Tamils and Sumerians

[Guest guest]

Dear K.Loganathan,

Namaskar. This is in regard to the article posted by you on Tamil & Sumerians in

vediculture egroup. I agree with some of the assumptions made by Pavaanar but I

do have some reservations on the others. I feel this as a honest way for both

of us to understand it more better. I do not know who Pavaanar is and what is

agenda might be, at first let us consider he is honest and sincere.

"Because of population explosion, trade, desire to see new lands, war and

destruction, enmity, poverty and pestilence, floods and deluge and such reasons

the Tamils of Kumari spread across the land in different directions".

This above information is not only true for Tamils, but also to Gujarathis,

Punjabis or Bengalis and also for most people in the world like the Turks and

Mongols.

"After Tamil was sufficiently developed, the main direction of their migration

was towards the North. The fact that Bengal has as its capital city KaaLik

Koottam, a word in pure Tamil itself is an indication that in the ancient times

itself the Tamils migrated as the far as the snow clad mountains of the

Himalayas"

In ancient Bharat people always moved from north to south, east to west and vise

versa, meaning they moved in multi direction. There was nothing like Tamil or

Hindi in those days only sanskrit. Once the other languages grew from sanskrit,

due to what ever reason it may be, not only Tamil moved north but aslo Hindi

moved south. Remember that most of the kings ruling south of Inida were actual

Rajput warriors from all over Bharat. Bengal capital name Kolkata does not come

from Kaalik Kottam, it is a pure bengali term meaning "Tommorow I shall cut =

Kal Kata".

"Initially tamil was just a single language but in course of time multiplied

into a variety of such branch languages. And because Telugu was the first such

a language to branch off, it was called Vadugu ( a language in the North or of

the Northern lands). Then it became vadugu. This word assuming the -am ending

became also 'vadugam'. This word 'vadugu' became 'badagu' in Kannada. We must

note here that the tribal people living in the Nilgiri Hills and who speak a

language that branched off from Kannada are called Badagar".

I am a Telugu myself, Telugu and Kanada are pure sanskrit language, becuase

they contains 70% sanskrit, 20 local and rest 10% is common bewteen tamil,

kanada, malayalam. So calling them as northern tamil is not appropiate, the

best way to understand it is to see history, during the time of mahabharat, the

andhras as they are originally called, (telugu is a later day name) inhabited

the lands of the gangetic plains, after the mahabharat war they moved down

south and settled on the godavari basin, Andhars used some existing local words

as propably anyone would have done. Same is goes with the Kanada. Telugu and

kanada were one.

 

Sumers are essentailly a sanskrit based meddeterian culture, they are not tamil

at all, if few words of tamil are found in some language that does not mean it

is tamil language, one should see the ratio, for example telugu has about 10%

tamil words and 70% sanskrit, so should we call it northern tamil or southern

hindi ? . Even Tamil is based on sanskrit, like the rest of the Indian

languages, only the ratio of sanskrit differs in different languages. I would

rather call tamil as "SANSKRIT_tamil", meaning sanskrit language which added

local words and became tamil.

 

However the contribution of "SANSKRIT_tamil" to vedic culture has been

tremondous, they are the only peole who not only spread hindu dharma in the

malayan penensula but also retained the vedic-hindu dharma in the most original

form, in bharat, for this I will salute them.

Please remember that there are forces trying to bring back the age old aryan Vs

dravidian theory, sanskrit Vs tamil theory. We should be very cautious about

it.

 

Thanks,

Vijai Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: Click Here

[Guest guest]

Dear Sir

I didn't post it to vediculture though I am a member. Anyway

I am glad about it. It presents a picture quite different from the currently

prevailing one . But PavaaNar unfortunately did not study SumeroTamil

in sufficient depth. Now that there are hundreds of Sumerian texts available

, their study paints a picture that may be slightly different.

Let me just summarize.

1. Sumerian is Archaic Tamil that retains many morphological and lexical

features of Malayopolynesian languages and hence indicating that Sumerians

themselves are probably people from the SEAsian countries.

2. Most of what goes by the name of Hinduism is ALREADY there in matured

form in Sumerian literature ( 1500 B.C - 4000 B.C.). The worship of Siva

( Kes) Vishnu ( EnLil) Ambal ( In-anna) Murukar ( Enmerukar) and so many

other deities , Temple worship and Yoga sciences are already there and

therefore it is Agamic and prevedic. I think further studies along these

lines will serve to check the excessive claims of Vedists where they equate

Hinduism with Vaidika Dharma

3. It turns out that the language of Rig Veda and Purusha Suktam and

so forth is just another variant of Archaic Tamil close to SumeroTamil

but a bit later. This brings even Sanskrit into the fold of Dravidian language

family.

More such studies are on the way and they would serve to revise some

of the views about the spread of the Tamils and how they are related to

other Dravidian and Indian languages and people. My feeling is that a language

very close to SumeroTamil is the basic language from which most of the

Indian languages evolved. My studies indicate that this is true with

Classical Tamil and Rigkrit, the language of Rig Veda.

The most productive line of action for future would be to study the

Sumerian Texts and bring them to bear upon all these issues.

Loga

ganapa vijai wrote:

 

Dear K.Loganathan,

Namaskar. This is in regard to the article posted by you on Tamil &

Sumerians in vediculture egroup. I agree with some of the assumptions made

by Pavaanar but I do have some reservations on the others. I feel this

as a honest way for both of us to understand it more better. I do not know

who Pavaanar is and what is agenda might be, at first let us consider he

is honest and sincere."Because of population explosion,

trade, desire to see new lands, war and destruction, enmity, poverty and

pestilence, floods and deluge and such reasons the Tamils of Kumari spread

across the land in different directions".

This above information is not only true for Tamils,

but also to Gujarathis, Punjabis or Bengalis and also for most people in

the world like the Turks and Mongols.

[Vinoth 0]

Telugu or Kannada both has base as Tamil.

 

Some word in Telugu such as Vrayu (write) looks different but indeed they were derived from Tamil (e.g vrayu (vrai) from varai).

 

These people can't form a sentence without Tamil words, at least they need some derived word of Tamil.

Their numbers and grammar are completely from Tamil.

 

A Tamil person can form any type of sentence without using other language. But Telugu or Kannada people could not form any sentence without Tamil origin word.

 

Can any one here ready to make a sentence (in Telugu or Kannada) only using Sanskrit words and grammar but not Tamil?

 

 

People may find some Sanskrit word in Tamil, the same way many lone words of Tamil in Sanskrit. These languages shared some words in a time but they themselves can stand alone (but Telugu / Kannada couldn't be without Tamil).

 

Here I would like to inform that Telugu/Kannada sentence may be formed without a Sanskrit word but not without a Tamil word.

 

Understand the fact.

[haribabu_pa 0]

Yes thats correct Vinoth,

 

I don't know how these guys are thinking reversely! I am from a Telugu family! my mother is Telugu and my father is Tamil.

I have been born and brought up along with my mother's family, till to the age of 10.

 

And for an information, Telugu is an of-shot of Tamil and Prakrit, "Not Sanskrit". Its not 70% Sanskrit but Prakrit.

Puranic Andra's were not Telugu's they didn't spoked Telugu language! They spoked Prakrit.

 

The present day Andra Pradesh is just formed by adding Hyderabad provinces with the north Part of the Madras presidency!

Don't take in consideration with the present name of Andra and the Puranic Andra!

When your elders was is confusion to make a new name for there state they choosed a name what was early called this area "Andra".

 

Telugu's were always part of Tamil kingdoms or Chalukyas! they had there land only after declination of Chola's, in the late 1300 CE.

 

"Remember that most of the kings ruling south of Inida were actual, Rajput warriors from all over Bharat." What kind of Research is this? can you show me a single Map of India that shows Tamils were part of Any Rajput kings. Go to wikipedia and search for Ancient India maps you will see that the Land of Tamils were always rule by Tamils, till the declination of Pandya at 1400 CE.

Just for the past 550 years only the Land has been ruled by Moguls, Vijaya's and British.

 

"Telugu and Kannada were one" how? do the Kannada's know this? if you are talking about the script of Telugu and Kannada, please check with the scripts of

Sinhala, Thai, Cambodian, Vietnamese, Philiphanian too. They are also you brothers and sisters because your mother is Tamil.

 

"Even Tamil is based on sanskrit, like the rest of the Indian languages", Can you prove it?

Tamil is the only Indian Language which has its Own Grammer, Culture, Medicine, Literature, Tradition. Its not the case of any other language in India.

 

"SANSKRIT_tamil" good joke, in these day we have lots of English words in Tamil, so can we call "ENGLISH_tamil" instead?

Sanskrit was the major language spoken in trade around South and South East Asia on that Period.

So just like English there was a little bit of Sanskrit loan words. All technical terms in Tamil are Tamil only they are not Sanskrit.

This is not the case for any other Indian Languages, even Hindi or Bengali.

[Mothman 0]

 

Telugu or Kannada both has base as Tamil.

 

Some word in Telugu such as Vrayu (write) looks different but indeed they were derived from Tamil (e.g vrayu (vrai) from varai).

.

.

.

.

Here I would like to inform that Telugu/Kannada sentence may be formed without a Sanskrit word but not without a Tamil word.

 

Understand the fact.

 

Vinoth,

You say that Telugu and Kannada are based on Tamil. Then how is that, Telugu grammar is almost identical to Sanskrit grammar. I don't know about Kannada so I can't comment. Besides Telugu language doesn't have incomplete alphabets (Varnamala) like Tamil. I believe that Tamil is one of the oldest languages but not basis for Telugu for sure. There must have been another language which preceded Tamil... which must have got obsolete. Tamil, Telugu and other languages must have evolved from it. Just because two languages share common words doesn't mean one gave birth to other unless the language which gave birth to another language is more complete than the new language.

[Vinoth 0]

 

Vinoth,

You say that Telugu and Kannada are based on Tamil. Then how is that, Telugu grammar is almost identical to Sanskrit grammar. I don't know about Kannada so I can't comment. Besides Telugu language doesn't have incomplete alphabets (Varnamala) like Tamil. I believe that Tamil is one of the oldest languages but not basis for Telugu for sure. There must have been another language which preceded Tamil... which must have got obsolete. Tamil, Telugu and other languages must have evolved from it. Just because two languages share common words doesn't mean one gave birth to other unless the language which gave birth to another language is more complete than the new language.

 

Telugu Grammar Identical to Sanskrit?

 

How to say "for Deva" in Telugu?

Devuduki (For Rama),

In Sanskrit "for Rama" is said as "Devaaya".

In Tamil Devanuku.

Which is identical to Telugu? Sanskrit?

 

How you know that Tamil's alphabets are incomplete?

In Tamil language ka/ga, cha/ja, ta/da, th/dha, pa/ba are always replaced in same word depending on place where it comes, even those things has rules. So Tamil don't want ka kha ga gha system because it doesn't uses those things. So writing system is not incomplete.

 

Yes there was a language that precede todays Tamil which is nothing but Proto-Dravidian, that is not a different one but the same Tamil in different form which can be understood and used by Tamil people even now. We had a pure form of Tamil before 1st Sangam period but now it was changed a little but not completely changed so this Tamil is nothing but altered form of Proto-Dravidan.

 

In fact Telugu descended from 3rd Sangam Kodum-Tamil, to understand this you should have good knowledge in Tamil language and literature.

 

If possible try to analyse Telugu numberings then you can understand that Telugu is basically from Tamil and not of Sanskrit.

(e.g)

Tamil

10 - pattu

13 - patin-moondru (10 + 3)

 

Telugu

10 - padi

13 - padi-moodu ( 10 + 3)

 

Sanskrit

10 - dasa

13 - triyo-dasha (3 + 10)

[Vinoth 0]

 

Telugu Grammar Identical to Sanskrit?

 

How to say "for Deva" in Telugu?

Devuduki (For Deva),

In Sanskrit "for Deva" is said as "Devaaya".

In Tamil Devanuku.

Which is identical to Telugu? Sanskrit?

 

How you know that Tamil's alphabets are incomplete?

In Tamil language ka/ga, cha/ja, ta/da, th/dha, pa/ba are always replaced in same word depending on place where it comes, even those things has rules. So Tamil don't want ka kha ga gha system because it doesn't uses those things. So writing system is not incomplete.

 

Yes there was a language that precede todays Tamil which is nothing but Proto-Dravidian, that is not a different one but the same Tamil in different form which can be understood and used by Tamil people even now. We had a pure form of Tamil before 1st Sangam period but now it was changed a little but not completely changed so this Tamil is nothing but altered form of Proto-Dravidan.

 

In fact Telugu descended from 3rd Sangam Kodum-Tamil, to understand this you should have good knowledge in Tamil language and literature.

 

If possible try to analyse Telugu numberings then you can understand that Telugu is basically from Tamil and not of Sanskrit.

(e.g)

Tamil

10 - pattu

13 - patin-moondru (10 + 3)

 

Telugu

10 - padi

13 - padi-moodu ( 10 + 3)

 

Sanskrit

10 - dasa

13 - triyo-dasha (3 + 10)

 

I have mistyped Rama for Deva in the above explanation.

 

 

I also like to inform that in ancient Tamil people used many Prakrit words in Tamil as nowadays people use English word in Tamil.

 

The Prakrit language is very ancient than Sanskrit (it is mother of Sanskrit).

 

People of Tamil use the word 'vada mozhi' to address Prakrit in ancient days after the popularity of sanskrit the same word was used to address the sanskrit.

 

 

"I am" is said as "bhavaami" in sanskrit, here "bhava" is to be "ami" means me in Prakrit. bhava+ami is to say "I am", it is completely of Prakrit and taken in Sanskrit. If the Sanskrit is very ancient than Prakrit then Bhavaami must be said as bhoo'aham where bhoo is to be and aham is for 'I'.

 

We can conclude that Sanskrit is a made language in latter days when the Tamil is the spoken language of most people with Prakrit.