Talk:Telugu language/Archive 1

Wikipedia is a not an Advertising site
Please donot add irrelevant external links. External links section is not an opportunity to promote your blogs or drive traffic to your websites. I observed that few links are present in every page remotely connected to Telugu or Andhra people. --Vyzasatya 08:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

POV sentence in "Derived Languages"
Sandeep you are misinformed. According to page 40 of the Dravidian languages by S. Steever the Telugu script is derived from the Ashokan Braahmi script used in India from about 250 BCE as the medium for Mauryan Empire inscriptions. He goes onto state that the Braahmi script is the ancestor of scripts used in North India to the present time such as Deva Naagari and Bengali. You can also look at page 78 the Dravidian languages by Sri Bhadriraju Krishnamurti.

Ok, it was pretty clear when I saw a paragraph containing both "bigot" and "zealot" that a WP:POV revert was in our future. I think it's a pretty clearly accepted contention that Telugu is a Dravidian tongue and certainly not an Indo-European one. --Deville (Talk) 06:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Examples
Sandeep you are misinformed. According to page 40 of the Dravidian languages by S. Steever the Telugu script is derived from the Ashokan Braahmi script used in India from about 250 BCE as the medium for Mauryan Empire inscriptions. He goes onto state that the Braahmi script is the ancestor of scripts used in North India to the present time such as Deva Naagari and Bengali. You can also look at page 78 the Dravidian languages by Sri Bhadriraju Krishnamurti.

I just wanted to note that nearly all the examples of Telugu are completely useless unless they are accompanied by romanizations. If someone already knows the Telugu script, then they probably also already know enough Telugu that the examples are not edifying, and if someone doesn't know the Telugu script the examples are completely indecipherable. Someone who knows whatever the standard romanization of Telugu is should add romanizations of all the Telugu examples. Nohat 08:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * My bad, I've added the IPA transcriptions now. I hope some good soul adds the romanisations soon. IPA is not exactly readable - Rohit Dasari 20:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions (Indic)
Help add input for Naming conventions (Indic) --Dangerous-Boy 04:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Dialects
Sandeep you are misinformed. According to page 40 of the Dravidian languages by S. Steever the Telugu script is derived from the Ashokan Braahmi script used in India from about 250 BCE as the medium for Mauryan Empire inscriptions. He goes onto state that the Braahmi script is the ancestor of scripts used in North India to the present time such as Deva Naagari and Bengali. You can also look at page 78 the Dravidian languages by Sri Bhadriraju Krishnamurti.

This sections seems to just list down the major regions and all known caste names. Can someone please check this data? Sumanth 12:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok. I've corrected this based on Ethnologue Sumanth 03:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Telugu is the second most widely spoken Indian language
Hey Tajikhan. There are 17 crore Telugu speakers in states other than Andhra Pradesh. This is stated in an article of 3/11/06 in the 'HINDU' in an article titled "Telugus mark 50 years of Andhra Pradesh". Tamil Nadu was ruled by Telugu kings in medieval time. During that period many Telugus settled in Tamil Nadu. This is well known in Tamil Nadu. You cannot include Bangladeshi Bengali speakers and then say Bengali is the second most widely spoken language in India since Bangladesh is not part of India and never will be. Bangladesh is a separate Country and does not belong to India.

The present Population of Andhra pradesh is more than 10 Crores. Including second language speakers, Telugu speakers will be more than 9 crores ( or 90 Millions ) atleast in only Andhra Pradesh. Majority of North Tamil Nadu People speak Telugu. The Complete western long border of Karnataka have more than 30% Telugu Speakers. Telugu people are found in good share in Maharastra ( West) and Orrisa also. The statement : "the second most spoken language in India after Hindi/Urdu", should be removed as it is Bengali with 230 million speakers which qualifies for this position as it surpasses Telugu by leaps and bounds. --68.197.142.117 09:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Srini Rao
 * Corrected.--(Sumanth|Talk) 04:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The majority of 230 million Bengalis live in Bangladesh. We are taking about india and indian Telugus and indian bengalis. The Bengali population in india is around 80 millions it is not 230 millions.

according to 1991 census The telugu population in tamilnadu 7.12% =  4 million The telugu population in karnataka 7.39% =  3.1 million The telugu population in Maharastra 1.5% =  1 million The telugu population in orissa 2.2% =  1 million 
 * See Languages in Descending Order of Strength (census of India, 1991) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sumanthk (talk • contribs) 08:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

no.. no.. no.... telugu is in second place. all those proofs, which have shown abow are false...

We should not get too passionate about this. I have checked 3 different sources, one is Wikipedia's own Official languages of India, the other is Ethnologue and India's eCENSUS. The activity of a language's film industry is not measure of how many people claim it as mother tongue. If we also consider the number of secondary speakers of Telugu, than the same must be done for Bengali. Whether or not we consider secondary speakers, the purely Indian Bengali population comes in second after Hindi, with Telugu clocking in as a close third. The data is from Indian census, and ethnologue, neither organisations has any motive to falsify this data. Let's represent reality accurately in this article. This isn't a matter of pride or emotion, it's just the facts.Taajikhan 09:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, the person who converted it back to 'second most spoken language' cited a paper that: a) wasn't concerned with the linguistic demographics of India to begin with, and b) made an uncited and usupported claim that Telugu is the second most spoken language. The second citation this person used is a back reference to redundant Telugu stub on Wikipedia that also makes an uncited and unsupported claim. Please don't change this again.Taajikhan 10:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Whoever changed Telugu back to second place cited 2 "sources" without actually making sure what they are referencing. The first one points to a site that is not accessible, so can't possibly support the claim. The second citation points to a site that bases its information on Ethnologue. If you had actually read what it said you would see that Bengali stands at 70.56 million speakers whereas Telugu stands at 69.7 million. Looks at those numbers carefully, which one is larger? I am going to change it back to third place. DO NOT change it again unless you can produce something that YOU HAVE READ and is reputable and verifiable. Otherwise complaints to higher authorities will ensue.Taajikhan 23:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Telugu origins
Sandeep you are misinformed. According to page 40 of the Dravidian languages by S. Steever the Telugu script is derived from the Ashokan Braahmi script used in India from about 250 BCE as the medium for Mauryan Empire inscriptions. He goes onto state that the Braahmi script is the ancestor of scripts used in North India to the present time such as Deva Naagari and Bengali. You can also look at page 78 the Dravidian languages by Sri Bhadriraju Krishnamurti.

I would like to know why my input towards history of Telugu language has been deleted. Who has done this without permission. I have provided a reliable reference from where i got this input. Please dont do this again!! If anyone wants to have a discussion on this matter, I am open to it. Don't delete the content without proof!!

Dinesh Kannambadi

Any comments on the dialect used by Telugu speaking people of Tanjavur and other parts of Tamil Nadu (e.g., "lessaa ujnu" = "baagunnindi")

Numbers
I'll appreciate if you can put some material on the counting system of Telugu. Specifically, I read that there is at least one similarity, the number "seven" between Turkish and Telugu. ("Yedi" is Turkish) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinanozel (talk • contribs) 07:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Clean-up of the Telugu_language section
I've put tags to show that I'm unsatisfied with the way the grammar section is written. Witjout paying attention to the contents, the defects of the presentation are as follows:

The terminology
The special terms (like Karta etc.) should be linked correctly to relevant common linguistic notions and terms (probably, subject in this case, and not nominative case).

Grammar terminology
Agreed; the whole sentence describing the syntax is unclear. I *think* what it is saying is something like "Word order in Telegu is SOV; prepositions can be used for some arguments and adjuncts." But I'm not sure, so I don't feel qualified to edit the text. Mcswell 01:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

More terminology
I don't feel qualified to edit this article, because while I am a linguist, I know nothing about Telegu grammar. So I'll just make some observatiosn on this Talk page.

The terms "(single) agglutination" and "polyagglutination" are not standard. In standard linguistics, the term "agglutination" refers to the use of multiple inflectional affixes on a single word. A word that had only one inflectional affix would just be considered to be inflected.

Also, the term "syllables" in this section ("certain syllables are added to the end of a noun in order to denote its case") may be incorrect; I would have used the term "suffixes" (or better re-worded "a suffix is added to a noun in order to denote its case"). It is possible that all suffixes are at least one syllable long, but the use of the term here obscures the distinction between morphology and phonology, IMO.

Mcswell 01:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The examples
The template:clarifyme tag indicates parts where examples of inflected words are given, but the basic stem of the word is missing! (Or the Nominative form, or, perhaps, some other initial form of the word should be there.) In the current situation the examples are almost useless, since one can't separate the stem and the affixes. (For example, what is the stem/initial form/Nominative of Ramuni? And BTW what does it mean? Same question for `house'.)

Thanks in advance for attention.--Imz 00:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Telugu is second most spoken language in india.
Bengali is spoken by 230 millions .But that is 160 millions of Bangladesh bengalis and 80 millions of indian bengalis. in india Telugu is second most spoken language. 80 plus millions in AP +7 milloins in Tamilnadu + 5 Millions in Karnataka + 2 millions in Orissa + 2 millions in Maharastra +  1 million in chattisghar  + 2 Millions in other states.

approximately 98 millions people in india spoke Telugu. 70 + millions is indian bengali population.

so telugu is second most spoken language in india. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VSMS (talk • contribs) 06:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Number of telugu speakers in India as per official sources is 66 million whereas the number of benali speakers within in India is 69.5 million. Please see this link: CIIL --(Sumanth|Talk) 07:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The population of AP as per wikipedia is 76 millions out of these 90 % peoples mother tongue is Telugu i.e 70 millions .20 % of Tamilnadu population is Telugu 15 % of karnatak population is telugu. The CIIL data is very old and it is based on assumption that entire  population speaks the official language for the states of AP ,TN,Kerala. please check the fallowing link for general idea. 
 * The figure mentioned in the article in The Hindu cannot be used as reference. Similar argument can be made in favor of bengali stating that the population has increased a lot and so on. We need scientific figures from a reliable source. The figures from CIIL are based on 1991 census. See this link from Census of India. Also see Ethnologue Report (1997). If you find a reliable source please cite that and change the information. --(Sumanth|Talk) 08:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Can someone put some pictures?

Lots of inscriptions, literature, art, etc. have been mentioned...can someone find some pictures of these things?

Telugu script
The Figures 1 and 2 in the articles Telugu script and Telugu language figures clearly mention the evolution of Brahmi script of Mauryan times towards modern Telugu and Kannada scripts. It is as given below:

1. Brahmi script of Mauryan period (3rd centrury BCE)

2. Brahmi script on Bhattiprolu Urn containing Buddha's dhatus (3rd century BCE)

3. Brahmi script of Satavahana period (1st centurey CE)

4. Brahmi script of Ikshvaku period (3d century CE)

5. Brahmi script of Gupta period (4th century CE)

6. Ancient Telugu-Kannada script of Salankayana period (5th century)

7. Tamil scripts of Pallava period (7th century)

8. Telugu-Kannada script of 7th century

9. Telugu-Kannada script of Eastern Chalukyas (10th century)

10. Telugu-Kannada script of Rajarajanarendra period (11th century)

11. Telugu-Kannada script of Kakatiya Ganapatideva (13th century)

12. Telugu script of Prolaya Vemareddy (14th century).

It is thus very clear that both the scripts had a common origin in Brahmi script as found on Bhattiprolu stupa urn. To call it s "Old Kannada" script is nothing but travesty of history, even though some authors might have referred it so. In fact, these figures were sourced from the same citation (Adluri, Seshu Madhava Rao Parachuri, Sreenivas. Origins of Telugu Script) which Gnanapiti refers to. But, Gnanapiti does not want to take cognizance of it. As a compromise, I agreed that it can be written as:

"The Telugu script is derived from Telugu-Kannada script which is also known as old Kannada script and developed independently at the same time as modern Kannada script which is why it has strong resemblance with it"

However, Gnanapiti insists that it should be "Old Kannada" rather than "Telugu-Kannada". It is plain chauvanism being imposed on articles regarding Telugu, Telugu language and Telugu script. Wiki should not encourage such fanaicas and chauvanists. Kumarrao 09:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note that it's Wikipedia's policy not to use other Wiki articles as references to prove certain point. Unless you provide proper citations for your claims, your edits hold no value. Regarding your comments about chauvinism, please refer to WP:NPA. This is all I have to say at this moment.Gnanapiti 01:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Spend some time
Dear Mr Gnanapiti,

I was not citing Wiki article.

The webpage I have been referring to is: (http://www.engr.mun.ca/~adluri/telugu/language/script/script1d.html).

Read it carefully. Open the links to the Figures. I am sure you can read the script in column 1, which is in Telugu.

How can you say this Unless you provide proper citations for your claims, your edits hold no value. ? You have been referring to the same source all along to cling to 'old Kannada' theory. As far as chauvanism is concerned I have a good understanding of you and a handful of other Wiki Kannada users by now and I am pretty sure that your inner conscience knows it too.Kumarrao 19:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
It seems to me that sombody has vadalised this article ....see the headline text section "fools don't read this====500 CE - 1100 CE==== The first inscription that is entirely in Telugu corresponds to the second phase of Telugu history"

Can the moderator please clean it up and keep an eye so that its not repeated?

Also, it would be nice to put in some script charts depicting the evolution of telugu language..

Don't you folks think that it would be worthwhile to mention about our Telugu Talli?!!!

Thanks, Purushotham Reddy

- Yes could someone clean up this vandalism ? And please will people adhere to Wiki rules and sign their posts with the use of 4 consecutive tildes ? Which is this : ~ This will automatically sign your edit. Vijeth 02:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Chalukyas
''From many indications, it appears that the present day Rayalaseema in Andhra Pradesh was the first home of Chalukyas. As early as 1st Century CE, they were mentioned as being the vassals and chieftains under the Satavahana rule. Their place of residence at that time was the Cuddapah area. They apparently migrated to the northern Karnataka area after suffering loses at the hands of Pallava kings. They eventually established one of the most brilliant and powerful empires of South Indian history. At their peak, they controlled the better part of western and southern India. They re-entered the Telugu land via the present day Telangana. This region was their strong hold for over six centuries. Although they tended to favor Kannada in the beginning, it is in Telangana that they re-learned Telugu. When the dynasty had branched off into Western and Eastern kingdoms, the eastern branch(es) had completely become Telugu speaking. Both branches continued to patronize Telugu and Kannada. The 'trinity' (ratna traya) of early Kannada literature Pampa, Ponna and Ranna all lived in Telugu lands far from the border (because of their origin or patronage). More than any single ruling clan, it is the Chalukyas who influenced the modern form of Telugu script and its affinity with modern Kannada script''.See (http://www.engr.mun.ca/~adluri/telugu/index.html). Kumarrao 10:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Untranslated feature names
The features listed for Telugu consonants just about the Phonology section needs to be translated. The terms used are totally inaccessible to any reader who is not already familiar with South Asian linguistic tradition. Even as a linguist specializing in South Asian languages, I had to look up one or two of the words in its English translation. There's no need to use the Telugu words here (without translation), as all of the words used have English equivalents. These features are by no means restricted to Telugu consonants! --SameerKhan 02:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Script, Chalukyas, Rayalaseema
Gnanapiti either does not have time to read the citations or he deliberately chooses to ignore things that are not convenient for him.

I reproduce here the paragraphs from the citations I quoted.

1. Original home of Andhra Chalukyas (Durga Prasad'd book, Page 86):

''The word 'Chalukya' seems to have been derived from the word 'Chalkya' which was the original form of the dynastic name. Like the Chutus and Kadambas, the Chalukyas were an indigenous tribe. They rose to importance in the later Satavahana period and asserted their independence after the downfall of the central empire. In the Maruturu inscription of Pulakesin II, a village that was granted by him is said to be situated in the Chalukya Vishaya. It is therefore clear that the original word of 'Chalukya' was applied to a territorial division or a Vishaya of a kingdom. Like the Pugiyas, the Hiranyakas and the Dhanakas of the (Ikshvaku period, the territorial division came to be known as Chalukya after the Chalukyan clan. The provenance of the Maruturu grant and also the other factors mentioned in it clearly prove that this Chalukya Vishaya must have comprised portions of the ceded districts of Andhra Pradesh including perhaps parts of the Mahboobnagar district of Telangana, Hence the Chalukyas were the original residents of this area'' (Ceded districts mean Rayalaseema region of Kadapa-Kurnool and Palamuru).

2. The route of Andhra Chalukyas: (http://www.engr.mun.ca/~adluri/telugu/language/script/script1d.html)

''From many indications, it appears that the present day Rayalaseema in Andhra Pradesh was the first home of Chalukyas. As early as 1st Century CE, they were mentioned as being the vassals and chieftains under the Satavahana rule. Their place of residence at that time was the Cuddapah area. They apparently migrated to the northern Karnataka area after suffering loses at the hands of Pallava kings. They eventually established one of the most brilliant and powerful empires of South Indian history. At their peak, they controlled the better part of western and southern India. They reentered the Telugu land via the present day Telangana.''

3. Script (http://www.engr.mun.ca/~adluri/telugu/language/script/script1a.html):

''The Andhra (Satavahana) dynasty introduced the brahmi to the present day Kannada and Telugu regions. The earliest inscriptions found in the Tamil land belong to more or less the same period. A number of early Satavahana coins and other remains were found in Tamil Nadu. It is therefore reasonable to assume that Satavahanas introduced the script to the Tamil country also. The Satavahanas were, for some time, vassals of the Mauryan Empire. Mauryan Emperor Asoka the great (reign: 269-232 BCE) and the rise of Buddhism played stellar roles in championing this spread of writing. Thus, Telugu and all the other south Indian languages had their scripts descended from the brahmi.''

4. The time period is pre-Mauryan:

(http://www.engr.mun.ca/~adluri/telugu/language/script/script1d.html)

''Row 3 (Fig. T1) is the 3rd Century BCE script found on the urn containing a portion of Buddha's mortal remains. The urn was the central object at the great monastery in BhaTTiprOlu in central Andhra Pradesh. There were other such famous sacred containers housing Buddha's teeth or bones at Amaravati, Nagarjuna Konda, Danta Puram and other Stupas. Some of these Stupas were constructed by the Naga kings of Andhra even before the Mauryan and Satavahana rule.''

5. Old Telugu:

See the tabular depiction of Telugu script evolution in:

(http://www.engr.mun.ca/~adluri/telugu/language/script/telulipi1a.jpg)

Now, for goodness sake, stop your vandalism in Telugu-related articles. If you have further questions ask Durga Prasad and Adluri (the same logic which you play upon others in Wiki). Write whatever you like in Kannada articles. This applies to your fellow Kannada Users too. Kumarrao 18:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Compromise
Gananapiti refuses to see the reason. On the other hand long-winding and irrelevant arguments are made. I shall settle for the edit of User:Altruism in this article. At the same time, all the baseless statements that Telugu script is derived from 'Old Kannada' should be edited from Telugu-related articles. Kumarrao 05:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What reasons are you talking about? Give me the reasons first of all. You've been citing fake references and trying to mislead in edit summaries again and again. You cite something as a reference, take quotes from something else, build up your own version of history in the articles, this is what you call "reasons"? You never came up with a reference that supports all your claims. Instead you just went on ranting on talk pages and user pages endlessly. Anyways, I'm going to end this right here, unless you try to come up with your own history again. Gnanapiti 06:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Happy to see a compromise (I hope there's one) at last. Any further bones of contention, plz. mention the 'facts' with supporting evidence/sources. Thanking You,  Altruism To talk  05:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

---It is OK. There must be a "give and take" policy when one wants to coexist with others on this globe. Kumarrao 13:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC

Kumar Rao looks like you are a politican and politics is your profession..has there been any systematic study done on telugu script by any scholar worthy of mentioning..if yes produce his/her findings..we dont want your theory to be imposed on wikipedia...state facts..show evidence..no assumptions..no theory here..be logical..also try to read why there are kannada and tamil inscriptions in abudance in andhra pradesh..read about all the inscriptions found in andhra pradesh..

Leave Telugu alone
Among the four major Dravidian languages Telugu is distinct because of its origin whereas Kannada and Malayalam evolved from Tamil. The script of Telugu and Kannada is common becuase the original Asokan Brahmi script (Bhattiprolu script), used by Satavahanas for 400 years, was taken to Karnata country by Chalukyas, the feudatories of Satavahanas. The inscriptional evidence for Kannada is no doubt earlier to that of Telugu (of Renati Cholas; 573 CE). That does not mean Telugu script evolved from Kannada script. On the contrary it is the other way round.

As a compromise, it is prudent to use "Telugu-Kannada script" in Telugu-related articles and Kannada uers are free to use "Old Kannada" in Kannada-related article. Please also refrain from making statements in Kannada articles that Telugu script evolved from Kannada script. I am sure it is fair and just to everyone concerned.Kumarrao 14:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

-KUMARRAO-- WHAT DOES IT SAY....HE FOLLOWED KANNADA LITERATURE WORK TO WRITE FIRST LITERATURE PIECE. THAT TO AT THE MERCY OF KANNADA RULERS. NANNAYYA WAS CALLED ADIKAVI OF TELUGU. THIS SHOWS WHAT TELUGU OWES TO KANNADA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nannayya

STOP UR USELLS WORDS....THIS ALSO SHOWS HOW MUCH TELUGU OWES TO SANSKRIT...THERE IS NOTHING GREAT ABOUT TELUGU COMPARED TO KANNADA...KANNADA LITERATURE IS RICHER THAN TELUGU AND KANNADA INSCRIPTIONS ARE FOUND HIGHEST IN THE COUNTRY WHICH GOES TO PROVE THAT KANNADA LANGUAGE HAS BEEN THE RULERS LANGUAGE FOR LONG TIME...KANNADA AND TAMIL INSCRIPTIONS ARE FOUND ABUNDANTLY IN ANHDRA PRADESH. BESIDES MANY HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANT PLACES ARE FOUND KANRANATAKA AND TAMIL NADU...LEAVE ASIDE GOD TIRUPATHI,MANTRALAYA,SRISAILAM WHICH HAVE ROOTS IN KANNADA RULERS...HYDERBAD WITH MUSLIM RULERS...WHAT IS THERE IN ANDHRA.... --- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.255.139.2 (talk) 04:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Saved the day
Both the users User:Sumanth and User:Lotlil have saved the day for me and the dignity of Telugu language. There cannot be more authentic references than these five (cited above) in favour of Telugu-Kannada script. They happen to be the most authentic pieces of work from a great scholar of Dravidian languages (Krishnamurty) and a great epigraphist (Sarkar). Although I was aware of them I could not get these references and had to face the most unreasonable attacks on me. I wasted considerable amount of my valuable time pointing towards the Tables T1a and T1b (Adluri's reference) again and again but a group of persons conveniently ignored that. I visited National Museum in New Delhi and the gallery on Indian scripts there thrice. All the displays mentioned Bhattiprolu script and evolution of Telugu-Kannada script. I noticed nowhere "old Kannada" script. Unfortunately, I could not get a book relating to this information. Nor was I allowed to photograph the display charts. I mentioned this in my discussion and speculated that "old Kannada" usage was invented by some biased scholars which crept into books and websites including that of Adluri. I hope this group will stop vandalizing Telugu articles. They can certainly use "old Kannada" on the basis of three or four websites available for them but must refrain from claiming that Telugu script evolved from that of Kannada. I have added all these new references now. If anyone vandalizes the article again I shall request for blocking such Users. Kumarrao 19:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Telugu in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka
Sandeep you are misinformed. According to page 40 of the Dravidian languages by S. Steever the Telugu script is derived from the Ashokan Braahmi script used in India from about 250 BCE as the medium for Mauryan Empire inscriptions. He goes onto state that the Braahmi script is the ancestor of scripts used in North India to the present time such as Deva Naagari and Bengali. You can also look at page 78 the Dravidian languages by Sri Bhadriraju Krishnamurti.

Telugu is spoken by a large number of populations in both Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. In Karnataka all the districts bordering Andhra Pradesh have e considerable percentage of Telugu speakers.(Ex:Bangalore,Kolar,Bellary..Etc.) In Tamil Nadu almost all Western Districts (Bodering Kerala) have a huge nukber of Telugu speaking population (Ex; Coimbatore Dist.,Karur,Dindigul,Madurai,Thirunelveli,Sivakasi).They might form around 10 - 12% of teh entire population of Tamil Nadu.Same case with union territory Pondicherry.

Some one needs to add that info into the Telugu Language page. 59.160.207.20 (talk) 11:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Desabhashalandu Telugu lessa
This statement by Kishnadevaraya should be in this article. It is also a fact that the Englishmen who called Telugu the "Italian of the East" called it that because of its mellifluous nature. That needs to be mentioned more so.

'DESABASHALANDU TELUGU LESSA'.... which is mentioned by king SRI KRISHNA DEVARAYA. i am supporting this thing.

This should be definetly included. "Desabhashalandu telugu lessa, tene kante theeyani telugu bhasha"--Sandeep346 (talk) 09:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Images
It is noticed that the article is presently void of any images. It is better to add images like that of ancient palm leaf manuscripts written in Telugu.


 * Damn it! stop erasing my quotes in the beginning of the article. I am merely pointing out the heavy Sanskrit and Prakrit influence on Telugu. The Telugu pandits of 100 years ago would be angry with those who are trying to erase the Sanskrit connection. Telugu grammarians of the past had stated that Telugu originated from Sanskrit or Prakrit. If you can't challange my quotes, don't erase them. I don't understand. Some Telugu All communites should be proud of these quotes. Please state your caste before erasing the quotes so that all Andhras can have a blood hatred for your caste for the rest of our lives. I am the one who added the quotes from Velcheru Narayana Rao, C.P Brown and David Shulman in the begining of the article. Please tell what is wrong with it before erasing. Too many Telugu people are ignorant about the Sanskrit influence on Telugu so I thought I had to back it up it with authoritative quotes
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.144.118 (talk) 08:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Telugu Names
There needs to be some kind of a standard way of writing Telugu names in English. Gupta, Setty, Rao, Reddy, Sastri, Chowdhury, Naidu etc. All of these are written and spoken as a part of First name or Given Name in Telugu. Why are they separated in to a different word in English?

Most of the names with these "suffixes" (mosly derived derived from our caste system) have a different Last name or Family name. I think we should create some kind of a standard to eliminate this confusion atleast for Wikipedia.

chinni September 5 2005

I apologize for making changes without enough discussion. Also, at Wikipedia, I realize that we're trying to create article names as the they're most commonly known as - in English language. So, people like P V Narasimha Rao may have to be written like this (Rao). In other cases like Yellapragada Subbarao, I cannot imagine splitting it up in to Subba Rao.

We should probably go by the most common way of writing these names and put the alternatives in the introduction in the articles. But, we need to come up with a standard way of wrting Telugu people's names in English, esp. when writing about people who were seldom known before in English.

chinni September 5 2005

yes, chinni... nenu kooda agree chesthunnanu. telugulo ivi kevalam cast basega vachinavi thappite maremee ledu. so.. u rright

Usually telugu names are long. The surname is derived from the name of the village or caste. Often people have both the names, one at the beginning and the other at the end of the name. The middle part forms the given name. Sometimes father's name is also added as a suffix to the given name. So in case of the former chief minster Nara Chandrababu Naidu, Nara is derived from "naravaripally" which is his hometown and Naidu is the name of his caste.--Sandeep346 (talk) 09:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Shyama Shastri article
Sandeep you are misinformed. According to page 40 of the Dravidian languages by S. Steever the Telugu script is derived from the Ashokan Braahmi script used in India from about 250 BCE as the medium for Mauryan Empire inscriptions. He goes onto state that the Braahmi script is the ancestor of scripts used in North India to the present time such as Deva Naagari and Bengali. You can also look at page 78 the Dravidian languages by Sri Bhadriraju Krishnamurti. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.144.118 (talk) 10:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I have seen this article before on commercial websites. I am just concerned about the legality of copy -pasting from some other website. Is the contributor the original creator of this write-up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssundar (talk • contribs) 19:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Please focus on Telugu, Not Andhra
Sandeep you are misinformed. According to page 40 of the Dravidian languages by S. Steever the Telugu script is derived from the Ashokan Braahmi script used in India from about 250 BCE as the medium for Mauryan Empire inscriptions. He goes onto state that the Braahmi script is the ancestor of scripts used in North India to the present time such as Deva Naagari and Bengali. You can also look at page 78 the Dravidian languages by Sri Bhadriraju Krishnamurti. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.144.118 (talk) 10:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I see a lot of focus on the word Andhra and its antiquity. One can't focus on the antiquity of the word "Karnata" whose earliest mention goes back to Skandha purana of 1000-500 B.C and call it the anitiquity of Kannada, though these people of Karnataka most defnitely spoke some version of proto Kannada. This is misleading because there is no concrete proof that the two words (Andhra and Telugu) are related right from earliest times. Later Andhras defnitely took up Telugu. The early Andhras used Prakrit as their medium of communication. If one has to prove that the Andhras of Sathavahana times spoke Telugu, one has to produce full length inscriptions, not bits and pieces of Telugu words in Prakrit poetry (King Hala). Just like many Sathavahana inscriptions contained Telugu words, they also contained Kannada words in Kannada regions (Bagalkot, Raichur, Bellary inscriptions), indicating its influence on Sathavahana Prakrit in respective regions.

Dinesh Kannambadi 18:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding language rank globally
Currently, this article says that Telugu is among the top fifteen most spooken languages in the world. Now, I think this may be true if we are talking about native speakers, however, Telugu does not have all that many second-language speakers relative to many other languages (about 5 million). If you factor in French, Italian, Korean, Persian, Turkish, Vietnamese, and Indonesian, all languages that seem to have less native speakers than Telugu, but more speakers in general, Telugu seems to rate more along the lines of the top 25. Admitted, the numbers are debatable, but everything I have just said comes from List of languages by number of native speakers. -Philolexica (talk) 03:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Shatavahanas and Telugu
I agree that telugu is greatly influenced by sanskrit. I am a brahmin brought up in Vijayawada. Though I am 30 years old, with my limited knowledge of pure telugu that I inherited from my ancestors, telugu pandits around, old telugu movies from 1930s till 1980s and my telugu and sanskrit knowledge of text books from school it is not a surprize to me at all to accept that telugu is influenced by sanskrit.

If you see ANR movie "Tenali Ramakrishna", it that when Ramakrishna visits Sri Krishnadevaraya for the first time, the dialogue written was "నేను సంస్కృతాంధ్రాలలో చాలా కృషి చేశాను" .. this itself shows that telugu poets and pandits are generally masters in both sanskrit and telugu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.242.121 (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Even if we agree that Telugu is influenced from Prakrit, it is seen that Prakrit originated from Sanskrit. Pleas refer to 1st para from http://www.engr.mun.ca/~adluri/telugu/language/script/script1d.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.242.121 (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Dinesh, don't be upset by following criticism. I am a 77 year old Niyogi Brahmin and so I am coming from a loving angle. The official language of the Mughals was Persian. It does not mean they did not speak Hindustani. The official language of the Papal states was Latin. It does not mean they did not speak Italian. As in those two cases, Sanskrit was put on a pedestal above the local language. But Sanskrit was put on MUCH MORE of a pedestal than Persian and Latin because our Vedic Telugu Pandits considered it the Deva Bhaasha and therefore felt only it was worthy of inscriptions. It is sad you do not know the history of our Telugu pandits. My grandparents stressed the Sanskrit/Prakrit connection of Telugu and always told me Sanskrit was the mother of Telugu. They taught me that our script is closer to the original Sanskrit script than the Deva Naagari script. This is why when I moved to Delhi in 1968 I felt superior to the locals and made sure my kids spoke and wrote Telugu. Today even my grandkids speak and write Telugu in Delhi. As a result they know far more Sanskrit than their North Indian Brahmin classmates. I have seen many Andhra children in Delhi lose their Telugu identity. My maternal Grandfather was a Telugu pandit and until he died he believed that Telugu came from Sanskrit. I know with arrival of the British modern linguistics arrived and tossed aside all these beliefs as myths. But it is especially sad to to see fellow brahmins like you absorb this mlechha influence. It is especially sad to to see fellow brahmins like you being ignorant of how hard our ancestors fought to maintain the Sanskrit ethos of Telugu. They fought to their last breath. A 100 years ago every Brahmin was an amateur Telugu/Sanskrit pandit. Today everybody wants to be an English pandit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.144.118 (talk) 09:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The Shatavahanas were not Telugu speaking. Their official language was Prakrit. Just because a few telugu words appear in King Hala's poems does not make their language was telugu, just as a few Kannada words appearing in Emperor Ashokas 230BC Bhramahgiri edit (from Chitradurga) does make Kannada the official language of the Gupta dynasty. Please try to see history from real historical sense. I have seen many web sites trying to confuse people and relate the Early Andhras to Telugu. The firts record of Telugu Language is from 633 AD i believe and that too in Old Kannada script (Guntur inscription?).

Dinesh Kannambadi 15:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
Folks there is a telugu wikipedia http://te.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B0%AE%E0%B1%8A%E0%B0%A6%E0%B0%9F%E0%B0%BF_%E0%B0%AA%E0%B1%87%E0%B0%9C%E0%B1%80 .. and a lot is there to synergize

- Preeti Pisupati —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.242.121 (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Guys, I'm adding a cleanup tag to this article since there's so much work to be done (just compare this with the article on Tamil). Pls don't remove this tag at least until these tasks are done:
 * Standardisation of transcription. Some places we use Romanisation and others IPA. I suggest, we use IPA everywhere.
 * The Phoneme set needs to be in a better form. I've tried tabularising the vowels. The same needs to be done for consonants
 * More volunteer researchers to dig up some info on topics like
 * Historical sound changes
 * Derived Languages
 * Vowel Harmony
 * Adding References. A lot of claims have been made in this article. Unless we add proper references & citations, we risk losing credibility as a wikipedia article.
 * Add Media. Pictures/Photographs of ancient scriptures in the 'Writing' Section.

Please feel free to add to this list, I'm sure I've left out many more action items.

Let's roll up sleeves, people: there's work to be done :) - Rohit Dasari 20:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC) i too accept with sumanthk.as a resident and native of andhra pradesh i heard only tenugu as a substitute of telugu.Even the word tenugu is also used in some songs or in written scripts,it's not a word which is used frequently.Telungu is the word i never heard from any of my grand parents or from any other old people. Maybe tamilians and other states may call like that due to communication problem as they can not spell many of our words clearly.Or it may be the nick name as the telugu people call tamil people as "arava people". Aparna Kalla —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.97.19.188 (talk) 02:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Gender in Telugu
In describing the Telugu language with friends, I came to the conclusion that gender in Telugu in fact is unique because only a human (or divine) male is masculine. Everything else in the universe is referred to as feminine, both inanimate objects and living things like plants and animals. Male and Female dogs are referred to as "adi" and "vellindi"

Can someone comment on this and if so, add a bit in the gender section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.165.27.182 (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

There ARE three genders in Telugu--masculine, feminine, and neutral. Please look at the plural in the example.

Singular: (M)Athanu vellaadu.(F)Aame vellindhi. (N)Adhi vellindhi.

Plural: (M)Vaallu vellaaru. (F)Vaallu vellaaru. (N)Avi vellaayi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.23.255.223 (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The right way of saying it seems to be that instead of gender, Telugu has "major" and "minor", with masculine being always major (vellaadu, vellaaru), neuter being always minor (vellindhi, vellaayi), and feminine being minor in the singular and major in the plural (vellindhi, vellaaru). At least that's what C. P. Brown says; and it would be good to edit the article to reflect this. Shreevatsa (talk) 14:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Edits by user 69.126.144.118
This user has a swath of edits here, many of which are identical text placed in unrelated sections of this talk page about not removing certain sentences from the introduction to this article. I'm not familiar enough to say for sure but I believe this constitutes vandalism or something else similarly eggregious. For the record, I'm removing the sentences, in their entirety, because they are not encyclopedic, are irrelevant to the introduction, are poorly presented (to be frank, the stylistic aura of the passage is nauseating), and the user has given up any level of respectability that would convince me to try to include the references. The sentences in question are as follows:


 * As Velcheru Narayana Rao states in page 3 of his book Classical Telugu Poetry: "every Sanskrit word is potentially a Telugu word as well, and literary texts in Telugu may be lexically Sanskrit or Sanskritized to an enormous extent, perhaps sixty percent or more." As C.P Brown states in page 266 of his book A Grammar of the Telugu language: "Every Telugu rule is laboriously deduced from a Sanskrit canon". As David Shulman states in page 3 of his book Classical Telugu Poetry: "The enlivening presence of Sanskrit is everywhere evident in Andhra civilization, as it is in the Telugu language".

I'm putting this page on my watchlist and reading up on exactly what kind of wikicrime this is (I remember something about edit wars in one of the policies), but the point is it needs to stop. I don't have the authority to weild the discipline stick, but I can tell the zealous anonymous that continuation of this kind of activity will probably result in restricted priveleges, which may mean outright banning.

If you are that serious about having these references in the article, they belong as citations to encyclopedically-written content about Telugu. This means that you cannot simply dump quotations into the article. Write something, some sentences about the conclusions reached by Dravidian language scholars, and cite your books. There are countless sentences I am sure you could come up with about this relationship to Sanskrit. This is not enough reason to quote them in an encyclopedia article. If quotation is called for, you do not need to name the book (this belongs in the citation), let alone the page number (which does not belong at all), and introducing three of these quotations in a row with identical clauses (''"As ... states in page ... of his book ...:" - which, as long as we're talking about it, is not punctuated properly) is incredibly poor form.

The bottom line is, your edits have been removed, apparently multiple times, for a simple reason: they do not belong in this article. Stop, and furthermore do not vandalise the talk page in order to bring attention to the issue. this raven is icy (talk) 00:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Telegu?
Isn't "Telegu" a common variant? It's strange that there's absolutely no mention of this spelling. Acsenray (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

why do not modern historians look at some telugu people and their language as Indo-Aryan
I believe Telugu should be classified as Indo-Aryan language. Telugu has more sanskrit words than dravidian and that is undeniable. I am presenting few facts here.

In page 14 of the book- A History of Telugu Literature By Chenchiah, Bhujanga, he states -"  Telugus (may) have been in the remote past a Dravidian people possessing a non-Aryan culture, but they seem to have lost their Dravidian identity very early in their history. In historical times they were so completely Aryanised in religion, language and literature, that for all purposes they may be treated as Aryans. 

In page 16- '''Telugu is Vikriti, that is a language formed my modification of sanskrit and prakrit. It would appear that Andhras adopted a form of Prakrit which, in course of development, became the immediate ancestor of Telugu .'''

Now there are more sanskri words in telugu than Dravidian.

Sanskrit is the oldest next comes Telugu. The logical proof is.. The linguistic prakriya (Game) of Sanskrit Avadhana is existing only Telugu. From this the immediate next language of Sanskrit is Telugu. In other languages Avadhana disappeared. Obviusly son possesses more features of father than grand son, because son is more immediate.

I wish to see more telugu people here than Tamils(No Offense). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaggi81 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

(1) B.C. 200 -- A.D. 500 : 'During the first phase, we only come across names of places and personal names of Telugu in Prakrit and Sanskrit inscriptions found in the Telugu country. Telugu was exposed to the influence of Prakrit as early as the 3rd century B.C. From this we know that the language of the people was Telugu, although the language of the rulers was different. The first complete Telugu inscription belongs to the Renati Cholas, found in Erragudipadu, Kamalapuram taluk of Cuddapah district and assigned to about A.D. 575. Source: Revenue Department (Gazetteers) Jaggi81 (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

As Velcheru Narayana Rao states in page 3 of his book Classical Telugu Poetry: "every Sanskrit word is potentially a Telugu word as well, and literary texts in Telugu may be lexically Sanskrit or Sanskritized to an enormous extent, perhaps sixty percent or more." As C.P Brown states in page 266 of his book A Grammar of the Telugu language: "Every Telugu rule is laboriously deduced from a Sanskrit canon". As David Shulman states in page 3 of his book Classical Telugu Poetry: "The enlivening presence of Sanskrit is everywhere evident in Andhra civilization, as it is in the Telugu language". Based on all these facts Telugu should be classified into Indo-Aryan group. Jaggi81 (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Nannaya Bhattarakudu’s Andhra Mahabharatamu produced around the 11th century is commonly referred to as the first Telugu literary composition (Aadi kaavyam). Although there is evidence of Telugu literature before Nannaya, he is still referred to as Aadi Kavi (the first poet) because he was the first poet to establish a formal grammar for written Telugu. 'Nannaya meticulously laid down the ground rules and semantics of writing in Telugu by borrowing from Sanskrit grammar and inventing original rules'. Telugu literature until then was Prakrit based and devoid of a grammar. Jaggi81 (talk) 01:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Inscriptions containing Telugu words dated back to 400 BC were discovered in Bhattiprolu in Guntur district. English translation of one inscription reads: “Gift of the slab by venerable Midikilayakha.

Primary sources are Prakrit/Sanskrit inscriptions found in the region, in which Telugu places and personal names are found. From this we know that the language of the people was Telugu, while the rulers, who were of the Satavahana dynasty, spoke Prakrit. Jaggi81 (talk) 01:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Some other scholars associate Telugu as originating from a frequently used Sanskrit word Kalinga or Kling, which in Puranas and Ashok's inscriptionsdepicted people of Continental India as it is even today in the Malay language.

Onamaalu, or the Telugu alphabet consist of 60 symbols - 16 vowels, 3 vowel modifiers, and 41 consonants have almost 1-to-1 correspondence with Sanskrit alphabets, yet another proof of its influence on its evolution.

Though no inscriptions in Telugu language (as it is written/ spoken today) have been found prior to the period 200 BC 500 AD, inferences to the existence of Telugu during that time can be made from the frequent use of words of that period found in the Telegu region found on Parakrit (Sanskrit)inscriptions and also in anthology of poems in Parakrit language, collected by the Satavahna dynasty King  all point to existence of Telugu and Telugupeople in that period between the Krishna and Godavri rivers basin. Thus, we can safely presume Telugu to have originated earlier than 200 BC. (Source:Ostom Ray - Telugu The Language, People And The Land Through Ages) Jaggi81 (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

“The country will not survive if the language and culture are not protected. Sanskrit, which is mother of Indian languages, Telugu and other languages are unique in the world in the sense that they are inter-twined with life. Whatever said in the literature like Satakams written in the olden ages determines our life. The Indian literature helps in personality development and determines the life” Among the Indian languages, Telugu was the only language having closest relationship with Sanskrit and this was the reason for it continuing to be strong even now - Vedula Subrahmanya Sastry(Telugu and Sanskrit scholar) Jaggi81 (talk) 04:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Important Things: 1. Telugu and Tamil don't belong to the same group. 2. Telugu split from Proto-Dravidian between 1500-1000 BC. So, Telugu became a distinct language by the time any literary activity began to appear in the Tamil land.

This is a universal fact but (No offense) but some Tamils language fanatics always try to categorize Telugu with Tamil leaving no room for discussion. Jaggi81 (talk) 05:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Jaggi, you want to stop spamming talkpages and introducing your racial nonsense into articles, and you want to start presenting real sources. Your behaviour is disruptive. Telugu is a Dravidian language and as such derived from Proto-Dravidian. As for the presumed date of the first characterization of Telugu from common Dravidian, cite a scholarly linguistic source. Every language has prehistoric predecessors, that's a null statement. No, Telugu is not particularly close to Tami within Dravidian. It is apparently closer to Kui. At what point did Telugu split from Kui and the general South-Central group? Probably during the final centuries BC, I don't know, cite a linguist. Just stop citing random urls you googled, ok? Telugu is a South-Central Dravidian language which came into close contact with Prakrit during the period 300 BC to AD 500. For all practical purposes, this period can be considered the formative phase of Telugu, or "Proto-Telugu". The actual history of Telugu begins in the 6th century. Before 300 BC, the predecessor language will likely have been undifferentiated Proto-Telugu-Kui with none of the features that distinguish Telugu in particular, but we cannot verify this, because 500 BC is deep prehistory in South India. --dab (𒁳) 11:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * thanks for the reply. You seem to read my article and tell your view, but Nijgoykar (talk) doesn't even read my article and starts so many threads to prove his point of view and he is very rude. Thats why I had to spam. I wont spam now. I am looking for original sources. jgg (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Revert
I just reverted the article to revision 326173660. Reasons are as follows: I'd suggest discuss any changes here on the talk page before making them. The user has already been blocked once for disruptive editing. - Spaceman  Spiff  20:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Some of the changes were discussed and rejected per the conversations above
 * 2) A lot of the changes were copy vios, pasting text from usenet, tripod.com pages etc
 * 3) A lot of additions were in first person.
 * 4) Given the large scale changes and the above reasons, it's impossible to tell if anything in the additions was actually clean and worthy of retaining.


 * Well, I have just added few quotes and lines. I haven't changed or deleted anything. I also have given clear references of Books. There is nothing disruptive about it. I think only few designated people here have permission to edit pages. What can I say now?


 * Did you even read what I added? jgg (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have clearly explained above why your additions were removed. - Spaceman  Spiff  22:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I added the material that posted earlier. Please dissect and tell me why it wont fit in respective section.


 * yes I have been blocked for editing Article on 'Iyers'. I think you should read that article once. Its nothing but crap. It was nothing about Iyers, Its written with personal agenda. That guy has given references but most of the stuff in that article doesnt even relate to Iyers. jgg (talk) 22:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your userpage indicates that you are a suspected sockpuppet of User:Vyaghradhataki, who has been indefinitely blocked/banned. Sockpuppets of banned/indefinitely blocked users actually have no right to edit, as per WP:SOCK. If you would want to add material to the article, I would suggest that you indicate on the talk page what material you want to add and what sourcing you have for such material, and then receive consensus from the other editors who frequent this page for them, perhaps waiting for one of them to make the changes for you. John Carter (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not the sockpuppet of User:Vyaghradhataki or anyone else. Its been very long since I edited anything. Recently I edited Article Iyer for a right reason. Why was I even suspected for being sockpuppet for someone? do you have any proofs of editing patterns?

jgg (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You may not be. However, with that, and the fact that some of your additions were apparently clear violations of copyright, and were otherwise found unacceptable, as per the comments at the start of this thread, they evidently were evidently unacceptable on that basis alone. I would very strongly suggest that, rather than continuing this discussion, you do what now at least two other people have specifically asked you to do, and that is present any changes you propose on the talk page first so that they can receive consensus before being added. John Carter (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, somebody made me stockpuppet for no fault of mine. what should I do prove my credibility?

Split from Proto-Dravidian
Telugu split from Proto-Dravidian between 1500-1000 BC. So, Telugu became a distinct language by the time any literary activity began to appear in the Tamil land.

Given two citations here (title = Andhra Samkshipta Charitra | author=Etukoori Balaraama Moorti) and Tripod. I never made this edit before as dab(Talk) asked me for reference and here it is now —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaggi81 (talk • contribs)


 * First one returns no listing on Worldcat. If this is a reliable source, it should be part of libraries.


 * It does return a result Please check on Worldcat. jgg (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, why do you insist on using incorrect titles and authors in the reference templates? - Spaceman  Spiff  23:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (title = Andhra Samkshipta Charitra | author=Etukoori Balaraama Moorti), This is what I used for the first citation. I am getting hit for Āndhrula samkhśipta c̣aritra' I guess Typo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaggi81 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally hosted sites on tripod.com aren't considered reliable sources. This particular site is a random collection of news postings and opinions. - Spaceman  Spiff  23:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * since it is returning the result on Worldcat, can I Add it in the article? jgg (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely convinced on this. A gsearch shows that this phrasing exists in various other sites with both sentences constructed in the exact same manner. What's the wording on the book? - Spaceman  Spiff  23:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Book is written in Telugu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaggi81 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I can rephrase and add it if sentences are constructed in the exactly same way. jgg (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Vocabulary
Telugu alphabets consists of 60 symbols - 16 vowels, 3 vowel modifiers, and 41 consonants have almost 1-to-1 correspondence with Sanskrit alphabets.

Given a valid reference of a book. What about the above it has valid reference.

In Telugu we have three distinct pronunciations for "cha" and "ja". While the soft sounds of "cha" and "ja" and the harsh sounds of "chha" and "jha" are not uncommon, found in many if not all Indian languages, the "tcha" and "tja" of Telugu are rather unique and have interesting history both in terms of their pronunciation and the way they are written. As we know, "tcha" and "tja" are written as "cha" and "ja" but with the Telugu numeral 2 written on top of the letter.

"Tcha" and "tja" are found in Marathi also. But Marathi was derived from Sanskrit and Prakrit, neither of which have "tcha" or "tja." Hindi, which also derived from Sanskrit and Prakrit, does not have these sounds. So, how did Marathi get them? It is believed that the sounds were adapted from Telugu. Some scholars believe that Telugu and Bengali in turn acquired them from Pali.

Given two citations here (title = Andhra Samkshipta Charitra | author=Etukoori Balaraama Moorti) and Tripod. I think will fit in Vocabulary section —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaggi81 (talk • contribs)


 * Articopia.com is for self-publishing, first step for non-RS; Ostom Ray doesn't appear to have any linguistic research background Google Scholar has nothing for the person. Unless someone shows me why he is considered an authority on this, I don't see a reason for this to be reliable.
 * Self hosted copies on personal websties on Tripod, see response in the other section on this source. - Spaceman  Spiff  23:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I will accept your assertion that the addition is supported by the book. However, this text can not be added unless it's suitably paraphrased, as you have this habit of lifting it off straight from the books you cite. That is not acceptable on Wikipedia. In addition, this text is in first person, that isn't acceptable for an encyclopaedia article either. - Spaceman  Spiff  23:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Can I rephrase this and add? jgg (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Assumption of good faith ends here Jaggi81, I took you on your word and have been trying to work with you. Now I see that this entire section is copy pasted from here and that usenet posting cites a completely different source. Quite honestly, this is back to where we started, nothing more than disruption. - Spaceman  Spiff  00:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This is where I got it from and check what source they have given jgg (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you bother to read it before posting here? That's a newsgroup posting, and the source given by the poster is "Source: Mana lipi puttu purvotharaalu by Thirumala Ramachandra". Given this manipulation of sources and the fact that you plain copy text from anywhere you like and place it here, I don't think any of these edits you've posted here have any validity. - Spaceman  Spiff  00:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The Intro part had the following. So I got confused. I agree its human error but not done with bad intentions. Even Source: Mana lipi puttu purvotharaalu by Thirumala Ramachandra exists in library,

ANCIENT HISTORY OF ANDHRAS

(Go to Table of Contents)

By Etukoori Balaraama Moorti in Andhra Samkshipta Charitra

English translation : PALANA (nparinand@cas.org)

If it was not in good faiths, I would not have taken so much time to contribute to the article. jgg (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Grammar
Telugu grammarians have stated that without reference to a Sanskrit Dictionary, it would be impossible to write a sentence with accuracy and finish.

Every Telugu Gramatical rule is laboriously deduced from a Sanskrit canon.

The above has a Valid reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaggi81 (talk • contribs)


 * The first one, why is Indiavideo considered a reliable source? We do not consider such websites reliable on Wikipedia
 * The second one is a direct word for word copy, from the said book. In this case, I guess the book is probably in public domain, so it may be acceptable. I'll let John Carter comment on that, as I'm not familar with renewed copyrights on books. However, ignoring that, the sentence is not correct, because it's not complete. The source goes on to add that the connection is not discernible, changing to the form you have posted above, gives an assured meaning. - Spaceman  Spiff  23:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The second source was evidently first published in 1840, and doesn't seem to have been published in the US at all, at least the only copies WorldCat mentions were published in India, so I have to assume that it is in the public domain for our purposes as per WP:PD. However, as stated, the quote is apparently incomplete, and that the missing material would change the meaning. That sort of misleading incomplete quotation is not acceptable. John Carter (talk) 23:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What meaning is it changing. It is well known that Telugu grammar was hugely influenced by Sanskrit. jgg (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It says that the connection is not discernible. If that isn't added, then the reader could very easily get the impression that the two are linguistically related, poasibly as parent-child?, and we would not want to give the impression that a source might be seen as indicating that when the source itself clearly states otherwise. Also, in general, when using public domain sources, I think I read somewhere that if we are going to quote them, we quote them in full anyway. Removing that section, which does have some relevance to the connection between Telugu and Sanskrit, might thus be seen as doubly problematic. John Carter (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Even when two languages are linguistically related, There is no rule that it should follow similar Grammatical rules. I can rephrase the sentence in such a way that it wont seem dubious. Whats your say?jgg (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably the best thing to do, considering you are comparatively new to wikipedia, would be to not add anything directly to the main article right away. What would probably work best would be for you to indicate the changes you want to make on the talk page first, citing the sources for that information. Then, if there are any questions regarding phrasing, sourcing, or anything else, they can be addressed before the change is actually made, so that, in effect, the changes made would already have been agreed to and thus need no further convesation. John Carter (talk) 13:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Will you help me
Spaceman  Spiff , If you think my citations are wrong, can you help me use right templates and correct the templates? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaggi81 (talk • contribs)
 * The problem is not the templates. That's the least of the problems here, as long as you give the correct cites, it doesn't (at least to an extent) matter even if you just use parentheses inline. The problems here are as follows:
 * You do not have an understanding of reliable sources -- You keep attributing everything here to some random websites that have no scholarly standing. E.g. This book is a reliable source, albeit dated (and therefore needs to be used in the light of more recent findings); a reliable source for grammar, history etc would always be part of research university library listings on Worldcat. Of course, that isn't the only yardstick, but it's an easy one specifically for language articles. Attributing content to third parties who in turn attribute it to other third parties is a strict no-no.
 * Copyright violations -- You keep copying everything word for word from other sources and add in here. That is prohibited and if you keep repeating it, you will be blocked again, possibly indefinitely.
 * Synthesis -- Another point to be avoided. You can not split one sentence from a third party and use only that, when the other part of the sentence is actually a qualifier. This is an example of what you have done, but in broad terms, you can not pick and choose the words / meaning you want from sources.
 * Content writing -- Your contributions are in first person, I understand that this is because of your copy paste violations, but this is a no-no too.
 * In short, your contributions to this or any other articles have to be verifiable. Given that you have quoted from three books that you have not read and misclassified them, I think it's quite imperative that the content you contribute needs to be verified by someone. This is how normal editing works on Wikipedia. If this is clear enough, we can discuss specific content issues. - Spaceman  Spiff  05:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I am relatively new to Wikipedia before. Sure... lets discuss. jgg (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC).
 * Ok then. Instead of trying to do large scale changes, let's start with minor ones. Post small additions or changes that you would like, along with the sources. I don't care if you use the templates, just give the correct web link, source details and page nos in brackets and that'll be enough for discussion here. Do it one at a time. - Spaceman  Spiff  19:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am doing some research. I will post shortly.jgg (talk) 05:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

alternative names
according to SIL Ethnologue, Andhra, Gentoo, Tailangi, Telangire, Telegu, Telgi, Tengu, Terangi, Tolangan -- this is in alphabetical order, check out google books to get an idea which of these names occur at all frequently. --dab (𒁳) 15:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected, I didn't check the Ethnologue listing, but the gbooks hits I found were of the "older" variety and/or fiction. cheers. - Spaceman  Spiff  18:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * These are all "dated", historical or obsolete names and they do not need to be listed. The contemporary term is clearly "Telugu", perhaps with some minority usage of "Telegu". Nobody calls it "Gentoo", that's deep 18th century and SIL probably lists these just for the sake of completeness, it isn't suggesting these terms should be used. --dab (𒁳) 19:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * While I agree that these obsolete and rare names/spellings should not be mentioned in the lede, it is worthwhile to list them in the Etymology section and create redirects from them. That way any reader encountering the terms in older literature could be led to this article. Abecedare (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Telugu
The name 'Telugu' must have been authentic rather than 'Tenugu' because all Persian chronicles dating back to 11th century talk of 'Tilang", "Tilangan" etc., Malik Maqbul, the Wazir of Feroz Shah Tughlak and whose name was Gannama Nayaka before his capture at Warangal had a title known as "Khan-i-Jahan Tilangani".Kumarrao (talk) 10:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow your argument at all, but yes, "Telugu" is both the most common term used in English and the close transliteration of the native name. --dab (𒁳) 11:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I see, you were referring to recently-added random and unsourced musings. I have removed this bit. --dab (𒁳) 11:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Put this image of origin of Telugu
This article doesn't have enough info about the origin of Telugu.

Jonny555 (talk) 07:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

"Lessa" means "it is superior"
This article is very nice except "lessa" in Krishnadevaraya's statement has been transiterated into an english "less" with a telugu suffix "a" meaning "is it?". Actually "lessa" means "shreshtamu" or "top quality" or "best".
 * Your confusion is due to vocalizing "lessa" with a stress on the final "a" as "aa". Actually, for it to become an interrogative, it would be transliterated as "lessaa" or, more precisely, "lessa" with an "aa" diacritic placed above the final "a". Please refer to Brown's Telugu-English dictionary available at the University of Chicago's Department of Linguistics site. "Lessa" is an entry. --Gnana (talk) 06:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Kannambadi's Confusion
It is clear that Satavahanas were Brahmin (Aryan) kings known as Andhras and who spoke Sanskrit. They ruled over other Aryan subjects who spoke Prakrit (evolved into present day Marathi) and Dravidian subjects who spoke Proto-Telugu in present day Andhra Pradesh and Proto-Kannada in present day Karnataka region. Graually, Telugu came to be known and identified as Andhra Bhasha (Al-Biruni referred to 'Andhri' spoken and written in the area south of Vindhyas). Satavahanas, Ikshvakus (Arya Kshatriyas), Pallavas (Indo-Iranian) and Chalukyas (Arya Kshatriyas) ruled over South India for a long time till the native Dravidians (Sudra communities) such as Hoyasalas, Cholas, Kakatiyas, Vijayanagar kings and Nayak kings gradually took over. Kannambadi must keep in mind that Aryan Chalukyas first ruled from Rayalaseema (A.P.,) districts, moved to Karnataka region and spread to Telangana region and lastly to coastal Andhra areas. As they moved over these regions they patronized the Dravidian languages prevalent in the respective regions. They intermarried with locally powerful Dravidian communities. The message is that the rulers most often were Aryan Sanskrit speakers but who patronized local languages. Interestingly, the earliest Kannada poets were of Telugu descent. Pampa brothers were Brahmins who took to Jainism and belonged to Kammanadu region of present day Guntur district. They migrated to Karimnagar region for royal patronage of Chalukyas who came from Karnataka areas. Another point: Bhattiprolu scipt was not so called 'Old Kannada'. It was Brahmi script brought by Buddhists to South India from Gangetic plains. It evolved into Tamil/Telugu/Kannada scripts in due course of time. Kannambadi should refrain from branding it as 'Old Kannada'. Geographically, it would be proper to describe it as "Old Telugu-Kannada" script. In fact, that is the way archaeologists write it in their books and monographs. Kumarrao 08:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please at least try and source your outlandish claims. I know you have an agenda (e.g. Brahmin [Aryan], "Aryan Sanskrit speakers" etc.) but there is no scope for it on a discussion about the most appropriate way to present an overview of the Telugu language. These discussion pages are not meant for flame-wars between demagogues. thanks --Gnana (talk) 06:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Telugu"
The article says that the word "Telugu" is pronounced [ˈt̪elʊgʊ]. In English? This is unlikely: speakers of standard English of either the British or American varieties don't pronounce the first consonant [t̪], and we don't have the vowel from the word "foot" in either completely unstressed syllables or word-final position. Is that the way it's pronounced in Telugu? If so, that should be made explicit, and then we still need the pronunciation of the word in English, which I believe would be [ˈtɛləˌgu:]. &mdash;Largo Plazo (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about everyone else, but I pronounce it as [tʰɛluˈgu] in English. Don't know why, but that's what feels right to me. 70.33.86.70 (talk) 14:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

This is wrong interpretation and I can prove
 Some words that describe objects/actions associated with common or everyday life: like తల tala (head), పులి puli (tiger), ఊరు ūru (town/city), have cognates in other Dravidian languages and are indigenous to the Dravidian language family

The above para which was added in article is wrong...

" Word తల tala (head) is of Sanskrit(Indo-Aryan) origin and not indigenous to the Dravidian language family ".

Sanskrit :तल. Transliteration: Tala. Meaning: Surface.

Sanskrit:काय - तल. Transliteration:kaaya - tala(n). Meaning: Body Surface.

Sanskrit:काय. Transliteration:kaaya. Meaning: Body.

http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?script=HK&tinput=tala&country_ID=&trans=Translate&direction=AU.
 * This is not the forum for your personal etymological "proofs"- unless you can reference a reliable source for this information (and not 2 words entered into an online Sanskrit dictionary), please refrain from posting your opinions here. thanks --Gñāna (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Even you don't have proof to contradict me and FYI that's a fact and not opinion. The one which was mentioned in article is unsourced —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.123.37 (talk) 03:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Bhadriraju Krishnamurti

 * He is not the standard for telugu language. Please stay away from propaganda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.123.37 (talk) 04:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Lingua Franca?
Hi, editors of Telugu language. I'm currently working on cleaning up the Lingua franca page, on which Telugu is currently listed. I'd like your input on this issue. First, the definition of a lingua franca, per that page, is "a language systematically used to communicate between persons not sharing a mother tongue, in particular when it is a third language, distinct from both persons' mother tongues." Based on my initial reading of this page, I'm inclined to say that Telugu does not actually meet this criteria--that is, that Telugu is actually the native language of people who regularly use it. However, I'm not entirely clear. Is it mainly spoken as a native language? Or are there a large group of people who learn Telugu as a second (or third, etc.) language as a means of communicating with others who don't share their own language? For instance, English clearly meets the definition of lingua franca for India, and Hindi probably does as well, as they are learned as second languages for the purpose of communicating with people of different native languages. But I can't tell if Telugu fits this category. I appreciate any input you can give me on this issue. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

IPA Charts
Guys, can we get some serious IPA charts for the Telugu phonology section? What we have now is sort of sad, since the consonants section doesn't use IPA and the vowels section isn't actually a chart... Also, why is there a consonant chart with what I assume to be Telugu words for Retroflex, etc, rather than the English counterparts?? 97.81.65.138 (talk) 07:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It's been a month and no one knows a consonant or vowel phoneme inventory? There has to be at least one source published that we can cite. 70.33.86.70 (talk) 14:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Article introduction edit
I made some changes to the article's introduction page by fixing the sentence structures. Sadly, my edit got reverted by an unknown user using an IP address. The user also blamed me for vandalism and threatened me to stop being a stock puppet.

 My revision

Telugu (natively తెలుగు telugu) is a language native to the Indian subcontinent. It is classified as a Dravidian language with heavy Indo-Aryan influence. Telugu has the third largest number of native speakers in India (74 million according to the 2001 census) and is 15th in the Ethnologue list of most-spoken languages worldwide.

Can anyone tell me whether there is something wrong with this sentence? Is this vandalism? I'm very sad right now. kotak kasut  15:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, What's wrong with existing structure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.167.172 (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Seriously, stranger, read my revision ten times, then you'll get the mistake with the other version. I don't want to start a fight with you or anything, so I'm leaving this page now, stranger. Enjoy your grammatically incorrect version, stranger. kotak  kasut  22:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Protected
I have no clue what the point of contention is with regard to this language, but, perhaps you should discuss your preferred versions on the talk page rather than fight it out on the article. I've protected the article for the time being. --RegentsPark (talk) 12:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Telugu has enormous Indo-Aryan(Sanskrit) influence which is well-known. It reflects everywhere in telugu literature. There is significant influence which cannot be ignored.

Article here clearly says "Telugu is classified as Dravidian language with heavy Indo-Aryan influence". I dont understand why people are changing it to "Telugu is classified as Dravidian language". People are just trying to put their personal agenda


 * "NO DOUBT" Telugu is a Dravidian Language, perhaps it might be influenced by Sanskrit, Hindi, Urdu and English, BUT still it is a Dravidian Language. I don't know who the IP editor is, but his copyedit is correct. If any problem is there with editor just Blocking the editor is enough. Please remove the protection of this page. I don't think, it is fair to protect this page.--Ranjithsutari (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * @Ranjithsutari, yes Telugu is dravidian and has significant influence of Indo-Aryan. Thats what is mentioned in the article. There is so much of sanskrit influence that cannot be ignored. I dont know why some Tamil and Mallu users are editing like crazy...

The earliest mention of the Andhras is said to be in Aitereya Brahmana (2000 B.C.). It indicates that the Andhras, originally an Aryan race living in north India migrated to south of the Vindhyas and later mixed with non-Aryans. Regular history of Andhra Desa, according to historians, begins with 236 B.C., the year of Ashoka's death. During the following centuries, Satavahanas, Sakas, Ikshvakus, Eastern Chalukyas, Kakatiyas ruled the Telugu country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.165.255 (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The word "Andhra" belong to lineage(Aryans or may not), it is also true that Telugu was spoken by Dravidians(non-aryans). As other developing languages had, Telugu is also influenced by Sanskrit after 1st century AD only, when Sanskrit was predominant language in India at Gupta's empire. It is obvious that we can find an alternate word of Sanskrit origin in many languages(including Telugu) against native words. This does not prove that Sanskrit is superstrate to all languages, specifically Telugu. The words of Chenchiah as baseless, which has to be removed. Here is an essay on "Language of the inscriptions" by Archeological Survey of India. In my view, the present Telugu language had the influence of Urdu as Sanskrit did, but the Problem is that the article is confining the language just to Andhras(lineage). This article has to expanded marking the various developments in Telugu language, and individual opinions and generalities should be removed.--Ranjithsutari (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * @Ranjithsutari: My only thing is, Written Literature of telugu is nothing but sanskrit. No one is trying to prove sanskrit is superstate of all the languages but since telugu has significant sanskrit(Indo-Aryan) influence. Also Telugu is called Andhra baasha. Andhras who were originally indo-Aryan speakers influenced telugu a great deal. Telugu is different from other dravidian language structures. Telugu split from Proto-Dravidian in 1500 B.C before any literary activity began in Tamil land.

Hence it is very important to mention Indo_aryan Influence. In telugu you cant find alternative native word for sanskrit word.  Ex:  In telugu

Head - Tala or Tala Kaya or Sirassu etc.. All are sanskrit origins. Tell me what is native word?

" Word తల tala (head) is of Sanskrit(Indo-Aryan) origin 

Sanskrit :तल. Transliteration: Tala. Meaning: Surface.

Sanskrit:काय - तल. Transliteration:kaaya - tala(n). Meaning: Body Surface.

Sanskrit:काय. Transliteration:kaaya. Meaning: Body. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.176.185 (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comming to Chanchiah's Issue,

Article clearly says "According to famous linguist Chenchiah, Telugu is Vikriti, that is a language formed by modification of Sanskrit and Prakrit. It would appear that Andhras adopted a form of Prakrit, which, in course of development, became the immediate ancestor of Telugu" He is a great linguist and his thoughts are worth mentioning. Article clearly says "Telugu is classified as Dravidian language" in spite of all this. I dont think it should be changed because of someone's ego problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.176.185 (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The word "Indo-aryan"(belongs to race) is not sutiable to mention in this article. As far as Telugu literature is concerned, most of its authors, especially in the beginning, were Sanscrit scholars. So it is enough to mention "influenced by sanskrit". which is already their in the article.


 * Folks are the best example, where you can find hundreds of native Telugu words. but unfortunately folklore's or folk songs are not given suitable position in Telugu literature even they exits time before history.


 * In telugu, Head means తల(tala), where as in తలకాయ(tala-kaya, eng.=Head), కాయ is here a mere colloquial affix, and శిరస్సు(Sirassu, eng.=Head top) is the original Sanskrit derivation शिरस् (śiras, eng=Head)


 * Here is a word "arrogance"(ఎగసిపాటు(egasi-pāṭu), పొగరు(pogaru), కావరము(kāvaramu), దిమాకు(dimāku), మదము(madama), అహము(ahamu), దురహంకారము(dur-ahankāramu))" I don't know how many word you will pull out as sanskrit native, but I'm sure atleast one native telugu word will remain.


 * Coming to Chanchiahs' Issue


 * Perhaps he is a famous linguist, but "Vikriti" is an individual opinion. If you think it is notable, then it has to be placed under Literature but not under Etymology sections.--Ranjithsutari (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm more worried about this crazy Tamil and Mallus at Telugu encyclopedia(Tewiki).--Ranjithsutari (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * @Ranjithsutari-- The word "Indo-aryan" doesnt mean race. Indo-Aryan is a group of languages and Dravidian is group of languages. please check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_languages


 * The word "Indo-Aryan" typically refers to race, perhaps it may also refer to the language spoken by certain group or race. Whatever, there are many languages under Indo-Aryan languages group, Telugu is Influenced by only Sanskrit in beginning and then after by Urdu. Stating as "Indo-Aryan" is nothing but Weasel words and Contentious labels. --Ranjithsutari (talk) 06:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)



Telugu is influenced sanskrit, prakrit and many other Indo-Aryan Languages. When Andhra tribes migrated from North India to South India, they used to speak Desi baasha which is prakrit based. Telugu also got influenced by Marathi from west, Hindi and Oriya from North. So it is well known that telugu has Huge Indo-Aryan language influence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.227.15 (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The word "Indo-Aryan" typically doesnt refer to race —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.172.213 (talk) 07:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * @Ranjithsutari- You are shamelessly publicizing your ignorance. You dont know what you are talking about. This is not the place to show your personal agenda

The word "Indo-Aryan" typically doesnt refer to race.

It is true that Telugu has heavy Indo-Aryan influence

User:Ranjithsutari
He is a big-time Vandal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.29.251 (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sanskrit and Telugu
Telugu accepts foreign words with comfort and ease. Sanskrit and its vocabulary heavily influenced Telugu literature; no other language has as much of an influence on Telugu as Sanskrit has. Indeed a large fraction of the characters of the Telugu alphabet – such as many of the aspirated consonants - were created especially to facilitate the writing and pronunciation of Sanskrit words. It is, therefore no exaggeration to boast that some of the best Sanskrit pronunciation can be heard from scholars residing in the coastal districts of Andhra Pradesh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.29.251 (talk) 07:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)