Talk:Tamil language/Archive 3

The Adichanallur inscription

Preliminary results from archaeological excavations in 2005 suggest that the oldest inscriptions in Tamil may date at least to around 500 BCE

The reference given for the above line is [1]. The Hindu report does not say anything except in ambiguous language. It does not draw any conclusions. Most importantly, this is just a report in a newspaper about history that has not yet been even researched into. Neither has any researcher researched into it nor has any journal published anything about it. Citing sources like media reports in things like this, I believe is against Wikipedia conventions. I believe it wouldnt be a problem if you used a Hindu report or review of say, a research item that appeared in a reputed journal. But to use a media report to establish the veracity of something is questionable.

Also even reading the Hindu report, it is amply clear that nothing can be said about the inscription yet. The inscription just has 6 or 7 syllables which mean nothing yet and can possibly be in any language. It need not even be Tamil for that matter. Yes you might say that the script is Tamil Brahmi, but then who knows, tomorrow research might show that it indeed is some other language which probably used Tamil Brahmi even before Tamil started using it. My point is not to advance any theories of my own, but just to point out that even amateurs like me can demolish this theory if the Hindu report is all that you have.

In the light of the above, I will be removing that line. We will have to wait till something concrete(and not speculation) comes out in a reputed journal or something. Sarvagnya 00:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding recent edits by Sarvagnya

"The written language has changed drastically during this period, with the result that the common Tamil today can hardly understand any of the classical literature that even a trained student of Tamil is at a loss to understand many times."

Sarvagnya, your recent edits citing Caldwell has in effect reversed the meaning of the original lead section. Since, it is such a major change, let's discuss it here first before making the change.

1. In the interest of verifiability, can you quote the exact lines from Caldwell's book?
2. The words "drastically" and "hardly" appear to be gross exaggerations, to put it mildly.
3. IMO, "even a trained student of Tamil is at a loss to understand many times" is completely meaningless with the weasel term "many". Of course, any one trained in any language is not expected to know all of the millions of words in that language. If you mean, it's very commonplace in Tamil when compared to other languages, we need stronger quotes and rephrasing.

As a matter of courtesy, you should've waited for comments from Arvind, one of the main authors of that section. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 07:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Your unexplained removal of a citation on recent excavations makes it extremely hard to assume good faith on your part. I've reverted that and a few more changes that you made leaving out explained changes pending discussion. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 08:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

As for the Adichanallur inscription, I've explained it right above this section. I explained on the talk page before removing it from the article. I am extremely disappointed that you find it difficult to AGF.

As for the lines from Caldwell's book, I can assure you that the words 'drastically' and 'hardly' are NOT exaggerations. In fact, if I were to quote verbatim from Caldwell's book, it would appear even more exaggerated. If anything, my rephrasing has taken a bit away from Caldwell's assertions in his book. Also I had quoted the exact page numbers and section in Caldwell's book which I was quoting from when I first made the edit. Today, I removed the page numbers from the citation because I havent seen any citation on WP which mentions the page numbers for every claim. I just thought that it was against WP conventions and hence removed it. Anyway if you want to check, in Caldwell's book I read it was on pages 79-81 under the section "Antiquity of Tamil". There might be slight differences in the page numbers depending on hard cover, soft cover, year of print etc etc., so you would do well to look under the section I mentioned.

Specifically, as for "even a trained student of Tamil is at a loss to understand many times", Caldwell in his book says that even a person who has had formal training in Tamil can sit for hours through a recital of these classical poetry etc., and understand 'hardly' anything(of course I'm not quoting verbatim). I actually returned the book to the library, but I'll be happy to see if I can get it back and quote verbatim or even scan and email the pages to you if I can. Sarvagnya 09:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Without taking any stand on the reasoning given in the previous section, let me sincerely apologise for my hasty conclusion that you had removed the adichanallur reference unexplained. It's clearly my oversight. As for the other issues, let's discuss them here and wait for a day or two for Arvind to comment. I don't have access to Caldwell's book. Can you please quote him verbatim for my benefit? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 09:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

From what I remember of Caldwell, Sarvagnya has summarised the book quite fairly. However, Caldwell's scholarship on the sociolinguistics of Tamil (as opposed to its linguistics per se) is outdated. This is quite important in this particular case - the specific issue with Caldwell is that he takes no account of the problems of intelligibility caused by diglossia (which is understandable, since the concept of diglossia didn't exist in his day - it was introduced by Charles Ferguson in the 1960s). Harold Schiffman, for example, describes current Tamil as a diglossic continuum that exists between three norms: the Sangam norm, the "modern" literary norm which was established in the 13th century, and the modern colloquial norm (this discussion is in the chapter he wrote in Florian Coulmas' "Handbook of Sociolinguistics", which was published around 1996 or 1997). The result of this three-level diglossia is that the Sangam literary norm, whilst quite far from modern spoken Tamil and also different from modern written Tamil is nonetheless also exists as one extreme of the modern diglossic continuum in Tamil and - thanks to the linguistic "primordialism" that characterises Tamil (discussed by Schiffman in his book "Linguistic Culture and Language Policy", and also by Sumathi Ramaswamy in "Passions of the Tongue") - occupies the highest position within the diglossic level. This means that "trained students of Tamil" who've not acquired their training at the right social register (for example, if they learn Tamil otherwise than in Tamil Nadu or Sri Lanka) have problems not just with classical literature, but even modern literature which is consciously written close to the Sangam level (Vaiko, for example, sometimes uses Sangam postpositions and grammar in his speeches), or at a mixed Sangam/modern level (i.e., literature using Sangam words with modern grammar). Schiffman discusses this at length in "Linguistic Culture and Language Policy".

This, basically, is the fairly complex situation which I was trying to convey in that one sentence: that the process of linguistic change in Tamil, which is very evident in the spoken language and in the evolution of the written norm, has nonetheless been held back by the prestige which the classical language has, which has exerted a fairly strong archaising pull on literary Tamil and on social perceptions of what constitutes "good" Tamil. I'm not wedded to my wording, and if anyone can capture the situation more accurately, feel free to do so. Incidentally, a better example than the atticudi is the use in primary schools of verses from the Tirukkural, which is unambiguously a text from the late classical period. -- Arvind 12:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed response, Arvind. Sarvagnya, please take note of the above and let's work on a version that's not entirely based on Caldwell, given particularly that there have been developments after his period. Arvind, as for your example of Vaiko, oftentimes, even I use Sangam postpositions and grammar in Tamil Wikipedia to give that "poetic"/"stylistic" touch. ;) Not that I am any notable. More seriously, I do find such instances in literary discussions and political speeches often. Yes, on introspection, I find that most of my knowledge of or acquistion of the classical style comes from Tirukkural that we all studied in our school. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 12:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I've just found that Schiffman has placed a number of his articles online. His chapter in "Handbook of Sociolinguistics" (which begins at p. 205 of the published version) is available here. "Linguistic Culture and Language Policy" is not available online, but he also discusses the effects of "primordialism" on diglossia in Tamil in this article. More articles are available here. -- Arvind 15:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

While diglossia as a field of research or even the concept might have flowered long past Caldwell, its quite inconceivable that Caldwell would have been unaware of this diglossia in tamil. Infact, in speaking about the difficulty that the untrained or sometimes even the trained Tamil(and I certainly and strongly feel that he is talking about people who have received their training in Tamil Nadu. I dont think he would have based his views or book on somebody who learnt or spoke Tamil in say, Germany or France in the mid 19th century) faces, Caldwell is speaking about nothing but diglossia, maybe without putting it down in as many words.

Be that as it may, what studies in diglossia in Tamil over the last several decades would have done is merely deal with the 'problem' 'feature'(if you will) in greater detail and throw light on such things as the causes for diglossia, 'evolution', perpetuation etc., of this phenomenon over the centuries and other things of academic interest like that.

What I am trying to say is, while scientific interest and research into diglossia might be a development of the last few decades, 'diglossia'(in tamil) per se, existed even before that. And like I said, Caldwell might have only touched upon it though not gone deeper into it to research the more intricate details of it.

Notwithstanding that, the fact remains that the ordinary Tamil, especially one without formal(or informal) training, is often at a loss to understand Classical tamil enough to fully appreciate its beauty.

so, imo, the lines that are already there the lines I wrote should be retained as it is. But, you should maybe(before those lines, preferably) make a mention of the diglossia that exists in Tamil, the different levels, the continuum etc., and then conclude that... "....as a result of the said diglossia, the ordinary Tamil, sometimes even with formal training, is at a loss to understand the language of classical literature(or the other diglossic levels)"

And, to answer Sundar's question as to whether (I feel) this is limited to just Tamil or is also a feature of other languages -

While I dont claim a 'professional grade' knowledge of any language, I've had formal schooling in both Kannada and Hindi. And I've observed this feature in both languages, much more so in Kannada. In Kannada, in fact, if you were to study the much celebrated Mankutimmana Kagga(written sometime in the 60s or 70s i guess) by D._V._Gundappa, the language used is somewhat in haLegannaDa style, though I would say, it doesnt 'sound' as haLe(old) as haLegannada. I am able to understand this work for the most part except in some places where it gets a little too much for me and I might have to refer to the dictionary.

Any literature, regardless of when it was written, but written in pure haLegannada style, I would say, wouldnt make much sense to the untrained eye or ear.

With Hindi, probably because the language is much younger than Kannada or Tamil, though I've observed a sort of diglossia, say in the language that Kabir employs, verses that of Munshi or someone, Kabir is far more discernable to someone with formal schooling in Hindi than say the Kavirajamarga would be to me(one with 'formal' schooling in Kannada) or probably Kural to you(one i presume, with 'formal' schooling/training in Tamil).

In general, I feel some degree of diglossia almost always exists in most languages(atleast Indian languages) in that, the lingo employed by news readers, say,(atleast in the good old 'Doordarshan only' days), is removed from the one you would hear on the street. Talking of newsreaders and the lingo on street, I just remembered an interesting thing about the Kannada spoken by the people of South Kanara. It is almost exactly like the one employed in the news or in formal documents, in that, they speak much the same way they and the rest of Karnataka would write. I am not sure if there's a parallel to this in Tamil or any other language that I have any knowledge of.

Sarvagnya 17:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I have exposure only to contemporary Kannada, but my friends who are more knowledgable about Kannada tell me that, although there's definitely a difference between formal Kannada and street talk, the social prestige in favour of archaic/ancient language is absent. That is, formal Kannada doesn't lean towards hale Kannada. This is precisely the difference in the case of Tamil. We learn ancient texts, like a Kannadiga would, and get a level of familiarity with it. But, this familiarity is strengthened and perpetuated by the fact that formal language leans heavily on archaic language. I've no formal training in Tamil except 12 years of learning as a subject in school. (In contrast, I have had a more formal training in Hindi for 15 years.) I don't even read Tamil newspapers and books that much. But, through just exposure to formal discussions in television and radio, I can more or less understand older texts. Even my grandfather who has studied only upto eighth standard writes formal Tamil in letters. This tendency to use formal Tamil (i.e. closer to the archaic form) whenever someone takes up a pen or formal speaking is something Caldwell has missed, IMO. Even most songs in Maniratnam movies have a classical vocabulary and style. And people, routinely, analyse the lyrics, the figures of speech in them etc., That way, I'm really surprised about his statement that "Tamils with formal training hardly understand classical texts." -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

hmm.. well, i didnt say that formal kannada leans towards haLegannaDa. Infact, if you see my closing comments, I've compared the Kannada which the people of South Kanara speak as being almost exactly like formal Kannada(save maybe for some slangs) and people of South Kanara dont speak haLegannaDa!! But then diglossia doesnt suppose that one of the levels necessarily be archaic or ancient. It merely points out that more than one 'variety'(if i may put it that way) exist in daily life of the native speakers of that language. In Tamil you tell me that the formal language(lets call that 'newsreader' language) and classical language are very close to each other. In Kannada, the formal language is distinct from haLegannaDa and also the colloquial lingo. So while the nature of diglossia may be different in Kannada and Tamil, imo Kannada(like many other languages, I'd imagine) exhibits diglossia per se. As far as the archaic 'variety' being one of the 'levels' of diglossia, I'm not sure if Kannada can make that claim.

But what I meant to point out when I spoke about haLegannaDa in my prev comment is that there is no way even a native speaker of Kannada is going to understand it. Yes, you might be able to understand a smattering and maybe a little more if you knew the context etc., otherwise, there's not much one can understand without formal training. And even with formal training(lets assume formal training == 12 years of school), it can be difficult many times to fully understand it.

In the case of tamil, you tell me that because your 'formal language' is quite close to 'classical language' and because of your frequent exposure to 'formal language', you are able to cope better and able to understand classical tamil.

While that may be your personal experience, I am afraid, I will have to differ with you on this. First of all, this is precisely something that I had once spoken about with a Tamilian neighbour of mine(who had had 'formal training' in Tamil in TN) and she also had been unequivocal about the fact that classical tamil is not easily discernable to the trained ear, much less the untrained one.

And in any case, to preclude any risk of original research, I'm afraid we will have to go with Caldwell because

a)Caldwell is brutally clear and unequivocal about his assertion here. Infact, I took another look at the book in the library today, and Caldwell has gone as far as saying that, Classical language is almost a whole different language(!!) when compared to the Tamil of today!!(ie when Caldwell wrote the book)

b)Caldwell was speaking comparing classical language and the colloquial language of that day, ie of the 19th century. Since then, ie since the 19th century, it would only be fair to say that the Tamil on the street(like its counterparts in all languages), notwithstanding the thani thamil movement etc., has moved even further away from the classical language than what it was when Caldwell wrote his book.

c)also, like i said earlier, it is highly inconceivable that an author who did such a detailed study of all Dravidian languages, esp., Tamil, would err on something as basic as this.

d)also, in his book, Caldwell takes the pains to point out that the difference between classical tamil and colloquial tamil, is greatest in Tamil when compared to other Dravidian language. For e.g., difference between classical telugu/kannada and colloquial telugu/kannada is lesser than in the case of tamil. This only shows that Caldwell was fully aware of this phenomenon, though deeper interest and research into this phenomenon may have started almost a hundred years later.

So, like I said, the lines I wrote should probably be accompanied with a note on this feature of diglossia and any more specific notes about diglossia vis a vis Tamil. Sarvagnya 08:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the deviation. Yes, I'm fully aware that my previous comment was purely anecdotal. I have no difference of opinion in that Caldwell's version should be mentioned. My contention is only whether scholarly consensus merely reflects Caldwell's version. If there are other versions (Arvind has already cited Schiffman et al.,), then we should write a balanced one citing those. This becomes more important when point "d" that you learnt from Caldwell seems to contradict with other authors. I'd prefer that we work on a draft here putting together our sources and then update the article. Btw, I appreciate your patience in dealing with this and your assumption of good faith. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 09:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

btw, can we get some comments about the Adichanallur edit also in the prev section? or do you want to do it one at a time. I dont mind dealing it once we get done with it. That will probably save us a lot of confusion.

Let's have it once we're done with the current discussion. If its presence is a problem, we can comment it until we resolve the issue. Feel free to do so unless someone else objects. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 09:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we're quite close to agreeing on what the facts are, which means an agreed wording can't be too far away. Just a few quick points which hopefully help push things forward:

• Diglossia in Tamil was a two-way process in the 19th century. GU Pope, writing around the same time as Caldwell, mentions how many Tamils who can read and write beautiful poetry in what he called the "high dialect" were unable to write even a sentence of prose. This actually has much to do with the caste system - one was trained to work with a particular register of Tamil depending on the profession one was to follow, and one was as a result unable to work with other registers. That has changed today, as a result of which the situation with the written language is rather different from what it was like in the time of Caldwell and Pope.
• Secondly, Caldwell was aware of the phenomenon which we today call diglossia, but he didn't quite understand its significance. People of his day who encountered diglossia looked at it in the terms he did - that is, as if the two registers were in effect two different languages - but after Ferguson's pioneering work in the area in 1959, we look at it very differently.
• Thirdly, diglossia in Tamil is different from other types of diglossia (a point which Schiffman makes) in that it dosn't just involve a separation between formal and informal speech, but several registers of formal speech which form a continuum of sorts. The "lower" end of formal speech is a sort of standardised colloquial speech following an approximation of 13th century grammar (this is what most people use in their own writing and in "popular" literature), a medium level is a simplified version of 10th-13th century Tamil (this is used in the news, in "serious" newspapers, and in Sri Lankan writing), and you then have higher registers which increasingly tend to the classical language (used in "high" literature). Someone who uses the "lower" end of formal speech, or who is only familiar with colloquial Tamil, will probably have quite a bit of difficulty in understanding classical Tamil. But the point really is that these people will have equal difficulty understanding modern "high" literature. That, really, is the point I'm trying to make: that whilst the colloquial language has altered immensely in the past centuries, the literary language has been a lot more conservative. In a way, the situation is analogous to what the case would have been with Greek had Katharevousa won the language-struggle against Demotic.
• So, finally, here's my suggestion:

• we revise the sentence in the introduction to read: "The high level of diglossia exhibited by Tamil, and the prestige accorded to classical Tamil, have resulted in much of the vocabulary and forms of classical Tamil being preserved in modern literary Tamil, such that the higher registers of literary Tamil tend towards the classical language. The ordinary form of the modern language, in contrast, has undergone significant changes, to the extent that a person trained only in this form will have difficulty understanding the higher literary form. The classical language also forms an important part of the Tamil education: verses from the Tirukkural, a classical work, are, for example, taught in primary school."
• we add a more detailed paragraph in the Spoken and literary variants section which - basically - discusses everything we've discussed here.

Does that sound acceptable? -- Arvind 11:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds perfect to me. If and once Sarvagnya agrees, we can add this along with details in the said section citing suitable works. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 11:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Arvind and Sundar, please give me a couple of days time. I just got a little busy with few other things. In any case, rest assured, I also feel that we are close to a consensus. Just give me a couple of days to wrap up. Thanks. Sarvagnya 07:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. I may not be online between Friday and Tuesday. Will catch up. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 08:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry to keep you guys waiting. Anyway, here's how I've reworded it. Language/voice needs some work though.

"Classical Tamil is often very difficult to understand for the ordinary Tamilian and particularly so, if the person is lacking in formal training in the language. This is attributed to the high level of diglossia...(... that Tamil exhibits with the higher registers of literary Tamil tending towards the classical form of the language. The closer a work of literature is in its language to classical Tamil, the better it is considered. As a result of this prestige that is accorded to the classical language, school and college curricula also include works from classical literature...)

Basically its the same as Arvind's version. But I feel, the fact should precede the explanation. So if you observe, I've basically, just reversed the narration from arvind's ver. The italicised part states the fact and then the explanation follows. The words in the brackets probably need some improvement in grammar. What say? Sarvagnya 08:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that as a "fact" and an "explanation". That would make it sound defensive about the "fact". The usual style is antecedent followed by the consequent. If you want to reverse the order, let's refine the language better. To be frank, it currently reads like, "[Sarvagnya says that] Classical Tamil is not well understood commonly [contrary to popular claims]. But, [Sundar and Arvind retort that] thanks to diglossia, it's somewhat preserved in the literary world." albeit in a suggestive style. Sorry about being blunt (honest). -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 09:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you misunderstood me. In hindsight the wording in my prev post is certainly not refined and probably led to the miscommunication. That is why I've said that the words(esp the ones in bracket) need improvement in grammar(and refinement too - may I add).

Basically, what caught my eye in Arvind's ver was "The ordinary form of the modern language, in contrast, has undergone significant changes, to the extent that a person trained only in this form will have difficulty understanding the higher literary form."

If we could change this to, "...the ordinary form(i guess you mean the spoken form or something close to the spoken form) of the modern language, in contrast has undergone sig changes, to the extent that a person not trained in the classical form will have difficulty understanding it", I think our problems will be solved.

How does this look? I think its fair because, the words, ....a person trained only in this form.... seems to suggest that formal training is infact, imparted in the 'ordinary form'(also??). That again would undermine the next sentence where we talk of classical literature being part of 'formal' training. Sarvagnya 10:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I've rearranged Arvind's version and made some changes to look as follows (perhaps he has used "trained" in a general sense and not in the sense of a formal training):

"The ordinary form of the modern language has undergone significant changes to the extent that a person exposed only to this form will have difficulty understanding the higher literary form. However, the high level of diglossia exhibited by Tamil, and the prestige accorded to classical Tamil, have resulted in much of the vocabulary and forms of classical Tamil being preserved in modern literary Tamil, such that the higher registers of literary Tamil tend towards the classical language. The classical language also forms an important part of the Tamil education: verses from the Tirukkural, a classical work, are, for example, taught in primary school."

But, I still don't get what purpose is being served by changing the order except if you want to change the emphasis from the remnant familiarity of classical vocabulary to the divergence of the modern language. I prefer that we retain Arvind's version suggested above with a change from "trained only in this form" to "exposed only to this form" or something like that. Up to you. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 10:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, I can see why you want to word it in the negative ("not trained in" rather than "trained only in"). In principle, I'm OK with doing this, but there are a couple of other changes I'd like to make. How about this:

"The high level of diglossia exhibited by Tamil, and the prestige accorded to classical Tamil, have resulted in much of the vocabulary and forms of classical Tamil being preserved in modern literary Tamil, such that the higher registers of literary Tamil tend towards the classical language. The classical language also forms an important part of Tamil-medium education: verses from the Tirukkural, a classical work, are, for example, taught in primary school. The ordinary form of the modern language, in contrast, has undergone significant changes, to the extent that a person who has not learnt the higher literary form will have difficulty understanding it."

The term "ordinary form" is intended to include both the spoken form and popular writing that uses colloquial Tamil, and "higher literary form" is intended to include both classical Tamil and modern literature that consciously adopts aspects of its vocabulary and grammar. This is the main point which I think needs to be added to the version Sarvagnya framed. I've changed "not trained in" to "not learnt" - there are many different ways of learning which don't involve formal "training".

I've also changed "Tamil education" to "Tamil-medium education": if you're studying Tamil in an English medium school, you'll be able to pass your Tamil exams even if you can't manage anything better than Kumudam Tamil. -- Arvind 10:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine. Except see if you can make the first half(which I have bolded below) little less wordy or atleast split it into 2 or more sentences. That will add greatly to clarity and intelligibility. Also note the "both spoken and written" I've added in brackets. What say?

"The high level of diglossia exhibited by Tamil, and the prestige accorded to classical Tamil, have resulted in much of the vocabulary and forms of classical Tamil being preserved in modern literary Tamil, such that the higher registers of literary Tamil tend towards the classical language. The classical language also forms an important part of Tamil-medium education: verses from the Tirukkural, a classical work, are, for example, taught in primary school. The ordinary form(both spoken and written) of the modern language, in contrast, has undergone significant changes, to the extent that a person who has not learnt the higher literary form will have difficulty understanding it."

Sarvagnya 22:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I see what point you want to make. But, brackets are ugly. If you insist, I'd suggest "Both spoken and written versions of the ordinary form of the modern language, in contrast, have undergone significant changes, to the extent that a person who has not learnt the higher literary form will have difficulty understanding it." as a less ugly alternative. My only concern here is the prose flow. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I never meant to be too stringent about the brackets. Yes they're ugly, I admit. I just meant to ask you guys to try and fit those words in the brackets into the prose, thats all... not necessarily in brackets. And, prose flow... yes I understand, but what I suggest is, just put it into the article in the present form and then on another day, I'm sure if u looked at it with a fresh eyes, you wont find it too difficult to touch up the aesthetics of the prose. Anyway, I leave that to u and arvind. Sarvagnya 07:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean that you were particular about brackets, but only the explicit mention of the spoken and written form. In any case, I've changed the article to reflect our consensus here. See if my alternative in the article is better than the brackets. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 07:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Moved comments from todo list

• Another suggestion: Words in other languages inspired or derived from tamil - I can think of latin(?) terra from tamil tharai, and the usual catamaran and stuff. --Chandrachoodan Gopalakrishnan

I travel often to different historical monuments, and once on a trip to Kanceepuram, came across an interesting nugget - the Pallava Caligrphic rendition of some tamil words have inspired some of China's own alphabets. I couldn't verify it (this was told to me by the ASI guide), but it sounds plausible, especially given that Bodhidharma was supposedly a Pallava prince. --Chandrachoodan Gopalakrishnan

• I'm a linguist, but know next to nothing about Tamil. However, what in the world does this sentence mean under 'Writing system':

---

'Tamil is a phonetic language and is subject to well-defined rules of elision and euphony.'

---

A 'phonetic language' as opposed to what, a sign language? As for 'rules of elision and euphony', what language doesn't have such rules?

Mike Maxwell -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.8.89.5 (talk • contribs) March 14, 2006

Oldest language?

I just changed the lead which said that Tamil is the 'oldest D language' to '...the D lang with the oldest extant literature'. Any comments? Sarvagnya 15:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that is accurate. I also think it is fair, unless we have citations about dravidian languages prior to their extant literature. --BostonMA ^talk 15:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations

On obtaining FA status for this article. Please feel free to help the following A-class article become FA too, if interested: Ilaiyaraaja. Cheers, AppleJuggler 12:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Allophone of intervocalic -t-

I believe the intervocalic -t- is IPA: [ð]. Can anyone confirm or have sources? Perhaps there needs to be more in the phonology area about allophones of intervocalic voiceless stops. azalea_pomp

Language rank

So... Is it 13-17 as the infobox claims, or 18 as the lead claims? I might look into this later myself. Grandmasterka 04:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Other articles place it in that 13-17 range. What's the source, I wonder? Ethnologue? Grandmasterka 04:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Calculated Vandalism

This article has gone under a very calculated vandalism. The article’s primary monitors are not highly active. The statements are being manipulated to degrade the quality of this article. I urge those with good spirit to compare the actual FA, and the current status and revert the vandalism as much as possible. --Natkeeran 06:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this is highly unlikely. This is the version of the article that was approved at the end of February 2005, when the standards were much lower. The basic problems that I highlighted are mostly still present in that version, most notably a lack of references. Grandmasterka 07:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Lack of references, or clear attribution may be a valid problem. But, from the content I am sure there is vandalism. I have notified number of other contributors and admins, and they would be able to help us look into this further. Thanks for your concern. --Natkeeran 07:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• For example, see the contradition in the following two statements:

External chronological records and internal linguistic evidence, however, indicate that the oldest extant works were probably composed sometime in the 2nd century CE.

The earliest extant text in Tamil is the Tolkāppiyam, a work on poetics and grammar which describes the language of the classical period. The oldest portions of this book may date back to around 200 BCE (Hart, 1975).

• Example 2: Why is the following statement necessary in the first sentence? When did UNESCO became the primary authority to declare a language classical or not. It could be a footnote. Not necessary in the first sentence.

"(Recognized by the Indian Government and still not yet recognised by UNESCO)"

• Example 3: The below statement is totally opposite to what was before.

The ordinary form of the modern language used in speech and writing, in contrast, has undergone significant changes, to the extent that a person who has not learnt the higher literary form will have difficulty understanding it.[clarify]

Due to continuity, classical Tamil is understandable with some study. The statement before was “The written language has changed little during this period, with the result that classical literature is as much a part of everyday Tamil as modern literature. Tamil school-children, for example, are still taught the alphabet using the átticúdi, an alphabet rhyme written around the first century A.D.”

In other words, the claim that the modern Tamil writing changed significantly is an arguable claim. The fact that school children are able to understand ancient work with little study shows that Tamil writing has not changed that much; relative to other classical languages.

• Example 4: Recently added comments...

"But unfortunately the word "Sangam" originates from Sanskrit word "Sang". This throws some light on origin of Tamil from Sanskrit. The "Aa", the first alphabet of Tamil resembles Semitic "Aleph". Tamil words for house, town etc seems to be originated from Proto-Hebrew. Tamil words for king, life, god etc seems to be originated from Sanskrit. Recent researches show that Tamil is a borrowed complex language than a self-evolved classical language."

In Short

This article has been vandalized with an intent to demerit Tamil as a classical language, (along with perhaps other motives), and of independent origin of Sanskrit. This is a well established conflict. Please do not engage in this controversy at Wikipedia. Take a 'live and let others live' attitude. Please let your views know in the discussion page before making erratic changes to a FA.

Thank you. --Natkeeran 08:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Response to Natkeeran's claims

Natkeeran, nothing that you have cited above supports your claim that the article has been vandalised. Please stop making arbitrary and wholly untrue claims. It will not help the discussions here. As for your examples, let me examine them one at a time.

Example 1: You claim that there is a contradiction between the two statements. Can you please spell out what the contradiction is?

Example 2: Well, what we have here is a content issue. Not vandalism. That said, I agree that whoever wrote those words should be asked to come up with a citation to support their claim. And now, that brings us to another even more important point. We all know that Tamil has been declared a classical language by the Govt of India. So now, are we to suppose that the Government of India is the authority to decide on classical languages? The Govt., of India at best can decide for India, not for the academic world at large. Do you have proof to say that the Indian government's definition of a classical language is the same as that of the scholarly world and the world at large? If you dont, then you would have to say in the lead that, "tamil is one of the classical languages of India". Without qualifying it as such, you are making it sound as if the whole world recognises that Tamil is a classical language, which is not true(atleast going by the refs in the article).

wait if you aren'r agree that tamil was a classical language means you have to be a scholar first world knows that tamil is a classical language.but your hatres towards some tamil peoples might make you write like this if you thought the government of india declared the tamil language as classical means thats absolutely wrong man it s a scholar named hart who wrote the letter to the govt od india to declare it as a classical language. i mean that the heck you are trying to oppose. first read some books.

Example 3 : Please go through the section ==Regarding edits by Sarvagnya== on this very talk page to understand why the prose was changed. And btw, just fyi, this particular prose change was discussed at length by me, User:Sundar and Arvind before User:Sundar himself made the change. Now are you going to tell me that Sundar vandalised the article?

Example 4 : This again is a content issue. Not vandalism. As for the contents, it is a well known fact(I'm sure references are not hard to find) that several scholars do make the Sanskrit sangha to Tamil sangam connection. So whoever made that edit was not just bluffing. They just didnt know how to say it and where to say it. The way they added that piece of info to the article leaves a lot to be desired. Nevertheless, it is NOT vandalism. If anything, its a horrible case of copyediting gone wrong.

So please stop floating conspiracy theories and make an effort to improve the article. Characterising edits which are not vandalism as being vandalism is a personal attack(even if you choose not to name people because like I've pointed out above, you've unwittingly accused Sundar of vandalism). Sarvagnya 09:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding example 1, the contradiction seems fairly clear. "2nd century CE" is 300 to 400 years later than "200 BCE". PubliusFL 14:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, my bad. I give him that. And yet, I'm not sure if it can be characterised as vandalism. May even have been a genuine typo by somebody(CE/BCE). Sarvagnya 16:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Good, you admit that, but there is much truth in what Natkeeran states. The content of this article is systematically diluted and slanted. the example 4 above may not be technically vandalism, but it clearly misrepresents the facts. Your claim that "horrible case of copyediting gone wrong" shows your bias or lack of knowledge on this matter. Is it a case of copyediting?!--Aadal 16:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the example 4 cited by natkeeran is removed now in the current version of the article. any one with knowledge in tamil would laugh at the examples which say that the words for king, life, god are taken from sanskrit !! :) - there might be loan words like பகவான், ராஜா. ஜீவன் familiar to tamils but everyone knows they are not tamil words and even tamil grammar allows usage of loan words under appropriate circumstances. pure tamil words for these - கடவுள், அரசன், வாழ்க்கை / உயிர் are in use even today and understandable even for illiterates in TN. the above example and the conclusion that tamil could have evolved from sanskrit is equal to saying - "english evolved from tamil since the english words rice, mango have similar words in tamil" ;) Pls, wikipedia is not a place for writing half baked original research--Ravishankar 12:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ravishankar, please understand that some concerns are raised and they are being addressed and it is an opportunity to make it better. I too feel the changes made were not good and definitely degraded the quality and content of the article, but many of the other pointers are useful in improving the quality of the content. So, please undestand what we need to do to address the concerns and how to correct the inclusion of defective information or perspective. Sundar and Arvind have stepped in and corrected most of the problems. We all should continue to improve and polish the article and continue to keep the FA status. --Aadal 13:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the basis?

It is said in the article,"Spoken dialects did not have much prestige: Tamils believed that the grammatical rules of literary centamil had been formulated by the gods and they were therefore seen as being the only correct speech (see, for example, Kankeyar, 1840)" There seems to be no basis for claiming that "formulated by the gods" in the above statement. Who is this Kankeyar and what are his exact words. Why is this given special credance here? If the statement is "Tamils generally beleive that their language was shaped and guided by wise (cānRōr)" then it would be closer to general belief. I don't think Tamils believed that their language was formulated by gods.--Aadal 16:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I am greatly concerned about the examples cited by natkeeran. all his points are valid. who is this kankeyar? nothing could be far from truth than saying that tamils believe the language was dictated by god and saying that tamil has a sanskrit-dependent evolution. will come up with accurate references soon--Ravishankar 20:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

FA?

For the record, the version originally featured is this. In view of the concerns brought up on FAR, and of the various warning templates littering the article, it should proceed to FARC (or the problems should be fixed, presto - it won't do to keep a FA in such a state for an extended period of time). dab (𒁳) 14:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm copying and pasting below the messages from User Sundar's page. I think it is good that it comes under review. The article can be improved and strengthened in a number ways. While some of tags are very unreasonable, it is still good to address them. It can only improve if we add or suitably modify. Please see the concerns raised and how to address them with pointers provided by User SandyGeorgia. --Aadal 15:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Tamil language FAR

Tamil language is in featured article review.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Tamil language has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Tags

In section:Spoken and literary variants:

"In contrast to most European languages, therefore, Tamil did not have a standard spoken form for much of its history.[clarify]" Is it not common for spoken languages to differ from place to place, somewhat? This is true of any language, european or otherwise. Is there any evidence that european languages have 'standard spoken form'? I don't know who introduced this sentence. I would like to modify it as follows, "Like almost all languages, Tamil has many different regional dilects." Since it is obvious, perhaps this sentence should be omitted.--Aadal 16:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I've reworded the entire section somewhat drastically to get rid of weasel words, and address clarify tags and a few other ambiguities. Take a look. -- Arvind 16:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow! it really reads much better and is indeed cogent! While we are at it, we should definitely reword or rewrite the whole vocabulary section. I think the expectation of a general reader is not well served. Probably we should say the approximate size of the vocabulary, variety of words for given things - for example there are 30+ words for earth, some 27+ for sea, ocean, some 15+ words for sun etc., richness of verbs, percentage of words from other languags (this may be difficult data) etc. We can model something on the lines for the English language here but perhaps not immediately since some data may be hard to get at quickly. It is indeed nice to see you and Sundar getting back to this artilce at this time.--Aadal 17:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I've reworked the section on vocabulary a little bit more. I'll do some more to the history section tomorrow if I can find some time to spend online. -- Arvind 22:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Arvind, it looks fine now. I've just modified the "Classification" section. I've changed the title to Tamil Language Family and added a sentence with reference. Would you please check whether these are okay? Also, I believe we should add a sentence about the fact that the Metalanguage of Tamil is Tamil somewhere in the grammar section or even in the leading para. What do you think?--Aadal 13:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The statement that Tamil is its own metalanguage seems to me both pretty meaningless (most languages can be used to talk about themselves) and false (we're not using Tamil to discuss Tamil, we're using English). I'm deleting it. If Tamil is, in fact, in some way special in this respect, perhaps it should be explained in more detail...? --Sabik 16:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)