Better don't turn out to be an excuse for them to give yall the headaches then!Quote:
Originally Posted by Azhahan
*DIGRESSION END*
Printable View
Better don't turn out to be an excuse for them to give yall the headaches then!Quote:
Originally Posted by Azhahan
*DIGRESSION END*
I am just a simple and single man, I can only manage a few of the wifes man. Even Murugan manages two, atleast officially.
*RESTART*
Ohh sorry I thot u were married, when u mentioned abt not wanting "headaches" from wives! So 'cudn't see y shud hav the "headaches" being single! But if u do intend to manage a few who aren't ur own, u'll still turn out to be an excuse for them (or their hubbies) to give u a headache! :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Azhahan
*END*
The problem is not dealing with multiple housewives but the management :lol:
One is normal
Two are phenomenal
Three a small problem
More, you end on the graveyard
:lol:
How did you discover these principles?
Instincts!Quote:
Originally Posted by bis_mala
I thot in his case it was experience lah! :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Idiappam
I have experiences on the graveyard, it is cilly though. But still not ended on the graveyard yet. Not yet. But sooner or later... every body does :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lambretta
Why only housewives? Why don't you include girlfriends as well? The more the merrier and you will be able to come out with more of such "experience" (?) or "instinctive" statements, won't u?Quote:
The problem is not dealing with multiple housewives but the management
Looks like men develop philosophy only after getting multiple partners!!
So, whether on the graveyard or in the graveyard, you are already at the graveyard and your experience there is in progress ; only that it has yet to come to an end......Take care: Don't make the end of your experience the end of you.....!! Best wishes.Quote:
I have experiences on the graveyard, it is cilly though. But still not ended on the graveyard yet.
so, where is this thread heading now?! :roll:
Our dear hubbers would like to take intervals from time to time and then steal glimpses of their housewives and girlfriends. Linguistics is after all a very heavy topic!!Quote:
Originally Posted by stranger
Let's have something on track from you, just to demonstrate to them how to put themselves back on track!! Otherwise they will still be struggling with their housewives and girlfriends......
Dear Ms. bis_mala,
Thanks for your deep rooted and well-knit views earlier in this thread :!:
Give me sometime to write about "Jent Avesta" that was marked by me as follow up session in my last message.
Till that time let our disparate/desparate friends gambling here :!:
f.s.gandhi
How right you are :!:Quote:
Originally Posted by bis_mala
Mothers, housewives and girlfriends (and especially GW - a special message to stranger) - Indeed a heavy topic just like Linguistics :lol:
you dont have to remind me who you are in every life of yours! :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Azhahan
Trust me, I can figure you out in few posts before the moderators do of course! :cool:
Let us see how long this "half-life" of your new avatar lasts! :)
Take it easy! :)
Aahh........shud've figured it out........Azhahan = Bebeto = Honey Bee = etc. = ..................= BAD BOY! :wink: :P :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by stranger
My compliments Lambretta,Quote:
Originally Posted by Lambretta
it seems that I am not the one and only smartest here in the hub :lol:
Let me see what I can do when the next moderator retires or resigns or even busted by Bad Boy. You should be the substitute :lol:
Last night I thought to myself (yes, sometimes I really do) that I can even make all the polls point less. Just imagine, with each and every new ID I take I cast my vote for my favorite :!:
I again and again prove the Hub heads and the mods that it is absolute nonsense to compare their smartness with that of BB. They once disabled the T-online provider in order to keep me out but in vain. I am their hub virus they can't get rid of. I had been the Jester of Kings and the King of all Jesters. Oh yes, Jester King was also once my ID. :lol: There was a thread where once Surya was wondering about BB's absence. He even did not realize as I asked him which BB he is searching for - Bad Boy, Boris Becker, Brigitte Bardot, BB King and so on. :lol:
They don't learn the lessons well thus I still keep on teaching them adamantly. It is just a hub sport. :lol:
OK, let us get back to the topic.
Sorry (but not really) for the digression :lol:
I hope you all enjoy - I know except The hub heads and Surya of course.
This is a case of derailment rather than proceeding on the wrong track.
Let's go back.
To prove Tamil's elderliness among world languages:
maka (T) = offspring.
maka + kaL = makkaL (people)
makan > mOn son ++
makaL > mOL daughter
makaar = small children.
makavu = child
makaduu = woman. Á¸Þ¯( in ancient Tamil lit and grammar )
makaram * animals: such as: fish, crocodile, pollen of flower
makarantham *= pollen of flower
maka(m) (T) * > mruga(m) (Skrt) ma > mru usual corruption.
* these are t animals or things born or produced in nature.
mac < Irish mac 'son' (MacDonald, MacMahon etc)
Proto-Indo-European *maghos 'young', *maghu 'child, boy'
Old English magu 'child, son, man';
Kannada maga 'son';
Bantu manku, mongo 'child';
Proto-Caucasian *mik'w- 'young one';
Proto-Tibeto-Burman mak 'son-in-law';
Papuan mak 'child';
Natick mukketchouks 'boy';
Beothuk magaraguis 'son';
Acoma mage 'girl';
Cayuse m'oks 'baby';
Modoc mukak 'girl';
Zuni maki 'young woman'
++ note: the word form mOn used commonly in Jaffna and Kerala has
been found in a stone inscription in Lanka, dated to 300 BC (Dr Paramu Pushparatnam ) [ giving from my memory ] Linguistically, the term maka preceded the derivations mOn and mOL. (e.g. pakuthi > paathi, mikuthi > miithe, pukaiyilai > pOyilai, mukadu > mOdu ). It does not appear that the terms mOn and mOL are found in Tolkaappiyam and this is an additional reason for me to think that the grammatical treatise preceded this period i.e., 300 BCE. of stone inscription. Much of the grammar stated in Tolkaappiyam was also not followed in most of Sangam literature. Another reason to say that it preceded much of Sangam literature. At Tolkaappiyar's time, the word for nine (9) was thondu. This word is never found in any Tamil literature as far as I can remember and read and it was only found in Tolkaappiyam. Another reason to think that Tolkaappiyam preceded the last Sangam. But thondu survived in word forms such as thoNNuuRu (thon) and thoLLaayiram (thoL). This and for many other reasons I am firmly of the view that Tamil is a very old language. The submergence (kadalkOL ) was so bad that the ancient Tamils even lost some of their numbers !!
They had their own fractions and names of fractions: kaaNi, araikkANi, munthiri,etc and the ways of writing them. These were ketti eNchuvadi and one was published and available in Malaysia till after World War II according to sources. I am looking for a copy.
Guys, If you know anymore please add to the list.
*DIGRESSION*
U mean for u or the moderator?? I wudn't fancy being either tho.....I'm rather lazy when it comes to tat! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Azhahan
Neways nice talkin to u buddy!
*END DIGRESSION*
I've heard of Kaani.......I rem. my granpa telling me abt it, twas a fraction in currency, Kaani, Dhamdi, Paavala (which I think meant 1/4 rupee).......r all these other fraction names also dervied from Tamil??Quote:
Originally Posted by bis_mala
Friends,
CAN somebody link to historical sites that discusses on Asoka dating. I read from a Specific Tamil group which dates Asoka to 2nd Millenim BCE.
Budda is also dated to 1800 BCE.
please link me to discusion papers please.
paulthoumas.
]Lambretta wrote:
//quoting bis_mala :They had their own fractions and names of fractions: kaaNi, araikkANi, munthiri,etc and the ways of writing them.
I've heard of Kaani.......I rem. my granpa telling me abt it, twas a fraction in currency, Kaani, Dhamdi, Paavala (which I think meant 1/4 rupee).......r all these other fraction names also dervied from Tamil??//
Kaani, Dhamdi, Paavala (which I think meant 1/4 rupee).......r all these other fraction names also dervied from Tamil??
kaaNi - is tamil.
dhamdi from thampidi - also Tamil.
paavala derived from pakavaLavu - meaning simply a fraction of something.
À¸×+ «Ç× = À¸ÅÇ× > À¡ÅÇ.
just like pakkavadai > pakkavada > pakkOdaa (word corruption).
À¸ÅÇ× > À¡ÅÇ.
like pakuthi > paathi À̾¢ > À¡¾¢. pakal (=part) > paal (=part or side)
Can someone give the contents of the speech of Fr, Heras, the world renown archeologist, in Annamalai University, wherein he confessed the love he had for Tamil and Dravidian languages and called himself : "the Spanish Dravidian!". to the applause of the learned audience he was facing.
It is one of the many instances where a world expert had heaped praise on Tamil. Grateful if some good soul can supply the full speech with references.
thanks
:clap:Quote:
It is one of the many instances where a world expert had heaped praise on Tamil. Grateful if some good soul can supply the full speech with references.
Yeah, unfortunately, Latinos, English and Americans have more respect for thamizh -as they are open-minded- than our nasty neighbors! :P
Many tks for the info. on tat one! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by bis_mala
Quote:
Originally Posted by paulthomas
You have dating problems? Should sort out all such immediately. What better time than Christmas holidays? Re-consult your school text books which give the dates and get everything sorted out before the new year. Don't let such problems mar your 2006.
btw, these dates have nothing to do with the topic here!!
The Indus script
The articles by acknowledged experts in the field of archaeology on the Indus script ("Horseplay in Harappa", October 13 and "A tale of two horses", November 24) were educative.
It was Fr. Henry Heras, the Dravidian from Spain as he proudly called himself, who first declared that the language of the Indus Valley seal inscriptions was proto-Dravidian. His Studies in Proto-Indo-Mediterranean Culture, Volume I (1953) is a cl assic that gives rare insights. Although experts who tried to decipher the Indus script later have not accepted the particular readings given by Fr. Heras, no reputed scholar has contested his conclusion.
Among those who have tried to decipher the Indus script as proto-Dravidian are Walter A. Fairservis (no more with us now), Asko Parpola, Y.V. Knorozov and Iravatham Mahadevan. Among the eminent archaeologists and philologists who endorse this view are th e great Sanskritist Dr. Burrow Bridget and Raymon Allchin (archaeologists) and Kamil V. Zvelebil, one of the foremost Dravidian linguists. The best summary of this issue has been given by Zvelebil in Dravidian Linguistics, An Introduction (Pondich erry Institute of Language and Culture, Pondicherry, 1990). No reasonable person can cavil against his conclusion that "the most probable candidate is and remains some form of Dravidian".
Stanley Wolpert paraphrases this scholarly consensus in a more telling manner in his An Introduction to India (University of California Press, 1991): "We assume from various shreds of evidence that they were proto-Dravidian, possibly using a langu age that was a grandfather of modern Tamil."
Among the numerous attempts made by Tamil-knowing scholars (apart from the doyen among them, I. Mahadevan) to decipher the Indus script from the proto-Dravidian angle, the work of Dr. R. Madhivanan, Chief Editor of the Tamil Etymological Dictionary Proje ct, seems to be based on a sound knowledge of ancient Tamil etymology and grammar (beginning from Tholkappiam) and an awareness of all the proto-historical, archaeological, cultural and anthropological backgrounds of the issue. Madhivanan's work < I>Indus Script - Dravidian (Tamil Sandror Peravai, Chennai, 1995) gives his readings of the seal inscriptions as syllabic representations of names of merchants, chiefs, priests and gods of proto-Tamil vintage. Madhivanan buttresses his reading withth e bio-script metal seal discovered by Indrapala at Anaikottai in Yalpanam with the word Tivu Ko (according to Madhivanan) in Indus Valley script and also in southern Brahmi script; and the Indus script-like cave inscriptions at Keezhavalai on the Villupuram-Thiruvannamalai road in Tamil Nadu.
Scholars such as Parpola and Mahadevan have not accepted the readings of Madhivanan so far. However, there is no gainsaying that attempts to decipher the Indus script cannot ignore the sound linguistic and grammatical parameters set by Madhivanan for dec ipherment.
P. Ramanathan
Chennai
<a href="http://www.flonnet.com/fl1801/18011050.htm"target="blank"><http://www.flonnet.com/fl1801/18011050.htm/a>
try these google searchesQuote:
Originally Posted by bis_mala
<a href="http://www.google.co.in/search?as_q=henry+heras&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Google+S earch&as_epq=dravidian&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&a s_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_site search=&as_rights=&safe=images" target="blank">http://www.google.co.in/search?as_q=...s=&safe=images /a>
Friends,
As per archeolgoy, Tamil writing came from North India to us, The Asoka Brahmi, was modified to Tamil Brahmi, and it came to Srilanka first and later to Coastal Tamilnadu; later spread to Entire Tamilnadu. I saw in my Archieves, an article on Srilankan History for a discusion please.
A PROBLEM OF HISTORY- RE VISITED - II
(1998 December 02)
People of Mr. Naganathan's ilk are not sure of what they are talking about. According to some like Gnanapragasar the Nagas were Tamils and had lived in this country from time immemorial. Some think that the Sinhala people came in the 6th century B.C. and conquered the Island from those original Tamils. There is no historical evidence for this what so ever as Dr. Indrapalan has shown in his Ph. D. thesis. Mr. Naganathan, it appears that, subscribes to what may be called the residual Naga theory. However it is not clear what he is really implying. It could mean that some Nagas were absorbed into the Sinhala nation, but the others remained as Nagas, or it may be that of the tribes Yaksha, Naga, Deva, Rakshasas, the tribes other than the Nagas, together with the Aryans who came around the 6th century B.C. went into form the Sinhala nation but the Nagas continued as Nagas. But Mr. Naganathan cannot present a consistent picture.
For example as I have already mentioned ( A PROBLEM OF HISTORY - RE VISITED - I ) he talks of Saddhatissa and his son Khallatanaga and the rest to establish his residual Naga theory. As I have shown, the fact that Saddhatissa had a son called Khallatanaga proves neither that there were Tamils then nor that the father, the son or both were Nagas. Mr. Naganathan also appears to believe that Saddhatissa was Sinhala. Is he trying to imply that the mother of Khallatanaga was a Naga? Even if it was the case it does not make Khallatanaga a Tamil king. I will come to a more general version of this problem later.
Mr. Naganathan's next version tells us that the 'Sri Lankan Tamils, by and large, are not
aliens but natives of the soil, being as much mutual descendants of the indigenous Hela
(Eela) people, with the difference that the one were acculturated and adopted a Prakrit of
Sanskrit as language and Buddhism as religion, and the other Tamil and Saivism,
respectively.' He proceeds: 'Having said this, I must allow for the fact that the early "Tamils" in Sri Lanka were (as in S. India) profoundly Jain and Buddhist. Hence, as I pointed out previously, they would have gone to form the non- Tweedledum Tweedledee population of Buddhist residents of the country, who were not Sinhala -speaking.'
This is not a bad hypotheses if not for the fact that there is no evidence to substantiate it. The all-important question is what is the culture and the history that these non-Sinhala Buddhists have created in this country say from the time of Sena Guttika? Dr. Indrapalan has conclusively shown that there were no Tamil settlements, whether Buddhist, Jaina or any other, in this country before the tenth century and he categorically states that the early history is that of the Sinhala people. Archaeologists and Historians such as Drs. Paranavithana and Nilakanta Sastri are of the same view. When confronted with facts all that Mr. Naganathan can do is to respond with statements like "Dr. Indrapalan can go and fly a kite." Mr. Naganathan in order to refute Dr. Indrapalan says in his own style that there are several 'noble' families including that of his mother's who "trace their descent to Cholan chiefs who arrived with the expansion of the Chola empire."
In fact as I have said on many occasions there would not have been even Senas and Guttikas if not for the Mahavansaya, which happens to be the only source of relief for people of Mr. Naganathan's ilk. Not only that there were no Tamils in Sri Lanka in early times there is no evidence to show that the Tamils in South India then were predominantly Buddhists or Jains. This is what Dr. Nilakanta Sastri has to say on this matter in his 'A History of South India' (second edition). "The exact contents of these inscriptions still remain obscure, but a few facts emerge from tentative studies of them. We can say, for instance, that among the donors of monuments were a husbandman (kutumbika) of Ceylon ( Ila), besides a woman, merchants (vanikar), and members of the Karani caste. ........... Yet it seems easy to exaggerate their social and religious significance; there is no evidence that the Tamil people in general had accepted Jainism or Buddhism in this early period; and the evidence from the literature of the succeeding age, that of the Sangam, shows the Vedic religion of sacrifice and some forms of popular Hinduism entrenched in the affections of the people and their rulers." (Pg.87)
It should be remembered that Ila is derived from Sihala (References in TULF, BUDGET AND THE ORIGINAL PEOPLE ) and that the kutumbika had gone to South India from the Sihaladeepa. I must also add that the Sangam period according to Dr. Nilakanta Sastri is the first three or four centuries A.D. (Pg. 110). On the question of the ancestors of Mr. Naganathan all I can do is to quote Dr. Nilakanta Sastri, so that the readers can come to their own judgement. " The rise of the imperial Cholas of the line of Vijayalaya may be dated from the middle of the ninth century A.D. As they emerged from their obscurity, (after the Sangam period- my emphasis) they soon displaced the remnants of Pallava power to the north of their capital Tanjore, and subdued the Pandya and Chera countries in the south and invaded Ceylon." (Pg.5). Mr. Naganathan's claim, that his mother's family descended from a Chola chief who arrived with the expansion of the Chola empire, is not in contradiction with the conclusion of Dr. Indrapalan, that there were no Tamil settlements in Sri Lanka before the tenth century. However, Dr. Nilakanta Sastri says that the Cholas invaded Sri Lanka and this means that the Chola chiefs would have arrived in this country as invaders.
Mr. Naganathan and people of his ilk try to create the impression that since some of the Sinhala kings either had names ending with Siva or Naga while some others had connections to dynasties in Pandya and Kalinga countries, Tamil/ Dravida kings have ruled Sri Lanka together with Sinhala kings intermittently. Even if one assumes that there have been Tamil/Dravida persons occupying the throne it does not make the kingdom a Tamil kingdom. The present ruling family in England, the Windsors, have all sorts of connections with the other, let us say Royal or Ksathriya, families in Europe. In fact it is said that Ms. Diana Spencer was one of the few English to be married to an heir to the throne in the Windsor family. But that did not make the Windsors Germans, French, Greeks or any other nationality. They were and are considered as English kings and queens for the simple reason that they are the kings and queens of the English people. In other words they sat on the English throne. The person who sits on the English throne is an English king or queen irrespective of his or her ancestral connections. The Royals and the Ksathriyas, whether they are from the west or the east have had a tradition of getting wives and husbands from similar families irrespective of the country of origin.
Parakramabahus and Nissankamallas may have had Pandya and Kalinga connections. That is irrelevant as far as the throne is considered. They sat on the Sinhala throne as Sinhala kings. It was Parakramabahu in one of his battles asked for a Sinhala sword while Nissankamalla famous for his inscriptions had a stone inscription in Sinhala erected in Rameswaram in respect of his visit to South India. (P. B. Rambukwella: Commentary on Sinhala Kingship, Pg. 79).It is not the dynasty that matters but the throne. In any case, for the information of Mr. Naganathan and the rest, Kalinga, which came under the Asokan empire, is roughly, present Orissa and was not a Dravida country.
Even the Vaduga kings, originally from present Andra Pradesh, sat on the Sinhala throne, and yes, as Buddhists whether Sri Wickrama Rajasinghe looked like Tweedledum and Tweedledee or not. In fact even George III had to undertake the task of protecting Buddhism through what is known as the Kandyan Convention before he could make any claim whatsoever to the Sinhala throne or the kingdom of Sinhale. Of course the English, being the perfect gentlemen they are, had no respect for the convention.
Now let us look at the early history of the Tamils in general. What I give below is only a summary and I may give more details in some of the future articles depending on the availability of space and time. There are some people who think that the pre-Aryan history in India (and Sri Lanka) is Dravidian. This is far from truth. The tribes, who lived in this part of the world before the Aryans arrived were not Dravidian. In fact the Dravidians have come to India (South) later than the Aryans.
I quote again from 'A History of South India'. " It must be admitted that much of this evidence on which the old approach to the Dravidian problem was based is vague and circumstantial, and furnishes no reliable framework. Not so the recent and very plausible attempt of Fuerer-Haimendorf to equate the Dravidian-speakers with the iron using Megalithic folk who came to South India from the west by sea, perhaps leaving colonies along the coast in the course of their migration -which may account for the Megaliths near Karachi and Brahui in Baluchistan. He thinks that an immigration of Dravidian speakers about 500 B.C. would allow sufficient time for the development of the early Tamil literature of the Sangam." (Pg. 62).
However Dr. Nilakanta Sastri does not agree with Fuerer Haimendorf and he suggests that the Dravidians arrived in South India more or less at the same time as the Aryans came to North India. But he himself says that " it is evident that starting somewhere about 1000 B.C. the movement of the Aryans into the South proceeded more or less steadily and peacefully, and had reached its completion sometime before the establishment of the Mauryan empire which included in its fold all India except the extreme South." (Pg.67).
Now Dr. Paranavithana in his book 'Sinhalayo' states: "The culture represented by the megalithic monuments cannot have developed from that of the Stone Age, for the two were not separated from each other by an appreciable interval of time. Therefore, it has been inferred that the Dravidian people, the bearers of the megalithic culture, came to South India from elsewhere. Megaliths with the same characteristics as are distinctive of the South Indian monuments, have been found in Western Asia. It has therefore been suggested that the Dravidian people migrated to South India from a region, still undetermined, in Western Asia, and that they sojourned for some time in the region around Karacci in Sindh, where groups of megaliths similar to those in South India have been reported.
Aryan culture had been introduced to South India before the arrival of the Dravidians; and three kingdoms, Pandya, Cola and Cera, had been founded somewhat earlier than the establishment of a kingdom of Indo-Aryan culture in Ceylon. The invading Dravidians, apparently, imposed their dominion on these kingdoms which had been founded before their advent, and continued their names." (Pg. 8).
Though there may be disagreements over the period, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Dravidians arrived in South India after the Aryans. It was the Aryan kingdoms Pandya, Cola and Cera which became Dravidian most probably around the time of the Mauryan empire. Dravidianisation of South India has come after its Aryanisation and no wander that the people stuck to most of the gods in the Vedic religions even after Dravidianisation.
In Sri Lanka the same process could have taken place. However, it did not happen that way and the man responsible for the turn of events was none other than Dutugemunu. With the findings from the recent excavations in Anuradhapura by Dr. Shiran Deraniyagala, there cannot be any doubt as to the arrival of the Aryans in this country somewhere around the 6th century B.C. A Sinhala civilisation based on the Aryan culture as well as the culture of the Yakshas and Nagas was established and during the time of king Devanampiya Tissa the Sinhala people became Buddhists. Soon after, the first wave of Dravidians arrived in this country. As Dr. Paranavithana has mentioned in his 'Sinhalayo' the Dravidians were almost succesful.
"The few megalithic monuments and urn-burials discovered in Ceylon are obviously an overflow from South India. The archaeological evidence is supported by literary sources. The Dravidian peoples influenced the course of the Island's history about the same time they gained mastery over the South Indian kingdoms, or shortly afterwards. Within three or four decades from the death of Devanampiya Tissa, Dravidian invaders made an attempt to impose their dominion over Ceylon, and almost succeeded. The first Dravidian attack on Ceylon recorded in the Chronicles is said to have been led by Sena and Guttika, described as merchant mariners who dealt in horses. They appear to have come direct from the Sindhu region, which was noted in ancient days for its fine breed of horses". (Pg.9).
Mr. Naganathan seems to believe that it is necessary to have Dravidians in advance in a country so that a Dravidian invader can rule that country after conquering. The Dravidianisation of India itself proves the fallacy of that argument. If it is generalised to any conqueror then it would have been necessary to have a Portuguese population in advance, in this country for the Portuguese conquerors to rule the coastal areas for more than hundred years.
Leaving aside that type of argument it is clear that from the time of Suratissa (247-237 B.C.) to Valagamba (89-77 B.C.) there have been at least three attempts to Dravidianise this country and during a period of 148 years Sena Guttika (22 yrs.), Elara (44 yrs.) and the five Dravida kings(14 yrs.) have ruled Anuradhapura for 80 years. We must not forget that Bhalluka's ( who came after Elara ) was another attempt. That was one of the most crucial periods in this country. The Sinhala civilisation (Aryanised Yaksha Naga) had to struggle very hard not to allow Sri Lanka taking the same path as South India and end up as a Dravidian country. It should be emphasised that after the victory of Valagamba there were no invasions for a period of about 520 years as Mr. Rambukwella and others have pointed out
As Dr. Paranavithana and others have observed the Dravidians have come to South India through Sindhu region. It is probable that not only Sena Guttika but even Elara, Bhalluka and the five Dravida kings came from the same region. They would have been part of waves of Dravidian arrivals in South India and Sri Lanka. The fact that there were no invasions after the victory of Valagamba could imply that these Dravidian arrivals stopped by that time and also the Dravidian states in formation in South India were not strong enough to invade Sri Lanka. The next stage begins after the formation of the Dravidian states and it is believed that the Seven Dravida kings who invaded in 431 A.C. were Kalabhras.
The histories of South India and Sri Lanka are undoubtedly interconnected. Both South India and Sri Lanka were Aryanised. Then South India was Dravidianised. But the Sinhala Buddhist consciousness imparted by the king Dutugemunu and the others was able to resist the Dravidianisation process in Sri Lanka not only up to the time of five Dravida kings who would have come directly from Sindhu region as those Dravidians who came to South India, but even after the formation of the Dravidian states in South India. Whether we like it or not we have to admit that fact. However much Mr. Naganathan and the others of his ilk may try to Dravidianise a non- Dravida history they will not succeed.
--------
I realy have no opinion, but want experts to discuss.
Uppuma
Are we discussing the script?
Uppuma, as someone of no oppinion and the knower of aryanised singhala dutta gemunu you can for sure tell me the singhala word for parliament. It is nothing else but parliament too. This so called Aryan Language is not at all aryan. It is a composition of Vedda, Tamil, Prakrit and English. So, tell me what is Aryan? It is not cool but kuzh only.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uppuma
North Indian writing came from Tamil. There was a time when Sanskrit (preceding Prakrit included) used Aramaic writing. Read John Keay's INDIAN HISTORY. There are also other historians saying it. There is no archeology saying that Tamil writing came from North India.Quote:
As per archeolgoy, Tamil writing came from North India to us
Other stuff in the post are badly mixed up.
Tamil writing: Please write in the thread "How did the Tamil written characters evolve?" instead of lumping up everything here.
//It should be remembered that Ila is derived from Sihala//
Sinhala is a mixed language, It contains Tamil, Telugu Prakrit and few other elements including those from South East Asia. As to contribution of Tamil to Sinhala, go and read books by the Sinhala writer and researcher: Lionel Sarath.
Read also some posts from the thread: Is Tamil derived from Sanskrit in the Tamil Literature Section. The word Sinhala itself has been said to have derived from Tamil roots.
¾õ + (þú) = ¾Á¢ú.
(þú ) + «õ = ®Æõ. ( vowel in the first word elongated, as in ÍÎ + «ý = ݼý. )
Neelakanda Shastri said "X". But M Seenivasa Iyengar said "Y". So should we believe X or Y?
M S Iyengar thinks that þú is from =þØõ, the sweet juice from the palm tree.
Indrabala said Kathirgamam is from Kathirigaama and gama means village, from Prakrit or its offspring Sanskrit: graama.
But it has been pointed out by other researchers that the word graamam is kamam ( not kaamam, and please do not mistake ) ¸Áõ in Tamil which means village.
Anyway these are not directly relevant to this topic!! I read their books some time back.
I've had Sinhalese friends in Sing......when they spoke it it sounded a lot like Malyalam! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by bis_mala
Dear Friends, :)
It was very much pleasure to celebrate Pongal, tamil’s harvest festival, in home, with relatives, fortunately my annual vacation also falls on it, in ‘SURAVAM’ month (Thai) which is to be and was the new year of ancient tamils. Valluvar says, “Sulantrum Ear Pinnathu Ulagam” which means all forms of businesses of world are based on agriculture and this is being proved by the utterances of WTO recently.
By the by, As usual, Mr. Uppuma quoted / followed the author of selective quoting :!: Opposite views are welcome but not confusionistic fashion.
Not only Mr.K.A.Sastri :!: P.T. Srinivasa Iyengar also had the same view about sankams :!: But it must be borne in mind that both of them have shown strong evidances in their books in support of origin of world primitive civilizations of tamils and one of such quoting from Sastri have been already given by me in the beginning of this thread.
Unfortunately both of them did not have the chance of knowing full research results of sankam anthology during their time and that process was going on.
Let us see the evidances of sankam’s presence in tamil literature.
1. “ Nanpattup pulavanai SANKAMERI
Narkanakak Kizhi, tharumik karulin kaan” – Thevaram
2. “SANKAP Pulavar Mun” – Periya puranam.
3. “SANKATH thamil Moontrum Thaa” – Avvaiyar.
We can leave the above because these were written after 400 CE which were taken as references by Sastri & Iyengar.
But the following were written earlier which have the truth about sankams as ‘KOODALS’ during BCE.
4. “Uyarmathil KOODALIN Aintha OnThamil” – Thiruvasakam (300 CE)
5.The battle of ‘Thalayanakkanam’ is essential in tamil history. Timeline is 150 BCE.(conformed by Kalinga Karavelan inscriptions)
Pandiyan Nedunchezian vows as,
“MANGUDI MARUTHAN THALAIVAN AAGA
Ulakamodu nilaiyiya palar pukazh sirapin
Pulavar Paadathu Vraika En Nilavarai - Puranaanuru – 72
Here sankam (Third sankam) is identified with Mangudi Maruthan one of heads of poets.
Valluvar also says , “ Uvappath THALAI KOODI ullap pirithal
Anaiththaey PULAVAR Thozhil”.
6. “Punar KOOTTU Unda PukalChal Sirapu
Nilantharu Thiruvin Nediyon Pola” - Mathuraik Kanchi.
In this Nediyon (2000 BCE) is refered by Mangudi Maruthanar,the author.
Nediyon is specified by Nettimaiyar as the ancestor of Muthu kudimip peru Vazhuthi who collected ‘Akanaanuru’ of Third sankam as follows.
“Munneer Vizhavin NEDIYON
Nanneer PAHRULI manalinum palavae”
Nediyon belongs to the timeline of Pahruli river’s presence.(2000 BCE)-First Sankam Period.
Hence there are enough literary as well as archeological proofs that Three sankam existed before Common era as mentioned in “Erayanar Akapporul Urai”.
Sinkala history is based on “Mahaa vamsam”. Saathavakanas(Anthra/Vaduka telugu), Kalinkas (oriya/ottars) & Mahathas (Kankai/prakirit) were called summarily as “Mukkalingas” (Three kalinkas) and especially the kalingas(oriya-mixture of vaduku & prakird) invaded through Srilanka’s South East and mixed with the existing tamil race and formulated sinkala language. Kalinkan Empire timeline is 300 BCE.
There is no single Aryan site anywhere in India & world evacuated so far and Maxmuller the father of Aryan theory confessed that there is no Aryan race, in his later years and so there is no Aryan race anywhere in India or world. I may write about it later.
Out of Megalithics so far found out in India (all are only in South India) TamilNadu has 391, Karnataka 300, Anthra 147, Kerala18 & Maharastra 90. All conforms to New Stone Age.(4000 BCE).
Salem’s Pig Iron (Tamil Urukku turned English Wootz Steel) produced by Tamil ‘Katti parayar’ and exported to all western countries (Refer Prehistoric Ancient India by R.D.Banerji) including Masitonia – The country of Alexandar (600 BCE).
The natural transformation of livings of tamils gradually from mountains(Kurinji) to forest(mullai) is revealed by this. Because without invention of Iron Forest living would be difficult.
Hence, Civilizational flow occurred from South to North and not vice versa in ancient days. There is no question of Pre Dravidian/tamil culture anywhere in India. The foremost empire is Pandiyan & Cheran,Cholan, Sathavakanan & Mahatham(north) were ancient empires timewise respectively. I may write more when I deal with Indian culture later.
Asokan ‘Brahmi’(300 BCE) (and tamil Brahmi also since it is slightly different from Asokan Brahmi) was based on tamil ‘Thaamizhi” script practiced during 500 BCE. Dr.S.Rajavel (Madurai University) has proved this by analyzing the “Thaamizhi”scripts around Madurai. Adichanallur urns Script (1000 BCE) is also resembles rather “Thaamizhi” than Tamil Brahmi.
Jain’s Brahmi (100 BCE) in tamil never follows Tholkappiam Grammar (by The.Po.Meenakshi Sundaram –Tamil Elakkiya Varalaaru) and hence it should not be taken as proof for tamil’s earlier scripts. Asokan Brahmi contains message of Chera,Chola,Pandya and Sathyaputhira (Vaduku kannadikaas). This means Asoka knew Tamil kingdoms.
Rajavel further explains that for example in ‘Thaamizhi’ there is no difference for consonant & vowel. This process was followed in kirantha & Vattezuthu scripts of tamil. For ‘K’ and ‘KA’ symbol (+) was used. Whereas in Asokan Brahmi the consonants were added and this was the later development.
We have to know the tamil language to study the “Thaamizhi” script. But We need not know any language to read ‘Brahmi’ script.
Hence with this background we can come to know the tamils script is the earliest whether it is “Thaamizhi” / Brahmi.
In future I may write about West Asian history further in contiuation of my ealier passage and then come to Indina ancient history.
f.s.gandhi
JENT AVESTA (600 BCE)
References :
(1)The Gospel of Zauthushtra, Introduction by Duncan Greenless
(2)Jend Avesta. Part 1 : The Vendidad
(3)The sacred books of the East Vol.4 , James Darmesleter
(4)Pahlavi text, Part 1, E.W. West, ibid Vol.5
(5)The New Britanica Encyclopedia Britanica, 15th edition
(6)Anchor Bible dictionary (For West Asian words meanings)
(7)Feeders of Indian – B.S. Upaththiyaya
‘Jent Avesta’ is sacred book of Jews and was the base for both at simulations and contraries of religions “Isravel”s (Christians) and Ibrahims(Mohammdians).
‘Jent’(Persian),Gente(Pahlavi) means ‘to know’(tamil ‘Kaan’ / Kaandikai). ‘Avestac’(Persian), ‘Avistae’(Pahlavi) means Advertised / Declared (tamil- A+Viththakam-Vitral)
Jents are explanatory notes of Avestas. Jent Avesta are considered as wonderful literature of Persian language. It was transferred orally among priests from 600 BCE and at last had written form in Pahlavi Language only at 531 CE since the script evolved only during that time.
When Alexandar / Skandar (Tamil kandar) won Persia during 330 BCE Avesta traditions were cut off and again refurbished. During that time Persians moved to present Gujarat.
We have to note that The father of Indian nation, Mahatma Gandhi is a Persian. Feroz Gandhi who married Indira Gandhi is also a Persian. Tata & Birla who put seeds to Indian ‘millionarism’ are Persians.
A Indian Persian called ‘Neiyochenk’ translated ‘Avesta’ as ‘Yasua’ into Sanskrit during 1500 CE.
During 1771 CE ‘Ankvettil Dubasan’ translated ‘Avesta’ into French from Gujarat Persians. It must be noted Gujarathi & Pahlavi languages have similarities.
‘Zarathustra’ was God Sun’s messenger (tamil Suriya-zara, Thuthar-Thustra) who states the rules that are to be followed by people in the struggle against bad elements.
The religion that was before Zarathustrar is ‘Maji’(Asiriyan) (Tamil-Mayon). Zarathustra propogated a refined ‘Maji’ called ‘Majesta’.
Concepts : God’s name are Mejesta / Asura Majesta / Aavara Majesta /Oor Majesta /Aravamaithi. He works for good.
Aukura Manyu / Aka mana / Aakriman are evil forces. He works for evil things.
In the above Aravamaithi and Aka mana are direct tamil words and others are the phonetically shrinked form of these two.
Akura Mejesta is God of Storm. Aka mana is god of Sattan(ghost). The war between these two happens in the place ‘Vai’ / Varana which means ‘Vaccum’. In support of Akura Majesta / Aaravamaithi the ‘Zarathustra’ (Suriya Thuthar) comes as ‘Mithra’(Friend-tamil Mynthu) in sky as great ‘sky light’/ flash.
‘Vai’ in tamil also means Vaccum which covers the whole world. Vai+Akam= Vaiyakam means world. ‘Varana’ is from tamil ‘Arunam’ which means ‘Thodu Vaanam’- The place where sky touches Sea. ‘Vari’ also means Sea and ‘Varunan’ / Varanan is God of Sea people (Neithal land).
In war ‘Asuras’ are in support of Akura Majesta. Theevar (Thevar) who had head as ‘Inthira’ are in opposite camp.
Inthiran was god of ‘Marutham’ land in Kumari Kandam. They migrated to ‘Kokra’ river of Saraswathi Valley. Vedhic hymns in prakrit / chandal form were sung.
‘Asuras’ were followers of ‘Mayon’ (Majesta) in kumari kandam. They migrated through Persian Gulf to Eran in which Mesometomian culture contains tamil elements. Paluchistan is also a witness where tamilian ‘Prahui’ language is still present.
The war happened between these groups through Arabian Sea of Gujarat and Indukush Mountains of Afkhanistan which has Kyber & Bolen passages.
In South India these two worship was turned into Siva(Seyon) & Thirumal (Vishnu) is different story.
f.s.gandhi
I have never seen "Tamizh Patrons and Tamizh Lovers" project Tamizh without degrading other Language. I think these people should understand the reality.
Yes The Greeks have cultural Bondage with Asia. This has been told in MaahaBharatha itself..The Greece supported Pandavaas in the Great War and in turn, one of the Yudhishtira's daughter was married to the prince of Greece.
The Greeks were also foloowing "Sanaathana Dharmam" and Tamizh people were not following something different from this Sanaathana Dharma". This thread's authos seems to project an image that Tamizhiyans were following an altogether different way od life. No it was not. There is no second opinion that Tamizh is one of the oldest and beautiful languages.
It seems that the author of this topic has an inherent hatred towards the Non-Tamizh! Please stop hating others and see things as they are.
I wonder whose incarnation this is! :roll:
When will u guys start to debate on the question raised rather than picking on the poster.
The author has expressed fair views. He has just given research opinions. He has not said anything undesirable about other languages or their speakers.Quote:
It seems that the author of this topic has an inherent hatred towards the Non-Tamizh! Please stop hating others and see things as they are.
Friends,
We find that FSG AND Bismala with Great Interest rather Chavunism on Tamil and Twist or misinterpret the records.
Tamil Sangam Lit. are dated to 250BCE to 200CE, Tholkappiyam around 100-50 BCE, and Vedas to 2000BCE or earlier considering Saraswathi river dried by 2200- 1900BCE.
Tamil has around 35% Sanskrit Words and half that from Prakrit and Pali which are branches of Sanskrit, which is acknoledged by Internationally Regarded and Reputed Scholars who research on Linguistics.
Devapriya.