Tamilnadu oppose India's Sanskrit week

[HeinzG]

nope..i think vellalas are more numerous than brahmins in Tamilnadu(not sure about it..i am from Kerala)...
but one thing is sure..there were lot of migration waves from mainland India to Srilanka for centuries..after all even you Sinhalese are believed to came from orrisa and bengal??...Tamils from Tamilnadu,Kerala and andra??..then,why these all??just move on....

No. Sinhalese were not came from India. Sinhalese were formed in Sri Lanka. Yes we have DNA from Bengal or maybe Orissa but Sinhalese are formed in Sri Lanka not in India. That is why there are no native Sinhalese in India. Whereis Tamils who were migrated for centuries lived with Sinhalese not in isolated Jaffna peninsula alone. The vellars who were brought by the Dutch specifically had turned the natural migration cycle upside down. Now the same vellars saying they were the original inhabitants.

 

[manlion]

No. Sinhalese were not came from India. Sinhalese were formed in Sri Lanka. Yes we have DNA from Bengal or maybe Orissa but Sinhalese are formed in Sri Lanka not in India. That is why there are no native Sinhalese in India. Whereis Tamils who were migrated for centuries lived with Sinhalese not in isolated Jaffna peninsula alone. The vellars who were brought by the Dutch specifically had turned the natural migration cycle upside down. Now the same vellars saying they were the original inhabitants.

instead of posting some rubbish hearsay as facts , tell why the Dutch brought the vellalas to the arid Jaffna peninsula ... ?

 

[abjktu]

No. Sinhalese were not came from India. Sinhalese were formed in Sri Lanka. Yes we have DNA from Bengal or maybe Orissa but Sinhalese are formed in Sri Lanka not in India. That is why there are no native Sinhalese in India. Whereis Tamils who were migrated for centuries lived with Sinhalese not in isolated Jaffna peninsula alone. The vellars who were brought by the Dutch specifically had turned the natural migration cycle upside down. Now the same vellars saying they were the original inhabitants.

yes,may be the present Sinhalese identity and language was developed after the advent of Buddhism in Srilanka..but what about the King vijaya and his followers,who were the ancestors of the todays Sinhalese..didn't they arrived from North India??(correct me if i am wrong)..
i read that the native vedas are the only indigenous group there and rest are migrants??

 

[HeinzG]

yes,may be the present Sinhalese identity and language was developed after the advent of Buddhism in Srilanka..but what about the King vijaya and his followers,who were the ancestors of the todays Sinhalese..didn't they arrived from North India??(correct me if i am wrong)..
i read that the native vedas are the only indigenous group there and rest are migrants??

King Vijaya was not a Sinhalese. He was a Bengali or a Gujarati. Before him it is said that there were four native clans of people in Sri Lanka. Sinhalese are a mix of these native people and the Indian migrated/invaders.

Veddas are as native to Sri Lanka as Sinhalese.

instead of posting some rubbish hearsay as facts , tell why the Dutch brought the vellalas to the arid Jaffna peninsula ... ?

For the Tobacco plantation. Jaffna was made a desolate place thank to Sankili and his anti-Sinhalese ethnic cleansing.

 

[INDIC]

No. Sinhalese were not came from India. Sinhalese were formed in Sri Lanka. Yes we have DNA from Bengal or maybe Orissa but Sinhalese are formed in Sri Lanka not in India. That is why there are no native Sinhalese in India. Whereis Tamils who were migrated for centuries lived with Sinhalese not in isolated Jaffna peninsula alone. The vellars who were brought by the Dutch specifically had turned the natural migration cycle upside down. Now the same vellars saying they were the original inhabitants.

when did Sinhalas arrive in the Lanka island, people speaking an Indo-Aryan isolate but also still claims they arrived first, very mysterious.

 

[manlion]

King Vijaya was not a Sinhalese. He was a Bengali or a Gujarati. Before him it is said that there were four native clans of people in Sri Lanka. Sinhalese are a mix of these native people and the Indian migrated/invaders.

Veddas are as native to Sri Lanka as Sinhalese.

the 4 hela - e,g Nagas , Yakkhas were Dravidian

The Naga people appear until the third century BCE as a distinct group in the early Sri Lankan chronices as well as the early Tamil literary works
In the third century BCE they started to assimilate to Tamil language and culture, and lost their separate identity

For the Tobacco plantation. Jaffna was made a desolate place thank to Sankili and his anti-Sinhalese ethnic cleansing.

you are plucking stuff from thin air ... so who were the people of the Jaffna Kingdom ?

 

[dlclong]

Nothing to worry, if it is only the culture. I have only watched one Chinese drama 'water margin'. At present, SL has a Korean drama trend. Dong Yi, Dae Jang Guem, Autumn in my heart & Full house are quite popular.

Where did you watch "water margin" and if you liked Dong yi and Dae Jang Guem, I would recommend you to watch Jumong too...

Dae Jang Guem is a good film, I think it's a good interpretation of Confucianism in East Asia and the Korean culture,

If you look at the Water Margin, or the Three Kingdoms, I suggest you watch the old version, they can reflect the true Chinese classical culture. The new version, although some stunts very well, but it's performances, music not better than the old version. In China most people like the old version.

 

[Saradiel]

The future of the country is shaped by it's history. If we forget our history purposefully then there won't be a future for our country. The people who wants to forget the history are the ones who has false claims on things.

No one asks you to forget history. but the reality is politics and especially the future of the country is determined by curent demographics. That is not something you or i have to choose, that is the way things happen.

You cant get hold to a particular area even if your ancestors lived in that part centuries ago if you have none left now. That is dear idiot what reality is.

I do not see you realizing it at all because you are a idiot of first order. An ultimate idiot who is even talking on behalf of a dravidanadu in india while we faced a far worse seperatism issue in our own shores from the same ethnicity.

It's a 'Hindu lie'. Take potshots against 'Hinduism'. None of your posts are against Hindutva.

That is because LTTE guys gives a rat's a$$ about hindu..though you like to believe otherwise

 

[Saradiel]

yes,may be the present Sinhalese identity and language was developed after the advent of Buddhism in Srilanka..but what about the King vijaya and his followers,who were the ancestors of the todays Sinhalese..didn't they arrived from North India??(correct me if i am wrong)..
i read that the native vedas are the only indigenous group there and rest are migrants??

there is not much evidence to suggest vijaya story as true. It might be just a legend

when did Sinhalas arrive in the Lanka island, people speaking an Indo-Aryan isolate but also still claims they arrived first, very mysterious.

because sinhala language formation Pali and Sanskrit did influence through Theravada and Mahayana buddhism. And there were constant immigration from different parts of india. But Sinhala as a whole was not immigrated. Majority of Sinhalese are from south india.

the 4 hela - e,g Nagas , Yakkhas were Dravidian

yes that is why early sinhalese were fully dravidian.

 

[INDIC]

because sinhala language formation Pali and Sanskrit did influence through Theravada and Mahayana buddhism. And there were constant immigration from different parts of india. But Sinhala as a whole was not immigrated. Majority of Sinhalese are from south india.

I see many Sinhalas also claiming they were not Hindus before converting to Buddhism. I mean you guys claim ancestry from Eastern India, speak an Indo-Aryan language but still deny of practicing Hinduism before converting to Buddhism. Your narrative of history is very confusing.

 

[Saradiel]

I see many Sinhalas also claiming they were not Hindus before converting to Buddhism. I mean you guys claim ancestry from Eastern India, speak an Indo-Aryan language but still deny of practicing Hinduism before converting to Buddhism. Your narrative of history is very confusing.

it is because you look at SL history from an indian point of view. And most of your presumptions are wrong.

1. The element of ancestry from Eastern india is small. Sinhala is not a spefific race that came from india in a particular time. More correctly Sinhala is a nation which is built by native people who lived in SL together with the immigrants who came from different parts of India. Bengal is only one important place of origin, not the only one. I have seen sources showing ancestral origin of some sinhalese to even Gujrat, Kerala and TN. So it cannot be easily said Sinhalese came to SL from bengal. Sinhala is a amulgamation of natives, immigrants from Bengal, TN, Kerala and other parts. After colonial period you will see even european origin ones. It is wrong to say Sinhala ppl claim origin in eastern india only. The reason this myth is spread is due to various chronicles.

2. Eventhough there is a strong Indo Aryan element in Sinhala it is not a completely indo aryan language. There are similarities to dravidian languages. SInhala and Tamil share a hell of a lot of wods together. There are words in Sinhala that are very native to the island. As i said before though Sinhala is categorised as an Indo Aryan language, it is because of the impact it had from Pali and Sanskrit via Buddhism. For example if you look at Maldivian ppl's language, their script is close to arabic. But it is far away from arabia. it is the religion that shaped their script for few centuries. And imagine what sort of an impact Pali and Sinskrit could have done for a civilisation that remained buddhist for like more than two millenia. Take Thai for example. Look at the amount of Sanskrit influence it has had due to religion. So just because Sinhala is categorised as an Indo Aryan language no one can say it is wholey imported from North India. That is when we have evidence of the language evolving in stone scriptures and ola leaves.

3. Before Buddhism came to SL, there could have been Hindu practices. But pre buddhist SL was never Hindu predominantly. There is no strong evidences to suggest so. It is possible pre buddhist SL have been open to religions in India but most of the time they have been pagan worshipping local gods. Why i say so? Because some of the pagan elements still exists in Sinhala culture.

 

[DarkSeid]

2. Eventhough there is a strong Indo Aryan element in Sinhala it is not a completely indo aryan language. There are similarities to dravidian languages. SInhala and Tamil share a hell of a lot of wods together. There are words in Sinhala that are very native to the island. As i said before though Sinhala is categorised as an Indo Aryan language, it is because of the impact it had from Pali and Sanskrit via Buddhism. For example if you look at Maldivian ppl's language, their script is close to arabic. But it is far away from arabia. it is the religion that shaped their script for few centuries. And imagine what sort of an impact Pali and Sinskrit could have done for a civilisation that remained buddhist for like more than two millenia. Take Thai for example. Look at the amount of Sanskrit influence it has had due to religion. So just because Sinhala is categorised as an Indo Aryan language no one can say it is wholey imported from North India. That is when we have evidence of the language evolving in stone scriptures and ola leaves.

Sinhala cannot be compared with any dravidian language because of some words. Otherwise some can even compare it with europen languages.
" This is borne out by philological evidence which shows that Sinhala, the language of Sinhalese, is ultimately derived from old Indo-Aryan (Sanskrit) through middle Indo-Aryan or Prakrit (whose best representative is Pali, the language of the Buddhist scriptures).
By linguistic research, it has been possible to connect a number of Sinhala words to words occuring in European, Iranian and North Indian languages. Such resemblances are however not very apparent due to the profound sound changes they have undergone throughout the centuries.
Due to its strategic position in the waterways of the east, the Sinhala language has been susceptible to manifold foreign linguistic influences. This has come mainly from Tamil, the Dravidian language spoken by the Tamils of neighbouring South India.
"
I couldn't post the link, got some error message.

 

[HeinzG]

when did Sinhalas arrive in the Lanka island, people speaking an Indo-Aryan isolate but also still claims they arrived first, very mysterious.

Sinhalese didn't arrive from anywhere. They were originated in Sri Lanka. The question about Indo-Aryan language can be easily solved by the fact that origins of the Sinhalese language was heavily influenced by Sanskrit and Pali. Both are North Indian languages associated with Buddhism.

The good example is to English having many Latin words and Latin influenced words. Can you say Greeks were the original inhabitants of England because their are Latin words in English?

No one asks you to forget history. but the reality is politics and especially the future of the country is determined by curent demographics. That is not something you or i have to choose, that is the way things happen.

Just because current demography is different from the past doesn't mean that we have to forget the past in order to look to the future. We should always remember what was the past and realize what is the present.

Do you suggest that just because there are Tamils living in Jaffna that Sinhalese cannot claim it as there own?

You cant get hold to a particular area even if your ancestors lived in that part centuries ago if you have none left now. That is dear idiot what reality is.

We are not talking about any individuals here mate. We are talking about the state. Every land within the boundary of the state is owned by the state despite the ethnicity. No one can say this part is ours and that part is ours.

 

[abjktu]

The question about Indo-Aryan language can be easily solved by the fact that origins of the Sinhalese language was heavily influenced by Sanskrit and Pali. Both are North Indian languages associated with Buddhism.

but that logic is not entirely true .... in High literature Malayalam(my mother tongue) about 80% of words are borrowed from Sanskrit and rest Tamil(though in normal dialect 40-60% are from Tamil) ..but its still classified under dravidan language group..aryan/dravida classifications are not based on ethnicity,but two language groups.
sinhala language may be classified under indo aryan language,but that doesn't means that it was not influenced by other languages,especially Tamil....sinhala too have a fair amount of Tamil origin words...

 

[HeinzG]

the 4 hela - e,g Nagas , Yakkhas were Dravidian

BS. No archeologist will say like that. Only racists will say that.

There are no evidence to suggest 4 hela tribes were Dravidians.

Even if so it doesn't alter the staus quo. Sinhalese were originated in Sri Lanka not in India.

you are plucking stuff from thin air ... so who were the people of the Jaffna Kingdom ?

This is not to imply that Jaffna was always populated by Sinhalese before hand.

After Prince Sapumal evicted the Arya Cakravartis in 1449, he ruled Jaffna Peninsula for a period of 17 years, on behalf of King Parakrama Bahu VI of Kotte (1412-1467) and according to De Queroyz;

“During these times, it is said he Re-Populated many of the barren lands in the North, with the Sinhalese of Kotte.”

History of Jaffna

but that logic is not entirely true .... in High literature Malayalam(my mother tongue) about 80% of words are borrowed from Sanskrit and rest Tamil(though in normal dialect 40-60% are from Tamil) ..but its still classified under dravidan language group..aryan/dravida classifications are not based on ethnicity,but two language groups.
sinhala language may be classified under indo aryan language,but that doesn't means that it was not influenced by other languages,especially Tamil....sinhala too have a fair amount of Tamil origin words...

Sinhalese is classified under Indo-Aryan language group not because Sinhalese has loan Sanskrit words. It is because Sinhalese language script is based on the Sanskrit. I do agree that language doesn't represent the ethnicity. The Aryan theory of Sinhalese has no base. It was probably got hold due to the fact Sinhalese kings' reluctance to attach themselves to the Sakya clan of India to which Buddha was born as a prince.

Sinhalese was influenced by many languages from time to time. First it was Sanskrit then Pali then Tamil then Portuguese and Finally English. Sinhalese has many loan words from these languages.