Talk:Telugu language/Archive 2

What is the origin of the word 'Telugu'
There should be a meaning for 'Telugu' or Telungu. I think the root word is Tel or Tella which has the meaning of sweet or clear in Tamil(telivu) Any other explanations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.13.109 (talk) 07:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Telugu or Telungu
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 article mentions Telungu as an older form of the name, but is it never used nowadays? In Malayalam, the word is still Teluṅku. --Grammatical error 16:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Telunku or Telungu (used by tamilians) is not used by telugu speaking people. The only terms used are telugu and tenugu (literary). Sumanthk 04:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Were either of them used in the past though, or are they just local versions of the word "telugu" adapted so that it would sound like a tamil/malayalam word? --Grammatical error 19:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I suppose those are just the local versions of the word "telugu" (like "tamilam" in telugu). Sumanthk 04:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright then, thanks for your help. --Grammatical error 04:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I remember telungu being used in the Andhra Maha Bhagavatamu or the commentary by Nagaphani sharma where Potana says that Rama asked him to make the bhagavatam telungu.--Pranathi 19:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Telungu is actually the dialect of telugu spoken by tamilians. Hence the name would appear in any standard text prepared by a telugu speaking person of tamil origin. It is not the standard term used by native telugu speakers.--Sandeep346 (talk) 10:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow this was very informative guys. I'd really appreciate if any of you could tell me if I'd be justified in taking strong exception to the spelling "Telegu". Kind Regards, (Sardaga (talk) 09:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC))

Need assistance at Chaunk
Need Telugu script for popu and thiruguvaatha at the Chaunk article. Badagnani (talk) 03:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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 tamil INSCRIPTIONS ARE FOUND HIGHEST IN THE COUNTRY WHICH GOES TO PROVE THAT tamil 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 which was constructed by the tamil people first,MANTRALAYA,SRISAILAM WHICH HAVE ROOTS IN KANNADA RULERS...HYDERBAD WITH MUSLIM RULERS...WHAT IS THERE IN ANDHRA....

What's the need of slander when we have got history to prove? Nannaya wrote at the mercy of Kannada rulers? What ever their origins are, we find that they patronised Telugu and aided in helping Telugu as an established literary language...What made you think that the coastal Andhra was a kannada land? the rulers are not everything...it's what the people speak...By the way, The Seunas(Yadavas) of Devagiri...they were not Marathas, but they patronised Marathi...that doesn't mean anything...that they adopted Marathi as their language...they suppressed other languages...it's just a part of dynamics...time was ripe for Telugu to be a language of great literary prowness...one ruler or the other...it was time for Telugu to come out...no patronisation or suppression would have affected it...Another point to note is that, as far as I remember, the common script of Ancient Telugu and Kannada was given a name, Kadamba, not Old-Telugu or Old-Kannada. By the way, what does tha prove? Even Tamil script is descended from Brahmi...That Tamil and Sanskrit are from the same stock? And when was Kannada the ruler's language in the south? And as per records, we find Rashtrakutas(doubt even there, but they wholly supported Kannada from Kannada lands) and Hoyasalas genuine Kannadigas...If you check the history, Persian was the official language in the north and Telugu in the south...A theory put forward as regarding Vidyaranya unearthing a mound of gold and establishing Vijayanagar Empire is that Harihara and Bukka, two commanders of Prataparudra, the last Kakatiya ruler ran away with the Kakatiya treasury with plans of a new kingdom, instead of letting it to fall into the Muslim hands and were aided by one godman Vidyaranya in their efforts...If this is not, why do we find Tughluq searching for the two brothers all Deccan? Ramaraya was from Golconda, majority of the powerplayers in post Vijayanagar era---the Nayaks of Gingee, Tanjore, Madurai and others were Telugu, even the last Sovereign of a part of SriLanka...We speak of the eight gems in Krishna Deva Raya's Court, who wrote in Telugu, he may have patronised all the major languages of south for stability, but is such importance given to any Kannadiga(I no where say id Krishna Deva Raya was Telugu)...Surely, it was termed the golden age of Telugu...when did we hear of such in Kannada? As regarding Hyderabad, who told that it's the traditional Andhra? My friend, the Capital was Warangal, the entry point to all south, Hyderabad was a minor mud fort at the time...The battle at Palnad(the so-called Palnati Yuddham), fought between two Chola factions, supported by other groups, is patronised in Andhra, not Tamil Nadu...What do you call that? The Cholas were Telugu? Everyone will ridicule us...The oldest record of Telugu seems to come from one, Kubbeeraka, far before the days of Telugu and Kannada...It is aptly said that Every dog has got it's day...Someday, Telugu was superior, (even if I don't remember any citations as such I would say) someday Kannada, Someday Tamil balh blah blah...But please donot forget that this article is named Telugu Language, not Andhra Pradesh...And if you speak of Andhra, the simplest question I am going to pose is How many Kannadigas are there in Andhra Cabinet today and how many Telugus in Kannada Cabinet? And what have you got in Karnataka? Everything related to Vijayanagar is Telugu, rest Muslim or British(even your state capital)...even the Wodeyar line stood because the Vijayanagar let them stay...Kempegowda was Telugu, the rest of Karnataka, of whose history you are proud of is now, nothing but stones and broken temples...Even VeeraBallala(did you hear that name?), fought a war of attrition in Tamil and Telugu lands, not Karnataka...Actually, Chalukyas came from South Andhra/north TamilNadu...even before Kannadigas came, we got Satavahanas, conclusively Telugu(language may be different)...What have you, Kannadigas, got then, which you call your own which didnot come from the mercy of others? What are Krishna Deva Raya(the greatest Kannadiga, accoding to many)'s Kannada works? How fine are they(if there are any) in sophistication as compared with Amuktamalyada? Kindly tell me of experiments of the sort done by Vemulavada Bheemakavi or Pingili Surana in Kannada(Bheemakavi was of 12-13th century, Surana was a contemporary of Krishna Deva Raya---they wrote poems which can be interpreted in atleast two ways...Bheema Kavi wrote a poem which gives the meaning of Mahabharata and Bhagavata(I am not exactly sure as for the second one)...t's just based on interpretation)...I don't like the likes of you...just empty boasts...as this article is over the language, counter with the depth of literature, not with the history you donot know... Another thing to note is that there are far more Telugus in Bengal than Bengalis in Andhra and it's obvious that Bengalis in Andhra know Telugu and the same way roundabout...Who cares if Bengali is in Second position or if Telugu is? One thing, we, being Indians, should see that both the languages should maintain their identity and traditions...And regarding 80 million Bengalis...where did they come from? BSF takes the money to allow them to cross into India, communists give them valid citizenships...Just chck the number of Muslims staying on the Indian side of Bengal-Bangladesh border in 1981 and 2001(wait a few years and see in 2011). Talk about the contribution of your language in Indian upliftment...Atleast, our government doesn't counter that, but you have got a blockhead by the name Communists...they patronize everything which idolizes class struggle and crushes the other...Jyoti Basu, Jatiya Pashu as you Bengalis mock him(nothing personal...)...speak of how many of the likes of Nazrul Islam, Tagore, BibhutiBhushan, Jayadeva Bengali produced...If you go for the prosody, even there Telugu beats almost everything, atleast including Sanskrit... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.134.205 (talk) 12:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

What happened, you self proclaimed scholars over Telugu? For the history, you may refer to the research paper by Messrs Samyuktha Koonaiah...Heard the names of Romilla Thapar and Steve Farmer? They are considered experts over Ancient India, expounding everything, including the dates and their interpretations of Rig Veda and the likes, without knowing a single word of Sanskrit? Such are the persons who frame the rules...I think the same may be applied to you people...You know nothing, read a reference somewhere and start expounding your theories, without knowing the facts...Chalukyas were Kannadigas, Nannaya was at the mercy of Kannada rulers, copied from Kannada...note that his writing style is such spohisticated that it's very hard to write something like that even this day...According to you, some Kannada taught him that?...This clearly shows there was literature atleast half a millenium before in Telugu...god knows where it went...Also, there is another raging debate whether Nannechoda(Another Chola!!) predated Nannaya or not...I remember reaing a blog somewhere...the author takes pain to prove everyone originated from Karnataka...Cholas, the Badugas, Chalukyas and many more...Lucky that he tried to prove Ashoka was a Central Asian, not Kannadiga!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.130.47 (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Kindly note that if my language is hurting to any of the persons concerned, i would like to ask for their pardons. If convenient for them, I would request them to delete sections inappropriate, but not this statement!! I go by the username cbk123 or cbkjsr, but I am lazy to login and post!! Just go for the policy Vasudhava Kutumbakam..

What is being argued here is antiquity of indian lagnuages and availability of proof to substantiate the same..this guy(who wrote above) about telugu is total bullshit. He does't have proof,facts and evidences to show how old telugu is. Instead he is talking how many telugu ministers are in karnataka govt..then he should also ask how many telugu ministers are in central govt..the fact that kannadiga rulers gave initial impetus for the development of telugu must be acknowledge. It's during chalukys telugu gained some importance and also during viajayanagar kingdom(again kannadiga roots) who gave telug the prominence. Even Kakatiya had their beginning as subordinates of karanataka kings and ties with kannadigas.

The fact in south indian history rulers of karnataka and rulers of andhrapradesh have never fought against each other. there has always been comradeship among telugu people and kannada people. karnataka rulers and tamil rulers have been at loggerheads for more than 2000 years and this is proven by evidence. This goes to show that Kannada and Tamil are more ancient than Telugu.

Kannadigas and Tamilites are shivates where as telugu are vaishnavaites predominately. All the shiva templaes in andhra are built by either kannadiga rulers or tamil rulers. Go and check.

Infact older tamil works have references to kannada and never telugu. Having more population does't mean anything(or make it older) but it just reflection of their culture.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.30.48 (talk) 01:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Telugu people are present in every corner of Dravida Nadu(South India) But Krishna Deva Raya is Tuluva and Kempe Gowda is Kannadiga.

A POETS REVENGE by VIDYALANKARA DR.S.JAYABARATHI
Supradeepa composed two pieces - a kaadhal and a thuudhu. He made Tirumalai Nayakkar as the hero of the 'kaadhal'. Hence he named it, 'Thirumalai Naayakkan Kaadhal'. One day, he sought audience with Tirumalai Nayakkar early in the morning. At that time, Tirumalai was brushing his teeth and washing his mouth and gargling. When Supradeepa told him that he had composed a prabhandham, Tirumalai asked him what language it was in. Supradeepa answered 'Tamil'.

Tirumalai retorted contemptously,

"Telugu tenugu; kannaram kasthuuri; aravam adhvaanam".

Meaning: The language Telugu is like honey; Kannada is like kasturi;Tamil is forsaken, discarded language'.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.112.76 (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, the user from 24.0.112.76 must know the world's most common fact that every language is beautiful and special to its own speakers! As a Tamil, I agree that Telugu and Kannada are two of the beautiful languages. I really reserve the right to accept this fact because I am capable of speaking four major Dravidian languages: Tamil, Malayalam, Telugu and Kannada. The user must also agree that Tamil and Malayalam are equally beautiful languages. Well then, Who is Tirumalai, anyway? Do you mean the historical Madurai King, Thirumalai Nayakkar? He is a Tamil King! He must not told that way. Please, revise the history again and start writing such an insulting, racial and fanatic texts. A piece of advice to that user: please stop insulting any of the ethnic people as Wikipedia strictly prohibits it. --Chuckraverthy (talk) 09:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI, Madurai and Tanjavur Nayakas are Telugu people settled in Tamilnadu. They are one of telugu castes Velama, Kamma and Kapu. Note that Dameral Venkatadri Nayakudu who gave Madras to Andrew Cogan was a Velama.Bsskchaitanya (talk) 13:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I know a quote "Teta telugu, Kannada Kasturi" which meaning Telugu is Crystal Clear and Kannada is of fragrance of Kasturi. But I dont know the origin of "Aravam Adhvaanam". We can praise a language but this is bad. I think this is just an emotional quote and should not be promoted. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 13:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Messy article alert!
The 'Telugu Language' article is messed up with inappropriate information and unncessary phrases. The most annoying section is where the language is put so as to prove that it is the best of all the world languages. I am not an Indian, but, love to be one of them. But, this kinda information just irritates one who wanna know about the Indic languages. I'm sure that you guys will never gonna have this article tagged 'Featured' or 'Good'. Please, understand that Wikipedia is not a proof sheet to make readers believe that Telugu is the best, beautiful, must-know-language, blah blah blah. Rather, it is the place where you could put actual information without any exaggerated blahs. DON'T DO THAT AGAIN!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.225.190.21 (talk) 04:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Lol I am sure you are stock puppet for Ranjithsutari — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagarjuna198 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Is that stock puppet or sockpuppet? I presume you called me sockpuppet. Anyways kiddo, my alert worths it. Everyone agrees with that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.79.178.88 (talk) 05:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "Quotes on Telugu" Section
It was me who introduced that section. The two are very famous throughout Telugu spoken area in India. The remaining ones i found while reading grammar books on Telugu. I don't find any reason why this section can be deleted without any proper reason. Hope people who regularly watch this page go through this message. My Mother tongue is Telugu and I was born in Andhra Pradesh. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 13:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Example short phrases
The table below shows some short phrases and words in telugu. This is converted from kannada and does not represent telugu words properly. So anyone can correct it and include it in the article.117.99.85.33 (talk) 09:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The below is not telugu at all my friend. Script looks close...Its all Kannada I think
 * This table is in telugu script but it is software converted from kannada and thats why it doesnt sound like telugu.That is why someone has asked to correct and change it to telugu and then use it. Usually softwares cannot cross convert between languages without human input. I hope the explaination is OK. 27.57.79.172 (talk) 10:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The Age of Telugu language
Among Dravidian languages, Telugu is the third oldest language after Tamil and Kannada. Therefore, the order of the major Dravidian languages is: Tamil, Kannada, Telugu and Malayalam. Malayalam is the youngest language of the family that was split from Middle Tamil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.38.237.14 (talk) 10:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Quote farm
I've yet again removed this quote farm section from the article, none of them have any context or relevance here. If you disagree, let's understand why. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  12:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive edits from Tamil fanatics
Please check people like user: Malaikaran(talk) who are making disruptive edits


 * so there are 130 million Telugus? laugh--Malaikaran (talk) 08:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * @Malaikaran (talk): Please stop your disruptive edits. You cannot delete stuff just because you dont like it.Nagarjuna198 (talk) 02:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Age of the language
The link given for stating that the age is 2400 years old is just an assumption and is not confirmed. It has to be removed within time. Sanskrit, Tamil and Kannada are the most ancient languages and Telugu has its origins only around 500-1000 CE. Plz add that along with a source stating it with confirmed status. Thanks!! Secret of success (talk) 15:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Phonology and Alphabet
"Telugu has .CH and .JH which are not represented in Sanskrit" - ".CH" and ".JH" do not mean anything to anyone. Rather than an ad hoc romanization such as this, can someone please add IPA or a romanization that reflects the actual pronunciation? I do not speak Telugu and this article has not been informative on Telugu phonology. There is also no consonant nor vowel chart under the phonology section. I suggest that anyone who is familiar with Telugu phonology check out the Tamil or Hindi pages to look at what the standard is. I would just do this myself, but I do not understand Telugu phonology enough to do so. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.55.239.30 (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I will add romanization soon.Nagarjuna198 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC).

Telugu Dravidian but some linguists classify as Indic
Some nut cases keep getting cited, claiming Telugu is an Indo-Aryan language. Sorry, but WP works off WP:secondary sources, especially when the claim is blatant foolishness like this. I've checked around a bit, and I can't find anything that reports that anyone even thinks this. Per WP:WEIGHT, it gets no mention on WP unless we can find such sources. — kwami (talk) 06:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @kwami : You say this is "blatant foolishness" and you are exhibiting your foolishness. This wont come anywhere near what you think. And not sure where you "checked around" for a bit? and you read carefully "Nobody here is claiming that Telugu a Indic Nagarjuna198 (talk)


 * It is not claimed that Telugu is a Indo-Aryan anywhere in this article. It is just mentioned that Telugu has a strong Sanskrit flavour to it. I do not see the rationale behind deleting the whole section especially when it is clearly mentioned that this theory is not conclusive. By deleting it, you are censoring WP:CENSOR. Also it is widely acknowledged that Telugu is the most Sanskritised language in India. Especially in the ending of words Telugu uses "UM" "AU" which is only seen in pure Sanskrit. This is seen only in Telugu language with such regularity. For example, KINGDOM is called "SAMRAJYA" in Hindi, Bengali and all other Indian languages (it originated from Sanskrit word SAMRAJYAM). In Telugu, KINGDOM is called SAMRAJYAM just like in Sanskrit. Foodie 377 (talk) 08:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, I agree that Telugu is highly Sanskritized. Of course that belongs. But that's not what this section said: it said that Telugu descends from Sanskrit. That means that it is not a Dravidian language. That is nonsense. Perhaps the editor misunderstood the source, or perhaps their English skills are not adequate, but as it stood, the section was not appropriate. — kwami (talk) 08:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * it is said that "Telugu descends from Sanskrit" is minority view and nobody said its not Dravidian. Even Nannayya, Tikkana who are poineers of Telugu Literature are also of the same belief that Telugu descended from sanskrit(anybody with little knowledge of Telugu knows this). It is worthwhile to mention this minority belief along with standard classification by modern Historians/Linguists.Nagarjuna198 (talk)
 * Ok then remove that sentence. You just cannot waltz in and delete a whole section .And the above sources qualify as secondary sources.Foodie 377 (talk) 08:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You'll need to explain how they're 2ary sources. I suspect they wouldn't qualify as RS, if the authors are that ignorant.
 * A few linguists [...] believe that Telugu is the Vikriti language, a language descended from Sanskrit
 * This is garbage. If it is supposed to mean that they believe Telugu has a strong Sanskrit influence, like you say, then it is wrong, because it's not "a few linguists", it's everybody. Everyone knows that. If it means what it actually says, then it's pure tripe: Telugu is obviously Dravidian, and AFAIK there is no notable belief otherwise.
 * Now, as for Telugu retains the original Sanskrit pronunciation of అం, ఐ , and ఔ , go ahead and put that back in if you like. But don't restore obvious bullshit unless you have a source demonstrating that it's a notable belief (that is, that there are significant numbers of people that believe it's true). Read up on the guidelines I linked from your talk page. — kwami (talk) 08:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok I will remove the part where it says Telugu descended from Sanskrit. There is also no need to use unparliamentary language. It reflects poorly Foodie 377 (talk) 08:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't understand what you meant by "unparliamentary language". I thought you were upset I linked to government-like jargon such as "fringe" and "secondary sources". From what I've seen of parliamentary debate, my language is much too mild to be parliamentary: I used "nut cases" (meaning the authors) and "foolishness". If I were being parliamentary, it wouldn't been "bloody idiots" and I would have shouted it IN ALL CAPS. — kwami (talk) 09:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @kwami: Please cut the crap.Nagarjuna198 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC).
 * I have changed the classification section as per discussion. Foodie 377 (talk) 09:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Even Nannayya, Tikkana who are poineers of Telugu Literature are also of the same belief that Telugu descended from sanskrit(anybody with little knowledge of Telugu knows this). It is worthwhile to mention this minority belief along with standard classification by modern Historians/Linguists.Nagarjuna198 (talk)


 * It should say that Telugu is Central-Dravidian language however some linguists also think other way.(Which is of course true) and I dont see anything wrong in it and dont know why kwami is making big issue out of it. There is no need for all this bullshit reasoning from kwami . Nagarjuna198 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC).


 * The "bullshit reasoning" is called WP:Policy. You may not like it, but if you want to edit WP, you need to abide by our policies. One of our relevant policies is called WP:Fringe. Another is WP:Secondary sources. Another is WP:Weight. Please read them.
 * @kwami: What do you mean "Our Policies". Dont try to own Wikipedia. Please dont think only you know the Policies.Nagarjuna198 (talk)
 * Telugu is so blindingly obviously Dravidian that one wouldd have to be an idiot to not see it. Now, if you can provide a WP:secondary source that Telugu-as-Indic is a notable POV (per WP:Weight, then we can include it. But we don't include every bit of WP:Fringe that some idiot gets published. — kwami (talk) 00:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @kwami:we are not talking about some out of the way idiots here. We are talking about reputed Authors. Please STOP ABUSING THEM IDIOTS. You came here with some agenda which is obviousNagarjuna198 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC).
 * Yes, the agenda is called "writing an encyclopedia", as opposed to writing a blog.
 * You apparently don't understand what you're writing, since the material you added claims that they believe Telugu is an Indo-Aryan language, and yet you say that no-one is claiming Telugu is an Indo-Aryan language.
 * If that is actually a secondary ref, could you quote the part where it talks about who believes Telugu is Indo-Aryan? — kwami (talk) 01:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no proof that Indic and Dravidian languages are related. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. So some notable linguists are of the opinion that Telugu and sanskrit are related. So what? yes I can quote, CP Brown himself quoted in his book that Nannayya believed that Telugu originated from sanaskrit. However he did not agree. Nagarjuna198 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC).
 * It's not just that there's no proof, but that it's WP:Fringe. If Dravidian and Sanskrit are related, back in the depths of time, Sanskrit is closer to English than it is to Telugu. But that's not what you're saying: you're saying that Telugu is descended from Sanskrit, which makes it an Indo-Aryan language. Since you hold that it is "unequivocally" a Dravidian language, that means that Tamil and all of Dravidian is Indo-Aryan. That is clearly nonsense. If you can demonstrate with secondary sources that notable linguists believe that Dravidian is Indo-Aryan, then we should add that to the Dravidian languages article. — kwami (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no room for your personal research about "english is close to Sanskrit and other crap". No need to make so many substitutions here. Its straight forward that some authors opposed the view that Telugu is dravidian. so what? We should not add it to Dravidian languages article because this does not apply to all the Dravidian languages. Nagarjuna198 (talk)
 * I hope you know that these classifications are hypothetical and has no scientific proof. So its okay for different linguists to have different opinions and this is not my opinion. PLease restrain "You say that"Nagarjuna198 (talk)
 * Irrelevant. We follow sources. If the sources express doubt, we express doubt. If they don't, we don't. Again, please read our policies. You don't seem to know what an encyclopedia is.
 * Off course English and Sanskrit are related. The family is called Indo-European. Please read that article if you're not familiar with it.
 * As for "our", you do know what the word "we" means, don't you? These are our policies: yours, mine, everyone who edits here. If you don't want to follow them, fine. Eventually you'll be blocked for being disruptive. But meanwhile they're still our policies: those of the rest of us who edit here. — kwami (talk) 05:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

In page 16 of the book- A History of Telugu Literature By Chenchiah, Bhujanga, he states -" "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" Nagarjuna198 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC).


 * Ah, so they're saying that Telugu is not Dravidian, just what you said they didn't say. Now, this is a WP:primary source, since it is the author's own theory, again the opposite of what you said. Wikipedia works off WP:secondary sources. Can you find any secondary source that mentions this as a notable POV? I've checked, and I can't find anything. — kwami (talk) 01:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes they do. and they are very respected linguists among telugu community. There is no mention of Indo-Aryan here in this article. I dont understand why Few author's beliefs are causing so much trouble to you/ What is your personal agenda?Nagarjuna198 (talk)


 * @kwami : Are you some kind of fanatic?Nagarjuna198 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC).
 * @kwami : Also I think you are sock puppet of Malaikaran.. --Nagarjuna198 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC).

I might ask the same of you. Look, it's very simple: Sanskrit is an Indo-Aryan language, correct? In fact, "Indo-Aryan" is practically defined as "descended from Sanskrit". So if Telugu is descended from Sanskrit, then it's an Indo-Aryan language. Not only that, but they say that the Andhras adopted a Prakrit, which became Telugu. Please read Prakrit: they are also Indo-Aryan languages. You you're claiming that Telugu is Indo-Aryan at the same time you're claiming it's not Indo-Aryan. That is incoherent.
 * Those Authors claimed so...Its not me. I am saying according to bigger consensus, its dravidian language but few people claimed otherwise. Whats harming you if I mention that? "Telugu is unequivocally classified as Dravidian language however authors such as xyz claim otherwise" there is nothing wrong in it. You are unnecessarily politicizing that.Nagarjuna198 (talk)
 * If it is unequivocal, then why are you equivocating? There's nothing political. On Earth we could say, "some people think the Earth is flat". And it's true. The question is, is it WP:notable enough to include? That's why we go by 2ary rather than 1ary sources. You've only provided primary sources. — kwami (talk) 03:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * is it WP:notable? yes. Not only that but it has valid sources but you are just playing with words. Its considered Unequivocal notion because most of the Linguists classify it as dravidian however reality is that there are some linguists who think otherwise.(Its worth mentioning) You are wasting our and your time as no Telugu speaker would agree with you unless you introduce your socks.Nagarjuna198 (talk)
 * Please stop beating your mother with a pipe.
 * There. Now we're being equally rational, so we can speak as equals.
 * If it's notable, you should be able to find a 2ary source. If you cannot find a 2ary source, then I can, indeed should, delete according to WP policy. — kwami (talk) 04:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

As for them being respected linguists, we can't take your say-so. Do you have a secondary source that describes them as respected linguists? Or that this "theory" is believed by anyone of note? — kwami (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @kwami : The mentioned sources qualify as secondary sources. Please do not vandalise the article with your nonsense. you said "we can't take your say-so"--Its not WE. Its only YOU. No Telugu Speaker would agree with you unless you introduce your socks. Nagarjuna198 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC).
 * Please demonstrate. You quoted from one, and it turned out to be a primary source. You have repeatedly misrepresented what the sources say. I therefore do not trust your judgement, and will not take your word for it. You are making the claim, it's your responsibility to support that claim with evidence. — kwami (talk) 04:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

And many more..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagarjuna198 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Andhra sabda chintamani By Nannayya(known as Adi Kavi/First Poet of Telugu language) Clearly says Telugu is derived from Sanskrit.
 * Charles Philip Brown (1857). A grammar of the Telugu language- He said Nannayya, Thikkana thought telugu originated from sanskrit which surprised him.
 * Chinnaya Suri's Balavyakaranam - He mentions Nannayya believed that Telugu originated from sanskrit.
 * Chenchiah, P.; Rao, Raja Bhujanga (1988). A History of Telugu Literature. - He directly says.


 * Please read WP:Secondary sources. You don't seem to know what that means.
 * Chenchiah & Rao is a primary source. It doesn't count. All the rest mention that Nannayya believed this. That is perhaps an interesting historical tidbit, but when you say "a few linguists believe", you're using present tense. You have not demonstrated that this is a notable POV among linguists in the present tense. Unless you can do that, it does not belong here. Certainly not in the lede! — kwami (talk) 05:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @kwami : Not only Nannayya but also Thikkana was mentioned.
 * @kwami :Hence Telugu is predominantly classified as Central Dravidian. However some linguists consider it as originated from Sanskrit.(There is nothing wrong in this statement) You need to understand that these classifications are hypothetical and I dont know why you are making so much fuss about this and trying to vandalize the article.Nagarjuna198 (talk)


 * Please read WP:vandalism. You still don't seem to know what that word means.
 * Your 2ary sources refer to one scholar in antiquity. That isn't the same as "a few linguists" today.
 * I'm done with this discussion, but I will not accept the fringe POV you're insisting on. You appear to be immune to reason. You also have no idea about how things work around here. I suggest you read some of the links I provided. Or click on 'help' to your left and read up on that. — kwami (talk) 05:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @kwami: I suggest you do the same because you yourself dont know what you are talking about. No matter what we say, you are stuckup with your agenda. Nagarjuna198 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC).
 * Telugu is Central Dravidian. Period.  Only non-linguists pushing some POV would state otherwise.  To state that it is non-Dravidian is WP:FRINGE of the highest order and does not deserve even mentioning.  No reputable linguist, including the world's most renowned Dravidian and Telugu scholars (Krishnamurti, Steever, and Ramanarasimham, for example), have ever even suggested such a ridiculous thing.  The Dravidian languages show borrowings from Sanskrit, but to suggest that these are evidence of a relationship is bad linguistics, indeed "non-linguistics" of the highest order.  WP:WEIGHT is 100% on the side of keeping this non-linguistic WP:FRINGE viewpoints out of Wikipedia.  --Taivo (talk) 06:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Telugu is Central Dravidian. No one denied. Understand the context in which this was mentioned instead of being kwami's mouth piece.Nagarjuna198 (talk) 12:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL. If Telugu is Central Dravidian, then it CANNOT be descended from Sanskrit.  If you had any linguistic knowledge or any history here in Wikipedia, you would know that I am far from being Kwami's mouthpiece.  In this case, Kwami is quite correct, but if you want my own references for this issue, I'll list about two dozens standard linguistic works on Telugu and the Dravidian languages that state unequivocally that Telugu is Central Dravidian and is NOT related to Sanskrit.  If you agree that Telugu is Central Dravidian, then we agree, but if it is Central Dravidian then it simply cannot be related to Sanskrit.  To maintain such, as you do, is simply non-scientific, non-linguistic foolishness.  Mentioning these WP:FRINGE nationalistic, unscientific ideas gives WP:UNDUE weight to the kooks among us.  It's as simple as that.  I also removed much unscientific drivel from the article that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter at hand.  If you want to talk about music, then put the information in a music article.  If you want to sing the praises of Telugu as a melodious tongue, that's not science, that's creative writing and doesn't belong in Wikipedia at all.  --Taivo (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @Taivo: Just because you edit so many language articles doesnt mean you are very learned. I know what I am talking about. Regarding telugu language, there are conflicting theories about its origin. Even I can cite couple of dozen cites. I am just trying to put those facts about conflicting POV. Linguistics is more of Hypothesis than science. The people with those opinions are pioneers of Telugu Language and literature and not some out of the way people. PLEASE DONT ABUSE THEM FOOLISH. I have reomoved that line as I cannot tolerate your foolishness. Something for you to be Happy.Nagarjuna198 (talk) 01:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Your comment clearly indicates that you don't have a lot of experience in linguistics. There is NO reputable, linguistically-based conflicting theory about its origin.  There is no "pioneer" of Telugu linguistics here, only crackpots who don't know linguistics and are only pushing some nationalistic POV.  The most reputable Telugu and Dravidian linguists are 100% against this WP:FRINGE idea and to give it any weight at all violates Wikipedia policy.  This article is not about Telugu literature and the "pioneers of Telugu literature" have no place in this article.  And your comment about linguistics not being a science just proves your naivete about the subject.  --Taivo (talk) 02:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This article is not about pioneers of Telugu literature. However I thought its worthwhile mentioning their POV. I removed that line anyway..OK. Please restrain using words like "crackpots" and other crap. There is no point arguing as you are hellbent with your POV and now that I removed that line..PEACE. Nagarjuna198 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC).
 * "Retention" is only used when dealing with related languages that have a common ancestry--"retention from the proto-language". I changed "retention" to "borrowing".  But the garbage about "melodious" or "musical" or "mellifluous" is just non-linguistic subjective baloney and doesn't belong in a scientific context.  --Taivo (talk) 02:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Retention" need not be for common ancestry. Thats why we started with "Though Dravidian in origin". Paragraph above clearly says that there was heavy sanskrit borrowing. You are editing mercilessly which makes no sense. I do agree with you on ""melodious" or "musical" or "mellifluous" being just non-linguistic"Nagarjuna198 (talk)
 * Please look up "retention" in a dictionary. It means exactly that. — kwami (talk) 04:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @kwami: I suggest you look up in dictionary. You are publicizing your ignorance. Nagarjuna198 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC).
 * Yes, that must be it. When "Nagarjuna198" writes incomprehensible things, it's really me impersonating you.
 * It's fine to say T retains S pronunciation in loans. But it's unintelligible to just say that it "retains" S pronunciations. That implies common ancestry. — kwami (talk) 05:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, I have no problem with adding a bit about Nannayya thinking Telugu was an Aryan language. As long as it's given proper weight (i.e., not in the lead). — kwami (talk) 05:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I was trying to work with you, turning your contributions into something intelligible. But since they turn you into an idiot (for example, saying that writing coherent English is "vandalism"), we'd better just delete them to prevent the temptation. — kwami (talk) 06:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I spent my time and effort reading so many books to make this article better and better. I am doing that in a good faith and I want you to understand this. " "Retention" need not be for common ancestry. Thats why we started with "Though Dravidian in origin". Paragraph above clearly says that there was heavy sanskrit borrowing." - whats wrong in this?Nagarjuna198 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC).
 * "Retention" is NOT used by linguists except in the context of genetic descent. Period.  Don't argue about, that's just the fact.  The information in the paragraph isn't a problem, so I've once again changed your uninformed non-linguistic wording to acceptably scientific linguistic wording.  Don't change it back.  It just shows your ignorance of the science of linguistics and linguistic terminology.  There is no "discussion" to be had here, so don't beg in your edit summaries that we must reach an agreement.  Linguists simply do not use "retention" for cases of borrowing.  I have also, once again, removed that unscientific musing on the "musicality" of Telugu.  That is simply impressionistic, unscientific, non-linguistic drivel and has no place in a scientific article.  You want to prove musicality?  Or provide a scientifically based definition of "linguistic musicality"?  You can't because "musicality" isn't science, especially in reference to languages.  Show me a single linguistic community that has no singing.  Look in any dictionary of linguistics and try to find a definition of "musicality".  It isn't there.  It's totally unscientific drivel so leave it out.  There's no "discussion" to be had here.  --Taivo (talk) 08:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This article is about Telugu Language and not about "linguistic science". Nagarjuna198 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC).

I think it's reasonable to note that Telugu more accurately reflects the pronunciation of Sanskrit than Hindi and Bengali do (assuming that it's true). I tried wording it in such a way as to retain the word 'retain' without making it misleading, but got reverted. Oh well, it's probably not an important point. — kwami (talk) 11:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, that, if true, it's worthy of briefly noting. I still want to avoid the use of  "retain" and "retention" since these do imply a genetic relationship in linguistic circles.  I collapsed the two paragraphs that said virtually the same thing and streamlined the prose to be more linguistically accurate.  Sanskrit did not "pronounce" those Telugu alphasyllabic characters, since Sanskrit was not written with that character set.  Saying that Telugu borrowed some of these sounds that were lost in later Indic languages is fine, but the reader can examine the sources for more detail.  --Taivo (talk) 12:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This article is about Telugu Language and not about "linguistic science". Some linguists might not use word "Retained" but normal english speakers do. This is not a technical article. Also the context in which it was mentioned perfectly makes sense. Please stop arguing Nagarjuna198 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 23:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC).

Any article about languages in Wikipedia must follow the norms of linguistic science. To do otherwise is unencyclopedic and wrong. It's like writing an article on gravity, but ignoring physics. You are simply wrong that linguistic science shouldn't underlie a language article, Nagarjuna. --Taivo (talk) 01:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I dont agree with your lame examples. Retention in this context is legal Nagarjuna198 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC).
 * It is becoming quite clear that you have no interest in constructively editing this article and your only interest is in pushing your nationalistic, unscientific, non-linguistic agenda about the melodious nature of Telugu. Go write a blog.  Your non-science isn't appropriate here.  If you want to promote a scientific understanding of language, then fine, but that's far from what you're doing right now.  --Taivo (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * your Telugu knowledge is limited. You must be some fanatic Tamilian. Also you dont know what you are talking. I changed it to "borrowed" as per discussion with kwami. I dont understand the reason for your crying.Nagarjuna198 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 16:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC).

Consonant chart
The consonant chart was inaccurate and written in Telugu. This is the English Wikipedia and scientific descriptions and labels on charts such as that one must be in English. I corrected the phonetic descriptions for the most part and removed the Telugu ĩterms, leaving the English wikilinks in place. --Taivo (talk) 12:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * consonant chart is fine. I think you are talking about Phonetic chart.Nagarjuna198 (talk)
 * But this is about Telugu language. So, readers should also know what its called in Telugu. Its redirecting to the appropriate link for English readers. You find problem with everything. You are seriously messing up the article. Whats the problem in having Telugu and English terms?Nagarjuna198 (talk)


 * Having Telugu terms is fine, but they should be parenthetical. Readers shouldn't be asked to navigate in Telugu. — kwami (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. I agree...Nagarjuna198 (talk)
 * In most cases we just have English. But there are several articles where we do give both. Usually these are languages which have large numbers of speakers or are culturally important, so that a reader might expect to come across native terms. I suspect this is the case for Telugu too. — kwami (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Having both is cumbersome in my view, but I can live with it as long as the Telugu terms follow the English ones and are parenthesized. --Taivo (talk) 01:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Usually we don't put them in tables, where they'd cause clutter, but in the text. E.g., "Telugu phonological tradition recognizes four manners: A (a), B (b), ..." — kwami (talk) 03:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Works for me. --Taivo (talk) 05:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Languages are not "musical"
There are two issues being discussed here, so I'm separating them out.
 * "Retention" is a technical term used by linguists for a structure retained from an ancestor language. It is not used for structures borrowed from another language.
 * Dont agree with you. The context in which it was mentioned makes sense.Nagarjuna198 (talk)


 * "Musical" or "mellifluous" or "melodic" are not scientific terms used by linguists to describe languages and are not appropriate in a scientific context.
 * I agree with you. You can go ahead and delete this stuff.Nagarjuna198 (talk)

"Retention" has been replaced by "borrowing" in the text to make it linguistically accurate. This should not be an issue for further wrangling. On the other issue, it is quite common for non-linguists, especially linguistically unsophisticated people involved in literature or creative writing, to describe languages in non-linguistic terms such as "musical", "rough", "harsh", "sweet", etc. Indeed, one can choose virtually any English adjective and find it applied to some language or other. But there is no linguistically based definition of any of these common, unscientific terms so they have no place in Wikipedia. Wikipedia's language articles are based on science, not upon the flights of fancy of creative writers or pushers of some nationalistic agenda. Yes, it's possible to find unscientific sources that use such terms, but there is no scientific definition of any of these and linguists simply do not use them. One can choose virtually any English adjective and find some writer who knows nothing of linguistics using it to describe some one or more of the world's languages. But it's not science and such unsophisticated descriptions have no place here. Remember that a reliable source in one context is not necessarily a reliable source in another context. --Taivo (talk) 09:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Nagarjuna, instead of getting drones to do your dirty work for you, just prove here that "musical" has a linguistic definition used by real linguists, such as world-renowned Telugu and Dravidian specialist B. Krishnamurti. Show me what the proper linguistic definition of "musical" is with a proper reference to a linguistics textbook, dictionary, or handbook on linguistics and you might have a valid point.  But short of a precise linguistic definition for "musical", that is used by linguists in reliable scientific sources, you don't have an argument for including that impressionistic, nationalistic drivel here in Wikipedia.  German has been called "harsh", the Native American languages have been called "savage grunts", the languages of Australia have been likened to bird calls.  But none of these are appropriate scientific descriptions in Wikipedia.  Calling Telugu "musical" falls into precisely the same category of non-scientific hyperbole.  The references you use for these comments are not even linguistic.  They are 19th century travelogues and political essays!!!  Come on, Nagarjuna, are you seriously trying to call that linguistic science?  That's like citing a complaint about the price of gas as an example of an economic theory.  --Taivo (talk) 13:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I Agree with you about musical/sweet being non-linguistic. I dont agree with you on rentention.Nagarjuna198 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC).
 * "Retention: Any linguistic material (word, sound, construction) that has not been lost or replaced since the proto-language or since some designated earlier period in the history of the language."  (Lyle Campbell & Mauricio J. Mixco.  2007.  A Glossary of Historical Linguistics (University of Utah Press, pg. 172).  So, in other words, you can say, "Telugu has retained X from Proto-Dravidian" or "Modern Telugu has retained X from Old Telugu", but you cannot say "Telugu has retained X from Sanskrit" because Telugu is not descended from Sanskrit and Sanskrit is not an older form of Telugu.  You cannot use "retention" across genetic branches, but only following a single branch.  This should put an end to your non-linguistically based assertions.  The paragraph is perfectly accurate when describing borrowing, but is a linguistic falsehood when written with "retained".  --Taivo (talk) 01:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I dont agree with you on this also I cant argue with you more. You cannot delete the whole paragraph. I Changed it to barrowed.Nagarjuna198 (talk)
 * Perhaps you actually need to read what I did. I did NOT delete the paragraph.  I simply collapsed the two paragraphs that related to Sanskrit borrowings into one.  The comment about the old sounds is still there.  Please put on your glasses and actually read before blindly reverting.  And I have provided you with a perfectly appropriate quote and reference to the meaning of "retention" in a linguistic context.  It shows that the use of "retention" in your context is inappropriate.  You either follow the meanings of the scientific terms you want to use or you don't use them.  It's crystal clear.  At this point, you are simply being stubborn and unwilling to work with the editors who actually know the scientific literature and linguistic practice on this issue.  --Taivo (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @Taivo: cut the crap. You dont know what you are talking about. I changed it to borrowed. Now stop crying.Nagarjuna198 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC).
 * Actually, the only "crap" in this discussion is the non-science that you keep wanting to add to the article. "Telugu is like Italian" is not acceptable information in a scientific linguistic article in any way shape or form.  There is absolutely no scientific basis on which that comment is based.  It is a 19th century traveller's uninformed musing.  Telugu is structurally, lexically, and phonetically different than Italian.  Indeed, in a linguistic sense, only Italian is Italian.  Keep that garbage out of the article.  Period.  --Taivo (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Taivo: Assumption of good faith ends here
@Taivo: You are systematically removing the information from the article. Assumption of good faith ends here. I am not going to discuss with you anymore. You should stop screwing with the article.Nagarjuna198 (talk) 16:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Nagarjuna, but 1) You accepted the change of "retention" to "borrowing"--good for you--but then when I combined the two paragraphs containing borrowing information into one paragraph, you neglected to actually READ the new paragraph to see that everything was still there. READ the damn paragraph before you accuse me of deleting anything.  2) This is the English Wikipedia, so Telugu grammatical terms are inappropriate except in parentheses after the proper English terms.  You agreed to this (above) and then went and removed the English terms and replaced them with inappropriate Telugu terms again.  This is the English Wikipedia.  3)  At least you haven't tried to re-add that "musical" language idiocy that you advocated for so long.  Good for admitting your error in one place.  It's clear that you 1) agree to things that you either don't understand or don't have any intention of keeping your agreement to and 2) don't read the changes and simply assume that something has been changed to oppose you.  --Taivo (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And, Nagarjuna, you never did assume good faith with either kwami or myself. Just look at the edit summaries over the last week where you continually label our edits as "vandalism".  That isn't "assuming good faith" so just stop the sanctimonious crap.  You are editing unscientifically, non-linguistically and have no understanding of the function of the English Wikipedia.  Go to the Telugu Wikipedia if you want to continue your non-science discussion of Telugu as something other than an average human language subject to the science of linguistics and being described appropriately.  --Taivo (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, it would be a better idea not to. POV pushing about Telugu wouldn't be any more appropriate on Telugu Wikipedia than it is here. Linguistic Science (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @Linguistic Science: You can get the hell out of here. Everyone knows that you are sock puppet of Taivo. there is no point making noise here as nothing is gonna change.Nagarjuna198 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC).
 * Point taken :) --Taivo (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet of Taivo, and don't appreciate the personal attacks. I don't always agree with Taivo, but he is right on the content issues here, and deserves credit for persevering despite the abuse by Nagarjuna. Linguistic Science (talk) 07:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Only Italian is "Italian"
I removed that non-linguistic, unscientific baloney about how one 16th century traveller thought Telugu sounded like Italian. It has no more meaning that saying Telugu is the Navajo of South India. It is simply pointless grandstanding without any scientific or even descriptive merit. Telugu is structurally different, lexically different, semantically different, and phonetically different than Italian in major ways. It is not related to Italian in any way. With more differences than similarities, it is impossible to say that Telugu is anything like Italian at all and that comment has no place in Wikipedia or any other scientific article, unless it's an article about stupid things people say about languages. --Taivo (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Taivo, you are clearly right about the content issues here, but it's best to keep things relevant. Statements like, "Telugu is not related to Italian in any way" are unprovable (as there's no scientifically agreed upon way of showing that any two given languages cannot be related, however remotely) and irrelevant. If absolutely necessary, I shall support you through reverting Nagarjuna (though I would infinitely prefer not to have to), but please keep the talk page ranting under control. Linguistic Science (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @Taivo: Congrats on getting your sock Linguistic Science to add weight to your foolishness. Nagarjuna198 (talk)
 * Thank you, Linguistic Science. My frustration level sometimes gets the better of me.  --Taivo (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * @Taivo :Telugu was called the Italian of the East by Italian explorer Niccolò Da Conti. He coined the phrase in 15th century when he visited Vijayanagara empire during the reign of Vira Vijaya Bukka Raya in 1520s. Its not mentioned to push the point of view that Telugu and Italian are related(Its mentioned to give an idea how much people respected Telugu).Dumb people like you cannot understand. Your senseless editing is very frustrating. Now you got one more Sockpuppet Linguistic Science . Have fun guys.Taivo and his sock Linguistic Science will soon get banned from wikipedia.Nagarjuna198 (talk)
 * Nagarjuna, it's so sad that you fail to understand what is going on here. If you think that Linguistic Science is my sock puppet, then please file a report.  I think you can find the link at WP:SOCK or somewhere similar.  Please file that report.  I'd simply love to see you embarrassed more than you are already embarrassing yourself.  1) Telugu is not similar to Italian and the 15th century comment of a non-linguist is not relevant here.  The "respect" given to Telugu 500 years ago by an uneducated Italian is immaterial.  Period.  2) Your unexplained reversions of my reordering of the article to improve its flow is simply a case of your ignorant stubbornness coming through.  --Taivo (talk) 02:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Nagarjuna, here's the link where to submit a sock puppet investigation request. Don't throw around innuendos here unless you've got the courage to follow through on your threats.  If you're sure that User:Linguistic Science and is my sock puppet, then file a request for an investigation, I dare you.  I know the result already because s/he's not my sock, but if you don't know, then shut up.  --Taivo (talk) 03:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to absolutely clear why the "Italian of the East" comment is completely irrelevant here: 1) It is from the 15th century, written by a non-linguist traveller; 2) It is not factual, since Italian and Telugu differ radically in grammar, phonology, and lexicon; 3) There is no scientific basis for saying that any language other than Italian is "Italian"; 4) It provides absolutely no benefit to the article or its topic; 5) It violates WP:PEACOCK.  --Taivo (talk) 04:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Summary of the edits that Nagarjuna is reverting

 * Combined two single-sentence paragraphs in lead that both dealt with borrowing from Sanskrit. Nagarjuna keeps making them separate without reason.
 * Moved Dialects section up next to Geographic Distribution where it more logically belongs. Nagarjuna moves it back without reason.
 * Moved Alphabet section out of Phonology and next to Writing System where it more logically belongs. Nagarjuna moves it back without reason.
 * Removed Telugu labels from Consonant chart and replaced them with English labels since this is the English Wikipedia. Nagarjuna keeps replacing the Telugu labels and removing the English ones without reason.  Indeed, he had agreed to using the English labels above, but then failed to keep his agreement.
 * Removed unscientific comment from the 15th century by a non-linguist Italian tourist in South India. Nagarjuna keeps replacing the comment as somehow relevant to Modern Telugu and its description.  --Taivo (talk) 03:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Nagarjuna purposely inserted bad English grammar and reverting my corrections: "It is also influenced by Urdu around Hyderabad region".  In English either 1) "the" is required before "Hyderabad" or 2) "region" must be removed.  Nagarjuna has rejected both corrections without comment.
 * Nagarjuna wrote: "The belove table gives a view upon articulation of consonants in Telugu" which has multiple English grammar and spelling errors, but Nagarjuna has reverted my corrections. --Taivo (talk) 04:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism
@Taivo (talk) No matter how much you try to vandalize the article, you cannot not your point of view. Truth will stand test of time and prove you wrong. wait and watch.Nagarjuna198 (talk)
 * I'm shaking in my boots. User:Maunus has already warned you about what is and is not vandalism.  You have clearly not heeded his advice and read that policy.  You have also not followed through on your threats to report User:Linguistic Science as my sock puppet.  --Taivo (talk) 04:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not see how Italian of the east comment is being censored. It is widely accepted. And TO SOME THICKHEADS, that does NOT MEAN TELUGU AND ITALIAN ARE RELATED. Foodie 377 (talk) 04:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

SERIOUSLY TIME FOR FRESH EYES AS TALKS HAVE BROKEN DOWN
Let us all of us compromise and invite fresh eyes instead of losing our civility.NO MORE VANDALISM FROM TAIVO UNTIL FRESH EYES HAVE A LOOK. Please respect this. Otherwise this is degrading into a cheap battle. Foodie 377 (talk) 04:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to read the definition of vandalism. --Taivo (talk) 04:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Enough of this. Let us invite all linguistic gurus of WP and see if it warrants removing all the stuff that you are blatantly removing from the article. Foodie 377 (talk) 04:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Subjective judgments by non-linguists about the aesthetic qualities of a language does not belong in the description of a languages phonology. It probably does not belong in an encyclopedic article at all. Foodie needs to turn down the rhetorics or he will be blocked soon for personal attacks like Nagarjuna.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * All I am saying is that by showing that Telugu was known as Italian of the east, it gives more insight to the reader about Telugu and how it sounds. No one is claiming Telugu and Italian are related Foodie 377 (talk) 04:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't give information about how it sounds - it gives information about how one guy thought it sounded. It is a subjective non-scientific judgment it doesn't belong in a scientifically based article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes sure it is a subjective view. It is mentioned in the article. Readers can read that and figure out that it is a subjective view and not by the 'worldwide linguistic expert association'. SO?. Why does it have to be removed? It would be wrong if we are claiming that Telugu is italian of east was said by worldwide linguits association. But we are not. we are clearly stating that it was said by a Italian explorer. The only reason some people want to it to be removed is because they have narrow minded thinking which makes them think that this statement is making Telugu look better and these cockblockers cannot stand it. You cannot do much about cockblockers like Taivo and co. Foodie 377 (talk) 04:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Phonology is not about peoples subjective views. You are inserting something into a section where it doesn't belong. If you want to describe the history of western scholarship of the language then perhaps it would be relevant to present the opinion of one of the first europeans to describe it - as a historic curiosity. It is not about phonology at all. If you use a nother pejorative description of another editor I will you block you for violating NPA (I am assuming that the word "cockblocker" is pejorative).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I own up to my indiscretion. However you will note the incessant and overzealous editing by Taivo. You are talking in a professional tone which I appreciate and I will co operate . We are all reasonable here. I agree with you that this does not belong in the phonology section. Then I will present italian of the east reference as a historic curiosity. Please let me know whenever you are done with your clean up, I will do that then.Foodie 377 (talk) 04:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)Fascinating that you cannot seem to comment without insulting those who disagree with you. Should we include in the articles on Native American languages comments by 18th & 19th century travelers that those languages were just grunts and not real languages?  Shall we include in the articles on Arabic comments from 20th century racists that their language sounds evil?  The answer should be an emphatic "no" since they are all non-scientific, personal opinion without a basis in scientific fact.  We don't say languages are "musical" or "harsh" or "Italian" because these are non-scientific personal opinions that have no objective, scientific basis.  My daughter could hear Telugu and just as easily write "It sounds like two cars scraping the paint off a concrete barrier".  Should we include that comment if it gets published somewhere?  Certainly not.  But that comment stands on the same footing as one made by a 15th century Italian merchant.  Neither was made by a linguist.  Neither was made by applying objective scientific methodology.  Neither has a place in Wikipedia.  --Taivo (talk) 04:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Maunus, do not reinsert that last edit by Foodie since it was unscientific and even Nagarjuna agreed that it didn't belong in the article (see above on the section about "musical"). It is another of those pointless, unscientific, untestable personal opinions that was based on the "Italian of the East" comment that you agree should not be in this article.  --Taivo (talk) 04:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between you or your daughter giving an opinion and a Italian explorer. Either case I would submit that this belongs but not in phonology section as Manaus said. We submit that we will present it as a historical curiousity quote. Foodie 377 (talk) 05:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, Foodie, there's no difference at all, none whatsoever. We have two unsophisticated, unscientific personal opinions about what Telugu sounds like.  Which is more relevant?  Neither.  That's the whole point.  Personal opinion given by an unscientific non-linguistically trained individual has no merit and no place in an encyclopedia.  Why don't you also include a quote from someone who had a negative impression of the sound of Telugu.  If you want to include this, then you must also include every other personal opinion, positive or negative, that has ever been published about the sound of Telugu.  --Taivo (talk) 06:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ya sure, you go ahead and hunt for something negative said about Telugu and feel free to include it in the article. You have my full support. Foodie 377 (talk) 07:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * His point is that only including the positive violates WP:NPOV. I myself don't have any objection assuming that the characterization is notable. I just have no way of determining whether it actually is notable. Which actually comes down to about the same thing as Taivo: if it's commonly called "the Italian of India", and not commonly called anything else, then mentioning only the Italian bit would be fine. If, however, it's only one Italian traveler who called it that, then that's not in the least notable. — kwami (talk) 07:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So, Foodie, let's see you add these comments about Hindi and Tamil to those pages if you think nonlinguistic personal opinion is relevant to the Telugu page. However, apparently that "Italian of the East" label was used at least until the 19th century by the British.  So, as a compromise, I won't object to the comment being placed once in an appropriate place down in the history section, but not in the phonology section and not in the lead.  You also don't need 5 references to it, especially since nothing else has so many references.  One good one will be enough.  But the comment about Telugu being "musical" stays out.  --Taivo (talk) 09:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @Taivo: Is that your blog? Please stop posting crap from your blogs and contaminate this page.Nagarjuna198 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC).


 * @Taivo: Enough of your CRAP about being "Scientific". You should understand Linguistic Study is based on "Hypothesis". Everyone need not accept Linguistics Study and its assumptions. So Subjective views also should be allowed. Readers are smart and they can decide for themselves.Nagarjuna198 (talk)
 * views are included when they are notable. Articles about languages are based on the science of linguistics and its assumptions.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I know Articles about languages are based on the science of linguistics and its assumptions. I am only saying we should use notable subjective views whenever needed.Nagarjuna198 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 15:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC).

Telugu does not "preserve" and Sanskrit did not "pronounce"
Nagarjuna, we established a stable text after you were blocked for edit warring. Your two edits are just as unacceptable as they were before. 1) Telugu borrowed forms from Sanskrit, so "preserving" is just as bad as "retaining". It didn't "preserve" anything, it simply borrowed forms from Sanskrit.  2) Sanskrit did not "pronounce" Telugu letters. That's just an utterly ridiculous and non-linguistic statement to make. Sanskrit wasn't written in Telugu letters and a language doesn't "pronounce" anything--speakers pronounce things and the letters of an alphabet represent either the phonemes of the language or the phones. There is no relationship between the letters of the alphabet and how speakers pronounce the phones of their language. --Taivo (talk) 04:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The wording as it stands says exactly what Nagarjuna wants it to say, but in a scientific, linguistically accurate way. The words that Nagarjuna wants to add simply do not make linguistic sense.  As said above a dozen times, the wording of this article must reflect common, scientifically accurate, linguistic usage.  The article already states the facts accurately--Telugu borrowed features from Sanskrit that have been lost in its daughters including the pronunciation of some vowels and consonants.  That garbage about "preserving" and "Sanskrit pronounced Telugu letters" is just simplistic, inaccurate and non-linguistic drivel.  --Taivo (talk) 04:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @Taivo: You dont make any sense and becoming more Fanatic Day-By-Day. Nagarjuna198 (talk)
 * @Taivo: TELUGU preserves several borrowed features of Sanskrit that have been lost even in north-Indian Sanskrit-based languages. PERIOD. Ask anybody to check that.Nagarjuna198 (talk)
 * @Taivo: I was only compromising with "Italian of the east thing" because I was scared that you will induce more of your "Self proclaimed Scientific Crap". we know you came here with an agenda. Please stop atleast now.Nagarjuna198 (talk)
 * Nagarjuna, my only agenda is to make this article conform to the standards of scientific linguistics, which is the basis of all the language articles on Wikipedia. The sentence as it now stands (my wording) contains all the content that you want it to contain (sounds were borrowed from Sanskrit), but without your unscientific and linguistically naive drivel about Sanskrit pronouncing Telugu letters.  You have become blinded to the discussion because we have made your words conform to proper linguistic usage.  This is really not a content dispute (since the content is identical), it is your pride that has been wounded because you refuse to accept that your wording was linguistically unacceptable.  --Taivo (talk) 12:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You also need to review the history of this discussion, Nagarjuna. The "Italian of the East" comment had been tied into all kinds of non-linguistic, unscientific garbage about musicality and had been placed in the lead.  When it was clearly separated from the unscientific crap about musicality, when evidence was shown that the phrase was used later than just the initial 15th century travelogue, and when it was agreed that it didn't belong in the lead, then I dropped my objections and the sentence was appropriately phrased and placed in an appropriate place in the article.  --Taivo (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * From my viewpoint you are both right. It is relevant to mention Sanskrit influence in Telugu, but Taivo's wording is more linguistically apt. I don't think it is helpful for anyone to accuse other editors at having "agendas" especially without any evidence for what such an agenda might be. Calling someone ""fanatic" is a breach of the WP:NPA. The word "crap" also appears in this threa more times than I care to count - it also isn't conducive to civil discussion. I think the wording "preserve" can be alright if it is in fact features that have been lost in contemporary Indic languages. To include it would require some examples taken from reliable secondary sources. So I am asking you Nagarjuna to check that - preferably in a well known English language source, that we also have a chance to read. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This sentence has been here for more than 6 months and is long standing and I dont understand why Taivo is hell-bent to change this.Nagarjuna198 (talk)
 * Because it is wrong?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We mentioned that Telugu has a strong Sanskrit Influence(Influence itself means 2 distinct families) . I do not see the rationale behind deleting the whole section especially when it is clearly mentioned that this theory is not conclusive. you are censoring WP:CENSOR. Telugu is the most Sanskritised language in India and its widely accepted in India. Though Dravidian in origin, Telugu uses more sanskrit vocabulary than other Sanskrit's daughter languages. No other language influenced Telugu like sanskrit. So, its worth mentioning about sanskrit influence on Telugu. More Importantly, word endings of Telugu uses "UM" "AU" which is only seen in pure Sanskrit. This is seen only in Telugu language with such regularity. For example, KINGDOM is called "SAMRAJYA" in Hindi, Bengali and all other Indian languages (it originated from Sanskrit word SAMRAJYAM). In Telugu, KINGDOM is called SAMRAJYAM just like in Sanskrit. H/T Foodie 377 .....-Nagarjuna198 (talk)
 * No influence does not mean to distinct families. Linguists are perfectly able to determine what is genetic heritance and what is borrowing. Your claims about Telugu using more "sanskrit vocabulary" than indic languages (which is what I suppose you mesn by sanskrit daughter languages) is unfounded. You would need to present a very reliable source to contradict the mainstream view. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So this ridiculous saga continues because of Taivo being anal. Ok MANAUS, you seem the mediator. So tell me Good Sir, What is wrong with this sentence? Telugu preserves several borrowed features of Sanskrit that have been lost even in north-Indian Sanskrit-based languages such as Hindi and Bengali, especially in terms of pronunciation of vowels and consonants. For instance, Telugu preserves the original Sanskrit pronunciation of అం This sentence belongs. Foodie 377 (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The source itself doesn't qualify as a reliable source -- it's a primary source, Master of Philosophy dissertation, not a secondary source. The article refers this to Chapter 2 of the thesis but I didn't find the relevant sentence on a cursory look (perhaps someone else can look deeper and check it out -- you can't search for it as the pdf is an image scan, not text). &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  15:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @ Spaceman : Thanks for warning me. Looks like my edits are not viewed as good faith edits. Moderators are biased towards Taivo. You could aswell have reversed the edits of Taivo until consensus is reached because my edits were long standing.Nagarjuna198 (talk)
 * @ Spaceman : Coming to your question about references, below are the Primary references used before but due to disruptive editing by "Self proclaimed linguists" they have got lost.


 * Chenchiah, P.; Rao, Raja Bhujanga (1988). A History of Telugu Literature. Asian Educational Services. p. 16. ISBN 8120603133.
 * [Upadhyaya, P.Surya Nath]. Comparative Linguistics of Telugu and Hindi including its Dialect Bhojpuri.
 * @·ʍaunus:What is wrong with this sentence? Telugu preserves several borrowed features of Sanskrit that have been lost even in north-Indian Sanskrit-based languages such as Hindi and Bengali, especially in terms of pronunciation of vowels and consonants. For instance, Telugu preserves the original Sanskrit pronunciation of అం. H/T Foodie 377 .....Nagarjuna198 (talk)
 * First it is not sourced to a reliable source, but to an unpublished thesis from the university where Nagarjuna198 has himself studied. Secondly linguistics do not operate with a category of "sanskrit-based" languages, and also doesn't really work by trying to compare which languages are more or less influenced by sanskrit. Such a comparison is basically futile and misguided from a linguistic viewpoint - such discussions are usually based on Indian national politics where speakers of different languages try to make their languages more prestiguous by claiming it to be "more original" or "purer" or "closer to the sanskrit scriptures" than others. This is nonsense from a scientific view. Wikipedia is not part of these political games and brings only the most mainstream linguistic facts to the table. These facts are that Telugu is a dravidian language which is influenced by sanskrit as are most other dravidian languages to differing extents. If you can find a reliable linguistic source claiming that telugu is more influenced by sanskrit than other dravidian languages that could be the basis for such a claim, otherwise no.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a TE expert, but agree with SpacemanSpiff about WP:RS concerns and Maunus/Taivo regarding wording/balance issues. Also, having some past acquaintence with both SA and TE, the stuff Nagarjuna198 and Foodie 377 are pushing about TE being SA-purest is wrong-headed distraction. Of course TE wears its SA influences on its sleeve--loanwords, Brahmi-style abugida, etc. But as has been pointed out, so do *all* other I-E and Dravidian langs, to various extents--extents whose relative magnitude and importance we as amateurs have no business weighing by ourselves.
 * I might opine that TE seems more Sanskritic in vocab than, say, Malayalam, but the job here is not to blather about what we view as "common sense", a curiously and conveniently labile construct, or to dig up questionable primary sources. This is just uselessly stupid regionalist casuistry; spend your excess energy fixing bread-and-butter issues and maybe later taking this to WP:FAC, rather than violating WP:NOR and WP:RS by violating scholarly consensus; the linguistic flavour of WP:SCUM does not obtain here ... yet. Saravask 01:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

SOV Example
The example raamudu badiki velthaadu given in the article doesn't seem right. Here 'badi' is really not an object (karma). A better example would be raamudu bantini thannaadu (Ramudu kicked the ball.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.23.255.223 (talk) 12:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Badi means school and it qualifies for an Object.Nagarjuna198 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC).
 * You both need to present a source for an example of an SOV sentence in Telugu. You cannot make up sentences yourselves, even if you're native speakers.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I dont have source but this is widely used example in Andhra Pradesh State syllabus high school books. Nagarjuna198 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC).
 * I am afraid we can't take your word for that.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

"the only literary Central Dravidian language"
The article says: "Telugu is the only literary Central Dravidian language".

I checked it in Ethnologue, and there are two issues with this statement:
 * 1) Ethnologue classifies it as "South-Central" and not as "Central".
 * 2) According to Ethnologue, there are other South-Central Dravidian languages in which there is written literature. It may only be Bible translations, although it is possible that there is more written material.

I propose to fix this:
 * 1) To change "Central" to "South-Central" throughout the article, unless there is other strong evidence that it is Central. (I am not an expert in Dravidian languages.)
 * 2) To write something like "Telugu is the only Central Dravidian language with fully-developed literature" or to remove this statement altogether. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Remove the statement altogether. It was probably placed there by a Telugu nationalist.  --Taivo (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Telugu is one of the big four Dravidian languages. We can note that it has had a well developed literature for centuries, but "the only" statements tend to hinge on assumptions that depend on particular sources. — kwami (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, i removed it.
 * Now what about the "Central Dravidian" sorting? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

SOV Example
The example raamudu badiki velthaadu given in the article doesn't seem right. Here 'badi' is really not an object (karma). A better example would be raamudu bantini thannaadu (Ramudu kicked the ball.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.23.255.223 (talk) 12:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Badi means school and it qualifies for an Object.Nagarjuna198 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC).
 * You both need to present a source for an example of an SOV sentence in Telugu. You cannot make up sentences yourselves, even if you're native speakers.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I dont have source but this is widely used example in Andhra Pradesh State syllabus high school books. Nagarjuna198 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC).
 * I am afraid we can't take your word for that.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

"the only literary Central Dravidian language"
The article says: "Telugu is the only literary Central Dravidian language".

I checked it in Ethnologue, and there are two issues with this statement:
 * 1) Ethnologue classifies it as "South-Central" and not as "Central".
 * 2) According to Ethnologue, there are other South-Central Dravidian languages in which there is written literature. It may only be Bible translations, although it is possible that there is more written material.

I propose to fix this:
 * 1) To change "Central" to "South-Central" throughout the article, unless there is other strong evidence that it is Central. (I am not an expert in Dravidian languages.)
 * 2) To write something like "Telugu is the only Central Dravidian language with fully-developed literature" or to remove this statement altogether. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Remove the statement altogether. It was probably placed there by a Telugu nationalist.  --Taivo (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Telugu is one of the big four Dravidian languages. We can note that it has had a well developed literature for centuries, but "the only" statements tend to hinge on assumptions that depend on particular sources. — kwami (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, i removed it.
 * Now what about the "Central Dravidian" sorting? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)