Talk:Kannada

Hi Crystallizedcarbon, Kwamikagami and All, I have uploaded native Kannada speakers map KannadaNaduWikiMap.png.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KannadaNaduWikiMap.png

Please update it to this Kannada language wiki-article once agreed. If any one has any concern, please let me know here. Regards, NitinBhargava2016 (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@NitinBhargava2016: Hello, and thank you for your contributions, if there are no objections I will make the change myself on Thursday.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@NitinBhargava2016:  Done --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for posting here, I am not sure where to correctly respond. The current distribution map is vandalized. It is not same as the source also. I am unable to locate the exact revision for it. It needs to be reverted. Wikinmo (talk) 02:16, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I just looked at it, & at a cursory glance it seems fine. How can you tell it's been vandalised? Pathawi (talk) 02:41, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

The issue is with majority and minority regions. It seems to have been drawn at will. If I have to choose one example, the minority region shade in the middle of the state is completely wrong. Thanks for your response. Let me know if you need more details. Wikinmo (talk) 02:56, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I see. I don't mean to nitpick, but it seems like this is a case of possible error—probably not vandalism as such. This only matters because it affects how we deal with the problem. (Ie, if it's a good faith effort that has some errors, the person who made the map is likely to help fix them. With vandalism, you definitely don't want the vandal's involvement.) If you follow the link thru to Wikimedia Commons, you'll see that Nyilvoskt cited three sources when creating the map. (I'm pinging them so that they can get involved & address questions or revise the map.) It looks to me like the minority region in the middle that you see in the problem reflects the map from MuturZikin, where this is identified as a Lambadi (ಲಂಬಾಣಿ) area. I think this is a matter of interpreting a bit much into that map: There are good data on primary languages for the different districts of Karnataka (& surrounding states) in the 2011 census, & that might be the best source for a map like this. I also wonder if majority & minority are the best categories: maps_by_samarth on Instagram has some nice maps for language data from the 2011 census that might be helpful in this regard. Pathawi (talk) 03:10, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for checking the history. Good to know that it may not be with a vandalizing intention. The Lambadi (ಲಂಬಾಣಿ) majority area shown in MuturZikin is wrong. The 2011 Census or modern maps like the Instagram link(based on 2011 census itself) are much better, as you have pointed out. I agree with that. Wikinmo (talk) 03:37, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

@ 117.206.82.9 : The map is based on facts - Justice Mahajan committee report, Reorganisation of Indian states on linguistic basis, Bombay and Madras Gazetteers of British period, study of ground realities having visited these border areas. https://msblc.maharashtra.gov.in/pdf/newpdf/next20/MAHARASHTRA%20IN%20MAPS.pdf - maps and linguistic details on page numbers - 172 to 175. http://dsal.uchicago.edu/bibliographic/bmcatalogs/Z7049.I31T3B8.pdf - the districts and their sizes represented here are those of the article's period (19th century) and not the present district sizes or location or position - page numbers 3 to 4. https://archive.org/stream/rosettaproject_tam_detail-2 - Tamil http://dsal.uchicago.edu/books/lsi/lsi.php?volume=4&pages=701#page/412/mode/1up - pages - 362 to 405. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, Volume 4 The Madras Journal of Literature and Science, Volume 7 The Journal [afterw.] The Madras journal of literature and science It is clearly mentioned that Kannada extends from Sadashivgad [to the North of Kali river of Karwar], to the West of Belagavi, Kagal and almost near Kolhapur city itself. It includes Solapur city, Bidar, Raichur, Mantralayam, West Anantapur district, Hindupur, etc., leaving only a very narrow strip of North East corner of undivided Kolar district (Mysore Kingdom) to Telugu.

Kannada is the sole official language of Karnataka. However, arrangements are there to learn Tulu, Kodava and Konkani and literary academies have been established for the same. Historically, Konkanis are not native to Karnataka. Except for Karwar town and to its North, they are not in a majority anywhere in Karnataka. Konkanis fleeing Bijapur Adil Shahi capture of Goa were again settled in Karnataka. Konkani people fleeing Portuguese Christian inquisition and persecution were given refuge by Vijayanagara Empire to settle in Kannada lands. It is said that 50% of Goa had taken refuge in Karwar during that period. Many of them didn't return back. Others settled throughout Kanara coast and in Kozhikode, Kochi and Thiruvanantapuram in Kerala. Hence, demography of Karwar was changed forever. Even to this day, thousands of native Goan Kannadiga community called 'Komarpant' live in Goa and neighbouring areas.

Tulu is spoken from the Kallianpuri river near Udupi to the Chandragiri river of Kasaragod, called Tulunadu. Here too, Kannadigas form 15-20% of the population. Konkanis-15%, Tulu-50% and rest, Beary, Koraga, etc., In Udupi taluk, Kannada speakers form 40%, Tulu-45%, rest - Beary, Konkani, etc. Kundagannada, Havyagannada, Arebhashe and other Kannada dialects are spoken in Tulu Nadu and in the coastal and MaleNadu (hilly) regions of Karnataka.

Kodava Takk - spoken by 29% of population of Kodagu. Also, Surlabbi and Kigatt dialects of Kodava are very close to Kannada. Kodava speakers are not in a majority in Kodagu. Although Kannada speakers form 60% of Kodagu, they are conversant in Kodava too. Rest of Kodagu consists of Malayalam and Dakhini speaking migrants.

Ballari Telugu population are not natives, but economic migrants from British Madras presidency's Telugu districts, Madras regiment at Ballari and the armies of Vijayanagara empire of Aravidu dynasty after Sri Krishnadevaraya's reign.

Similarly, Marathis of Belagavi are not the natives, but the recent economic migrants of British Bombay province, as also the 'Maratha' regiment stationed there by the British. Shahji Bhonsle and his son, Shivaji Maharaj's 'Maval' and guerrilla ​warfare techniques (which involved building forts on hills, protecting them and attacking enemies from them, finally desert the forts if defeated) opposing Bijapur Adil Shahis, Ahmednagar's Nizam Shahis, Mughals and Siddhis of Janjira continued by his descendants and Peshwas against Mysore Wodeyars and then Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan, continued unabated from 1630s-1818 CE, brought a lot of Marathi soldiers to Karnataka's Sahyadris or Western Ghats, MaleNadu and even plains who settled there. This made the Kannada areas slowly turn in to Marathi areas as Marathi was imposed by the administration forcefully and Kannada was not encouraged. Later, under British Bombay province, Marathis were given preference in all jobs and Marathi was imposed on Kannadigas from 1818-1956 CE. Thus Khanapur (near Belagavi), is now Marathi majority. Also, Kannada lost Kolhapur to Marathi. Even to this day Solapur is surrounded by Kannada speaking villages to its North and West too for 8kms as propounded by Smt. Jayadevi Tayi Ligade of Solapur in her works, but is given to Maharashtra wrongly. Thanks,NitinBhargava2016 (talk) 13:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

On which basis you are speaking this? Konkanis are native to north Canara along with other part of konkan(Read kadamba history properly),also read history about foreign trading post and connection of konkanis with that. The fleeing group settled in Tulunadu .when coming to marathi keep in mind about their empire and up to where they ruled. Tulu is native to coastal also it is called tulunadu. kadava takk is language of kodagu . Truth trumps (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

All these are facts and citations with valid references. Komarpant are native Goan Kannadigas. Kannada speakers form more than 7% of Goan population. Refer Kannada history by Kasaragod's Govinda Pai, Kannada's 1st Rashtra Kavi, a Konkani himself. Kadambas of Banavasi (Uttara Kannada) were Kannada rulers who ruled over Konkan, Goa, Karnataka, South Maharashtra and adjacent areas. Konkanis are the natives of Goa or Gomantak Prant and Konkan all the way up to Daman and Surat. They are in a majority in Goa, Sindhudurg (Malvani) and South Ratnagiri (Chitpavani, Daldi, Bardeskari, etc.,). Kadodi, Katkari, Varli, Phugadi, etc., are Konkani dialects spoken throughout Konkan. They were not native to Uttara Kannada. They have been assimilated by the native Kannadigas like their own kin. As per R. Narasimhacharya, Tulu, Kodava, Toda, Kota, Badaga and Irula are all Kannada dialects due to their closeness to Kannada.^[1]

Other references : http://dsal.uchicago.edu/reference/gazetteer/pager.html?objectid=DS405.1.I34_V09_307.gif, http://dsal.uchicago.edu/reference/gazetteer/text.html?objectid=DS405.1.I34_V09_307.gif, https://books.google.co.in/books?id=zXBB1nZYoLIC&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&dq=wilks+skirts+anantapur&source=bl&ots=0F_ZCO4jxB&sig=rloA621hjPyjNtI9LU3wNerS_iA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQoMXb0t7LAhUNCo4KHceFAh0Q6AEIIzAC#v=snippet&q=Kannada&f=false, https://books.google.co.in/books?id=_RG2x2xDQ5UC&pg=PA183&lpg=PA183&dq=wilks+skirts+anantapur&source=bl&ots=gfsIRp7X-J&sig=-EyfphbGNkOBL07uIdZGm3Cryb4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQoMXb0t7LAhUNCo4KHceFAh0Q6AEIIDAB#v=onepage&q=wilks%20skirts%20anantapur&f=false, http://indpaedia.com/ind/index.php/Carnatic, https://archive.org/stream/cu31924071131605#page/n459/mode/2up, http://krishikosh.egranth.ac.in/bitstream/1/2046073/1/34324.pdf, https://books.google.com/books?id=owHmI3qi_BIC&pg=PR25&lpg=PR25&dq=deglur+canarese&source=bl&ots=Qz4n7e1A1Y&sig=eGCZt_K-1pprldxDtdWFItR1MsY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwixkOjwzo7QAhVCqY8KHZVDApcQ6AEIKDAB#v=onepage&q=canarese&f=false. NitinBhargava2016 (talk) 08:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC) NitinBhargava2016 (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I find that the entire history section appears to be a irredentist view on Kannada's history.

First dubious claim: "Aristophanes and Euripides (5th-4th century BCE): The great Greek dramatists of the 5th-4th century BCE, particularly Euripides and Aristophanes, appear to have been familiar with the Kannada country and the Kannada language, and had actually used Kannada phrases and expressions in the dialogues of their characters along with Persian and Punic. This shows a far more intimate contact of the Greeks with Kannada culture than with Indian culture elsewhere."

The website and webpage promoting this is extremely sketchy, riddled with errors, filled with uncitable and unprovable claims, and is written by people with an obvious COI

Second dubious claim: "Alexandria (Egypt) (4th century BCE): Doddarange Gowda has claimed to have stumbled upon a piece of evidence in the Egyptian city of Alexandria that proves the existence of Kannada in 4th century BCE. He said that he had personally seen the Kannada word 'Ooralli' (lit in a village) written on a huge wall constructed in Alexandria by ancient Greek ruler Alexander the Great in 4th century BCE. The Kannada word ‘Ooralli’ is part of the remnants of 36,000 palm manuscripts that had been burnt in an accidental fire during Alexander’s time. When the accidental fire destroyed much of the palm manuscripts, Alexander ordered his commanders to erect a huge wall so that the remnants can be magnified and reproduced on it. The palm manuscripts contained texts written not only in Greek, Latin and Hebrew, but also Sanskrit and Kannada."

The person making the claim is not an expert in Kannada history. In addition, I find it extremely unlikely that he would be able to make out text written in Brahmi or Ancient Greek, as it wouldn't be written in the Modern Kannada script. Also, he is making a speech to an Kannada audience. It's extremely likely that he himself is biased, as I cannot find any other source that suggests the same.

Up until the farce, ironically enough, the section remains a farce. The entire section up to there is a copy paste of reference 40. Reference 41 doesn't actually support the assertion made in that paragraph. If anything it may prove the opposite, seeing as how /ai/ and /aj/ are regularly changed to /e:/ in Prakit languages. This is the marker of ridiculity. Either get better sources or delete the unsupported assertions. Qwed117 (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Kannada history, source is by K. Appadurai, linguistic scholar, website URL being archived (which is still accessible on Internet) is not a reason for removal. Its not a website, it is a book on Kannada and Tamil in Indian nationalism, published by INTAMM, 1997. The writer is a Tamil scholar and can be least of all, biased. Request Qwed117 to do some home work before commenting like 'website and webpage promoting this is extremely sketchy, riddled with errors, filled with uncitable and unprovable claims, and is written by people with an obvious COI', 'entire history section appears to be a irredentist view on Kannada's history.', 'The person making the claim is not an expert in Kannada history. In addition, I find it extremely unlikely that he would be able to make out text written in Brahmi or Ancient Greek, as it wouldn't be written in the Modern Kannada script. Also, he is making a speech to an Kannada audience. It's extremely likely that he himself is biased' and 'Up until the farce, ironically enough, the section remains a farce.'! Hope user knows difference between the two 'farces'. Doddarange Gowda is a noted Kannada poet, professor, anthologist, writer, scholar of many languages. Please stop such biased comments. Check the facts thoroughly before commenting.

Hi Ergative rlt,

All of the above prove that obviously fringe biased claims are Qwed117's, and not otherwise. Sources do not fail WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, WP:COPYVIO or any other Wiki rules. They are made by linguistic experts Annadurai and Doddarange Gowda. Hence, reverting your edits. Please let me know if you feel otherwise.

Thanks,

NitinBhargava2016 (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I do not believe that the section has been adequately addressed by your remarks. I do agree with some of the statements in your paragraph, namely that he is a scholar on Tamil, Kannada and several other Indian languages. Nonetheless, that doesn't change the fact that this is a word for word reprint of http://storyofkannada.blogspot.in/2009/04/greece-and-kannada-in-classical-era.html#.V0JZk5ErJhF . While the article has been sourced, the unfortunate fact is that the article itself has no sources for its unproven thoughts. Encyclopedia Britannica suggests that the earliest known Kannada writing is from 450 AD. In addition http://languages.iloveindia.com/kannada.html states that "The early (pre 800AD) bits and pieces of Kannada literature are insufficient to lay claims to the literature's origins". Gowda is not able to make the claim as he is not, repeat not, a linguist. He is a professor of Kannada, yes, as well as a poet and writer, but he, quite notable is not an anthropologist, cryptologist, linguist nor is he versed outside of Kannada. Even so, I would still need more evidence (preferably not circling back to him) to verify his claims. In conclusion, the decision to delete, and the decision to revert the deletion were both premature. It is preferable if the current sources were augmented with ones more trustworthy. They violate WP:COPYVIO and WP:UNDUE, but should be edited so that they do not violate. There is no reason to erupt in argument. In addition, {{Tamil-Kannada_Languages}} suggests that at 500 BC ~ 300 BC, Tamil and Kannada were differentiating dialects of one langauge, meaning that data from that era should mainly refer to Tamil-Kannada, or Tamil, seeing as how Kannada is slightly more divergent. The COI still exists in the original source. I would again, prefer if namecalling here is kept to a minimum. Irredentism is still present, and lastly, farce is both a term for a type of play and a discussion meant to produce a one-sided result. Toodles, Qwed117 (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Sources http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Indiaspeak-English-is-our-2nd-language/articleshow/5680962.cms and http://www.ethnologue.com/19/language/kan/, used by the infobox and lead respectively, give different numbers for total speakers: 50.8 vs 46.7, yet they both claim to be based on the 2001 census. It's not a huge difference, but still. If there is a more recent survey, it would probably be a good idea to use that instead. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 13:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the topic to correct it, but it seems like the phrase "StopKannadaImposition" and the numerous references to "Telugannada" are not related to this article in any way. Not sure what to do in regards to this, so please discuss what should be done. MunchieM (talk) 01:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The article's History section (permalink) starts out like this:

Poorvada Halagannada or Purva Halagannada (Pre-Old Kannada) is a Kannada term which literally translated means "Previous form of Old Kannada" which is dated by scholars from the early days of 1st century AD to the 8th century AD.^[1] It was the language of Banavasi in the late ancient period, the Satavahana, Chutu Satakarni (Naga) and Kadamba periods and thus has a history of over 2500 years.^{[2][3][4][5][6][7][8]}

References

1. [1]

   Experts' Report Submitted to the Government of Karnataka on the Subject of the Recognition of Kannada as a Classical Language. Department of Kannada & Culture, Government of Karnataka. 2008. p. 21. ISBN 978-81-7713-285-4.
2. [2]

   Iravatham Mahadevan (2003). Early Tamil Epigraphy from the Earliest Times to the Sixth Century AD. ISBN 9780674012271. Retrieved 12 April 2007. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
3. [3]

   K R, Subramanian (2002). Origin of Saivism and Its History in the Tamil Land. Asian Educational Services. p. 11. ISBN 9788120601444.
4. [4]

   Kamath (2001), pp. 5–6
5. [5]

   Wilks in Rice, B.L. (1897), p490
6. [6]

   Shashidhar, Dr. Melkunde (2016). A HISTORY OF FREEDOM AND UNIFICATION MOVEMENT IN KARNATAKA. United States: Lulu publication. p. 7. ISBN 978-1-329-82501-7.
7. [7]

   Pai and Narasimhachar in Bhat (1993), p103
8. [8]

   Sen, Sailendra Nath (1999). Ancient Indian History and Civilization. India: New Age International. p. 360. ISBN 9788122411980.

In principle, if a statement in a Wikipedia article is armoured by a long string of references, this almost always indicates that the statement is utter nonsense. Sadly, that appears to be the case here as well. In a large part, that's because of an IP edit from 2016 that changed the years from 2,000 to 2,500 (strange that this didn't get noticed in all the subsequent editing and expansion of the section). But there are further issues, so let's look at the refs cited.

The cryptic ref #4 appears to refer to a 2001 reprint of A concise history of Karnataka : from pre-historic times to the present by Suryanath U. Kamath, a source that I don't have access to. Neither can I get hold of ref #1, so if anyone has these two and is willing to fact-check, please let that be known. Ref #5 is the 1897 Mysore Gazetteer, so it's too old and unreliable. Ref #6, judging from the Google Books link, doesn't have any relevant content on the page cited (but the following page does have a mention of the 5th-century epigraphy); it's also published by Lulu, so it's almost certainly not a reliable source (see WP:RSP#Lulu.com). Both #3 and #8 are easily accessible on Google Books. What can be seen is that #3 says nothing at all about the language (the cited page only enumerates the ruling dynasties of the time), while the only relevant thing on the cited page of ref #8 is the statement that the 6th-century Chalukyas were Kannada speakers.

That leaves only #2 and #7 with any coverage that's relevant here. Ref #7 is Thirumaleshwara Bhat's 1993 Govinda Pai (ISBN 978-81-7201-540-4), which is a biographical study of the writer Govinda Pai. I'm not sure how useful that can be for our purposes, but it does contain the statement on the whole [Pai's] view that Kannada must have been as old as the Christian era has been accepted, but also a lengthy commentary on how this is not the case for his identification with Kannada of the various Dravidian words in Prakrit or Greek texts from before the 5th century. Ref #2 is a very detailed study of early Tamil epigraphy. The author lists (on pp. 108-9) a number of words or grammatical features found in some of the inscriptions in the period 2nd century BC to 4th century AD that he identifies as being due to the influence of Old Kannada. This is significant and definitely deserves mention in the Wikipedia article, but per WP:PRIMARY, we also need to see how that's been received in the secondary sources. In particular, I can see how this can be subjected to the same criticism that Bhat reports having been levied on Pai: how do we know this is Kannada and not another related language? (from a quick glance, I don't see anything to suggest that Mahadevan's "Kannada" isn't a shorthand for "coming from a Dravidian source that's closer to Kannada than to Tamil".

From all I've seen so far, there's agreement about only one thing: that the earliest Kannada inscriptions are from the middle of the 5th century AD. The possible earlier attestations of the language, on the other hand, appear to be subject to debate. – Uanfala (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

According to Kannda language experts and other Dravidian language experts, Kannada language is the closely related language to Tamil language. Both are belongs to dravidan language family. Some editors are trying to remove this point, I request wikipedia admins to warn those IDs. Reference: Mahadevan, Iravatham (2003), Early Tamil Epigraphy from the Earliest Times to the Sixth Century A.D.. Harvard Oriental Series vol. 62. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. p. 108-114. ISBN 978-0-674-01227-1. Tirukodimadachengunrur (talk) 02:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi User:Joshua Jonathan, User id TrUtHJan is continuously removing my contribution on Kannada page without having a discussion. I request you to have a look on this. Tirukodimadachengunrur (talk) 05:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I will restore the content (since it is obviously not "vandalizing" but a good faith contribution) but recommend to rephrase it to bring it closer to the source. Mahadevan explicitly talks about Old Kannada influence on Old Tamil. Please get this aspect across. –Austronesier (talk) 06:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Noted on your point. We will rephrase it Tirukodimadachengunrur (talk) 07:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Dear Fylindfotberserk (talk · contribs), User ID: TrUtHJan is continuously doing vandalism by removing the sourced content on Kannada page. Kindly restore the content and take a necessary actionon that ID. Tirukodimadachengunrur (talk) 10:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Dear Fylindfotberserk,

If just adding some random source to any piece of information qualifies as "sourced information", then what is the meaning of sourced information.

I have gone through those attached references and NOWHERE does it attest this information. I'm very much aware of "Iravatham Mahadevan's" works and it's far from what has been claimed here as his findings. This is pure misinformation added by the user Tirukodimadachengunrur, to impose their biased views on the Wikipedia readers. In fact even the writing style does not match with that of the referenced document. It's our responsibility to prevent such acts of vandalism and restore genuine information.

I kindly request you to review the sources before restoring it. TrUtHJan (talk) 07:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk

In contrast Iravatham Mahadevan talks about Old kannada language's influence on Old Tamil and not vise versa. Here the user

Tirukodimadachengunrur has explicitly tried to quote that Kannada follows the structure of Old Tamil which is false. Furthermore this user goes on to add that Kannada retains the words once used in Tamil which is again incorrect. It has been presented in a way that's completely opposite to what has been documented by renowned linguist "Iravatham Mahadevan". In point of fact even the other attached source "the history of kannada" has nothing that supports the claims of the user Tirukodimadachengunrur.

IRAVTAHAM MAHAVEDAN's views have been nicely put across under the "History" section of the same Wikipedia page where you can see how the renowned linguist explain why he thinks Tamil retains many Kannada words and not vice verse as claimed by a few editors here. TrUtHJan (talk) 08:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Austronesier and Pepperbeast: for inputs. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Tirukodimadachengunrur: Can you post the excerpt and page number which supports the content you have added. One of the sources is a snippet view at my end. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

This is maximally unpleasent. First, User:TrUtHJan, stop writing nonsense edit summaries like "Totally invalid information with inaccurate references", "Reverting vandalizing and biased edits", "The references attached are totally invalid". The sources are good (especially Iravatham Mahadevan's book), the issue is about the text that does not faithfully reflect the sources. Second, User:Tirukodimadachengunrur, stop mechanically whining for help when you have not lived up to what you said on 30 August ("We will rephrase it") after I have urged you to correct the text. I have voiced my concerns about the quality of your edits before, remember?

There is some redundancy with the content of the "History" section, but Iravatham Mahadevan's observations can also be cited in the section about influences from and on other languages (both ways!), currently headed "Other language influence". I have little time to do it myself now, so I suggest to comment the text out until somebody has the time and competence(!) to add a proper summary of what the sources actually say, provided it is relevant to the section. –Austronesier (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Austronesier.

Apologies for any confusion. I did not mean to suggest that the sources themselves are false. Rather, I mean that the sources do not align with the information they are referenced against.

Iravatham Mahadevan has not explicitly stated that Kannada follows the old Tamil structure or vice versa. However, he does discuss the influence of Kannada and Prakrit on Old Tamil, which is already well explained in the "History" section of the same "Kannada" Wikipedia page.

There is no need for additional posts here, as Mahadevan has not made any exclusive declarations about one language following the structure of the other or being considered the original language. In his book, he clearly provides examples of how Old Kannada has influenced Old Tamil, and this information is already present in the history section.

I kindly request that you remove the text, as it does not faithfully reflect the sources. TrUtHJan (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@TrUtHJan: Why kindly request when you go ahead anyway to unilaterally revert for the fifth(!) time the edits of four different editors and then have the cheek to accuse others edit warring? Ever heard of a WP:NOTHERE-block? –Austronesier (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Austronesier.

The same misleading information has now been updated under "Development" section of the wikipedia page by the user "Beastiepaws"

May I request you to remove it as it completely false and does not align with attached references at all. Please see the secid. Paragraph under "development" TrUtHJan (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I apologise; Beastiepaws is me. I'm not sure how I managed to log in under my old user name. TrUtHJan, I agree that one of the refs (Iravatham Mahadevan) isn't suitable here. However, the basic claims being made (ie, Kannada is structurally similar to Tamil and includes Tamil vocabulary) are uncontroversial to the point of being completely banal. You need to calm down, stop WP:EDITWARRING and stop typing nonsense like "totally invalid information with inaccurate references" and especially "reverting vandalizing and biased edits", which is a WP:PERSONALATTACK. PepperBeast (talk) 20:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

"Pepperbeast"

The claim in question is far from basic. Claiming that a language follows the structure of the other or retains words once used in some other language are serious claims. There is absolutely no documented poof for that whatsoever.It’s inappropriate to update information with unrelated references and then justify this as a basic claim. There is no evidence to support that Kannada follows the Old Tamil structure. Kannada has its own distinct historical development and Iravatham Mahadevan has distinctly put forth his findings in his book of how Tamil retains many Kannada words and not vice versa. The other reference "history of kannada" is futher far off from any relevance to the claims.

Please avoid accusing me of edit warring or dismissing my comments as "nonsense" when they are based on solid reasoning. TrUtHJan (talk) 01:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Neildary: please stop making undiscussed deletions from this article. Your comments on your talk page indicate that your motive is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, not article improvement. PepperBeast (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

motive ? you seem to have made up your mind!

all the best and please continue spreading misinformation . Neildary (talk) 07:31, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

[ˈkʌnəd͡ʒa] KU-nə-jah 31.182.247.147 (talk) 06:11, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I suspect relatively few people hear it this way. In any case, for inclusion in Wikipedia a reliable source is required. Pathawi (talk) 12:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello editors, The infobox currently lists the Kannada language lineage as: Dravidian → Southern I → Old Tamil → Halega Kannada → Kannada

This is inaccurate, as it incorrectly implies Kannada evolved from Old Tamil. According to established linguistic studies (e.g., Bhadriraju Krishnamurti, *The Dravidian Languages*, Cambridge University Press, 2003; Kamil Zvelebil, *Dravidian Linguistics: An Introduction*, 1990), the correct classification is:

> Dravidian → South Dravidian → Tamil–Kannada → Kannada

Proto-Dravidian first split into South Dravidian, which then divided into the Tamil–Kannada subgroup — from which both Old Tamil and Old Kannada separately evolved.

I recommend updating the infobox accordingly to reflect accurate linguistic lineage. Preetam787 (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I've made this change, as it seems correct to me from both Krishnamurti & Glottolog. It is possible that there should be further levels of familial grouping: By Glottolog's hierarchy this would be: Dravidian → South Dravidian → South Dravidian I → Tamil-Kannada → Badaga-Kannada → Kannadoid → Nuclear Kannadoid → Kannada. Krishnamurti could be read to justify: Dravidian → South Dravidian I → Badaga-Kannada → Kannada. As we don't have articles on any of these intermediate groupings & as I don't know how we should decide among alternatives like this, I have not added any levels beyond what was already present. Pathawi (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2025 (UTC)