TAMIL is much ELDER to SANSKRIT !

[ramvaradan]

All

The relative antiquity of Tamil and Sanskrit is not just irrelavant but a silly question to answer AND/OR a tough question that cannot be answered. But the analysis put forth (esp. by Aravindhan) and the complexity that this discussion has brewed is mind boggling. And, actually quite enriching.

What can be answered is really which language stood the test of times ?

Although it can be argued, that Sanskrit still lives in the form of its so many off-shoot languages like Hindi, Bengali, Arabic (?) -- Tamil has stood its ground from the Sangam time uptil now, almost in its quintessential original form as evolved from Proto-Dravidian. Now I believe a good reason for that long sustenance is its adaptability. When Sanskrit much like Greek & Latin is pretty much out-of-vogue, except among fan(tas)atic few, Tamil is thriving and if we want to count those languages that are OLDEST EXTANT ... I'm sure Tamil will be at the top.

While I do not brag about this -- I learn that when you don't flex a little you're bound to break. English, in its current form, owes it entirely to Germanic branch ... And, I believe English will surpass anyother language in name & fame... because its not borrow-shy !!


Ramanan

[solomon]

Friends,



Aravindanji, has brought a freshness and proper Authors for Discussions, rather than 3rd Rare Forgery of R.Mathiwanan, on Indus Pictorial Symbols Dechiporing. I have already put some of my views in the past on that from the articles of Prof.Kamil Zevilable submitted in Tokyo Conference of Stone Insciptions, I shall produce its excerpts in detail in my next posting.

" The Summary- Indus Pictorial Symbols are UnDeciphered, and has no connection with later Indian Writing Scripts Developed for Vadamozhi Karoshti or Brahmi. Nearly 60 Years of Various attempts to read it as Proto Dravidian has ended up as a failure, and just as a Speculation, and a Bread for Non- Serious Emotional and Political Researchers and Politians, and both Asko Parobola and Iravatham Mahadevan agree thay remain Undechiphered.

My detailed views next time. Aravindanji sometimes make Linguistic Views, but mostly Political Statements.
With Regard to Rig Veda to Ramayan and Mahabaratha are all considered as ONLY Sanskrit by every University researching all over the World, ofcourse Classical and Poetical Sanskrit is its later development, after Panini in early 5th Cen.BCE., and Panini's dating are well Attested by History by Meghastanis and other Foriegn writers. So taking on few Undescriptive Researchers who
for Political Publicity, have said otherwise.
As I have put here, even Devaneyan and Appadurai, has held Vedas are early Sanskrit.
In the Same Way- Aravindanji makes Proto Dravidian means Tamil, Friends this is not held by any Linguistic Objective Scholars and especially who have worked and Dechiphered Brahmi Inscriptions. The Brahmi Tamil Inscriptions which Burrowed Vadamozhi Letters for Tamil, has quiet a few Vadamozhi words along with Telugu and Kannada words, and this are dated close to 100BCE, i.e., Tamil Spoken then had quiet a lot of Proto Dravidian Words or
KodunTamil as Pavanar School's whitewahing calls them. So we can say, Classical Tamil of Sangam Literature was Never Spoken at all.
Linguistic Researchers now put TElugu spoken from 1000BCE, Kannada from 500BCE, and Malayalam from 100CE, and All these Language Scholars do not accept them as Offshoot of Tamil. but its earlier form-Proto Dravidian.

Sangam Literature and Silapathikaram clearly mentions of Vadugu being spoken in beyond Tirupathi. And on Senguttuvan's Expedition Sangam Lit. says- "Mozhi Pala Nadu Kadanthu" i.e., Existance of Other Languages during BCE periods.

Pragrit and Classical Sanskrit as Per Western Universities are considered as Ideological twins developement from Vedic Sanskrit. When we look at Brahmi Tamil Inscriptions, which do not use Classical Tamil, same way all over India, the Stone Inscriptions of the same Period use Calloquial spoken language Pragrit a twin of Sanskrit. No Linguistic Objective research put it with Dravidian Group.

On Tamil Development, I Showed- Words for ThAT-WHAT-This-Antha- Entha- Intha are not there in TholKappiyam to Tirukural, I Only wanted to say that Tamil was Developing and changing.
KAZHAGAM- Aravindanji, Has not been used in Sangam Lit at all. Valluvar used it Kural 935 and 937 as to Gambling Place, without any other word and because it is in Atikaram Suuthu, we can understand its meaning.

Friends, the word- Kazhagam is not used in Sangam Lit at all, and Valluvar used it on for Gambling- KALAH- the Sanskrit word for Gamble money from Atharvan Veda and Aaham, another Sanskrit word for Home,still used by Bramins, so Kalah-Aaham can only give the meaning Valluvar used.

Any Speculation with Linguistics by Burrow or others is certainly of no use. And all this Scholars have been using Language very Cautously, and M.B.Emenow, the aricle I hold in my Hand, specifically uses words as PROTO-Dravidian and Old Tamil differently. And I Summarise from his
conclusion-

" At one Time Speakers of Proto Dravidian lived Beyond North.
Can we take that they had link with Burushaski? We are only in Gussing stage.
At this stage to say that Malayopolynesian-Micronesran and North ASustralian came to Indian Borders is Trouble some. Also We can not leave it aside that all this Linguistic growth has developed Individually and separately, and if we take this position we cannot then find answer to How this Developement thereall took place.

"

So Linguistics is Too Speculative and The Authors are clear Proto Dravidian and Tamil are Separately viewed.

FSG USEd to say Pashai Language as Dravidian, but HERE this author clearly put it as Indo-Aryan group.

Aravindan's reply on "MONOgenes" was puzzling, and his attitude is more so. For Every Indian- Vedas are Divine Inspired Revealtions, and we have all used to Criticise them to our liking. Calling Vedic Aryans as Outsiders, is highly Blasa[hemy to the Core. And Even to date TholKappiyam, a Grammer Book to its Actual possible date, close to 100BCE, was resented by APS.M, ETC.,

Bible Old Testament's Genesis is presently dated to close to 300-200BCE, and Prophets to 300-50BCE, and Writings to 200BCE to 130CE,ofcouse using Earlier oral materials which more or less coincide with Sangam Lit. They must be looked for its Historical Contents and Linguistical words.

My Guide for Monogenes was NewCatholic Encyclopedia from Catholic Encyclopedia, Interpreters Bible Dictionary, Harpers Bible DIC., Anchors Bible Dic., etc., along with many others. ANCheneya had Put TEV-T0days EngliSH Version as Haward linked it must be NEB- New English Bible and it has no foot notes.
MonoGenes- One Such can at best become SPECIAL and any other Translation as ONLY or Only Begotten are certainly beyond Original Text. This word in Bible is used only Thrice- and let me show a word used morethan 8,500 times and its translation Deceptions, as follows:
" The Great Majority of readers take for Granted that Some Word Equivalent to "LORD" is in the Hebrew Text, but it is not. The Word-"Lod" is a title, not name;and not Name; and Putting it in Capital Letters does nothing to change this fact. But where the Bible Specifically has the personal name, translators should not take it upon themselves to make a substitution. The use of "Lord" instead of "Yahweh" effectively Depersonalises the Deity, turns Him into a kind of Vaugue abstaraction and rejects the repeated Emphasis in the Bible on his Unique personal relationship with Israel. It also disguises the fact tat YAHWEH is a Character in the Biblical Drama, with entrances and exis and a role to play, all
assigned by the Writers."
-Page 313 -Bible As Literature, Oxford University Press,
written by 3 Professors John.A.Gabel, Charles B.Wheelr and Antony.D.York.
Aravindans linking to NIV official translation site, is like linking on Indus Scripts
to Third Rate attempters as N.S.Rajaram or Dr.Mathiwanan, NIV was widely
Criticised for its translation more to keep Churcj spread superstitions rather than from actual Text. The Word- Zealot used as title for One of the Disciples is translated as Patriot by all other Translations, but NIV still hold the original, why? A Church blessed Tamil book on 12 Apostles, called him Simon Endra Thiviravathi-(Terrorist) , why then Tamil Bibles still use Greek word- as
Chellote and not as either Patriot or Terrorist. Also The Earliest Gospel Mark of 70-75CE, as per all important Manuscripts end at 16:8, and 16:9-20 are later interpolations, which all English Bibles mentions, and I HAVE not seen it in Single Tamil Bible, WHY? Tamils do not need truth, is what CHURCH and Aravindan feels.

Bible OT and NT gives lot of link between SAnskrit and Tamil with Hebrew Traditions, and that would come shortly.

MosesMohammedSolomon

[iruthayam]

HERE NEVER GIVE THE EXAMPLES OF WHAT GREAT SCHOLAR TOLD ABOUT ORIGIN OF LANGUAGE
IN THIS DEBATE I WILL PRODUCE MY THAUGTS
I GO FOR SANSKRIT ,SAN SKRIT MEANS WELL DEVELOPED LANGUAGE IS IT?
ONE QUESTION IF BABY BORN IT SHOULD NOT DEVELOPED ITS BRAIN WHILE BORN .IT SHOULD HAVE TAKE SOME MORAL TEACHING ,SOME EXPERIENCE SO THAT BABY WILL BECOME DEVELOPED MAN
FROM THE NAME SANSKRIT WE CAN CLEARLY JUDGE SANSKRIT TOOK WORDS OTHER LANGUAGE AND FORM DEVELOPED LANGUAGE

WHILE TALK ABOUT LANGUAGE DEBATE WE HAVE TO TAKE ABOUT THE GEOGRAPHICAL STRUCTURE, HISTRORICAL WHICH WAS FACT, PSCYCOLIY PARTICULAR LANGUAGE SPEAKING PEOPLE,

MOST OF THEM ARE TELLING SANSKRITS SPOKEN BY ARYANS THEY CAME FROM MIDDLE EAST CONTRIES, IF THIS WAS FACT BEFORE THAT WHAT LANGUAGE WAS SPOKEN BY INDIAN SUB CONTINENT
MOST OF THEM OR TELLING PROTO- DRAVIDAN,THEY ARE TELLING TAMIL IS PUREST FORM OF DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGE,THEN WHY THEY CALL IT DRAVIDIAN GROUP LANGUAGE .(ENN THAI PERU THAMIZH VERU ORUVAN ENN THAI PERAI SOLLA THERIYAMAL THIRAMIL ENPAAN ATHAI VAITHUKONDU ENN THAIAI TRAMIL ENPEIN ENTRU IRRUKIRARKAL)


[/b]

[aravindhan]

My detailed views next time.

I will wait for those before I respond, then.

Aravindanji sometimes make Linguistic Views, but mostly Political Statements.

Interesting. Which of my statements are "political"? Since "most" of them are, in your reading, political, it shouldn't be any trouble for you to produce a comprehensive. Please do so.

With Regard to Rig Veda to Ramayan and Mahabaratha are all considered as ONLY Sanskrit by every University researching all over the World

My point, to make it again, is that we seem to have no problem calling Old Indo-Aryan "Sanskrit", although we know almost certainly that that is not what its speakers called it. Proto-Dravidian stands in much the same relationship to Old Tamil as Old Indo-Aryan does to Classical Sanskrit. If you disagree, it would be useful if you could explain which part of this is incorrect, so I know what to respond to.

The question here is whether Tamil is older than Sanskrit. To me, the only way to make sense of that question is to ask whether there was a language which its speakers called Tamil before there was a langauge called Sanskrit by its speakers. Otherwise, the question is quite unanswerable. Our discussion now seems to have evolved far beyond that question, to actually investigate the individual histories of, and the relationship between, Sanskrit and Tamil, which is a more interesting discussion as far as I am concerned. But let's keep what we're talking about in mind, OK?

ofcourse Classical and Poetical Sanskrit is its later development, after Panini in early 5th Cen.BCE., and Panini's dating are well Attested by History by Meghastanis and other Foriegn writers.

This is not factually incorrect. Panini is dated to anywhere between the 5th and the 3rd century BC, and some scholars - such as Steve Farmer - have expressed doubt as to whether the Ashthadyayi was in fact the work of one person.

The Brahmi Tamil Inscriptions which Burrowed Vadamozhi Letters for Tamil, has quiet a few Vadamozhi words along with Telugu and Kannada words, and this are dated close to 100BCE

The earliest inscriptions published by Iravatham Mahadevan are early 2nd century BC, not 100 BC. And, as I have said before, all of this is up in the air until the Adichanallur fragments are finally dated.

Could I also request you to please be clearer in your use of words? You have elsewhere alleged that "vadamozhi" meant "Sanskrit", yet here you yourself use it to mean "Prakrit" - the words in the early Tamil inscriptions are borrowed from various (Jain-associated) prakrits, not from Sanskrit, and the "vadamozhi" letters were at that time only used to write Prakrit in the north. Can I take this to mean that you have backed down from your earlier claim that "vadamozhi" in Tol. means "Sanskrit"?

Tamil Spoken then had quiet a lot of Proto Dravidian Words or KodunTamil as Pavanar School's whitewahing calls them. So we can say, Classical Tamil of Sangam Literature was Never Spoken at all.

When we look at Brahmi Tamil Inscriptions, which do not use Classical Tamil, same way all over India, the Stone Inscriptions of the same Period use Calloquial spoken language Pragrit a twin of Sanskrit. No Linguistic Objective research put it with Dravidian Group.

I've juxtaposed two different quotes here because they make more sense if read together. As I understand, you are trying to establish an equivalence between spoken/written Tamil and Prakrit/Sanskrit, correct? If so, you're quite far off. Tamil has always exhibited a diglossia between the spoken and written languages. Most languages do this.

This type of diglossia is not, however, the same as speaking and writing different langauges, which is what the situation was between Sanskrit and Prakrit. Classical Tamil and the Tamil of the inscriptions, for all their differences, were the same language, and had the same grammar and phonological system. Prakrit and Classical Sanskrit, on the other hand, had entirely different grammars and phonological systems. It is largely for this reason that Classical Sanskrit is classified with the Old Indo-Aryan group of the Vedic dialects, whereas the Prakrits are treated as belonging to the Middle Indo-Aryan group. In a sense, Panini was trying to preserve the use of a form of Old Indo-Aryan, which was - even at the time he wrote his grammar - a dead language.

The literary form of Tamil which we today call Classical Tamil, on the other hand, was an attempt to create a literary medium and metaphor based on the common speech and folk traditions. It was, unlike Sanskrit, not an attempt to create a new, classicised literary form based upon the dying speech of a bygone era. Once again, I urge you to read both Prof. Hart's book The Poems of Ancient Tamil: Their Milieu and their Sanskrit Counterparts, along with VS Rajam's A Reference Grammar of Classical Tamil Poetry.

Linguistic Researchers now put TElugu spoken from 1000BCE, Kannada from 500BCE, and Malayalam from 100CE, and All these Language Scholars do not accept them as Offshoot of Tamil. but its earlier form-Proto Dravidian.

The dating of when Proto-Dravidian differentiated is still quite murky, but these dates are not too far off from the dates currently in vogue, give or take a few centuries. As far as Tamil / Proto-dravidian goes, see my comment above.

Sangam Literature and Silapathikaram clearly mentions of Vadugu being spoken in beyond Tirupathi. And on Senguttuvan's Expedition Sangam Lit. says- "Mozhi Pala Nadu Kadanthu" i.e., Existance of Other Languages during BCE periods.

Yes, and the Tol. discusses various categories of non-Tamil languages and the question of how their words are to be written in Tamil. What is the point you are making? No-one is denying that other languages were spoken then, or that they were known to Tamils.

Pragrit and Classical Sanskrit as Per Western Universities are considered as Ideological twins developement from Vedic Sanskrit.

I'm not sure what you mean by "ideological twins". Prakrit was a natural evolution of the different dialects spoken by the authors of the vedas. Sanskrit, as I pointed out above, was not.

On Tamil Development, I Showed- Words for ThAT-WHAT-This-Antha- Entha- Intha are not there in TholKappiyam to Tirukural, I Only wanted to say that Tamil was Developing and changing.

And what conclusion are you drawing from that?

Friends, the word- Kazhagam is not used in Sangam Lit at all, and Valluvar used it on for Gambling- KALAH- the Sanskrit word for Gamble money from Atharvan Veda and Aaham, another Sanskrit word for Home,still used by Bramins, so Kalah-Aaham can only give the meaning Valluvar used.

1. The word in not "Kalah", but "glah", and in that form it is a verb. To form the noun "Gambling den", you would have to use its noun form, which is "glahana" (See Atharvaveda VII:109:5, where it is used as a noun and in that form). Using the roots you provided, therefore, "gambling house" should be "kalahanamagam", or something similar.

2. Quite apart from that, a consonant conjoint with a "l" or "r" is usually separated from it by the insertion of an "i" when a word is taken from Sanskrit to Tamil - hence, Sanskrit "grAma" becomes "kiramam" in Tamil. "glah" would therefore become "gilah". "glah" -> "kazhakam" does not, therefore, display the pattern of sound change one would expect a Tamil borrowing from Sanskrit to have. This makes your theory quite unlikely.

3. "Akam" in the sense of house comes from a Dravidian root meaning "inner", not a Sanskrit one, and is related to other words such as "akal", "akampu", "akavai", and so on. It has counterparts in other Dravidian languages, including Tulu, Toda, Kodava, and so on. You'll find a detailed list on page 3 of Burrow & Emeneau's dictionary.

Any Speculation with Linguistics by Burrow or others is certainly of no use.

Burrow & Emeneau's Comparative Dictionary is one of the most respected works in Dravidian linguistics. You call it "speculation"?
The dismissal of linguistics as "speculation" is characteristic of people with no training in the subject, who find that it gets inconveniently in the way of their pet theories (Kak, Rajaram...). It is also quite incorrect. The modern science of linguistics is based on the application of detailed rules and principles to analyse changes in languages over time.

And tell me - if you do not want to use linguistics to study and discuss languages, what on earth do you want to use? And what does the rest of your post (not to mention nearly every other post you have made) rely on, if not linguistics? If you do not want to discuss this topic in a scientific way, what point is there to the discussion?

And all this Scholars have been using Language very Cautously, and M.B.Emenow, the aricle I hold in my Hand, specifically uses words as PROTO-Dravidian and Old Tamil differently.

See my comment above - you seem to have misunderstood what I was saying.

Aravindan's reply on "MONOgenes" was puzzling, and his attitude is more so.

I am not going to be drawn into a debate on Christianity here, as I really fail to see its relevance to this discussion. If you would like to begin a new thread to discuss issues you have with the bible and its translations into English and Tamil, feel free to do so.

I also wonder if you are seeking to attack Christian doctrine because you think I am Christian. I am, in point of fact, Hindu.

[solomon]

1. fish meen fish 2. star The word meendesignates both fish and star in most Dravidian languages. Suggests the heavenly bodies were conceived of as fish swimming in the ocean of heaven, representing gods.
Intermediate space + fish vel (i) + meen white star Vel-meen and Velli both mean Venus in Tamil.
3 + fish mum (m) + meen three stars The new year asterism Pleiades has this name in Tamil; in myth the wives of the Seven Sages.
6 + FISH (*C) ARU + MEEN SEVEN STARS IN TAMIL, THE NAME OF URSA MAJOR, THE 'SEVEN SAGES' IN INDIA.
FISH ELU + MEEN SEVEN STARS IN TAMIL, THE NAME OF URSA MAJOR, THE 'SEVEN SAGES' IN INDIA.
DOT/DROP + FISH POTTU + MEEN 1. CARP FISH (= ROHITA 'RED' IN SANSKRIT)
2. STAR OR RED DOT/BLOOD DROP (= ROHINI 'RED' in Sanskrit) The red dot painted on the forehead at marriage = the 'third' eye of the Heavenly Bull < alpha Tauri = the ancient star of the new year (marriage of Sun + the heavenly bride rohini, 'menstruating'), represented by the red fish (scales as tilaka mark).
halving + fish pacu + meen green star in Tamil, paccai refers to greeness and the planet Mercury, which represents the green-hued child god Krishna.
roof + fish mey/may + meen black star Saturn's name in Tamil. Saturn rides a turtle, a 'fish' with a 'roof'.
fig tree + fish vata + meen North Star Vata-min is the star 'Alcor,' orig. probably Thuban. 'Banyan fig' is the tree of 'ropes' (vata): starts do not fall because they are fixed to the North Star (in Dravidian also 'fig/rope star) by means of visible ropes.
fig tree + intermediate space vata + vel(i) North Star In Tamil, velli means both (1) 'the planet Venus) and (2) 'star (=meen)
4 + fig tree nal + vata hanging rope Banyan as '(the tree) possessed of hanging ropes': nal/nal/al 'to hang down' seems to be th etymology for al (a-maram) ' banyan tree'. Indus tablets with '4 + fig' have a solitary fig leaf on the reverse.
man al/an man, servant The sign occurs in priestly titles paralleling Mesopotamian titles 'Man/Servant (ofthe god X)'; the most common Dravidian word for man also means servant.
ring(s)/ bangle(s) muruku boy, youth, Muruku (the youthful god of love and war) The sign signifies 'royal ear-rings' in [Tibetan] Lamaism. The sign recurs, sometimes alone, on Indus stone bangles; Indus tree-gods wear bangles; in later folk religion, bangles are offered to sacred trees with prayers for off spring (cf. muruku ' boy').
(head of) cow a (+-tu) possessive suffix The interpretation of this important sign remains open; this is just a suggestion that needs testing.
Jar Priest The most frequent and almost always terminal sign of the Indus script is read as a jar and connected to the legend of 'jar-born' sages and the symbolism of the jar connected to priestly ritual in Indian tradition.
Lance Warrior Also a terminal sign, pr suffix associated with names or titles on seals like the 'jar' sign above.
Man Servant, attendant or lower functionary Simple pictogram, frequently shown with ' jar' (lower order of priestly functionary?) but never with ' lance' sign.
Bearer Officer or functionary Also appears to be a suffixed element, interpreted as officer because of later Indian traditions referring to senior officers of the king referred to as 'yoke bearers.'
Jar + Bearer Officer or functionary with priestly duties Clearly combination of two signs, could be related to later Indian traditions combining the two motifs.
Lance + Bearer Officer or functionary with military duties Also combination, perhaps designating officer with military duties.
Harrow Farmer, tiller, tenant Also characteristically a terminal sign, sometimes in conjunction with ' jar,' ' lance,' or ' bearer' signs, suggesting combination of categories or serving under them.



I give this from a Website, what and how Parabola tried to Decipher, and we
Can see and most cases Scholars have been Highly Speculative, and in spite of
This the result is Parabola and Mahadevan agree that Indus Scripts are not Deciphered. If this is done by any Scholar to make it Sanskrit, I am certainly sure that Whole of this Tamil Scholars- as highly un-acceptable, and also that quite a few cases referred above, takes Vedic Tradition to their assumptions.

Actually it was in early 50s Heras, said Fish could mean Star, and from then on
Another 50 years have gone, end result is NOTHING. Now any serious reader can understand that Taking Symbol Jar- as a Priest for BCE 2,500 Symbols is by applying Vedic Temple Worship culture, and many such can be read.

When One Bronze small Toy was found of a Naked-Girl, Parabola goes on to link Vedic Apsaras- to Chola Period’s DevarAdiyarkal and says Presence of Holy Prostitures in Indus. Just One Statute- need not necessarily be Dancer, and linking Vedas and 3000 year later, culture of Temple worship as calling Holy Prostitution are Upsurd. Here we need to understand that Bible lands had Male and Female Prostitutes in Jewish Temple and nearby, and this has influenced Parabola’s mind.

PAROBOLA has tried to read Rings- more aptly Bangles as Murugu, referring as God Muruga, by saying Bangles fully Twisted means Murukkuthal, but None of this Bangles have any Twisting, at best can be Valaiyal and not Imaginative Murugu,
This Scolars have made out of the way imagination, to try to read, but unless a solution to read all Seals acceptable is found, without exaggerated assumptions None of this would be acceptable to Objective Scholars of World.

11,303 Indus Seals have been Published, containing 419 type of Pictrial Symbols, as given earlier Assumptive and Speculative reading, same Picture is read with One word if comes first and another word if picture comes in middle or end of word. Again, of 419, Identified 113 has been used only once and 47 Twice, 59 less than 5 times.

Leaving Mainly 200 Pictorial Symbols, Out of this Again 35 Pictures look similar to ProtoElamite Seals found in Sout East Persia.

This is the detail, and wide Speculative assumptions, fanciful but not really Scientific have not yielded any Meaningful and acceptable Deciphering, and EVEN This attempt is using MIX of Vedic along with 3000 year later culture.
The OPEN Challenge referred is That Indus Seals are not Decipered, Don’t even give me for entire 11,303 seals, but for one of the Longest 26 Picture seal, as a sample, but Aravindan tries to make it otherway.

Iravatam Mahadevan’s interview-Link given- agrees of “ Unless we get Two-Language Pictorial seals, with known language and repeat in Indus, something like Pallavas writing in Sanskrit and Tamil, Indus Seals Deciphering may not get any Progress.

World Decipers of Old letters have concluded that all attempts of various Scholars have not yielded any worthy result. It is better, anymore to call Indus Pictorials as ProtoDravidian etc., in this Thread.

MosesSolomon.

[mahadevan]

The very topic of this forum sounds ludicrous. In terms of antiquity, it is a well known fact that sanskrit never existed in Indian history before the Birth of christ. The vedas are in vedic and the name sanskrit never appears even once in any of our vedas, Mr.Panini did a magnum opus of a grammatical work for Chandasa, now please do not tell me that Chandasa/vedic were the same as sanskrit . No great grammerian would produce a treatise for a language without naming the language even once. There is no archeological evidence for the existance of sanskrit before 150 AD, yeap that is the oldest sanskrit inscription knowm to us
'Saka Mahakshatrapa Rudradaman at Junagarh in Gujarat date'. We have inscription in prakrit that dates around 1000 BC (Braj Bhasa in Dvaraka) the recent adichinallur inscriptions in Tamil are supposed to be around that time. It is pretty well known scientifically that tamil did exist much Before Christ and sanskrit did not, so a more apt title for this forum would have been 'how old is tamil' for that is only unknown.
curiosity questions, If vedas are the religious text for hindus, how come inspite of millions of temples in India there are hardly any for the vedic gods like indra, bla bla et al ? If vedas are sacred why are we not chopping off the cows in the yagas as advocated in Rig veda?

[aravindhan]

I give this from a Website, what and how Parabola tried to Decipher

His name is "Parpola", not "Parabola". And don't rely on websites, they rarely present good summaries of anything, particularly a topic as complicated as deciphering a script. I really don't think it is scientific to reject something you haven't read, as you're doing.

and we Can see and most cases Scholars have been Highly Speculative, and in spite of This the result is Parabola and Mahadevan agree that Indus Scripts are not Deciphered.

As far as "Highly Speculative" is concerned, Parpola more or less follows standard methodology in going about his decipherment. It's no more speculative than attempts to decipher Liner A, for instance.

I also notice you spend a lot of time refuting the suggested decipherment of the bangle-symbol. Parpola himself does not even suggest that "muruku" is a decipherment of the symbol, just that it may be a starting point. This is clear even on the website you quote. Attacking points which the author does not press strongly is not very ingenous.

Now any serious reader can understand that Taking Symbol Jar- as a Priest for BCE 2,500 Symbols is by applying Vedic Temple Worship culture, and many such can be read.

There is no "temple worship" culture in the vedic samhitas, it is much more of a homa-based culture. But please let this thread not digress into a discussion of "vedic" culture vs. "tamil" culture. Those almost always end up in an angry debate about which was better, which I do not like and do not want to participate in.

The OPEN Challenge referred is That Indus Seals are not Decipered, Don’t even give me for entire 11,303 seals, but for one of the Longest 26 Picture seal, as a sample, but Aravindan tries to make it otherway.

I quote the exact words of the challenge from Steve Farmer's website:

"Turn up just one Indus inscription that contains at least 50 symbols distributed in the random-appearing ways typical of true scripts contemporary to the Indus system, and we will (1) declare our model to be falsified and (2) will write a check to the discoverer or discoverers for $10,000."

http://www.safarmer.com/indus/prize.html

As anyone can see, the challenge is to find a long inscription, not to decipher anything.

[Anchaneya]

Friends,

It is really interesting that MosesSolomon and Aravindan quotes of wide subjects and discuss them with ease.

Aravindan confirming that Kalah is used in Atharvana Veda, and that the word Kalagham is not used in Sangam Lit. cionfirms Solomon's View point is correct. Arguements for arguement sake does not help.

Tamil Sangam Lit, has translation for every name of Vedas- Chandas, Sruthi etc., when we don't even have One for Bible or Quran.

Panini's dating of early 5th Cen- late 6th Cen, is internationally accepted conclusion. Only that meaningless Political Scholars speculate.

Tholkappiyam and Tirukural having been said to have been written by more than One Authors, with interpolations, is the view of many Scholars, we should ignore all this.

The Tamil word for Grammer - Ilakkanam, is from Sanskrit Lakshana and Splitting words, Pakuthi and Vikuthi are from Sanskrit Prakurthi and Vikurthi.

Political Statements here in Liguistic Discussion does not help.

The very names of Tamil Top Politicians incidentally- Karunai, Nithi, Jayam and Lalitham are all Sanskrit.

Ancheneya

[aravindhan]

Aravindan confirming that Kalah is used in Atharvana Veda, and that the word Kalagham is not used in Sangam Lit. cionfirms Solomon's View point is correct.

No, it doesn't. "Kalah" is not found in the Atharvaveda, "glahana" is. "Kalah" does not exist in Sanskrit.

Panini's dating of early 5th Cen- late 6th Cen, is internationally accepted conclusion. Only that meaningless Political Scholars speculate.

No, it isn't. George Cardona, who is considered one of the leading experts in Panini studies, dates Panini to between 300 and 350 BC. Others suggest even later dates.

[mahadevan]

Solomon Wrote : If this is done by any Scholar to make it Sanskrit, I am certainly sure that Whole of this Tamil Scholars- as highly un-acceptable, and also that quite a few cases referred above, takes Vedic Tradition to their assumptions.

Solomon anna, there has been a lot of efforts to link indus symbols to sanskrit, but fortuntanely not even the slightest resemblence was found.

people tried to link the indus scripts to the then exisiting languages and among those attempts the dravidian link is the most probable. We are higly limited by the length of the available scripts. Infact the biggest evidence that it is not sanskrit comes from Rig veda, where it clearly talks about the war and destruction caused by the aryans to the dark skinned people living in walled cities who did not talk the language of aryans, 'sanskrit'.