Talk:Malayalam: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Reverted 1 edit by 124.124.115.53 (talk) to last revision by Hyper9. (TW)
Hyper9 (talk | contribs)
473 edits
Line 142: Line 142:


*I would further like to add that the Government of India has already granted Classical language tag to Malayalam in 2013, that was based on an expert case presented to them. This tag requires the language to be least 1500 years old, amongst its various criteria ( Link - http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/Criteria-for-classical-language-status/article16265456.ece). This conclusion directly contradicts the position of all 3 references (ie Krishnamurti, Karashima, Steever) who state that the language splits around 800 CE. This decision was hotly contested, but ultimately accepted by the Government. [[User:Hyper9|Hyper9]] ([[User talk:Hyper9|talk]]) 13:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
*I would further like to add that the Government of India has already granted Classical language tag to Malayalam in 2013, that was based on an expert case presented to them. This tag requires the language to be least 1500 years old, amongst its various criteria ( Link - http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/Criteria-for-classical-language-status/article16265456.ece). This conclusion directly contradicts the position of all 3 references (ie Krishnamurti, Karashima, Steever) who state that the language splits around 800 CE. This decision was hotly contested, but ultimately accepted by the Government. [[User:Hyper9|Hyper9]] ([[User talk:Hyper9|talk]]) 13:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

'''CONCLUSION'''

The Final version that is agreed upon for this [[Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Malayalam.23Debates_on_the_origins_of_Malayalam_-_June_2017|Wikipedia Dispute]]-
"The origin of Malayalam remains a matter of dispute among scholars. One view holds that Malayalam and Modern Tamil are offshoots of Middle Tamil and separated from it sometime after {{circa|7th century CE}}. A second view argues for the development of the two languages out of 'Proto-Dravidian' in the prehistoric era. In any event, Tamil is considered Malayalam's closest relative.<ref>Asher and Kumari (1997) - Malayalam, pg xxiv</ref><ref>S.V. Shanmugam (1976) - Formation and Development of Malayalam, Indian Literature, Vol. 19, No. 3 (May-June 1976), pg 10</ref>"

The details of the dispute and arguments can be viewed in the link above. No academic references have passed muster to support the argument that Malayalam separated from Tamil. Neither Bhadriraju Krishnamurti nor Sanford Steever. Any current, authoritative, scholarly references to support this position would be a welcome addition.[[User:Hyper9|Hyper9]] ([[User talk:Hyper9|talk]]) 10:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:19, 28 June 2017

Template:Vital article

Malayalam language materials

https://archive.org/details/ldpd_8661431_000

https://archive.org/details/malayalamenglish01gund

https://archive.org/details/lukemalayalamara00madr

Rajmaan (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional info requested

Could someone please include whether Malayalam is left-to-right or right-to-left in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.43.216 (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the section on its writing system. Then follow the link to the article about it, where it can be found under "Characteristics" and in the infobox. --JorisvS (talk) 09:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malabar Language

The language of Malabar was not Malayalam. Malayalam came into Malabar only with the arrival of converted to Christianity, non-brahmanial populations from Travancore. The language of Malabar had absolutely different words, most of which cannot be understood by Malayalam speakers of Travancore.

Words like: ബരത്തം, ചെരയിക്കുക, ബസ്സി, പക്കിണ്, ബെയ്ക്ക്, കീയ്, ബയ്യാപ്പുറം,and hundreds of other words are un-understandable to the Malayalam speakers of Travancore.

As of now, the traditional language of Malabar has been wiped out by formal education, Malayalam films and TV serials and by Malayalam Newspapers.

More on this can be found on this link

Add more information for verbs

This article on Malayalm doesn't have any information on verb conjugations. Can somebody add more information on verbs and verb conjugations? There should be examples also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aparme (talk • contribs) 17:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Malayalam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Malayalam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Debates on the origins of Malayalam - June 2017

Removed Krishnamurti. Krishnamurti as cited from Britannica is unreliable for two reasons. One, he is NOT an established expert on Malayalam - with no publications specifically on Malayalam linguistics. Two, more importantly, in the Britannica entry - the language tree depicted in the same article clearly shows the split of Malayalam before the development of Tamil. Thus, Krishnamurti contradicts himself in the entry. I have removed this reference. If other editors want to use this entry to give timelines, they must first explain this contradiction.

Krishnamurti, Karashima and Mahapatra are general historians of South India - none specialising in Kerala/Malayalam. I fail to see how their view can be accepted over specialist linguisticians of Malayalam such as Govindankutty and Asher & Kumari. It only exhibits the authors' own biases.

Asher and Kumari (1997) give a basic treatment of the linguistic history. However, their conclusion is clear. That the split is in ancient era, before the development of Tamil. Detailed discussions can be elaborated in the Evolution section, however the current position is that of Asher and Kumari’s. A more authoritative newer source needs to be provided to claim a counter conclusion.Hyper9 (talk) 15:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only bias here appears to be your own. Your first edit basically removed the Britannica reference claiming that Bhadriraju Krishnamurti is unreliable. Your next edit reintroduces him along with some OR to suit your own narrative. Krishnamurti does not contradict himself. He is simply presenting both sides of the Malayalam-origin debate as evident here: Malayalam evolved either from a western dialect of Tamil or from the branch of Proto-Dravidian from which modern Tamil also evolved. This is the position outlined in the article. Asher and Kumari also begin, The most widely held view is perhaps the one that takes Malayalam as a 'daughter' of Tamil, the historical records of which go back to the pre-Christian era. All your claims of certain authors being general historians and not Malayalam-specialists are specious and contradicted by your own edits. If you want to bolster the Proto-Dravidian theory, then please do so without removing the "most widely held view" or its primacy. If you want to bolster the "daughter of Tamil" theory, then do that without impinging on any of the Proto-Dravidian stuff. Just maintain NPOV and avoid OR statements such as "The current scholarly understanding" unless reliable sources actually state so and are not contradicted elsewhere (as is the case here).--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 16:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cpt.a.haddock: The Krishnamurti reference was pre-existing on Wiki and I was not the one to introduce/change it, much like several other dubious links that you often highlight. Krishnamurti's Dravidian languages entry on Britannica (which is the one used for citation) is certainly contradictory - but what you quote above, to defend Krishnamurti, is now magically from the Malayalam entry which is NOT the one cited on the page! Perhaps, you need to add this link first before arguing about the legibility of the link.
Asher and Kumari are fairly clear that they have been 'convinced' of pre-historic split. And this is taken as the current view on the topic. The debate on the topic is recognised and it is elaborated in the 'Evolution' section. However, the conclusion of the debate, as I point out in the parent 'Talk' comment, is that of Asher and Kumari's (aka current scholarly understanding!!). This is precisely what is summarised in the Introduction, so Im not sure what is this bias that you imagine I have. In fact, I'm not sure why you (Cpt.a.haddock) are imposing your own bias in the face of such an expert verdict! Kindly explain why you would disagree with their verdict - with the appropriate citation!
The academics that have been cited are the best when none other exist. That does not mean that they are the best in every way. If you find a better source, I would welcome it but you never seem to provide one.Im not getting involved in Proto-Dravidian/Indo-Aryan theory blah blah blah - but my reading and citations are a fair, dispassionate summary of the expert literature. It appears that you (Cpt.a.haddock) are the one more entangled in this - and trying to push your own POV.Hyper9 (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to also point out that you (Cpt.a.haddock) went and modified the Wiki that had held stable for some time. You did NOT open this Talk section to discuss and arrive at a Consensus before modifying the section - I had to after your modification spree. And now you are accusing me of doing the same. Perhaps you need to re-evaluate your own POVs and biases on this topic. If you have launched into this after my comment on the Chera Talk that there are POVs in the article, then I must point out to you that you have mistaken the size of the POVs (which are very minor and used only for their minor explanatory power). It is nothing of this magnitude !!Hyper9 (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hyper9: Asher and Kumari do not magically become "current scholarly understanding" just because you say so. They are one reliable source and proponents of one theory. There are others who are proponents of another theory which appears to be the more widely accepted one (in Asher and Kumari's own words). We are simply here to present both without bias. As for article stability, looking at the history there used to be some semblance of balance to this article until a couple of months ago. There have been a series of IP edits removing the Tamil angle from the article. This includes edits by 115.99.16.157 on April 15 where he removed content from the lead (in his first edit), followed a few hours later by a manual revert by your good self where you deign to not bother reintroducing the same content. As to why I'm here, I'm here because of your use of Asher and Kumari as a basis for your synthesis in Chera dynasty and I noticed similar NPOV issues when I checked here. I don't usually bother with non-history related articles.
Setting all that aside, what are your issues with the current position in the Evolution section? We can work on that here and attempt to reach a consensus. I don't share your opinion that Asher and Kumari's position somehow represents "current scholarly understanding" or that the other sources cited in the section are unreliable. The only author who could be questionable is Dr. BP Mahapatra who is apparently "Deputy Registrar General (languages)", a Census bureau official of unknown qualifications/expertise; he is however only one of four authors in the book's byline and the Google Books preview does not provide information on who wrote the Malayalam chapter.
And if there are any lurkers watching on, please jump in to provide a third opinion.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 18:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cpt.a.haddock: - Ok. Let me break this down for you. Asher and Kumari (1997) are authorities on Malayalam. Their current position on this issue is that the split is pre-Sangam. There is also no subsequent contrary evidence of a similar quality presented - make note, since 1997 if not 1972! Therefore, they become the 'current understanding'. You do not present any single similarly authoritative (expert in malayalam linguistics) reference to defend your position, yet you argue against it! What is that but a pre-conceived bias? The debates that you talk about are acknowledged and dutifully recorded in detail later in main body, Evolution or other sections. But the conclusion of the debate, as it stands, is that of Asher's. As I mentioned earlier, please defend your argument with the appropriate (ie subsequent/current) citation from a similar expert in Malayalam linguistics!
Since I add genuine, good quality content on Wikipedia, I am not active all the time and do not monitor all aspects of these pages. The areas which I deem critical, I keep an eye on - and add/improve content if I find it but am not bothered if someone changes/improves any and every aspect. You (Cpt.a.haddock) have distinctly taken to editing both 'Chera' and 'Malayalam' after a casual chat with me on the Chera talk and I'm very aware of this. But your identification of the POVs are incorrect and you can contact me if you need help in finding them. The material and positions that I have provided on these Wikis are well researched and rock solid - and therefore very defendable by me or anyone. On the other hand, you have neither given any expert references nor added any signficant new ideas or research.
I had given a more referenced version of the Evolution but in the haste of your biased view, you have reverted it. All I have been saying, consistently, is that the verdict of the debate within linguistics (as of 2017) is clear - it is that of Govindankutty and Asher & Kumari's. Until someone strongly contests it, this position stands. Asher and Kumari do not arrive at this position themselves but are actually confirming that the analysis of Govindankutty in 1972 is impeccable. Other articles or references that are cited on this page are not original research but just users of secondary data. We (or anyone) can always add more detail to the Evolution section and in fact Mahapatra (eds) turns out to be an excellent resource for that.Hyper9 (talk) 19:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC) Reverted POV edits of as no response forthcoming.Hyper9 (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's some serious logic you have going there. No, that's not how academia works. Govindankutty Menon's theory has had about 45 years to be accepted by other scholars and clearly, this hasn't happened (remotely) universally as evident from both Krishnamurti and Karashima. In fact, in Krishnamurti's The Dravidian Languages (Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 22), he liberally cites Asher and Kumari (1997) and yet maintains that Malayalam was a "west-coast dialect of Tamil till about the ninth century AD". In The Dravidian Languages (Routledge, 1998, p. 6), Sanford B. Steever states that "Between 800 and 1200 CE the western dialects of Tamil, geographically separated from the others by the Western Ghats, developed into Malayalam". It is clearly evident that the western dialect view is the more accepted one and is effectively "current scholarly understanding". Furthermore, the view's widely accepted status is corroborated by Asher and Kumari themselves.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 07:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cpt.a.haddock: Perhaps you (Cpt.a.haddock) need to re-examine your deep seated biases. I dont see how any of these references (Karashima, Krishnamurti and now Seever) are experts in Malayalam. Repeating from the earlier response - As I mentioned earlier, please defend your argument with the appropriate (ie subsequent/current) citation from a similar expert in Malayalam linguistics!. My open challenge for the relevant citation from an expert in Malayalam still stands. Asher and Kumari's book is not an exposition on the topic of Malayalam's history and hence is not required to be used for that. But the fact that they are being cited means that they are considered the authorities in Malayalam by these generalist historians or linguists.Hyper9 (talk) 07:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hyper9: No, Wikipedia does not require such jaundiced interpretations of who is considered an expert and who is not. These are all reliable linguists and historians published by reliable publishers and are eminently suitable for this NPOV encyclopaedia.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cpt.a.haddock:I am sure that every entry in Wikipedia benefits from citations from the foremost authority in the field. And in this case, you fail to show any citation by an authority (in Malayalam-specific linguistics - for this Malayalam wiki page) greater than Govindankutty/Asher and Kumari that I have used. In fact, you point out how others have used these references as authorities without realising the irony in that. I do not think that this (ie using references that support your biases/POVs over the established authority in the field) would acceptable practice anywhere, not just Wikipedia. Hyper9 (talk) 08:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any details on the timelines involved in building consensus, especially waiting for replies ? It is not clear anywhere on Wikipedia and therefore I went ahead with the edits.Hyper9 (talk) 08:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the record and benefit of other editors/users interested, I would like to cement the fact that the sources cited by User - Cpt.a.haddock to defend his position are experts of other Dravidian languages - NOT Malayalam. Krishnamurti (of Telugu), Karashima (of Chola-Tamil) and Steever (of Tamil-Kannada). They do not seem to have any significant contributions vis-a-vis Malayalam, as evidenced by the majority of their bodies of work.Hyper9 (talk) 10:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC) In fact, let me add that one would struggle to find ANY contribution to Malayalam by these scholars.[reply]
@Hyper9: And to repeat myself, if they were the foremost authority in the field, then everybody would now—45 years after Menon's paper was published—be parroting their theory. That's obviously not the case here.
I'm unaware of fixed timelines for consensus, but in my experience, editors assume good faith and generally tend to wait at least a couple of days for a response. If consensus cannot be reached, then other steps can be taken.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 13:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cpt.a.haddock: It does not appear that you're differentiating between the various fields under study here. As you have mentioned ealier, you do not know about Malayalam or Languages and largely edit history pages. This conclusion that we have been discussing has been provided within Linguistics - as given by my references - and is currently undisputed. The Historian, however, has to arrive at a conclusion based on a number of different subjects such as Archaeology, Numismatics, Literature, Linguistics etc - and be able to string a theory to explain all these together.
Also, unlike your claim, it is not necessary for "everybody" to know about all discoveries in any field and some people are not interested in going around "parroting" their pet theories. That does not constitute why a theory becomes the correct one. A theory is accepted when there is academic consensus "within that field" that the theory is impeccable. And Asher and Kumari (as experts of Malayalam linguistics) constitute an authoritative acceptance of Govindankutty's position.
All said and done, your inability to provide any counter references and substantiate why your references should hold for Malayalam have not been responded to. There is also no other contributor/editor willing to provide more insight into this. In which case, I think there is little further to discuss!! Hyper9 (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that is simply utter tosh. Please follow the steps for dispute resolution to request either formal or informal mediation on this issue in your own words and let's be done with it. If you would like me to open this request, let me know.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 14:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but this is the most ridiculous response I've heard on WP, by another WP editor. Even in the face of continued proof, you are unwilling to change to your biases and move ahead and accept the references. Calling my clear case, 'tosh', just shows in plain sight that you never had a NPOV to begin with.Hyper9 (talk) 14:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any reason to open a case for this - as it was clear cut from the beginning. If you, after going over the evidence/discussion again, believe that you need to win a dispute just to insert your POVs, then please go ahead and open this mechanism. If it is a fair and unbiased mechanism, I really dont have any issue in taking part in it.Hyper9 (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That was diplomatically done. I've opened a discussion here. Good luck.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 11:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cpt.a.haddock: - I will take a look at the details of this mechanism and respond to it shortly. 2 requests to you. One, Including who is Editor1 and Editor2 makes the parties clear. Two, making the areas where you summarise my positions should be differentiated from your own so that I can correct/verify them. Thanks. Good luck to you too.Hyper9 (talk) 13:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No attempt made by editor (Cpt.a.haddock) to address any of the concerns raised by me in the previous post.Hyper9 (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional points given in ongoing dispute case found here (for reference)

  • I have found one further scholar who has the expertise to address Govindankutty (1972) and who also agrees with this position (of origins before 800 CE). I extend the argument that none of the other scholars cited (Krishnamurti, Karashima, Steever) have shown the required expertise to address this subject in-depth ie Malayalam. This source is an expert of Tamil-Malayalam and Professor of Linguistics at Annamalai University, Tamil Nadu. This can be considered as a supplementary secondary verification source along with Asher & Kumari (1997). S.V. Shanmugam (1976) - Formation and Development of Malayalam, Indian Literature, Vol. 19, No. 3 (May-June 1976), pp. 5-30
  • I would further like to add that the Government of India has already granted Classical language tag to Malayalam in 2013, that was based on an expert case presented to them. This tag requires the language to be least 1500 years old, amongst its various criteria ( Link - http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/Criteria-for-classical-language-status/article16265456.ece). This conclusion directly contradicts the position of all 3 references (ie Krishnamurti, Karashima, Steever) who state that the language splits around 800 CE. This decision was hotly contested, but ultimately accepted by the Government. Hyper9 (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CONCLUSION

The Final version that is agreed upon for this Wikipedia Dispute- "The origin of Malayalam remains a matter of dispute among scholars. One view holds that Malayalam and Modern Tamil are offshoots of Middle Tamil and separated from it sometime after c. 7th century CE. A second view argues for the development of the two languages out of 'Proto-Dravidian' in the prehistoric era. In any event, Tamil is considered Malayalam's closest relative.[1][2]"

The details of the dispute and arguments can be viewed in the link above. No academic references have passed muster to support the argument that Malayalam separated from Tamil. Neither Bhadriraju Krishnamurti nor Sanford Steever. Any current, authoritative, scholarly references to support this position would be a welcome addition.Hyper9 (talk) 10:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Asher and Kumari (1997) - Malayalam, pg xxiv
  2. ^ S.V. Shanmugam (1976) - Formation and Development of Malayalam, Indian Literature, Vol. 19, No. 3 (May-June 1976), pg 10
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malayalam&oldid=787916353"