05-24-2007, 08:50 PM
X-Posted from another forum
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->>>>> OMG, I for one am sick and tired of this Tamil bullcrap (excuse my French) trotted out to justify Tamil chauvinism and racism. If it's not hating on the "Hindians" and North Indians in general, it's bashing Brahmins, attacking Karnataka, or hating the Sinhalese and Sri Lanka. Seriously, these Tamil fanatics need to take a break with their fantasies.
Stop generalizing and take a chill pill dude. Relax your moola bandha. Everybody is sensitive about their language. <b>The perceived Tamil chauvinism is a direct offshoot of the imposition of Hindi as the "only" official language of government communication after independence. The flawed idea behind the imposition was that of national unity.</b> While the other South Indian states did not put up that much of a fight against the imposition Hindi, my linguisitic cousins, Tamils were mad as hell and could not take it anymore. (My mother tongue is Telugu, but I grew up in Madras. So I speak and write Tamil better than Telugu). <b>While the conventional argument is that by not learning Hindi, the Tamilians are disadvantaged in communicating and conducting business within India, sixty years have shown that it is simply not true. The economy of Tamil nadu is the second largest, after that of Maharashtra, and has been so for decades. </b>While it is probably true that some Tamils are extreme and chauvinistic about their language, I do not blame them. They have a fantastic and beautiful language with an extraordinary history to be proud of.
About the "purity" of Tamil: It is true that Tamil has a significant amount of its vocabulary filled with sanskritized roots. <b>Any living language has to adapt and evolve to survive. If Tamil had not borrowed from sanskrit and other languages, it would be dead now, just like Sanskrit. But it is interesting that for every word in Tamil that is etymologycally derived from sanskrit, there is always another equivalent word which is etymologically purer, with Tamil roots.</b>
However, the rigidity of the Tamil alphabet can be vexing at times. It primarily has to do with the lack of consonants (only 18). However, there are some additional consonants, called vada mozhi (sha, sa, ha, etc..) which are used, but not considered a strict part of the alphabet. Hema is a good example, which would be kema otherwise.
Also, I have noticed that Tamils are the only people who use "Tamil" in their names. Tamilarasan, Tamilmozhi, etc. Brilliant. Is there any other linguistic group which does the same (No, Johnny English does not count, to preempt you jokers out there)
I had a Tamil teacher in middle school who was a proponent of the Lemuria kandam theory, but I think that it is sheer non-sense. <b>While it is entirely possible that such a continent existed millions of years ago, the pandiyas and cholas were not fighting over it. A simple lack of appreciation of Geological (millions), human migratory (tens of thousands) and linguistic development (hundreds - thousands) time scales is the reason for such ignorance.</b>
And why is it written Tamil and not Thamizh ?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
and
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>This whole concept of language in South Asia is something I just have a hard time comprehending. If there is no common tongue, it is difficult to communicate. I think people seem to make it an "or" condition - either this language OR that language. Why not have a common tongue to communicate for commerce, official business, etc, and then keep your local tongue for informal usage, etc.</b> Personally I could care less what the official language is - pick one, for better or worse and go from there. This morphing of something beneficial to form a regional rallying point seems to have caused nothing but grief.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>How did Hindi penetrate so efficiently in other parts of India (Punjab, Bengal, Maharashtra etc.) where Hindi was not the lingua franca?</b> I am curious. Taught at school? Doordarshan and bollywood?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In the mid 1800s the idea of a common link language as a basis for nation states was prevalent and one form of Hindi was promoted by Bharatendu and others. However Independent India has shown that language is not the only basis for creating a Westpahlian state.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->>>>> OMG, I for one am sick and tired of this Tamil bullcrap (excuse my French) trotted out to justify Tamil chauvinism and racism. If it's not hating on the "Hindians" and North Indians in general, it's bashing Brahmins, attacking Karnataka, or hating the Sinhalese and Sri Lanka. Seriously, these Tamil fanatics need to take a break with their fantasies.
Stop generalizing and take a chill pill dude. Relax your moola bandha. Everybody is sensitive about their language. <b>The perceived Tamil chauvinism is a direct offshoot of the imposition of Hindi as the "only" official language of government communication after independence. The flawed idea behind the imposition was that of national unity.</b> While the other South Indian states did not put up that much of a fight against the imposition Hindi, my linguisitic cousins, Tamils were mad as hell and could not take it anymore. (My mother tongue is Telugu, but I grew up in Madras. So I speak and write Tamil better than Telugu). <b>While the conventional argument is that by not learning Hindi, the Tamilians are disadvantaged in communicating and conducting business within India, sixty years have shown that it is simply not true. The economy of Tamil nadu is the second largest, after that of Maharashtra, and has been so for decades. </b>While it is probably true that some Tamils are extreme and chauvinistic about their language, I do not blame them. They have a fantastic and beautiful language with an extraordinary history to be proud of.
About the "purity" of Tamil: It is true that Tamil has a significant amount of its vocabulary filled with sanskritized roots. <b>Any living language has to adapt and evolve to survive. If Tamil had not borrowed from sanskrit and other languages, it would be dead now, just like Sanskrit. But it is interesting that for every word in Tamil that is etymologycally derived from sanskrit, there is always another equivalent word which is etymologically purer, with Tamil roots.</b>
However, the rigidity of the Tamil alphabet can be vexing at times. It primarily has to do with the lack of consonants (only 18). However, there are some additional consonants, called vada mozhi (sha, sa, ha, etc..) which are used, but not considered a strict part of the alphabet. Hema is a good example, which would be kema otherwise.
Also, I have noticed that Tamils are the only people who use "Tamil" in their names. Tamilarasan, Tamilmozhi, etc. Brilliant. Is there any other linguistic group which does the same (No, Johnny English does not count, to preempt you jokers out there)
I had a Tamil teacher in middle school who was a proponent of the Lemuria kandam theory, but I think that it is sheer non-sense. <b>While it is entirely possible that such a continent existed millions of years ago, the pandiyas and cholas were not fighting over it. A simple lack of appreciation of Geological (millions), human migratory (tens of thousands) and linguistic development (hundreds - thousands) time scales is the reason for such ignorance.</b>
And why is it written Tamil and not Thamizh ?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
and
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>This whole concept of language in South Asia is something I just have a hard time comprehending. If there is no common tongue, it is difficult to communicate. I think people seem to make it an "or" condition - either this language OR that language. Why not have a common tongue to communicate for commerce, official business, etc, and then keep your local tongue for informal usage, etc.</b> Personally I could care less what the official language is - pick one, for better or worse and go from there. This morphing of something beneficial to form a regional rallying point seems to have caused nothing but grief.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>How did Hindi penetrate so efficiently in other parts of India (Punjab, Bengal, Maharashtra etc.) where Hindi was not the lingua franca?</b> I am curious. Taught at school? Doordarshan and bollywood?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In the mid 1800s the idea of a common link language as a basis for nation states was prevalent and one form of Hindi was promoted by Bharatendu and others. However Independent India has shown that language is not the only basis for creating a Westpahlian state.