To look at this matter, does Sanskrit belongs to westerns or Indians?
Sanskrit is a language. It belongs to NO ONE. I presume you as a moderator could have common sense to understand that much. {:1_550:}
Sanskrit is the root of Tamizh, but when comes for the usage and discrimination, it been forgetted.
Sanskrit is root of Tamil? You cannot even spell Tamil properly, and you're speaking of Sanskrit's roots? {:1_550:} Anyway, unlike you, I will provide you (and the readers) prove of my claims. It will be in wikipedia but there are links to some historical website for you to follow.
First Tamil language :
Source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_language
Tamil is one of the longest surviving classical languages in the world. It has been described as "the only language of contemporary India which is recognizably continuous with a classical past." and having "one of the richest literatures in the world". Tamil literature has existed for over 2000 years.
The earliest epigraphic records found on rock edicts and hero stones date from around the 5th century BCE. The earliest period of Tamil literature, Sangam literature, is dated from ca. 300 BCE – 300 CE. Tamil language inscriptions written c. 1st century BCE and 2nd century CE have been discovered in Egypt, Sri Lanka and Thailand . The two earliest manuscripts from India, to be acknowledged and registered by UNESCO Memory of the World register in 1997 and 2005 were in Tamil. More than 55% of the epigraphical inscriptions (about 55,000) found by the Archaeological Survey of India are in the Tamil language.
I repeat the important statement here - inscriptions of Tamil writing can be found in Egypt and Thailand, which means that Tamil language did not focus only in India like many claimed but was wide spread to most countries in Asia from Africa to South East Asia.
Now for Sanskrit :
Source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit
Sanskrit is a member of the Indo-Iranian sub-family of the Indo-European family of languages. Its closest ancient relatives are the Iranian languages Old Persian and Avestan.
In order to explain the common features shared by Sanskrit and other Indo-European languages, many scholars have proposed migration hypotheses asserting that the original speakers of what became Sanskrit arrived in what is now India and Pakistan from the north-west some time during the early second millennium BCE. Evidence for such a theory includes the close relationship of the Indo-Iranian tongues with the Baltic and Slavic languages, vocabulary exchange with the non-Indo-European Uralic languages, and the nature of the attested Indo-European words for flora and fauna.
The earliest attested Sanskrit texts are Brahmanical texts of the Rigveda, which date to the mid-to-late second millennium BCE. No written records from such an early period survive, if ever existed. However, scholars are confident that the oral transmission of the texts is reliable: they were ceremonial literature whose correct pronunciation was considered crucial to its religious efficacy.
From the Rigveda until the time of Pāṇini (fl. 4th century BCE) the development of the early Vedic language may be observed in other Vedic texts: the Samaveda, Yajurveda, Atharvaveda, Brahmanas, and Upanishads. During this time, the prestige of the language, its use for sacred purposes, and the importance attached to its correct enunciation all served as powerful conservative forces resisting the normal processes of linguistic change. However, there is a clear, five-level linguistic development of Vedic from the Rigveda to the language of the Upanishads and the earliest Sutras (such as Baudhayana).
This clearly shows that Sanskrit is not native to India like Tamil but brought in from the West (Persia) and was developed in India during the 1CE - 4th Century BCE. It's popularity increased not because Indian people were using it, but because it was used widely in religious rituals and ceremonies. aku suka tengok filem tamil.. naimareim posted on 22-9-2013 08:33 AM static/image/common/back.gif
aku suka tengok filem tamil..
Today's tamil movie shows very poor Tamil literature and improper use of Tamil words. I can even say that many of tamil movies (if not all of them) have a poor descriptions of Tamil language in general. It is mangle to death with English.
This is a poor and sad state of Tamil language. Many Tamilans don't even know that there is a conspiracy going on in their own country against them and their tamil language. A conspiracy to break apart the Tamil society at every level - culture, religion and belief. Hindu religion are being backwashed into potrayed as backward and superstitious religon, full of madmen and con-men. Tamil culture (including Bhratanatyam and other form of culture) is being "removed" from the minds of the Tamil youths by introducing them to modern dancing (many of them features half-naked Indian ladies and six-packed shirt-less men), modern music which is painful to the ears and modern singing which resembles a donkey being strangled to death.
And Tamil literature are being removed from mainstream Tamil society by emphazing the overuse of English as "upper casted" form of communication where the users are looked at as modern, sophisticated and well-educated. I remember watching older Tamil movies back in 1960s and 70s where the language used was "clean" and well-perserved. Many of the actors and actresses spoke in fluent Tamil and it forced the viewers to watch and listen carefully to each tamil words as prouncation could be similar but have different meaning. Each sentence has its meaning and the actors were superbs in their acting (which made the movies like Raja Raja Cholan (1973), Veerapandiya Kattaboman and many more memorable even after 20 years.
Pages:
1
[2]