From Dr. Logananthan
The Origins of Tamil - Veer Linguistics
We describe below Veer Linguistics as developed by Pavanar where it
is strictly ETYMOLOGICAL. In fact this was developed by way of
criticism of the Etymological Dictionary of Dravidian Languages of
Burrow and Emeneau where words similar in phonology and meaning were
collected together by way of proving that the words listed are
Dravidian and so forth. By this strategy B&E missed out on many words
in SK [Sanskrit] and which are in fact Dravidian in origin. In fact
seen from SumeroTamil Sk is just a variant of Sumerian
Elements of Veer Linguistics.
As I have already mentioned, there are already book length studies of
this field by Pavanar (mostly in Tamil) and I will only illustrate
it very briefly here. The idea is that words have their Primordial
Roots (Muula Veer) and from which by adding various consonants at the
initial and post positions we have the generation of secondary roots.
This can also proceed further in which case we can have tertiary
roots. Thus we have a situation where higher order words are
generated out of an agglutinative process. The point is that once we
locate the primordial, secondary and tertiary roots of a language, we
also gain a way of identifying a language and along with it a family
of languages that are further developments from that language. Thus
we have a set of ROOT words that go into the developments of various
kinds of BRANCH languages, sharing the same set of ROOT words but
perhaps differing in the way these are glued to generate novel words.
Thus we have a ROOT Language as the language that contains the BASIC
set of root words and forming the BASIS of a number of languages.
It is on the basis of such studies that we can say that Sumerian is
Archaic Tamil and that SK is a Dravidian language that has
SumeroTamil as its basis. The SK language does NOT have its own roots
but exploits the roots of Tamil in a different way thereby generating
a language that only superficially appears different but as a matter
of fact not. Now I believe that Turkic Siraiki Pali and so forth may
be such languages – exploitations of the ROOT words of Archaic Tamil
(= Sumerian) and hence essentially Dravidian
Some example may make the point clear.
From Exordium of In-Anna , we have the words u, ur, u-a etc as below:
1.
nin me sar-ra u(4) –dalla-e-a ( Lady of all me’s, resplendent light)
Ta. Nin mey sarva uu ( ul, oL) teLLiya ( The lady of all powers,
radiating out clear light)
14.
an-ne me-si-ma nin ur-ra u-a ( Endowed with me’s by An, lady mounted
on a beast)
Ta. aaNNee mey siiyimma Nin uur-va oo-va ( Blessed with all the
powers by An himself, the lady who rides a lion)
Here we have the same ‘u’ (uu) in Sumerian and Tamil : u (Ta. uu, uL,
oL , oN etc) meaning ‘radiating light’. We have ur ( Ta. uur: to
crawl, move; uurti: a vehicle, conveyance etc). u(to ride) (Ta oo,
oovu, ooccu : to ride, drive etc)
We can see that the primordial condition of uttering ‘uu’ is that of
rounding the lips and fronting it by way of imitating a forward
movement with the lips. Thus perhaps the word ‘uu’ originated in a
primordial situation where man wanted to communicate a movement of
radiating out. This also shows that it is the most primordial
condition of the origin of this word and hence there cannot be a
prior language from which it is borrowed. It is a fundamental root
word native to Sumerian and Tamil and which leads us to identify
Sumerian as Archaic Tamil
Now this is further reinforced when we look at some of the secondary
developments - su (Ta. suu, suur, ) mu ( Ta. muu. mun, muL etc) bu
( Ta. puu : to blossom) etc. Thus from the primordial “uu” common to
Sumerian and Tamil and with the basic meaning of ‘radiating out” we
have a set of secondary root words where we have the introduction
of consonants by way of DIFFERENTIATING the primordial meaning of ‘uu’
To this list we can also ur ( Ta. uuru : to crawl, move etc) and from
which we have Ta. uur-ti: a vehicle. In Su. ur remains in the general
sense to ‘move’ and ur-ra , as that which moves meaning the mobile
creatures.
Now we can also see that while uu >suu > suur are primordial word
generating processes, the changes sur> sul > sun etc are merely
phonological but where specialized meanings are also possible.
Now such phonological changes along with meaning is clear in the
change of u, uu > Ta. oo, oovu, ooccu etc
We can go on with such studies of the word-generative process as
Pavanar has done quite extensively ( suur> kuur( sharp) suur> tuur
(distant, clear ) etc.
The point of such studies is that :
a.
We can locate the primordial roots which show that they do not have a
language prior to that from which they are borrowed.
b.
There are generations of secondary and tertiary roots by adding
consonants to the word initial and final positions for the
differentiations of the primordial meanings
c.
There are purely phonological changes to such words and again to
differentiate subtle differences in meaning
d.
This set of words are NATIVE to the language and hence can be used to
IDENTIFY the language – e.g. Sumerian as Archaic Tamil.
e.
We can also see that if there are other languages sharing the SAME
set of such primitive roots, then they are genetically related to
Sumero-Tamil
Thus From the point of Veer Linguistics such as this, we can
IDENTIFY a language as the BASE language ( root language) from which
a number of other languages could have developed. From my studies I
have shown that while C. Tamil is the same as Sumerian but an
earlier and hence an Archaic form of Tamil , Sanskrit is not but a
language that branched off from the BASE Tamil by exploiting the same
set of Tamil roots but in a different way Perhaps this also applies
to Turkic Siraiki Pali and numerous other languages.
In fact it may turn out that all Indian languages are Dravidian in
essence which means the disticntion between IndoEuropean and
Dravidian may not be valid.
Loga
