Talk:Classical language/Archive 1

Archive 1

Greek

Why Attic Greek and not just Greek, especially when koine Greek redirects to the latter and Attic Greek is a stub? I understand that modern Greek is a different language from Attic Greek, but are Attic and koine so different that the Greek Christian Scriptures (and the Septuagint, for that matter) cannot be considered part of the Greek literary canon? Arkuat 06:09, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)

Aye, especially given that limiting oneself to Attic means excluding Homer, Herodotus, and the tragedies (all of which are neither Attic nor koinè). "Ancient Greek" is what classicists study. jc Thu Apr 14 2005 08:41 AM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.252.70.52 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 14 April 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention Procopius and other late Classical/Early Byzantine authors. And if we're going to include the monolithic Tamil which lumps modern and classical Tamil together, then we may as well allow the same for Greek. --Jpbrenna 22:08, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Edit

Some of the links on the list didn't even lead to the language proper -- they went to a disambig page. I corrected that, I changed the Greek and Persian entries to "Classical" -- rather hard to define, but as the justice once said about pornography: "I know it when I see it." Procopius and Ferdowsi can probably pass muster as "Classical" but Hafiz and Digenes Akrites would be pushing it. It's hard to draw bright lines, but you have to at some point. I totally reject the inclusion of only Attic Greek as constituting the "Classical" corpus for that language, pace Prof. Hart. --Jpbrenna 17:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

what of ge'ez...that certainly will qualify... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.91.24.120 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Pali?

Classical languages are supposed to have arisen somewhat independently of one another, yet according to the wikipedia article on Pali it is very closely related to Sanskrit, much more so than Greek and Latin. Can Pali really be considered an independent, classical language? eeesh 20:53, 15 May 2006 [00:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)]

Criteria for being a Classical Language

It's very ambiguous for what the criteria of a classical language really is, even with the insightful declaration that Tamil is a classical language in his report here. Pali is close to Sanskrit yes, but the historical roots are probably different. For that, we must find a historia to verify if Pali is a classical language or not and find the absolute criteria of a classical language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.23.112 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

If we're going to discuss Tamil, what about Classical Mayan? Or Sumerian? Or Ancient Egyptian? They have all (as far as we know) independent literary traditions which span centuries and which influenced several cultures since. In fact, there should be probably a whole legion of ancient languages which can claim classical status. --Wtrmute 22:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Not really -- Egyptian culture was somewhat influential in a way (though Egypt borrowed from outside as much as gave to other societies), but there was not a borrowing of a large number of Egyptian words into any other attested language, and no other language was written directly with the Egyptian writing sytem (though Egyptian writing did influence the development of the Proto-Sinaitic and Meroitic alphabets). To make a classical language, you need general cultural influence PLUS broad language-specific influence (see next subsection). AnonMoos 02:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If you bothered reading the article you would have noticed that there was a wide array of criteria for a language having the classical status thus you should try to even skim over the last few paragraphs before trying to assert such statements. If what you said then practically every ancient language would be classical but there is a different from CLASICAL and ANCIENT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.23.112 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a problem. It does seem like there should be a distinction between "ancient languages" and "classical languages," but Ancient language redirects to Classical language. It seems to me that there are a lot of ancient languages that ought not be classified as classical languages. Also, the definition of "classical language" used in the article was constructed specifically to justify listing Tamil as a classical language, which makes the article look POV. If Prof Hart got that definition from somewhere else, surely we should cite another source. The above justification for not including Egyptian as a classical language is the lack of "broad language-specific influence." But the article on the Tamil language doesn't discuss the influence of Tamil on other languages. Is influence (also discussed in the next section) a criterion or not? PubliusFL 17:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Criterion is not "literature" as such

The main criterion is not having a great body of literature, it's influencing a significant number of other languages over a significant period of time. If language A "naturally" uses roots from language B to form coin new technical terms (as English used Greek roots to coin the word "telephone" etc.) then that's one piece of evidence that language B might be a Classical language. AnonMoos 02:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I would have to say that literature is a criteria imo. What you state is correct as well but having a wide amount of quality literature is important to have a language being a classical language over just an ancient one. We refer to many books such as classics and these classics are usually written in Classical Languages thus it is easy to see which languages are not in that aspect of literature only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.23.112 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sanskrit is not completly dead.

Sanskrit is not completly dead.

It has a considerable amount of native speakers.

Although very less (Last survey results showed it around 5000), But still it cannot be considered as a dead language.

Any suggestions on it is welcome.

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

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nrupatunga (talk • contribs) 03:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sanskrit is being revived. "Dead" means that it used to be extinct. Living languages change, and if Sanskrit revival should really succeed, "Neo-Sanskrit" will not be a classical language any more, just like Ivrit isn't ancient Hebrew. You can't have your cake and eat it. Either your language is classical and fossilized, or it is alive and changing. dab (𒁳) 20:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sanskrit is niether my language and niether i am intrested in promoting it.Its the fact that there are few villages in karnataka where people's native language is sanskrit.If language of strength 5000 is considered to be dead then i doubt nearly 3000 languages in the today's world list to be declared as extinct.Anyhow you can remove that whole paragrapgh of living classical language as it is irrelevent here. User_talk:Nruptunga —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nrupatunga (talk • contribs) 07:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Old Irish

Old Irish seems to be slipping through some sort of crack on this. It is listed in the category for this page, yet is not listed on the main article, or mentioned at all for that matter. From what I have read on the subject, which is by all reasonable accounts very limited, I seem to recall that there is relatively little source material for the language, and that it is mostly in the form of margin scribblings in religious manuscripts. Would that not trump its inclusion as a Classical language? Does anyone know of independent and reputable confirmation that Old Irish meets the criteria for a Classical language? Wachowich 17:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Dubious reference and misinterpreted claims

I have serious concerns over this article. The whole article has only one reference to support it. This one. This reference is but a personal email that Mr. Hart has written to somebody. While I certainly agree that Mr. Hart is a scholar of the language, I am not so sure that a personal mail written by him can carry the same weight as say a peer reviewed article written by him in a journal.

Also, the reference provided talks only about Tamil and doesnt certify the other languages that are named in the article as classical. So how did the other languages named in the article make it to the article? What references were used? Are there any other references at all that define classical languages the way that Hart defines it. Are there any other references at all that make the same claims that Hart makes? I think without these questions being answered the article is dangerously close to being original research. Sarvagnya 09:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What about the referenced quote from Edward Sapir? AnonMoos 13:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I made a similar point in a comment above, from 21 Feb, which apparently went unnoticed. The problem I see is that the two references apparently contradict each other about Tamil (which is not one of Sapir's "five languages") and the Hart one seems a little polemical and really ought to be backed up with something from someone more disinterested, or it makes the article look POV. Like I said above, if Tamil comes in, I don't see how you keep Egyptian out. PubliusFL 14:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I'm sorry I'd missed the Sapir ref. But then refs are atleast meant to be in the External links if not under "References" itself. Now that I've taken a cursory look at Sapir's ref., I have another even more important question. I did a Ctrl-F for "classical language" on that Sapir ref and there is nowhere that he uses that term. In other words, I am now beginning to suspect that the article title itself is a neologism. I am beginning to suspect that there is no proper scholarly definition for "Classical language". In other words, I do not think(atleast going by the evidence we have now) that this "Classical language" has any scholarly sanction. If we were to go by the dictionary meaning of the word "Classical" I'm sure that not just Egyptian but Kannada and Telugu and Malayalam and loads of other languages too will be able to make the claim. Sarvagnya 16:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Prof. Hart is a highly respected scholar and a professor at a well-known University (UC Berkeley) and it is mindboggling to note that his categorical statements and the official declaration of the govt. of India are ignored and some 'opinions' of some individuals are circulated here! Is this all a wikipedia can do?! Sapir died a long time before much about Tamil works are widely known in the west. None of you have POV and but Prof. Hart does?! Wake up guys!--Aadal 02:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The government of India and its babus isnt an authority on linguistics and as for Prof Hart, nobody is questioning his credentials. All I am saying is, since Hart is an academic himself, you should point to some book or journal that he has written where he has explained what classical languages are. And then, you should demonstrate that mainstream scholarship agrees with Prof Hart. Instead of that, what we have here is a personal snail mail that Hart has written to somebody. Sorry. Sarvagnya 03:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You have no right to make such derogatory statements about the declaration of the President of India nor dismiss Professor Hart's statement. --Aadal 05:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Much as I respect the president of India, for all your whining it might not be out of place for me to point out that the President is a Tamil himself. And DMK the allies of the ruling Congress party are well known Tamil fanatics from Kumari kandam. So you'd do well to stop whining and bring better sources to the table. Thanks. Sarvagnya 08:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether you like it or not, Govt. India had officially declared that Tamil is a Classical Language. Am I whining?! Just pointing out that you have no right to use such derogatory words about Govt. India and President's declarations. Personally you may not agree or you may have other opinions, which is fine, but you can not deny the facts. Further, Prof. Hart, who has sound scholarship in Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin literatures and who is a Professor of Tamil in a reputable university, and who has written many books on Tamil and is an authority is fully qualified, and he categorically states that Tamil is a classical language from his knowledge. If someone says who has declared western classical music, it is not some specific body, but more by people who know the music. --Aadal 13:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

My point is twofold. First, since Prof Hart is specifically a professor of the Tamil language, he has a vested interest in claiming that Tamil is a classical language. I'm not saying he is incorrect, but at least for appearance's sake we should be able to point to something to show that this claim is accepted by the broader community of classical language scholars. Second, assuming that Tamil is a classical language (which I believe to be a reasonable claim), the question of why Classical Egyptian is not listed as a classical language was raised earlier on this talk page. The reason given is that Egyptian did not have influence on a significant number of languages over a significant period of time. Either we need to show how Tamil had this kind of influence on other languages and other literatures, or in fairness we ought to include Egyptian (and possible a few other languages) as classical languages. PubliusFL 05:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

(1) Because Hart, having learned and studied many languages including Sanskrit, Greek and Latin, and being a Professor of Tamil, he is eminently qaulified. If I'm a professor of mechanical engineering, esp. in a reputable University I would be presumed to know quite well the subject matter. It is ridiculous to dismiss his statement and the official declaration of the Govt. of India. Read Prof. Hart's "The Poems of Ancient Tamil" where he shows the influence of Tamil on Indo-Aryan. See Chapter 10 there. (2) As to the Egyptian, I have no knowledge of the language or the claims of the contenders. --Aadal 13:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You cannot just say "Tamil is a classical language", just like you cannot just say "Greek/Latin is a classical language". There is a specific Classical Greek / Classical Latin language, and if you want to argue Tamil has a "Classical" stage, you'll need to refer to Classical Tamil in particular: this at present redirects to Tamil literature, which does not mention any "classical stage". Maybe the language of Chola literature can be considered "Classical Tamil"? According to whom? Just claiming "Tamil is Classical!!1" is pointless, and smells of naive ethnic ego-massage. Also note that if Tamil literature has a "classical" stage, so do lots of other literary traditions. "Classical Icelandic" is the language of the medieval sagas. "Classical Persian" would probably be Pahlavi. "Classical Aramaic" would be the official language of the late Assyrian empire. There is no way that if we're going to extend the list beyond the handful of "world-classics" that we'll just introduce Tamil and nothing else: You'll open the floodgates to any number of "classical" stages in national literatures. dab (𒁳) 10:57-11:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not 'just saying' Tamil is a classical language. Govt. of India had declared it as such. Read above and I've pointed out Prof. Hart's qualifications. Read Prof. Hart's book mentioned above. Tamil reached classical stage between 200 BCE to 200 CE and this extended until 600 CE. Subsequently, it is a new level of devotional/philosophical/cultural classicism. Are you a scholar or knowledgeable person in Tamil and Tamil literature? Please understand that I am not discounting that you could be. Please just answer it would help in understanding your point of view. I object to your words "smells of naive ethnic ego-massage". I would suggest that you stop ad hominem comments and make your points. Can you deny that Govt. India had declared Tamil as the Classical Language? Can you deny the scholarship of Prof. Hart and his categorical statement? --Aadal 13:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Definition of "Classical language"

I don't think that the term classical language is any kind of neologism, but unfortunately there seem to be two currents of thought about what the best definition of a classical language is. One side emphasizes broad influence over a large cultural area for a long period of time (including over speakers of languages not closely linguistically related to the classical language in question) -- as seen in the Sapir quote -- while the other side focuses more on a language's internal long and glorious tradition of literature, regardless of the degree of its external influence. Medieval Persian certainly qualifies under both sets of criteria (since Persian poetry was widely read in many Muslim lands, and Persian was used as an administrative language over areas of Central Asia and the Indian subcontinent for many centuries), so I'm not sure why Persian is left out of the list in this article. But Tamil and ancient Egyptian only qualify under the internal criteria. AnonMoos 14:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree 100%. In the long run, I think this article should describe how "classical language" originally referred to the languages in which the Western "classics" were written (Latin and Greek), that in recent decades the term has been extended to comparable languages from other literary traditions, and that (as you describe) there are differing "currents of thought" about what the essential characteristics of a classical language are and exactly what languages qualify as classical. PubliusFL 19:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[Interjected] Well, actually Sanskrit was recognized by European professional linguists as a classical language (though maybe not by the general educated public) as far back as the early 19th century.

Another strongly "externally" influential Classical language that comes to mind is Pali, in which the early Buddhist scriptures were written. The written Burmese language pretty much started out as Pali with some Burmese words thrown in. According to the external-influence criteria, Pali has a stronger claim than Tamil... AnonMoos 21:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If it is 'internal criteria'(as described by anonmoos above), then not just tamil and egyptian' but Kannada and telugu and probably dozens of other languages from around the world will also qualify. The cause of the confusion here is that there are atleast three definitions of the word 'classical' in this context.

1. The plain vanilla dictionary meaning of the word 'classical'[1]
2. Classical language under Indian constitution
3. The definition per the mainstream linguistic community (which, I presume, is what has been used in branding Greek, Latin, Sanskrit, Chinese etc., as 'classical' languages)

Now the issue is as to what are these definitions? The dictionary meaning may vary slightly between dictionaries, is too loose for technical purposes and hence may be disregarded for our discussions here.

We are now left to ponder about the definitions of (2) and (3). Does anyone here have any source that unequivocally defines these?

As for people pushing to include Tamil here, I think they should, at the very least, tell us how the Indian government defines it and then they should establish that #2 and #3 are the same.

And finally, the million dollar question is, who confers this tag to languages? Is it just mainstream academic view that counts or is there an organisation like UNESCO(read something about UNESCO somewhere) that formally confers this status to selected languages?

Until these issues are addressed, I think including Tamil here is unnecessary and also that the tags on the article should remain. This article discusses a technicality and its presentation and referencing leaves a lot to be desired. Sarvagnya 20:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think until these issues are addressed, I think Tamil should be included. --Natkeeran 22:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not a 'tag' to a language, it is a recognition of a fact. Well respected scholars like George Hart, Thomas Malton, Lindolm, and numerous others in europe and US and India and Japan know that Tamil is a Classical Languge. A declaration like Govt. of India's (or UNESCO's) is but an act of recognition of a fact. No one is 'pushing' Tamil, we are simply recording an official declaration by the Govt. of India - which is indeed a rare event. --Aadal 00:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The government(!) of India declaring "Tamil is Classical!" per fiat is obviously a political gesture more than anything else. We can note here that they made this gesture, but that's about as far as it goes. The lack of content behind this gesture is evident from the fact that apparently the "Tamil language" has been declared "classical" part and parcel. That's silly. Note that per Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Tamil, "Classical Tamil" is in use for the language of Sangam literature in particular. The question is, how widely used is this terminology? References? Is this usage disrupted now because of the governmental decree? dab (𒁳) 13:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is Hebrew listed?

The reference provided in the article reads - These are classical Chinese, Sanskrit, Arabic, Greek, and Latin. In comparison with these, even such culturally important languages such as Hebrew and French sink into a secondary position.

Why then is Hebrew listed in the article? Does anyone have a reference to support Hebrew's claim? Sarvagnya 16:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

it's a question of usage. "Classical Hebrew" is clearly a widely used term (124,000 google hits, 1200 google scholar hits). dab (𒁳) 13:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Google hits can not be counted in general (to prove something) and there is some discussion about this somewhere in WP. Just for curiosity I tried to google for Classical Tamil and I get 24,200. With Google scholar I get 253. For Tamil, the period 200 BCE and 300 CE is generally considered as the golden/classical stage. This is often referred, since ca. 1000 CE, as Sangam period (see Sangam Literature). During this time inimitable, surprisingly modern, secular, aesthetic literaure was created and this collection contains 2381 poems written by 473 poets, some 102 of whom are anonymous authors; and several were women poets. I know that Hebrew was considered as a classical language (not withstanding the comments by Sapir), but I'm sure there must be more 'authentic' reason to consider Hebrew as a classical language. I'm not disputing Hebrew's status, but I think it is wrong the way Tamil is discriminated here. --Aadal 13:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The Sapir quote provides a useful perspective, but on its own it can't really be taken as decisive evidence that Chinese, Sanskrit, Arabic, Greek, and Latin are the only classical languages. Hebrew never really had a territorial empire associated with it (like most classical languages with broad external influence), but it had a strong influence on various Jewish cultures in many regions of the world for many centuries... AnonMoos 22:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Not just Jewish cultures, Hebrew literature (namely, the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament) had a tremendous influence on the development of Western literature and thought (like, monotheism). Classics departments at many colleges and universities group Hebrew together with Greek and Latin -- see, for example, University of Melbourne, Macalester College, Middlebury College, Tulane University, Pomona College, University of British Columbia, and University of California - Davis. As the University of Melbourne's Classical Studies Department says, "Western civilisation evolved largely from the interplay between three `classical' cultures - Greek, Roman and Semitic." PubliusFL 22:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

We have to be clear that there are "the Classical Languages" and "classical languages". What I mean is that when you refer to "the Classical Languages" without context, what is meant are the Latin and Greek languages. Yes the term is Eurocentric, sue the English language. But when you talk about "the classical language" within a certain context, such as, when discussing Icelandic, Tamil or Turkish, you are merely referring to a "classical stage" within a certain literary tradition, and any language with some literary history may have such a "classical" stage. We also have to be clear that by the very nature of the term "classical", it is not the entire language that is classical. Saying "Tamil is a classical language" is as silly as saying "Turkish is a classical language": the classical variant is only ever a subset of the language as a whole. The tendency to say "Greek is a classical language" is due to classicists using "Greek" to mean "Classical Greek" by default, ignoring the existence of "Modern Greek" as much as possible. If "Greek" is used to refer to Modern Greek, it obviously isn't "Classical". By the same token, Modern Tamil certainly isn't classical, if anything, the language of the Sangam literature is. dab (𒁳) 08:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Does the topic even exist or is this all original research?

I'm unconvinced that the term is even more than marginally used in scholarly research. classical as a qualifier to specific languages, as in classical latin vs medieval latin, that's another thing. --Pjacobi 15:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. Search Google Books for "classical languages" and you get well over 3,000 results, many books in the first couple of pages from the mid-19th century to today with "classical languages" in their titles. ERIC lists 474 articles and papers categorized with the descriptor "Classical Languages." Many colleges and universities have whole departments of "classical languages." Hard to say that a topic doesn't exist when academic departments at major universities are based on it. PubliusFL 16:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Quite a number of thise hits relate to epochs of a specific language, as said above. Then there are a large number of books relatated to education which takes is just as shortcut for Latin and Greek. --Pjacobi 17:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 17:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If you actually follow the links returned by the searches, you will see the problems mentioned above. --Pjacobi 19:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Essentially, I understand your concerns, however believe the article is probably going to be viable. Addhoc 19:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

the article does address the mainstream usage of "classical Latin" vs. "medieval Latin", that's the main part of the article now. Disputes surrounding "Classicity" as some absolute are obviously purely ideological and should be treated as a sidenote. But they do exist and should be mentioned. The 2004 India thing is of course a reflection of political pressure related to such ideology. dab (𒁳) 20:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Japanese?

Japanese & even Ottoman Turkish are classical languages, but Ge'ez & Tamil aren't? This article is in a deplorable state, but I'm getting the feeling that any changes I make are going to be reverted very soon... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.219.82 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's been recurring unproductive edit warring by some Tamil advocates. AnonMoos 14:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The article says that there is no such language as "Classical Tamil", but as far as I'm aware, Classical Tamil grammar has been rigorously defined in the Tolkappiyam and other texts. In traditional forms of literature such as Kural, these rules are impossible to bend. Modern Tamil on the other hand, is a different language that exists as the vernacular dialect in a state of diglossia. Its true that Tamil's influence is relatively small, but isn't Hebrew's as well? And if Ottoman Turkish is a classical language, so is Javanese. Whats wrong with Ge'ez? Its often called "classical ethiopic", has been used extensively since the 5th century BC, and greatly influenced modern Ethiopian languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.219.82 (talk • contribs) 14:52-15:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Classical Languages of India

I cleaned up the section on Classical languages of India, without taking away what was claimed in it earlier (to the extent that was validated by the reference). However to be frank, I don't know why we have that section - for classical languages from just India, excpet perhaps as someone's means of resolving a dispute -- Amit 14:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

because India is the only country I know of where "classical language" is an official label handed out by the government. Strictly speaking, this is disambiguation, we have "classical language (as in common use)" and "classical language (as defined by the Indian govermnemt)". The two do not necessarily have much to do with one another. dab (𒁳) 07:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The section on India is in my mind irrelevant in any encyclopedic article about classical languages of the world. It is third rate petty politics that has no notability outside a very few restricted and overly interested group of people. So what the Republic of Timbaktu decides to call Gaborenese a classical language. Who really cares from a linguistic point of view ? Next Kannadawill be classical language in India and pretty soon the entire official language list of India will be same as the Indian classical language list. What is the relevance ? at best it should be listing under See Also. Taprobanus 21:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey everyone please don't revert non-controversial edits in the midst of your edit wars. I had just cleaned up the wording to make it more accurate. Done that again. If anyone has any issues please raise them here first. I have NO OBJECTION to Tamil being called a classical language. And as for the section, I don't think it needs to be there. We could at most add line that the govt of India officially declares two (or whatever number) of Indian languages as classical. --Amit 17:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Tamil

can you stop the edit warring on Tamil? It is perfectly at home in the "general usage" section. Here, "classical" is merely a relative classification within a given language's history: Classical Tamil contrasts with post-classical, medieval or modern Tamil, just as Classical Chinese contrasts with Modern Chinese. dab (𒁳) 07:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

OR

When making such strong POV statements, editors better have a citation to back them up:

The category's introduction has a political, not a philological motivation, notably the Pure Tamil Movement's claim of Tamil as the "Primary Classical Language of the World".

Instead of ORing and revert warring, I suggest anybody who wants to keep this line bring along a reference. Lotlil 20:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I say the whole dam section should be nuked, has no place in an encylopedic article about classical languages ? Taprobanus 21:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the section is entirely out of place in this article (whether the article itself makes sense is another question). But I don't feel strongly about including this section either. If you feel this section needs to go, I don't have any objections. My only gripe is with adding uncited pov content. Lotlil 02:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

um, hello? this is an official, verifiable category. Alleging a "political" motivation is putting it gently. If you can be bothered to follow the link given, we have a source talking of "the arm-twisting charm of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam" that led to the introduction of the category. [2]. this should at least remain mentioned here, since people will come to this article looking for the Indian thing. dab (𒁳) 18:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The OR is not in the political part of the said statement, it's in what follows it - categorically ruling out philological motivation and also linking it to Pure Tamil movement. The way the statement is spun, it tells the uninitiated reader that Tamil got the status when it did not deserve it. FWIW, the Sahitya academy did ultimately come out with a list of criteria based on philological grounds, didnt it? Besides the OR part, there's a POV slant to it too. The very link you provided starts off with Hart's assertion that Tamil did not get the status until now because of politics and (ironically) it has taken the politics of DMK to set it right. Withholding this other POV from the article, doesn't make it neutral. Lotlil 19:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hart's view in that article isnt mentioned because he's not a political analyst. His views on Indian politics counts for squat. Sarvagnya 19:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The politics part is not attributable to any political analyst either. The article writer passes it off as his opinion, in other words, what we call POV. It's only natural to expect an article that claims to be neutral to mention the other POV. Lotlil 19:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Also, this whole issue is a product of Tamil activism/fanaticism. Nobody else had Saiva Siddhanta Samajas and Maraimalai Adigals and Mustafas and DMK's to rake up this issue. Nobody even cared about nonsensical and cooked up tags. Telugu and Kannada are only now in the race as the tag comes with a bounty of 'crores' - apparently to be used for the 'development' of the language. Also the very fact that the decision to 'bestow' the tag was a part of the "Common Minimum Programme" of the UPA govt., right at the time of assuming power(and before the Sahitya Akademi cobbled together 'philological criteria'(sic) at the behest of their political masters) clearly points to the political motivations of the tag and DMK's role in it. Sarvagnya 19:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

All of this is fit for a blog, at best. Wikipedia is not a place for commentary. Lotlil 19:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

To Sarvagna

Hi Sarvagna. I would appreiciate if you make some kind of comment on the talk page before making abrupt reverts. The references you give do NOT support your assertions in the text, that's why I had cleaned up the section to bring it in line with those. The news report only mentions that the govt is "going to add" a new catagory. If you have proper references please add them and I would have no complaints. Not to mention the fact that the wording used (constitutional "decree"!) is fairly lousy. If you know for a fact that Sanskrit and Tamil are not the oldest lang's then u cud have deleted just that part, or added a <citation needed> tag. I don't have any agenda here. --Amit 11:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Unverified citations tag

I have reverted Gnanapati's edit that reverted my tag addition. It's unfortunate that people undo other people's edits without adding anything to the talk page, or reading what is already written there. Gnanapati, so much for your "assumes good faith" userbox. Could you please care to read what I've written above? -- Amit 16:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added reference to your above concern. Have a look, remove the tag if you are satisfied. Or "ask and ye shall receive". Gnanapiti 16:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the tag. That was all I was asking for. It wasn't "frivolous". I dunno why you got so upset in the first place. Anyway, thanks. Also I think the position of the references need to be interchanged (reference 3 and 4). Regards -- Amit 17:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Gnanapiti 17:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Expanding "Classical languages of India"

The section on classical languages of India has been expanded in the Languages of India article. We may use that to update this section here once that is stable. 04:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReluctantPhilosopher (talk • contribs)

Change of dates of early Tamil

These were changed from "2nd c. BC to 3rd c. AD" to "5th c. BC to 4th c. BC". Is there any basis for this change, other than a desire to place Tamil before Sanskrit in the list? AnonMoos (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a case of a former Tamil editor trolling with his ip. I've fixed it now. Sarvagnya 20:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Classical Sanskrit 5th cent. AD

Ok, what's your point, AnonMoos? The Vedic texts were orally transmitted until 5th cent. AD. First written form was created in 5th cent AD. A reference will be added in the article. The 5th cent. AD date is the usual proposed date by scientists. Sanskrit was recognised by government of india as classical language only because the government put the minimum date requirement of any classical language to at least 1000 years of age infront. Before that decision, the language and its literature had to be atleast 2000 years old. This was the time, when Tamil was declared as classical language. I know, you will tell me, that Sanskrit would have to be much older. Yes, it is, but the literature was orally transmitted til that time. That's the common agreement of this topic by scientists. The new requirement of 1000 years aged literature will result in more classical languages like Classical Kannada and Classical Telugu. Tamil has to be put up in this rank, because common agreement is, that the 2nd cent. BC is the beginning of Tamil literature. In modern days, scientists put the date back to 3rd cent. BC. The Sangam literature period ends then in 3rd cent. AD to 5th cent. AD. After this time another period of Tamil literature began. --80.108.50.167 (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC) --Thirusivaperur (talk)

Actually, the codification of "Classical" Sanskrit grammar under Panini is generally dated to the 5th or 4th centuries B.C. (and of course, religious compositions in Sanskrit probably predate this classical form of Sanskrit by another 500 years or more). The date when there's evidence for Sanskrit manuscripts being written is almost irrelevant, since for many centuries Sanskrit scholarship was a heavily oral culture, where writing was not particularly valued. Meanwhile, if there's any surviving Tamil literature from before 200 B.C., it's not listed in reference works such as The World's Major Languages (ISBN 0-19-506511-5). AnonMoos (talk) 03:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You have not understood the point. Scientists attests a written Tamil language in 3rd c. BC. Sanskrit is attested 5th c. AD. Stop your POV. It's not irrelevant if scientists attest so. It is common agreed, that Sanskrit's oral tradition lasted long time ago, including any grammar tradition. Oral transmission is not a qualification for written literature. Please stop your POV actions NOW. --80.108.50.167 (talk) 03:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC) --Thirusivaperur (talk)

Do you have any reliable source to backup your claims? Please do not undo other editors' edits without a valid justification, supported by reliable sources. - KNM ^Talk 05:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You have to backup your claims first. Where is your source, that Sanskrit was definitley written in 4th c. BC? My source of Archeological survey of india shows clearly, that Sanskrit Vedic literature was written first max. 5th c. AD. since inscriptions on stone is not literature. I will add additional sources, if you have sources, that provide your claims exactly. --80.108.50.167 (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC) --Thirusivaperur (talk)

http://www.hinduonnet.com/2006/04/17/stories/2006041707890400.htm A newspaper, which claims, that Sanskrit was declared classical language by indian government, because the date requirement was driven down to 1500 years. --80.108.50.167 (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC) --Thirusivaperur (talk)

Dude, no one has claimed to definitely know that Sanskrit was written in the 4th century B.C. (it's possible it was, but there's no real direct evidence for it). What is claimed is that Panini standardized classical Sanskrit in the 5th or 4th century B.C. regardless of whether there was any writing going on. You can push Tamil literature back to 250 B.C., and try to push Panini forward to the early 3rd century B.C., but it seems that Panini still comes before the earliest known Tamil literature within the commonly accepted dates. And of course pre-Classical Sanskrit literature goes back yet further centuries... AnonMoos (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Try to understand. If oral transmission would be accepted by scientists as written literature, then all the language, which are mentioned in this list, has to put it's datings many thousands or even hundred thousand years back! Just take Tamil. It's literature was dated to 10 000 years back! Oral tradition is not written literature! --80.108.50.167 (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC) --Thirusivaperur (talk)

Unfortunately for you, it's widely recognized among reputable scholars, that substantial works were composed at a time when Sanskrit literature was predominantly transmitted orally (though writing was probably known after the mid-1st millennium BC, it was not always highly valued, and for many centuries written texts did not usually take precedence over oral recitations of memorized texts by respected reciters). That's why Panini's grammar is highly-condensed and abbreviated, and cast into epic verse meter -- ease of memorization was placed above ease of understanding. AnonMoos (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Oral tradition is irrelevant for this article, as i explained earlier. Stop your POVs finally... --80.108.50.167 (talk) 07:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC) --Thirusivaperur (talk)

If the accepted consensus of reputable scholars considers it relevant, then it simply is relevant, regardless of your declarations. AnonMoos (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The overall consensus of indian scientists on this matter is seen in the declaration of Classical Sanskrit, which was done after the 2000 years requirement was reduced to 1500 years. Don't ignore my references anymore. --80.108.50.167 (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC) --Thirusivaperur (talk)

Here is another reliable source, that sanskrit literature can't be 2000 years old: http://www.thehindu.com/2005/10/28/stories/2005102809281200.htm And again. Stop POV. I will take actions immediately against this kind of behaviour. Give me your sources, that Sanskrit has 2300 years written literature, and i will be satisfied. Not this way! --80.108.50.167 (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC) --Thirusivaperur (talk)

Dude, if you were correct in stating that nothing older than 500 A.D. is reliable, then it's very difficult to see how knowledge of the Sanskrit language would exist at all. Already in the Buddha's lifetime (or soon thereafter), Buddhists made a conscious decision not to use Sanskrit, because Sanskrit was too remote from ordinary daily speech, and the firmly-dated Asoka inscriptions of the 3rd century B.C. reveal several vernacular dialects which are rather distant from Sanskrit. By the 5th century A.D., Pali itself was now a literary language, somewhat removed from ordinary daily speech, and the first round of Prakrits were soon to start to give way to the "Apabhramsas". If nothing older than 500 A.D. is reliable, then why is there any surviving useful information about Sanskrit (whose period as a widely-spoken language of ordinary daily life must have preceded 500 BC by centuries) at all?? AnonMoos (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Asoka didn't use a single word in Sanskrit. The edicts inscription were written in 3 languages, Prakrit, Aramaic and Greek. What's all about Pali? You are the first guy here, who's asking this. Very welcomed. Pali maybe not considered with a classical tag in our time, because the "Pali canon" is the only work, which was writtenly delivered by Buddhist monks in Sri Lanka in 1st c. BC in an ancient era. Therefore it has no "vast literature", which would be a must for a qualification for a "classical" tag. Another mystical question is, why Sanskrit's first stone inscriptons in 2nd cent. AD was written in Grantha-script, which is an South Indian Brahmi script variant (Pallava Grantha). The gupta empire loved Sanskrit, so they let decline the Prakrit languages to give the big rise to Sanskrit and Sanskrit literature in about 5th cent. AD Therefore modern science concludes: 1.) Vedic literature can't be older than 5th cent. AD 2.) Most surprisingly for all: The first written Sanskrit was delivered by South Indian Sanskrit users. 3.) The gupta empire was the most important element for the success of Classical Sanskrit. Contemporary Prakrit languages, which were used til the gupta empire were slowly declining because of the rise of Sanskrit. But no Prakrit languages, which were used prior to Sanskrit for any kind of inscriptions, delivered a vast literature like the Sanskrit's ones. The oral tradition of Sanskrit users and the gupta empire made this possible. But where does Sanskrit came from. This is the big 1 million $ question for scientists: Was it the Aryans in 1500 BC or was it the Scythians in 200 BC? Nevertheless, this is not a topic for the article we provide here. --80.108.50.167 (talk) 06:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC) --Thirusivaperur (talk)

Dude, you're evading the main point -- which is that in 500 A.D., the Indians were starting on what was basically the third round of recording previously-unwritten languages in writing because the previously-existing literary languages were then too far removed from ordinary everyday speech. Sanskrit is structurally archaic (by the measures of comparative linguistics), and predates all three rounds aforementioned, so it simply shouldn't exist at all if no reliable information on it were preserved before 500 A.D. To see what this means, look at any book of comparative Indo-European linguistics, and see how much emphasis is placed on Sanskrit, as opposed to Pali, Prakrits, or Apabhramsas, as evidence for reconstructing proto-Indo-European. Furthermore, Scythian is totally irrelevant, since the Scythians spoke an Iranian language. The function of this article is not to be a playground for your historical revisionism... AnonMoos (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The reason Asoka didn't use Sanskrit was because in his time Sanskrit was narrowly associated with the oral traditions of Brahman priests, and in his inscriptions Asoka wasn't trying to communicate orally with Brahmans in their liturgical language, but rather to communicate in writing with a wide variety of peoples in languages which would be much more accessible to them (i.e. closer to their ordinary daily speech) than Sanskrit was. And of course, the religion Asoka was promoting did not depend on the authority of Brahman priests. AnonMoos (talk) 08:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason, why Asoka didn't use Sanskrit was, because, Sanskrit wasn't the predominate language of that time. The people spoke Prakrit, Aramaic and Greek in the north. No Sanskrit. Sanskrit was first invented by Sakas (Scythians) in literary form on stone inscriptions in 2nd AD in Brahmi script. That's the reason, why Scythians are fully involved in this debate. So they are not irrelevant at any case. First written Sanskrit by Scythians. That's what historical evidences tell the epigraphs of today. Sanskrit was then not in use in scriptures til the gupta empire risen up. The guptas promoted Sanskrit in a big way in their era. In south the grantha script was developed to write Sanskrit and in south the Vedas were written by a South Indian in Grantha script in 5. c. AD. 2 centuries later, in 7 c. AD. Sanskrit was written also in north in Brahmi script. Oral tradition is not written literature, as stated before. Predominant languages in Asokas time was Prakrit in north. But nobody would say that Prakrit is a classical language, because nothing no vast literature is found of this language. I'm stating here a very scientific view based on epigraphs and evidences which were actually were found about written Vedas and my view is supported by the government of india which used the classical tag for Sanskrit only due to their decision to move the required age from 2000 years to 1500 years. Refer to the sources i provided here. It doesn't help for you to ignore them. Thank you. --80.108.50.167 (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC) --Thirusivaperur (talk)

That article doesn't support your case. It says it was *also* decided to relax the standards from 2000 years to 1500 years; it does not say that Sanskrit is recognized as classical specifically because of the relaxation. Mindstalk (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do not feed the trolls. HTH. Sarvagnya 18:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed your work here Sarvagnya. I would say, you are trolling from the beginning here. --80.108.50.167 (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC) --Thirusivaperur (talk)

Oh you dont have to hide behind proxies to troll. You can do it logged in. Dont feel shy. Sarvagnya 20:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, don't take any action, if you have no sources, which were required. --80.108.50.167 (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC) --Thirusivaperur (talk)

Refer to the other source i provided. You must take it in context.. Therefore both sources were added in a row. --80.108.50.167 (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC) --Thirusivaperur (talk)

Another source added, which provides the 5th cent. AD date. --80.108.50.167 (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC) --Thirusivaperur (talk)

New problem

{{editprotected}}

Some edits were made just before the page was protected which changed the accurate "Classical Sanskrit (defined by Panini's grammar, ca. 4th c. BC)" to the less accurate "Classical Sanskrit (first written form of Vedic literature in ca. 4th c. BC)". This second (and now protected) wording is somewhat unfortunate, since the Vedas must have been substantially composed long before the 4th-century B.C., yet there's no definite concrete evidence of their being written down until long after the 4th-century B.C. Furthermore, Vedic Sanskrit is not actually the same as classical Sanskrit. The original (and long-standing) wording should be restored... AnonMoos (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It seems like the inaccuracy was sneaked in by the ip and I didnt notice it when I reverted. Lets fix it once the article is unprotected. Sarvagnya 06:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

 Not done I think, given that it's only protected for two more days, I'll leave you to work this out. I wouldn't make this edit based on this level of consensus in any case. If you get more support, readd the tag if you want. Happy‑melon 14:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop this guys. You have to take the consensus of the indian government institutes. Don't make unnecessary work for administrators through your Sanskrit POV. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Indian government cannot define historical and linguistic truth through the proclamations of its institutes. AnonMoos (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I see... I didn't know, that you guys have SUCH a view on this case. Perhaps, we should ask the next guru, who's right. Here is a list of indian scientists who work in these institutes, who you may ask, why they did their decision against your POV:

Archaelogical Survey of India (ASI) : Headquarters: Office of the Director General Janpath, New Delhi - 110011 / Anshu Vaish Director General Phone: 23013574, 23015954 23019487 Fax directorgeneralasi@gmail.com / Vijay S Madan Additional Director General Phone: 23012058 23014456 Fax Dr. B.R. Mani Joint Director General (M) (World Heritage, Monuments, Publication, Excavation/ Exploration, Conservation) Ph: 23015428 (t-f) / Dr. D.R. Gehlot Joint Director General (G) (Planning, Institute of Archeology, Science Branch, Horticulture Branch, Cultural Exchange programme, Central Archaeological Library, Appellate Authority, RTI) Ph: 23013226 (t-f) / Chander Shekhar Director (admin) Phone: 23018614, 23010789 Fax / Dr. K.P. Poonacha Director (Antiquity & Museum) Phone: 23010822 C. Dorje Director (Monument) Phone: 23013219 / Dr. G.T. Shende Director (Planning) Phone: 23017443 Ram Saran Director (Cultural Exchange Programme) Phone: 23017265, 23387475 / Dr. R.S. Fonia Director (Exploration & Excavation and Publication) Phone: 23015081 / P.B.S. Sengar Director (Institute of Archaeology and Central Archaeological Library) Phone: 23017197 / S.B. Ota Director (National Mission) Phone: 23073837 nationalmission@gmail.com / Dr. A. Banerjee SA (Publication) Phone: 23019108 / Dr. Alok Tripathi SA (Underwater Archaeology) Phone: 23262006 / Shri A.K. Sinha SA (Monument) Phone: 23018848 / Smt. Shubhra Pramanik SA (National Mission) Phone: 23073837 / M.M. Kanade SAE Phone: 23017553 / R.S. Jamwal SAE Phone: 23014465 romeljamwal@sify.com T.J. Poly Deputy Director(A/c) Phone: 23018583 / Smt.Kailash Datta Joint Director (O/L) Phone: 23014460 / Dr. A.R. Siddiqui DSA(M) Phone: 23792949 asiddiqui11@yahoo.com / V.N. Prabhakar DSA(EE) Phone: 23793617 prabhuasi@gmail.com / K. Amarnath Ramakrishana DSA (Museum) Phone: 23012892 / Sunanda Srivastava DSA (Antiquity) Phone: 23015042 / V. Bakshi AD(Mon) Phone: 23013081 / J.D. Namala Photo Officer Phone: 23012892 / Kishan Singh Drawing Officer Phone: 23012892 / CIIL-Classical Tamil: / Prof. K. Ramasamy Professor-cum-Deputy Director Central Institute of Indian Languages, Mysore. Academic Staff , Prof. A.Dhamotharan Senior Fellow, Prof. P.R.Subramanian Senior Fellow, Prof. Annie Thomas Fellow, Dr. R.Kumaran Fellow, Dr.S.Manoharan Fellow, Prof.P.Marudanayagam Fellow, Dr.Arimalam S.Padmanabhan Fellow, Prof.R.Panneerselvam Fellow, Prof. Sam Mohan Lal Fellow, Dr.K.Umaraj Fellow, Dr.K.G.Venkataraman Fellow, Dr.R.Kothandaraman Fellow, Dr.K.M.Bhuvaneswari Associate, Dr.M.Ramakrishnan Associate / CIIL:, Head : Shri B.G. Manjunath, Shri. P.R.Balakrishnan(including NTS) , Sudha S. Phatak, Shri. Subbaraya, Shri N. Yathiraju, Asiya Jan / Good Luck. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Please restore the article to this revision: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Classical_language&diff=200373102&oldid=200371906

and put this edit in: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Classical_language&diff=200373102&oldid=200371906

General talk revealed, that the revert-editors have a problem with the decisions of Indian government institutes, which is absolutely inacceptable, because they put their POV over the vast majority of science authorities in India. Please see the current discussion on Talk:Classical_language. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

N Edit declined. Please establish consensus first. Sandstein (talk) 06:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I knew, that this will happen. Bye bye wikipedia. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 07:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, i'm back after i discussed the part with Sandstein on his discussion page. I will revert it to the prior version. If you want to push your POV again, i recommend, that you use Wikipedia:Third_opinion instead of reverting the article.. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, everybody other than you who has expressed an opinion on how the article should be presented seems to disagree with you... AnonMoos (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I never managed to get a North Indian or somebody who likes the Aryan myth so much, to get back to reality. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 08:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

oral transmission section

Should be oral transmission accepted as literature in context of this article? My opinion is, of course not, because for example Latin and Greek were indeed not in use just in 5th c. BC and 1st c. BC, the story of romulus and remus is much older than that. It goes to the beginning of roman civilization. The Vedas were written not prior than 5th century AD as you can see at my sources in the article. Contrary to that, AnonMoos and others failed to accept this truth. In their opinion, Vedas were written in 1500 BC... prior to that they wanted to address the age to 400 BC, the not overall accepted theory of scholars of Paninis lifetime, who has not even written his works, but orally transmitted them. Other scholars prefer his lifetime to be placed at 1st to 2nd cenutry AD. But this date is not acceptable for my counterpart. They prefer the earliest dates, because they are proud of "their" Sanskrit. However, please try to provide a neutral comment and stick to the main question here. Therefore you shouldn't be an Indian or of "proud Aryan race". Thanks for your comments. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 09:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Dude, I am not a "Sanskrit chauvinist", and I have never said anything at all about 1500 B.C., so please don't attribute motives to me which are not supported by my pattern of edits. My knowledge of the Sanskrit language itself (outside of certain linguistic patterns used in comparative Indo-European reconstruction) is sketchy at best, and I do not come from any part of the subcontinent or have any close family or personal relationships there. (My language area specialization is actually the Semitic languages.) I have merely been summarizing the general information available in such overall sources as The World's Major Languages edited by Bernard Comrie (1990) ISBN 0-19-506511-5 and The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages edited by Roger D. Woodard (2004) ISBN 0-521-56256-2. Both books have individual chapters on Sanskrit and Tamil, and both books place Panini before the beginnings of surviving Tamil literature, and both books place the beginning of surviving Sanskrit literature significantly before Panini (while acknowledging that there is some significant dating uncertainty -- which does not affect Sanskrit only, by the way). Furthermore, your "Scythian" nonsense is far more problematic than the hypothesis that ancient Brahman priests had a strongly oral liturgical/literary culture, and that the introduction of writing did not have a strong impact on the predominantly oral transmission of Sanskrit sacred texts for a number of centuries... AnonMoos (talk) 11:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

We have discussed the point over and over in our previous clashes. Nobody denies, that Sanskrit literature was compiled in very ancient days. All scholars agree with that. The matter is, that the texts were orally transmitted through the ages. I think, we have a common consensus about the written time of Vedas (5th century AD), provided by the sources. In this discussion, i want to clarify, if oral transmission should be a criteria for the placement in this article. My opinion is strictly: no. Latin and Classical Greek are also much more ancient than those 3rd and 1st century. The numbers describe the age of the written variants of those literatures. Not the orally transmitted ones. What's so difficult to understand this point? You are pushing the orally transmitted texts in a fully unlogical way. Why don't you push others like classical Greek and Latin in these areas? They are also thought to be from 10 century BC and much prior. Stop your nonsense. I don't know why you are pushing Sanskrit in this way, but it's clearly unfair to other classical languages.

Scythians were the first who used Sanskrit in stone inscriptions in 150 AD. Therefore they can't be attested as nonsense. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 12:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You may consider your point to be obvious, but if the consensus of mainstream linguistic scholarship in the area doesn't accept it, then it won't govern this article, no matter how much you complain about "unlogic". You may set a very high value on writing, but the evidence is that the Brahman priests of 500 B.C. to 500 A.D. set a rather low value on writing. And no, Greek and Latin literature in the form that we have them don't substantially date back to 1000 B.C. The Latin language of even 500 B.C. was very different from the classical Latin language of 0 B.C., and there's little evidence that the Romans used writing for much beyond relatively brief legal and ritual record-keeping and property-marking inscriptions before Rome fell under heavy Hellenistic influence. And in Greece, 1000 B.C. falls into the "Aegean dark ages". While some narrative story arcs, fixed "poetic epithets", and brief snippets of verse may have survived from ca. 1000 B.C. to find a place in Homeric poetry, there's no evidence that any work of Greek literature as we now have it remains substantially unchanged from 1000 B.C. And the nonsense is when you claimed that the Scythian language (which is Persian) had any influence on Sanskrit. AnonMoos (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want to discuss epigraphical attestation, you want to look at List of languages by first written accounts. There, indeed, Sanskrit figures just a few decades after Tamil. This is only very tenuously related to this article, since classicity implies literature, not just scattered epigraphy. dab (𒁳) 15:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The data in the article is wrong. The edicts of asoka were only written in Prakrit, Aramaic and Greek, not Sanskrit. The Sanskrit vers was added by the Sakas in 150 AD.--Thirusivaperur (talk) 15:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

See comment of "08:26, 25 March 2008" above... AnonMoos (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

laughable arguments --Thirusivaperur (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

If they, or something much like them, are accepted by the mainstream consensus of linguistic scholars, then the loudness of your laughter is utterly irrelevant to Wikipedia. AnonMoos (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The most funny of all is, that nobody considers, that the oral transmission occured in other languages also and later written down in the Sanskrit language. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 16:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Most other languages don't have continuous strong traditions of oral recitation and memorization which persisted for many centuries... AnonMoos (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the status quo: there is oral tansmission THEORY... nobody claims that this actually happened as you are trying to impose here... --Thirusivaperur (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sanskrit literature timeline

I don't agree with either of your edits:

Thirusivaperur -- 500 A.D. is pretty much completely worthless as a start date for Sanskrit literature, except from the point of view of a peculiar kind of insecure nationalism, which can never rest content in the greatness of the accomplishments of its own civilization unless it has first denigrated and insulted the accomplishments of a rival civilization.

KNM -- Perfectly reputable linguists have tossed around 1500 B.C. as a date which would appropriately correspond to the degree of structural archaism observed in the language of the Rig Veda. However, there are still reasons why the 1500 B.C. date shouldn't be used in this article. For one thing, subsequent authors didn't attempt to compose literature in the language of the Rig Veda. At first, authors composed works in the language that they spoke, which is why the language of the other Vedas differs a little from the language of the Rig Veda, and why the language of the Brahmanas differs a little from the language of these other Vedas, and so on. However, this process stopped with Panini, so that authors who came after Panini tried to write in the language of Panini. This is why the language of Panini (not the language of the Rig Veda) is called "Classical Sanskrit", and why the dating of Panini is more relevant to this article, and so should be used here instead of the dating of the Rig Veda. (Another reason is that the dating of the Rig Veda will never be anything more than a very crude and approximate guesstimate.)

Also, the mention of writing in connection with the 1500 B.C. date is quite inappropriate. There was no writing in India in 1500 B.C. -- at that time, the Indus Valley civilization had pretty much collapsed, and the Brahmi and Kharosthi scripts would not come into existence for almost another millennium (and when writing did come to be known in India, the official guardians of the sanctity of the Sanskrit language were not too enthusiastic about it for a long time, as discussed above on this talk page).

Therefore I'm reverting to the consensus version of this article before March 2008, which has the fewest problems... AnonMoos (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with AnonMoos's assessment. Thirusivaperur, do you have any new sources or any other good reason for restarting this edit war? It seems like the version AnonMoos returned to was supported by consensus, and you are the only editor who insists on a different treatment. PubliusFL (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, AnonMoos. Thanks for the clarification! - KNM ^Talk 20:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice attempt, AnonMoos. Of course the Panini date is quite a guesstimation like the RigVeda one. The RigVedas date of 1500 BC is accepted by scholars, because of the internal evidence of star monitoring. This is btw. the same reason, why ancient Tamil literature is dated 2200 BC and prior. Paninis datings vary extremely from 400 BC to 200 AD. Nobody knows or can give proper information about when (s)he lived, since there is no hint for it. Modern scientists date him maybe to 150 AD. And further on, the Sanskrit's classical tag is not given for Panini's life data, but for the date of the written Vedas. And this was of course not prior than 500 A.D. as the indian government with it's highest reputable scholars explained on its pages. When we talk about classical language, then we talk about a great body of literature, not of life times. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 03:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

so? If you want to contribute to the problem of dating these texts, do it at the relevant pages, citing your sources properly. WP:DUE, we give prominence to the mainstream view. dab (𒁳) 07:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the citations of prior versions. And see this discussion page. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

do you plan on contributing anything useful to Wikipedia any time soon, or are you really just here for general antagonism? --dab (𒁳) 15:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not here only for "general antagonism"... And you stop to revert without any reason. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You're here strictly for petty local nationalistic reasons (see my coimment at the beginning of this section above), while most of the rest of us are here because of a general interest in linguistic and/or literary history... AnonMoos (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry. I will not accept any of your personal attacks regarding political involvement in future. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Dubious

Feel free to contribute to the Sanskrit date controversy here. Discussions were held above. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have anything new to contribute (beyond the popular newspaper accounts of Indian government political decisions) that would counterbalance the accepted consensus of mainstream linguistic scholarship? AnonMoos (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thirusivaperur, why do you insist on 'contributing' to topics of which you quite obviuosly haven't the slightest idea, education, backgound knowledge or understanding? Does it give you pleasure to exasperate people, or do you not even realize you are being exasperating? --dab (𒁳) 23:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

So guys, if you want to mediate with me, please sign in the RfM --Thirusivaperur (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

what makes you think anyone wants to "mediate" with you? You have been unable to present a case here. It isn't likely that you are suddenly going to make sense over at RfM. If you can find a mediator willing to represent you here, please do. You may also try wiki-adoption. If you suddenly wisen up and begin behaving like an intelligent grown up, no mediation will be necessary. If you find yourself unable to do that, "mediation" will mean that you find somebody who can and let them represent you here. However, no amount of wiki-procedure is going to get you your way in inserting childish nationalism into live articles, if that's really the only reason you're here, you may as well give up now and invest your time more fruitfully in keeping a personal blog. dab (𒁳) 08:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't get on my nerves. Read this WP:AGF. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

We have made our concerns abundantly clear on the request for mediation page, but speaking for myself, I'm somewhat reluctant to engage in any formal "mediation" process, because: 1) You actually have no interest in the subject of classical languages, except as a vehicle for pushing your nationalist agenda. 2) It's not clear to me that you actually have any sincere interest in pursuing mediation, beyond using it as a bludgeon against other editors ("If you don't sign on at the mediation page, you have no right to edit this article!!!"). "Assume Good Faith" can't magically clear away the conclusions which others have drawn based on your behavior over the last four months in editing this article and talk page... AnonMoos (talk) 12:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You do not have a case, Thir. WP:WL says you don't get to make something into a case anyway, just because you feel like it. Come back when there is actually something for us to discuss. dab (𒁳) 11:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

except as a vehicle for pushing your nationalist agenda.User:AnonMoos point blankedly accuses Thirusivaperur of nationalistic agenda. What nationalism and what agenda? the conflict seem to be over Classical Tamil and Classical Sanskrit. Both are Indian languages. Thirusivaperur claims to be an Indian and from Kerala. So what is the nationalistic attributions being made over here ? This is overt violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Concentrate on the edit and subject matter, leave people's assumed nationalism's, race, gender, sexual orientation and any other sundry physical and mental attributes aside.Taprobanus (talk) 02:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't patronizingly and condescendingly try to feed me a simplistic "WP:AGF" line, when I have seen ample and plenteous evidence over a number of months that Thirusivaperur has no interest whatsoever in the subject of Classical languages, except to use it as a blunt instrument to elevate his own civilization by denigrating what he conceives to be a rival civilization. Furthermore, Thirusivaperur was the one who first made irrelevant (and incorrect) claims about other people's racial origins, as you can see in the comments of "09:07, 3 April 2008" directly above (if you had bothered to read them). AnonMoos (talk) 04:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Violation is a violation. If you think that he is violating rules then take him to ANI to take appropriate action. No need to violate other WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA rules in return. If we allow people to react with a violation with violation then we will have chaos in wikipedia. What and who gives anyone the right to assume what ethinicity he/she is ? And what bearing does this have on this discussion about an article that is substantially and very poorly cited for the fact in question. This is on top of him/her claiming that he/she from Kerala (by theway no one speak in either classical Sanskrit or classical tamil in Kerala). Cite the conflicting information with reliable sources and we will not have this endless discussion. It is that simple. For that matter the whole article reeks of original research. Taprobanus (talk) 04:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Whatever -- regardless of your opinion on the matter, there does seem to be a significant degree of subnational rivalries within India, including South Indian vs. North Indian nationalism, and there is nothing in any Wikipedia policy which requires me to blind myself to the fact that Thirusivaperur has made it abundantly clear that he has absolutely no broad interest in the subject of Classical languages (from the point of view of general linguistics, general sociolinguistics, general cultural history, or general literary history), except insofar as he can use it to advance the cause of South Indian and/or Tamil nationalism. I have no idea whether Thirusivaperur is an ethnic Tamil, and I have never said anything about whether Thirusivaperur is an ethnic Tamil, and I really don't care whether or not Thirusivaperur is an ethnic Tamil -- what I care about is that he doesn't mess up this article by trying to make it into a platform for his particular nationalist ideology... AnonMoos (talk) 05:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Subnational rivalries are within all national boundaries. I am a Canadian and we have our share as well (See Quebec nationalism). So does the UK, USA, Congo, Laos ....That is besides the point, one of the reasons people mess up articles is because the articles are in a mess to begin with. If the relevant facts are cited with reliable sources then we will be taking about WP:VANDALISM and out right blocks of those who indulge in it. What is the criterial for the classical languages to be in chronological order ? why cant they be in alphabetical order ? If they are in chronological order, then what decides their chronology ? Unless these fundamental flaws on this article are answered you will have people questioning it all the time and leading people assuming the worst in others. Taprobanus (talk) 05:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I have little idea what you're trying to say in your most recent remarks, but there is absolutely no substantive paradox (beyond the most trivial, superficial, and purely verbal) in the phrase "subnational nationalism". There are a lot of subnational nationalisms which are causing deaths right at this moment, such as the Basques in Spain, the Kurds in Turkey, and the Tamils in "Taprobane". And the chronological order is determined by the consensus of mainstream reputable linguists, as contained in such works as The World's Major Languages edited by Bernard Comrie (1990) ISBN 0-19-506511-5 and The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages edited by Roger D. Woodard (2004) ISBN 0-521-56256-2 cited previously. AnonMoos (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

AnonMoos constantly deleting sources with reliable backgrounds. The user is constantly blaming me of ridiculous nationalism. Please put this page on your watch list to prevent further abusing behaviour. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Ask for citations using tags Taprobanus (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Funny thing how all your "sources" are popular newspaper accounts of Indian government political decisions, while my sources are scholarly works by reputable mainstream linguists. Another funny thing is how I have a general interest in Classical languages as an overall topic (as can be seen from my edits to this article and my comments in the talk page archive before you ever came along), while you have absolutely no interest whatsoever in the subject of Classical languages, except insofar as you can use it to push your narrow nationalist agenda. AnonMoos (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Tags

The only reason that we have so much wasted discussion but not real improvement to the article is because most of the article is not properly cited. It expects people to somehow have aprior understanding of esoteric subject matters such as this and accept for face value that some how all facts are really factual. Further what what ever paultry citations we have, do not follow WP:CITE. Instead of indulging in all the verbal jousting, if some one had taken one single day to clean it up, we will all be reading abetter article today.Taprobanus (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm the one who added the Sapir quote, and mentioned The World's Major Languages edited by Bernard Comrie (1990) ISBN 0-19-506511-5 and The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages edited by Roger D. Woodard (2004) ISBN 0-521-56256-2, but none of that had any effect in cutting short the Tamil-before-Sanskrit nonsense... AnonMoos (talk) 04:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, a somewhat-accessible book (not only found in University libraries) with some information on Brahman attitudes towards writing sacred Sanskrit texts in the period ca. 500 B.C. -- 500 A.D. is Empires of the Word: A Language History of the World by Nicholas Ostler. For example, there's a quote from the Mahabharata, saying that "The sellers of the Vedas, the misreaders of the Vedas, and the writers of the Vedas all go on the path to hell." -- AnonMoos (talk) 05:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

There are various claims of Sanskrit dating.. The best way to get objective views is to compare with other encyclopedias. So, encyclopedia columbia is one of the best sources, we can get. Indian archaelogical and linguistic institutions say also, that Sanskrit texts were written rather late. And most scholars say, that Sanskrit was written in 2nd millenium AD, whereas it was orally composed much earlier. They say, that Tamil had already a flourished literature, whereas Sanskrit literature appeared much later. So please stop your Sanskrit fanatism. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

1) I have no idea what the "Encylopedia Columbia" is, but if you mean the "Columbia Encyclopedia", then that's a one-volume abridged desk-reference work, which is certainly NOT the "best" when compared with detailed specialized works written by reputable linguists in their own subject areas. 2) As has been repeatedly and painstakingly explained above, the date at which written Sanskrit manuscripts became common is chronologically irrelevant if the mainstream consensus of reputable linguists is that Panini dates to the 5th-4th centuries B.C. If you want the Columbia Encyclopedia, here's what the Columbia Encylopedia has to say about Panini: "fl. c.400 B.C." (for "fl.", see floruit). 3) You seem to be far more of a "fanatic" than I am, since (as I explained above), I actually have little detailed knowledge of the Sanskrit language (other than a few points commonly used in comparative Proto-Indo-European reconstruction work), I do not come from India, my family does not come from India, I have no real personal connections to any area of India, and my area of language specialization within linguistics is actually the Semitic languages... AnonMoos (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, there isn't much "original research" as such, but there is some attempt to explain the different definitions which have been used (see Talk:Classical language/Archive_1#Definition_of_.22Classical_language.22). AnonMoos (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent}@perur - There are various claims of Sanskrit dating.. - Nonsense. Panini is almost universally dated to the 5th-4th centuries BC. On the contrary, there is nothing remotely that unanimous about dating of Tamil literature. Sangam literature is dated any where between the "early centuries of the millenium" and the 10th century AD depending on which scholars you're citing. That's a difference of a whopping thousand years! Also, the antediluvian dates for Sangam literature you keep citing and which the article quotes at the moment, have been disputed for decades and have more or less been given up by recent scholarship (WZKS 46 (2002) 105-133 by Eva Wilden is a good place to start). Even those who subscribe to the early dates, do so with a important caveats and with an acknowledgement of the fragile foundations of such dating. There is nothing remotely that contentious in the dating of Panini or general Sanskrit literature. Even in cases like the date of Adi Shankara, the difference in opinions does not span a 1000 years and more like it does in the case of Sangam literature. The claim that Sangam literature spans from 3rd BC is wholly unsupported by scholarship. Sarvagnya 18:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Tamil dates

Despite that the source for Tamil exists, none of the changes made to those dates have reflected the dates mentiond in the source: "The classics selected for the project include both grammatical and literary texts which are original and which belong to the period between 300 B.C. and 600 A.D." I just changed the dates to match the source. Is there any reason why the dates shouldn't be what the source says? Fresheneesz (talk) 03:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well this point is moot now that fowler&fowler clarified. Fresheneesz (talk) 05:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

fowler&fowler has obviously an Anti-Dravidian bias. Check his talkpage. --MaximAfinogenov (talk) 10:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there any better datings for Kannada and Telugu than this Britannica sources? I think, Britannica is not very accurate. --RockingMallu (talk) 12:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I found this which says the first piece of teluga literature was in the 11th century. I checked my 1970 britannica and it says 10th century. What dates are you two alleging? Fresheneesz (talk) 06:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

wtf.. some source I tried to post is blacklisted.. www.indianetzone.com/2/telugu_literature.htm also says 10th century. Fresheneesz (talk) 06:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Date format - Xth century/c. BCE/CE is confusing

I suggest that we change the format to XXXX BCE/CE. I have always hated counting centuries - *especially* BCE. BCE century counting has always confused the crap out of me. Is 100 BCE part of the first century BCE or the second? I'm certain there are plenty of editors that also get confused by the Xth century format.

Also, the X BCE/CE format is *shorter* to write. Even if you write "3rd c. BCE" it is still longer than "200s BCE". Plus its harder to understand. Many people might wonder what the hell that "c." stands for. This is why I propose changing the date format it wouldn't be that hard. Comments? Fresheneesz (talk) 03:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That might imply a spurious exactness of year dating which doesn't actually exist in many cases. AnonMoos (talk) 13:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Writing something like "400s CE" is no more nor less exact than saying "5th century CE". Fresheneesz (talk) 06:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

At this stage, putting Tamil before Sanskrit on the list is pretty much outright vandalism

Please look at the previous extensive discussion above. I don't like to violate WP:AGF without a specific reason for doing so, but when an edit was made removing the Panini dating reference (to the source previously endorsed by User:Thirusivaperur above) -- see this edit -- it's hard to believe that it wasn't done without some degree of malicious intent. AnonMoos (talk) 13:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sanskrit is ancient than Tamil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.162.196 (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, RockingMallu (talk · contribs) and MaximAfinogenov (talk · contribs) are both single purpose accounts created today. They could even be socks. I'll have them checked. Meanwhile, I will revert their edits. Please pay attention to their 3RR status. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, one of them is a sock of blocked user Kalarimaster (talk · contribs) who was edit-warring this page earlier. Don't know which one right now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Tamil dates and sangam literature

The Sangam literature page, along with every other source I have seen, cites sangam literature as starting earlier than 100 BCE. Most seem to cite the beggining as 300 BCE [3][4][5][6]. Given the enormity of these sources, the only conclusion I can come to is that Britannica is wrong on this one. Even the source given in the introduction of this article dates it back to 200 BCE [7]. Given those things, I'd like some comments by those who have been warring about Tamil dates here. Thanks. Fresheneesz (talk) 07:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

As for the placement of Tamil vs Sanskrit, it seems that the oldest dates for sangram literature are around the same as sanskrit. However, because of the date issue I have raised under another header, some have been confused and have thought that "5th century BCE" means "500s BCE". These issues should be clarified so that another edit war doesn't happen. Fresheneesz (talk) 07:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The article on Tolkāppiyam says it is the oldest piece of Tamil literature, and is from between the 3rd century BCE to the 10th century CE. Perhaps the dates on the beggining of tamil literature should be similarly vague. This is something specifically about Sanskrit and Tamil that might be relevant. Fresheneesz (talk) 07:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

"'Somewhat' 500 BCE-1000 CE" is no accurate attestion. I have accepted the other source for Panini. --RockingMallu (talk) 10:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Fresheneez: Do you have any peer-reviewed articles in internationally recognized journals that attest to a 400 BC or earlier provenance for Tamil literature? The majority date for the beginnings of Tamil literature is still around 1st century CE. Please see the references on my sub-page References for Classical Languages of India. True, some sources will go as far back as 100 BCE or, even, in a few cases, 200 BCE, but not much earlier. To say that Sanskrit and Tamil literature are equally old is ridiculous. Sanskrit literature already had a Vedic phase starting around 1500 BCE with the Rig Veda and continuing on with the other Vedas, the Sutras, etc. It was the age of Classical Sanskrit (formalized by Panini) that began around 500 BC and lasted until 1000 CE. Tamil literature, on the other hand, had nothing before Sangam. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

PS And RockingMallu (talk · contribs), you seem to be having the same problems in interpreting text as blocked user Kalarimaster (talk · contribs) does. Does "Kalari" perchance mean "puppet?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not talking about User:Fresheneesz. I am just observing a general trend in wikipedia by users attempting to pre-date or equi-date Tamil with sanskrit similar to efforts by Kannada to Tamil. It is not like other intelligent and smart editors cant see through this thinly-veiled crusade. We would be better off if people start accepting the facts and spend their energy in improving the project. For example, there is inconsistency of dates of literature in various articles, guess that is what Fresheneesz is alluding to. I am glad we dont see Telugu and Malayalam literature-antedating warriors.

One also has to understand that even if there is one scholarly publication in a reputed journal contradicting the generally accepted long-held view on literary antiquity, it will still not be considered mainstream till the mainstream scholars and other reliable secondary and tertiary sources accept it.

Lately, I was interested in making a list of major Indian lanuages based on their literary antiquity (if such a list is not available). F&F, do u think if that is of any value? or it will drain our time and energy fighting POV-warriros?

Finally, I agree with your observation on Kalari saga. Docku: What up? 14:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The Sanskrit texts are very old, but Tamil texts are much older. They are going beyond anything the world can imagine. See Kumari Kandam legends and Thiru Devaneya Pavanar, the greatest Tamil scholar India ever produced. --RockingMallu (talk) 14:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

we actually have a Devaneya Pavanar article. I would hope, and I am confident, that this is not "the greatest Tamil scholar India ever produced" by quite a long shot. --dab (𒁳) 15:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Enough. Further prancing around with Tamil antiquity by "Kalarimaster", or socks, or meatpuppets, should be reverted on sight. Tamil literary tradition emerges in the 3rd century BC. Deal with it. --dab (𒁳) 15:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

To Dab and Docku: Agreed. Kannada warriors are snapping at the heels of Tamil, and Tamil/Dravidian warriors are doing it to Sanskrit. And Sanskrit warriors (not here though) are claiming the Indus Valley Civilization, which, was likely Dravidian. Time to end the circular wars. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

PS to Docku: Off the top of my head I see two problems: (a) for the lesser known languages, the citations will be difficult to come by, and (b) like you said, there will be POV wars for which likely SPA warriors will have more appetite than we would. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

PPS Did I forget to mention that while the Kannada warriors are snapping away, they also have to keep looking over their shoulders in case Britannica puts their competition too close for comfort. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

yea. u must be right. I will hold it off for some other time. I was just curious to know how literature antiquity of other less debated Indian languages compare and if there is any pattern. Docku: What up? 19:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

"The Sanskrit texts are very old, but Tamil texts are much older."

RockingMallu, I have not seen any sources whatsoever that indicate Tamil literature is *older* than Sanskrit literature. Only one or two places have given dates of tamil literature back to the same beggining as sanskrit literature.

To Fowler, I (obviously) don't have a secret stash of sources - everything I found is online (or in the 1970s britannica I happen to have). One problem here is that there are many sources (peer-reviewed or not) that allege older dates for tamil literature and look reputable. If we could find some more good sources for the 1st century CE date, that would be preferable. If you can find the sources, people simply won't be able to dispute it. Fresheneesz (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

To Fresheneesz: Well, my sense is that a 1st century BC to 250 AD time period would include most of the scholarly opinion, i.e. a consensus of scholars. I don't know how much time I'll have this evening, but if I have some, I'll put something together here or on a subpage. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

PS OK, here you go. I've created a subpage: User:Fowler&fowler/Antiquity_of_Indian_literature. I think 100BC–250AD should capture most of the variation for Tamil. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

This page Tolkāppiyam says, it is between 300 BCE to 1000 CE though, much larger range. Sangam literature says 300 BCE to 600 CE. Docku: What up? 01:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

That is an impressive list of sources. All of them agree that tamil literature started between the 100s BCE to the first century CE. I agree with the 100BC–250AD dates that fowler suggests. The articles Docku mention contain dates that contradict these source, and they should be corrected with citations. I may do a little sourcing on this page or others using your refs - but don't count on me : ) Fresheneesz (talk) 02:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I've put the sources there and changed the dates to a range (100BCE-100CE to 3rd or 4th c. CE). I think I'll leave other articles to others - but they should be done as well. Fresheneesz (talk) 02:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)