Elder Sanskrit Lit. and Tamil
Friends,
Aravindanji, has brought a freshness and proper Authors for Discussions, rather than 3rd Rare Forgery of R.Mathiwanan, on Indus Pictorial Symbols Dechiporing. I have already put some of my views in the past on that from the articles of Prof.Kamil Zevilable submitted in Tokyo Conference of Stone Insciptions, I shall produce its excerpts in detail in my next posting.
" The Summary- Indus Pictorial Symbols are UnDeciphered, and has no connection with later Indian Writing Scripts Developed for Vadamozhi Karoshti or Brahmi. Nearly 60 Years of Various attempts to read it as Proto Dravidian has ended up as a failure, and just as a Speculation, and a Bread for Non- Serious Emotional and Political Researchers and Politians, and both Asko Parobola and Iravatham Mahadevan agree thay remain Undechiphered.
My detailed views next time. Aravindanji sometimes make Linguistic Views, but mostly Political Statements.
With Regard to Rig Veda to Ramayan and Mahabaratha are all considered as ONLY Sanskrit by every University researching all over the World, ofcourse Classical and Poetical Sanskrit is its later development, after Panini in early 5th Cen.BCE., and Panini's dating are well Attested by History by Meghastanis and other Foriegn writers. So taking on few Undescriptive Researchers who
for Political Publicity, have said otherwise.
As I have put here, even Devaneyan and Appadurai, has held Vedas are early Sanskrit.
In the Same Way- Aravindanji makes Proto Dravidian means Tamil, Friends this is not held by any Linguistic Objective Scholars and especially who have worked and Dechiphered Brahmi Inscriptions. The Brahmi Tamil Inscriptions which Burrowed Vadamozhi Letters for Tamil, has quiet a few Vadamozhi words along with Telugu and Kannada words, and this are dated close to 100BCE, i.e., Tamil Spoken then had quiet a lot of Proto Dravidian Words or
KodunTamil as Pavanar School's whitewahing calls them. So we can say, Classical Tamil of Sangam Literature was Never Spoken at all.
Linguistic Researchers now put TElugu spoken from 1000BCE, Kannada from 500BCE, and Malayalam from 100CE, and All these Language Scholars do not accept them as Offshoot of Tamil. but its earlier form-Proto Dravidian.
Sangam Literature and Silapathikaram clearly mentions of Vadugu being spoken in beyond Tirupathi. And on Senguttuvan's Expedition Sangam Lit. says- "Mozhi Pala Nadu Kadanthu" i.e., Existance of Other Languages during BCE periods.
Pragrit and Classical Sanskrit as Per Western Universities are considered as Ideological twins developement from Vedic Sanskrit. When we look at Brahmi Tamil Inscriptions, which do not use Classical Tamil, same way all over India, the Stone Inscriptions of the same Period use Calloquial spoken language Pragrit a twin of Sanskrit. No Linguistic Objective research put it with Dravidian Group.
On Tamil Development, I Showed- Words for ThAT-WHAT-This-Antha- Entha- Intha are not there in TholKappiyam to Tirukural, I Only wanted to say that Tamil was Developing and changing.
KAZHAGAM- Aravindanji, Has not been used in Sangam Lit at all. Valluvar used it Kural 935 and 937 as to Gambling Place, without any other word and because it is in Atikaram Suuthu, we can understand its meaning.
Friends, the word- Kazhagam is not used in Sangam Lit at all, and Valluvar used it on for Gambling- KALAH- the Sanskrit word for Gamble money from Atharvan Veda and Aaham, another Sanskrit word for Home,still used by Bramins, so Kalah-Aaham can only give the meaning Valluvar used.
Any Speculation with Linguistics by Burrow or others is certainly of no use. And all this Scholars have been using Language very Cautously, and M.B.Emenow, the aricle I hold in my Hand, specifically uses words as PROTO-Dravidian and Old Tamil differently. And I Summarise from his
conclusion-
Quote:
" At one Time Speakers of Proto Dravidian lived Beyond North.
Can we take that they had link with Burushaski? We are only in Gussing stage.
At this stage to say that Malayopolynesian-Micronesran and North ASustralian came to Indian Borders is Trouble some. Also We can not leave it aside that all this Linguistic growth has developed Individually and separately, and if we take this position we cannot then find answer to How this Developement thereall took place.
"
So Linguistics is Too Speculative and The Authors are clear Proto Dravidian and Tamil are Separately viewed.
FSG USEd to say Pashai Language as Dravidian, but HERE this author clearly put it as Indo-Aryan group.
Aravindan's reply on "MONOgenes" was puzzling, and his attitude is more so. For Every Indian- Vedas are Divine Inspired Revealtions, and we have all used to Criticise them to our liking. Calling Vedic Aryans as Outsiders, is highly Blasa[hemy to the Core. And Even to date TholKappiyam, a Grammer Book to its Actual possible date, close to 100BCE, was resented by APS.M, ETC.,
Bible Old Testament's Genesis is presently dated to close to 300-200BCE, and Prophets to 300-50BCE, and Writings to 200BCE to 130CE,ofcouse using Earlier oral materials which more or less coincide with Sangam Lit. They must be looked for its Historical Contents and Linguistical words.
My Guide for Monogenes was NewCatholic Encyclopedia from Catholic Encyclopedia, Interpreters Bible Dictionary, Harpers Bible DIC., Anchors Bible Dic., etc., along with many others. ANCheneya had Put TEV-T0days EngliSH Version as Haward linked it must be NEB- New English Bible and it has no foot notes.
MonoGenes- One Such can at best become SPECIAL and any other Translation as ONLY or Only Begotten are certainly beyond Original Text. This word in Bible is used only Thrice- and let me show a word used morethan 8,500 times and its translation Deceptions, as follows:
" The Great Majority of readers take for Granted that Some Word Equivalent to "LORD" is in the Hebrew Text, but it is not. The Word-"Lod" is a title, not name;and not Name; and Putting it in Capital Letters does nothing to change this fact. But where the Bible Specifically has the personal name, translators should not take it upon themselves to make a substitution. The use of "Lord" instead of "Yahweh" effectively Depersonalises the Deity, turns Him into a kind of Vaugue abstaraction and rejects the repeated Emphasis in the Bible on his Unique personal relationship with Israel. It also disguises the fact tat YAHWEH is a Character in the Biblical Drama, with entrances and exis and a role to play, all
assigned by the Writers."
-Page 313 -Bible As Literature, Oxford University Press,
written by 3 Professors John.A.Gabel, Charles B.Wheelr and Antony.D.York.
Aravindans linking to NIV official translation site, is like linking on Indus Scripts
to Third Rate attempters as N.S.Rajaram or Dr.Mathiwanan, NIV was widely
Criticised for its translation more to keep Churcj spread superstitions rather than from actual Text. The Word- Zealot used as title for One of the Disciples is translated as Patriot by all other Translations, but NIV still hold the original, why? A Church blessed Tamil book on 12 Apostles, called him Simon Endra Thiviravathi-(Terrorist) , why then Tamil Bibles still use Greek word- as
Chellote and not as either Patriot or Terrorist. Also The Earliest Gospel Mark of 70-75CE, as per all important Manuscripts end at 16:8, and 16:9-20 are later interpolations, which all English Bibles mentions, and I HAVE not seen it in Single Tamil Bible, WHY? Tamils do not need truth, is what CHURCH and Aravindan feels.
Bible OT and NT gives lot of link between SAnskrit and Tamil with Hebrew Traditions, and that would come shortly.
MosesMohammedSolomon
Re: Elder Sanskrit Lit. and Tamil
Quote:
Originally Posted by solomon
My detailed views next time.
I will wait for those before I respond, then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solomon
Aravindanji sometimes make Linguistic Views, but mostly Political Statements.
Interesting. Which of my statements are "political"? Since "most" of them are, in your reading, political, it shouldn't be any trouble for you to produce a comprehensive. Please do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solomon
With Regard to Rig Veda to Ramayan and Mahabaratha are all considered as ONLY Sanskrit by every University researching all over the World
My point, to make it again, is that we seem to have no problem calling Old Indo-Aryan "Sanskrit", although we know almost certainly that that is not what its speakers called it. Proto-Dravidian stands in much the same relationship to Old Tamil as Old Indo-Aryan does to Classical Sanskrit. If you disagree, it would be useful if you could explain which part of this is incorrect, so I know what to respond to.
The question here is whether Tamil is older than Sanskrit. To me, the only way to make sense of that question is to ask whether there was a language which its speakers called Tamil before there was a langauge called Sanskrit by its speakers. Otherwise, the question is quite unanswerable. Our discussion now seems to have evolved far beyond that question, to actually investigate the individual histories of, and the relationship between, Sanskrit and Tamil, which is a more interesting discussion as far as I am concerned. But let's keep what we're talking about in mind, OK?
Quote:
Originally Posted by solomon
ofcourse Classical and Poetical Sanskrit is its later development, after Panini in early 5th Cen.BCE., and Panini's dating are well Attested by History by Meghastanis and other Foriegn writers.
This is not factually incorrect. Panini is dated to anywhere between the 5th and the 3rd century BC, and some scholars - such as Steve Farmer - have expressed doubt as to whether the Ashthadyayi was in fact the work of one person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solomon
The Brahmi Tamil Inscriptions which Burrowed Vadamozhi Letters for Tamil, has quiet a few Vadamozhi words along with Telugu and Kannada words, and this are dated close to 100BCE
The earliest inscriptions published by Iravatham Mahadevan are early 2nd century BC, not 100 BC. And, as I have said before, all of this is up in the air until the Adichanallur fragments are finally dated.
Could I also request you to please be clearer in your use of words? You have elsewhere alleged that "vadamozhi" meant "Sanskrit", yet here you yourself use it to mean "Prakrit" - the words in the early Tamil inscriptions are borrowed from various (Jain-associated) prakrits, not from Sanskrit, and the "vadamozhi" letters were at that time only used to write Prakrit in the north. Can I take this to mean that you have backed down from your earlier claim that "vadamozhi" in Tol. means "Sanskrit"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by solomon
Tamil Spoken then had quiet a lot of Proto Dravidian Words or KodunTamil as Pavanar School's whitewahing calls them. So we can say, Classical Tamil of Sangam Literature was Never Spoken at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solomon
When we look at Brahmi Tamil Inscriptions, which do not use Classical Tamil, same way all over India, the Stone Inscriptions of the same Period use Calloquial spoken language Pragrit a twin of Sanskrit. No Linguistic Objective research put it with Dravidian Group.
I've juxtaposed two different quotes here because they make more sense if read together. As I understand, you are trying to establish an equivalence between spoken/written Tamil and Prakrit/Sanskrit, correct? If so, you're quite far off. Tamil has always exhibited a diglossia between the spoken and written languages. Most languages do this.
This type of diglossia is not, however, the same as speaking and writing different langauges, which is what the situation was between Sanskrit and Prakrit. Classical Tamil and the Tamil of the inscriptions, for all their differences, were the same language, and had the same grammar and phonological system. Prakrit and Classical Sanskrit, on the other hand, had entirely different grammars and phonological systems. It is largely for this reason that Classical Sanskrit is classified with the Old Indo-Aryan group of the Vedic dialects, whereas the Prakrits are treated as belonging to the Middle Indo-Aryan group. In a sense, Panini was trying to preserve the use of a form of Old Indo-Aryan, which was - even at the time he wrote his grammar - a dead language.
The literary form of Tamil which we today call Classical Tamil, on the other hand, was an attempt to create a literary medium and metaphor based on the common speech and folk traditions. It was, unlike Sanskrit, not an attempt to create a new, classicised literary form based upon the dying speech of a bygone era. Once again, I urge you to read both Prof. Hart's book The Poems of Ancient Tamil: Their Milieu and their Sanskrit Counterparts, along with VS Rajam's A Reference Grammar of Classical Tamil Poetry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solomon
Linguistic Researchers now put TElugu spoken from 1000BCE, Kannada from 500BCE, and Malayalam from 100CE, and All these Language Scholars do not accept them as Offshoot of Tamil. but its earlier form-Proto Dravidian.
The dating of when Proto-Dravidian differentiated is still quite murky, but these dates are not too far off from the dates currently in vogue, give or take a few centuries. As far as Tamil / Proto-dravidian goes, see my comment above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solomon
Sangam Literature and Silapathikaram clearly mentions of Vadugu being spoken in beyond Tirupathi. And on Senguttuvan's Expedition Sangam Lit. says- "Mozhi Pala Nadu Kadanthu" i.e., Existance of Other Languages during BCE periods.
Yes, and the Tol. discusses various categories of non-Tamil languages and the question of how their words are to be written in Tamil. What is the point you are making? No-one is denying that other languages were spoken then, or that they were known to Tamils.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solomon
Pragrit and Classical Sanskrit as Per Western Universities are considered as Ideological twins developement from Vedic Sanskrit.
I'm not sure what you mean by "ideological twins". Prakrit was a natural evolution of the different dialects spoken by the authors of the vedas. Sanskrit, as I pointed out above, was not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solomon
On Tamil Development, I Showed- Words for ThAT-WHAT-This-Antha- Entha- Intha are not there in TholKappiyam to Tirukural, I Only wanted to say that Tamil was Developing and changing.
And what conclusion are you drawing from that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by solomon
Friends, the word- Kazhagam is not used in Sangam Lit at all, and Valluvar used it on for Gambling- KALAH- the Sanskrit word for Gamble money from Atharvan Veda and Aaham, another Sanskrit word for Home,still used by Bramins, so Kalah-Aaham can only give the meaning Valluvar used.
1. The word in not "Kalah", but "glah", and in that form it is a verb. To form the noun "Gambling den", you would have to use its noun form, which is "glahana" (See Atharvaveda VII:109:5, where it is used as a noun and in that form). Using the roots you provided, therefore, "gambling house" should be "kalahanamagam", or something similar.
2. Quite apart from that, a consonant conjoint with a "l" or "r" is usually separated from it by the insertion of an "i" when a word is taken from Sanskrit to Tamil - hence, Sanskrit "grAma" becomes "kiramam" in Tamil. "glah" would therefore become "gilah". "glah" -> "kazhakam" does not, therefore, display the pattern of sound change one would expect a Tamil borrowing from Sanskrit to have. This makes your theory quite unlikely.
3. "Akam" in the sense of house comes from a Dravidian root meaning "inner", not a Sanskrit one, and is related to other words such as "akal", "akampu", "akavai", and so on. It has counterparts in other Dravidian languages, including Tulu, Toda, Kodava, and so on. You'll find a detailed list on page 3 of Burrow & Emeneau's dictionary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solomon
Any Speculation with Linguistics by Burrow or others is certainly of no use.
Burrow & Emeneau's Comparative Dictionary is one of the most respected works in Dravidian linguistics. You call it "speculation"?
The dismissal of linguistics as "speculation" is characteristic of people with no training in the subject, who find that it gets inconveniently in the way of their pet theories (Kak, Rajaram...). It is also quite incorrect. The modern science of linguistics is based on the application of detailed rules and principles to analyse changes in languages over time.
And tell me - if you do not want to use linguistics to study and discuss languages, what on earth do you want to use? And what does the rest of your post (not to mention nearly every other post you have made) rely on, if not linguistics? If you do not want to discuss this topic in a scientific way, what point is there to the discussion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by solomon
And all this Scholars have been using Language very Cautously, and M.B.Emenow, the aricle I hold in my Hand, specifically uses words as PROTO-Dravidian and Old Tamil differently.
See my comment above - you seem to have misunderstood what I was saying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solomon
Aravindan's reply on "MONOgenes" was puzzling, and his attitude is more so.
I am not going to be drawn into a debate on Christianity here, as I really fail to see its relevance to this discussion. If you would like to begin a new thread to discuss issues you have with the bible and its translations into English and Tamil, feel free to do so.
I also wonder if you are seeking to attack Christian doctrine because you think I am Christian. I am, in point of fact, Hindu.
Elder SAnskrit Literature and Tamil
Friends,
It is really interesting that MosesSolomon and Aravindan quotes of wide subjects and discuss them with ease.
Aravindan confirming that Kalah is used in Atharvana Veda, and that the word Kalagham is not used in Sangam Lit. cionfirms Solomon's View point is correct. Arguements for arguement sake does not help.
Tamil Sangam Lit, has translation for every name of Vedas- Chandas, Sruthi etc., when we don't even have One for Bible or Quran.
Panini's dating of early 5th Cen- late 6th Cen, is internationally accepted conclusion. Only that meaningless Political Scholars speculate.
Tholkappiyam and Tirukural having been said to have been written by more than One Authors, with interpolations, is the view of many Scholars, we should ignore all this.
The Tamil word for Grammer - Ilakkanam, is from Sanskrit Lakshana and Splitting words, Pakuthi and Vikuthi are from Sanskrit Prakurthi and Vikurthi.
Political Statements here in Liguistic Discussion does not help.
The very names of Tamil Top Politicians incidentally- Karunai, Nithi, Jayam and Lalitham are all Sanskrit.
Ancheneya
Re: Elder SAnskrit Literature and Tamil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anchaneya
Aravindan confirming that Kalah is used in Atharvana Veda, and that the word Kalagham is not used in Sangam Lit. cionfirms Solomon's View point is correct.
No, it doesn't. "Kalah" is not found in the Atharvaveda, "glahana" is. "Kalah" does not exist in Sanskrit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anchaneya
Panini's dating of early 5th Cen- late 6th Cen, is internationally accepted conclusion. Only that meaningless Political Scholars speculate.
No, it isn't. George Cardona, who is considered one of the leading experts in Panini studies, dates Panini to between 300 and 350 BC. Others suggest even later dates.
ELDER SANSKRIT AND TAMIL LITERATURE
Friends,
Indus Archeology and Dravida or Aryan Contrversy.
As per Linguists and Indologists, Both Aryan And Dravidian Language speakers came to India from Out of India, and Caldwell went on to say
Dravidam- Dramizham-thramizam-Tamilam –Tamil is the Development.
Indus and now other much more Ancient Sites have been found, dating upto BCE7,000. And No Outside visitors help for Civilisation development is found to Indigenous. All sites found as later than Indus- does not show the City type as Harappa or Mohanjadaro; whether Aadhichanallur or others; hence to call a section of people as Aryan or Dravidian is not relay supported by Archeology.
I am reading much more on Dechipherment and my Much Detailed Posting would follow shortly.
Aravindanji- I am awaiting your links on Horse Domestication. Aravindanji can You please enlighten us the Scholarly views on the Alleged Dechiphetrment by the Tamilnadu Govt. Tamil Akaramudali Project Director- R.Mathivanan.
Aravindanji wanted my views on Sankrit Influence on Tamil Sangam Lit. and that my view on Pro.Hart’s books, Friends- Prof. Vaiapuri Pillai’s Research Articles still valued highly, and I will put the views of Communist writers over ThaniTamil Researchers, whose books are completely rejected by Scholars, where as VaiapuriPillai’s are still valued Highly.
Prof.Kamil Zevilabil has dated Tamil Sangam Lit (Pavanar prefers Pandaya instead of Sangam as Sangam is Sanskrit), and the article is already put in this thread, and Zevilabil’s dates go almost close to VaiapuriPillai- such as Tirukural to 575CE, etc.,
It would be ideal for All Tamils to know Sangam Lit., most of them are available in net at
www.chennainetwork.com
www.tamil.net/projectmadurai and can see how much of Vedas and Sanskrit Lit. has influenced them, my earlier posting I have given with reference to Vedas, being referred, I had given only less than 10%, the name SamaVeda is referred by name etc., my detailed postings would follow shortly.
Mahadevan wanted Tamil words in Bible, and Aravindanji was against my use of word Deception by Church; Mahadevan-Please read my all posts in this thread- Tirukural thread, Tamil roots for Sanskrit Thread etc., But again a detailed posting would follow shortly.
Aravindanji’s postings are of very high Scholarly; but still represents the Meaningless Political claims said by Un-objective Scholars, here and there.
Aravindanji I Look for Your Posting on Mathivanan’s Dechipherment.
MosesSolomon
Dating Tamil, and other things
Quote:
Originally Posted by solomon
Caldwell went on to say
Dravidam- Dramizham-thramizam-Tamilam –Tamil is the Development.
People like Caldwell were revolutionary for their day, but there is really little point in clinging on to the views of scholars of centuries past, when we now have so much more linguistic data to work on. Much of what Caldwell said has been superseded by newer research. For example, most scholars now believe that "Dravida" was simply a Sanskritisation of "Tamil".
Quote:
Originally Posted by solomon
hence to call a section of people as Aryan or Dravidian is not relay supported by Archeology.
It is pretty clear that the Indo-Aryan languages and the Dravidian languages represent two entirely different language families. It is also pretty clear that there have been several rounds of migration into India, separated by vastly different periods of time. The linguistic evidence points to a lack of contact between speakers of Indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages before they each entered India. The archaelogical evidence points to a progressively increasing degree of contact and mingling between these peoples after both were established in India. There is, unfortunately, the famous "South Asian archaelogical black hole" - a period of a few centuries in relation to which we have almost no significant archaelogical evidence - which severly limits our ability to use only archaelogy to understand what was going on in India. The literary evidence, however, points to a period when the mutual influence was pretty minimal and the cultures diverged fairly significantly.
There are a range of conclusions one can draw from these individual pieces of evidence as to the contexts in which it makes sense to speak of "Aryan" and "Dravidian" in India. For a range of scholarly writings (and some different opinions) on this point, I recommend Aryan and Non-Aryan in India, edited by M.M. Deshpande and P.E. Hook. The book was published in 1979, but much of the scholarship in it is still fresh and not out-dated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solomon
Aravindanji- I am awaiting your links on Horse Domestication.
I will do so in a while - I have a very demanding full-time job and family commitments, and that doesn't give me as much time to spend here as I would like. Digging through my notes for the Hub is unfortunately fairly low down on my list of priorities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solomon
Aravindanji can You please enlighten us the Scholarly views on the Alleged Dechiphetrment by the Tamilnadu Govt. Tamil Akaramudali Project Director- R.Mathivanan.
I'm not sure why you're bringing up Mathivanan's work, since it's not something I've ever adverted to. As I understand it, linguists have raised two objections to Mathivanan's decipherment. The first is that he reads the script from left to right, although most scholars believe it was written from right to left, on the basis of the the form of the marks on seals showing the direction in which the signs on them were cut. The second is his methodology of assigning phonetic values to signs, which is said to lack rigour - the syllable he chooses to represent the phonetic value of each pictogram is not always obvious, it is said, and the system results in a large number of signs representing identical values, which is said to be counter-intuitive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solomon
Aravindanji wanted my views on Sankrit Influence on Tamil Sangam Lit. and that my view on Pro.Hart’s books, Friends- Prof. Vaiapuri Pillai’s Research Articles still valued highly, and I will put the views of Communist writers over ThaniTamil Researchers, whose books are completely rejected by Scholars, where as VaiapuriPillai’s are still valued Highly.
As Prof. Hart points out, there are a number of problems in Vaiyappuri Pillai's work and particularly his dating, which are largely a consequence of Pillai's rather outdated world-view, assigning priority to Sanskrit. It is also worth noting that Vaiyappuri Pillai did not use scientific methods in dating Tamil literature - it was his student M. Shanmugan who first started trying to see how they could be applied.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solomon
Prof.Kamil Zevilabil has dated Tamil Sangam Lit (Pavanar prefers Pandaya instead of Sangam as Sangam is Sanskrit), and the article is already put in this thread, and Zevilabil’s dates go almost close to VaiapuriPillai- such as Tirukural to 575CE, etc.
Prof. Zvelebil's datings are consistently several centuries later than those of other Dravidologists, such as Prof. Hart. There is a reason for this, having to do with their methodologies - Prof. Zvelebil places much weight on the relationship between the themes of Tamil and Prakrit poetry and argues that they must be close in date. Prof. Hart, on the other hand, argues that this need not be so, and quite convincingly that the Prakrit poetry is a later manifestation of the same tradition as the Tamil poetry. Prof. Hart places more weight on early Tamil epigraphy and historical references in later Tamil literature to date Sangam literature. His methodology strikes me as being superior, although it assigns significantly later dates to Sangam works than I would like to believe. As I keep saying, though, the Adichanallur excavations have thrown open the entire question, and until we have a final dating of those, all discussions are hypothetical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solomon
Mahadevan wanted Tamil words in Bible, and Aravindanji was against my use of word Deception by Church;
I am aware of some Hebrew words thought to be of Tamil origin (such as "tukki" for peacock), which is hardly surprising, given that potshards with Tamil inscriptions have been found in sites on the Red Sea. As far as the rest of it goes - in a separate thread, please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solomon
Aravindanji’s postings are of very high Scholarly; but still represents the Meaningless Political claims said by Un-objective Scholars, here and there.
Could you please point to which "meaningless claims" I reiterate? Rejecting the unproven (and in my view, ridiculous) thesis that Sanskrit is the pure, unsullied root of all Indian civilisation, on the basis that it is unproven and contradicts what we know of ancient India, is hardly political.
INDUS PICTOGRAMS-MATHIWANAN'S FORGERY
Friends,
Mr.FSG had given excessive importance to R.Mathivanan’s alleged Deciphering of Indus Pictogram Symobls as Clear Tamil.
I had then explained it was false reading wrongly the script is Originally from Right to Left [like Arabi and Hebrew] by reading it from Left to right, total Upsurd. Let Us Thank Mr.Aravindan for Confirming it.
Friends, FSG also in another post said Mathivanan finding a BiLingual Seal of dated to 1600BCE, having both Indus and Brami inscriptions from Srilanka. THIRD RATE FORGERY and details are as follows.
Srilankan Seal was found by archaeological team led by K.Indrapala of the University of Jaffna excavated a megalithic burial complex at Anaikoddai in Jaffna District, SriLanka. In one of the burials, a metal seal was found assigned by the excavators to ca.3rd century B.C.
The Seal’s Brahmi portion is dechiphered as ko ve ta. Mathivanan, twisted this as tivu-ko, King of Island, again not in the Seal. By dating meaninglessly 300BCE Seal and Misreading to get a meaning are the Techiniques, Mathivanan further forgery continues.
A Metal Coin found near Alur in Kurnool District of Andhra Pradesh. The circular thick coin (probably in lead) features a horse on the obverse and some illegible symbols on the reverse. Numismatic experts date it 200CE, Sathavana coin. Mathivanan’s Forgery- Drawing it reads it as Nanda from actually illegible as Nanda, calling it as Pre Mauryan period, i.e. the 300BCE Srilanka Seal as 1600 BCE and 200CE as somewhere close to 700BCE, claiming a Continuity. Third Rate Forgery Continues.
Forgery-3. Indus Script found in a Tribal Santhal village in Bihar
A Legendery claim was made 1993, by One Verma, that in Bihar Santhal Village, Indus Script is still alive and Deciphered words in Sanskrit, Hebrew, Persian-Arabic and English. Mr.Mathivanan took Verma and visited Santhal Village and Met the Temple Priest who was regularly wrinting with Indus Scripts. The Colour Photos in the Book of Mathiwanan were drawn on Recently Whitewashed Walls by learned man and not a Tribal, mostsly by seeing Published Seals. Another Worst Forgery.
Again earlier Verma read- so many Language words; now all are Tamil ofcourse with few IndoEuropean Loan words Tamilised also. MATHIWANAN also read it as LEFT TO RIGHT the Symbols actually written in opposite Direction.
Further Tamil has only 30 Letters; i.e., Vuyir 12 + Mei 18, But Indus has 419 Pictograms- Mathivanan has almost assigned 40 Symbols with single Tamil Letter. FORGERY TO the Core.
Friends- the method of Mathivanan was so sad for the Entire Indian Scholarship, and also as in his earlier book he has expressed all meaningless Linguistic Claims held by Pavanar (KumariKandam Legends & Natural Language), all this made his book as a laughing Stock in International Scholarship.
I shall explain on Potters Graffiti Techniques in my next posting and later Why Indus Deciphering claims of Parpola and I.MAhadevan are all Speculations, and for the present it be looked as Undeciphered and not Dravidian or Sanskrit.
Friends, The Political Cliamate in Tamilnadu helps these forgeries and I am Putting a detailed forgery In HIstorical Distorters Thread.
Friends, I regard Tamil And Sanskrit both have been developed in India, and as Rig Veda has close to 500 Tamil words, both are of equal Antiquity, but Tamil Literature available from 200BCE only whereas Sanskrit Vedas are from 2000BCE.
MosesSolomon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mod
You have been BANNED..!