Classical vs. Modern

[Christopher Fernandez]

In a message dated 1/16/99 11:11:00 AM Central Standard Time,
narayana at HD1.DOT.NET.IN writes:

>  He has already very patiently explained his view why tamil
>  cannot be called classical . This is because it is current and
>  evloving and therefore changing. You may not agree with his view.
>  That does not give you liberty to use disrespectful language.

Sarma is certainly not enhancing the reputation of Bh. Krishnamurti
by his interpretation and defense of BhK's views on what a classical
language is. If Sarma's reason for not considering Tamil to be a
classical language is true, then in Greek and Arabic which BhK and
he accept as classical languages, all language change has ceased.
I am sure this is a revelation to linguists and other scholars on
this list. If, indeed BhK shares in this view of  Sarma, that
is really shocking.  I think before Sarma tries to interpret,
paraphrase, and justify BhK's views on why Tamil cannot be called
classical, he should heed BhK's suggestion and consult a standard
 English dictionary on what "classical" means.

>  Please will you kindly quote the postings of Prof.Bh.Krishnamurti
>  which made you feel that he will do any such thing. As far as I
>  know he has not made any remarks against tamil. As a matter of
>  fact he in his postings, he has clearly stated that tamil
>  preserves quite a  bit
>  old dravidian usages. Please see the archives of Indology. But
>  of course if any body claims that tamil is the only dravidian
>  language that is a lie.

BhK said, "Those who have such love should have stayed back in
India instead of going for greener pastures in a foreign country
and then start doing this  kind of propaganda ad nauseum." This
shows that BhK thinks that the persons who want the Indian
government to recognize Tamil as a classical language are
saying that because they have a Tamil background. (Even though,
 he uses the word "India", it is obvious he means the Tamil
linguistic state of  India.) Otherwise why would he comment on
 the ethnic origin of the persons proposing
the recognition instead of arguing out the proposition on its
own merits or lack thereof?

Any way, who said Tamil is the only Dravidian language? If others
want to present information from texts in other languages, that
will be a welcome contribution to the list. Instead of doing positive
 things like that, why unfairly criticize some for posting
information which many list members find valuable?

>  No body has made any remarks about A.K.Ramanujam. Hence all this is
>  out of place.

BhK wrote, "The pathetic appeal of one list member to place Tamil
on the same footing as the Classical languages-- Sanskrit, Persian
and Arabic in India-- sounds ridiculous." In a reply to BhK's post,
Maureen Fadem quoted A. K. Ramanujan as saying, " "Tamil is one of
 the two classical languages of India, is the only language of
contemporary India which is recognizably continuous with a classical
past." When both statements are evaluated together, it
becomes obvious that according to BhK, AKR's statement also
sounds ridiculous. That is why I gave AKR's own explanation as
 to why he considers Tamil to be a classical language. If Sarma
does not see the relevance of the discussion of
the views of AKR and Lienhard, I will not be surprised. After
all he is the one who, in another thread, equates the transmission
 of mahAbhASya tradition among the ancient grammarians/scholars
 with "mass scale cultural diffusion".

>  >So certainly, one does not need Bh. Krishnamurti's
>  >recommendation for recognition of Tamil as a classical
>  >language on par with Arabic and
>  >Greek. Reputed scholars have done that already.

>  This shows your irrational hatred towards him rather than any
>thing else.

Certainly not. Anybody can see that I have defended my positions
rationally.

>  >Whatever be the positive and negative aspects of N. Ganesan's
>  >postings, they have certainly done some good in this case.  They
>  > have serendipitously helped to expose the virulent anti-Tamil
>  >feelings of Bh. Krishnamurti.

>  Again please substantiate your remarks.

I had come to know about BhK's accomplishments through his
publications. It is shocking for me to find that a
historical/comparative linguist who ought to
know his "science of etymology" cannot rationally explain the
meaning of the word 'classical', but keeps insisting that Tamil
 cannot be called classical while Greek and Arabic can be. This
 as well as his comments involving the ethnic origin of N. Ganesan
 mean that his position is motivated by anti-Tamil
feelings rather than any defensible reason.

>  When the list officially recognises classical tamil why was
>  this demand made on the Indology list? There is no necessity of
>  the demand. What was the motive in raising the bogey of tamil being
>  threatned? Who has threatned it? Were your postings censored?
>  Did anybody prevent you for expressing your view? But if you expect
>  others to simply accept whatever you post, that of course is
>  impossible.

N. Ganesan wanted the Indian government and not the Indology list
 to recognize Tamil as a classical language. If there had been any
question about the justification for such a demand or  how it
relates to Indology, one can always seek clarification as another
member did. On my part, I have never suggested
that people accept whatever is being posted.

>  > If BhK does not like this, he can always pick up his marbles
>  > and go elsewhere. But, it is pathetic to appeal to listen to his
>  >views based on his old age. Age is irrelevant in intellectual
>  >discussions. If age were to be a criterion, one should pay more
>  >respect to a piece of  rock. However, one should note that its age
>  >may be two billion years, but it  does not have any knowledge or
>  >wisdom.

>  You have unwarrantedly used very uncivil language against
>  a wellknown linguist and it is you who have to consider packing up
>  and going else where if you do not like this list.

People in glass houses should not throw stones at others. Of course,
 in Sarma's sense of equity, BhK can state people should not have
left India and gone abroad (in other words, if they are abroad
presently, they should leave their present country of residence and
go home to India), if they do not conform to his expectations of
how and what should be posted on the list. But,
others cannot say that he should get off the list if he cannot
tolerate what is found in the scope of the Indology list. Sarma
conveniently forgot one thing. I did not post anything contradicting
 what is in the scope of the list.
If BhK and Sarma want to dish out unwarranted comments, they should
 be able to take whatever warranted comments coming their way too.

That, of course, willbe asking them to be logical.

Chris


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com