Talk:Kannada/Archive 3

Please can someone edit the English?

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

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

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

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

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

Rajraowiki (talk) 08:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kannada lucky to get classical status

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

Classical status to Kannada

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

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

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

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

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

Classical language

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

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

classical -> Utkrustavada, shrestavada, prathamikada, etc.

language -> taynudi, nammapada, addumatu, etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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