Talk:Tamil language/Archive 6

message: - The foundation of all these discussions below is based on the assumed erroneous concept that there was a language called Proto Dravidian from which all the present Dravidian languages    
- including Tamil got derived.    
- Proof that this is a blunder:   
- If such a powerful language called "Proto Dravidian" was present, it should have had a name by all means and that name should be a popular one. There is not a single language, in any corner of the world, which has no name although it may not have its own script like Kannada and Hindi Therefore, an especially strong language like "Proto Dravidian" should have had a name. It is extremely hard to believe that it has no name and rely on a name given by a much later language like English!    
- The reason that it has no name.. is very simple... it is because that name is nothing but TAMIL!    
- As Wikepedia itself puts it, "Dravidian" itself is a corruption of Thamizhan. None can deny this.   
-    
- As Proto Dravidian is Tamil, then it alone deserves the classical tag.    
- Additional proof, is that only Tamil has its own native words for "classical" and "language".   
- and has unique features not present in any of the other 600 languages in the world like   
- the letter "zha" and having thousands of poems in which the starting words rhyme.   
- Karka kasadara karpavai katrapin   
- Nirka atharku thaka.   
- (Karka and Nirka, being the starting words, rhyme... a totally unique feature.)   
- They say that "The proof of the pudding is in the eating" The very fact that only Tamil has been given the classical tag is sufficient to show that she alone can claim to be "classical",   
- corroborating poet Bharathidasans words "You (Tamil) are still a virgin (meaning pure) although you have given birth to the other Dravidian languages!".   
-    
- --125.22.172.37 12:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Substantive evidence that Proto Dravidian is Tamil 

message: Gizza, prior to ~500 CE Kannada and Telugu do not have any significant attested literature, except a few short inscriptions, and hence the nature of the language etc. can not be reliably determined to talk about significant influences. Secondly, the differences in the spoken languages of Tamil, Kannada, Telugu are harder to determine prior to ~500 CE
If the nature of the language is not easily determined, then why did I.Mahadevan write is famous book "Early Tamil Epigraphy..." . If the impact of Kannada were minor, why is it mentioned here so explicitly.
Is Aadal is trying to concoct a Tamil origin of Kannada and Telugu here prior to 5th century?Dineshkannambadi 14:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When the differences between the spoken forms of Tamil, Kannada and Telugu can not be reliably determined prior to ca.500CE, then claim of I. Mahadevan leads to doubts. There are many endings used for words in spoken forms in Tamil. The so-called 'impact' of Kannada you are referring to is indeed quite isolated and minor one. And this kind of evidence is harder to show as an influence on Skt. Don't get carried away! I think I should leave your misguided insinuation left unanswered.--Aadal 05:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aadals POV 

message: The recent edits by Sarvagnya had majorly degraded the content and flow and hence had been reverted.
*Provided a reference for two thousand plus years of history with the well-known author Dr. M. Varadarajan. 
*I’ve removed a phrase and its cited reference about an opposition from one group in declaring the classical language status accorded to Tamil language, because it is not a place to discuss all those who supported and opposed the move by Govt. India. If it is needed it may have to be discussed elsewhere.  
*The fact tag for the classification of literature in many periods is removed, because none is required. Periods are shown and discussed, what is the problem?  Different authors divide the period in slightly different ways and what is done in the present article captures the essence. You can take a look at M.Varadarajan’s book. 
*All the other reverts were done as Sargagnya had unilaterally modified without any discussion. He had removed references that point to influences on Skt etc. While I am supposed assume good faith, I feel his actions has majorly degraded the quality and I'm afraid it might even result in losing the FA status. Please tag what you must and someone will provide the supporting documentation.--Aadal 23:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont care whether you think that I degraded the article or not.  imo, your edits have majorly degraded the article and infested it with obnoxious POV and weasel.  It is you who made major undiscussed changes to the article yesterday and I only reverted them today.  I urge you to immediately undo your reverts while keeping your additions of the ref for women poets, the table etc.,.  Sarvagnya 23:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we keep Sarvagnya's 1000 year claim of Tamil literature, then it means that we give importance only to Herman's work which is severely criticized. This will be grossly unfair to other scholars' work. Thanks Praveen 23:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replied to this convenient misinterpretation of my edits by you on your talk page.  Stop talking the same thing on multiple talk pages.  Keep it to one page.  This page. Sarvagnya 23:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not remove any cited content unilaterally yesterday. It is you who should have had the courtesy to reach a consensus first in the talk page before removing cited content  here & here. Thanks. Praveen 23:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Why is that difficult to say that most researchers agree that Tamil has over 2000 years of what ever history but so and so says it is just over 1000 years Taprobanus 14:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits by Sarvagnya

message: Congrats Arvind, Sundar & Aadal. You guys did it. And thanks for all your efforts in improving the article. :)) Praveen 14:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And thanks to other editors too (esp SandyGeorgia) Praveen 15:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tamil FA status retained

message: Hi, 
I made a change to the consonant section yesterday, and there is a mistake I forgot to correct
:The sounds /f/, /s/ /ʂ/ and /h/ are peripheral to the phonology of Tamil, being found only in loanwords and frequently replaced by native sounds.
has to have the /s/ and the /h/ removed. /s/ nad /h/ is not peripheral to the phonology of Tamil. It has to become
:The sounds /f/ and  /ʂ/   are peripheral to the phonology of Tamil, being found only in loanwords and frequently replaced by native sounds.
I leave the question open whether s and h are phonemes or allophones
Could a privileged person incorporate this change, the article being protected?Jasy jatere 16:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your work, Jasy. I've made the change suggested by you. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 05:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  request to edit out /s/ and /h/ in consonant section 

message: I have removed Malaysia from 'Official language' list. Praveen 17:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Official Status

message: just click on the links and it shows them as speaking dilects of Kannada, Here they have been included to tamil speakers. Both these groups has to be removed. Any objections  meghamitra 09:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  classification of Betta Kurumba, Sholaga 

message: First of all let me say unequivocally that I am not ‘distressed’ by the presence of Sanskrit influence on Tamil portion in this article. It is a fact that any given living language which constantly comes in contact with others tend to absorb influential features. If you have noticed carefully you would have seen that neither I nor Aadal nor Sundar removed the ‘Sanskrit influence’ content in totality with iota of malicious intent. If you are really only concerned about ‘weasel’ words, you would have either proposed an alternative or asked others to do it. Intimidating other users of FAR is not the right way (IMHO). I do not know about others but I definitely do not believe that removing FA status to this article would lead to all the books, journals, and life time works of scholars on Tamil & in Tamil in the world to self-destruct. :) Anyways, let me prove to you with references about the influence of Tamil on Sanskrit. I think I am open minded enough to appreciate your consequent feedback and modify the ‘weasel’ terms (if necessary). 
*Robert Caldwell, in his well known book called “A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian or South-Indian Family of Languages”, devotes approximately 40 pages under the sub-heading “Indebtedness of Sanskrit to the Dravidian languages” for the sole purpose of explaining the influence of Dravidian languages on Sanskrit. Before you jump the gun and accuse me of ‘misrepresenting the fact’ (I.e. Dravidian is not Tamil… It is proto-Dravidian etc), let me point out that he (and number of other scholars in his book) argues the case for each Dravidian language, like Tamil, Telugu & Canara(Kannada), on Sanskrit with Tamil being the most influential. Even the sub-heading should give you the whole picture (Indebtedness!). Conversely the reference that you added from the same book for Sanskrit’s influence on Tamil (and other Dravidian languages) spans less than 3 pages. In fact, Caldwell downplays Sanskrit’s influence on Tamil in particular. Let me once again quote him verbatim (as I did earlier in the Talk page *sigh*): "Even in prose compositions on religious subjects in which a larger amount of Sanskrit is employed than in any other department of literature, the proportion of Sanskrit which has found its way into Tamil is not greater than the amount of Latin contained in corresponding compositions in English..."  The book is in public domain and you can acquire a copy from books.google.com. BTW: If somebody wants to add the influence of other Dravidian languages on Sanskrit in their respective articles, nobody is stopping him/her. But please do not equate Dravidian languages with proto-Dravidian anymore.
*Burrow, who is quoted extensively for Sanskrit influence on Tamil, defines certain rules for identifying the Sanskrit words borrowed from Dravidian languages. (Transactions of Philosophical Society, 1946) he proceeds to show many words that have been borrowed. He also included a separate section for loan words borrowed from Dravidian languages in his book “The Sanskrit language”. BTW: Regarding Sanskrit influence on Tamil, his stand is "Tamil was the earliest language used for literary purposes, and it was to begin with comparatively free from Aryan influence. In the later period the influence of Sanskrit increases, but never on the scale found in its two northern neighbors"
*Murray B. Emeneau, in his work called “Linguistic pre-history of India”, argues the case for influence of Dravidian on Sanskrit. (Please do not jump the gun again. Dravidian means Dravidian languages here. Emeneau uses proto-Dravdian exclusively to ascribe any influence of proto-Dravidian on Sanskrit.)
Unfortunately Aadal is not available at the moment to give you citations from his collection of books (written by third party scholars) due to exigencies in his real life as he mentioned earlier in the Talk page. Given that so many authors proved the case for Tamil’s influence, I don’t see any of the added term as ‘weasel’. If you still think so, present your version and let us work towards a fair solution (Here I mean by ‘fair’, fairness to the available evidence.) Praveen 16:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Praveen

message: Ok.  Since you claim that you're open minded(though not demonstrated it), let me exert myself to explain a little more.  First of all, I am not 'threatening' anyone about moving it to FA.  If that was my intention, I could very easily have voted against retaining the FA status on FAR or I could have moved it back myself by now.  Neither I nor what Parthi might call the 'Kannada/anti-Tamil cabal' have done anything like that.  
Now coming back to the topic.  By comparing S's influence on T to Latin's influence on English, you are actually dealing a severe blow to your line of argument.  You wouldnt even be talking on those lines if you knew anything about Latin's influence on English.  Let me tell you.  Literally half of English's vocabulary is rooted in Latin.  English has loaned thousands upon thousands upon thousands of words from Latin.  And these words have changed the very style and grammar of English over the ages. Practically all our techinical, medicinal and judicial terminology is Latin.  Latin writers and literature have greatly influenced English literature from the earliest times.http://www.spellingbee.com/cc07/Week07/rootin.shtmlhttp://e zinearticles.com/?Latin-and-Its-Influence-on-English-Language&id=312457http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0031-8299(195122)5%3A2%3C31%3ATIOLOE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Ghttp://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/course1/WhyStudy.html   I dont know what Caldwell could have meant by saying "...Sanskrit's influence on T is no more than L's influence on English.."  It was perhaps a wry sense of irony at play.
As for Dravidian(K,T,T,M etc) and Proto-Dravidian influence on Sanskrit, let me say this.  All Dravidian dialects have no doubt loaned words to Sanskrit.  But these are so few and far apart that they are merely of academic interest.  It is like scraps which only linguists are enthused about and their works are not meant to be taken as if "...there was mutual influence..both ways...."... "...much greater influence..." etc.,.  Loaning a few dozen or a couple of hundred words to another language doesnt automatically count for ".. great influence.." on the other language.
Also, it is one thing to loan words and another thing to influence the very core of any literature - grammar.  Sanskrit has not only loaned thousands upon thousands of words to Tamil(in return for probably the few dozen or few hundred), but has also influenced its very grammar and literature.  What is Tamil's influence on Sanskrit grammar? What is Tamil's influence on Sanskrit literature?  Zilch! Neither Tamil nor any of the other Dravidian languages were even fully cultivated when Panini was composing his path breaking work! 
And we have not even started talking about Vedic Sanskrit(which also was "Sanskrit", mind you).  And Tamil's influence on Vedic Sanskrit(as opposed to on Classical sanskrit) even in terms of vocabulary is next to nothing(It is infact, questionable whether there even was Tamil during the times of Vedic Sanskrit).   Whether you ascribe Sanskrit's influence on other languages to what you might see as an irrational belief in Sanskrit's divinity of the people of those ages; or you ascribe such a belief itself to the genius of the likes of Panini, Sanskrit's influence on other languages is unquestionable and overwhelming.
If we were comparing the influences of Tamil empires on Tamil Nadu with those of the Roman empire, you cant bring in handful of Roman coins and scraps of pottery from Arikamedu as evidence to counter the Brihadeeshwara temple!  You have to realise that this is a summary article and also keep WP:UNDUE in mind.  If all that Sanskrit's influence on Tamil itself is going to get is one or two lines, then the converse should get even less or nothing at all.  If you want, create an article called "Tamil's influence on Sanskrit" and dump burrow and emeneau into that article.  Hope you see my point.  As an aside, even your name is from Sanskrit!  As is mine.  Sarvagnya 19:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sarvagnya

message: :"Ok. Since you claim that you're open minded(though not demonstrated it)"
Open-minded is not just accepting whatever you say. It is to accept things which have evidence. As you can see from my edit history, unlike you I have never unilaterally removed cited content with condescending edit summaries. 
Part I: Since you are not reading the given reference but instead indulge in finding references for Latin's influence on English (as I expected), I would quote Caldwell from my earlier citation in totality. To give the context, Caldwell was referring to the Tamil used by Upper-caste people (according to him) who are known to intermix Sanskrit liberally with Tamil. This is what Caldwell says
::Even in prose compositions on religious subjects in which a larger amount of Sanskrit is employed than in any other department of literature, the proportion of Sanskrit which has found its way into Tamil is not greater than the amount of Latin contained in corresponding compositions in English. Let us for example compare the amount of Sanskrit contained in the Tamil translation of the Ten Commandments with the amount of Latin which is contained in the English version … Of forty three nouns and adjectives in the English version twenty-nine are Anglo-Saxon, fourteen Latin: of fifty-three nouns and adjectives in Tamil, thirty-two are Dravidian, twenty-one Sanskrit. Of twenty verbs in English, thirteen are Anglo-Saxon, seven Latin: of thirty-four verbs in Tamil, twenty seven are Dravidian, and only seven Sanskrit. Putting all these numbers together for the purpose of ascertaining the percentage, I find that in the department of nouns, numerals, and verbs, the amount of the foreign element is in both instances the same…
Then he proceeds to say that 
::“Though the proportion of Sanskrit which find to be contained in the Tamil version of the Ten Commandments happens to correspond so exactly to the proportion of Latin contained in the English version, it would be an error to conclude that the Tamil language is as deeply indebted to Sanskrit as English to Latin.  Tamil can readily dispense with the greater part or the whole of its Sanskrit and by dispensing with it rises to  a purer and more refined style; whereas English cannot abandon its Latin without abandoning perspicuity… Tamil, on the other hand, is peculiarly rich with synonyms; and generally it is not through any real necessity, but from choice and the fashion of the age, that it makes use of Sanskrit. If Ten Commandments were expressed in the speech of the lower classes of the Tamil people, the proportion of Sanskrit would be very greatly diminished; and if we wished to raise the style of the translation to a refined and classical pitch, Sanskrit would almost disappear."
That clearly should answer your Latin-English research. 
Part II: I repeat your question here for clarity
:"What is Tamil's influence on Sanskrit grammar? What is Tamil's influence on Sanskrit literature? Zilch!"
I will quote Hart verbatim,
::"For example, the Aryameter of the Sattasai, its alliterative scheme, and almost all its conventions, such as separation during the monsoon and the abhisiirika, prove to be almost identical with those of the early Tamil poems, but quite unlike their earlier counterparts in Indo-Aryan languages. Subsequently, the great Sanskrit classical authors borrowed many of their poetic conventions from Maharastri, and hence ultimately from the Dravidian oral tradition (but it should be emphasized that classical Sanskrit did not borrow directly from the Tamil poems, which were unknown in North India" 
Unfortunately I don't have access to his book which discusses the influence in detail. I think Aadal has provided relevant excerpts previously. But I found these comments by him from internet.
*1. Neither Sanskrit nor Tamil are particularly old in the world scheme of things.  Sanskrit is documented earlier than Tamil.
*2. Sanskrit has borrowed quite as much from Dravidian as Dravidian has from Sanskrit.  Tamil has borrowed more words from  Sanskrit than Sanskrit has from Dravidian.  It is a trivial thing for a language to borrow vocabulary. But when it uses another  language's syntax to form the way it expresses things, and uses another language's phonology for its sounds, that is really profound influence.  The fact is, Sanskrit HAS been influenced in this way by Dravidian.  Of course, some Dravidian languages have also borrowed Sanskrit sounds (bh, etc.)  But none of the four Dravidian languages I have read has borrowed anything from Sanskrit syntax that I can identify.  Much of the syntax of Sanskrit is Dravidian, and it has a large Dravidian vocabulary.  Its system of phonetics is profoundly influenced by. Dravidian -- Indo-Aryan is the only IE family with retroflexes.
*3. Sanskrit also lacks some sounds that are available in Tamil.  Tamil has short e and o, zh, R, n, and many permutations of stops -- e.g. k in akam -- which are not found in Skt.  Actually both languages have about the same number of phonemes.
*4. The word Dravidian clearly comes from the word Tamil.  This has been demonstrated time and time again -- the earliest occurrences of the word in IA are dramiDa ==> draviDa. 
*5. I can attest that the grammar of Sanskrit is no more elegant or perfect than any other IE language.  It very much resembles Russian, Latin, and Greek (which I have also read) -- to which it is closely akin.  To my mind, Tamil and the other Dravidian languages have much more elegant and logical structures.  Consider this: in Dravidian, you can take any sentence and turn it into an adverb, adjective, or noun by simply changing the ending on the verb.  Then you can embed that sentence in any other sentence.  The Dravidian relativizing system is extremely straight-forward and logical; the IE one -- shared by Sanskrit (and English) -- is quite messy and verbose.  One could go on and on.  I love Sanskrit, but I would never claim its zillions of nit-picking rules make it somehow an epitome of order and perfect structure.  Sorry, but it's just not.
*6.  I do agree with Sridhar Srinivasan about the symbiotic nature of Sanskrit and Tamil (and also other Indian languages).  The fact is, Sanskrit and Tamil, while originally independent traditions, have from the earliest times formed one cultural stream, much as the Latin and the languages of Western Europe have.
*7.  Sanskrit, like Tamil, is a very rich language and tradition.  It has an enormous variety of writings, some of which are of great quality (which is true of most rich languages).  It has been a carrier of cultural tradition, and it is endlessly interesting.  But why is it that it is mindlessly glorified for all the WRONG reasons?
*8.  Both languages are carriers of wonderful and rich intellectual and literary traditions.  The only way to appreciate either language is to read these literatures and spend a lot of time pondering them.http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/jan98/0017.html
Part III:
::"If we were comparing the influences of Tamil empires on Tamil Nadu with those of the Roman empire, you cant bring in handful of Roman coins and scraps of pottery from Arikamedu as evidence to counter the Brihadeeshwara temple!  You have to realise that this is a summary article and also keep WP:UNDUE in mind.  If all that Sanskrit's influence on Tamil itself is going to get is one or two lines, then the converse should get even less or nothing at all.  If you want, create an article called "Tamil's influence on Sanskrit" and dump burrow and emeneau into that article."
You are comparing apples and oranges. There are far too many scholars, journal papers, and books describe Tamil's influence on Sanskrit. All my citations are journal papers (not some third rate history book written by biased local authors). May be we can work on the words. Praveen 21:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My name is in Sanskrit since I was born in north-India and in any case how does that matter? Praveen 21:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Praveen

message: Robert cladwell will downplay sanskrit influence because he is the one , who brought the theory of Dravidian languages. He got the dravidian the language tag. He is not supposed to downplay his discovery isn't it. One more thing When did Robert cladwell lived, somany things have been found contrary to his arguments till now , why that are not considered? 
Same goes for Kan's Work or Neelakanta sastry work in 1955. So many things have been found contradicting his theories. 
Wiki seems to be mislead by outdated theories of these two.meghamitra 06:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Evidence/citations  please. Nobody is interested in what you feel about the Tamil's record. It is harder to swallow by some regionalistic tools; but the fact is Tamil has longer recorded history than other Dravidian languages. Some restore to supporting Sanskrit blindly just because they have no case for their own language against Tamil :). Anyways as I said earlier, citations please. Thanks Praveen 13:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: meghamitra

message: As usual you chose to ignore the Caldwell's important assertion where he says Tamil chose to use Sanskrit words out of sheer fashion rather than necessity. 
And, I provided the whole reproduction instead of the only relevant part of Hart's reply just to show the context. Hart says Dravidian to represent Dravidian languages. Tamil is one of them (oldest at that). Do you see the point?
::Its limited influence.  Has any author, even one as rabidly pro-Tamil as Hart, described Tamil as the 'magic wand' that raised Sanskrit from the level of patois to a literary language?  Anyone?
This point has been debated so many times before in the Talk page... Hart didn't use such wordings since scholars don't use such outright biased statements without evidence like KAN did.
Anyways, I have provided many citations (journals & books). Even one of them is enough to support the written statement in the article. If you can, why don't you bring citations (of equal caliber that is) where it says Tamil did not influence Sanskrit at all. (Even then, all we can do is add "according to so and so Tamil influenced Sanskrit; but according to so and so it didn't"). Do not try to remove important content with pathetic excuse such as 'summary style' article etc. If influence of Sanskrit on Tamil can find space (whole paragraph with approximately 7 lines), then Tamil's influence on Sanskrit (2 lines) should find space too. Cheers Praveen 14:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Praveen

message: Do not add misleading edit summaries where you refer to Talk page for your reverts as if there is either consensus or conclusive evidence (in Talk page). Praveen 13:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Misleading edit summaries by [[User:Sarvagnya|Sarvagnya]]

message: I'm new to Wikipedia, hoping someone would provide a helpful answer. As can be seen from the edit history, a few individuals have been reverting edits that have been cited with source. The version they revert to, is not only unsubstantiated but quite often is a blatant lie. In any case, what's the suggested way to deal with such vandals ? I also want to avoid the situation where the article gets locked from edits with a vandalised version.
BTW, just wanted to congratulate all the contributors to this article who have done an excellent job !! No wonder this is a featured article. And, I also saw there are three articles about Tamil people and culture that are all featured !! Kudos to the folks who have been instrumental in that. I wonder if the vandals realize that their time is probably better utilized being constructive by writing such good articles about their language or culture.
Lotlil 02:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As one of the editors who has worked very hard on this article and helped it live upto its FA status, I accept your wishes with all humility.  :) Thank you.  Please spread more wikilove.  Happy editing.  Sarvagnya 03:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, if you have contributed constructively to this article, you ought to feel good about it. I can only express my gratitude to anyone who has helped in spreading the greatness of the Tamil language. Lotlil 14:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to stop vandalism ? 

message: Sorry, I pressed "Enter" key by mistake before I wrote complete edit summary. Anyways, the term "Oldest language" is very vague and subjective and puts the reader in a more confused form. There is nothing called "One of the Oldest languages" in this world. I have replaced that sentence with something which makes more sense. "One of the earliest written accounts" has a definite citation.Gnanapiti 16:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed the sentence to reflect the citation. Thanks Praveen 16:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oldest language

message: I'm removing the indiscriminate tagging that's been applied to this article. If there are uncited portions of the article, it's better to raise the concerns in the talk page rather than go about spraying tags all over the place. I can understand the neutrality tag being applied until Praveen gets a consensus on the two issues he is trying to resolve.
Lotlil 15:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does these issues require neutrality tag?. --Indianstar 16:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indiscriminate tagging 

message: 1) I have moved diglossia related sentence from lead. Shortened sentence since few people were not able to understand the exact meaning of the sentence. (Including me). Please rephrase and then expand that statement
2) Clarify tag for Epigraphical inscriptions have been removed since it was clarified earlier. I suggest Sarvagyna to show citations to dispute that statement directly. 
3) Let us not indulge in edit war. If anybody is still not satisfied then we can go for WP:THIRD or  WP:MEDCAB instead of inserting multiple tags on featured article.--Indianstar 04:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues resolution

message: I suggest admins to protect this article to avoid edit war.--Indianstar 03:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protect this article

message: Here is the admin decision on validity of Tamilnet/Tamilnation.org as a source. Do not remove reference/content and vandalize Praveen 19:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proof to Tamilnet/Tamilnation's validity 

message: Whoever put the image please correct it since it has four symbols with the wrong diacriticals:
The changes required are as below (the one on the right of the arrow is the correct one)
ṛa -> ṟ 
ṣa -> sa
śa -> ṣa
kśa -> kṣa
perichandra1 18:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tamil script image's diacriticals are erroneuous 

message: The consonants section states "A chart of the Tamil consonant phonemes in the International Phonetic Alphabet follows...".
Well the inventory shown is phonetic not phonemic.  First of by directly listing the IPA symbols it makes it very difficult to identify it with the typical Indic inventory and also to trace it to the Proto-Dravidian inventory where diacriticals are used.
And more importantly, it is well known that for the stops/plosives or vallinam there are many phones in Dravidian, and Tamil is no exception. So it is better to list the phonemes and then add in a separate table list the multiple phones for the phonemes. It is going to be incomplete  for some difficult ones like the intervocalic -k- but that will be the correct thing to do. It is misleading as it is now.  perichandra1 19:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consonants section incorrect on phonemes 

message: Greetings, can someone add the romanization for சேவை in the box at Rice vermicelli? Badagnani 23:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need romanization at [[Rice vermicelli]] 

message: The following statement is not in accordance with historical facts:
"External chronological records and internal linguistic evidence, however, indicate that the oldest extant works were probably compiled sometime between the 2nd century BC and the 10th century AD". The period given is so long. 3rd Century BC to 2 nd century AD is the widely accepted period.
Yes,  "3rd Century BC to 2 nd century AD" is the period found in most native reference works.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.249.251 (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Range of centuries given as a period is wrong

message: Can someone explain what this has to do with Tamil language. I have removed it because it made no sense keeping it in the article.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read any RS academic books on the evolution of Tamil language as well as any of the languages of India, none fails to mention that Tamil language was written down earlier than any other (does not mean the other languages were  not writable or did not develop enough or any of that nature) neighboring languages (which happens to be Telugu and Kannda but not Sinhala) although the cultural experience all South Indians at the time seem to be similar. So it boils down to the language of the elite or the language preferred by the elite. Elite north of central Tamil Nadu preferred Prakrits (not Sanskrit at that early period) where as the elite in the Southern tip of Peninsular India (that includes portions of Tamil Nadu and Kerala)  preferred Tamil and the reasons are not very clearly explained as to why because the earliest inscription in Tamil Nadu does show Prakrit or Prakrit influence but it fadaed way unlike in Andhra and Karnataka where the Prakrit domination of the language preferred by the elite continued a little longer but it eventually did fade way (but not in Sri Lanka where a Prakrit became the language of the people due to language replacement) . This is germane  to any discussion about Tamil language under its history and it is fascinating for linguist and historians no matter whether a wikipedia article displays a sentence about it or not. If we dont bring it out in a proper context under history, we simply arent telling the whole story about Tamil language.Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inscriptions in Karnataka-Andhra 

message: The last sentence of the first para curreently reads:
With more than 77 million speakers, Tamil is one of the widely spoken languages in the world. This claim appears to be completely absurd. The website that the info is drawn from is either incorrect or is being misquoted. To state that a language with only 77 million speakers is one of the most widely spoken makes no sense. If you review the info on the website itself, it also claims that only about 500 million people in the world speak english which is also patently incorrect. I am removing the sentence and I don't think that site should be used as a source since it is obviously unreliable. Doc  Tropics 17:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point is quite valid. I think the author of that statement means something like  'one of the languages spoken in significant numbers in a most widely spread out area'. Tamil is spoken in significant numbers in Canada, Australia, Europe and USA, and of course in India, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Singapore etc. The meaning is not that 77 million is a large number by itself. The sentence may have to be modified. --Aadal (talk) 03:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if my initial post seemed excessively negative. You raise an interesting point about the original intent, one that I hadn't considered. I've rewritten several portions in what I hope will be a clearer fasion. Thanks for your input  : )  Doc  Tropics 03:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: non-encyclopedic claim

message: Need Tamil script for the cooking term "thalchi" at the article Chaunk#Name_in_various_languages. Badagnani (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm assuming you meant தாளித்து or தாளித்தல். If not let me know. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 17:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need Tamil 

message: no doubt tamil is oldest language in the worldBill (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oldest Language 

message: The section on tamil dialects could be modified to include the tamil brahmin dialect. This is still widely used and some words are quite distinct from the commonly accepted tamil dialect. Also the vast distinction between written and spoken tamil could be emphasized. 
134.134.136.2 (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  dialects in tamil 

message: dear wiki people,
i found the photo of script of tamil in different centuries very amusing..
i found that the contributor was "dakshin chitra" (a non tamil organisation). further the organisation name is derived from hindi(or some devanagiri script) .
Is it a mere coincidence that the photo's versions of tamil script {(see script of a, ta) in earlier centuries} is very very similar to devanagiri script or is it a wider conspiracy to fool tamilians into believing THAT DEVANAGIRI SCRIPT WAS THE SOURCE OF TAMIL!!
I dont trust a hindi organisation's version of hindi script derived images for a native dravidian language. 
but, my personal opinion must not stand in the way of truth..so i didnt delete that ..so, i am requesting tamil RESEARCHERS to PLEASE CLARIFY..OR CONTRIBUTE NEUTRAL REFERENCES (NON DEVANAGIRI SPONSORED REFERENCE) TO ENLIGHTEN US ..
Cityvalyu (talk) 20:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Citvyalu, Both Devanagari and Tamil Script are Derived From the Brahmi script. Hence the Similarities in the Intermediate Forms. There is not Conspiracy here. Vinodh.vinodh (talk) 14:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  tamil researchers clarify 

message: There needs to be some reference to the fact that in spoken Tamil, the retroflex r is replaced by the retroflex l.  The first clue should have been the transliteration 'Tamil', where the last character is an 'l' since that is what it sounds closest to when one says 'Tamil'. The IPA transliteration at the top of the article is accordingly misleading since no one says Tamil ending with a retroflex r.  Interestingly, on a recent visit to Kerala, my host was explaining to me how Malayalis sometimes chuckle at the way Tamils say certain words (many words are common to these sister languages) since when changed to the retroflex l, it takes on a new meaning in Malayalam, sometimes a funny one.  The interesting thing here is that zh is used in transliterations to refer to the retroflex l as in pronounced in Thamizh/Tamil.  Given the above, I am curious if it is supposed to refer to the retroflex l or retroflex in actuality. I guess this could be a problem when comparing Malayalam and Tamil pronunciations.
Anyways, I think this needs to be addressed.  As for references, just ask any 'Thamizh' speaker.  But I did some googling on this matter after discussing the sound and the wikipedia entries on Tamil Language and the retroflex approximant with my linguist friend, and found the following:
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/plc/tamilweb/book/chapter1/node12.html
There were a couple more references, but this one seems to be good enough and direct to the point.
Stochasticdreams (talk) 11:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retroflex r versus retroflex l 

message: This is nonsense.  Such a wide range is not necessary.  This contridicts the Tamil scholar and research communities assessment.  Refer to "Tamil Sanagams".  "The earliest extant works of Tamil literature date back to the period between 300 BCE and 200 CE and deals with love, war, governance, trade and bereavement"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.221.36 (talk) 12:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  compiled sometime between the 2nd century BCE and the 10th century CE 

message: The structure of the lead is corrupted due to massive detailed information. Removal of the citations are necessary to keep a clean lead. Thirukkural belongs to the Sangam literature. So i used a single citation instead of those hundreds. Also the grammar information in the lead should be in the grammar section of the article. This helps a lot for readability. --Kalarimaster (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:LEAD. Lead is a concise version of all the more important parts of the article. Also please remember that removal of reference is not encouraged in wikipedia.  Watchdogb (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  structure changes/citation removals 

message: Iam going to add a new section to the article named Tamil-Malayalam.If anyone disagrees, Pls post your comment here.
ARUNKUMAR P.R (talk · contribs) 13:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tamil-Malayalam