Hindi is a Dravidian language
Habshi
Dravidians came to India 15000 years ago from the Mediterranean area ,
while the Aryans fled to India 7000 years ago when the ice melted and
the mammoths and bisons had died off and agriculture was not yet known
, apart from making beer from willd hops which the Aryans drank in
great amounts as 'somras'.
So Hindi like the Latin languages has the verb at the end .
for eg in the erotic song in KKKM , Pooja sings
ankhe chaar karle
eyes four lets make
where the verb is at the end
With increasing influence of NRIs and English which is a
Germanic Aryan language , the verb now is being put in front
so
karle ankhe chaar
lets make eyes four
which still sound grammaticaly wrong to most but is being gradually
accepted .
sivan
> Contrary to popular belief Hindi is a Dravidian language .
> Dravidians came to India 15000 years ago from the Mediterranean area ,
dont create stories
aryanviking
Habshi wrote:
---> sanskrit also must be a pure dravidian language -- tamil and telugu
on the other hand are pure aryan languages ---
reigut
sanskrit seem to have dravidian influences..the rig veda appears to be
the only one where dravidian is ALMOST non existant..of course, as per
current position of indologists..
aryanviking <aryan...@europe.com> wrote in message news:<3B6C55C0...@europe.com>...
Habshi
blood .
Raghav Krishnapriyan
And the evolution of Hindi can be traced to Sanskrit, which is beyond
all doubt, an Indo-European language. (Cf. Relations to Persian,
Hellenic and Italic groups). In other words, any relation Hindi has to
the Dravidian languages is solely a result of borrowing of Dravidian
words and grammatical structures. (like Enlgish borrowing French words,
due to the Norman Conquest) Yet, as with English, the basic structure of
Hindi remains Indo-European (Germanic branch of IE family in English's
case)
Habshi
<ragm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
In other words, any relation Hindi has to
the Dravidian languages is solely a result of borrowing of Dravidian
words and grammatical structures.
If you borrow the words and grammatical structures what else is
left ? !! More proof Hindi is Dravidian while English like German is
pure Aryan.
Ironically with the young Tamils all speaking English they have
converted the younger generation to Aryan language .
Raghav Krishnapriyan
borrowed. But the grammatical structuure essentially remains
Indo-European. It's nearly impossible for a language to change groups.
For example, in English, many words above 5 letters are of French origin,
but the grammatical structure is still Germanic. The way to tell what
family a language is in is to find the smallest, most used words, i.e.
numbers, articles, etc.
What's more, the Dravidian languages are highly inflected, more so than
Sanskrit, and much more so than Hindi, which has lost its cases.
I said Hindi borrowed -some- of its vocabulary from the Dravidian
languages, and uses -very few- Dravidian grammatical structures. (I'm
simply clarifying) Hindi remains an Indo-European language to a much
greater extent than English remains Germanic. No matter how much Hindi
borrows from the Dravidian languages (and the trend is in the opposite
direction), it is unlikely it will ever lose its Indo-European identity.
Hindi numerals: ek do tin char panch che sat at nau das (run of the mill
transliteration, just how it sounds to me. Not ITRANS or anything)
Kannada numerals: uandu yeradu muru naaku aidu yaaru yetu uombadu hattu
See any correlation? I didn't think so.
Meenaradchagan Vishnu
Ram+kO (Hindi) vs. Ram(u)kku (tamil) vs Ram+asya (Sanskrit).
Meenan Vishnu
In article <3B6F4119...@hotmail.com>,
Raghav Krishnapriyan
Proto-Germanic.
Jeff
> So Hindi like the Latin languages has the verb at the end .
> With increasing influence of NRIs and English which is a
> Germanic Aryan language , the verb now is being put in front
If the placement of verbs has anything to do with it, then German is a
Dravidian language, since verbs in German also come at the end.
Actually, by writing about the "influence of NRIs and English" you
have shown how it is that Hindi and the Dravidian languages have come
to have similarities (proving Raghav's point). As people interact,
they share ways of speaking; both vocabulary and (occasionally)
syntactical constructions. So now an English verb structure is
gradually being accepted into Hindi (but probably only in very
specific and limited contexts).
M. Ranjit Mathews
> On Mon, 06 Aug 2001 17:56:58 GMT, Raghav Krishnapriyan
> <ragm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In other words, any relation Hindi has to
> the Dravidian languages is solely a result of borrowing of Dravidian
> words and grammatical structures.
>
> If you borrow the words and grammatical structures what else is left ? !!
Morphemes, apart from the fact that borrowing doesn't imply complete
replacement. Dravidian languages are agglutinative. "mae~ jaa rahaa
huu~" would be only two words in Tamil.
> More proof Hindi is Dravidian while English like German is
> pure Aryan.
They're not pure indo-european; they're influenced by languages that
were earlier spoken in Europe.
M. Ranjit Mathews
> replacement. Dravidian languages are agglutinative. "mae~ jaa rahaa
> huu~" would be only two words in Tamil.
Morphology, I mean. Indic languages (eg. Hindi) are more inflected
than Dravidian languages. Dravidian languages (eg. Tamil) are more
agglutinative than Indic languages.
Raghav Krishnapriyan
No, you've got it backwards. Tamil & Co. are inflected. Agglutinative means
you -add on- endings, and inflected means you -change them-.
--
Raghav Krishnapriyan [en,ia,la,fr,hi,zh,kn(fi,cy,it,eo,es)]
M. Ranjit Mathews
> M. Ranjit Mathews deithanti i phith hin:
>
> > ranjit_...@yahoo.com (M. Ranjit Mathews) wrote in message
> >> Morphemes, apart from the fact that borrowing doesn't imply complete
> >> replacement. Dravidian languages are agglutinative. "mae~ jaa rahaa
> >> huu~" would be only two words in Tamil.
> >
> > Morphology, I mean. Indic languages (eg. Hindi) are more inflected
> > than Dravidian languages. Dravidian languages (eg. Tamil) are more
> > agglutinative than Indic languages.
>
> No, you've got it backwards. Tamil & Co. are inflected.
object form, one agglutinates (avan=he, avanukku=for him). Verbs don't
get inflected either; only agglutinations added to a verb change as
tense changes).
> Agglutinative means you -add on- endings,
Right. Tamil is more agglutinative.
"naan pôhirên" and "naan pôyiko'ndiruhi'rên" (I am going) are
agglutinative constructions.
> and inflected means you -change them-.
Right. Hindi is more inflected. jâ(go) in "maeñ jâ rahâ hûñ" is
inflected in various ways (eg. went=gayâ) whereas pô(go) in Tamil
never changes in this manner; it remains pô and what changes is
agglutinative endings added to it. In Hindi, (vah=he, uskêliyê=for
him), which is hardly an agglutinative transformation.
Raghav Krishnapriyan
No, the Dravidian languages are famous for being -case- languages. Let me
give you examples from Kannada (undoubtedly there are Tamil equivalents):
Nom: davanu
Acc: baalakannu
Ins: hod.edanu
Dat: baayaarikegaagi
Abl: aanegintha
Gen: pathrakke
Loc: maneyalli
The nouns are -inflected-, like Latin.
Hindi, on the other hand, makes use of prepositions. Cf. kamra meM, mez
par.
Instead of case endings, Hindi uses prepositions, like English, or an even
better example, like the Romance languages.
--
Raghav Krishnapriyan [en,ia,la,fr,hi,zh,kn(fi,cy,it,eo,es)]
M. Ranjit Mathews
Roma(Acc) to Romae(Gen) in Latin. How about verbs (eg. steal->stole);
are they inflected in Kannada? I find it difficult to believe that
your examples are inflections of the same word. The Nominative and
Accusative are too far apart; the declension looks most unlilely. In
Old English, they're often the same and in Latin, they're close.
> Hindi, on the other hand, makes use of prepositions. Cf. kamra meM, mez
> par.
Well, in Hindi, kamara(Acc) is inflected to kamare(Acc).
> Instead of case endings, Hindi uses prepositions, like English, or an even
> better example, like the Romance languages.
Hindi, like English, has lost inflections. Hindi is less agglutinative
than Tamil/ Malayalam insofar as these languages use agglutinations
rather than have separate words for prepositions. There are some
impressively long Sanskrit agglutinations, however, that are still
used in Hindi.
One explanation that's given for inflections being replaced by word
order is that when North Germanic speakers (i.e., Vikings & Danes)
invaded England, they had a vocabulary similar to Anglo-Saxons, but
their word order was different, so a pidgin evolved that standardized
word order, rendering a number of inflections unnecessary.
Modern English: "I'll sell you the horse that pulls my cart".
Old English: "Ic selle the that hors the draegeth minne waegn."
Old Norse: "Ek mun selja ther hrossit er dregr vagn mine."
http://www.ucrysj.ac.uk/dialect/inflexions.htm
Raghav Krishnapriyan
You're point being...?
--
Raghav Krishnapriyan [en,ia,la,fr,hi,zh,kn(fi,cy,it,eo,es)]
M. Ranjit Mathews
> > Roma(Acc) to Romae(Gen) in Latin. How about verbs (eg. steal->stole);
> > are they inflected in Kannada? I find it difficult to believe that
> > your examples are inflections of the same word. The Nominative and
> > Accusative are too far apart; the declension looks most unlilely. In
> > Old English, they're often the same and in Latin, they're close.
> >
> >> Hindi, on the other hand, makes use of prepositions. Cf. kamra meM,
> >> mez par.
> > Well, in Hindi, kamara(Acc) is inflected to kamare(Acc).
> >
> >> Instead of case endings, Hindi uses prepositions, like English, or an
> >> even better example, like the Romance languages.
> > Hindi, like English, has lost inflections.
The fact that Hindi has lost some inflections doesn't mean it has no
inflections. In Tamil and Malayalam, however, I can't think of any
inflections of the nature of steal->stole. The stem/ headword remains
the same and only what is added to the end changes. I can't make a
great deal of sense of what you say about Kannada. It would seem to me
that if the accusative is baalakannu, the nominative must be baalaa.
In Latin, there are inflections such as vox(voice), vocis(of the/a
voice), voco(I call), vocat(he calls), vocet(let him call) and
vocavit(he has called). In Malayalam, these would be vihli(voice),
vihliehde(of the/a voice), vihlikkunnu(I call/ he calls),
vihlikehtta(let him/her call) and vihliccu/ vihliccu ka'yiNyu (has
called). vihili is retained throughout whereas in Latin, the x of vox
is present only in the nominative and is not found in the other forms
(acc, gen, etc).
In the Malayalam example I'd given earlier, Amma(Nom)->Amme(Acc) is
really an agglutination (although you might prefer to call it
inflection by agglutination). An e is added to get an accusative from
a nominative Avan(Nom)->Avane(Acc). In the case of Amma, that makes it
Ammae, which is not unheard of, but it's the standard practice to
perform an elision of a vowel when certain sequences are created by
agglutinations. In Malayalam, in a noun ending in a consonant, the
noun remains unchanged; Avan(he) remains Avan as in:
Avan=he
Avane=him
Avanuhde=his
Avande(after elision)=his
I have to admit, however, that while the agglutinations in Malayalam
are quite different from Germanic inflections, they are not quite as
different from Latin inflections. In the voice example above, if you
consider a stem of voc, then vox can also be written as vocs (indeed,
x is short for cs). Then, it may be said that all inflections of voc
are formed by agglutination to the stem voc. This is, however, not all
there is to agglutination. In Malayalam, "he is (engaged in the act
of) calling" would be "avan vihliccukohndirikkunnu". The last word in
the Malayalam sentence is a compound formed from three words; this
sort of agglutination of the sort that doesn't happen in Latin and is
rare in common Hindi usage, although Sanskrit has long agglutinations
like bahvrychádhyetrysampradáyapráptaha, some of which might find
their way into esoteric Hindi usage.
Raghav Krishnapriyan
Correct. Hindi still has a nominative and oblique case. (Cf. kamra, kamre)
So does English, which has a genitive (the dog, the dog's)
>In Tamil and Malayalam, however, I can't think of any
> inflections of the nature of steal->stole.
I certainly can. Say, for kal, naN kalkiReN and naN kaRReN.
>The stem/ headword remains
> the same and only what is added to the end changes. I can't make a
> great deal of sense of what you say about Kannada. It would seem to me
> that if the accusative is baalakannu, the nominative must be baalaa.
>
> In Latin, there are inflections such as vox(voice), vocis(of the/a
> voice), voco(I call), vocat(he calls), vocet(let him call) and
> vocavit(he has called).
>In Malayalam, these would be vihli(voice),
> vihliehde(of the/a voice), vihlikkunnu(I call/ he calls),
> vihlikehtta(let him/her call) and vihliccu/ vihliccu ka'yiNyu (has
> called). vihili is retained throughout whereas in Latin, the x of vox
> is present only in the nominative and is not found in the other forms
> (acc, gen, etc).
Ah, the famous third declensions. (Cf. rex, regis) The reason for that
phenomenon is that the stem, in fact is 'voc-', but the nominative ending
's' makes the word 'vocs' which is usually written 'vox'.
> In the Malayalam example I'd given earlier, Amma(Nom)->Amme(Acc) is
> really an agglutination (although you might prefer to call it
> inflection by agglutination). An e is added to get an accusative from
> a nominative Avan(Nom)->Avane(Acc). In the case of Amma, that makes it
> Ammae, which is not unheard of, but it's the standard practice to
> perform an elision of a vowel when certain sequences are created by
> agglutinations. In Malayalam, in a noun ending in a consonant, the
> noun remains unchanged; Avan(he) remains Avan as in:
> Avan=he
> Avane=him
> Avanuhde=his
> Avande(after elision)=his
It seems to be comparable to the Latin phenomenon I described earlier. Non
sequitur: If we look at Merriam Webster Online (http://www.m-w.com/) we
find "the change of form that words undergo to mark such distinctions as
those of case, gender, number, tense, person, mood, or voice b : a form,
suffix, or element involved in such variation" as the definition for
'inflection', which would make the Dravidian languages inflected. As a
matter of fact, many people would agree that the term 'case language' is
equivalent to 'inflected language'.
Anyway:
Oblique Stem puu(v)-
N puu
A puuv-ai
D puuv-ukku
S puuv-oo(t)u (retroflex t)
G puuv-a(t)aiya
I puuv-aal
L puuv-il
Ab puuv-iliruntu
Just like your Latin example, all the cases add the case endings to 'puuv',
while the nominative is 'puu'. The root can't be 'puu-' and all the
infections start with 'v' because other verbs take the exact same
inflections. In other words, at least in this case, Tamil is inflected, not
agglutinative. And Latin, in your previous case, wasn't because Latin 'x'
is an allograph of 'cs'.
> I have to admit, however, that while the agglutinations in Malayalam
> are quite different from Germanic inflections, they are not quite as
> different from Latin inflections. In the voice example above, if you
> consider a stem of voc, then vox can also be written as vocs (indeed,
> x is short for cs). Then, it may be said that all inflections of voc
> are formed by agglutination to the stem voc. This is, however, not all
> there is to agglutination. In Malayalam, "he is (engaged in the act
> of) calling" would be "avan vihliccukohndirikkunnu". The last word in
> the Malayalam sentence is a compound formed from three words; this
> sort of agglutination of the sort that doesn't happen in Latin and is
> rare in common Hindi usage, although Sanskrit has long agglutinations
> like bahvrychádhyetrysampradáyapráptaha, some of which might find
> their way into esoteric Hindi usage.
--
Raghav Krishnapriyan [en,ia,la,fr,hi,zh,kn(fi,cy,it,eo,es)]
M. Ranjit Mathews
> > inflections of the nature of steal->stole.
>
> I certainly can. Say, for kal, naN kalkiReN and naN kaRReN.
What does kal mean?
> Ah, the famous third declensions. (Cf. rex, regis) The reason for that
> phenomenon is that the stem, in fact is 'voc-', but the nominative ending
> 's' makes the word 'vocs' which is usually written 'vox'.
I have noted voc->vocs below.
>
> 'inflection', which would make the Dravidian languages inflected. As a
> matter of fact, many people would agree that the term 'case language' is
> equivalent to 'inflected language'.
Very well, but in Dravidian languages, like in Latin, the inflection
is typically done by adding to the end of a word/stem rather than by
an inflection that changes a word like steal->stole or ja->gaya.
> Anyway:
> Oblique Stem puu(v)-
>
> N puu
> A puuv-ai
> D puuv-ukku
> S puuv-oohtu (retroflex t)
> G puuv-ahtaiya
> I puuv-aal
> L puuv-il
> Ab puuv-iliruntu
>
> Just like your Latin example, all the cases add the case endings to 'puuv',
> while the nominative is 'puu'. The root can't be 'puu-' and all the
> infections start with 'v' because other verbs take the exact same
> inflections. In other words, at least in this case, Tamil is inflected, not
> agglutinative. And Latin, in your previous case, wasn't because Latin 'x'
> is an allograph of 'cs'.
What about the examples of agglutination below? (English has its own
conventions for agglutination like in "brinksmanship").
M. Ranjit Mathews
> M. Ranjit Mathews deithanti i phith hin:
Very cute. I didn't realize Kannada was so different from Tamil
(assuming the above was written in Kannada). Thanks for the insights
into Tamil inflections.
Raghav Krishnapriyan
> Raghav Krishnapriyan <ragm...@hotmail.com> wrote...
>> M. Ranjit Mathews deithanti i phith hin:
>
> Very cute. I didn't realize Kannada was so different from Tamil
> (assuming the above was written in Kannada). Thanks for the insights
> into Tamil inflections.
>
You're welcome. ::laughs:: That's not Kannada! It's Sindarin. See Lord of
the Rings by Tolkien. Well, the topic has digressed a lot, but I think it's
safe to say that Hindi is not, in fact, a Dravidian language.
--
Raghav Krishnapriyan [en,ia,la,fr,hi,zh,kn(fi,cy,it,eo,es)]
M. Ranjit Mathews
> M. Ranjit Mathews deithanti i phith hin:
> > Raghav Krishnapriyan <ragm...@hotmail.com> wrote...
> >> M. Ranjit Mathews deithanti i phith hin:
> > Very cute. I didn't realize Kannada was so different from Tamil
> > (assuming the above was written in Kannada). Thanks for the insights
> > into Tamil inflections.
> You're welcome. ::laughs:: That's not Kannada! It's Sindarin. See Lord of
> the Rings by Tolkien.
cared much for Tolkein.
> Well, the topic has digressed a lot, but I think it's
> safe to say that Hindi is not, in fact, a Dravidian language.
Hindi shows Dravidian influence in its lexicon, phonology
(retroflexes) and to some degree, its morphology and grammar. To a
certain extent, it's possible to think in Malayalam and translate to
Hindi by mere substitution of Hindi words/ phrases for Malayalam
words. I doubt that it would be quite as easy to translate thus to
Farsi or Pashto.