Telugolla meedha opinion enti ra..

[Equalirights]

5 minutes ago, Android_Halwa said:

endo...annitiki answers vunnayi kani Andhra ane name etla vachindi ra ante okkadu kuda sappuda cheyadu

Neeku answer kaavali ante valmiki Ramayanam nuvvu chadavali..kaani neeku chevudu kadha..chadivina vinapadhadu..lol

[uttermost]

21 minutes ago, sattipandu said:

LOL the DICKK measuring contest inthis thread 

lol. the radical south park neutralist strikes again by flashing his dcik in a dcik measuring contest he wants to mock. :) 

[uttermost]

4 minutes ago, Equalirights said:

Inthaki  madrasis ki ardham telisindha..item raja

Telangana aney peruki recent references unnayi, ayna kooda state ki Andhra pradesh ani peru pettinaru. no one is even able to say from where that name came from.

point aey kadha. ramayanam varaku vellala Andhra kosam.. aithe united state ki TG aney pettindachu peru ni. just saying.

[Equalirights]

1 minute ago, uttermost said:

Telangana aney peruki recent references unnayi, ayna kooda state ki Andhra pradesh ani peru pettinaru. no one is even able to say from where that name came from.

point aey kadha. ramayanam varaku vellala Andhra kosam.. aithe united state ki TG aney pettindachu peru ni. just saying.

Yeah that's a fair point...untied state ki Peru pette mundhu debate jarige untadhi..telangana pradesh aa or a Andhra Pradesh aaa ani..kodi mundha guddu mundha ane question vachi untadhi..references Loki velthe andhra ane prantham references are there in many ancient  scriptures..

[chittimallu2]

2 hours ago, Android_Halwa said:

@chittimallu2, you have got some facts wrong....historical facts..!!!

Karnataka ane name vachindi late 60's lo...antakamundu karnataka ane name ae existence lo ledu...it was Mysore state and people spoke kannada and tulu languages. 

 Noe, look at modern state of Karnataka, people speak kannada, tulu and konkan...three major languages but people of this state are still called as kannadiga event hough they speak tulu or konkan but not because they speak kannada...

The case of Kerela....prehistoric name of present day kerela is Malabar and hence the name malayali. People living in the areas of malabar are called as Malayali...not because they speak Malayali language. 

Tamilians....because they hail from the the state Tamil Nadu, not because they speak Tamil.

Maharastra also has two major languages...Marathi and Konkan...Konkan fellow is still called as Marati Manoos even though his language is konkanese but still referred as Marati because he is from the regiona Maharastra

this is how identity marks up with your region..

A quick wiki search tells me about 65% of the people in karnataka speaks kannada language, pretty sure that can be called as majority since its more than 50%. Yous statement proves my point further that states are being named after the language names.

Similarly your tamil nadu example also falls flat on your face, tamil language existed from centuries but the state name was given recently in the last century or so as previously it was called as madras circar, case in point.

Now I cant go ahead and talk about every single state in India, but the point is the majority of the state names were given based on languages. Also no one (either you or me) can say for sure if a region was named on its language or the other way around. But pretty sure languages existed even before humans started naming their regions. Human communication need a language but the name for the places comes next when the civilisation grows and when they need jurisdictions, but languages existed from a way before than that when humans were hunting with bare hands.

You are clutching at the straws by asking questions about madarasi and andhra... generally any south indian were called as madrasi because madras is the biggest city in south india, but that oozes ignorance and now the north indians are changing and are being more educated to differentiate between telugu, tamil, mallu and a kannadiga.  No one calls a guy from mysore as a mysorite but wil be referred as kannadiga in general. Love it or hate it you will be referred to as telugu person but not telanganite... suck it up and let it sink.

I will rest my case by copy pasting a reply my point from the previous page.

1) Yeah however those lines were drawn based on the languages after independence antunna.. .not the other way. They didnt call a random piece of land as tamil nadu and then printed a paper AD saying all the tamil speaking people in the country needs to move to that state. Languages made the states that are today but not the states made languages. The identity will always be language, love it or hate it.

2) simple question.. lets say you talk telugu language but you were born and brought up in bombay since your parents migrated there before you were born... A random guy sees you talk on the phone on a road, will he think you are a maharastrian or an andhra/TG guy?

 

[chittimallu2]

2 hours ago, uttermost said:

the point is understood. But its an obvious racist point.

Andhrollu, rey nee telugu endhi itla undhi ani out of state Telugollani vekkiristhaaru.

nuvvu, ekanga asalu Telugu aney identity ney ledhu.. daani gurinchi maatladaney kudadhu antunnav.

emiti difference?

nuvvu Telangana ni propagate cheyyataaniki, migatha vaallu Telugu aney identity (even if its weak one) vodulu kovaali ani argue chesthunnav.

Exactly this is what he has been trying to do, he is trying to dissociate from andhra people and form a different group. That already happened officially and jurisdiction wise but will never happen day to day life as no one calls him a telanganite or someone else as andhrite but instead they will both be called telugus or gultes

[chittimallu2]

39 minutes ago, sattipandu said:

LOL the DICKK measuring contest inthis thread 

do you knwo what that means or did you use that randomly?

No one in this thread is actually boasting about anything personally here. its just another debate.

[Android_Halwa]

6 minutes ago, chittimallu2 said:

A quick wiki search tells me about 65% of the people in karnataka speaks kannada language, pretty sure that can be called as majority since its more than 50%. Yous statement proves my point further that states are being named after the language names.

Similarly your tamil nadu example also falls flat on your face, tamil language existed from centuries but the state name was given recently in the last century or so as previously it was called as madras circar, case in point.

Now I cant go ahead and talk about every single state in India, but the point is the majority of the state names were given based on languages. Also no one (either you or me) can say for sure if a region was named on its language or the other way around. But pretty sure languages existed even before humans started naming their regions. Human communication need a language but the name for the places comes next when the civilisation grows and when they need jurisdictions, but languages existed from a way before than that when humans were hunting with bare hands.

You are clutching at the straws by asking questions about madarasi and andhra... generally any south indian were called as madrasi because madras is the biggest city in south india, but that oozes ignorance and now the north indians are changing and are being more educated to differentiate between telugu, tamil, mallu and a kannadiga.  No one calls a guy from mysore as a mysorite but wil be referred as kannadiga in general. Love it or hate it you will be referred to as telugu person but not telanganite... suck it up and let it sink.

I will rest my case by copy pasting a reply my point from the previous page.

1) Yeah however those lines were drawn based on the languages after independence antunna.. .not the other way. They didnt call a random piece of land as tamil nadu and then printed a paper AD saying all the tamil speaking people in the country needs to move to that state. Languages made the states that are today but not the states made languages. The identity will always be language, love it or hate it.

2) simple question.. lets say you talk telugu language but you were born and brought up in bombay since your parents migrated there before you were born... A random guy sees you talk on the phone on a road, will he think you are a maharastrian or an andhra/TG guy?

 

You have been wasting a lot of time doing unnecessary research but can you just follow the highlighted lines above ?

That tells you everything. Your claim of languages existed before regions does not hold good. I'm only saying so taking historical facts into considerations. 

Classic case is Karnataka. People speak Tulu and Konkan and Karnataka word came into existence only in the 1960's...this is because of first states reorganisation commitee. You can't take this into consideration as it is part of modern history but not medival or early days and Kannada,Tulu and Konkan were already in place way before 1960's. For administrative purpose, a region was created with existing mysore state and few parts from malabar and konkan and merged to be called as Karnataka. Not because they were already speaking kannada...

Do you understand the logic behind this ? 

and more over, the first states reorganisation happened in the most unscientific way so I would not give importance to it. 

[chittimallu2]

3 minutes ago, Android_Halwa said:

You have been wasting a lot of time doing unnecessary research but can you just follow the highlighted lines above ?

That tells you everything. Your claim of languages existed before regions does not hold good. I'm only saying so taking historical facts into considerations. 

 Classic case is Karnataka. People speak Tulu and Konkan and Karnataka word came into existence only in the 1960's...this is because of first states reorganisation commitee. You can't take this into consideration as it is part of modern history but not medival or early days and Kannada,Tulu and Konkan were already in place way before 1960's. For administrative purpose, a region was created with existing mysore state and few parts from malabar and konkan and merged to be called as Karnataka. Not because they were already speaking kannada...

 Do you understand the logic behind this ? 

and more over, the first states reorganisation happened in the most unscientific way so I would not give importance to it. 

lol em chadivav ra nayana nenu raasindi.... I posted a fact that 65% (majority) speak kannada, doesnt matter how many more languages they have, tulu konkan whatever they all are minority languages, the point is karnataka is named after kannada language, the majority one.

And yeah languages existed before regions formed lol, adi kooda paina cheppina but yeah you will turn blind asusual to facts that you dont like. People spoke first before drawing lines and forming regions. states and eventually countries which proves language existed before the regions.

Give it a rest and jog on.

[Android_Halwa]

That means its very clear that languages have been there for ever but regions were first named and language followed it later. and so was the naming and identity...but its so unfortunate that some people misinterpreted history and created a fake ideology and crabbily implied it on people for political gains.

The region has already been here for ever...its been there...it did not change, but languages has been ever changing..

take the example of gulf states...they all speak arabic but their identity is different even though they speak similar language...why ? Its the region that defines them, not the language.
Look at Malayali...its been names after the region Malabar..

Historically, all the languages are names after the regions...if some one asks you where is such a language like mongolian is spoken and the answer is Mongolia...but not anything else...because, thats how the society is shaped up..

Look at USA where there is one common language...east coast..west coast...new england, mid atlantic, south atlantic..mid centrral, midwest, south...you are identified by the state or the zone but not english or any thing else...

Look at Northern States, the hindi belt...even though they speak HIndi, they are identified by their regions..bundelkhand,chambal,madhyapradesh,uttar pradesh, bihari, jharkhand, haryanvi etc...

Take the example of Europe...its a misconception that language defined their borders but its ethnicity that defined their borders and language was part of this but not a whole single reason ....

 

[uttermost]

2 minutes ago, Android_Halwa said:

You have been wasting a lot of time doing unnecessary research but can you just follow the highlighted lines above ?

That tells you everything. Your claim of languages existed before regions does not hold good. I'm only saying so taking historical facts into considerations. 

Classic case is Karnataka. People speak Tulu and Konkan and Karnataka word came into existence only in the 1960's...this is because of first states reorganisation commitee. You can't take this into consideration as it is part of modern history but not medival or early days and Kannada,Tulu and Konkan were already in place way before 1960's. For administrative purpose, a region was created with existing mysore state and few parts from malabar and konkan and merged to be called as Karnataka. Not because they were already speaking kannada...

Do you understand the logic behind this ? 

and more over, the first states reorganisation happened in the most unscientific way so I would not give importance to it. 

Konkan and Tulu prefer to call themselves by their language, rather than as kannadigas, in normal conversation.

your point is quite hazy. because you are forcefitting the logic from TG into other places. Perhaps the dynamics of language/cultural politics are unique in each region, that underlines which identity takes precedence.

ofcourse chittimallu is wrong to claim that your identity will be Telugu, even if you call yourself Telanganite, but I think he's using the same playbook that you are using, by claiming that Telugu is not an identity. 

[sattipandu]

34 minutes ago, uttermost said:

lol. the radical south park neutralist strikes again by flashing his dcik in a dcik measuring contest he wants to mock.

LOL I moved onto F is for Family now 

try to keep updated

[Android_Halwa]

4 minutes ago, chittimallu2 said:

lol em chadivav ra nayana nenu raasindi.... I posted a fact that 65% (majority) speak kannada, doesnt matter how many more languages they have, tulu konkan whatever they all are minority languages, the point is karnataka is named after kannada language, the majority one.

And yeah languages existed before regions formed lol, adi kooda paina cheppina but yeah you will turn blind asusual to facts that you dont like. People spoke first before drawing lines and forming regions. states and eventually countries which proves language existed before the regions.

Give it a rest and jog on.

Humans are terriorial...this is a fact..and this should explain answers to all your claims.

Terrirory defined the human existence and the life they followed...not the language which was not even developed when Human became territorial...even before they drew lines or made a pottery wheel...

YOu only said but you could never prove that languages exuisted before regions but goign by my analysis, Yes, regions were well existed even before languages were formed and named...

and coming to Karnataka....65% majority and Karnataka is not a historical name, its a modern name given to it in the 1960's

[sattipandu]

17 minutes ago, chittimallu2 said:

do you knwo what that means or did you use that randomly?

No one in this thread is actually boasting about anything personally here. its just another debate.

not necessarily....   

totally random, worthless and useless 

[Android_Halwa]

1 minute ago, uttermost said:

Konkan and Tulu prefer to call themselves by their language, rather than as kannadigas, in normal conversation.

your point is quite hazy. because you are forcefitting the logic from TG into other places. Perhaps the dynamics of language/cultural politics are unique in each region, that underlines which identity takes precedence.

ofcourse chittimallu is wrong to claim that your identity will be Telugu, even if you call yourself Telanganite, but I think he's using the same playbook that you are using, by claiming that Telugu is not an identity. 

Exactly...thats the point...when there are multiple languages in a single administratove zone, this is what it happens...they prefer to be known as something else because, thats what they are...

not just the language, ideallu Mangalore should be a state and Tulu should be a language....Belgaum should be a state and Konkan shoul dbe their language...but administratiovely it was not possible and hence, they mixed up three regions ato one and named Karnataka as a region and kannadiga as its resident...going by the gerographic location but not by the language...if they did so, then it was nothing but discriminatory by the government in 1960's...