Is "veeran" a Tamil word?
Lucretio
I would like to supplement the excellent responses to this query, especially,
the one by Vidyanath K. Rao. The cognate to "veer" in an Indo-European language such as
Latin is indeed interesting. Thus:
Language-> Meanings-> Source->
Sanskrit VEER (adjective)= Apte's Practical
1. heroic, BRAVE; Sanskrit-English
2. mighty, powerful; Dict.
3. excellent, eminent.
Latin VIR (masculine)= Collins' Latin
1. man; Dictionary
2. grown man;
3. BRAVE man, hero;
4. husband;
5. foot-soldier (Roman military term.)
Reconstructed WIROS = American Heritage
Indo-European 1. MAN. Dictionary (1976
root (Watkins, Probably related to edition), Appendix
Harvard Linguistics) "WEI" = VITAL FORCE.
[Note the "W" instead of
"V" in "wiros." Ancient Greek
had a special symbol ("digamma,"
now lost) to denote "W."
There is no symbol for "W" in
Sanskrit. Perhaps, as in
Greek, it too may have been
lost -- Lucretio.]
It is noteworthy, that in one variant, "vir" in Latin DOES mean a "BRAVE" man
thus exhibiting the tight connection of Latin to Sanskrit. Even more fascinating is the
relation of "veer" to the primitive root word "wei" meaning "vital force" (whatever that
means). Evidently, according to the pre-scientific ancients, man (brave or not!) was
distinguished from other forms of (inanimate?) creation by an inherent vital force (the
"breath of life" perhaps?). [On a side-issue this may explain why Wohler's
first-time synthesis of an organic, in contrast to inorganic, compound (which, to use
pre-scientific terminology, contained the "wei") was deemed nearly miraculous.] Is it
possible that later, probably, a "brave" man was thought to have more of this vital
force than an "ordinary" man? Is that why Indo-European-speaking epic heroes, whether in
the Mahabharatha or Iliad, were considered to be immortal?
It should also be noted that in Sanskrit "veera," according to Apte, means 1.
wife of a hero; 2. a wife; and 3. a mother, matron. The closest corresponding word
that I could find in Latin was "virago" (feminine) meaning heroine or warrior maid which
correlates reasonably well with meaning no. 1 in Sanskrit. Caution: the word "virago" in
English, though derived from Latin, does NOT quite have the meaning of a heroine; rather
the English word refers to a "noisy, domineering woman" -- certainly no heroine of mine!
Well, does this answer the query? Assuming that Tamil speakers (who are
essentially UNIQUE to India: this excludes the "Tamil is related to Sumerian [an ancient
Middle-Eastern language]" theory) came into contact with Indo-European (hereafter, "IE")
speakers only in India, in light of the IE root "wiros" it is probably safe to say that
the Tamil "veeran" has indeed been imported from the Sanskrit "veer."
On the other hand, note the existence of Brahui, a dialect RELATED TO Tamil
spoken in a portion of Afghanistan (familiar to ancients as "Gandhara"). Assume that
"veeran" has an immediate cognate in Brahui. In light of that is it possible that
Sanskrit speakers who came into contact with Brahui speakers incorporated "veer" into
Sanskrit from Brahui? Although the Brahui (and Tamil) languages MAY WELL BE more ancient
than Sanskrit proper (though not the original proto IE itself), given that (a) the IE
root "wiros" may be back-dated to 3,000-4,000 BC (based on the archaeologically-attested
existence of ancient IE-speaking "Kurgan Barrow cultures" off to the north-east of the
BLack Sea [incidentally, this excludes (1) the "IE speakers came from the Arctic region"
theory, as well as, (2) theories requiring preposterous order-of-magnitude earlier
dates, such as 10,000 BC or earlier, based on treating the Rig-Veda as a factual, as
opposed to an essentially poetic and spiritual, composition and (3) other theories,
palatable only to the incredulous or simple chauvanists, proposing colonization of the
rest of Asia and Europe by IE speakers originating from India itself. Among the latter,
any reference to the migration of Romany (an IE language)-speaking gipsies out of India
carrying the seeds of an IE language is much too recent (ca. 1,000 AD) to stand as a
credible theory;]) and (b) that "veer" is related so SIMPLY and DIRECTLY to "wiros" it
therefore seems more likely than not that the (perhaps) more ancient Tamil obtained
"veeran" from Sanskrit.
A scenario which involves interaction of Sanskrit speakers with speakers of a
language associated with the Indus Valley civilization resulting in the former
borrowing "veer" from the latter cannot show that veer flowed from Tamil to Sanskrit, at
least at present, since no plausible relationship has been shown between the speakers of
a, thus far unknown, Indus Valley civilization language group and Brahui or Tamil.
Then, of course, there is the proposition that by a remarkable coincidence both
Tamil speakers and Sanskrit speakers (bravely) hit upon the same word for a "brave" man
independently and simultaneously. Aha! ... .
C.R. Selvakumar
In Tamil 'vai' means 'sharp, hard' and Tholkaappiyam says 'vaiyyE
koormai'. The words tamil 'vairam' ( = diamond), vairi ( enemy) etc. are
related. The word veeran, hypothetically assuming that it is tamil word,
may not be related to tamil 'vai'. As per my understanding, the word
veeran in tamil is known to be from sanskrit. In Tamil maRam and thaRukaN
were used prior to the the widepread use of veeram.
> It should also be noted that in Sanskrit "veera," according to Apte, means 1.
>wife of a hero; 2. a wife; and 3. a mother, matron. The closest corresponding word
>that I could find in Latin was "virago" (feminine) meaning heroine or warrior maid which
>correlates reasonably well with meaning no. 1 in Sanskrit. Caution: the word "virago" in
>English, though derived from Latin, does NOT quite have the meaning of a heroine; rather
>the English word refers to a "noisy, domineering woman" -- certainly no heroine of mine!
> Well, does this answer the query? Assuming that Tamil speakers (who are
>essentially UNIQUE to India: this excludes the "Tamil is related to Sumerian [an ancient
>Middle-Eastern language]" theory) came into contact with Indo-European (hereafter, "IE")
The connection of Dravidian(/Tamil) to Elamite has some merit ( McAlpin's
work) and one can not say that Tamil was 'confined to South India'
Tamils were sea-farers and they had ancient links with China and the east
and there is evidence that Tamil traders were there in Egypt in BC.
Tamils have been travelling many parts of the world from time immemorial.
Since the connection and the extension of interaction of
Latin, Greek and ancient IE languages
with Tamil/Dravidian/Elamite is rather poorly established,
the direction of borrowing of words between Tamil and Sanskrit
remains in a highly debatable state. Many think that if a Latin or
a Greek connection is shown in addition to Sanskrit, it is a sure
'aryan' or IE word. I don't think so. The IE languages borrowed
heavily from so many non-IE languages in Anatolia etc. it is difficult
to be very certain about many words.
>speakers only in India, in light of the IE root "wiros" it is probably safe to say that
>the Tamil "veeran" has indeed been imported from the Sanskrit "veer."
Tamil had adopted thousands of words of Sanskrit and 'veer-' might
very well be one. What is not often recognized is that Sanskrit
had borrowed a similarly large number of words from Tamil and many
native languages of India.
> On the other hand, note the existence of Brahui, a dialect RELATED TO Tamil
>spoken in a portion of Afghanistan (familiar to ancients as "Gandhara"). Assume that
Brahui is only one of the langauges that have survived in the north, but
many north indian languages, considered to be 'indo-aryan', have many
vital characteristics of dravidian ( including syntax, idiom, and other
linguistic features).
>"veeran" has an immediate cognate in Brahui. In light of that is it possible that
>Sanskrit speakers who came into contact with Brahui speakers incorporated "veer" into
>Sanskrit from Brahui? Although the Brahui (and Tamil) languages MAY WELL BE more ancient
>than Sanskrit proper (though not the original proto IE itself), given that (a) the IE
>root "wiros" may be back-dated to 3,000-4,000 BC (based on the archaeologically-attested
>existence of ancient IE-speaking "Kurgan Barrow cultures" off to the north-east of the
At the time of Kurgan Barrow (KB) cultures, many non-KB cultures
also existed in around the same place.
Have you shown that 'wiros' was used in KB cultures ?
>BLack Sea [incidentally, this excludes (1) the "IE speakers came from the Arctic region"
>theory, as well as, (2) theories requiring preposterous order-of-magnitude earlier
>dates, such as 10,000 BC or earlier, based on treating the Rig-Veda as a factual, as
>opposed to an essentially poetic and spiritual, composition and (3) other theories,
>palatable only to the incredulous or simple chauvanists, proposing colonization of the
>rest of Asia and Europe by IE speakers originating from India itself. Among the latter,
>any reference to the migration of Romany (an IE language)-speaking gipsies out of India
>carrying the seeds of an IE language is much too recent (ca. 1,000 AD) to stand as a
>credible theory;]) and (b) that "veer" is related so SIMPLY and DIRECTLY to "wiros" it
>therefore seems more likely than not that the (perhaps) more ancient Tamil obtained
>"veeran" from Sanskrit.
Tamil might have borrowed from Sanskrit ( but not based on the things you
say in the above)
> A scenario which involves interaction of Sanskrit speakers with speakers of a
>language associated with the Indus Valley civilization resulting in the former
>borrowing "veer" from the latter cannot show that veer flowed from Tamil to Sanskrit, at
>least at present, since no plausible relationship has been shown between the speakers of
>a, thus far unknown, Indus Valley civilization language group and Brahui or Tamil.
> Then, of course, there is the proposition that by a remarkable coincidence both
>Tamil speakers and Sanskrit speakers (bravely) hit upon the same word for a "brave" man
>independently and simultaneously. Aha! ... .
As I pointed out in another post, there are many words of Tamil origin
related to 'veeran' which point to an intrinsic connection, possibly,
but only an expert can evaluate them more reliably.
selvaa
Lucretio
C.R. Selvakumar wrote:
> In Tamil 'vai' means 'sharp, hard' and Tholkaappiyam says 'vaiyyE
> koormai'. The words tamil 'vairam' ( = diamond), vairi ( enemy)
> etc. are related. The word veeran, hypothetically assuming that it
> is tamil word, may not be related to tamil 'vai'. As per my
> understanding, the word veeran in tamil is known to be from
> sanskrit.
> --> The transliteration of Tamil into English is fraught with
danger. Thus, I would have thought that "vai" = mouth, NOT sharp, as you
assert. E.g. "vai tharakkaadhe" = do not open your mouth, or, "periiya
vai" = big mouth. Be that as it may, since the thrust of your response
agrees with my conclusion, namely, that "veeran" flowed into Tamil from
the Sanskrit "veer," I am not sure what the point being made by the rest
of your response is all about.
>
> Have you shown that 'wiros' was used in KB cultures ?
> --> As indicated in my note, "wiros" is a RECONSTRUCTED IE root
word. People of the Kurgan barrow ("KB") culture may not have written out
that particular word, and, they are certainly not around here to satisfy
our curiosity as to the certainty of its usage. One can only make a
PLAUSIBLE inference about the "use" of wiros. Take it or leave it.
>
> Tamil might have borrowed from Sanskrit ( but not based on the
> things you say in the above)
> --> Bluntly put, educated guesswork based on the best available
evidence underlies the search for the origin of and relationship between
words. It is a rare occasion when one can be positively definite about
it. I have culled together the most ECONOMICAL "persuasive" evidence,
that I am aware of, in presenting a plausibly infered relationship
between "veeran" and "veer." Incidentally, it is not uncommon to see that
arguments about the relationship of similar words in different langauges
to be driven by reliance on the most outlandish theories. In linguistics,
as in science, one ought to be skeptical about theories being stretched
to the utmost in order to conveneniently "fit" certain observations.
Obviously, this is one area where Occam's razor can be fruitfully
employed -- as indeed I have done.
> As I pointed out in another post, there are many words of Tamil
> origin related to 'veeran' which point to an intrinsic > connection, possibly, but only an expert can evaluate them more
> reliably.
>
> selvaa --> Are you kidding? In a field that requires a grasp of evidence
related to linguistics, archaeology, social science, etc. who ARE the
experts?
--
\|/ \|/
^.|.^ quid nobis certius ipsis sensibus esse potest, ^.|.^
- qui vera ac falsa notemus? -
