Talk:Kamarupi Prakrit/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

scope

Two topics mixed up here: modern dial. of Assamese, and ancestral languages of Assam-Bengali. Needs to be one or the other. — kwami (talk) 07:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The language spoken in Kamarupa known as Kamrupi which remnants are spoken by Kamrupi speakers of today, both named Kamrupi (apbhramsa i.e language with no formal grammar). Due to its ancientness, it is not a dialect but remnant of an ancient language. Other forms of Assamese like eastern Assamese is form come out as result of standardization by American Christian missionaries to translate their religious books which (language) later on Sankritised. The word Assamese is word applied to language or group of langauges by British which earlier known as Kamrupi.
Thanks !
bbhagawati (talk) 09:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with User:Kwamikagami. To clarify matters, I have created the page Kamrupi dialect specifically for the dialect. and moved this page to Kamrupi Prakrit (maybe it should be "Kamarupi Prakrit"). User:Bhaskarbhagawati is wrong. The Kamarupi Prakrit did not just evolve into the Assamese language, but have given rise to not just the Assamese language but also to North Bengali dialects, according to Suniti Kumar Chatterjee and others. Chaipau (talk) 11:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with User:Kwamikagami. To clarify matters, I have created the page Kamrupi dialect specifically for the dialect. and moved this page to Kamrupi Prakrit (maybe it should be "Kamarupi Prakrit").User:Bhaskarbhagawati is wrong. The Kamarupi Prakrit did not just evolve into the Assamese language, but have given rise to not just the Assamese language but also to North Bengali dialects, according to Suniti Kumar Chatterjee and others.
Here User:Kwamikagami expressed his confusion although he is not into the subject. In the page Kamrupi dialect, it is shown as dialect of Assamese whereas Bengali Kamrupi and Assamese Kamrupi makes dialect continuum. Sanskrit Kamarupi or Assamese Kamrupi is separated from Magadhi Prakrit as Kamrupi not as Kamrupi Prakrit and where in sentence i mentioned that North bengali is not Kamrupi remanent, not mentioning is not denial.
bbhagawati (talk) 13:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
We follow sources. Provide a reliable source for your POV, and we won't have a problem. — kwami (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
From the book "Rāmāyaṇa in the North-East India:proceedings of the National Seminar organised by Bharatiya Itihāsa sankalana Samiti" by authors Sujit K. Ghosh, Sujit K. Ghosh published in year 2003 following lines are picked:
Old and foremost one who translated this epic from Sanskrit (Original Vdlmiki Rdmayana) language to old Kamrupi language.
From the book "A survey of Maithili literature" by author Radhakrishna Choudhary published in year 1976 following lines are picked :
The language of the Buddhist Dohas (Charyapada) is described as belonging to the mixed Maithili — Kamrupi language.
Above lines shows that Kamrupi is an full fledged ancient language.
From the book "Contagious Couplings: Transmission of Expressives in Yiddish Echo Phrases" by author Mark R. V. Southern published in year 2005 following lines are picked :
(i) the numerically dominant Indo-Aryan languages:
Northwestern (or "Central"): Urdu-Hindi, Rajasthani, Panjabi, Dogri, Nepali;
Southwestern: Marathi, Gujarati, Dakhani/Dakkh(i)ni, Sinhala;
Eastern: Bangla/Bengali, Oriya, Bhojpuri, Assamese, Kamrupi, Maithili."
In above line Kamrupi is shown as modern Indo Aryan language separate from Assamese.
From the book "Linguistic situation in North-East India" by author Mrinal Miri published in year 2003 following lines are picked :
Scholars have shown that it is rather through the western Assam dialects that the development of modern Assamese has to be traced.
Above lines shows that Kamrupi is not a dialect but source of Assamese.
From the book "Indian literature: Volume 30" by Sāhitya Akademi published in year 1987 following lines are picked :
Ambikagiri set a new trend in Assamese by his abundant use of Kamrupi language in his writings.
Above line shows that modern Kamrupi is an language not dialect.
So above mentioned sources shows that modern Kamrupi is remanent of ancient Kamrupi. We may reinstate the article in one single page.
Thanks !
bbhagawati (talk) 10:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
User:Bhaskarbhagawati has cherry picked the name "Kamrupi" mentioned in different assorted references and is claiming that Kamrupi is a language. Banikanta Kakati (1941) in Assamese: It's Formation and Development calls the language Assamese, and Kamrupi a dialect. Wikipedia is not the place to establish that Kamrupi is a language. Chaipau (talk) 11:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
User:Bhaskarbhagawati has cherry picked the name "Kamrupi" mentioned in different assorted references and is claiming that Kamrupi is a language. Banikanta Kakati (1941) in Assamese: It's Formation and Development calls the language Assamese, and Kamrupi a dialect. Wikipedia is not the place to establish that Kamrupi is a language.
Above sentence shows disregard for sources. It is in article itself mentioned that though Kamrupi is remanent of ancient language and source of or influenced various Eastern Indo Aryans languages is wrongly given as dialect status of Assamese and Bengali due to fact that British clubbed the the prevalent Indo Aryan Languages or forms of Brahmaputra valley as Assamese so in case of Bengali.
Kamrupi is much older than modern Eastern Indo Aryan languages like Bengali, Oriya and Eastern Assamese and is placed alongside middle Eastern Indo Aryan languages like Radhi, Vanga and Varendari.
Thanks !
bbhagawati (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
No, the above statement does not show disregard for source. What it does is show deference to the accepted norms of reliable sources in Wikipedia. Not all sources are considered equal. This Wikipedia page is about the language that was used in Kamarupa kingdom during the Pakrit period. This article is not about dialects/languages/registers of the modern times, which have all developed in the post Kamarupa period.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaipau (talk • contribs)
Two things: "Language" is not capitalized in English. Therefore "Kamrupi Language" is an unacceptable title even if we decide that it should be called a language. I've salted it so that it can't be used any more.
Articles are on a specific topic. We fit titles to topics; we don't fit topics to titles. This is a basic convention of WP, and the whole reason we have dabs and redirects. I mean, there are many people named "India", but we don't put their bios in the India article!
— kwami (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

We need to choose what this article is about. The sources above concern two separate things: the prakrit, and the modern variety. In general, our prakrit articles are named "X Prakrit", so consistency would favour "Kamrupi Prakrit" for the medieval variety, and this ID is supported by e.g. the Journal of the Assam Research Society (2007) 38:183. As for the modern variety, Masica (1991) gives Kamrupi as a synonym for Western Assamese (that is, as an Assamese dialect, p 229), and refers to Upendranath Goswami (1970) A study on Kamrupi: a dialect of Assamese. ELL2 has, The main dialects of Bangladesh can be divided into four groups: ... Kamrupi (Rajbansi-Bahe) ... Additional northern dialects are the Kamrupi varieties in the Dinajpur, Rangpur, and Patgram-Kurigram-Nageswari regions. The Rajbansi variety is also found in the Darjeeling and Nepal regions, and there are claims that it is a separate speech form, like Assamese. Although it is influenced by Bangla grammar and vocabulary, it shows indications of Tibeto-Burman substrata. Your conclusions above seem to be due to misunderstanding of the texts. The argument that the development of Assamese is best traced through the western Assamese dialects does not mean that they are not dialects, for example, nor that they are the source of Assamese. And Ambikagiri using Kamrupi when writing Assamese suggests that Kamrupi is a dialect of Assamese. (The word "language" is ambiguous: the "language of Ambikagiri" would not be a separate language either.)

"Kamrupi language" would therefore not seem to be justified per WP:reliable sources, and would also be ambiguous, as it could be used for either the prakrit or the modern dialect. — kwami (talk) 22:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

We need to choose what this article is about.
As i provided sources above that says Eastern Assamese develops from Western Assamese (Kamrupi). We have discussed earlier that when Kamrupi get separated from Magadhi Prakrit gives rise to Bengali and Eastern Assamese but eventually got dialect status of Assamese and Bengali though it is remanent of an ancient language. Sankrit cannot be the dialect of Pali. So this divided entire subject in two parts ancient and modern form i.e history and present. Any subject's history and present should be in a same article.
The sources above concern two separate things: the prakrit, and the modern variety.
Does that means ancient Kamrupi vanished ? Kindly go through books of Suniti Chatterjee and others. They refered North Bengali alongwith Western Assamese as Kamrupi due to its common root.
In general, our prakrit articles are named "X Prakrit", so consistency would favour "Kamrupi Prakrit" for the medieval variety
This not prakrit but an aprabhamsa separated from Magadhi Prakrit called Kamrupi.
The main dialects of Bangladesh can be divided into four groups: ... Kamrupi (Rajbansi-Bahe) ... Additional northern dialects are the Kamrupi varieties in the Dinajpur, Rangpur, and Patgram-Kurigram-Nageswari regions. The Rajbansi variety is also found in the Darjeeling and Nepal regions, and there are claims that it is a separate speech form, like Assamese. Although it is influenced by Bangla grammar and vocabulary, it shows indications of Tibeto-Burman substrata.
Rajbanshi or Kamtapuri unofficially called Kamrupi due close interaction with Kamrup and Kamrupi.
The argument that the development of Assamese is best traced through the western Assamese dialects does not mean that they are not dialects, for example, nor that they are the source of Assamese.
Does source can share same status as offspring. Is Proto Indo European language equals to English language or is a distant parent or is that a Germanic language.
And Ambikagiri using Kamrupi when writing Assamese suggests that Kamrupi is a dialect of Assamese.
Please note in that line that Kmarupi described as language not dialect by the book of literary body. What this article and i like to say that when new word Assamese applied to prevalent Indo Aryan languages or forms, it clubbed it in same status making mother an sister of daughter. It is like making Sankrit a sister language of Hindi.
"Kamrupi language" would therefore not seem to be justified per WP:reliable sources, and would also be ambiguous, as it could be used for either the prakrit or the modern dialect.
I mentioned above why it is not a dialect though have dialect status and born out of Prakrit as Apabhramsa. I think we put things here on the basis of relevant sources even if it deviates from popular beliefs.
So it should not either Prakrit or Dialect but simply as Kamrupi which it was few days back and became unmovable, so i have to rename it as Kamrupi language.
Most importantly large data is deleted which should be restored and i can put on inline citations for every line. So i hope relevant sources will asked before deleting data of such important nature.
Thanks !
bbhagawati (talk) 07:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The article was incoherent. Some seemed to be about the modern variety, some about the prakrit. I attempted to split the article accordingly. You deleted the dialect article, so yes, that info has been deleted. (It was also unsourced, and so could be deleted at any time.)
You have not pointed out anything that makes sense to me, nor that seems to be supported by sources. — kwami (talk) 08:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The article was incoherent. Some seemed to be about the modern variety, some about the prakrit.
As it is accepted that this article is about ancestral language of Assamese and Bengali, i have given source above which says Standard Assamese derives from current Western dialects. This shows that ancestral language and current Kamrupi is related. bbhagawati (talk) 10:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
This is misleading. The Kamrupi Prakrit is not the ancestral language of Assamese and Bengali. Authors have made some preliminary remarks, though very plausible, that the Kamrupi Prakrit has given rise to North Bengali and Assamese (Suniti Chatterjee). So the article should be about Kamrupi Prakrit as it existed then. Chaipau (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
It was also unsourced, and so could be deleted at any time
What if i source it now ?
bbhagawati (talk) 10:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Chaipau restored it, but a source would be useful regardless. — kwami (talk) 13:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The reference for Kamrupi Prakrit is given in the article. Suniti Kumar Chatterjee has asserted that there existed a Kamrupi Apabhramsha from which the North Bengali dialect as well as the Assamese language has emerged. M M Sharma has shown some of the underlying linguistic features of a spoken language that can be reconstructed from systematic errors in the Sanskrit used in the Kamarupa inscriptions, and since the evidence is from the Prakrit period, he calls it Kamrupi Prakrit. It must have differentiated itself from the Magadhi Prakrit before the 7th century because Xuanzang noticed a difference between the language of North India and Kamarupa. The Kamrupi Prakrit is not a literary language, unless the Caryapadas can be shown to have been written in this form.
There are two problems in using "Kamrupi language". It becomes unclear whether we are using it to denote the modern Kamrupi dialect or the ancient Kamrupi Prakrit. The Kamrupi dialect is definitely not same thing as the Kamrupi Prakrit because it is the progenitor of many modern-day dialects that include the all the dialects of Assamese as well as "Kamatapuri" the dialect of North Bengal now heavily influenced by Bengali. Furthermore, I have not found any reference to a "Kamrupi language" in Cardona or Masica.
-- Chaipau (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
From the book "The Indo-Aryan Languages" by authors Dhanesh Jain and George Cardona published in year 2003 following lines are picked:
The Eastern and Central dialects may be regarded as uniform to a certain extent in their respective areas, while Western Asamiya is heterogeneous in character, with large regional variations in the east, west, north and south. There must have been in early times as well, diverse dialects and dialect groups as at present. But then, there seems to be only one dominant literary language prevailing over the whole area; and that was Western Asamiya, the sole medium of all ancient Asamiya literature including the Buranjis written in the Ahom courts. This was because the centre of all literary activities in early times was in western Assam; and the writers were patronized by the kings and local potentates of that region. In the later period, however, even though the centre of literary activities moved to eastern Assam in the Ahom period, the writers continued to accept and use the existing model of the literary style of that time.
This is last and final source which states that current Kamrupi is remanent of ancient Kamrupi. Please restore the article.
Thanks !
bbhagawati (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't see how it says anything of the kind. — kwami (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't either. -- Chaipau (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Suniti Kumar Chatterjee has asserted that there existed a Kamrupi Apabhramsha from which the North Bengali dialect as well as the Assamese language has emerged.
That what i am saying.
M M Sharma has shown some of the underlying linguistic features of a spoken language that can be reconstructed from systematic errors in the Sanskrit used in the Kamarupa inscriptions, and since the evidence is from the Prakrit period, he calls it Kamrupi Prakrit.
Yes it had traces of Prakrit as itself separated from Magadhi Prakrit along with Radhi,Vanga and Varendari but its a not full fledged Prakrit language like Magadhi Prakrit but an Apabhramsa. Middle Eastern Indo Aryan languages called as Radhi,Vanga,Varendari and Kamrupi not as Radhi Prakrit ,Vanga Prakrit ,Varendari Prakrit and Kamrupi Prakrit.
It must have differentiated itself from the Magadhi Prakrit before the 7th century because Xuanzang noticed a difference between the language of North India and Kamarupa. The Kamrupi Prakrit is not a literary language, unless the Caryapadas can be shown to have been written in this form.
Though any written material is not available from first millennium but copper plate seals are. And Kamrupi is also accepted as contributor to Charyapada. The all literature of second millennium is divided into ancient Kamrupi and middle Kamrupi before standardisation of Eastern Assamese by Christian missionaries in 19th century.
There are two problems in using "Kamrupi language". It becomes unclear whether we are using it to denote the modern Kamrupi dialect or the ancient Kamrupi Prakrit.
Its continuity in modern form is discussed under Dialect section.
The Kamrupi dialect is definitely not same thing as the Kamrupi Prakrit because it is the progenitor of many modern-day dialects that include the all the dialects of Assamese as well as "Kamatapuri" the dialect of North Bengal now heavily influenced by Bengali.
Tamil is heavily influenced by Sanskrit but still not a Indo Aryan language.
Furthermore, I have not found any reference to a "Kamrupi language" in Cardona or Masica.
As i say no mention is not denial.
bbhagawati (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Kwami has already mentioned that "Kamrupi language" is not justified per WP:reliable sources. What you say above cannot be justified per WP:NOR. -- Chaipau (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Last inputs from admin is that if it is felt that ancient and modern Kamrupi should be within one page then both should be tagged with merge template.
bbhagawati (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
That is not my reading of what Kwami is saying. Nevertheless, this is the justification for two different articles.
  • "Kamrupi dialect", the modern dialect, is sourced to Goswami, Upendranath (1970), A Study on Kamrupi: A Dialect of Assamese, Gauhati: Department of Historical and Antiquarian Studies
    • This should read, in fact, "Kamrupi dialects" because new works have surfaced on Nalbaria and Barpetia dialects in recent times. (eg [1])
  • "Kamrupi Prakrit", the ancient Prakrit is sourced to Sharma, Mukunda Madhava (1978). Inscriptions of Ancient Assam. Guwahati, Assam: Gauhati University, pp. 0.24-0.28
    • In keeping spellings consistent, this should be "Kamarupi Prakrit". In the literature, distinction is made between the ancient Kamarupa and the modern Kamrup.
-- Chaipau (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Kwami has already mentioned that "Kamrupi language" is not justified per WP:reliable sources. What you say above cannot be justified per WP:NOR
As said admin is newbie to subject, it can be overlooked and when arguments are supported with sources it cannot be termed as original research.
It is not appropriate to comment on contributors as per WP:NPA. Comment on content, not contributors, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaipau (talk • contribs)
"Kamrupi dialect", the modern dialect, is sourced to Goswami, Upendranath (1970), A Study on Kamrupi: A Dialect of Assamese, Gauhati: Department of Historical and Antiquarian Studies
  • This should read, in fact, "Kamrupi dialects" because new works have surfaced on Nalbaria and Barpetia dialects in recent times. (eg [2])
Said is specialised study of modern form of Apabhramsa which now involves in literary work independent from other forms of Assamese, nothing more than that.
"Kamrupi Prakrit", the ancient Prakrit is sourced to Sharma, Mukunda Madhava (1978). Inscriptions of Ancient Assam. Guwahati, Assam: Gauhati University, pp. 0.24-0.28
Same is the specialized study of ancient form of Apabhramsa. bbhagawati (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Goswami and Tamuli (Cardona 2003) calls it "Kamarupa Apabhramsha", which they define as something which was uniform throughout North Bengal and Assam. But what we have today are many dialects: North Bengali, Goalparia, Kamrupi group (Nalbaria, Barpetia, Kamrupi, South Kamrupi) etc. So obviously Kamarupa Apabhramsha is not the same as Kamrupi dialect. The Kamarupi Prakrit of Sharma by this definition is probably the same Kamarupa Apabhramsha of Goswami&Tamuli. Also, recall that at the time the first fully differentiated literary language appeared in the 14th century, Kamarupa had ceased to exist by a few hundred years, and the literature was composed in that century in the courts of the Kamata kingdom and a Kachari kingdom in present-day Nagaon. When Goswami and Tamuli discusses the literary language, they mention the influence of "western dialects", not Kamrupi dialect. Also recall that this is a literary language, which might approximate the colloquial only tangentially or not at all. The Ahom kings themselves, like Shiba Singha, who personally composed songs did so in the literary language of the day, which was very "western dialect" influenced, not in the dialect of the east. It was later that the standard/literary language acquired Sanskritic influence (post American Missionary period), as well as the respectful system and indirect and passive forms of the Sattra "dialect". So the arc of the literary and standard Assamese language/dialect has been from the west to the east and back to Kamrup, changing every century, collecting elements from different dialects from all over Assam and communities.
Goswami and Tamuli does not call the 14th century literary language anything other than "Assamese". "It emerged as the power vehicle of expression in the Ramayana rendered into Asamiya by Kaviraja Madhava Kandali..." (p434)
-- Chaipau (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
In keeping spellings consistent, this should be "Kamarupi Prakrit".
It depends what form of language it referred in. Ancient Kamarupa and Kamarupi will be Kamrup and Kamrupi in modern Assamese and modern Kamrup and Kamrupi will be Kamarupa and Kamarupi in ancient and middle Indo Aryan languages.
In the literature, distinction is made between the ancient Kamarupa and the modern Kamrup.
Capitals of major two dynasties of Kamarupa are in Kamrup itself rest is just expansion and absorbation like absorbing Davaka of Central Assam.
bbhagawati (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Politics not cornerstone in Wikipedia

As I have highlighted before present perfect form is unique Kamrupi grammar usage that ties all present-day Kamrupi dialects together. In this form, the phoneme of the last alphabet for a verb ends at the phoneme of first vowel, i.e., the word holds the Sanskrit pronunciation. This is the very basic grammar that Madhava Kandali used to compose Ramayana in Kamarupi or Kamrupi. Besides, Kamrupi Lokagit Vaishnav devotional songs Bargit have this grammar.

i.e., 2 primary Kamrupi grammar usage are missing in Assamese.
There were political reasons why a dialect evolved in Ahom kingdom primarily spoken in old Sivasagar took the shape of the state language Assamese.
Linguists like Goswami and Tamuli (as well as others) know that during foreign occupation a language can get deformed.
Lot other Assamese linguists including Biren Datta a former Assam Literary Society president wrote that the language used for 14 / 15 century literature were Brajabali.
Assamese linguists/scholars can tell and publish what they like.
To give you my blunt straight-forward observation, none of the Kamrupi scholars that Goswami and Tamuli were talking about born in Ahom kingdom; nor did they live there. This is not how they shall be building Assamese language frame-work.
In California we call it plagiarism.
Italian is a language; Latin is a language.
Italians do not claim Latin as Italian, do they?
So what is the matter with Ahom / Assam?
Tai-Ahom were the people immigrated from that time Thailand and established Ahom kingdom in eastern part of Kamarupa. That explains why Assamese has lot Kamrupi words used in a manner inappropriate.
But politics is not cornerstone in Wikipedia.
Kamrupi shall be presented as Kamrupi, besides Kamrupi people are minorities in Assam, Bengal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, other part of India - no government represents them. Kamrupi art shall be preserved as Kamrupi.
Kurmaa (talk) 04:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Merger with Kamrupi dialect

I oppose the merger. "Kamrupi dialect" is for the modern dialect(s), whereas "Kamarupi Prakrit" is for the Prakrit as it might have been in the first millennium, more than a thousand years ago. Chaipau (talk) 13:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

POV's of different specialists (provided) says that both are same, so history and present of an subject should be within one article.
bbhagawati (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose, history of dialect seems to have very little or nothing to do with prakrit. Dr.pragmatist (talk) 05:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Kamrupi not a dialect of Assamese and Bengali

In ([3]) it is supported with reference that Kamrupi is a dialect of Assamese and Bengali languages. This is not true.

Both Assamese and Bengali also claim Kamarupi/Kamrupi scriptures as Assamese and Bengali respectively ([4]).

On one hand they claim Kamarupi/Kamrupi a dialect of Assamese and Bengali, on the other hand they claim Kamarupi/Kamrupi scriptures as Assamese and Bengali.

  • What direction Wikipedia shall tale?

Kurmaa (talk) 12:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Kamrupi and Kamarupi Prakrit

Kamarupi Prakrit and Kamrupi are not equivalent. The lead "Kamarupi Prakrit or Kamrupi" is a vandalism that I tried to correct a number of times, but these have been reverted. Chaipau (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I have given POV's of scholars which says Kamarupi Prakrit (not sure about validity of this term), Kamarupi (Sanskrit) and Kamrupi (Assamese) refers to same subject. Its better if disputing POV's of scholars are provided. Another thing is that most scholars refers it as Kamarupi or Kamrupi, so Prakrit suffix should be removed.
If this view is disputed, POV's of scholars for both views should be provided and term echoed by most authors will make sense. bbhagawati (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Which source is this? I don't see it. Chaipau (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Repeating the source (one among many): From the book "Bhawaiya, ethnomusicological study" by author Sukhabilasa Barma published in year 2004 following lines are picked :
Based on the materials of the Linguistic Survey of India, Suniti Kumar Chattopadhyay has divided Eastern Magadhi Prakrita and Apabhramsa into four dialect groups (1) Radha-the language of West Bengal and Orissa (2) Varendra-dialect of North Central Bengal (3) Kamrupi-dialect of Northern Bengal and Assam and (4) Vanga-dialect of East Bengal.
I think its crystal clear now.
bbhagawati (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
That book is on ethnomusic. Why are you using it to make a linguistic point? This source is not acceptable. Moreover, the reading that the Kamrupi dialect differentiated itself at the Apabhramsa period is wrong. What it says is that the Apabhramsa of North Bengal and Assam has been named Kamarupi. This makes sense because at the Apabhramsa period, Kamarupa as a kingdom still existed, and it covered the region that is currently North Bengal and Assam. As a political entity that has held fast over hundreds of years, it is very likely that it developed its own linguistic identity, a point made by Hazarika in the reference in the main article. But by identifying the Kamrupi dialect of today with the Apabhramsa of the first millenium or the beginning of the second millenium you are putting the entire theory of linguistic periods on its head. Chaipau (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
That book is on ethnomusic. Why are you using it to make a linguistic point? This source is not acceptable.
It does not matter what book is on but what it really matters is it refers to linguistic survey which concludes that Kamrupi dialect is Kamrupi Apabhramsa itself. Any book is acceptable as reliable source.
Moreover, the reading that the Kamrupi dialect differentiated itself at the Apabhramsa period is wrong.
No original research please.
What it says is that the Apabhramsa of North Bengal and Assam has been named Kamarupi.
Read once again. It says Kamrupi dialect.
This makes sense because at the Apabhramsa period, Kamarupa as a kingdom still existed, and it covered the region that is currently North Bengal and Assam. As a political entity that has held fast over hundreds of years, it is very likely that it developed its own linguistic identity, a point made by Hazarika in the reference in the main article.
Kamrupi dialect is its own identity, echoed by sources, Scholars and linguistic survey of India.
But by identifying the Kamrupi dialect of today with the Apabhramsa of the first millenium or the beginning of the second millenium you are putting the entire theory of linguistic periods on its head.
Again no original research please, let Wikipedia thrive on sources.
As there is no disputing scholarly view on same, this concludes the discussion.
bbhagawati (talk) 07:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Writing just to highlight a unique Kamrupi grammar usage that ties all present-day Kamrupi dialects together. It is the use of present perfect form. In this form, the phoneme of the last alphabet for a verb ends at the phoneme of first vowel, i.e., the word holds the Sanskrit pronunciation. This is the very basic grammar that Madhava Kandali used to compose Ramayana in Kamarupi or Kamrupi. Besides, Kamrupi Lokagit Vaishnav devotional songs Bargit have this grammar. Assamese does not have this grammar. Nor did Ahom adopt this grammar.
There were political reasons why a dialect evolved in Ahom kingdom primarily spoken in old Sivasagar took the shape of state language Assamese.
Linguists know that during foreign occupation a language can get deformed.
Tai-Ahom were the people immigrated from that time Thailand and established Ahom kingdom in eastern part of Kamarupa. That explains why Assamese has lot Kamrupi words used in a manner inappropriate.
But politics is not cornerstone in Wikipedia.
Kamrupi shall be presented as Kamrupi, besides Kamrupi people are minorities in Assam, Bengal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, other part of India - no government represents them. Kamrupi art shall be preserved as Kamrupi.
Kurmaa (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm having a little difficulty understanding the nuances of this dispute. Bbhagawati has referred to several sources, most of which don't seem from their scope or the quotes provided to sufficiently back up any sort of claim about whether the two varieties are separate or the same. The more relevant sources ("Contagious Couplings" and "Indian literature: Volume 30"), combined with Kakati (1941) that Chaipau has provided and the sources Kwami has presented suggest that the language-dialect boundary between modern Kamrupi and other Assamese dialects may be blurry. This would do more to show that the old and modern varieties are different than that they are the same. I think Kurmaa has been addressing this language-dialect boundary issue more than what Bbhagawati, Kwamikagami, and Chaipau have been discussing.

Chaipau has presented two additional source to back up that the varieties are separate (Goswami 1970, Sharma 1978). Logic also prompts us to see a variety spoken thousands of years ago and one spoken in the modern era would be separate. Surely Bbhagawati isn't saying that the two are identical. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 19:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes i understand its confusing,so i provided two to the point references like "Based on the materials of the Linguistic Survey of India, Suniti Kumar Chattopadhyay has divided Eastern Magadhi Prakrita and Apabhramsa into four dialect groups (1) Radha-the language of West Bengal and Orissa (2) Varendra-dialect of North Central Bengal (3) Kamrupi-dialect of Northern Bengal and Assam and (4) Vanga-dialect of East Bengal." Here Magadhi Prakrit is ancient Prakrit language of India and Kamrupi dialect directly separated from it. Here mentioned Radha give rise to modern Bengali.
And other mentioned references above that "Scholars have shown that it is rather through the western Assam dialects that the development of modern Assamese has to be traced". In this Western dialect i.e Kamrupi is said to give rise to Assamese, so technically its not a dialect and get this status because British applied new name 'Assamese' to all prevalent Indo Aryan languages of Brahmaputra Valley of Assam. Kamrupi or Western Assamese or Western Asamiya has unbroken literacy activity till middle of nineteen century.
Even book mentioned by user Chaipau on modern form starts its description from ancient form referring to its history. there seems to be only one dominant literary language prevailing over the whole area; and that was Western Asamiya, the sole medium of all ancient Asamiya literature" this line given above shows the ancientness of Western Assamese or Asamiya.
bbhagawati (talk) 07:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Here BBhagawati is arguing that since Chattopadhyay calls an Apabhramsa dialect group Kamarupa (note it is "Kamarupa" and not "Kamrupi" as BB has stated above, and the distinction is important), that Apabhramsa dialect group must be the Kamrupi dialect of modern days. By definition itself, the Kamarupa apabhramsa gave rise to to all moderns dialects of North Bengal and Assam, which includes the Kamatapuri/Rajbanshi (classed under Bengali now), Goalpariya, Kamrupi (which itself is a group and can be sub-divided into four more dialects), Central and Eastern Assamese. Therefore by definition the Kamarupa Apabhramsa is not Kamrupi dialect.
Goswami and Tamuli in Cardona says that the standard Assamese dialect (or the literary dialect as opposed to the colloquial dialect) evolved through the western dialects. There are a couple of reasons why they use "western" and not Kamrupi or Kamarupa. Because the first fully differentiated Assamese literary language (differentiated from Bengali) appears in the 14th century, long after the Kamarupa kingdom had vanished. And by western, they mean those dialects that had evolved from the Kamarupa Apabhramsa dialects in the west (that is the western Kamarupa Apabhramsa dialects). Why did they not not claim that it was Kamrupi? Because after the breakup of Kamarupa, a much smaller region came to be known as Kamrup (thus the distinction between the two spellings, Kamarupa and Kamrup).
It is best to put down the geographical markers:

|1| North Bengal |2| Goalpara |3| Kamrup |4| Eastern Assam |5|

Here |1| is Karatoya river, |2| is Sankosh river, |3| is Manas river |4| is Barnadi river and |5| is Sadiya. |1| and |5| mark the western and eastern boundaries of the Kamarupa kingdom, and Kamrup is a much smaller region within it. The first fully differentiated Assamese literature appeared in the courts of the Kamata king in North Bengal and within the same century but later, in the court of a Kachari king to the east of |4|, in Eastern Assam. So Goswami and Tamuli could not have called it Kamrupi.
I would like to point out that just as "Assam is an English word" does not necessarily mean that "Assam" is an English word, calling a dialect group from the Apabhramsa period Kamarupa does not mean it is the Kamrupi dialect of modern times.
Chaipau (talk) 12:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Here BBhagawati is arguing that since Chattopadhyay calls an Apabhramsa dialect group Kamarupa (note it is "Kamarupa" and not "Kamrupi" as BB has stated above, Read properly its Kamrupi dialect, did i need to upload the same page. By definition itself, the Kamarupa apabhramsa gave rise to to all moderns dialects of North Bengal and Assam, Read properly it says Magadhi Prakrit i.e Prakrit of central part of country i.e Magadha Kingdom gave rise to Kamrupi dialect of Assam and North Bengal.
Goswami and Tamuli in Cardona says that the standard Assamese dialect (or the literary dialect as opposed to the colloquial dialect) evolved through the western dialects. If they have to point directly to Kamrupi dialect of Assam then they have to use Western dialect as scholars like Chattopadhay named North Bengali as Kamrupi too.
bbhagawati (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, let me see if I’ve got a correct understanding of what you two are saying about the history of language in the region.
According to bbhagawati:
1a) the Magadhi Prakrit spoken in Northern Bengal and Assam became a distinct dialect/language
1c) a literary tradition arose in the western region
1d) through either migration or influence, this language/dialect spoken in the western part of this region spread eastward into the Brahmaputra Valley
1e) later on, the eastern varieties were given prestige for political reasons relating to the British
1f) because of this, standard Assamese is based on an eastern variety of the language/dialect that had developed in the west
According to Chaipau:
2a) the Magadhi Prakrit spoken in Northern Bengal and Assam became a distinct dialect/language
2b) this language/dialect subsequently divided into further languages and dialects
2c) a literary tradition arose in the western region
2d) through either migration or influence, this language/dialect spoken in the western part of this region spread eastward into the Brahmaputra Valley
2e) later on, another literary tradition arose in the east
Do I have that right? — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 15:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I would like to make a few qualifications
2a) The accepted orthodoxy is that Magadhi Prakrit gave rise to Kamarupa Apabhramsa. Sharma and others claim that the Prakrit in Kamarupa was different from Magadhi Prakrit, which they call Kamarupi Prakrit.
2b) yes
2c) yes, but we see that same literary tradition in the east too (Madhava Kandali)
2d) No, the dialect/language did not spread, but the literary tradition was accepted in the Ahom kingdom. The language/dialect in the east probably developed at the same time as they did in the west.
2e) No, a new literary tradition did not arise. The Ahom kings used the same literary styles when they themselves composed poems and songs. But since they accepted the language in their courts, the eastern dialect got prominence in state records, and a class of prose literature arose called Buranjis. So rather there was an addition to the literary tradition, not a break from the earlier. A few Buranjis were written in verse, and they followed the earlier style. But the oral literary traditions, like Bihu, Husori and others, when they followed the old meters, used the colloquial language, not the literary one. So the picture is, as the literary tradition moved, in space and time, it acquired influences from here and there.
Chaipau (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
In my case you almost get it right. To summarise:
(i) Kamrupi directly separated from Magadhi Prakrit i.e middle language of Central India alongwith sister dialects like Radha, Vanga and Varendari and Assamese Kamrupi and Bengali Kamrupi are its remnants today.
(ii) Kamrupi spreads from west to east of Brahmaputra valley with subsequent Aryanisation, subsequently infected by Asian language families prevalent there. Same form of eastern Kamrupi go through the process of Sanskritisation or detribalization and get its name as standard Assamese. Magadhi Prakrit - Kamrupi - Assamese.
bbhagawati (talk) 06:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
All right, I'm getting a firmer grasp on this. Bhaskarbhagawati, do you agree with 2b) above? — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 14:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I am not because said language remain intact and gave rise to another language in east. bbhagawati (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
You mean the language didn't change in all that time? — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 15:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Like any other language it also went through evolution process. Even Sanskrit used today is quite different from adi or ancient Sanskrit. bbhagawati (talk) 05:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm curious as to what these differences are (and when the Prakrit was spoken). Sanskrit is a bad example of language change, since it's been a dead language for some time. A better example might be Latin, which is also a dead language but the various Romance languages come from it. Another similarity is the dialect continua that the Romance and northern Indo-Aryan languages exhibit. It's important to consider this concept, as it means that the boundaries between languages and dialects is not due purely to grammatical differences, but to social and political considerations.
A comparison with Romance languages also shows that there are articles like Old Spanish language, Middle French, and Old Occitan that cover currently-existing languages in their medieval forms. There's no question that the Old Spanish language is the same language as modern Spanish, but a separate article is still appropriate as it explains the grammatical differences between the two.
So, even if the Prakrit and the modern dialect were the same language with an unbroken, undiverging history, it would still be appropriate to have two articles. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 16:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

If we rely on Xuanzang's record that the language in Kamarupa was a little different, we could say by the 7th century the Kamarupi Prakrit was already prevalent (the first Aryan ingress is considered to have occurred by about 500 BCE). Are you curious about the difference between the Kamarupi and Magadhi Prakrits, or the Prakrit and the modern dialects? As far as Magadhi vs Kamarupi is concerned, I would say that the Kamarupi Prakrit is not completely defined yet. Many local scholars claim that a simple derivation from the Magadhi Prakrit does not explain all language peculiarities. Kaliram Medhi claims that the Assamese language has close affinities with western Indic languages (Marathi especially---Maharashtri Prakrit). Some have claimed non-vedic Aryan migrations, which might explain some of these differences too. Chaipau (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


I'm curious as to what these differences are (and when the Prakrit was spoken). As scholars hardly pointed any, so it seems in negligible amount and its Apabhramsa from Prakrit not Prakrit itself. Sanskrit is a bad example of language change, since it's been a dead language for some time. Though Sanskrit cease to exist as mother tongue of any modern ethnic group but in written form it is still growing. Sanskrit literature is continued, Sanskrit always used for religious purposes, Sanskrit is used in print media, electronic media and in education as subject, starting from Primary School to Doctorate level. And what is noteworthy is that an language which considered very close to Proto Indo European language is spoken in day to day life in few villages even today. A better example might be Latin, which is also a dead language but the various Romance languages come from it. I don't get this line. Do you want to say that Sanskrit has no descendants ? A comparison with Romance languages also shows that there are articles like Old Spanish language, Middle French, and Old Occitan that cover currently-existing languages in their medieval forms. There's no question that the Old Spanish language is the same language as modern Spanish, but a separate article is still appropriate as it explains the grammatical differences between the two. If you look at article Spanish language, it has a section called history which covers the same time as Old Spanish language in overview form. But when it discussed in details, it created another article for same. So as in both Kamrupi article are in overview form we may merge the same and if any of this discussed in detailed form then surely an article for it will be created. So, even if the Prakrit and the modern dialect were the same language with an unbroken, undiverging history, it would still be appropriate to have two articles. Here i like to say that Kamrupi separated from Prakrit as Apabhramsa later with literary development it became an full fledged language. So title of this article with Prakrit suffix will mislead as one guy above said that Prakrit and modern form cannot be same.

Thanks !

bbhagawati (talk) 11:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Chaipau may be able to fill us in on the details of the difference between Kamarupi Prakrit and the modern dialect. In the meanwhile, take a look at dead language and termination of spoken Sanskrit. Sanskrit is dead and has been for some time. The usage that you point to above doesn't contradict this (the same could be said of Latin). The present-day native speakers are likely the result of revival efforts, not an unbroken chain of native speakers since the form of Sanskrit they speak is identical to Classical Sanskrit (a linguistic tradition with no linguistic change like that would be entirely unnatural). — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 13:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
The current reconstructed Prakrit, as far as I can tell from Sharma (1978), does not favor any particular modern dialect but the Assamese language in general. He says "...a local variety of Prakrit (i.e a MIA [Middle Indo-Aryan] language) wherefrom, in course of time, a modern Assamese language as a MIL [Modern Indian Language], emerged out".
I have also looked at Chatterji's (1970) "Origin and Development of Bengali" to see where he might have mentioned Kamrupi dialect. He doesn't. In page 140, he gives a tree, and it looks like the following (I am expanding only the Kamarupa-dialects branch here):
  • Magadhi Prakrit and Apabhramsa
    • Radha-dialects
    • Varendra-dialects
    • Kamarupa-dialects
      • Eastern
        • Assamese
      • Western
        • North Bengali (Jalpaiguri, S Purnia, S Darjeeling, Dinajpur, Koch Bihar, Rangpur, W Goalpara)
    • Vanga-dialects
Therefore unlike what BBhagawati is claiming Chatterji does not mention Kamrupi dialect. He is instead defining the Kamarupa group of Apabhramsa dialects that gave rise to all Assamese dialects (including Kamrupi), as well as the North Bengali dialects.
Chaipau (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Do we not know the grammatical differences between the two? — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 15:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Writing just to highlight:

What direction Wikipedia shall take?

Kurmaa (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it looks like you are having difficulty with English. I don't understand what you're trying to say in your second bullet point. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]
To understand better try typing Kamarupi and Kamrupi in both Unicode Bengali script and Unicode Devanagari script.
Kurmaa (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Frankly, by undoing or deleting this section neither will help you to go to the bottom of this matter nor you will learn to correct yourself.
  • Should you show how to write Kamarupi and Kamrupi in both Unicode Bengali script and Unicode Devanagari script - I shall be able to help further explaining if needed. I just need to understand your motivation-level on Kamrupi matter.
Kurmaa (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I've already asked you not to repeat posts across different articles. Now you're duplicating content within an article talk page for no reason other than to be disruptive enough to gain attention. Don't do that. You have also copied and pasted posts that I have written without my expressed permission (let me repeat: I do not give you permission to do this). Don't do that. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 23:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

If user Chaipau has no objection in considering Western Kamrupi (North Bengali or Bengali Kamrupi) as remnant of old Kamrupi then why it is there for East Kamrupi (Assamese Kamrupi). bbhagawati (talk) 06:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I did nothing of the sort. Chatterji identifies Western Kamarupa Apabhrama dialects (North Bengali dialects) and Eastern Kamarupa Apabhramsa dialects (Assamese). Scholars (Chatterji, Upendranath Goswami etc) have consistently distinguished between Kamarupa and Kamrup. Chaipau (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Can you write showing both words "Kamarupa" and "Kamrup" using the native-script that Assamese and Bengali use?Kurmaa (talk) 22:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm still confused as to what the grammatical (syntactic, phonological, morphological) differences between Kamarupi Prakrit and the modern dialect are. If that's not concretely known, do we know of any changes between now and then? — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 01:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Even though Kamarupa and Kamrup are written the same in the Assamese script, they are pronounced differently in Sanskrit and Assamese. The phonetic difference is maintained in the English spellings---Sanskrit for the ancient kingdom (between |1| and |5| above) and Assamese for the modern region (between |3| and |4|). Upendranath Goswami (1970) calls the dialect Kamrupi ("A Study of Kamrupi, a Dialect of Assamese"), and the Prakrit Kamarupa ("Thus the inscriptions record the Kamarupa Prakrit and establish the antiquity of the Assamese language at a very remote period of its history", p3). He quotes another author, Benimadhav Barua, in the same page ("The pre-Ahom inscriptions of Kamarupa contain...instances of Prakritism that may be taken to indicate the nature and form of the dialect as current in those times, say from 6th to 12th century AD, I mean the Prakrit language in the historical background of Assamese...") Though there are occasional lapses of typography in this and other books, the distinction is always maintained between Kamarupa and Kamrup at the critical passages. While referring to the dialect he Goswami writes "...which has been termed as the Kamrupi dialect as spoken in the present district of Kamrup."). Page 177 has an unambiguous example, where Goswami writes: "Eastern Magadhi Prakrit has been divided into four dialect groups by scholars like Dr Chatterji. Kamarupa dialect comprising Assamese and the dialects of North Bengal is one of them. So it becomes necessary to see how much Kamrupi is related to North Bengali."
The examples above should be enough justification to keep Kamarupi Prakrit and kamrupi dialect separate.
As far as differences between the 6th century Kamarupa Prakrit and the 20th century Kamrupi dialect are concerned, these are some that Goswami lists between Middle-Indo-Aryan (MIA, or the Apabhramsa stage dialects) and Kamrupi a modern speech. Some of them are:
  • Final vowels are dropped: OIA (-a) > MIA (-a) > Kamrupi (-zero) (Other such examples are given in Goswami, p51-55)
  • In Kamrupi the initial stress results in loss of vowels in the interior. This is one of the major difference between Kamrupi and eastern Assamese as well as with MIA. For example badli (Kamrupi), vatuli (Sanskrit), baduli (standard Assamese) (Goswami p67). A celebrated examples is pumpkin gourd: kumra (Kamrupi), kusmandaka (Sanskrit), Kumhandaa (Prakrit), komora (Standard Assamese) (Goswami p66). Note that the "d" in Sanskrit and Prakrit are transcribed with the retroflex flap.
  • The dative -lai which are seen in the Caryas (meru shikhara lai, Carya 47) (Goswami 1970, p230) is not found in Kamrupi but found in Standard Assamese.
And many more such examples exist.
Chaipau (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


Last citation from scholar Suniti Kumar Chatterjee will resolved the issue as discussion cannot continue for infinite period. Here disputing user says word Kamrupi dialect is not mentioned in the same instead Kamarupa dialect is mentioned. It is mentioned here that there is no languages with the name Radha, Varendra or Kamarupa but this are the name of places where Radhi, Varendari and Kamarupi (pronounced Kamrupi as voiceless a is added in roman alphabets to depict Sankritised prounciation) is spoken though language of Vanga Kingdom is also called Vanga. See Vanga Kingdom, Kamarupa Kingdom, Varendra and Rarh region.
North Bengali or Western Kamrupi is mutually accepted as remnant. In the book Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity:The Success-Failure Continuum in language and ethnic identity efforts, Joshua Fishman and Ofelia Garcia mentioned:
The success of the Assamese in establishing the Asamiya language within Assam may today, perhaps, be rated at a point of 8 on a 10-point scale, where 1 stands for least successful and 10 for most. Schwvartzberg (1985, 177) writes that:
the changes that India has made to date in its political map have preserved the essential unity of the nation, rather than contributing, as many predicted, to a process of balkanization. In creating a system of essentially linguistic states, India has provided a local milieu that is conducive to the flowering of many linguistically-rooted cultures and thereby evolved a system which greatly enriches the cultural life of the nation as a whole.
Assam, however, is it significant exception to this generalization (Baruah 2001). It may not be irrelevant at the end of the chapter to take a look at the relationship, if any, that exists between the two languages, Asamiya and Bengali, from a linguistic point of view. The Charyapada collection of poetry and songs, believed to be com-posed in eastern India between the ninth and the thirteenth centuries, is claimed by both the Assamese and Bengali as belonging to their language. The spoken lan-guages/dialects of North Bengal and that of Western Assam today are substantially the same, as they seem to form one dialect group. The Rajbongsi dialect that is spoken in the northern areas of West Bengal is very similar to the Kamrupi of Assam. It is not easy to decide whether these dialects should he categorized as dialects of Assamese or of Bengali. Linguists believe that these "dialects are independent of literary speech, and as such, East Bengali dialects, North Bengali dialects, (with which Assamese is said to be associated) and 'West Bengali dialects are not only independent of one another, but also they are not, as is popularly believed, derived from literary Bengali" (Chatterji 1970, 108). The processes through which a language or a dialect is pronounced as such are, therefore, more connected with the processes through which they have found their way into peo-ple's minds and voices, than with linguistic reasons.
This shows that Assamsese mentioned by Chatterjee is Kamrupi Assamsese or Western Assamese and got divided when North Bengal was separated from Kamrup by British. So Kamrupi is an language independant from Assamese and Bengali. I think it ends the dispute.
bbhagawati (talk) 05:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it helps to cut and paste big swathes of texts from sources that are available on the web. What is the argument BBhagawati trying to make? Throwing everything hoping something would stick is wasting everyone's time. Chaipau (talk) 14:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
In book Indo-Aryan Languages, Dhanesh Jain and George Cardona says
Kamarupa Apabhramsa
The history of Asamiya may be traced back to very early times. It has to its credit, an indirect reference by Hiuen T'sang, who visited Kamarupa, the ancient name by which Western Assam was referred to, in AD 643 during the reign of Kumara Bhaskara Varman. He recorded that the language of Kamarupa 'differed a little from that of mid-India' (Beal 1980:404). A question may arise here as to what that language of Kamarupa might be, that was different from the language of mid-India"? Could it he some language of Austric or Tibeto-Burman origin, and hence, structurally quite different from the Aryan language" Or could it he some Aryan language which might have undergone tremendous modifications due to linguistic acculturation in this predominantly non-Aryan country ? The second proposition seems to be more probable. It should be pertinent to note at this point that 'a silent Aryanization of Assam was evidently taking place during the time extending over one millennium from 1000 BC onwards' (Chatterji 1959:2). It should also be remembered that Kumara Bhaskara Varman was a Brahmin king who patronized Sanskrit learning and culture. Therefore, by the seventh century AD the kingdom of Bhaskara Varman which extended to a considerable part of Bengal in those days must have been populated by a large number of Aryans who by virtue of their superiority, spread their language among the aboriginal people speaking non-Aryan languages. The native population gave tip their undeveloped and unwritten languages in favour of a much more developed Aryan tongue. It is probable that the non-Aryan population preferred to learn Asamiya first as a second language which in course of a few generations replaced the native dialects altogether, and became monolingual in Asamiya. Thus, Asamiya became the dominant language with the number of speakers swelling as the language penetrated (deeper and deeper into the Brahmaputra Valley and the neighbouring hills. It is in this way that the entirely different speech habits of the local population must have moulded the Kamarupa- Apabhramsa for, those were the days of Apabhramsa stages of the Aryan languages all over the country-into a unique shape and attributed such a distinct character to the language that the great Chinese traveller could not pass over it unnoticed. There is no systematically recorded evidence of the language as characterized by the Kamarupa Apabhramsa, but the copper-plate and stone inscriptions of the ancient Kamarupa kings from the fifth to the thirteenth centuries AD, though written in Sanskrit, throw some interesting light as to the various typical phonological and quite a few morphological peculiarities of the language that pave birth to Asamiya later on (Sharma 1981:169).
bbhagawati (talk) 06:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Again, what is the point BBhagawati trying is trying to make? Chaipau (talk) 14:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Upendranath Goswami in book A study on Kāmrūpī says
Assamese entered into Kamarupa or western Assam where this speech was first characterised as Assamese. This is evident from the remarks of Hiuen Tsang who visited the Kingdom of Kamarupa in the first half of the seventh century A.D., during the reign of Bhaskaravarman.
bbhagawati (talk) 07:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
What is the point here? Chaipau (talk) 14:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Arbitary break

(edit conflict)You both are providing some helpful links and quotes. I think I have a strong enough idea to see what's going on. Let me see if I can't be clear about how I'm seeing it.
You have an Ancient Language (X1) that was spoken in a particular region (Y1). X1, for various historical reasons, spread out to neighboring regions (Y2, Y3, etc). Over time, X1 came to have greater and greater geographic variation in its pronunciation, morphology, lexicon, and syntax. However, because of the vagaries of dialect continua, the isoglosses between them don't provide any objective grammatical basis for dialectal boundaries. This prompts three relevant questions, which I have answers for:
1)How do we determine the number of (and boundaries between) daughter varieties of X1 (i.e. X2, X3, X4, etc)?
It's linguistically arbitrary and, despite what we'd like it to be, closely related to culture and politics. When the greater region Y (composed of Y1, Y2, etc) is encompassed within one political framework so that all daughter varieties of X1 are within one political border, the language-dialect distinction isn't that vital. Typically, one variety is chosen as the standard or otherwise gains prestige by virtue of being associated with the ruling class. When this same region is broken up by political borders, the dialect boundaries closely align with those political boundaries. The borders can have a boundary-reinforcing effect by virtue of prestige dialects; for example, if X2 is the prestige variety of a state encompassing regions Y2, Y3, and Y4, the varieties within that state may begin to share more grammatical features of X2.
2) How do we determine which boundaries are between different dialects of the same languages and those between different languages (that is, are X2 and X3 different dialects or different languages)?
This is also arbitrary and related to politics and culture. It would be nice to be able to use mutual intelligibility (the ability to understand each other) as a measure, but we can't make concrete borders like that with a dialect continuum. This gets into some absurdities where, for example, the different regional varieties of China (which are not mutually intelligible) are called dialects while the national standard varieties of the former Yugoslavia (Serbian, Bosnian, Montenegran, Croatian, all mutually intelligible) are considered separate languages. There are also difficult cases, like whether Galician is a dialect of Portuguese or a language on its own or whether Valencian and Catalan are separate languages or not, made difficult because of political considerations.
3) How do we treat the variety spoken in Y1? Is it still X1, despite the grammatical differences?
Think of this in terms of Latin (X1) originally spoken in Rome and immediately surrounding areas (Y1). Latin spread out to most of Western Europe (Y2, Y3, etc) and then changed into daughter varieties (X2, X3, X4). None of these varieties is the original Latin, even though the totality of these varieties is an unbroken continuation of a linguistic community. So why don't we call any of these varieties "Latin" (Ok technically, we do, but nobody really considers Ladino to be the real Latin of the modern day). Perhaps it's because the original Roman political framework is no more. Maybe it's because each daughter language has an equal claim to being the real Latin as the others.
To be explicit about this analogy, Kamarupi Prakrit is to Latin what modern Kamrupi is to the Romanesco dialect of Italian. In the same way that we consider Romanesco to be a dialect of a daughter language of Latin, we can consider modern Kamrupi be a dialect of a daughter language of Kamarupi Prakrit.
At this point, I think the conversation might better serve the concerns of Bbhagawati (and, I think, Kurmaa) if we consider the issue of fair presentation. It seems that, from Bbhagawati's perspective, calling the modern variety a "dialect" works to present the Kamrupi people as deficient or their speech as substandard. If this is the concern that Bbhagawati has, I think it is within our scope of interests to address this issue somehow. I don't think merging the two articles is the way to do this, but I'm sure there are other options.

— Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 15:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I have tried, in the past, to address this concern. The standard too is just a dialect. Wikipedia too does not class them higher or lower to languages. Literary Assamese is rather unique that it started somewhere in the west moved east and came back and settled in the center. It has been influenced over the centuries by all the dialects in the region (regional as well as aregional ones). Goswami and Tamuli (2003) mentions that in the last few decades, initial stress (a Kamrupi characteristic) is becoming acceptable in the standard. This has been the position of Wikipedia too, which I must say is the most neutral one that is possible. Chaipau (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


  • Referring to - Upendranath Goswami in book A study on Kāmrūpī says, "Assamese entered into Kamarupa or western Assam where this speech was first characterised as Assamese. This is evident from the remarks of Hiuen Tsang who visited the Kingdom of Kamarupa in the first half of the seventh century A.D., during the reign of Bhaskaravarman."
  • Referring to - 3) How do we treat the variety spoken in Y1? Is it still X1, despite the grammatical differences?
  • Think of this in terms of Latin (X1) ... - this sort of thinking is not found among both Assamese (Ahomese) and Bengali scholars, also see my note in Scope section, as these scholars aren't recognizing yesteryear Kamarupi excellence that ancestors of current Kamarupi / Kamrupi people exhibited.
  • Referring to - "The dative -lai which are seen in the Caryas (meru shikhara lai, Carya 47) (Goswami 1970, p230) is not found in Kamrupi but found in Standard Assamese".
  • Do you have the entire sloka from where Goswami got meru shikhara lai? How do you read lai here? Is it like lai of Lai-Leshai? Can you write the same in Assamese script as well? Was this Charyapada composed in Kamarupi or Kamarupi Prakrit?
  • Wikipedia shall not approve any article that presents any of the Kamarupi dialects spoken in present western Assam directly or indirectly as the dialect of Assamese language because this is not true.

Kurmaa (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "this sort of thinking". Are you saying such scholars don't make comparisons? Or are you saying they haven't asked that specific question in regards to Assamese. Either way, it doesn't matter. It's an important question to the discussion even if other scholars don't directly address it in the terms from my analogy.
What you've described, I think, is a sort of substrate to the Assamese language, which is interesting and would further clarify what makes Kamrupi different from the Kamarupi Prakrit. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 22:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
The issue of a substrate is indeed interesting; but what Kurmaa has suggested here---that Tai-Ahom is the substrate for eastern Assamese dialect ("Ahomese")---is untenable. The Ahoms adopted Assamese late---in the 17th century---and in the process they completely lost their own language. But they were a small minority in their own kingdom. What ever the substrate was, it must have been much older. Even then, there are features like the dative -lai that eastern Assam has retained something western Assam has lost. But most remarkably Kamrupi follows (along with Bengali) a system of initial stress, whereas eastern Assam follows the pan-Indian system of penultimate stress. So eastern Assamese is not only not "Ahomese", but the most distinguishing feature that sets western Assamese apart is a "new" phenomenon. Chaipau (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Both question and analogy are excellent that underline scholarly moral.
Not only Assamese scholars but also Bengali scholars did not do so in the past. e.g., A Catalogue of Bengali Manuscripts, 1948, available in the State Library of Cooch Behar - this catalog includes all yesteryear Kamarupi / Kamrupi scriptures. Bengali scholars published papers and books in the past demonstrating Kamarupi / Kamrupi a dialect of Bengali. Similarly, Assamese scholars also claimed those scriptures as Assamese and wrote papers published books stating Kamarupi / Kamrupi a dialect of Assamese. The link http://amarasom.glpublications.in/Details.aspx?id=9868&boxid=101459125 is a newspaper article that Dr Homen Bargohain wrote published in Assamese daily newspaper appeared in second week of July 2012. Here he defines dialects of Assamese based on current district / region such as Darangi, Goalparia, Kamrupi - he was former Assam Literary Society president and a famous individual in present Assam.
Kurmaa (talk) 02:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


Actual situation is like this. There is an primary region (Kamrup/Western Assam initialy) where language (old Kamrupi) is used primarily.
So when this language moves from its basic position i.e region of west to east, new region (east) becames region 1. So Western Assam stands for "region" and Eastern Assam stands for "region 1".
When the language (old Kamrupi), goes through natural process of evolution with the passage of time in its home (region) itself it becames language 1 i.e is second stage of Western Assamese. Upto this point there is no Eastern Assamese as migration from west to east yet to take place.
When with migration further east in Brahmaputra valley or Eastern Assam, it becames "language 1a". At this point language 1a is identical to language 1 of Western Assam. The language 1a due to farness from other Indo Aryan language families and virtually surrounded by languages families of Sino Tibetan, Tibeto Burman and Austoasiatic language families, it goes through the natural process of tribalization and becames "language 1a1". The language 1a1 is not so identical to "language 1" of Western Assam.
In modern times (mid 19th century) language 1a1 goes through the process of detribalization or Sanskritization and becames language 1a2 i.e current Eastern Assamese. So language 1a2 is from language 1 not from "language" (old Kamrupi) directly. That is current language of Eastern Assam i.e "language 1a2" is technically dialect of "language 1" of Western Assam. This shows that both Western Assamese and Eastern Assamese are not directly separated from Old Kamrupi. So cannot have an equal status. Verify this lines with sources provided earlier.
bbhagawati (talk) 04:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
That's a rather confusing presentation of the ideas, but I believe I understand. You're saying that Western Assamese doesn't just reflect the area of origin, but also a linguistic tradition with less influence from outside language families. If that were the measure of things, it would be fairly convincing. However, it is not the measure of things. As I presented above in my analogy, the relationships between related varieties is socially constructed, not governed by grammatical structures. Thus, it is inaccurate to say that Eastern Assamese is "technically a dialect of" Western Assamese. Both denote varieties (or groups of varieties) that have been grouped together into a larger group of varieties called a "language." One of these varieties (Eastern Assamese) carries prestige for social reasons. We can work to ensure that Western Assamese is given a fair presentation and to reinforce the basic position of linguists that no variety is objectively better than another, but it would be improper to reverse the social situation based on a clunkily narrow presentation of linguistic history to make dialectological arguments that run counter to basic dialectological theory. Even if we could find a source that matched your argument, it would violate WP:NPOV. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 05:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually modern offical languages of Assam are not based on prestige but due to circumstances. As we discussed earlier Kamrupi was sole literary language of ancient and medieval Assam. The problem with British are that they have made some blunders in selecting offical languages of an area not on historical grounds but just on recommendations. Bengali was given the official language status in Assam due to recommendations by some Bengali officials. Missionaries based their work on Sivsagara, the heart of Eastern Assam due to nearness to Naga hills, Lushai hills or such areas where probability of conversions are more. Religious books are translated in Eastern Assamese. Here is the point when Missionaries appealed to British to recongnise Eastern Assamese as official language instead of Bengali.
And how can an fact supported by citations can be a personal POV. As we are not linguistic expert, we have to base our views on POV's of Scholars not just on plain logic.
bbhagawati (talk) 06:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
What you're describing is how Eastern Assamese gained prestige. It's still prestige, even if it's a foreign-imposed change of the former status quo. That sort of thing happens in other cases as well. Such as with Greece and even with England. We don't say that Standard English is a dialect of Scots because it's less affected by French. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 14:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
  • To avoid any ambiguity, let me define Ahom as of or related to Ahom kingdom, e.g., Ahom-goods, Ahom-man, Ahom-woman, Ahom-culture, Mongoloid-Ahom, Dravidian-Ahom, Tai-Ahom, … … … while Tai-Ahom (a branch of Mongoloid-Ahom) are the people whose ancestors immigrated from that time Thailand and established Ahom kingdom in eastern part of Kamarupa.
  • but what Kurmaa has suggested here---that Tai-Ahom is the substrate for eastern Assamese dialect ("Ahomese")---is untenable. The Ahoms adopted Assamese late---in the 17th century---and in the process they completely lost their own language. - From day one the Tai-Ahom entered in Eastern Kamarupa they had no choice but to learn to speak in local language. There were no systematic language-learning approaches out there. They then occupied and form kingdom right there. So from day one this Ahom dialect or Ahomese was started as part of learning difficulties. This dialect spread into Ahom kingdom, but they kept Tai as their own dialect (I thought it was smart idea as well as other Ahom citizen would not understand a conversation in Tai). This Tai-dialect continued; right now there is a Tai Literary Society out there. King Rudra Singha tried to implement Tai script as well to write Ahomese or that time Assamese in his kingdom but he was not successful.
  • there are features like the dative -lai that eastern Assam has retained something western Assam has lost. - Please type this Lai in unicode Bengali script so I see clearly what you talk.
  • As we discussed earlier Kamrupi was sole literary language of ancient and medieval Assam. This is the reason why what Upendranath Goswami in his book "A study on Kāmrūpī" says is wrong. Kamarupa kingdom did not speak Assamese and or Bengali.
  • So why don't we call any of these varieties "Latin"? - Exactly! And why don't we call "Latin" a dialect of "any of these varieties"?. But look here Assamese call Kamarupi / Kamrupi a dialect of Assamese; Bengali call it dialect of Bengali too.
  • Actually modern offical languages of Assam are not based on prestige but due to circumstances. - I do not see it that way. e.g., (a) Nathan Brown crafted Asamese language based on how street people in that time Sivasagar used to speak. In his all publications including Orunodoi we see one heavily used present Kamrupi grammar, i.e., present indefinite form usage, which much had been spoken by street-people during that time Sivasagar. Then Hem Chandra Barua who was an Aristrocrate Ahom dropped all street language including present indefinite grammar - this is what is text-book Assamese, or modern Assamese. (b) From Nathan Brown defined script-set for Assamese, Hem Chandra Barua dropped at least a dozen letters/symbols that were not identical as that of Bengali script. Now do you understand why there will not be a Unicode Assamese script? (c) Miles Bronson wrote first Assamese language dictionary that Nathan Brown envisioned. If you are a Ahom please go read this dictionary. You will see that derogatory terms like Abar, Dhekeri, ..., are missing in Miles Bronson crafted Assamese dictionary. Hem Chandra Barua trashed that dictionary and crafted Hemkosh. Hemkosh keeps derogatory words. Abar is seed word in Kamrupi it means one with a form of maturity-deficiency in proportion to age or a form of mental-deficiency. Ahom call people of Arunachal Pradesh Abar. While seed word for Dhekeri is Dhekar a creature of dog, wolf like species. Dhekeri is derived from dhekor and it means bitch. Ahom use Dhekeri for both Kamrup and Kamrupi (see Hemkosh).
  • The problem with British are that they have made some blunders in selecting offical languages of an area not on historical grounds but just on recommendations. - Then what is the problem with Ahom? Why derogatory terms are still printed as Assamese standard? Would these terms have been there should Kamarupa had gotten a State in India too?

Kurmaa (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, ধেকুৰা (dhekura) is a male dog. But look up ঢেঁকেৰি (dhekeri) in Hemkosh instead, and you will see that the Mughals called Kamrup Sarkar Kamrup and/or Sarkar Dhekuri. It is from the Mughals that the Ahoms got the name Dhekeri. To find out where the Mughals could have gotten the name, look up "Social History of Kamarupa". Moreover, most of what you say above have no factual basis, and they sound like your pet theories. Furthermore, they have no bearing on the main point here --- the difference between the Prakrit and the dialect. Please note that Wikipedia is not a forum. Chaipau (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Mughal did what ever they like in that time India including rapte, forced-convert, … . What is the matter with Ahom (both Mongoloid Ahom and Dravidian Ahom)? Why did they adopt derogatory words from Mughal? Or is it because they established relationship with Mughal giving away Ahom women?
  • I see that you know how to type using Unicode Bengali script. Do you know how to type using Unicode Devanagari too? Can you answer those unanswered question please?

Kurmaa (talk) 01:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


Upendranath Goswami in book A study on Kāmrūpī says: Assamese entered into Kamarupa or western Assam where this speech was first characterised as Assamese. This is evident from the remarks of Hiuen Tsang who visited the Kingdom of Kamarupa in the first half of the seventh century A.D., during the reign of Bhaskaravarman. — Bhaskarbhagawati , — (continues after insertion below.)

This is one of several examples of very lax writing by Upendranath Goswami. There are many problems looking at this in isolation. First, Upendranath Goswami seems to claim that the language Assamese had already formed when it entered Kamarupa before the 7th century. I dont think anyone can agree to this. Elsewhere (p3) he claims "Thus the inscriptions record the Kamarupa Prakrit and establish the antiquity of the Assamese language at the very remote period of time." So here he does acknowledges that it was Kamarupa Prakrit, and not Assamese. Second, he seem to say that Kamarupa is just a part of Assam (western Assam). This too makes no sense unless that was a typographic error, and it should have been Kamrup. The laxness is probably explained by the fact that this comes from the "preface" of the book, and not from the main body, and so was not scrutinized by his PhD examiners. Chaipau (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

He further says:

  • Thus politically, socially and culturally Kamrup formed a separate unit and its speech also was compelled to take a shape to form a distinct dialect. It is only by chance that this dialect had to loose its prestige and had to remain as a dialect.

— Bhaskarbhagawati , — (continues after insertion below.)

Dialect status is no longer considered "low" from a linguistic point of view; and as pointed out, the standard too is a kind of dialect. Wikipedia does not consider dialects as either high or low. Aeuseos1 can probably explain this better. Chaipau (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • But they cannot furnish the grammatical structure of Kamrupl or Assamese for which we are to turn our attention to the songs of the Buddhist Siddhacaryas, known as Caryas, composed in between 8th to 12th centuries A.D.

bbhagawati (talk) 10:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this has already been mentioned here. The reconstruction of Kamarupi Prakrit is not complete and only some linguistic features are available today that differentiates it from Magadhi Prakrit. Sharma and others have shown that some of the peculiarities of Kamarupa Prakrit tie it to the Assamese language, but it is not enough to distinguish the eastern or the western in it. The -lai example given from the Charyapadas show that the current Kamarupi dialect is newer than eastern Assamese, at least in this respect, and eastern Assamese was independent of the western Assamese, at least in this respect. That the literary Assamese was influenced by the eastern dialect is consistent with the observation that dialects influence literary language. This also agrees with Goswami and Tamuli's observation that the standard dialect has acquired western dialectal features in recent times (last few decades). Chaipau (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I see Chaipau made passage written by bbhagawati disappear. Chaipau may I know why did you do so? Please don't repeat it again, thanks.
— Kurmaa , — (continues after insertion below.)
There are my edits. Could you show where I have removed BBhagawati's texts? Chaipau (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I see Chaipau keep referring -lai. Chaipau why don't you write the whole sloka or hymn in native Assamese / Ahomese so that I can look at the grammar enabling me to review? I also asked you to write Kamarupa/Kamrup and Kamarup/Kamrup in native script as well. Please, appreciate it. Kurmaa (talk) 13:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I have used a standard point of evidence. Goswami and Tamuli (2003) too mention the dative -lai. If you want to do your own research on this, please do so. Chaipau (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I could see that you had edited making original passage disappear. You had not done it before for any response. You have done to my writing as well. Can you keep the original passage as it is? It is convenient to read original passage should you leave it as it is otherwise needs to go through your editing chain. Why don't you just duplicate the passage and do your editing as talk continues.
  • If you want to do your own research on this, please do so. -It is not a matter of research. I want to understand what have you understood, as because in your native Ahomese or Assamese you can have 3 different spellings for same Lai, i.e., (1) লাই (2) লৈ and (3) লই.
  • Now can you tell me out of these three which one are you using for Lai in this talk?
Appreciate it very much for your response.
Kurmaa (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
While we're talking about talk page conventions, might I briefly request that Kurmaa and bbhagawati be a bit more vigilant in applying consistent indentation? It seems like Chaipau and I are constantly adjusting indentation for you two. It's not too serious, but it does get tedious after a while. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 00:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


Upendranath Goswami also adds:
Famed medieval scholars namely Rama Sarasvati, Ananta Kandali, Sridhara Kandali, Sarvabhauma Bhattacarya, Dvija Kalapacandra and Bhattadeva, the father of Assamesc prose, all hailed from the present district of Kamrup.
bbhagawati (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
  • To avoid ambiguity, Ahomese is the dialect that evolved in Ahom Kingdom, i.e., from day one the Tai-Ahom entered in Eastern Kamarupa they had no choice but to learn to speak in local language; there were no systematic language-learning approaches out there; they then occupied and form kingdom right there; so from day one this Ahom dialect or Ahomese was started as part of learning difficulties. This dialect is what is now known as Assamese.
  • For everyone's attention - Rama Sarasvati, Ananta Kandali, Sridhara Kandali, Sarvabhauma Bhattacarya, Dvija Kalapacandra and Bhattadeva, et al composed in Kamarupi / Kamrupi. As I wrote before at least 2 heavily used Kamarupi / Kamrupi grammar was not adopted to Ahomese / Assamese. Kamarupi / Kamrupi shall get its due respect and be recognized.
  • But they cannot furnish the grammatical structure of Kamrupl or Assamese for which we are to turn our attention to the songs of the Buddhist Siddhacaryas, known as Caryas, composed in between 8th to 12th centuries A.D. - This is incorrect. Should you look at grammar especially present perfect and present indefinite usage you see both usage not only in Charyapada but also in volumes of Copperplate scriptures as well as Sachi scriptures found in Kamarupa / Kamrup. There is another grammar, i.e., /se/ usage found to be common including present day all Kamarupi / Kamrupi dialects but not found in Ahomese / Assamese and Bengali.
Kurmaa (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

What's the purpose of arbitary break?

May I know what is the purpose of arbitrary break? Kurmaa (talk) 12:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Some discussions get so lengthy that an arbitrary break makes it easier to edit the section in question. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 13:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Which section in question got edited during this arbitary break?

Which section in question have you edited during this arbitrary break? -Kurmaa (talk) 03:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. I also don't understand why you have made a new section break to continue a thread that just started. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 12:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • 3.2 What's the purpose of arbitary break? is a sub-Section ([5]) while 3.2.1 Which section in question got edited during this arbitary break? ([6]) is a sub-section of the sub-section 3.2. This is not a new section break, but a sub-section of a sub-section. Have you understood? Did I explain it enough?
  • So what section in question have you edited shall be covered in this 3.2.1
Kurmaa (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
The (sub)section break is completely unnecessary. Your question is ungrammatical and nonsensical. I don't know what you're even trying to say. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 18:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Prakrita?

Bhaskarbhagawati, now you have moved the title of the article from Kamarupi Prakrit to Kamarupi Prakrita. This violates WP:EN and WP:TITLE, which explicitly state that article titles are to be written in English. Prakrita is not an English equivalent of Prakrit (prakrita is not even a redirect ). It also goes against the conventions of other Prakrit articles of using Prakrit and not Prakrita. We should move it back. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 16:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Check first line of Prakrit article for word "prākṛta". In this article Kamrupi is written as Kamarupi to depict Sanskritised pronounciation. This form is also commonly used in English books, like in book Āgama and Tripiṭaka: Language and literature by Nagraj (Muni.), Bhūpendra Swarup Jain, Raghunātha Śarmā: According to them, Ardha Magadhi Prakrita was primordial language of the world. Or Indian Poetics by T Deshpande: verses, he also made the maximum use of these verses in Prakrita to reveal minute shades of the suggested meanings. All this is very significant The abundance of Prakrita verses is not only a marked feature of the works from the Dhvanyaloka. Also check Ramayan as Ramayana and Mahabharat as Mahabharata.
bbhagawati (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
"prākṛta" is not English. As I said, article titles should be in English. When there are multiple English forms, as you claim (and I am incredibly skeptical of), we use the most common one, which is clearly Prakrit. You cite the use of "Kamarupi" instead of "Kamrupi" as justification, but it's clear from your merge proposal and your comments above that you disagree with this choice. This, in combination with the context of your move (amid disagreement on a merge) suggests that you are being disruptive on purpose. That is a blockable offense. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 17:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
If you feel its not the way then please move it back for me and i hope its not going to be a ego issue.
bbhagawati (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I have moved the page back to Kamarupi Prakrit. Chaipau (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I have noticed that the move was accompanied by an edit of the disambiguation page here. Such maneuvers, to bypass the discussion here, are not nice. Chaipau (talk) 21:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I understand Wikipedia adheres its policy, but should any of its policy undermines scholarly moral it must amend such policy.
Kurmaa (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Kurmaa, if you have a point to make on the spelling of Kamarupa/Kamrup, make it. You can write out the spelling and we will discuss that, if relevant. The point is already made that scholars have used the two spellings in English differently.
As I mentioned before I am talking about the the dative -lai, as mentioned in Goswami and Goswami & Tamuli. Again, if you have a point to make, please make it. I have had to point out how you read the dictionary wrong once. If you wish to find out something, please find it yourself. Chaipau (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
  • As I wrote before, Lai can have three different words in Ahomese / Assamese, i.e., in Unicode Bengali script (1) লাই (2) লৈ and (3) লই. Now out of these 3 words which one is for Lai that you talk?
  • I have had to point out how you read the dictionary wrong once. -I wrote indicating that Hemkosh is not a dictionary for Kamarupi / Kamrupi. I gave an example of Kamarupi / Kamrupi word nun there as well explaining Ahomese / Assamese meaning. Have you understood the moral at all?
Kurmaa (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Kurmaa, to say that I've had a tough time understanding your posts would be an understatement. I had assumed that my not understanding was a combination of your ESL issues, conversations elsewhere with Chaipau, and a topic I'm not very familiar with. Now that you have posted a continuation of what seems to be the same point that you had presented above in this thread, which is about a different issue than the title of the article, and now that Chaipau says "if you have a point to make on the spelling of Kamarupa/Kamrup, make it" I suspect that your talk page behavior may be deviating what is asked of you at WP:TALK. Namely, Be concise, Keep the layout clear, and Avoid repeating your own lengthy posts. Please take a close look at WP:TALK and try to be much clearer about what, exactly, you are advocating in regards to article content. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 22:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Right now I am looking for 3 words written in both Unicode Bengali script and Unicode Devanagari script. These 3 words in Roman scripts are Kamarupa, Kamrup and Lai. Hoping Chaipau will help. Or you may help as well. Kurmaa (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Why are you looking for these words? — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 04:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I will reply this question immediately after I see these words in this talk, thanks, Kurmaa (talk) 04:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
No. You've asked other editors to do something seemingly banal and pointless. We're supposed to be discussing how to improve the article. Either explain you reason for the request or drop it. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 12:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
No I do not drop my request for this information. Is Chaipau denying my request? What about you? Please look at Freedom of Information Act, U.S.A.. I shall in the near future write improvement ideas for any article that will include words Kamarupa / Kamrup , Kamarupi / Kamrupi - or refer the same directly or indirectly. Kurmaa (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
If you don't explain your reason for your request, no one will want to help you. Help us out here by explaining why you are looking for those words. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 17:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
As I wrote before I would respond back after I get the information. Kurmaa (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I recommend you seriously reconsider. Chaipau and I have made it clear that we see no point in addressing this request without justification, you have arrogantly refused to justify it, and you have made it clear that you intend to continue to repost this request. This is a form of talk page disruption, namely being unhelpful and failing to engage in consensus building. This is the third time in less than 24 hours that I have been prompted to cite Wikipedia talk page policy to you specifically. You're on thin ice here. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 18:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Didn't I give the reason before for Lai? I am reproducing here.
  • As I wrote before, Lai can have three different words in Ahomese / Assamese, i.e., in Unicode Bengali script (1) লাই (2) লৈ and (3) লই. Now out of these 3 words which one is for Lai that you talk?
You see that why I asked for this information you had the reason about 24 hours ago. Can Chaipau answer this? Kurmaa (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Now you are being disingenuous. You just said above that you wouldn't justify your request and now you are pretending that the above justifies your request when it does nothing of the sort. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 18:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Scroll up in this page, it was written yesterday - as not disingenuous did you read it before? :) I indicated today that as per Freedom of Information Act, U.S.A. I didn't have to tell why I request for information. Is Chaipau denying this information? Kurmaa (talk) 18:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I think the book "A study on Kamrupi" by 'Upendranath Goswami' has thrown enough light on the subject.
bbhagawati (talk) 07:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
In his book did he describe Kamrupi as a dialect of Assamese? If so did he define both Kamrupi and Assamese? Kurmaa (talk) 02:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
As you see in above para, he said that Kamrupi today has dialect status only due to chance. He treated the subject like an language. He synonymed Kamrupi with Assamese in modern context as there is no word named Assamese exists before arrival of British.
bbhagawati (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
It is appropriate to let Upendranath Goswami know that some Ahom people (exhibiting both Ahom ethnocentrism and Ahom supremacy) have been using his synonymed Kamrupi with Assamese to present Kamrupi as a dialect of Ahomese or Assamese. Be aware that scholars abroad especially in U.S.A. use sophisticated methods/theories, i.e., foreign occupation, geographical isolation, etc., including Grimm's Law, in order to access a dialect belong to a specific language. For the term Ahom see above.
Kurmaa (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the title of Goswami's thesis "A Study of Kamrupi: A Dialect of Assamese" should actually be read as "A Study of Kamrupi: A Dialect of Kamrupi"? Why does this remind me of "Assam is based on the English name Assam"? Chaipau (talk) 02:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Are you suggesting that the title of Goswami's thesis "A Study of Kamrupi: A Dialect of Assamese" should actually be read as "A Study of Kamrupi: A Dialect of Kamrupi"? - No. Goswami cheated in his thesis which is being used by some Ahom people exhibiting both Ahom ethnocentrism and Ahom supremacy. It is appropriate to let Upendranath Goswami know.
  • Why does this remind me of "Assam is based on the English name Assam"? - Did you mean "Assam" equals "Kingdom of Assam"?
Kurmaa (talk) 12:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Difficulty with English

User Aeusoes1 wrote, "I'm sorry, but it looks like you are having difficulty with English. I don't understand what you're trying to say in your second bullet point." -Scroll up.

To understand better try typing Kamarupi and Kamrupi in both Unicode Bengali script and Unicode Devanagari script. Hope this helps.

Kurmaa (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you managed to type both words?

If you have done so post what have you typed so that I can check. Then you shall go through the second bullet again.

For convenience second bullet is as, Kamarupi and Kamrupi holds the same meaning where first is Sanskrit usage second current usage with Sanskrit phoneme (first vowel) suppressed. The second is how Ahom people both Mongoloid as well as Dravidian use as well while Ahom people speaking dialect is what is Assamese basis. Writing in Bengali script, however, both Kamarupi and Kamrupi does not distinguish vowel-phoneme suppression, i.e. the conjunct /mr/ is not used, while Chatterji was Bengali. Currently Bengali script is used to write both Assamese and Bengali languages.

It will be my pleasure to help you understand this bullet.

Kurmaa (talk) 21:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kamarupi_Prakrit/Archive_1&oldid=826925069"