Tamil words in English

Nikhil Rao nrao at CAIP.RUTGERS.EDU
Tue Feb 24 15:14:15 UTC 1998

Coincidentally 49 generations are supposed to seperate "pravaras". This
gap was stated  probably by Baudhayana.


On Fri, 20 Feb 1998, S Krishna wrote:

> 2. assuming they went to Tamil Nadu, how did iruGkOvEl come up with
> figure of 49 generations? Is the genealogy recorded in any place? How
> can you arrive at the number of generations elapsed without knowing the
> genealogy?
> Dear MR Subrahmanya, I had asked you for references on Indians asser
> ting that all languages are descended from Sanskrit and all I get
> is assertions from you that they exist but no proof i.e.  no text is
> quoted..I wonder why?:-)
> Please give me a source that says: "Telugu, Tamil, Kannada,Malayalam
> sarvE samskrtabhASAya: zizava:"( or a paraphrase there of) or some text
> that says, ( pardon my poor Sanskrit/ versification/both)
> " yathA gajAnanaSaDAnanayO: gaurI jananI |
>   tathA telugukannaDayO : samskrt jananI ||"
> FYI, Monier Williams was the first one to postulate that all languages
> are derived from Sanskrit( Monier Williams was a great *nationalist*
> scholar, eh?...Arun Shourie assures us that his dictionary was compiled
> to help missionaries translate the bible into samskrt)until
> Alexander Campbell noted something contrary and the Dravidian theo
> ry was postulated much later....
>   IF kannaDa were really descended from Samskrt, then why is it that the
> kavirAjamArga( 850 AD) tells us that "A compound consisting of kannaDa
> and samskrt words is like putting a drop of buttermilk on boiling
> milk"...the mother's milk is poison for the child, huh?:-)
> Regards
> Krishna
> >    Is an outright rejection valid ?
> >    All the original sources refer to only places within the
> subcontinent
> >and there
> >    never was any argument among pandits about some kind of origin from
> some
> >faraway
> >    lands - until the word Arya was bastardized and all kinds of racial
> >    connotations were ascribed to passages in the Vedas.
> >
> >I waited to see reactions to Edwin Bryants posting, but there doesnt
> seem
> >to be any.Could it be one of shock ?
> >Now that Mr.Edwin Bryant has made his position clear, maybe some of the
> vocal
> >supporters of the AIT are thinking that the Invasion theory is not on
> such a
> >sure
> >footing after all - especially now that a **non-Indian** (ignoring
> >Mr.Jim Shafer, after all he is a mere archeologist) has said that
> >          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >No one knows what that alternative is, but atleast accepting that there
> >might be an alternative
> >is indeed a mighty positive change.
> >
> >The so called "evidence" for the Invasion theory has been built up over
> >almost 150 years
> >wheras the challenge to it from has come only within the past 15-20
> years
> >and has become more organized only within the past decade or so. After
> all,
> >India gained independence only 50 years ago and time is needed to
> discard
> >old euro-centric colonial thinking.
> >Atleast a beginning has been made.
> >
> >Again, at the end - the thing that started this discussion thread was
> kuyil.
> >Does anyone out there have an answer as to why it HAS to be of
> >Dravidian origin ? anything else other than just assertions ?
> >
> >BTW,is the word for crow in Sanskrit, also of a supposed dravidian
> origin ?
> >coz after all a cuckoo depends on the crow for its survival.
> >
> >Subrahmanya
> >Houston, TX
> >
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list