Notes on Dravidian Words - side note

Some of the Dravidian proto-sounds that I have discussed till now.

f -> p
f -> h
Correspondence: Basque f -> h

b -> v
Correspondence: French b -> v

r -> zh -> y
Correspondence: Scottish/Scandinavian r -> zh

r -> D -> L
Unsubstantiated

vowel ending -> no vowel ending
Correspondence: English distinct -e ending to loss of -e

Notes on Dravidian Words - v

Vowel Ending:
Among South Dravidian languages Telugu and Kannada end their words with a vowel. However, Tamil and Malayalam lack it. Which is the proto-state?

If you consider English, until 14th century the ending -e was pronounced distinctly by the English. However, the later generations dropped it. But since spellings were standardized by that time, the written language still shows the words with -e ending. But it is clear that the old forms of languages generally tend to have vowel ending. Hence Kannada and Telugu have retained the older forms.

In the case of English, the time changed vowel ending. But in the case of Dravidian languages it is geography. Though it should be noted here that North Karnataka is more at ease with vowel ending than South Karnataka.

Communism and Kerala -i

Maju told me Communism succeeded in regions where aristocracy and the serf system were still prevalent (both in Russia and China). There were no noticeable middle (Bourgeois) class and hardly true urban workers. In Western Europe where peasants became free and workers remunerated well, Communism didn't make much impact. I thought this was exactly the situation in Kerala and West Bengal too.

As far as I know Communism is revolt by proletarians (urban workers) against the bourgeoisie (business men). We should note that both Kerala and West Bengal never had socially influential bourgeois class (The class created form merchant and artisan guilds during medieval Europe) as both these castes were either numerically negligible and low in their caste position. I believe when Communism was first conceived in Europe, bourgeois class had become educated. However, this was not the case in Kerala (I'll leave West Bengal as I don't understand much of its "scribe" dominated feudal system.)

It is said that Communism though failed in the economic prosperity of the region, developed an egalitarian society in Kerala (Just like in Eastern Europe and China). However, if we compare the neighbouring state Karnataka, the socialist dominated political parties have managed the land reforms(a major catalyst for an egalitarian society). However, Karnataka lags behind Kerala in terms of literacy. Where Kerala's literacy rate is above 90%, Karnataka is still struggling with 65-70% literacy rate. But that doesn't give the true picture. Tulu region of Karnataka has similar social indices as Kerala. Also, communist ruled West Bengal lags behind Kerala at 70% literacy. So, the common factor for Kerala and Tulu Nadu's high literacy rate appears to be the matrilineal system. Open attitude towards girls' education probably was a major catalyst for this development.

Then we talk about other systems like healthcare, everything is comparable to Tulu region. And Tulu region even moved from centre to right in its political orientation where as Kerala has always remained centre-left. So, I don't think any credit could be given to Communism for social development too. A comparison with Tulu region which shares similar cultural motifs with Kerala gives a true influence of Communism.

At the end of the day, communism only appears to give irrelevant intellectual aura to this region. However, its supposedly main beneficiaries, the working class people have been generally dubbed as "kings at home and slaves abroad". It appears keeping them poor and equal hasn't improved their self respect.

To be fair to Communism, it gave real aspiration to people to come out of their slavery. However, as a movement for workers its abilities were limited and becomes irrelevant over time with more worker friendly policies. As western European nations have shown this could be done even without a communist government. China probably has understood Communism's role mainly as removing social hierarchies and isn't applying the ideology to other domains of social development.

Movements and ideologies - India

I was discussing with Maju about various people's movements in Europe. I thought of making a note on Indian movements.

Indian National Congress: Humiliated feudal+clerical nexus(no longer aristocrats since British were in place, Ethical secularism by nature) and Bourgeoisie (Ethical religiosity by nature). Against British aristocracy. Socialist turned capitalist.

Muslim League: Humiliated Muslim feudals (no longer aristocrats since British were in place, Unethical religiosity by nature) and Bourgeoisie. Initially, against British aristocracy but later Islamic ethnocentrism to re-establish feudal order. Feudal economy.

Indian Communist Party: Humiliated educated feudal+clerical nexus (no longer aristocrats since British were in place). Against feudals. Socialist.

Dravidian movement: Bourgeoisie (Officially atheist and unlike any other Bourgeoisie in this respect). Anti-Clerical and anti-religious. Theoretically capitalist.

Bharatiya Janata Party: Hindu Bourgeoisie + clerical nexus. (Unethical religiosity, unlike European Bourgeoisie movements which were ethically religious). Against secularism. Capitalist.

Janata Dal/Samajawadi party/Bahujan Samaj Party: Caste based. Numerically strong castes (farmers, herders and Dalits respectively). Against discrimination. Socialist. (BSP-Capitalist?).

Hindu nationalist movements: Clerical(Unethical religiosity by nature). Anti-Islam and anti-Christianity.

Islamic fundamentalist movements: Proletarian(Ethical religiosity by nature). Used by the Muslim feudal establishment. Anti un-Islam.

In support of bigamy

I was reading Francis Bacon's essay 'Of Love'[1]. I thought I found something to write about by comparing our present knowledge of love and his views. However, when I started writing it went beyond my original scope. I had no control over its direction. So, I stopped (like so many of my other posts) abruptly and started this post. In this post my ambition is rather limited and simple.

Some of the points that he makes in the essay;

a. You may observe that amongst all the great and worthy persons there is not one that hath been transported to the mad degree of love; which shows that great spirits and great business do keep out this weak passion.
b. For it is a true rule that love is either rewarded either with the reciproque (reciprocal feeling) or with an inward and secret contempt
c. This passion hath his floods in the very times of weakness, which are great prosperity and great adversity (though this latter hath been less observed); both which times kindle love and make it more fervent, and therefore show it to be the child of folly.
d. There is in man's nature a secret inclination and motion towards love of others, which, if they it be not spent upon some one or a few, doth naturally spread itself towards many, and maketh men become humane and charitable.

According to a recent study[2];
e. love and lust are two different feelings. The regions of brain associated with them are mostly exclusive with only a small part overlapping.
f. love is stronger than lust
g. love is associated with motivation, reward and "drive" aspects (and not with lust or emotions)

According to a program that I saw on Discovery channel;
i. Regular sex releases enough oxytocin which is responsible for the bonding between couple.

My assumption:
j. Even though the researchers try to link love with procreation, I don't agree with that. I believe people love without being sexually attracted to each other and it goes well with (g). Conversely, people lust without being in love. I suppose nobody would argue on that one and is the central point of my arguments. From (i) I can say that love is not required for bonding and only regular sex between people in lust will create that magic.

I was going thro' Francis Bacon's life and found that
k. Historians have debated his sexuality and opined he was a homosexual
l. The woman he courted broke up with him and married his enemy in the court who was wealthier. Bacon years later was regretting that he couldn't marry her.

m. If Francis Bacon was a homosexual, then it appears sexual orientation (lust) has no bearing on love. This is in agreement with (e). A homosexual person can feel heterosexual love. Of course, I'm considering (l) indicates he was in love with that woman. I can't say what is the prevalent notion about homosexual's love as it's a rather confused domain.

n. Bacon's opinion (c) doesn't go well with (g). I wonder why do you need motivation in the times of prosperity. I would think drive and motivation are required in the times of adversity. Only that I'm not sure of Bacon's definitions of prosperity and adversity. But considering that his observations were mostly of "martial" men, he could have said, men in adversity and men(even though prosperous) who were driven by adversities are likely to fall in love. This again goes well with (g).

o. I wonder what he meant by second part in (b). Does that have anything to do with his love betraying him for a wealthier man?

p. Curiously, he connects love with altruism (d). The latter is rather controversial and still not fully understood.

q. (d) makes it very clear that in his opinion love and lust are two different feelings.

r. There was and even today there is a big chunk of population holds love and lust are the same.

s. If (e) and (q) are true, then even without scientific finding few men naturally understood the difference between these two because of their personal experience. That means love is not felt by everyone and that explains (r).

t. If (s) is true, a few other passions that motivate and drive people render this passion unnecessary. That makes (a) believable. But then why Bacon being one of those great men still felt love and even had a regret about its failure. Probably, I should give a stress to 'madly in love' in (a). So, everyone feels love even when s/he has other passions.

u. But (r) is still true. Then probably other notion that you fall in love only a selected few is true. So, it is possible that a great chunk of people may not feel love or more precisely may not meet their love at all in their life.

v. So not all men/women motivate you just like not all men/women arouse you.

Why does one need motivation? I started my last post trying to explain this point and totally exhausted and confused. All I can think it has something to do with our speech ability which has developed a tertiary personality (Secondary being modern human behaviour).

w. Of course, one can find love and lust with the same person. But the chances are very slim considering that you either lust for or love only a selected few.

x. My assumption here is heightened libido doesn't need a person but just body parts. Hence person married only for love may be able to have sex. I suppose for procreation and monogamous bonding person should follow his/her lust and not love.

y. Love should be asexual and lovers should be together. Lusters should only meet for the purpose of sex.

Ref:
1. The Essays by Francis Bacon
2. Love May Be A Lateralized Brain Function

Sense of Humour

We received a report that a soldier went into a tent at 11pm and came out at 3am. It could have been sex for pleasure, it could have been sex for favours, or it could have been a discussion on Ancient Greek philosophy, we don't know

Article

I think he remembered a popular joke at an inopportune moment.

Battle of the Sexes - v

I couldn't control myself as the article heading used my regular post caption for the precise reason.

if a specific gene located on a non-sex chromosome is turned off, cells in the ovaries of adult female mice turn into cells typically found in testes. Their study, published in Cell, challenges the long-held assumption that the development of female traits is a default pathway. At the same time, it grants a valuable insight into how sex determination evolved.
In humans and most other mammals, an individual's sex is determined by its sex chromosomes: females have two X chromosomes, males have one X and one Y. Scientists had long assumed that the female pathway -- the development of ovaries and all the other traits that make a female -- was a kind of default: if it had a gene called Sry, which is located on the Y chromosome, an embryo would develop into a male, if not, then the result would be a female. But in adult animals it is the male pathway that needs to be actively suppressed,

I don't think male or female default pathway makes much sense. Or it doesn't at least to me. However, considering the fact that only one of the two X-chromosomes in female is activated, my belief is that genetically male is a high feature being than female. In other words, male is naturally both male and female but female is only female and wannabe male. In a different way, the present study also supports this position.

Via Science Daily

Closing the blog

May be because of my less intelligence I'm bored. The motivation for this blog was to improve my English skills. By my own assessment I have been a spectacular failure in that objective. I don't like my own words. And five years is too long a time for that project and it has to be scrapped.

Thank you readers and thank you for your comments! I'll keep this blog open for one more day so that you know that I'm closing it.

Race and Medicine - i

A recent study on Indian genetics made an unqualified statement that it would help in medical research on specific disease prevalence among endogamous castes. Anyway, number of people in each caste may range from few thousands to few crores. I suppose, they need to identify each caste group as < state name >.< district name >.< village name >.< caste name >.< sub caste name > to proactively identify the salient diseases. Though in hindsight prevalence of certain diseases among Indians could be attributed too much inbreeding in the form of caste. However, that doesn't need any caste specific studies. But I don't think even that is a credible explanation considering different caste sizes and almost uniform presence of diseases. That probably has to do with our behaviour, environment and food habits.

Today I came across a study on prevalence of Diabetes among African Americans and European Americans. From the article:

The study, available online in advance of publication in the October 2009 edition of the Journal of General Internal Medicine, found that when African Americans and whites live in similar environments and have similar incomes, their diabetes rates are similar, which contrasts with the fact that nationally diabetes is more prevalent among African Americans than whites.

Via Science Daily

Not sure whether generally Population geneticists overlook to nullify 'other conditions'. Though some of the race promoters may do so.

Caste Based Census - 2011

This is badly required for population genetics studies. Without the weighted representation, the overall picture given by the samples is always going to be error prone.

Via Indo-Eurasian_research Yahoo Group.