Re: Sanskrit vs Tamil
From the Bhakti List Archives
• January 3, 1998
Dear Bhagavathas: Sri Sridhar Srinivasan and I exchanged a few e-mails with Prof. George Hart of Berkeley on this subject. I would like to present a very brief summary of Prof. Hart's views. It is quite obvious that in the realm of true bhakthi superiority of one language over another does not arise. As a matter of fact it is nonsensical to even think in those terms. Quoting Sri Sadagopan, we need both Sanskrit and Tamil for a "stereoscopic vision" of our great sampradayam. However, many hold a mistaken view of Tamil's contributions, probably due to lack of exposure to Tamil. This is further confounded by Tamil chauvinism by certain section of Tamil population who are anathema for asthikas. However, IMHO, as Sri Vaishnavas we ought not let the DK/DMK section to hold us back from developing a proper appreciation for the true and immense contributions of Tamil. The following are just some points made by Prof. Hart. In the most part, I have used Prof. Hart's own words. But I have taken the liberty of editing them here and there for continuity. I had to do this because I have cut and pasted from two or three of his mails. Please note that I have NOT included all of Prof. Hart's arguments. The ones that are not directly related to Tamil and Sanskrit are left out. -- adiyEn ================Prof. Hart's comments================================ 1. Neither Sanskrit nor Tamil are particularly old in the world scheme of things. Sanskrit is documented earlier than Tamil. 2. Sanskrit has borrowed quite as much from Dravidian as Dravidian has from Sanskrit. Tamil has borrowed more words from Sanskrit than Sanskrit has from Dravidian. It is a trivial thing for a language to borrow vocabulary. But when it uses another language's syntax to form the way it expresses things, and uses another language's phonology for its sounds, that is really profound influence. The fact is, Sanskrit HAS been influenced in this way by Dravidian. Of course, some Dravidian languages have also borrowed Sanskrit sounds (bh, etc.) But none of the four Dravidian languages I have read has borrowed anything from Sanskrit syntax that I can identify. Much of the syntax of Sanskrit is Dravidian, and it has a large Dravidian vocabulary. Its system of phonetics is profoundly influenced by Dravidian -- Indo-Aryan is the only IE family with retroflexes. 3. Sanskrit also lacks some sounds that are available in Tamil. Tamil has short e and o, zh, R, n, and many permutations of stops -- e.g. k in akam -- which are not found in Skt. Actually both languages have about the same number of phonemes. 4. The word Dravidian clearly comes from the word Tamil. This has been demonstrated time and time again -- the earliest occurrences of the word in IA are dramiDa ==> draviDa. 5. I can attest that the grammar of Sanskrit is no more elegant or perfect than any other IE language. It very much resembles Russian, Latin, and Greek (which I have also read) -- to which it is closely akin. To my mind, Tamil and the other Dravidian languages have much more elegant and logical structures. Consider this: in Dravidian, you can take any sentence and turn it into an adverb, adjective, or noun by simply changing the ending on the verb. Then you can embed that sentence in any other sentence. The Dravidian relativizing system is extremely straight-forward and logical; the IE one -- shared by Sanskrit (and English) -- is quite messy and verbose. One could go on and on. I love Sanskrit, but I would never claim its zillions of nit-picking rules make it somehow an epitome of order and perfect structure. Sorry, but it's just not. 6. I do agree with Sridhar Srinivasan about the symbiotic nature of Sanskrit and Tamil (and also other Indian languages). The fact is, Sanskrit and Tamil, while originally independent traditions, have from the earliest times formed one cultural stream, much as the Latin and the languages of Western Europe have. 7. Sanskrit, like Tamil, is a very rich language and tradition. It has an enormous variety of writings, some of which are of great quality (which is true of most rich languages). It has been a carrier of cultural tradition, and it is endlessly interesting. But why is it that it is mindlessly glorified for all the WRONG reasons? 8. Both languages are carriers of wonderful and rich intellectual and literary traditions. The only way to appreciate either language is to read these literatures and spend a lot of time pondering them. =======================================================
- Next message: Shree: "re: articles from "the Hindu""
- Previous message: Krishna Susarla: "Re: raama mantra - maraaThii - 6-10"
- In reply to: muralidhar rangaswamy: "Re: Sanskrit vs Tamil"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]