Why Chennai can't and won't speak Hindi

[Chronos]

Brahmin-Upper caste Non Brahmin competition for eliteness has been going on for a longtime but it was not an ethnic war,both sides recognize each other's pros n cons.

B

Now you have the so called 'lower caste' elite who try to keep their political power by playing to their caste base.

Caste organizations for example.

 

[Bang Galore]

U keep running in cirlcle...


As i stated before...
the tamil works that are more than 2000 years old(tholkappiyam(its the fucking language grammar which we still use as it was written in 4 th century BC)),tirukural)are fully intelligible and same as the tamil used by us presently so the bolded part makes zero sense what so ever... and you telling me "ibeyond logic" is only beyond logic

I cant make it more clear.. ask ur kannada friends to translate if it is still incomprehensible to you...

You seem to be absolutely unable to comprehend my point which is that the gap between known earliest inscriptions of Tamil & Kannada( a few hundred years at best) is too narrow for a language(i.e. Kannada) to have separated from Tamil(your claim) and to have both developed both a completely different language(without showing deep similarities) and a completely different script. There is no evidence of Kannada ever using the Tamil script which would have been logical if it merely split from Tamil, so the separation predates the evolution of individual scripts. There is zero evidence of your claim& almost no linguist seems to buy your argument of Kannada having merely separated from "Tamil" (leave alone Telugu).

 

[Bang Galore]

1. Aryans were not ONE tribe. All those tribes who migrated from Central Asia/Afghan & Iranian highlands and assimilated with the locals in today's Punjab to create a syncretic religion called Vedic Religion are all collectively clubbed as Aryans.

Oddly enough, that is not how it started. In the Rg veda, the term "Aryan" is almost solely used for only one of the 5 lunar tribes(i.e. Yadus, Turvasas, Druhyus, Anus, Purus), the Purus & more specifically a sub-tribe of the Purus, the Bharatas. The Rg veda is quite clearly their book with all other tribes playing only a secondary role. The Ikshvakus , one of the most powerful tribes then are almost completely ignored (probably because they were a solar tribe) and not directly connected(Later Gods like Rama were from the Ikshvaku tribe). The general use of the term Aryan to include other people (as also Aryavarta as a name for their land) and indeed the use of the name Bharat for India was a testament to their(the Bharatas) remarkable success.

(Btw, the Rg veda which is the earliest know composition of the "Aryans" has absolutely no mention of any foreign land nor to any migration and the earliest books are centered in the heartland of India)

 

[Indischer]

Proto-Tamil-Kannada does not mean Kannada split from Proto-Tamil. Rather, it means both Tamil and Kannada evolved from a Proto language which is no longer in usage.

@Bang Galore Are you a Kannadiga?

Oddly enough, that is not how it started. In the Rg veda, the term "Aryan" is almost solely used for only one of the 5 lunar tribes(i.e. Yadus, Turvasas, Druhyus, Anus, Purus), the Purus & more specifically a sub-tribe of the Purus, the Bharatas. The Rg veda is quite clearly their book with all other tribes playing only a secondary role. The Ikshvakus , one of the most powerful tribes then are almost completely ignored (probably because they were a solar tribe) and not directly connected(Later Gods like Rama were from the Ikshvaku tribe). The general use of the term Aryan to include other people (as also Aryavarta as a name for their land) and indeed the use of the name Bharat for India was a testament to their(the Bharatas) remarkable success.

My reference was more into how the modern usage of the term Aryan has come to embody every aspect of Vedic and Hindu culture. If all that is considered Aryan, then it's progenitors certainly aren't one tribe, but all those who founded, embraced and propagated Sanatana Dharma.

(Btw, the Rg veda which is the earliest know composition of the "Aryans" has absolutely no mention of any foreign land nor to any migration and the earliest books are centered in the heartland of India)

I believe the earlier names of many rivers from modern-day Afghanistan and Swat region actually correspond with the rivers mentioned in the RgVeda. Not to forget Soma, which most modern scholars concur was probably a plant in the same genus as Ephedra, which still grows in the Afghan highlands but not in Punjab or the Gangetic belt.

 

[Chronos]

Oddly enough, that is not how it started. In the Rg veda, the term "Aryan" is almost solely used for only one of the 5 lunar tribes(i.e. Yadus, Turvasas, Druhyus, Anus, Purus), the Purus & more specifically a sub-tribe of the Purus, the Bharatas. The Rg veda is quite clearly their book with all other tribes playing only a secondary role. The Ikshvakus , one of the most powerful tribes then are almost completely ignored (probably because they were a solar tribe) and not directly connected(Later Gods like Rama were from the Ikshvaku tribe). The general use of the term Aryan to include other people (as also Aryavarta as a name for their land) and indeed the use of the name Bharat for India was a testament to their(the Bharatas) remarkable success.

(Btw, the Rg veda which is the earliest know composition of the "Aryans" has absolutely no mention of any foreign land nor to any migration and the earliest books are centered in the heartland of India)

I am confused. What does Dravidian mean in this context?

Like who were Dravidians before the Aryan arrival and what of them now?

(sorry for sounding ignorant)

@Indischer help here too please.

Grammar maybe same but there r major differences.

Periyar bit dust by shitting around like this.

He had some good ideas IMO.

But his racism was too much for me and Anti-Brahamnism. :/

 

[Indischer]

I am confused. What does Dravidian mean in this context?

Like who were Dravidians before the Aryan arrival and what of them now?

(sorry for sounding ignorant)

@Indischer help here too please.

The word Dravida is never mentioned in the Vedas. It is first mentioned only around 600-700 AD, and is used to refer to people living in the Dakshinapada or Southern region of India. Adi Shankara also refers to himself as a Dravida-shishu(child of the Dravida).

It's unfortunate that a group of languages and reference to people from a geography are both wrongly coupled. The Dravidian languages aren't found only in the South, but Dravidian people are. How is that possible?

In all likelihood, Dravidian languages were once widespread in India, but that doesn't mean people from the South were inhabiting the Northern regions of India. The people from the Dravida(South) stayed where they were. The people in the North gradually abandoned Dravidian languages and began adopting Indo-Aryan languages.

 

[Bang Galore]

I believe the earlier names of many rivers from modern-day Afghanistan and Swat region actually correspond with the rivers mentioned in the RgVeda. Not to forget Soma, which most modern scholars concur was probably a plant in the same genus as Ephedra, which still grows in the Afghan highlands but not in Punjab or the Gangetic belt.

Not really, the most common mention is that of the Helmand (Haraxvati) but in many places of the Rg veda, the rivers are mentioned in order which simply makes it difficult to sell that proposition. It is equally likely that Iranian speakers did call the Helmand, Haraxvati because of the Sarasvati (no evidence either way except that in linguistic change accepted, S turns to H, not the other way around). The Rg veda is diificult to place anywhere else, something that has grudgingly been accepted even by most AIT scholars. The monsoon lands, the flora & fauna mentioned make it almost impossible to situate it out of India.

Soma is interesting because its origin is largely unknown to the early people of the Rg veda (brought from far, from the Heavens, by an eagle etc). Only later mandalas have some knowledge of its origin. Even the two priestly tribes most closely associated with the Soma, the Kasyapas & the Bhrgus are later entrants into the Rg veda. The Kasyapas,according to tradition, associated with Kashmir and the Bhrgus(save Jamadagni and descendants) with the enemies of the vedic Aryans. The Rg veda credits the Bhrgus with introducing Soma to the vedic aryans.

The word Dravida is never mentioned in the Vedas. It is first mentioned only around 600-700 AD, and is used to refer to people living in the Dakshinapada or Southern region of India. Adi Shankara also refers to himself as a Dravida-shishu(child of the Dravida).

More specifically, present Tamil speaking areas.

It's unfortunate that a group of languages and reference to people from a geography are both wrongly coupled. The Dravidian languages aren't found only in the South, but Dravidian people are. How is that possible?

In all likelihood, Dravidian languages were once widespread in India, but that doesn't mean people from the South were inhabiting the Northern regions of India. The people from the Dravida(South) stayed where they were. The people in the North gradually abandoned Dravidian languages and began adopting Indo-Aryan languages.

There really isn't much evidence for Dravidian languages having been spoken widely in the North(the Brahui were probably later migrants), there are almost no non-Aryan place names & river names in the North, something that is almost never seen if there was an earlier language widely spoken.

 

[Indischer]

Not really, the most common mention is that of the Helmand (Haraxvati) but in many places of the Rg veda, the rivers are mentioned in order which simply makes it difficult to sell that proposition. It is equally likely that Iranian speakers did call the Helmand, Haraxvati because of the Sarasvati (no evidence either way except that in linguistic change accepted, S turns to H, not the other way around). The Rg veda is diificult to place anywhere else, something that has grudgingly been accepted even by most AIT scholars. The monsoon lands, the flora & fauna mentioned make it almost impossible to situate it out of India.

Soma is interesting because its origin is largely unknown to the early people of the Rg veda (brought from far, from the Heavens, by an eagle etc). Only later mandalas have some knowledge of its origin. Even the two priestly tribes most closely associated with the Soma, the Kasyapas & the Bhrgus are later entrants into the Rg veda. The Kasyapas,according to tradition, associated with Kashmir and the Bhrgus(save Jamadagni and descendants) with the enemies of the vedic Aryans. The Rg veda credits the Bhrgus with introducing Soma to the vedic aryans.

I think the other mystery is about the seeming disconnect between Indus Valley Civilization and the RigVedic tribes. If they were both based out of the SaptaSindhu region, how could they have remained so ignorant about each other so as not to leave any trace behind about each other?

Also, any reasons on why the Kasyapas and Bhrgus are seen as later entrants? As I know, the mandalas aren't in any distinguishable chronological order.

More specifically, present Tamil speaking areas.



There really isn't much evidence for Dravidian languages having been spoken widely in the North(the Brahui were probably later migrants), there are almost no non-Aryan place names & river names in the North, something that is almost never seen if there was an earlier language widely spoken.

Brahui has be discredited, but many places in North India do have Dravidian roots to place-names. Especially true in case of Orissa and MP/Chattisgadh area. Besides, the Dravidian word for Fort, Kote or Kottai, is fairly common in the North too, innit? (Quetta, Ranikot, Pathankot etc).

Besides, the Sanskritization of most urban areas too has been pretty comprehensive. A few such names may have completely disappeared from collective memory for a long time now. Not proven, but possible.

 

[Bang Galore]

I think the other mystery is about the seeming disconnect between Indus Valley Civilization and the RigVedic tribes. If they were both based out of the SaptaSindhu region, how could they have remained so ignorant about each other so as not to leave any trace behind about each other?

Yes but again the people of the Rg veda seem to have been based more east(Haryana) around Sarasvati. I agree, a mystery. Very odd though. Even when you consider that the ancient Iranians counted the Hapta Handu as one of their regions, before moving more westward.(That bit should give AIT followers some pause....the Iranians moving westward?? why?) That could also explain the carrying of the name of Sarasvati with them westwards.

Also, any reasons on why the Kasyapas and Bhrgus are seen as later entrants? As I know, the mandalas aren't in any distinguishable chronological order.

The family mandalas are deemed to be earlier than the others, even there it can, by connection between different composers & people mentioned, to have a reasonably good idea of what is older. While I will leave the "assumed exact chronological order" out of the discussion, it is still reasonable to expect(for example) that mandala 3(Vishvamitras) is probably older than Mandala 7(Vasishtas) simple because Vishvamita was a predecessor of Vashishta (though very close), in any case, almost contemporary. Etc..etc...

Brahui has be discredited, but many places in North India do have Dravidian roots to place-names. Especially true in case of Orissa and MP/Chattisgadh area. .

Not in a any large numbers & the examples you give have to be seen in the fact that are in continuous areas to a Dravidian speaking population..

Besides, the Sanskritization of most urban areas too has been pretty comprehensive. A few such names may have completely disappeared from collective memory for a long time now. Not proven, but possible

Still pretty rare thing to have happened. River names are extremely stubborn. In Europe & the Americas, a lot of the earlier names survived inspite of being overwhelmed by a different population. Of course, anything is possible here but there is, as yet, no great evidence to support that hypothesis.

 

[abjktu]

I only wish people should cite the proper history. I speak some Telugu and the language is too different from Tamil. Kannada also sounds very different from Tamil but not to the extent of Telugu.

...both Kannadam and Tamil are almost the very same language..Sanskritization is high in Kannada and telegu..also the pronunciation is bit different to that of Tamil...
'P' in Tamil becomes 'H' in Kannada
paal-haal,porattam-horatta,pallam-halla...
'V' becomes 'B'
vaa-baa,velli-belli,valkai-balge..
'S' becomes 'CH'
sillarai-chillare,siruthai-chillarai.
'K' becomes 'G'(in some cases)
kuri-guri,malaiKaalam-maleGaala..
also,note the word endings..thalai-thale,malai-male,sakkarai-sakkare..
.even the sentence formation is same..
Tamil-unga peyar enna?
Kannada.-nimma hesaru yenu?
its very easy for a beginner( with basic Tamil knowledge) to learn Kannada

 

[Chola warrior]

In all likelihood, Dravidian languages were once widespread in India, but that doesn't mean people from the South were inhabiting the Northern regions of India. The people from the Dravida(South) stayed where they were. The people in the North gradually abandoned Dravidian languages and began adopting Indo-Aryan languages.

woah!!
So basically everyone is Aryans right?
People started inhabiting Southern parts of India first and they are wide spread throughout India. Later people in north mixed with migrating Indo-europeans that's the case of some genetic relations.
So yeah everything started down from south not north.

 

[punit]

Aryan gods?
I just swa some people arguing there were no Aryan-Dravdian division now they become Aryan gods.



Aryan gods are true but dravdians are false?
If aryan-Dravdian division is false and there is no race called dravdians..so who are those aryans?

aryan god is not my term.. ask the person to whom i replied!

you are going off topic , we are discussing the Aryan history from early Aryan Rig Veda sources , not post Aryan Invasion Hinduism. Hope you know the difference.

really .. u are going off topic by bringing in so called Dravidian nationalists !!

 

[INDIC]

I am confused. What does Dravidian mean in this context?

More specifically, present Tamil speaking areas.

Dravida was a geographical term used for regions of Chola, Chera and Pandya.

 

[FNFAL]

yay indians getting politically correct with each other on a troll thread from 2010..wow..leave it folks....not worth it!

 

[INDIC]

...both Kannadam and Tamil are almost the very same language..Sanskritization is high in Kannada and telegu..also the pronunciation is bit different to that of Tamil...
'P' in Tamil becomes 'H' in Kannada
paal-haal,porattam-horatta,pallam-halla...
'V' becomes 'B'
vaa-baa,velli-belli,valkai-balge..
'S' becomes 'CH'
sillarai-chillare,siruthai-chillarai.
'K' becomes 'G'(in some cases)
kuri-guri,malaiKaalam-maleGaala..
also,note the word endings..thalai-thale,malai-male,sakkarai-sakkare..
.even the sentence formation is same..
Tamil-unga peyar enna?
Kannada.-nimma hesaru yenu?
its very easy for a beginner( with basic Tamil knowledge) to learn Kannada

I meant they still share more similarity compared to Telugu and Tamil but still its very easy to differentiate between Kannada and Tamil. They are all Dravidian languages, so there will be lots of similarities.