Misplaced Pages

Talk:Malayalam

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nagadeepa (talk | contribs) at 21:15, 13 February 2018 (→Further References). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:15, 13 February 2018 by Nagadeepa (talk | contribs) (→Further References)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIndia: Kerala High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Kerala (assessed as Top-importance).
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconLanguages Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconDravidian languages (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Dravidian languages, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Dravidian languagesWikipedia:WikiProject Dravidian languagesTemplate:WikiProject Dravidian languagesDravidian languages
This article contains a translation of ISO from ml.wikipedia. Malayāḷam

Archives

Archive-1 Archive-2


Malayalam language materials

https://archive.org/details/ldpd_8661431_000

https://archive.org/details/malayalamenglish01gund

https://archive.org/details/lukemalayalamara00madr

Rajmaan (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Additional info requested

Could someone please include whether Malayalam is left-to-right or right-to-left in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.43.216 (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Go to the section on its writing system. Then follow the link to the article about it, where it can be found under "Characteristics" and in the infobox. --JorisvS (talk) 09:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Malabar Language

The language of Malabar was not Malayalam. Malayalam came into Malabar only with the arrival of converted to Christianity, non-brahmanial populations from Travancore. The language of Malabar had absolutely different words, most of which cannot be understood by Malayalam speakers of Travancore.

Words like: ബരത്തം, ചെരയിക്കുക, ബസ്സി, പക്കിണ്, ബെയ്ക്ക്, കീയ്, ബയ്യാപ്പുറം,and hundreds of other words are un-understandable to the Malayalam speakers of Travancore.

As of now, the traditional language of Malabar has been wiped out by formal education, Malayalam films and TV serials and by Malayalam Newspapers.

More on this can be found on this link

Add more information for verbs

This article on Malayalm doesn't have any information on verb conjugations. Can somebody add more information on verbs and verb conjugations? There should be examples also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aparme (talk • contribs) 17:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Malayalam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Malayalam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

185.69.145.86 (talk) 02:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Debates on the origins of Malayalam - June 2017

Removed Krishnamurti. Krishnamurti as cited from Britannica is unreliable for two reasons. One, he is NOT an established expert on Malayalam - with no publications specifically on Malayalam linguistics. Two, more importantly, in the Britannica entry - the language tree depicted in the same article clearly shows the split of Malayalam before the development of Tamil. Thus, Krishnamurti contradicts himself in the entry. I have removed this reference. If other editors want to use this entry to give timelines, they must first explain this contradiction.

Krishnamurti, Karashima and Mahapatra are general historians of South India - none specialising in Kerala/Malayalam. I fail to see how their view can be accepted over specialist linguisticians of Malayalam such as Govindankutty and Asher & Kumari. It only exhibits the authors' own biases.

Asher and Kumari (1997) give a basic treatment of the linguistic history. However, their conclusion is clear. That the split is in ancient era, before the development of Tamil. Detailed discussions can be elaborated in the Evolution section, however the current position is that of Asher and Kumari’s. A more authoritative newer source needs to be provided to claim a counter conclusion.Hyper9 (talk) 15:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The only bias here appears to be your own. Your first edit basically removed the Britannica reference claiming that Bhadriraju Krishnamurti is unreliable. Your next edit reintroduces him along with some OR to suit your own narrative. Krishnamurti does not contradict himself. He is simply presenting both sides of the Malayalam-origin debate as evident here: Malayalam evolved either from a western dialect of Tamil or from the branch of Proto-Dravidian from which modern Tamil also evolved. This is the position outlined in the article. Asher and Kumari also begin, The most widely held view is perhaps the one that takes Malayalam as a 'daughter' of Tamil, the historical records of which go back to the pre-Christian era. All your claims of certain authors being general historians and not Malayalam-specialists are specious and contradicted by your own edits. If you want to bolster the Proto-Dravidian theory, then please do so without removing the "most widely held view" or its primacy. If you want to bolster the "daughter of Tamil" theory, then do that without impinging on any of the Proto-Dravidian stuff. Just maintain NPOV and avoid OR statements such as "The current scholarly understanding" unless reliable sources actually state so and are not contradicted elsewhere (as is the case here).--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 16:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
@Cpt.a.haddock: The Krishnamurti reference was pre-existing on Wiki and I was not the one to introduce/change it, much like several other dubious links that you often highlight. Krishnamurti's Dravidian languages entry on Britannica (which is the one used for citation) is certainly contradictory - but what you quote above, to defend Krishnamurti, is now magically from the Malayalam entry which is NOT the one cited on the page! Perhaps, you need to add this link first before arguing about the legibility of the link.
Asher and Kumari are fairly clear that they have been 'convinced' of pre-historic split. And this is taken as the current view on the topic. The debate on the topic is recognised and it is elaborated in the 'Evolution' section. However, the conclusion of the debate, as I point out in the parent 'Talk' comment, is that of Asher and Kumari's (aka current scholarly understanding!!). This is precisely what is summarised in the Introduction, so Im not sure what is this bias that you imagine I have. In fact, I'm not sure why you (Cpt.a.haddock) are imposing your own bias in the face of such an expert verdict! Kindly explain why you would disagree with their verdict - with the appropriate citation!
The academics that have been cited are the best when none other exist. That does not mean that they are the best in every way. If you find a better source, I would welcome it but you never seem to provide one.Im not getting involved in Proto-Dravidian/Indo-Aryan theory blah blah blah - but my reading and citations are a fair, dispassionate summary of the expert literature. It appears that you (Cpt.a.haddock) are the one more entangled in this - and trying to push your own POV.Hyper9 (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I would like to also point out that you (Cpt.a.haddock) went and modified the Wiki that had held stable for some time. You did NOT open this Talk section to discuss and arrive at a Consensus before modifying the section - I had to after your modification spree. And now you are accusing me of doing the same. Perhaps you need to re-evaluate your own POVs and biases on this topic. If you have launched into this after my comment on the Chera Talk that there are POVs in the article, then I must point out to you that you have mistaken the size of the POVs (which are very minor and used only for their minor explanatory power). It is nothing of this magnitude !!Hyper9 (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Hyper9: Asher and Kumari do not magically become "current scholarly understanding" just because you say so. They are one reliable source and proponents of one theory. There are others who are proponents of another theory which appears to be the more widely accepted one (in Asher and Kumari's own words). We are simply here to present both without bias. As for article stability, looking at the history there used to be some semblance of balance to this article until a couple of months ago. There have been a series of IP edits removing the Tamil angle from the article. This includes edits by 115.99.16.157 on April 15 where he removed content from the lead (in his first edit), followed a few hours later by a manual revert by your good self where you deign to not bother reintroducing the same content. As to why I'm here, I'm here because of your use of Asher and Kumari as a basis for your synthesis in Chera dynasty and I noticed similar NPOV issues when I checked here. I don't usually bother with non-history related articles.
Setting all that aside, what are your issues with the current position in the Evolution section? We can work on that here and attempt to reach a consensus. I don't share your opinion that Asher and Kumari's position somehow represents "current scholarly understanding" or that the other sources cited in the section are unreliable. The only author who could be questionable is Dr. BP Mahapatra who is apparently "Deputy Registrar General (languages)", a Census bureau official of unknown qualifications/expertise; he is however only one of four authors in the book's byline and the Google Books preview does not provide information on who wrote the Malayalam chapter.
And if there are any lurkers watching on, please jump in to provide a third opinion.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 18:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
@Cpt.a.haddock: - Ok. Let me break this down for you. Asher and Kumari (1997) are authorities on Malayalam. Their current position on this issue is that the split is pre-Sangam. There is also no subsequent contrary evidence of a similar quality presented - make note, since 1997 if not 1972! Therefore, they become the 'current understanding'. You do not present any single similarly authoritative (expert in malayalam linguistics) reference to defend your position, yet you argue against it! What is that but a pre-conceived bias? The debates that you talk about are acknowledged and dutifully recorded in detail later in main body, Evolution or other sections. But the conclusion of the debate, as it stands, is that of Asher's. As I mentioned earlier, please defend your argument with the appropriate (ie subsequent/current) citation from a similar expert in Malayalam linguistics!
Since I add genuine, good quality content on Misplaced Pages, I am not active all the time and do not monitor all aspects of these pages. The areas which I deem critical, I keep an eye on - and add/improve content if I find it but am not bothered if someone changes/improves any and every aspect. You (Cpt.a.haddock) have distinctly taken to editing both 'Chera' and 'Malayalam' after a casual chat with me on the Chera talk and I'm very aware of this. But your identification of the POVs are incorrect and you can contact me if you need help in finding them. The material and positions that I have provided on these Wikis are well researched and rock solid - and therefore very defendable by me or anyone. On the other hand, you have neither given any expert references nor added any signficant new ideas or research.
I had given a more referenced version of the Evolution but in the haste of your biased view, you have reverted it. All I have been saying, consistently, is that the verdict of the debate within linguistics (as of 2017) is clear - it is that of Govindankutty and Asher & Kumari's. Until someone strongly contests it, this position stands. Asher and Kumari do not arrive at this position themselves but are actually confirming that the analysis of Govindankutty in 1972 is impeccable. Other articles or references that are cited on this page are not original research but just users of secondary data. We (or anyone) can always add more detail to the Evolution section and in fact Mahapatra (eds) turns out to be an excellent resource for that.Hyper9 (talk) 19:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC) Reverted POV edits of as no response forthcoming.Hyper9 (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
That's some serious logic you have going there. No, that's not how academia works. Govindankutty Menon's theory has had about 45 years to be accepted by other scholars and clearly, this hasn't happened (remotely) universally as evident from both Krishnamurti and Karashima. In fact, in Krishnamurti's The Dravidian Languages (Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 22), he liberally cites Asher and Kumari (1997) and yet maintains that Malayalam was a "west-coast dialect of Tamil till about the ninth century AD". In The Dravidian Languages (Routledge, 1998, p. 6), Sanford B. Steever states that "Between 800 and 1200 CE the western dialects of Tamil, geographically separated from the others by the Western Ghats, developed into Malayalam". It is clearly evident that the western dialect view is the more accepted one and is effectively "current scholarly understanding". Furthermore, the view's widely accepted status is corroborated by Asher and Kumari themselves.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 07:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
@Cpt.a.haddock: Perhaps you (Cpt.a.haddock) need to re-examine your deep seated biases. I dont see how any of these references (Karashima, Krishnamurti and now Seever) are experts in Malayalam. Repeating from the earlier response - As I mentioned earlier, please defend your argument with the appropriate (ie subsequent/current) citation from a similar expert in Malayalam linguistics!. My open challenge for the relevant citation from an expert in Malayalam still stands. Asher and Kumari's book is not an exposition on the topic of Malayalam's history and hence is not required to be used for that. But the fact that they are being cited means that they are considered the authorities in Malayalam by these generalist historians or linguists.Hyper9 (talk) 07:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
@Hyper9: No, Misplaced Pages does not require such jaundiced interpretations of who is considered an expert and who is not. These are all reliable linguists and historians published by reliable publishers and are eminently suitable for this NPOV encyclopaedia.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
@Cpt.a.haddock:I am sure that every entry in Misplaced Pages benefits from citations from the foremost authority in the field. And in this case, you fail to show any citation by an authority (in Malayalam-specific linguistics - for this Malayalam wiki page) greater than Govindankutty/Asher and Kumari that I have used. In fact, you point out how others have used these references as authorities without realising the irony in that. I do not think that this (ie using references that support your biases/POVs over the established authority in the field) would acceptable practice anywhere, not just Misplaced Pages. Hyper9 (talk) 08:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Are there any details on the timelines involved in building consensus, especially waiting for replies ? It is not clear anywhere on Misplaced Pages and therefore I went ahead with the edits.Hyper9 (talk) 08:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
For the record and benefit of other editors/users interested, I would like to cement the fact that the sources cited by User - Cpt.a.haddock to defend his position are experts of other Dravidian languages - NOT Malayalam. Krishnamurti (of Telugu), Karashima (of Chola-Tamil) and Steever (of Tamil-Kannada). They do not seem to have any significant contributions vis-a-vis Malayalam, as evidenced by the majority of their bodies of work.Hyper9 (talk) 10:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC) In fact, let me add that one would struggle to find ANY contribution to Malayalam by these scholars.
@Hyper9: And to repeat myself, if they were the foremost authority in the field, then everybody would now—45 years after Menon's paper was published—be parroting their theory. That's obviously not the case here.
I'm unaware of fixed timelines for consensus, but in my experience, editors assume good faith and generally tend to wait at least a couple of days for a response. If consensus cannot be reached, then other steps can be taken.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 13:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
@Cpt.a.haddock: It does not appear that you're differentiating between the various fields under study here. As you have mentioned ealier, you do not know about Malayalam or Languages and largely edit history pages. This conclusion that we have been discussing has been provided within Linguistics - as given by my references - and is currently undisputed. The Historian, however, has to arrive at a conclusion based on a number of different subjects such as Archaeology, Numismatics, Literature, Linguistics etc - and be able to string a theory to explain all these together.
Also, unlike your claim, it is not necessary for "everybody" to know about all discoveries in any field and some people are not interested in going around "parroting" their pet theories. That does not constitute why a theory becomes the correct one. A theory is accepted when there is academic consensus "within that field" that the theory is impeccable. And Asher and Kumari (as experts of Malayalam linguistics) constitute an authoritative acceptance of Govindankutty's position.
All said and done, your inability to provide any counter references and substantiate why your references should hold for Malayalam have not been responded to. There is also no other contributor/editor willing to provide more insight into this. In which case, I think there is little further to discuss!! Hyper9 (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but that is simply utter tosh. Please follow the steps for dispute resolution to request either formal or informal mediation on this issue in your own words and let's be done with it. If you would like me to open this request, let me know.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 14:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry but this is the most ridiculous response I've heard on WP, by another WP editor. Even in the face of continued proof, you are unwilling to change to your biases and move ahead and accept the references. Calling my clear case, 'tosh', just shows in plain sight that you never had a NPOV to begin with.Hyper9 (talk) 14:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I do not see any reason to open a case for this - as it was clear cut from the beginning. If you, after going over the evidence/discussion again, believe that you need to win a dispute just to insert your POVs, then please go ahead and open this mechanism. If it is a fair and unbiased mechanism, I really dont have any issue in taking part in it.Hyper9 (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
That was diplomatically done. I've opened a discussion here. Good luck.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 11:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
@Cpt.a.haddock: - I will take a look at the details of this mechanism and respond to it shortly. 2 requests to you. One, Including who is Editor1 and Editor2 makes the parties clear. Two, making the areas where you summarise my positions should be differentiated from your own so that I can correct/verify them. Thanks. Good luck to you too.Hyper9 (talk) 13:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
No attempt made by editor (Cpt.a.haddock) to address any of the concerns raised by me in the previous post.Hyper9 (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Additional points given in ongoing dispute case found here (for reference)

  • I have found one further scholar who has the expertise to address Govindankutty (1972) and who also agrees with this position (of origins before 800 CE). I extend the argument that none of the other scholars cited (Krishnamurti, Karashima, Steever) have shown the required expertise to address this subject in-depth ie Malayalam. This source is an expert of Tamil-Malayalam and Professor of Linguistics at Annamalai University, Tamil Nadu. This can be considered as a supplementary secondary verification source along with Asher & Kumari (1997). S.V. Shanmugam (1976) - Formation and Development of Malayalam, Indian Literature, Vol. 19, No. 3 (May-June 1976), pp. 5-30


CONCLUSION (for reference)

The Final version that is agreed upon for this Misplaced Pages Dispute- "The origin of Malayalam remains a matter of dispute among scholars. One view holds that Malayalam and Modern Tamil are offshoots of Middle Tamil and separated from it sometime after c. 7th century CE. A second view argues for the development of the two languages out of 'Proto-Dravidian' in the prehistoric era. In any event, Tamil is considered Malayalam's closest relative."

References

  1. Asher and Kumari (1997) - Malayalam, pg xxiv
  2. S.V. Shanmugam (1976) - Formation and Development of Malayalam, Indian Literature, Vol. 19, No. 3 (May-June 1976), pg 10

The details of the dispute and arguments can be viewed in the link above. No academic references have passed muster to support the argument that Malayalam separated from Tamil around the 8th century CE. Neither Bhadriraju Krishnamurti nor Sanford Steever (refer to the arguments presented). Any current, authoritative, scholarly references to support this position would be a welcome addition.Hyper9 (talk) 10:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Further References

I have found another author in support of the early split of Malayalam and Tamil. David Dean Shulman (2016) (https://en.wikipedia.org/David_Dean_Shulman) is regarded as one of the world’s foremost authorities on the languages of India, he says;

QUOTE: "There has been a tendency among historical linguists to think of Malayalam as having diverged directly from Tamil (the Tamil is spoken from the ancient times in what is today Kerala), perhaps as late as the thirteenth century. But this view is almost certainly wrong. Tamil and Malayalam must have separated from one another at a much earlier stage perhaps around the first millennium AD, as we can see from the several archaic features of Malayalam.” UNQUOTE. From PAGE-6 his book, titled, . Itharaju (talk) 10:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Nonsense. Malayalam was granted classical language status based on Classical Tamil literature written over 2000 years ago. This literature is the common heritage of both Tamil and Malayalam. It proves that Malayalam is derived from Old Tamil, and that it split from Tamil after its composition.

The team responsible for Malayalam classical status confirm this in the following interview: https://youtube/9oLKauDDTH0

80.229.155.49 (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

There has been wilful, dishonest misquoting of David Dean Shulman (2016). "Tamil and Malayalam must have separated from one another at a much earlier stage perhaps around the middle of the first millennium AD" He is clear that the split occurred after the composition of the sangam literature. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tamil-Biography-David-Shulman/dp/0674059921

It is quite obvious that Malayalam is derived from Old Tamil mixed later with Sanskrit. All the classical literature from Kerala was written in Old Tamil not Sanskrit. Pathitrupathu, Ainkurunuru, Silappatikaram etc were all composed in Kerala not Tamil Nadu.185.69.145.86 (talk) 03:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. As a thumb rule, sources who have not exhibited any expertise specifically in Malayalam have not been used for this topic. Shulman's comments are appreciated and add to the current understanding but they are quite broad, and very general by most standards. Hyper9 (talk) 06:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Shulman is well versed in reading not just Tamil, but also Sanskrit and Malayalam. His extended comments on Malayalam being derived from Old Tamil are convincing and quite specific.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fG8NDQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=malayalam&f=false

What must be recognised is that Tamil is a diglossic language. Classical Tamil is different from the spoken varieties which were existing at the same time. The west coast dialect of Old Tamil spoken in Kerala 2000 years ago has preserved features which are absent in the East Coast dialect and Classical Tamil. But they were still dialects nonetheless of the same language called 'Tamil' and were mutually intelligible. Tolkappiyam the oldest Tamil literature (possibly written in Kerala) clearly defines Kerala as being part of Tamilakam, and being a Tamil speaking region. As does the Sangam literature from that period. The evidence is overwhelming. 80.229.155.49 (talk) 00:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

In addition even after the time of the first Malayalam inscription in the post Sangam age, the people in Kerala were still using Classical Tamil to write their literature:

http://www.thehindu.com/features/friday-review/history-and-culture/the-earliest-inscription-in-malayalam/article3501408.ece 80.229.155.49 (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Quote from Silappatikaram, the Tamil epic written in Kerala in the post Sangam age:

"There was, again, the learned composer of songs whose knowledge of the Tamil language was complete and known to the whole Tamil land surrounded by the noisy sea." Chapter 3, Lines 36-44.

Surrounded by the sea on three sides and extending up to Vengadam in the north and Kumari in the south was the ancient Tamil land.

It is clear that the word 'Tamil' was used to describe the language of Kerala in the early centuries of the first millennium, and that it was mutually intelligible with the east coast dialect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/Silappatikaram 80.229.155.49 (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


From Shulman's chapter on Malayalam, quoting the 14th century Kerala grammar book Lila-Tilakam (LT):

Pages 223 -

"Lila-Tilakam presents the reader (in Sanskrit sutras and prose commentary) with a grammatical description of Manipravalam, seen as a distinctive linguistic amalgam of Sanskrit and 'the local language of Kerala, bhasa, which the author, for historical-cultural reasons, also refers to as "Tamil".

Historically, Tamil was spoken and written in Kerala alongside Sanskrit and early forms of Malayalam. The two languages. Tamil and Malayalam must have separated by the mid-first millennium, but they remained very close in many ways; Tamil literature flourished in Kerala from the beginning - whenever that was - and was always a prestigious component of Kerala culture. What is more, despite the increasing distance between the two linguistic traditions, speakers of proto-Malayalam thought of themselves as speaking Tamil, or a kind of Tamil, well into the late medieval or possibly even early modern times'."' 80.229.155.49 (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

As per his own CV, David Shulman does not even say that he knows Malayalam, forget about being an expert in it. You can see it here - https://www.academy.ac.il/Index2/Entry.aspx?nodeId=809&entryId=18357. There is no reason to think that his comments on Malayalam are on par with the sources that are already given. The origin of both Malayalam and Tamil are traced back to some form of Proto-Dravidian or Proto-Tamil-Malayalam. The authoritative references are already provided. If you wish to add your own comments to this, then please provide similar sources. And Shulman or any others that you provide, unfortunately, do not come anywhere near for this. You can discuss this here on the Talk page and arrive at a concensus before editing the para on evolution. Thanks. Hyper9 (talk) 08:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
You are in denial. I am not going to waste my time in an edit war with you. My questions to you are the following:

(1) Do you deny that Kerala produced Sangam classics and the Silappatikaram? (2) Do you deny that the team behind Malayalam classical language status used Sangam literature as evidence for Malayalam's antiquity? (3) Do you deny that the Chera dynasty who used Tamil for centuries were based in Kerala? It is quite sad to see Malayalees deny their own classical heritage:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Ancient_literature

Sanskrit and Tamil classical literature are something that every Indian should be proud of. 80.229.155.49 (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

There has to be an agreement on semantics before anyone can have a serious discussion on the evolution of Malayalam. 'Tamil' can refer to 3 different stages of the language, 'Old Tamil', 'Middle Tamil' and 'Modern Tamil'.

The difference between a 'language' and 'dialect' must also be defined. In the case of Modern Tamil and Malayalam, it is clear from the ancient literature that the people of Tamilakam (ancient Kerala and Tamil Nadu) regarded themselves as speaking the same language called 'Tamil' which was Old Tamil. This was mutually intelligible despite dialectal differences (East coast vs West coast).

Govindakutty paper only highlights 3 dialectal differences such as varying pronunciations of the initial 'n', the addition of 'u' in East coast Tamil as a second person oblique form, and the preservation of the cluster 'lk' in words such as 'Kolkkai' in the West coast dialect. East coast Tamil has changed the 'lk' into 'rk' e.g. 'Korkai'. It is laughable to claim that this is evidence of a different language called Malayalam in the ancient period. It is evidence of a different dialect for sure and Govindakutty does not claim otherwise. His designation of 'Proto-Tamil-Malayalam' is only correct if you regard the 'Tamil' in that term as 'Modern Tamil'. But we already have a term for that common language given in the classical literature of that period and it is Tamil, now known in the modern era as 'Old Tamil'. 80.229.155.49 (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cpt.a.haddock: perhaps can give some further input. 80.229.155.49 (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Though your questions are interesting, it is fairly obvious that you do not understand why and how Malayalam is connected to Sangam literature. And I can tell you that it is definitely not the way you think it is. Like you, I am not interested in either an edit war or taking any classes for you. And as for your exhortations on Tamil or Sanskrit "pride" or "classical" etc etc - they are frankly irrelevant and only serve to stray away from looking at the topic objectively. The Govindankutty article uses just 3 examples for illustrative purposes, there are probably hundreds. It also clearly states that Malayalam cannot be considered as a derivative of any form of Tamil (Old, Middle or Modern) but that it can only be derived from what is designated as 'Proto-Dravidian' or 'Proto-Tamil-Malayalam' - which is also the source of Tamil. What part of that is not clear??
Most of your points on Malayalam are erroneous and cannot be characterised so easily as you try to do. I am frankly not against any well sourced and clearly researched information but most editors here are often just raging and ranting and providing their own opinions which, like mine, are of little value. Such claims are often supported by weak sources by general historians and linguists which is usually outdated as far as Malayalam is concerned and so there is little point in referring to them. If you wish to get answers to questions, you can post them (nicely) on my page but I am not inclined to answer your general and unrelated questions here as many of them are not relevant. Thanks. Hyper9 (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Poem on Chera King Nedumcheralathan from Pathitrupathu:

He was born to King Uthiyan Chēral
and Venmāl clan Queen Nallini.
He is a king with great fame,
faultless, honest words and sweet drums.
He carved a bow symbol on the Himalayas
with waterfalls,
ruled splendidly with a just scepter,
the entire Thamilakam
with loud oceans as fences.
Aryan kings with esteemed greatness,
great fame and tradition, bowed to him.
He captured the unkind, harsh-mouthed
Greeks, tied their hands in the back,
poured oil on their heads, and seized their
precious, expensive jewels and diamonds.
After his great victories,
he gifted old towns and helped others,
ruined enemy kings with whom he had discord,
a fear-instilling man with great effort.

80.229.155.49 (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Nice poem - With probably a lot of exaggerations. Is this poem your proof for something? If so, please make it clear what you want to say. In any case, I don't see what is your problem with the Misplaced Pages entry. Both competing theories on Malayalam have been provided space. In fact, I'll point out that the 7th century theory does not have any Malayalam expert's backing, but is often part of the mis-characterisations by Tamil experts who seem to know very little Malayalam. Also, If you wish to discuss Chera dynasty then you can discuss it on the relevant pages. Cheers. Hyper9 (talk) 08:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cpt.a.haddock:, (Hyper9) has distorted the work of S.V. Shanmugam (1976). It does NOT support the fringe view that Malayalam was a separate language from Tamil in the ancient period. In fact, Shanmugam clearly suggests that the idea that Malayalam originated independently from Proto-Dravidian is untenable:


"Kerala during the Sangam age formed part of a larger linguistic area called Tamilakam, 'the Tamil speaking region'...Many Tamil poets hailed from this area. Poets like Kapilar, Paranar, Kappiyanar were from the Kerala part of ancient Tamilakam. One of the Sangam works, Pattirupattu was written eulogizing the Chera kings who were the rulers of one part of the Kerala country. Another Sangam work Ainkurunuru, an anthology, was collected and edited in response to an order from one of the Chera kings. The grammatical treatise, Tolkappiyam, which is the earliest extant literary composition in Tamil, is considered to have been have written by a scholar who belonged to the southern-most part of the Kerala coast. So, there is no doubt that the language of literature was Centamil, 'standard Tamil', in Kerala at the time."


"a slightly different dialect, preserving some archaic features not found in any of the literary works of Tamil, must have been vogue in Kerala at the time. Ramaswami Ayyar refers to these features as 'archaisms preserved in the West-coast colloquials'."


"Nevertheless, many changes, which have taken place in the historical period of Tamil, had occurred in Malayalam also. As already noted, only these changes are responsible for Ramaswami Ayyar to say that Malayalam separated from Tamil in the Early Middle Tamil period. Thus, it seems quite certain that the evolution of Malayalam cannot be explained by a tree diagram, i.e. split process alone."


"Yet, some scholars of Malayalam still believe that Malayalam should have originated independently from the Proto-Dravidian at a very early stage. Despite Ramaswami Ayyar's exposition of the untenability of this theory as early as 1936, a few Malayalam scholars cling to it, their sole support being the presence of some archaisms in the language."


"From what has been said so far, it can be safely concluded that Centamil, 'standard Tamil' , was used as the language of literature in the West coast during Sangam period. Although the exact nature of the colloquial speech is not known, it can be nevertheless assumed that a form of speech, which can be designated as Proto-Malayalam was prevalent in the region. This speech from must have been an autochthonous language which should have functioned as a creole as defined by Stewart."

S.V. Shanmugam (1976) - Formation and Development of Malayalam, Indian Literature, Vol. 19, No. 3 (May-June 1976), pp. 5-30.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/24157306.pdf?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Nagadeepa (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no misquoting, as Shanmugam provides a discussion on the issue and then provides a clear conclusion. Only the conclusion is used. Also, the other point he is making is that the relationship between the languages is complex over time, not a simple tree diagram. But that is not the same as saying that the languages are not existing independently. In fact, by selecting parts of his discussion that suit you, you wilfully ignore his final conclusion of the presence of spoken Malayalam around 5th century AD (ie his dating of Sangam literature). If there is any contribution that needs to be made, you can summarise them and add them to the page but there is no need to copy-paste the entire paper here. Also, both views had been listed in a neutral language. Why has this been tampered without any sources or basis? Please feel free to discuss before editing these sections. Hyper9 (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
It is abundantly clear from Shanmugam's article that Proto-Malayalam was not an independent language from Old Tamil, but another spoken dialect which had retained many archaic features not found in the oldest written forms of Tamil. He is clear that Kerala was a Tamil speaking region in the ancient period. He is also clear that the theory that Malayalam is not primarily derived from Old Tamil is untenable. I will request a dispute resolution/3rd party because you are clearly misrepresenting the evidence.Nagadeepa (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
"you wilfully ignore his final conclusion of the presence of spoken Malayalam around 5th century AD." Shanmugam does not say that anywhere in his article. Stop distorting his words. Please use verbatim quotes from the article in your arguments. Shanmugam clearly states that Proto-Malayalam was spoken in the Sangam age. That is not the same as modern Malayalam. That is not the same as a completely independent language from Old Tamil. Shanmugam has also covered the great contribution Kerala has made to ancient Tamil literature (which you have deleted because it exposes your fringe view). The ancient literature of Kerala refers to 'Tamil' being spoken in the common region of Tamilakam.Nagadeepa (talk) 03:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
@Hyper9: I have opened up a dispute resolution, good luck.

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Malayalam

Nagadeepa (talk) 13:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Ramaswami Ayyar - The Evolution of Malayalam Morphology, 1936 Cochin government press - a whole book by a Malayalam linguistic expert on the evolution of the language is forthright on the widely held assertion that Malayalam is derived from Middle Tamil:


P138-141 : As already pointed out above it is with Early Middle Tamil that Malayalam is most intimately related. I have been led to stress the question of affiliations so much here because of the view prevailing among some scholars in Malabar (Kerala) that in point of linguistic kinship, Malayalam stands in relation to Tamil on as much a footing of equality as Kannada or even Telugu.

"Those who maintain that "Malayalam is as much independent of Tamil as Kannada or Telugu" seek support for their view in the following postulates of theirs. It is necessary to examine them here in some detail in view of the vogue obtaining for them among some Malayalam scholars: but I may say at once that some of these postulates (see below for discussion) are wholly untenable, while others are not proved or supported, and further that even if it happens that some of these postulates could be in the future be supported by data which are now not available, one has to remember that these features (appearing as archaisms) are after all so few that they cannot touch anything more than the outermost fringe of the problem of affinities; for, as I have already pointed out above, correspondences and derivative relationships between Malayalam and a stage of speech answering to Early Middle Tamil are so numerous and fundamental that there would be no scientific warrant for any view other than that Malayalam is most intimately allied to stage of speech corresponding to Early Middle Tamil, with a few archaisms peculiar to the west coast".

On the whole, except for a very few archaisms like the inflexional n'in-, the plural imperatives with vin, ppin, and perhaps constructions like ceyyam and ceyyarudu, the features of Malayalam morphology are directly related to, or immediately derivable from a stage of speech corresponding to what may now be described as Early Middle Tamil."


Ramaswami Ayyar conclusively puts Govindakutty's ludicrous theory (based on the meagre evidence of 3 dialectal differences) to rest. The book is available here:

https://archive.org/stream/TheEvolutionOfMalayalamMorphology/The-Evolution-of-Malayalam-Morphology

Nagadeepa (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The conclusion presented on the WP page is the one after a dispute resolution. There is no need to modify it without discussing it first. All of these additional sources that you have added have been shown to be deficient. That is already present on this Talk page and it appears that you have not read them. I do not think that the same arguments need to be repeated. Not only this but, Caldwell and Ayyar are so outdated that they can be dismissed outright. You have not been able to produce any more recent or authoritative references but are trying to support your theories with these outdated sources. Hyper9 (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
You have already been banned previously for your distortions and unscientific edits. Nothing in your responses has any value and is simply hot air. On one hand you use and distort V.S Shanmugam as an accurate reference. Then on the other hand you malign Ayyar as outdated, when the very same Shanmugam quotes and agrees with Ayyar's findings which have stood the test of time. You have evaded all of my questions and just distort accurate sources. Hopefully 3rd party mediation will put an end to your nonsense.
Nagadeepa (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I would strongly suggest that if you wish to dispute any content, you ought to discuss the issue in a manner that follows WP:CIVIL. There is no problem for me or any other editor in participating in a discussion if it is carried out in a civil manner. If you would like to do so, please make your points clearly, isolating them clearly from extracts from experts by using quotes or bold. It is only then that there can be any progress on this, as I am still not sure what your exact point is. Hyper9 (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
"I am still not sure what your exact point is."
I genuinely think you are playing dumb. It is really obvious what my points are, and I made them explicitly clear in the dispute resolution noticeboard. I suspect you know that you cannot refute any of my points under 3rd party mediation, hence why you have run away from the discussion. I am very happy to continue the conversation without describing what I genuinely think of you, and to leave the debate to the content and nothing else.
Nagadeepa (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The Silappadikaram - Translation by V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar, lecturer in Indian history and archaeology, University of Madras, Oxford University Press 1939, Page 346:

"So ends the Silappadikaram...In the manner in which lofty hills are reflected in the mirror, it expresses the essence of the cool Tamil country bounded by the Kumari, Vengadam and the eastern and western seas, in its two quarters of pure and impure Tamil comprising the five regions (tinais) where dwell men and gods devoted to duty and to the common practice of dharma, artha and kama; and it deals in chaste language expressive of good sense in flawless rhythm, with aham (love) and puram (war), and with worthy songs...and other things which were in conformity with established rules of the well known forms of vari, kuravai and sedam couched in perfect and understandable Tamil."

"Translator's Note , page 346 : Pure and impure Tamil - Two kinds of Tamil were in vogue."

Nagadeepa (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

You incoherent ramblings do not do any good to your argument, if you are making one ie. I am genuinely unable to see what exactly your point is - as you keep saying something different every time. The wording on the Misplaced Pages page was made neutral to reflect both theories - and this was the consensus arrived at by two disputing editors. Rather than giving me all these irrelevant points, kindly point out what is it in the page thats so big a problem and what is it about the Shanmugam paper that you think has been interpreted incorrectly. Also, I am giving you ample time and space to discuss this but you are refusing to do so and going and editing the page without any discussion, which is not agreeable. Hyper9 (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


(1) Malayalam is derived from an ancient West Coast dialect of Tamil. The evidence for this is overwhelming in both the linguistic and historical record. It should be made clear in the opening paragraph that this is the widespread view accepted by most scientific scholars. The fringe theory that Malayalam has an older root independent from Tamil is not equatable.


(2) During the ancient period Kerala formed part of a larger linguistic area called Tamilakam, 'The Tamil speaking region'. Much of the extensive ancient Tamil literature was composed in Kerala including Tolkāppiyam, Ainkurunuru, Pathitrupathu and Silappatikaram. There is no doubt that the language of literature in Kerala was Standard Old Tamiḻ (centamiḻ) at the time and this should be mentioned on the page. Internal historical evidence from the said literature clearly shows a Tamil consciousness among the people of Kerala, who saw themselves as speaking Tamil in a Tamil region.


(3) A slightly different spoken colloquial dialect, preserving some archaic features not found in any of the literary works of Tamil must have also been present in Kerala at the time. This accounts for the differences which has led some fringe scholars (e.g. Govindakutty) to claim an independent origin. However, this fringe view has been jettisoned by more serious and scientific scholars such as S.V Shanmugam and Ramaswami Ayyar.


(4) All of the above points I have made are supported by the following reference which has been distorted by you:

S.V. Shanmugam (1976) - Formation and Development of Malayalam, Indian Literature,Vol. 19, No. 3 (May-June 1976)

You have used this above reference to claim an independent origin of Malayalam when in actual fact it supports the mainstream view that Malayalam is largely derived from an ancient form of Tamil.

Nagadeepa (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


Expression error: Unexpected < operator

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Malayalam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation

@CheeseBuffet: Thank you for the explanatory edit summary as well as the link to the earlier discussion. However, your use of /maləjaːɭəm/ is not mentioned in the linked discussion and Wiktionary equates /a/ with /æ/. This makes /maləjaːɭəm/ equivalent to /mæləjaːɭəm/ which is more or less equivalent to the sourced /mæləˈjɑːləm/. I don't think the sourced pronunciation is too bad bar for the second /l/ (which could well be a regional thing). IMO, we should get rid of the unsourced pronunciation altogether and include this audio pronunciation instead. The speaker does sound like a native even if the pronunciation does not exactly match any of the IPA candidates being considered :) Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 12:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Cpt.a.haddock: Excuse the late reply. As you said, the English pronunciation (/mæləˈjɑːləm/) seems fine. My edits were on the native, unsourced, pronunciation () changing to since the occurrence of is questionable. Even though I'd like to have an IPA pronunciation in the article adding an audio sample would be useful, especially in the lead. It's also a bit strange that there are pronunciations in both languages in the lead without marking which is which. CheeseBuffet (talk) 08:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Malayalam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Malayalam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

  1. David Dean Shulman (2016), Tamil - A Biography, The Belkman's Press of Harvard University Press, pg-6
Categories: