Talk:Kannada

---

please take a note of old kannada inscription http://www.thehindu.com/2008/09/20/stories/2008092054690500.htm

from the latest research

---

Reduction of criterion from 1500 to 1000 years for classical status is a blunder

The Indian govt has not right to fix the age for declaring languages as classical. They go by the age alone and even that has been reduced to 1000 after declaring first Tamil(unquestionable) and then Sanskrit. Only this has opened the pandora's box. There is going to be a huge fight, where even fledglings like Tulu will fight for classical status, after Kannada. www.hinduonnet.com/2008/11/02/stories/2008110260320500.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.13.109 (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Kannada lucky to get classical status

Tamil had to struggle for 50 years with the Indian govt who opposed tooth and nail as they were pro Sanskrit/Hindi. M.Joshi refused to give the status saying it is only for dead languaes. But Tamil got it as the evidence was overwhelming. Since now the limit has been reduced to 1000 years Kannada could easily get it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.13.109 (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Classical status to Kannada

There are only a handful of classical languages in the world. Not being classical is not a sign of degradation or anything like that. The most widely used language, English, itself is not classical. But it is the greatest language as of now. Hence should be offended when they read this para. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.13.109 (talk) 06:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Your Comments are unnecessary as classical status is given by Indian government after expert committee recommended it. The POV contents of yours are deleted because it is Original Research not suited for wikipedia.27.61.176.248 (talk) 08:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Following the lines of Kannada and Telugu, Malayalam is also demanding classical language status. deccanherald.com/content/67850/kerala-demands-classical-status-malayalam.html How correctly Dr.George Hart predicted this will happen? He is not only a great linguist but also a prophet! 'there is a fear that if Tamil is selected as a classical language, other Indian languages may claim similar status.' tamil.berkeley.edu/tamil-chair/letter-on-tamil-as-a-classical-language —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.13.109 (talk) 09:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

After Tamil, Kannada, and Telugu you are venturing into Malayalam. Continue to shed your feud until its over. You are on your way. Good luck. 27.61.177.36 (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Does Dravidian actually means Tamilian? nope!

Tamil ->Thamila->Dramida->Dravida. Please refer wikepedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dravidian_languages That being so the other non Tamil languages should have been derived from Tamil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.254.47 (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Your doubt is unwarranted. The name Dravidian was coined by robert caldwell to indicate south indian languages. Actually dravidian is used strictly as a generic word to denote proto-language of south india. Nowhere you find that all languages(south indian) came from tamil. Actually older script in the battiprolu dated to around 400BCE indicate either telugu or kannada. So every language could not have come from tamil because they were contemperory in their usage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.57.29.88 (talk) 03:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere will there be any legal document which says a language originated from another. For example it is only recent research which showed that North Indian languages originated fully from Sanskrit. Similary there are experts who suggest that South Indian languages originated from Tamil. There is no language per se like Proto Dravidian. There is enough documented evidence to prove that the origin of Tamil cannot be traced. Hence Proto Dravidian is Tamil only, even if the moderator of this section who deletes whatever comments he doesnt like because he is pro Kannada, deletes this para as well! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.13.109 (talk) 06:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Another specious and pathetic attempt to say that all languages came from tamil. Do you even know how to speak Kannada? If you are not an expert in the Kannada language then keep your unscientific unsubstantiated opinions to yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.46.198.231 (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The doubt about why dravidian is used as the proto language of south india is in the minds of many. Let me clarify this. The word dravidian is used by the europeans to mean south indian languages and not to show that every language in the group came from tamil. The word dravidian is used strictly in a generic sense and not otherwise. So dont try to dilute and corrupt the language evolution and history because most are based on the assumptions and speculations of the men who did the work in the field and archeology is not an exact science.117.97.86.147 (talk) 04:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If a language like Proto Dravidian from which all Dravidian languages evolved existed it must indeed been a great language, at least great enough to have a name which should have survived till this day. But there is no such name, because there was no such language. The only language closest to Proto Dravidian is Tamil, and this has been accepted by all scholars. Hence it is not illogical to conclude that Proto Dravidian is NOTHING BUT TAMIL and TAMIL alone. All other Dravidian languages originated from this ancient tongue. The very word Tamil means 'self sound to express'.. tam-il.... which also proves the fact that Tamil language is the most ancient, the very attempt of humanity to express itself by sound(language). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.13.109 (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

You are confused because of word Dravidian and Proto_Dravidian, which is just a hypothetical constructed language and there need not be any language by that name. If every south indian language was indeed derived from tamil then everyone would have acknowledged it and this is not the case and therefore the very need for Proto usage. If you are so disturbed by this then you can call it proto-southindian or any thing like that. There is no evidence to say that Tamil is the mother for every language because most languages interacted in different times and ways and you cannot strictly say how a word came into a particular language. 27.61.3.70 (talk) 04:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

-->

Why so many eye brows are raised when a great linguist himself says that Kannada is not classical? In a court of law, if the accused becomes too defensive, it is a sign of guilt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.13.109 (talk) 06:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Who is fanatic can be seen by all(that is you)because you are saying about Tamil in Kannada article page and not me. Did Kannada or Telugu people protest when Tamil got classical status. No, it was Tamilians who went to the extend of stopping it through madras high court. Mr Mahadaven himself has written that kannada and telugu were well developed even in pre-christian eras he has pointed kannada influence on tamil through the available cognates in the languages. There are many tamil authors who have written about kannada antiquity, and selective quoting by you is nothing but ignorance. Only historical records can be used as evidence and not poems of tamil authors of 20th century.27.57.66.120 (talk) 09:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

You should quote the historical sources and not some poems as evidence. Bharathidasan is of 20th century while Kannada, Telugu and Tulu are languages with over 2000 years history which is proved. There are over 30000 inscriptions in kannada proving its antiquity and not one evidence to say that they are derived languages. Mr Hart has expressed his views as he is a tamil scholar and he may not have indepth knowledge in Kannada, Tulu, Telugu, etc. Apart from that there are too many scholars who are of different view than Bharathidasan or Hart. If you have any evidence that can directly prove then submit it to ASI or Sahitya academy and then everyone will believe you. Dont simply say what you feel and about which you are not qualified. 27.61.176.248 (talk) 08:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Why are you falling behind Mr.Hart, are there no local tamil scholars to fall back on. For your info, I have long ago read Mr.Hart's article. How loosely he compares indian languages, besides he says his qualifications for doing so. No expert assets this way. His wordings itself says that he is influenced to do so. Why should he make references to other languages while recommending Tamil and express his apathy for others getting classical. This itself shows how supporting one can itself openup ones biases. You are again going selective rather than to be general which shows how much the colonial mindset has embrased you. Why should a foreign person recommend Tamil, its only because they are still following that old british divide up policy. What he has to do with indian language status for which Government of India is there to decide. How ill-informed you are when you say that Kannada is getting funding. There is little if any thing thats happening for Kannada sake in terms of funding. The same thing is happening in other languages in india that is why everyone is going behind English. What Thiruvalluvar has to do with kannada article. How much Thirukkural have you read yourself. There are beautiful Vachannas in kannada have you read it? Without doing anything you are simply commenting on languages. Nothing will become language overnight and no one in the past was engaged in deriving words from other languages for kannada or telugu. The common words are all shared words and not derived and no one can pipoint on etymology of everyword in every language. 27.61.31.171 (talk) 04:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I have gone through Kannada literature and grammar. It is just like Sanskrit grammar. The alphabets follow the same order as Sanskrit. 1.) There is NOTHING original in Kannada which is an important criteria for classical status. 2.) Is there a single foeigner or at least a non Kannadiga who has recommended it as classical? Only fanatics like you were sitting in the committee which has to decide the status. 3.) The petition in the High Court was ony against this. Did they give a fair hearing, no, they didnt, this shows lack of democracy, fear of political pressure/suicides from guys like you. 4.) No classical language can have its script similar or same to another classical language. But Kannada script is shamefully similar to Telugu. 5.) One doesnt have to go through in detail to decide the classical status. Hart's knowledge and review is enough. 5.) First of all you dont even accept the fundamental disqualification of Kannada not having its own word for language. 6.) None dare challenge the classical status of Tamil. Can you? The only objection raised was by M.Joshi who said classical languages have to be dead languages. But it is the greatness of Tamil that it is classical and lives. Be proud of this great Indian language, only she can be of equal status to Greek, Latin etc, and not a dialect(a language without original script) like Kannada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.13.109 (talk) 07:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

What should I say for your foolishness. Evolution of language and script are two different things. Language evolves first and then script not the otherway round. Even tamil script evolved from brahmi similar to kannada and telugu. See the tamil script evolution page posted by tamilnadu govt to get an idea. Since Karnataka and andhra were ruled by dynasties at times together therefore they applied the same script and that is why it looks similar. This doesnt mean that languages dont qualify for classical status. Go and look at evolution of greek and latin scripts they too follow similar patterns. That doesnt deny them classical status. Sanskrit too doesnt have its own script.Every indian language evolved from brahmi only. There is no need for any foreigner to recommend any indian language as they can never understand the true nature of these languages, traditions, customs, etc. You are talking about alphabet order without knowing that every that every indian language has similar order if not same. That has nothing to do with status of the language. Your words like ("Kannada script is shamefully similar to Telugu") does show how much ignorant you are. Scripts and languages which ever it may be is a pride for humanity and can never be termed shameful. You should be shamefull for using such terms for languages and scripts which are respected and worshipped in this country. You are doing nothing other than showing disrespect to tamil by posting this way. Is that what you learnt from your great tamil language and tradition. Be cool and polite and use proper terms. You send your comments that you are writing here to Mr.Hart or any tamil scholar and see how they react. Even they dont agree with words that you use. You are saying that you have gone through kannada language and literature, even then you are making these comments which shows that you have not understood anything in Kannada. You are posting similar comments even in telugu page which shows your nature. 27.57.113.210 (talk) 13:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Why do you worship language and scripts? That is utter nonsense. That is why you are not able to think logically. Language is only a tool for communication. Do you worship Java, C++ etc? May be you do. First try to come out of this shell and get your intelligence back, if you have any. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.13.109 (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing is nonsense except your views. Great persons alwalys respect languages that is why they come up with such great work. Study kurul itself to know what is wisdom and what not, What is the subtle difference between respect and worship. We have no problem in respecting tamil or any other language for that matter. Learn that. 27.57.86.7 (talk) 03:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Classical language

One of the prime requirement of a language to be classical is that it must be original. Does Kannada have its own (not borrowed) word for 'classical' and 'language'?

Actually your doubt is insane. Kannada has more than enough in it to be a classical language. It is also more compact and evolved than others of the same group. One need to understand a language to a great depth in order to comment on its originality. Remember language is evolutionary not revolutionary and it cannot gain or lose anything overnight. There are not one but multiple sounds for same words in Kannada. for example,

classical -> Utkrustavada, shrestavada, prathamikada, etc.

language -> taynudi, nammapada, addumatu, etc.

Word meanings may not be one-to-one because the language structure is different and that is why one finds it sometimes easy to overlook it.

Unlike tamil and other languages, in Kannada the use of words is different owing to different structural varieties of the language and its use and that is why it is a different language although it may belong to same group.Jrsanthosh (talk) 08:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You are trying to mislead people to believe that Kannada has words for classical and language.

The words you have derived are clearly of Tamil/Sanskrit origin. Tay or thai is the Tamil word for mother, likewise shrestavada is Sanskrit. Dont try to clothe the wolf with sheep's skin! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.13.109 (talk) 15:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The words quoted are from dictionary and cannot be wrong. Infact Sanskrit means refined that says it all. It uses good word from all other languages that is why the name.Even Kannada experts cannot know the full extent of the language and you without knowing anything are saying this.Get out of the box and be broad.If you dont know something try to find it through learning and dont keep harping this way.27.61.175.235 (talk) 05:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The words you are pointing out are shared between these languages and they are used slightly differently in each. How can you prove that words in Tamil are not from other languages. Can anyone prove when languages formed in the first place. I know if your own language would have been something different, say hindi or chinese you wouldnt have said so. Love and respect your language and dont try to degrade other languages. Do you know I like Tamil as well and have learnt to read and write it. I like to learn Malayalam as well. Try to learn other languages yourself and then you will realise that they are equally good.Without doing so you cannot and should not comment this way on other languages. Do Indian languages have scientific,technical terms that are broadly used everywhere in the world today. If you realise this then you wont raise this about other languages because humans adopt to whatever is available.

Learning and comparing different languages and finding out the root, is the work of linguists. The greatest linguist today is Dr.George Hart. Fortunately he is in the USA and not an Indian. Only he can give an unbiased view whether a language is original or not. He has taken so much pains to write a white paper in which he has clearly broadcast the fact that KANNADA DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR CLASSICAL LANGUAGE STATUS. But this doesnt in any way degrade Kannada or Kannadigas. They are great and continue to be great, winning Sahithya and Jnanapith awards, but these cannot make the language classical, because to be classical needs certain special attributes which cannot be acquired for a later born language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.13.109 (talk) 15:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Dont delete others comment without reason. You can delete yours.27.57.79.172 (talk) 10:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Who told he is not biased when he talks in favour of tamil and shows his apathy towards others. This type of comparing is old stuff and one doesnt go anywhere by doing so. How can you say others are later born languages when scholars cannot determine their age or extent. Whether Kannada qualifies for classical status is determined by expert commitee appointed by government not Mr Hart. Why dont you join that commitee if you have valid qualification and say your verdict rather than speaking here against kannada. If you are so interested in language studies do some constructive work on tamil articles. If you want cognates for different words consult dictionaries and educate yourself before questioning others. 27.61.31.171 (talk) 04:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

If Hart was biased, a university of the status of Berkeley will not publish his paper. Dont talk nonsense. He is the Chair and not a biased committe member who decided status for Kannada in India. The whole decision process was faulty. They should have put members from other States, and linguists of high caliber from foreign also. This is an international issue. It is not like a Cauvery issue. The very fact that Karnataka has the audacity and clout not to accept a Supreme Court order, in the case of Cauvery, clearly shows that it does have the treachery to knackfully choose some biased low level people in the committe who can say Kannada can stand on par with Greek! Kannada being declared classical is the greatest joke of the century. It will be revoked soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.13.109 (talk) 07:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Similarly the indian government would not have given classical status if they wouldnt have qualified. You are believing some berkeley university paper and not the formal indian government declaration. Then even tamil status becomes questionable because the same indian government has declared it too. Who told you this is an international issue. If it would have been an issue, then many governments would have formally protested it. They dont do such things because it has nothing to do with international issues. What cauvery has to do with this article. Dont deviate to something else. You can say about it in appropriate page. This shows how desperate you are. No body is comparing any language except you. Your comments are a joke and nothing else. 27.57.113.210 (talk) 13:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I a not deviating from the topic. I am still trying to prove that injustice has been done to the world by declaring a flimsy language like kannada to be on par with Sanskrit, Greek etc. I am trying to draw parallels to prove that the Karnataka Govt is notorious for such acts just as they disobeyed Supreme Court order to release Cauvery water. Understand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.13.109 (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing is flimsy language except the words you are using. Dont you feel ashamed to call a language flimsy. Every language is delight for learners. 27.57.86.7 (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Languages can be flimsy if they cant stand on their own legs (using borrowed words) Is the Karnataka govt ashamed for disobeying the Supreme Court's orders?.. No. Such a govt has enough bribing techniques to get classical status for kannada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.13.109 (talk) 08:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

what bible has to do with Kannada?

Do not understand why there is an external link to bible in this article. Please remove this link, or add kannada Ramayana, Bhagavdgeetha, and other religious like translations of Quran etc to maintain balance. My opinion is, since this article is related to language, lets keep it that way.

122.173.176.99 (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Adi

yakshagana image

yakshagana happens usually in tulu and kannada but the image on the kannada article is added without mentioning anything about kannada used in yakshagana please add images that are linked to the article.this is the reason why kannada article is not feautured one.please an expert in kannada language is required Princeofdark07 (talk) 04:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

== Classical Language Tag update ==

http://www.ptinews.com/pti%5Cptisite.nsf/0/317A2AAAB02B380E652574F30047128B?OpenDocument Can somebody update this article please? Pavan 59.92.170.5 (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

---

kananda has no relationship with marathi and hindi whatsoever. moreover marathi has many kannada words not vice versa.

People can mix any number of languages and speak that does't mean that language has the influence of other languages. Please be more rational and respect the antiquity of the kannada language.

Also please highlight which language inscriptions are found highest in the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.145.3.20 (talk) 23:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

---

is the number of kannadigas or kannada speaking population is just 3.8 crores..no ways..there are about 4 crore lingayats, 1.2 vokkaligas, and many more..

there are more number of kannadigas actually speaking..and i also feel there are more than 5 crore kannada speaking population..whereever they are ..also kannadigas by root..whichever other language they speak..please keep away saying 3.8 millions or some thing like that..i dont agree..

without logic dont put figures..

===============

I suggest we remove references to other languages (like tulu, tamil)..it's based on the some assumptions or unverified facts for what is being written about other languages.. Please keep the page only about as it was before...whoever is the author of this page....We have abundant proof in terms of inscriptions and historically important material to show kannada was much ancient language.. It is very much evident that kannada has been the ruling language for more than thousand years...

Please remove unwanted references to other languages in Kannada wikipedia....the whole classification of Dravidian languages is debatable and is not proven by facts.

Keep your assumptions away from wikipedia pages...it's pathetic you have references to other languages in kannada wikipedia...

ಠ_ಠ

ಥ_ಥ ...Beautiful.

๏̯͡๏

Classical language tag

This has been requested many years ago but the Government has not given it to Kannada. Even Telugu has also requested. Tamil has been given the classical tag and recognized even outside India. Kannada having too many Sanskirt words in ger grammar and even ordinary usage, may not given classical status —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.0.95 (talk) 07:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is article on Unsourced claim of Sanskrit's influence on Tamil present in this site?

In fact the so called Sanskrit word, "Dravidian" is from Tamil word, "Tamizhan", which has been modified by Greeks as per Wikepedia itself! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.244.41 (talk) 06:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This site is very prejudiced.--125.22.172.37 12:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Naduvar

Please look carefully. Its is sourced. the citations are #13,14,15Dineshkannambadi 15:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi friends

Hi friends, I have redone the change... If you have any issues kindly discus... I am not here to vandalise the article... IndiWorld 10:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss before making the change, rather then changing and expecting a discussion before a revert. Why is it irrelevant to mention Tamil, but relevant to mention Tulu.Dineshkannambadi 12:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes my friend, I will explain, According to the statement, It says that the TULU language and Kannada Language evaluated about the same time from a proto Dravidian source. So the statement will be like "The spoken language is said to have separated from its old proto-Dravidian source about the same time as Tulu." What is the relevancy in putting tamil there, here you are trying to confuse the readers by comparing the proto-Dravidian Language with Tamil, you can do this in article regarding proto-Dravidian language. You can compare Kannada with tamil directly, it will be very much relevant to the article dinesh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IndiWorld (talk • contribs) 05:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

--IndiWorld 06:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Change

Hi Friends, I have changed the following statement "The spoken language is said to have separated from its proto-Dravidian source earlier than Tamil and about the same time as Tulu.[11]", as follows "The spoken language is said to have separated from its old proto-Dravidian source about the same time as Tulu.[11]", since its totally irrelevant to compare between a proto-Dravidian source and Tamil language and Kannada Language. If so the Source of Tamil Language may be much more Older even than Sanskrit. So, I think its irrelevant to compare it with tamil there. Thanks and Regards...

hi The change should be made because the author wants to implicitly indicate that their language is older than tamil based on the badaga language family tree image of encyclopedia Britannica. The family tree indicates that the proto-tamil-kananda starts to split into proto-tamil-toda and pre- kananda(tamil and kanada started to separate). It does not mean that kanada is older than tamil .It only states that both the lanaguages are from same source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Umavivek (talk • contribs) 10:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced claim of Sanskrit's influence on Tamil

Dinesh you will have to provide valid sources to back your unsourced claim that Tamil was heavily influenced by Sanskrit. Tamil is a language separate from Sanskrit. As a matter if fact it has been recognized as a classical language along with Sanskrit in India. Is Kannada actually independent of Sanskrit? Can you provide valid referenced sources to prove this? Wiki Raja 04:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the groundbreaking information. Please refer to Tamil Language (citations 37-43) for Sanskrit influence on that language and please refer to Kannada language later today for citation for your next question.Dineshkannambadi 13:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW, citations already exist (citation12-13) for your perusal. There are 9 citations in all, (Tamil and Kannada articles put together) Or do you want more?Dineshkannambadi 13:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Raja, please try to be less confrontational in your requests for improvement. We are all here to make better articles, and if we work together and try to be friendly even when we disagree, it is a lot easier to do that. - Taxman ^Talk 14:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

From what I've read, I can say that Tamil is the least Sankritised of all the major Dravidian languages, followed by Kannada, Telugu and then Malayalam. --Altruism^{T a l k - Contribs.} 05:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

But all the 4 languages are Sankritized to some extent. --Altruism^{T a l k - Contribs.} 08:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Tamil language is not Sankritized but it has borrowed words from Sanskrit. These loan words are classified seperately as "vadachol" (Northern Alphabets) they are written in Tamil Script and their usage is not seen in old epics of Chilappathikaaram or Sangam literature texts etc.., (example: ஹ(Ha), ஸ(Sa), ஷ(Sha), க்ஷ(ksha)). It is said that the Tamil culture during Sangam literature was an amalgum of both Dravidian and Aryan culture and "vadachol" (Northern Alphabets) is believed to be brought to dravidian language by Aryans.--Narendran (talk) 09:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Even now Tamil language can be spoken without Sanskrit words. It is not possible anyother language in India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.247.208.8 (talk) 07:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I am yet to see a sentimental fool like that of our neighbours. If Tamil was not sanskritised then it would have a different structure alltogether , like mandrian or taiwanese or persian. The way sentences are framed , the usage of words are all loaned from sankrit . During Dravida movement all the sanskrit words were removed from tamil carefully to make people beleive that tamil came into this earth without a mother or father. Kannada takes pride in saying that we are a direct derivative of such a beautiful Heavenly language Sanskrit . After all what would be the use of telling these stuffs to people who speak a medievel language which never refomed or corrected its mistake. You can't spell or properly pronounce simple words like PRTHVI , ANKIT , SHA , CHA , THA , DA , PA etc etc etc...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.36.135.206 (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Dravidian Civilization template

Why is the template being removed? Isn't it relevant to this article? Kannada is a Dravidian language, a product of Dravidian civilization. --Altruism^{T a l k - Contribs.} 12:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

i removed the statement which says telugu script was derived from the old kannada script. this is a random biased statement with no credible evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.80.70.54 (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

New section

Hi friends, Kindly do a discussion before harshly deleting the content posted by other users. We agree with your intention in mainting the articles integrity and quality, we respect your contribution, but similarly you should also respect others contributions. so kindly do a discussion. Have a nice day, Regards, IndiWorld --IndiWorld 06:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you are trying to add, hars been discussed over and over and you may want to go through the discussions Archive 1 and Archive 2 -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 10:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Para on script says "The script itself, derived from brahmi script, is fairly complicated like most other languages of India owing to the occurrence of various combinations of "half-letters"". Is`t there a better way to say this? "Complicated"? syllabic scripts have to be that way.Somebody look in it please. ~~ ~rAGU

Isila

This article too hastily chose to quote an unsubstantiated claim in the media that the word "isila" found in the Brahmagiri edict is a kannda word meaning "to shoot an arrow".

The word Isila in the Brahmagiri edict is known very well to be a town site/place name and not a Kannada word meaning "shoot an arrow" as claimed strangely by Mr. Narasimhachar.

See [[1]] and [[2]] Also some think the place Isila is Siddhapura. Also see [[3]]

In any case the ASI (The Archaeological Survey of India) itself clearly states that Isila was a place name which was "the headquarters of the Mahamatras of Suvarnagiri": See [[4]]

And now for the most important aspect: No way can one claim that "The first written record in the Kannada language is traced to Emperor Ashoka's Brahmagiri edict dated 230 BC". The language was a type of Prakrit. It is not *in* Kannada language. So even if the word "isila" is a Kannada word (which has to be shown first) one can only say: "the first attestation of a Kannada word is found in....". If it is claimed to mean "to shoot an arrow" it is too close to Skt. iSu = arrow and related words.

So this needs a complete change which I attempted now. perichandra1 18:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep your archeological and geograhpical skills out of wikipedia and dont tamper with cited info, unless you want admins to come after your account.Dineshkannambadi 19:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The words in any language can be interpreted in many ways. This is also one of them. "Isila" in sanskrit can mean fortified area because the root is taken as "sila" or "kila" which means fort. It can also be interpreted differently. In kannada "Isila" means to throw or shoot because "isi" or "ese" when taken as root means to throw. And "la" in the suffix is used as a direction to a person to act. This means one is directing other to throw or shoot something and if any legend/mythology if it exists may throw light on it. So if they say it means "to shoot an arrow" there is nothing wrong in it. This is because words may have many meanings and another such example is "Hoysala" which means to hit or kill.117.97.86.147 (talk) 05:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this a threat? I will face the admins thanks for your concern. You will have to be reported to the admins I guess for threatening good faith edits. perichandra1 19:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perichandra1 (talk • contribs)

A Kannada politician himself quotes in the Parliament correctly that Isila is a place name :-) : See [[5]] perichandra1 20:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perichandra1 (talk • contribs)

Perichandra, that was not a threat. Sorry if I sounded a bit rude. Your message caught me at the wrong time. Anyway, it is clear you are new to wiki and are formulating your own ideas what something means based on what some politician said. There are no shortage of places in India whose names are derived from Phrases that mean something. Kolar comes from Kolahalapura. Kolahala means bloodshed, violence etc. Kolar was the place where many battles were fought between Karnataka and TN kingdoms and hence the name. you get the idea? A name of a town can also be an unique word to a language from it got the name in the first place. Having said this, a piece of advice. Learn from your seniors, dont make assumptions, dont do original research.good luck.Dineshkannambadi 20:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Perichandra, do you have a citation which states "isila" is NOT a Kannada word? If so, please produce.

On the other hand, there have multiple references given in the article which say that "isila" is a Kannada word. Also, please see this additional reference, which clearly states: ... scholars have pointed out that the Kannada word Isila is found in Ashoka's Brahmagiri inscription ...

Hope this helps. Let us not get into original research. Thanks, - KNM ^Talk 20:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. According to the book I have here (a paper by Prof. T.V. Venkatachala Sastry, the doyen of Halegannada studies), D.L. Narasimhachar said that the word isila was the Prakrit form of the Kannada word esil, not that it was itself a Kannada word. I'll have to type out the quote, since I can't find the book online:

"Based on the evidence that the Brahmagiri edict of Asoka (250 BC) has the the place-name Isil which is the Prakrit form of Esil, a Kannada word, D.L. Narasimhacar has presumed that Kannada language existed in the 3rd century B.C. He also opined that words like Puhamayi, Vilivayakura, occurring in the edicts and coins of the Satavahana times, are either of Kannada or Telugu origin."[from T.V. Venkatachala Sastry, "Development of Old Kannada Language and Literature" in South Indian Studies, (H.M. Nayak and B.R. Gopal eds), Geeta Book House, Mysore, 1990, pp 828-851 at p. 832]

Prof. Venkatachala Sastry himself took a slightly more cautious view, saying a little lower on the same page that this is a "plausible reconstruction" - but then going on to say that the place names in Ptolemy's geography (c. 140 AD) are the "earliest examples" of Kannada.

Not everybody agrees. Prof. M.H. Krishna, the Director of Arachaeology of the Mysore princely state, was of the opinion that isila was not related to Kannada, but was instead a reference to a place in the north. Again, I'll type out the relevant paragraph, from a different book:

"Brahmagiri which belongs to the Asoka period may be noted here, as one of the earliest centres of Buddhism along with Vanavasi and Mahishamandala. A Brahmagiri Asokan inscription has the northern text. It refers to two places in the north viz., Isila pattana - Isilapattana. Both refer to one and the same place. Hence the place referred to belongs to north India. Dr. MH Krishna, therefore, holds the view that it is not correct to consider isila a Kannada word. It may refer to Saranatha." [from R.C. Hiremath, Buddhism in Karnataka, D.K. Printworld, 2002 at p. 62].

So it seems we have four views (isn't Indology fun?):

• • • D.L. Narasimhachar takes the view that isila is the Prakrit form of Kannada esil
    • Prof. Venkatachala Sastry takes the view that this is a "plausible reconstruction"
    • Prof. M.H. Krishna takes the view that isila is not Kannada
    • And, going by what the article presently says, Suryanath Kamath takes the view that the word is Kannada (rather than a Prakrit borrowing from Kannada).

Perhaps the sentence could be reworded to make it clear that there's a difference of opinion? Incidentally, from this piece it seems that Prof. Venkatachala Sastry takes the view that the words in the Chariton mime are not Kannada (he says "The non-Greek words and sentences in Oxyrhynchus papyri do not appear to be Kannada") - when I wrote the article on the mime, I was for some reason under the reason that he took the position that they were Kannada. Funny, that. -- Arvind 22:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I have already provided a citation for those scholars who claim and do not claim that the passages in the Mime were in Kannada. You may add the opinion from your source too.Dineshkannambadi 22:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that'll be necessary, this article deals with the diversity of opinions regarding the Charition mime quite well - and similar wording regarding the Brahmagiri inscription should be fine, I think. I'm just a little annoyed at myself for misremembering, that's all - I usually tend to have a good memory for these things. -- Arvind 22:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I will reword it this weekend and add more citations for early Prakrit Inscriptions with Kannada phrases etc.Dineshkannambadi 13:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Dinesh Kannambadi, you seem to be one of those Kannada fanatics trying to change the history. 1. Asoka's inscriptions were in PRAKRIT and not in kannada. You have provided a citation from an article again from a group of fanatics who claimed kannada to be a classical langauge. (^ a b c Declare Kannada a classical language. Online webpage of The Hindu) http://www.hindu.com/2005/05/27/stories/2005052703230500.htm This cannot be solid proof for your allegations. 2. How do assume shilashaasana inscriptions are in old kannada though you have specified it resembles close to Tamil. And your citation does not state those inscriptions are in old kannada. 3. Even the brittanica never states that kannada spoken language have separated from its proto-Dravidian source the same time as tulu earlier than Tamil. Kannada inscription are dated only from 5 AD. Dont forget it. http://lrrc3.sas.upenn.edu/popcult/MAPS/soudrav.gif. You are misleading all the readers. Tell me what was the language that was Proto dravidian language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RationalAndReal (talk • contribs) 15:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Some clarifications

Some claims in the lead and History section caught my eye, I hope Dinesh or others who are actively editing this article would clarify them at some point:

• The first written record in the Kannada language is traced to Emperor Ashoka's Brahmagiri edict dated 230 BC

From the discussion in the above section (Isila), one thing is clear: we cannot assert that it is indeed a Kannada word. That aside, even if we assume that it is a Kannada word, it's not clear to me how that makes it a written record in the Kannada language. It gives an impression that the entire edict is in Kannada. It's more appropriate to mention the Halmidi inscription instead of the Ashokan edict in the lead.

DK reply I intented to change this line and include Kannada influence on Tamil-Brahmi inscriptions from 2c. BC (Mahadevan) and also on Prakrit inscriptions. So while the wording will change, the meaning wont.Dineshkannambadi 11:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Careful when you do that... because Mahadevan says the language shows influence of Old Kannada and not the inscriptions. So using it to prove a written tradition for Kannada wont fly, at best it indicates that the language Old Kannada existed around that time. Another issue is using the 2nd cent BCE date, Mahadevan only gives a date of 2BCE-6CE for all inscriptions he discusses in the text (the ones he discovered in his work of over 40 yrs). Nowhere does he mention that all such inscriptions show the influence of old Kannada. Which would put into question the 2nd BCE date for old Kannada influence. Lotlil 13:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

DK Reply I will write exactly what Mahadevan says. And I did not say Kannada's influence on Tamil language proves Kannada's written tradition.Dineshkannambadi 13:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have now a website written by Dr. A.V. Narasimhamurthy that several 2c. BC Tamil Inscriptions exist, very much in the heart of Tamil Country, carrying old Kannada words. BTW, Murthy is the author of "Coins of South India". I prefer to find his book though giving the same information before I load that piece of info.Dineshkannambadi 02:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• However, the archaeological evidence would indicate a written tradition for this language of around 1600 years

I noticed Dinesh's edit summary while changing it from 1550 to 1600, that he's using Kannada wordings in coins c. 400 CE to push this date out. This assertion needs to be sourced appropriately (that the coins are dated to 400 CE, that the legend is Kannada and that this can be taken as proof of a written tradition)

DK Reply I am not trying to push anything. I have provided valid citation in the Coinage section. Nothing more is required. Its your resposibility to prove that Dr. Moraes is wrong in his assesment. The 1600 years is just a general statement because King Bhagirata ruled from 390-420 in two of my sources. In fact I can provide a citation from Dr. Hampana, a well known Kannada scholar that the Kannada characters have evolved from 1900 years. Dr. Jyotsna Kamat also agress with this assesment. Because that was a web citation, I have left that alone and am looking for a book citation from the same author. About the coins, the book clearly says the coins are ascribed to the Early Kadambas (350-525) and the gold coin under question is an abbreviation of Bhagiratha, a King from the Early dynasty. Then he says another gold coin ascribed to his son, Raghu (420-430) bearing Devanagari inscription is available. Under any circumstance, recently, a 5th century copper coin minted by the early Kadambas has been discovered and cited in the article. So, anywhich way you look at it, the 5th century date wont change. In fact my book gives images of these coins, but I can load them into wiki because the book was published in 1931 and may fail wiki requirement of 100 years.Dineshkannambadi 11:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to make sure we aren't synthesising material, inadvertently of course. So, if Moraes says Kadambas issued a coin in 4th cent., fine. If he says that the inscription is in Dev. script but Kannada language, good. Say that. But, using this information to say that this is the earliest record of Kannada writing would be OR (since the source apparently only shows Kannada language existed, nothing about its writing), unless a source can be provided which makes this assertion. I hope I made myself clear. The 5th cent date isn't being questioned, Halmidi proves that already. I wanted to know what prompted the change from 1500 yrs to 1600. Lotlil 13:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

DK Reply Lotlil, Moraes does not say the coin was issued in 4th century. He says the coin bear's the name of Bhagiratha. Thats exactly what I have written. But he does ascribe it to the Early Kadambas (4thc-6thc). The coin by Raghu is in Devanagari script. Moraes does not mention what language, which is why I did not add it. But I will verify again. I cant make Kannada older than it is by exaggeration.Dineshkannambadi 13:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, a FA on Kadamba Dynasty is soon forthcoming. Happy reading.Dineshkannambadi 12:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Kannada has had a significant influence on other Indian languages and overseas cultures

Significant sounds OR and so does impacting overseas cultures. Need some good sources here.

DK Reply This section's first line can be reworded. I will look into this. Again citations have been provided on Kannada influence on Tamil-Brahmi inscriptions, Gujarathi language etc.If you disagree with this assesment, please provide citations.Dineshkannambadi 11:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Lotlil 05:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Correction

Hello, I am new to this but I would like to report that there is a mistake on the kannada page. Next to the word kannada, there is a translation of it in the kannada script. This is wrong as it reads as kan-na-da. May not seem significant but it is. Someone please rectify this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.240.218 (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You must be using Firefox. If yes, then go to Regional and language options in your control panel, go to languages tab and click on install files for complex script and right to left languages. You'll be able to read Kannada script properly. Gnanapiti (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Some one help me,I'm facing the same problem ,scripts are not clearly visible.
I use firefox.Dsr2008 (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Brahmagiri edict

So what is the Kannada content of the Brahmagiri edict? Our source for this appears to be a The Hindu article stating "The first record on Kannada language is traced to Emperor Ashoka's Brahmagiri edict dated 230 B.C." Now a record "on Kannada language" is curiously different from a record of the Kannada language. Can we cite some reference that states the edict has Kannada content, as opposed to generic Tamil-Kannada? dab (𒁳) 15:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

ah, I see this is discussed at #Isila above. As it stands, it appears there is a dispute that there may be a single word that may be identified as Kannada in the edict. We can mention this, of course, but it hardly makes for a solid "first record" of the language. If there is any interest in debating this topic in detail, I suggest this article isn't the place for it. Take it to Ashoka rock edicts, or perhaps to a dedicated Brahmagiri edict. dab (𒁳) 15:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Need assistance at Chaunk

Need Kannada script for oggaraNe, and vaggaraNe at the Chaunk article. And what do the capital Ns mean? Badagnani (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Added there. Capital N means ṇ, as in Karna. - KNM ^Talk 16:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Why was "vaggaraNe" removed in this edit? Badagnani (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

many Kannada words starting with 'o' are mispronounced by many people to sound like they start with 'va'. In writing though, there is no mispronunciation (:)) and there is only one correct spelling. In this case, it happens to be 'oggaraNe'. Sarvagnya 19:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we remove references to other languages (like tulu, tamil)..it's based on the some assumptions or unverified facts for what is being written about other languages..

Please keep the page only about as it was before...whoever is the author of this page....We have abundant proof in terms of inscriptions and historically important material to show kannada was much ancient language.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.204.229 (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

classical language

kannada language gets classical status.someone please update,i cant update because article is locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.190.115 (talk) 14:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=44340 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.190.115 (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

doneDineshkannambadi (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Kannada is also spoken in Tamil Nadu

Among regions in which Kannada is spoken, please add Tamil Nadu also.. Tamil Nadu has a large number of Kannadigas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandhya.darshini (talk • contribs) 15:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Tulu script

Modern day Tulu uses Kannada script. But Tulu actually has its own script called "grantha lipi". The script used by Malayalam is directly derived from this. Also "grantha lipi" is used even to write few letters in Tamil.. i.e to write those letters for which tamil has no support —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandhya.darshini (talk • contribs) 15:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Kannada being influenced by Samskrita

Only modern day Kannada used in literary works is influenced by Samskrita. It will still be possible to write or talk in Kannada totally without using Samskrita... it's another thing that that way is not in use.

PS: http://enguru.blogspot.com/2008/07/acca-kannada-nighamtu-mattu-kolambe.html Poets like "AnDayya" had written complete works in Kannada —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandhya.darshini (talk • contribs) 15:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Our script is actually follows Brahmi script. Although symbols are ours the script system is not. Around 20-30% of words we use come from Samskrita. It is ture we "can" speak in Kannada but the reality is that we do use Samskrita and that is caled 'influence'. We should state it as it is. It in no way diminishes our language but enriches it. 199.246.40.54 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC).

kannada letter 'wa' is featured on the wikipedia logo or the wikipedi puzzle globe , it is the clearly visible alphabet to the bottom left .

kannada letter 'wa' is featured on the wikipedia logo or the wikipedi puzzle globe , it is the clearly visible alphabet to the bottom left .kannada and devanagari are the only two indian languages to have their alphabets on the wikipedia logo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Painkiller.pint (talk • contribs) 12:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request. I have performed a history swap with the redirect.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

---

Kannada language → Kannada

• The disambiguator "language" has been considered unnecessary according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages) for several years already. Kannada is already a redirect and appears to have no secondary definition in English. Peter ^Isotalo 22:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• The naming convention referred to states Convention: Languages which share their names with some other thing should be suffixed with "language". If the language's name is unique (as a noun), there is no need for any suffix. For example, English language and Persian language, but Esperanto and Latin. In this case there may be a need to disambiguate. Wikipedia has pages on Kannada literature, Kannada script, Kannada poetry, Kannada University, Kannada brahmins and Kannada Sahitya Parishat. The page at Kannada, which currently redirects to Kannada language would perhaps be better as a disambiguation page. Skinsmoke (talk) 03:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • All of those examples require some kind of addition to be proper topics of their own. None of them can be referred to simply as "Kannada" in English, just like Esperanto literature or Latin grammar can't be confused with Esperanto or Latin respectively. English language dictionaries confirm this (see dictionary.com and OED). The long-standing redirect to the language appears to have evoked no confusion and the issue has even been discussed at talk:Kannada (though no one seems to have thought of using the simpler title instead of the more complicated disambiguated one). Peter ^Isotalo 12:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Support per Peter, sounds like a good idea. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support OK, you've convinced me, Skinsmoke (talk) 06:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

About error in the Wiki Kannada Page

hi, there s a mistake in wiki kannada page. the image which indicates kannada speakers doesnot seem to include a district called KOLAR which lies very next to the state capital bengaLuru. not a piece of it. not a part of it is marked colour saying the whole part is of non kannada speakers. for your kind information, the whole malur, kolar, bangarpet, chikkaballapur(now a separate district hq) etc are a major kannada speaking areas. but since it is a border, dere is a mild influence of telugu on dese parts but it is restricted only to a limited extent. especially in malur taluk even though it shares border with tamil nadu not even 1 % of the ppl here speak or know tamil kanguage. i know this fact as i am from this place and i know very well about linguistic nature there. i dont knw from where the WIki got that image but it is not correct. if u want u can ask experts about this. but that image is false and unbearable to see. even if u r not able to replace the image, but please remove it. hope u respond to this soon regards -vishal vishalkg1156@gmail.com 'Bold text'''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.99.215 (talk) 11:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Vishal. The map which indicates the # of speakers has been picked from an Academic Journal. What you're stating seems to be Original Research. We only furnish content of academic nature on Wikipedia. Original Research has no place on Wikipedia. Hope that makes sense.
Signed | Aoghac2z
14:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)