From: bkannan@ha06.eng.ua.edu (Balaji Kannan)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.tamil
Subject: Re: I HATE TAMILS (2) (Respect other's)
Date: 19 Aug 1992 23:56:24 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu



chandra@cannelloni.cis.ohio-state.edu (B Chandrasekaran) writes:

   Finally, I get someone who holds concurrent views [on this topic] 
   and even speaks out :-)

>The notion of "pure" versus "masala" languages is a strange one.
>First of al, there is no such thing as a pure language.  Linguists are
>still undecided about how languages begin and evolve, but unless each


  A ref here:

  **************************************************************
  There are any number of theories to account for how language
  began. The theories have names that seem almost to be begging
  ridicule - the Bow-Vow theory, the Ding-Dong theory,the Pooh-
  Pooh theory, the Yo-He-Ho theory - and they are generally based
  in one way or the another on the supposition that languages come
  ultimately from spontaneous utterances of alarm, joy, pain, and
  so on, or that they are somehow imitative (onamatopeic) of
  sounds in the real world. Thus the Welsh word for owl gwdihw,
  pronounced "goody-hoo" may mimic the sound an owl makes.

  ....Onomatopeia does play a part in language formation, but
  whether it or any other feature alone can account for how
  languages are formed is highly doubtful...........

  Much of what we know, or think we know, about the roots of
  language comes from children learning to speak.........
  ***********************************************************

>"race" of humanity evolved completely independently, human languages,
>even in ancient times, had inter-connections.  In fact one school in
>Linguistics proposes that there was one proto-language from which al
>human languages evolved.  If you go back far enough, Tamil itself most
>likely was a result of evolutionary changes and mixings of different
>tribal languages.

    Most languages have had some sort of an interaction with others.
    The proto-language theory is true as far as Indo-European languages
    are concerned. Tamil is one of the languages that pretty much
    had an independent growth history. At least till the arrival of
    Sanskrit. Not that Sanskrit changed Tamil a whole lot but a lot
    of Sanskrit words were tamilized.

   *****************************************************************
       One of the greatest mysteries of prehistory is how people in
   widely separated places suddenly and spontaneously developed the
   capacity for language at roughly the same time. It was as if people
   carried in their heads a genetic alarm clock that suddenly went off
   all around the world and different groups in widely separated places
   on every continent to create languages. Even those who were cut off
   from twenty or so great language families developed their own
   separate languages, such as the Dravidian languages of Southern
   India and Northern Sri lanka, or the Luorawetlan languages of
   eastern Siberia ,or the even stranger Ainu language of Japan
    ...................................
   ****************************************************************

     But your statement about mixing of tribal languages even among
     Dravidians is true. How else can you explain the close resemblance
     between Malayalam & Tamil. Or even Telugu.


>Secondly, the fact that a language was a recent result of mixtures
>from other languages is really nothing negative.  The language in
>which this conversation is being conducted, English, is a mixture of
>old Germanic languages, Latin, French, and enormous number of loan
>words from many many languages which give the language its vitality.
>English didn't even exist as a language in this form until about a
>thousand years ago!  But today it is the language that is most learned
>as a second language around the world.

       Very true.

                      [stuff deleted]

>Regarding Hindi and Tamils, I think it was stupid to try to force it
>on them, but it is equally stupid to refuse to learn what is obviously

     Here again, let me chip in. While this may be a very unscientific
     statement [no survey done] to make, the reason there is so much
     antipathy to Hindi stems from the fact that power has over a
     long period of time rested with the Hindi people. The Hindi
     politicians haven't helped their cause "much" by both downright and
     subtle methods of imposition. In a multi-lingual society/nation such
     as ours that is a suicidal course.

     Add to it the fact that Hindi is a derivative of Sanskrit - the language
     of "oppression". There is a view that Tamil Brahmins are out to sell
     away the Tamil language to those at the Center. This is the silliest
     notion that one can hold. [Some of my born-Brahmin friends are also
     some of the biggest Tamil fanatics I've seen]. Bill Bryson, writing
     about the damage politics can inflict on languages, gives instances
     of nations where there have been constant struggles against linguistic
     imposition. [The French and Belgian fanatics are not anyway different
     from our local brethren, it appears. :-)]. He says "All the evidence
     suggets that minority languages shrink or thrive at their own ineluctable
     rate. It seems not to matter greatly whether governments suppress them
     brutally or support them lavishly". The rigidity of a language and
     difficulty of pronunciation to a certain extent are that which bring
     about its downfall.

     [For all the 2000 or so years of "oppression", Tamil has survived and
      continues to be  spoken by all the castes in Tamil society.]
 
 
>a useful language for commerce and communication.  And this talk of
>linguistic purity is just going to be a nice grave in which Tamils can
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>lie with a beatific smile coming from the satisfaction that they dug
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>it themselves.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

      Very neatly driven statement. But, I would like to add something
      here. The North-Indian populace is equally at fault, I would add.
      It is not enuff if one clamors for national unity assuming that
      more the linguistic-converts one has in his pockets the nation
      somehow  gets more bonded. What is required is a national spirit
      [more intangible] and such a spirit can only exist when there is
      respect for other languages and  cultures in a multilingual society
      such as ours.

       MO: [I talk of literates]

       [The willingness to learn other Indian languages is something that
       comes quite easily to South Indians. Leave alone the economic motives.
       Even among Tamils who publicly display their antipathy to Hindi,
       there is a sizable number that knows Hindi. Atleast a smattering
       of the Hindi language and the Northie culture.I wouldn't say the same
       of North Indians. {Exceptions notwithstanding} Talk about cultural/
       linguistic arrogance! Reason given: Many people speak Hindi. With
       such attitudes, one should not expect anything better than reciprocal
       feelings. Part reason, why the Njans go hammer & tongs after Hindi]

       anbudan,
       BK