Talk:Kannada literature

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former featured article candidateKannada literature is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 2, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
April 6, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Untitled[edit]

Request no edits until dispute resolution[edit]

I would like to request editors to not edit the Karnataka literature page and the related pages Halmidi inscription and Extinct Kannada literature, until the issues of consistent exaggeration of the antiquity of the early works as well as the false characterization of the extinct works is settled. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

What you call exaggeration is the opinion of numerous scholars. The fact that there are very few scholars who support your theory does not make the opinion of majority scholars redundant or an exaggeration.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Please see my reply below. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Urge user:Fowler&fowler to keep away from this article[edit]

Having failed to prove your point in the previous Rfc, you cant resort to keeping an article locked up in controversy, just to wet you appetite. You have a choice, keep away from this article or go bring a neutral mediator who can putup with your lengthy and endless debates.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 11:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Since we have already had an RfC, which was inconclusive—in part because the arbitrator, user:Abecedare, has not been on Wikipedia in a number of months—I will be requesting mediation. I'd like to clarify, I am not making a threat, simply proceeding to the next step in the Wikipedia dispute resolution process. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I am, consequently, returning the "disputed" tag until the dispute resolution has been completed. I will, however, not be editing any of the three articles. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
The Rfc was inconclusive for two reasons; you refused to concede on any issue and tried to sidestep the issue, when you knew things were not going well for you, and tried to pin false allegations on me. Then you apologised and said you would not return to this article, but did not keep your word, as expected. Also, any mediator you bring forward and is acceptable to me will fully read the contents of the previous Rfc. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I didn't make a false allegation against you: I presented evidence that you didn't explain at first. It was only when I saw that an explanation would not be forthcoming that I wondered if you had broken Wikipedia rules by falsely citing a reference, a remark for which I later apologized. However, at the very least you quoted selectively from the book, A Concise History of Karnataka from Prehistoric Times by Suryanath U. Kamath, by not mentioning a crucial sentence in the introduction (p.6) in your edition of the book which said:

"We have an inscription of the 6th century, written in the Kannada language and the Kannada script. This is the famous Halmidi Record of the Kadambas (for long scholars were of the view that it belonged to c. 450 A.D. and opinion is still divided over its date.)"

instead, you picked a later sentence (p. 10), "The earliest lithic documents in Kannada are the Halmidi record of the Kadambas and the Badami cave record of Mangalesha which are of the fifth and sixth centuries respectively." You then only mentioned the second reference to Halmidi, not the first; furthermore, you didn't say "fifth century," but rather 450 AD.
I had a fellow-Wikipedian talk to the book's publishers and order the 2008 edition, so I know the history of the book's publishing. The book is now mass produced for high-school and college use and sells for less than a dollar (and that is the edition you have). In the original edition of the book, the only edition that is available in the Library of Congress, World Cat, or British COPAC academic catalogs, both pages 6 and 10 only mention the sixth century. I will be happy to challenge your selective citation in the mediation as well if you insist on using Kamath as a reference for the 450 AD date.
If you feel my behavior was less than stellar, you can file an RfC against me. This, however, is a content dispute. I'm sure the Wikipedia mediation committee will factor in whatever they think is important to the content issue at hand. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC) (Updated: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC))
Cool.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

My main content issues[edit]

I would like to clarify that there are only three content issues that concern me; outside of these, I have little concern with the article. All have to do either with the antiquity of the literature or with the characterization of hypothesized extinct works. Please do not argue with me here since we have already done that at great length in the RfC, but I'd like to have a clear statement of my discontents and of the compromises in wording that I am willing to make:

  1. I feel that Kannada literature begins with Kavirajamarga (850 AD) and that the article should not make any claims of an earlier provenance in the main text (it can in a footnote cite a few scholars on each side of the controversy).
  2. I feel that the date of the Halmidi inscription in the main text or image captions should be "fifth or sixth century AD" with other details going into the footnote.
  3. I feel that the "extinct literature" should not be mentioned in the main text, only in a footnote (as suggested in 1. above.)

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

PS. I should like to point out that this is not the mediation. I am simply stating my position above, in case other editors want to suggest compromises (as I have stated above). Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Dear Mr and Mrs Fowler,
I very much admire your controlled assertiveness in protecting the reliability of the text of the article (and both your nom de plume and signature also). As I start in on copyedit work, I am largely trusting faithful representation of sources. It is good that others have considered verifying this information.
I think I'm fairly impartial here. I think it is correct, as you say, that literature frequently refers to a genre that often does not extend to inscriptions. That is a point very well made. However, I think it is a point that can also be challenged.
The sense in which the article uses the word literature needs to be clarified in the lead, and includes distinguishing any and all enscripted forms of Kannada ("literature" in only a very broad sense) from literature in an operatic (I mean "opus-like") sense. I think this needs to be said in a more transparent way than I have just articulated it in the abstract here on the talk page. I also think that is precisely what is currently done in the article. I copyedited the relevant sentences before reading of the disagreement here. I think my attempt to render the language I encountered in the text in a fashion to promote precision may have helped a little to deflect the disagreement here. If it does do so, that is merely serendipitous, it was not my intention.
If you are still watching this page, sir, I would very much care for your opinion on the first paragraph (which is pretty much all I have done so far). I can't promise to agree with any criticism you may offer, but I shall certainly be inclined to listen to it very carefully indeed. I have seen excellent comments from you in other places at Wiki and recognise one who knows a good deal more than I, on a wide range of important matters. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
PS This looks like a reliable (though not definitive) source: Language of the InscriptionsArcheological Survey of India [The last sentence of second last paragraph mentions the Halmidi inscription.]
"The earliest documented inscription is from [the sic] Halmidi inscription dated 450 AD.... (Kavirājamārga of the ninth century, is the first literary work available)."
— P. Prakash and R. Malatesha, "Kannada orthography", in Insup Taylor and David R. Olson (eds), Scripts and Literacy, (Springer Science+Business Media, 1995), p. 97.
"Sanskrit words have been borrowed into Kannada from the earliest times—the very first document in Kannada, the Halmidi inscription of c. 450 CE, contains..."
—SN Sridhar, "Language modernization in Kannada", in Braj B. Kachru, Yamuna Kachru, S. N. Sridhar (eds), Language in South Asia, (Cambridge University Press, 2008), pp. 327–342.
These are good publishers. 450 AD is all over Google Scholar. I'm not convinced they are correct, none of these scholars appear to be epigraphers or paleographers (which I dabble in myself). However, the consistency argues for them lining up behind some uncited published paleographical argument. Personally, I'd like to see that argument before making a judgment, but at Wiki, that'd be original research. I'm content to follow what seems to be clear evidence of consensus.
Is this irritating Mr Fowler? Or are you content that I'm doing what someone should do? If I have the time I can try to find the paleographic reports. There will be an editio princeps for the inscription, any serious later work will cite that. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi there! I just saw this. Finally, a man after my own heart who is interested in these issues. Well, let's see, off the top of my head, the original dating (1934) was done by one M. H. Krishna, who was somethingorother in the archeology department of Mysore State (Mysore was then a princely state). My guess is that since Halmidi as not as old as the Sanskrit, Tamil, or Prakrit inscriptions, the epigraphers at the ASI didn't any attention to it in the early days. With the rise of regional Indian languages (and their nationalisms), however, in the 1950s, Halmidi and other vernacular inscriptions probably became more interesting. Up until the mid 1980s, all mention of Halmidi, and its 450 CE date, was of the perfunctory kind that you mention above. One prominent paleographer/epigraphist D. C. Sircar, however, had disagreed with the 450 date early on (i.e. in the 60s). In the late 80s/early 90s, G. S. Gai disagreed with the 450 date as well. Sheldon Pollock, who is a literary scholar, and who now favors early 6th century date, talks about all this in his Language of Gods in the World of Men" book. Richard Salamon, in his book (see refs), dates it to the late 6th or early 7th century. There are, of course, other epigraphists, such as K. V. Ramesh, who agree with the 450 date; the others in this camp, however, are not as prominent as the ones who disagree. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
The number of spelling and other errors above suggest that I am tired or in need of coffee. Will check in later in the day. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Since the rest of the household is still asleep, I better get this in before they catch me breaking my promise to stay off-Wiki during Christmas. Here is a more complete version of the Halmidi page. The relevant publication is MAR 37. I did try to look for it almost a year ago, but wasn't successful. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
LOL, I understand you exactly. Yes, keep your promise to your family. I see now I have been rediscovering the wheel. We can talk again later. Meanwhile I'll be working out how to explain to hard-working, honest Dinesh that you are really on his side. You two need a translator! ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 12:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
That sounds good to me, and, just in case you are not volunteering yourself for said job, I shall be happy to nominate you whenever such need arises. ;) Speaking of translators, your userboxes suggest innate ability in that direction. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Main content issues[edit]

I, the main author of this article, will add my points below later today to make it easier for the mediator. I will also add a few lines that give a gist of lessons learned from the previous RFc of this article, in case the mediator does not have the time to read through the Rfc.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

As I have stated above, this not the mediation. You will need to provide all your evidence in the mediation which will be opened elsewhere. You are welcome to provide your summary of the previous RfC, but it will be treated as your summary; your being the "main author" doesn't give you any special privileges either with regard to the veracity of your summary or to the content dispute in question. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Dont make rules. My points will be provided here and later in the mediation.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  1. I feel that literature is literature, whether it is royal courtly literature or folk literature. Trying to give literature an institutional twist goes against the very fact that literature is a natural human phenomena, born out of socio-cultural process, to which people (kings, political leaders, heads of monasteries etc) often gave a political twist, when they encouraged or discouraged certian forms of literature, based on elitism and socio-cultural movements. More over, there are sufficient number of scholars (western and eastern) who concur that Kannada literature, with a mature base, existed well before Kavirajamarga, based on its contents and otherwise. This is supported not only by the existance of poetic inscriptions from the 7th and 8th centuries written in native metres, but also by various references to these extinct literatures during the later medieval period. So the proposed existance of a pre-Kavirajamarga literature and a prior grammatical tradition in Kannada, and re-buttals to this theory should appear on the main article lead section itself. One has to weigh the number and quality of citations for either theory. If the number of scholars who claim that pre-Kavirajamarga literature existed is significant and this vastly outnumbers those who claim it did not, then clearly the "against" view should go in a footnote.
  2. Though no doubt Halmidi is the most famous inscription in Kannada, among the early ones, I feel that the dating of the earliest inscriptions in Kannada, one this article lead, should not only be based on Halmidi inscription but also on the existance of other 5th century inscriptions (Chikamagalur, Siragunda, Tamatekallu inscriptions). More over, majority of the scholars and historians date Halmidi to 450 CE or more generally to 5th century. So, Only the 5th century dating should appear on the lead, with the rest of the details, giving fringe dates, in the footnotes.
  3. Extinct Kannada literature, which is currently a sub-article has numerous scholars and sources attesting to its validy. More can be provided if required. It used to appear as a sub-section, but to avoid further controversy, I moved it to a main:sub-article and it should stay there. In fact this was proposed by some of those who attended the previous RFc. Further, the number and quality of citations should be considered here.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you would like to explain why the 2008 Encyclopaedia Britannica page on "Kannada Literature" begins with, " the literature written in Kannada, which, like the other languages of South India, is of the Dravidian family. The earliest records in Kannada are inscriptions dating from the 6th century AD onward. The earliest literary work is the Kavirajamarga (c. AD 850), a treatise on poetics based on a Sanskrit model." This is not one of the articles written for the 1979 Britannica, but the very latest. The page has the same title as this page. Perhaps you could explain why the editors of Britannica chose to ignore the "sufficient number of scholars (western and eastern)" that according to you give both the literature and the inscriptions an earlier provenance. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the revert. Start the mediation, we will talk there. Good Bye for now.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Starting copyedit[edit]

This is an outstanding article imo, and a subject I want to know more about. Thanks Dinesh and other workers here. Although I expect I may be slow in working on this article, it is both a pleasure, and the least I can do to say thank you. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Alastair, What I'm about to say, is not meant in the least to discourage you. I'm very glad that you copy editing the article. So, welcome!
Just so that you know, though, this article has been (and still is) the subject of a dispute. The dispute has to do with the antiquity of the Kannada language. Kannada, a Dravidian vernacular, didn't manage to step out from under the shadow of both Sanskrit (from which it borrowed its haute vocabulary, much as English did with Latin) and Tamil (the oldest Dravidian language, with which Kannada shares its grammar, much as English does with German or did with Old Norse) until well into the second millennium CE. Sanskrit and Tamil have long been considered to be classical languages in the scholarly literature; Kannada and other vernaculars, such as Telugu, Marathi, or Hindi, however, have not. In fact, English, which is not considered a classical language, is older (i.e. its oldest extant works are older) than any Indian vernacular, including Kannada. However, all this doesn't seem to faze Kannada nationalists, who would like to remedy this historical wrong, and recover for their beloved language, the antiquity that has long eluded it in the works of the eggheads.
To all this, you might say, "OK. So what does it have to do with my work?" Well, as you are well aware, a copy-editor is also a bit of a precis writer, wordsmith, and re-writer; consequently, he or she can unwittingly aid the underlying POV of an article, if they are not aware of it. In my view, the hyping of antiquity (in the first part of the article) and of the specialness of Kannada and its literature (in the latter half) is a major underlying bias of this article. It is of a piece with the problems were are seeing at WP:FAR#Kingdom of Mysore and Talk:Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore. It is my view of course, but even if I am wrong, no harm is done if a copy-editor is aware of the distinct possibility of such bias. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
You're talking my language! Thank you. :)
I think I will do a little more work, watch attentively and remain as neutral as possible.
The possible influence of Tamil love poetry on the Song of Songs is something I must consider as part of a dissertation in real life (and work on which precludes me making efficient progress at this article over the next month anyway).
I have much to learn about issues related to ANE interaction with proposed Dravidian influence, but learn I must.
I know that it is not just nationalists, but possibly English language scholars out to make a reputation that may have vested interests in demonstrating antiquity.
Richard Salomon, "Epigraphic Remains of Indian Traders in Egypt", Journal of the American Oriental Society 111 (1991): 731–736. [JSTOR first page only]
I'm not having a go at Mr Salomon here. I'm sure he's perfectly decent, but he illustrates a western openness to the ideas we're discussing.
Perhaps, Mr or Mrs Fowler (or both) ;) we are on the boundary of where Wikipedia bumps between reliability and current scholarship (aka original research). That's a crude and ultimately incorrect oversimplification probably resolved by articulating multiple PsOV.
Anyway, having located the editio princeps for the Halmidi inscription (and noted it at external links in that article) I detected two things: there was a genuine scholastic and paleographical case made for the dating; however this sort of thing is always very approximate when something is proposed as the earliest example of something, because there are no suitable inscriptions of similar date with which to compare it.
I'd be certain this point was not lost on the later scholars who revised the date upwards, and in time I may attempt to locate their work, should that not prove too time consuming.
I'll conclude by noting I have a neutrality regarding the current dispute of the very best sort: I rather think both sides each have excellent reasons for holding their respective ground. I will be honest and admit that I dearly long for the antiquity of Kannada to be confirmed, this is nationalism of the nicest kind, bought at no one else's expense. And it may well be true! However, I very much admire your willingness to appear "stingy", when really it's only that maturity has taught you that intellectual discipline in scholarship is best for everyone in the long run.
I share too many words and I share too much of my heart to feel totally comfortable in polite Anglo-Saxon derived culture. If I cause any offense please forgive me, I feel very well guided by your words indeed. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
By "Tamil love poetry," do you mean Sangam literature? That sounds fascinating. My own guess (and I'm far from area of expertise here) is that a large swath of west-central (and not just southern) India was speaking Dravidian languages, at least away from the major cities, well into the early centuries of the first millennium CE. I'm guessing too that present-day Maharashtra, Gujarat, and Sind would have been in this swath, and would have provided geographical continuity between Brahui, the western-most living Dravidian language, and Kannada, the northernmost living one. Consequently, the coastal areas from tip of peninsular India to the border with Iran would have been Dravidian speaking. The possibility of Old Tamil or some other proto-Dravidian language making its way to Old Testament Holy Land would then not be so far fetched. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I think you might have the wrong Salamon in the link; this one, I think, is at UW-Seattle, and is mainly interested in Buddhism. Will download the paper. But your point is well-taken: one should be open to the possibility of surprises. At the very least, the Greek farce suggests that its author had had sufficient contact with Dravidian speakers to be able to mimic them, and his audience had sufficient awareness of these speakers to respond to the humor. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
PS I did have some article-related thoughts, which, if I can stretch my current window of surreptitious time, I will say something below in a section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
PPS Here's info on the gentleman. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the correction re Salomon, I've corrected the link so it points to his official uni staff bio page.
I feel rather awful getting back to your posts here so very late, given the generosity of your "surreptitious time" at Christmas.
I like your theory and it accords precisely with a published line of argument regarding plausible influence from Sangam literature (or its antecedents) on the Song of Songs. That line of influence is not a thesis held very widely, and is not my own view. I think there is a good chance the Song is older, though dating doesn't seem to influence the elements of interpretation I am studying. However, simple fascination mixed with care not to exclude relevant evidence, however circumstantial, draws me to keep tinkering about with the possibilities.
Anyway, enough said here for the time being. I ask you to "burst my bubble" in the Miscellaneous references section below. I'm quite serious, I could be drifting in the wrong direction.
Alastair Haines (talk) 13:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Facsimile reprints[edit]

I believe it is best to use the original year of publication of a book that has been brought out in a facsimile reproduction (or xerox print). Otherwise, we'd all be citing, "... To thine own self be true ..." (Shakespeare & forthcoming, 2009). Here are a few for this article (since I already have them elsewhere).

  • Narasimhacharya, R (1934). History of Kannada Literature. Mysore: Government Press. Pp. 85. LCCN (1940 second edition) 42002096. (Facsimile Reprint, New Delhi: Asian Educational Services, 1988. ISBN 8120603036.)
  • Rice, E. P. (1921). A History of Kanarese Literature. Calcutta: Association Press. Pp. 128. LCCN (1921 second edition) 23008180. (Facsimile Reprint, titled History of Kannada Literature, 1982, New Delhi: Asian Educational Services. ISBN 8120600630.)
  • Rice, Lewis (1897). Mysore: A Gazetteer Compiled for the Government, Volume I, Mysore In General. Westminster: Archibald Constable and Company. Pp. xix, 834. LCCN (1897 Revised Edition) 01019053. (This one doesn't need the reprint information since it is available freely online; its link is provided.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of reprints, I just noticed that Mugali (2006) has been added to the list of references. This too is a facsimile reprint. It should be, Mugali (1946):
Reading very quickly through the text, it seems Mugali is being cited for an earlier (300 AD) date for Halmidi (and perhaps and earlier 850 AD date for the literature). I seem to remember that he didn't quite endorse the 300 AD date for the former. Will look at the ref, if I still have more time; otherwise, could someone please verify? Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Here you go:
That doesn't sound, at least to me, to be a ringing endorsement of 300 AD. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Please also read this page and the previous one, of someoneorother's hagiographic biography of Govind Pai. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Great work Fowler, if no-one else does it, I'll correct the refs when I get back to work here.
I agree with your reading of Mugali also.
I notice that someone provided an external link to a translation of Charition (play).
I've added this artifact to the slowly growing Oxyrhynchus papyri series as POxy 413.
At some point I'll look harder for any images at Oxford's site, and any record of the Greek text in transcription.
I think both are unlikely, but one never knows unless one tries. ;)
Alastair Haines (talk) 05:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the Mugali ref was not meant to indicate that Mugali endorses that date, just that he mentions it in his book as a claim that has been made by some scholars. Eventually, the most common date, 450 AD/5th century, is what wiki should ideally reflect, and as the book clearly suggests, the 1500 years of literary history is widely attested, by versified inscriptions or otherwise.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Per Alastair's comment, I have removed the 300 AD citation for Halmidi. However, other attestations by Mugali (1500 years of literature, 5th century metrical passages etc.) are direct endorsements and have been retained.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Miscellaneous references[edit]

I just thought I'd document references I've found online while fact checking, especially date checking the article. I'll add references consulted at Fisher Library when I get around to that, probably later this week.

  • "Inscribed with a date corresponding to 602 A.D., ... [The Mahākuṭa Pillar] is sixty-nine inches round at the base, fourteen and a half feet tall with sixteen lines of inscription, which reads winding up from the base, in Sanskṛit, written in old Kannada script."
Carol Radcliffe Bolon, 'The Mahākuṭa Pillar and Its Temples', Artibus Asiae 41 (1979): 253–268.
  • "The most famous of these epigraphs is the Garuḍa pillar inscription of Besnagar (near Sanchi, Madhya Pradesh) usually dated second or first century BC (Sircar 1942:90). Its Prakrit text relates the setting up of a Garuḍa pillar in honor of Vāsudeva by a Greek ambassador Heliodora (=Hēliodōros) of Ta[khkha]silā (=Taxila), the Bhāgavata."
Gérard Colas, 'History of Vaiṣṇava traditions: an esquisse', chapter 11 in Gavin D. Flood, The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism, (Blackwell Publishing, 2003): 229–270.

To be extended. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. What does the second reference have to do with Kannada, its literature, or its region of use, viz. Karnataka? I have Flood's volume right here, and there is really no mention there of Kannada; what little mention there is of Karnataka is related to the Kalamukhi or Varasaiva/Lingayat traditions, which it mentions were inspired by the earlier Bhakti movement in Tamil Nadu. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
It's a real pleasure to hear your politely expressed question regarding the relevance of the second quote above. Of course you are correct, it really has little to do with specifics of the current article.
In fact, I hesitated to post it, because it is merely circumstantial evidence related to my own interest in P. Oxy. III 413, where it has been claimed that parts of an adaptation of Euripides are, in fact, fragments of a Kannada dialect. Between you and me, I think that proposal might be a little far fetched, however, were it true, a rather cute twist of history may have led to the first literary appearance of Kannada being a bit part in a Greek play! Now that doesn't settle the antiquity or otherwise of genuine literary composition in Kannada itself, but it is still potentially relevant to this article, admittedly tangentially. I am simply curious about ongoing relationships between Greeks and India after Alexander. How plausible is a familiarity that could lead to POxy 413 sounding like genuine Kannada? I still don't know, but Heliodorus suggests to me that it may well be plausible.
My apologies for posting it, I should have simply filed it in my own mental notes. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
What do you make of Kamat's comment here, Fowler? I expect I'll find the same idea in plenty of print works, but just stumbled on it online today.
  • "[Kavirajamarga] is a treatise on poetics or a guide to poets indicating that Kannada was a fully developed literary language when [it] was composed. It refers to earlier linguists and poets whose works are not forthcoming."
Dr. Yotsna Kamat, "History of the Kannada Literature - I", Kamat's Potpourri [e-zine], uploaded 23 May 2000, last revised 10 February 2009.
Alastair Haines (talk) 11:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Some books that have caught my eye at Fisher Library:
I note that Nemichandra's Lilavati (1370 AD) is considered to have been the first "novel" (sorry for anachronism) or "medieval romance" in Kannada.
I found these general comments from Pollock quite helpful.
  • He notes the distinction between "poetry as a 'natural' activity and its formalization as a component of courtly culture."
  • "One of the procedures of legitimation of kingship in the Sanskrit thought-world was to invoke the presence of a highly sophisticated literary culture. Codes of power such as one finds in inscriptions also had to be products of a highly developed literary culture."
Pollock, Sheldon I. "Introduction". Pages 1–38, in Pollock (ed.) Literary Cultures in History, (University of California Press, 2003): 18.
More controversially,
  • "It will thus be seen that the literature of Kannaḍa is of far greater antiquity than that of any other South Indian, or for that matter, any other Indian, vernacular, except perhaps that of Tamil."
Narasimhacharya, op. cit. (1988): 11. Quoted by Mugali, op. cit. (2006): 176.
(Narasimhacharya compares Kannada not only with Tamil but also Telugu and Malayalam, in both epigraphic evidence and manuscript traditions.)
Nṛipatuṇga [I notice there is a Nripatunga High School, Nripatunga printers and even Wiki's own User:Nrupatunga] makes some interesting comments in Kavirājamārga.
  • I 32, 34, 35: Bedanḍa and chattāna were poetic forms recognized by earlier [Kannada] poets.
  • I 52, 54, 57: Mixing Kannada with some forms of Sanskrit sounds bad.
[Narasimhacharya explains elsewhere (Language): "So we have four classes of words: Samskṛita-sama, Samskṛita-bhava, Prākṛita-sama and Prākṛita-bhava." (116)]
Most interestingly (to me), Nṛipatuṇga comments that Old Kannada forms are fine in truly ancient poetry (I 50), but insipid if affected in contemporary metrical composition. [Do not ye ken this of like olde English pretenders?]
Here's my current question: "Why would a style guide warn would-be poets not to imitate Old Kannada poetic forms, unless not just imitations, but their exemplars, were extant at the time of writing?" Methinks the Kannada of Nṛipatuṇga may indeed have already been a late form of a literary tradition sufficiently established to tempt pretentious imitation of its earliest sources—in Old Kannada. Nṛipatuṇga inadvertently provides his (astute) perception of distinctions between language forms that meshes with concerns of modern linguistics.
Burst my bubble quickly please, Fowler, because I'm drifting into dangerous waters.
Alastair Haines (talk) 09:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
To Alastair: In the book edited by Pollock (Nagaraj, D.R. (2003) [2003]. "Critical Tensions in the History of Kannada Literary Culture, pp. 323–383". in Sheldon I. Pollock. Literary Cultures in History: Reconstructions from South Asia. Berkeley and London: University of California Press. ISBN 0520228219), D.R. Nagaraj dwells on the criticism by Srivijaya, the theorist in Nrupatunga Amoghavarsha's court, that the "multiplicity of Kannada forms" are like the thousand headed snake Vasuki. An interesting comment and what seems to be a critic on the pre-existing Kannada composition forms, that may have well been banished from patronage from 9th century onward. As one reads along, Nagaraj (if I recall right), when describing the 12th century pure Kannada Vachana poetry says The ghosts of the dead were to come back to haunt or something to that effect. I am purely recalling from memory. All this points in one direction alone.... BTW, Nemichandra's Lilavati is from around 1170. He was a court poet of King Veera Ballala II (Shiva Prakash (1997), p. 203 , Rice E. P. (1921), p. 43; Sastri (1955), p. 358)Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
To AH, Hi there! Just noticed these. Will reply later in the day, once my blood serum levels of caffeine have risen to their normal values. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Edits on related pages[edit]

I would like to suggest that no edits be made to related pages such as Extinct Kannada literature, Halmidi inscription by individual editors (other than user:Alastair Haines of course). Edits such as this one by user:Dineshkannambadi, which cites one 1947 source for one inscription are not helpful. What point do we make when we find one 60 year old reference? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Halmidi has been an issue of contest and has not been touched, but information on other inscriptions can't be withheld. The fact that a book was written 60 years ago does not change its authenticity or the date of an inscription. So please dont make your own rules here. However, if Alastair feels the info I added is unnecessary, he can remove it. However, the Badami cave inscriptions are very well-known inscriptions, whose photos I have uploaded into wiki.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I didn't make the rules. It was you who proclaimed them in your churlish edit summaries in Extinct Kannada literature:
  • "reveted (sic) nonsense untill (sic) conensus (sic) is reached on main artile (sic)" See here for edit summary, and again:
  • "revert. no edits untill (sic) consensus reached on main article Kannada literature," see here for edit summary.
Perhaps you would like to heed your own injunctions? Besides why are inscriptions that are very much extant being mentioned in the section Extinct writings and forms?? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Corrected the format.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I probably shouldn't poke my nose in here, but I'm hopelessly nosey when I see two awesome Wikipedians irking one another.
Each of you has so much to teach me, but my pleasure in your company is laced with grief as I sense the genuine difficulties between you.
Friends, I hope you will forgive me daring to suggest that when this is over and the three of us agree, it will be a great triumph of what Wiki at its best can be: one editor motivated to establish a claim from reliable sources, another motivated to ensure that the sources are indeed the best available.
It is so easy for me to see from the outside how each of you is acting in good faith. Dinesh is not pushing any POV, just doing the best (and a very good best) with what he can pull together. Fowler is not obstructing, just asking we show common sense in evaluating sources, and what Fowler thinks is common sense is indeed that, as frustrating as it might feel.
Although it may feel that you are opposing one another personally, you are actually representing the genuine arguments for and against, that must interact in order to present the facts as they are, no more and no less. Wiki is kind of cruel to us here.
Anyway, the more on topic sources I can dredge up the more pressure is taken off both of you. Strangely, I almost feel more motivated by that thought than by the fascinating subject itself. Time for me to stick my nose in some sources instead of this thread. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Vijayanagara literature in Kannada considered for Main Page[edit]

There is an ongoing discussion on whether to feature the WP:FA quality article Vijayanagara literature in Kannada on the Main Page.

You may participate at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Vijayanagara literature in Kannada.

Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kannada literature. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 05:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kannada literature. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kannada literature. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 17:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)