From: Sinnathurai Srivas (sisrivas@blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: Mon Jun 27 2005 - 15:02:07 CDT
It looks like you did not study Tamil. ( I've just read a verse in Tamil,
Kural, it talks about nagarigam. Is nagari an European word similar to
Mathar, Pather, Name, etc..).
You probably did not study Sindu. You probably did not study Sumerian. It is
difficult to conclude with incomplete knowledge. I read books and talk to
experts and that is all my knowledge.
Some times ago, I mentioned that Sindu alphabet (excluding pictograms)
resemble Tamil fundamentals. I'm waiting for an English version of evidence
to be published.
Encoding Sanskrit into Tamil will eventually destroy Tamil, not on the basis
of merit, but on the basis of billion strong force.
Srivas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Everson" <everson@evertype.com>
To: "Unicode Discussion" <unicode@unicode.org>
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 11:41 AM
Subject: Re: Tamil sha (U+0BB6) - deprecate it?
>I would have preferred not to respond to this, but it seemed necessary.
>
> At 04:56 +0100 2005-06-27, Sinnathurai Srivas wrote:
>
>>It is true that [Sanskrit] evolved from Tamil and utilised European a lot
>>to find it's path.
>
> No, it isn't.
>
>>I do not beleive that European languages were born out of Sanskrit as
>>claimed.
>
> No linguist makes such a claim. The European languages (apart from
> Finnish, Estonian, Sami, Hungarian, Basque, and Etruscan), the Iranian
> languages, and most of the languages of northern India including Sanskrit
> derived from a language reconstructed as Proto-Indo-European.
>
>>If you wish to discuss this in detail, let me know and I'll guide you to
>>discuss this with experts on this field.
>
> As I studied Indo-European Linguistics at the University of Arizona and
> UCLA, and as I speak six Indo-European languages from three different
> branches of Indo-European, I shall decline your offer.
>
>>Do you have evidence to proove that European Languages emmerged from
>>Sanskrit as claimed by many.
>
> My library is filled with such evidence. If you would like an introduction
> to Indo-European linguistics, try the Wikipedia:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European
>
>>Some try to make it that celtic is the original European language and the
>>Latin born out of [Sanskrit] is an artificial addition in Europe as much
>>as artificial addition in Indic.
>
> Nonsense. Not a thing you have written here is true, and I know of no one
> who suggests such a thing. Here in Ireland, we have an ancient and
> beautiful Celtic language which many of us are proud of and cherish. But
> we do not try to change the facts by pretending that it is anything that
> it is not.
>
>>Well if that claim is true, Tamil like to stay natural and keep the
>>identity. Is that some thing against Unicode philosophy?
>
> The Universal Character Set exists to encode characters for use and
> interchange. There is no other philosophy.
>
>>It is very true that, Sanskrit evolved from Tamil and utilised European to
>>advance it it's own way.
>
> Nonsense. You simply don't know what you are talking about.
>
> I'm finished with this thread.
> --
> Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 27 2005 - 16:54:31 CDT