Classical vs. Modern

Mon Jan 18 16:18:39 UTC 1999

At 07:09 PM 1/17/99 PST, you wrote:
>In a message dated 1/16/99 11:11:00 AM Central Standard Time,
>narayana at HD1.DOT.NET.IN writes:
>
>>  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.
>
>Sarma is certainly not enhancing the reputation of Bh. Krishnamurti
>by his interpretation and defense of BhK's views on what a classical
>language is. If Sarma's reason for not considering Tamil to be a
>classical language is true, then in Greek and Arabic which BhK and
>he accept as classical languages, all language change has ceased.
>I am sure this is a revelation to linguists and other scholars on
>this list. If, indeed BhK shares in this view of  Sarma, that
>is really shocking.  I think before Sarma tries to interpret,
>paraphrase, and justify BhK's views on why Tamil cannot be called
>classical, he should heed BhK's suggestion and consult a standard
> English dictionary on what "classical" means.
>
>>  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.
>
>BhK said, "Those who have such love should have stayed back in
>India instead of going for greener pastures in a foreign country
>and then start doing this  kind of propaganda ad nauseum." This
>shows that BhK thinks that the persons who want the Indian
>government to recognize Tamil as a classical language are
>saying that because they have a Tamil background. (Even though,
> he uses the word "India", it is obvious he means the Tamil
>linguistic state of  India.) Otherwise why would he comment on
> the ethnic origin of the persons proposing
>the recognition instead of arguing out the proposition on its
>own merits or lack thereof?
>
>Any way, who said Tamil is the only Dravidian language? If others
>want to present information from texts in other languages, that
>will be a welcome contribution to the list. Instead of doing positive
> things like that, why unfairly criticize some for posting
>information which many list members find valuable?
>
>>  No body has made any remarks about A.K.Ramanujam. Hence all this is
>>  out of place.
>
>BhK wrote, "The pathetic appeal of one list member to place Tamil
>on the same footing as the Classical languages-- Sanskrit, Persian
>and Arabic in India-- sounds ridiculous." In a reply to BhK's post,
>Maureen Fadem quoted A. K. Ramanujan as saying, " "Tamil is one of
> the two classical languages of India, is the only language of
>contemporary India which is recognizably continuous with a classical
>past." When both statements are evaluated together, it
>becomes obvious that according to BhK, AKR's statement also
>sounds ridiculous. That is why I gave AKR's own explanation as
> to why he considers Tamil to be a classical language. If Sarma
>does not see the relevance of the discussion of
>the views of AKR and Lienhard, I will not be surprised. After
>all he is the one who, in another thread, equates the transmission
> of mahAbhASya tradition among the ancient grammarians/scholars
> with "mass scale cultural diffusion".
>
>>  >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.
>
>Certainly not. Anybody can see that I have defended my positions
>rationally.
>
>>  >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.
>
>I had come to know about BhK's accomplishments through his
>publications. It is shocking for me to find that a
>historical/comparative linguist who ought to
>know his "science of etymology" cannot rationally explain the
>meaning of the word 'classical', but keeps insisting that Tamil
> cannot be called classical while Greek and Arabic can be. This
> as well as his comments involving the ethnic origin of N. Ganesan
> mean that his position is motivated by anti-Tamil
>feelings rather than any defensible reason.
>
>>  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.
>
>N. Ganesan wanted the Indian government and not the Indology list
> to recognize Tamil as a classical language. If there had been any
>question about the justification for such a demand or  how it
>relates to Indology, one can always seek clarification as another
>member did. On my part, I have never suggested
>that people accept whatever is being posted.
>
>>  > 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.
>
>People in glass houses should not throw stones at others. Of course,
> in Sarma's sense of equity, BhK can state people should not have
>left India and gone abroad (in other words, if they are abroad
>presently, they should leave their present country of residence and
>go home to India), if they do not conform to his expectations of
>how and what should be posted on the list. But,
>others cannot say that he should get off the list if he cannot
>tolerate what is found in the scope of the Indology list. Sarma
>conveniently forgot one thing. I did not post anything contradicting
> what is in the scope of the list.
>If BhK and Sarma want to dish out unwarranted comments, they should
> be able to take whatever warranted comments coming their way too.
>
>That, of course, willbe asking them to be logical.
>
>Chris
>
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>