This collection of 13 blog posts by D.N. Shankara Bhat (a leading Dravidian linguist) presents applied linguistics for a general Kannada readership. Published in the Vijaya Karnataka newspaper column “ಎಲ್ಲರ ಕನ್ನಡ” (Kannada for All), the posts collectively make a coherent argument: Kannada is a complete, ancient, and self-sufficient language that does not derive from — and does not need the authority of — Sanskrit. The series draws on modern linguistics (historical-comparative method, phonology, semantics, typology) to challenge folk beliefs about Kannada that have accumulated over centuries of Sanskrit cultural dominance.
The posts address questions that any educated Kannada speaker might ask: Why do we use Sanskrit words in formal Kannada when native Kannada words exist? Should Sanskrit loanwords in Kannada be spelled as in Sanskrit or as pronounced? How old is Kannada really? Is Kannada related to Sanskrit? What exactly makes Kannada sound like Kannada? How many Dravidian languages are there? Bhat answers each of these with rigorous linguistic argument while keeping the exposition accessible. He consistently applies two methodological commitments: (1) linguistic facts take precedence over cultural prestige, and (2) the native speaker’s intuition is linguistically valid data.
For AI assistants working in this repository, these posts are a key source of DNS Bhat’s thinking about native Kannada word-formation, linguistic self-respect, and the relationship between Kannada and Sanskrit. The posts reinforce the core principle of the ettuge project and the Eke system: when coining new Kannada words or choosing between native and Sanskrit-derived forms, always prefer the native Dravidian option. The Eke romanisation system (aspirates preserved with h marker — ಭ→bh, ಧ→dh, ಖ→kh etc.; retroflexes uppercase — T D N L) directly embodies the phonological identity of Kannada that Bhat describes in Inukunota 33.
Key Arguments
Native Kannada word-formation is sufficient for technical and scientific vocabulary; Sanskrit is not the Greek/Latin of Kannada.
The formal/informal vocabulary split (native words at home, Sanskrit words in public) reflects an inferiority complex, not a linguistic requirement.
Kannada spelling should reflect Kannada pronunciation; retaining Sanskrit orthography for loanwords is a historical accident that should be corrected.
Writing is a technology and a representation of speech; speech is primary, writing is secondary.
Language family membership (Kannada is Dravidian, not Indo-Aryan) is established by systematic sound correspondences, not by shared vocabulary or cultural contact.
“Correct” Kannada is judged by Kannada’s own grammar, not Sanskrit grammar; dialectal variation is natural and rule-governed.
Kannada’s script age (5th–6th century CE) does not equal its language age; the language is at least 2,500–3,000 years old.
Word meaning is determined by context; phonemes have no meaning by themselves.
Counting systems vary across languages; Kannada’s decimal numerals are native Dravidian, not Sanskrit.
Claims that all Kannada words derive from Sanskrit are methodologically fraudulent; genuine etymology requires sound change laws.
Kannada has a distinctive phonological character (sogaDu) — phonemes absent from Sanskrit, different sandhi rules, different word-formation — inherited from Proto-Dravidian.
The Dravidian language family has 26+ languages in four sub-groups, not 5; script does not determine family membership.