Talk:Malayalam


Edakkal inscription

@Ammamozhi: Edakkal inscription being described as a separate language called Malayalam is controversial and not universally accepted by scholars, it definitely should not be platformed in intro. See https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kochi/historians-contest-antiquity-of-edakkal-inscriptions/articleshow/14789313.cms

Also the inscription you are posting is classed as Old Tamil in Mahadevan's book Early Tamil Epigraphy. Mahadevan himself was a epigraphist not a linguist. Even the reference you have cited says it is a Tamil inscription and mentions nothing about Malayalam, let alone Old Malayalam:

https://www.thehindu.com/features/friday-review/history-and-culture/Saying-it-with-stones/article16215569.ece Metta79 (talk) 20:24, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have not added anything about edakkal inscription. If you are refering to theni inscription, This is the incription submitted by Mahadevan to committee constituted by central government to give malayalam classical language status. That itself is enough that going with 'Original research' over it here on wikipedia. This is extensilvely covered in India Today article of 27 oct 2010 with the author named 'Nayanthara, N. G'. The Hindu one i added because it is available online with the incription and caption, which is one of the earliest report on this (i can see updated on july 2010 on that online artcile, but i guess they reported even prior, it is like th next day report after the finding of the inscription) . Later as per India Today article of 27 oct 2010, submission of the words in this inscription granted malayalam the classcial language status. This beign readed and analysed by researchers and linguistics.
Also the lipi or letters in the inscription is predecessor to south indian languages, which we dont want to research on here.
Wikipedia goes with facts and references and original research is not allowed in wikipedia Ammamozhi (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Attaching a google drive link for other editors who is watching to have the India Today oct 27 artcile (for an easy quick availabilty), which discuss this inscription was submited to grant malayalam classicla language status :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1KNSRfmcnXgsVg5X23myxe7PwuXZ1e31_?usp=sharing
Another article stating what all proof was submitted before central commitee for granting malayalam it's classical status :
https://nellu.net/home/article/Vol-7-Issue-1/mashithandu/Sreeja-Nandakumar/66/malayalam.html
On the instructions of the Central Government, the State constituted an expert committee headed by Dr. Puthussery Ramachandran to prove the classical status of Malayalam with reasons. They prepared and submitted a four-volume report containing documents and images. It contained facts proving that Malayalam is more than 2300 years old. Some of them are:
1. Tamil literature up to the 8th century, including the Sangha period works, is a common property of Malayalam.
2. Many of the important works of the Sangha period were written in Kerala. About 50 Sangha period writers were Keralites.
3. More than 150 Malayalam words have been found in the Sangha period works. These are still in use in Malayalam.
4. The first translations of Arthashastra and Bhagavad Gita in India were in Malayalam.
5. The Ramacharita and Bhashakautilya, which are considered to be the oldest works in Malayalam, were written before the 11th century.
6. The 3rd century BC inscriptions in the Edakkal caves, the 2nd century BC remains found in the excavations of the town, and the 5th century inscription found in Nilambur contain Malayalam words.
7. The root pedu and thiyya in the verse 'Kudalloor aa kol pedu thiyan antavan kal' in the 2nd century BC Veerakkal inscription found in Pulimankomb in Theni district of Tamil Nadu is Malayalam.
8. The inscriptions found in the town near Vadakkan Paravur also prove the antiquity of Malayalam.
9. The classical works and ancient scholarly collections, both linguistically and literary, are unique to Malayalam.
10. The language of Sangha literature is neither Tamil nor Malayalam, but East Dravidian. In this situation, if the antiquity of Tamil can be determined based on Sangha literature, it should be applied to Malayalam as well.
11. Oral and written literature have been distinct from Tamil in Kerala since at least the time of the Chilapathikaras (6th century AD).
12. The script in which Malayalam is written today is more than 1500 years old. This script was formed at the same time as the Tamil, Kannada and Telugu scripts were formed.
13. Malayalam is the only language in which the South Dravidian letter 'Zha' still exists with its pronunciation intact. Ammamozhi (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From India Today artcile , page 50 :
ഇതിനിടെ, മലയാള ഭാഷയ്ക്ക് 2200 വരെ വർഷത്തെ പഴക്കം അവകാശപ്പെടാൻ കഴിയുന്ന ചില രേഖകൾ തമിഴ്‌നാട്ടിലെ തേനി പുളിമാങ്കൊമ്പ് എന്ന സ്ഥലത്തെ വീരക്കൽ ലിഖിതത്തിൽ നിന്നും വയനാട്ടിലെ എടക്കൽ ഗുഹകളിൽ നിന്നും കേരളത്തിന് ലഭിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ട്. പുളിമാങ്കൊമ്പ് ലിഖിതത്തിൽ കണ്ട 'തീയൻ' എന്ന പദം മലയാള ഭാഷയിലല്ലാതെ വേറെ ഒരിടത്തും ഉപയോഗിക്കുന്നതല്ല. ബി സി രണ്ടാം നൂറ്റാണ്ടിലേതാണ് ഈ ലിഖിതമെന്ന് ഇതേകുറിച്ച് പഠിക്കുകയും സംസ്ഥാനത്തെ വിദഗ്ദ്ധ സമിതിയുടെ ശ്രദ്ധയിൽ ഇക്കാര്യം എത്തിക്കുകയും ചെയ്ത പ്രശസ്ത ലിപിവിജ്ഞാന വിദഗ്ദൻ ഐരാവത മഹാദേവൻ പറയുന്നു.
Meanwhile, Kerala has received some documents that can claim the Malayalam language is up to 2200 years old, from the Veerakkal inscription at Pulimankombu in Theni, Tamil Nadu, and the Edakkal caves in Wayanad. The word 'Theyan' found in the Pulimankombu inscription is not used anywhere else in the Malayalam language. Renowned scriptor Airavatha Mahadevan, who studied this and brought the matter to the attention of the expert committee in the state, says that this inscription dates back to the 2nd century BC. Ammamozhi (talk) 02:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This "expert" committee appointed by the state seems politicised and anachronistic, many of their points are contradictory:
1. Tamil literature up to the 8th century, including the Sangha period works, is a common property of Malayalam.
At one go it rightfully calls the language and literature up to the 8th century as 'Tamil', and says it is the common inheritance of Malayalam and modern Tamil (which it is), but then at the same time the committee claims that in the ancient BC period there was a language called 'Malayalam'.
10. The language of Sangha literature is neither Tamil nor Malayalam, but East Dravidian. In this situation, if the antiquity of Tamil can be determined based on Sangha literature, it should be applied to Malayalam as well.
It then comically states that Sangam literature is not 'Tamil' but East Dravidian which is just plain nonsense. Within Sangam literature itself it clearly describes its language as being Tamil in multiple works.
11. Oral and written literature have been distinct from Tamil in Kerala since at least the time of the Chilapathikaras (6th century AD).
Cilappatikaram is another work composed in Kerala which clearly describes its language as being 'Tamil'. There is no mention of the word Malayalam in Cilappatikaram.
Finally, this is what Mahadevan says about Pulimankombai Theni inscription in his book Early Tamil Epigraphy: From the earliest times to the sixth century CE on page 643:
"The verb peṭu in this early Tamil Brahmi inscription (ca 1st century BCE) maybe regarded as a pre-Malayalam form."
It is nothing more than a western dialectal variant of the standard Tamil form paṭu. This is by no means evidence of a separate language called Malayalam in the ancient period, but of a different dialect which later gave rise to Malayalam. Metta79 (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I reiterate 'Original research is not allowed in wikipedia.
We go with facts and references in wikipedia.
If you have dispute on the findings, research and proof submited by the expert commitee to gain classical language status (>2000 years old), you can publish a paper, get it peer reviewed and submit to the academic community and then to the central government to repeal the status. Or go to court if you have opinion that classicial language status is granted with political motivation.
Wikipedia is not a place to do original research Ammamozhi (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Metta79 I could not find your claim that Mahadevan in his book Early Tamil Epigraphy: From the earliest times to the sixth century CE on page 643:
"The verb peṭu in this early Tamil Brahmi inscription (ca 1st century BCE) maybe regarded as a pre-Malayalam form"
I can see page 643 is glossary starting from 'A' and not this text.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1G9JdcAoIOz-sdtPa32BdSvI3IcE24dNH/view?usp=sharing
Please share a link of the book you used or something else, because the line is not there in the book. You can download the one i posted in google drive and let me know which page number mahadevan saying using 'pre-malayalam form'.
The source i gave tells that 'pedu' and 'thiyyan' only appear in malayalam and not in tamil and same has been submitted to the committee. if it is in tamil or part of tamil or say not malayalam, why would they need to submit this to claim classical language status from central government ? are they crazy ?
The same should have to be the caption of the image than using pre-malayalam (again what is that? pre-malayalam !) as the commitee submitted the evidence claiming - it only appears in malayalam and not in tamil.
Agian requesting you to point which page number talks about 'pre-malayalam' in mahadevan book, as source verfication failed. Ammamozhi (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The book you are posting is the old 1st edition, this inscription was discovered after that publication. I am quoting from the 2nd edition published in 2014. https://postimg.cc/gallery/19tzMwQ Metta79 (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification and the images. Ammamozhi (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are all aware of the politics behind giving classical language status to malayalam. Claiming that malayalam has an antiquity of over 2000 years is ridiculous. It is well known and proven that the dialect of tamil spoken in what is now kerala was different from other tamil dialects and eventually diverged into a separate language due to geographical isolation and increasing sanskritization. Mahadevan has referred to the western coastal dialect as pre malayalam. All languages have dialectal variations, but presenting these dialects as separate languages and attributing sangam literature to malayalam is baffling Roshan Dickwella (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Roshan Dickwella
All those are Original research which is not allowed in wikipedia. Wikiepdia is not a place to research. Ammamozhi (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You keep repeating this but almost all dravidian linguists have assigned the divergence of Malayalam to 9th century or even later. None of your sources cites that maayalam has an antiquity of 2000 years, just because malayalam was granted classical language status because of political reasons doesn't give it an antiquity of 2000 years as per your original research Roshan Dickwella (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source which already exists claim that (I also added the inline citation in the ref):
- Malayalam is granted by central commmitee 2000 years antiquity
- One of the source submitted was theni inscription by Mahadevan
- The other user @Metta79, provided the source that he claim this as a 'pre-malayalam' word, which i intially objected, but later agreed on reading his book provided the user @Metta79
----
what is your problem ? if you think this is politically motivated and non sense , just go to supreme court of india and revoke the status.
Wikipedia is not a place for your original research and pov pushing. Ammamozhi (talk) 22:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 November 2025

Change

Veerakkal Tamil-Brahmi inscription (1st century BCE) raised in memory of tīyaṉ antavaṉ, who died in a war protecting the village called kūṭal ūr. The words 'peṭu' and 'tīyaṉ' are regarded as specific pre-Malayalam forms; this linguistic evidence submitted by Iravatham Mahadevan, contributed to Malayalam being granted classical language status by the Government of India, recognizing its antiquity of over 2,000 years.

To

Veerakkal Tamil-Brahmi inscription (1st century BCE) raised in memory of tīyaṉ antavaṉ, who died during a cattle raid that took place in a village called kūṭal ūr. The verb 'peṭu' in this inscription maybe regarded as a pre-Malayalam form, a western dialect that later diverged into Malayalam.

Because the term "Pre-Malayalam" was (mis)interpreted on his own as a separate language which is more than 2000 years old, even tho It was referring to the western dialect of Tamil which later diverged into Malayalam. Mahadevan in the same book, page 212, Evolution of Vatteluttu: the last phase (11-19 centuries A.D., clearly stated that : Vatteluttu was current for almost another millennium in the Cera country which was never fully integrated with the Cola empire. With the passage of time, the letters became ever more rounded with many of its characters losing their individuality and becoming unrecognisable except from the context.? During this period, the western dialect of Tamil spoken in the Céra country gradually evolved into Malayalam which borrowed so heavily from Sanskrit that the Vatteluttu script based on Tamil phonology became too inadequate to express the sounds in the new language. Roshan Dickwella (talk) 02:07, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After I made the vandalism report for Roshan Dickwella (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) : [1], the admins locked and need a extended confirmed user privilage. So the user can't push his pov now like how he was doing. so he opened this edit request. The user need to understand that he cannot game wikipedia system.
Also the user has not engaged in the talk discussion to reach a consensus here you can see :[2]
Also the user has opened multiple talk sections.
Do not add untill a consensus is reached in the talk and prevent the user from gaming the system using an edit request. Ammamozhi (talk) 02:17, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have engaged in the talk discussion. You asked for references and sources and I've given you the reference and source you wanted. If you refuse to acknowledge or accept them. I can't do more. Respectfully Roshan Dickwella (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will have to agree with Ammamozhi here. With these inscriptions, and many of the unique Malayalam words that contained in sangam works only proves that malayalam is an ancient language. And that was the reason it was accorded with classical language status. Jino john1996 (talk) 04:23, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Prakrit which is not even a single language but a term used to refer to a group of vernacular middle indo-aryan languages was given the classical language status, that's how misunderstood the Classical Language designation is. Just because Tamil sangam works and Tamil inscriptions from ancient Kerala was submitted by the Kerala government for classic language status and was accepted, doesn't prove anything. Ammamozhi has added that the linguistic evidences submitted by Iravatham Mahadevan proves its antiquity of over 2,000 years while I have cited Iravatham Mahadevan himself (in the same source) say that During 11-19 centuries A.D period, the western dialect of Tamil spoken in the Céra country gradually evolved into Malayalam which borrowed so heavily from Sanskrit. Yes this western dialect also preserved some archaisms suggesting an earlier separation of the spoken dialects in the prehistoric period, but It remains a dialect. Ayyar Ramaswami has mentioned about these western dialect archaisms in his Evolution of Malayalam Morphology. Ammamozhi claiming it as a separate language with more 2000 years old by connecting unrelated dots is ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Please reply with actual sources, instead repeating the same thing. Respectfully Roshan Dickwella (talk) 09:19, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both old tamil and Middle tamil definitely did influence Malayalam just like kodagu which is said to be 2000 years old. There is ample evidence to show the existence of Malayalam forms before 7th century which is when the middle tamil period is said to have began. Appearence of so many words that is uniquely Malayalam different from tamil on inscriptions and literature proves this point. Adding to that, through other linguistic evidences, Malayalam is said to have preserved many archaic features compared to tamil. All this proves that Malayalam is an ancient language. Jino john1996 (talk) 14:08, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a place to share your opinions or interpretations. I have given a reply to this in my previous reply itself, citing the works of actual linguists who researched this topic. You need to understand the difference between dialects and languages. Jaffna Tamil today still preserves many features of middle and old Tamil which is not present in most other modern Tamil dialects, that doesn't make it a separate language. I'm repeating the same basics again and again. Please do basic research Roshan Dickwella (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its not my opinion. This is the opinion of SV Shanmugam, one of the scholars cited in this article. He clearly states that spoken language of kerala was Proto malayalam during the sangam period based on archaic features preserved in malayalam. Now we have inscriptions to prove the existence of Malayalam langauge. As the classical language status was based on latest findings, i say we should let the image remain till further research is conducted on the matter. Jino john1996 (talk) 18:29, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In Formation and Development of Malayalam", Indian Literature, Shanmugam only quoted some scholars of Malayalam who "are unwilling to accept Malayalam as an ausbau language; instead they take it to be an abstand language 'language by distance'" which is, according to him, "CONTRARY TO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE".
Shanmugam does not “clearly state” that the spoken language of Kerala was Proto Malayalam. he explicitly says the exact nature of the colloquial speech is not known and that it can only be assumed or designated as "Proto-Malayalam", which shows uncertainty. A few lines later he refers to it only as a dialectal form or a colloquial variety different from literary Tamil, but nowhere does he assert it was a separate language. Presenting it as an independent language is your own interpretation, not what Shanmugam himself stated. Please take the time to read your references. Roshan Dickwella (talk) 19:24, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Austronesier User:Metta79 Roshan Dickwella (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Classical language status is grnted by gov of India. Iravatham Mahadevan, who was not a malayali, but a tamilona himself submitted the 'theni' inscription as a proof and evidence towards the commitee. As given by another user, he in his new version of his book in the glossary mention 'pedu' is a pre-malayalam term. The image caption talking the same. Here we dont want to research on what other scholars say about the age of malayalam. Also no scholars has objected classical language status of malayalam (if any submit here). Criteria was atleast 2000 years old and they cited malayalam has linguistic written evidence of 2000 years old. If somebody has any dispute, then go to supreme court of India, provide all those sources and ask court to repeal the classicla language status to malayalam. Then we can add in wikipedia the same.
Wikipedia is not a research lab nor supreme court of india.
If gov of granted malayalam Classical language status citing its 2000 years age, the same wil be added. Also if some mutlple scholarly article states that granting such status is scientificaly wrong we will also add in the article stating 'though some scholars have objected the granitng...'
None of the scholars went to supreme court to challenge it.
If you want to challenge go to court or publish a peer reviewd article.
Repeating 100th time (Oru thavanna sonnal 100 thavanna sollamathiri) , Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not an academic research forum. Ammamozhi (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mate I'm tired of you repeating the same thing again and again. I'm saying this again I have cited works of actual linguists who worked on this topic (which you still haven't), none of this is my original research, like you say, Just because it doesn't fit your narrative. And why are you quoting movie dialogues here, you cornball Roshan Dickwella (talk) 19:32, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1.do you agree the fact that - malayalam is being granted classical status by gov of india, constituting the expert commitee, considering it age of morethan 2000 years ?
2. Do you have any scholarly articles 'rejecting or objecting the classical language status of malayalam granted by gov of india constituting experts from all over india ?
If not , you are doing your original research.
Scholarly articles mentioning age of malayalam as this and that has nothing to do with the classical language status on the image caption.
If atleast if we want to write , 'though some scholars has objected the classical language status of malayalam and it's 2000 years old claim', then you must provide the same source crtizing nor rejecting the classical langauge status.
This classical language status is not a small thing like awarded by some rottery club or lion's club. This is awared by government of india, constitutiong expert commitee which constitute experts from all over the country. Not all languages are given classicla language status (2000 years old). Ammamozhi (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Scholar and historian M G S Narayanan when the dossier for Malayalam to be deemed as a classical language was submitted : How can these literati say that Malayalam should be a classical language? The evidence put forth in the inscriptions found in Theni, Nilambur and Edakkal clearly shows Brahmi script and the Malayalam words found to claim for the language's antiquity can be found in Tamil too."
http://m.timesofindia.com/articleshow/10581342.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
Is this my original research too? What is your interpretation of this? Because I'm sure your opinion is worth more Roshan Dickwella (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MGS, a historian gave a speech while speaking at the Malayalam Bhasha Varacharanam’s inaugraton that he dont agree that malayalam beign granting classical language status. It's just a speach at some event.
Please provide something MGS written as a scholarly article (yes, to reject the claim that a status grant provided by gov of india constituting experts we need scholarly written articles or papers and not just a passing speech on some inaugration ceremony) in opposing it.
Also provide multiple scholarly peer reviewd articles or papers questioning malayalam being granted classical language status (2000 years old) is not scientiffic , illogical or polically motivated.
If your view that 'status grant is non sense and polically motivated' , then we would find multiple peer reviewd scholarly articles easily on the same topic, from this big country with 121 crore population (17% percentge of world population).
So finding atleast 10 such articles or papers will be as easy as plucking a flower.
Please find and post atleast 5 papers here, then we can discuss.
if not we would want to say:
- You are doing original research
- WP:UNDUE
- Cherry picking sources Ammamozhi (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have already provided enough sources from linguists to prove Malayalam is no older than 9th century, those of iravatham Mahadevan, Sv shanmugam (which you refuse to even acknowledge). Go over the replies again. I'm just wasting my time debating with someone blinded by linguistic bias and loyalty. I can't time travel you to prove it (you would still call it original research, which is ironically exactly what you're doing here). We need a third party to resolve this Roshan Dickwella (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
to prove Malayalam is no older than 9th century, those of iravatham Mahadevan, Sv shanmugam (which you refuse to even acknowledge)
we are not talking of this. we are talking of classical language status (2000 years) old, that is what in the caption of the image. I have clearly asked you above for 'rejecting/objecting/questioning classical language status (2000 years old) and their findings'.
Not on how old is malayalam.
Image caption is :
Veerakkal Tamil-Brahmi inscription (1st century BCE) raised in memory of tīyaṉ antavaṉ, who died in a war protecting the village called kūṭal ūr. The words 'peṭu' and 'tīyaṉ' are regarded as specific pre-Malayalam forms; this linguistic evidence submitted by Iravatham Mahadevan, contributed to Malayalam being granted classical language status by the Government of India, recognizing its antiquity of over 2,000 years.
--
cite scholarly papers, articles which is nullyfying this fact. I repeat something not on 'how old is malayalam', but scholarly articles rejecting classicla language status (2000 years). for example : you were talking of 'politically motivated', 'prakrith was granted classical status and is non sense'. give us source for it.
otherwise it is JUST YOUR ORIGINAL RESEARCH AND OPINION. Ammamozhi (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Prakrit which is not even a single language but a term used to refer to a group of vernacular middle indo-aryan languages was given the classical language status, that's how misunderstood the Classical Language designation is. But i'm sure you'll call this original research too Roshan Dickwella (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Prakrit which is not even a single language but a term used to refer to a group of vernacular middle indo-aryan languages was given the classical language status, that's how misunderstood the Classical Language designation
do you have scholarly artciles saying this? if so provide sources.
if not : IT IS ONLY YOUR OPINION , AND IS ORIGINAL RESEARCH - WIKIPEDIA IS A ENCYCLOPEDIA AND NOT A PLACE TO PUBLISH YOUR PAPER ! Ammamozhi (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Prakrit not being a single language but a term used to refer to a group of vernacular middle indo-aryan languages is my own opinion? Holy ... Do you have any idea what we're discussing here? Are you even an actual "Linguistic scholar"? Roshan Dickwella (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Roshan Dickwella The WP:BURDEN is on you to provide sources. NotJamestack (talk) 19:53, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are drifting off the topic. I have already provided sources for my main claim of Malayalam being no older than 9th century ce, which Ammamozhi refuse to even acknowledge. We need a third party, someone who actually masters the topic and willing to have an actual discussion and Roshan Dickwella (talk) 20:30, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
no, you tried to edit the image caption distruptively. the image caption is :
Veerakkal Tamil-Brahmi inscription (1st century BCE) raised in memory of tīyaṉ antavaṉ, who died in a war protecting the village called kūṭal ūr. The words 'peṭu' and 'tīyaṉ' are regarded as specific pre-Malayalam forms; this linguistic evidence submitted by Iravatham Mahadevan, contributed to Malayalam being granted classical language status by the Government of India, recognizing its antiquity of over 2,000 years.
===
provide sources that nullify this fact (Not on how old is malayalam by scholars, becuase the caption talks about 'this helped gov of india granting classical status, and approving 2000 yeas age old for malayalam, which is the pimary condition for classical language status by gov of india)
===
precisly say from the caption, which part is factually incorrect , and quote or paste the link to the scholarly article. Ammamozhi (talk) 21:11, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Early Tamil Epigraphy From The Earliest Times To The Sixth Century A. D. Page 212 :
Evolution of Vatteluttu: the last phase (11-19 centuries A.D.)
Vatteluttu was current for almost another millennium in the Cera country which was never fully integrated with the Cola empire. With the passage of time, the letters became ever more rounded with many of its characters losing their individuality and becoming unrecognisable except from the context.? During this period, the western dialect of Tamil spoken in the Céra country gradually evolved into Malayalam which borrowed so heavily from Sanskrit that the Vatteluttu script based on Tamil phonology became too inadequate to express the sounds in the new language.
Is this the same Mahadevan who helped grant classical status, and approving 2000 yeas age old for malayalam? This alone nullifies the made up caption you came up with? WIKIPEDIA IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA AND NOT A PLACE TO PUBLISH YOUR OPINIONS AND BOOST YOUR LINGUISTIC PRIDE Roshan Dickwella (talk) 21:21, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Roshan Dickwella
Veerakkal Tamil-Brahmi inscription (1st century BCE) raised in memory of tīyaṉ antavaṉ, who died in a war protecting the village called kūṭal ūr. The words 'peṭu' and 'tīyaṉ' are regarded as specific pre-Malayalam forms; this linguistic evidence submitted by Iravatham Mahadevan, contributed to Malayalam being granted classical language status by the Government of India, recognizing its antiquity of over 2,000 years.
===
we are focused on this claim.
Let me split the facts here, tell me which is factually wrong :
1. Veerakkal Tamil-Brahmi inscription (1st century BCE) raised in memory of tīyaṉ antavaṉ, who died in a war protecting the village called kūṭal ūr
2. The words 'peṭu' and 'tīyaṉ' are regarded as specific pre-Malayalam forms
3. this linguistic evidence submitted by Iravatham Mahadevan, contributed to Malayalam being granted classical language status by the Government of India, recognizing its antiquity of over 2,000 years
which is factually wrong ? 1,2 or 3? Ammamozhi (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did Mahadevan personally call you to tell Pre-malayalam he mentioned here is a separate language and not the western dialect as he repeatedly mentioned in Early Tamil Epigraphy? If not, then It's on you to prove sources for your claim. WIKIPEDIA IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA AND NOT A PLACE TO PUBLISH YOUR OPINIONS AND BOOST YOUR LINGUISTIC PRIDE Roshan Dickwella (talk) 21:25, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
copying from image reference :
Nayanthara, N. G. (27 October 2010). "തേനി ലിഖിതം മലയാളത്തിന് ശ്രേഷ്ഠഭാഷാ പദവി നേടിക്കൊടുത്തു [Theni inscription which granted Malayalam classical language status]" [Theni inscription which granted Malayalam classical language status]. India Today (Malayalam Edition) (in Malayalam). p. 50. ഇതിനിടെ, മലയാള ഭാഷയ്ക്ക് 2200 വരെ വർഷത്തെ പഴക്കം അവകാശപ്പെടാൻ കഴിയുന്ന ചില രേഖകൾ തമിഴ്‌നാട്ടിലെ തേനി പുളിമാങ്കൊമ്പ് എന്ന സ്ഥലത്തെ വീരക്കൽ ലിഖിതത്തിൽ നിന്നും വയനാട്ടിലെ എടക്കൽ ഗുഹകളിൽ നിന്നും കേരളത്തിന് ലഭിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ട്. പുളിമാങ്കൊമ്പ് ലിഖിതത്തിൽ കണ്ട 'തീയൻ' എന്ന പദം മലയാള ഭാഷയിലല്ലാതെ വേറെ ഒരിടത്തും ഉപയോഗിക്കുന്നതല്ല. ബി സി രണ്ടാം നൂറ്റാണ്ടിലേതാണ് ഈ ലിഖിതമെന്ന് ഇതേകുറിച്ച് പഠിക്കുകയും സംസ്ഥാനത്തെ വിദഗ്ദ്ധ സമിതിയുടെ ശ്രദ്ധയിൽ ഇക്കാര്യം എത്തിക്കുകയും ചെയ്ത പ്രശസ്ത ലിപിവിജ്ഞാന വിദഗ്ദൻ ഐരാവത മഹാദേവൻ പറയുന്നു. (Translation: Meanwhile, Kerala has received some documents that can claim the Malayalam language is up to 2200 years old, from the Veerakkal inscription at Pulimankombu in Theni, Tamil Nadu, and the Edakkal caves in Wayanad. The word 'Theyan' found in the Pulimankombu inscription is not used anywhere else in the Malayalam language. Renowned scriptor Airavatha Mahadevan, who studied this and brought the matter to the attention of the expert committee in the state, says that this inscription dates back to the 2nd century BC.)
This was the orginal, the other user , we had a discussion (at section edakkal inscription) and he has pointed out mahadevan used pre-malayalam and not malayalma in his book for the word speciffic word 'pedu'. I agreed to that, even though other sources says 'it is a malayalam word not appearing in tamil', which is why they submitted this claim to the gov of india committee. Ammamozhi (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. Nope. We need a consensus first. NotJamestack (talk) 04:22, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And don’t randomly reopen the request after it was made clear that there should be a consensus. NotJamestack (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"(1) Veerakkal Tamil-Brahmi inscription (1st century BCE) raised in memory of tīyaṉ antavaṉ, who died in a war protecting the village called kūṭal ūr. The words 'peṭu' and 'tīyaṉ' are regarded as specific pre-Malayalam forms; this linguistic evidence submitted by Iravatham Mahadevan, contributed to Malayalam being granted classical language status by the Government of India, recognizing its antiquity of over 2,000 years."
I have re-read this passage, and I agree with Roshan Dickwella, that this gives the false impression that the Malayalam language has existed for 2000 years (rather than its dialectal features/evolution existing for 2000 years which is correct). I think this last line highlighted in bold should be removed from the description.
The Malayalam language with its distinct sociocultural identity as separate from Tamil only emerged in the late medieval to early colonial period. Prior to this, the speakers of the mutually intelligible west coast dialect regarded it as a form of Tamil (and we have ample evidence of this from literature and inscriptions).
It is modern day nationalism which has led to the spurious claim of a 2000 year old Malayalam language. Metta79 (talk) 15:07, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Metta79 The classical language status is given for languages which are atleast 2000 years old (at the time of granting Malayalam) , and it was the primary condition.
This was the challenge why other languages couldn’t get classical language status and government of India under expert committee agree for the evidences submitted (including the theni inscriptions) that Malayalam is 2000 years old
caption is saying the same - gov of India granted the status recognizing its 2000 years old age.
—- here at the caption, why do someone want to negate the fact? I can see in the article all those various claims and theories are presented , but for the image caption it is right. Article is neutral and balanced.
i also need to express my disappointment on lot of Tamil editors who want to stick to only one view and not agreeing to the neutrality of the article, that Malayalam has no indel existence but it is merely some western Tamil or another type of Tamil.
Beware of such Tamil language vandals, who keeps pushing their Tamil language superiority. Ammamozhi (talk) 15:24, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Government of India and its questionable 'expert' committee are not reliable sources, especially for something as politicised as Classical languages of India. Malayalam does not have an independent existence in the ancient and early medieval periods (in fact it shares several common innovations with East coast Tamil in this period extending to Early Middle Tamil). The word 'Malayalam' did not even exist then. The word Tamil is used in the literature from Kerala in this period, and the language of the inscriptions in Kerala is mutually intelligible with contemporary east coast Tamil. These are indisputable facts. Metta79 (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also this image was uploaded with the exact same text that you used in this Wikipedia article, on the same day you added it. Did you upload this image posing under the name of the archaeologist Dr. K Rajan, who has copyright to the images? For the record, the real K Rajan in his articles on the inscription describes it as Tamil and makes no such ludicrous claims of it being evidence of over 2000 years of an independent Malayalam language.
Malayalam#/media/File:Veerakkal (1st century BCE) raised in memory of Thiyyar Andavan, who died in a war that took place in village called Kudal Ur.jpg Metta79 (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Government of India and its questionable 'expert' committee are not reliable sources, especially for something as politicised as Classical languages of India
I have been asking scholarly articles saying this to the other user. If you have atleast 5 peer reviewd papers/articles on your this claim, then rpovide here.
Otherwise it is just your opinion and original research Ammamozhi (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @NotJamestack @Daniel Quinlan
without reaching the talk consensus user @Metta79 arbitrarily changed the image caption[3]. He has not provided any source for his arguments are you can see in the discussion below. The classical language status is given for languages which are atleast 2000 years old (at when Malayalam was given). It is supported by the sources of the image caption and a simple google search would give you the condition. Also the image inscriptions is of 1st bce which is a proof submitted to the committee to grant classical language status by government of india. Discussions has not reached any consensus, even from the third party also.
i have asked him any sources or scholarly articles saying ‘ classical langue status given by government of india is polical and cannot be trustworthy’ . He has not provided but arbitrarily changed the image caption. Tamil language supremists are distrusting the Malayalam language article with their povs.
please intervene and give necessary notice to the user Ammamozhi (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article actually should have been restored to WP:STATUSQUO which is before you added this copyrighted image on 27th October with the controversial caption. It is this fringe view which started the edit warring. In addition, it appears you have posed as the copyright holder Dr. K Rajan when uploading the image (perhaps to circumvent copyright laws), and attributed views to him which contradict his own published articles (where he clearly describes the inscription as Tamil, not Malayalam):
https://web.archive.org/web/20201026131557/https://www.thehindu.com/features/friday-review/history-and-culture/Saying-it-with-stones/article16215569.ece
https://www.thehindu.com/features/friday-review/history-and-culture/Saying-it-with-stones/article16215569.ece
https://www.scribd.com/document/270096248/New-Evidences-on-Scientific-Dates-for-Brahmi-Script-as-Revealed-From-Kodumanal-Excavations Metta79 (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Joshua Jonathan pinging you. please read the distruptive edit done by @Metta79 withiut reaching consensus or 3rd party opinion. Ammamozhi (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"regarded as" - by who? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:07, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"regarded as" by Iravatham Mahadevan , argument by @Metta79 and not mine.
@Joshua Jonathan, can you please revert the non - consensus last 2 edits made by @Metta79 arbitaritly. We can have a consensus and edit the image caption. Changing the image caption without reaching the consensus is wikipedia policy violation. (what's the point of discussing , having a 3rd opinion, reaching consensus in wikipedia if a user can just go and change the caption how he likes) Ammamozhi (talk) 05:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't seee a consensus for your preferred version, or the image at all. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:31, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Veerakkal-inscription

Text and edits

  • [1] As of 15 november 2025 00:54 (Western european Time) link:

* [1A] File:Veerakkal (1st century BCE) raised in memory of Thiyyar Andavan, who died in a war that took place in village called Kudal Ur.jpg
* [1B] [[Hero Stone|Veerakkal]] [[Tamil-Brahmi]] inscription (1st century BCE) raised in memory of [[Thiyyar|tīyaṉ]] antavaṉ,
*[1C] who died in a war protecting the village called kūṭal ūr.
*[1D] The words 'peṭu' and '[[Thiyyar|tīyaṉ]]' are regarded as specific pre-Malayalam forms;
*[1E] this linguistic evidence submitted by [[Iravatham Mahadevan]],
*[1F] contributed to Malayalam being granted [[Classical languages of India|classical language]] status by the [[Government of India]],
*[1G] recognizing its antiquity of over 2,000 years.
* [1H] <ref name="Mahadevan">{{cite book |last=Mahadevan |first = I. |title=Early Tamil Epigraphy - From the Earliest Times to the Sixth century C.E., 2nd Edition |date=2014|pages=643 }}</ref>
* [1I] <ref>{{cite web |title=Saying it with stones |url=https://www.thehindu.com/features/friday-review/history-and-culture/Saying-it-with-stones/article16215569.ece |website=The Hindu |publisher=The Hindu |date=18 June 2017}}</ref>
* [1J] <ref>{{cite magazine |last=Nayanthara |first=N. G. |date=27 October 2010 |title=തേനി ലിഖിതം മലയാളത്തിന് ശ്രേഷ്ഠഭാഷാ പദവി നേടിക്കൊടുത്തു [Theni inscription which granted Malayalam classical language status] |magazine=India Today (Malayalam Edition) |language=ml |page=50 |trans-title=Theni inscription which granted Malayalam classical language status |quote=ഇതിനിടെ, മലയാള ഭാഷയ്ക്ക് 2200 വരെ വർഷത്തെ പഴക്കം അവകാശപ്പെടാൻ കഴിയുന്ന ചില രേഖകൾ തമിഴ്‌നാട്ടിലെ തേനി പുളിമാങ്കൊമ്പ് എന്ന സ്ഥലത്തെ വീരക്കൽ ലിഖിതത്തിൽ നിന്നും വയനാട്ടിലെ എടക്കൽ ഗുഹകളിൽ നിന്നും കേരളത്തിന് ലഭിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ട്. പുളിമാങ്കൊമ്പ് ലിഖിതത്തിൽ കണ്ട 'തീയൻ' എന്ന പദം മലയാള ഭാഷയിലല്ലാതെ വേറെ ഒരിടത്തും ഉപയോഗിക്കുന്നതല്ല. ബി സി രണ്ടാം നൂറ്റാണ്ടിലേതാണ് ഈ ലിഖിതമെന്ന് ഇതേകുറിച്ച് പഠിക്കുകയും സംസ്ഥാനത്തെ വിദഗ്ദ്ധ സമിതിയുടെ ശ്രദ്ധയിൽ ഇക്കാര്യം എത്തിക്കുകയും ചെയ്ത പ്രശസ്ത ലിപിവിജ്ഞാന വിദഗ്ദൻ ഐരാവത മഹാദേവൻ പറയുന്നു. (Translation: Meanwhile, Kerala has received some documents that can claim the Malayalam language is up to 2200 years old, from the Veerakkal inscription at Pulimankombu in Theni, Tamil Nadu, and the Edakkal caves in Wayanad. The word 'Theyan' found in the Pulimankombu inscription is not used anywhere else in the Malayalam language. Renowned scriptor Airavatha Mahadevan, who studied this and brought the matter to the attention of the expert committee in the state, says that this inscription dates back to the 2nd century BC.)}}</ref>
* <ref>{{cite journal |last=Nandakumar |first=Sreeja |date=6 December 2013 |title=മഷിത്തണ്ട് — Vol 7, Issue 1 |journal=മഷിത്തണ്ട് (Nellu.net) |language=ml |url=https://nellu.net/home/article/Vol-7-Issue-1/mashithandu/Sreeja-Nandakumar/66/malayalam.html |access-date=2025-11-05}}</ref>]]

  • [2] 13 nov 2025 09:23 User:Roshan Dickwella removed the file diff, edit-summary I reviewed the sources cited (those in english), especially mahadevan's early tamil epigraphy, and nowhere does it state that the inscriptions from pulimankombai, theni district, are "pre-malayalam," as claimed here. The granting of classical language status to malayalam itself is politically motivated rather than linguistically justified. Claims linking ancient sangam literature and tamil-brahmi inscriptions to malayalam rely only on the presence of a few archaic features of old tamil preserved
  • [3] 14 nov 2025 20:23 User:Ammamozhi re-inserted the file diff, edit-summary this has been discussed in the talk, and is from the consensus. use talk page before making distruption. also it is sourced
  • [4] 17 nov 2025 15:00 , edit-summary Fringe view of over 2000 years of a separate language called Malayalam is not supported by the main body of text, nor is scholarly consensus. Such controversial statements should not be stated in Wikipedia voice as if authoritative and factual., User:Metta79 removed diff "recognizing its antiquity of over 2,000 years"
  • [5] 17 nov 2025 15:03 Metta79 changed diff changed who died in a war protecting the village called kūṭal ūr into who died in a cattle raid in a village called kūṭal ūr

Analysis will follow. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:30, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis

1A: the file

  • Seems to come from T. S. Subramanian (july 30, 2010), Saying it with stones, The Hindu. "While Dr. Rajan said the Brahmi inscriptions of Pulimaankombai could belong to a period prior to 3rd century B.C., other specialists said they belong to 2nd century B.C." This is Dr. K. Rajan, head, Department of History, Pondicherry University.
  • Also used at: Iravatham Mahadevan (june 24, 2010), An epigraphic perspective on the antiquity of Tamil, The Hindu. Only a caption, "FIGURE 1: Memorial stone, Pulimankombai. 1st century BCE," no further mention in the article, no explanation, no references.
  • The file itself link has no sources.
  • Quite a coincidence indeed, that a Dr. K (without punctuation, sic) Rajan contributes this file, without any further explanation.
  • Whose translation is this?
  • What's the source for "The word 'Pedu' and 'Thiyyan' are the words which did not have any association with tamil and only found in malayalam"?

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1C. War

  • No, a cattle-raid, as stated by Dr. K. Rajan in "Saying it with stones."

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1E. Linguistic evidence

What exactly is the "linguistic evidence" here? The Malayalan-source only says that, according to Mahadevan, the inscription is 2200 years old. How does this make the text a Malayalan-text? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 21:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshua Jonathan This is not a malayalam script but is of Tamil-Brahmi script(not tamil. The words in it is of Malayalam. Source clearly says the words 'pedu' and 'thiyyan' are nly found in malayalam and not found in tamil.
Mahadevan submitted this evidence with others, to the expert commitee formed to grant classical language status to malayalam by government of India. At the time , the primary condition to eligible for classical language status is atleat 2000 years old. The expert commitee verifie the evidences and government of india granted malayalam classical language status. Ammamozhi (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this is the original cpation i added:

Veerakkal Tamil-Brahmi inscription (1st century BCE) raised in memory of tīyaṉ antavaṉ, who died in a war protecting the village called kūṭal ūr. The words 'peṭu' and 'tīyaṉ' are regarded as specific pre-Malayalam forms; this linguistic evidence submitted by Iravatham Mahadevan, contributed to Malayalam being granted classical language status by the Government of India, recognizing its antiquity of over 2,000 years.

Tamil language suprimist, came and deleted 2000 years old claim because they always wanted to portray malayalam as a language which is in their veersion 'western dialect' which fformed to malayalam just 800 years back.
If government of indian recogonized 2000 years old age (written evidence) to malayalam , thenwhy are they coming and deleting when someone writing the same fact about gov of india and their recognization.
Throughout the talk their main point was:
- classical language status is a fraud and scam done by government of india and cannot be trusted
I have asked them if so, them provide me atleast 5 scholarly articles on that saying 'it is not trustworth but is political', otherwise it si just pov. Ammamozhi (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ammamozhi: two points here:
  • "pre-Malayalam" means 'prior to Malayalam', that is, not Malayalam. Compare Nayanthara (2010): "The word 'Theyan' found in the Palimankombu inscription is not used anywhere else in the Malayalam inscription." What, then, makes this Malayalam? And how is this "evidence" for the inscription being written in Malayalam?
  • "Tamil language suprimist," "just 800 years back": that seems to be the mainstream-view; the qualification "Tamil language suprimist" is assumption, and a violation of WP:GOODFAITH.
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:53, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan
This is the original one, there is a little off whe it is translated :

ഇതിനിടെ, മലയാള ഭാഷയ്ക്ക് 2200 വരെ വർഷത്തെ പഴക്കം അവകാശപ്പെടാൻ കഴിയുന്ന ചില രേഖകൾ തമിഴ്‌നാട്ടിലെ തേനി പുളിമാങ്കൊമ്പ് എന്ന സ്ഥലത്തെ വീരക്കൽ ലിഖിതത്തിൽ നിന്നും വയനാട്ടിലെ എടക്കൽ ഗുഹകളിൽ നിന്നും കേരളത്തിന് ലഭിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ട്. പുളിമാങ്കൊമ്പ് ലിഖിതത്തിൽ കണ്ട 'തീയൻ' എന്ന പദം മലയാള ഭാഷയിലല്ലാതെ വേറെ ഒരിടത്തും ഉപയോഗിക്കുന്നതല്ല. ബി സി രണ്ടാം നൂറ്റാണ്ടിലേതാണ് ഈ ലിഖിതമെന്ന് ഇതേകുറിച്ച് പഠിക്കുകയും സംസ്ഥാനത്തെ വിദഗ്ദ്ധ സമിതിയുടെ ശ്രദ്ധയിൽ ഇക്കാര്യം എത്തിക്കുകയും ചെയ്ത പ്രശസ്ത ലിപിവിജ്ഞാന വിദഗ്ദൻ ഐരാവത മഹാദേവൻ പറയുന്നു.

Translation:

Meanwhile, Kerala has received some documents that can claim the Malayalam language is up to 2200 years old, from the Veerakkal inscription at Pulimankombu in Theni, Tamil Nadu, and the Edakkal caves in Wayanad. The word 'Theyan' found in the Pulimankombu inscription is not used anywhere else than in Malayalam language (meaning only used in malayalam). Renowned scriptor Airavatha Mahadevan, who studied this and brought the matter to the attention of the expert committee in the state, says that this inscription dates back to the 2nd century BC

The bracket explanation is added by me here - (meaning only used in malayalam)
It is only used in Malayalam.
That is the whole point why Mahadevan submitted this to the committee - The word thiyyan and pedu is only appear in malayalam. The script is written in tamil brahmi. Ammamozhi (talk) 06:38, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This particular source does not seem to be a reliable one, at least for historical linguistics, nor for the scholarly opinions of Mahadevan. It is also sloppy, there is no word 'theyan' in the inscription. The word reads 'tīyaṉ'. Also the word 'pedu' is not actually attested in Malayalam but is similar to the Malayalam word peṭuka (to fall), which is a variant of Tamil paṭu. See entry 3852:
https://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/burrow_query.py?page=344
Mahadevan does NOT say that this is a Malayalam inscription. He points to this variant word being a pre-Malayalam variant. This Malayalam language source by Nayanthara has distorted his words. A simple vowel change (paṭu vs peṭu) is evidence of a dialectal difference, but the language is very much Old Tamil as all scholarly sources agree upon (including Mahadevan). Metta79 (talk) 07:36, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Than"- what a difference one word makes. But all in all: we don't know why Malayalam was granted this antique language status. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:48, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
on a tangent, it is due to identity politics. Tamil Nadu lobbied for classical language status for Tamil based on its 2000 year continuous literary history extending back to Old Tamil:
https://sangamtamilliterature.wordpress.com/dr-george-harts-letter-recommending-tamil-as-classical-language/
The other south Indian states then clamoured for their respective languages to get the label as they felt left out of the prestige, despite none of them having literature that goes back 2000 years (Malayalam's earliest attested literature is from the 12th century AD). The Kerala state government managed to get classical language status for Malayalam based on Old Tamil literature (sangam literature), as Old Tamil is the common ancestor of Malayalam and modern Tamil. This was their argument. See following YouTube videos confirming this (Wikipedia does not allow me to link them):
Malayalam declared classical language: Youth Xpress 26/4/2013 Part 1
Malayalam declared classical language: Youth Xpress 26/4/2013 Part 2
The motivation was for "pride" and one of those involved slyly reframed Old Tamil as 'Adi Dravida' in order to obscure the Tamil roots of sangam literature.
It was never evidence of an ancient independent literature tradition. Now modern day Malayali nationalists want to claim an primordial Malayalam identity (as in the modern era, the Tamil identity is restricted to modern Tamil speakers, and there is sharp ethnic difference). But there is no evidence for this whatsoever. Unfortunately, this nonsense has spilled on to Wikipedia. Metta79 (talk) 14:06, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan@Metta79
the Malayalam word used here is തീയൻ which is translated to theeyan or thiyyan or tiyyan. It is also caste name. It was my typo.
the source is reliable.

Mahadevan does NOT say that this is a Malayalam inscription. He points to this variant word being a pre-Malayalam variant. This Malayalam language source by Nayanthara has distorted his words. A simple vowel change (paṭu vs peṭu) is evidence of a dialectal difference, but the language is very much Old Tamil as all scholarly sources agree upon (including Mahadevan)

See WP:OR and WP:DONTGETIT
@Joshua Jonathan;
1. Is the fact, Malayalam granted classical language status by government of India true ?
2. If so, does that satisfy the first criterion—that the language must be at least 2,000 years old—to be eligible for being granted Classical Language status by the Government of India?
if 1&2 are factually correct, why can’t we add the same to the image caption? Ammamozhi (talk) 10:52, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The name Thiyan (തിയാൻ) has its primary origins in the Malayalam language of Kerala, India, where it represents a significant cultural and historical identity. Derived from the Sanskrit word "Divya" meaning "divine" or "heavenly," Thiyan originally referred to members of a prominent community in Kerala known for their skills in agriculture, martial arts, and Ayurvedic medicine.

If the name refers to a Kerala-community, then no wonder it's only attested (as such) in Kerala.

Discussion

Addition of -kaḷ to pronouns

The addition of -kaḷ to pronouns is a Proto South Dravidian 1 feature. The definitive feature that distinguishes Malayalam from Tamil is the present tense marker -unnu from Tamil -kiṉṟ.

Source: The Dravidian Languages by Bhadriraju Krishnamurti, Pg no. 498 Illustrious Lock (talk) 11:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that this feature was used in the colloquials from Proto South Dravidian times and only written down much later. I will remove that section. The present tense marker -kiṉṟ and the introduction of the present tense is the main grammatical innovation that differentiates Old Tamil from Middle Tamil, and this is commonly inherited in both Malayalam and Modern Tamil. Metta79 (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even Kannada and Tulu have -kaḷ ending pronouns. -unnu really isn't a definitive feature as some Malayalamoid languages have -kiṉṟ. A better one would be nasal plosive assimilation which only Malayalam has.
https://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/burrow_query.py?qs=n%C4%ABm,%20n%C4%ABr,%20n%C4%AByir,%20n%C4%ABvir,%20n%C4%AB%E1%B9%85ka%E1%B8%B7&searchhws=yes&matchtype=exact Illustrious Lock (talk) 13:10, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 December 2025

Please add the following line under the section heading "== Phonology ==":

Reason: The full phonology section has been moved into a separate article (Malayalam phonology). Wikkiaccountt (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it hasn't been moved: you just copied it to that article, which was previously a redirect. What was your purpose in doing that? Day Creature (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I copied it because I felt the phonology section was long enough for its own article. Wikkiaccountt (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So are you proposing that the phonology section in this article be shortened? Day Creature (talk) 05:03, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes.
I also saw that some phonology articles that are much shorter exist as separate articles (Eg. Marathi, Konkani ). So I think the Malayalam phonology section is long enough to have its own article. Wikkiaccountt (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Already done Looks like this article split was already completed. Closing this edit request. — Rtrb (talk) (contribs) 22:31, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rtrb, Day Creature, AleksiB 1945, and Wikkiaccountt: The whole change was undone by BusterD the next day. BusterD undid it (here and here), essentially with the motivation that the original extension of Malayalam phonology from a redirect to an article was done by Wikkiaccountt, which did not have the user rights WP:ECP, and therefore should not edit a topic which is covered by the WP:CT/SA. However, I am rather doubtful to your restauration, BusterD, for the following reasons:
  1. The original redir Malayalam phonology was created by AleksiB 1945 (an ECP user), who clearly accepted Wikkiaccountt's change, and in fact edited it, and implemented the corresponding appropriate changes in Malayalam. Thus, de facto, you didn't revert the changes by Wikkiaccountt so much as versions by AleksiB 1945.
  2. You observed that large changes had been done in the main article Malayalam; but (I'm indeed assuming good faith) you did not look at the Talk page, and so missed that you reverted a request which already had been affirmatively closed (with an already done) by Rtrb. (If you had seen this discussion thread, you would hardly have reverted the actions without at least a notification here, I hope and believe.)
  3. The changes by users Wikkiaccountt and AleksiB 1945, taken together, were IMHO well motivated and yielded good results, and I think they didn't at all touch the contentious issues in the India-Pakistan conflict. Thus, the versions Malayalam phonology and Malayalam left by AleksiB 1945 constituted an improvement, essentially retaining the factual content, but disposing it better, in accordance with our general editing guidelines. In other words, I (essentially) endorse these versions in se (without regard to their edit history).
Conclusion: @BusterD: I hope you agree with undoing your restauration edits in these two article (as linked above). On the other hand, part of the trouble arose from Malayalam phonology being created without the edit semiprotection that the WP:CT/SA pages should have. You did semiprotect it; and this indeed should have been done earlier; and probably it would be a good idea to protect some similar redirection pages too (to the extent that they aren't already protected). (Unhappily, even "purely linguistic" pages sometimes may be contentious, especially when they touch historical issues.) Regards, JoergenB (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for this broader discussion. In the moment I misread page history; I appreciate your pointing out the unusual circumstances where Wikkiaccountt's split appeared to me to be mere disruption. My apologies to all editors trying to do the right thing. In order to prevent my causing further problems, I'll let knowlegable editors fashion the pages as your agreement has concluded (without any further mucking from me). BusterD (talk) 19:03, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chess enjoyer: Sorry; since you obviously have considered the offsplit article Malayalam phonology, I should have pinged you, too. What kind of attribution were you referring to here?
@BusterD: Well, we all make mistakes; at least I do (and considerably greater ones than missing a ping...). I've reverted your textual edits, and am fixing some minor points, as well as I can. Regards, JoergenB (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JoergenB, I was referring to providing attribution for the page as a copy within Wikipedia. If you look at Talk:Malayalam phonology you'll see that I've (re)added the "copies" template. If other editors have endorsed the split, then I have no objections to letting it stand. Chess enjoyer (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and for the record, tagging the page for G6 was completely wrong on my part. I just got a little confused when I saw what had happened. Chess enjoyer (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Malayalam