BISHOP CALDWELL IS WRONG-TAMIL SANSKRIT RELATIONSHIP – PART 2 (Post No.8023)

WRITTEN BY LONDON SWAMINATHAN

Post No. 8023

Date uploaded in London – 22 May 2020   

Contact – swami_48@yahoo.com

Pictures are taken from various sources for spreading knowledge; this is a non- commercial blog. Thanks for your great pictures.

PS S SUBRAHMANYA SASTRI’S LECTURE CONTINUED FROM YESTERDAY.

BRIEFLY………………….

PAGES 10 AND 11 – BISHOP ROBERT CALDWELL IS WRONG ABOUT CONVERTIBILITY OF SURDS, BORRWING OF CEREBRALS .

PAGE 12 – HOW TAMIL CHANGES IN THE USE OF ‘VIYANGOL VINAI’

PAGE 13 – HOE ‘YAAN’ BECAME ‘NAAN’ IN APPAR TEVAARAM

MY COMMENTS – UP TO TIRUVALLUVAR PERIOD YOU CANT SEE ‘NAAN’ FOR ‘I.’ ONLY ‘YAAN’ WAS USED FOR ‘I’

PAGE 14- HOW ‘KAL’ SUFFIX FOR PLURAL CHANGED IN USE.

PAGE 15- HOW ‘NAATRAM’ CHANGED IN MEANING; ORIGINALLY SMELL, BUT NOW BAD SMELL

HOW ‘SEYYUM’ IN FUTURE TENSE CHANGED

PAGE 16- EXPLAINS AGGLUTINATIVE, ISOLATING AND INFLEXIONAL LANGUAGES

PAGE 18- WHAT IS GENEOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIP? EXPLAINED

PAGE 20 – USE OF CASE SUFFIXES IN TAMIL AND SANSKRIT

PAGE 21 – TAMIL USES GENDER DISCRIMINATING ELEMENTS; SANSKRIT DOE’ S NOT; EXAMPLES………………….

VANTHAAN – HE CAME

VANTHAAL – SHE CAME

VANTHAAR – BOTH SEX; RESPECTFUL

VANTHATHU – SINGULAR NEUTER

VANTHANA – NETER PLURAL …….. IN TAMIL

PAGE 22- VERBAL SYSTEM IN SANSKRIT IS COMPLICATED- TAMIL SIMPLE.

PAGE 22 AND 23 NEGATIVE VOICE







tags –Caldwell wrong, P S S Sastri-2, Tamil-Sanskrit- 2

to be continued………………………………

Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: