Talk:Anaikoddai seal
Page contents not supported in other languages.
Tamil civilization (inactive) | ||||
|
Archaeology Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
@Sasithmadu:: Please read all this (and the links) before discussing.
https://dsalsrv04.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/soas_query.py?qs=kēvárta&searchhws=yes
Fisherman in Sanskrit is spelt kēvárta not Keveta.
Likewise Sinhala Prakrit is descended from Prakrit not Sanskrit.
The Prakrit form for Fisherman is kēvāṭṭa or kēvāṭa with a ට not ත.
This is attested in one of the Ashoka edicts as 𑀓𑁂𑀯𑀝 (kēvāṭa):
https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Major_Pillar_Edicts#Major_Pillar_Edict_5 (line 14, word 2)
The Sinhala Prakrit form would have had retroflexion as indicated by the medieval Sinhala form kevuḷā.
kēvāṭa > kevuḷā
Established Sinhala phonology supports this:
"The intervocalic cerebrals (-ṭ-, -ṭh-, -ḍ-, -ḍh-) all become -ḷ - in Sgh"
ṭ > ḷ
ට > ළ
https://www.jstor.org/stable/608679
(The phonology of the Sinhalese inscriptions - page 271)
Incredibly unlikely that Sinhala Prakrit lost the retroflexion from kēvāṭa and all other recorded Prakrit forms, and then miraculously gained it back for the medieval form kevuḷā.
A chieftain signet ring reading kēvēta 𑀓𑁂𑀯𑁂𑀢 (a word not recorded anywhere), therefore can not represent the Prakrit word kēvāṭa 𑀓𑁂𑀯𑀝 (fisherman).
Prof. Indrapala, Iravatham Mahadevan, Prof. Ragupathy, Prof. Sudharshan Seneviratne, Prof. Pathmanathan, Prof. K.Rajan, Prof. Osmund Bopearachchi and Dr. KV Ramesh all accepted the Koveta reading. This is the mainstream reading, and for good reason. Metta79 (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:L_Manju This new article by Prasad Fonseka is not a reliable source, and is full of misquoting. It lacks good peer review. The author wrongly claims that both Indrapala and Somadeva read the second letter as 𑀯 (va) when they both clearly read it as 𑀯𑁂 (ve). He also wrongly claims that Indrapala reads the seal as Kovetem. When Indrapala clearly initially read it as Koventa/Kovetan, but then modified his views later to accept Koveta. Also reading the first letter as 𑀭𑁂 (re) is completely unsustainable going by the lower intersecting horizontal line, which makes it a clear 𑀓 derivative. Even the Mangulam inscription he mentions has forms of 𑀓 derivatives which are not symmetrical crosses. Just because many people write poor interpretations on a self published source does not make it reliable.
I mean I could write an archaeology blog and claim the inscription means Ko Veta, king of the Veddas by claiming dental 𑀢 (ta) really represents a word with retroflex 𑀝 (ṭa), like Somadeva does for kēvāṭa 𑀓𑁂𑀯𑀝, and that the skeletons prognathic jaw, a feature of aboriginal populations proves its a Vedda chief. But it would not be a reliable published source. The mainstream reading in academia (both published and peer reviewed sources) is still without a doubt Koveta, and the weighting of this article should reflect this (I personally think its a similar Dravidian survival from the South Indian originated megalithic culture such as Parumaka, Parumakaḷ, Marumakaṉ and Veḷ in Sinhala Prakrit). Metta79 (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]