Aryan vs Dravidians - A Myth by Dr. Dr. Subramanian Swamy

[client]

Regardless, there is no evidence for this term being a part of Dravidian till it was ultimately borrowed from Indo-Aryan(or whatever else). The "seer" etymology is fitting and widely accepted.
I was just asking how/why there was a widely used term that began referring to Brahmins(Indo-Aryans, even if it referred to a non-IA priestly caste before that) simultaneously in all those language families if they'd separated before coming into contact with Indo-Aryans or Brahmins.

[parasar]

Perhaps this can shed some light.
Essentially that PARAPPAN (or PIRRAMANAN) is a way of pronouncing Brahman.
https://books.google.com/books?id=jWpNBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA101

[client]

I don't know, I think Piramanan is a separate term and is a direct attempt at transliterating "Brahman(an)" into Tamil. Similarly there is another term "Pattar"(derogatory) which is a transliteration+mispronunciation of "Bhatta(r)".
Meanwhile *pār_- is a reconstructed Proto-Dravidian term(with a seeming cognate as "see"). What you are suggesting would require that Brahmins arrive and the already diverged Dravidians all mispronounce their name in similar ways, unless the term spread from a common(Dravidian) source after their arrival.
'Parppan' is mentioned along with 'Anthanar' in Sangam literature to describe what seem like Brahmins.
Tolkappiyam refers to "Arasar, Anthanar, Vanigar and Vellalar" in terms of the Varna system though Vellalar doesn't really correspond to Sudra.
Arasar and Vanigar, the first is an Indo-Aryan derivative(Raja) second seems to be too(Vanik).

The thing is Tamil literature is too late and Indo-Aryan influenced for us to comment on Proto-Dravidian.

[tipirneni]

Regardless, there is no evidence for this term being a part of Dravidian till it was ultimately borrowed from Indo-Aryan(or whatever else). The "seer" etymology is fitting and widely accepted.
I was just asking how/why there was a widely used term that began referring to Brahmins(Indo-Aryans, even if it referred to a non-IA priestly caste before that) simultaneously in all those language families if they'd separated before coming into contact with Indo-Aryans or Brahmins.

The Dravidian family evolved after the Iron age Prakrit/Pali/Paisaci development. The peak Pali development was ‎5th–1st century BCE whereas Old Tamil inscriptions started appearing only 3rd BC and most are after 1st BCE.
If you look at the Satavahana coins, it has Prakrit or Pali on one side, the other side is proto-Dravidian

https://www.marudhararts.com/e-aucti...isa-rare-.html

Satavana Dynasty, Siri Satakarni (150 BC), Silver Coin, Obv; Bust of king to right facing, Brahmi script RaNo VaSiThaPuTaSa SiRi PuLuMaViSa ("King Vasishtiputra Sri Satakarni"), Rev; Ujjain/Satavahana symbol left, crescented six-arch chaitya hill right, sun-symbol above, river below; Dravidian legend in the Brahmi script ARaHaNaKu VaHiTti MaKaNaKu TiRu HaTaKaNiKo (Vasitti''''s son, Highness Satakani"). 2.1g, 16.01mm, (MACW # Rapson),

Another coin
Coin of Gautamiputra Satakarni.
Obv: King in profile. Prakrit legend "Rano Gotamiputasa Siri Yana Satakarnisa": "In the reign of Gautamiputra Sri Yana Satakarni"
Rev: Hill with Satavahana symbol, sun and moon.Dravidian legend "Arahanaku gotami putaku Hiru Yana Hatakanaku".
https://www.facebook.com/15313888670...7524229809113/

That clearly shows that the Dravidian script is still emerging from spoken form into different local Dravidian languages after 1st BCE. So for them Par-(a) is other person, not from their own. There is obviously other meaning of good

Look at Para in Pali, so many meanings. It is one of the widely used root in Pali scriptures. There are so many intimate words that describe the outside idea in detail.
https://dsalsrv04.uchicago.edu/cgi-b...&searchhws=yes

[anthroin]

Regardless, there is no evidence for this term being a part of Dravidian till it was ultimately borrowed from Indo-Aryan(or whatever else). The "seer" etymology is fitting and widely accepted.
I was just asking how/why there was a widely used term that began referring to Brahmins(Indo-Aryans, even if it referred to a non-IA priestly caste before that) simultaneously in all those language families if they'd separated before coming into contact with Indo-Aryans or Brahmins.

I thought of something like convergent evolution involving all (literary) languages independently developing a new 'Brahmin' meaning for the word, but apparently Naiki also has the 'Brahmin' meaning so it makes this all very interesting. Also, do you find the 'seer' etymology satisfactory or not? Because I did not understand your first sentence; it seems to be in contradiction with the following one?

[client]

I thought of something like convergent evolution involving all (literary) languages independently developing a new 'Brahmin' meaning for the word, but apparently Naiki also has the 'Brahmin' meaning so it makes this all very interesting. Also, do you find the 'seer' etymology satisfactory or not? Because I did not understand your first sentence; it seems to be in contradiction with the following one?

Sorry, that sentence is very badly worded,
I meant that was no evidence for the 'pAr' in #208 with the meaning (boundary, other side, distant) being originally associated with Dravidian, but it has been found in both Indo-Aryan and Iranian regardless of ultimate origin(which is what parasar was talking about).
The seer etymology does seem likely to me, but it does nothing to tell us how the term came to be widespread among long-diverged groups

[tipirneni]

Sorry, that sentence is very badly worded,
I meant that was no evidence for the 'pAr' in #208 with the meaning (boundary, other side, distant) being originally associated with Dravidian, but it has been found in both Indo-Aryan and Iranian regardless of ultimate origin(which is what parasar was talking about).
The seer etymology does seem likely to me, but it does nothing to tell us how the term came to be widespread among long-diverged groups

Pali and Prakrits used by common people not only by Brahmans. They are derived from local sources which is the pre MLBA languages. Only Sanskrit is more used by Brahmans only.

[client]

Pali and Prakrits used by common people not only by Brahmans. They are derived from local sources which is the pre MLBA languages. Only Sanskrit is more used by Brahmans only.

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Where did I mention Pali or the Prakrits? How are they derived from pre-MLBA languages(or at least a different source to Vedic) ?
I don't think Brahmins had much of an attachment to the IA vernaculars they must have spoken before heading to the south because they don't have recollection of them(unlike specific cases like the more recent Saurashtra Brahmin migrants).


I don't know how you have interpreted my posts so read this

[poi]

Pali and Prakrits used by common people not only by Brahmans. They are derived from local sources which is the pre MLBA languages. Only Sanskrit is more used by Brahmans only.

While Pali and Prakrits were not used by Brahmins, both Pali and Prakrits were IndoAryan languages and ultimately derived from Vedic Sanskrit, which seems to have been brought by MLBA-rich people from Central Asia.

[client]

The Dravidian family evolved after the Iron age Prakrit/Pali/Paisaci development. The peak Pali development was ‎5th–1st century BCE whereas Old Tamil inscriptions started appearing only 3rd BC and most are after 1st BCE.
If you look at the Satavahana coins, it has Prakrit or Pali on one side, the other side is proto-Dravidian

https://www.marudhararts.com/e-aucti...isa-rare-.html

Satavana Dynasty, Siri Satakarni (150 BC), Silver Coin, Obv; Bust of king to right facing, Brahmi script RaNo VaSiThaPuTaSa SiRi PuLuMaViSa ("King Vasishtiputra Sri Satakarni"), Rev; Ujjain/Satavahana symbol left, crescented six-arch chaitya hill right, sun-symbol above, river below; Dravidian legend in the Brahmi script ARaHaNaKu VaHiTti MaKaNaKu TiRu HaTaKaNiKo (Vasitti''''s son, Highness Satakani"). 2.1g, 16.01mm, (MACW # Rapson),
..

I must have missed this post.
Do you think these languages weren't spoken before they were written down?
How would proto-Dravidian have been attested in 150BC when Tamil is attested before that?(according to yourself)
Anyway those Satavahana inscriptions aren't even in Proto-Dravidian, that's simply Old Tamil, even I can make sense of it.

They were issued in Tamil in a Telugu-speaking region(yes, Telugu had "evolved" by then and had long split from what was to become Tamil) because Telugu had yet to gain official prominence.

ARaHaN and MaKaN aren't words in Telugu to my knowledge, but are present in Tamil. Ironically the first one is from Indo-Aryan.


Sources calling the inscriptions Prakrit and Tamil:
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=...0tamil&f=false

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=...0tamil&f=false

That clearly shows that the Dravidian script is still emerging from spoken form into different local Dravidian languages after 1st BCE.

I don't understand what you mean by this.
Script emerging into languages?

While Pali and Prakrits were not used by Brahmins, both Pali and Prakrits were IndoAryan languages and ultimately derived from Vedic Sanskrit, which seems to have been brought by MLBA-rich people from Central Asia.

While this doesn't change much, I actually think that the Prakrits were not derived from Vedic itself but, that both were derived from a common IA source. There are actually archaic Indo-European sounds found in various Prakrits that are absent in Vedic.
It probably hints at a some sort of diglossia(perhaps vernacular vs religious register).