TAMIL is much ELDER to SANSKRIT !

[r_kk]

Aravindan,
Your replies are really fantastic, scientifically sensible and more authentic than many loosely based writings and so-called historical finding twisted based on their own wish.

Keep it up. Your posts make this thread worth visiting.

Recent genetic findings nearly prove later migration people to India and presence of multiple races. It doesn’t mean one race or their language is superior or lesser than another one.

[solomon]

Friends,

Welcome Mr.Aravindan, now your arguements are well made, only point that, you are confirming that all that arguements put in by you for TAMIL are fully speculative and rather againstt conclusive positions by Unbiased Scholars.

KUMARI KANDAM MYTHS Do not in any way going to help in Language discussions, and Already it has been shown PAVANAR School has dropped.

Friends, - the very Scholars whom you quote to make Kazlgam as Dravidian also Are very Clear- Dravidian is from RUSSIA or other parts and Native of India.

All we can look at is Literature. Tholkappiyam to Silapathikaram dated to 2OO BCE TO 200CE, and Vedic-Upanishads and RAMAYAN and Mahabaratha which is dated to 2000BCE to 600BCE.

The Problem is Meaninglessly dating Vedic and other Lit to CE, without anyproofs. Very Schloars quoted by FSG- APPADURAI, Pavanar are shown not to share THese Meaningless Deceptions.

Friends- I want the unnecessary enemity to go and muually work.

Now- if you take SANGAM Lit., See the number of words for Vedas- we do not have one for Kuran or Bible- which only proves that, how old are Vedas and what is the earliest influence of them in Sangam Lit.

The Brahmi inscriptions were available all over India- were in VADAMOZHI[Prakrit], and Friends- it was Asoka inscriptions which helped us date our Tamil Li. Asoka Inscriptions tell - Paniya, Chora, KEralaputra and SathyaPutras. First 2 was easy, later Kerala putra became Cheraman, Then Athiaman was Translated to SathyaPutras, and with this Athiaman and Pandiyas were dated.

Friends,

When mr.Aravindan is against my quoting mostly accepted positions of Acadamacia of all Major Universities researching in Tamil and Sanskrit, FSG and Aravindan keeps quoting Speculations of early 1930 Scholars- friends-those days are gone- Sangam Lit. are available in Online- and People must realise to go by actual truths.

Today stands- SaNGAM dates from 200BCE, and Vedas from 2000BCE. So meaningless atttack on this will only put Tamils as unaccepting people of Truths.
Solomon

[aravindhan]

When mr.Aravindan is against my quoting mostly accepted positions of Acadamacia of all Major Universities researching in Tamil and Sanskrit, FSG and Aravindan keeps quoting Speculations of early 1930 Scholars- friends-those days are gone- Sangam Lit. are available in Online- and People must realise to go by actual truths.

It's funny that you say that. I would have said that the views you are citing on the provenance of the Indus script and the "common origins" of Tamil and Sanskrit have marginal acceptance at best outside certain political circles.

I also notice you have avoided replying to any of the points I made. In any event, I'm happy to cite my sources so you can see that they are certainly not "1930s" scholars:

On the origins of language:
Derek Bickerton, "Symbol and structure: a comprehensive framework for language evolution", in M.H. Christiansen and S. Kirby (editors), Language Evolution: The States of the Art (Oxford University Press, 2003).

VS Ramachandran and E. M. Hubbard, "Synaesthesia--a window into perception, thought and language" Journal of Consciousness Studies, Volume 8, pp. 3-34 (2001).

On Dravidian and Indo-Aryan as separate families:
Anything by Emeneau, or Kamil Zvelebil on the Dravidian languages will give you a good introduction, but here are a few particularly pertinent papers that discuss their relationship.

MB Emeneau, "Dravidian and Indo-Aryan: The Indian Linguistic Area", in A Sjoberg, Symposium on Dravidian Civilization (Center for Asian Studies of the University of Texas at Austin, 1968).

MB Emeneau, "The Indian linguistic area revisited", in International Journal of Dravidian linguistics, Volume 3, pp. 92-134 (1974).

M. S Andronov, "On the Typological Similarity of New Indo-Aryan and Dravidian." Indian Linguistics, Volume 25, pp. 119-26 (1964).

A Parpola, "On the protohistory of the Indian languages in the light of archaeological, linguistic and religious evidence: An attempt at integration" In J.E. van Lohuizen, de Leeuw & J.M.M. Ubaghs (editors), South Asian Archaeology 1973: Papers from the second international conference of South Asian archaeologists held in the University of Amsterdam. (E.J. Brill, 1974).

JJ Gumperz and R Wilson, "Convergence and creolization: A case from the Indo-Aryan/Dravidian border in India," in D. Hymes (editor), Pidginization and creolization of languages (Cambridge University Press, 1971).

On 'kazhakam':
T Burrow and MB Emeneau, A Dravidian etymological dictionary (Clarendon Press, 2nd edition, 1984).

On Prakrit sounds:
LA Schwarzchild, "Some 'Unusual' Sound-Changes in Prakrit", Journal of the American Oriental Society, Volume 92, pp. 100-104 (1972).

KR Norman, "Some aspects of the Phonology of the Prakrit Underlying the Asokan Inscriptions", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, Vol. 33, pp. 132-143 (1970).

On the Indus script:
Ironically, given your post, the theory that the Indus script was the ancestor of Brahmi and, therefore, represented an early form of Sanskrit dates back to the discovery of the script by Cunningham. The theory that it is a Dravidian language is more recent, and the best scholarly case that exists for it is that advanced by Asko Parpola:

A. Parpola, Deciphering the Indus Script (Cambridge University Press, 1994)

A. Parpola, "The Indus Script: a challenging puzzle" in World Archaeology, Volume 17, pp. 399-419 (1986).

You will note that he takes on, and disproves, all other theories of the origin of the Indus script quite convincingly. The only thesis which could possibly refute Asko Parpola's work is the new thesis of Steve Farmer et al that the Indus markings were not a script at all:

Steve Farmer, Richard Sproat, and Michael Witzel, "The Collapse of the Indus-Script Thesis: The Myth of a Literate Harappan Civilization", in Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies, Volume 11 issue 2 (2004) (downloadable from http://www.safarmer.com/fsw2.pdf)

Note that all those I cite are academically trained in the fields about which they write - I do not think much store can be set by computer scientists who write on linguistics and archaeology (by way of example). Note also that I have (deliberately) only cited papers published in internationally recognised peer-reviewed journals, or in books published by internationally-recognised academic publishers. Could I now ask you to cite your sources, keeping these criteria in mind?

And please don't respond with the usual defence that the Vedas were composed before the Tolkappiyam or the Purananuru, or that the literature of the Cankam period shows an awareness of northern traditions - that is entirely besides the point, since I am not arguing otherwise.

[solomon]

Friends,

Indus Valley Pictorial Symbols are not Scripts is the position of Many Scholars, and there is a Open Challenge in Internet to Prove them Dravidian is already given in this Forum.

The Majority of Objective Scholars who Speculated Indus Pictorial Suymbols as Dravidian are Clear- not Tamil- but Proto Tamil close to Kannada or Dead Language. All this are confirmed by IRAVatham Mahadevan's Interview, Link given already.

Again, Iravatham Mahadevan also confirms that Brahmi Script is more close to Phonecian origin, and not a development fro Indus Valley symbols.

I will give you the Detailed view of Prof.Kamil Zevilabil on Parabola and other's attempt of Deciphering of Indus Symbols, and certainly not Dechiphered as per Majority Scholars till date.

On Brahmi Scripts Every Objective Scholar is clear they came from Vadamozhi to Tamil, by Samana Munivarkal, and I quote for all- Dr.K.V.RAman, former H.O.D , Dept. of.Archealogy,Madras University-
" Ilankail ithe pondru pala Brahmi Kalvettual Ottu Motthamaka Kidaikindrana. Ithanal Ilankail irunth, Ivvari Vadivam Maduraiku Vudurivi Irukka Kudum endru ennalam. ..
Thonmaiyana Kalvettukal anaithu tamilagathin Then Kodiile Kidaithullana enpathal aruge amaintha Ilankaith Thivin Thodarbaie Ithu Kattukindrathu. Pages-168,169.
Parakiratha mozhi thodarbu Asokarukku murpatta kalaththathu. Athavathu Brahmana Kotpadugal tamilagathai Vanthadaintha Thonmai Kalaththudan Nam thodarbu paduththalam. Palamaiyana IkKalvettukalal Tamilagathil Pragrit mozhi nandraka purinthu kollap pattu erruk kollapattu vittathu enalam. Page 157, Tholiyal Aivukal.

Friends- not just K.V.RAman, Nagasamy, Natana Kasinathan etc., of Archalogical Survey, who Deciphered Brahmi Scripts, all agree its origin from Vadamozhi.

And Scholarly Opinion on Tholkappiyam, again in the words of Prof.K.V.Raman- " Tamil Brahmi Kalvettukalil Kidaitha Cheithikalaium Pandaith Tamil Ilakkana Noolana TholKappiyach Cheiulkalaium Oppittu Nokkuthal Sariyanethe. Ivvagai Oppaivuvinai Pala Asiriyarkal nataththi Sirantha Prachanaikalai patrri Vilakkam Alithulla Padiyal mindum Ipprachanaiyai Araivathu thevaiyarrathu. Ik Kalvettukalil, Thonmaiyanavai Tholkapiyaththirku Murpattavaiyaum, Pirpatta Kalvettukal TholKkapiyathin kalaththodu Porunthuvathu endrum nirnayam cheiya mudium."

Page167.

Aravindanji- Caldwell, Burrow,Emino, BishopBrown, Slater,Lavakori, etc., are some of the Scholars still insist that Dravidians of Foriegn Origin to India.

Friends- Aravindanji- for Jesus-Monogenes took reply from worst Church Apologies- Recent Translations such as NIV have removed Only Begotten from the main Text, and this is becaues, Pre-Latin translations do not support that Apology line Aravindan took. Friends- I WOULD like anybody to check Gospels- English Apostles list has Simon the Zealot or Simon the Patriot, but such a huge Translators-the church in tamil write Simon endra Chelotheiu- is there any such tamil word? I really do not understand as to why Aravindanji should defend Church's Frauds.

Another Friend questioned my dating- Friends Rig Veda- stands as the sign of Growth of Human Civilisation, and if it is dated to only 2000BCE, Taming of Horses, Use of Rathas etc., all can be later than that only.

Aravindanji- goes on elaborate speculation on Human Development, but Friends, Churches still hold that Human was Created in BCE400, from Genesis,and few US states has avoided teaching Evolution Theories. Hence My dating of Human living as Groups only later than 10,000BCE is morevalid.

Pavanar has listed morethan 300 words as Sanskrit words to be avoided, and I SHAll give them shortly and this would prove that Tamil and Vadampzhi has common Origins.

On Kalagam- if during Sangam Period meant for Soothattam Playing place, then give me its root, please.

We need to go by Sangam Lit.

MosesMohammed Solomon

[aravindhan]

Indus Valley Pictorial Symbols are not Scripts is the position of Many Scholars, and there is a Open Challenge in Internet to Prove them Dravidian is already given in this Forum.

The challenge posted by Steve Farmer is actually to find a long inscription, not to decipher the script, as you can see for yourself on his site:
http://www.safarmer.com/indus/prize.html

The Majority of Objective Scholars who Speculated Indus Pictorial Suymbols as Dravidian are Clear- not Tamil- but Proto Tamil close to Kannada or Dead Language. All this are confirmed by IRAVatham Mahadevan's Interview, Link given already.

Calling proto-Dravidian "Tamil" is technically speaking about as historically correct as calling the Vedic language "Sanskrit", since in both cases we do not know what they called the language they spoke (although we can be fairly certain in the latter case that they didn't call it "Sanskrit"). For largely historical-political reasons, the latter is accepted usage today while the former isn't.

I will give you the Detailed view of Prof.Kamil Zevilabil on Parabola and other's attempt of Deciphering of Indus Symbols, and certainly not Dechiphered as per Majority Scholars till date.

I've cited a reference to the book, where Asko Parpola himself admits that he has not deciphered the script. The key bits of the book, however, are his demonstration of what the language could not have been. Please make sure you don't skip over that portion!

On Brahmi Scripts Every Objective Scholar is clear they came from Vadamozhi to Tamil, by Samana Munivarkal, and I quote for all- Dr.K.V.RAman, former H.O.D , Dept. of.Archealogy,Madras University-

If by "vadamozhi" you now mean Prakrit (I wish you'd be consistent in your usage), then the general consensus is that the inscriptions in Prakrit we have are older than those in Tamil. Of course, it remains to be seen to what period the newly-discovered Adichannalur inscription is dated.

Caldwell, Burrow,Emino, BishopBrown, Slater,Lavakori, etc., are some of the Scholars still insist that Dravidians of Foriegn Origin to India.

Obviously. Everyone in India is ultimately of foreign origin to India. Humanity evolved in Africa, not in India.

Friends- Aravindanji- for Jesus-Monogenes took reply from worst Church Apologies- Recent Translations such as NIV have removed Only Begotten from the main Text, and this is becaues, Pre-Latin translations do not support that Apology line Aravindan took.

That's clever wording you use. The NIV has footnotes to John 3:16 and 3:18 which say "only-begotten son" is an alternate reading.
http://www.ibs.org/niv/passagesearch...quest=John%203.
The NIV only lists alternate readings which they consider valid.

I'm a little chary of getting into a discussion on religion here, but I will say rather briefly that your allegation that this was a fraud perpetrated by the Church to consolidate its position shows an ignorance of Christian doctrine (and perhaps a little prejudice). The meaning "begotten" in point of fact created problems for Christianity, because "begetting" implies an act of creation. In the fourth century, it led to a huge schism in Christianity, with the Arian movement using the meaning "begotten" to argue that Christ, being "begotten" was lesser than the Father, who was "unbegotten". God the Father was therefore stated to be the only true God, with Christ, as a "begotten son" being a lesser figure and not worthy of veneration. This is why the Nicene Creed has the odd wording it does "begotten, not made". The Gnostics and Manichaeans (all of whom, incidentally, mostly used Greek or Syriac, not Latin) also interpreted the word as meaning "begotten" to oppose mainstream Christianity.

Of course, all these problems vanish with the modern NIV translation of the phrase as "one and only son". So the newer translation actually is more in tune with the teachings of the Church on the nature of Christ than the older. Are you seriously saying that the Church deliberately perpertrated a fraud, just so that its teachings would be weakened and its opponents would have their hand strengthened?

Friends- I WOULD like anybody to check Gospels- English Apostles list has Simon the Zealot or Simon the Patriot, but such a huge Translators-the church in tamil write Simon endra Chelotheiu- is there any such tamil word? I really do not understand as to why Aravindanji should defend Church's Frauds.

"Zealot" is not in origin an English word either. The word is Greek, and came to be used in English because of its biblical significance. Do you want to get into a discussion of principles of translation, and how words referring to a specific set of geographically isloated socio-political circumstances (such as "zealot") should be rendered in another language?

Another Friend questioned my dating- Friends Rig Veda- stands as the sign of Growth of Human Civilisation, and if it is dated to only 2000BCE, Taming of Horses, Use of Rathas etc., all can be later than that only.

There is actually no evidence that the Vedic peoples were the ones who wrote. There has been a lot of research on the domestication of the horse and the period and place in which it was done, and it's likely to have been well before the Vedas or their language existed. I am away on work at the moment - I'll try and post some references when I get back home.

Aravindanji- goes on elaborate speculation on Human Development, but Friends, Churches still hold that Human was Created in BCE400, from Genesis,and few US states has avoided teaching Evolution Theories. Hence My dating of Human living as Groups only later than 10,000BCE is morevalid.

This makes very little sense. Are you saying that because some churches ignore scientific results, your ignoring them is also valid?

On Kalagam- if during Sangam Period meant for Soothattam Playing place, then give me its root, please. We need to go by Sangam Lit.

I'm not an etymologist, so I'm afraid I can't give roots. In any case, it is not the identifiability of roots (or lack thereof) that determines the classification of a word - if that were so, all Sanskrit words without an identifiable dhatu would have to be borrowings, which is patently absurd. Burrow and Emeneau are of the opinion that kazhakam is of Dravidian origin. If you disagree, you need to present stronger evidence than just a possible derivation - you will also have to show, for example, that "kazhakam" exhibits the pattern of sound changes generally followed in borrowing words from Sanskrit to Tamil. I don't see how "klah" could have mutated into "kazhakam", but I'm always happy to change my views if presented with a rigorous scientific demonstration. It would also help if you gave your suggested Sanskrit root in a standard transliteration - what on earth is "klah" supposed to mean? Is that a consonantal or vocalic l? Is the h a "hakAra" or a visarga?

Similarly, as I explained in my previous post, you need to show more than a shared vocabulary - or, for that matter, typological similarities - to demonstrate a genetic connection between languages. As Professor Emeneau has quite convincingly demonstrated, the South Asian region is a single linguistic area, which means that the languages here have influenced each other greatly over the past three thousand years. I'm happy to get into discussions of language structure if you would like to, but just discussing vocabulary and phonology is quite pointless as it does not establish anything.

[Anchaneya]

Friends,

Let us thank Mr.Aravindan when he fully agrees that Sangam Literature and Tholkappiyam has been influenced by Vedic Lit.

And please don't respond with the usual defence that the Vedas were composed before the Tolkappiyam or the Purananuru, or that the literature of the Cankam period shows an awareness of northern traditions - that is entirely besides the point, since I am not arguing otherwise.- Aravindan

Mr. Aravindan- You have referred to NIV, as it was referred by M.M.Solomon. TEV- by Haward, Cambridge and many Churches do not have even FOOT NOTE- AND in the verses they have jUST "ONLY" - this is certainly a fraud, when "ONE & SUCH" was the original rendering. And None of the early Gospels which were written- like Mark 70-75CE, Matthew80-90 and Luke 85-95CE do not make Jesus of Any Divinity, whereas John in 110-120 tried these NUAnces, which Chruch is manupulating.

Religious Discussions are certainly not for these General Forums, but Blind support for these Deceptions only invite protests.

All these Scholars who refers Dravidians as Outsiders- donot refer to the African Origin, but PROTODravidian Language as of Russian Origin and from there Dravidians came around 3000CE.

Aravindanji, the moment you go to Seafarmer's Site, then you agree Indus Scripts are NOT Dechiphered, then no use to quote any Speculative works which are earlier to it.

Anchaneya

[aravindhan]

Let us thank Mr.Aravindan when he fully agrees that Sangam Literature and Tholkappiyam has been influenced by Vedic Lit.

I said "aware of", which is very different from "influenced by", which is very different from "entirely based on". In my opinion, many of the poets of Sangam literature were aware of northern traditions, and they made free use of them when they suited the emotions and sentiments they were trying to convey (Purananuru 2, which Ramraghav posted about a while ago, is a good example). That is hardly a substantive "influence".

Prof. Hart has established quite conclusively that though the Sangam poems use a number of ideas borrowed from northern traditions (and I could include mentions of various deities, the Mahabharata, the Ramayana, and assorted Vedic / Jain ideas), the culture and outlook they embody is only superficially influenced by northern ideas, if at all.

As Prof. Hart points out, the metres of Sangam literature are entirely unlike the metres of northern poetry - Sanskrit metre is traditionally based purely on syllables, Sangam metre is based on the notion of "asai" which could be up to three syllables long (niraipu asai); as a result, the osais of Sangam literature are quite unique to it. Similarly, the substance of the poetry - the figures of speech, the aintiNai system and the metaphors (uLLuRai) that it comprises, the notion of tuRai - are all entirely different from Sanskrit poetry of that period. Prof. Hart also demonstrates, again quite convincingly, that the similarities that appear in later Prakrit (esp. Maharashtri) and Sanskrit poetry are likely to have been borrowed from the folk tradition that the Sangam literary conventions are based on. See George Hart, The poems of ancient Tamil: their milieu and their Sanskrit counterparts (University of California Press, 1975), especially pages 161 onwards.

I will add that the idea that the more "civilised" aspects of Sangam poetry were derived from Sanskritic traditions - which you appear to adhere to - dates back to the writings of Vaiyapuri Pillai and Nilakanta Shastri. But they wrote in the 50s and the 60s, and we have today a much more sophisticated set of tools to analyse poetry, and the influence of different literary traditions upon each other. Prof. Hart uses these to great effect in his book. You are of course free to disagree with him, but if we are to have an educated discussion, it would be useful if you could start by explaining which bits of his analysis you disagree with, and why.

Mr. Aravindan- You have referred to NIV, as it was referred by M.M.Solomon. TEV- by Haward, Cambridge and many Churches do not have even FOOT NOTE- AND in the verses they have jUST "ONLY" - this is certainly a fraud, when "ONE & SUCH" was the original rendering.

The TEV is a paraphrastic translation based on dynamic equivalence, not a scholarly one as the NIV is, and it has no relationship whatsoever to Cambridge or Harvard. But what baffles me is that you seem to repeatedly say that the Church deliberately manipulated the Bible just so it could produce a translation that was unfavourable to its doctrines. This really makes very little sense to me.

I do not propose to enter into a discussion of your other allegations. This is not really the forum for it.

All these Scholars who refers Dravidians as Outsiders- donot refer to the African Origin, but PROTODravidian Language as of Russian Origin and from there Dravidians came around 3000CE.

I'd like a reference, please, preferably to a peer-reviewed publication. Most linguists (and geneticists) that I have read argue that the Dravidian languages entered India from the northwest (which is just about the only direction you can enter the subcontinent from, anyway). I've read rather vague suggestions (which are self-admittedly highly speculative, since there is absolutely no scientific evidence on this point) that the speakers of the languages may have come from Central Asia (although Asia Minor is more often suggested), but I've never seen anything to suggest they had a Russian origin.

Aravindanji, the moment you go to Seafarmer's Site, then you agree Indus Scripts are NOT Dechiphered, then no use to quote any Speculative works which are earlier to it.

Who is this "Seafarmer" you speak of? And instead of dismissing all of Asko Parpola's work as "speculative", could you please point out exactly which bit of his reasoning you think is wrong? That would provide a good basis for reasoned, intelligent debate, rather than just hurling opinions about.

[spyder_z]

SANSKRIT IS THE OLDEST LANGUAGE IN LAND AND EARTH ND SKY.....

FROM THAT ORGINATE TAMIL, HINDI, ENGLISH AND OTHERS....

THERE IS A PROOF FOR THIS.......

[aravindhan]

SANSKRIT IS THE OLDEST LANGUAGE IN LAND AND EARTH ND SKY.....

FROM THAT ORGINATE TAMIL, HINDI, ENGLISH AND OTHERS....

THERE IS A PROOF FOR THIS.......

Well then, let us have this marvellous proof! Don't keep us in suspense!

[Sudarsan Padmanabhan]

Dear friends,

I am really impressed by the breadth of the discussion about the origins of Tamil and Sanskrit. Scholars such as B.B. Lal and others used technology that was not developed as it has now. It would be prudent to refer to the works of scholars such as Michael Witzel who teaches Sanskrit in Harvard University. I heard that he knows 27 languages. He along with a few scholars recently came up with a paper contesting the existence of any script at all in the Indus Valley. Witzel argues that the script developed much later in India and like China, Indus Valley did not have any script. As far as I have followed, script and language are only incidentally related. They are conventions and they are also arbitrary in their origins. So, I would not be too disturbed if any one told me that Sanskrit is more ancient than Tamil and vice versa. Any way, Sanskrit or Tamil as they are known now could not have been spoken or written 4000 years ago. The supporters of Tamil must argue that either Proto-Dravidian or something like Brahui is more ancient that Indo-Aryan. For that, we do not have much to talk about. I will give you one example about the fickle nature of languages. Indo-Iranian (Avestan) and the Indo-Aryan were very close at one point of time since they came from the same region. In the Rig Veda, Indra is the king of Devas. In the Zend Avesta, Indra is a demon. The concept of a -sura (non-devas) at least to me appears to me to be a harmless semantic distinction which later becomes a class and then a caste. So, if this debate is in any way driven by the Aryan - Dravidian undercurrent, then all of us are on a very shaky ground.

Thanks.

Sudarsan Padmanabhan