Talk:Kannada/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Kannada. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Kannada Glossary

Any good glossaries out there in the net? I wanted to know the Kannada word for "cherry" and couldn't find it anywhere... the closest I came up with was "hannu" which seems to mean either fruit or berry but I'm just guessing... Likewise I tried to find the etymology for the word "Kannada" itself as, no on needs to be divine to realize its homophone, Canada, has a wholly different etymology... I'm guessing it might have a meaning akin to mirror (from Kannadi; Mirror) but I won't yet bet on that...

Few other inscriptions apart from Halmidi are

Book by rice http://books.google.co.in/books?vid=ISBN8120600630&id=2fhCH-NRatUC&pg=PA11&lpg=PA11&dq=Antiquity+of+kannada&sig=PGI54EiLcH24bK3LfAOmhG6Jqkk#PPA13,M1

The third earliest being on a stone at a temple in sirigunda 500AD.

This comments were added by Nrupatunga.

Asoka's Inscription

The article states, "The first record on Kannada language is traced to Emperor Ashoka's Brahmagiri edict dated 230 BC.[3][4]", but it is not clear whether it is based on one word "Isala" or many words and linguistic structure. Reference 3, says, "The word Isila found in Ashokan inscription (called Brahmagiri edict from Karnataka) meaning throw an arrow is a Kannada word indicating Kannada was a spoken language in 3rd century BCE (Dr. D.L. Narasimhachar in Kamath 2001, p5)". The word Isila would mean sending out an arrow in Tamil and I can also quote many related words in Tamil. How was it proven that it was Kannada, especially when there is no independent evidence for the existence and linguistic structure of Kannada in 3rd century BCE. Or are there literary works belonging to 3rd century BCE?--Aadal 18:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply-->The word Isila being a complex Kannada word is attested to by historians mentioned. We are not lingusitic experts to decide how and why they made the decision. Being an encyclopedia, we can only report what can be verified to the first order. For any further clarification, please contact the historians.Dineshkannambadi 20:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Dineshkannambadi, don't you think that claiming a doubtful word of Kannada origin and based on that a claim that the epigraphical evidence for Kannada (the epigraphical evidence is not in Kannada language) points to 230 BCE, you are misleading people to think Kannada is from BCE 230 period? While the literary evidence points to more like ~900 CE? Please understand that I'm not disbeleiving that Kannada as a language could have existed during 230 BCE, but on the other hand it could just as well be a version of some other language (dravidian or dravidian-aryan combination). How is it asserted that it is Kannada language in BCE 230, when there is no other compelling evidence around that date? The same comments apply to the Greek drama and the claim of "influencing other cultures". This looks like a hype to me. For the sake of accuracy these may have to be modified, in my opinion.--Aadal 22:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion needs historical support. Please find a historian to argue that the 230BC word isila is not a Kannada word, we can go from there. Untill then. cheers!!Dineshkannambadi 11:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Extinct Kannada letters

It is good stuff to have in this artilce, but I've added a few tags since it is not clear to me, as reader, on what basis this assertion of 13th century is made and what were the reasons. How was it determined that the letters 'rh', 'lh (zh) the articulation was similar to Tamil and Malayalam. Who and why was these letters replaced by ರ (ra) and ಳ (La)? Also about another letter vyanjana (consonant), are there some evidences that this was prevalent only in Dakshina Kannada district). Why was this replaced? What role did it play. Any information would make it more informative. Right now it leaves a confusing and puzzling picture for a reader. --Aadal 23:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have added a reference, which speaks on extinction of letters "rh" and "lh" (ṛa and ḷa) and it's similarity in articulation to Tamil and Malayalam. -- Naveen ^(talk) 04:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! --Aadal 04:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Kannada page looks great

I think the Kannada page looks great. Is there any plan to make it into a featured article? Probably some more aspects of the language and grammar can be added. Some more references and clarifications like I have sought and others might seek can be added. Already the referencing is quite good in my opinion. Even an audio file can be added. --Aadal 03:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see the Reference section. Most of the references are even with out titles! I.e. there are references with description such as

Kamath, 2001; Ramesh (1984), p10; etc Praveen 21:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Population Numbers

In the infobox there is a quote for the rank from Encarta, but the same Encarta gives a number 35+ million for the population. Many other sources give numbers less than 44m. It is not clear how the numbers 64m and 55m are arrived at. --Aadal 03:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This site could be used as reference too. Praveen 21:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Halmidi

Can somebody explain the statement in the Hindu report on Halmidi inscription, "..the language what can be termed as "Purvada Halegannada" and primitive Kannada with distinctive characteristics resembling those of Tamil.". After all it is only 16 lines long, is it available somewhere transcribed? Is it some part-tamil part-Kannada inscription? The Hindu statement seems to present a confusing picture. What do they mean by distinctive characteristics resembling those of Tamil? Is Purvada Halegannada a form of northern Tamil ?! --Aadal 13:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Its very simple. Both Tamil and Kannada were written in a script derived from Brahmi. hence the terminology, Tamil-Brahmi for very early Tamil inscriptions (Mahadevan).Dineshkannambadi 01:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Is Purvada Halegannada a form of northern Tamil - no. tamil might be a southern form of purvada haLegannada. i am not sure. I think you should check with Mr. Pavanar adigaL. Sarvagnya 02:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sarvagna, you're simply getting emotional. It is important to consider the facts. Tamil has a documented literature -created between the years 200 BCE and 300 CE. This collection contains 2381 poems written by 473 poets, many of them women. In addition, literary works like Tirukkural, Cilappatikaram, ciivakacintamaNi etc. were produced. Kannada's major literature of kavirajamaraga starts around ~9th century. You can see a 1000 year difference. Your attempts to claim equal antiquity etc, are quite misplaced. This is not just any bragging rights of Tamils, it is a proud human heritage and Indians, south dravidians and dravidians especially should be proud of. Antiquity is not everything. English may have a recent history, but it has the richest treasure of any language in the world. Kannada has more Jnanpeetha Awardees than any other language. And so on. For some reason you and a few other kannadigas are so abrasive and so against tamil. Do as you please, but you're only hurting yourself. If tomorrow someone were to prove that Tamil is derived from Kannada, I would not be displeased, and in fact, I would celebrate the finding. Caring for Truth and fairness will uplift us all - I believe. Trying to write accurately, factually, in an open and informative way will be good. My reasons for raising these issues are only to achieve these. For your information no one can tell with any certainity when exactly Tamil came into itself as a language. The tree diagaram etc. shows presumed relationships and it does not show that kannada branched off earlier than Tamil. If you want to propagate wrong ideas and have false pride, please do so. I can only point out. May be I'll try to put some tags to raise the point.--Aadal 04:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Dineshkannambadi, thanks. But as you might know that there are some uncertainities whether Brahmi came from Tamil writing or Tamil writing was adapted from Brahmi. Adichanallur script raises further issues. See also Dr. Gift Siromoney's writings. That Tamil derived its writing from Brahmi is not a given, but it could be the case. Turing to Kannada, the geographical extent and the extent of prevalence of now extict kannada letters and stages of kannada language over the period 600-1000 CE would reveal much about the differences between Kannada and Tamil. For all these there should be some unbiased research. About writing, please note that Tamil Brahmi letters have been found in far off places. See this and see Prof. Richard Salomon's comments.--Aadal 04:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like its going to be an interesting summar.Dineshkannambadi 11:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Did Tamil adopt the Brahmi script ? Other than the evidence of megaliths, the earliest reasonably accurate sources of history of this region are the short didicatory inscriptions, dating to the period from about 2nd century BC to the mid-first mill.AD. The dedication is often a votive inscription to record the donation of a cave by a chief or a later artisan or merchant or even a Buddhist or Jain monk. References to Brahman settlements begin around the middle of first mill. The language of inscriptions is Tamil although some Prakrit words are included. This provides clues to the process of adaptation of the Ashokan Brahmi script that was increasingly used with emendations for Tamil. It is likely that the influence of the Mayuran administration led to this adaptation(Thapar-Early India, 2003, p231) Dineshkannambadi 12:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, the article on Adichanallur script proves nothing but your own conjecture.Dineshkannambadi 13:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The scholars are not certain about the origin of Brahmi, which is found only since ~300 BC. Tamil-Brahmi is also around the same period. The Adichanallur inscription is important because

the newsreport says, "Dr. Satyamurthy has proposed, on the basis of "preliminary thermo-luminescence dating," that the pottery found at the site, including the pots found in the urn along with the script, might date back to circa 500 B.C. This date is, however, subject to confirmation by carbon-14 dating, which is the more reliable method.". So if the carbon-14 dating confirms the date of the writing, the so called Tamil-Brahmi could have been in existence before Brahmi appeared. None of these are a foregone conclusion. I've no POV. I'm simply pointing to the current evidence and scholarship. It is not a given that Tamil adopted/adapted Brahmi. If Tamil did adopt/adapt Brahmi, it should be clealy said so. --Aadal 16:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at this before we take this pointless debate any further. Also, even if the inscription were proved to be Tamil, I cant see how Aadal concluded that Tamil-Brahmi gave birth to Brahmi!! What nonsense. Sarvagnya 17:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

ps - The inscription has all of 6 or seven random syllables. Even the epigraphers who discovered it dont know what it means. They dont know for sure what time period it is from. And yet, Aadal seems to have concluded that it was Tamil! Why? How? Just because it was written in so called 'Tamil Brahmi'??! Even a kid can tell you that pretty much any script can be used to write any language. Tamil revisionist quackery at its heights! Pavanar vaadyaar would have been proud. Sarvagnya 17:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere in the post above yours, Aadal has 'concluded' Brahmi from came Tamil. Could you please point out the same?

Btw: I found your link very interesting. Here I will quote your 'findings'

"The Hindu report does not say anything except in ambiguous language. It does not draw any conclusions. Most importantly, this is just a report in a newspaper about history that has not yet been even researched into. Neither has any researcher researched into it nor has any journal published anything about it. Citing sources like media reports in things like this, I believe is against Wikipedia conventions. I believe it wouldnt be a problem if you used a Hindu report or review of say, a research item that appeared in a reputed journal. But to use a media report to establish the veracity of something is questionable."

I agree with your contention that reports from "the Hindu/or any other newspaper" should not be used to as a primary source. Don't you think there are lot of articles (including this one) which use such reports as primary source. What would be your suggestion? Should we get rid of all those 'questionable' claims (such as the great 2000 year old claim)? Or should we stick to the random statements from unknown Kannada quacks? Praveen 17:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Much as I hate to dignify trolling with responses, let me just say this. Newspaper reports cant be cited to write about cutting edge research that is not even in the laboratories yet. You cant use a newspaper report about an archeological discovery to speculate on the history of the discovery itself. You can only use it to prove that 'a discovery was made at such and such a place on such and such a date'. Thats all. However, after historians have studied it an arrived to conclusions and have formally reported it, if a newspaper reports those 'formal findings'(and not initial speculation), then you can use the newspaper report as a citation to report the inferences and conclusions of the experts. Beyond this, I cant tell you what to get rid of and what not to get rid of on wp. Such things are laid down in the many policies and guidelines already on WP. Do what you want but for your own good, make sure you stay within wiki-laws. Sarvagnya 18:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You didn't point out the conclusion on Aadal's part. Anyways, I can understand that as probably you couldn't find it. Do not get frustrated, and indulge in personal attacks such as calling me a troll. Every body knows who is a troll and who involves in group vandalizing. This is your first warning. Praveen 19:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

K.A. Nilakandasastri's (KAN) comment

I gave the page number (p.11) in Prof. Hart's book where the assessments by I. Mahadevan and C.J. Chelliah's are reported. It is not I who is determining that Sastri's comment is invalid. See Hart's book. Editor KNM is repeatedly re-inserting Tamil in the list where the 'magic wand' comment of KAN is used as a reference phrase. If it pleases you and gives you false pleasure do keep it. But it is not a correct view and glaringly wrong in the case of Tamil. --Aadal 03:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It may be a "wrong view" in the opinion of Chelliah and IM, that does not mean it is the The Wrong View. IM and Chelliah may be experts, so is KAN Sastri.Dineshkannambadi 00:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

KAN is a respected historian, but what is quoted in the article is not a fact. The 'magic wand' comment is not a scientific position but his biased opinion, what we would call here POV. As I said, do keep that statement and sure it will reflect on the quality of content and the calibre of the article.--Aadal 01:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That statement is used in the citation only to sum up KAN's contention. If you want an elaboration of his position, you would have to read his book. We obviously cannot type the whole book out for your sake in the citation. What has been included in the citation captures KAN's position on the matter succinctly. Thats all. Sarvagnya 01:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said enjoy it :) If there are seriously differing views, I believe WP requires to state both positions, but I'm not going to insist on it. --Aadal 02:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

A few questions on Kannada

Anyone knows since when is the name Kannada applied to the language and what is the native Kannada word for language?

Kannada is used from unknown antiquity. Kannada word for language is adumathu, namapada, etc

What are the native Kannada words for 'Hindu' Gods Siva, Vishnu, Brahma, Saraswati, Lakshmi, Parvathi, Yama etc. ?

Shiva is called virupasha, pampapathi, gorava, etc

vishnu is called vanamali, narayana, hari, etc.

Brahma is called srustikarta

saraswathi is called nadadevathe, sharada, gnanadathe,etc

yama is called kaala.

Hanuman is called pranesha, maruthi, Hulikuntaeraya, etc

What is the approximate percentage of sanskrit/prakrit words used in Kananda ?

5-8%

What is name of the first grammar work in Kannada and what is the approximate date of it?

shabdakosha 10th century CE. shabdamanidarpana 13th century ce.

What is the earliest poem or book on non-religious theme (like nature, philosophical reflection without a specific God or anthropomorphic religion)?

Kappaarabhatta- 700CE.

When and what are the works on Christianity, Islam and Atheistic school produced in Kannada?
Thanks!--Aadal 02:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

There is so much ancient literature in kannada that any one will be overwhelmed. try to study to find it out.

The above questions completely digresses from the topic: Antiquity of Kannada, influence on Dravidian languages from other languages. Please stick to the topic and keep blinkered exclusivism and chuvanism out.Dineshkannambadi 03:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

All the questions are about the Kannada language and its history. How is this a digression?! If you don't know say so or let someone else answer my basic questions. Answering my questions would throw light on how Kannada as a language developed. Also what is your

“

keep blinkered exclusivism and chuvanism out.

”

mean here?! Is asking these questions such a terrible thing?--Aadal 03:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)--Aadal 03:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

"Aadal, you suppose that, Tamils were singing Carnatic music and dancing BN to it and producing high literature and building big temples and living in cities in 200 BC, while Kannadigas and Telugus and Malayalis just 100 miles away were illiterate and living in caves till 1000 AD. Dont you? Sarvagnya"

-at that comment just above...malayalam only diverged from tamil in the last 600 years, until then they were tamil/spoke a slightly diff dialect of it, but over time they have divereged to form their own unique culture. Anyway, the argument made by the likes of sarvagnya seem to be purely kannada chauvinism. There is a reason why Tamil and Sanskrit are the only two Indian Classical Languages: they are the oldest. Just accept that Tamil is older and was the predecessor of your language. There is no need to get caught up in this, the fact that Kannada isnt as old doesnt make it worse.

You guys wanted citations about the aniquity of Kannada and got it. Makes no sense to continue the topic any further. The only discussion left is how much each language as influenced another and ofcourse, if we are open enough to understand why (geography being a big part of growth of a language)Dineshkannambadi 03:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Just examine each question I asked! How do you know that something is in Kannada language if you can't answer when a langauge was called Kannada, and what is the native word in Kannada for langauge and when the language was defined with a grammar? Are these irrelevant questions on the talk page of Kannada Language article? The lead para itself says Kannada is seeking classical language status and it is surprising that someone is not able to answer these basic questions. No wonder you accept 'magic wand' comment of KAN! --Aadal 03:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Aadal, you suppose that, Tamils were singing Carnatic music and dancing BN to it and producing high literature and building big temples and living in cities in 200 BC, while Kannadigas and Telugus and Malayalis just 100 miles away were illiterate and living in caves till 1000 AD. Dont you? Sarvagnya 05:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

how many times will you assk the same thing just see in previous discussions for answers.

Do you believe you answered any of my questions? Is your reply not a non sequitur? Why don't you engage in a meaningful dialogue? --Aadal 05:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Meaningful dialogue with you? Thats an oxymoron. Thanks but no thanks. Sarvagnya 06:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Aadal, once again, wikipedia is not the place for fringe believers. Find a Hyde park to talk from and a bunch of groundnut munching evening walkers for an audience.Dineshkannambadi 13:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

From the non sequitur responses from both of you, I get the impresssion that you don't have any answers and you're not honest enough to admit that you don't know. All the same, let me assure you, Dineshkannambadi, I respect you and your team of collaborators for your excellent contributions to Kannada-related articles in Wikipedia. I'm one of those who is thankful to your contributions. I believe a certain level of professional, dispassionate approach to some of these topics would be good for all of us and can help to enhance the quality of articles we are all interested in. Just ask yourself, whether asking the questions I raised above are in any way irrelevant here. If you don't know the answer, there is nothing wrong in admitting, 'I don't know'. Please don't take anything personal. I wish to apologize if I've offended any of you. I happened to believe that facts have to be recognized and statements should be as truthful as possible. --Aadal 16:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Answering those questions would definitely improve the credibility of the article. The earliest literature that Kannada has is the Kavirajamarga written in 9th century AD (Even in Kannada sources). The earliest grammar book of Kannada - Shabdamanidarpana by Keshiraja - was written approximately in 1260 AD [1]. Hope this helps in answering some questions. Praveen 15:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Native words for Shiva is gorava.

Krishna is Ranga. 27.61.48.190 (talk) 04:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

any more doubts? The comments were added by Nrupatunga —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nrupatunga (talk • contribs)

What is the approximate percentage of sanskrit/prakrit words used in Kananda ?

i think its 20-25%.I had read that Kannada has 70% native words out which 15% are of proto dravidian origin. Nrupatunga 05:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved to Archive

Hello! I have moved everything which I thought belonged to year 2006 into /Archive 1. If there was a discussion which was still active, please move it back. Also, the /Archive 1 is already full. In case of new archives, please create /Archive 2.--Scheibenzahl 14:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Learning material

Hi! I would like to learn Kannada. Please redirect me to some good sites/books.--Scheibenzahl 14:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Is vaddaradhaane wrongly Dated?

There has a recent controversy where Vaddaradhaane which was quoted 900AD after Kaviraja marga is dated back to 450 AD by Govinda pai.Can anyone give more info on this if you know?

Nrupatunga 15:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Is kannada,Two thousand year Old langauge

Admin {{editprotected}} The language has 2000 years of history. The literature has 1500 years of varietable tradition.Note that this statement was Issued by a site of CIIL - central institute of Indian languages and this is the government organisation which has authority of recomending Indian languages for classical status.As this is a recognised body of Languages by a government,its statement has to be considered with apt importance.

CIIL link - http://www.ciil.org/ site created by CIIL - http://www.kannada-online.info/Introduction/introduction.htm

Can I add these sentences,I have given the references below.

I would object to this merely because it is not possible to speculate based on a few words of doubtful transcription. I think it would be fair to describe that Kannada has literature from the 9th century. The name Karnataka can be traced, even from Tamil sources, but I think proof is needed for claiming that the language spoken is called Kannada. Many of the words given can be argued many ways and there is no proof that they are not northern spoken forms of Tamil or Telugu or some other non-Kannada but Dravidian language. Toponyms are not clear indicators except to show that in some cases that it is a dravidian word. Many of the claims of Kannada influence on Tamil mentioned below are absolutely with no merit and in fact prove that they are Tamil ! -except the highly debatable claim of -a ending reference of Mahadevan. The -a ending is indeed quite prevalent!! Examples are like periya (big), ciRiya (small), pazhaiya (old), puthiya (new) etc. The word 'vaayil' is not colloqial, it is both formal and spoken form. The "Charition mime" passage had been disputed by Dr. Barnett. The present wiki write up needs to present both views in the article rather than stating only one view. The "Charition mime" passage is as much Tamil as any other dravidian language. It could be some mixed up dravidian things. This is not a place to do OR. So, in summary it is best to state that Kannada literature starts in the 9th century and that the first known grammar work begins in the 13th century. Rest of the claims are unproven except Halmidi inscription.--Aadal 22:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"Rest of the claims are unproven except Halmidi inscription"

Kavirajamarga of 825AD has mentioned about various kannada books of Durvinita who is Dated 600 AD.That means kannada Literature must have easily flourished by 4th century.Again you are doubting that kannada literature can't be 1500 years old,But the scholars are not.When this fact has been agreed by even CIIL a official body of Indian governments which is a group of Indologist and Linguist Experts. If you have doubts,can you Quote from any of the scholars reference who has argued that kannada literature could not have started before 9th century?

Nrupatunga 14:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Aadal. The Halmidi inscription uses a language known as "Poorvada Halegannada" (primitive Kannada), with distinctive characteristics resembling those of Tamil. Here is the reference link from reputed NPOV website Praveen 02:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

(just a comment - might be irrelevant) "poorvada halegannada" is kannada of that period just like the tamil of the post-sangam period. (It happens that both "poorvada halegannada" and post-sangam tamil bore several resemblances in characteristics) -- Nareshov 22:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply No The language in charition mime is already prooved to be kannada.If you any aquotes of linguist who have gone against that argument quote it here.The second argument of praveen does not say anything about this greek drama.

Dr. Bennet seems to not accept your claim as quoted by Kamath's book.--Aadal 05:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Also influence of kannada on tamil inscriptions has been proved by Irvattan mahadevan.But that does not mean language itself is kannada.I hope you understand the difference between language influenced and language used.And we are not scholars here to argue and verify truths on this site.

The claim of I. Mahadevan is some feature (like -a ending for accusative, genitive suffixes??) in a Tamil-Brahmi inscription is not attested in Tamil but (presumed to be) found in Old Kannada. It can not be interpreted to mean kannada influenced Tamil . Where is any independent evidence for features of old kannada which are not attested? Spoken Tamil has such forms which are mere corruptions of chaste Tamil. For example 'He hit me' will be written as 'ennai avan adiththaan', but in spoken Tamil it would be said/written as 'enna avan adiccaan' , so suffixes do show a change. Whether it was an inscriber's mistake of mixing spoken forms or deliberate/systematic record etc. are not evident and beyond the scope of this article. --Aadal 05:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Those two sentences can be understtod by even a a current day kannadiga.Can you say the same with tamil ot telugu ? The kannada sentences found in the greek play, "Charition mime". two of these sentences are, "bere koncha madhu patrakke haaki" means 'poar some wine to the cup seperately'. and "panam beretti katti, madhuvam bere ettuvenu" means, 'having taken the cup seperately i will have wine seperately'.

These comments are added by Nrupatunga

I don't know whether your transcription from greek to roman letters is correct, but it appears that Dr. Bennet does not accept the claim. --Aadal 05:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Boss, as a matter of fact there are nealy more than 10 scholars who have indeed said that time period of tolkoppiyam is 10th century.(BGL swamy,taieken etc etc).And the brahmi script which you claim as Tamil brahmi is not even recognised outside tamil scholars.As i said I can put n number of proofs for kannada being dravidian langauge used in greek play.

May I know what is the relevance of Tolkāppiyam here? It appears mentally you and a few others (for example Sarvagna) are trying to compare and equate Tamil and Kannada and it is, I believe, affecting your perspective. I. Mahadevan's work is published by reputed sources (Harvard

University, Cambridge, USA), and Mahadevan is not the only scholar. Tamil-Brahmi is an accepted fact and in fact there are doubts whether Brahmi itself was derived from Tamil-Brahmi (there is no compelling proof, but there are doubtful possibilities). I would suggest that we stick to speaking about Kannada here and not getting into any discussions about Tamil, Tamil-Brahmi. --Aadal 12:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Aadaal,You are arguing just for the sake of arguing.When I give several quotes of several scholars you Refuse to agree. As i said before I can only quote what many scholars have opined about this and majority of the scholars have indeed agree that kannada is the language of the greek play.I have even given the sentences,with the words which are 100% pure kannada words.The sentences makes sense only when that language is kannada and even the play makes sense when that line is read as kannada.

Now you say Dr Bennet didn't agree - Quote the reasons why he did not agree? I can quote links of many morelinguist who have verified and agreed.But I doubt you will agree to it because as usaual Bennet didn't agree.

We are not Linguist who are Experts in this Issue.If you disagree quote proper reasons why you did not agree,I doubt weather you even know why bennet did not agree.

Nrupatunga 14:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Brahmi from tamil brahmi - are you joking ? ````

Aadal,I brought Tamil brahmi in this discussion because I mahadevan had talked about kannada's antiquity in that article. I think Admin's must go ahead and put the point in the page,as i don't see any scholar who has disagreed on this matter except the few guys here.

Nrupatunga

What is the general agreed opinion is what matters.

Dr. Bennet may not have agreed,But huge number of other scholars agreed unianimously - Refer Vagool,hultsch and many others.There is no more dispute on.

Could you give (1) the 'huge' number of other scholars and their references and (2) provide the original greek letters ? --Aadal 12:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Reference 1<http://www.kannada-online.info/Introduction/introduction.htm>

Kannada has a very rich tradition of literature, culture and grammar.

The language has 2000 years of history. The literature has 1500 years of varietable tradition.

This site is created by Central Institute of Indian Languages -

Central Institute of Indian Languages a government organisation which was established to co-ordinate the development of Indian Languages, to bring about tthe essential unity of Indian languages through scientific studies, Promote inter-disciplinary research, contribute to mutual enrichment of languages, and thus contribute towards emotional integration of people of India

reference 2 -

In Kannada, the first shaashana is the 450 A.D. Halmidi shaashana.

Ancient books like Vaddaaraadhane (800), Kaviraja Marga (850) are also available.

Though written literature appeared later, there are many other sources and proofs to prove Kannada's antiquity:

1. 450 B.C. paaNini's "aShTaadhaayi" has a reference to a "karnaadhaka" gOtra

2. 250 B.C. King Ashoka's shaashana has a reference to name called "isila" which is said to be Kannada origin

3. 80 B.C. In the Prakrit shaashana of Madhavpur-Vadagavi, the word "NaaTapati" is a word of Kannada origin

4. 150 A.D. Ancient Greek historian Ptolemy's book "Pappyrus" Kannada towns "kalligere", "baadaami", "mudugal" find mention.

5. 150 A.D. In the ancient Greek comedy "Aksirinkas Pappyri" there has been an attempt to understand Kannada words

6. 150 A.D.In a Prakrit shaashana, there are Kannada words like "maTTapaTTi" (maLavaLLi)

7. There is an abundance of Kannada in many Prakrit shaashanas: a. Words "nagipa", "saMkapa" found in the 100 B.C.Prakrit shaashana have a Kannada form b. Usage of words like "manaaLi" originates in the union of two Kannada words "mun" + "paLLi" c. Kannada towns have been named in constructs like "saMbalIva oora vaasinO" d. "mooDaaNa" a word used in different languages to represent the Eastern direction is of Kannada origin

8. 150 A.D. In the Prakrit book "gaathaa saptashati" written by Haala Raja, Kannada words like "tIr", "tuppa", "peTTu", "poTTu" have been used.

9. 250 A.D. On the Pallava Prakrit shaashana of Hire Hadagali's Shivaskandavarman, Kannada word "kOTe" transforms into "koTTa"

10. 250 A.D. In the Tamil mega tome "shilappadikaaraM" written by Ilango Adi, there is reference to Kannada in the form of the ! word "karunaaDagar"

11. 350 A.D. In the Chandravalli Prakrit shaasana, words of Kannada origin like "punaaTa", "puNaDa" have been used.

12. 250 A.D. In one more Prakrit shaasana found in Malavalli,

13. Kannada towns like "vEgooraM" (bEgooru), "kundamuchchaMDi" find reference.

In the recent 2003 Harvard publication "Early Tamil Epigraphy" authored by Iravatam Mahadev has important substance in the current discussion. This publication provides a new direction and paradigms to the question of Kannada's antiquity.

It extends the antiquity of Kannada to older times than presently known. It also presents a new thought that Tamil came under the Kannada influence in the years of B.C. timeframe. Some Tamil shaasana's beginning in the 3rd century B.C. shows a marked Kannada influence.

In the 1-3 B.C. Tamil shaashanas, words of Kannada influence "nalliyooraa", kavuDi", "posil" have been introduced. The use of the vowel "a" as an adjective is not prevalent in Tamil, its usage is available in Kannada. Kannada words like "gouDi-gavuDi" transform into Tamil's "kavuDi" for lack of the usage of "Ghosha svana" in Tamil.

That is the reason Kannada's "gavuDi" becomes "kavuDi" in Tamil. "posil" (Kannada "hosilu") is another Kannada word that got added into Tamil. Colloquial Tamil uses this word as "vaayil". In the 1 A.D. Tamil shaasana, there is a personal reference to "ayjayya" which is of Kannada origin.

In another 3 A.D. Tamil shaasana, there is usage of the words "oppanappa vIran". The influence of Kannada's usage of "appa" to add respect to a person's name is evident here. "taayviru" is another word of Kannada influence in another 4 A.D. Tamil shaasana.

reference 3 - A very important proof

The Charition mime is a Greek mime found in Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 413. The manuscript, which is possibly incomplete, is untitled, and the mime's name comes from the name of its protagonist.

The language used in it has been clearly deciphered as kannada.

The kannada sentences found in the greek play, "Charition mime". two of these sentences are, "bere koncha madhu patrakke haaki" means 'poar some wine to the cup seperately'. and "panam beretti katti, madhuvam bere ettuvenu" means, 'having taken the cup seperately i will have wine seperately'.

The latest possible time that mime could have been written is said to be 1st century AD(means could be even earliar than this), but the whole spirit of the mime is that of around 300 to 500 BC.

The words like ettu,bere and haaki are 100% kannada words which are even used today.

http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN9051830262&id=GftSak0lpsgC&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&ots=mX1QVXChBj&dq=Charition+mime+kannada&sig=oD8pEvDD3slaVXzF2r9c1A7MdAg

Hultzsch, E. (1904), "Remarks on a papyrus from Oxyrhynchus", Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1904: 399-405.

This comments were added by Nrupatunga

The words like ettu,bere and haaki are 100% kannada words which are even used today. - Yes, -- Nareshov 22:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

N Protected edit declined. The text Nrupatunga (?) wants to add is confusing and in very poor English; at any rate there appears to be no consensus about it. Consider getting a third opinion at WP:3O. Sandstein 09:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Kannada influence on Marathi

I had read that Kannada has influenced Marathi to the extend that it has many of the retroflex sounds as well as words that are derived from Kannada. I did not see any information about it in this article Taprobanus 19:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If you have the correct citations and sources for this please bring it forward and we can request an admin to insert the relavent info into the article, considering its locked right now.Dineshkannambadi 19:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No I don’t, that was when I was in the University, I read in a journal article about linguistics. I still remember that retroflex sounds such as Zha in Marathi were a borrowing from Kannada as well as some common words such as Tayi.(I am going by memory here) So there is credible research articles about this already available, if we know where to look. JSTOR might be a good search location. Taprobanus 21:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I've come across this before in an interesting book. Unfortunately, this was way back in 2001 in Sivan Chetty Garden govt. library in Bangalore. If any of you are looking for rare sources please visit this library and hunt down the kannada section. There are atleast 3 books written by various authors which are eye-openers. One of them talked about how several names in maharashtra can be traced back to their original old kannada forms. (example such as "groundnuts are kadaLekAy in both marathi and kannada" are nice to know :) - Nareshov 22:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Answers for aadal

Anyone knows since when is the name Kannada applied to the language and what is the native Kannada word for language?

When the language has been called as kannada (why do u need to know that)..does anyone know when english was called as english,latin as latin,greek as greek ????

What are the native Kannada words for 'Hindu' Gods Siva, Vishnu, Brahma, Saraswati, Lakshmi, Parvathi, Yama etc. ? .....No Need for this one :)..it is only stupid tamil ppl who twist proper hindu names like raghu ram (reghu ram) krishna to krishnan..this is absolutely not required

What is the approximate percentage of sanskrit/prakrit words used in Kananda ?

It is the influence of sanskrit language. No need for such counts.

What is name of the first grammar work in Kannada and what is the approximate date of it? It is approximately in 11th century or so

What is the earliest poem or book on non-religious theme (like nature, philosophical reflection without a specific God or anthropomorphic religion)? It would all be available with kannada parishath (please contact kannada parishath in bangalore or karnataka govt) they will be able to give all the relevant info required.

When and what are the works on Christianity, Islam and Atheistic school produced in Kannada?

India is hindu nation. No need for christiannity,islam etc..

Once it's unprotected...

Should we add at the top "Not to be confused with Canada"? Because when I first saw the name, I thought it was some kind of Canadian native language. Mouse is back 19:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Distortion of truth

The statement that Telugu script is dervied from Kannada script is a gross distortion of facts and truth. The very references cited in the article give a different version.

The origin of Telugu script lies in the Asokan Brahmi script written on the urn found from Bhattiprolu stupa which was older than Satavahana times. Satavahanas used this script and spread it over Maharashtra and Karnataka regions which they ruled for about 400 years. The strong resemblance of modern Thai, Laos, Javanese and Balinese scripts to Telugu script is because of the spread of proto-Telugu script from coastal Andhra to east Asia along with Buddhism (from Ghantasala and Masulipatnam ports). The Chalukayas, originally hailing from Rayalaseema (Kadapa-Kurnool) region of Andhra Pradesh, used the script to write Telugu and Kannada languages. The script is known to historians as Telugu-Kannada script. One may refer to the displays about the evolution of scripts in National Museum in Delhi. To brand the script as 'Old Kannada' or 'hale Kannada' is a biased distortion of history. The earliest evidence of a Dravidian (proto-Telugu) language being written in Brahmi script brought by Buddhists, was found in Bhattiprolu in the heartland of Andhra country. The reasoning given by me for the spread of the script to Kannada-speaking areas is totally scientific and logical. All Kannada historians know that Adikavi Pampa and his brother were Telugu Brahmins of ancient Kammanadu (same region as Bhattiprolu) who embraced Jainism, sought the patronage of Chalukyan kings and wrote the earliest literary works of Kannada language. Can anyone deny that the script of the mother tongue of Pampa did not influence their contributions to Kannada? It is only unfortunate that no work of Telugu literature of that time was discovered. Some Users were insistent that Telugu script originated from Kannada scipt, which is absolutely devoid of reason and rationale. Historians and archaeologists always used the words "Old Telugu-Kannada" script. Some enthusiasts insist on using the words "Old Kannada" or "Hale Kannada", which I feel is not right. Now, let us see the reference (http://www.engr.mun.ca/~adluri/telugu/language/script/script1d.html) cited in the article. It is absolutely clear from Figures T1a and T1b in the reference as to how Telugu-Kannada script evolved from Asokan Brahmi script of Bhattiprolu. Hence, the sentence about the origin of Telugu script should be modified. Kumarrao 06:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment The same source quoted by user Kumarrao also confirms Telugu script evolved from Old-Kannada script!!!! [2]Dineshkannambadi 12:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

May be Indian history books have to be re-written... Kumarrao, please bring some scholarly evidence to the table to discuss about this rather than some website written by some obscure person who contradicts himself in his own articles -- Amarrg 12:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Same Reference

Dear Amarrg, It is the same reference which Mr Gnanapiti always cites to revert my edits. Does the reference become authentic only for Kannada users?Kumarrao 18:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Some confrontation on edits happening in one article cannot be used as a basis to distort facts in another article. If you have any issues in the Telugu article, it is prudent for you to resolve issues in that article's talk page. BTW, you are talking about conscience in most of your dicussions, question your conscience on whether the citation you have put forth is a reliable one or not. Even after so many days you have not been able to put forth another citation that would substantiate your arguments. So lets not edit-war on this trivial citation and please resolve your dispute on Telugu in it's talk page. Thanks -- Amarrg 07:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply

1.Can you tell me which fact has been distorted by me?

2.I made an input in the article with proper citation. Is it wrong?

3. Scores of Kannada related articles in Wiki refer to blogs, webpages, ameturish historians etc., (E.g. Jyotsna Kamath's Potpourri; www.ourkarnataka.com; www.prabhu50g.com; www.kamat.com etc.,). Kannada history articles copiously quote two authors viz., Kamat and Arthikaje. The former got his book published by a local publisher. The latter writes history in a website on Karnataka. By which standard they become authoritative historians?

4.On the other hand, the website I refer belong to a well-known lingusitand scgolar of Dravidian language scripts.

5. When I question your conscience I question your hypocrisy too? Kumarrao 15:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Code improvements on notes:

Where text begins with "Reverend Ferdinand Kittel...":

Reverend [[Ferdinand Kittel]] has also written a book on Kannada grammar called "A Grammar of the Kannada Language: Comprising the Three Dialects of the language"<ref>{{cite web |last=Kittel |first=Ferdinand |title=A Grammar of the Kannada Language |work=[[Google Book Search]] |publisher=[[Google]] | url = http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN8120600568&id=rnNxtHfKxZAC&pg=PP11&lpg=PP11&ots=p8gHyBeg7y&dq=kannada+grammar&sig=UEOhCXLrlp_eSLfYwh7GOvwVK4Q#PPP1,M1 |accessdate=2007-06-21}}</ref>

The purpose is to replace the long reference URL in notes with a reference template that links to this URL, so that the result would look like this:

Reverend Ferdinand Kittel has also written a book on Kannada grammar called "A Grammar of the Kannada Language: Comprising the Three Dialects of the language"^[1]

A note would look like this:

^ Kittel, Ferdinand. "A Grammar of the Kannada Language". Google Book Search. Google. Retrieved 2007-06-21.

— instead of a long URL in text which creates a horizontal scroll bar (in a 1024x768 resolution). -BStarky 06:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Front page/disambig with Canada

Wow. I didn't know an article on the front page could be protected, not that it matters much to me. Maybe that restriction only applies to Today's Featured Article?

Anyways, I think that, since the pronunciations are similar, Canada might ought to be disambiguated with this language. And I am curious, is there any posibility that the two words might be related? Or are they just convergent?

-- trlkly 09:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[1]