Talk:Telugu script

message: Two missing Consonants in the tabulated list. Telugu language is very distinct in having two ' soft ' consonants, namely, " .ca " [ISO notation '.c'] and ' .ja ' [ISO notation '.j']. They are mild in pronunciation, unlike the others, ' cha ' and ' chha ' or, ' ja ' and ' jha '. In other words, the pronunciation of the first one is between 'tsa' and 'cha' and the second one is between 'tza' and 'za', more towards the latter though.
Some words as examples for '.c' : "kanCHU" (Bronze), "manCHAmu" (Cot), "CHAvi" (Taste), "CHAapa" (Mat), 'CHUkka" (Dot, or a very small amount) etc.
Some words as examples for '.j' : "JAAli" (Pity or Compassion), "JAAbili" (Moon), "roJU" (Day). "JUnnu" (Cheese), "JAnumu" (Jute). " JOlapaata" (Lullaby) etc.
Although the Wikipedia articles on Telugu Language (English Version) and Telugu Alphabet (Telugu Version) have listed these consonants, the present article did not do so. Several Telugu speaking persons are quite ignorant about these two soft consonants and consequently their pronunciation becomes quite awkward to listen. --107.217.164.208 (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

message: Lot of information is copied verbatim from http://www.engr.mun.ca/~adluri/telugu/language/script/index.html. So either we need to rewrite or delete this. mlpkr 15:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Telugu inscriptions" section was deleted for possible copyright issues. The references to figures that were not on the wikipedia article were big clues that content was copied from elsewhere. The URL has changed to http://www.geosim.engr.mun.ca/~adluri/telugu/language/script/script1d.html, but indeed, much was copied from it. That page has no copyright statement, so it is copyrighted (and not under GFDL), so we must not copy it. 24.26.128.185 (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Deleted more copied text, this time from http://www.engr.mun.ca/~adluri/telugu/language/script/script1a.html 24.26.128.185 (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Copied, perhaps violates policy

message: The paragraph starting with "Telugu script has the capability to represent almost the entire phonetic spectrum of all Indian (and most world) languages" has a litany of untenable personal opinions expressed in, what appears to be, an attempt to prove the 'soundness' and superiority of the telugu script! For example, "only sound of the English language not represented fully in Telugu (in a theoretical sense) is the ‘a’ sound as in ‘apple.'" is clearly wrong. Telugu has no distinction between 'v' and 'w'. It doesn't have symbols for 'θ',  'ð', 'z' and 'ʒ'. It has no symbols for 'ɝ','ɒ' and 'ɔ' among vowels. Further, telugu has no corresponding symbols for diphthongs in English except for /aɪ/, /aʊ/. Even, it doesn't have enough symbols to represent sounds of all Indian languages. I think this section requires a rewrite. Varttik 20:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal Opinions

message: The section on the development of the Telugu script is interesting, but should not be placed in a location where it looks like that is the modern script. The modern alphasyllabary, with consonants, vowels, vowel diacritics, and other diacritics, should be the first major section, and the development section should follow. --SameerKhan 20:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Development 

message: The origin of Telugu script lies in the Brahmi script written on the urn found from Bhattiprolu stupa which was older than Satavahana times.
Satavahanas used this script and spread it over Maharashtra and Karnataka regions which they ruled for about 400 years. The strong resemblance of modern Thai, Laos, Javanese and Balinese scripts to Telugu script is because of the spread of proto-Telugu script from coastal Andhra to east Asia along with Buddhism (from Ghantasala and Masulipatnam ports). The Chalukayas, originally hailing from Rayalaseema region of Andhra Pradesh, used the script to write Telugu and Kannada languages. The script is known to historians as Telugu-Kannada script. One may refer to the displays about the evolution of scripts in National Museum in Delhi. To brand the script as 'Old Kannada' or 'hale Kannada' is a biased distortion of history.Kumarrao 12:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Telugu script predates Kannada script

message: Dear Mr Billgordon, Thank you.
I was trying to provide a logic to the hazy history. The earliest evidence of a Dravidian (proto-Telugu) language being written in Brahmi script brought by Buddhists, was found in Bhattiprolu in the heartland of Andhra country. There was no need to search for great literature and having found none, conclude that a particular language did not exist. The reasoning given by me in the above-mentioned account for the spread of the script to Kannada-speaking areas was totally logical. All Kannada historians know that Adikavi Pampa and his brother were Telugu Brahmins of ancient Kammanadu (same region as Bhattiprolu) who embraced Jainism, sought the patronage of Chalukyan kings and wrote the earliest literary works of Kannada language. Can anyone deny that the script of the mother tongue of Pampa did not influence their contributions to Kannada? It is only unfortunate that no work of Telugu literature of that time could not be discovered. Gnanapiti was insistent that Telugu script originated from Kannada scipt, soley on the basis of a sentence written in a book. He does not want to consider the cautionary note written in the same page. Historians and archaeologists always used the words "Old Telugu-Kannada" script. Some Kannada enthusiasts insist on using the words "Old Kannada" or "Hale Kannada", which I feel is not right.  Let reason prevail.Kumarrao 08:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't mislead by misquoting what's been said in cautionary notes. It talks about Telugu being an independent language but not about the script. I have made it clear in your talk page. Give references for your claims. Just pulling in your own definitions won't work. Gnanapiti 18:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Why did Pampa and his brother wrote in kannada despite being teluguites and being in andhra pradesh... Why could't they write in Telugu ???????????
If the sought patronage of chalukyan it shows that chalukyan is predominantly kannada kingdom. During Chauykya kingdom kannada was the official language. Where is the question of discovering any telugu work when none is available and ppl from andhra pradesh were writing in kannada.
Who r the historians and archaeologists who refer it as "old-telugu-kanaada script" ?
Give their names,references and their credentials.
If evidence and proofs are not necessary to conclude facts ? then what can prove facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.169.130.192 (talk • contribs).
Saying that one script was derived from another is not totally correct,especially old indian.And since the antiquity of all languages and scripts is found mostly through archeology studies which itself is not an exact science,Therefore most of the things are highly speculative.That is why instead of giving one language the status of parent, an hypothetical proto language and script is given the parent status.For example,instead of saying Tamil or kannada or telugu  as the parent of all south indian languages the proto-dravidian is said to be the parent.And note that dravidian is used here in a strict generic sense and it is not tamil.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.99.94.248 (talk) 09:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks

message: Please try to come to a consensus before making the changes. Both of you (Gnanpiti and Kumarrao have violated WP:3RR).
Lets have a decent discussion about this. --(Sumanth|Talk) 06:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I haven't violated WP:3RR. I have started to initiate the discussion. Just reverting their own logic without giving any references or citations doesn't work. I have reproduced verbatim what's been said in those two references. Kumaarrao is trying to mislead by wrongly quoting what been said in references as caution. Till the consensus is reached I'm reverting to referenced version. Gnanapiti 07:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've requested for protection and it got accepted. Now its time to resolve the dispute. --(Sumanth|Talk) 09:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Lets consider all the avialable references:
1. http://www.engr.mun.ca/~adluri/telugu/language/script/script1a.html
2. http://www.ancientscripts.com/old_kannada.html
3. T1 and T2 (apparently from same source as 1)
4. http://www.ontopia.net/i18n/ftree.jsp?id=1277
Lets say telugu script evolved script 'x'. Now what is the name of this x?
The problem here is that x has two names x1 and x2. x1 is the common name and it is also known as x2.
As per ref 1 and 2, x1 = old kannada, x2 = Telugu -Kannada. Do you agree?
Ref 3, only uses the name "telugu - Kannada". But ref "3"  is from the same source as 1.
Ref 1 contains a more detailed description of the name. They have stated the following "Kannada writers had also produced full-fledged literary works in the ninth century. But it was two more centuries before major poetic works in Telugu became available. That is the reason for the combined Telugu-Kannada script to have been called as the "old Kannada"." We can't just rely on ref 3 and ignore ref 1. It is from the same source and offers a detailed explanation.
I guess the problem with the statement "The Telugu script is derived from old Kannada script which is also known as the Kannada-Telugu script" is that it seems that Telugu has evolved from Kannada script. 
I suggest removing the wikilink to Kannada script and create a new article for Old Kannada script.
The statement can be changed to 
"The Telugu script is derived from old Kannada / Telugu - Kannada script" to avoid confusion. --(Sumanth|Talk) 04:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that the link you citing calls it as "Telugu - Kannada" script. But we cannot ignore the other references at the same time. The same authors also use the term "Old Kannada also known as Telugu Kannda". There are some images which also use the term "Old Kannada" only. This is the cause of all trouble. I am no expert to decide whether the historians were correct or not. But majority of references use "Old Kannada" as the primary name. Even if we use in Telugu-Kannada script in telugu articles, it would be wikilinked to [[Old Kannada]. Old Kannada article would be something like this: "Old Kannada also known as Telugu Kannada is an ancient script .....". Requesting Gnanpiti's comments on my proposal. --(Sumanth|Talk) 06:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war on origins of telugu script

message: The Figures 1 and 2 in the articles Telugu script and Telugu language figures clearly mention the evolution of Brahmi script of Mauryan times towards modern Telugu and Kannada scripts. It is as given below:
1. Brahmi script of Mauryan period (3rd centrury BCE)
2. Brahmi script on Bhattiprolu Urn containing Buddha's dhatus (3rd century BCE)
3. Brahmi script of Satavahana period (1st centurey CE)
4. Brahmi script of Ikshvaku period (3d century CE)
5. Brahmi script of Gupta period (4th century CE)
6. Ancient Telugu-Kannada script of Salankayana period (5th century)
7. Tamil scripts of Pallava period (7th century)
8. Telugu-Kannada script of 7th century
9. Telugu-Kannada script of Eastern Chalukyas (10th century)
10. Telugu-Kannada script of Rajarajanarendra period (11th century)
11. Telugu-Kannada script of Kakatiya Ganapatideva (13th century)
12. Telugu script of Prolaya Vemareddy (14th century).
It is thus very clear that both the scripts had a common origin in Brahmi script as found on Bhattiprolu stupa urn. To call it s "Old Kannada" script is nothing but travesty of history, even though some authors might have referred it so. In fact, these figures were sourced from the same citation (Adluri, Seshu Madhava Rao Parachuri, Sreenivas. Origins of Telugu Script) which Gnanapiti refers to. But, Gnanapiti does not want to take cognizance of it. As a compromise, I agreed that it can be written as:
"The Telugu script is derived from Telugu-Kannada script which is also known as old Kannada script and developed independently at the same time as modern Kannada script which is why it has strong resemblance with it"
However, Gnanapiti insists that it should be "Old Kannada" rather than "Telugu-Kannada". It is plain chauvanism being imposed on articles regarding Telugu, Telugu language and Telugu script. Wiki should not encourage such fanatics and unreasonable chauvanists. Kumarrao 09:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply

message: : Lets consider all the avialable references:
1. http://www.engr.mun.ca/~adluri/telugu/language/script/script1a.html
2. http://www.ancientscripts.com/old_kannada.html
3. T1 and T2 (apparently from same source as 1)
4. http://www.ontopia.net/i18n/ftree.jsp?id=1277
Lets say telugu script evolved script 'x'. Now what is the name of this x?
The problem here is that x has two names x1 and x2. x1 is the common name and it is also known as x2.
As per ref 1 and 2, x1 = old kannada, x2 = Telugu -Kannada. Do you agree?
Ref 3, only uses the name "telugu - Kannada". But ref "3"  is from the same source as 1.
Ref 1 contains a more detailed description of the name. They have stated the following "Kannada writers had also produced full-fledged literary works in the ninth century. But it was two more centuries before major poetic works in Telugu became available. That is the reason for the combined Telugu-Kannada script to have been called as the "old Kannada"." We can't just rely on ref 3 and ignore ref 1. It is from the same source and offers a detailed explanation.
I guess the problem with the statement "The Telugu script is derived from old Kannada script which is also known as the Kannada-Telugu script" is that it seems that Telugu has evolved from Kannada script. 
I suggest removing the wikilink to Kannada script and create a new article for Old Kannada script.
The statement can be changed to 
"The Telugu script is derived from old Kannada / Telugu - Kannada script" to avoid confusion. --(Sumanth|Talk) 04:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My view

message: I agree if the users use the name "Old kannada" in Kannada articles and "Telugu-Kannada" in Telugu language and Telugu script articles. The fact is that the script of both the languages evolved from a variant of Asokan Brahmi found in Bhattiprolu dating from pre-Mauryan times (4thcentury). I have cited an authoritative reference and pointed out the figures given in the article.  It is absolutely clear from Figures T1a and T1b in the reference (http://www.engr.mun.ca/~adluri/telugu/language/script/script1d.html) how Telugu-Kannada script evolved from Asokan Brahmi script of Bhattiprolu. Kadamba scipt or "old Kannada script" are the names given by Kannada historians to Telugu-Kannada script. Kumarrao 06:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the link you citing calls it as "Telugu - Kannada" script. But we cannot ignore the other references at the same time. The same authors also use the term "Old Kannada also known as Telugu Kannda". There are some images which also use the term "Old Kannada" only. This is the cause of all trouble. I am no expert to decide whether the historians were correct or not. But majority of references use "Old Kannada" as the primary name. Even if we use in Telugu-Kannada script in telugu articles, it would be wikilinked to [[Old Kannada]. Old Kannada article would be something like this: "Old Kannada also known as Telugu Kannada is an ancient script .....". Requesting Gnanpiti's comments on my proposal. --(Sumanth|Talk) 06:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise

message: Some users, most definitely, have a deep-rooted inclination towards Kannada and are prejudiced against Telugu. 
"Telugu Kannada" and "Old Kannada" are synonymous. In this case of the Telugu script, it is beyond doubt that "Telugu-Kannada" would be the most appropriate name to the script in question, as opposed to "Old Kannada." A case in point would be the Perso-Arabic script. Though used for both Arabic, Persian. It is inclusive and isn't named similar to this example as just "Arabic Script." There is in fact a stronger case for calling the script in question as "Telugu Kannada script" due to the common origin, from the Brahmi script, as opposed to just Arabic in the example cited.
Old Kannada could at the most be used in the "Kannada script" article for the ease of interpretation.
This kind of petty chauvanism, leads no where, and if allowed to proliferate would seriously undermine the painstaking contributions of many to Wikipedia. Names should be inclusive, and more importantly be restrained only to the most popular, unanimous and unambiguous, not those of a particular user's choice. Thanking You, AltruismTo talk 09:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Telugu Kannada script" 

message: Mr Dinesh,
I am certain you did not read the article (http://www.engr.mun.ca/~adluri/telugu/language/script/script1d.html) carefully.
It seems there are certain standards for Kannada-speaking Wiki users and others for different users. You brand 'Adluri's web reference as a blog site and at the same time defend 'Old Kannada' origin by citing the same reference. Try to recollect your umpteen contributions to Wiki where you cited innumerable blogs and web pages in addition to a handful of books published by Kannada enthusiasts to show "Kannada empire" extended upto Gujarat and Bihar. For you, all south Indian dynasties were Kannada empires. You have perpetrated this perfidy in many articles related to Andhra and Maharashtra history. Now you say Kannada was spoken upto Godavari. I would like to see those sentences from Pampa's works. Cite them. 
Pampa was a Telugu Brahmin from ancient Kammanadu (Guntur dt) who adopted Jainism and was patronized by Vemulavada Telugu Chalukyan King Arikesari.
Please read the webpage (http://www.engr.mun.ca/~adluri/telugu/language/script/script1d.html)critically and learn how to write history impartially and dispassionately. The article has a true historical account of Pampa, Chalukyans, Renati Cholas etc., Do not think medieval Cholas and Chalukyas had your hyper-enthusiastic outlook about language.
Vijayanagar empire had the capital in Hampi which is now located in a region that comes under "Karnataka". That does not mean it was Kannada empire. It was historically known as "Karnata Rajya". Even Telugu poets mentioned so. There is a clear distinction between "Karnata empire" and "Kannada empire". I think all Kannada Wiki users ignore this subtle difference. Andhra Satavahanas ruled almost entire South India, Western India and, at one point of time, upto Bihar. That would not make it Telugu or Maharashtrian empire. No Telugu historian ever lost this sense of proportion. 
I have been waging a war with a couple of Kannada Wiki users to defend a historical truth about Telugu script and Telugu language. A reference I cited becomes a blog to ignore my input but the same reference becomes invaluable and handy to silence me. What kind of logic, rationale, and reason are present in these acts? 
I am being collectively browbeaten. My edits are reverted without citing any reason. On the other hand, I am forced to give lengthy explanations which are ignored and branded as conjectures. I cannot imagine how a script can travel to South  East Asia from Karnataka? Did it fly over Telugu and Tamil regions?Kumarrao 19:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Do not preach. Learn to be impartial

message: My dear friends n brothers, I wish to put some words according to my knowledge regarding Telugu language. It really stuns me, why regarding antiquity of Telugu, Kannada people are intervening. Let them try with the Tamil language, the only classical language after Sanskrit. Regarding language, it is well known that Telugu is different from Tamil, Kannada and Malayalam, as they belong to the southern Dravidian language. Telugu belongs south central Dravidian language. To say one language is good and other one is bad, simply implicates the ignorance of the said person. Linguistically speaking, no language is superior or inferior. Stating that many works from Kannada were being translated into Telugu brings me a hearty laugh. Till now, I have seen the mighty power of Tamil, which not only get reflected by its glorious literature in the past and in music. The so-called Carnatic music has been originated from the carnatic region, not Karnataka. The language of the songs composed are Sanskrit, Telugu and Tamil. Even, we can observe in the film industry, the quality of films, songs produced by the Kannada people has no way comparison with the Tamil. Even, the quality of content in story of a Kannada film is least when compared to other South-Indian films. This does not mean Kannada is waste and Tamil is best. It just happened to be so, thats all. We need to rectify, what mistakes our ancestors committed. We are not here to argue which one is great and which one is less. If the Kannada people are so much interested, let them show the same zeal in achieving the Classical language status or compete with mighty Tamil giants. Then, everybody will accept that they are great. We need to truth not just assertions or opinions. Telugu has its own richness and beauty, so is that of Tamil and Kannada. If you are so interested in proving some language’s superiority, then Kannada is in no-where comparison when compared with Tamil either in art, music, literature or in cinema…Either in Quality or in Quantity...Either in Antiquity or in solidarity. But, that does not make Kannada as an heinous language, we must try our best to improve our languages not suppressing others. Let the harmony prevail...Jai Hind  
-Bsskchaitanya 08:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't just jump in into talk page and harp some irrelevant things without knowing anything about the issue. No one is contesting about superiority of any language here. I myself have deleted all nonsense comments made by some anon IP. Those comments are just fit to be ignored. Pray tell me who is telling any language is good or bad here? Yeah, your ignorant comments bring me hearty laugh too. Please go through Carnatic music article once and try to know the real history and why it's being called Karnatik music. I don't see any difference between you and Kumarrao here. Just making claims without giving citations to any of the claims. I'm afraid that the approach you are taking doesn't work in Wikipedia. It's a big joke when someone decides the antiquity and superiority of a language based on movie industries, which didn't even exist before 50 change years. It's a very big joke, believe me. Going by your logic, 90% of world languages doesn't even exist. Again, no one is arguing over superiority of any language here. No one is comparing any languages here. So please, don't just make random comments on people. It's you and only you who have started comparing languages now. I would suggest a good read of the talk page to know the real issue. Otherwise please just stay out of discussion, please. Gnanapiti 15:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Its really stunning abt the things going on here

message: I have gone ahead and removed all the citations put in claiming that the Kannada script evolved from the Bottiprolu script. I read all the book citations provided and found none of the pages cited making any such mention, though it does mention the Telugu-Kannada script evolving from the Southern-Brahmi script. If I have made a mistake, please provide alternate page numbers from those books to verify the claim, or provide alternate citations or change the sentence to reflect that those citations claim that both Kannada and Telugu scripts evolved from the Brahmi script, a sample of which was found in Bottiprollu. In addition, the section called "later developments" was practically a cut and paste from the Alduri web page which does not have mainstream sanction from majority historians. Even the dates were wrong. A false claim that Ranna is from Andhra was made. The section itself had no inline citations. The images of the scripts were recently removed by an admin for not meeting wiki guidelines. This article is an important one and needs to be thoroughly sourced from various sources for balance, not just one web site by an Engg student.Dineshkannambadi 03:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My edits 

message: It is well known that the Bhattiprolu script (Southern Brahmi), a variant of Asokan Brahmi script gave rise to the common Telugu-Kannada script. 
See the third row in the evolution chart in the book by Bhadriraju Krishnamurthi, a foremost scholar of Dravidian languages:
http://books.google.com/books?id=T7Wv4ncys88C&pg=RA1-PA78&lpg=RA1-PA78&dq=%22telugu+kannada%22+script&source=web&ots=qD-y3RO6RV&sig=VorQtqpoh3IVJOLeYr-fxgaybdE#PRA1-PA79,M1
There is ample evidence available (see this talk page for references). Prof Adluri's article on Telugu Language and Literatre is a scholarly work not an ameteurish website like www.ourkarnataka.com. Who are the mainstream majority historians? I would like to know. Inline citations will be provided. Have patience. Do not delete the material.Kumarrao 05:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please.  How long are you going to keep harping about the adluri ref?  Doesnt matter how long and how hard you protest, it is not going to become a RS.  And as for Bh. Kr's source, he doesnt say Bhattiprolu script evolved into "telugu-kannada"/"Old Kannada"/"Kannada-telugu" scripts.  His table clearly shows that the Bhattiprolu script was only one of the many stages in which the Brahmi script evolved to yield the T-K script.  For that matter, the Bhattiprolu 'script' isnt even so much of an independent script.  It is only a southern variant of the Mauryan Brahmi and is so-called because the first such specimen was discovered at Bhattiprolu in Andhra.  Also, it is not like the Bhattiprolu magically morphed into the T-K script overnight.  There were several intermediate scripts as the table in Bh. Kr's book shows.  We could as well claim that the Gupta Brahmi script evolved into the "T-K" script.  I really dont understand what you are trying to prove by saying that the Bhattiprolu script evolved into T-K script.  Sarvagnya 06:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When you can cite millions of times a Kannada website as an authentic source of Indian history, how a scholary work, I repeat, scholarly, can become unreliable? Show me the evidence that Adluri is an Engg student. Even if he were, your statements are objectionable and impolite because according to you engineering students/their contributions are undependable. Software engineers working in US clinging to some backyard historians and local websites have become authorities on Indian history in Wiki. On top of it, they collaborate in unison and prevent others making meaningful contributions. Painstakingly collected information, inputs and voices are stifled. I am baffled at why the Wiki administrators and watchdogs of Wiki are silent? Kumarrao 05:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hello.  I dont have to prove that Adluri is an engg student.  It is you who has to show that he is a scholar of history(also?) as you claim.  And it doesnt take rocket science to figure that Adluri is a civil engineer.   As for Kamat, she is a noted historian in her own right, has written scholarly books which are available in university and public libraries around the world and has even been awarded for her efforts in the field.  You arent the first one who's questioning her credentials.  Some others(mostly trolls and vandals) have done it in the past.  And it beats me why you're so bent on citing Adluri.  Isnt Bh.Kr good enough for you?!  And your claim that you've put 'painstaking' effort into this is a joke.  You havent put any effort.  You've flicked straight from Adluri's personal web page and pasted it verbatim! Sarvagnya 05:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK! Take it easy. Its better if we (all of us) only quote what are considered genuine references by WP. But the problem is who judges what is genuine or what is trash. Its highly subjective and overlapping. In my personal opinion, Kamath has written on many topics, but is biased towards the right, particularly pro-Hindu. --AltruismTo talk 06:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Judging on genuine references is not subjective. WP:RS has clear instructions on what references to retain and what to discard. And as you've already mentioned, Kamath's bias is your personal opinion. An opinion is something which everybody can have and you are absolutely free to have one. But the fact remains that Kamath is an established historian whose works have been widely published and accepted by number of scholars. Gnanapiti 15:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, what has Kamat got to do with Telugu script and why is her name being dragged here unnecessarily. I think the discussion here should be restricted to info related to Telugu script, its citations and the persons concerned thereof. The moot point here is the consistent push of Adluri's page as a reliable source ignoring considerable facts that suggest the contrary. If the citations provided by Adluri are still............. considered by someone as genuine, I am sure that there would be other sources as well which speak the same thing. Why don't we look at those and move forward. Adluri is passé and lets not run around in circles... - ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits16:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Telugu script

message: I'm a bit puzzled at these edits: . Gnanapiti and Sarvagnya, you've removed references, but.. not actually changed the content that they were being used to reference?
If there is debate over the derivation of Telugu script, the article should state that there is debate, describe the rival points of view, and reference them.
Regardless of whether Adluri and Parachuri are reliable sources regarding the origins of Telugu script, their publication is a reliable source that they have made certain claims regarding said origins.
Can someone have a go at thrashing something out that describes the differing opinions? Rather than revert warring? Thankyou! --Stormie 07:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well.. there were two refs there.  One of them by Adluri which we've discussed ad nauseum.  It has been pointed out to Altruism that adluri is not a RS.  Adluri is an civil engineer by profession and an amateur Telugu enthusiast.  His site is the equivalent of a blog but hosted on his university server instead of blogspot.  So that is a no brainer.  The other ref, is certainly from a notable source, but sadly, doesnt say what Altruism is claiming that it does.  So it belongs removed too.  On our part, I realise that we should have replaced the blanking of the refs with {fact}} tags which we didnt.  But then I've got so tired of removing adluri that I just click and revert. Sarvagnya 07:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The content is not being disputed , only the source is being disputed. Hence leave the content as it is, and either find some reliable source or put {fact}} tags , instead of revert-warring or protecting. Vinay Jha Talk 11:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally unblocked, thanks to some sensible admins. Yes, this time around the sources are being disputed. The crux of the  problem is the usage of "Telugu-Kannada script" instead of "Old Kannada script" as some users wanted it to be, for their own reasons. As far as I remember, Adluri was not pointed out to me, to any effect. I don't comment on this reference's reliability. The other reference (IGNCA) is definitely RS (An Indian government institution on culture). The reason for the reference being added is clearly known to those who are probably feigning ignorance. For the benefit of others: The reference makes a mention of "Telugu-Kannada script" and nowhere of "Old Kannada script." --AltruismT a l k - Contribs. 11:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: What are you talking about? Read this section and every section after that in this very talk page and Talk:Telugu language. It's been pointed out that Adluri doesn't satisfy WP:RS by any stretch of imagination n number of times. Still you don't remember that website being pointed out to you? Amazing. And still you insist on adding that so called "reference", god knows the reason why. The other reference you are pointing at no where claims that Telugu script evolved from Telugu-Kannada script. You are twisting and twirling that reference to such an extent to suit your POV. Those two links have been questioned right from the beginning. Instead you were pointed to so many references from reliable sources in the above discussions. I request this page be unblocked and those two links are deleted along with claims made with their help from this article. Gnanapiti 19:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Adluri's article is a very reliable source. It is an articles composed after serious research. Is there any bar on engineers doing historical research? If it is so, many Wiki articles being written by software professionals sitting in USA and writing Indian history should be deleted from wikipedia. In fact, some of the people who are questioning Adluri fall in this category. Please see extensive discussions on the Talk page of Telugu script, the Users IP addresses and their identity. Some of these users have a website "www.ourkarnataka.com' as the most often cited reference in their articles. It is a travesty of ethics that they question a serious and impartial article. Such people's actions (reverts and deletions) are nothing but blantant vandalism. I made many appeals to Wiki administrators earlier to check this bunch of psuedo-historians but of no avail.Kumarrao 14:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've been told many times. Crying, accusing, whining are not going to take this discussion anywhere. Stick to this discussion and say something if you have anything valuable to say. Do you have any reliable references? Bring them in. Otherwise please stop whining. Gnanapiti 19:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: There is nothing to ask.  You dont just write whatever you want and then slap a "RS" source at the end of the sentence.  The citation you provide needs to support what you've written.  And the IGNCA citation does not support what you've written.  Thats all.  Sarvagnya 05:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert war 

message: These are what the websitehas to say
1) "...almost all the important scripts, prevalent since ancient times like, Indus, Brahmi, Kharoshthi, Nagari, Tamil, Kannada-Telugu, Telugu-Kannada, Tamil Brahmi, Malayalam, Tigarlari, Arbaic, Persian, Konkani and Modi."
2) "Dr. Shrinivas Ritti gave two lecture, on the Use of Kannada in Kannada Inscription and Telugu-Kannada script in two different sessions."
Given all this in the reference, some are questioning, isn't it senseless/reckless on the part of some editors to blatantly delete an RS source and leave the fact without citations.
The future course of action would be to question the presence of the fact (Telugu-Kannada script)itself, only to be replaced by their own version of history.  
Articles in Wikipedia have already seen enough trouble from this bunch of vandals who try to twist history/culture to their versions.
This is a classic case of "Ethnophobia."--AltruismT a l k - Contribs. 05:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can explain to me how The Telugu script is derived from the Telugu-Kannada script and developed independently at the same time as the Kannada script which is why it has strong resemblance to it. follows from your above numbered statements, I will drop it. Sarvagnya 05:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IGNCA reference 

message: All of the squarish character క appear to be completely identical this goes for all languages with these kind of characters.
Is this how it actually looks or is it some unicode mistake thing but I noticed that while it gave a guide for what the "different" Telugu characters meant they were all attributed to క andక alone. Why is this, and can someone please fix this  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.116.126.145 (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  క? The same character 

message: Dear Fellow brothers,
First of all I thank all people who helped to develop this webpage to this extant. I observed the Telugu symbol given to number "5". It is not correct completly. I have observed many old printed versions of Books and even palm leaf scripts (Taalapatra Grandhaalu), I found that there are different varieties of writing 5, but the represented symbol look like a corrupted form. Can anybody help me how to draw a correct symbol. I anybody want to draw it, then I can give them references. Thanks in advance. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 05:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding Telugu symbol for number "5" 

message: Prabhu, Your recent edits were deleted. Read the discussions that took place during 2007-2009 carefully before editing. Please discuss.Kumarrao (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: New Edits

message: I have confusion in pronouncing "అం". In the transliteration it has been pronounced as "am". However,  the words like శాంతి,క్రాంతి,బంతి are transliterated into santhi, kranthi, banthi respectively, i.e. "an" not "am". Can someone please explain to me the why the difference and how to identify.
I myself have made few observations but couldn't find authentic literature to support my theory
# అం when followed by క, ఖ, గ, ఘ, చ, ఛ, జ, ఝ, ట, డ, ఢ, త, ద, ధ, it takes the form "an"
# అం when followed by ప, ఫ, బ, భ, శ, ష it takes the form "am"
# అం when coming at the end of the word takes the form "am" (However, this is only in poetic form, as it is forbidden to use it in prose, where every అం at the end is replaced by "ము". Example, poetic - అందం, prose - అందము)
# అం is also never followed by ఙ,ఞ,ణ,న,మ
I could be wrong,also the list is incomplete, but would like someone to clarify and even complete the list.
Ambiguity in pronouncing is rare in Telugu, probably this is the only ambiguity in Telugu. May be చ and జ
also fall into the category after removal of  ౘ(tsa),ౙ(z) from the Telugu alphabets.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.216.220.89 (talk) 13:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronouncing "ం" 

message: Dear contributors, I would like to ask your help in editing/contributing to the Wikibooks pages where Telugu wikibook http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Category:Telugu is being created so as to help non-native readers/learners of Indian and foreign origin to learn to read and write in Telugu. I have added what I felt is helpful to non-native readers who can learn through English but some more people can contribute more. I would like to know if it is better to give a reference to the Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telugu_language or directly compile in the Wikibook without any cross-reference. In my humble opinion, I think everything regarding the learning aspect should be in one place. The Wikibooks for Spanish and French are my references, as in they are instantly readable/applicable to situations and very easy explanations/examples are provided. Varshasree (talk) 07:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikibooks : Telugu Alphabet help 

message: It was reported today that many apps running on Apple iOS or MacOS will permanently crash if they see a particular Teluga character.  I don't see this character in either this article or Telugu (Unicode block).  Perhaps this is fortunate, but perhaps it should be included after the bugs are fixed.  Layzeeboi (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apple-toxic character missing from here?