From: selvakum@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering)
Subject: Re: Tamil, Sanskrit and North Indian languages
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 22:54:28 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.115213.1@draco.rutgers.edu>, viswanath@draco.rutgers.edu writes:
> In article <BuJ3En.FKn@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>, selvakum@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering) writes:
> > 
> > Sanskrit : chaaTi, chaatta , chadda = 'pot',  
> > Prakrit:  chadda ='oil vessel in a lamp'    Pali: chaaTi ='vessel,jar,measure' 
> >                                              Bhojpuri: --------------
> > Gypsy (european): chaaro ='bowl, pan'        Bihari : chaar(d) ='earthern 
> >                                                       vessel for grain' 
> > ----------------------------
> and examples from various other Indian languages.
> 
> > R.L.Turner's acknowledgement of root: <--- Dravidian (Tamil:chatti, chaadi)
> > 
> 
> English has a word 'shard' which I have seen used mainly in archeology;
> it means "a broken piece of earthenware" according to the Oxford American
> Dictionary.  I have not checked its etymology.  However (realizing fully
> well that the similarity of sounds may be coincidental), may one suggest 
> that there may be two similar roots, one Indo-European and the other
> Dravidian?  
> 
> P.V. Viswanath

Yes, I agree that there can be two roots in two languages that are
nearly or fully identical in phonemes. The two roots having the
same meaning out of so many possible meanings is also possible. If one
were to find some 10 or 20 words where this "coincidence" is applied
[ take two or three syllable words, assume a conservative set of
phonemes , say only three; assume that the language has only 
100 meanings in total in both languages....]
you will find that the probability of this "coincidence" is extremely
remote for a SET OF WORDS larger than a few. Consider the the pairs

English   Tamil      consonants

Cry       karai      k/r
path      paathai    p/th
roll      uruL       r/l
round     uruNdai    r/n/d
rotate    uruttu     r/t
roller    uruLai     r/l
full      muzhu      f(m)/l
fall      vizhu      f(v)/l
flower    malar      f(m)/l/r
cleve     kiLLu      k/l
climb     kiLambu    k/l/b
kill      kol        k/l
tele      tholai     t/l
paleo     pazhaiya   p/l
fault     pazhuthu   f(p)/l/t
bed       padu(kkai) b(p)/d
bla(white) veL       b(v)/l     There are many words like blanc, beluga
                                 and the word bald ( originally comes from
                                 white patches...) - all have a root sense
                                of "white" and the Indo-Europen root is 
                                given as "bhel". Confer Tamil veL. 


It is quite possible that Dravidian and Indo-European could have shared a
common past ( some linguists call this Nostratic - see April 1991 Sci.Am
with the title Hard Words). This appears possible to me because it can be
quite rigorously shown from simple math ( probability) that not more than
a couple of words ( at best some 5-8 words) can have *both* 
near identical consonant-run and meaning in any two unrelated languages purely
as coincidence. But if more number of words are found to be related,
then either they could have shared a common distant past or one could have
borrowed from other. The approximate date of appearance of a word in a language
is important too. 

I don't think many people understand that Tamils had extensive trade with
ancient civilizations both in east and west. Tamil could have borrowed or
could have exported unless those words were in common use some 20,000 years ago
when Nostratic language ( the super family of many language families 
including Dravidian and Indo-European) was alive. If it were a loan word, one
has to find the relationship and supporting facts before declaring that
the said language borrowed it. With respect to Sanskrit-Tamil unlike
most western scholars, indians by and large think that Tamil 
borrowed from Skt. if a particular word is found in both due to the 
wrong belief that Skt. is older and pan-indian language but Tamil is a 
regional one which borrowed. I hope i can show some examples of how 
Latin and Greek and
Sanskrit borrowed words just as tamil surely did. The main problem in the
perception comes from the fact that Tamil tradition of saying things in a 
straight-forward
manner and acknowledging influences, sources unlike other languages 
like Skt. Latin and Greek. With these Indo-European words one has to infer. 
For example Tamil says what one should do and not do if one wants to adopt 
a word of alien or colloquial words or regional words. Similarly Tamil is 
the only language ( or one of a very few languages) which stipulate what 
letters can come at the beginning, end of words etc. It appears Tamils were
one of the very few who seem to have understood the distinct_ness
and root elements of its language. In my opinion Sanskrit could have
borrowed many
fundemental elements of language-science from Tamil but it is
difficult to prove or assert this. Consider the Sanskrit alphabet system.
I think it borrowed from tamil ( not withstanding more members to a 
varga like ka, kh, g, gh..). While there are more than 50 Indo-European
languages, not counting an equal number of Indo-Aryan languages,
how come *none* of them recognize or have ( in their tradition) [ I am 
open for correction] 
(1) the separation of consonants and vowels
(2) short and long vowels
(3) the order of listing vowels first and then consonants
(4) the order of the consonants 
(5) the ka varga ending in nga, ....the pa varga ending in ma

whereas Sanskrit does just as Tamil ( except the varga expansion and 
a few other differences)  ? [ Here we have to note that Sanskrit was in
close contact with Tamil/Dravidian ] This is a serious question. 
PaaNini and Tholkaapiyar were belonging to roughly the same period 
( Tamil scholars like Dr. Ilakkuvanar claiming 700 B.C while most 
others accept a date before 300 B.C.), what is the argument that 
PaaNini could not have borrowed ideas ( like so many religious ideas 
and poetic conventions were attributed to be borrowed from Tamil).
Tholkaapiyar attributes to earlier Tamil tradition several aspects
of grammar ( his oft repated expression "enmanaar pulavar" or just
enmanaar which means so say the experts or tradition). The Thol_k's
period is believed to be earlier than Sanga Kaalam and the Sangam
period is now well established from epigraphical evidences (I.Mahadevan)
to be between 300 B.C. to 200 A.D. [ It might be of interest to note
that the Sanga kaalam is earlier than Kaalidasaa's period ] . Since
some of the rules stated by tholkaappiyar is already modified by
Sangam's period the period of tholkaappiyar must be earlier than at
least 400 B.C. but considering the conservative nature of Tamil it 
could well be 500-600 B.C. In any case roughly in the same period as
PaaNini.

Finally, a quick guess about the word "shard", can it be related to "shred"
or "share" both give a semantic connection to "to part, part".

[ well, this had become much longer than I thought ! sorry for being
so long]

[ I hope Mr. Prabhu who brought the issue of alphabet of Skt. and Tamil
in a personal e-mail to me on this topic will read this ]

anbudan
Selva Selvakumar

Newsgroups: soc.culture.tamil