Talk:Loanwords in Sri Lankan Tamil/Archive 4

Anuradhapuraya

I don't know how well you know Sinhala and if you have ever been to Sri Lanka, but that is the name of the city as I have heard it said many times and as given in the following sources:

• Gunasena-Philips Atlas of the World (in Sinhala), Colombo 1987
• Somapala Jayawardhana, Sinhala-English Dictionary, Colombo 1997 (in the section "Towns in Sri Lanka", Sinhala śrī laṃkāvē nagara)

The standard dictionaries (Carter, Clough), by the way, refer the reader from "anurādha" to anura as the relevant Sinhala word.

Dislike me away as you please. I'm not here on Wikipedia to make best friends of everyone I come across. Anuradhapura is Anuradhapura. Anuradhapuraya is rarely used. People do not say "mama Anuradhapuraye yanavaa" but "mama Anuradhapure yanavaa." People say "Anuradhapura aitihaasika nagarayak" not "Anuradhapuraya aitihaasika nagarayak." Clozapine 02:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Nuwara and Nagara

"Nuwara" (nuvara) isn't called "Nuwara pura" at all. nuvara is pure Sinhala and means "city" (historically developed from Old Indian "nagara"). And here we can see what I mean by the -ya (and -va) in the end of a word generally designating loanwords: The Sinhalized version of "nagara" is of course nagaraya. That leads us to ...

What is "pure Sinhala"? Let me ask, what is the "pure English" word for "International"? Afterall, with your logic it is a French word right? Nuvara Pura = Kandy, "Nuvara" for short. Ya and Va do not indicate "loan words." If what you mean by "pure Sinhala" is Elu then there are plenty of Elu words that end in ya and va. Here are a few examples: diviya (life), pava (sin), geeya (song), saviya (strength), viniya (word). The so-called "impure Sinhala" equivalents (going by what seem to be your definitions) to these words would be jeevitaya, paapaya, geetaya, shaktiya and vacanaya respectively. So I disagree with you, I think you are plainly wrong about the "ya" and the "va." Clozapine 02:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Ways of incorporating foreign words into Sinhala

Every inanimate word (a word designating a non-living thing) has to end in -a (due to the inflexibility of Sinhala inflectional patterns). Almost all historically derived Sinhala inanimate words end in -a (e.g. pota "book", yatura "key", raṭa "country"). [The few exceptions are words ending in -ä due to phonetic reasons (e.g. ähä "eye" insted of *äha) and very short words (e.g. dā "relic").]

Wrong, every inanimate word (a word designating a non-living thing) DOES NOT have to end in -a although this is the case in the vast majority of cases. For example, suralo (heaven), dinisuru (sun), sisi (moon), viyat (sky), siki (fire) Clozapine 02:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Words from other languages can be "sinhalized" by three methods:

• adding an a in the end; this is the case especially with Tamil words (e.g. Tamil pāṭam [pronounced pa:dam] becomes Sinhala pāḍama "lesson")
• adding eka in the end; this is the case with the most recent and current borrowings, especially from English (e.g. English "bus" becomes bas eka "the bus")
• adding ya or va in the end, depending on whether the preceding vowel is dark (a, o, u) or clear (a, ä, e, i); this the case with all Sanskrit and Pali and most of the Portuguese and Dutch borrowings (e.g. Sanskrit nagara becomes nagaraya "city", Dutch "stoep" becomes istōppuva "step, verandah")

Wrong. I have already provided you with Elu words that end in ya and va. Clozapine 02:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thus we can relatively easily identify all words that are not pure Sinhala.

Wrong. As above. Clozapine 02:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

What is pure Sinhala?

"Pure Sinhala" are words that have developed from ancient Prakrit words (similar to those we can find in Sanskrit and Pali) through the millenia by changing due to sound changes in the Sinhala language (compare Sinhala#Phonetic_Development). This pure Sinhala language is also called Elu, or "helu"/"hela" ((h)eḷu/(h)eḷa) which is a good example for the point I am making: heḷa is the Sinhala derived form of Sanskrit siṃhala, attested in Pali as sīhaḷa, through the stages siṃhala > sīhala > sīhaḷa > sīḷa > siḷa > seḷa > heḷa.

Elu is basic, almost 'primitive' Sinhalese. The Sinhalese language inherits the vocabulary found in Sanskrit (which is really nothing more than polished up Prakrit courtesy of Panini). Sinhala does not borrow words from the Prakrits unlike the Dravidian languages because it is a Prakritic language itself. Any notion of words derived from Sanskrit or Pali as being "foreign" is pretty ridiculous. They are part and parcel of the Sinhala language and have undergone modification. Remove them and you will be left with a rudimentary language in its infantile stages. Clozapine 03:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Today (in fact since the research done by Wilhelm Geiger in the first half of the 19th century) we know the rules according to which all the sound changes that led to (Elu) Sinhala took place. That makes it very easy to trace Sinhala words to their Old/Middle Indian sources. All words underwent these changes, so not a single word identical to a Sanskrit term has stayed the same through the ages. All words looking like Sanskrit have been borrowed from that classical language in recent times, that is about since the 12th century CE. That is the estimated time at which Sinhala started accepting Sanskrit words on a broader scale which is reflected in the vocabulary used in the literature starting from that time.

Let me highlight something of importance in this paragraph: "...not a single word identical to a Sanskrit term has stayed the same through the ages" - yes just like how Graama Sevakayaa has been modified for the Sinhalese language. Ditto for premaya (love), dharmaya (dharma), krodaya (hate), iirshyaava (jealousy). Clozapine 03:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sinhala inheritance

Sinhala inherited its words from a North-Western Indo-Aryan dialect that the first group of settlers (Vijaya) brought with them to the island. That dialect was neither Sanskrit nor any other language known to us today. By analysing Sinhala we can deduct information about that ancient dialect (e.g. that it must have been North-Western), but that's it.

So the mythological story of a certain Vijaya coming to Sri Lanka is fact now? And what happened to the idea that the migration was from Bengal? At best, this story represents the idea of North Indian migrants arriving in the island. According to Gunasekara the language was "undoubtedly" Prakrit. He goes onto say "Hence in deriving Elu words, the endeavour should be to find out the correspoding words in the modern Indian vernaculars and, if possible, in original Prakrit, and derive from those which present the closest affinity to Elu." He adds "Hindi (including Hindustani) seems to possess a closer affinity to Elu than the other vernaculars." Clozapine 03:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Words that entered from various other sources

Later there were immigrants from the North-East of India who brought their dialects with them which in turn exerted some influence on the language that was to become Sinhala one day. Aboriginal people ("Veddas") and South Indian immigrants also contributed some vocabulary, and there may also at an early point in time have been use of Sanskrit words by Sinhala speaking people. These different words (from other sources than the original Sinhala word stock) however underwent the same changes as did the Sinhala words so that today they are (at times) indiscernable from "old" Sinhala words. These words can be called "naturalized words".

Once again, the history regarding migration to Sri Lanka is not definite. They are theories. Certain Tamil scholars would argue that there was no North Indian migration at all and that the Sinhalese were actually originally Tamils. Elu was a Dravidian language spoken in Sri Lanka and it was enriched with North Indian Pali after the conversion to Buddhism and the development of the Sinhalese identity. They will also claim that Sinhala is actually a Dravidian language and has been missclassified as an Indo-Aryan one. Are they correct? Clozapine 03:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sound changes in Sinhala and modern evidence

In accordance with the sound changes, there are certain sounds that "true" Sinhala words do not contain. The most explicit example is the loss of "sh" (ṣ, ś), which can still be felt today when speakers of Sinhala pronounce "sh" as /s/ in Sanskrit as well as English words.

There is no such thing as "true" Sinhala words. This is a very ambiguous term. So shaalava is not a "true" Sinhala word but if it is pronounced as "saalaava" it suddenly becomes "true"? Clozapine 03:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Mixed vocabulary

There are many instances where we find in Sinhala one actual Sinhala word derived from an ancient source and its "re-imported" Sanskrit counterpart (with different meanings or connotations). Take e.g.

• Sinhala hala "hall, room", derived from Old Indian śālā (via sālā and sala) and its counterpart śālāva, a more recent borrowing from Sanskrit
• Sinhala kiya(navā) "to say", derived from Old Indian kathā- (via kata- and kaya-) and its counterpart kathā (karanavā), a recent borrowing from Sanskrit

How in the world do you know which way it was derived? Seems like a lot of so-called "true Sinhala" words have their roots in Sanskrit:

kruura - kuriru

devaalaya - dewola

sinhaasanaya - sihasuna

durnajayaa - dujanaa

durbala - dubala

Clozapine 03:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sinhala alphabet

The Sinhala alphabet has letters for all the sounds present in Sanskrit not because the spoken language contained them but because over the millennia, Buddhist literature made ample use of Sanskrit and Pali terms as those languages were always known to the educated (who were mostly monks and who are also responsible for the presence of the borrowings from those languages).

Using the Elu alphabet to determine what are "pure" Sinhala terms is not "not very helpful" but a certain way of determining which words belong to the historically developed Sinhala vocabulary.

The "historically developed Sinhala vocabulary", if we are to remove all traces of so-called "Sanskritisms" would be quite simply piddly. And unless you were living 1000 or so years ago in Sri Lanka I'm afraid you would not be able to say that "The Sinhala alphabet has letters for all the sounds present in Sanskrit not because the spoken language contained them." Here is a challenge: Please list all the Buddhist terms in so-called "Pure Sinhala." Clozapine 03:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Importance of loanwords in Sinhala

Yes, loanwords are extremely important in Sinhala and an integral part of the language. The examples cited by Ben clearly show how the sound changes (mostly phonetic simplifications) Sinhala underwent resulted in several ambiguous terms like Elu niya(1), niya(2), niya(3), niya(4) and niya(5): these correspond to Sanskrit nakha "nail", nadī "river", naya "understanding", nidhi "hidden treasure" and nīti "law". This development was countered by using different words for the different meanings, in this example niya continues to mean "fingernail" (niyapotta), there are several words for kinds of rivers and streams, "understanding" is expressed with a derived word (däna-, corresponding to Sanskrit jñā "to know"), meaning (4) I don't know and "law" is a new Sanskrit borrowing, nītiya.

In other words, a heck of a lot of the Sinhala language is composed of so-called "Sanskritisms." Clozapine 03:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Temporary conclusion

I hope that it has become clear from my (far to brief) discussion that there is a huge difference between "pure" Sinhala words and borrowed words in modern Sinhala. Just like English comprises of at least 60% "Roman" (French and Latin) words and only 25% of Germanic words although it is a Germanic language, Sinhala consists of maybe less than 40% actual Sinhala words but still it's Sinhala. That's completely normal.

Sorry, I don't agree about the "huge difference" nor do I agree with what is claimed to be "pure" Sinhala; this is an ambiguous term.

For our discussion here, it is relevant whether Tamil has accepted the according Sanskrit words through Sinhala or if they are independent borrowings. I am not competent to judge that except in cases where the Tamil term shows influence of Sinhala phonetics or semantics. And that seems to be very rare. Let's not call Sanskrit words Sinhala words just because the Sinhalese use them in their language. That's my plea. Krankman 21:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Graama Sevaka is a Sinhalese term borrowed into Sri Lankan Tamil through Sinhala. "Let's not call Sanskrit words Sinhala words just because the Sinhalese use them in their language." Sorry I disagree. The article "Portuguese words in Sinhala" has been changed to "Sinhala words of Portuguese origin" as I had suggested because they are not Portuguese words anymore but Sinhalese words. Likewise, dharmaya, premaya, krodaya, shaktiya, nirvaanaya, maargaya, nadiya, sangeetaya, dhairaya, antraava, and graama sevaka are all Sinhala words even if you don't want to recognize them as such.

Going by your logic the article "Sinhala words of Tamil Origin" should be changed to "Sinhala words of Proto-Dravidian Origin" because most of the words in Tamil would not be "Tamil" but actually Proto Dravidian. Have you tried popping what you think are"Portuguese words" such as janelaya, kussiya & bankuwa into Portuguese? I can't find them in any Portuguese dicitionary though. And oh, can we have an article on "Proto-Dravidianisms" just like "Sanskritisms" please? Clozapine 03:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm at the end of my wits here. Sure, my phrasing was somewhat unexact (or too bold) in places, and you have some points because I didn't go into enough detail (e.g. that there are Elu words ending in -ya and -va [however these are clearly distinguishable from the loanwords] and other endings than -a like names of vegetables and so on [but that's only because these are never used alone but always by adding gaha or gediya or what have you]. I am able and willing to admit to all factual mistakes I may have made or still continue to make. But those don't change the validity of my argument a bit.

I have studied Sinhala, Sanskrit, Comparative Linguistics and other stuff in that direction, I have talked to many people in the academic community and have read many books--your argument and the definitions you use are plainly inacceptable and unscientific and they deviate from all the facts and methods that are assumed to be a given in modern Linguistics and Indology. You are obviously either not educated in this field at all or you are following the beliefs of some bizarre academic sect. I don't know what your motivation is. I don't "dislike" you, I am just fed up with what you are trying to achieve here. What you say is against the better knowledge of hundreds of serious researchers, European as well as Asian. I regret that you found this page. Krankman 14:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Why should you be at your wits end? I have provided my argument and if you cannot hack it then perhaps you are at the wrong place, because this is what the Discussion page is all about. You still haven't even accepted the fact that to title all those "list of" articles with such titles as "Portuguese/Dutch/Tamil words in Sinhala" was erroneous. You were adamant that you were right even when you weren't. So I am not going to expect you to see my argument in any good light. It's is extremly interesting to see you act all high and mighty. No body enjoys being talked down to. Instead of making sweeping claims such as "your argument and the definitions you use are plainly inacceptable and unscientific and they deviate from all the facts and methods that are assumed to be a given in modern Linguistics and Indology. You are obviously either not educated in this field at all or you are following the beliefs of some bizarre academic sect" why don't you show me how. Clearly you don't feel that way because you've been going around asking for "help" from various moderators to back up your argument and one of them gave a very good reply to you at your discussion page. Clozapine 09:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Clozapine, please don't feel offended but you must realise that an encyclopedia is NOT about opinions but about facts. Expert knowledge and attestable facts come before your personal opinion. You can have a discussion about certain aspects here - but only on the basis of well-founded expertise. You can also have your opinion - but this is just not the place to promote it.

I don't speak Sinhala or Sanskrit myself, but I do have some knowledge about the linguistics of other languages. Maybe a neutral analogy helps you to understand the point: modern Spanish (Castilian), for instance, can be traced back to classical Latin via Middle Castilian, Romance and Vulgar Latin. Hence, most of its basic vocabulary is of Latin descent. Nevertheless, no Spanish linguist would deny that there are "Latinisms" in this language. "Pure" Spanish vocabulary has undergone a number of sound changes while Latinisms are loanwords that became part of the language in more recent times. Example: hecho (fact) and ojo (eye) are "pure" Spanish because they have derived over a period of 1700 years from Latin factum and oculum. absolución, on the other hand, is a Latinism (Latin absolutione, only the ending was adapted) because it was borrowed at a point of time when Spanish had already undergone most phonological changes. If absolutione had taken part in the full phonological development, it would be *asojón and THAT would be "pure" Spanish. However, absolución is definitely Spanish. That's the way linguistics works. Even though I don't know Sinhala and Sanskrit, I don't see why I should disbelieve Krankman when he argues in a similar way for a considerable amount of Sinhala vocabulary. Words derived from Sanskrit and Sanskrit loanwords (Sanskritisms) are simply not the same thing! Regards --Young Pioneer 15:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me guess, Krankman ran along and brought along someone to help him out in his argument? Maybe I should do that too. Please note, I do not wish to be bullied here. Krankman has been running around trying to get several moderators onto his side, and trying to demonize me, so that he can get his way. If you have no knowledge of Sinhala then I'm afraid you will not have all the information you need to make a sound argument. Krankman seems to believe that a word such as "premaya" is not a Sinhala word. His claim about ya and va is patently false, as I have provided so-called "pure Sinhala" words that end in those. Any word that has its origins in Sanskrit is not Sinhala according to Krankman (regardless of their duration of use in the language, or the fact that they have undergone modification). Any word that ends in "ya" or "va" is not Sinhala according to Krankman. To see the ludicrous nature of this argument I would suggest you study Sinhala before jumping the gun and making any comments. Krankman couldn't even see the erroneous nature of titling something like "Dutch words in Sinhala" when they are simply not Dutch words anymore. He refused to acknowledge a more accurate title would be "Sinhala words of Dutch Origin." You call that "well founded expertise" do you? More factual errors regarding Sinhala when he boldly claims "Every inanimate word (a word designating a non-living thing) has to end in -a." Sorry, patently false again. Do you call that "well founded expertise"? Now I know that you and Krankman are German buddies, but if you do want to lecture, lecture Krankman as well, instead of pointing your accusing finger and aiming your patronising tone selectively at me, thanks. Clozapine 03:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Do you suffer from a persecution complex?</sarcasm> I don't see a problem in admitting that I'm not a Sinhala expert. But I can twist your argument right round and say that you're not a linguistics expert and that you should study linguistics "before jumping the gun". Are we quits now?! Anyway, let's stop fighting a jawing match. Nobody's going to "bully" you. I just followed this discussion and found that you don't seem to be open to reasonable arguments. Why do you continue to harp on about the "patent falseness" of the -ya/-va argument? Maybe you should take the effort and read other's arguments properly. Krankman wrote: "Sure, my phrasing was somewhat unexact (or too bold) in places, and you have some points because I didn't go into enough detail (e.g. that there are Elu words ending in -ya and -va [however these are clearly distinguishable from the loanwords] and other endings than -a like names of vegetables and so on." Did you read that or did it escape your notice? --Young Pioneer 16:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)