Is tamil derived from Sanskrit

Tamil and prakrits are natural languages that evolved over a huge period of time. Sanskrit on the other hand is a artificially created and perfected language. After Indus valley civilization there was an apparanet lack of a sophisticated language to convey the complex thoughts of humans in the northren part of india, so a group of people spend centuries to create a beautiful language called sanskrit. In doing that they borrowed heavily from the existing prakrits and already sophistacted tamil. In the begining thay called this language chandasa, even during buddha's time this language was called chandasa and still being perfected, when buddha was asked to use chandasa as a meduim for his philosophies he rejected and instead prefered the prakrits. Once that language was made perfect, a lot of existing indian litreature was translated into sanskrit. But since the language was made too perfect, it became too complex to be follwed in day to day life. It has been serving the limited purpose of liturgical needs in the Indian society. Since it has been associated with the religious purposes, it gained an aura of sacredness. That sacredness has been propgated such that the whole scenario of the genesis of the language is reversed, giving rise to stupid speculations like MST (mother sanskrit theory). So inconclusion forget tamil not even the prakrits came from sanskrit.

Friends,

WE get quiet a lot of Political statements rather than Linguistic statements, which are more influenced by the Popular Statements attributed to Devaneyan, Appadurai etc., but that were not there position, and few of big articles are put in Elder Thread.Please read in fully, before any repeat is requested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mahadevan

Tamil and prakrits are natural languages that evolved over a huge period of time. Sanskrit on the other hand is a artificially created and perfected language. After Indus valley civilization there was an apparanet lack of a sophisticated language to convey the complex thoughts of humans in the northren part of india, so a group of people spend centuries to create a beautiful language called sanskrit. In doing that they borrowed heavily from the existing prakrits and already sophistacted tamil. In the begining thay called this language chandasa, even during buddha's time this language was called chandasa and still being perfected, when buddha was asked to use chandasa as a meduim for his philosophies he rejected and instead prefered the prakrits. Once that language was made perfect, a lot of existing indian litreature was translated into sanskrit. But since the language was made too perfect, it became too complex to be follwed in day to day life. It has been serving the limited purpose of liturgical needs in the Indian society. Since it has been associated with the religious purposes, it gained an aura of sacredness. That sacredness has been propgated such that the whole scenario of the genesis of the language is reversed, giving rise to stupid speculations like MST (mother sanskrit theory). So inconclusion forget tamil not even the prakrits came from sanskrit.

---

Does or could it mean that The Gita is made after creating Sanskrit ?

Hi Sivajayan
Gita was also translated to sanskrit, this apparently happened much later, some time around the birth of christ. Some of the philosophies and definetly the delivery style resembles semitic cultures.
The initial part of gita where lord Krishna decalre himself with I am this, I am that , I I I I I , if you juxtapose that with the initial part of bible/quran you may not see any difference. This style is starkingly different from vedic/tamil litreature

I am in the middle of a trip and have not followed this thread carefully. I saw a message another site which may have some relavance to this discussion:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/racchabanda/message/13961
Part of the message is reproduced below:

Here I am reminded of Sjoberg's comments (1992) on syntax of Indian
Languages:

"Thus the Dravidian grammatical impact on Indo-Aryan has been far
greater than the Indo-Aryan grammatical impact on Dravidian. How can we account for this pattern?"

Her hypothetical answer to this question was "agglutinative languages
seem highly resistant to syntactic changes". (Note that the Dravidian
languages are agglutinative languages).

Also Bh. Krishnamurti, a renowned linguist and an authority on
Dravidian languages, in his recent book on "Dravidian Lanaguages" (2003) says:

"It is the Dravidian which show evidence of extensive lexical
borrowing but only a few traits of structural borrowing from Indo-Aryan. On the contrary, Indo-Aryan (particularly middle and modern) show large scale structural borrowing from Dravidian, but very little lexical
borrowing."

To reconcile these facts he says "That Middle Indo-Aryan and New Indo-
Aryan have been built on a Dravidian substratum seems to be the only
answer."

Regards,
Suresh.
*[Footnote on "India as Linguistic Area" from Emeneau Paper in 1956,
where he argued how four language families have co-existed in India]:
Basic requisite to call an area linguistic area lies in which
languages belonging to more than one family show traits in common that do not belong to the other members of (at least) one of the families.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiruttakkan

Hi folks,

I can only point out similar words exist in Sanskrit/Hindi.I have no knowledge as to which word was the original and which was derived!

¾Á¢ú ºõŠìâ¾ò¾¢Ä¢ÕóÐ Å󾾡¸ò §¾¡ýÈÅ¢ø¨Ä.

«¸Ã,¬¾¢,À¸Åý,¯ÄÌ,̽õ,«Á¢ú¾õ(«õâò),⺨É(⃡),¾¡Éõ, ¾Åõ ...all in kuraL.

¸õÀõ ±ýÈ ¦º¡ø khambhaa ±ýÚ †¢ó¾¢Â¢ø ¯ûÇÐ.±Ð ±í¸¢ÕóÐ §À¡É§¾¡?
þÄ츽õ-Ä섽õ ±ýÉ ´üÚ¨Á§Â¡?
þÄ츢Âõ-Ä섽õ ±ýÉ ´üÚ¨Á§Â¡?
þÂì¸õ-Âì„õ ±ýÉ ´üÚ¨Á§Â¡?


¸¡ðº¢-¸¡ì„¢. ¸ñ þ¾¢Ä¢ÕóÐ Å󾧾¡?! or maybe the otherway round!

Á†¢Ä¡-Á¸Ç¢÷ þ¾¢Ä¢ÕóÐ Å󾧾¡?! or maybe the otherway round!


Å£¾¢,§Á¸õ,¿¡¸õ,¬¨º,þ,º¡¾¨É,¸¨Ä,Á¨Ä,Á¡¨Ä,¸¡Äõ,
¿£Äõ,§Å¸õ,§º¡¸õ,Ðì¸õ,Àì¸õ,¦º¡÷ì¸õ,ÅìÃõ,Å÷ì¸õ,«ÛÀÅõ ,
«Û¾¡Àõ,¾¡Àõ,§¸¡Àõ,͸õ,Àó¾õ,ÀÅ¢ò¾¢Ãõ,ãò¾¢Ãõ,þÂó¾¢Ãõ ,

áò-þÃ×, ¸¡ø-¸¡¨Ä?

§¸¡Äõ,§¸¡„õ,§¸¡ÒÃõ,Àì¾¢,Àƒ¨É...
ÀìÌÅõ,;ó¾¢Ãõ,

¾¡¸ò-¾Ì¾¢?(†¢ó¾¢)-†¢ó¾¢î ¦º¡ü¸û ż¦Á¡Æ¢Â¢Ä¢ÕóÐ Åó¾¢Õì¸Ä¡õ.±ÉìÌ Å¼¦Á¡Æ¢
¦¾Ã¢Â¡Ð.§Á§Ä ¦º¡ýÉÐ §À¡Ä º¢Ä ¦º¡ü¸û ż¦Á¡Æ¢ ±ýÚ ÀÊò¾¾¢ø §¸ð¼¾¢ø ¦¾Ã¢Ôõ.
¬É¡ø †¢ó¾¢ ÍÁ¡Ã¡¸ò ¦¾Ã¢Ôõ.

àû-¾Á¢§Æ¡¨º ¯ûÇÐ.¬É¡ø †¢ó¾¢Â¢ø dhool ±ýÈ¡ø ຢ.

¬¨º(¬„¡),¿¨º(¿„¡)-¦ÅÈ¢,þ¨º(‰)-Ò¸ú,þ-þ...

---

¾Â¢÷ - ¾†¢

º¡¨Ä - º¡Ä¡

ÌÕ

þ¨Å¸¨ÇÔõ §º÷ì¸Ä¡§Á

Íó¾Ã áƒý

Friends,

Mahadevan and Idiyappam were talking about Rig Veda, and Idiayappam has referred about the Varna classification refered in Purusas Suktham- Friend- here Poetically the author refers to the Work done by various Classifications of People as Teacers and Priests who do Brain work as from Face etc., and Rig otherwise does not refer Caste by Birth.

TholKappiyam dated to 100-150BCE, has complete Castesism to the core.

TholKappiyar- says Education only for First Three Varnas and not for Fourth, Religious Rituals only for First Three except for Few Occasions such as Marriage, birth and deaths etc., for Fourth Caste. Fourth Caste should not do other than Agriculture; where as Kshatriyas and Vaisiyas can do Agriculture also; thereby putting the Fourth Varna at Highly Disadvantages postion in the System; which is Mainly useful for HighCaste Non-Brahmins. Brahmins should do All religious Duties as Marriages etc., are all in Thol. TholKappiyam is very clear as Varna is by birth; which is the earliest reference than any Sanskrit reference.
ThiruValluvar has refered to Hindu Gods by name atleast 27 times, in Kural and I Have posted a few of them in Kural Thread already, please go through them.
ThiruValluvar has also refers caste by birth several times in various Kurals, though every friend would immediately refer to “Pirappokkum Ella Vuyirkum…”
-similar sentences can given on equality is also available in Manudarma.

Mahadevan- your claim from Orthodox is Fictional can be seen from your Complete Ignorance shown in Sashti Thread Posting, I do not Believe in Castes system, but I am giving only what is available in Tholkappiyam and Kural.

Friends,
What can be compared? Is there any meaningful idea is required?

Bible Old Testament- Called Torah or Law, and in Tamil Niyayap Pramanangal, also called Moses Laws; Muslims Quran calls them as
Towrat; and an African Mathematics Professor who was converted to Christianity resently -summerised these five books as- The God gave Laws inwhich he wants 400 to 1,600 Goats be killed as Sacrifice every everyminute-daily, and the Chief Bishop of the Jerusalem Temple has to eat 88 Pigeons every day- the Professor for Revealing was Thrown out of Church; the laws remains.

Tiruvalluvar regards Vedas at the most highest level.

In the Kodungondmai - Valluvar says Rain will stop raining if the King is ruling Badly; Is not No Rain in First Half of Ist Millenium, not bad enough for a Country? No as per Tiruvalluvar- If the King is still bad- the Cows will not give its Utilities as Milk, Butter etc., and The BRAHMINS will Forget Vedas. This is the worse for Valluvar than Rain stoppage.

Valluvar Preacjed people to follow Vedas

MosesSolomon

solomon wrote: TholKappiyam is very clear as Varna is by birth; which is the earliest reference than any Sanskrit reference.

Are you saying Manu sasthra came after Tolkappiyam ?

solomon wrote: Tiruvalluvar regards Vedas at the most highest level.

Then probably he should have started the kural with peans to vedas, which he did not

solomon wrote :In the Kodungondmai - Valluvar says Rain will stop raining if the King is ruling Badly; Is not No Rain in First Half of Ist Millenium, not bad enough for a Country? No as per Tiruvalluvar- If the King is still bad- the Cows will not give its Utilities as Milk, Butter etc., and The BRAHMINS will Forget Vedas. This is the worse for Valluvar than Rain stoppage.

Here he was simply mentioning about the failure of the infrastructure followed by the total failure of the system, that includes what people normally do. What a foresight !


solomon wrote: TholKappiyam dated to 100-150BCE, has complete Castesism to the core.
Looks like he was elaborating the vedic culture

solomon wrote : Friends, What can be compared?

Please ask this question to yourself a million times, I have compared what can be compared.

Solomon lied:

Quote:

---

ThiruValluvar has also refers caste by birth several times in various Kurals, though every friend would immediately refer to “Pirappokkum Ella Vuyirkum…”

---

That's a diliberate misinterpretation of that Kural.

Quote:

---

-similar sentences can given on equality is also available in Manudarma.

---

What are you talking?? You are saying Kural promotes caste, and manudarma promote equality??

What a lie!! Manu Smriti is the world's greatest book on casteism and racism - Sanskritist love that book!

Solo has taken great pains to depict vaLLuvar as a caste supporter amd manu sasthiram as a promoter of equality.

Manu was condemned by Bharathi as follows:-

chuuththiranuk koru niithi - thandach
chORuNNum paarppukku vERoru niithi,
chaaththiram chollidu maayin - athu
chaaththiram anRu; sathiyenRu kandOm!!

Of vaLLuvan he said:

vaLLuvan thannai ulakinukkE thanthu
vaan pukaz konda thamiz naadu!!

Would Bharathi say so if vaLLuvan was a caste supporter??

In any event, this thread is not for this topic on who was supporting caste and who was not.