[tscii]Dear FSG.
Many Dravidian linguists speak of lexical borrowings by Tamil from Sanskrit. For them, the basis for such thinking is simple. If a word is found in the Sanskrit Lexicon and is also in use in Tamil, then it is assumed that Tamil borrowed it from Sanskrit. The Tamil Lexicon was developed by the then University of Madras based on the Sanskrit Lexicon as to etymology. Hence the Tamil lexicon merely mirrored the Sanskrit Lexicon without independent research for Tamil..
Relying entirely on the opinion-based conclusions Max Muller and William Jones, Sanskrit lexicographers took a firm stand on the antiquity of Sanskrit. Hence for example, when Tamil also had the same word albeit with a slightly different (allegedly “Tamilised”) pronunciation, the Sanskrit lexicographer concluded, ignoring Tamil that it must be a Sanskrit word. All the Dravidian linguistic departments and institutes still follow the Sanskrit lexicon as their gospel. (Since they proceeded on the presumption that Sanskrit was the mother of Indian languages (MST theory prevailed), Sanskrit lexicographer of yesteryears could simply include as Sanskrit all from other Indian languages in his lexicon, the justification being provided by MST)
This was also the reason why Dr Vaiyapuri Pillai of Madr. Uni thought that Valluvar's kuRaL was liberal in borrowing from Sanskrit and it must therefore be a much later work than the Sangam literature. Furthermore scholars belonging to a certain class writing books in the l8c and 19th c ACE said that many words now proven to have Tamil roots were Sanskrit.
We must bear in mind that thus, 18c propositions are now being repeated ( repetition does not make it a fresh piece of evidence ) all over by various independent and salaried Sanskrit, pro-Sanskrit and Dravidian "linguists", powerless to contradict the Sanskrit lexicon even if they wanted to. Furthermore Sanskrit institutes and departments are superior (in organizational setup and lineup) to Tamil (Dravidian) Departments and institutes, whether they are doing linguistic research or not.
Ultimately, all of them are relying on the dates given for Aryan arrival in India, by the early Western historians. Those proposing the falsity of ARYAN INVASION / MIGRATION THEORY have no reason to rely on the estimated dates given by Western historians to date other "documents" such as the Vedas and Upanishads. Their stand also necessitated a fresh explanation and definition for the terms "Aryan" and "Brahmana" and caused a collapse of the theory of their own superiority . The claimed antiquity of Sanskrit also stands without any basis or foundation to support it.
There is really no proof as to the antiquity of Sanskrit. It was also never a "language" spoken by any linguistic group of any given region in India. Why Max Muller and William Jones thought it was a language spoken by any linguistic group of any given region in India is really not known. If Aryan is not a race then whose language is Sanskrit? If then "Indo-European" words in Sanskrit were just borrowed words through contact with old Persians of those days, is Sanskrit still an Indo-European language? (Counter query: Then why certain features of the language are close to Indo-European or Indo-Iranian?)
Whether Sanskrit is an Indian language or Indo-European, why is it called Sanskrit meaning a refined language? What was it refined from? The refined comes from the crude and not the other way round. Where is the unrefined language? What evidence is there to say Prakrit derived from Sanskrit? Answers are also required for all these and many other questions that may arise in the course of our study.
Since there are so many gray areas, the only way to determine whether a word is Tamil or Sanskrit is to examine its roots or possible roots. If the word can be explained by Tamil roots, it is a Tamil word. Sanskrit being a never-spoken liturgical code language, it borrowed from various then existing languages including Tamil to formulate the prayer/liturgy codes. This is the basis on which I intend to carry on my discussion in this and related topics.
Among the various categories of persons in the world, a scholar or linguist is one who is allowed to make any statement in connection with his field, whether true or false. You cannot prosecute him for it if it were wrong. But a doctor or persons of other profession are not so privileged. Thus a doctor cannot knowingly and falsely certify one as having AIDS when he does not have it!! But a linguist can say anything about a word. You cannot litigate on his statement whether you relied on it or not! Do you think otherwise? More so in the field of antiquity of Sanskrit or something where everyone seem to doing scholarly guesswork. Linguistics according to one Western writer, is a faculty to which someone who is not wanted in any other faculty would go!! It is also a field, which has to dance to policies and ideologies. That requires the consumers in the field to be really cautious (caveat)!!