Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanskrit Shares Tamil Substrate


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Delete. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    On Belay!  06:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sanskrit Shares Tamil Substrate

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This page is almost 100% original research without attribution, only of use to those who are familiar with the linguistic study of these two languages. Prod removed by author. JuJube 00:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC) The article is paradigm study on linguistics which has vibrant research ongoing i have set an external link to the site as well.I would request u to contact me for any queries @ vraghavan26@yahoo.com. I would like this to be screen page for those interested to go further deep into the area of research in such or similar linguistic study. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vraghavan26 (talk • contribs) Please do visit this page in Wiki which is related:
 * Delete Fails WP:OR. Furthermore, although this is not of itself a deletion criterion, it is virtually incomprehensible to anyone without a training in linguistics.--Anthony.bradbury 00:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Even the author admits that it is OR. Mr.Z-man  talk  ¢  Review! 01:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm struggling to understand what you're saying but if I get the gist of it, I'm afraid I'll have to tell you that such an article is inappropriate for mainspace. Consider putting it on your userspace. JuJube 02:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. original research, and virtually incomprehensible (certainly, unencyclopedic style) --Miskwito 02:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed to speedy delete as patent nonsense. --Miskwito 05:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Frankly, I'm not sure that someone with a degree in linguistics could make much more sense out of this page.  It seems to be proposing Tamil etymologies for a variety of Sanskrit words, which is something different from a substrate in linguistics. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not only OR but bordering on nonsensical.  Tzinacan 00:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substratum_in_Vedic_Sanskrit

'''Please mail me if u have specific query just before u intend to delete now i am yet building the page.  vraghavan26@yahoo.com''' Substratum, in linguistics, a language that influences but is supplanted by a second language. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substratum '''There is no substratum language influence of sanskrit towards any dravidian languages except word borrowings whereas Tamil has influenced heavily on the root and stem of Sanskrit .Infact this makes me and many other linguist feel that Sanskrit is the varient of Tamil/Dravidian or proto-X languages.I have gone further to prove Sk did not evolve from any dialect but set as a high definition language of communication established in mantra and tantra text for divine communication and propitiation elsewhere in my discussions. It is really disgusting to watch some comments above that this is non-sensical without a serious debate with me .It shows the poor knowledge of the moderators.Since the topic is on linguistics some linguist should deal this issue in the spirit of equity.'''


 * Would you like a link to this AfD to be posted on, say, the talk page of WikiProject Linguistics or Linguistics, to encourage Wikipedia's linguists to weigh in? Speaking as someone who's relatively knowledgeable about linguistics, I can assure you that the discussion will not go any more in your favor. But as you wish --Miskwito 01:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do give it a chance.I am not hurting anyone here but i am being hurt and repeatedly by words.If u link please tell me where should i click on to see the views and debate on further if required to hold the article. I would accept higher level discussion in the area and Topic please show me the link where this topic will be posted---Let the topic get its due share in justice. '''Infact what i am discussing in the article is just not simple etymology or word matching i have tried re-discover entire syllable system that is truely an indian experience which could have parted its way into middle-east and europe and probably an out-of-india theory.The structure of word formation in sanskrit from its base language the purpose of the same is taken up.Remember Lord Krishna in Bhagvat Geetha declares he is Sawman  among vedas .I believe there is specific reason for this when compared to the statement made by the author in TOL about syllable elongation and higher order clusters and categorising it as Isai(Sawma)Tamil. The examples are only Indicative and a whole lot of words can just be picked and using the methodology retrieved as Tamil and this exercise is on .This article will serve as a eye-opener to those in the field of Tamil-SK research.'''


 * "i have tried [to] rediscover..." - so you're performing original research? Unfortunately, original research is not permitted on Wikipedia; you have to back up what you write in articles using reliable, independent, published sources. --Miskwito 03:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Rediscover is nothing but discovering what is already accepted/partially accepted/critiqued.It is a building process Bold textthrough paradigm induction .There no question of invention here it is only a study process and scientific evolution.Science itself evolves and has no perfection.As Einstein puts in time and space theory.Orginal is nothing but conjeture evolving into perception with a group supporting it and stands alone as accepted in the world for a time period or coexist with diametrically opposite view and even exception.Quoting some accepted principles presupposes some group with like minded supporting an argument.Such support is had from the linguist i referred in the group external link i have given at the bottom of the page.Also wiki has an article on sanskrit substrate the link i had given at the top of the page where there are various authors with diametrically opposite views.Encyclo can be more meaningful if it accomodates ringside views as well rather than majoritarian views.What is an accepted may not be orginal at a point in time or across spaces.
 * This is a serious discussion. Please refrain from doubletalk and newspeak. JuJube 03:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sir,I couldnt get u here is it addressed to me?please state the context.Thanx
 * Regards
 * RV


 * Delete or userfy. This is original research, and no matter how useful it is original research does not belong on Wikipedia. -- Charlene 07:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Include:Students and Professors like in this article will benefit and appreciate the explanation.  http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S17/25/90I16/index.xml?section=topstories.As like in this article, author explains the etymologies differently . Thanks for reading the link. . My name is Sridharan Jagadeesan. I read a lot in wikipedia on any topic.
 * There is absolutely nothing in that link that has any relevance to Tamil, Sanskrit, substrate languages, or the etymology of Sanskrit words. It's just an article in Princeton's newspaper about a professor, specializing in comparative linguistics and the Classics, who makes his students enthusiastic about linguistics. I'd also like some clarification: are you the same person as the creator of the article, or are you someone else? --Miskwito 04:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I did forgot to mention in the princeton professors article, pls click the link "joshua katz", there you will find that his latest interest is in "Sanskrit " eytimology.


 * Here is the brief:


 * Professor Katz is a linguist by training, a Classicist by profession, and a comparative philologist at heart. He is particularly interested in etymology, which he views as part of the history of ideas.  In addition to his wide-ranging Harvard dissertation, Topics in Indo-European Personal Pronouns, he is the author of numerous articles on literary, linguistic, and cultural subjects, ranging from Hesiod to Catullus, from Tocharian phonology to Hittite morphology, and from Greek badgers to Roman testicles.  He counts among his honors the President's Distinguished Teaching Award (2003).


 * Recent work includes '"Sanskrit sphij-/sphigí:- and Greek phíkis"' (in A. Hyllested et al., eds., Per aspera ad asteriscos: Studia Indogermanica in honorem Jens Elmegård Rasmussen sexagenarii Idibus Martiis anno MMIV [Innsbruck 2004], pp. 277-84); "The 'Swimming Duck' in Greek and Hittite" (in J. H. W. Penney, ed., Indo-European Perspectives: Studies in Honour of Anna Morpurgo Davies [Oxford 2004], pp. 195-216); "The Indo-European Context" (in J. M. Foley, ed., A Companion to Ancient Epic [Malden, MA 2005], pp. 20-30); "To Turn a Blind Eel" (in K. Jones-Bley et al., eds., Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, Los Angeles, November 5-6, 2004 [Washington, D.C. 2005], pp. 259-96); "Reconstruction, Cultural" (in K. Brown, ed., Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, 2nd ed. [Amsterdam 2006], vol. 10, pp. 389-93); "The Riddle of the sp(h)ij-: The Greek Sphinx and her Indic and Indo-European Background" (in G.-J. Pinault & D. Petit, eds., La Langue poétique indo-européenne: actes du Colloque de travail de la Société des Études Indo-Européennes (Indogermanische Gesellschaft/Society for Indo-European Studies), Paris, 22-24 octobre 2003 [Louvain 2006], pp. 157-94); "Erotic Hardening and Softening in Vergil's Eighth Eclogue" (with Katharina Volk, Classical Quarterly 56 [2006], 169-74); "The '"Urbi et Orbi"-Rule' Revisited" (Journal of Indo-European Studies 34 [2006], 319-61); "What Linguists are Good for" (Classical World 100 [2007], 99-112); "The Origin of the Greek Pluperfect" (Die Sprache, in press); "On the Regularity of Nasal Dissimilation in Anatolian" (in press in a Festschrift); and "The Development of *sm in Hittite" (in press in a Festschrift).


 * I am some one else.
 * No one is disputing that there are scholars researching etymology and Sanskrit (although I didn't realize Katz was one of them, so thanks for pointing me to the link). But that doesn't really mean anything, because this article we're discussin is on, as far as I can tell, Sanskrit and Tamil being related in some way (though it's hard to tell what the article is saying). This is not an accepted view among specialists and linguists; if you wanted to include it in Wikipedia, you'd have to back it up with sources--sourced that directly relate to the specific topic of Sanskrit's relation to Tamil. You'd also need to cite sources for the examples given in the article to illustrate or defend that point. Right now the article reads like pure original research--like the article is the forum where someone is writing a paper to defend a view they've come to on their own. There's nothing wrong with conducting original research, of course, but Wikipedia is not the place for it, and unless you can show that the article is not original research, it doesn't belong here. --Miskwito 20:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

There are so many books and authors who support the view that Sanskrit is related to Tamil and some that suggest that it emanates from Tamil or its Proto-X language.If Wiki is suggesting that the thesis needs to be accepted by wiki recognised panelist then well it is another matter.Even the fact that Sanskrit is Indo-european is questioned by some authors leave alone its linking with Tamil.I have also given a link here which is suggestive of contradictory views in the area.The debate at the national and international arena is on.My work here is only carrying the opinion held in a logical manner and furthering such original works and opinions.I still strongly feel wiki should retain the article if needed with appropriate Tag suggesting that it is view of the author or the like
 * Then cite some. From reliable, published sources, cite evidence to (1) back up the specific claims of the theory being made in the article and (2) demonstrate that this is a view held by more than a handful of fringe theorists. For every one example of a scholar who believes Sanskrit is not Indo-European, but instead Dravidian and related to Tamil--and has written this in a reliable, published work--I'll give you fifty who would say that view is lunatic, and who could back their claims up with centuries of accumulated historical linguistic evidence. I doubt many of them would even be aware that this theory you're pushing even existed. So provide actual citations from reliable published sources to back up the claims made in the article, and, furthermore, to demonstrate the notability of the theory. The fact that some people believe it isn't enough to establish its notability, there needs to be evidence that a large number of people are aware that the theory even exists. I'm not sure why I'm still arguing, though. This clearly qualifies for speedy deletion... --Miskwito 05:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I think I see what you're saying...you're comparing the enthusiasm the professor inspires in his students with his novel approach to the enthusiasm this article will doubtless inspire in laymen reading Wikipedia with its novel approach...a novel approach consisting of original research, unsubstantiated/unreferenced claims, dense linguistic terminology, and incomprehensible broken English, all poorly-formated? I don't mean to be insulting here, but if no one is even able to read the article, it won't do much good at educating them. Even if that weren't the case, of course, it's still original research, and thus inappropriate for Wikipedia, whether it's true or not. --Miskwito 04:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No,. What I indicated through the Princeton University Press releases/articles here is that this article needs higher level (linguistics) discussion/attention of people link Johusha katz . Readers, needs innovative apporach, especially in contrast and commparable views. How do you all say it is Original ? I am learning.


 * Speedy delete It is best described by a not very nice word trash. Presence of such nonsense on WP lowers its quality as a scientific resource Al-Bargit 13:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If one doesnt understand a particular subject/object there are 2 ways he/she expresses it 1.Pray(worship) 2.Trash. But a person who do not understand it but tries to get into it starts with a positive note.I hope good sense will prevail.

Below is an extract though out of context here it would be better readers know prima-facie on what we are discussing .The Only Living Classical language of the world.

This is How Professor George Hart(Professor of Tamil at the University of California, Berkeley, since 1975 currently holder of the Tamil Chair at that institution. ) had to lament " It seems strange to me that I should have to write an essay such as this claiming that Tamil is a classical literature -- it is akin to claiming that India is a great country or Hinduism is one of the world's great religions. The status of Tamil as one of the great classical languages of the world is something that is patently obvious to anyone who knows the subject. To deny that Tamil is a classical language is to deny a vital and central part of the greatness and richness of Indian culture. " On a request from a Tamil Counter part to write an impression on Tamil.Albiet Now Tamil is Declared as a Classical language by the Indian Government.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.