User talk:AreJay/Archive 1

''' THIS IS AN ARCHIVED USER_TALK PAGE. PLEASE DO NOT EDIT!'''

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:


 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type &#126;&#126;&#126; (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Hi AreJay,

The whole lot of information on dravidian race and languages, that you wrote on the article South India is to be included in the article Dravidian race and Dravidian languages.

The details of race and languages is to be discussed in the individual pages dealing with them. So I am deleting them from the South India page. Please add them at the respective pages of Dravidian race and Dravidian languages. Thanks for you contribution. keep writing.

here is what you wrote: (please add them at the proper pages)

The Race
The Dravidian race is the oldest existing race of humans to inhabit India. Where they came from and how they dispersed through out the subcontinent is a matter of debate, and most theories sadly, have been not convincing enough to elict a definitive theory on this race and its history in India.

Many accounts claim that the Dravidians were an indegenous race. Others, like Bernard Sergent's claim that this is a Afro-Uralic race and sees similarities in semantic and grammatical elements of Dravidian tongues to those in the Sahel belt, from the Sudan to Senegal. He believes that Dravidian tribes entered India from Africa about 10,000 years ago to herald in the Neolitic Revolution.

One of his hypotheses suggests that the inhabitants of the Indus Valley were non-Dravidian and that Dravidians had already penetrated South India by the time the Harappan civilization matured, which is also contradictory to the Aryan Invasion theory.

Dravidian Languages
Dravidian languages are a distinct branch of languages, whose origins have not been traced back to any of the major linguistic family branches. Modern Dravidian languages can be divided according to region.

National languages of India are in bold typeface.

South Dravidian Languages

Irula Tamil Malayalam Kodagu (Coorgie) Kota Toda Badaga Kannada Tulu

Central Dravidian Languages

Savara Telugu Gondi Konda Pengo Manda Kuri Kuvi Kolami Naiki Gadba Parji

North Dravidian Languages

Kurukh Malto Brahui

Sometime during the reign of Asoka (Third century BC), Tamil and Kannada developed into distinct idioms and the two cultures separated. A third major Dravidian entity called Telugu appeared in Andhra. The oldest inscriptions in Tamil date back to 250 BC -- the language's antiquity challenged only perhaps by Sanskrit. The earliest Kannada inscriptions may be dated to 450 AD. The earliest Telugu and Malayalam inscriptions date back to 650 AD and 900 AD respectively.

Please add them at the proper pages.

thanks Robin klein 18:44, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi AreJay,

You wrote that "....The genesis of language comes out of social organization of a race or a bunch of races. So I think more than languages, it is the race that bindes Dravidians...."

according to population geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, in primitive times language brought various small groups together and they later started exchanging genes. Hence one would find similar gene pool in regions with languages of common linguistic family. This is called as gene linguistic co-evolution. In genetic-Linguistic sciences it is language (communication) that brings together people. This is also the scientific basis on which the similarity of gene-pool of Indo-European language speaking people is genetically verified.

So it is not race that binds people, rather language brings people together and then they start sharing genes. Besides the claim that all South Indians are of the same racial stock is not gospel truth. The people in the malabarian coast have syrian, greek, arab, jewish and roman blood mixed with the local people for over thousands of years. What binds people is indeed language. Infering that race creates language would be an error of scientific proposition.

Kannada, Malayalam, Tamil, Telugu, Tulu amongst others are different languages of the same language family. So the people in South India are more connected by language than by race. Besides if one goes by race other than being scientifically inaccurate, it would also imply that dravidian groups and tribes spread out across the Indian sub-continent are all South Indians, which is not so. Robin klein 21:55, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Nair social structure is a classic matriarchal system in south India. Besides the researcher Chantal Boulanger considers the ethos of South India as essentially feminity-motherhood. Robin klein 22:13, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

you wrote

"While your quoting Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza might definately be valid, I doubt that he specifically analyzed the migratory and linguistic patterns of the Dravidian race. He might have been talking in general terms, as opposed to constructing a definative, all encompassing theory."

South Indians are of common origin but to say all dravidians are south indians is not proper.

you wrote:

"The Syrians, Jews, etc did come to the Malabar coast, but I find it hard to believe that these people did not "exchange genes" with the locals. This means that there is definately a Dravidian majority in the region."

They sure did mix their blood with the locals and thats the reason why one cannot claim that all south Indians are dravidians. True one would find a greater percentage of people of dravidian gene-pool in South India. but that cannot justify a statement which says they are all united be race. but ofcourse they are all united by a common language family.

The term Matriarchy was not used to designate the overall social structure. Instead the term used in the South India article was ......their weltanschauung (worldview) is matriarchal in conception..... meaning they might be partiarchal in their social structure but women do have a high status than other societies.

I think the high status of women in south indian culture is indeed a hallmark of south india. and may be one could drop the word matriarchal all together and use an expression femininity-motherhood. Besides a large bibliography at the end of the article was given as works that explained these ideas. please go through the entire bibliography. Robin klein 03:18, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi AreJay,

I got your point that it is essential to add the point that south indians are predominantly dravidians. I have done so. I thought you were intending to state that they were exclusively of one particular stock. I apologize my error. please keep writing. thanks.Robin klein 15:48, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi AreJay,

Thanks for the etymological explanation of the two terms 'Karnataka' and 'Carnatic'. Can you please add this important note on the carnatic music page on the wikipedia. People are confused as to why carnatic music is called carnatic. Your explanation of the etymological differences of the two distinct but similar sounding terms would be very valuable. thanks. Robin klein 18:22, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi AreJay,

I think the edit by Kaysov was to list the names of states and languages in an alphabetical order and thereby not giving any biased preferences to any states or languages to be listed first. eg. Tamil Nadu that is first on the list of states in the article, would be last because andhra pradesh begins with A and Tamil Nadu with T. If that is the purpose then I think we need to stick to it. Robin klein 20:24, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

hi arejay,

We're using your bangalore image for kannada wikipedia. Just thought did leave ya a message. The copyright message says we can use it. :)

the link
here's where w've used it: http://kn.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B2%AC%E0%B3%86%E0%B2%82%E0%B2%97%E0%B2%B3%E0%B3%82%E0%B2%B0%E0%B3%81

Largest city of UAE
I don't see anything here that states what the largest city of the UAE is. I think the largest EMIRATE is Abu Fhabi, but I'm not sure. WhisperToMe 02:16, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps we can include Largest Emirate and largest city. WhisperToMe 07:16, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)