Talk:Proto-Dravidian language

-

Tamil Link with the Indus valley script
http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Coimbatore/asko-parpola-flags-tamils-links-with-indus-valley-script/article482859.ece — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.183.89 (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Proto Dravidian could be Tamil
The only language closest to Proto Dravidian is Tamil. There are linguists who also argue that Proto Dravidian is nothing but Tamil as the very word 'Dravidian' originated from Tamilan. The absence of a name for Proto Dravidian clearly indicates that it could be Tamil itself. There is no possibility that such a great language like Proto Dravidian can be without a name. The best name for it, in the absence of further concrete evidence to the contrary is Tamil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.13.109 (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * While Tamil is remarkably conservative (similar to Proto-Dravidian) in many aspects, there are clear innovations present, as well. The probably most well-known innovation is the loss of Proto-Dravidian *c at the beginning of words, found not only already in the earliest form of Tamil, but also in other South Dravidian languages. Don't worry, I'm almost 100% certain that scholars once tried to derive all other Dravidian languages from Tamil initially just because Tamil is so archaic and so early attested, but it became increasingly clear that that did not work, just as the attempt to derive all Indo-European languages from Sanskrit ran into serious problems and ultimately proved a complete failure already in the 19th century.
 * As for the name of the language family, it is a modern coining. It is probably true that it is based on the name of the Tamils (mechanically, but ahistorically "reconstructed" from Middle Indic to Old Indic, i. e. Sanskritised), but that is only because the Tamils were apparently the most well-known Dravidian-speaking ethnic group (probably due to their political power) already in ancient times. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Proto-Dravidian could be undoubtedly Tamil
Proto-Dravidian could be undoubtedly Tamil. If all the Indo-Aryan originating from Sanskrit for the reason that they have common words or words derived the sanskrit root, then why the scholars are not accepting that all the Dravidian languages except Tamil originationg from Tamil itself? They have common words, and root words from Tamil. It is obvious that pro sanskrit scholars forecast Sanskrit ahead of Tamil, and the still existence of it worries them. It was proved by thousands of scholars that if all loan words from Tamil were removed it can survive whereas other "Dravidian" languages cannot. Still pro sanskrit and scholars of other Dravidian languages are unwilling to accept the fact for the reason that Tamil will ruin their possible development in future or it will dominate the "Dravidian" languages like "Aryan" Sanskrit dominating other Indo-Aryan languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arutchezhian (talk • contribs) 15:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason why the modern Indo-Aryan languages are thought to originate from Sanskrit (actually that's not quite true, neither Classical Sanskrit nor Vedic Sanskrit are identical with Proto-Indo-Aryan, which is a slightly older, unattested stage of the language) is not words (because that would make most Dravidian languages Indo-Aryan too, given that they are full of Indo-Aryan loanwords), but grammar, and the possibility to trace the development from Sanskrit to the modern languages (there are gaps in the attestation, but they can be bridged by reconstruction, and the connection is still transparent in any case). Words alone do not a language make. The reason why other Dravidian languages have a real lot of words in common with Tamil is not that they descend from Tamil, but that they are related (i. e., that they descend from the same prehistoric language as Tamil), and conceivably, that they have borrowed words from Tamil (or other Dravidian languages) later, a possibility that should not be overlooked. That issue has nothing to do with politics or a silly Sanskrit–Tamil feud.
 * Also, languages can "survive" with native, foreign or newly coined "puristic" words all the same, that's not really important, as I have just pointed out: a language does not only consist of isolated words. Scholars have "proved" nothing of the sort as you claim. Sanskrit does not "dominate" other languages, it was a conscious choice by speakers of Hindi and other modern Indo-Aryan languages to replace foreign words (usually from Persian and indirectly Arabic, and partly also from European languages) with Sanskrit words and neologisms (for new concepts that may not) because of the high veneration that Sanskrit enjoys, and because it is considered the precursor of the modern Indo-Aryan languages. Whether speakers of other Dravidian languages may want to replace Sanskrit words in their own languages with Tamil words – or instead with neologisms built with inherited, native (Telugu, Kannada etc. respectively) words and formation rules (they do not need either Sanskrit or Tamil to build new words!) – is their own choice and has nothing to do with linguistics. Politics just does not enter into it; it is you who wants to politicise linguistics. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The Indus valley people spoke a version of Proto Dravidian
There are various websites on the internet mentioning proto-dravidians, who obviously would have been the people who spoke the proto-dravidian language. Recent research shows that the Harappan civilization did use a language which is Dravidian closely related to Tamil.

Gringo300 09:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

As per Devaaeya Pavanar, Proto Dravidian is the language of Tamil Itself. This fact has been the basis of declaring Tamil as a Classical Language by the Union Government of India. Can you cite a proof more valid than Govt of India to claim that Proto Dravidian is NOT Tamil Doctor Bruno 02:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * you should read and try to understand the article on proto-language.

PROTO DRAVIDIAN is an invention of the genius non-Tamil Dravidians, viz, Kannadigas who hate Tamil and Telugus and Malayalis. The very word Dravidian came from Tamila which was mispronounced as Tramila, Travida and then Dravida by the Greeks.

Proto Dravidian if at all it existed, must have been a very great language, a language giving rise to so many others must have had a name, even dialects like Kannada, Tulu etc have names, why not a great language like Proto Dravidian... The very absence of such a name, and the fact that Dravida came from Tamil and also the most important fact that 90% of Proto Dravidian is Tamil, strongly advocate the fact that Proto Dravidian is nothing but TAMIL.


 * I'm not sure where you get any of this information from, but if you would read any reputable sources on the matter, you would see that there is definitely a Proto-Dravidian that is not "just Tamil". Of course, Classical Tamil is not very far from Proto-Dravidian, so there are many similarities, but trust me these languages were not just the same thing. Even the most conservative linguists at Ethnologue agree there was a Proto-Dravidian language that spawned Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam, and other languages. --SameerKhan 18:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If Proto Dravidian spawned the great South Indian languages, it must have a name, it cant be without name. Sanskrit which spawned the North Indian languages has a name. To say that Proto Dravidian does not have a name, is the greatest joke of the century. In all fairness and reading this whole discussion, I conclude beyond doubt that Proto Dravidian is nothing but Tamil. G.Hart June 7 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.254.47 (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Well said, I believe that the above comments were by the great linguist, Dr.George Hart. One should change the main article here so that readers of Wikipedia are not misled to believe that Proto Dravidian is different from Tamil. I thought that this is an unbiased site, but somehow it has great animosity towards Tamil and bias towards Kannada and Telugu. For example the article on Tirumala doesnt emphasize the fact that both Tirumala and Tirupati are Tamil words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.13.109 (talk) 07:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * WOW. 80.195.13.109, would you be so kind as to look up the dictionary definition of "bias". The Oxford dictionary definition is:


 * bias (n): see IP addresses 80.195.13.109 and 86.21.254.47 and wikipedia user Doctorbruno (who all seem to be the same damn person).


 * No, not really, but the sheer bias in your words is off the damn charts. FIRST, hypothetical languages that spawned later groups are ALWAYS referred to as "proto-X", so proto-Dravidian is ENTIRELY appropriate given that the reconstructed language is sufficiently disimilar to Tamil (with the caveat that Tamil is indeed closest to the proto language, as others said here). SECOND, to say that "a great language" like proto-Dravidian "must have a name" strongly implies a value judgement that puts undue imporatance on names, as well as drips with bias in that you call some hypothetical proto-language "great". THIRD, the quote "Kannadigas who hate Tamil and Telugus and Malayalis" reeks of conspiracy theory and Tamil ethnocentrism.


 * Seriously, Tamil culture is fascinating and definitely old and venerable, but please fuck off you Tamils with a persecution complex.

Please dont use unparliamentary words like the 4 letter word. I agree that Proto Dravidian is indeed different from Tamil. You should also note that Tamil is the closest to Proto Dravidian. That being so there could also be a possibility that the other Dravidian languages descended from Tamil, just as the present day Tamil descended from Sen Thamizh, which is the oldest Tamil. Also languages change with time... I think that the so called Proto Dravidian after sometime became Tamil. Tamil actually means language or the 'the means of expressing oneself using sound.' Hence Devaneya Pavanar's views that other Dravidian languages originated from Tamil is still correct... They didnt originate from Proto Dravidian. Sen Tamil is an offshoot of Proto Dravidian, as it got modified with passage of time. Until further research, it is therefore safe to assume that Proto Dravidian is the old form of SenThamizh and Tamil descended from SenThamizh and so too Kannada, Telugu etc. This also agrees with the view that Kannada descended from Tamil-Kannada branch as depicted in the Proto Dravidian charts. 80.193.163.129 (talk) 06:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)G.Hart


 * You do not interpret this correctly. While Tamil, especially Old Tamil, is in many (but not all) ways more similar to reconstructed Proto-Dravidian than other Dravidian languages, Tamil has no special relationship with Proto-Dravidian otherwise. Kannada does not descend from any form of Tamil. It descends from the Tamil–Kannada protolanguage, which is neither Tamil nor Kannada, but their common ancestor.
 * This is similar to how Italian and Sardinian are in some (not all) ways more similar to Latin than Spanish or French are, but Latin is neither a form of Italian or Sardinian nor a form of Spanish or French. It is the ancient form of all these languages. Calling Proto-Tamil–Kannada "ancient Tamil" would be analogous to calling Latin "Ancient Italian" or "Ancient Sardinian" or "Ancient Spanish" or "Ancient French". This would be obvious nonsense.
 * The only languages that do descend from Old Tamil – the language of the Tolkāppiyam – are the languages listed under Malayalam languages and Tamil languages.
 * Although the Sanskrit word dravida, from which modern scholars derived the term Dravidian, is probably indeed connected with the name of Tamil (although the Greeks have had no hand in the rise of this word, it's probably only a pseudo-Sanskritisation by ancient Indian grammarians who assumed that tamila is Middle Indic), Dravidian is merely a term chosen for convenience because language families need concise names. It would have been equally possible to call the family Tamilo-Brahui or Malto-Malayalam, for example. It's only a name. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:CITE
there are no references cited whatsoever. Especially the relationship claims are useless without attribution. dab (&#5839;) 16:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Times and events
Tamil is not attested as a distinct language before about 300BC when the first known literature Tolkappiyam is said to have been written. The bulk of tamil literature available today were composed in times well into the christian era. Rudimentary tamil (proto-tamil?) inscriptions are found as far back as 500BC.

There have been failed attempts to conclusively link the script of the Indus Valley Civilization with either Tamil or Sanskrit.

The article in its current state thus appears to be not neutral since it contains assertions that are not widely accepted as true. For example, the link between Dravidian and Harappan culture is widely discredited by current day scholars. The issue is very politicized.


 * It is not discredited. Research is ongoing and has not been proven one way or the other, though the evidence definitely leans in Dravidian's favor (see, for example, the axe found in Tamil Nadu with Harappan writing on it, tentatively translated by Asko Parpola as "MURUKU-AN-SOMETHING-SOMETHING". Murukan is a popular Tamil diety). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.56.129 (talk) 12:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Asko Parpola's opinion on the Indus script is not shared by most other scholars, who doubt that it can even be read at all. It may well not be proper writing, but perhaps proto-writing. It is surprising that a highly developped and refined ancient civilisation like the Indus Valley Civilisation does not have seem to have had a fully developped writing system like Egyptian hieroglyphs, cuneiform, Chinese characters or the Maya script, and unfortunate for scholars, who would absolutely love (every bit as much as laypeople!) to know more about it, especially its non-material culture such as its religion, but there's nothing anyone can do about it. Perhaps the people of the Indus Valley Civilisation simply saw no need for a writing system like that. For example, the Aztecs also had only a kind of proto-writing, and it appears that the Incas did not even have had proto-writing, but relied on other strategies, especially quipus. This does not mean that the Aztec, Inca or Indus Valley Civilisation were inferior achievements, we just know less about them for this reason than we could otherwise. Keep in mind that even in historical India, brahmins relied heavily on memorisation, in ways that baffled and continue to amaze western scholars.
 * Witzel believes that the Harappan language was not Dravidian, but perhaps Austroasiatic, although he does find it plausible that Proto-Dravidian was spoken in what is now Sindh in the Bronze Age, at the time of the Indus Valley Civilisation, so Dravidian may have been spoken in the Indus Valley Civilisation after all, just not as the main indigenous language (the casual, rather frivolous assumption that the civilisation was monolingual is a bit silly; Bronze Age Mesopotamia for one wasn't either). Or, more precisely, he thinks that Dravidian entered the Indian subcontinent (via Sindh) ca. 2000 BC, at about the same time as Indo-Aryan (via the Punjab). I find his arguments to have a lot of merit, and think his scenario is generally plausible, except that I do not think that Harappan was really Austroasiatic, considering that according to newer research by Paul Sidwell, Proto-Austroasiatic was spoken in Southeast Asia, along the Mekong, ca. 2000 BC (not much earlier, as previously thought), and entered South Asia later. I find it much more plausible that Harappan did not belong to any modern linguistic family, although either Nihali (its oldest layer, not connected with any known language family) or Burushaski (or perhaps Kusunda?) might be a modern descendant (Nihali is very mixed in its modern form, though). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Dravidian languages
This artcile repeats the same things as those said in that article. Why not move this contents only to one page?--Imz 15:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The article on Proto-Dravidian should specify the reconstructed grammar and lexicon. That's too specific for the Dravidian languages article, which should be a general overview and list. I propose we keep both, differentiating their contents better. CRCulver 16:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree, Proto 0f something is different from what it is today RaveenS 18:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Proto Dravidian is the name given to the language from which the present Dravidian languages developed. So the very focus of the two articles is different - atleast, should be different.  Merging is not appropriate here.  Sarvagnya 17:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Dravidian civilizations
Wiki Raja 10:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

palatal approximant in the reconstruction chart
the palatal approximant is written as a *y in the reconstruction chart. In terms of IPA, this should be a *j. Is this an error?

Forrest&#60;(&#39;&#39;)&#62; (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No. The notation of the rest of the chart is not IPA either. It's rather based on the usual transcription practices in languages of India and surrounds, comparable to the IAST. 4pq1injbok (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

49.37.217.242 (talk) 03:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC) Ryan Moses I So called - Proto-Dravidian is hypothetical and just a political diversion to proving Tamil is the oldest language. Proto-Dravidian is in fact the Ancient Tamil or Sangam Literature. 4 Languages did not come from Proto-Dravidian. It is Ancient Tamil to Tamil to Tamil and Malayalam to Tamil, Malayalam and Telugu to Tamil, Malayalam, Telugu and Kannada.

see also: Elamo-Dravidian
there is currently a tag for 'see also: Elamo-Dravidian' at the beginning of the History section. The Elamo-Dravidian family is a single conjecture that has only fringe support in linguistics literature. Elamo-Dravidian should have a place in the 'see also' section (which it currently does), I don't think it warrants a place at the lead of the History section, as it has only fringe implications on the broader discussion of Dravidian history. 24.104.240.230 (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2022 (UTC)