Classical vs. Modern

[DEVARAKONDA VENKATA NARAYANA SARMA]

At 05:39 PM 1/15/99 PST, you wrote:
>Thanks very much for Bh. Krishnamurti's recommendation to look up a
>dictionary. I wanted a definition from Bh. Krishnamurti because I
>hoped he might have some rational explanation as to why he does not
>want to recognize Classical Tamil. It is obvious he does not have one.
>

He has already very patiently explained his view why tamil cannot be
called classical . This is because it is current and evloving and
therefore changing. You may not agree with his view. That does not give
you liberty to use disrespectful language.

>
>Having seen the postings by Bh. Krishnamurti, I feel that he will
>immediately point to AKR's Tamil heritage and say that his judgement
> is, therefore, biased.

Please will you kindly quote the postings of Prof.Bh.Krishnamurti
which made you feel that he will do any such thing. As far as I know
he has not made any remarks against tamil. As a matter of fact he
in his postings, he has clearly stated that tamil preserves quite a bit
old dravidian usages. Please see the archives of Indology. But
of course if any body claims that tamil is the only dravidian
language that is a lie.

>It should be noted that AKR was also equally
>at home in Kannada and had translated Kannada poetry too.
>(He was the recipient of the prestigious MacArthur Award.) In any
>case, let me quote Siegfried Lienhard, author of "A
>History of Classical Poetry: Sanskrit-Pali-Prakrit" in the
> series "A History of Indian Literature" edited by Jan Gonda,
>one of the foremost Sanskrit scholars. Discussing the common
> elements between Classical Tamil poetry and Indo-Aryan poetry,
>Lienhard notes in p. 73, "The correspondences are  often so
>clear that one cannot reject entirely the possibility of Dravidian
>influence on early Prakrit and Sanskrit short poems. On the other
> hand it seems improbable that muktaka poetry can have influenced
> classical Tamil lyrical poems as caGkam poetry is not only older
> than the earliest preserved  muktaka stanzas; it had also risen to
>far greater heights."
>

No body has made any remarks about A.K.Ramanujam. Hence all this is
out of place.

>So certainly, one does not need Bh. Krishnamurti's recommendation for
>recognition of Tamil as a classical language on par with Arabic and
>Greek. Reputed scholars have done that already.
>

This shows your irrational hatred towards him rather than any thing else.

>Whatever be the positive and negative aspects of N. Ganesan's
>postings, they have certainly done some good in this case.  They
> have serendipitously helped to expose the virulent anti-Tamil
>feelings of Bh. Krishnamurti.

Again please substantiate your remarks.

> Under BhK's veneer of objective
>academic scholarship lurks a classic embodiment of prejudice and
>hatred. Interestingly, on another thread, there was a
>recent discussion of the works of Nazis and their sympathizers,
> and how to evaluate their contributions. Based on all these,
>hereafter, I shall give due consideration to BhK's anti-Tamil
> bias before I accept his linguistic findings involving Tamil.
>

I do not think it makes any difference to him.

>If BhK cannot tolerate the concept of Tamil as a classical language
>in the same way he is willing to accept Arabic and Greek, then he is
>on the wrong list. All he has to do is look at the Scope of Indology
>at the Indology list web site. He will find the sentence,"Indologists
> typically have a formal training in classical Tamil, Sanskrit,
>Prakrit, Persian, or other  languages that bear on the history of
> Indian culture." Thus the list officially recognizes classical Tamil.

When the list officially recognises classical tamil why was
this demand made on the Indology list? There is no necessity of
the demand. What was the motive in raising the bogey of tamil being
threatned? Who has threatned it? Were your postings censored?
Did anybody prevent you for expressing your view? But if you expect
others to simply accept whatever you post, that of course is
impossible.

> If BhK does not like this, he can always pick up his marbles and go
> elsewhere. But, it is pathetic to appeal to listen to his
>views based on his old age. Age is irrelevant in intellectual
>discussions. If age were to be a criterion, one should pay more
>respect to a piece of  rock. However, one should note that its age
>may be two billion years, but it  does not have any knowledge or
>wisdom.
>
>

You have unwarrantedly used very uncivil language against
a wellknown linguist and it is you who have to consider packing up
and going else where if you do not like this list.

regards,

sarma.
>Chris
>
>
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>