Talk:Kannada/Archive 3

Please can someone edit the English?

Much of it reads like a poor translation by a non-native, e.g. the absence of definite articles where needed, the very phrase "Kannada language", etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.218.180 (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kannada language article looks like history article than a language related article

IMHO the Kannada language article looks more like a historical page. Article talks about everything else other than the language. Article should contain more about the grammar and the connection with other dravidian languages etc.

Some of the sections which can be added or rearranged as follows, based on the Egyptian Language articles

1 Classification 2 History 3 Dialects 4 Orthography 5 Phonology 5.1 Consonants 5.2 Vowels 5.3 Phonotactics 5.4 Stress 5.5 Egyptological pronunciation 6 Grammar 6.1 Morphology 6.1.1 Nouns 6.1.2 Pronouns 6.1.3 Verbs 6.1.4 Adjectives 6.1.5 Prepositions 6.1.6 Adverbs 6.2 Syntax 7 Vocabulary 8 See also 9 Notes 10 References 11 Bibliography 12 Literature 12.1 Overviews 12.2 Grammars 12.3 Dictionaries 12.4 Online dictionaries 13 External links

Rajraowiki (talk) 08:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Authentic research by Devaneya Pavanar, proves Kannada and other languages originated from Tamil

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devaneya_Pavanar

Pavanar's Vadamoli Varalaru argues that hundreds of Sanskrit words can be traced to a Tamil origin, and at the same time he insisted that pure Tamil equivalents existed for Sanskrit loan words. He claimed that Tamil is a "superior and more divine" language than Sanskrit. In his view the Tamil language originated in "Lemuria" (இலெமூரியா Ilemūriyā), the cradle of civilization and place of origin of language. He believed that evidence of Tamil's antiquity was being suppressed by Sanskritists and recently by Kannada fanatics.

Pavanar's timeline for the evolution of mankind and Tamil is as follows:

ca. 500,000 BC: origin of the human race, ca. 200,000 to 50,000 BC: evolution of "the Tamilian or Homo Dravida[4]", c. 200,000 to 100,000 BC, beginnings of Tamil c. 100,000 to 50,000 BC, growth and development of Tamil, 50,000 BC: Kumari Kandam civilisation 20,000 BC: A lost Tamil culture on Easter Island which had an advanced civilisation 16,000 BC: Lemuria submerged 6087 BC: Second Tamil Sangam established by a Pandya king 3031 BC: A Chera prince wandering in the Solomon Islands saw wild sugarcane and started cultivation in Tamil Nadu. 1780 BC: The Third Tamil Sangam established by a Pandya king 7th century BC: Tolkappiyam, the earliest extant Tamil grammar

Tamil and not Kannada has links with Indus valley script, proving Tamil is older than Kannada

http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Coimbatore/asko-parpola-flags-tamils-links-with-indus-valley-script/article482859.ece — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.183.89 (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kannada lucky to get classical status

Tamil had to struggle for 50 years with the Indian govt who opposed tooth and nail as they were pro Sanskrit/Hindi. M.Joshi refused to give the status saying it is only for dead languaes. But Tamil got it as the evidence was overwhelming. Since now the limit has been reduced to 1000 years Kannada could easily get it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.13.109 (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Classical status to Kannada

There are only a handful of classical languages in the world. Not being classical is not a sign of degradation or anything like that. The most widely used language, English, itself is not classical. But it is the greatest language as of now. Hence should be offended when they read this para. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.13.109 (talk) 06:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Comments are unnecessary as classical status is given by Indian government after expert committee recommended it. The POV contents of yours are deleted because it is Original Research not suited for wikipedia.27.61.176.248 (talk) 08:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The committee which recommended Kannada for classical status was composed only of Kannada chauvinists. It is against this recommendation that a case has been filed in the Madras High court. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.13.109 (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Following the lines of Kannada and Telugu, Malayalam is also demanding classical language status. deccanherald.com/content/67850/kerala-demands-classical-status-malayalam.html How correctly Dr.George Hart predicted this will happen? He is not only a great linguist but also a prophet! 'there is a fear that if Tamil is selected as a classical language, other Indian languages may claim similar status.' tamil.berkeley.edu/tamil-chair/letter-on-tamil-as-a-classical-language —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.13.109 (talk) 09:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After Tamil, Kannada, and Telugu you are venturing into Malayalam. Continue to shed your feud until its over. You are on your way. Good luck. 27.61.177.36 (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Classical language

One of the prime requirement of a language to be classical is that it must be original. Does Kannada have its own (not borrowed) word for 'classical' and 'language'?

Actually your doubt is insane. Kannada has more than enough in it to be a classical language. It is also more compact and evolved than others of the same group. One need to understand a language to a great depth in order to comment on its originality. Remember language is evolutionary not revolutionary and it cannot gain or lose anything overnight. There are not one but multiple sounds for same words in Kannada. for example,

classical -> Utkrustavada, shrestavada, prathamikada, etc.

language -> taynudi, nammapada, addumatu, etc.

Word meanings may not be one-to-one because the language structure is different and that is why one finds it sometimes easy to overlook it.

Unlike tamil and other languages, in Kannada the use of words is different owing to different structural varieties of the language and its use and that is why it is a different language although it may belong to same group.Jrsanthosh (talk) 08:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to mislead people to believe that Kannada has words for classical and language.

The words you have derived are clearly of Tamil/Sanskrit origin. Tay or thai is the Tamil word for mother, likewise shrestavada is Sanskrit. Dont try to clothe the wolf with sheep's skin! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.13.109 (talk) 15:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The words quoted are from dictionary and cannot be wrong. Infact Sanskrit means refined that says it all. It uses good word from all other languages that is why the name.Even Kannada experts cannot know the full extent of the language and you without knowing anything are saying this.Get out of the box and be broad.If you dont know something try to find it through learning and dont keep harping this way.27.61.175.235 (talk) 05:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The words you are pointing out are shared between these languages and they are used slightly differently in each. How can you prove that words in Tamil are not from other languages. Can anyone prove when languages formed in the first place. I know if your own language would have been something different, say hindi or chinese you wouldnt have said so. Love and respect your language and dont try to degrade other languages. Do you know I like Tamil as well and have learnt to read and write it. I like to learn Malayalam as well. Try to learn other languages yourself and then you will realise that they are equally good.Without doing so you cannot and should not comment this way on other languages. Do Indian languages have scientific,technical terms that are broadly used everywhere in the world today. If you realise this then you wont raise this about other languages because humans adopt to whatever is available.

Learning and comparing different languages and finding out the root, is the work of linguists. The greatest linguist today is Dr.George Hart. Fortunately he is in the USA and not an Indian. Only he can give an unbiased view whether a language is original or not. He has taken so much pains to write a white paper in which he has clearly broadcast the fact that KANNADA DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR CLASSICAL LANGUAGE STATUS. But this doesnt in any way degrade Kannada or Kannadigas. They are great and continue to be great, winning Sahithya and Jnanapith awards, but these cannot make the language classical, because to be classical needs certain special attributes which cannot be acquired for a later born language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.13.109 (talk) 15:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dont delete others comment without reason. You can delete yours.27.57.79.172 (talk) 10:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who told he is not biased when he talks in favour of tamil and shows his apathy towards others. This type of comparing is old stuff and one doesnt go anywhere by doing so. How can you say others are later born languages when scholars cannot determine their age or extent. Whether Kannada qualifies for classical status is determined by expert commitee appointed by government not Mr Hart. Why dont you join that commitee if you have valid qualification and say your verdict rather than speaking here against kannada. If you are so interested in language studies do some constructive work on tamil articles. If you want cognates for different words consult dictionaries and educate yourself before questioning others. 27.61.31.171 (talk) 04:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Hart was biased, a university of the status of Berkeley will not publish his paper. Dont talk nonsense. He is the Chair and not a biased committe member who decided status for Kannada in India. The whole decision process was faulty. They should have put members from other States, and linguists of high caliber from foreign also. This is an international issue. It is not like a Cauvery issue. The very fact that Karnataka has the audacity and clout not to accept a Supreme Court order, in the case of Cauvery, clearly shows that it does have the treachery to knackfully choose some biased low level people in the committe who can say Kannada can stand on par with Greek! Kannada being declared classical is the greatest joke of the century. It will be revoked soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.13.109 (talk) 07:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly the indian government would not have given classical status if they wouldnt have qualified. You are believing some berkeley university paper and not the formal indian government declaration. Then even tamil status becomes questionable because the same indian government has declared it too. Who told you this is an international issue. If it would have been an issue, then many governments would have formally protested it. They dont do such things because it has nothing to do with international issues. What cauvery has to do with this article. Dont deviate to something else. You can say about it in appropriate page. This shows how desperate you are. No body is comparing any language except you. Your comments are a joke and nothing else. 27.57.113.210 (talk) 13:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I a not deviating from the topic. I am still trying to prove that injustice has been done to the world by declaring a flimsy language like kannada to be on par with Sanskrit, Greek etc. I am trying to draw parallels to prove that the Karnataka Govt is notorious for such acts just as they disobeyed Supreme Court order to release Cauvery water. Understand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.13.109 (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is flimsy language except the words you are using. Dont you feel ashamed to call a language flimsy. Every language is delight for learners. 27.57.86.7 (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Languages can be flimsy if they cant stand on their own legs (using borrowed words) Is the Karnataka govt ashamed for disobeying the Supreme Court's orders?.. No. Such a govt has enough bribing techniques to get classical status for kannada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.13.109 (talk) 08:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let us think about Grammar before speaking about Language .. 1) Tamil Has Tolkappiyam Which is Different from Panini (Sanskrit) Grammar.. Kannada Grammar is purely Influenced and based on Panini Grammar Where as Tamil Grammar is purely based on Tolkappiyam .. 2) UNESCO Identifies Tamil as Living Classical Language... 3) More than 55% of the epigraphical inscriptions found by the Archaeological Survey of India are in the Tamil language.. 4) As i said Tamil Grammar is purely Eccentric Grammar and Kannada Grammar is inspired by Panini a lot So i can say Tamil is a Rich Language Than Kannada ... Tamil is Antique Classical Language and Kannada is not antique — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.7.226 (talk) 05:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Authors talking about Kannada and Tamil languages have to provide sufficient proofs and cross references to prove the Antique classical status. Authors should understand that wikipedia is a knowledge sharing portal and not for arguments without proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.199.156.132 (talk) 06:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what bible has to do with Kannada?

Do not understand why there is an external link to bible in this article. Please remove this link, or add kannada Ramayana, Bhagavdgeetha, and other religious like translations of Quran etc to maintain balance. My opinion is, since this article is related to language, lets keep it that way.

122.173.176.99 (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Adi[reply]

yakshagana image

yakshagana happens usually in tulu and kannada but the image on the kannada article is added without mentioning anything about kannada used in yakshagana please add images that are linked to the article.this is the reason why kannada article is not feautured one.please an expert in kannada language is required Princeofdark07 (talk) 04:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

== Classical Language Tag update ==

http://www.ptinews.com/pti%5Cptisite.nsf/0/317A2AAAB02B380E652574F30047128B?OpenDocument Can somebody update this article please? Pavan 59.92.170.5 (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

kananda has no relationship with marathi and hindi whatsoever. moreover marathi has many kannada words not vice versa.

People can mix any number of languages and speak that does't mean that language has the influence of other languages. Please be more rational and respect the antiquity of the kannada language.

Also please highlight which language inscriptions are found highest in the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.145.3.20 (talk) 23:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

is the number of kannadigas or kannada speaking population is just 3.8 crores..no ways..there are about 4 crore lingayats, 1.2 vokkaligas, and many more..

there are more number of kannadigas actually speaking..and i also feel there are more than 5 crore kannada speaking population..whereever they are ..also kannadigas by root..whichever other language they speak..please keep away saying 3.8 millions or some thing like that..i dont agree..

without logic dont put figures..

===============

I suggest we remove references to other languages (like tulu, tamil)..it's based on the some assumptions or unverified facts for what is being written about other languages.. Please keep the page only about as it was before...whoever is the author of this page....We have abundant proof in terms of inscriptions and historically important material to show kannada was much ancient language.. It is very much evident that kannada has been the ruling language for more than thousand years...

Please remove unwanted references to other languages in Kannada wikipedia....the whole classification of Dravidian languages is debatable and is not proven by facts.

Keep your assumptions away from wikipedia pages...it's pathetic you have references to other languages in kannada wikipedia...

=======

Classical language tag

This has been requested many years ago but the Government has not given it to Kannada. Even Telugu has also requested. Tamil has been given the classical tag and recognized even outside India. Kannada having too many Sanskirt words in ger grammar and even ordinary usage, may not given classical status —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.0.95 (talk) 07:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is article on Unsourced claim of Sanskrit's influence on Tamil present in this site?

In fact the so called Sanskrit word, "Dravidian" is from Tamil word, "Tamizhan", which has been modified by Greeks as per Wikepedia itself! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.244.41 (talk) 06:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This site is very prejudiced.--125.22.172.37 12:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Naduvar[reply]

Please look carefully. Its is sourced. the citations are #13,14,15Dineshkannambadi 15:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi friends

Hi friends, I have redone the change... If you have any issues kindly discus... I am not here to vandalise the article... IndiWorld 10:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss before making the change, rather then changing and expecting a discussion before a revert. Why is it irrelevant to mention Tamil, but relevant to mention Tulu.Dineshkannambadi 12:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes my friend, I will explain, According to the statement, It says that the TULU language and Kannada Language evaluated about the same time from a proto Dravidian source. So the statement will be like "The spoken language is said to have separated from its old proto-Dravidian source about the same time as Tulu." What is the relevancy in putting tamil there, here you are trying to confuse the readers by comparing the proto-Dravidian Language with Tamil, you can do this in article regarding proto-Dravidian language. You can compare Kannada with tamil directly, it will be very much relevant to the article dinesh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IndiWorld (talk • contribs) 05:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--IndiWorld 06:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change

Hi Friends, I have changed the following statement "The spoken language is said to have separated from its proto-Dravidian source earlier than Tamil and about the same time as Tulu.[11]", as follows "The spoken language is said to have separated from its old proto-Dravidian source about the same time as Tulu.[11]", since its totally irrelevant to compare between a proto-Dravidian source and Tamil language and Kannada Language. If so the Source of Tamil Language may be much more Older even than Sanskrit. So, I think its irrelevant to compare it with tamil there. Thanks and Regards...

hi The change should be made because the author wants to implicitly indicate that their language is older than tamil based on the badaga language family tree image of encyclopedia Britannica. The family tree indicates that the proto-tamil-kananda starts to split into proto-tamil-toda and pre- kananda(tamil and kanada started to separate). It does not mean that kanada is older than tamil .It only states that both the lanaguages are from same source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Umavivek (talk • contribs) 10:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced claim of Sanskrit's influence on Tamil

Dinesh you will have to provide valid sources to back your unsourced claim that Tamil was heavily influenced by Sanskrit. Tamil is a language separate from Sanskrit. As a matter if fact it has been recognized as a classical language along with Sanskrit in India. Is Kannada actually independent of Sanskrit? Can you provide valid referenced sources to prove this? Wiki Raja 04:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the groundbreaking information. Please refer to Tamil Language (citations 37-43) for Sanskrit influence on that language and please refer to Kannada language later today for citation for your next question.Dineshkannambadi 13:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, citations already exist (citation12-13) for your perusal. There are 9 citations in all, (Tamil and Kannada articles put together) Or do you want more?Dineshkannambadi 13:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Raja, please try to be less confrontational in your requests for improvement. We are all here to make better articles, and if we work together and try to be friendly even when we disagree, it is a lot easier to do that. - Taxman ^Talk 14:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've read, I can say that Tamil is the least Sankritised of all the major Dravidian languages, followed by Kannada, Telugu and then Malayalam. --Altruism^{T a l k - Contribs.} 05:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But all the 4 languages are Sankritized to some extent. --Altruism^{T a l k - Contribs.} 08:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil language is not Sankritized but it has borrowed words from Sanskrit. These loan words are classified seperately as "vadachol" (Northern Alphabets) they are written in Tamil Script and their usage is not seen in old epics of Chilappathikaaram or Sangam literature texts etc.., (example: ஹ(Ha), ஸ(Sa), ஷ(Sha), க்ஷ(ksha)). It is said that the Tamil culture during Sangam literature was an amalgum of both Dravidian and Aryan culture and "vadachol" (Northern Alphabets) is believed to be brought to dravidian language by Aryans.--Narendran (talk) 09:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even now Tamil language can be spoken without Sanskrit words. It is not possible anyother language in India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.247.208.8 (talk) 07:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am yet to see a sentimental fool like that of our neighbours. If Tamil was not sanskritised then it would have a different structure alltogether , like mandrian or taiwanese or persian. The way sentences are framed , the usage of words are all loaned from sankrit . During Dravida movement all the sanskrit words were removed from tamil carefully to make people beleive that tamil came into this earth without a mother or father. Kannada takes pride in saying that we are a direct derivative of such a beautiful Heavenly language Sanskrit . After all what would be the use of telling these stuffs to people who speak a medievel language which never refomed or corrected its mistake. You can't spell or properly pronounce simple words like PRTHVI , ANKIT , SHA , CHA , THA , DA , PA etc etc etc...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.36.135.206 (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dravidian Civilization template

Why is the template being removed? Isn't it relevant to this article? Kannada is a Dravidian language, a product of Dravidian civilization. --Altruism^{T a l k - Contribs.} 12:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i removed the statement which says telugu script was derived from the old kannada script. this is a random biased statement with no credible evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.80.70.54 (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New section

Hi friends, Kindly do a discussion before harshly deleting the content posted by other users. We agree with your intention in mainting the articles integrity and quality, we respect your contribution, but similarly you should also respect others contributions. so kindly do a discussion. Have a nice day, Regards, IndiWorld --IndiWorld 06:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you are trying to add, hars been discussed over and over and you may want to go through the discussions Archive 1 and Archive 2 -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 10:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Para on script says "The script itself, derived from brahmi script, is fairly complicated like most other languages of India owing to the occurrence of various combinations of "half-letters"". Is`t there a better way to say this? "Complicated"? syllabic scripts have to be that way.Somebody look in it please. ~~ ~rAGU

Isila

This article too hastily chose to quote an unsubstantiated claim in the media that the word "isila" found in the Brahmagiri edict is a kannda word meaning "to shoot an arrow".

The word Isila in the Brahmagiri edict is known very well to be a town site/place name and not a Kannada word meaning "shoot an arrow" as claimed strangely by Mr. Narasimhachar.

See [[1]] and [[2]] Also some think the place Isila is Siddhapura. Also see [[3]]

In any case the ASI (The Archaeological Survey of India) itself clearly states that Isila was a place name which was "the headquarters of the Mahamatras of Suvarnagiri": See [[4]]

And now for the most important aspect: No way can one claim that "The first written record in the Kannada language is traced to Emperor Ashoka's Brahmagiri edict dated 230 BC". The language was a type of Prakrit. It is not *in* Kannada language. So even if the word "isila" is a Kannada word (which has to be shown first) one can only say: "the first attestation of a Kannada word is found in....". If it is claimed to mean "to shoot an arrow" it is too close to Skt. iSu = arrow and related words.

So this needs a complete change which I attempted now. perichandra1 18:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep your archeological and geograhpical skills out of wikipedia and dont tamper with cited info, unless you want admins to come after your account.Dineshkannambadi 19:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The words in any language can be interpreted in many ways. This is also one of them. "Isila" in sanskrit can mean fortified area because the root is taken as "sila" or "kila" which means fort. It can also be interpreted differently. In kannada "Isila" means to throw or shoot because "isi" or "ese" when taken as root means to throw. And "la" in the suffix is used as a direction to a person to act. This means one is directing other to throw or shoot something and if any legend/mythology if it exists may throw light on it. So if they say it means "to shoot an arrow" there is nothing wrong in it. This is because words may have many meanings and another such example is "Hoysala" which means to hit or kill.117.97.86.147 (talk) 05:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a threat? I will face the admins thanks for your concern. You will have to be reported to the admins I guess for threatening good faith edits. perichandra1 19:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perichandra1 (talk • contribs)

A Kannada politician himself quotes in the Parliament correctly that Isila is a place name :-) : See [[5]] perichandra1 20:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perichandra1 (talk • contribs)

Perichandra, that was not a threat. Sorry if I sounded a bit rude. Your message caught me at the wrong time. Anyway, it is clear you are new to wiki and are formulating your own ideas what something means based on what some politician said. There are no shortage of places in India whose names are derived from Phrases that mean something. Kolar comes from Kolahalapura. Kolahala means bloodshed, violence etc. Kolar was the place where many battles were fought between Karnataka and TN kingdoms and hence the name. you get the idea? A name of a town can also be an unique word to a language from it got the name in the first place. Having said this, a piece of advice. Learn from your seniors, dont make assumptions, dont do original research.good luck.Dineshkannambadi 20:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perichandra, do you have a citation which states "isila" is NOT a Kannada word? If so, please produce.

On the other hand, there have multiple references given in the article which say that "isila" is a Kannada word. Also, please see this additional reference, which clearly states: ... scholars have pointed out that the Kannada word Isila is found in Ashoka's Brahmagiri inscription ...

Hope this helps. Let us not get into original research. Thanks, - KNM ^Talk 20:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. According to the book I have here (a paper by Prof. T.V. Venkatachala Sastry, the doyen of Halegannada studies), D.L. Narasimhachar said that the word isila was the Prakrit form of the Kannada word esil, not that it was itself a Kannada word. I'll have to type out the quote, since I can't find the book online:

"Based on the evidence that the Brahmagiri edict of Asoka (250 BC) has the the place-name Isil which is the Prakrit form of Esil, a Kannada word, D.L. Narasimhacar has presumed that Kannada language existed in the 3rd century B.C. He also opined that words like Puhamayi, Vilivayakura, occurring in the edicts and coins of the Satavahana times, are either of Kannada or Telugu origin."[from T.V. Venkatachala Sastry, "Development of Old Kannada Language and Literature" in South Indian Studies, (H.M. Nayak and B.R. Gopal eds), Geeta Book House, Mysore, 1990, pp 828-851 at p. 832]

Prof. Venkatachala Sastry himself took a slightly more cautious view, saying a little lower on the same page that this is a "plausible reconstruction" - but then going on to say that the place names in Ptolemy's geography (c. 140 AD) are the "earliest examples" of Kannada.

Not everybody agrees. Prof. M.H. Krishna, the Director of Arachaeology of the Mysore princely state, was of the opinion that isila was not related to Kannada, but was instead a reference to a place in the north. Again, I'll type out the relevant paragraph, from a different book:

"Brahmagiri which belongs to the Asoka period may be noted here, as one of the earliest centres of Buddhism along with Vanavasi and Mahishamandala. A Brahmagiri Asokan inscription has the northern text. It refers to two places in the north viz., Isila pattana - Isilapattana. Both refer to one and the same place. Hence the place referred to belongs to north India. Dr. MH Krishna, therefore, holds the view that it is not correct to consider isila a Kannada word. It may refer to Saranatha." [from R.C. Hiremath, Buddhism in Karnataka, D.K. Printworld, 2002 at p. 62].

So it seems we have four views (isn't Indology fun?):

- - D.L. Narasimhachar takes the view that isila is the Prakrit form of Kannada esil
  - Prof. Venkatachala Sastry takes the view that this is a "plausible reconstruction"
  - Prof. M.H. Krishna takes the view that isila is not Kannada
  - And, going by what the article presently says, Suryanath Kamath takes the view that the word is Kannada (rather than a Prakrit borrowing from Kannada).

Perhaps the sentence could be reworded to make it clear that there's a difference of opinion? Incidentally, from this piece it seems that Prof. Venkatachala Sastry takes the view that the words in the Chariton mime are not Kannada (he says "The non-Greek words and sentences in Oxyrhynchus papyri do not appear to be Kannada") - when I wrote the article on the mime, I was for some reason under the reason that he took the position that they were Kannada. Funny, that. -- Arvind 22:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already provided a citation for those scholars who claim and do not claim that the passages in the Mime were in Kannada. You may add the opinion from your source too.Dineshkannambadi 22:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that'll be necessary, this article deals with the diversity of opinions regarding the Charition mime quite well - and similar wording regarding the Brahmagiri inscription should be fine, I think. I'm just a little annoyed at myself for misremembering, that's all - I usually tend to have a good memory for these things. -- Arvind 22:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will reword it this weekend and add more citations for early Prakrit Inscriptions with Kannada phrases etc.Dineshkannambadi 13:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh Kannambadi, you seem to be one of those Kannada fanatics trying to change the history. 1. Asoka's inscriptions were in PRAKRIT and not in kannada. You have provided a citation from an article again from a group of fanatics who claimed kannada to be a classical langauge. (^ a b c Declare Kannada a classical language. Online webpage of The Hindu) http://www.hindu.com/2005/05/27/stories/2005052703230500.htm This cannot be solid proof for your allegations. 2. How do assume shilashaasana inscriptions are in old kannada though you have specified it resembles close to Tamil. And your citation does not state those inscriptions are in old kannada. 3. Even the brittanica never states that kannada spoken language have separated from its proto-Dravidian source the same time as tulu earlier than Tamil. Kannada inscription are dated only from 5 AD. Dont forget it. http://lrrc3.sas.upenn.edu/popcult/MAPS/soudrav.gif. You are misleading all the readers. Tell me what was the language that was Proto dravidian language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RationalAndReal (talk • contribs) 15:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some clarifications

Some claims in the lead and History section caught my eye, I hope Dinesh or others who are actively editing this article would clarify them at some point:

The first written record in the Kannada language is traced to Emperor Ashoka's Brahmagiri edict dated 230 BC

From the discussion in the above section (Isila), one thing is clear: we cannot assert that it is indeed a Kannada word. That aside, even if we assume that it is a Kannada word, it's not clear to me how that makes it a written record in the Kannada language. It gives an impression that the entire edict is in Kannada. It's more appropriate to mention the Halmidi inscription instead of the Ashokan edict in the lead.

DK reply I intented to change this line and include Kannada influence on Tamil-Brahmi inscriptions from 2c. BC (Mahadevan) and also on Prakrit inscriptions. So while the wording will change, the meaning wont.Dineshkannambadi 11:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Careful when you do that... because Mahadevan says the language shows influence of Old Kannada and not the inscriptions. So using it to prove a written tradition for Kannada wont fly, at best it indicates that the language Old Kannada existed around that time. Another issue is using the 2nd cent BCE date, Mahadevan only gives a date of 2BCE-6CE for all inscriptions he discusses in the text (the ones he discovered in his work of over 40 yrs). Nowhere does he mention that all such inscriptions show the influence of old Kannada. Which would put into question the 2nd BCE date for old Kannada influence. Lotlil 13:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply I will write exactly what Mahadevan says. And I did not say Kannada's influence on Tamil language proves Kannada's written tradition.Dineshkannambadi 13:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have now a website written by Dr. A.V. Narasimhamurthy that several 2c. BC Tamil Inscriptions exist, very much in the heart of Tamil Country, carrying old Kannada words. BTW, Murthy is the author of "Coins of South India". I prefer to find his book though giving the same information before I load that piece of info.Dineshkannambadi 02:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, the archaeological evidence would indicate a written tradition for this language of around 1600 years

I noticed Dinesh's edit summary while changing it from 1550 to 1600, that he's using Kannada wordings in coins c. 400 CE to push this date out. This assertion needs to be sourced appropriately (that the coins are dated to 400 CE, that the legend is Kannada and that this can be taken as proof of a written tradition)

DK Reply I am not trying to push anything. I have provided valid citation in the Coinage section. Nothing more is required. Its your resposibility to prove that Dr. Moraes is wrong in his assesment. The 1600 years is just a general statement because King Bhagirata ruled from 390-420 in two of my sources. In fact I can provide a citation from Dr. Hampana, a well known Kannada scholar that the Kannada characters have evolved from 1900 years. Dr. Jyotsna Kamat also agress with this assesment. Because that was a web citation, I have left that alone and am looking for a book citation from the same author. About the coins, the book clearly says the coins are ascribed to the Early Kadambas (350-525) and the gold coin under question is an abbreviation of Bhagiratha, a King from the Early dynasty. Then he says another gold coin ascribed to his son, Raghu (420-430) bearing Devanagari inscription is available. Under any circumstance, recently, a 5th century copper coin minted by the early Kadambas has been discovered and cited in the article. So, anywhich way you look at it, the 5th century date wont change. In fact my book gives images of these coins, but I can load them into wiki because the book was published in 1931 and may fail wiki requirement of 100 years.Dineshkannambadi 11:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to make sure we aren't synthesising material, inadvertently of course. So, if Moraes says Kadambas issued a coin in 4th cent., fine. If he says that the inscription is in Dev. script but Kannada language, good. Say that. But, using this information to say that this is the earliest record of Kannada writing would be OR (since the source apparently only shows Kannada language existed, nothing about its writing), unless a source can be provided which makes this assertion. I hope I made myself clear. The 5th cent date isn't being questioned, Halmidi proves that already. I wanted to know what prompted the change from 1500 yrs to 1600. Lotlil 13:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply Lotlil, Moraes does not say the coin was issued in 4th century. He says the coin bear's the name of Bhagiratha. Thats exactly what I have written. But he does ascribe it to the Early Kadambas (4thc-6thc). The coin by Raghu is in Devanagari script. Moraes does not mention what language, which is why I did not add it. But I will verify again. I cant make Kannada older than it is by exaggeration.Dineshkannambadi 13:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, a FA on Kadamba Dynasty is soon forthcoming. Happy reading.Dineshkannambadi 12:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kannada has had a significant influence on other Indian languages and overseas cultures

Significant sounds OR and so does impacting overseas cultures. Need some good sources here.

DK Reply This section's first line can be reworded. I will look into this. Again citations have been provided on Kannada influence on Tamil-Brahmi inscriptions, Gujarathi language etc.If you disagree with this assesment, please provide citations.Dineshkannambadi 11:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lotlil 05:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction

Hello, I am new to this but I would like to report that there is a mistake on the kannada page. Next to the word kannada, there is a translation of it in the kannada script. This is wrong as it reads as kan-na-da. May not seem significant but it is. Someone please rectify this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.240.218 (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You must be using Firefox. If yes, then go to Regional and language options in your control panel, go to languages tab and click on install files for complex script and right to left languages. You'll be able to read Kannada script properly. Gnanapiti (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some one help me,I'm facing the same problem ,scripts are not clearly visible.
I use firefox.Dsr2008 (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brahmagiri edict

So what is the Kannada content of the Brahmagiri edict? Our source for this appears to be a The Hindu article stating "The first record on Kannada language is traced to Emperor Ashoka's Brahmagiri edict dated 230 B.C." Now a record "on Kannada language" is curiously different from a record of the Kannada language. Can we cite some reference that states the edict has Kannada content, as opposed to generic Tamil-Kannada? dab (𒁳) 15:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ah, I see this is discussed at #Isila above. As it stands, it appears there is a dispute that there may be a single word that may be identified as Kannada in the edict. We can mention this, of course, but it hardly makes for a solid "first record" of the language. If there is any interest in debating this topic in detail, I suggest this article isn't the place for it. Take it to Ashoka rock edicts, or perhaps to a dedicated Brahmagiri edict. dab (𒁳) 15:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need assistance at Chaunk

Need Kannada script for oggaraNe, and vaggaraNe at the Chaunk article. And what do the capital Ns mean? Badagnani (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added there. Capital N means ṇ, as in Karna. - KNM ^Talk 16:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why was "vaggaraNe" removed in this edit? Badagnani (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

many Kannada words starting with 'o' are mispronounced by many people to sound like they start with 'va'. In writing though, there is no mispronunciation (:)) and there is only one correct spelling. In this case, it happens to be 'oggaraNe'. Sarvagnya 19:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we remove references to other languages (like tulu, tamil)..it's based on the some assumptions or unverified facts for what is being written about other languages..

Please keep the page only about as it was before...whoever is the author of this page....We have abundant proof in terms of inscriptions and historically important material to show kannada was much ancient language.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.204.229 (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

classical language

kannada language gets classical status.someone please update,i cant update because article is locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.190.115 (talk) 14:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=44340 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.190.115 (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

doneDineshkannambadi (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]