Talk:Kappe Arabhatta

Is the translation correct?
(I'm copying the relevant part of a short discussion I had Dineshkannambadi here

In this article there is a quote from Dr. (Mrs) Jyotsna Kamat:

ಸಾಧುಗೆ ಸಾಧು ಮಾಧುರ್ಯಂಗೆ ಮಾಧುರ್ಯಂ ಮಾಧವನೀತಂ ಪೆರನಲ್ಲ!

English Translation

Good to the good, sweet to the sweet, This exceptional man of Kaliyuga Is a veritable Madhava himself (to the distressed).[1]

My question is -where does the Kannada inscription say Kaliyuga? or "the exceptional man of Kaliyuga?" The inscription seems to read with my rudimentary reading of Kannada

Sadhuge saadhu maadhuryange maathdhuryam maadhavaniitham peranalla. Am I missing something? Would appreciate your help! Thanks!

--Aadal (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the term "ಪೆರನಲ್ಲ" implies it in a poetic way. But this is only a part of the poem I think. I believe I saw an image of it from Badami on flickr or somewhere and it seemed to have many more lines of poetry.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I thought this was a Tripadi meter. What does "ಪೆರನಲ್ಲ" (peranalla?) mean? I thought it meant (along with ಮಾಧವನೀತಂ maadahvaniitham) Madhava himself or something like that. Perhaps there were other lines there? I'm copying our discussion to the Kappe Arabhatta talk page, so that there is some scope to discuss and clear this matter.--Aadal (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Translation of the inscription
Thanks Fowler for the fine details you've added to the inscription and producing the complete inscription as well! I wonder why the name is written as Kappe Arabhatta when it should have been Kappe Arabhattan. Is it a common practice to have names ending in "n" in Kannada in the 7th century? I find many instances of this -an ending as in "viparītan" (2b) "mādhavan" (6b), "peran". The relation of "Kappe" to frog seems unclear. In Tamil, Kāppu would mean "protecting", "safeguarding". I'm not sure whether some of the translations (or even transliterations) are correct. keṭṭar (10b) - were ruined; would mean the exactly the same thing in Tamil too. Similarly mēṇ in Tamil too would mean "above" and mēl also would mean "above" - exactly. In the word ahitarkkaḷ (10a), is the second letter "h" ? The ending "-arkkaḷ" appears to be more like Tamil. This is certainly an interesting inscription- seems to be a mixture of languages (Sanskrit and Kannada, and possibly Tamil too??). --Aadal (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fond hope. There were similarities between Kannada and Tamil even upto 10th century. But if you want to call it a Tamil inscription, you have to cite it from reliable sources. Even to call it an inscription in mixture of languages (Sanskrit/Kannada) you will have to cite it from reliable sources. You are welcome to do the research though.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact Aadal, you just gave me an idea. Considering that early Tamil poems (Sangams) which according to many scholars is based on Sanskrit models and influenced by it should also be considered "Early Sanskrit-Tamil poems". Aadal, Sarvagnya what do you guys think? This can be an exciting project to work on. May be even worth an FA.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

DK, leaving out your unwarranted remarks, are you saying that until 10th century Kannada had endings such as "-an" in common with Tamil? Like Arabhattan, "viparītan" (2b) "mādhavan" (6b), "peran" etc. ? I would appreciate a simple answer. Next, are you saying that the lines 3 and 4 " varan-tējasvino mṛittyur na tu mānāvakhaṇḍanam- 4. Mṛttyus tatkṣaṇikō duḥkham mānabhamgam dinēdinē || " is not a Sanskrit sloka ? Can you say that the entire Kappe Arabhatta inscription is in Kannada? Please try to answer these without unnecessary comments. Thanks. --Aadal (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The Kappe Arabhatta inscription is known to be a "Kannada inscription". This is what the sources that myself and Fowler have referenced say. If yo want to call it a mixed inscription, you have to find a source that says so. Thats all I am saying. Anything more than that is WP:OR. If you find a RS that calls  Arabhatta as  Arabhattan, feel free to add it there with the citation.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see page xx of . It does say Kappe Arabhattan. --Aadal (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Name change required
Considering that the Inscription is called Kappe Arabhattan inscription by A.N. Narasimhia and the fact that the inscription itself says "Kappe Arabhaṭṭan Śiṣṭajana priyan", it should be called Kappe Arabhattan. In addition to that, many words like "Śiṣṭajana priyan", "viparītan" "mādhavan", "peran" end in "-an" and hence it is quite appropriate to call it Kappe Arabhattan inscription. --Aadal (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Kappe Arabhatta was the name of that general, per multiple sources (Eg: Encyclopaedia of Indian literature vol. 2; Karnataka State Gazetteer - Page 484). Even A.N. Narasimha (Appendix II, Proper Names, in page 355) provides the same name. Kappe Arabhattan is in the lines of Indian for India; American for America. - KNM Talk 18:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * When the inscription itself begins "Kappe Arabhaṭṭan Śiṣṭajana priyan" and so many words there end with -an, it is clear that Kappe Arabhaṭṭan is his name. The inscription is not in English for it to be written as Kappe Arabhaṭṭan. It is his name. No confusion there. Page xx clearly says, "No. 61 relates to the heroism of Kappe Arabhattan;..". So when the primary source, the very inscription itself says Kappe Arabhattan and A.N. Narasimhia also says so on p.xx, and so it is not wrong to change the title of the page. --Aadal (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If the inscription is called "Kappe Arabhattan" inscription, it does not mean his name is Arabhattan. KNM is correct. Also in, "Kappe Arabhaṭṭan Śiṣṭajana priyan", the Arabhattan is Kannada which in modern Kannada would be "Arabhattana" meaning "of Arabhatta".Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The point is not whether "Kappe Arabhattan" is Kannada or not. The inscription is called "Kappe Arabhattan". Period. At this point it is not important to ascertain whether the name of the warrior is Arabhattan or Arabhatta. Given examples, from the same inscription such as: madhavan, priyan, kaṣṭajanavarjitan, "viparītan", "peran" etc., it is clear to me that his name is "Kappe Arabhattan". But that need not be debated here. If you must debate, do tell me why it is madhavan? And why all other references to persons have "-an" ending. --Aadal (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry Aadal, so far all the reasons you have given are purely WP:OR. You cant draw inferences from "Madhavan" which again could mean "Madhavana" in modern Kannada (of Madhava)Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We are not talking of modern Kannada. Only the Kappe Arabhattan inscription, which is said to be belonging to ~700 CE. I don't understand your point.--Aadal (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, saying "an" is a common feature of modern Tamil, so if the feature was at any time common occurence in another language (haLegannaDa), that language ceases to exist anymore and automatically reduces to Modern Tamil is as ludicruous as it can get.  I am no expert in linguistics but the existance of cognates across languages is part of the fundamentals.  As for the "madhavan" + "itan"... for my money, its clearly maadhavanu+''eetanu" = "maadhavaneetanu" (looking up some stuff on Sandhi - Samasa basics should also help) which is perfectly in line with even Modern Kannada. Sarvagnya 21:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My point in this section is that the name of the article should be Kappe Arabhattan for the reasons I had pointed out (as found in the inscription itself and explicitly mentioned by A.N. Narasimhia) . I've not made any inferences as you claim. And your attempts of adding "u" don't make sense. There is no scope for "eetanu" in your example (we have ītan followed by peran) and there are many other places, within this inscription itself, where it ends with "-an" and not followed by words  starting with vowel. I don't think you have any point. It is hard to deny that many words relating to persons end with "-an" in the Inscription. Let us move the article to Kappe Arabhattan.--Aadal (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To each his own so save us your pretentious diacritics. And if you hadnt heard, on WP expert opinion is taken seriously and they call it "Kappe Arabhatta".. including Narasimhiah.. who points out that the name of the good soldier was "Kappe Arabhatta".  Bye. Sarvagnya 23:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is no OR. The inscription itself says Kappe Arabhattan and Narasimhiah on p.xx says the same. I thought original words from the very Inscription itself and from an expert like Narasimhiah was good for WP (true Narasimhiah has an omitted an "n" in the index, but on p.xx he clearly states "No. 61 relates to the heroism of Kappe Arabhattan;..". If you want to go by some of the other scholars who are using a word not found on the Inscription, all I can say is -it is wrong. If the title is not changed, that is fine. That there are many words ending in "-an" in the very inscription and many other names in the index of Narasimhiah are undeniable.--Aadal (talk) 00:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sarvagnya, dont waste your time answering.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Aadal: The name of that general is indeed Kappe Arabhatta. We can provide so many citations for it, if you really need. I had already provided multiple references in this section above, but if you want here are several more along with them.

Book: A Grammar of the Oldest Kanarese Inscriptions By A. N. Narasimhia. Page 355. Quote: ''Proper nouns of these names conist of.... 1)Kings 2)Queens 3) Warriors 4)... ''
 * Encyclopaedia of Indian literature vol. 2 (Quote: It says that Kappe Arabhatta was a kind man to the kind, very cruel to the cruel;....)
 * Karnataka State Gazetteer - Page 484 (Quote: Near the cliff inscription of Kappe Arabhatta, a passage through the rock leads by flights of steps into the north fort. )
 * The Chalukyas of Badami: Seminar Papers - Page 142 – M. S. Nagaraja Rao (Quote: ... and the inscription of Kappe Arabhatta.)
 * Studies in Indian History, Epigraphy, and Culture - Page 219 – Govind Swamirao Gai (Quote: For records in Kannada literature, we may refer to the Badami inscription of Kappe Arabhatta, ...)
 * A tender from Archaeological Survey of India. (http://asi.nic.in/tenders/dhar_038.pdf)(Quote: Fencing to the Archaeological area from Malagitti Shivalaya to Kappe Arabhatta Inscription at Badami )
 * And here is the one to top it all, the reference which you are claiming, A.N. Narasimha. This says the same name too!

and below under the section 3.

Quote: ''3. Names of Warriors :- Kappa-Arabhatta ...... ''

I hope this clarifies the issue. Thanks - KNM Talk 02:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks KNM. However, I've not changed the title of this article, but only added the exact name which does appear in the inscription and on p.xx of A. N. Narasimhia. Kappe Arabhatta may be more popular, but there is no harm in giving the name that appears on the inscription. Is there a reason or WP policy why Kappe Arabhattan, Madhavan, etc. as given in the inscription should be not be mentioned ? Do not the multiple citations stem from the inscription?! And the inscription says Kappe Arabhattan, no? Can you deny the Inscription? --Aadal (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * How "thick" can one get. If his name was Arabhattan, dont you think any author of a RS book would have mentioned that specifically by now? I am not talking about the old-Kannada inscription, just plain English language scholarly text material.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I've been pointing to RS: page.xx in A. N. Narasimhia, and the very original inscription itself, but you don't seem to get it. You are not addressing any of my questions above, but bent on making ad hominem attacks. Focus on the point, DK, and not make any personal attacks. Refer to WP:UNCIVIL. Can you deny that A. N. Narasimhia says "heroism of Kappe Arabhattan"? Answer this question! It may be common practice in Karnataka to refer to the name "Madhava" but the inscription says "madhavan". Can you deny that the inscription says Kappe Arabhattan? Answer this question! And stop making personal attacks. --Aadal (talk) 03:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)
 * Aadal: How do we know the words in the inscription makes it the exact name? In Kannada grammar(and am sure in lot of other languages too), when we add vibhakti the last few letters get changed. Arabhattan = Arabatta's; Arabhattanalli = "in Arabhatta"; Arabhattaninda = "from Arabhatta" ; Arabhattange = "to Arabhatta"; so on and so forth; Let me give an example: When a Kannada newspaper wants to give the caption for a Sachin's cricket shot, it would give it something like sachinna amOgha hoDeta. Here when we read the word sachinna, we should not come to the conclusion, that, that is the name. It is the proper name added along with the corresponding vibhakti. This makes it more clear, what exactly was the purpose of A.N.Narasimha when he explicitly provided an appendix on Proper Nouns. So, whatever the exact words/phrase there in the inscription, is not identically and exactly the name itself, but that phrase uses the name in it, thats all. Also, it is original research on our part, when we go on and analyse the inscription ourselves. We leave that to scholars and historians, and we go by only the reliable sources which publish scholarly views. - KNM Talk 03:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * KNM, thanks for your explanation. None of the exmaples you've provided end in "-an" (but -nalli, -ninda, -nge). Can you deny that A. N. Narasimhia says "heroism of Kappe Arabhattan"? Do you see your explanation does not fit here? As I said it is not just an isolated Kappe Arabhattan, there were many places within the inscription which have an "-an" ending referring to persons. Can you tell me a Kannada vibhakti rule (perhaps Old Kannada rule), which will have "-an" ending? Say like in the following instances in the inscription? "Śiṣṭajana priyan", "viparītan" "mādhavan", "peran" kaṣṭajanavarjitan? It is not OR, because A. N. Narasimhia says "heroism of Kappe Arabhattan". I agree many others simply say Kappe Arabhatta. See this website which also says Inscription of Kappe Arabhattan (I'm not saying that the website is a RS). --Aadal (talk) 03:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Aadal, let all of us stop doing original research and just go by what the name provided by Scholars. I have already provided a vast number of reliable sources showing the name as Kappe Arabhatta. The only source provided by you, A.N. Narasimha too has given the same name in page 355 as cited in the article lead. Whatever is there in the inscription, need not be the exact name. Thanks - KNM Talk 17:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The website belongs to a Indian couple who took that photograph if I recall. not RS.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't think there is anything terribly wrong to add Kappe Arabhattan as an alternative name, just as mentioned in A.N. Narasimhia. I don't understand why you are all so against it. I fully understand that Kappe Arabhatta is more common among the scholarly discourse. To add "Kappe Arabhattan" is not OR since it is mentioned by A.N. Narasimhia, a WP:RS. I'm reasonably sure that all of you who know Kannada, know that the ending "-an" is present in this inscriptin, relating to persons in the inscription. But for whatever extraneous reasons you're all denying it. When I raised the issue of incorrect translation, all of you who claim to know Kannada could not provide any useful answer, but thanks to Fowler&fowler, we now have the whole inscription and I can clearly see how Dr. (Mrs) Jyotsna Kamat had wrongly translated the passage (with all due respect to Dr. (Mrs) Jyotsna Kamat) and that wrongly quoted here (now corrected by DK in light of the questions raised). For now I leave it as it is, but I think it Kappe Arabhattan should be added as an alternative name besides Kappe Arabhatta --Aadal (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A.N. Narasimhia has references to Kappe Arabhattan on six pages. It is not my OR. --Aadal (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Of the 6 links you provided, five write it "as in" the inscription. Does not mean his name is Kappe Arabhattan. Even I dont understand your insistance with that "n".Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * DK, I'm sorry you're wrong again. Except p. 267 which is the inscription itself, all the other citations are proper references. The proper name is quite specifically given as Kappe Arabhattan on p.353. See here. It is not my OR, but your POV pushing. Properly speaking the alternative name Kappe Arabhattan should be given. --Aadal (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I dont think you read the content correctly. Find popular usage of it across the board and then only you can use Arabhattan.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, DK, did you read what I've written above? -for your benefit: ''I fully understand that Kappe Arabhatta is more common among the scholarly discourse. To add "Kappe Arabhattan" is not OR since it is mentioned by A.N. Narasimhia, a WP:RS''. Do you admit that the Proper Name is given as Kappe Arabhattan (on p. 353)? Do you admit you were wrong in your reply referring to the 6 citations I pointed out. Please understand that I'm not at all interested in proving you (or anybody else) wrong, but to make the point that it is not terribly wrong to add Kappe Arabhattan as an alternative form of his name. In fact it is proper and truthful. Is there a WP policy that says an alternative name as found in WP:RS should not be mentioned in the article? Please respond, because I'm interested in including this fact on the article. --Aadal (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)