Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Malayalam


Repeated vandalising edits by certain IP addresses

Hello @Fylindfotberserk: @Yamaguchi先生: @Magentic Manifestations: @Crystallizedcarbon: @Utcursch:‎ @Moneytrees: @Ian.thomson:, IP address 150.129.101.116 is repeatedly removing sourced content and including content that fits their views. You can compare the following for a sample - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malayalam&type=revision&diff=1091151253&oldid=1091128793. Such vandalism is being repeated by many other IP addresses and unfortunately some users too. Request you to block such users and help the true Wiki community. Thanks in advance! NitinBhargava2016 (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Yamaguchi先生: @Magentic Manifestations: @Crystallizedcarbon: @Utcursch:‎ @Moneytrees: @Ian.thomson: @NitinBhargava2016: The neutrality of this article called Malayalam is disputed. It is constantly being edited by some people with vested agendas to misinform the readers. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malayalam&type=revision&diff=1091151253&oldid=1091128793 The edit carried out in this sample is not vandalism. It is based on a sentence from the first volume of the book written by Robert Caldwell that Mr. @NitinBhargava2016: has quoted there. The source clearly mention the points stated in that sentence. Still that edit has been reverted citing Vandalism. This article is highly misinformed by fake references added by some users. Please go through the previous user contributions of Mr. Nitin Bhargava. The user has added many unsourced misinformations in the articles Wayanad district and History of Wayanad such that the Malayalam speaking people migrated to Wayanad after 1800 and and it was full of Kannada people etc,. The sources he quoted never verify this unfounded claim. Some Malayalis (Syrian Christians) from Kottayam district have migrated into Wayanad during 1940-1970 period (Read Malabar migration.) However most of the Malayalam speakers in Wayanad were natives and it is found in all of the census right from 1871. Most of the region of Wayanad was always ruled by some tribal dynasties such as Vedas and Malayalam dynasties such as "Kurumbranad". There were Kannadigas in a few villages bordering Karnataka as seen in the 1951 census. In most of the villages, Kannada percentage is zero. I can provide you all the references for the above statements from credible sources. However some parts of Wayanad had been under Kannada kingdoms for sometime. Why does Mr. Nithin Bhargava add long sourceless statements like "Wayanad eventually became part of Kerala despite its geographical delimitations and political descent in 1956 on State’s reorganisation. Even now there is a considerable Kannada speaking population and the reminiscence of centuries old Karnataka rule is omnipresent in Wayanad. Agriculture Cultivation started broadly after 1900 A.D onwards. The British authorities opened up the plateau to cultivation of tea and other cash crops by constructing roads across the dangerous slopes of Wayanad, to Kozhikode and Thalassery. Later, they extended these new roads to the cities of Mysore and Ooty through Gudalur. Settlers emigrated from all parts of Kerala and the fecund lands proved a veritable goldmine with incredible yields of cash crops" in the article "History of Wayanad"? Settlers didn't emigrate from all parts of Kerala. Some people emigrated from Pala in Kottayam district. They emigrated to the hilly regions of Malabar, not only to Wayanad. Similarly Wayanad wasn't a district in 1957. It was a part of Malabar district (Malayalam district). It was the Malabar district that was added to Kerala. The above statements in the article "History of Wayanad" are just some opinions of the editor without any reference though it contains some half-truths. But the other half is lie. Malayalam rule was also there in the region called Wayanad from 12th century CE until the British Raj. I can give Mr. Nitin credible references. Also the settlers from Kottayam district didn't come to gold mines as Mr. Nitin have claimed there without any reference. Similarly the same author have stated in the article Attappadi that it was Kannada speaking area which is unfounded. Attappadi even doesn't have border with Karnataka. Attappad is inhabited by some tribes who speak the "Irula language", which is classified under Tamil languages. The Western Ghats area was originally inhabited by many tribes who spoke languages like Irula, Paniya, Kurichya, Badaga, Malayaraya, Yerava, etc,... 150.129.101.103 (talk) 11:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Malayalam similarity with other languages

I see some words in the Russian language which are very similar to Malayalam (words in the Russian patriot song "Svyashchennaya Voyna" - even the first word of the title of this song IS Malayalam). Even more intriguing is that there are words in South American languages that bear similarity to Malayalam. For example, the Aymara people of Bolivia sounds a lot like the Iyer people of Kerala / Tamilnadu ( Iyer Mar in Malayalam). And the Incan King who built Machu Picchu is King Pacha Kutti, . And many of these South American people have a goddess called Pacha Mama, who is currently well known to the South American Roman Catholic Church. Pls check out Malayalam's ancient links to these faraway peoples. Thank you Stuthi01 (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Classical status for malayalam

A classical status was given to malayalam by goverment of india in 2013. Now the most accepted view is malayalam originated from proto tamil malayalam and not middle tamil. So i have made neccesary edits to reflect these views. Jino john1996 (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia follows the cited sources, not the whims of governments. You cannot change the article in a way that misrepresents the cited sources. MrOllie (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What about sources that say malayalam came from proto tamil malayalam. Like govindakutty and and then asher and kumari. Jino john1996 (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And recent findings like edakkal cave inscriptions are not reflected in this article. Jino john1996 (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources are fringe views and not the mainstream. The most accepted view is Malayalam is derived from a Sanskritised western dialect of early Middle Tamil. It is primordial Malayali nationalists who say otherwise, including these fringe scholarly views. Metta79 (talk) 11:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show an article after the discovery of edakkal cave inscriptions in 2012 about the origin of malayalam? 106.220.248.209 (talk) 10:11, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Phonology Table is incomplete

The phonology table for consonants is incomplete, it should include alveolar /n/. It seems like the phonology table has been created on the basis of the writing system. Ar.ml6 (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Origins of malayalam.

This wikipedia page is hijacked by tamil nationalists like metta79. You cannot make edits with proper sources here. They are reverting all the edits. Mainstream view is malayalam has its origins in Proto-tamil-malayalam. I am making neccessary edits for the same. Jino john1996 (talk) 09:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The mainstream view is Malayalam is derived from a Sanskritised western dialect of early Middle Tamil. This is supported by all the linguistic and historical evidence, including sociolinguistics.
The ancient and medieval speakers of Tamilakam, what is now Kerala and Tamil Nadu referred unambiguously to their language as 'Tamil', and their dialects were mutually intelligible.
This can be clearly seen in Old Tamil texts composed in Kerala such as Cilappatikaram by Ilango Adigal who repeatedly refers to Kerala as being part of Tamilakam, the Tamil speaking region, as well as the inscriptional evidence in Kerala itself, where all the ancient and early medieval inscriptions are in Tamil. Even the inscriptions recently described as Old Malayalam are more intelligible to a modern Tamil speaker than modern Malayalam speaker as they are closer to literary Tamil which is based on a form of Middle Tamil: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VB4ZEKE6w-w).
In the early colonial period, when the language of Kerala had separated from the east coast dialect, the term 'Tamil' was still used by its speakers to describe it. This is made abundantly clear in the earlier version of the article before you made your edits.
Grammatically, it is impossible for the two languages Modern Tamil and Malayalam not to be derived from early Middle Tamil, as they share common innovations dating to this period which are absent in Old Tamil. The article makes this abundantly clear: Malayalam#History
A few Malayali scholars in recent times have encouraged the primordialist fringe claim that the languages split in prehistory, because of the presence of select archaisms in modern Malayalam. However, those archaisms are a dialectal peculiarity of the western dialect of Old Tamil spoken in Kerala, they are not evidence of two different languages, see the following note: [[1]]
This fringe claim has been questioned by others and it cannot be stated as fact in this article, unless this article is to become a soapbox for nationalist claims (which is not encyclopaedic at all). Metta79 (talk) 10:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actualy no. See the sources i provided. Jino john1996 (talk) 10:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have read all the sources you have provided many years ago, particularly those by Govindakutty. His fringe claims of a prehistoric split based on a few dialectal archaisms has already been addressed in my reply above. Metta79 (talk) 10:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the reply? Show me an article that counters it. Sources that i have cited here of Bhadriraju Krishnamoorti, and SV shanmugam states the same thing. Jino john1996 (talk) 10:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SV Shanmugam says the opposite of what you are saying. Bh. Krishnamoorti clearly says "Malayalam was the west-coast dialect of Tamil till about the ninth century AD", on page 22 of his seminal book on Dravidian languages. Metta79 (talk) 10:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SV Shanmugam clearly says that spoken langauge of kerala would be Proto-Malayalam during sangam period. But the separation happened in early middle tamil period. Same with Bh krishnamoorthi. His diagram clearly shows it. Jino john1996 (talk) 10:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you say does not contradict what I am saying. Proto-Malayalam is nothing but the west coast dialect of early Middle Tamil. It is the west coast dialect of early Middle Tamil which eventually became Malayalam. 'Proto' means the predecessor form of the language.
Similarly, when Krishnamoorthi refers to Tamil-Malayalam, it can be inferred that the Tamil in that compound is referring to 'Modern Tamil', as he clearly and unambiguously states that Malayalam emerged from the west coast dialect of Middle Tamil. Metta79 (talk) 10:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But again both of them uses that term. So we should use that term instead . Isnt that the right thing to do? Jino john1996 (talk) 11:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The term proto-Tamil-Malayalam is already mentioned in the article as the second view. It clearly means different things to different scholars. The fringe view that it means independent descent from the prehistoric period is already mentioned. The mainstream view is that Malayalam is derived from a form of early middle Tamil and that cannot be hidden away. Metta79 (talk) 11:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think both terms should be used. I have made some changes regarding it. Please do check it out. If there is a any issues, please do reply here. Thank you 103.158.145.146 (talk) 14:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's misleading to make those changes, as I and Austronesier have already mentioned. The current version makes it abundantly clear what the two different viewpoints are, and which is accepted as the mainstream. Metta79 (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not acceptable.It's better to use both because that's what most links that are given says. I think what he did is the correct way. Jino john1996 (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how Wikipedia works. Fringe views are not given equal platform to the mainstream view (actually it is a fact) that Malayalam is derived from a west coast dialect of Middle Tamil. Metta79 (talk) 21:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That is correct. But the links also says something else as well. That should be reflected in the mainstream view itlself. I think what he did is the correct way of putting it. Jino john1996 (talk) 06:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is page is not "by tamil nationalists like metta79", but guarded from endless attempts to introduce a WP:FRINGE view about the history of Malayalam and Tamil. The mainstream view that you find high-quality sources is that Malayalam emerged from a peripheral dialect of Middle Tamil that maximally had preserved a few archaic features not found in the bulk of Tamil dialects. Pretty much like the case of Luxembourgish or Assamese. The occasional use of "Proto-Tamil-Malayalam" is a useful attempt to appease ethno-nationalist sentiments, but it doesn't change the fact about the late split of Malayalam. –Austronesier (talk) 10:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ofcourse malayalam and tamil split late. Mainstream view is a 9th to 13th century split. But both terms(as a dialect of middle tamil or proto-tamil-malayalam) are equally used by almost all scholars today. That both terms should be reflected in the mainstream view. I made an edit for that today. Please check into it. But that edit has now been reverted and my other account is being blocked for some reason. 103.158.145.167 (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the other person said, Mainstream view can be worded better in my opinion. A "9th to 13th century origin from a dialect of middle tamil or proto-tamil-malayalam" would be a better way as most links given uses both the terms even for late split not just for prehistoric split.What is your opinion regarding this? Thank you. Jino john1996 (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That above wording is not consistent with the mainstream view that Malayalam is derived from the western dialect of Middle Tamil.
It suggests that they are mutually exclusive terms by the use of the word 'or', thus implying that somehow Malayalam having an independent descent from Middle Tamil is also mainstream (which is completely bogus). It is very misleading, and only use here would be to satisfy primordial nationalist ideology (nationalism tends to exaggerate continuity of an identity as far back as possible). Metta79 (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not denying a late split of malayalam as its the mainstream. I am just saying it should be worded better in order to make it more authentic towards the sources. As most of the sources provided uses both even for the late split. If we don't give exactly what it says, then it will be like misquoting the sources,right? We need to find a middle ground for this. That is why I say use both the terms. What is your opinion regarding this? Thank you. Jino john1996 (talk) 08:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The middle ground is already there. If anything it is currently biased to the fringe view of independent descent, thanks to the fringe view nationalist scholars distortions. For the record, for anyone who is familiar with all the evidence, linguistic as well as historical, there is no dispute. Malayalam is derived from a Sanskritised west coast dialect of Middle Tamil. Metta79 (talk) 10:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not disagreeing with you.I just said it can be worded a little better. Jino john1996 (talk) 13:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Malayalam