Discussions On Devabhasha Theory

Ramakrishnan Auhenticity of Madras University Tamil Lexicon? The Madras university tamil lexicon was edited and brought out chiefly by Vaiyapuri Pillai (he served as Chief Editor), who studied Tamil in Madras Christian College under Maraimalai Adigal. It was based on the tamil dictionary of Miron Winslow, together with G.U.Pope's revisions. Before Vaiyapuri Pillai, the Chief Editor for the lexicon was Mr. J.S.Chandler. The lexicon was widely accepted as being a scholarly and authoritative work. Till today, it has retained this status among Dravidian scholars. The joker Devaneya Pavanar (author of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Primary_Classical_Language_of_the_World ) was the only one who found everything wrong with the Madras University lexicon and thereby showed his own (lack of) knowledge.

9 ஆகஸட Ramakrishnan @ Ravi Please dont post in the other thread, its about another topic. I have deleted your post from there and giving the same herewith: "The Madras university Tamil lexicon was edited and brought out chiefly by Vaiyapuri who was criticized by Mr. Paavanar for his immature Tamil knowledge and pro Sanskrit authority.Vaiyapuri is superb stupid cum joker for Sanskrit. The supporters of Vaiyapuri are also stupids. The said dictionary is nothing but a Tamil version copy of dictionary of Miron Winslow. The Chief Editor for the lexicon was Mr. J.S.Chandler who doesn’t know about Tamil language and etymological history and he was a foreigner. then see the result of Tamil Lexicon by sanskrits supporters esp Vaiyapuri. If Paavanar is a joker as per your view, then the devabhasa theory is also comedy. To the God' language, a human i.e. Panini wrote a grammar limiting god's language. How dare he was, Mr. Ramakrishnan. Before that, the Sanskrit language had no grammar at all. As per your view, god knows no Sanskrit grammar. "

9 ஆகஸட Ramakrishnan ^^^^^ The above are merely your rants, Ravi. No Tamil scholar from the east or west cares either for your rants or for your Guru Paavanar's rants. Everything has to be explained logically with reasons, otherwise its not scientific. Emotional rants rarely get us anywhere. Go to the link in the first post of this thread to understand more of the absurd claims made by Paavanar. I mentioned about Vaiyapuri Pillai and Chandler only because you had mentioned that the

Tamil Lexicon was created by brahmins, although even if it were created by Brahmins, there is nothing wrong in it so long as it is considered authoritative by everyone else. People like you are fond of mixing up dravidian ideology with dravidian linguistics. Its not that I am not guilty of the same, but to a far lesser extent.

9 ஆகஸட நீகக

இரவி/రవ I never said/begged that my theory should be supported by anybody. Mother tongue being Telugu, I am supporting Tamil. I am proud of it. I need not hesitate to counter Sanskrit superiority. Mr. Paavaanar has also committed some mistakes that some of words are Sanskrit without some logic. He is not my guru but just my guide. But without studying his writings, blaming him is totally ridiculous and comedy. You should prove that Sanskrit is logically having etymology. For e.g. dweepa (island): if you prove the Sanskrit etymology with logic, I will surely appreciate you and sanskrit. I am not against Sanskrit but for its bull shit superiority claims by some people. It is an Indian text language. I appreciate it.I don't care about other's illogical etymological explanations. I don't think that Madras Tamil lexicon be an authoritative as it is nothing but a copy of another lexicon சமஸகிரத வாநதி. One should not follow others’ ways and thoughts but use them only for guidance. Present etymologists are following the same principles what the others told ஆடட மநைத மாதிர.it is nothing but imitating.

9 ஆகஸட Ramakrishnan Present etymologists are following the same principles what the others told ஆடட மநைத மாதிர.it is nothing but imitating Very good. Now go somewhere else and spread your (and Paavanar's) revolutionary ideas.

9 ஆகஸட நீகக

இரவி/రవ true. it is revolutionary, unlike your concocted traditional. i will tell anywhere without fear even to you.

9 ஆகஸட

Srikant @ Ramki Call him Iravi. I guess he would like it better.

24 ஆகஸட Mukilan //Call him Iravi. I guess he would like it better.// No need. I is silent and I think Mr. Ravi is right.

25 ஆகஸட நீகக

இரவி/రవ I am Telugu. The vowel "I" not relevant in Telugu (రవ) but it is must in Tamil (இரவி). Usage of A, I and U for Sanskrit words starting with R and L are for Tamil Purity. This is not the case in Telugu.

25 ஆகஸட Srikant ^^^ When someone comfortable at pronouncing r-initial words uses them, they are for Tamil timepass, not purity. இரவி/రవ When someone comfortable at pronouncing r-initial words uses them, they are for Tamil timepass, not purity. So according to you, Tolkappiyar and other scholars who codified Tamil grammar and incorporated clauses regarding Sanskrit usages, did it for Time pass. Very good.

5 ெசபடமபர Karthik Tholkappiyar did not write grammar for modern tamil.

5 ெசபடமபர நீகக

இரவி/రవ

rules regarding the usage of sanskrit words starting with R and L are from the periods of Tholkappiyar. i agree that Tamil is modern spoken language and in Tholkappiyars period, there is no modern Tamil.

5 ெசபடமபர Karthik Srikant was only saying that modern tamil does not need those rules because that is not how sanskrit words are borrowed into tamil now.

6 ெசபடமபர Ravi offtrack Panini calls sanskrit adhering to his rules as chandas Did tholkappiar also called tamil senthamil following him.

9 ெசபடமபர நீகக

இரவி/రవ ***Panini calls Sanskrit adhering to his rules as chandas Did tholkappiar also called Tamil senthamil following him Tolkappiyar Never mentioned any grammar including Astadhyayi and so called Panini. The word Sanskrit means purified (of some one-language). and he never followed him. Since so called Panini has codified/purified Sanskrit grammar from the sounds of Lord Shiva's Damarukam, did Lord Shiva created unpurified language which was later purified? God’s knowledge of Sanskrit is inferior to Panini's purified Sanskrit?

10 ெசபடமபர Ramakrishnan You lost the capability to understand, is it?

11 ெசபடமபர நீகக

இரவி/రవ

***You lost the capability to understand, is it? pls explain if you have any proof?

11 ெசபடமபர ద రవడ శక త Since so called Panini has codified/purified Sanskrit grammar from the sounds of Lord Shiva's Damarukam, did Lord Shiva created unpurified language which was later purified? God’s knowledge of Sanskrit is inferior to Panini's purified Sanskrit? mr. Ram pls explain how any why it is so. what is the gods' language before Sanskrit was created by Lord Shiva if we accept the Devabhasha Theory?

11 ெசபடமபர Ramakrishnan ^^^^^ What is the Devabhasha theory? You may have misunderstood the term devabhasha. Deva (also called daiva, deivam etc etc) is not the same as god. It refers to the Vedic personalities or divine heroes like Indra, Varuna, Ashwins, Prajapati, Pusan, Rudra, Parjanya etc. Devabhasha means the language of the devas, not the language spoken or invented by God. Sanskrit is called as the spoken language of the devas. Panini composed a grammar for sanskrit/old-indic, he did not invent sanskrit. By Panini's time, the language had already more or less reached the rigid stage in which we find it today. But even in Panini's time, Sanskrit was purely a spoken language even though the number of speakers of pure sanskrit reduced significantly as it had developed into the various prakrits. Vedic Sanskrit was the most widely spoken Indic language before it developed into prakrits and sanskrit itself was continued to be spoken only by brahmins and kshatriyas while most of the people who spoke sanskrit began speaking prakrits later (like how no one speaks classical tamil today but speak colloquial or corrupted tamil). Prakrits were similarly just corrupted forms of sanskrit which in course of time became more and more changed that they were identified as separate languages. ద రవడ శక త @You may have misunderstood the term Devabhasha. Deva (also called daiva, deivam etc) is not the same as god. It refers to the Vedic personalities or divine heroes like Indra, Varuna, Ashwins, Prajapati, Pusan, Rudra, Parjanya etc. If Deva was of the meaning of divine heroes in Vedic language, then Sanskrit language is not God's language. Why Lord Shiva created Sanskrit language for divine heroes instead of common people. Then what was the mother tongue of Common people. Why Sanskrit creation by Lord Shiva or the name was mentioned in Vedas. why Panini has codified grammar for divine heroes language instead of common people's language @But even in Panini's time, Sanskrit was purely a spoken language even though the number of speakers of pure Sanskrit reduced significantly as it had developed into the various prakrits.

Whether it was spoken by common people or Divine heroes (so called bhusuras-Brahmins)? @Vedic Sanskrit was the most widely spoken Indic language before it developed into prakrits and Sanskrit itself was continued to be spoken only by Brahmins and kshatriyas while most of the people who spoke Sanskrit began speaking prakrits later (like how no one speaks classical Tamil today but speak colloquial or corrupted Tamil). Prakrits were similarly just corrupted forms of Sanskrit which in course of time became more and more changed that they were identified as separate languages. In Andhra to my knowledge Brahmins speak only Telugu and not Sanskrit even among them. I think the case is same in Tamil Nadu and rest of India. No Brahmin or even Kshathriyas mentions Sanskrit as their mother Tongue. Brahmins and Kshathriyas speak only Native languages and not Sanskrit. If the Sanskrit is mother tongue of Brahmins and Kshathriyas, then the percentage of speaking should be equal to their population. But that is not the case in India. Speaking a language is different from mother tongue.

11 ெசபடமபர ద రవడ శక త @while most of the people who spoke sanskrit began speaking prakrits later (like how no one speaks classical tamil today but speak colloquial or corrupted tamil). according to you , Sanskrit language is just like Classical Tamil and no more in usage. whether your comparision is right since Tamil is mother tongue of Tamilian and Sanskrit is not.

11 ெசபடமபர Gokul In ancient times the whole India has spoken one language i.e tamil with different dialect Prakrit has borrowed lot of tamil words Say Yaan, Naan,....(tamil) = aham(prakrit) The term aham and puram is a tamil word There is no classical tamil or ancient tamil. There is only one tamil only. Say Suryan has hundreds of name. But we cannot use all the name in day to day life. So for outsiders it looks different. They cannot able to understand the language structure, since tamil is very rich. Still the outsiders living in tamilnadu say ancient tamil , modern tamil,............ Only the grammer is different both in tamil and sanskrit. Without verb tamil will give meaning whereas sanskrit not.

11 ெசபடமபர Gokul Siripu, Saapituthal,....................... If you search for these words in tamil old literature you cannot get. But these words are in common usuage for thousands of years. But you can get nagai, unnuthal, thinnuthal, kalithal, ......................in tamil literature.

Rich language will be like this only. It is very hard for outsiders to understand the language structure, it is easy for those having tamil as mother tongue.(see the works of swami vivekananda). Many of the researchers are quoting his works as reference.

11 ெசபடமபர Ramakrishnan If Deva was of the meaning of divine heroes in Vedic language, then Sanskrit language is not God's language. There was no concept of God in ancient Hinduism. So no question of god's language. Why Lord Shiva created Sanskrit language for divine heroes instead of common people. No one said Shiva created Sanskrit. Then what was the mother tongue of Common people. When sanskrit spoken by common people evolved into prakrits, people who still kept on speaking sanskrit wanted to show the superiority of sanskrit over prakrits called it devabhasha, because the devas were considered to be better in everything than common people. Why Sanskrit creation by Lord Shiva or the name was mentioned in Vedas. The need for calling something as sanskrit and something as prakrit is because there were two kinds of languages. In the time when Vedas were composed, only Vedic sanskrit was there. So it didnt have any name. It was just "the language" why Panini has codified grammar for divine heroes language instead of common people's language There was no separate "people's language" spoken by the common people. Common people spoke a corrupted form of pure sanskrit, like how no one today speaks pure tamil or pure kannada or pure telugu. The common people's language was a colloquial/corrupted/nonstandard form of sanskrit. No one writes a grammar for colloquial speech because they are too disorganized. Writing a grammar is describing the lakshana of the language. Colloquial speech doesn't have any lakshana. Lakshana (or its tadbhava equivalent "ilakkanam" in Tamil) is only for literary version of a language and not for colloquial version. Once the grammar for a language is defined, it means the language has a good deal of literature i.e it is a literary language and not mere colloquial language. Whether it was spoken by common people or Divine heroes (so called bhusuras-Brahmins)? By everyone.

11 ெசபடமபர Ramakrishnan

In Andhra to my knowledge Brahmins speak only Telugu and not Sanskrit even among them. I think the case is same in Tamil Nadu and rest of India. No Brahmin or even Kshathriyas mentions Sanskrit as their mother Tongue. Brahmins and Kshathriyas speak only Native languages and not Sanskrit. If the Sanskrit is mother tongue of Brahmins and Kshathriyas, then the percentage of speaking should be equal to their population. But that is not the case in India. Speaking a language is different from mother tongue. True. I was talking about 1st century to 15th centuries AD and not about 21st century. Before 1st century AD, most people who speak north indian languages today were speaking sanskrit. according to you , Sanskrit language is just like Classical Tamil and no more in usage. whether your comparision is right since Tamil is mother tongue of Tamilian and Sanskrit is not. Sanskrit is not the mother tongue anymore because it has gradually evolved into Hindi and other North Indian languages today.

12 ெசபடமபர Gokul One can see 'Ur' also. 'Ur' is an tamil word. bangalore, Mangalore, Nagpur, Kolhapur, Durgapur,........

12 ெசபடமபர Ravi @ Gokul then why are places in tamil nadu are not ending in ur, madurai, thirunelveli, erode, krishnagiri, dharmapuri, thiruchirapalli, chenagapattu , chennai, kanchipuram, thiruvannamali, tutukudi, kanyakumari, dindigul, neyveli, etc why only places with kannada influence has ur as name, Coimbatore, Tanjavur. etc

12 ெசபடமபர Ravi @Gokul Can you tell me when non-tamils use the word tamil first in literature or inscriptions.

13 ெசபடமபர Gokul Tamil: Pusa(ja)i poo+sai; Sanskrit: Pooja

Tamil: Tamil: Tamil: Tamil: Tamil: Tamil: Tamil: Tamil: Tamil: Tamil:

Gokul Arangetram: Arangam+etram; Sanskrit: Arangetra Antharangam: Antham+arangam; Sanskrit: Antaranga Alayam: Aa+Layam(make mind oneness); Sanskrit: Alaya Megam; Sanskrit: Meg Kundalani (kundalam+Ani); Sanskrit: Kundalani Mayam(mayon); Sanskrit:Maya Vannam; Sanskrit: Varnam Ka(ha)ri; Sanskrit: Hari Aram; Sanskrit: Artha kamam; Sanskrit: Kama

13 ெசபடமபர Srikant then why are places in tamil nadu are not ending in ur, madurai, thirunelveli, erode, krishnagiri, dharmapuri, thiruchirapalli, chenagapattu , chennai, kanchipuram, thiruvannamali, tutukudi, kanyakumari, dindigul, neyveli, etc

What about kunRathur, celaiyUr, mInjUr, ...? Don't make sweeping generalisations!

13 ெசபடமபர Gokul Thanks for mentioning about kunRathur, celaiyUr, mInjUr, ...? kunnur, coimbatore, Karur, bodinayakanur, tanjarvur,

13 ெசபடமபர Ramakrishnan Tamil: Pusa(ja)i poo+sai; Sanskrit: Pooja Tamil: Arangetram: Arangam+etram; Sanskrit: Arangetra Tamil: Antharangam: Antham+arangam; Sanskrit: Antaranga Tamil: Alayam: Aa+Layam(make mind oneness); Sanskrit: Alaya Tamil: Megam; Sanskrit: Meg Tamil: Kundalani (kundalam+Ani); Sanskrit: Kundalani Tamil: Mayam(mayon); Sanskrit:Maya Tamil: Vannam; Sanskrit: Varnam Tamil: Ka(ha)ri; Sanskrit: Hari Tamil: Aram; Sanskrit: Artha Tamil: kamam; Sanskrit: Kama Except araGkERRam, all others are sankrit loans in Tamil.

15 ெசபடமபர Pankaj One can see 'Ur' also. 'Ur' is an tamil word. bangalore, Mangalore, Nagpur, Kolhapur, Durgapur........ There is no such thing as "ur" in Sanskritic city names like "Nagpur" etc, let alone it being part of the Dravidian substratum. The proper suffix is "pura" and is very much native to the Indo-Aryan family. It is an IA hypercorrection of the earlier IE suffix *polH (meaning "enclosure"), with the /r/ replacing the original /l/. The "polis" suffix for city/town names is an exact cognate of "pura" in Greek.

15 ெசபடமபர Gokul Tamil: Pusa(ja)i poo+sai; Sanskrit: Pooja Tamil: Arangetram: Arangam+etram; Sanskrit: Arangetra Tamil: Antharangam: Antham+arangam; Sanskrit: Antaranga Tamil: Alayam: Aa+Layam(make mind oneness); Sanskrit: Alaya Tamil: Megam; Sanskrit: Meg Tamil: Kundalani (kundalam+Ani); Sanskrit: Kundalani Tamil: Mayam(mayon); Sanskrit:Maya Tamil: Vannam; Sanskrit: Varnam Tamil: Ka(ha)ri; Sanskrit: Hari Tamil: Aram; Sanskrit: Artha Tamil: kamam; Sanskrit: Kama -----------------These are some of the tamil words loaned by prakrit.

15 ெசபடமபர Gokul It is impossible for the invaded barbarians to develope their own language. They adopted or followed the language of the people in the civilized land.

15 ெசபடமபர Pankaj It is impossible for the invaded barbarians to develope their own language. They adopted or followed the language of the people in the civilized land.

I am sorry, I didn't quite catch the import of your statements ?

15 ெசபடமபர ద రవడ శక త If Deva was of the meaning of divine heroes in Vedic language, then Sanskrit language is not God's language. @There was no concept of God in ancient Hinduism. So no question of god's language. according to you, during Vedic period, there is no god in India and therefore the brahminic theories of 4 yugas, creation by brahma are totally wrong. so only after vedic period, gods were created in later Hinduism.

15 ெசபடமபர ద రవడ శక త Panini composed a grammar for sanskrit/old-indic, he did not invent sanskrit. By Panini's time, the language had already more or less reached the rigid stage in which we find it today. But even in Panini's time, Sanskrit was purely a spoken language even though the number of speakers of pure sanskrit reduced significantly as it had developed into the various prakrits. Since all the Prakrit languages were exist contemporary along with Sanskrit(?), how Sanskrit was a spoken language. If they spoke Sanskrit alone, the concept of Prakrit does not exist. Even after Panini's Astadhyayi, Sanskrit could not be the mother tongue of any Indian community and it is allegedly spoken (?) by Brahmins alone. இரவி/రవ Why Lord Shiva created Sanskrit language for divine heroes instead of common people. @No one said Shiva created Sanskrit. it is totally against Saivism and the sanskrit saying that Panini had codified Sanskrit grammar from the sounds starting Ach ending with hal from the Siva's Damarukam. Thats why, sanskrit vowels are called as Ach and consonants as Hal

15 ெசபடமபர ద రవడ శక త @why only places with kannada influence has ur as name, Coimbatore, Tanjavur. etc. what an imagination (kothi Pillariaina Katha). ha ha. whether Kannada language has the etymological explanation for the word Ur. the same word exist also in Telugu, malayalam and even in Tulu.

15 ெசபடமபர ద రవడ శక త @Sanskrit is not the mother tongue anymore because it has gradually evolved into Hindi and other North Indian languages today. if it was not the mother tongue of common people who spoke only prakritan languages, then what was the role of sanskrit in day to day activities of common people. if it was not the mother tongue, then it is surely text language.

15 ெசபடமபர நீகக

இரவி/రవ ***Can you tell me when non-tamils use the word tamil first in literature or inscriptions. it was specically used mentioned by greek merchants and mentioned in various languages including Chinese unlike Kannada. The word Tamil was swallowed as dravida by Sanskrit scholars via Telugu rules. Tamil sanskrit adoption Mazha(La)i (T)- MaLe (K) tami(Zh)L ->draviLam) Kozh(Li) (T)- Kodi (Tel) Zh=d (tami(Zh)L ->draviDam) Kavanam (T)- Gamanamu (Tel) M=V (taMil-> draVidam/draMilam) Kovvu (Tel) <- Kozhuppu (T) - Krovvu (Tel) {adding R} (Tamil-> dRavidam/dRamilam) Tigil (T)- Digulu (Telu) T=D ( Tamil -> Dravidam/Dramilam) Tamil was first used by Sanskrit Pundit erroneously via Telugu pronunciation.

16 ெசபடமபர Gokul Tamil: samuthram; Sanskrit: Samudra Tamil: Megam; Sanskrit: Meg

16 ெசபடமபர Ramakrishnan according to you, during Vedic period, there is no god in India and therefore the brahminic theories of 4 yugas, creation by brahma are totally wrong. so only after vedic period, gods were created in later Hinduism. Hinduism/Buddhism/Jainism developed out of the old Vedic religious concepts just as classical sanskrit and prakrits developed out of vedic sanskrit. Since all the Prakrit languages were exist contemporary along with Sanskrit(?), how Sanskrit

was a spoken language. Both classical sanskrit and prakrits developed out of Vedic sanskrit which was spoken by all Indo-Aryan speakers before it evolved into classical sanskrit and prakrits. Classical sanskrit was contemporary with the Prakrits, it was contemporary with the apabhramsas, it was contemporary with the post-apabhramsa languages as well as with modern IA languages. A lot of people still learn sanskrit as a second or third language in schools across India today, whereas no one today can speak prakrits or apabhramsas (later languages). If they spoke Sanskrit alone, the concept of Prakrit does not exist. True, Vedic sanskrit was the only spoken Indo-Aryan language in its early days before it became classical sanskrit and prakrits. Even after Panini's Astadhyayi, Sanskrit could not be the mother tongue of any Indian community and it is allegedly spoken (?) by Brahmins alone. In Panini's time, sanskrit was still spoken and understood as a first language by a big percentage of the population, and Panini wrote his grammar by observing their speech and describing the characteristics (lakshanam/ilakkanam) of the spoken language. if it was not the mother tongue of common people who spoke only prakritan languages, then what was the role of sanskrit in day to day activities of common people. if it was not the mother tongue, then it is surely text language. Before Prakrits, all of them were speaking sanskrit since Prakrits evolved from (vedic) sanskrit.

17 ெசபடமபர நீகக

இரவி/రవ ***Both classical sanskrit and prakrits developed out of Vedic sanskrit which was spoken by all Indo-Aryan speakers before it evolved into classical sanskrit and prakrits. what is the devabhasha, is it Vedic language or Classical Sanskrit? ***True, Vedic sanskrit was the only spoken Indo-Aryan language in its early days before it became classical sanskrit and prakrits. ***True, Vedic sanskrit was the only spoken IndoAryan language in its early days before it became classical sanskrit and prakrits. These statements contradicting your statement of ***Devabhasha means the language of the devas, not the language spoken or invented by God. Sanskrit is called as the spoken language of the devas. whether Vedic Sanskrit is people's language or Deva's language? ***Before Prakrits, all of them were speaking sanskrit since Prakrits evolved from (vedic) sanskrit. Neither Sanskrit nor Prakrit is mother tongue of any people; though there is an averment/allegation that Sanskrit is a spoken language.

17 ெசபடமபர நீகக

இரவி/రవ ****Hinduism/Buddhism/Jainism developed out of the old Vedic religious concepts just as classical sanskrit and prakrits developed out of vedic sanskrit. The theories of 4 yuga's and Creation by brahma were not mentioned in any of the Vedas and no god was mentioned in it. in which Yuga, the Vedas were codified?(2500BC?). is Hinduism only after Vedas/Vedic period, emerged. before Vedic period, whether peoples were created by Brahma or not?. according to you, Hinduism is nothing but development of some Vedic concepts.

17 ெசபடமபர Ramakrishnan what is the devabhasha, is it Vedic language or Classical Sanskrit? It is Vedic, although the distinction was not always observed between Vedic and classical sanskrit as they were 99% the same. whether Vedic Sanskrit is people's language or Deva's language? Both. When all IA people were speaking Vedic, the term devabhasa was not used at all. In later times, it came to be used to denote sanskrit (and primarily vedic sanskrit). Neither Sanskrit nor Prakrit is mother tongue of any people; though there is an averment/allegation that Sanskrit is a spoken language. Sanskrit is the name commonly use to denote the oldest known spoken language of the IA people. It remained only as a spoken language till writing was invented in (or came to) India. Over time it got corrupted and acquired colloquial features. The dialects with these colloquial features were called prakrits because pure sanskrit was still spoken by some people. By the time the tamil sangam literature was being composed, sanskrit had become an almostdead language as most people were speaking prakrits and apabhramsas (which were derived from prakrits). This is why sangam literature rarely contains tatsama (pure sanskrit words) but only tadbhava (derived from sanskrit) or prakrit loanwords. Sanskrit was the most widely spoken language in the ancient times - like English is today. According to you, Hinduism is nothing but development of some Vedic concepts. Yes. Chaturyugas, creation by brahma are all theories based on puranic stories and totally irrelevant as far as this discussion is concerned.

17 ெசபடமபர Gokul Vedam, devan,..............all are tamil words loaned by prakrit. During Buddha period people had spoken pali language. Pali language also borrowed lot of tamil words. ద రవడ శక త

@By the time the tamil sangam literature was being composed, sanskrit had become an almost-dead language as most people were speaking prakrits and apabhramsas (which were derived from prakrits). This is why sangam literature rarely contains tatsama (pure sanskrit words) but only tadbhava (derived from sanskrit) or prakrit loanwords. @Sanskrit was the most widely spoken language in the ancient times - like English is today. Now Sanskrti is not spoken language?. The origionality of Sanskrit language is disputable and etymologically could not be proved logically by Sanskrit Scholars. E.g. Suparna(eagle)(Su+Parna=(having) good feathers/leaves). all other birds do not have such feathers? it is provable that Sanskrit has derived it from the Tamil word Uvan (upper sky). Uvan-> Uvanam-> Suparna. Tamil could prove that that word uvanam, which means the birds flying in the upper sky, (uyar uyra PaRanthalum Oorkkuruvi Parundhaguma?) has derived that Suparna in Sanskrit.

22 ெசபடமபர Ramakrishnan Suparna means having good/strong wings, and not pretty feathers Good for what? For flying. It was the eagle that could soar high up just because its wings were so powerful. Parna actually means wing. In the context of plants, it means leaf. Dont translate the word for eagle as "having good leaves". U have to understand it in context.

23 ெசபடமபர நீகக

இரவி/రవ all other birds too have wing, not only eagle.