Talk:Linguistic history of India

Origins

Telugu originated from a hypothesized Proto-Dravidian language. It is a highly Sanskritized language. As Telugu savant C.P Brown states in page 266 of his book "A Grammar of the Telugu language": "if we ever make any real progress in the language the student will require the aid of the Sanskrit Dictionary" .

I added Valid reference. Earlier someone wrote that Telugu is Tamilized language and also misrepresented the reference which is wrong. Telugu is highly sanskritized language and its a universal fact. Please I request Tamilians to stop this propaganda. Just be happy yourselves for a change. Stop your propaganda with other languages which are not even close to Tamil.

Telugu belongs to Central Dravidian Group not Tamil. It has more sanskrit influence than Tamil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.112.76 (talk • contribs)

Another question here...Is it another version of the statement victors write history? We know that an old language by name Tamil exists. We know that a new language by name Tamil exists. Malayalam split from the older Tamil language in 9th century. Is there any proof that current Tamil is the older Tamil or are they two languages with the same name? Is Malayalam the actual Tamil from which present Tamil is just a Tamil offshoot? Who knows... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.117.227.85 (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

References

Proto-Dravidian split

Could somebody add sources to this article, please? The article states that proto-Dravidian split up around 1500 BCE (though earlier dates are possible) while the article Dravidian languages gives the same piece information but with 500 BCE not 1500 BCE. I think the articles on Dravidology require a proper cleanup/verification process. Kkrystian (talk) 12:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Traditionally many sources cite the split of major dravidian languages in around c.1500 BCE which is attributed to found inscriptions and also partly on paleographic grounds owing to language evolutionary routes. This is also based on assumptions, speculations and biases of those involved in such research. Therefore only further research can uncover the real facts from regular citations.Jrsanthosh (talk) 07:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

There are no inscriptions earlier than 500 BCE in Dravidian languages to claim a proto split in 1500 BCE Senthilkumaras (talk) 08:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Grammitical corrections needed

In the Tamil section I corrected the starting phrase to suit grammer. There are many such mistakes which need corrections. Anyone findind mistakes can correct it or try to rephrase it. Thanks. Jrsanthosh (talk) 07:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Imaginary early Telugu period:

Prior page read: "Inscriptions in Telugu dating to 400 BCE were discovered in Bhattiprolu in the district of Guntur. The English translation of one inscription reads: “A gift of a slab by the venerable Midikilayakha.[37] The discovery of a Brahmi inscription reading Thambhaya Dhaanam as engraved on a soapstone reliquary is dated to the 2nd century BCE on paleographical grounds proves the antiquity of Telugu.

Primary sources are Sanskrit and Prakrit inscriptions found in the region, in which Telugu places and personal names are found. From this we know that the spoken vernacular was Telugu, while the rulers, who were of the Satavahana dynasty, used Prakrit in their monumental inscriptions.[38] Telugu appears in the Gathasaptashathi Maharashtri Prakrit anthology of poems from the 1st century BCE from the Satavahana King Hala. "

1.The one at Bhattiprolu is in early Brahmi script and Prakrit language. by this do we claim telugu is an Indo-aryan language?

2. satavahana coins show king's names readable in Prakrit and old Tamil, both in Brahmi script{ref:wiki:Gautamiputra satakarni},though there is no "Sanskritised telugu" root words, here too similar to bhatiprolu.

3. can any one spell out clearly in legible written order as,,the so-called telugu root words , its present telugu word, its meaning, context. Not even a picture of the bhatiprolu telugu inscription is posted here. all imaginary , false and tall claims.

4. even the date of bhatiprolu is too approximate, this page mentions 400BCE while main page on that inscription says 300BCE.you have place a non-existent telugu script based on this indistinct date.

5. soapstone reliquary mentioned here, has not been published anywhere else for by the state ?ASI, for the proper use and study by linguists and literary scholars. Not even a close-up phptograph is available to study the written language.

6. Gathasaptashathi is a love-life anthology by Hala written in Maharashtri, a local dialect of Prakrit. How falsely thou claim it a telugu work?

7. telugu places and names are not useful here, as names are common to all languages in India. Only the grammar and language is to be confirmed here.

8. need to explain "on what paleographic" grounds?

9. your references no.37 and 38 are from ASI director ,( who is an archeologist first may be an amateur linguist and an etymologist too?) and from a ipsilateral imaginary claim by AP govt.website(where again no indepentent impartial standard linguist would agree to ). Senthilkumaras (talk) 09:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. I've added a few tags to alert readers and editors alike. See also Talk:Telugu language#early epigraphy. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Harappan symbols

Re: ""The symbols remain undeciphered (in spite of numerous attempts that did not find favour with the academic community), and most scholars tend to classify them as proto-writing rather than writing proper." Which "most scholars" are we talking about? I believe most scholars either think they were full writing, or else that they were not writing at all. The statement would seem to need citation to support it.

--Richard Sproat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:10C1:101F:A800:1FF:FE00:54B3 (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Split

I removed the split tag because there had been no discussion and it was not obvious what was intended nor why a split was required. I described it as "destroying" the article. The tag was replaced with the edit note "Eh? Of course the split would destroy the article, that's intended. Also, most material here duplicates – and is even outright copied from – other articles.)" Unfortunately, that still does not really say what is required. I would like to make progress one way or another and to that end investigated making the split. If a bit more information were supplied then maybe I could try. Op47 (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Split declined per WP:PROSPLIT - no rationale given, and no obvious reason for split per WP:WHENSPLIT. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Modern Tamil negative

"The negative conjugation of verbs, for example, has fallen out of use in Modern Tamil – negation is, instead, expressed either morphologically or syntactically."

A negative conjugation is a morphological, as opposed to syntactical, expression of negation. If negation is expressed morphologically in modern Tamil, too, in what sense is it claimed that there is no negative conjugation any longer?--91.148.130.233 (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Acceptability of the Halegannada developing into currently coexisting Kannada and Telugu claim in the article

In the Stages of Development subsection under the History of Kannada section, it is written, "It is said that the halekannnada later developed and deviated into 2 currently coexisting languages Kannada and Telugu." The major point of this sentence contradicts the linguistics based placement of Kannada into South Dravidian-I (along with Badaga, Tamil, etc.) and Telugu into South Dravidian-II (along with Gondi, Kui, etc.). Can it be argued that this sentence is legitimate in the article because an "it is said that" is added in the beginning? --Sss1994 (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Linguistic history of the Indian subcontinent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120208110254/http://www.aponline.gov.in/Quick%20links/HIST-CULT/languages.html to http://www.aponline.gov.in/Quick%20links/HIST-CULT/languages.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061117044253/http://users.primushost.com/~india/ejvs/ejvs1102/ejvs1102article.pdf to http://users.primushost.com/~india/ejvs/ejvs1102/ejvs1102article.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 2 July 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 20:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

---

Linguistic history of the Indian subcontinent → Linguistic history of India – Page was moved unilaterally in 2011,[1] citing a personal opinion. See results:-

• Google books:

• "Linguistic history of India" = 2800 results.
• "Linguistic history of the Indian subcontinent" = 1500 (though I only see several books actually mentioning the term).

• Google scholars:

• "Linguistic history of India" = 82 results.
• "Linguistic history of the Indian subcontinent" = 2 results.

Where there is virtually no existence of "Linguistic history of Pakistan". That's why "Linguistic history of India" passes WP:COMMONNAME. Lorstaking (talk) 04:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support as per WP:COMMONNAME. My Lord (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support Original move happened without discussion. The word "India" need not be limited for only Republic of India. Ankit2 (talk) 04:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support move as complying with naming policies. Satpal Dandiwal (talk) 09:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support move There is no specific research into the history by the country name except India (which refers to historic region than the country name) as indicated by the quantity of sources. Accesscrawl (talk) 12:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: I note this reverses a previous move 04:46, 24 November 2011‎ Mar4d (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (59 bytes) (+59)‎ . . (moved Linguistic history of India to Linguistic history of the Indian subcontinent: Mostly pre-1947, including Indus Valley of modern-day Pakistan). Andrewa (talk) 07:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Not that such page move made any sense. Even the above "WikiProject Pakistan" is a very recent addition to this page. My Lord (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Pinging the original mover, User:Mar4d, who is still active on Wikipedia and should be aware of this discussion. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 14:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nom and WP:UCRN. Razer(talk) 16:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose since the current title is more descriptive of the actual scope (in modern terms). We write in contemporary English, not the the English of 1785. WP:COMMONNAME / WP:UCRN does not apply to WP:NPOVTITLE descriptive titles like this one (in either form); their purpose is to neutrally and precisely describe/identify the scope. Neither "linguistic history of India" nor "linguistic history of the Indian subcontinent" are proper names (proper-noun phrases); there just descriptive labels we made up and which also happen to sometimes coincide with descriptive labels other people have used in other writing. This article's scope and content is not confined to what India means today.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• Current title is an WP:OR. We can't create a separate "Linguistic history of Pakistan" and it lacks any results just as much as the present title. The search results and the links to the authors and academic literature[2][3][4][5][6][7] shows that Linguistic history of India is still the suitable title. Who is saying "Linguistic history of the Indian subcontinent" or "Indian subcontinent's linguistic history"? There was no Pakistan when this field was developing in South Asia, there was only India. Lorstaking (talk) 04:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
• SMcCandlish: The page title must match the generally accepted name in reliable sources which is "Linguistic history of India". My Lord (talk) 05:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support per nom. BengaliHindu (talk) 05:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.