Tamil, Sanskrit, North indian languages, kinship
C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering
This is #10 article in the series of postings I am making to show
certain common linguistic heritage for the whole of India.
I am trying to present words which are likely to be used in the
villages and rural areas.
I strongly believe that a careful consideration of these words
and understanding how they are related, one may gain
a more wholesome view of India's true heritage.
The word for todays posting is "gOla" = 'ball'
The North Indian words I may refer to below are from the compilation by
Sir Ralph Turner: Ref
R.L.Turner, " A Comparative Dictionary of the Indo_Aryan Languages"
Oxford University Press.,New York, 1966
R.L.Turner's entry No.4321
Sanskrit : gOla, gOlaka = 'ball'
Prakrit: gOla ='round, ball' Pali: gOLaka = 'ball'
Assamese: gulI = 'ball' Kashmiri: gUlu = 'kernel of a fruit'
Bengali :gulI, golaa = 'ball' Punjabi : gol = 'round';
: golaa = 'ball'
: golI ='bullet'
Oriya : goLaa ='ball' Sindhi : goro ='kernel of coconut'
: gorI = 'bullet'
Kumauni: gOw = 'round' W.Pahri : ---------
Lahndaa : gol = 'round'; golaa = 'ball'
Marathi : goL = 'round' Hindi : gol = 'anything round'
: goLaa = 'ball' : golaa = 'ball'
: goLI = 'pill' : golI = 'bullet'
Gujarathi: goL = 'round' Mythili : gol = 'round'
: goLa = 'globe' Bhojpuri: --------------
: goLI = 'pill'
Nepali : gol = 'round, crowd' Bihari : --------------
: golaa = 'swarm of bees'
: golI = 'bullet'
R.L.Turner's acknowledgement of root:
Asks us to confer with "guDa" and
"goTTa" which are derived from Dravidian.
My comments: These words are certainly variations of the same Tamil word
"kOLam" = 'round, spherical, globe' ; "kOLakam" = 'spherical shape'
The Nepali word "golaa" = 'swarm of bees' seem to be related to
Tamil "kul(zh)u" = 'crowd, group'. The Marathi and Gujarathi words
"goLI" = 'pill' appears to be related to tamil word "kuLigai" =
'pill'. In Tamil too "kOli" = 'marble ball'. However in tamil
"kOli" is not used for bullet. for bullet Tamils use "kundu"
which aslo means round and spherical.
It is also noteworthy that Tamil has the same "La" as Marathi
and Gujarathi. I think it is extremely interesting that all
the meanings prevalent in north india is also is reflected in
the Tamil words.
Another significant observation is: there is a word "gOla" in
Sanskrit [ see Kashmiri words "gOla" = widows bastard; "gUli"
'widow who takes service as a concubine'] which means
'widows bastard' used in Yaj~navalkya. In Tamil, although
it might not mean exactly as this, there is a word "kOLakan"
= ' son born to a widow' [ what is not clear to me is whether
it means illegitimate birth or simply a son born after the
death of a husband. In any case the root sense is very important
to show the tamil origin. In Tamil "kOLi" means a tree which
gives fruit without flowering [ another meaning of kOLi is
fig tree ]. It might also be important to know that "kAl(zh)"
means a seed.
Again it might be seen that a Tamil/Dravidian word is in
widespread use.
Just in case any one gets the doubt whether the meaning of "globe"
as found in Tamil and specifically Gujarathi meaning "earth" is a
borrowing from English 'globe':
The english word 'globe' is derived from India !! I'll quote the
Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology:
"The meaning of the planet Earth is first recorded in
Eden's "A Treatise of New India (1553), in which globe is
used to mean a sphere with a map of the earth on it."
Thus one can see that from 1553 "globe' has the meaning as we
understand in English and it does come from India. The dictionary
further says that the word "globe" is in use from about 1450,
borrowed from Middle French globe, which is a learned borrowing from
Latin 'globus' = sphere. Latin by no means is older than Tamil.
There are many words which can be semantically related to "round"
etc.
anbudan (= with regards)
Selva Selvakumar (selv...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca)
B Chandrasekaran
various languages. The general structure of your posting is as
follows. You start with a word, show how similar they are in various
Sanskritic languages, then finally give a Dravidian word that is also
similar, indicate Turner's conclusion that the word is Dravidian in
origin, and then conclude that these word forms in other languages are
"variations on the Tamil word form," and typically state that the
original word form was Tamil. It seems to me equally possible that
Tamil absorbed the word form from the Indo-Aryan version. Neither you
nor Turner seem to give an argument for why one shoiuld assume that
the word form traveled Tamil to Sanskritic languages, rather than the
other way around.
In fact, in the example for "gOLa" the plausibility is that the word
form came from Indo-European to Dravidian, since, as you point out,
"globus" in Latin means sphere. It seems unlikely that Latin got it
from Tamil. It seems more likely that the word was Indo-European
first, Latin inherited it from its Indo-European ancestor, as did
Sanskrit, and many Indian languages, including Dravidian ones, got the
root from the same origin.
In any case my point is not that the above speculation is correct, but
simply that your argument is not persuasive in that regard.
C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering
> Thank your for the series of postings on word relations between
> various languages. The general structure of your posting is as
> follows. You start with a word, show how similar they are in various
> Sanskritic languages, then finally give a Dravidian word that is also
> similar, indicate Turner's conclusion that the word is Dravidian in
> origin, and then conclude that these word forms in other languages are
> "variations on the Tamil word form," and typically state that the
> original word form was Tamil. It seems to me equally possible that
> Tamil absorbed the word form from the Indo-Aryan version. Neither you
> nor Turner seem to give an argument for why one shoiuld assume that
> the word form traveled Tamil to Sanskritic languages, rather than the
> other way around.
>
> In fact, in the example for "gOLa" the plausibility is that the word
> form came from Indo-European to Dravidian, since, as you point out,
> "globus" in Latin means sphere. It seems unlikely that Latin got it
> from Tamil. It seems more likely that the word was Indo-European
> first, Latin inherited it from its Indo-European ancestor, as did
> Sanskrit, and many Indian languages, including Dravidian ones, got the
> root from the same origin.
Why "it seems more likely" ?
Why Indo-European first ??? Please honestly consider these question.
If you can say more than "it seems likely" as an arguement and
come forward and offer arguments as to show how "globus" is a Latin
word and for what compelling reasons Tamils must have borrowed,
I would appreciate. If you can offer arguments for your views,
then i can offer
mine to show why it is Tamil/pan-Indian word. To give you more
ammunition to your point of view, I will add that the
word "gola" could have come from Iranian "gola" meaning 'ball' as
per the eminent Thomas Burrow ( see his 1973 edition of the book
'Sanskrit Language' page 389 where he cites this word in Skt. as
a loan from Iranian). [ Iranian is an East Indo-European language very
close to Sanskrit ].
[ When I prepared material for posting on "golaa", it occured to me
that "globe" and globular" might be related. This is not mentioned
by Turner. [ Please remember to quote me for this "discovery"
(-: (-: I went to the library to see the root of the English
word globe and I communicated this in my article. Subsequent to
my posting, I wanted to check with Burrow's work and I found
that he had written that this word is a borrowing in Skt. from
Iranian along with other military words. Burrow also does not
connect globus or globe with Iranian 'golaa' = ball !!]
The fact that near-identical words exist in
two languages do not prove any direction of borrowing. "Rice" is one
word *most* people will agree that Latin and Greek borrowed originally
from Tamil. Therefore existence of a word in two languages does
not prove anything about the direction of borrowing.
You have to bear in mind that Dravidian speech is acknowledged to have
been widespread througout Indian subcontinent ( even today Brahui
is spoken in West Pakistan closer to Iran). The extent of Dravidian
speech in the north and north-west is unclear at present.
To repeat: You offer your arguments and I'll offer mine. The speculation
of more likely and less likely is of little help.
I have often come across Indians and Westerners who think that if
a word is found in Latin, Greek or Sanskrit it should be native
to their language and others must have borrowed. This is a very
incorrect view. This you can't even say with respect to a less developed
and unrecorded language. One has to consider history of the word ( which
can be done only for recorded languages) and its
semantic developments and cognates within the same language for
word-kinships etc. to ascertain ( or say with more confidence that
a particular word is native or not) the souce of the word. Even if
a tribal language were to be recorded today which does not have, say,
any written record ( an example is Australian Aboriginal's language)
one might be able to say that a particular word *went* to the
ancient Greek by carefully studing the now-recorded language.
Fortunately, inspite of numerous disasterous circumstances, Tamil
has a rich collection of ancient and nearly continuous literature,
and thus is is easier bring in literature citations to sunstantiate
a semantic development.
Although many Western *scholars*
( not people in general) accept that the whole of Indian subcontinent
once had dravidian speech before the arrival of Skt., and that the
north Indian languages still retain to a large extent several aspects of
dravidian linguistic heritage, most indians are quite unaware of this
and are reluctant to accept it because of the highly prevalent view
that "Sanskrit is mother of all languages, probably except Tamil".
My main purpose is to contribute to a more wholesome understanding
in this area. If you have substantive comments, I sincerely welcome
them. I submit my views for your unbiased consideration.
None of the ancient Sanskritic works ( including the Rg Veda) can deny
the presence of Tamil. The earliest works of Tamil show the
extrordinarily rich development of language and culture.
>
> In any case my point is not that the above speculation is correct, but
> simply that your argument is not persuasive in that regard.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I feel the same way about yours ! I have presented as much detail as
I could. For you- existence of a word in
Latin is persuasive enough ( I have further given you Iranian
word now to strengthen your view!) but for me it is not ! If you
can come forward with substantive arguments then I'll try my best
to argue my case.
>
>
anbudan ( = regards)
Selva Selvakumar (selv...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca)
visw...@draco.rutgers.edu
> In article <1992Sep24....@cis.ohio-state.edu>, cha...@cannelloni.cis.ohio-state.edu (B Chandrasekaran) writes
>> It seems to me equally possible that
>> Tamil absorbed the word form from the Indo-Aryan version. Neither you
>> nor Turner seem to give an argument for why one shoiuld assume that
>> the word form traveled Tamil to Sanskritic languages, rather than the
>> other way around.
>>
>> In any case my point is not that the above speculation is correct, but
>> simply that your argument is not persuasive in that regard.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I feel the same way about yours ! I have presented as much detail as
> I could. For you- existence of a word in
> Latin is persuasive enough ( I have further given you Iranian
> word now to strengthen your view!) but for me it is not ! If you
> can come forward with substantive arguments then I'll try my best
> to argue my case.
>
Selva is absolutely correct that both theories need to
present more evidence. However, the point that Chandra is
making, which is similar to the point that I wanted to make
in my earlier exchanges with Selva is that since Selva is
posting these theories (apparently based on a lot of
library research), it behooves him to present the evidence
to the vaLaiNYars. Otherwise, many people who are not
already converts to Selva's idea are likely to think that
his theories are mere speculation without any substance.
Whether they have alternative theories or not, it would
be better even for Selva's purposes that he should post
his evidence. Asking readers to accept his theories
unless they can come up with solid evidence against it
doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
P.V. Viswanath