Talk:Kannada literature/Archive 1

older entries
- Shishunal sharif was not a vachana writer and lived in 19th cent. Ramashray

BANDAYA SAHITYA
Now a days Banday Sahitya is moving on to down. In early 1980s these kind of sahitya moved against landlords, castesism, child abuse etc.

Oxyrhyncus papyri
Would it be worthwhile mentioning the archaic Halegannada dialogue which occurs in a Greek play contained in the Egyptian Oxyrhyncus Papyri? As far as I know no-one has been able to suggest alternative readings of the lines even though they've tried to argue that it isn't Kannada. It predates the Halmidi inscriptions by a good many centuries. -- Arvind 00:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * See Oxyrhynchus 413. -- Arvind 22:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This whole article needs write up
The reason why i say it needs write up is because,there is absolutly no references to some of the pre jain literatures which are considered to be kannada classics like Lokopakara,sukumara charite,mallinatha purana,janapadha literature,kumaramana kathe

Especially lokopakara has been considered as a kannada classics which deals with various things and has been so helpful to the world (Ex- the woof and mouth dieses in animals was considered to be only from past 300 years,but the descriptions in this book confirmed its existence even in 9-10th century).This absolutly ask for mentioning in this article.

siribhoovalaya - one more article which is a unique literature of its kind in whole world has no mention?

Also this does not give references of pure kannada meters like RagaLe,sangatya,shatpadi(various shatpadi's - bhamini) and also it has no references to first available kannada poetry written by arre bhatta and lot more things.

Can anyone help me in making this article to a featured article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nrupatunga (talk • contribs) 04:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Nrupatunga 04:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Desi and Marga Literary Traditions
This article does not mention at all the Literary traditions which grew in kannada

The desi literary tradition which was influencede by its own folk tradition.

The marga literary tradition which grew along with the influences gained through sanskrit —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nrupatunga (talk • contribs) 05:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Help required
1) Desi Lioterature 2) pure kannada meters 3) Pure kannada tales and folklore 4) Suufi Literature 5) Vachana Sahitya 6) Daasa Sahitya

If you get any information on these please post them here.

Nrupatunga 08:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Additional sections
Should we add some info about organisations like Kannada sahitya parishat and also information about publishing houses in the article? Also some trivia about publishing records, bestsellers etc.,. I feel it may not be out of place to add such information in a concluding section. Does anybody have good sources for such info? I may have some bookmarked somewhere.. will start digging. Sarvagnya 19:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think its worth looking into. The sub-sections that I wil be updating over the next two weeks will be

all under the "Modern Literature" section. They are the Navodaya, Navya, Navyottara. Under the last sub-section will be the Dalita literature and such. There will be some 15K bytes worth of useful data there. I also need to add a small para up in the medieval section to perhaps document early Sanskrit influence and encouragement in that area. I will be adding a section called "Critisism and appreciation" at the bottom. This section will contain information on some issues you brought up.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The Modern Literature section will contain some 25 of the most famous writers of the last 100 years. Since we have articles covering most of them, linking to them will provide more reading material. The subjects covered will be Novel, Drama, Prose, Poetry etc.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Modern Kannada literature - Shortlist of writers
Hi. In the section titled "Modern Kannada literature", I have described in brief detail 30 famous writers of the 19th and 20th century. However, given the size of the article, I want cut this section short by reducing to 10-12 writers. I am looking forward to your constructive opinions on whom to short list.

My choice would be,


 * The 7 Jnanpith award winners
 * S.L. Bhyrappa : controversial
 * Gopalakrishna Adiga : Father of Navya poetry
 * Govinda Pai : National poet
 * G.S. Shivarudrappa : National poet
 * D.V.Gundappa : Philosopher OR Chandrashekara Kambar (folk / North Karnataka dialect)

If article size is still an issue we can trim it some more.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering the size of the section, compared to other sections above, I believe we could fit in atleast 15 of the most prominent writers of the Modern Kannada literature.
 * Almost everyone in the Dinesh's list above are very important, and cannot be left mentioned in this article. Along with them, I would recommend the mention of T.P. Kailasam, A.N. Krishna Rao, T.R. Subba Rao and K.S. Narasimhaswamy. Contributions from these are much significant like many of the above, especially in the case of ANKru where contributions were not only just in the form of literature, but also in the form of social awareness and struggle for the cause of Kannada in early and mid 20th Century. - KNM Talk 16:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the idea though we should probably reduce the amount of info per writer.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * imo, if the toss up is between DVG and Ch. Kambara.. I'd go with DVG given his stature and the stature of Kagga in Indian literature. As for the other names, I agree with all those both Dinesh and KNM have mentioned.   Sarvagnya 19:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Shortening modern literature section
I feel we need to greatly shorten the ==Modern period== section and make it as less listy as possible. To achieve this, I propose we create a Modern Kannada literature article and move all the contents under ==Modern period to that article and then selectively bring back only the most important things from that daughter article to this article.

Among other things, discussion of individual writers' styles (as in the case of TaRaSu in this article... i have not looked very closely but it struck me as a little WP:UNDUE -- i may be wrong) should be avoided as much as possible unless it has more than just a literary significance. For example Anakru's writing style had ramifications for how Modern Kannada literature(wrt writing of novels) developed and more importantly, how it influenced the socio-politics of Karnataka at that time (in fact, his writings had an important role to play in the Unification of Karnataka).

These were some thoughts.. will add more later. But I think we should start hiving off some of the info to daughter articles wherever they dont exist. Essentially, we may need to go for the iterative exercise we had on the Karnataka article -- imo it will greatly help in improving the focus and clarity of the article (at some point, it should become as simple as copying over the lead of those daughter articles to the appropriate sections here). Sarvagnya
 * Oh.. i just noticed that all the daughter articles are already in place.. maybe we can create stubs for each of the sections in the daughter articles and start summarizing. In this article maybe we can split the modern period under ===Early 20th century=== and ===Upto modern times=== and then blend/merge all the subsections that now exist(Navya, navyottara etc) into those sections. Sarvagnya 19:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * We just need to make sure that we dont loose citations when chopping off/merging info from the section. I will start tonight, going one sub-section at a time (with in the modern literature section). Once we finish with the modern literature, then we can consider if any info from the "kingdoms" should be removed too. I have tried to focus on the greatest of the greatest writers there, even left out some who should probably be there. In general, we should not give excessive wightage to any one particlaur section. For instance, all the eras mentioned, Rashtrakuta, Hoysala, Chalukya, Mysore, Vijayanagara, Modern era have ~200 year time span. Mysore era overlaps into modern period also. Bhakti and Vachana are seperate movements that pervaded several of these Kingdom periods and hence eserve seperate sections and as such are the too flagships of Kannada literature, besides modern literature. And yes, the modern literatue section is looking too listy.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Gokak movement
Gokak movement needs to be mentioned in this article. IMO, without that agitation, Kannada, the language as well as the literature, would not have been what it is today. - KNM Talk 17:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Will add that to the "Apprecitaion" section at the botom or along with Gokak paragraph in the literature section itself.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Merging
Just got some ideas. The sources I have refered to specifically mention that Kannada has three forms of "Mystic" literatures, something that happened independent of courtly support, though it had a tremendous bearing on it; Vachana, Kaivalya and Haridasa. I think we should merge these three sections inot one section and call it "Mystic" literature. Then, literatue under Rashtrakutas and Western Chalukyas can be brought under one section called "Classical literature" since three three "gems" Pampa, Ponna and Ranna cover these two periods anyway. This way we reduce the length of the list a well. Hoysala, Vijayanagara and Mysore can remain independent sections. Your thoughts are welcome.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz PR
....more to come --Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of imgs are copyrighted and may not be used in the article. Add fair use rationales for those imgs.


 * Okay. thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅. Thanks - KNM Talk 18:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * img crowding in "Modern period".--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Will reduce number of images.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ Removed one image. gave better alignment to images.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If you feel I need to drop a few more images, I have no problem.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

General note: avoid copyrighted imgs as much as possible.
 * DK Reply Currently 5 out of 19 images are copyrighted.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * DK Reply user:KNM has requested a friend to take some images of modern poets in Bangalore. May take some time though.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Placement of Basavanna img facing out of article rather than in the article. Place that img to left. Same case with Lyricist, D.R. Bendre img; Poet, playwright and novelist Shivarama Karanth img; Romance poet K. S. Narasimhaswamy (1915–2003 img.

✅Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Mysore period has 3 imgs. Reduce 1.

✅Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Transition and Navodaya: 5 imgs. Atleast remove 2.

✅Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "It consists of writings from the medieval socio-religious developments of Jainism, Virashaivism and Vaishnavism,[2][3] to the writings on secular subjects[4] and modern literature." Isn't modern literature a vague term?


 * Dk Reply Not sure how to better word it. All the books I have refered to call literature from 1800-2000 as "modern".Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Dk Reply I have rearranged and re-worded the lead. Please see how it looks now. Also, the paragraph in the lead that starts with Medieval Jain writers wrote about Jain Tirthankars and other personages important to the Jain religion....... is probably better off merged with the 1st paragraph under the "Medieval Section" itself. How do you feel about this?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * DK Reply I have merged one para (mentioned above) from the lead into the first para in medieval section (called overview) to keep the lead trim.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "Vaishnava writers accounted for the Hindu epics the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, and the Bhagavata, as well as for the Vedanta and other subjects from the Hindu puranic traditions" THe epics were not written first in Kannada. ARe they Kannada versions or translations? clarify.


 * Dk Reply Actually, the Kannada language writings on these epics fall into various categories, each with several examples. These works were either direct translations, or adaptations (meaning the writer gave his own views), or inspirations, or portions there off (such as Airavata by Kumara Vyasa of 1430 who wrote only on the episode concerning Indra's elephant). It is the same case with Jain writings on Tirthankars and Veerashaiva writings on god Shiva and his famous devotees. As we progressed in time, these devotees written about were no longer ancient personalities from Hindu/Jain/Shaiva lore, but recent personalites (relatively speaking) from the Kannada speaking regions itself, such as Allama Prabhu, Akka Mahadevi, Basavanna etc. To not go into all these details, I just called it "accounted for" because two authors use that term. Perhaps I should re-word as "treated" as that could cover all types?.Dineshkannambadi


 * "Around 900, Gunavarma I wrote the Sudraka and the Harivamsa." Is it the same Harivamsa or a translation???


 * DK Reply No, this is not that same Harivamsa. I dont have any futher information to indicate whether it was a translation or a different story altogether. In fact there is one more Harivamsa written in Kannada by another Gunavarma (1070 CE) in the Western Chalukya court. It was fairly common to re-use names of classics. I will try to dig up more information ofcourse and I think I have a source for that.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

✅. The Harivamsa here is a Jain version, also called Neminatha Purana. I have added the citation to the concerned sub-article, Western Ganga literature and the disambiguation to the main article here..Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "whom he favourably compared in the Sudraka to King Sudraka of ancient times." Can king Shuraka's date be given?


 * Dk Reply I did a google search and generally came across a date prior to 5th century. There is no certianity ofcourse, with some scholars even claiming him to be a mythical king.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't LIngayat and Veerashaiva same? Stick to one of them for consistency.

✅. If I find any more, will make it consistent.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I will paste your questions on the PR page and reply there. Thanks for going into details.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Recently I busy with Matrikas, and had an unformal review there too. So my review will come in bits and pieces over long course of time, til which the formal PR would be archived. Answer my comments here please.

--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Aadal's comments
Since it is in FAC, I thought it is best to raise some of my questions and concerns here. I want to first congratulate Dineshkannambadi for the tremendous amount of work he has put in to write this. And to all those who contributed to this article. My comments and questions are from the perspective of an interested reader. Raising some questions here are meant to improve the accuracy and quality of article. Especially when it is in FAC. I believe the article is already a good article, but some things can be improved.

--Aadal (talk) 19:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The second para of the article starts of as follows:"From the 6th century beginning and up to the 12th century, the Kannada region was dominated by dynasties such as the Chalukyas, the Rashtrakutas and the Hoysalas; dynasties that were either Jain or gave ample patronage to the faith. As a result, Kannada literature of the period was almost entirely cultivated by Jains whose works were steeped in Jain literary traditions.[3][4]"  When there is no available literature before the 9th century, how can it be claimed that between 6th to 9th centuries the literature was "steeped in Jain traditions". Based on the dynasties or their faith, one can not attribute "characters" and literary traditions to the non-existent works. I would suggest to separate the period of the dynasties and the discussion of extant Kannada literature. To assess the nature, scope and quality of a literature, such literature should be available for scholars.
 * 2) In the section Kannada_literature, it is not productive to give the list of authors whose works are not known and even for those whose works are not available. It could be in a footnote. From the write-up it is not clear whether Gunanandi (why is his name not hypertexed?) was or was not the author of Gunagankiyam? Are the works of authors mentioned in the last and fifth para in this section available? I find no references to critical editions of the original texts.
 * More comments coming later..
 * In the Kannada_literature section, the starting of the third para, "An important change during the Bhakti (devotion) period starting from the 12th century was the casting aside of the concept of court literature and the rise in popularity of shorter genres such as the vachana and kirthane, traditions that were more acceptable to the common man.[41] During this period, writing classics eulogising kings, commanders and spiritual heroes was on the wane with a proportional increase in the use of local genres." can be improved. the first sentence can be split into two and the second sentence can be modified so that the repetition of the idea of "wane", "casting away" can be removed. The text of the whole para and the following paras needs revision. The style appears cumbersome. --Aadal (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The first sentence is a complete thought and, while the wording could be reworked, I do not think breaking it in two is an improvement. Cutting up sentences because they are longer than they could be frequently leads to choppiness in the reading flow, a common fault in Wikipedia articles. -- Michael Devore (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec)Reply - Though extant Kannada literature starts with the KRM ca. 850 CE, it is the unanimous view of experts (check any of the references) that Kannada literature must have been fully cultivated and flourished in the centuries prior and not only that, the experts also deem it necessary and germane to point this out in any work dealing with Kannada literature. Further, it is also the unanimous view that this literary tradition must have flourished atleast as far back as the 5-6th centuries.  It is also the unanimous view of experts (once again, I request you to verify this in the sources cited) that early Kannada literature until the Veerashaiva lit of the 12th century, was almost entirely cultivated by the Jains and the scholars also attribute this (atleast in part) to the fact that right up until the second millenium, Karnataka/Kannada land was ruled predominantly by Jains.
 * As far as the early attestations section goes, it was renamed from "Early extinct literature" precisely to take care of your concerns, unconvincing at they may well be. The only reason discussion of those attestations finds a place in the article is because every shcolarly work that deals with Kannada literature makes it a point to discuss those things.  The article gives no more importance or makes no claim beyond what the sources bestow it with.  If you think it does, please point out where -- show us what the sources say and how this article differs from the sources and we will cpedit/reparaphrase accordingly.  Thanks. Sarvagnya 20:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can produce citations from numerous recognised authors (from all over the world) who discuss the issue of early Kannada poets and their writings. In fact in the beginning of the FAC, I had 9 citations which was trimmed down to 3 because an earlier reviewer objected to having so many citations for this very section/issue. In fact I can bring in 9 more if need be. Ofcourse that reviewer was convinced that this would not be a controversial issue, but then he did not envisage Aadal would come along and be aghast at the thought of mentioning extinct Kannada writings and early Kannnada poets. If Aadal had gone through the entire FAC discussion, especially that before his arrival, he may have been more pacified about the issue. Under any circumstance, the topic on extinct Kannada writings and early poets is extremely valid and important, may be not to Aadal, but to the historical world at large. This has been explained and repeated time and again. If there are any specific copy edit issues we can surely look into it.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sarvagnya, I'm not questioning report of existence of the said literature. My point is, in the interest of accuracy, nothing so sweeping as the present characterization, should be made on a body of literature that is not seen and critically examined by scholars. Looking at the the history of neighbouring  Tamil Nadu, it is not inconceivable that people of other faiths also could have lived and they could have had their literature, though the king and a section of the populace might have been Jains. Unless you have evidence to show that the society at large in Karnataka was of one faith only, and even if other faiths existed, they were not producing any literature. Were there not any Sanskrit literature during this period, which are not all Jainistic? In any case in principle it is best not to make such conclusions on unavailable literature. For the sake of accuracy, I mean. --Aadal (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Aadal, We are not discussing about Sanskrit literature in the article, it is about Kannada literature. According to authors, without exception, the period upto 12th century is called the Augustan era of Jain literature in the Kannada language. There may have been a few works by Shaivas and Vaishnavas, but their numbers are few and far apart. Going by your own arguement, we should be writing about majority literature from majority sources. You really have to read up on Kannnda literature from official sources. Please, I urge you to pick up a book and do some reading this weekend. This will really help in solving a lot of issues.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I raised the question about Sanskrit writing to point out that there must have been people of other faiths (say Vedic). Now, you admit that "There may have been a few works by Shaivas and Vaishnavas, but their numbers are few and far apart.". Therefore, it is best to leave out the period 6th to mid 9th centuries (during which no extant literature exists) from the characterizations as in the sentence, "As a result, Kannada literature of the period was almost entirely cultivated by Jains whose works were steeped in Jain literary traditions". --Aadal (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You came back to the same point. Just becase there may or may not have been vedic literature prior to 9th century has nothing to do with keeping or excluding mention of the period. Sorry but you are going around in circles.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * DK, your recent revision "In the 18th and the 19th centuries, carnatic music was popularised in modern Tamil Nadu by several prominent composers while its instrumental form made notable progress in Mysore.[112][113]" (italics mine), makes it exactly the opposite of what I said in FAC. The flourishing and blooming of Carnatic music in Tamil Nadu is quite indigenous and nothing to do with Kannada literature or Kannada musicians or mystics (including Purandaradasa). The meaning and import of your sentence is incorrect.--Aadal (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2008--Aadal (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Aadal, there is nothing indigenous about Tamil culture or Kannada culture. It is just your imagination. Taxman wanted to me to write about general interaction between neighbouring cultures and I have provided verifyable info. Carnatic music existed in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu in the 18-19 century, this is all the article says.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * @ Aadal -This is getting silly now. Every scholarly source without exception mention that the Haridasas and their music had an influence on the Thyagaraja and his contemporaries -- that post-Vijayanagara, its musical traditions was nurtured and enriched in Tanjore, among other places.  Thyagaraja, in particular even acknowledges the influence of Purandara Dasa.  These are not even controversial or something that is being debated.  It is the scholarly consensus.  That however is not to say that Thyagaraja and his contemporaries did NOT have a role to play in the further development and refinement of Carnatic music.  They most certainly did!  Tanjore has a huge role in the evolution of Carnatic music (theory and practice) and nobody is even remotely denying that!  And in any case, like I've already said, if Aadal has any denials, rebuttals or rephrasing of his own, I strongly and in no uncertain terms urge him to bring his sources to the table and we can discuss.  Without a single source to rebut the dozens of sources in the article, I dont see any point in this discussion.  Sarvagnya 22:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Sarvagnya. I have a feeling this debate is headed nowhere and it is best to avoid it. I feel Aadal has some strong views which cannot be influenced with any number of citations, common knowledge sources and such, whether regarding Kannada literature or Carnatic music. The situation is worse when he talks of indigenous Tamil traditions bordering on revisionism. It is best to avoid such unhealthy debates.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * First, Sarvagnya what is silly??! Established musicologists and scholars specializing in music history etc do not take cognizance of Haridasa movement or its "influence on Carnatic music" or its influence on the 18th-19th century muscians. Take the examples of Emmie te Nijenhuis, Lewis Rowell, Prof. P. Sambamurthi, Peggy Holoyde - they don't talk of "Hadidasa movement" or its "foundational" influence as implied here in this article. Every scholarly source, eh??! Can you cite some 4-5 unbiased sources, say, international authors? Can you give a quote of who exactly gave the title of Karnataka Sangeeta Pitamaha to Purandara Dasa? Please provide a citation of how and when he got this title. After all it is well known that there were musicians who had more advanced accomplishemts like Annamacarya. For example:Emmie te Nijenhuis (in her book Indian Music, page 100) says, "According to Sambamoorthy the kriti developed out of the older kirtanas composed by Tallapakam composer Annamacarya (1408-1503)..". Note that he is earlier than Purandara Dasa. Further note that Muthu Thandavar, a contemperory of Purandaradasa, was singing Kritis at the time Purandara Dasa was singing far simpler Namasangirtanas (no where near Kritis, a more advanced form of Carnatic music). Just because out of respect if some people called Purandara Dasa as one of the early muscians, it is ridiculous to claim that carnatic music was actually "poupularized and Tamil Nadu" (implying that it was founded by Haridasas). Excepting some writers from Karnataka, none of the well-known scholars even take cognizance of Haridasas, leave alone claiming  that they founded the carnatic music. Since this article is on Kannada literature, it is best to omit this import-export business of music systems. It is clearly beyond the scope of the article. Of course, unless you claim that the Carnatic Trinity (Tyagaraja, Muthuswamy Dikshitar, Shyama Sastri), Muthu Thandavar, Annamacarya, Swaati Thirunal and all were all nearly exclusively composing in Kannada and that they were singing Kannada compositions. Can you give examples of prominence of Kannada compositions in the prominent musicians in Tamil Nadu? I can give examples of people, whose mother tongue is Tamil, composing in Telugu to show the prominence of Telugu in Catnatic music --Aadal (talk) 06:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Prose: paragraph two (lead)
Here are the examples from paragraph 2. Please don't interrupt my post with comments, but rather provide them at the end. First, the paragraph itself: "From the 6th century beginning and up to the 12th century, the Kannada region was dominated by dynasties such as the Chalukyas, the Rashtrakutas and the Hoysalas; dynasties that were either Jain or gave ample patronage to the faith. As a result, Kannada literature of the period was almost entirely cultivated by Jains whose works were steeped in Jain literary traditions. From the 12th century, the Veerashaiva movement ushered in a new stream of literature which flourished alongside the Jain works.  The rise of the Vijayanagara empire in the 14th century saw a renaissance of sorts with the arrival of Vaishnava literature&mdash;that of the Haridasas in particular."


 * "From the 6th century beginning and up to the 12th century, the Kannada region was dominated by dynasties such as the ..." You need to be equally precise at both ends.  If it is "early in the sixth century," or "turn of the sixth century," at one end, then it should be "until late in the twelfth century," or "through the twelfth century" (in American English), etc. at the other.
 * "... dynasties that were either Jain or gave ample patronage to the faith." Ample? For what? Why does "faith" appear at the end and not alongside "Jain," where an uninitiated reader really needs it? I think what is really meant is something like, "... dynasties that either practised the Jain faith themselves, or exclusively  (extensively/unequivocally/significantly)  supported it (/or offered exclusive/significant/unqualified support to it)."
 * "As a result, Kannada literature of the period was almost entirely cultivated by Jains whose works were steeped in Jain literary traditions." "As a result?" Why does official support (even exclusive support) of a faith "result" in a literature being "entirely" composed by the faithful? It certainly doesn't follow automatically, otherwise there wouldn't be Jewish literature in early 20th century Europe, nor (to take a different medium) Jazz and Blues in early 20th century America.  "cultivated?"  Do you mean "composed?"  Or, do you mean "developed," or "fostered" or "promoted" (the usual figurative meanings of "cultivated")?  "cultivate" seems vague here.  "... Jains whose works were steeped in Jain literary traditions?"  What else would they be steeped in? non-Jain literary traditions? Doesn't convey anything.
 * "From the 12th century, the Veerashaiva movement ushered in a new stream of literature which flourished alongside the Jain works." "From the 12th century?" You can't use that with "ushered in," which means "inaugurate" or "introduce" and happens only once. You can say, "Early in the twelfth century," "during the twelfth century," or even "in the twelfth century," but not "from the twelfth century." "... a new stream of literature which flourished alongside the Jain works"  Another empty statement.  Doesn't matter if those very words were used in a reference; in any encyclopedia article, they are meaningless.
 * "The rise of the Vijayanagara empire in the 14th century saw a renaissance of sorts with the arrival of Vaishnava literature&mdash;that of the Haridasas in particular." "a renaissance?" We weren't told that the literary output flagged before that (for a renaissance, lit. "rebirth," to be meaningful).  "a renaissance of sorts?"  That's even less meaningful (let alone vague) without a context.  "Limited resurgence/revival" would be more encyclopedic. "a renaissance of sorts" in what? Not at all clear from the sentence.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC) Updated.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ancient?

 * I am a little confused by the second sentence in the lead: "The history of Kannada literature, which spans 15 centuries, is usually divided into three phases: ancient, medieval and modern." As far as I am aware, the word "ancient" in Western historiography is usually applied to events or works that pre-date the fall of the Roman empire (476 CE); in Indian historiography, the cut-off year for "ancient" is usually the death of Harsha (646 CE).  Although there certainly are inscriptions in Kannada dating to the sixth century, the extant literature goes back no earlier than 850 CE.  How then is "ancient" being used?  Also, I am troubled by the web reference in that sentence.  Its one thing to cite an on-line journal published by the Central Institute of Indian languages; its another to cite the perfunctory introduction of a Kannada on-line course, one likely written by a web designer.  That doesn't constitute solid evidence that Kannada literature is indeed 1500 years old, as claimed, rather than, say, 1150 years old; as far as I can tell, the literature dates back to the early medieval period, not the ancient.  Inscriptions, by the way, even in verse, do not constitute a body of literature, unless they are numerous and the subject of later criticism; neither do works that haven't survived. The Britannica article on Kannada literature, for example, make no claim of "ancient" provenance.  Neither does Encarta, which adds, "In its early period, works in Kannada, another Dravidian language, were dominated by Jain religious themes. An example is the Adipurana (History of the First One), the 10th-century author Pampa’s biography of the Jain holy figure Rishabha."  You could use, early, middle and modern phases to describe the literature; but not "ancient," and "medieval."  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"The first thing one notices about the emergence of Kannada literary culture is that the very notion of literature is linked to the practice of writing; at least it is so according to the Kannada scholars who have considered the literary culture's beginnings. Invariably, every discussion of the formative period of Kannada literature starts with a reference to the Halmidi inscription (450 CE). The 'originary' moment that scholars have posited with Halmidi should be viewed in the context of a broader discussion of the relationships between writing, literarization, and inscriptions.  In the context of premodern Kannada&mdash;to be precise, the archaic period between fifth and tenth centuries&mdash;these three among themselves had come to constitute a certain kind of organic unity.  Inscriptions were the first document of the public sphere available in the geocultural region called Karnataka. Moreover, something of a public sphere in its own right was created in the Kannada language using inscriptions. The inscriptions have a certain well-formed conception of the world, the community, and the role of the individual in history; they seek to represent a body of social knowledge, which is put to specific use by a self-conscious agent or political institution. Against this background, I have chosen to call inscriptions 'public narratives,' because something that is already prewritten in society is being reproduced.... I have selected four important inscriptions, all undated but perhaps from around the eighth or ninth century&mdash;the ninth century being the period for the first noninscriptional written text in Kannada, the Kavirajamarga, a treatise on poetics." This is an important article and needs to be used in the text.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The article by D. R. Nagaraj (2003), which is mentioned in the references, but, however, seems to be nowhere cited in the text, says this about the beginnings of Kannada literature. Nagaraj makes a distinction between "public narratives" and "literature," with inscriptions belonging to the former category. (Nagaraj, D. R. (2003) "Critical Tensions in the History of Kannada Literary Culture," pp. 323-383, in Literary Cultures in History: Reconstructions from South Asia (ed. by Sheldon I. Pollock). Berkeley and London: University of California Press. Pp. 1066 pages. ISBN:0520228219)


 * Also the book by Narasimhacharya was published in 1934 (two years before the author's death), not in 1988 when it was merely reprinted. Please change the date to 1934 in all the footnotes.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The status of Kannada in the domain of the publicly displayed inscribed texts offers a textbook case of the tendencies described above. The earliest known dynasty of northwestern Karnataka-the locus of what was to become the prestige literary dialect-the Kadambas (fourth century on), never used Kannada for public records. The Gangas, the oldest attested dynasty in southwestern Karnataka (fourth to ninth centuries), did not use Kannada for the documentary portion of copper-plate grants until the time of Avinita in the sixth century. We are able to follow the literary-cultural politics of Karnataka kingdoms more closely, however, with the Badami Calukyas, and especially with their successors, the Rastrakutas. What we find among the latter, when we look at the matter statistically, is a slow but stunning decline in the production of Sanskrit public poetry commencing in the early ninth century. When the dynasty first begins issuing inscriptions starting around A.D. 750, Sanskrit is used in more than 80 percent of the extant records; by its end 200 years later, less than 5 percent are in Sanskrit (Gopal 1994, 429-65). Besides the clear evidence of shifting language preference, all the early inscriptions in Kannada among the Badami Calukyas and Rastrakutas remain resolutely documentary. The first expressive or "workly" inscriptions in Kannada from within the royal court come to be produced only about the time of the reign of Krishna I11 (939, El 19, 289), or nearly half a millennium after inscribed Kannada first appears (Halmidi ca. 450).
 * Finally, the article, "The Cosmopolitan Vernacular," by Sheldon Pollock, The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 57, No. 1. (Feb., 1998), pp. 6-37. should be used in the text. Here are two quotes from the article about the origins of literary Kannada:

Kannada literature (in the sense I have been using the term throughout) was a recent invention, of perhaps the eighth century, and it is precisely the fact of its novelty in the face of Sanskrit that prompted the writer of this text to puzzle through, in a most detailed and subtle way, the complex dialectic between the local and global in medieval literary culture. This singular work in the history of literary vernacularization is the Kavirajamarga (ca. 875), "The Way of the King of Poets," a text to place beside Dante's De vulgari eloquentid (1307)-or, rather, before it; it may in fact be the first work in world culture to constitute a vernacular poetics in direct confrontation with a cosmopolitan language. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  13:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC) ---


 * DK Reply I have not read the entire content of your comments yet, just the first few lines. I will get to the rest later tonight. But let me first clarify that the concept of "ancient", "mediveal" amd "modern" is based not on the Western Calander but rather on the language of Kannada in use in those times. In fact, authors such as Kittel call the early classical period as the ancient period. But more verifications later.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Further I want to make sure Fowler has not introduced his own interpretations and excluded what really needs to be there, while typing content from books. But that will come later tonight. Untill then, cheers.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? "Typing contents from books?" I have the pdfs of the articles, I merely copied and pasted the relevant paragraphs.  You, on the other hand, are using a 1934 reference and calling it a 1988 one.  You haven't even cited two important modern articles that should be included in any encyclopedia article on Kannada literature.     Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Huh? I own the book by Narasimhacharya, and did not see the 1934 date on it, perhaps missed it, but will check it again. 1988 is very clearly visible though. Also keep in mind, Wiki is about majority sources, not minority.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Using a 1988 reprint and mentioning 1934 in the footnotes would be ludicrous. The very point of having footnotes is to cross-reference and let people know where the content is coming from - so they can look it up and verify it themselves if they think its necessary.  Page numbers across editions and reprints are almost never in sync and nothing could be sillier and dishonest than sending a reader on a wild goose chase looking for content in the 1934 edition with page numbers pulled from the 1988 edition! OK
 * As for Sheldon Pollock, he is no stranger to us(me atleast) and I have cited him in other articles myself. I also have the pdf you're talking about and you can save us your lengthy extracts (and pointless wikilinks(to his name)) which border on cpvio - given that talk pages are also gfdl.  I myself was mulling adding some stuff from that article, but found nothing in that article that was so compelling.  Will take another look at it if you so insist and see what can be added from that pdf.  Thanks. Sarvagnya 16:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion
Consider tying the subsection header Navodaya to the content which follows it, for example "blah blah this period was named Navodaya after the blah blah" (blah blah used as a nonpejorative placeholder here, of course). Right now, Navodaya is a title without explanation, the word not used again until the next subsection header Late Navodaya. -- Michael Devore (talk) 05:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do. Not sure but maybe my cpedits /additions about 24 hours ago is the cause.  Will fix.  Sarvagnya 07:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime, to ensure I understand the terminology properly and don't screw up the content with a misinformed edits, Navodaya and Pragatishila are genres of literature as science fiction is, correct? Which means the article sentence "Even as the Navodaya waxed, a new movement of the Pragatishila (progressives) gained momentum." should drop the leading the's and condense to "Even as Navodaya waxed, a new movement of Pragatishila (progressives) gained momentum."? Also, if they are distinct genres, the new movement is "called" Pragatishila rather than "of" Pragatishila, right? Shouldn't progressives be singular, too, based on its wiki article? -- Michael Devore (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Navodyaya, Navya, Navyottara etc., are not genres. They are more like waves of ideology/schools of thought that held sway over modern kannada literature.  Navodaya, for example marks the beginning of modern literature, a moving away from the mores of old literature and archiac language. Basically, each of these waves brought with them new trends in literature in terms of genre, language, ideologies  etc.,. Sarvagnya 18:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sarvagna
In the article it is claimed that Sarvagna composed 2000 tripatis, "numbering about 2000 penned in the tripadi metre..". But in the separate article on Sarvajna, it says, In all, about 1000 three-liners are attributed to Sarvajna.. Which one is correct? Is there any citations to critical editions of the original works ? Any reference to English translations? --Aadal (talk) 06:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The actual numer of poems written under the name "Sarvajna" runs into thousands. However, historians feel his name may have been used by later poets. The two books referred to and published by Sahitya Akademi mention 2000 poems. I dont know about the content of the page called Sarvajna because I did not author it. Perhaps it needs correction.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * DK, I'm not accusing you and as you know who authored doesn't matter. My concern was the inconsistency (which you've now corrected in the other article). This kind of uncertain and tenuous nature of some the details and a lack of references to critical editions (or are they provided?) makes it queasy for anyone to accept some the details in this article. The same thing happened with Purandara Dasa's Devarnamas. --Aadal (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Critical Editions
I wonder whether there are pointers in this article to the critical editions of the literature referred. Or at least some good reviews, which in turn cite the critical editions? For example Emmie te Nijenhuis in her book Indian Music, provides references to critical editions of original works. --Aadal (talk) 06:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

disambiguation of links
The following need disambig: Brahminical Buddha Epigraph Heretic Rebirth Verse Virupaksha Randomblue (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Will provide today. thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Not relevant. Remove?
I find that the following sentence is completely irrelevant in this article on Kannada Literature. I am going to remove it. "In the 18th and the 19th centuries, carnatic music was popularised in modern Tamil Nadu by several prominent composers while its instrumental form made notable progress in Mysore.[110][111]"

That the above sentence completely misrepresents and misinforms is a separate matter.

--Aadal (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Literature in the Modern Period
This section is well written with excellent details. However, I find that there is no mention of discussion of literary magazines and other fora where literature was presented critiqued. Perhaps there is, but I didn't see any references to English translations of some of the works.

In discussing Grihabhanga, a reference is cited, but that seems to be wrong (since Sasrti 1955 can not be a reference for a work of 1970s). Please check the sentence: ''His best was yet to come with Grihabhanga ("Breaking of a Home", 1970), a story of a woman who tries in vain to survive under tragic circumstances. The characters in the story are rustic and often use vulgar language.[86]''

--Aadal (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Widely?
It is claimed (bold mine): "..it is widely acknowledged that Kannada literature is of significantly greater vintage and that a fully cultivated literary tradition must have existed going back atleast a few centuries.[6][7][8]

The references 7 and 8 are from the same author and very old (1897 and 1921). The claim that it is widely acknowledged seems stretched. Are there not some more recent and other authors who acknowledge it?--Aadal (talk) 01:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You raised this before and we answered this before. That sentence had 8 or 10 citations and I asked for it to be removed because it was over-referenced for the lead.  Other references follow in the early attestations section.  Obviously, we didnt bargain for this kind of nitpicking and obfuscation when we removed those citations.  If you have any sources/citations of your own to present, bring them to the table.  If it is only your bare word, ... well, we're at work here.  Thanks. Sarvagnya 17:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not nitpicking. There is a large claim that "widely acknowledged" and a similarly large claim that "a fully cultivated tradition must have existed back at leaset a few centuries". This is not true and the citations are outdated. Take the evaluation of I. Mahadevan in this work. If you have evidences that show "fully cultivated tradition...", other than "bare words", bring them to the table. I would ask you not to be so abrasive when responding to questions raised here. It is in the interest of the potential readers that they should read something that is reliable. An encyclopedia should ensure such quality and authority.--Aadal (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "...claim that "widely acknowledged" and a similarly large claim that "a fully cultivated tradition must have existed back at leaset a few centuries"..." - In case you failed to notice, both claims are cited and no they are not outdated and they are from scholarly works of serious historians who continue to be cited by academia. and btw, what was that link about?  What in that link you threw rebuts or denies what is written in this article?  How is it germane to this discussion?  And next time can we have sources slightly more scholarly than newspaper reports?  Thanks. Sarvagnya 20:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (1)The link is about excerpts from "Early Tamil Epigraphy : From the Earliest Times to the Sixth Century A.D. by Iravatham Mahadevan (Harvard Oriental Series 62)", which is a volume in the Harvard Oriental Series, a scholarly work. The relevant part says, In contrast, during the same period, all early inscriptions from Upper South India on stone, copper plates, coins, seals and pottery are exclusively in Prakrit and not in Kannada or Telugu, which were the spoken languages of this region.. And further on he says, As a result of this attitude, the Jaina scholars (and to a lesser extent, the Buddhist scholars) made rich contribution to the development of Tamil literature during the Cankam Age and for centuries thereafter. A similar development did not take place in Upper South India in the early period presumably because Prakrit was already the language of administration and public discourse in the region. The monks who were familiar with Prakrit had perhaps no opportunity or incentive to change over to the local languages in this region. (bold mine). Therefore it is not correct to state "Kannada literature is ..a fully cultivated literary tradition must have existed going back at least a few centuries". Much has happened (in understanding and discoveries) since 1897 and 1921. --Aadal (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There are enough famous inscriptions in Kannada in the 5th, 6th and later centuries starting with the Halmidi (450 CE). Obviously, your extract above talks of an age before the Halmidi.  And where in this article do we claim that Kannada literature pre-dates the Halmidi?  Chronologically, 450 CE is the oldest date I can spot in the article and in the lead we mention right off the bat that the literature spans 15 centuries - no more.  Also in the lead, we mention that the oldest extant work is from 850 CE.  You may then ask (as you have, repeatedly) - "850 CE only takes it back 1150 years.  Where did the remaining 350 years come from?" and for the nth time the answer will continue to be (as the lead also notes) that the remaining 350 years is the educated and informed opinion (based on literary and historic sources) of experts in the field.  If you do the math correctly, you will see that we are not making any claims for the period your extract is talking about and your extract is in essence irrelevant here.  Thanks. Sarvagnya 22:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I repeat, the claim of "fully cultivated literary tradition" is beyond the scope. What is "fully cultivated literary tradition"? As far as I can see there is no evidence for claiming "widely acknowledged". You could say a few "authors speculate" or "opine that" or something to that effect. Even then, I would suggest toning down from WP:PCK type of expressions. --Aadal (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I too repeat, a dozen scholars (from the top of my head):Sahtiya Akademi, E.P. Rice, B.L. Rice, Sastry, S. Kamath, J.Kamath, Karmakar, Wardi, Narasimhacharya, Sheldon, Bhat ..... are not a few. There are many more.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I've not referred to 15 centuries, but the claim of "fully cultivated literary tradition", when a body of literature belonging to that period is not available, is fundamentally wrong. A body of literature could be only 300 years old and it can still be great. How ancient is not the issue; but how much can be said in an article about a body of unavailable literature? Can "fully cultivated" be used? It just not even WP:PCK, but not being faithful and reasonable about the data. Such hyperbole should be avoided in a good article. Assuming that DK can produce exact quote of "fully cultivated literary tradition" from those dozen authors, for the nonexistent literature, it is still not permissible because it is fundamentally wrong. Please try to understand the cause for objecting it. This is my last comment on this point and you can do what you wish. --Aadal (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The article only says "... a fully cultivated literary tradition must have existed going back...". And that precisely is what the sources say.  No peacock.  No poppycock.  If you have a problem with the conclusions scholars have drawn from the evidence they have examined, take it up with them.  In the meantime, the lesser mortals that we are, we will continue to simply report what they say.  Thanks.  Sarvagnya 20:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

For the benefit of other editors here, let me reproduce verbatim what E. P. Rice, for instance, says -
 * [T]he middle of the ninth century, is far from being the date of the beginning of Kanarese literature. We have abundant information of a large number of earlier writers, extending back into earlier centuries.  The Kavirajamarga itself mentions by name eight or ten writers in prose and verse, saying these are but a few of many; and it quotes, discusses and criticises illustrative stanzas from other poets whose names are not mentioned.  Moreover, the character of the book, which is a treatise on the methods of the poets (see p. 110), itself implies that poetical literature was already of long standing and widely known and appreciated.  Th author testifies expressly (I, 38, 39), that "in the Kanarese country, not students only, but the people generally have natural quickness in the use and understanding of verse"

Note - The emphases in the above extract are NOT mine. This is what all authors repeat in their own words in their works. Now, if what the article says is not a fair paraphrase of what is said above, I'd like to know what a fair paraphrase would be. Thanks. Sarvagnya 20:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Early attestations Section
This section has to be trimmed. It looks like padding and quite unnecessary, the description and such a list of authors, when their works are not available. For example although at least some 473 poets names and works are known in Tamil literature belonging to 200 BCE to 200 CE, it would be ridiculous to list them all. I would suggest that one or two names be mentioned and the rest of the description can go into a footnote. Also some claims, when the works are not available, look extravagant (ex. dates, 96,000-verse commentary etc.).

I raise again the need to refer to critical editions of the extant literature (or some serious pointers to the same). References to available English translations would also be good, for an English encyclopedia.

--Aadal (talk) 12:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, you have raised this before and we have answered this before. This is bordering on trolling now.  If you have sources for your Tamil bards of 200 BC or 10000 BC or whatever, go and add them to that article by all means.  The early attestations section has stuff that is discussed without fail by all scholars who discuss Kannada literature.  If you have a problem with that, take it up with the scholars.  Bye. Sarvagnya 17:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Read my comment carefully. My comment is not about Tamil bards. I would ask you to stop making abrasive comments and focus on the topic. I said, the section needs to be trimmed and I gave an example how ridiculous it would be to list a long list of authors, even if we know their works and can evaluate them. The case here in Kannada Literature is that we don't have the works of authors which can be studied or evaluated, but we simply have lists of authors etc. Do keep them if you must, but in a footnote. It is worthwhile to mention one or two and give a pointer to the rest. Again, you're not addressing my question about critical editions.

--Aadal (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Trimming the section down I think is much needed.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 07:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Awards
The end sentence/paragraph about awards seems kind of tacked onto the end of the article and doesn't really go under Post-modern trends of literature. How about a short "Awards" (or similarly titled ) section which very briefly introduces the awards, or otherwise ties them to the previous content and authors, and then ends with the current sentence containing the numbers? I think the end would look more neat and less abrupt that way. -- Michael Devore (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Exaggerated Claims
Here is Sheldon Pollock (Pollock, Sheldon. (2007).  "Literary Culture and Manuscript Culture in Precolonial India." (pp. 77-94) In Literary Cultures and the Material Book (ed. S. Eliot et al), London: British Library. Pp. 444. ISBN 0712306846), talking about the development of vernacular literatures in India and repeating exactly what I have been saying above, "'This development was characterized in most places in India by a time lag between what I have called literization, the committing of local language to documentary, non-literary, written form, and literarization, the development of literary expressivity in accordance with the norms of a dominant literary culture. The interval between these two moments is often substantial and dramatic. Three to four centuries, as in the case of Kannada and Marathi, is not uncommon (for the first, literization in the early sixth century, literarization in the late ninth; ...) (p. 81)'" I'm afraid the exaggerated claims in the lead that the history of Kannada literature spans 1500 years and that "it is widely acknowledged that Kannada literature is of greater vintage (than 850 CE) and that a fully cultivated literary tradition must have existed going back a few centuries" will have to go. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  08:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It may be exaggerated to you, not to the dozen or so authors I have quoted above. Sorry. Bring an equal or comparable number of sources and talk, or hold your peice. No changes.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't see a dozen or so authors. The claim in the lead that "a fully cultivated literary tradition must have existed going back a few centuries," cites three works, two of which were published in 1897 and 1921 respectively, when the standards of textual exegesis were nowhere near as rigorous as they are today.  The third citation to the Encyclopaedia of Indian Literature, vol. II (published by the Sahitya Academy, New Delhi, 1988) has been incorrectly paraphrased.  Here is exactly what is says on pp. 1474-1475  "This work (Kavirajamarga) is of great historical importance, since it throws considerable light on the pre-Kavirajamarga period of Kannada literature. It mentions names of recognised poets and prose-writers who existed before Kavirajamarga.  Unfortunately their works seem to have been lost.  But Kannada inscriptions dating back to 5th century A.D. (as evidenced by the Halmidi inscription of 450 A.D.) have been discovered.  These inscriptions in verse are composed in an elegant style and they point to the fact that the authors of those inscriptions must have had a basic knowledge of Sanskrit grammar and a sound sense of the structure of the Kannada language.  ... The word 'purvacharyar' occurring in some contexts of the works may refer either to previous grammarians or rhetoricians, since Kavirajamarga is essentially a book on rhetoric.  ... It may not be off the mark if we state that a highly evolved grammatical tradition existed even prior to Kavirajamarga ...'"


 * A grammatical tradition is quite different from a literary tradition. Even Rice 1921, who is no longer always considered very reliable (see Nagaraja 2003), and who does say that "poetical literature was already of long standing (p. 25)" in 850 CE, however, (in the next two pages) is much more circumspect in his assessment than this article is: "'Early Kanarese (Kannada) writers regularly mention three poets as of especial eminence among their predecessors. These are Semanta-bhadra, Kavi Parameshthi and Pujyapada.  These are apparently not among those named in the Kavirajamarga.  We are not absolutely certain that they wrote in Kanarese; we know only of their Sanskrit works, Sanskrit being the learned language of that time as Latin was of the Middle Ages in Europe.  But inasmuch as they are uniformly named by later Kanarese writers as eminent poets, it is probable that they wrote in Kanarese also; (p. 26)  ... Samanta-bhadra should probably be placed in the sixth century. (p. 26)  Other early writers mentioned in the Kavirajamarga but whose works are lost, are Vimala, Udaya, Nagarjuna, Jayabandhu, Durvinita, and Srivijaya.  For such fragmentary information as is available of these, the Kanarese student is referred to the Karnataka Kavi Charite.  (p. 27)"

Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  17:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

These are apparently not among those named in the Kavirajamarga. We are not absolutely certain that they wrote in Kanarese;''. Are you reading the article at all or just blindly floundering through books.? What information does this give any educated person, Other early writers mentioned in the Kavirajamarga'' but whose works are lost, are Vimala, Udaya, Nagarjuna, Jayabandhu, Durvinita, and Srivijaya. For such fragmentary information as is available of these, the Kanarese student is referred to the Karnataka Kavi Charite''. What can an educated person infer from this, It mentions names of recognised poets and prose-writers who existed before Kavirajamarga''. Unfortunately their works seem to have been lost. But Kannada inscriptions dating back to 5th century A.D. (as evidenced by the Halmidi inscription of 450 A.D.'' Fowler you can howl all you want. The content is clear. Move on.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting notes
Hoysala period: I am not sure what to do with this sentence with respect to Raghavanka's writing:  "The writing is an original both in tradition and inspiration." I am not quite sure how a tradition can be original. Could this be verified against the source texts, or otherwise revised by someone else, please?

I've copyedited the sections from the Hoysala period to the Mysore period inclusive, and will continue the work tomorrow after some sleep. Is there by any chance an article on the poetic metres referred to in this article? If not, that would be an excellent companion piece; something to describe what these different metres are would help the reader to get a sense of what the works were like. That degree of detail is not appropriate for this article given its current focus. Risker (talk) 09:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually you brought up a good point. I plan to write a sub-article just on metres soon. For now we can just go with bracketed disambig's which already exists. I will verify the Hoysala sentence from my sources. Thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I see my question above has been addressed. I will continue with the copy editing process shortly, again by section so if you do any other work we will not have editing conflicts. Risker (talk) 14:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Continuing on, I have the following sections remaining to copy edit: "Early attestations", Modern era (and subsections), Post-modern trends, and the lede. I am not very fond of the title "Early attestations" and would suggest a change to something like "Evidence of early Kannada writings"; the term "attestation" has a very legalistic meaning in much of the English-speaking world. Perhaps this should be discussed amongst interested editors? Risker (talk) 06:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was earlier titled "Early literature" or something like that. Then somebody on FAC nitpicked that the title was exaggerated given that the section spoke about inscriptions and extinct literature and we (I, actually) changed it to "attestations".  So much for bending over backwards to accomodate opinions on FAC.  In any case, "attestation" (usually with a prefixed "epigraphic", "archeological" etc.,) is a term very much in use in historiography and that is the sense in which its use was intended.  Thanks for bringing it up anyway. Sarvagnya 18:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it has the same legalistic meaning in Indian English as well; as far as I am aware, they are using it in the slightly older figurative form ("No necessary truth can have its attestation from experience."), which is still very much alive in Indian English. But, really, the authors should weigh in on this.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  07:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've been told, it's not really alive in Indian English either! So much for my intervention. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Update
It's now 1 a.m. my time so I am going to stop for tonight. Sections I have yet to work on are Navya, Post-modern trends, and the lede. Unfortunately my plan to finish tonight was thwarted by computer problems, but I should be out of everyone's hair by the end of tomorrow night. After that, I am going to ask a previously uninvolved FA-level editor to review my work (fingers crossed I can persuade him). Risker (talk) 05:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sahitya Akademi Award
All Indian languages dont receive Sahitya awards every year, even Kannada writers did not get it on two occassions. Please do your research carefully.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 11:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right DK, but don't you think that, when said in isolation, it gives a different perspective? Between the years 1955 and 2005, many of the major languages have received about 45 or more awards. Kannada didn't get in two years (57, 63) Hindi didn't get in one year (62) Marathi didn't get in one year (57) Gujarati didn't get in 4 years (57,59, 66,72) Bengali didn't get in three years (60,68,73) Tamil didn't get in 5 years (57,59,60,64,76) Malayalam didn't get in four years (59,61,62,68) Telugu didn't get in 7 years (58,59,66,67,68,76,80)

It would be better if some perspective is given. Almost all the major languages receive an award 90% of the time or greater. for the languages shown above, one can see that out of a possible 51 awards, Hindi and Marathi had the fewest misses, Kannada next, then Bengali, Malayalam, Tamil, Gujarati and Telugu --Aadal (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Wiki members who want to write about those different languages are free to quote those numbers in the respective articles. No body is stopping them. Your reasoing could also be applied to Jnanpith awards also.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The Sahitya Akademi is a very prestigious award and given that Kannada's population is much lesser compared to all the others mentioned above(with the exception of Malayalam), if anything, it should make Kannada's stats that much more creditable.  For that matter, even the Filmfare is given every year to every language.  But actor bios on wikipedia and elsewhere never tire of mentioning the count right off the bat.  Absurdity is reaching new heights here. Sarvagnya 17:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * DK, I made my comment only because the number 50 is a fairly large number for a reader unfamiliar with the practices of Sahitya Academy. Jnanpith award is in the usual range of of big awards. I thought you could add some perspective, say something like - in the past 52 years Kananda authors have won 50 Sahitya Academy awards, while typically a major Indian language had won about 45 awards in the same period - but if you don't want to thats fine. --Aadal (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * To user:Dineshkannambadi: The Akademi is very clear on this. They say on their official website: "Sahitya Akademi gives twenty four awards to literary works in the languages it has recognised and an equal number to literary translations from and into the languages of India, both after a year-long process of scrutiny, discussion and selection."  My guess is that the reason why awards were not given in a particular year, had nothing to do with whether there are qualified candidates around (since they were usually given the following year), but because of various bureaucratic and logistical reasons.  This happened especially in the early years; note that since 1981 none of the languages mentioned above have missed an award.  The highest award of the Akademi in any case is not the award you are advertising, but rather the Sahitya Akademi Fellowship.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Just looking at the above list of Sahitya Akademi Fellows, I see 8 Kannada writers, 2 of who are not Jnanpith winners (P.T. Narasimhachar & K.S. Narasimhaswamy), excluding Raja Rao who wrote in English. That is about 10% of all fellowships, for a language that contributes < 5% of India Population.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a better statistic if a source can be found for it. As you can see, I created the Sahitya Akademi Fellowship page myself, and I'm obviously aware that there are a number of Kannada writers, since I added those names myself.  For the record, I know nothing about Kannada; have no reason to be against it or for it.  I'm just trying to make sure the sourcing is accurate.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)