Talk:Devaneya Pavanar/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Very good points brought out

Mr.Pavanar has done a great job bringing out the hidden greatness of Tamil. His works should be further researched on. All his views are based on strong evidence. They say that without fire there is no smoke. It is indeed the greatest pride to India that such a language like Tamil, being the mother of all other languages of the earth. It also brings true the Vedic words that once Indians ruled the world. Sara jahan se accha! Long live the memories and works of 'Mozhi Gnayiru'

What is the proof that Tamil is the mother of all languages? It is all bosh and nonsense. No language is the mother of any other language. Each group of languages emerged on their own, depending on local conditions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.240.36.97 (talk) 10:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

REFERENCES

This article is based on reliable sources, all are from his research work, those are accepted by Indian Government and all his books are nationalised.

One can see his books in Library of Tamil Virtual Univercity (www.tamilvu.org). Rajan 06:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

then provide bibliographic details, please: publisher, year, and if possible ISBN. Just listing titles is not enough. dab (𒁳) 08:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Detailed bibliography is given in the reference section. Rajan 10:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

what is wrong with you? You dumped a giant list of completely unrelated titles. dab (𒁳) 10:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Mythism

This Devaneya Pavanar has gone too far! His theories are very funny but I don't think they should appear in a serious encyclopedia like wikipedia!!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.23.53.244 (talk • contribs).

As this book is a research work and 100% aggreed by Governtment of India and Government of Tamil Nadu, these are all facts and truth, any one can easily refer the book and conclude. So removing this article from Mythism.

please refer Caldwell research given in Reference section.

Rajan 18:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I've no idea why you are citing Caldwell. He was simply the first person to write up the Dravidian group. He said nothing about Tamil being the oldest language in the world, or being "more divine" than other languages, whatever that might mean. Paul B 23:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The government of Tamil Nadu, also seems to believe E.V. Ramasami Naicker is a respected historian and savior of the Tamil people from the evil TamBram and Vellalla mafia.Bakaman 23:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Caldwell?? Nice try. :) Sarvagnya 09:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"primary classical language" isn't even a term that makes sense outside of Pavanar's head. "more divine than Sanskrit" is patently a religious "truth" and has nothing to do with "scientific fact". I suppose you can religiously believe in it like you can believe in anything else, but it has nothing to do with linguistics. dab (𒁳) 11:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to wikipedia link Classical_language to understand the meaning of Classical Language. Also note that Tamil is dated only by the earliest text found. It does not indicate when exactly the language formed. Obviously, before writing an *epic* the language must have been fairly well established. Sadly, we are not sure of the exact beginnings due to passage of time and destruction of evidence. Tamil Creed 14 October 2007 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 14:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

look, Rajan, it is all very well to just claim things like "100% aggreed by Governtment of India and Government of Tamil Nadu". You need to show convincing evidence that this is the case. All we know so far is the rather pedestrian claim that the Tamil Nadu goverment presented the man with a copper plate in 1960, for his "contribution to the collection of administrative terms in Tamil". And even this is unreferenced! If you can prove that the Lemurian Tamil stuff is "100% aggreed by Government of Tamil Nadu", we will be able to state that, which is still a very long way from "all facts and truth" (it may also mean that some Tamil Nadu governor at some point had smoked rather too much Lemurian substances). dab (𒁳) 08:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sanskrit Scholars used to call Sanskrit language as Divine Language, Pavanar is just gave evidences to prove Tamils excellence, thats all. So there is not myth here. If you want please add Sanskrit and Sanskrit related articles in the Mythism Category.Rajan 12:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

not "mythism", mysticism. "Divine Sanskrit" is obviously also language mysticism. Look, linguistics doesn't even have any sort of criteria that would define a language's "excellence", that's completely in the eye of the beholder. I wasn't suggesting we add Tamil language to the "mysticism" category, and neither should we add Sanskrit. You will note, if you care, that mantras goes already under "language and mysticism", and the allegedly divine qualities of reciting Sanskrit are discussed there. Needless to say, "Tamils originated in sunken Lemuria" stuff goes under national mysticism, just like Sun Language Theory, Indigenous Aryans, Ellinokentrismos and similar hilarity (have you ever looked at a bathymetric map of the Indian ocean and looked for Lemuria?? I thought not). dab (𒁳) 13:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have already looked at the bathymetic map of the Indian Ocean. Tamils orginated in South Asia which includes sunken Lemuria, thats the truth. The current South India also the origin of Tamils. ThanksRajan 16:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

you realize, I hope, that this "sunken Lemuria" stuff makes the "Vedic Saraswati Civilization was indiginous Aryans!!!1!" crew look like David Hume by comparison? dab (𒁳) 17:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking??? Unable to understand, be clear....Rajan 19:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Images

The stamp image cannot be used under "fair use" on this article, per {{stamp}}. dab (𒁳) 08:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for update. But you should only remove stamp image not others which we can use it here.So adding other images except stamp.Rajan 10:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

the stamp image is the only one that can arguably remain on Wikipedia for "fair use" purposes. The others are blatant copyright violations and will be deleted. Please respect Wikipedia copyright policy, you cannot just upload random stuff because you feel like it, and it says so in giant letters every time you submit an edit. It is becoming difficult to assume good faith on your part. dab (𒁳) 10:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no violation in that image as it is created by me. So adding it again, before removing it once visit the images page and read the description please, thank youRajan 11:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

you created a photograph of Pavanar? Did you raise him from the dead or visit him in Lemuria or something? dab (𒁳) 11:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Rajan, a stamp can only be used to illustrate the stamp in question, not the subject of a stamp. If there was a page on Tamil stamps, the stamp image can be used, but not to illustrate pavanar.Bakaman 01:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification: I will add this stamp image in this article again to illustrate Stamp of Pavanar but not exactly Pavanar. Please understand, adding this stamp agian doesnt mean I'm illustrating subject, but I'm illustrating stamp of subject. As the stamp image of Pavanar is very much required, I'm going to add this in Award and Honours section because this Stamp Release is one of the honour given to him by Government of India. Is that ok?? Thank you. Rajan 05:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

see also Talk:A._C._Bhaktivedanta_Swami_Prabhupada#Stamp_Image. Also, for the love of God, can we get rid of the awful cheesy colouring and cloud backdrop? The goggles they do nothing. At least make it B/W (since the image was obviously B/W to begin with, before it was sodomised by some hack with MS Paint). dab (𒁳) 08:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

மொழி ஞாயிறு

this appears to be some sort of honorific. WHat does it mean, "language saint" or something? Either transliterate amd discuss it or strike it, it won't do to keep bits and pieces in Tamil around that aren't explained. dab (𒁳) 11:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It means "Sun of Language". This name is coferred to him by Tamil Nadu Government. He is known by மொழி ஞாயிறு than Pavanar. So there is no wrong in mentioning it there.Rajan 11:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Since we are discussing this, can you also gloss "Pavanar"? This isn't his actual name, is it? More something like "The Bard", right? dab (𒁳) 12:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes Dab. You're right. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 07:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

What are you bluffing. Pavanar is his name, and மொழி ஞாயிறு Sun of Language is conferred to him. So we can call him in both way, but மொழி ஞாயிறு is more respected, honoured way than calling Pavanar. But defenitely no "The Bard"Rajan 13:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not bluffing: I don't pretend to speak a word of Tamil. What I am trying to impress on you is that it is your responsiblity to provide evidence for the stuff you put in this article. dab (𒁳) 13:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Dont you see the intial references what I gave?. Dont you see the stamp release by Goverment of India in Indian Postal site?? Whatelse you want? Check the references section then you will come to know, Pavanar is Sun of Language. Its well known fact and it is available in External sites and references. So, Please first read those before talking about others responsiility, because that is your responsibility.Rajan 17:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

where, pray, does it say "Sun of Language" on the stamp? I can see "Devaneya Pavanar" in Devanagari and Latin. That's all. If you want to claim this or that pompous honorific was bestowed on him officially, it is you that will have to point us to a specific source. dab (𒁳) 11:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Occupation

autodidact will not apply to Pavanar, because he studied and trained in Madras University.

Etymologist: His primary researches are in Ethymology only, so we can add it there under image Rajan 11:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

he trained in Madras as a teacher. Thus, his primary occupation is highschool teacher. He pursued 20 years or so of autodidactic studies of Dravidology, I daresay that makes "autodidact" a major occupation of his. I will resist addition of "etymologist" until you provide evidence he had a PhD in historical linguistics. dab (𒁳) 11:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

To be a Etymologist, one no need to have Phd. As all his researches are in Etymology and those reseaches are aggreed and appriciated by Govt of India, he is obviously an Etymologist. The definition of Etymologist is follows:

"An etymologist is a linguist who focuses primarily on the origins of words. They are interested in the socioeconomic and cultural value of words. Etymology can provide interesting insights into popular culture by showing the history of its words." There is no Phd mentioned here. So Pavanar is Etymologist. Rajan 10:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

note, "a linguist". This implies academic training. It will not do to present random authors with master's degrees as "academics", much less autodidacts like Pavanar. He may be an "eminent" and much-loved author, but his "linguistics" is confused pseudoscholarship, sorry. dab (𒁳) 11:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Devaneyan as am etymologist makes me laugh; if so Christian Scientists are scientists. Devaneyan believed to his dying days in the Lemuria aka Kumarikandam, he believed Tamil is the first language in the world, from which other Dravidian languages as well as Indo-aryan languages as well as all other languages were born. This man is obviously a quack and a snakeoil salesman. Just vecause he is put on a pedestan by a racist movement such as DMK does not prove what he said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.3.105 (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Caption

Why are you removing Caption unnecessarily, talk here first and get some clarification and then remove it. Dont think that you are the only intelect of the world.Rajan 12:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

look, the template has a "name" field, where you put the name, and a "caption" field, where you identify the image. Compare JRRT: the "name" field is "John Ronald Reuel Tolkien", the caption is "Tolkien in 1972, in his study at Merton Street, Oxford. Source: J. R. R. Tolkien: A Biography, by Humphrey Carpenter". There is no need to simlply repeat the name in the image caption. Since you don't seem to be able to produce an image of Devanayan that can be traced to some source, the caption should properly be "unidentified mugshot of Devanayan in his 60s" or something. We don't do hagiography on Wikipedia, Rajan. Just state your sources. If you don't have any sources, you should drop it. dab (𒁳) 12:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Primary Classical etc.

It is certainly important to discuss the book as Pavanar's major English publication, but it will not do to quote the preface in full, per {{quotefarm}}. For this we have Wikisource and Wikiquote. dab (𒁳) 12:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Ok, but Primary Classicality of Tamil is a seperate section, we should not include that in Tamil is more divine than Sanskrit section, both should be in different sections.Rajan 12:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you move your wikibooks thing to Wikisource (presenting evidence that it is in the public domain!) and we can then link to it from here. Look, the "more divine" thing is a chapter of the book under discussion. Why should we have a h3 section for every chapter? We are just giving a brief outline of the book's content. "Primary Classicality" doesn't even mean anything, we can only use the term in scare-quotes as a title chosen by Pavanar for reasons best known to himself dab (𒁳) 12:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Transliteration

ISO 15919, this one is for Devanagiri related script, not for Tamil. Using this standard for Tamil will make this article unreadable completely. So lets revert itRajan 13:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

nonsense, ISO 15919 is designed for all Indic scripts. go and look at Tamil script. dab (𒁳) 15:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Who is nonsense? u or me??, now only you corrected yourself to ISOtranslit, thanks for correcting those. But why we need to mention ISO 15919 in the first line?, in no other page it is mentioned. so we can remove this from the first line, even it is not in Tamil script page and it is not necessary to mention. Rajan 15:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

First, I want to thank Dbachmann for his edits and his efforts to improve this article. I would kindly request Rajan, not to take Dbachmann's comments in any negative light. He may have his points and you may have your points. However, the aim of all of us is to improve the article and provide reliable information in a neutral and reasonable fashion. Elsewhere in WP I have differed from Dbachmann's and others views too. So, I want to request Rajan to appreciate these and help to make this a good and balanced article. I would certainly help as much as possible - though I'm finding it difficult to find time. Devaneya Pavanar is a very important personality (in Tamil/Dravidology areas) and every effort should be made to present this article in the best possible light. --Aadal 16:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, I have never took anything in negative light, I just pointed out some mistakes the dab has made and tried to rectify it, so that the article will look good. I appreciate some of dab's edits in this article, but defenitely will not appreciate his way of communicating things like using abusive words like 'nonsense', etc, as if he only has sense in the world. Thats why I replied in that manner, sorry for that. This article talks about Pavanar and his life and work, but adding this article into Pseudohistory, National mysticism, Language and mysticism,etc is completely irrelavant. How come a article which talks about a person will be Pseudohistory???, Dab should realize this, but he is continously adding this without explaining the reasons for that Rajan 16:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Mysticism

This article is about Devaneya Pavanar, it is just biography. The biography of Pavanar and his work is not speculation or obscure thought. So this article is not the right candidate for Myticism category.

If there is an article which talk about only his research work then we can very well add that into these categories. So we should remove these categories from this article.

National mysticism Language and mysticism

And also Pavanar's life is not Pseudohistory, so that also should be removed. Rajan 16:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Rajan, this is a classical case of pseudohistory and national mysticism. "Lemuria submerged in 16,000 BC"? Can you cite any publication on ancient history accepting this? If you can get the sinking of Lemuria listed on either Mesolithic or Deluge (prehistoric), we can talk again. dab (𒁳) 18:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thats all fine, but this article is not about Lemuria, but its about Pavanar. How come a article about Pavanar's life can be categorized as Pseudohistory?? Thats my question. you can add a article about Lemuria in Pseudohistory but not this.Rajan 19:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

because this is the article discussing his book, Primary Classical Language of the World. If you feel the book should be discussed on a separate article, you might suggest we {{split}} the article. dab (𒁳) 19:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The articles Lemuria and Kumari Kandam both are not in pseudohistory and national mysticism, but adding Pavanar's article in pseudohistory and national mysticism is not making any sense. When we talk about a person we must brief about his research and work, there is no need to remove Primary Classical Language of the World. But we can create another article which gives more information on Primary Classical Language of the World than in Devaneya Pavanar page. Rajan 19:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Lemuria (continent) is in Category:Pseudoarchaeology. Kumari Kandam is a bona fide topic of Sangam period mythology, it was only turned into pseudohisory in the 20th century, by Devaneyan and friends. Hence the "in national mysticism" section. dab (𒁳) 17:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Sangam literature only talks about some lands and rivers lost and they were not calling it Lemuria. It is not a 'bonafide topic of Sangam period mythology' as you say. There is NO proof adduced to show that such flooding as mentioned in Sangam literature didn't occur. In Sangam literaute, the period of those was not specified nor the full extent of the land lost. Only later authors have surmised/speculated several things combining with other information in later work (~800-900 CE)- and this lost 'continent' idea emerged - but note that it was not propounded by Sangam authors. Sangam literature is refreshingly simple and there are no great mythologies there. --Aadal 19:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)--Aadal 19:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. There is no proof that such deluges didnt happen. And there is no proof that pigs didnt fly. Alright. Sarvagnya 19:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I must say this is a very witty rejoinder.Bakaman 19:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are saying that Pavanar shouldn't be in the pseudohistory category because his own life wasn't pseudohistory, then a Category:Pseudohistorians would be more accurate. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 01:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's not be splitting hairs here. Of course, D.P. was a pseudohistorian in the worst sense of the word, and his life just as clearly quite non-fictional; but do I think it is feasible to include a category of an author's main genre (i.e. in this case, Pseudohistory, etc.) in the catalogue at the end of his article. Honestly, I fear that nobody amongst us feels it to be a worthwile use of their time to set up a separate category Pseudohistorians. Of course, if anybody was feeling inspired to make such a compilation, they would be most welcome! :-) Trigaranus 07:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

nobody half educated would consider Pavanar's suggestions as serious for half a minute. There is really no point in harping on how nonsensical they are. I agree it would also be pointless to inaugurate a category "Pseudohistorians". Pavanar is notable because of his pseudohisorical writings, hence his article can well reside in the "Pseudohistory" category. 17:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)dab (𒁳)

Only because there is such a distorted and unbalanced report here on one of the greatest historical linguistic scholars of India, I guess you're making all sorts of such rude and uncharitable remarks. I've read most of his works and I can vouch he is a first rate scholar. About the ridiculous distortions here, let me give you one example: In para 2, when talking about Sangam literature, it should be noted that it is only the so-called 3rd Tamil Academy which was between 200 BCE to 200 CE. The other two earlier academies are referred to in a work in the 8-9th century work and a few other tamil works earlier. They talk about deluges. Having witnessed Tsunami recently, it is not inconceivable. In any case, the reputation of Devaneya Pavanar (DP) is due his extraordinary, insightful understanding of Tamil language and his articulation of linguistic principles. His etymological derivations and comparisons, contrasted with Sanskrit and European languages are rock solid. Tell me, Dbachmann, if you have read any of the books of DP, especially his etymological derivations? True, the claims of deluges are as such unproven (though not unthinkable, considering the Tsunamis witnessed), and the antiquity to Tamil language that DP claims, rather extraordinary and unbelievable and are unsubstantiated. But that doesn't make him what you guys are making him out to be. I have all his books, I've read, in the past 20 plus years, almost all of them and I know that he is an outstanding scholar. When the wider circle of linguistic scholars would take notice of his real contributions in the area of Tamil etymology and connections to Sanskrit and European languages, they would be surprised. He is an etymological scholar in the ranks of Murray.B. Emeneau (U.S.A.,) and Thomas Burrow. --Aadal (talk) 01:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

not that this is relevant, but out of interest, just how, do you propose, are you qualified to vouch for Pavanar being a "linguistic scholar"? All of his stuff mentioned here flies in the face not only of academic mainstream but of common sense itself. The mere circumstance that User:Aadal thinks Pavanar is great and has read all his books is not going to affect article content.Of course, if you can substantiate your opinion in terms of WP:RS, please do. --dab (𒁳) 19:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Tamil is the first language to be officially confirmed as a Classical Language by the Government of India. I am not here to say that Tamil is the oldest or the `most divine' language and by that way offend the sentiments of others. What we must accept is that it is one of the oldest languages with rich literature and can definitely stand on its own and is not dependent on Sanskrit at all. Whoever wants to belittle Tamil and Devaneya Pavanar, I would request them to scientifically disprove his assertions. Let us not even get into the Lemuria concept. What I want to mention here is that if Brahmins want to claim and believe that Sanskrit is the oldest of all languages and God himself created it, let them take it that way, if it gives them satisfaction. But nobody gives them right to speak ill of other languages, people and culture. (User:Baskaranr) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baskaranr (talk • contribs) 15:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

outing Pavanar as a crackpot is not "belittling" Tamil. It is simply clearing the air for actual, serious study of Tamil, which indeed it richly deserves. And yes, it may be interesting to look into Pavanar's relation to the obsession with the label "classical language" in India. The "classical language of India" label originates in 2004, and apparently was purely intended as a means to pacify the "Pure Tamil" crowd. Of course everyone else started shouting "we are classical too" the minute Tamil was dubbed "classical" by the government. That's what you get, as a government, for dabbling in national mysticism instead of, well, just doing your governing. --dab (𒁳) 15:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

POV

This article asserts the subjects linguistic theories, and lists numerous awards received by him within his culture. however, it says briefly that no review of his work can be found in mainstream linguistic studies. If this is purporting to be an article on a scholarly linguist, and if he has NO mention within mainstream linguistics, he is NOT a scholar. The article would have to state in the lead that his ideas are not accepted, and not even mentioned, outside his culture. the problem then becomes, what exactly is he notable for? if he wasnt even refuted by any other academics, then he is absolutely not notable in the field. if he was a popular writer, advocate of tamil unity, etc, thats different, thats acceptable. The mans theories are obviously pseudoscience, not even fringe science, as lemuria NEVER EXISTED by any accounts given by any serious historians. Im not saying we dont need an article here, as the man obviously has notability. but this article must not promote his ideas as facts, or even controversial (unless criticism can be found). I hope people can assume good faith towards my comments. i have nothing against this article or his culture, and i myself hold to some fringe ideas about cultural origins which would never pass muster as a wp article. I have a feeling this article may have attracted attention at AFD, and will be focused on critically. people who care about him as a notable tamil figure may want to start improving the article with neutral, reliable, third party references.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why we are including the hype from the foreward by his 'disciple'. And those claims in the foreward need verifying, they shouldn't be in the article otherwise. Dougweller (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Devaneya Pavanar/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Classifying as B-class. Better than start class, but needs organization.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC) I think the rating is too kind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.240.36.97 (talk) 08:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Last edited at 08:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 14:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)