini.
http://www.learningtelugu.org/sanskrit.html

So, you are changing your tune. This is what you said: Telugu grammar follows Sanskrit grammar completely (Emphasis yours, not mine). Now you are eating your words, good.

by charvaka Sun Apr 15, 2012 7:02 pm

Rashmun wrote:i have read the book in parts

Hahaha. Thanks to your recent antics, I have a very good sense of what that means.

Rashmun wrote:you never complained about alberuni having any bias.

Nor did I claim that he was impartial and unbiased.

by charvaka Sun Apr 15, 2012 7:04 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:is there a nice hindi proverb for shifting the goalpost as and when needed?

Rashmun has a problem accepting it when he is wrong. So he will pretend that he was right. Unfortunately for him he has a tendency of making absolute comments like "Telugu grammar follows Sanskrit grammar completely." Kinda hard to back away from absolute statements. He should learn from Deepak Chopra how to make nonfalsifiable crazy statements that impute scholarship to oneself.

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 7:08 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Telugu grammar completely follows sanskrit grammar in the sense that there is not a single rule in telugu grammar which is not taken from Panini's grammar (i.e. sanskrit grammar).
You are wrong. There is at least one rule in Telugu grammar which is not taken from Sanskrit grammar. The rule about number -- singular and plural vs. singular, dual and plural. So let me repeat, slowly this time... you are W... R... O... N... G! Hope you got it this time.

the explanation is that Nannayya could have taken a sub-set of Panini's rules and moreover nobody is disputing that he could have made minor modifications to the rules he took from Panini.
http://www.learningtelugu.org/sanskrit.html
So, you are changing your tune. This is what you said: Telugu grammar follows Sanskrit grammar completely (Emphasis yours, not mine). Now you are eating your words, good.

I am not denying that minor modifications to Panini's grammar could have been made by Nannayya. The fact that we have singular and plural only in telugu grammar is nothing very special and distinctive. the same is the case with hindi grammar for instance.

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 7:10 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:i have read the book in parts
Hahaha. Thanks to your recent antics, I have a very good sense of what that means.

Rashmun wrote:you never complained about alberuni having any bias.
Nor did I claim that he was impartial and unbiased.

but you did agree with Alberuni's analysis of Brahmagupta's self-contradiction, and moreover you never complained about him having any bias. the reason you are now complaining about Alberuni having bias is because you hope that by undermining his credibility you will somehow throw a little mud at me because i referred to his writings.

by charvaka Sun Apr 15, 2012 7:11 pm

Rashmun wrote:the explanation is that Nannayya could have taken a sub-set of Panini's rules and moreover nobody is disputing that he could have made minor modifications to the rules he took from Panini. Here is what C.P. Brown says on the issue of sanskrit and telugu:

Telugu originated from a hypothesized Proto-Dravidian language. Although Telugu belongs to the South-Central Dravidian language subfamily, it is a highly Sanskritized language. As Telugu savant C.P Brown states in page 35 of his book "A Grammar of the Telugu language": "if we ever make any real progress in the language the student will require the aid of the Sanskrit Dictionary, and cannot even talk or write Telugu with any ease or precision, unless he masters the first principles Sanskrit orthography."

http://www.learningtelugu.org/sanskrit.html

The fact that you posted that quote from CP Brown illustrates that you don't know what grammar is. Orthography deals with spelling and rules of writing using an alphabet. That is not grammar. Dictionaries don't deal with grammar either.

I don't want to repeat something Max said perfectly, so I will just refer you to it: https://such.forumotion.com/t5702p100-how-do-i-post-photos-here#45020

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:you are a prime example of how our education system does not foster critical thinking skills. if something is printed somewhere, that doesn't mean it is automatically true. you have to be particularly careful in this internet era when any monkey with an internet connection and a keyboard can wreak havoc on hapless individuals like you.

by charvaka Sun Apr 15, 2012 7:12 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Telugu grammar completely follows sanskrit grammar in the sense that there is not a single rule in telugu grammar which is not taken from Panini's grammar (i.e. sanskrit grammar).
You are wrong. There is at least one rule in Telugu grammar which is not taken from Sanskrit grammar. The rule about number -- singular and plural vs. singular, dual and plural. So let me repeat, slowly this time... you are W... R... O... N... G! Hope you got it this time.

the explanation is that Nannayya could have taken a sub-set of Panini's rules and moreover nobody is disputing that he could have made minor modifications to the rules he took from Panini.
http://www.learningtelugu.org/sanskrit.html
So, you are changing your tune. This is what you said: Telugu grammar follows Sanskrit grammar completely (Emphasis yours, not mine). Now you are eating your words, good.

I am not denying that minor modifications to Panini's grammar could have been made by Nannayya. The fact that we have singular and plural only in telugu grammar is nothing very special and distinctive. the same is the case with hindi grammar for instance.

Thank you for accepting that Telugu grammar does not follow Sanskrit grammar completely, contrary to the wrong claim you made earlier.

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 7:12 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:the explanation is that Nannayya could have taken a sub-set of Panini's rules and moreover nobody is disputing that he could have made minor modifications to the rules he took from Panini. Here is what C.P. Brown says on the issue of sanskrit and telugu:

Telugu originated from a hypothesized Proto-Dravidian language. Although Telugu belongs to the South-Central Dravidian language subfamily, it is a highly Sanskritized language. As Telugu savant C.P Brown states in page 35 of his book "A Grammar of the Telugu language": "if we ever make any real progress in the language the student will require the aid of the Sanskrit Dictionary, and cannot even talk or write Telugu with any ease or precision, unless he masters the first principles Sanskrit orthography."

http://www.learningtelugu.org/sanskrit.html
The fact that you posted that quote from CP Brown illustrates that you don't know what grammar is. Orthography deals with spelling and rules of writing using an alphabet. That is not grammar. Dictionaries don't deal with grammar either.

i gave the C.P. Brown quote to illustrate the immense influence and importance of sanskrit in the development of Telugu.

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 7:16 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:You are wrong. There is at least one rule in Telugu grammar which is not taken from Sanskrit grammar. The rule about number -- singular and plural vs. singular, dual and plural. So let me repeat, slowly this time... you are W... R... O... N... G! Hope you got it this time.

the explanation is that Nannayya could have taken a sub-set of Panini's rules and moreover nobody is disputing that he could have made minor modifications to the rules he took from Panini.
http://www.learningtelugu.org/sanskrit.html
So, you are changing your tune. This is what you said: Telugu grammar follows Sanskrit grammar completely (Emphasis yours, not mine). Now you are eating your words, good.

I am not denying that minor modifications to Panini's grammar could have been made by Nannayya. The fact that we have singular and plural only in telugu grammar is nothing very special and distinctive. the same is the case with hindi grammar for instance.
Thank you for accepting that Telugu grammar does not follow Sanskrit grammar completely, contrary to the wrong claim you made earlier.

what i meant was that there is not a single rule in telugu grammar which does not follow from Panini's grammar. i have clarified earlier that i am not denying that minor modifications to Panini's grammar could have been done by Nannayya.

by charvaka Sun Apr 15, 2012 7:21 pm

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

the explanation is that Nannayya could have taken a sub-set of Panini's rules and moreover nobody is disputing that he could have made minor modifications to the rules he took from Panini.
http://www.learningtelugu.org/sanskrit.html
So, you are changing your tune. This is what you said: Telugu grammar follows Sanskrit grammar completely (Emphasis yours, not mine). Now you are eating your words, good.

I am not denying that minor modifications to Panini's grammar could have been made by Nannayya. The fact that we have singular and plural only in telugu grammar is nothing very special and distinctive. the same is the case with hindi grammar for instance.
Thank you for accepting that Telugu grammar does not follow Sanskrit grammar completely, contrary to the wrong claim you made earlier.

what i meant was that there is not a single rule in telugu grammar which does not follow from Panini's grammar. i have clarified earlier that i am not denying that minor modifications to Panini's grammar could have been done by Nannayya.

This is why I gave you Max's excellent advice. Don't be that monkey with an internet connection and keyboard. Just because it written on the internet that Nannaya's rules come from Panini's rules, don't make extrapolated statements like "Telugu grammar follows Sanskrit grammar completely," when you don't know the language. What Wikipedia says about Nannaya and Panini may or may not be true, but what you said is certainly false. In summary, don't be the monkey; think a little. Enjoy the rest of your day.

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 7:29 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:So, you are changing your tune. This is what you said: Telugu grammar follows Sanskrit grammar completely (Emphasis yours, not mine). Now you are eating your words, good.

I am not denying that minor modifications to Panini's grammar could have been made by Nannayya. The fact that we have singular and plural only in telugu grammar is nothing very special and distinctive. the same is the case with hindi grammar for instance.
Thank you for accepting that Telugu grammar does not follow Sanskrit grammar completely, contrary to the wrong claim you made earlier.

what i meant was that there is not a single rule in telugu grammar which does not follow from Panini's grammar. i have clarified earlier that i am not denying that minor modifications to Panini's grammar could have been done by Nannayya.
This is why I gave you Max's excellent advice. Don't be that monkey with an internet connection and keyboard. Just because it written on the internet that Nannaya's rules come from Panini's rules, don't make extrapolated statements like "Telugu grammar follows Sanskrit grammar completely," when you don't know the language. What Wikipedia says about Nannaya and Panini may or may not be true, but what you said is certainly false. In summary, don't be the monkey; think a little. Enjoy the rest of your day.

Not just wikipedia there are several other sites which say that the rules of classical telugu grammar follow the rules of sanskrit grammar completely. of course, nobody is disputing that Ninnayya-- the telugu grammarian--may have made a few minor modifications to the rules he took from Panini.

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 7:31 pm

Rashmun 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!

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.

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 7:41 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:i have read the book in parts
Hahaha. Thanks to your recent antics, I have a very good sense of what that means.

Rashmun wrote:you never complained about alberuni having any bias.
Nor did I claim that he was impartial and unbiased.

but you did agree with Alberuni's analysis of Brahmagupta's self-contradiction, and moreover you never complained about him having any bias. the reason you are now complaining about Alberuni having bias is because you hope that by undermining his credibility you will somehow throw a little mud at me because i referred to his writings.

6 years ago, the following conversation took place between yours truly and Charvaka on Sulekha CH. I do not give the link because Charvaka was using his purported real name in his post.

-----

Rashmun: A remarkable visiting scientist to India was Abu-Raihan Muhammad Ibn Ahmad Alberuni, briefly mentioned as Alberuni. Born in A.D. 973 in Persia, he came to India in the year 1017 as a prisoner of war of King Mahmud of Ghazni and subsequently he spent 13 years in India. Already a master of Arabic literature (including Greek literature translated into Arabic), Alberuni soon acquired vast knowledge of Sanskrit and became highly proficient in the astronomy, mathematics, and philosophy of the Indians. We are fortunate that he has written a book about India which is fairly remarkable for its encyclopaedic range; and we are indebted to Sachau for a brilliant English translation of this book ('Alberuni's India',translated and edited by Edward Sachau).

In his preface to the book, Sachau writes:Apparently Alberuni felt a strong inclination towards Indian philosophy...He seems to have revelled in the pure theories of the Bhagavadgita and it deserves to be noticed that he twice mentions the sayings of Vyasa, 'Learn twenty five (i.e. the elements of existence) by distinctions, and afterwards adhere to whatever religion you like: your end will be salvation'. In one case he even goes so far as to speak of a Hindu scholar as 'enjoying the help of God'.

The fact that Alberuni was a visiting scientist caused him to better perceive the palpable absurdities caused by religious superstition on the science of India, and we are indebted to him for a penetrating analysis of this problem.

Commenting on the predicament of Brahmagupta, Alberuni first gives a direct quote from Brahmagupta's book 'Brahmasidhanta':

Some people think that the eclipse is not caused by the Head [Rahu]. This, however, is a foolish idea, for it is he in fact who eclipses, and the generality of the inhabitants of the world say that it is the Head who eclipses. The Veda, which is the word of God from the mouth of Brahman, says that the Head eclipses, likewise the book Smriti composed by Manu, and the Samhita, composed by Garga, the son of Brahman. On the the contrary, Varahmira, Srishena, Aryabhata, and Vishnuchandra maintain that the eclipse is not caused by the Head, but by the moon and the shadow of the earth, in direct opposition to all[to the generality of men], and from enemity against the just mentioned dogma. For if the Head does not cause the eclipse, all the usages of the Brahmans which they practice at the moment of an eclipse viz. their rubbing themselves with warm oil, and other works of prescribed worship, would be illusory and not be rewarded by heavenly bliss. If a man declares these things to be illusory, he stands outside of the generally acknowledged dogma, and that is not allowed. Manu says in the Smriti:"When the Head keeps the sun or moon in eclipse, all waters on earth become pure, and in purity like the water of the Ganges."The Veda says: "The Head is the son of a woman of the daughters of the Daityas called Sainaka [Simhika?]."Therefore, people practice the well known works of piety, and therefore, those authors must cease to oppose the generality, for everything which is in the Veda, Smriti, and Samhita is true.

Commenting on the above words of Brahmagupta, Alberuni observes:If Brahmagupta, in this respect, is one of those of whom God says, "They have denied our signs, although their hearts knew them clearly, from wickedness and haughtiness", we shall not argue with him, but only whisper into his ear: If people must under circumstances give up opposing the religous codes (as seems to be your case), why then do you order people to be pious if you forget to be so yourself? Why do you, after having spoken such words, then begin to calculate the diameter of the moon in order to explain her eclipsing the sun, and the diameter of the shadow of the earth in orde to explain its eclipsing the moon? Why do you compute both eclipses in agreement with the theory of those heretics and not according to the views of those with whom you think it proper to agree. If the Brahmins are ordered to practice some act of worship or something else at the occurence of an eclipse, the eclipse is only the date of these things, not their cause... I, for my part, am inclined to the belief that that which made Brahmagupta speak the above-mentioned words (which involve a sin against conscience) was something of a calamitious fate, like that of Socrates, which had befallen him, notwithstanding the abundance of his knowledge and the sharpness of his intellect, and notwithstanding his extreme youth at the time. For he wrote the Brahmasidhanta when he was only thirty years of age. If this indeed is his excuse, we accept it and herewith drop the matter.

It can be seen thus from Alberuni's comments that scientists in medieval India were operating under conditions positively hostile to the development of science. Comments?

Charvaka: This is one of the passsages in Sachau's translation (which I am currently reading) which set me thinking about Shankara's influence on Indian mathematics and science, when you posted the quote about his attitude towards reason. I found a few other passages also which illustrated the hostile environment for the development of science. Here's another passage, where he talks about the lovely chhandas of Sanskrit:Therefore most Hindus are passionately fond of their verses, and always desirous of reciting them, even if they do not understand the meaning of the words, and the audience will snap their fingers in token of joy and applause. They do not want prose compositions, although it is much easier to understand them.This is the sort of thing that still happens with religious verses, but that it had to happen with mathematics and science; that is indeed a shame. He goes on to say how foreign books are quickly translated into the shloka form (verses in the anushthup chhandas) and adds:And if the verses are not sufficiently affected, their authors meet with frowning faces, as having committed something like mere prose, and then they will feel extremely unhappy. Sounds like it was not just the prevailing religious beliefs that cramped the style of Indian scientists Smile

.

by charvaka Sun Apr 15, 2012 7:51 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun 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!

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.

by charvaka Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:00 pm

One of the interesting grammatical features that Bruce Pray's paper cites is this. In Telugu, there are two variants of the first person plural pronoun, one that includes the listener and one that does not. The word manam (మనం) meaning "us" includes the listener in its scope, while the word memu (మేము) meaning "us" does not include the listener in its scope. English, French, Hindi, Urdu, Bangla, and Sanskrit, all of which I am familiar with to enough degree to know first person plural pronoun forms, lack this distinction. But Dakhni does have this distinction. This indicates that the grammatical construct moved in the direction from Telugu to Dakhni. Most other examples cited in Bray's paper deal with similar movements (difference between Dakhini Urdu and Standard Urdu, similarity between Dakhini Urdu and Telangana Telugu, and no difference between Telangana Telugu and Standard Telugu).

Rashmun, thanks for furnishing evidence to comprehensively and conclusively disprove your nonsensical claims. I didn't need this paper to know that the grammar of Telangana Telugu is essentially the same as that of other dialects, but this paper proves the point with tons of examples.

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:09 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun 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!

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.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:10 pm

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

by Guest Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:11 pm

charvaka wrote:One of the interesting grammatical features that Bruce Pray's paper cites is this. In Telugu, there are two variants of the first person plural pronoun, one that includes the listener and one that does not. The word manam (మనం) meaning "us" includes the listener in its scope, while the word memu (మేము) meaning "us" does not include the listener in its scope. English, French, Hindi, Urdu, Bangla, and Sanskrit, all of which I am familiar with to enough degree to know first person plural pronoun forms, lack this distinction. But Dakhni does have this distinction. This indicates that the grammatical construct moved in the direction from Telugu to Dakhni. Most other examples cited in Bray's paper deal with similar movements (difference between Dakhini Urdu and Standard Urdu, similarity between Dakhini Urdu and Telangana Telugu, and no difference between Telangana Telugu and Standard Telugu).

Rashmun, thanks for furnishing evidence to comprehensively and conclusively disprove your nonsensical claims. I didn't need this paper to know that the grammar of Telangana Telugu is essentially the same as that of other dialects, but this paper proves the point with tons of examples.

The paper gives certain rules of grammar which are peculiar to Dakhini and also to Telangana Telugu; but not to Coastal Andhra Telugu.

On other note, your bizarre behavior continues. Earlier, you were questioning whether i had read Alberuni's book when i said i had read it in parts even though i had given an extract from it and we had had a discussion about it on Sulekha CH.

by Sponsored content