Talk:Linguistic history of the Indian subcontinent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject India / History (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (marked as Mid-importance).


Telugu originated from a hypothesized Proto-Dravidian language. It is a highly Sanskritized language. As Telugu savant C.P Brown states in page 266 of his book "A Grammar of the Telugu language": "if we ever make any real progress in the language the student will require the aid of the Sanskrit Dictionary" [1].

I added Valid reference. Earlier someone wrote that Telugu is Tamilized language and also misrepresented the reference which is wrong. Telugu is highly sanskritized language and its a universal fact. Please I request Tamilians to stop this propaganda. Just be happy yourselves for a change. Stop your propaganda with other languages which are not even close to Tamil.

Telugu belongs to Central Dravidian Group not Tamil. It has more sanskrit influence than Tamil —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Another question here...Is it another version of the statement victors write history? We know that an old language by name Tamil exists. We know that a new language by name Tamil exists. Malayalam split from the older Tamil language in 9th century. Is there any proof that current Tamil is the older Tamil or are they two languages with the same name? Is Malayalam the actual Tamil from which present Tamil is just a Tamil offshoot? Who knows... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ Charles Philip Brown, A Grammar of the Telugu language, Kessinger Publishing, p. 266 

Proto-Dravidian split[edit]

Could somebody add sources to this article, please? The article states that proto-Dravidian split up around 1500 BCE (though earlier dates are possible) while the article Dravidian languages gives the same piece information but with 500 BCE not 1500 BCE. I think the articles on Dravidology require a proper cleanup/verification process. Kkrystian (talk) 12:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Traditionally many sources cite the split of major dravidian languages in around c.1500 BCE which is attributed to found inscriptions and also partly on paleographic grounds owing to language evolutionary routes. This is also based on assumptions, speculations and biases of those involved in such research. Therefore only further research can uncover the real facts from regular citations.Jrsanthosh (talk) 07:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

There are no inscriptions earlier than 500 BCE in Dravidian languages to claim a proto split in 1500 BCE Senthilkumaras (talk) 08:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Grammitical corrections needed[edit]

In the Tamil section I corrected the starting phrase to suit grammer. There are many such mistakes which need corrections. Anyone findind mistakes can correct it or try to rephrase it. Thanks. Jrsanthosh (talk) 07:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Imaginary early Telugu period:[edit]

Prior page read: "Inscriptions in Telugu dating to 400 BCE were discovered in Bhattiprolu in the district of Guntur. The English translation of one inscription reads: “A gift of a slab by the venerable Midikilayakha.[37] The discovery of a Brahmi inscription reading Thambhaya Dhaanam as engraved on a soapstone reliquary is dated to the 2nd century BCE on paleographical grounds proves the antiquity of Telugu.

Primary sources are Sanskrit and Prakrit inscriptions found in the region, in which Telugu places and personal names are found. From this we know that the spoken vernacular was Telugu, while the rulers, who were of the Satavahana dynasty, used Prakrit in their monumental inscriptions.[38] Telugu appears in the Gathasaptashathi Maharashtri Prakrit anthology of poems from the 1st century BCE from the Satavahana King Hala. "

1.The one at Bhattiprolu is in early Brahmi script and Prakrit language. by this do we claim telugu is an Indo-aryan language?

2. satavahana coins show king's names readable in Prakrit and old Tamil, both in Brahmi script{ref:wiki:Gautamiputra satakarni},though there is no "Sanskritised telugu" root words, here too similar to bhatiprolu.

3. can any one spell out clearly in legible written order as,,the so-called telugu root words , its present telugu word, its meaning, context. Not even a picture of the bhatiprolu telugu inscription is posted here. all imaginary , false and tall claims.

4. even the date of bhatiprolu is too approximate, this page mentions 400BCE while main page on that inscription says have place a non-existent telugu script based on this indistinct date.

5. soapstone reliquary mentioned here, has not been published anywhere else for by the state ?ASI, for the proper use and study by linguists and literary scholars. Not even a close-up phptograph is available to study the written language.

6. Gathasaptashathi is a love-life anthology by Hala written in Maharashtri, a local dialect of Prakrit. How falsely thou claim it a telugu work?

7. telugu places and names are not useful here, as names are common to all languages in India. Only the grammar and language is to be confirmed here.

8. need to explain "on what paleographic" grounds?

9. your references no.37 and 38 are from ASI director ,( who is an archeologist first may be an amateur linguist and an etymologist too?) and from a ipsilateral imaginary claim by AP again no indepentent impartial standard linguist would agree to ). Senthilkumaras (talk) 09:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. I've added a few tags to alert readers and editors alike. See also Talk:Telugu language#early epigraphy. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Harappan symbols[edit]

Re: ""The symbols remain undeciphered (in spite of numerous attempts that did not find favour with the academic community), and most scholars tend to classify them as proto-writing rather than writing proper." Which "most scholars" are we talking about? I believe most scholars either think they were full writing, or else that they were not writing at all. The statement would seem to need citation to support it.

--Richard Sproat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:10C1:101F:A800:1FF:FE00:54B3 (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


I removed the split tag because there had been no discussion and it was not obvious what was intended nor why a split was required. I described it as "destroying" the article. The tag was replaced with the edit note "Eh? Of course the split would destroy the article, that's intended. Also, most material here duplicates – and is even outright copied from – other articles.)" Unfortunately, that still does not really say what is required. I would like to make progress one way or another and to that end investigated making the split. If a bit more information were supplied then maybe I could try. Op47 (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Split declined per WP:PROSPLIT - no rationale given, and no obvious reason for split per WP:WHENSPLIT. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Modern Tamil negative[edit]

"The negative conjugation of verbs, for example, has fallen out of use in Modern Tamil – negation is, instead, expressed either morphologically[clarification needed] or syntactically."

A negative conjugation is a morphological, as opposed to syntactical, expression of negation. If negation is expressed morphologically in modern Tamil, too, in what sense is it claimed that there is no negative conjugation any longer?-- (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)