Etymology of the word 'Telugu'
Ramana Juvvadi
Etymology of the word 'Telugu'
The most popular explanation that is given to the word Telugu is that
it comes from the word Trlinga, i.e. from the three temples at Srisailam,
Drakasharamam, and Kaleshwaram. However, not many scholars accept
this view. Let us examine some of them here.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Khandavalli Lakshmi Ranjanam
It probably comes from the word 'Talaing'. Since 'Tala' refers
to head, Talaings refers to leaders. Probably, Talaings were civilized
people and conquered the tribals in the area of current Andhra pradesh.
Hence the name Talaings. Later this must have given rise to the words
Telungu and Trilinga.
Godavarti Ramadasu
Some say that the word Telugu comes from the Sanksrit forms
Trilinga or Trikalinga: Actually, the word Kalinga itself is a Dravidian
word. In Kui language, rice is called Kulinga. Since Kuis were mainly
rice eaters, Aryans might have called them Kulingas or Kalingas.
Marepalli Ramachandra Shastri
In Gondi languahge, 'unga' is form for plural. 'Telu' means white.
Hence, Telunga probably refers to people who are white in complexion.
Ganti Jogi Somayaji
'Ten' refers to south in Proto-Dravidian. Hence 'Tenungu' refers
to Southerners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Which of the two words is older? 'Telugu', 'Tenugu'? Some say that
Tenugu is older than Telugu because Nannaya used the word Tenugu and
Ketana who is older than Nannaya used the word Telugu in his Andhra
Bhaashaa Bhushanam. Malliya Raechana wrote a grammar book (Lakshana
Granthamu) called Kavi Janaashrayamu. But he didn't use this word in
the place of 'praasa' anywhere, so we are not sure what he really
used.
The popular notion is that the first person to use the word
'Trilinga' is Vidyanaatha in Kakatiya era. Actually, the first person to
use the word Trilinga is Rajashekhara in Vidhdhasaala Bhanjika. He is
the first person to use Trilinga with a 'ra vattu'. Markandeya and Vayu
Puranas mention only Tilinga.
One of the oldest works in Tamil called Agattiyam says
"Konganam Kannadam Kollam Telungam".
On the whole, it is more probable that the word Telugu is older than the
word Tenugu.
Ramana
Vidyasankar Sundaresan
(Ramana Juvvadi) writes:
-
- Etymology of the word 'Telugu'
-
- One of the oldest works in Tamil called Agattiyam says
- "Konganam Kannadam Kollam Telungam".
I thought the Agattiyam is remembered only by name. It is nowhere
available. Is this quotation attributed to Agattiyam by someone else?
C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering
>In article <1993Sep2.2...@ulysses.att.com> juv...@ulysses.att.com
>(Ramana Juvvadi) writes:
>-
>- Etymology of the word 'Telugu'
>-
>- One of the oldest works in Tamil called Agattiyam says
>- "Konganam Kannadam Kollam Telungam".
>
>I thought the Agattiyam is remembered only by name. It is nowhere
>available. Is this quotation attributed to Agattiyam by someone else?
You're quite right. The work called agattiyam is not found.
But in a commentary belonging to a late period ( > 12th century)
there is a passage quoted from 'agattiyam' which does not appear to be
authentic.. in any case at the time agattiyam was supposed to have
existed probably there was no telugu, kannada and malayalam languages
and they must have been only a dialect of tamil or proto-dravidan..
The period of tolkappaiyam which is said to be belonging to
pre 300 B.C ( and many claim that its period is 500-700 B.C
like Dr.Ilakkuvanaar) is supposed to be much later than the period
of 'agattiyam' [ there is also a claim that there were
two agattiyams !! 'siRRagattiyam and pEragattiyam' meaning
small agattiyam and a large agattiyam ]
>
>
>
>S. Vidyasankar
-Selva
Ramana Juvvadi
>-
>- Etymology of the word 'Telugu'
>-
>- One of the oldest works in Tamil called Agattiyam says
>- "Konganam Kannadam Kollam Telungam".
>
>I thought the Agattiyam is remembered only by name. It is nowhere
>available. Is this quotation attributed to Agattiyam by someone else?
>
>
>
I am quoting from 'Samagrandhra Saahityam' by Arudra. He doesn't mention
anything beyond this. May be one of our resident Tamil scholars can clarify
this.
Ramana
C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering
>In article <CCzn3...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> selv...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering) writes:
>
>> and they must have been only a dialect of tamil or proto-dravidan..
>> The period of tolkappaiyam which is said to be belonging to
>> pre 300 B.C ( and many claim that its period is 500-700 B.C
>> like Dr.Ilakkuvanaar) is supposed to be much later than the period
>> of 'agattiyam' [ there is also a claim that there were
>> two agattiyams !! 'siRRagattiyam and pEragattiyam' meaning
>> small agattiyam and a large agattiyam ]
>
>Arudra says (Translation mine of course)
>
> One of the oldest works in Tamil called Agattiyam says
> Agattiyam is a few centuries older than Christ. However, reasonable
> scholars like Vaiyapuri Pillai estimate its age around 5th century A.D.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Vaiyapuri PiLLai is considered as a good scholar in some
circles but he is known to be grossly in error about dating of
several works and there have been more recent discoveries as well
( such as I. Mahadevan's discovery of Sangam Age epigraphical
evidences in 1977 referred to in George Hart's book).
It is now well regarded theory ( considered 'fact') that
the Sangam works belong to 200 B.C. to 200 A.D ( bulk of it
in A.D and few considered even much earlier than 200 B.C.)
[ the Sangam works are composed by about 450 different
poets some of whom are kings, pot-makers and many are lady
poets ( ~ 50)] and
Silappathikaaram is a later work ( considered to be belonging to
200 A.D to 400 A.D) ( earlier than Kalidasa's anyways).
ThirukkuRaL is considered by many to belong to a period earlier
than Silappthikaaram and Manimekalai and specific reference to
thirukkuRaL occurs in these. But Vaiyapuri places thirukkuRaL
in 10th century A.D or something like that. In any case
the present understanding is : tholkaapiyam, the tamil grammar
work, is slightly earlier or slightly later than the
Panini's work and agattiyam is much older than tholkaapiyam.
There are not much evidences for agattiyam and any quotation
claiming to be from agattiyam is highly suspect. The concept
of agatthiyar ( the 'saint') is considered to have been
introduced only in 10-11th centuries A.D. and there is no
evidence of anyone by that name in earlier tamil works and most
people consider this 'concept of agastiyar' as fiction .
The same goes for the work agattiyam.
At the time of Sangam works Telugu or Kannada or Malayalam
are not known to have existed at least with any literary
output ( certainly Malayalam was not born
at that time). Telugu and Kannada might have differed from
tamil only as much as North Madras Tamil is different from
Madurai or Thirunelveli Tamil. Different dialects of tamil
are mentioned ( such as kodunthamizh, vadugar etc.)
>
>
>>
>> -Selva
>
>
-Selva
Ramana Juvvadi
> and they must have been only a dialect of tamil or proto-dravidan..
> The period of tolkappaiyam which is said to be belonging to
> pre 300 B.C ( and many claim that its period is 500-700 B.C
> like Dr.Ilakkuvanaar) is supposed to be much later than the period
> of 'agattiyam' [ there is also a claim that there were
> two agattiyams !! 'siRRagattiyam and pEragattiyam' meaning
> small agattiyam and a large agattiyam ]
My knowledge is only second hand as I cannot read Tamil. This is what
Arudra says (Translation mine of course)
One of the oldest works in Tamil called Agattiyam says
"Konganam Kanndam Kollam Telungam". Some Tamil scholars think that
Agattiyam is a few centuries older than Christ. However, reasonable
scholars like Vaiyapuri Pillai estimate its age around 5th century A.D.
>
> -Selva
Ramana Juvvadi
<stuff deleted on Vaiyapuri Pillai>
Thank you Sevaa. That was informative.
> At the time of Sangam works Telugu or Kannada or Malayalam
> are not known to have existed at least with any literary
> output ( certainly Malayalam was not born
> at that time). Telugu and Kannada might have differed from
> tamil only as much as North Madras Tamil is different from
> Madurai or Thirunelveli Tamil. Different dialects of tamil
> are mentioned ( such as kodunthamizh, vadugar etc.)
I am not sure you are right on Telugu. Tamil, Kannada and Tulu are Southern
Dravidian languages, wherreas Telugu is a Northern Dravidian language.
A Russian linguist M.S. Andronov estimates that Telugu separated from
Proto-Dravidian by 1000 B.C. and Kannada separated from Proto-Dravidian
around 0 BC. I guess the estimate is based on
the vocabulary and grammar of Dravidian languages. Telugu has a large body
of words not found in Southern Dravidian languages.
Anyway, there is hard evidence that Telugu was a distinct
language by 200 BC. In the Tamil Sangam period (200 BC -- 200 AD)
Shaatavaahanas were ruling a fairly large chunk of India.
On their Silver coins that are available now, the writings
are in Prakritam on one side, and Telugu on the other side.
Dr. Inguva Kartikeya Sharma analyzed the writings on these coins
and concluded that they are 'gaathaa chandassu' (The chandassu of
poems in gaathaa sapta shati).
I don't know how the age of a language is estimated by the linguists.
But I can believe that if there was a Telugu chandassu by Shaatavaahana
period, there must have been some thing called a Telugu language
by at least 500 BC.
> -Selva