Is tamil derived from Sanskrit [Archive] - Page 2

View Full Version : Is tamil derived from Sanskrit

Pages : 1 [2]

thamizhvaanan

10th May 2006, 06:10 PM

Devapriya,

Saraswathi mahal's manuscripts are not the only definitive evidences of tamil script. Most of those manuscripts are "urai"'s of ancient tamil literature, and clearly they are'nt the first written versions of the literature.

Usage of olai chuvadi, seems to be common during sangam era. And talks of books lost during aazhi, implies that written transcripts existed. Even if one argues that aazhi is fictional or passed on through folklore, the fact that many more texts existed cannot be contended.

Even in urai's of sangam literature, verses from other books are quoted here and there. Most of the tholkappiayam's verses suggests that the work is not the first grammar text, but rather restating old known rules. All these shows that Tamil had a written script even during sangam era, and it infact predates sanskrit's written script (I remember reading somewhere that sanskrit's first written script is no older than 300 A.D and it is an inscription).

There are several other points in ur post to contend, but only if time and my laziness permits :D.

Sudhaama

10th May 2006, 09:00 PM

oh nice point, i wasnt contemplating on that though! I assume u made a mistake in saying Tamil didn have a dialect, I assume u meant script there. That was my point.

U did mention that sanskrit was christend as such because it was a refinement of an earlier language. A somewat similar reasoning was made to naming of tamil by pavanar. He said, Tamils didn bother to have a name for their language in the beginning, bcoz they werent aware of the existence of any other language. But as they came into contact with outsiders, they felt the necessity for a name, and named their country Tham + Il - thamil. the name of the country was later shared by the language and people also. This was his pt. of view on the origin of the name "Tamil".

Anyway, which of these works came first? panini's grammar text or tholkappiyam? I heard both are similar in their structure!

...Name of TAMIL.

The argument on the Sense of the Word Tamil...as Tham+Il.. is QUITE FUNNY...

...and UNCONVINCING to any Logical perception or Wisdom... whoever mught have meant or said so.

Tham+ Il = Ones Own House... may be relevant to a HOUSE OR A PLACE OR COUNTRY OF RESIDENCE..

How can it be attributed to a Language?... which has NO RELATION with .."IL"...!

On this factor.. it was put forth by a Scholar in one of the Tamil- Conferences as below.

Original Name of Tamil was... "AMIZHDHU"... meaning SWEET....

...which in course of time got the Spoken-form as THAMIZH...

While we repeatedly say fast Amizhdhu, Amizhdhu, Amizhdhu... it sounds as ...THAMIZH..

Similar to the case of repeated chanting ... MARA MARA MARA.... becomes... RAMA, RAMA, RAMA.,

This pure Tamil word THAMIZH ..OR... AMIZHDU... is far different from the Sanskrit word... AMRITHA...meaning NECTAR.

MRITHA = Death, Destroyal, End.... AMRITHA means the opposite sense.

It is said that the Nectar was SWEET in taste. So, for all the Sweet substances, people started calling that... as sweet as Amritha.

But by meaning of the Sanskrit word... Amritha has no logical grammar to mean as Sweet.

Whereas the Tamil Word...THAMIZH... has no relation with NECTAR... by its sense as Amritha..
.
Such justifications were accepted by the Linguistic-Experts assembly overall.

So Tamil / THAMIZH.... is... AMIZHDHU... Sweet to Speak and Hear.

FloraiPuyal

10th May 2006, 10:15 PM

Tamil is an artificial language created by Max Mueller in 1947 AD and taught to the savage people in tamiz nadu. :(

Sanskrit was created by god. Once god created sanskrit, he/she wanted to create some people to speak it. This in turn lead to creation of earth, so that those people can stay. :lol:

Solomon/Devapriya/etc. etc. has all proofs for these. These proofs will soon be released once all experts accept their failure. :twisted:

காணாமல் வேணதெல்லாம் கத்தலாம்.

thamizhvaanan

10th May 2006, 10:37 PM

arul_satish

11th May 2006, 12:06 PM

This is an article by some renowned historians. This is especially for those who claim Sanskrit is 5000 old or Tamil was derived from Sanskrit or Indus is Aryan.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Different views are expressed in the world of research on Indus Valley Civilization. Some say it is of the Aryans while others opine that it is of the Dravidians.

On the basis of the four Vedas, the theory that the Indus Valley Civilization is of the Aryans was built up. Hence, the analysation of the Vedas throws much light on this line.

If Indus Valley Civilzation is of the Aryans, mother goddess worship that plays an important role in the Indus Valley Civilization should be described in the Vedas. But in the Vedas only minor female deities are mentioned. The Indus Valley deities normally have horns, whereas the deities of the Vedas are not portrayed with horns.1 Sivalinkas which are found in the Indus Valley Civilization is later on degraded in the Vedas.

The Vedas describe the wheels of the Chariots with spokes, but the wheels that are seen on the seals and vehicles of clay in Indus valley do not have wheels with spokes.2

Following analysation of Sir John Marshall on the Indus Valley Civilization here are given some clues.

1. "The picture of Indo-Aryan society portrayed in the Vedas is that of a partly pastoral, partly agricultural people, who have not yet emerged from the village state, who have no knowledge of life in cities or of the complex economic organization which such life implies, and whose houses are nondescript affairs constructed largely of bamboo.

At Mohenjo-daro and Harappa, on the other hand, we have densely populated cities with solid, commodious houses of brick equipped with a adequate sanitation, bathrooms, wells, and other amenities.

2. The metals which the Indo-Aryans used in the time of the Rigveda are gold and copper or bronze; but a little late, in the time of the Yajurveda and Atharvaveda, these metals are supplemented by silver and iron.

Among the Indus people silver is commoner than gold, and utensils and vessels are sometimes made of stone - a relic of the Neolithic Age - as well as of copper and bronze. Of iron there is no vestige.

3. For offensive weapons the Vedic-Aryans have the bow and arrow, spear, dagger, and axe, and for defensive armour the helmet and coat of mail.

The Indus people also have the bow and arrow, spear, dagger and axe, but, like the Mesopotamians and Egyptians, they have the mace as well, sometimes of stone, sometimes of metal; while on the other hand, defensive armour is quite unknown to them - a fact which must have told against them in any contest with mailed and helmeted foes.

4. The Vedic-Aryans are a nation of meat-eaters, who appear to have had a general aversion to fish, since ther is no direct mention of fishing in the Vedas.

With the Indus people fish is a common article of diet, and so, too, are molluscs, turtles, and other aquatic creatures.

5. In the lives of the Vedic-Aryans the horse plays an important part, as it did in the lives of many nations from the northern grasslands.

To the people of Mohenjo-daro and Harappa the horse seems to have been unknown

6. By the Vedic Aryans the cow is prized above all other animals and regarded with special veneration.

Among the Indus people the cow is of no particular account, its place with them being taken by the bull, the popularity of whose cult is attested by the numerous figurines and other representations of this animal.

7. Of the tiger there is no mention in theVedas, and of the elephant but little.

Both these animals are familiar to the Indus people.

8. In the Vedic pantheon the female element is almost wholly subordinate to the male.......

Among the Indus cults...........the female elements appear to be co-equal with, if not to predominate over the male.

As times goes on, doubtless many other salient points of difference will be revealed, but for the moment the above will suffice to demonstrate how wide is the gulf between the Indus and Vedic Civilizations. Now it may, perhaps, be argued that the difference between them is a difference of time only; that the Vedic civilization was either the progenitor or the lineal descendant of the Indus civilization........ Let us assume, in the first place, that the Vedic civilization preceded an led up to the Indus civilization. On this hypothesis the progress from the village to the city state and from the nondescript houses of the Vedic period to the massive brick architecture of Mohenjo-daro and Harappa would find a logical explanation, though we should have to postulate a long interval of time in order to account for the evolution. But what about other cultural features?

If the Vedic culture antedated the Indus, how comes it that iron and defensive armour and the horse, which are characteristic of the former, are unknown to the latter? Or how comes it that the bull replaces the cow as an object of worship in the Indus period, only to be displaced agains by the cow in succeeding ages? Or, again, how comes it that the Indus culture betrays so many survivals of the Neolitihic Age - in the shape of stone implements and vessels - if the coper or bronze and iron culture of the Indo-Aryans intervened between the two? Clearly these considerations put out of court any solution of the problem which postulates an earlier date for the Vedic than for the Indus Civilization. But if it was not earlier, are there any grounds for supposing that it was evolved out of the latter? In other words, could the Indo-Aryans have been the authors of the Indus as well as of the Vedic Civilization?

Here, again, we are faced with a like dilemma. For, though on this assumption we could account for such phenomena as the introduction of iron, of the horse, and of body armour, all of which might have signalized merely a later phase of the same culture, we are wholly at a loss to explain how the Indo-Aryans came to relapse from the city to the village state, or how, having once evolved excellent houses of brick, they afterwards conteneted themselves with inferior sturctures of bamboo; or how, having once worshipped the linga and the Mother Goddess, they ceased to do so in the Vedic Period, but returned to their worship later; or how, having once occupied Sind, they subsequently lost all memory of that country of the Lower Indus".3

Opinions of Asco Parpolo regarding Indus civilization and the review of Mahadevan on Asco Parpolo's view are given as follows.

The Survival of Brahui; a Dravidian language, spoken even today by large numbers of people in Baluchistan and the adjoining areas in Afghanistan and Iran, is an important factor in the identification of the Indus Civilization as Dravidian. Brahui belongs linguistically to the North Dravidian group with several shared innovations with Kurukh and Malto; no dialectal features connect it with the South or Central Dravidian languages. Hence Parpola cocludes that Brahui represents the remnants of the Dravidian language spoken in the area by the descendants of the Harappan population.4

Survival of place-names is generally a good indicator of the linguistic pre-history of a region. Parpola points out several place-names in the north western region like nagara. Palli, Pattana and Kotta with good Dravidian etymologies.5

Parpolo also points out that syntactical analysis of the Indus inscriptions has revealed Dravidian like typological characteristics, especially the attribute preceding the headword.6

It has often been pointed out that the complete absence of the horse among the animals so prominently featured on the Indus seals is good evidence for the non-Aryan character of the Indus Civilization.7

Recently an article titled 'Looking beyond Indus Valley' published in 'The Week' magazine dated July 26, 1998 was written on the basis of the Vedas and trying to prove that it was of the Aryan civilization.

The Vedas, which were nomadic worsip songs were compiled, classified and written in sanskrit as the four Vedas only in the post-Christian era by Veda Vyasa, a Dravidian. History of epigraphy reveals that Sanskrit was not prevalent in the pre-Christian era. Since the Vedas were written by a Dravidian, non-Aryan elements and ideologies occur in the Vedas.

The following statement of Parpolo on the Vedas is to be keenly observed.

"......some Dravidian loan words can be recognized in the Rgveda.......

The number of Dravidian loan words increases dramatically in post-Rgvedic literature. The Rgveda is assumed to contain not only Dravidian loan words but also phonological and syntactic Dravidisms, in particular the development of

1) retroflex phonemes
2) the gerund and
3) the quotative and
4) onomatopoeic constructions,

all of which are absent from the closely related Iranian branch of the Aryan languages.......

We must bear in mind that the Rgveda was largely composed in the plains of the Punjab relatively late and redacted even later. The language as well as the contents of the Yajur Veda reflects an entirely different tradition, which probably evolved in the Punjab and was incorporated in the Veda only during the acculturation that may be assumed to have taken place after the descent of the Rgvedic tradition from the Swat Valley.8

The response given by Dr. Alexander Harris on the above article titled 'Looking beyond Indus Valley' was published in the same (week) magazine under the title 'Holes in Vedic Valley theory' and it is given as follows.

The focus and motive of the article 'Looking beyond Indus valley' (July 26) seem to be to elevate the Vedas and the people associated with them rather than to edify and bring to light the truth of our past. Archaeologist Ravindra Singh Bisht, described as a Sanskrit scholar calls the Rig Veda "the world's oldest literary record". If what he says is true then how is it that the first epigraphic evidence of Sanskrit occurs only in AD150?

The earliest epigraphic evidence on languages employed in India comes from the inscriptions of Ashka inscribed in third century BC. Asoka took care that his messages were intelligible to all and he used a particular kind of Prakrit. Even more remarkable is the fact, which has been recently discovered, that for those people who at the time lived in Afghanistan his message was given in Greek as well as Aramaic. One of the Greek inscriptions is a translation of the Kalinga Edict, and the Greek of the inscriptions is not inferior in style to classical Greek. In such circumstances neglect of Sanskrit by Asoka, if the language were in use, would be contrary to all his practice. So, the absence of Sanskrit in his inscriptions indicates that it did not exist at that time.

An inscription dating around AD 150 in the Brahmi script attests to the first evidence of classical Sanskrit. It records the repair of a dam originally built by chandragupta Maurya and contains a panegyric in verse, which can be regarded as the first literary composition in classical Sanskrit. It is at Girnar in Kathiawar and was inscribed by Rudradamana, the Saka satrap of Ujjaini, on the same rock on which the Fourteen Rock Edicts of Asoka were also found. It is significant that Rudradamana employed classical Sanskrit in a region where about 400 years before him Asoka had used only Prakrit. This definitely proves that in the second century AD Sanskrit was replacing the dialects. Even so the language did not replace Prakrit anywhere, but it continued to be used in inscriptions for another hundred years or even more. However, from the fifth century AD classical Sanskrit is seen to be the dominant language in the inscriptions.

From the bibliographical evidences we find that the Vedas were written rather late and, thus, the entire correlation in the article lacks credibility. Also, as renowned historian A.L. Basham puts it. "The Harappan religion seem to show many similarities with those elements of Hidnuism which are specially popular in the Dravidian country". He further states, "Some Indian historians have tried to prove that they were the Aryans, the people who composed the Rig Veda, but this is quite impossible."9

Hence, the historical analysation on Indus Valley Civilization implies the historical fact that it is of the Dravidians and this truth is hidden through the ages.

Mr. I. Mahadevan, Indian Express, Madras-5, August 1994.
Ibid.
Sir John Marshall, Mohenjo-daro and the Indus Civilization, Vol.I, Indological Book House, 1973, Pp.109-112.
Dr.Alexander Harris, 'Holes in Vedic Valley Theory', The Week, August 9, 1998
Mr. I. Mahadevan, ‘Review - An Encyclopaedia of the Indus Script’ by Asco Parpola, International Journal of Dravidian linguistics, Vol.xxvi number1, January 1997, P.110

Ibid.

Ibid.

Ibid., P.109.

Asko Parpolo, Deciphering the Indus Scripts, Cambridge University Press, F.P.1994, Pp.168,169.

thamizhvaanan

11th May 2006, 12:20 PM

nice post :clap: :clap:

arul_satish

11th May 2006, 03:34 PM

Tolkappiyam according to T.R. Shesha Iyengar in his work Dravidian India, 1925

Tolkappiyam
The Tolkappiyam takes up a substantial part of Iyengar's work. For instance, he notes, "As for the third period, commonly known as the Augustan Period in Tamil literature, otherwise called the epoch of the Third Sangam, its historicity has gained the almost unanimous assent of scholars." (Iyengar 1925, p.153) Furthermore,
"Nachchinarkiniyar, the celebrated commentator of the Tolkappiyam, holds that it {p.155} was composed, before even Vedavyasa, who lived probably between 1500 and 1000 BC, arranged the Vedas into Rig, Yajur, Saman, and Atharvana [ftn. vide Pandit Savariroyan's article, p.42 S. Dipika Vol.III ]. This view is also shared by Pandit A. Mootootambi Pillai, [ftn. vide History of Tenmoli ] who however considers the 5th Millenium BC as the probably age of this ancient grammar. Pandit R.S.Vedachalam in his work entitled Ancient Tamilian and Aryan regards 1250 BC as the probably date of the Tolkappiyam, and he believes that it might be given even a higher antiquity, and placed about 2400 BC." (Iyengar 1925, p.154-155)
Now,
"The Tolkappiyam, according to tradition, is a work of the Second Madura Academy. Scholars are now almost agreed, that the Third Madura Academy flourished during the early centuries of th Christian era. Therefore, the Tolkappiyam, a Second Sangam work, should have been composed before the commencement of the Christian era. The late lamented Kanakasabhai {p.157} Pillai lends his weighty support to the view that it is a work of th first or second century BC." (Iyengar 1925, p.156)
Moreover, "The fact that fewer Sanskrit words are to be found in the Tolkappiyam than even in the so-called Third Sangam works is another circumstance which testifies to its great antiquity." (Iyengar 1925, p.167) Now, "The pastoral tribes worshipped Vishnu; the hill tribes worshipped the god Muruga; the fishing tribes worshipped the god Varuna; the agricultural tribes worshipped the god Indra, while the nomads worshiped the goddess Kali." (Iyengar 1925, p.177)
The existence of caste is further attested: "Besides, the Tolkappiyam refers to four professional castes such as Arasar (Kshatriyas or Rulers), Anthanar or Parpar (Brahmans), Vanikar (Merchants), and Vellalar (Agriculturists)." (Iyengar 1925, p.178) Now,

"The distinction of the four castes Brahma, Kshatriya, Vaisya, and Sudra observed by the Aryas did not exist among the Tamils. The expression `twice-born', applied by the Aryans to those who were sanctified by the investiture of the sacred thread, was always used in ancient Tamil literature to denote only the Brahmans, and it is evident therefore that the Kshatriya and the Vaisya, who wore the sacred thread, were not known in Tamilakam." (Iyengar 1925, p.193)

arul_satish

11th May 2006, 03:46 PM

Shiva according to T.R. Sesha Iyengar in his work Dravidian India, 1925

Dravidian Shiva
The now well-accepted Dravidian origin of Shiva has been further elucidated by Iyengar:
"Ragozin [ftn. Vedic India, p.328 ] holds that the worship of Siva was originally Dravidian. Fergusson in his Tree and Serpent worship maintains that Saivism is certainly a local, not an Aryan, form of faith, and belongs rather to the South than to the North of India. Dr. Stevenson holds that Siva was the Tamilian God, and was worshipped in two forms, one as a spiritual object of meditation, and the other as a material symbol or linga to represent the invisible to the visible eyes. Adoring God with flower and incense was an ancient practice prevalent among the Tamils. (Iyengar 1925, p.99)
Further,
"Agastya is said to have learnt Tamil, the language of the South, from Siva. From this it may be inferred that Siva was a Dravidian deity. [ftn. The Dravidian Element in Indian Culture,' by Dr. Glibert Slater, see p.108 ] Dr. Gilbert Slater {p.101} says that the fact that the Rig Veda refers to phallic worship with disapproval, seems to point to the establishment of the worship of Siva among the Dravidians before the Vedic period. To the Tamil every hill-top is sacred to the gods. Siva, the lord of the Dravidians, was Malai-Arasan (Mountain Chief) according to Dr. Oppert. Siva came to be known in later times as Dakshinamurthy, ie the God of the South." (Iyengar 1925, p.100-101)
Now, "Siva is said to have been one of the members of the First Madura Academy." (Iyengar 1925, p.101) Moreover,
"Regarding the conception of Siva and its growth from Vedic times among the Aryan peoples, scholars tell us that Rudra was nowhere called Siva in the Rigveda, and that he merely represented the storm god, with his thunder, lightning, and the rains, rushing down under the snow-capped hills. (Iyengar 1925, p.104)
Another important evidence is noted: "Dr. Stevenson [2.Siddhanta Dipika, Vol.IV, p.108 ] was the first to point out that Siva is not named at all in the ancient hymns of the Vedas." (Iyengar 1925, p.105)

Chappani

12th May 2006, 01:48 PM

Thanks for the informative posts Arul..

Dear Sudhama,

The reasoning as explained by TamilVaanan sounds logical, the derivative of the name Tamil from word Amizdu eventhough sounds great seems like a name given from an outsider. You should be knowing the word Telugu is derived from Tenugu which in turn from Trilinga Desa, which litrelly means the land composed of three-Shiva temples.
Your way of finding the root to Language names might suit the modern computer Languages like Java, COBOL etc not for the ancient languages.

devapriya

21st May 2006, 01:51 PM

[tscii:069e064ae2]Friends,

I really welcome ARul Sathish and thamizhvaanan, if anybody can look at, quotes books of 1925, We have quiet of Developments which has helped to look things much more Objectively.
As for as NachinarKiniyar’s Comment – Tholkappiyam written before Vedas were compiled and there was earlier Tamil Vedas called îˆîKò‹, ªð÷®è‹, îôõè£ó‹, ú£ñ‹ (Thaithriayam, Bowtikam, Thalavakaram and Saamam).

Now Scholars such as Pavanar have analysed what are these- Thaithriayam, Bowtikam, Thalavakaram and Saamam- and the Clear Conclusion is that They are parts of Rig Group of Vedas, and NachinarKiniyar’s Comment was made to show Tholkappiyar as Older, on a biased note.

Now on Tholkappiyam’s dating. Paavnar first dated to 2000BCE and later brought down to 650 BCE. Much Widely Accepted Scholars such as L.Rasamanickanar and Tho.Po.Mi. said older of Sangam Collecctions and datings were around 200-300BCE.
Presently we have much Objective Research and Various Datas to conclude.

As per SAngam Literature, at the Oldest of times- Korkai was ruled by Ahuthai trube (Puram 347) and a Smaller King Nediyon captured them as per Aham-296. Puthap Pandian whose Wife Committed Sathi(Puram 147), and his son was Nediyon. As per Aham 116 this Nediyon was called “Nilantharu Thiruvin Nediyon”.

Over the Next 150 years Pandiyas developed these region and named it as Madurai.
Tamilnad had many rulers, mainly with 4 Large Kingdoms- Chera, Chola,Pandia and Athiyaman. The Athiaman’s lost their Kingdoms and were smaller kings later from end of Ist Cen.BCE, only from then on referring of MuVenthar starts and Tholkaapiyar says that once.

Ezuththaikaram of Thol- has been analysed and Brahmi Inscriptions has been analysed in Depth, by Iravatham Mahadevan, Natana Kasinathan, R.Nagasamy and other Decipherers whose name those deciphering goes.
Brahmi has 3 stages
1. Late 3rd Cen. – 100 BCE, BT brahmi Tamil Inscriptions with Pragrithic Endings and more of Pragrithic words.
2. 100 BCE To around 100CE, BT with less of Prakrit words and still Pragrithic endings.
3. 100CE to 300CE, BT-Pulli, Use of Dots have come to differentiate letters and more of Tamil words.
Tholkppiyam Ezuththathikaram rules match with this BT-Pulli
So 50-100CE, must be the earliest of the dating for Tholkappiyam.

As for as God name Shiva- we do not have Once Even in Sangam to Silapathikaram and Manimekhalai. And most of the time Sangam refers to Shiva- it is always as Veda Giver. As for as books you referred were written when Indus Saraswathi river Civilisation remains were just been found and Misinterpreted as proofs of Aryan attacks on Dravidians are proved and today no Scholar of any Repute agree those.
To say Saraswathi valley proves Dravidian is far fetched and no basis as it stands today. I give a latest Opinion.
In his recent edition of Survey of Hinduism (Sunny, State University of New York Press 1994), Professor Klaus Klostermaier has noted important objections to theAryan Coming theory. He suggests that the weight of evidence is against it and that it should no longer be regarded as the main model of interpreting ancient India.
He states (pg.34): "Both the spatial and the temporal extent of the Indus civilization has expanded dramatically on the basis of new excavations and the dating of the Vedic age as well as the theory of an Aryan invasion of India has been shaken. We are required to completely reconsider not only certain aspects of Vedic India, but the entire relationship between Indus civilization and Vedic culture." Later he adds (pg.3: "The certainty seems to be growing that the Indus civilization was carried by the Vedic Indians, who were not invaders from Southern Russia but indigenous for an unknown period of time in the lower Central Himalayan regions."

The roots of the Words- Shiva are Purely Sanskrit Origin is accepted by Cambridge University Scholars, and the name appears in Rig and Samhitas and some of this has been given in Saiva Thread in History Section. SivaLinga worship is never seen in any of Tamil Lit. of Sangam to Manimekhalai. Using Stones for building only started from Pallavas in 6th or 7th Centuries, as Tamil has aversion to Stone which is used to refer Dead man by NAdukal. Nadukal Worship has nothing to do with Linga Worship. Where as we see Stone buildings from Asoka days itself in North.

Linguistics, is a very Broad Science, and All Grammar Rules must be checked. Tholkappiyam says – “Ya” Will come only as “yaa” and for sa- sai.sow and sa cannot be start of words and Tiruvalluvar has followed this to major extant.
After Burrows in his Lexicon classified many words as Dravidian, more than 5000 words, in later research from other side was proved that they are Indo-European.

And all without going through these Grammar and saying this is root and that is root – Hence Tamil are waste of time and effort.

I love my Mother Tongue Tamil as every One of you and read Older Literature, in more research view.
From Bishop Caldwell to Burrows Liguistic Proofs are clear that Dravidians are Outsiders of India and Marched to India who came in around 3000BCE or later.
As for as Aryans the dating of arrival is now put in from 7000- 2000BCE. I DO not
Accept both, India has One tradition that is Indic.

If Wishful Thinking was most of the work of PTS And TRS present day Political Dravidian is a Fraud Politics by motivated persons.

Tholkappiyam and Sangam Literature refers Vedas and uses them.

As for the myths of Tamil Sangam and role of Agasthia does not have support of Historic Researchers, with availability of More and more Datas. And Tholkappiyam Payiram says it is sung in presence of Panddyas, any dating earlier than 100BCE is ruled out for argument purpose itself.

Actually when Tamil was announced as Classical Language, a fraud by making it as Classical of 1000 years back ground. The Mysore Linguistical Society to whom the Classical Language announcement duty was given by earlier NDA Govt, made it as 1500 old, so that No other Indian Language Literature could pass through that. That time Former Vice-Chancellor and Tamil Classical Language Movement Committee chairman announced clearly that for “Many Millenniums both Tamil and Sanskrit has Co-existed and let us not now fight” .

I Request the same, we do not have any Literuature to say that this is Dravidian,and this is Aryan. No Tamil or Sanskrit Or Prakrit even Pali acknowledge visit of Foreign elements as Aryans. These are Missionary motivated for Conversion Business, used by Partial Political Benefits who all wants their Sons ONLY(Varnasrama Dharma) to Occupy their Positions for self Gains.

Please go by UP-To date Datas please.

Devapriya.
[/tscii:069e064ae2]

bis_mala

24th May 2006, 12:33 AM

[tscii:ff68a17205]

// the Clear Conclusion is that They are parts of Rig Group of Vedas, and NachinarKiniyar’s Comment was made to show Tholkappiyar as Older, on a biased note.//

Why should Nachinaarkiniyar be biased? Clearly materials available to him are no longer available to us as many Tamil works of his time are now lost. What personal benefit did he get by saying that Tolkaappiyam was older? What is meant by you by saying "Rig Group of Vedas" ? Where do these terms appear in the Rig Veda: "Thaithriayam, Bowtikam, Thalavakaram and Saamam"? Where did PaavaaNar express this conclusion? It is clear that they were Tamil Vedas. Why would Tamil works refer to Arya Vedas?

//Now on Tholkappiyam’s dating. Paavnar first dated to 2000BCE and later brought down to 650 BCE. Much Widely Accepted Scholars such as L.Rasamanickanar and Tho.Po.Mi. said older of Sangam Collecctions and datings were around 200-300BCE.
Presently we have much Objective Research and Various Datas to conclude.//

On what basis are you saying PaavaaNar revised his Tolkaappiyam dating? Pl give us the citations, name of books, page numbers and dates of publication.
Who is L Raasamaanickanaar? (Is the initial correct?) What fresh evidence do the present day researchers on whom you are relying have before them that the older ones did not have? Why do you say "much objective research"? Why "much objective?"

// his son was Nediyon. As per Aham 116 this Nediyon was called “Nilantharu Thiruvin Nediyon”.//

What is the point that you are making?

// from end of Ist Cen.BCE, only from then on referring of MuVenthar starts and Tholkaapiyar says that once.//

What evidence do you have to say this?

//1. Late 3rd Cen. – 100 BCE, BT brahmi Tamil
So 50-100CE, must be the earliest of the dating for Tholkappiyam.//

No basis for this opinion!!

//As for as God name Shiva- we do not have Once Even in Sangam to Silapathikaram and Manimekhalai. And most of the time Sangam refers to Shiva- it is always as Veda Giver.//

You are contradicting!
Not all Sangam works and those written by individual authors of that period have been found. Many have been lost or destroyed. If a word is not found in Sangam works, it is not a basis for concluding it is not a Tamil word. The root of Sivam is Sivaththal; it is a Tamil word. The Vedics hated Siva and Linga worship.

// As for as books you referred were written when Indus Saraswathi river Civilisation remains were just been found and Misinterpreted as proofs of Aryan attacks on Dravidians are proved and today no Scholar of any Repute agree those.
To say Saraswathi valley proves Dravidian is far fetched and no basis as it stands today. I give a latest Opinion.//

The cited opinions do not necessarily depend on Aryan Invasion Theory. The theory is denied by some historians only because there was no evidence of any invasion in the M& H scenes. The cited opinions stand whether or not there was any invasion anywhere.

// He suggests that the weight of evidence is against it and that it should no longer be regarded as the main model of interpreting ancient India.//

What is the evidence and what weight are you talking about?

// the dating of the Vedic age ........................ of India has been shaken.//

The arya vedas are not as old as they made them out to be. That I agree.

// "The certainty seems to be growing that the Indus civilization was carried by the Vedic Indians, who were not invaders from Southern Russia but indigenous for an unknown period of time in the lower Central Himalayan regions."//

This conflicts with the DNA results now known and your summing is not worth our time. People with Indo-European male lineage blood picture have been found mixed with certain groups of Indian population. See the other threads in history section where this was discussed.

//The roots of the Words- Shiva are Purely Sanskrit Origin is accepted by Cambridge University Scholars, and the name appears in Rig and Samhitas and some of this has been given in Saiva Thread in History Section.//

Replies have also been given ad nauseam. You keep repeating.

// SivaLinga worship is never seen in any of Tamil Lit. of Sangam to Manimekhalai.//

I remember the word "kanthazi". What is it?

//. Where as we see Stone buildings from Asoka days itself in North.//

What buildings and where?

// sa cannot be start of words //

Only sow!! I have answered this before.

//India has One tradition that is Indic.//

Your Wishful Thinking and history revisionism is driven by your own indic ideology.

[/tscii:ff68a17205]

devapriya

26th May 2006, 05:58 PM

Dear Friends,

Bismala tries to run away when proper references given.

Just go through the Web site of NVK Ashraff, who dates Sangam and Tirukural, his collection on Tholkappiyam dating is based on Tho.po.mi, L.Rassaa etc., But the current level of Scholarship is not taken.

Bismala run away from Kural DATING. On Sa word starting I have replied from Kural Proofs, which just have 3 Kurals with Sa.

Why is Sivalingam absent from Sangam and name Shiva is absent.

Stop quoting 50 year old misinterpretations.

Devapriya.

thamizhvaanan

28th May 2006, 09:48 AM

devapriya, just answer the logical queries than bismala has raised!!!

devapriya

29th May 2006, 10:07 AM

[tscii:119dae3322]Dear Friends,
Mala asks
//On what basis are you saying PaavaaNar revised his Tolkaappiyam dating? Pl give us the citations, name of books, page numbers and dates of publication.
Who is L Raasamaanickanaar? (Is the initial correct?) What fresh evidence do the present day researchers on whom you are relying have before them that the older ones did not have? Why do you say "much objective research"? Why "much objective?"//

I am sorry that you want me to repeat after APPROPRIATE REPLIES TO YOUR LIES, given in respective Threads- You repeat them in another thread to show your Position is totally without Proofs. L Raasamaanickanaar- is of same status as Mu.Va and Tho.po.Mi, on those days and Author of many Tamil Historical books.

//Why should Nachinaarkiniyar be biased? Clearly materials available to him are no longer available to us as many Tamil works of his time are now lost. What personal benefit did he get by saying that Tolkaappiyam was older? What is meant by you by saying "Rig Group of Vedas" ? Where do these terms appear in the Rig Veda: "Thaithriayam, Bowtikam, Thalavakaram and Saamam"? Where did PaavaaNar express this conclusion? It is clear that they were Tamil Vedas. Why would Tamil works refer to Arya Vedas?//
You Live in an ARTIFICIAL FALSE ISLAND- There is no such Aryans or Dravidian only Indic- and that Sangam Period Tamil was Proud for:

âÅ¢Ûû À¢Èó§¾¡ý ¿¡Å¢Ûû À¢Èó¾
¿¡ýÁ¨Èì §¸ûÅ¢ ¿Å¢ø ÌÃø ±ÎôÀ
²Á ý ÐÂ¢ø ±Æ¢¾ø «øÄ¨¾,
Å¡Æ¢Â Åïº¢Ôõ §¸¡Æ¢Ôõ §À¡Äì
§¸¡Æ¢Â¢ý ±Æ¡Ð, ±õ §À÷ °÷ ÐÂ¢§Ä. , this is a Song from Paripadal and Paripadal song -3 says Lord Vishnu as
º¡Á §Å¾õ ÜÚ¾Ä¢ý ¦¾Ç¢ó¾ ¦À¡Õû

Every Branch of Vedas are listed and they have been analysed my many who do not believe in it. And when Saamam is Samavedam listed by Nachinarkiniyar in 13th Cen. As an earlier Collection, it is part of Standard Collection of Vedas, as the Sangam Song says, the others are parts of Vedas and Pavanar Collected and verified and confirmed this as follows.

Now on Pavanr dating the name of the book and page verses have been given in the past. For to make it up to date, Dr.Mathivanan- famaous for 3rd rate Forgery of reading the Right-to-Left written Indus Saraswathi Scripts in the Opposite Direction Left-to-Right, in his frist book on this subject (1991) announcing the decipherment, authored jointly by Mathivanan and M. Ramachandran (a retired Chief Engineer of the Indian Railways)dates The Mythological Kumari Kandam Floods to 16000BCE and Tholkappiyam dated to 700-600BCE.

Quote:
// from end of Ist Cen.BCE, only from then on referring of MuVenthar starts and Tholkaapiyar says that once.//

What evidence do you have to say this? – Please Collect all Songs of Sangam and work on it. As per Sangam Collection Pandias are the Aliens who after loosing their LAND in Flood came to Tamilnadu (might be some small Island like Lakshdeep). The Oldest of the Pandiyas was BoothaPandiya, who did not rule from Koodal(Madural).
His own songs say that He was a small ruler, and his son Nediyon got over Koodal, and slowly Consolidated over the Generation. Thalayanang Kanathu Chery Vendra Pandiyan Period is what Panidyas became Powerful, and he can be dated to 1St Cen. BCE. Now look at Asoka Mysore(BCE 240) Scripts- He refers Chora, Keraloputra, Sathiyaputra and Pandya- that is FOUR Rulers are equal. Athiaman tribe lost over the next 150 -200years, and Poetic Tradition of saying Muventar starts some time afer than that i.e., Close to Common Era or say 25BCE.

Quote:
//1. Late 3rd Cen. – 100 BCE, BT brahmi Tamil So 50-100CE, must be the earliest of the dating for Tholkappiyam.//
And further my above points confirm this conclusion.
Quote:
//As for as God name Shiva- we do not have Once Even in Sangam to Silapathikaram and Manimekhalai. And most of the time Sangam refers to Shiva- it is always as Veda Giver.//

//You are contradicting!
Not all Sangam works and those written by individual authors of that period have been found. Many have been lost or destroyed. If a word is not found in Sangam works, it is not a basis for concluding it is not a Tamil word. The root of Sivam is Sivaththal; it is a Tamil word. The Vedics hated Siva and Linga worship.//

It is your Misconception based on False interpretations and I have given you the actual position in Saiva and Arab Threads. So Please do not Bluff based on 3rd rate 80 year old falsehoods.

Quote:
// the dating of the Vedic age ........................ of India has been shaken.//
The arya vedas are not as old as they made them out to be. That I agree.//
AGAIN you stand against SCIENCE. The Entire Root of SARASVATHI River has been Mapped and it dried by 1900 BCE and drying Process started by 2200BCE. Vedas say greatly of Saraswathi. So it can be dated to much earlier than present 2000-600BCE for the complete Collection. Even if a Word appaears in Sangam it need not be Tamil as TholKappiyar clearly says- “Vadasol Kilavi Vadaezuthu Orie” – Use Sanskrit words leaving Sanskrit Letters. And for the Waste Arguments- Vadasol can be Prakrit etc., Prakrits do not have “sha, Ja, Sa, ha” etc., so Tholkappiyar is clear.

The name Shiva – is not based on Red and I have given the roots agreed by International Universities, and how it has been used in RigVeda in other Threads.

Professor HART on Burrowing of Sanskrit words in to TAMIL AS FOLLOWS:
lNeither Sanskrit nor Tamil are particularly old in the world scheme of things. Sanskrit is documented earlier than Tamil.

Sanskrit has borrowed quite as much from Dravidian as Dravidian has from Sanskrit. Tamil has borrowed more words from Sanskrit than Sanskrit has from Dravidian.

Both languages are carriers of wonderful and rich intellectual and literary traditions. The only way to appreciate either language is to read these literatures and spend a lot of time pondering them

Indian Culture and Civilisation is the Oldest and If Foriegners wrote meaninglessly, then the Indian by Birth, but Christian Fathers- and writers did it, and MahaKavi Bharati condemens it in his Short ARTICLE called Á¾¢ôÒ
þó¾¢Â¡¨Å ¦ÅÇ¢ÔÄ¸ò¾¡÷ À¡ÁÃ§¾ºõ ±ýÚ ¿¢¨ÉìÌõÀÊ ¦ºö¾ Ó¾ü ÌüÈõ ¿õÓ¨¼ÂÐ. ÒÈì¸ÕÅ¢¸ û ÀÄ.
Ó¾Ä¡ÅÐ, ¸¢È¢ŠÐÅô À¡¾¢Ã¢. «¦ÁÃ¢ì¸¡Å¢Öõ ³§Ã¡ôÀ¡Å¢Öõ º¢Ä
¸¢È¢ŠÐÅô À¡¾¢Ã¢¸ û, ¾í¸û Á¾ Å¢„ÂÁ¡É À¢Ãº¡Ãò¨¾ ¯ò§¾º¢òÐ ¿õ¨Áì ÌÈ¢òÐô ¦ÀÃ¢Â ¦ÀÃ¢Â ¦À¡ö¸û ¦º¡øÄ¢, þôÀÊð ¾¡úóÐ §À¡ö Á¸ð¾¡É «¿¡¸Ã¢¸ ¿¢¨ÄÂ¢ø þÕìÌõ ƒÉí¸¨Çì ¸¢È¢ŠÐ Á¼ò¾¢§Ä §º÷òÐ §Áý¨ÁôÀÎòÐõ Òñ½¢Âò¨¼î ¦ºöÅ¾¡¸î ¦º¡øÖ¸¢È¸û. ¢
þóÐì¸û ÌÆó¨¾¸¨Ç ¿¾¢Â¢§Ä §À¡Î¸¢È¡÷¸û ±ýÚõ, ŠòÃ¢¸¨Ç (Óì¸¢ÂÁ¡¸, «¿¡¨¾¸Ç¡öô ÒÕ„÷¸¨Ç þÆóÐ ¸¾¢Â¢øÄ¡Áø þÕìÌõ ¨¸õ¦Àñ¸¨Ç) ¿¡ö¸¨Çô §À¡Ä ¿¼òÐ¸¢È÷¸û ±ýÚõ ÀÄÅ¢¾Á¡É «ÀÅ¡¾í¸û ¦º¡øÖ¸¢È¡÷¸û. ¿õÓ¨¼Â ƒ¡¾¢ô À¢Ã¢×¸Ç¢¦Ä þÕìÌõ ÌüÈí¸¨Ç¦ÂøÄ¡õ â¾ì¸ñ½¡Ê ¨ÅòÐì ¸¡ðÎ¸¢È¡÷¸û. þó¾ì ¸¢È¢ŠÐÅô À¡¾¢Ã¢¸Ç¡§Ä ¿ÁìÌ §¿÷ó¾ «ÅÁ¡Éõ «ÇÅ¢ø¨Ä. Barathiyar, ¸ðÎ¨Ã- Á¾¢ôÒ

þÕìÌ §Å¾ò¾¢ø ¯Õò¾¢Ã¨É ÁðÎõ ãýÚ À¾¢¸í¸Ç¢Öõ (1:114, 2:33, 7:46) Å¢‰Ï¨Å ÁðÎõ ãýê À¾¢¸í¸Ç¢Öõ (1:154,155; 7:100) À¡¼ôÀðÎ þÕì¸¢ýÈÉ. þì¸¡Äò¨¾ô §À¡Ä§Å §Å¾ ¸¡Äò¾¢Öõ Áì¸û þ¨ÈÅÉ¢ý ¸¢¨Ç¨Âô ¦ÀÕí ¸¼×Ç¡¸ô §À¡üÈ¢É¡÷¸û. «¾É¡ø ¯Õò¾¢ÃÉ¢ýý Á¸ý ÁÕ¾Óõ «ì¸¢É¢Ôõ Å¢‰ÏÅ¢ý §¾¡Æý þóò¾¢ÃÛõ þÕìÌ §Å¾ò¾¢ø ÀÄ À¾¢¸í¸Ç¢M À¡¼ô Àð¼¡÷¸û. þÕóÐõ §Å¾¸¡Äò¾¢ø ¯Õò¾¢ÃÛõ Å¢‰Ï×õ ¸¼×û¸éìÌò ¾¨ÄÅ÷¸Ç¡¸ô §À¡üÈô Àð¼¡÷¸û. Àì- 217
§Å¾ì ¸¼×û ¯Õò¾¢Ãý ¾ý º¢Åý ±ýÀ¾üÌ §Å¾ò¾¢ø «¸îº¡ýÚ þøÄ¡ÁÄ¢ø¨Ä- "²À¢ º¢Å;” ±ýÚ þÕìÌ §Å¾õ(10:92:9) ÜÚ¸¢üÐ. Í§Å¾¡ŠÅ¾Ã ¯ô¿¢¼¾ò¾¢ø "¯Ã¢ò¾¢Ã¨É- ¯Õò¾¢Ãº¢Å¡" "º¢Åõ" "º¢Å¡õ" "º¢Å¡" ±Éì ÜÚ¸¢È¡÷. º¢Åõ ±ýÀ¾üÌ º¡ó¾õ ±Éô ¦À¡Õû ÜÚÅ÷. Àì 89

§Å¾¢Â÷¸û Â¡¸º¡¨ÄÂ¢ø µÁÌñ¼òòüÌì ¸¢Æì¸¢ø âÁ¢Â¢ø ¸õÀí¸¨Ç ¿ðÎ ¦¾öÅí¸Ç¡¸ Å½í¸¢É¡÷¸û. þì¸õÀí¸¨Ç §ÅñÊì ¦¸¡ñÎ þÕìÌ 3:8ø À¡ÊÂÅ÷

"µ ÅÉŠÀ¾¢§Â! þ¨ÈÀ½¢ ÒÃ¢§Å¡÷ ¯ÉìÌ ±ñ¦½ö ¦¾öòÐ ×¾¢ «Ç¢ì¸¢È÷¸û. ¿£ §¿Ã¡¸ «ý¨ÉÂ¢ý Á¡÷À¢ø þ¨ÇôÀ¡Úõ §À¡Ð ±í¸ÙìÌî ¦ºøÅõ «ÕûÅ¡Â¡¸. §Å¾¢Â÷ ¸¢Æì¸¢ø ¯Â÷ò¾¢Â ¸õÀí¸û ¸¼×Ç÷¸Ç¡¸¢ì ¸¼×Ç÷ ÌÊÂ¢ÕìÌõ þ¼í¸ÙìÌô §À¡¸¢ýÈÉ”
±ýÚ Ó¾ü À¡¼Ä¢ø ÜÈ¢É¡÷.

þ¾É¡ø §Å¾¸¡Äò¾¢ø ¸õÀí¸¨Ç ¿ðÎ ¦¾öÅÁ¡¸ Å½í¸¢ Åó¾Ð ¦¾Ã¢ÂÅÕõ. «ì¸¡Äò¾¢ø ¸õÀò¾¢üÌ ±ñ¦½ö §¾öòÌ «À¢§„¸ï ¦ºö¾Ð §À¡ø þì¸¡Äò¾¢ø ¦¾öÅî º¢¨Ä¸ÙìÌõ º¢ÅÄ¢í¸ò¾¢üÌõ ±ñ¦½ö §¾öòÐ «ô§„¸ï ¦ºöÂô ÀÎ¸¢ÈÐ. º¢ÅÄ¢í¸ò¾¢üÌ «ô§„¸ï ¦ºöÔõ §À¡Ð "¾¢¨ÃÂõÀ¸õ Âƒ¡Á§†" ±Éò ¦¾¡¼íÌõ §Å¾ Áó¾¢Ãõ (þÕìÌ 7:59:12, Âƒ¤÷ 6:30) µ¾ô ÀÎ¸¢ÈÐ. þÐ §Å¾ ¸¡Ä¾¢Ä¢ÕóÐ º¢ÅÄ¢í¸ò¾¢üÌ «À¢§„¸ï ¦ºöÐ âƒ¢ì¸ô ÀðÎ Åó¾¨¾ì ¸¡ðÎ¸¢ÈÐ. Àì- 101

quotes from Tamil Arignar R.Shanmugasundaram- PazhanthTamil Varalaru-this book has supportive foreword by Dr.R.mathiwanan- former Director of Tamil Etymological Dictionary project (NuulNalan).

Now we have the same by Dravidians.

Your Wishful Thinking and history revisionism is driven by your own indic ideology. SORRY Sangam Tamil Song has been given as Proof.
Dravidian Artificial name given for a Linguistic Group, and no Race are people are connected with this.
Roots as you assume is meaningless.
Yes, indeed. The Dravidian Etymological Dictionary of Burrow and Emeneau contains over 5,000 etyma and it has been shown that over 4,000 of these etyma have Indo-Aryan, Munda cognates (cf. http://www.hindunet.org/saraswati/Indian_Lexicon which contains over 8,000 semantic clusters.)
Please look at objectively, Read Sangam Literature- Most of them are available at www.tamil.net/projectmadurai

Devapriya[/b][/u][/tscii:119dae3322]

arul_satish

29th May 2006, 03:32 PM

Dear Friends,
Mala asks
//On what basis are you saying PaavaaNar revised his Tolkaappiyam dating? Pl give us the citations, name of books, page numbers and dates of publication.
Who is L Raasamaanickanaar? (Is the initial correct?) What fresh evidence do the present day researchers on whom you are relying have before them that the older ones did not have? Why do you say "much objective research"? Why "much objective?"//

I am sorry that you want me to repeat after APPROPRIATE REPLIES TO YOUR LIES, given in respective Threads- You repeat them in another thread to show your Position is totally without Proofs. L Raasamaanickanaar- is of same status as Mu.Va and Tho.po.Mi, on those days and Author of many Tamil Historical books.

"There are many schools of thought existing and the author conveniently quotes from those least popular theories and authors."

//Why should Nachinaarkiniyar be biased? Clearly materials available to him are no longer available to us as many Tamil works of his time are now lost. What personal benefit did he get by saying that Tolkaappiyam was older? What is meant by you by saying "Rig Group of Vedas" ? Where do these terms appear in the Rig Veda: "Thaithriayam, Bowtikam, Thalavakaram and Saamam"? Where did PaavaaNar express this conclusion? It is clear that they were Tamil Vedas. Why would Tamil works refer to Arya Vedas?//
You Live in an ARTIFICIAL FALSE ISLAND- There is no such Aryans or Dravidian only Indic- and that Sangam Period Tamil was Proud for:

âÅ¢Ûû À¢Èó§¾¡ý ¿¡Å¢Ûû À¢Èó¾
¿¡ýÁ¨Èì §¸ûÅ¢ ¿Å¢ø ÌÃø ±ÎôÀ
²Á ý ÐÂ¢ø ±Æ¢¾ø «øÄ¨¾,
Å¡Æ¢Â Åïº¢Ôõ §¸¡Æ¢Ôõ §À¡Äì
§¸¡Æ¢Â¢ý ±Æ¡Ð, ±õ §À÷ °÷ ÐÂ¢§Ä. , this is a Song from Paripadal and Paripadal song -3 says Lord Vishnu as
º¡Á §Å¾õ ÜÚ¾Ä¢ý ¦¾Ç¢ó¾ ¦À¡Õû

"There are not only Aryans and Dravidians but also the Mongloids - those from North East India. If you close your eyes and ears to it like a true philosopher, there exists no difference. Open your eyes."

Every Branch of Vedas are listed and they have been analysed my many who do not believe in it. And when Saamam is Samavedam listed by Nachinarkiniyar in 13th Cen. As an earlier Collection, it is part of Standard Collection of Vedas, as the Sangam Song says, the others are parts of Vedas and Pavanar Collected and verified and confirmed this as follows.

Now on Pavanr dating the name of the book and page verses have been given in the past. For to make it up to date, Dr.Mathivanan- famaous for 3rd rate Forgery of reading the Right-to-Left written Indus Saraswathi Scripts in the Opposite Direction Left-to-Right, in his frist book on this subject (1991) announcing the decipherment, authored jointly by Mathivanan and M. Ramachandran (a retired Chief Engineer of the Indian Railways)dates The Mythological Kumari Kandam Floods to 16000BCE and Tholkappiyam dated to 700-600BCE.

Quote:
// from end of Ist Cen.BCE, only from then on referring of MuVenthar starts and Tholkaapiyar says that once.//

What evidence do you have to say this? – Please Collect all Songs of Sangam and work on it. As per Sangam Collection Pandias are the Aliens who after loosing their LAND in Flood came to Tamilnadu (might be some small Island like Lakshdeep). The Oldest of the Pandiyas was BoothaPandiya, who did not rule from Koodal(Madural).
His own songs say that He was a small ruler, and his son Nediyon got over Koodal, and slowly Consolidated over the Generation. Thalayanang Kanathu Chery Vendra Pandiyan Period is what Panidyas became Powerful, and he can be dated to 1St Cen. BCE. Now look at Asoka Mysore(BCE 240) Scripts- He refers Chora, Keraloputra, Sathiyaputra and Pandya- that is FOUR Rulers are equal. Athiaman tribe lost over the next 150 -200years, and Poetic Tradition of saying Muventar starts some time afer than that i.e., Close to Common Era or say 25BCE.

"There were at times more than three kingdoms. Others were only the fallouts of easrtwhile powerful kingdoms. There were Ayes and Waynad dynasities as well. There were Pallavas as well though at a later stage.

The Pandian Dynasty is one of the oldest in India and were very powerful but as they rise they fall too. And become smaller kingdoms. When India became independent there were actually more than 545 big and small kingdoms. It doesn't mean the mighty British didn't exist or there weren't no big kingdoms like the Ashokas, the Guptas, the Cheras, the Pandyas or the Cholas."

Quote:
//1. Late 3rd Cen. – 100 BCE, BT brahmi Tamil So 50-100CE, must be the earliest of the dating for Tholkappiyam.//
And further my above points confirm this conclusion.
Quote:
//As for as God name Shiva- we do not have Once Even in Sangam to Silapathikaram and Manimekhalai. And most of the time Sangam refers to Shiva- it is always as Veda Giver.//

//You are contradicting!
Not all Sangam works and those written by individual authors of that period have been found. Many have been lost or destroyed. If a word is not found in Sangam works, it is not a basis for concluding it is not a Tamil word. The root of Sivam is Sivaththal; it is a Tamil word. The Vedics hated Siva and Linga worship.//

It is your Misconception based on False interpretations and I have given you the actual position in Saiva and Arab Threads. So Please do not Bluff based on 3rd rate 80 year old falsehoods.

"From around 5th century BC to 5th Century AD, the most popular religions in India were Jainism and Buddism. "

Quote:
// the dating of the Vedic age ........................ of India has been shaken.//
The arya vedas are not as old as they made them out to be. That I agree.//
AGAIN you stand against SCIENCE. The Entire Root of SARASVATHI River has been Mapped and it dried by 1900 BCE and drying Process started by 2200BCE. Vedas say greatly of Saraswathi. So it can be dated to much earlier than present 2000-600BCE for the complete Collection. Even if a Word appaears in Sangam it need not be Tamil as TholKappiyar clearly says- “Vadasol Kilavi Vadaezuthu Orie” – Use Sanskrit words leaving Sanskrit Letters. And for the Waste Arguments- Vadasol can be Prakrit etc., Prakrits do not have “sha, Ja, Sa, ha” etc., so Tholkappiyar is clear.

The name Shiva – is not based on Red and I have given the roots agreed by International Universities, and how it has been used in RigVeda in other Threads.

"As I mentioned earlier, works of 3rd Sankam were during the prosperous Jainism and Buddism period. Hence it is of little surprise that the Great Shiva didn't get mentioned in their work. For that matter any hindu God."

Professor HART on Burrowing of Sanskrit words in to TAMIL AS FOLLOWS:
lNeither Sanskrit nor Tamil are particularly old in the world scheme of things. Sanskrit is documented earlier than Tamil.

Sanskrit has borrowed quite as much from Dravidian as Dravidian has from Sanskrit. Tamil has borrowed more words from Sanskrit than Sanskrit has from Dravidian.

Both languages are carriers of wonderful and rich intellectual and literary traditions. The only way to appreciate either language is to read these literatures and spend a lot of time pondering them

Indian Culture and Civilisation is the Oldest and If Foriegners wrote meaninglessly, then the Indian by Birth, but Christian Fathers- and writers did it, and MahaKavi Bharati condemens it in his Short ARTICLE called Á¾¢ôÒ
þó¾¢Â¡¨Å ¦ÅÇ¢ÔÄ¸ò¾¡÷ À¡ÁÃ§¾ºõ ±ýÚ ¿¢¨ÉìÌõÀÊ ¦ºö¾ Ó¾ü ÌüÈõ ¿õÓ¨¼ÂÐ. ÒÈì¸ÕÅ¢¸ û ÀÄ.
Ó¾Ä¡ÅÐ, ¸¢È¢ŠÐÅô À¡¾¢Ã¢. «¦ÁÃ¢ì¸¡Å¢Öõ ³§Ã¡ôÀ¡Å¢Öõ º¢Ä
¸¢È¢ŠÐÅô À¡¾¢Ã¢¸ û, ¾í¸û Á¾ Å¢„ÂÁ¡É À¢Ãº¡Ãò¨¾ ¯ò§¾º¢òÐ ¿õ¨Áì ÌÈ¢òÐô ¦ÀÃ¢Â ¦ÀÃ¢Â ¦À¡ö¸û ¦º¡øÄ¢, þôÀÊð ¾¡úóÐ §À¡ö Á¸ð¾¡É «¿¡¸Ã¢¸ ¿¢¨ÄÂ¢ø þÕìÌõ ƒÉí¸¨Çì ¸¢È¢ŠÐ Á¼ò¾¢§Ä §º÷òÐ §Áý¨ÁôÀÎòÐõ Òñ½¢Âò¨¼î ¦ºöÅ¾¡¸î ¦º¡øÖ¸¢È¸û. ¢
þóÐì¸û ÌÆó¨¾¸¨Ç ¿¾¢Â¢§Ä §À¡Î¸¢È¡÷¸û ±ýÚõ, ŠòÃ¢¸¨Ç (Óì¸¢ÂÁ¡¸, «¿¡¨¾¸Ç¡öô ÒÕ„÷¸¨Ç þÆóÐ ¸¾¢Â¢øÄ¡Áø þÕìÌõ ¨¸õ¦Àñ¸¨Ç) ¿¡ö¸¨Çô §À¡Ä ¿¼òÐ¸¢È÷¸û ±ýÚõ ÀÄÅ¢¾Á¡É «ÀÅ¡¾í¸û ¦º¡øÖ¸¢È¡÷¸û. ¿õÓ¨¼Â ƒ¡¾¢ô À¢Ã¢×¸Ç¢¦Ä þÕìÌõ ÌüÈí¸¨Ç¦ÂøÄ¡õ â¾ì¸ñ½¡Ê ¨ÅòÐì ¸¡ðÎ¸¢È¡÷¸û. þó¾ì ¸¢È¢ŠÐÅô À¡¾¢Ã¢¸Ç¡§Ä ¿ÁìÌ §¿÷ó¾ «ÅÁ¡Éõ «ÇÅ¢ø¨Ä. Barathiyar, ¸ðÎ¨Ã- Á¾¢ôÒ

þÕìÌ §Å¾ò¾¢ø ¯Õò¾¢Ã¨É ÁðÎõ ãýÚ À¾¢¸í¸Ç¢Öõ (1:114, 2:33, 7:46) Å¢‰Ï¨Å ÁðÎõ ãýê À¾¢¸í¸Ç¢Öõ (1:154,155; 7:100) À¡¼ôÀðÎ þÕì¸¢ýÈÉ. þì¸¡Äò¨¾ô §À¡Ä§Å §Å¾ ¸¡Äò¾¢Öõ Áì¸û þ¨ÈÅÉ¢ý ¸¢¨Ç¨Âô ¦ÀÕí ¸¼×Ç¡¸ô §À¡üÈ¢É¡÷¸û. «¾É¡ø ¯Õò¾¢ÃÉ¢ýý Á¸ý ÁÕ¾Óõ «ì¸¢É¢Ôõ Å¢‰ÏÅ¢ý §¾¡Æý þóò¾¢ÃÛõ þÕìÌ §Å¾ò¾¢ø ÀÄ À¾¢¸í¸Ç¢M À¡¼ô Àð¼¡÷¸û. þÕóÐõ §Å¾¸¡Äò¾¢ø ¯Õò¾¢ÃÛõ Å¢‰Ï×õ ¸¼×û¸éìÌò ¾¨ÄÅ÷¸Ç¡¸ô §À¡üÈô Àð¼¡÷¸û. Àì- 217
§Å¾ì ¸¼×û ¯Õò¾¢Ãý ¾ý º¢Åý ±ýÀ¾üÌ §Å¾ò¾¢ø «¸îº¡ýÚ þøÄ¡ÁÄ¢ø¨Ä- "²À¢ º¢Å;” ±ýÚ þÕìÌ §Å¾õ(10:92:9) ÜÚ¸¢üÐ. Í§Å¾¡ŠÅ¾Ã ¯ô¿¢¼¾ò¾¢ø "¯Ã¢ò¾¢Ã¨É- ¯Õò¾¢Ãº¢Å¡" "º¢Åõ" "º¢Å¡õ" "º¢Å¡" ±Éì ÜÚ¸¢È¡÷. º¢Åõ ±ýÀ¾üÌ º¡ó¾õ ±Éô ¦À¡Õû ÜÚÅ÷. Àì 89

§Å¾¢Â÷¸û Â¡¸º¡¨ÄÂ¢ø µÁÌñ¼òòüÌì ¸¢Æì¸¢ø âÁ¢Â¢ø ¸õÀí¸¨Ç ¿ðÎ ¦¾öÅí¸Ç¡¸ Å½í¸¢É¡÷¸û. þì¸õÀí¸¨Ç §ÅñÊì ¦¸¡ñÎ þÕìÌ 3:8ø À¡ÊÂÅ÷

"µ ÅÉŠÀ¾¢§Â! þ¨ÈÀ½¢ ÒÃ¢§Å¡÷ ¯ÉìÌ ±ñ¦½ö ¦¾öòÐ ×¾¢ «Ç¢ì¸¢È÷¸û. ¿£ §¿Ã¡¸ «ý¨ÉÂ¢ý Á¡÷À¢ø þ¨ÇôÀ¡Úõ §À¡Ð ±í¸ÙìÌî ¦ºøÅõ «ÕûÅ¡Â¡¸. §Å¾¢Â÷ ¸¢Æì¸¢ø ¯Â÷ò¾¢Â ¸õÀí¸û ¸¼×Ç÷¸Ç¡¸¢ì ¸¼×Ç÷ ÌÊÂ¢ÕìÌõ þ¼í¸ÙìÌô §À¡¸¢ýÈÉ”
±ýÚ Ó¾ü À¡¼Ä¢ø ÜÈ¢É¡÷.

þ¾É¡ø §Å¾¸¡Äò¾¢ø ¸õÀí¸¨Ç ¿ðÎ ¦¾öÅÁ¡¸ Å½í¸¢ Åó¾Ð ¦¾Ã¢ÂÅÕõ. «ì¸¡Äò¾¢ø ¸õÀò¾¢üÌ ±ñ¦½ö §¾öòÌ «À¢§„¸ï ¦ºö¾Ð §À¡ø þì¸¡Äò¾¢ø ¦¾öÅî º¢¨Ä¸ÙìÌõ º¢ÅÄ¢í¸ò¾¢üÌõ ±ñ¦½ö §¾öòÐ «ô§„¸ï ¦ºöÂô ÀÎ¸¢ÈÐ. º¢ÅÄ¢í¸ò¾¢üÌ «ô§„¸ï ¦ºöÔõ §À¡Ð "¾¢¨ÃÂõÀ¸õ Âƒ¡Á§†" ±Éò ¦¾¡¼íÌõ §Å¾ Áó¾¢Ãõ (þÕìÌ 7:59:12, Âƒ¤÷ 6:30) µ¾ô ÀÎ¸¢ÈÐ. þÐ §Å¾ ¸¡Ä¾¢Ä¢ÕóÐ º¢ÅÄ¢í¸ò¾¢üÌ «À¢§„¸ï ¦ºöÐ âƒ¢ì¸ô ÀðÎ Åó¾¨¾ì ¸¡ðÎ¸¢ÈÐ. Àì- 101

quotes from Tamil Arignar R.Shanmugasundaram- PazhanthTamil Varalaru-this book has supportive foreword by Dr.R.mathiwanan- former Director of Tamil Etymological Dictionary project (NuulNalan).

Now we have the same by Dravidians.

Your Wishful Thinking and history revisionism is driven by your own indic ideology. SORRY Sangam Tamil Song has been given as Proof.
Dravidian Artificial name given for a Linguistic Group, and no Race are people are connected with this.
Roots as you assume is meaningless.
Yes, indeed. The Dravidian Etymological Dictionary of Burrow and Emeneau contains over 5,000 etyma and it has been shown that over 4,000 of these etyma have Indo-Aryan, Munda cognates (cf. http://www.hindunet.org/saraswati/Indian_Lexicon which contains over 8,000 semantic clusters.)
Please look at objectively, Read Sangam Literature- Most of them are available at www.tamil.net/projectmadurai

"It's not of any Christian bias but the modern day RSS and BJP idiologies of History revisioninsm to suit there own taste."

Devapriya[/b][/u]

Sudhaama

29th May 2006, 09:53 PM

[tscii:1b62fa6cfc]Dear Friends,

Mala asks

//On what basis are you saying PaavaaNar revised his Tolkaappiyam dating? Pl give us the citations, name of books, page numbers and dates of publication.

Who is L Raasamaanickanaar? (Is the initial correct?) What fresh evidence do the present day researchers on whom you are relying have before them that the older ones did not have? Why do you say "much objective research"? Why "much objective?"//

I am sorry that you want me to repeat after APPROPRIATE REPLIES TO YOUR LIES, given in respective Threads- You repeat them in another thread to show your Position is totally without Proofs. L Raasamaanickanaar- is of same status as Mu.Va and Tho.po.Mi, on those days and Author of many Tamil Historical books.

"There are many schools of thought existing and the author conveniently quotes from those least popular theories and authors."

//Why should Nachinaarkiniyar be biased? Clearly materials available to him are no longer available to us as many Tamil works of his time are now lost. What personal benefit did he get by saying that Tolkaappiyam was older? What is meant by you by saying "Rig Group of Vedas" ? Where do these terms appear in the Rig Veda: "Thaithriayam, Bowtikam, Thalavakaram and Saamam"? Where did PaavaaNar express this conclusion? It is clear that they were Tamil Vedas. Why would Tamil works refer to Arya Vedas?//
You Live in an ARTIFICIAL FALSE ISLAND- There is no such Aryans or Dravidian only Indic- and that Sangam Period Tamil was Proud for:

âÅ¢Ûû À¢Èó§¾¡ý ¿¡Å¢Ûû À¢Èó¾
¿¡ýÁ¨Èì §¸ûÅ¢ ¿Å¢ø ÌÃø ±ÎôÀ
²Á ý ÐÂ¢ø ±Æ¢¾ø «øÄ¨¾,
Å¡Æ¢Â Åïº¢Ôõ §¸¡Æ¢Ôõ §À¡Äì
§¸¡Æ¢Â¢ý ±Æ¡Ð, ±õ §À÷ °÷ ÐÂ¢§Ä. ,

... this is a Song from Paripadal.

... and Paripadal song -3 says Lord Vishnu as
º¡Á §Å¾õ ÜÚ¾Ä¢ý ¦¾Ç¢ó¾ ¦À¡Õû

"There are not only Aryans and Dravidians but also the Mongloids - those from North East India. If you close your eyes and ears to it like a true philosopher, there exists no difference. Open your eyes."

Every Branch of Vedas are listed and they have been analysed my many who do not believe in it. And when Saamam is Samavedam listed by Nachinarkiniyar in 13th Cen. As an earlier Collection, it is part of Standard Collection of Vedas, as the Sangam Song says, the others are parts of Vedas and Pavanar Collected and verified and confirmed this as follows.

Now on Pavanr dating the name of the book and page verses have been given in the past. For to make it up to date, Dr.Mathivanan- famaous for 3rd rate Forgery of reading the Right-to-Left written Indus Saraswathi Scripts in the Opposite Direction Left-to-Right, in his frist book on this subject (1991) announcing the decipherment, authored jointly by Mathivanan and M. Ramachandran (a retired Chief Engineer of the Indian Railways)dates The Mythological Kumari Kandam Floods to 16000BCE and Tholkappiyam dated to 700-600BCE.

Quote:

// from end of Ist Cen.BCE, only from then on referring of MuVenthar starts and Tholkaapiyar says that once.//

What evidence do you have to say this? – Please Collect all Songs of Sangam and work on it. As per Sangam Collection Pandias are the Aliens who after loosing their LAND in Flood came to Tamilnadu (might be some small Island like Lakshdeep). The Oldest of the Pandiyas was BoothaPandiya, who did not rule from Koodal (Madural).

His own songs say that He was a small ruler, and his son Nediyon got over Koodal, and slowly Consolidated over the Generation. Thalayanang Kanathu Chery Vendra Pandiyan Period is what Panidyas became Powerful, and he can be dated to 1St Cen. BCE. Now look at Asoka Mysore(BCE 240) Scripts- He refers Chora, Keraloputra, Sathiyaputra and Pandya- that is FOUR Rulers are equal. Athiaman tribe lost over the next 150 -200years, and Poetic Tradition of saying Muventar starts some time afer than that i.e., Close to Common Era or say 25BCE.

"There were at times more than three kingdoms. Others were only the fallouts of easrtwhile powerful kingdoms. There were Ayes and Waynad dynasities as well. There were Pallavas as well though at a later stage.

The Pandian Dynasty is one of the oldest in India and were very powerful but as they rise they fall too. And become smaller kingdoms. When India became independent there were actually more than 545 big and small kingdoms. It doesn't mean the mighty British didn't exist or there weren't no big kingdoms like the Ashokas, the Guptas, the Cheras, the Pandyas or the Cholas."

Quote:

//1. Late 3rd Cen. – 100 BCE, BT brahmi Tamil So 50-100CE, must be the earliest of the dating for Tholkappiyam.//
And further my above points confirm this conclusion.

Quote:

//As for as God name Shiva- we do not have Once Even in Sangam to Silapathikaram and Manimekhalai. And most of the time Sangam refers to Shiva- it is always as Veda Giver.//

//You are contradicting!

Not all Sangam works and those written by individual authors of that period have been found. Many have been lost or destroyed. If a word is not found in Sangam works, it is not a basis for concluding it is not a Tamil word. The root of Sivam is Sivaththal; it is a Tamil word. The Vedics hated Siva and Linga worship.//

It is your Misconception based on False interpretations and I have given you the actual position in Saiva and Arab Threads. So Please do not Bluff based on 3rd rate 80 year old falsehoods.

"From around 5th century BC to 5th Century AD, the most popular religions in India were Jainism and Buddism. "

Quote:

// the dating of the Vedic age ........................ of India has been shaken.//

The arya vedas are not as old as they made them out to be. That I agree.//

AGAIN you stand against SCIENCE. The Entire Root of SARASVATHI River has been Mapped and it dried by 1900 BCE and drying Process started by 2200BCE. Vedas say greatly of Saraswathi. So it can be dated to much earlier than present 2000-600BCE for the complete Collection. Even if a Word appaears in Sangam it need not be Tamil as TholKappiyar clearly says- “Vadasol Kilavi Vadaezuthu Orie” – Use Sanskrit words leaving Sanskrit Letters. And for the Waste Arguments- Vadasol can be Prakrit etc., Prakrits do not have “sha, Ja, Sa, ha” etc., so Tholkappiyar is clear.

The name Shiva – is not based on Red and I have given the roots agreed by International Universities, and how it has been used in RigVeda in other Threads.

"As I mentioned earlier, works of 3rd Sankam were during the prosperous Jainism and Buddism period. Hence it is of little surprise that the Great Shiva didn't get mentioned in their work. For that matter any hindu God."

Professor HART on Burrowing of Sanskrit words in to TAMIL AS FOLLOWS:

lNeither Sanskrit nor Tamil are particularly old in the world scheme of things. Sanskrit is documented earlier than Tamil.

Sanskrit has borrowed quite as much from Dravidian as Dravidian has from Sanskrit. Tamil has borrowed more words from Sanskrit than Sanskrit has from Dravidian.

Both languages are carriers of wonderful and rich intellectual and literary traditions. The only way to appreciate either language is to read these literatures and spend a lot of time pondering them

Indian Culture and Civilisation is the Oldest and If Foriegners wrote meaninglessly, then the Indian by Birth, but Christian Fathers- and writers did it, and MahaKavi Bharati condemens it in his Short ARTICLE called... Á¾¢ôÒ

þó¾¢Â¡¨Å ¦ÅÇ¢ÔÄ¸ò¾¡÷ À¡ÁÃ§¾ºõ ±ýÚ ¿¢¨ÉìÌõÀÊ ¦ºö¾ Ó¾ü ÌüÈõ ¿õÓ¨¼ÂÐ. ÒÈì¸ÕÅ¢¸ û ÀÄ.
Ó¾Ä¡ÅÐ, ¸¢È¢ŠÐÅô À¡¾¢Ã¢. «¦ÁÃ¢ì¸¡Å¢Öõ ³§Ã¡ôÀ¡Å¢Öõ º¢Ä
¸¢È¢ŠÐÅô À¡¾¢Ã¢¸ û, ¾í¸û Á¾ Å¢„ÂÁ¡É À¢Ãº¡Ãò¨¾ ¯ò§¾º¢òÐ ¿õ¨Áì ÌÈ¢òÐô ¦ÀÃ¢Â ¦ÀÃ¢Â ¦À¡ö¸û ¦º¡øÄ¢, þôÀÊð ¾¡úóÐ §À¡ö Á¸ð¾¡É «¿¡¸Ã¢¸ ¿¢¨ÄÂ¢ø þÕìÌõ ƒÉí¸¨Çì ¸¢È¢ŠÐ Á¼ò¾¢§Ä §º÷òÐ §Áý¨ÁôÀÎòÐõ Òñ½¢Âò¨¼î ¦ºöÅ¾¡¸î ¦º¡øÖ¸¢È¸û. ¢
þóÐì¸û ÌÆó¨¾¸¨Ç ¿¾¢Â¢§Ä §À¡Î¸¢È¡÷¸û ±ýÚõ, ŠòÃ¢¸¨Ç (Óì¸¢ÂÁ¡¸, «¿¡¨¾¸Ç¡öô ÒÕ„÷¸¨Ç þÆóÐ ¸¾¢Â¢øÄ¡Áø þÕìÌõ ¨¸õ¦Àñ¸¨Ç) ¿¡ö¸¨Çô §À¡Ä ¿¼òÐ¸¢È÷¸û ±ýÚõ ÀÄÅ¢¾Á¡É «ÀÅ¡¾í¸û ¦º¡øÖ¸¢È¡÷¸û. ¿õÓ¨¼Â ƒ¡¾¢ô À¢Ã¢×¸Ç¢¦Ä þÕìÌõ ÌüÈí¸¨Ç¦ÂøÄ¡õ â¾ì¸ñ½¡Ê ¨ÅòÐì ¸¡ðÎ¸¢È¡÷¸û. þó¾ì ¸¢È¢ŠÐÅô À¡¾¢Ã¢¸Ç¡§Ä ¿ÁìÌ §¿÷ó¾ «ÅÁ¡Éõ «ÇÅ¢ø¨Ä. Barathiyar, ¸ðÎ¨Ã- Á¾¢ôÒ

þÕìÌ §Å¾ò¾¢ø ¯Õò¾¢Ã¨É ÁðÎõ ãýÚ À¾¢¸í¸Ç¢Öõ (1:114, 2:33, 7:46) Å¢‰Ï¨Å ÁðÎõ ãýê À¾¢¸í¸Ç¢Öõ (1:154,155; 7:100) À¡¼ôÀðÎ þÕì¸¢ýÈÉ. þì¸¡Äò¨¾ô §À¡Ä§Å §Å¾ ¸¡Äò¾¢Öõ Áì¸û þ¨ÈÅÉ¢ý ¸¢¨Ç¨Âô ¦ÀÕí ¸¼×Ç¡¸ô §À¡üÈ¢É¡÷¸û. «¾É¡ø ¯Õò¾¢ÃÉ¢ýý Á¸ý ÁÕ¾Óõ «ì¸¢É¢Ôõ Å¢‰ÏÅ¢ý §¾¡Æý þóò¾¢ÃÛõ þÕìÌ §Å¾ò¾¢ø ÀÄ À¾¢¸í¸Ç¢M À¡¼ô Àð¼¡÷¸û. þÕóÐõ §Å¾¸¡Äò¾¢ø ¯Õò¾¢ÃÛõ Å¢‰Ï×õ ¸¼×û¸éìÌò ¾¨ÄÅ÷¸Ç¡¸ô §À¡üÈô Àð¼¡÷¸û. Àì- 217
§Å¾ì ¸¼×û ¯Õò¾¢Ãý ¾ý º¢Åý ±ýÀ¾üÌ §Å¾ò¾¢ø «¸îº¡ýÚ þøÄ¡ÁÄ¢ø¨Ä- "²À¢ º¢Å;” ±ýÚ þÕìÌ §Å¾õ(10:92:9) ÜÚ¸¢üÐ. Í§Å¾¡ŠÅ¾Ã ¯ô¿¢¼¾ò¾¢ø "¯Ã¢ò¾¢Ã¨É- ¯Õò¾¢Ãº¢Å¡" "º¢Åõ" "º¢Å¡õ" "º¢Å¡" ±Éì ÜÚ¸¢È¡÷. º¢Åõ ±ýÀ¾üÌ º¡ó¾õ ±Éô ¦À¡Õû ÜÚÅ÷. Àì 89

§Å¾¢Â÷¸û Â¡¸º¡¨ÄÂ¢ø µÁÌñ¼òòüÌì ¸¢Æì¸¢ø âÁ¢Â¢ø ¸õÀí¸¨Ç ¿ðÎ ¦¾öÅí¸Ç¡¸ Å½í¸¢É¡÷¸û. þì¸õÀí¸¨Ç §ÅñÊì ¦¸¡ñÎ þÕìÌ 3:8ø À¡ÊÂÅ÷

"µ ÅÉŠÀ¾¢§Â! þ¨ÈÀ½¢ ÒÃ¢§Å¡÷ ¯ÉìÌ ±ñ¦½ö ¦¾öòÐ ×¾¢ «Ç¢ì¸¢È÷¸û. ¿£ §¿Ã¡¸ «ý¨ÉÂ¢ý Á¡÷À¢ø þ¨ÇôÀ¡Úõ §À¡Ð ±í¸ÙìÌî ¦ºøÅõ «ÕûÅ¡Â¡¸. §Å¾¢Â÷ ¸¢Æì¸¢ø ¯Â÷ò¾¢Â ¸õÀí¸û ¸¼×Ç÷¸Ç¡¸¢ì ¸¼×Ç÷ ÌÊÂ¢ÕìÌõ þ¼í¸ÙìÌô §À¡¸¢ýÈÉ”
±ýÚ Ó¾ü À¡¼Ä¢ø ÜÈ¢É¡÷.

þ¾É¡ø §Å¾¸¡Äò¾¢ø ¸õÀí¸¨Ç ¿ðÎ ¦¾öÅÁ¡¸ Å½í¸¢ Åó¾Ð ¦¾Ã¢ÂÅÕõ. «ì¸¡Äò¾¢ø ¸õÀò¾¢üÌ ±ñ¦½ö §¾öòÌ «À¢§„¸ï ¦ºö¾Ð §À¡ø þì¸¡Äò¾¢ø ¦¾öÅî º¢¨Ä¸ÙìÌõ º¢ÅÄ¢í¸ò¾¢üÌõ ±ñ¦½ö §¾öòÐ «ô§„¸ï ¦ºöÂô ÀÎ¸¢ÈÐ. º¢ÅÄ¢í¸ò¾¢üÌ «ô§„¸ï ¦ºöÔõ §À¡Ð "¾¢¨ÃÂõÀ¸õ Âƒ¡Á§†" ±Éò ¦¾¡¼íÌõ §Å¾ Áó¾¢Ãõ (þÕìÌ 7:59:12, Âƒ¤÷ 6:30) µ¾ô ÀÎ¸¢ÈÐ. þÐ §Å¾ ¸¡Ä¾¢Ä¢ÕóÐ º¢ÅÄ¢í¸ò¾¢üÌ «À¢§„¸ï ¦ºöÐ âƒ¢ì¸ô ÀðÎ Åó¾¨¾ì ¸¡ðÎ¸¢ÈÐ. Àì- 101

quotes from Tamil Arignar R.Shanmugasundaram- PazhanthTamil Varalaru-this book has supportive foreword by Dr.R.mathiwanan- former Director of Tamil Etymological Dictionary project (NuulNalan).

Now we have the same by Dravidians.

Your Wishful Thinking and history revisionism is driven by your own indic ideology. SORRY Sangam Tamil Song has been given as Proof.
Dravidian Artificial name given for a Linguistic Group, and no Race are people are connected with this.Roots as you assume is meaningless.

Yes, indeed. The Dravidian Etymological Dictionary of Burrow and Emeneau contains over 5,000 etyma and it has been shown that over 4,000 of these etyma have Indo-Aryan, Munda cognates (cf. http://www.hindunet.org/saraswati/Indian_Lexicon which contains over 8,000 semantic clusters.)

Please look at objectively, Read Sangam Literature- Most of them are available at www.tamil.net/projectmadurai

"It's not of any Christian bias but the modern day RSS and BJP idiologies of History revisioninsm to suit there own taste."

Devapriya[/b][/u][/tscii:1b62fa6cfc]

Good presentation.... even though I differ on certain points.

bis_mala

30th May 2006, 07:19 AM

//On what basis are you saying PaavaaNar revised his Tolkaappiyam dating? Pl give us the citations, name of books, page numbers and dates of publication.
Who is L Raasamaanickanaar? (Is the initial correct?) What fresh evidence do the present day researchers on whom you are relying have before them that the older ones did not have? Why do you say "much objective research"? Why "much objective?"//

I am sorry that you want me to repeat after APPROPRIATE REPLIES TO YOUR LIES, given in respective Threads- You repeat them in another thread to show your Position is totally without Proofs. L Raasamaanickanaar- is of same status as Mu.Va and Tho.po.Mi, on those days and Author of many Tamil Historical books.

You never had explained this:On your claim that the present day researches are much objective research: What fresh evidence do the present day researchers on whom you are relying have before them that the older ones did not have? Make a comprehensive comparative study and post the details. I do not find anything in your old posts answering my new question raised above.

Rasamaanickanaar: He is M Raasamanickanaar, not L. Please check.

bis_mala

30th May 2006, 10:08 AM

[tscii:9e0362c090]To save our hub friends some trouble of referring here and there, I am posting the following: (This will be edited and shortened later in a week to save space. )

ANCIENT LANGUAGE OF WHOLE OF INDIA WAS TAMIL F.S.Gandhi vandayar
PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2005 6:51 am

http://forumhub.mayyam.com/hub/viewtopic.php?p=164251

Eminent historian Rajwade acknowledges that the original indigenous residents of India were the Naagas. They were expert in drawing pictures, they later turned Naaga vamsha into the Vedhic fold. He also acknowledges the presence of non-Sanskirt languages like Asur bhasha, Dravida bhasha, Chinese and Red Indian and African languages. [Rajwade V. K., bharatiya vivah sansthe cha itihas, marathi, p. 100]

‘Paishachi’ language was Tamil is the experts' view. Having made it clear that Paishachi language was a very rich language, and very widely spoken, let us see the experts' views on what was this language.

Before Sanskrit could influence things here, the language of India was "Paishachi", which meant Tamil, and it was spoken from Kashmir to Kanyakumari.

Nair observes: "According to Mr. Oldham there are ample evidences to show that the so-called "Paisachi" language was spoken throughout India.

He says "It is evident that the Sanskrit Grammarians considered the language of the Dravidian countries to be connected with the vernaculars of Northern India; and that in their opinion it was especially related to the speech of those who as we have seen, were apparently descended from the Asura tribes. Thus in the Shahasha Chandrika Lakshmidhara says that the ‘Paisachi’ language is spoken in the ‘Paisachi’ countries of Pandya, Kekaya Vahlika, Sahya, Nepala, Kuntala, Sudarsha, Bota, Gandhara, Haiva and Kangana and there are Paisachi countries. Of all the vernaculars the Paisachi is said to have contained the smallest infusion of Sanskrit". [Nair B. N., "The Dynamic Brahmin", p.70]

Dr. K. M. Panikar has something equally interesting to say; "The distribution of the indigenous races even today in the uplands of South Bihar and in the eastern areas of Madhya Pradesh and the persistence of the Bhils in the Aravalli and Vindhya ranges show that as a population momentum ceased to have any momentum after it reached the Gangetic valley. The gradual spread of Hinduism all over India and with the Vedhic speech should not blind us to the fact that even in North India outside the Punjab Tamil was there. In Gujrat and in Maharashtra the neo-Vedhic were able to improve their language but in the Deccan and in the South the Dravidian speech not only held its own but was able to drive out the Austric and other linguistic elements. The spread of Sanskrit, originally associated with Agastiyas' crossing of the Vindhyas became, an accomplished fact only in the first centuries of the Christian era as may be seen from the earlier Paisachi tamil tradition of the Satavahana Emperors of Pratishtan" [K. M. Panikker, Geographical Factors in Indian History, 1955, quoted by Nair B. N., "The Dynamic Brahmin", p.70]

IMPORTANT

Paisachi was Tamil- Nair confirms that Paishachi was Tamil. Not only the inscriptions, but even the classical Tamil literature of second or third century AD was not Sanskrit, but Tamil. The same author observes: "If we now consider the ancient Tamil works, we find in almost all some allusion to vedic rites and the use of some north words though very few. When Indo Aryan words are adopted in Tamil in Sangam literature they are more frequently borrowed form Prakrit forms or with Prakritic features. Surely Sanskrit and Prakrit cultures were known to some extent in Tamilanad but rather through Prakrit than through Sanskrit. Massive influence of Sanskrit in Tamil literature took place much later". [Dr. J. Filliozat on Tamil and Sanskrit in South India, in Tamil Culture, vol. IV, No. 4, Oct. 1955 quoted by Nair B. N., "The Dynamic Brahmin", p.71][/tscii:9e0362c090]

bis_mala

30th May 2006, 06:05 PM

Your Wishful Thinking and history revisionism is driven by your own indic ideology. SORRY //Sangam Tamil Song has been given as Proof.//
Proof of what?

//Dravidian Artificial name given for a Linguistic Group, and no Race are people are connected with this.//

The term "Dravida" is found in Sans texts; you either do not know or pretend not to know. Tamil had been known as "Dravida Basha" and this usage is alive up to now. when priests formally introduce Tamil devotional or thirumuRai songs. A term found in Sans is branded as "artificial" by you; this is a clear admission on your part that Sans forges and uses artificial terms such as "Dravida". The Tamils are not responsible for the artificiality of this term. The term is also found in other languages besides Tamil. I have not claimed that Dravida is a single race; I have told you time and again that I am using it only in relation to a group of languages. The Indian govt has set up several Dravidian linguistic research institutions and is understood to be funding them, If you dislike the term, you are free make representations to them to remove it; you can also talk to the politicians of Tamil Nadu and get them to give the term up. This is not something in which I can help you in any manner.

bis_mala

30th May 2006, 07:06 PM

Roots as you assume is meaningless.

Why meaningless? Then what is meaningful?
Why can't we look at roots?
When the Oxford English Dictionary authors suggest roots for the words, where do get them from? From Jesus or Jehova? Do they perform lab tests on the words and come up with roots?
When the Sanskrit Lexicon writers came up with roots, where did they get their roots from? Did they get the roots from Lord Brahman?

Every dog licks to drink.....No dog has found a better way.
Every human assumes roots; whatever her/his profession. She/He may have certain methods and rules to help her/him. That is all about it!!

WHEN YOU ARE GIVEN A WORD, YOU LOOK UP THE SANS DICTIONARY AND IF YOU FIND IT THERE. YOU SAY IT IS SANS WORD. THE NEXT DAY YOU FIND THE SAME WORD IN THE ESKIMO DICTIONARY. WOULD YOU SAY IT IS ESKIMO WORD? IF NOT WHY NOT?

TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE, WE LOOK AT THE ROOT WORDS.

bis_mala

30th May 2006, 09:48 PM

[tscii:220a2e78ac]

AGAIN you stand against SCIENCE. The Entire Root of SARASVATHI River has been Mapped and it dried by 1900 BCE and drying Process started by 2200BCE.

Some scholars have identified the mythical River Saraswati, adverted to in the Rig Veda, with what is presently Afghanistan’s Helmand river but deny that it refers to Ghaggar river.. The Rig Veda, was said to have been composed there in 1700 BC or thereabouts. Others have pointed to a long line of sand in M&H region and think that it was the course of River Saraswathy. Satellite photographs of the sand line have been taken. It is guessed that this was the dried up Saraswathy. The Rig Vedas were allegedly compiled and reduced to writing nearly 2000 years later at the dawn of the Christian era. Only the satellite pictures were "scientific" but showing dried up sand course. Of course, surveyors can always draw a map of any of these areas. Upon review, one can easily see that there is nothing much scientific about the whole thing. There are also doubts as to the location of the river.[/tscii:220a2e78ac]

bis_mala

31st May 2006, 03:52 AM

Even if a Word appaears in Sangam it need not be Tamil as TholKappiyar clearly says-

I say that a certain word is Tamil or not, by analysing the roots of the word. I have never depended on Sangam literature to prove my point. I do not refer to Sangam at all. Please go through all my posts. Can you point out one post in which I have said that it was used in sangam stanza and therefore it is a Tamil word!!

You have been referring to the sangam works to prove the existence of brahmanas during that age.

I want to tell you this: If a word is used in Rig Veda, it is not necessarily a Rigkrit word. According to "international scholars" (your terminology), there are MORE THAN 800 Tamil words in Rigkrit, a language which basically differs from latter-day Sans.

Presently, some "international scholars" (your terminology again) who have made research on Rig have isolated areas in it which clearly reveal aspects of "archaic Tamil" (their terminology) with Akkadian influence. On this basis, they are saying that at least some of the rishis who sang certain hymns were Tamils. (Mind you these are not Tamils who are saying it ) When the scholars publish their works, you should be able to happily read them. Then you will find Maalaa proving her case without any effort beyond all reasonable doubt to your utter dismay and collapse!!

arul_satish

31st May 2006, 11:44 AM

Excerpts from "Is Indus valley the cradle or catacomb of the Dravidian civilization?" By: Na. Nandhivarman

“It has often been suggested that this was the civilization of the Saraswati river, not the Indus. Vedic literature gives importance to a river known as the Saraswati which it said, flowed from north east towards the lower Indus Valley through what are now provinces of Haryana, North Rajasthan and Bahawalpur, and is identified by the mostly dry river bed that is known as Ghagger in India and further downstream in Pakistan, as the Hakra. It has been said that there are several relic mounds of the period (khalibangan for example) spread along the banks of the Saraswathi river system, more sites than the alluvial valley of the Indus. Thus it has been claimed that what we have here is saraswathi rather than Indus civilzation”

This is the argument put forth by those who want to name it as Saraswathi civilization. Shareen Rat agar points out the difficulties in accepting this hypothesis. “ First fewer Harrappan sites lie along the banks of Ghaggar-Hakra than is made out. Second there is no proof at all that the mighty sarasvati of the Rigveda was in fact this (now dry) river- the identification is itself open to doubt. Third when active the Ghaggar-Hakra was in any case a tributary to the Indus. Last, the term Saraswati conjures up a kind of identity between the culture reflected in the Vedic literature and that excavated at harappan sites when, in fact there is hardly any correspondence. The label Saraswathi for all reasons, is difficult to defend on scholarly grounds “ (p7 Understanding Harappa Civilization in the Greater Indus Valley)

Irfan habib says, “ The Indus basin includes the area along the Saraswathi, a small seasonal river, so that coupling of saraswathi with the Indus (Sindhu) has no geographical justification”
Dr.R.Madhivanan says that his researches in Rajasthan and Gujarat revealed that the local people refer the dead and missing river as “Quari kanya “. Quari became Gowri in Sanskrit and in Punjabi the word Gaur added as suffix, are all derived from Kumari, and the Tamil settlers not forgetting their origin had named this river as Kumari Kanya, after Kanya kumari, and thereby the so called Saraswathi river’s name is Kanya Kumari river named from Tamil sources.. He also says in Saurastra, the Tamil settlers have named another river as Kaveri. He also says that if at all a mythical river Saraswathi had existed it flowed only in Afghanistan and not in India. The dreams of those who want to change the name of Indus into Saraswathi will receive the quake like hit and be smashed beyond redemption, putting an end to their futile exercise in renaming a globally known civilization.

dsath

31st May 2006, 05:41 PM

[tscii:b7dbc53589]The topic of Indus civilization is one close to my heart and i hope that someone breaks the code in my lifetime. :)

One view that needs to be looked at new light with help of anthropology is the concept of cow work ship having its origin in Vedic culture.
After viewing a TV series about a tribe in Ethiopia, i made some amateur research into the tribe as i found that Tamilians follow lots of rituals that were remarkably similar.
One aspect of the tribe that astonished me was the way the cows were treated by the tribe. Cows blood was considered as a delicacy and was consumed by the tribes. But what was surprising was that they did not kill the cows, but took the blood out from the cow’s neck by making a hole with an arrow. After this they rubbed the neck and the blood stopped flowing.
What really caught my attention was that slaughtering cows were considered a sin and cow's meat were never eaten.
Also their wealth was measured by the number of cows they owned and the dowry was always paid as cows. I think this is similar to the concept of the Vedic people where cows were revered.
But one major difference is that the Ethiopian tribes are black and resemble a lot like people from South TN.
I hope someone takes this into account while accounting and makes a script comparison of the Suri tribe and Indus script and even Tamil. I am sure that this will not hit the brick wall. Has anybody here in the forum come across any research about this tribe?

[/tscii:b7dbc53589]

arul_satish

5th June 2006, 12:09 PM

Dear dsath,

According to the most popular theory we all migrated from Africa. So we will be having some similarities.

Dravidians do not worship cow but worship bull. The cow worship was brought about by the Aryans later though they used to eat cow initially.

So, I don't see any major links between Ethiopian tribes and Dravidians.

dsath

5th June 2006, 02:35 PM

[tscii:4dc0cf7445]Arul, abt the cow workship and Aryan link - it is the popular belief. After seeing the life’s of the Suri tribe i no longer accept this theory.
There are lots of tribes all over Africa, but the Suri's way of life is remarkably similar (u have to see to believe) to the Tamil village way of life. I am convinced of a direct link.
If the jinx of the Indus civilization is to be broken, we have to think out of the box. I think the regular line of accepted history doesn't hold water.[/tscii:4dc0cf7445]

arul_satish

6th June 2006, 03:28 PM

Dear Dsath,
I don't buy your theory as well... I have given below an excerpts from the article PEOPLES AND LANGUAGES IN PRE-ISLAMIC INDUS VALLEY by --Dr. Tariq Rahman, Fulbright Visiting Fellow...

Beginning from Sir John Marshall, who was the first to suggest that the language of the Indus Civilization was Dravidian 17, most scholars have taken the 'Dravidian hypothesis' seriously. Piero Meriggi, a scholar who contributed towards the decipherment of the Hittite hieroglyphs, opined that Brahvi, the Dravidian language spoken even now in part of Balochistan, must be the original Harappan language 18. However, Brahvi has changed so much and become so Balochified, as Elfenbein points out 19, that it cannot give clear evidence of any sort in this case. Another scholar, the Spanish Jesuit Henry Heras, 'turned more than 1,800 Indus texts into "Proto-Dravidian" sentences' 20 but his decipherment and linguistic theories were not accepted. Later Soviet scholars headed by Yurij V. Knorozov, carried on a very rigorous computer analysis of sign distribution in the Indus texts coming to the conclusion that it belonged to the Dravidian language family 21. However, Kamil Zvelebil, also a Russian scholar came to the conclusion that 'the Dravidian affinity of the Proto-Indian language remains only a very attractive and quite plausible hypothesis.22 Indeed, the plausibility of the hypothesis is such that many people, such as Iravatham Mahadevan, a scholar of old Tamil epigraphy, have used it to offer readings of the Indus script 23. F.C.Southworth and D.Mc Alpin used the Dravidian roots to reconstruct the language of the Indus Valley.24 Walter A. Fairservis, another specialist in this area, stated with considerable certainty that 'the Harappan language was basically an early Dravidian language'.25 Even Parpola, after much careful and detailed sifting of the evidence, opines 'that the Harappan language is most likely to have belonged to the Dravidian family'.26

The following is the notes and references for the above article (exclusively for such doubters).

NOTES and REFERENCES

1. Called 'Indus Valley' by John Marshall .ed., Mohenjodaro and the Indus Valley Civilization i-iii (London, 1931), and 'Harappan' by Stuart Piggott, Prehistoric India (London: Pelican Books, 1950), p. 132.

2. John Marshall, Annual Report of the Archaelogical Survey of India 1923-24 (Calcutta: Superintendent of Govt. Printing, 1926), p. 47.

3. Ibid, pp. 47-48. See E.J.H. Mackay, Further Excavations at Mohenjodaro i & ii (Delhi, 1936); Marshall op. cit. 1931; Also see M.S. Vats, Excavations at Harappa 2 vols. (Delhi, 1940).

4. R.E.M. Wheeler, The Indus Civilization (Cambridge: Cambridge University press, 1968).

5. B.B.Lal & B.K.Thapar, 'Excavations at Kalibangan', Cultural Forum (Jul 1967), p. 79. A.Ghosh, An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology i-ii (New Delhi, 1989), pp. 94-95.

6. H.D.Sankalia, Prehistory and Protohistory of India and Pakistan 2nd ed. (Poona, 1974), pp. 384-385. For a brief survey of the excavations see B.K.Thapar, 'Six Decades of Indus Studies'. In B.B.Lal & S.P. Gupta (eds). Frontiers of the Indus Civilization (New Delhi: Indian Archaeological Society, 1984), pp. 1-25.

7. F.A.Khan, Excavations at Kot Diji (Karachi: Dept. of Archaeology, Govt. of Pakistan, 1965).

8. M. Rafique Mughal, 'New Archaeological Evidence from Bahawalpur'. In A.H.Dani (ed), Indus Valley: New Perspectives (Islamabad: Quaid-i-Azam University, 1981), pp. 33-42.

9. A.H.Dani, 'Excavations in the Gomal Valley', Ancient Pakistan Vol. V (1971), pp. 1-77.

10. F.A.Durrani, 'Indus Civilization: Evidence West of Indus'. In Dani 1981, op. cit. ,pp. 133-137.

11. Rafique Mughal, in Dani 1981, op. cit. p. 35.

12. Asko Parpola, Deciphering the Indus Script (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), p. 21.

13. F.A.Khan, 'Kot Diji Culture -- its Greatness.' In Dani 1981, p. 20.

14. Durrani in Dani 1981, op. cit. p. 136.

15. For a good concordance of the texts see Indus Corpus of Texts in the Indus Script (Helsinki: Dept. of Asian and African Studies, University of Helsinki, Research Reports, 1, 1979). Also see K. Koskenniemi, Materials for the Study of the Indus Script, 1: A Concordance to the Indus Inscriptions (Helsinki: AASF, B 185, 1973). Some of these pictographs are given by Rasheed Akhtar Nadvi, Pakistan Ka Qadeem Rasmul Khat Aur Zaban [Urdu: Pakistan's Ancient Script and Language] (Islamabad: National Institute of Historical and Cultural Research, 1995), pp. 52-153.

16. Parpola, op. cit.

17. J. Marshall, 'First Light on a Long-forgotten Civilization'. The Illustrated London News (20 Sept 1924). Reprinted L. Possehl (ed), Ancient Cities of the Indus (New Delhi, 1979), pp. 105-107.

18. Piero Meriggi, 'Zur Indus-Scrift' [German: On the Indus Script] Zeitschrift der deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesselschaft 87; No. 12 (1934), pp. 198-241.

19. J.H. Elfenbein, 'Baloci'. In Rudiger Schmitt (ed), Compendium Linguarum Iranicarium (Wiesbaden, 1989), pp. 350-362 (p. 360).

20. Henry Heras, Studies in Proto-Indo-Mediterranean Culture, 1 (Bombay: Studies in Indian History of the Indian Historical Research Institute, St. Xavier's College, 1953), p. 59.

21. Yu. V. Knorozov; M.F. Al' Bedil and B. Ya. Volchok, Proto-Indica: 1979. Report on the Investigation of the Proto-Indian Texts [English version] (Moscow, 1981).

22. Kamil Zvelebil quoted from Parpola, op. cit. p. 60.

23. Iravatham Mahadevan, 'Dravidian Models of Decipherment of the Indus Script: A Case Study', Tamil Civilization 4: 3-4; pp. 133-134.

24. David W. Mc Alpin, Proto-Elamo-Dravidian: the Evidence and its Implications (Philadelphia: Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 1981); F.C. Southworth, 'The Reconstruction of Prehistoric South Asia Language Contact'. In E.H. Benedict (ed), The Uses of Linguistics (New York: The New York Academy of Sciences, Annals 583, 1990).

25. Walter A. Fairservis, The Harappan Civilization and Its Writing: A Model for the Decipherment of the Indus Script (New Delhi, 1992).

26. Parpola, op. cit., p. 174.

27. Ainul Haq Faridkoti, Urdu Zaban ki Qadeem Tareekh [Urdu; The History of Ancient Urdu] (Lahore, 1972); Also see Faridkoti, Pre-Aryan Origins of the Pakistani Languages: A Monograph (Lahore: Orient Research Centre, 1992).

28. Tariq Rahman, Pakistani English (Islamabad: National Institute of Pakistan Studies, 1991).

29. Bertil Tikkanen, 'On Burushaski and Other Ancient Substrata in North Western South Asia', Studia Orientalia [Helsinki] 64, pp. 303-325.

30. For a linguistic explanation see Tariq Rahman, 'Pakistani English: Some Phonological and Phonetic Features', World Englishes Vol. 10: No. 1 (1991), pp. 83-95.

31. Allchin, Bridget & Allchin, Raymond, The Rise of Civilization in India and Pakistan (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), pp. 301-303.

32. Parpola, op. cit., p. 168. Also see T. Burrow, The Sanskrit Language (London: Faber & Faber, 1973), p. 386.

33. Burrow, ibid, p. 386.

34. Parpola, op. cit., p. 24 & p. 26.

35. A.C.Woolner, 'The Rigveda and the Punjab'. In J.Bloch; J.Charpentier and R.L.Turner (eds), Indian Studies: Volume in Honour of Edward James Rapson (Delhi: Sri Satgura Publications, 1931), pp. 549-554.

36. Esa Itkonen, Universal History of Linguistics: India, China, Arabia, Europe (Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1991), p. 6.

37. V.S.Agrawala, India as Known to Panini: A Study of the Cultural Material in the Ashtadhyayi (Lucknow: University of Lucknow, 1953), p. 37.

38. Itkonen, op. cit. p. 12.

39. J.F.Stall (ed),A Reader on the Sanskrit Grammarians (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1972), pp. 11-17.

40. Itkonen, op. cit, p. 12.

41. Hans Henrik Hock, 'A Critical Examination of some Early Sanskrit Passages Alleged to Indicate Dialectical Diversity'. In Bela Brogyanyi & Reiner Lipp (eds), Comparative-Historical Linguistics: Indo-European and Finno-Ugric (Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1993), p. 217.

42. Stall, op. cit., pp. 11-17.

43. Sumitra Mangesh Katre, Prakrit Languages and Their Contribution to Indian Culture (Poona: Deccan College, Post-Graduate and Research Institute, 1964), p. 2.

44. George Grierson, Linguistic Survey of India Vol.1, Part. 1: Introductory Ist ed. 1927 (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidas, 1967), pp. 121-126.

45. A.H.Dani, The Historic City of Taxila (Paris: UNESCO, 1986), pp. 38-39. Taxila was excavated by Sir John Marshall. See his Excavations at Taxila: The Stupas and Monastries at Jaulian (New Delhi: Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India, No. 7; 1921).

46. Ibid, p. 35.

47. Yu. V.Gankovsky, The Peoples of Pakistan: An Ethnic History .Trans. from the Russian by Igor Gavrilov (Lahore: Peoples' Publishing House, 1964), p. 54.

48. S.Konow, 'Note on the Ancient North-Western Prakrit', Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies Vol. VIII: Pts. 2-3 (1936), pp. 503-612.

49. Gankovsky, op. cit., p. 58.

50. Katre, op. cit. , p. 33.

51. C.C.Das Gupta, The Development of Kharoshthi Script (Calcutta: Firma K.L.Mukhopadhyay, 1958), p. 33.

52. G. Pugliese Carratelli & G.Garbini, A Bilingual Graeco-Armaic Edict of Asoka (Roma: Instituto Italiano per il Medio ed estremo Oriente, 1964), p. 12.

53. Giovanni Garbini, 'The Armaic Section of the Kandahar inscription', ibid, p.61.

54. Gankovsky, op. cit., p. 70.

55. A.H.Dani, Kharoshthi Primer (Lahore: Lahore Museum, 1979).

56. D.C.Sirkar, Inscriptions of Asoka (New Delhi: Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Govt. of India, 1957. Rev. ed. , 1967), p. 29.

57. Gupta, Kharoshthi op. cit. p. v.

58. George Woodcock, The Greeks in India (London: Faber & Faber, 1966), p. 23.

59. Agrawala, Panini op. cit. ,p. 466.

60. Woodcock, op. cit. , p. 97.

61. Ibid, p. 107.

62. Ibid, p. 88.

63. Ibid, p. 130.

64. Sudhakar Chattopadhyaya, The Sakas in India (Santiniketan, Visva Bharati, 1955. 2nd. ed. 1967), p. 8 & p. 31.

65. Ibid, p. 72.

66. Woodcock, op. cit. p. 144.

67. Chattopadhyaya, op. cit., p. 87.

68. Ibid, p. 70.

69. ibid, pp. 70-72.

70. Dani, Taxila, op. cit. pp. 74-75.

71. Samuel Beal, Si-Yu-Ki: Buddhist Records of the Western World, Translated from the Chinese of Hiuen Tsiang (A.D. 629) (1884. Repr. 2 vols. in 1; Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1969), p. C.

72. Sung Yun calls the king 'Lae-Lih and says he 'loved to worship demons', Ibid, p. C. Dani identifies him with Mihirakula who worshipped Siva in his book Taxila, p. 76.

73. Dani, Taxila, p. 78.

74. Chach Nama: Tarikh-i Hind wa Sind Eng. trans. Elliot, H.M & Dowson, J. , The History of India as Told by Its Own Historians: The Muhammadan Period Vol. 1 (London: Trubner & Co., 1867. New York: Ams Press, Inc, 1966), pp. 138-211.

75. See Elliot & Dowson, Vol. 2. Also see Al-Badaoni, Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh .trans. from Persian by George Ranking. Vol. 1 (Delhi: Dairah-i-Adabiyat-i-Dilli, 1898. Repr. 1973). Also see Mohammad Qasim Firishta, Tarikh-e-Firishta .trans. from Persian to Urdu by Abdul Hai Khwaja (Lahore: Sheikh Ghulam Ali & Sons, n.d).

76. B.D.Mirchandani, 'Ancient Sindhu and Sauvira', Glimpses of Ancient Sind: A Collection of Historical Papers (Bombay: S.M.Gulrajans, n.d), p. 31. Also see D.C.Sircar, Cosmography and Geography in early Indian Literature (Calcutta: Indian Studies, 1967), pp. 73-74.

77. A.H.Dani, 'Sindhu-Sauvira: A Glimpse Into the early History of Sind'. In Hameeda Khuhro (ed), Sind Through the Centuries (Karachi: Oxford Univesity Press, 1981), pp. 35-42.

78. Ali A.Jafarey, 'Sindh and the Sindhis in the Early Aryan Age'. In Khuhro, ibid, pp. 64-70.

79. Ibn Khurdaba, Kitabul Masalik wa-l Mamalik; Al-Masudi, Muruj ul Zahab in Elliot & Dowson, Vol. 1, p. 14 & p.19.

80. Rashid ud Din, Jami ut Tawarikh in ibid, p. 45.

81. Beal, op. cit. p. 117; pp. 136-137 & p. 143.

82. H.C.Ray, The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Medieval Period) (New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1931-36. 2nd. ed. 1973), Vol. 1, p. 84.

83. Ibid, p. 180.

84. Al-Badaoni, op. cit. p. 26.

85. Ibid, pp. 51-55.

86. Ibid, p. 95.

87. Ibid, p. 95, f.n. 6.

88. E.M.Reinaud in Elliot & Dowson, Vol. 1, op. cit. p. 100.

89. Al-Masudi, Murujul Zahab in ibid, p. 24

90. Ibn Haukal, Ishkalu-l Bilad or the Kitabu-l Masalik wa-l Mamalik in ibid, p. 39.

91. Grierson, ibid, p. 125.

92. Ibid, p. 125.

93. ibid, p. 125.

94. R.L.Turner, 'The Sindhi Recursives' Bulletin of the school of Oriental and African Studies Vol. III; Part II (1924), pp. 301-315 (p. 315)..

95. John G. Bordie, 'An Inquiry into the Glotto-Chronology of Sindhi Phonology'. In Khuhro, op. cit. pp. 270-280 (p. 277).

96. Grierson, op. cit. p. 126.

97. Ibid, p. 1. Abul Fazal, Ain-e-Akbari [Urdu] trans. from the Persian by Fida Ali. Vol. 1, Part 2 (Lahore: Sang-e-Meel, n.d), pp. 1036-1037.

98. Gankovsky, op. cit. p. 130.

99. Ibn Hauqal, Kitab al-Musalik wal Mamalik. In Elliot & Dowson Vol. 1, op. cit. p. 32-33.

100. Gankovsky, op. cit. p. 147.

sundararaj

30th November 2006, 11:55 AM

Very extensive thread. Needs thorough concentration. Thanks for all the contributors. Very informative one.

upodaridite

8th May 2017, 02:28 PM

thanks for this review! you may follow http://bigpaperwriter.com/blog/essay-on-history-of-basketball and read the whole history of the basketball!

Deniew

8th June 2018, 03:36 PM

I don't actually think Tamil derived from Sanskrit. Moreover, there many people see the promotion of the language as a move by Hindu nationalist groups.