| Revision as of 09:40, 14 May 2007 editMGC22T (talk | contribs)141 edits iraniar date← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:35, 20 May 2007 edit undo59.183.0.81 (talk) →Who is this BGL Swamy?Next edit → | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
| ::::::::Is the reference in Kannada necessary? Since there is another reference in English, I think we can remove the Kannada reference (There is no translation. Not every body understands Kannada). ] 14:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | ::::::::Is the reference in Kannada necessary? Since there is another reference in English, I think we can remove the Kannada reference (There is no translation. Not every body understands Kannada). ] 14:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| Iraniyar is 12th century AD , unncessarily he has been quoted as 8th century AD to advance date. Iraniar quoted three sangam dates. The last being 10th century AD. so he cannot be before 10th century,he is generally accepted as 12th century, why put him as 8th century] 09:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC) | Iraniyar is 12th century AD , unncessarily he has been quoted as 8th century AD to advance date. Iraniar quoted three sangam dates. The last being 10th century AD. so he cannot be before 10th century,he is generally accepted as 12th century, why put him as 8th century] 09:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| I think what we refer often now is an Urai(Bhashya)Nool of original Iraiyanar Agaporul(which is lost). | |||
| Dr.Rawsa Mawnikkanawr has written a book in Tamil on Literary History(Ilakkiya Varalawru) and he has this in sum to say on Tolkappiyam: | |||
| Many hold the view that Tol predates Eight Anthologies but Prof.Vaiyyawpuri had a different view and expressed in his work but all his points were refuted by another author Vellai Vawranawr.One of the point vital to belief that Tol predates other sangam work is that the literary syntaxes appearing in that work vary at many instances in the later works had TOl been a later work then it would have accomodated those as well.R.Raghava Iyengar quotes the same contradictions viz that explained in TOl is not exploited in the later works and that exposited in the later works are not enumerated in tol to adduce its predating. | |||
| Venkateswarulu Reddy has the same view.M.Raghava Iyengar has in his book come out with details of the hypothesis of predate. | |||
| Panam Pawranawr supposed to be the disciple of Tolkappiyar has mentioned about kumariyawru which is supposed to be there as (Vada Vengadam-Then kumari as boundaries)before Kadal KoL.Proves it predates many Tamil works. | |||
Revision as of 10:35, 20 May 2007
Trautman's quote on Tolkappiyam
On p. 55, Trautman's "Languages and Nations - The Dravidian Proof in Colonial Madras" says, "Although the final form of Tolkappiyam may not have been fixed till about 500 A.S., its earliest form is probably to be placed in the first century B.C. (Zvelebil 1995:705-6)"
Trautman talks about A.C. Burnell's search for non-Paninian grammar and his 'discovery' of Tolkappiyam and his comments about Tolkappiyam and Panini and Prakrit grammars, but I don't know where the comment about 8th century CE is mentioned as a date for Tolkappiyam.--Aadal 22:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Whoever used that citation, please reproduce relevant portion of citation in the form of quote. Thanks Praveen 23:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Who is this BGL Swamy?
What reputation does Dr Swamy has with regard to his knowledge of Tamil language or literature. His bio says that he was a reknowned botonnist. I couldn't find anything about his training in Tamil or Tamil literature. How is his assertion is to be taken at the same level of those of Dr. Zvelebil, Prof Hart, etc??
All Dr Swamy has done is write a book in Kannada Tamilu Talaiga Naduve (Lit: Among the Tamil Heads) on his experience of living in Madras as the head of Botony department at the Presidency college. Is this a research article? What a joke?
I can cite hundreds of equally reputable Tamil 'scholars' who assirt that Tamil ruling dynasties date back to 10000 BCE! Let's get real here. Parthi 22:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- That too a Kannada article?! As if we could not find reputable English source. Venu, I agree with you in removing this quote from Botonist(?!). Praveen 23:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Cant you read? Cant you see that I have referred to his "English" work in a peer reviewed and reputed publication? BGLS has published other papers(about history) also in other peer reviewed reputed journals. His book, "Chidambaram and Nataraja:problems and generalisations" is available in university libraries all over the world. Do a search before you shoot your mouth off. As for his papers on botany, they're referred even today all over the world(do a search on Google scholar). That last part was just to demonstrate that 'scientific rigor' was not unknown to him. I should also perhaps remind you that Vaiyapuri Pillai was an advocate and Iravatham Mahadevan a IAS officer. And, U Ve Swaminathair, a self styled Indiana Jones. So your 'oh he's a botanist! ' just doesnt cut it. Good luck. And btw, about BGLS' command over Tamil, it was second to none. During his 30 year stay in Madras, he also was a columnist for some Tamil newspapers and magazines. Sarvagnya 09:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- And by the way, who's this Shesha Iyengar quack? Does he have any publications in peer reviewed academic publications? Or did you fish him out of here. Seems like another Pavanarian crackpot. Can you gimme more details please. Sarvagnya 09:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Can you provide some reference to some of the 'peer reviewed' research papers produced by BGL Swamy on Tamil literature and linguistics? Parthi 09:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- The one thats necessary for this article is already in the references. Sarvagnya 09:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- If command over tamil is his qualification on commenting on Tolkappiyam, then we are in shallow waters here! Parthi 09:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- I wrote about his command over tamil because you raised that issue. You seem to have a memory that goes back 5 minutes or so. Thats not my problem. Sarvagnya 09:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- If command over tamil is his qualification on commenting on Tolkappiyam, then we are in shallow waters here! Parthi 09:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's one thing to 'know' Tamil - one would expect that given that he lived in Madras for so long, but totally another matter regarding his qualification to comment on Tamil literature. My question was regarding his knowledge of Tamil literature. I think you will understand that. Parthi 10:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Peer reviewers of peer reviewed journals have asked such questions long before you did and have been satisfied. Too bad if you cant satisfy yourself. Suffice to say, BGLS' knowledge of Tamil and Tamil literature was as good as anybody. Sarvagnya 10:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- And oh btw... tamilu talegaLa naDuve is not about his experiences as Professor and later principal of Presidency College. That he describes in great humorous detail in pradhyapakana peeTadalli, kaleju ranga and kaleju taranga. TTN, is infact about Tamil history and literature from the first page to the last. Sarvagnya 10:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Peer reviewed by other quacks in Karnataka. Thats really a nice qualification. Could you quote some relevant portion from his 'work'? Praveen 12:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Is the reference in Kannada necessary? Since there is another reference in English, I think we can remove the Kannada reference (There is no translation. Not every body understands Kannada). Praveen 14:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Peer reviewed by other quacks in Karnataka. Thats really a nice qualification. Could you quote some relevant portion from his 'work'? Praveen 12:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- And oh btw... tamilu talegaLa naDuve is not about his experiences as Professor and later principal of Presidency College. That he describes in great humorous detail in pradhyapakana peeTadalli, kaleju ranga and kaleju taranga. TTN, is infact about Tamil history and literature from the first page to the last. Sarvagnya 10:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Peer reviewers of peer reviewed journals have asked such questions long before you did and have been satisfied. Too bad if you cant satisfy yourself. Suffice to say, BGLS' knowledge of Tamil and Tamil literature was as good as anybody. Sarvagnya 10:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's one thing to 'know' Tamil - one would expect that given that he lived in Madras for so long, but totally another matter regarding his qualification to comment on Tamil literature. My question was regarding his knowledge of Tamil literature. I think you will understand that. Parthi 10:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Iraniyar is 12th century AD , unncessarily he has been quoted as 8th century AD to advance date. Iraniar quoted three sangam dates. The last being 10th century AD. so he cannot be before 10th century,he is generally accepted as 12th century, why put him as 8th centurymeghamitra 09:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I think what we refer often now is an Urai(Bhashya)Nool of original Iraiyanar Agaporul(which is lost). Dr.Rawsa Mawnikkanawr has written a book in Tamil on Literary History(Ilakkiya Varalawru) and he has this in sum to say on Tolkappiyam: Many hold the view that Tol predates Eight Anthologies but Prof.Vaiyyawpuri had a different view and expressed in his work but all his points were refuted by another author Vellai Vawranawr.One of the point vital to belief that Tol predates other sangam work is that the literary syntaxes appearing in that work vary at many instances in the later works had TOl been a later work then it would have accomodated those as well.R.Raghava Iyengar quotes the same contradictions viz that explained in TOl is not exploited in the later works and that exposited in the later works are not enumerated in tol to adduce its predating. Venkateswarulu Reddy has the same view.M.Raghava Iyengar has in his book come out with details of the hypothesis of predate. Panam Pawranawr supposed to be the disciple of Tolkappiyar has mentioned about kumariyawru which is supposed to be there as (Vada Vengadam-Then kumari as boundaries)before Kadal KoL.Proves it predates many Tamil works.