Talk:Telugu script

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Writing systems High‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Two missing Consonants in the tabulated list. Telugu language is very distinct in having two ' soft ' consonants, namely, " .ca " [ISO notation '.c'] and ' .ja ' [ISO notation '.j']. They are mild in pronunciation, unlike the others, ' cha ' and ' chha ' or, ' ja ' and ' jha '. In other words, the pronunciation of the first one is between 'tsa' and 'cha' and the second one is between 'tza' and 'za', more towards the latter though.

Some words as examples for '.c' : "kanCHU" (Bronze), "manCHAmu" (Cot), "CHAvi" (Taste), "CHAapa" (Mat), 'CHUkka" (Dot, or a very small amount) etc. Some words as examples for '.j' : "JAAli" (Pity or Compassion), "JAAbili" (Moon), "roJU" (Day). "JUnnu" (Cheese), "JAnumu" (Jute). " JOlapaata" (Lullaby) etc.

Although the Wikipedia articles on Telugu Language (English Version) and Telugu Alphabet (Telugu Version) have listed these consonants, the present article did not do so. Several Telugu speaking persons are quite ignorant about these two soft consonants and consequently their pronunciation becomes quite awkward to listen. --107.217.164.208 (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the Classification of the Consonants, the two soft letters ".ca" ["cha' or 'tsa'] and ".ja" ['tza' or 'za'] fall under "DANTA-TAALAVYA" ("DENTO-PALATAL") Category. --107.217.164.208 (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lot of information is copied verbatim from http://www.engr.mun.ca/~adluri/telugu/language/script/index.html. So either we need to rewrite or delete this. mlpkr 15:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Telugu inscriptions" section was deleted for possible copyright issues. The references to figures that were not on the wikipedia article were big clues that content was copied from elsewhere. The URL has changed to http://www.geosim.engr.mun.ca/~adluri/telugu/language/script/script1d.html, but indeed, much was copied from it. That page has no copyright statement, so it is copyrighted (and not under GFDL), so we must not copy it. 24.26.128.185 (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted more copied text, this time from http://www.engr.mun.ca/~adluri/telugu/language/script/script1a.html 24.26.128.185 (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph starting with "Telugu script has the capability to represent almost the entire phonetic spectrum of all Indian (and most world) languages" has a litany of untenable personal opinions expressed in, what appears to be, an attempt to prove the 'soundness' and superiority of the telugu script! For example, "only sound of the English language not represented fully in Telugu (in a theoretical sense) is the ‘a’ sound as in ‘apple.'" is clearly wrong. Telugu has no distinction between 'v' and 'w'. It doesn't have symbols for 'θ', 'ð', 'z' and 'ʒ'. It has no symbols for 'ɝ','ɒ' and 'ɔ' among vowels. Further, telugu has no corresponding symbols for diphthongs in English except for /aɪ/, /aʊ/. Even, it doesn't have enough symbols to represent sounds of all Indian languages. I think this section requires a rewrite. Varttik 20:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section on the development of the Telugu script is interesting, but should not be placed in a location where it looks like that is the modern script. The modern alphasyllabary, with consonants, vowels, vowel diacritics, and other diacritics, should be the first major section, and the development section should follow. --SameerKhan 20:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second SameerKhan's comment. I can't understand how this article can present many diagrams on historical forms, Brahmi script, and inscriptions, but never gets around to showing the current syllables of Telugu. I don't want to be negative, but the article in its current form was pretty much useless in helping me understand how Telugu script works. What I did find helpful is http://www.omniglot.com/writing/telugu.htm --Billgordon1099 05:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We want to read this in Malayalam. മലയാളത്തിൽ വായിക്കാൻ നമുക്ക് എന്ത് ചെയ്യാനാവും krishh45 18:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding

The origin of Telugu script lies in the Brahmi script written on the urn found from Bhattiprolu stupa which was older than Satavahana times. Satavahanas used this script and spread it over Maharashtra and Karnataka regions which they ruled for about 400 years. The strong resemblance of modern Thai, Laos, Javanese and Balinese scripts to Telugu script is because of the spread of proto-Telugu script from coastal Andhra to east Asia along with Buddhism (from Ghantasala and Masulipatnam ports). The Chalukayas, originally hailing from Rayalaseema region of Andhra Pradesh, used the script to write Telugu and Kannada languages. The script is known to historians as Telugu-Kannada script. One may refer to the displays about the evolution of scripts in National Museum in Delhi. To brand the script as 'Old Kannada' or 'hale Kannada' is a biased distortion of history.Kumarrao 12:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[personal attack removed] It neither logical nor based any evidence...don't talk about origin of chalukayas [personal attack removed]. Telugu had it's golden age (many of the first works of telugu) were made around 15th century during krishandevaray who patronised telugu at that time which proves that telugu is relatively new language. If telugu script is old why there is no literature works and inscriptions available.

[personal attack removed] Kannada has great tradition. Learn Kannada and read Kannada you will understand. Many Kannada works are being translated into telugu. Telugu ppl love kannada works and certainly not vice versa because there is no quality telug works available. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.211.165.121 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 28 May 2007.

I've removed personal attacks above.

Dear Mr Billgordon, Thank you. I was trying to provide a logic to the hazy history. The earliest evidence of a Dravidian (proto-Telugu) language being written in Brahmi script brought by Buddhists, was found in Bhattiprolu in the heartland of Andhra country. There was no need to search for great literature and having found none, conclude that a particular language did not exist. The reasoning given by me in the above-mentioned account for the spread of the script to Kannada-speaking areas was totally logical. All Kannada historians know that Adikavi Pampa and his brother were Telugu Brahmins of ancient Kammanadu (same region as Bhattiprolu) who embraced Jainism, sought the patronage of Chalukyan kings and wrote the earliest literary works of Kannada language. Can anyone deny that the script of the mother tongue of Pampa did not influence their contributions to Kannada? It is only unfortunate that no work of Telugu literature of that time could not be discovered. Gnanapiti was insistent that Telugu script originated from Kannada scipt, soley on the basis of a sentence written in a book. He does not want to consider the cautionary note written in the same page. Historians and archaeologists always used the words "Old Telugu-Kannada" script. Some Kannada enthusiasts insist on using the words "Old Kannada" or "Hale Kannada", which I feel is not right. Let reason prevail.Kumarrao 08:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mislead by misquoting what's been said in cautionary notes. It talks about Telugu being an independent language but not about the script. I have made it clear in your talk page. Give references for your claims. Just pulling in your own definitions won't work. Gnanapiti 18:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did Pampa and his brother wrote in kannada despite being teluguites and being in andhra pradesh... Why could't they write in Telugu ???????????

If the sought patronage of chalukyan it shows that chalukyan is predominantly kannada kingdom. During Chauykya kingdom kannada was the official language. Where is the question of discovering any telugu work when none is available and ppl from andhra pradesh were writing in kannada.

Who r the historians and archaeologists who refer it as "old-telugu-kanaada script" ?

Give their names,references and their credentials.

If evidence and proofs are not necessary to conclude facts ? then what can prove facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.169.130.192 (talk • contribs).

Saying that one script was derived from another is not totally correct,especially old indian.And since the antiquity of all languages and scripts is found mostly through archeology studies which itself is not an exact science,Therefore most of the things are highly speculative.That is why instead of giving one language the status of parent, an hypothetical proto language and script is given the parent status.For example,instead of saying Tamil or kannada or telugu as the parent of all south indian languages the proto-dravidian is said to be the parent.And note that dravidian is used here in a strict generic sense and it is not tamil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.99.94.248 (talk) 09:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to come to a consensus before making the changes. Both of you (Gnanpiti and Kumarrao have violated

No, I haven't violated

WP:3RR. I have started to initiate the discussion. Just reverting their own logic without giving any references or citations doesn't work. I have reproduced verbatim what's been said in those two references. Kumaarrao is trying to mislead by wrongly quoting what been said in references as caution. Till the consensus is reached I'm reverting to referenced version. Gnanapiti 07:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I've requested for protection and it got accepted. Now its time to resolve the dispute. --(Sumanth|Talk) 09:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

The Figures 1 and 2 in the articles Telugu script and Telugu language figures clearly mention the evolution of Brahmi script of Mauryan times towards modern Telugu and Kannada scripts. It is as given below:

1. Brahmi script of Mauryan period (3rd centrury BCE)

2. Brahmi script on Bhattiprolu Urn containing Buddha's dhatus (3rd century BCE)

3. Brahmi script of Satavahana period (1st centurey CE)

4. Brahmi script of Ikshvaku period (3d century CE)

5. Brahmi script of Gupta period (4th century CE)

6. Ancient Telugu-Kannada script of Salankayana period (5th century)

7. Tamil scripts of Pallava period (7th century)

8. Telugu-Kannada script of 7th century

9. Telugu-Kannada script of Eastern Chalukyas (10th century)

10. Telugu-Kannada script of Rajarajanarendra period (11th century)

11. Telugu-Kannada script of Kakatiya Ganapatideva (13th century)

12. Telugu script of Prolaya Vemareddy (14th century).

It is thus very clear that both the scripts had a common origin in Brahmi script as found on Bhattiprolu stupa urn. To call it s "Old Kannada" script is nothing but travesty of history, even though some authors might have referred it so. In fact, these figures were sourced from the same citation (Adluri, Seshu Madhava Rao Parachuri, Sreenivas. Origins of Telugu Script) which Gnanapiti refers to. But, Gnanapiti does not want to take cognizance of it. As a compromise, I agreed that it can be written as:

"The Telugu script is derived from Telugu-Kannada script which is also known as old Kannada script and developed independently at the same time as modern Kannada script which is why it has strong resemblance with it"

However, Gnanapiti insists that it should be "Old Kannada" rather than "Telugu-Kannada". It is plain chauvanism being imposed on articles regarding Telugu, Telugu language and Telugu script. Wiki should not encourage such fanatics and unreasonable chauvanists. Kumarrao 09:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My view

Lets consider all the avialable references:

1. http://www.engr.mun.ca/~adluri/telugu/language/script/script1a.html 2. http://www.ancientscripts.com/old_kannada.html 3. T1 and T2 (apparently from same source as 1) 4. http://www.ontopia.net/i18n/ftree.jsp?id=1277 Lets say telugu script evolved script 'x'. Now what is the name of this x?

The problem here is that x has two names x1 and x2. x1 is the common name and it is also known as x2.

As per ref 1 and 2, x1 = old kannada, x2 = Telugu -Kannada. Do you agree? Ref 3, only uses the name "telugu - Kannada". But ref "3" is from the same source as 1. Ref 1 contains a more detailed description of the name. They have stated the following "Kannada writers had also produced full-fledged literary works in the ninth century. But it was two more centuries before major poetic works in Telugu became available. That is the reason for the combined Telugu-Kannada script to have been called as the "old Kannada"." We can't just rely on ref 3 and ignore ref 1. It is from the same source and offers a detailed explanation. I guess the problem with the statement "The Telugu script is derived from old Kannada script which is also known as the Kannada-Telugu script" is that it seems that Telugu has evolved from Kannada script. I suggest removing the wikilink to Kannada script and create a new article for Old Kannada script. The statement can be changed to "The Telugu script is derived from

I agree if the users use the name "Old kannada" in Kannada articles and "Telugu-Kannada" in Telugu language and Telugu script articles. The fact is that the script of both the languages evolved from a variant of Asokan Brahmi found in Bhattiprolu dating from pre-Mauryan times (4thcentury). I have cited an authoritative reference and pointed out the figures given in the article. It is absolutely clear from Figures T1a and T1b in the reference (http://www.engr.mun.ca/~adluri/telugu/language/script/script1d.html) how Telugu-Kannada script evolved from Asokan Brahmi script of Bhattiprolu. Kadamba scipt or "old Kannada script" are the names given by Kannada historians to Telugu-Kannada script. Kumarrao 06:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the link you citing calls it as "Telugu - Kannada" script. But we cannot ignore the other references at the same time. The same authors also use the term "Old Kannada also known as Telugu Kannda". There are some images which also use the term "Old Kannada" only. This is the cause of all trouble. I am no expert to decide whether the historians were correct or not. But majority of references use "Old Kannada" as the primary name. Even if we use in Telugu-Kannada script in telugu articles, it would be wikilinked to [[Old Kannada]. Old Kannada article would be something like this: "Old Kannada also known as Telugu Kannada is an ancient script .....". Requesting Gnanpiti's comments on my proposal. --(Sumanth|Talk) 06:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add more clarity.

Some users, most definitely, have a deep-rooted inclination towards Kannada and are prejudiced against Telugu.

"Telugu Kannada" and "Old Kannada" are synonymous. In this case of the

Old Kannada could at the most be used in the "Kannada script" article for the ease of interpretation.

This kind of petty chauvanism, leads no where, and if allowed to proliferate would seriously undermine the painstaking contributions of many to Wikipedia. Names should be inclusive, and more importantly be restrained only to the most popular, unanimous and unambiguous, not those of a particular user's choice. Thanking You, Altruism^{To talk} 09:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am neither a Telugu-speaking person nor a Kannada-speaking person; in fact, I am not even from India. I just googled for "Telugu-Kannada". And from the results, it appears that naming the script "Kannada-Telugu" instead of "Telugu-Kannada" seems to be appropriate. Because, the term "Kannada-Telugu" is documented in Britannica Online Encyclopedia (Link: http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-311201/Kannada-Telugu-script). Please ignore my comment if you think it is not valid. But, please don't call me names or don't drag me into edit-wars! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.121.146 (talk) 07:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Dinesh,

I am certain you did not read the article (http://www.engr.mun.ca/~adluri/telugu/language/script/script1d.html) carefully.

It seems there are certain standards for Kannada-speaking Wiki users and others for different users. You brand 'Adluri's web reference as a blog site and at the same time defend 'Old Kannada' origin by citing the same reference. Try to recollect your umpteen contributions to Wiki where you cited innumerable blogs and web pages in addition to a handful of books published by Kannada enthusiasts to show "Kannada empire" extended upto Gujarat and Bihar. For you, all south Indian dynasties were Kannada empires. You have perpetrated this perfidy in many articles related to Andhra and Maharashtra history. Now you say Kannada was spoken upto Godavari. I would like to see those sentences from Pampa's works. Cite them.

Pampa was a Telugu Brahmin from ancient Kammanadu (Guntur dt) who adopted Jainism and was patronized by Vemulavada Telugu Chalukyan King Arikesari.

Please read the webpage (http://www.engr.mun.ca/~adluri/telugu/language/script/script1d.html)critically and learn how to write history impartially and dispassionately. The article has a true historical account of Pampa, Chalukyans, Renati Cholas etc., Do not think medieval Cholas and Chalukyas had your hyper-enthusiastic outlook about language.

Vijayanagar empire had the capital in Hampi which is now located in a region that comes under "Karnataka". That does not mean it was Kannada empire. It was historically known as "Karnata Rajya". Even Telugu poets mentioned so. There is a clear distinction between "Karnata empire" and "Kannada empire". I think all Kannada Wiki users ignore this subtle difference. Andhra Satavahanas ruled almost entire South India, Western India and, at one point of time, upto Bihar. That would not make it Telugu or Maharashtrian empire. No Telugu historian ever lost this sense of proportion.

I have been waging a war with a couple of Kannada Wiki users to defend a historical truth about Telugu script and Telugu language. A reference I cited becomes a blog to ignore my input but the same reference becomes invaluable and handy to silence me. What kind of logic, rationale, and reason are present in these acts?

I am being collectively browbeaten. My edits are reverted without citing any reason. On the other hand, I am forced to give lengthy explanations which are ignored and branded as conjectures. I cannot imagine how a script can travel to South East Asia from Karnataka? Did it fly over Telugu and Tamil regions?Kumarrao 19:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with you. --Altruism^{To talk} 08:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My dear friends n brothers, I wish to put some words according to my knowledge regarding

-Bsskchaitanya 08:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Mr Chaitanya..by bringing the topic of films you are showing ur usless brains and dirty culture..if you can't write logically or based on facts.you should shut your mouth...What is truth what kind of proof is available..tamil is considered as old language based on the proof it's available..

the same goes for kannada or telugu...just base your arguments on things like inscriptions,literature available which are more authentic..

The fact that Karnataka rulers and tamilnadu rulers have fought over more than 1500 centuries proves that the languages and ethnicity are distinct and how old kannada and tamil are...where as andhra is ruled either by rulers of karnataka or tamilnadu for really long time...While kannada and tamil are ancient languages telugu is relatively new and has no considerable proof..Chaitanya..go and find out who has people of tamilnadu has fought most with ..you will know from history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.54.244 (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't just jump in into talk page and harp some irrelevant things without knowing anything about the issue. No one is contesting about superiority of any language here. I myself have deleted all nonsense comments made by some anon IP. Those comments are just fit to be ignored. Pray tell me who is telling any language is good or bad here? Yeah, your ignorant comments bring me hearty laugh too. Please go through Carnatic music article once and try to know the real history and why it's being called Karnatik music. I don't see any difference between you and Kumarrao here. Just making claims without giving citations to any of the claims. I'm afraid that the approach you are taking doesn't work in Wikipedia. It's a big joke when someone decides the antiquity and superiority of a language based on movie industries, which didn't even exist before 50 change years. It's a very big joke, believe me. Going by your logic, 90% of world languages doesn't even exist. Again, no one is arguing over superiority of any language here. No one is comparing any languages here. So please, don't just make random comments on people. It's you and only you who have started comparing languages now. I would suggest a good read of the talk page to know the real issue. Otherwise please just stay out of discussion, please. Gnanapiti 15:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Chaitanya's view point is correct. It is sad that some Users are interested in establishing the 'superiority' of their language, region etc., by collaborating with each other, selectively citing some evidences, quoting unknown writers, citing webpages and on top of it, browbeating well-meaning and impassionate Users. Plenty of such indications are available in Kannada and Karnataka related articles. I should say they are during a 'terrific' job. Kumarrao 12:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{

The lead of this article says The Telugu script is derived from Telugu-Kannada script and developed independently at the same time as the Kannada script which is why it has strong resemblance with it and cites this, which is a personal webpage as a reference. The sentence gives the wrong impression that Kannada script evolved directly from Telugu script. However some genuine references like student's Britannica, Ancient scripts, Omniglot say the opposite. They all say that Telugu script evolved from Old Kannada script. Unfortunately users don't want to accept these genuine references and cite some non-RS personal webpage as a reference. Ironically the chart mentioned in that non-RS website shows that Telugu script came from old Kannada script. As soon as the page was unprotected, User:Altruism went ahead and made these changes under edit summary "some edits" to mislead other editors. I request the concerned admin to unprotect the page and either delete that false claim or add a sentence saying "The script was known as Old Kannada script" as pointed out in the references. At the same time I want to question the validity of that personal webpge as

Comment:The edit that is being requested is disputed and was the reason for the edit war, to begin with. I request the admins to ignore these requests until there is consensus. Lotlil 22:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1 A dispute is when both parties are talking with RS sources in hand. Here we have Altruism and Kumarrao talking with this - a personal blog of some individual in hand. Dont let the engr.mun.ca fool you. It is but a personal blog/site of some amateur hosted on this university server.

2 And in any case, what does the source itself say? It says this(I am quoting verbatim) -

This is exactly the opposite of what Kumarrao and altruism are claiming. And nowhere in this article are we even pushing to claim that Telugu-the language descended from Kannada. Sarvagnya 23:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To add to what Sarvagnya has said, Mr. Adluri himself has mentioned that he is not a scholar on Telugu scripts here. I am quoting verbatim from that page:

Hence this site cannot be expected to contain scholarly material related to Telugu script and is not a RS -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 02:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up: Just look at the comments below for evidence of a clear dispute. The tag needs to be disabled again. Lotlil 13:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not handled properly?. I guess I forgot to bow and ask permission to enter. If an edit has been requested, and a user disputes that edit, a discussion should occur. The user who disputed the edit hasn't even responded to the latest comments. I understand frustration, but allow a chance for discussion, and do not re-add {{

Comment

• I am sorry.. but there is no dispute. This has already been explained by me and Amarrg above but you seem to ignore it. You dont get to dispute something just by throwing your hands up! You need to back your claim with RS sources. Here, neither does the 'opponent' have any RS sources in hand, nor does the non-RS source that he is brandishing say what he is claiming. This is apparent if you so much as spend two minutes reading through the explanations above. You obviously have not done that and it is a little rich of you to ask us to 'discuss' when there really is nothing to discuss.
• Furthermore, even the very 'disputing' of the edit request has been carried out by a
  WP:RS. I will be putting the edit request back. Do not revert. Sarvagnya 07:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Please also see the discussion below. We are unnecessarily going around in circles trying to solve a non-dispute. Enough has been discussed on it and any further discussion on this will just be a waste of time for everyone involved. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 11:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I've stated my views earlier in this page but would like add more. I've gathered some more references. I request everyone involved in this discussion to patiently go through the points mentioned below.

• I suppose it is clear to everyone that both Telugu and Kannada scripts evolved from a common script.
• Now the dispute is about the name of the script. Is it old Kannada or Telugu-Kannada? Please see the reference below.(Note: I am not considering [1] as a reliable reference).
  • References for Old Kannada

1. [2]
2. [3]

• • References for Telugu Kannada

1. [4] (see page 78,79 of this book)
2. [5]

There are some more references for both old Kannada and Telugu Kannada but I suppose these would suffice. Lets discuss about the above references carefully and conclude something.--(Sumanth|Talk) 12:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More-links for Telugu-Kannada:

• Indian Epigraphy..., by Richard Salomon
• The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Writing Systems By Florian Coulmas
• Indian Epigraphy, by Dineshchandra Sircar

Lotlil 14:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Request for continued protection

The Users who brand Adluri's webpage as a personal webpage fall back upon the same source to push "Old Kannada" theory but at the same time ignore the two tables which depicted stage-wise evolution of the script. These tables clearly mentioned "Telugu-Kannada" script. See the reproduction in English of these tables in this talk page itself (little above). Both the scripts which have very minor differences evolved from a common script. The arguments insisting "old Kannada" are vey unfair. As a compromise I agreed that "Old Kannada" can be written in Kannada-related articles and "Telugu-Kannada" in Telugu-related articles. Both these aspects can have respective citations. My suggestion is fair and just. I request that the current version is retained and protected. Kumarrao 08:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki works on factual accuracy not on compromises and being reasonable. Any so-called compromise disregarding the factual accuracy of the article may lead to a user in future disputing it and there will be edit-warring all over again. Hope you understand that this article is not for just the people involved here but to a larger audience and hence it is imperative that we project facts as much as possible. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 12:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Omniglot

I pasted here material from Omniglot regarding Telugu script(http://www.omniglot.com/writing/telugu.htm). It does not mention anything about "Old Kannada". However, the section on Kannada does mention "Old kannada". Can't we follow the same practice in Wiki for Telugu and Kannada articles. I think it is reasonable. Reproduction:

Origin

The Telugu alphabet is an descendant of the Brahmi script of ancient India. It is closely related to the Kannada alphabet. The earliest known inscriptions in the Telugu language date from the 6th century AD and Telugu poetry started to appear during the 11th century.

Until the 20th century, Telugu was written in an archaic style very different from the everyday spoken language. During the the second half of the 20th century, a new written standard emerged based on the modern spoken language.

Notable features

• This is a syllabic alphabet in which all consonants have an inherent vowel. Diacritics, which can appear above, below, before or after the consonant they belong to, are used to change the inherent vowel.
• When they appear the the beginning of a syllable, vowels are written as independent letters.
• When certain consonants occur together, special conjunct symbols are used which combine the essential parts of each letter.

Used to write:

Telugu, a Dravidian language spoken by about 75 million people in the southern Indian state of Andhra Pradesh and neighboring states, and also in Bahrain, Fiji, Malaysia, Mauritius, Singapore and the UAE.

Source: http://www.ethnologue.com. Thanks. Kumarrao 08:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what Omniglot quotes in his Kannada page here. Quoting verbatim:

I do not know how many such citations should be provided to indicate that your theory is wrong. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 11:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be consensus to make this change. Please add editprotected tags only after consensus is found. — Carl (

Comment: Saved the day

Both the users User:Sumanth and User:Lotlil have saved the day for me and the dignity of Telugu language. There cannot be more authentic references than these five (cited above) in favour of Telugu-Kannada script. They happen to be the most authentic pieces of work from a great scholar of Dravidian languages (Krishnamurty) and a great epigraphist (Sarkar). Although I was aware of them I could not get these references and had to face the most unreasonable attacks on me. I wasted considerable amount of my valuable time pointing towards the Tables T1a and T1b (Adluri's reference) again and again but a group of persons conveniently ignored that. I visited National Museum in New Delhi and the gallery on Indian scripts there thrice. All the displays mentioned Bhattiprolu script and evolution of Telugu-Kannada script. I noticed nowhere "old Kannada" script. Unfortunately, I could not get a book relating to this information. Nor was I allowed to photograph the display charts. I mentioned this in my discussion and speculated that "old Kannada" usage was invented by some biased scholars which crept into books and websites including that of Adluri. I hope this group will stop vandalizing Telugu articles. They can certainly use "old Kannada" on the basis of three or four websites available for them but must refrain from claiming that Telugu script evolved from that of Kannada. I appeal to the administrators to unprotect Telugu script so that I can add these additinal four citations.Kumarrao 19:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It must be clear by now that there is indeed a dispute. Now that some evidence is available on either side, let's try to list out the disputes clearly and then discuss. Looking at the reverts, I believe these are the disputed parts, both in the lead section:

1. The Telugu script is derived from Telugu-Kannada script...

#There are attempts being made to converge the scripts of Telugu and Kannada, both of which have a striking similarity to each other

I agree with Amarg's comment above that there shouldn't be an artificial compromise of using a certain terminology in Telugu articles and certain other terminology in Kannada articles - this would only mean more edit wars later. Let's try and come up with a single phrase and stick to it in all articles relating to Kannada and Telugu. Please add your comments below, with indentation. Thanks. Lotlil 22:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since the second statement has been cited from an RS and is relevant, I think it should be included. As for the first and the more contentious statement, I still think that the parent script should be called "Telugu-Kannada" simply because it refers to both languages and seems more fair than "old Kannada". If this isn't acceptable, the next best thing to do would be to replace any reference to "old Kannada script" with something like

"the parent script that has been variously referred to as Telugu-Kannada or old Kannada script".

Lotlil 22:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any dispute in this matter. Even if there is one, second point is not part of that. So strike that off. And regarding your first point, if you had at least read my very first post in this section, you wouldn't have repeated the same beaten to death thing. Also refer to this edit by User:Altruism and carefully notice the difference between edits. Thanks, Gnanapiti 22:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first point was not proven earlier due to lack of reliable sources. But some references supporting this are available now. The dispute is not about the second point. I suggesst striking that out.--(Sumanth|Talk) 03:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the 2nd item wasn't contentious, why was it being dragged into the edit war ? Anyway, leave it out if nobody has objections to it.Lotlil 16:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

Telugu Kannada

• Dravidian Languages (see page 78,79 of this book)
• TDIL telugu script
• Indian Epigraphy..., by Richard Salomon
• The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Writing Systems By Florian Coulmas
• Indian Epigraphy, by Dineshchandra Sircar
• Transactions By Archaeological Society of South India
• IGNCA- Indian government institution

Old Kannada

• student's Britannica

Comment: Now lets not jump to conclusion based on these references. I would suggest using the name which is more common or widely recognized. If not it would be better to mention both the names.--(Sumanth|Talk) 03:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: I suggest the following:

1. Create a wiki page for this common script (it was used for many centuries. So it definitely deserves a page)
2. The page should be named based on
   Wikipedia:Naming conflict
   guidelines.
3. Use this name in all related articles.--(Sumanth|Talk) 05:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The edit done by User:Altruism was justified in view of the overwhelming evidence in support of "Telugu-Kannada script". Kumarrao 06:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The only credible reference for Old kannada available seems to be student's Britannica. Omniglot uses wikipedia as a referene. See Telugu. The other reference Ontopia in turn refers to omniglot. These two are only tertiary sources. --(Sumanth|Talk) 08:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:What are you talking about? This is the list of books Omniglot refers to. Wikipedia is just given as a link. And these are the references of Ancient scripts. They both are very credible sources. Gnanapiti 14:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ok. Ancient script gives some reliable references. This makes it a reliable tertiary references. Omniglot link doesn't give any references. It is just an advertisement about "omniglot book store".

Comment:If we know where to look at, we will find published references to old Kannada as well, like the one I found here:

• Unicode Demystified: A Practical Programmer's Guide to the Encoding Standard - Page 325 by Richard Gillam - 2002 - 853 pages which in turn refers to the chapter "Kannada and Telugu writing" in the book The World's writing systems, pp 413-419 written by William Bright -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 13:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That is the exact issue. We have references for both. We need to examine each reference, check the type and conclude something.--(Sumanth|Talk) 03:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Some more:

• Indian Epigraphy: a guide to the study of inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the other Indo ... - Page 116-120 by Richard Salomon - 1998.
• The Writing Systems of the World By Coulmas, Florian page 192
• The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Writing Systems, p257. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnanapiti (talk • contribs)

I was a bit intrigued by the above citations by Gnanapiti (edit diffs here), not just because the quoted pages aren't available for preview under Google books. Let me begin by assuming good faith and take it that you have seen the paper versions of those books. In which case, can you please do the following, so I can verify them?:

1. Please specify the exact title, author, publisher, isbn, date, page numbers for all of them. Or if you prefer, just confirm if these are the books you are referring to: Book-1 and Book-3

2. Your 2nd and 3rd citations seem confusing, because the author of the 2nd book actually also wrote the 3rd book, with a similar title. Are they the same book or different? If they are different, please provide details I requested in (1) above.

3. For those three references, can you quote the lines (just one line per book with page number, would suffice) which refer to old-Kannada?

Lotlil 15:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I totally agree with User:Altruism about the lack of credibility of Lawrence's website. On the contrary, the webpage on the seminar conducted at Karnatak University, Dharwad, attended by linguistic experts is many times more credible. I am opposed to the use of "Old Kannada" in any of the articles related to Telugu language. Kumarrao 06:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The seminar may have been conducted anywhere, but being put up on IGNCA's (A prestigious Indian government institution for the study of culture etc.) website itself speaks volumes on its credibility, after being subject to severe scrutiny from many scholars of national and international repute. --Altruism^{To talk} 07:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---After getting a jolt some Users are still clinging to a straw and trying to swim against the tide. Discretion is the better part of valour.Kumarrao 10:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I support the idea of a separate article and using its name across the board on all articles. But, what would the name of the article be ? That should be decided before someone spends time creating that article. Lotlil 16:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no dispute. There are plenty of authentic citations in favour of "Telugu-Kannada". I do agree that there are a couple of citations in favour of "Old Kannada". The most reasonable thing to do is to have both with respective citations. Since there is widespread use of "Telugu-Kannada" by linguists, it should be given more prominence while mentioning "Old Kannada" too. It should be applicable to all Kannada article too. That is what I am doing? In the name of 'consensus' User:Gnanapiti is trying to stifle my voice. Kumarrao 08:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I guess it is not as simple as that. I tried to dig more into each of these references. But it only compounded my confusion. Some points:

• The reference used in many websites and books seems to be The World's Writing Systems. This book is used as reference in both Unicode Demystified: A Practical Programmer's Guide to the Encoding Standard - Page 325 by Richard Gillam - 2002 - 853 pages and Dravidian Languages and yet both authors choose use different names for the script.
• "The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Writing Systems" uses the names Old Kanarese and Telugu Kannada. See [6]

and [7]

• Britannica uses the name "Kannada Telugu" (this is mentioned as an alternate name in ancient script site also).

I think an article with either one of the following names (or something similar) would be appropriate:

1. Proto Kannada Telugu script or Proto Telugu Kannada script (alphabetical order would be better)
2. Evolution of Kannada and Telugu scripts

All the names of the common script can be mentioned in this article. This article can be used in other articles.E.g: Telugu and Kannada scritps have a common origin Any comments on this?--(Sumanth|Talk) 09:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any comments on this? I prefer the second title. It no one opposes this I will go ahead and create the article.--(Sumanth|Talk) 09:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---The article is being rewritten/modified in light of the new sources of information mentioned in this talk page. Please discuss before deleting any of the input being placed.Kumarrao 16:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any changes to content that are disputed here, discuss here before making changes. Don't add/change any disputed material without discussing. Gnanapiti 17:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and removed all the citations put in claiming that the Kannada script evolved from the Bottiprolu script. I read all the book citations provided and found none of the pages cited making any such mention, though it does mention the Telugu-Kannada script evolving from the Southern-Brahmi script. If I have made a mistake, please provide alternate page numbers from those books to verify the claim, or provide alternate citations or change the sentence to reflect that those citations claim that both Kannada and Telugu scripts evolved from the Brahmi script, a sample of which was found in Bottiprollu. In addition, the section called "later developments" was practically a cut and paste from the Alduri web page which does not have mainstream sanction from majority historians. Even the dates were wrong. A false claim that Ranna is from Andhra was made. The section itself had no inline citations. The images of the scripts were recently removed by an admin for not meeting wiki guidelines. This article is an important one and needs to be thoroughly sourced from various sources for balance, not just one web site by an Engg student.Dineshkannambadi 03:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is well known that the Bhattiprolu script (Southern Brahmi), a variant of Asokan Brahmi script gave rise to the common Telugu-Kannada script.

See the third row in the evolution chart in the book by Bhadriraju Krishnamurthi, a foremost scholar of Dravidian languages: http://books.google.com/books?id=T7Wv4ncys88C&pg=RA1-PA78&lpg=RA1-PA78&dq=%22telugu+kannada%22+script&source=web&ots=qD-y3RO6RV&sig=VorQtqpoh3IVJOLeYr-fxgaybdE#PRA1-PA79,M1

There is ample evidence available (see this talk page for references). Prof Adluri's article on Telugu Language and Literatre is a scholarly work not an ameteurish website like www.ourkarnataka.com. Who are the mainstream majority historians? I would like to know. Inline citations will be provided. Have patience. Do not delete the material.Kumarrao 05:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please. How long are you going to keep harping about the adluri ref? Doesnt matter how long and how hard you protest, it is not going to become a RS. And as for Bh. Kr's source, he doesnt say Bhattiprolu script evolved into "telugu-kannada"/"Old Kannada"/"Kannada-telugu" scripts. His table clearly shows that the Bhattiprolu script was only one of the many stages in which the Brahmi script evolved to yield the T-K script. For that matter, the Bhattiprolu 'script' isnt even so much of an independent script. It is only a southern variant of the Mauryan Brahmi and is so-called because the first such specimen was discovered at Bhattiprolu in Andhra. Also, it is not like the Bhattiprolu magically morphed into the T-K script overnight. There were several intermediate scripts as the table in Bh. Kr's book shows. We could as well claim that the Gupta Brahmi script evolved into the "T-K" script. I really dont understand what you are trying to prove by saying that the Bhattiprolu script evolved into T-K script. Sarvagnya 06:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you can cite millions of times a Kannada website as an authentic source of Indian history, how a scholary work, I repeat, scholarly, can become unreliable? Show me the evidence that Adluri is an Engg student. Even if he were, your statements are objectionable and impolite because according to you engineering students/their contributions are undependable. Software engineers working in US clinging to some backyard historians and local websites have become authorities on Indian history in Wiki. On top of it, they collaborate in unison and prevent others making meaningful contributions. Painstakingly collected information, inputs and voices are stifled. I am baffled at why the Wiki administrators and watchdogs of Wiki are silent? Kumarrao 05:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I dont have to prove that Adluri is an engg student. It is you who has to show that he is a scholar of history(also?) as you claim. And it doesnt take rocket science to figure that Adluri is a civil engineer. As for Kamat, she is a noted historian in her own right, has written scholarly books which are available in university and public libraries around the world and has even been awarded for her efforts in the field. You arent the first one who's questioning her credentials. Some others(mostly trolls and vandals) have done it in the past. And it beats me why you're so bent on citing Adluri. Isnt Bh.Kr good enough for you?! And your claim that you've put 'painstaking' effort into this is a joke. You havent put any effort. You've flicked straight from Adluri's personal web page and pasted it verbatim! Sarvagnya 05:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK! Take it easy. Its better if we (all of us) only quote what are considered genuine references by WP. But the problem is who judges what is genuine or what is trash. Its highly subjective and overlapping. In my personal opinion, Kamath has written on many topics, but is biased towards the right, particularly pro-Hindu. --Altruism^{To talk} 06:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Judging on genuine references is not subjective.

WP:RS has clear instructions on what references to retain and what to discard. And as you've already mentioned, Kamath's bias is your personal opinion. An opinion is something which everybody can have and you are absolutely free to have one. But the fact remains that Kamath is an established historian whose works have been widely published and accepted by number of scholars. Gnanapiti 15:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

By the way, what has Kamat got to do with Telugu script and why is her name being dragged here unnecessarily. I think the discussion here should be restricted to info related to Telugu script, its citations and the persons concerned thereof. The moot point here is the consistent push of Adluri's page as a reliable source ignoring considerable facts that suggest the contrary. If the citations provided by Adluri are still............. considered by someone as genuine, I am sure that there would be other sources as well which speak the same thing. Why don't we look at those and move forward. Adluri is passé and lets not run around in circles... - ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits}16:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find that some people had inserted an unsupported opinion in that article. It read like this:"he script for Telugu is derived from that of Kannada , Telugu look almost similar to that of Kannada". I had added the following (but it was deleted and reverted to the old statement. I have completely made that section there to redirect to this article as it was anyway irrelevant to discuss the scripts of one particular language when dicussing the whole inner branch of SDr I).

"The distinguished Dravidian linguist Bh. Krishnamurti states (Krishnamurthi 2003: pp78-79): "A variety of Souther Brahmi script was earlier employed in Prakrit inscriptions and later developed into Proto-Telugu-Kannada script by the sixth century AD, when the Telugu and Kannada inscriptions begin to appear. This variety continued up to the fifteenth century AD with shared changes, after which Telugu and Kannada scripts diverged and developed independently. The Chalukyan script of the last quarter of the fifteenth century represented the transitional phase which was used both for Kannada and Telugu records. By the fourteenth century the Old Telugu and the Halagannada scripts had distinct differences."

[Reference: Krishnamurti, B., The Dravidian Languages, Cambridge University Press, 2003.

I'm a bit puzzled at these edits: [8][9][10]. Gnanapiti and Sarvagnya, you've removed references, but.. not actually changed the content that they were being used to reference?

If there is debate over the derivation of Telugu script, the article should state that there is debate, describe the rival points of view, and reference them.

Regardless of whether Adluri and Parachuri are reliable sources regarding the origins of Telugu script, their publication is a reliable source that they have made certain claims regarding said origins.

Can someone have a go at thrashing something out that describes the differing opinions? Rather than revert warring? Thankyou! --Stormie 07:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well.. there were two refs there. One of them by Adluri which we've discussed ad nauseum. It has been pointed out to Altruism that adluri is not a RS. Adluri is an civil engineer by profession and an amateur Telugu enthusiast. His site is the equivalent of a blog but hosted on his university server instead of blogspot. So that is a no brainer. The other ref, is certainly from a notable source, but sadly, doesnt say what Altruism is claiming that it does. So it belongs removed too. On our part, I realise that we should have replaced the blanking of the refs with {fact}} tags which we didnt. But then I've got so tired of removing adluri that I just click and revert. Sarvagnya 07:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The content is not being disputed , only the source is being disputed. Hence leave the content as it is, and either find some reliable source or put {fact}} tags , instead of revert-warring or protecting. Vinay Jha ^Talk 11:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finally unblocked, thanks to some sensible admins. Yes, this time around the sources are being disputed. The crux of the problem is the usage of "Telugu-Kannada script" instead of "Old Kannada script" as some users wanted it to be, for their own reasons. As far as I remember, Adluri was not pointed out to me, to any effect. I don't comment on this reference's reliability. The other reference (IGNCA) is definitely RS (An Indian government institution on culture). The reason for the reference being added is clearly known to those who are probably feigning ignorance. For the benefit of others: The reference makes a mention of "Telugu-Kannada script" and nowhere of "Old Kannada script." --Altruism^{T a l k - Contribs.} 11:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Read this section and every section after that in this very talk page and

WP:RS by any stretch of imagination n number of times. Still you don't remember that website being pointed out to you? Amazing. And still you insist on adding that so called "reference", god knows the reason why. The other reference you are pointing at no where claims that Telugu script evolved from Telugu-Kannada script. You are twisting and twirling that reference to such an extent to suit your POV. Those two links have been questioned right from the beginning. Instead you were pointed to so many references from reliable sources in the above discussions. I request this page be unblocked and those two links are deleted along with claims made with their help from this article. Gnanapiti 19:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Adluri's article is a very reliable source. It is an articles composed after serious research. Is there any bar on engineers doing historical research? If it is so, many Wiki articles being written by software professionals sitting in USA and writing Indian history should be deleted from wikipedia. In fact, some of the people who are questioning Adluri fall in this category. Please see extensive discussions on the Talk page of Telugu script, the Users IP addresses and their identity. Some of these users have a website "www.ourkarnataka.com' as the most often cited reference in their articles. It is a travesty of ethics that they question a serious and impartial article. Such people's actions (reverts and deletions) are nothing but blantant vandalism. I made many appeals to Wiki administrators earlier to check this bunch of psuedo-historians but of no avail.Kumarrao 14:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've been told many times. Crying, accusing, whining are not going to take this discussion anywhere. Stick to this discussion and say something if you have anything valuable to say. Do you have any reliable references? Bring them in. Otherwise please stop whining. Gnanapiti 19:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---There is no point in shouting, whining or crying when some creatures keep barking and cannot hear others because their own barks outdo the crying noise.Kumarrao 10:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main question is why was the IGNCA reference deleted. Your talk is absurd. Do you mean to say that Telugu-Kannada script something very different from Telugu script's progenitor? The reference is to establish the existence of "Telugu-Kannada script," which also has been disputed. BTW why doesn't your "Old Kannada script" find mention here. Is it that, it is restricted to only non-RS sources? I repeat, I don't comment on Adluri's reliability. His is no doubt a painstakingly done job, mostly authentic. But unfortunately due to the technical parameters, set by Wikipedia in larger interest, this may not qualify.--Altruism^{T a l k - Contribs.} 04:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None has any business to delete RS sources. If you have any questions ask here. Don't vandalize articles. --Altruism^{T a l k - Contribs.} 05:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to ask. You dont just write whatever you want and then slap a "RS" source at the end of the sentence. The citation you provide needs to support what you've written. And the IGNCA citation does not support what you've written. Thats all. Sarvagnya 05:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are what the websitehas to say

1) "...almost all the important scripts, prevalent since ancient times like, Indus, Brahmi, Kharoshthi, Nagari, Tamil, Kannada-Telugu, Telugu-Kannada, Tamil Brahmi, Malayalam, Tigarlari, Arbaic, Persian, Konkani and Modi."

2) "Dr. Shrinivas Ritti gave two lecture, on the Use of Kannada in Kannada Inscription and Telugu-Kannada script in two different sessions."

Given all this in the reference, some are questioning, isn't it senseless/reckless on the part of some editors to blatantly delete an RS source and leave the fact without citations.

The future course of action would be to question the presence of the fact (Telugu-Kannada script)itself, only to be replaced by their own version of history.

Articles in Wikipedia have already seen enough trouble from this bunch of vandals who try to twist history/culture to their versions.

This is a classic case of "Ethnophobia."--Altruism^{T a l k - Contribs.} 05:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can explain to me how The Telugu script is derived from the Telugu-Kannada script and developed independently at the same time as the Kannada script which is why it has strong resemblance to it. follows from your above numbered statements, I will drop it. Sarvagnya 05:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see Talk:Telugu_script#Consensus for other refernces. There was an implicit understanding several months ago. Why did it take so long for this question to come up? You should have also deleted the sentence/fact, when you didn't have references. Why delete just the reference? My reference at least points to the presence of "Telugu-Kannada script," so that some can't question its very presence later. --Altruism^{T a l k - Contribs.} 05:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are the references in support of "Telugu-Kannada script":

• Dravidian Languages (see page 78,79 of this book)
• TDIL telugu script
• Indian Epigraphy..., by Richard Salomon
• The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Writing Systems By Florian Coulmas
• Indian Epigraphy, by Dineshchandra Sircar
• Transactions By Archaeological Society of South India
• IGNCA- Indian government institution

--Altruism^{T a l k - Contribs.} 05:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--It is obvious some users make false allegations without reading the text given in the citations. Even the most authentic historians and their books published by Oxford University, Cambridge University, Govt. of India books etc are consistently ignored. In addition, their persistance shows a pathological allergy to a sister language which defies logic. The irony is that the articles written by a group of users are full of citations of personal webpages, biased region-based websites and a couple of books written by biased historians. This has wider ramifications in national interest and national integrity. It is unfortunate Wiki has become a susceptible tool for a bunch of linguistic fanatics and chauvanists.Kumarrao 07:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://bernadinebenware.blogspot.com/2008/09/telugu-script-is-syllabic.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.145.3.20 (talk) 09:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

to mr kumara rao the sources of cambridge,oxford becomes authentic and native writers of India..he is funny character..most of Andhra ruled either by Karnatka or Tamilnadu Rulers for more than 1000 years..even during Vijayanagar Kingdom..there are more inscriptions in kannada than telugu..

What is Mr KumaraRao is shouting at ??..does he have an answer as to why there are no considerable telugu inscriptions,texts,literature when compared to Kannada and Tamil..

Mr KumarRao and other telugu idiots..be logical in your analysis and thinking..idiots.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.198.190.19 (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to this page to familiarize yourself with the rules of propriety we Wikipedians pride ourselves on. Wikipedia is not a chauvinist soap-box nor is it a place for you to blow your ethnic/provincial supremacist poison. Wikipedia is a participatory project of intellectually curious, idealistic, free-and-fair minded individuals - if you cannot conduct yourself in such a way, don't comment. Thanks. --Gnana (talk) 06:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Telugu inscriptions were scarce compared to kannada..it's a fact that there was no literature available till 11th century..that means Telugu written practice was not that old..

How many Telugu inscriptions have been found so far ???...rulers of karnataka (kannada) allowed for flourishing of telugu literature and also allowed usage of telugu in administration.

By this logic..telugu script is derived from Kannada script..

that is the reason telugu script is derived from old kannada script —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.221.61.36 (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read this book

http://books.google.com/books?id=pfAKljlCJq0C&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=andhra+kannada&source=web&ots=tR-chk_5Q5&sig=lsgprHr_oNx5MrdkyV09rcvlmO0&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result#PPA35,M1

Kannada inscriptions and kannada usage has been there for close to 1000 years..how can anyone dispute that..by all the records kannada is much older and telugu adopted kannada script...pls state it as Old Kannada script....

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.204.229 (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of the squarish character క appear to be completely identical this goes for all languages with these kind of characters.

Is this how it actually looks or is it some unicode mistake thing but I noticed that while it gave a guide for what the "different" Telugu characters meant they were all attributed to క andక alone. Why is this, and can someone please fix this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.116.126.145 (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

to mr kumara rao the sources of cambridge,oxford becomes authentic and native writers of India..he is funny character..most of Andhra ruled either by Karnatka or Tamilnadu Rulers for more than 1000 years..even during Vijayanagar Kingdom..there are more inscriptions in kannada than telugu..

What is Mr KumaraRao is shouting at ??..does he have an answer as to why there are no considerable telugu inscriptions,texts,literature when compared to Kannada and Tamil..

Mr KumarRao and other telugu idiots..be logical in your analysis and thinking..idiots.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.198.190.19 (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Fellow brothers,

First of all I thank all people who helped to develop this webpage to this extant. I observed the Telugu symbol given to number "5". It is not correct completly. I have observed many old printed versions of Books and even palm leaf scripts (Taalapatra Grandhaalu), I found that there are different varieties of writing 5, but the represented symbol look like a corrupted form. Can anybody help me how to draw a correct symbol. I anybody want to draw it, then I can give them references. Thanks in advance. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 05:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prabhu, Your recent edits were deleted. Read the discussions that took place during 2007-2009 carefully before editing. Please discuss.Kumarrao (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have confusion in pronouncing "అం". In the transliteration it has been pronounced as "am". However, the words like శాంతి,క్రాంతి,బంతి are transliterated into santhi, kranthi, banthi respectively, i.e. "an" not "am". Can someone please explain to me the why the difference and how to identify.

I myself have made few observations but couldn't find authentic literature to support my theory

1. అం when followed by క, ఖ, గ, ఘ, చ, ఛ, జ, ఝ, ట, డ, ఢ, త, ద, ధ, it takes the form "an"
2. అం when followed by ప, ఫ, బ, భ, శ, ష it takes the form "am"
3. అం when coming at the end of the word takes the form "am" (However, this is only in poetic form, as it is forbidden to use it in prose, where every అం at the end is replaced by "ము". Example, poetic - అందం, prose - అందము)
4. అం is also never followed by ఙ,ఞ,ణ,న,మ

I could be wrong,also the list is incomplete, but would like someone to clarify and even complete the list.

Ambiguity in pronouncing is rare in Telugu, probably this is the only ambiguity in Telugu. May be చ and జ also fall into the category after removal of ౘ(tsa),ౙ(z) from the Telugu alphabets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.216.220.89 (talk) 13:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear contributors, I would like to ask your help in editing/contributing to the Wikibooks pages where Telugu wikibook http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Category:Telugu is being created so as to help non-native readers/learners of Indian and foreign origin to learn to read and write in Telugu. I have added what I felt is helpful to non-native readers who can learn through English but some more people can contribute more. I would like to know if it is better to give a reference to the Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telugu_language or directly compile in the Wikibook without any cross-reference. In my humble opinion, I think everything regarding the learning aspect should be in one place. The Wikibooks for Spanish and French are my references, as in they are instantly readable/applicable to situations and very easy explanations/examples are provided. Varshasree (talk) 07:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was reported today that many apps running on Apple iOS or MacOS will permanently crash if they see a particular Teluga character. I don't see this character in either this article or Telugu (Unicode block). Perhaps this is fortunate, but perhaps it should be included after the bugs are fixed. Layzeeboi (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]