kannaDa nuDiya bagege cintane — English Summary
ಕನ್ನಡ ನುಡಿಯ ಬಗೆಗೆ ಚಿಂತನೆ (Kannada nuDiya bagege cintane) Reflections on the Kannada Language D.N. Shankara Bhat — Blog series “ನುಡಿಯರಿಮೆಯ ಇಣುಕುನೋಟ” (nuDiyarimeya iNukunOTa / Glimpses into Linguistics) Originally published in Vijaya Karnataka newspaper column “ಎಲ್ಲರ ಕನ್ನಡ”
Companion files:
Book Overview
This collection of 13 blog posts from D.N. Shankara Bhat’s “Glimpses into Linguistics” series addresses fundamental questions about the Kannada language: its identity, its relationship to Sanskrit and other Dravidian languages, its spelling conventions, and its place in the global family of human languages. Published under the newspaper column “ಎಲ್ಲರ ಕನ್ನಡ” (Ellara Kannada / Kannada for All), these posts challenge readers to think carefully about assumptions that are often taken for granted — particularly the assumption that Sanskrit is the natural or proper source for technical vocabulary, formal registers, or even basic grammatical authority over Kannada.
Bhat applies modern linguistics rigorously: language families are established by systematic sound correspondences, not cultural prestige; spelling should reflect pronunciation; writing systems and languages are distinct phenomena; and Dravidian languages, including Kannada, have their own complete phonological identity independent of Sanskrit. The overall message is one of linguistic self-respect: Kannada is an ancient, richly developed language that neither derives from Sanskrit nor needs Sanskrit to be complete.
Table of Contents
- Inukunota 11 — Technical Terms: Kannada is Best
- Inukunota 2 — Why Use Sanskrit Outside the Home?
- Inukunota 3 — Write Words as They Are Pronounced
- Inukunota 10 — Writing as It Is Pronounced (continued)
- Inukunota 14 — How Did Writing Gain Prestige?
- Inukunota 18 — Language Relationships
- Inukunota 20 — What is Correct in Writing?
- Inukunota 23 — How Old is Kannada?
- Inukunota 27 — Word and Its Meaning
- Inukunota 28 — Counting Systems Vary Across Languages
- Inukunota 29 — Understanding Word Etymology
- Inukunota 33 — The Character of Kannada
- Inukunota 35 — Dravidian Languages: Not 5 but 26!
Posts
Inukunota 11
ಅರಿಮೆಯ ಪದಗಳಿಗೆ ಕನ್ನಡವೇ ಮೇಲು Technical Terms: Kannada is Best Published: 2014-04-14
Summary
Bhat argues that Kannada — not Sanskrit — is the best source for technical and scientific terminology in the Kannada language. He challenges the widely held belief that Sanskrit is to Kannada what Greek and Latin are to European languages. In European languages, new technical words are coined from Greek and Latin because those are dead languages — their forms are stable and can be borrowed systematically. Sanskrit, however, is still a living literary and religious language that Kannada speakers associate with social prestige and caste hierarchy, not with neutral scientific precision.
Bhat points out that Kannada, like all Dravidian languages, has a robust word-formation system rooted in its own grammar. Native Kannada roots can be combined using Kannada morphology to coin new technical terms that are transparent, memorable, and accessible to ordinary speakers. Using Sanskrit to coin Kannada technical terms is not only unnecessary — it actively reinforces the false impression that Kannada is inferior or incomplete without Sanskrit support.
Key Arguments
- The Greek/Latin analogy does not hold for Sanskrit and Kannada.
- Sanskrit carries social baggage (caste, prestige) that makes it unsuitable as a neutral technical vocabulary source.
- Native Kannada word-formation is sufficient for coining technical terms.
- Technical vocabulary coined from Sanskrit makes Kannada less accessible, not more precise.
Key Terms
| Kannada | Eke | English |
|---|---|---|
| ಅರಿಮೆ | arime | knowledge, science |
| ಪದ | pada | word, term |
| ನುಡಿ | nuDi | language, speech |
| ಕನ್ನಡ | kannaDA | Kannada language |
Inukunota 2
ಮನೆಯ ಹೊರಗಡೆ ಅಡಿಗೆಮನೆ ಪಾಕಶಾಲೆಯಾಗಬೇಕೇ? Must the Kitchen Become a Pākashāle Outside the Home? Published: 2014-04-14
Summary
This post examines the psychological phenomenon of linguistic self-deprecation among Kannada speakers. Bhat uses a vivid analogy: inside the home, everyone says “ಅಡಿಗೆಮನೆ” (aDigemane / kitchen); but the moment people step into formal or public contexts, the same word is replaced by the Sanskrit-derived “ಪಾಕಶಾಲೆ” (pAkashAle). Why should the same object need a different, more “prestigious” name simply because the context has changed?
Bhat traces this behaviour to an inferiority complex produced by centuries of cultural subordination. Speakers have been conditioned to believe that native Kannada words are crude or informal, while Sanskrit-derived words signal education and refinement. This has led to a situation where formal Kannada — in newspapers, official communications, and education — is saturated with Sanskrit borrowings that ordinary speakers struggle to understand. Bhat calls for conscious resistance to this conditioning: native Kannada words are not inferior, and formal contexts do not require Sanskrit vocabulary.
Key Arguments
- Kannada speakers switch to Sanskrit-derived words in formal contexts due to an inferiority complex, not linguistic necessity.
- The public/private split in vocabulary use has no linguistic justification.
- Formal and written Kannada should also be accessible to ordinary speakers.
- Native words such as “aDigemane” carry no less meaning or dignity than Sanskrit equivalents.
Key Terms
| Kannada | Eke | English |
|---|---|---|
| ಅಡಿಗೆಮನೆ | aDigemane | kitchen (native Kannada) |
| ಪಾಕಶಾಲೆ | pAkashAle | kitchen (Sanskrit-derived) |
| ಮನೆ | mane | house, home |
| ನುಡಿ | nuDi | language, speech |
Inukunota 3
ಪದಗಳನ್ನು ಓದುವ ಹಾಗೆಯೇ ಬರೆಯಬೇಕು Write Words as They Are Pronounced Published: 2014-04-14
Summary
Bhat presents the principle that Kannada spelling should reflect Kannada pronunciation. When Sanskrit loanwords enter Kannada, speakers pronounce them according to Kannada phonological rules — aspirates become unaspirated, retroflex consonants shift, certain vowel distinctions are neutralised. Yet traditional Kannada spelling retains the original Sanskrit orthography, creating a mismatch between how words are said and how they are written.
Bhat identifies five specific problems this mismatch creates: (1) it makes literacy harder to acquire; (2) it falsely implies Kannada pronunciation is “corrupt” Sanskrit; (3) it gives Sanskrit orthographic authority over Kannada; (4) it prevents Kannada from developing its own orthographic conventions; and (5) it privileges those educated in Sanskrit over ordinary native speakers. He argues that a phonologically consistent orthography — where you write what you say — would make Kannada more democratic and linguistically self-respecting.
Key Arguments
- Sanskrit loanwords should be spelled as they are pronounced in Kannada, not as in Sanskrit.
- The current system implies Kannada pronunciation is a degraded form of Sanskrit.
- Phonological spelling would lower the literacy barrier and empower native speakers.
- Orthographic authority should rest with Kannada, not Sanskrit grammar.
Key Terms
| Kannada | Eke | English |
|---|---|---|
| ಬರಹ | baraha | writing, script |
| ಓದು | Odu | to read |
| ಉಚ್ಚಾರ | uccAra | pronunciation |
| ಕಾಗುಣಿತ | kAguNita | spelling, orthography |
Inukunota 10
ಓದುವ ಹಾಗೆಯೇ ಬರೆಯುವುದು Writing as It Is Pronounced (continued) Published: 2014-04-14
Summary
This post continues and deepens the argument from Inukunota 3. Bhat explains the historical reasons why Sanskrit orthography was preserved even in Kannada texts: prestige, the dominance of Sanskrit-educated scribes, and the absence of a Kannada linguistic science that could assert its own spelling conventions. He notes that this is not unique — many languages have historically preserved the orthography of a prestige language at the expense of phonological accuracy.
Bhat draws a parallel with Korean and Turkish spelling reforms: both languages successfully reformed their orthographies in the twentieth century to reflect actual pronunciation, making literacy far more accessible. He argues that Kannada can and should do the same. The principle is not radical — it is simply linguistic honesty. Spelling should serve the speaker, not the prestige language.
Key Arguments
- Historical reasons for retaining Sanskrit spelling are no longer applicable.
- Korean and Turkish spelling reforms demonstrate that phonological orthographies are achievable and beneficial.
- Spelling reform is an act of linguistic self-respect, not a rejection of Sanskrit.
- The beneficiary of spelling reform is the ordinary Kannada speaker.
Key Terms
| Kannada | Eke | English |
|---|---|---|
| ಬರಹ ಸುಧಾರಣೆ | baraha sudAraṇe | spelling reform |
| ಸ್ವರ | svara | vowel |
| ವ್ಯಂಜನ | vyanjana | consonant |
| ನುಡಿ | nuDi | language |
Inukunota 14
ಬರಹಕ್ಕೆ ಮೇಲ್ಮೆ ಬಂದುದು ಹೇಗೆ? How Did Writing Gain Prestige? Published: 2014-04-14
Summary
Bhat examines the historical process by which writing came to be regarded as superior to speech. He argues that writing is a technology — a tool developed to extend the reach of language across time and space. For most of human history, all languages were oral; writing emerged only as a practical necessity for administration, commerce, and religious record-keeping. Writing did not create language; language existed for tens of thousands of years before writing.
The prestige of writing, Bhat argues, was consolidated by the printing revolution, which made written texts widely reproducible and thus enormously influential. Printed texts standardised spelling, grammar, and vocabulary, and over time the written form came to be seen as the “real” or “correct” form of a language. Oral variation was treated as corruption. Bhat challenges this inversion: speech is primary, writing is secondary. A spelling or grammar that does not match actual speech is the one that needs correction, not the other way around. He also notes the deep connection between literacy and democratic participation: as literacy spreads, it becomes a prerequisite for full citizenship.
Key Arguments
- Writing is a technology, not the essence of language.
- Speech is primary; writing is a representation of speech.
- The printing revolution created the modern prestige of written forms.
- Literacy and democratic participation are historically linked.
- Oral variation should not be treated as corruption of a written standard.
Key Terms
| Kannada | Eke | English |
|---|---|---|
| ಬರಹ | baraha | writing |
| ನುಡಿ | nuDi | speech, language |
| ಮೇಲ್ಮೆ | mElme | prestige, superiority |
| ಮುದ್ರಣ | mudraṇa | printing |
| ಓದಿಗ | Odiga | literacy (one who reads) |
Inukunota 18
ನುಡಿಗಳ ನಡುವಿನ ನಂಟಸ್ತಿಕೆ Language Relationships Published: 2014-04-14
Summary
This post explains how linguists determine whether two languages are related — that is, whether they descend from a common ancestor. Bhat explains that cultural contact, shared vocabulary, or geographic proximity are insufficient evidence of kinship. The scientific method requires identifying systematic sound correspondences: regular, predictable patterns of phonological change that hold across a large set of basic vocabulary items (body parts, numbers, pronouns, basic verbs).
Using this method, he demonstrates that Kannada belongs to the Dravidian language family, not to the Indo-Aryan (Sanskrit-derived) family. The shared vocabulary between Kannada and Sanskrit is primarily the result of borrowing — a contact phenomenon — not shared ancestry. Kannada and Sanskrit are no more genetically related than English and Arabic (which also share borrowed vocabulary). Understanding language families correctly is essential for understanding what Kannada is and where it came from.
Key Arguments
- Language kinship is established by systematic sound correspondences, not shared vocabulary or cultural contact.
- Kannada is Dravidian, not Indo-Aryan.
- Sanskrit loanwords in Kannada are borrowings, not evidence of shared ancestry.
- The methodology of historical linguistics is rigorous and falsifiable.
Key Terms
| Kannada | Eke | English |
|---|---|---|
| ನಂಟಸ್ತಿಕೆ | nantastike | kinship, relationship |
| ದ್ರಾವಿಡ | drAviDa | Dravidian |
| ಆರ್ಯ | Arya | Aryan, Indo-Aryan |
| ಶಬ್ದ | shabda | word (Sanskrit-derived) |
| ನುಡಿಕುಲ | nuDikula | language family |
Inukunota 20
ಬರಹದಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾವುದು ಸರಿ, ಯಾವುದು ತಪ್ಪು? What is Correct in Writing?
Summary
Bhat addresses the normative question: what counts as “correct” Kannada? He argues that correctness in Kannada must be judged by Kannada’s own grammatical rules, not by Sanskrit grammar. When Sanskrit loanwords enter Kannada, they are subject to Kannada phonology, morphology, and syntax — and native speakers’ intuitions about these forms are linguistically valid.
He also distinguishes between dialectal variation and errors. Dialectal variation is natural and rule-governed; what sounds “wrong” to speakers of one dialect is perfectly correct in another. Written standard Kannada necessarily favours certain dialects over others, but this is a social and historical accident, not a reflection of linguistic superiority. Bhat encourages respect for dialectal diversity and resistance to the tendency to label non-standard forms as “corrupt” or “uneducated.”
Key Arguments
- Correctness in Kannada is determined by Kannada grammar, not Sanskrit grammar.
- Native speaker intuitions about Kannada forms are linguistically valid data.
- Dialectal variation is systematic, not corruption.
- Written standards are social conventions, not markers of linguistic truth.
Key Terms
| Kannada | Eke | English |
|---|---|---|
| ವ್ಯಾಕರಣ | vyAkaraṇa | grammar |
| ತಪ್ಪು | tappu | error, wrong |
| ಸರಿ | sari | correct, right |
| ಉಪಭಾಷೆ | upabhAṣe | dialect |
| ನುಡಿ | nuDi | language, speech |
Inukunota 23
ಕನ್ನಡ ನುಡಿ ಎಶ್ಟು ಹಳೆಯದು? How Old is Kannada?
Summary
Bhat distinguishes between the age of the Kannada language and the age of the Kannada script. The earliest Kannada inscriptions date to approximately the 5th–6th centuries CE, but this is the age of written Kannada, not the language itself. Languages exist long before they are written down. The Dravidian language family began diverging from Proto-Dravidian several thousand years ago, and Kannada’s branch of the family separated before Tamil did — making Kannada potentially older than the Tamil literary tradition, even though Tamil has earlier written records.
Bhat explains the methodology: linguists estimate the age of language divergence using the rate of lexical change (glottochronology) and systematic sound correspondences. He places Kannada’s divergence from the proto-Dravidian stock at roughly 2,500–3,000 years ago. The script is recent; the language is ancient.
Key Arguments
- Script age and language age are distinct — Kannada is much older than its earliest inscriptions.
- Kannada’s branch of Dravidian separated earlier than Tamil’s branch.
- Glottochronology provides approximate estimates of language divergence dates.
- The absence of early inscriptions does not mean a language is young.
Key Terms
| Kannada | Eke | English |
|---|---|---|
| ನುಡಿ | nuDi | language |
| ಲಿಪಿ | lipi | script |
| ಹಳಮೆ | haLame | antiquity, oldness |
| ದ್ರಾವಿಡ | drAviDa | Dravidian |
| ಬೇರ್ಪಡಿಕೆ | bErpaDike | separation, divergence |
Inukunota 27
ಪದ ಮತ್ತು ಅದರ ಹುರುಳು Word and Its Meaning
Summary
This post is an introduction to semantics. Bhat explains that individual phonemes (sounds) carry no meaning by themselves — meaning arises only at the level of the word and above. Words, however, often carry multiple meanings, and the correct meaning in any given context is determined by surrounding words, syntactic structure, and pragmatic context.
He distinguishes between two ways words can refer: referential identification (this specific thing) and attributive identification (whatever has these properties). A word like “ನೀರು” (water) identifies a substance by its properties, not by pointing to a particular instance. Bhat discusses how polysemy (multiple meanings for one word) and homonymy (same sound, different meanings) are resolved by competent speakers automatically, and how metaphorical extension accounts for much of vocabulary growth. The study of meaning — semantics — is as rigorous as the study of phonology or grammar.
Key Arguments
- Phonemes are meaningless; meaning is a property of words and larger units.
- Words typically have multiple meanings resolved by context.
- Referential and attributive identification are distinct semantic strategies.
- Metaphorical extension is a primary mechanism for vocabulary expansion.
Key Terms
| Kannada | Eke | English |
|---|---|---|
| ಪದ | pada | word |
| ಹುರುಳು | huruLu | meaning |
| ಅರ್ಥ | artha | meaning (Sanskrit-derived) |
| ಸನ್ನಿವೇಶ | sannivEsha | context |
| ಪ್ರತಿಮೆ | pratime | metaphor, image |
Inukunota 28
ಎಣಿಕೆಯಲ್ಲೂ ಹಲವು ಬಗೆಗಳಿವೆ Counting Systems Vary Across Languages
Summary
Bhat explores the diversity of numeral systems across human languages. Most people assume that counting in tens (the decimal system) is universal and natural — but it is not. The decimal system is dominant in Kannada, Tamil, Sanskrit, and most Indo-European languages, but other languages use entirely different bases.
He examines the Bodo (Boro) language of Northeast India, which uses a combination of base-4 and base-20 counting. In Bodo, numbers are built on groupings of four and twenty, producing a completely different arithmetic structure. Bhat uses this example to make a broader point about linguistic relativity: the way a language structures counting reflects and shapes how its speakers think about quantity and grouping. Kannada’s decimal numerals are native Dravidian forms, not Sanskrit borrowings — another example of Kannada’s self-sufficient grammatical system.
Key Arguments
- The decimal system is not universal — different languages use different counting bases.
- Bodo (Boro) uses base-4 and base-20 counting.
- Counting systems reflect and shape conceptual structures.
- Kannada’s decimal numerals are native Dravidian, not Sanskrit.
Key Terms
| Kannada | Eke | English |
|---|---|---|
| ಎಣಿಕೆ | eNike | counting, numeral system |
| ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ | sankhye | number |
| ಹತ್ತರ ತಳಹದಿ | hattara taLahadi | decimal base (base ten) |
| ಬೋಡೋ | boDo | Bodo / Boro language |
| ದ್ರಾವಿಡ | drAviDa | Dravidian |
Inukunota 29
ಪದಗಳ ಹಿನ್ನಡವಳಿಯನ್ನು ಅರಿಯುವ ಬಗೆ Understanding Word Etymology
Summary
This post is a rigorous critique of pseudo-etymological claims — particularly the widespread practice of claiming that all Kannada words ultimately derive from Sanskrit. Bhat identifies several tricks used to manufacture such claims: ignoring sound change laws, cherry-picking superficial phonological resemblances, and treating any Sanskrit word that sounds vaguely similar as the “source.”
He explains that genuine etymology requires the application of sound change laws — regular, systematic correspondences between the phonemes of related languages. If a word is genuinely borrowed from Sanskrit, there will be a regular pattern of correspondence; if the resemblance is coincidental, no such pattern will hold. Bhat also introduces the concept of Kannada’s two word stocks: (1) native Dravidian words, inherited from Proto-Dravidian; and (2) borrowed Sanskrit words, identifiable by their phonological profile (aspirates, consonant clusters, etc.). Distinguishing these two strata is essential for understanding what Kannada actually is.
Key Arguments
- Claims that all Kannada words derive from Sanskrit are false and methodologically fraudulent.
- Sound change laws are the only valid tool for establishing etymological relationships.
- Kannada has two lexical strata: native Dravidian words and Sanskrit borrowings.
- Phonological profiles distinguish native from borrowed vocabulary.
Key Terms
| Kannada | Eke | English |
|---|---|---|
| ಹಿನ್ನಡವಳಿ | hinnaDavaLi | etymology, history of a word |
| ಶಬ್ದ ಬದಲಾವಣೆ | shabda badalAvaṇe | sound change |
| ಸಾಲ ಪದ | sAla pada | loanword, borrowed word |
| ಮೂಲ | mUla | root, origin |
| ದ್ರಾವಿಡ | drAviDa | Dravidian |
Inukunota 33
ಕನ್ನಡ ನುಡಿಯ ಸೊಗಡು The Character of Kannada
Summary
Bhat describes the distinctive phonological and grammatical character (ಸೊಗಡು / sogaDu) of Kannada — the features that make it unmistakably itself and distinguish it from Sanskrit. He identifies several key differences: Kannada has a three-way vowel length distinction (short, long, and overlong in some dialects); Kannada does not permit the same consonant clusters as Sanskrit; Kannada sandhi rules are completely different from Sanskrit sandhi; and Kannada word-formation uses agglutinative suffixation rather than Sanskrit-style compounding.
Most importantly, Kannada has phonemes that do not exist in Sanskrit: the retroflex lateral approximant (ಳ / L), the retroflex nasal (ಣ / N), and the voiced retroflex stop (ಡ / D in initial position) in native words. Sanskrit, conversely, has aspirated consonants (kh, gh, ch, jh, etc.) that do not occur in native Kannada words. These phonological contrasts are not accidents — they reflect the completely different historical development of the two languages. Kannada’s sogaDu is its own, inherited from Proto-Dravidian, not from Sanskrit.
Key Arguments
- Kannada has a distinctive phonological identity that is not derived from Sanskrit.
- Key Kannada phonemes (ಳ, ಣ, initial ಡ) do not exist in Sanskrit.
- Sanskrit aspirates are absent from native Kannada vocabulary.
- Kannada sandhi and word-formation rules differ fundamentally from Sanskrit.
- Kannada’s sogaDu (character, flavour) is a Dravidian inheritance.
Key Terms
| Kannada | Eke | English |
|---|---|---|
| ಸೊಗಡು | sogaDu | character, flavour, distinctiveness |
| ಉಚ್ಚಾರ | uccAra | pronunciation, phonology |
| ಮಹಾಪ್ರಾಣ | mahAprAṇa | aspirated consonant |
| ಸಂಧಿ | sandhi | phonological junction rule |
| ದ್ರಾವಿಡ | drAviDa | Dravidian |
Inukunota 35
ದ್ರಾವಿಡ ನುಡಿಗಳು ಅಯ್ದಲ್ಲ, ಇಪ್ಪತ್ತಾರು! Dravidian Languages: Not 5 but 26!
Summary
The final post in this collection corrects a common misconception: that the Dravidian language family consists of five languages (Kannada, Telugu, Tamil, Malayalam, Tulu). In fact, linguists recognise 26 or more Dravidian languages, grouped into four sub-families: South Dravidian (Kannada, Tamil, Malayalam, Kodava, etc.), South-Central Dravidian (Telugu, Gondi, Konda, etc.), Central Dravidian (Kolami, Naiki, Parji, etc.), and North Dravidian (Brahui, Kurukh, Malto).
Bhat emphasises that many of these languages are spoken by small communities and are endangered. The five “major” Dravidian languages have literary traditions and state support; the other 21+ do not. He also makes the important methodological point that having a script is not what makes a language Dravidian — language family membership is determined by shared ancestry (systematic sound correspondences), not by writing system. Languages like Brahui, spoken in Balochistan (Pakistan), are Dravidian despite using Perso-Arabic script and being geographically separated from the other Dravidian languages.
Key Arguments
- The Dravidian family has 26+ languages, not 5.
- Four sub-groups: South, South-Central, Central, and North Dravidian.
- Many Dravidian languages are small and endangered.
- Script does not determine language family — ancestry does.
- Brahui (spoken in Balochistan) is a Dravidian language despite geographic isolation.
Key Terms
| Kannada | Eke | English |
|---|---|---|
| ದ್ರಾವಿಡ | drAviDa | Dravidian |
| ನುಡಿಕುಲ | nuDikula | language family |
| ಲಿಪಿ | lipi | script |
| ಬ್ರಾಹೂಯಿ | brAhUyi | Brahui language |
| ಅಳಿವಿನ ಅಂಚು | aLivina ancu | edge of extinction |
Cross-References
| Post | Inukunota No. | Topic | kn-eke section |
|---|---|---|---|
| Post 1 | 11 | Technical vocabulary | → |
| Post 2 | 2 | Linguistic inferiority complex | → |
| Post 3 | 3 | Phonological spelling | → |
| Post 4 | 10 | Spelling reform (continued) | → |
| Post 5 | 14 | Prestige of writing | → |
| Post 6 | 18 | Language families | → |
| Post 7 | 20 | Correctness in writing | → |
| Post 8 | 23 | Age of Kannada | → |
| Post 9 | 27 | Word meaning / semantics | → |
| Post 10 | 28 | Counting systems | → |
| Post 11 | 29 | Word etymology | → |
| Post 12 | 33 | Phonological character of Kannada | → |
| Post 13 | 35 | Dravidian family (26 languages) | → |
File Index
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| 18-kannaDa-nuDiya-bagege-cintane-blog.md | Source: all 13 blog posts in Kannada |
| 18-kannaDa-nuDiya-bagege-cintane-en.md | This file: English summaries |
| 18-kannaDa-nuDiya-bagege-cintane-kn-eke.md | Eke romanisation companion |
| 18-kannaDa-nuDiya-bagege-cintane-claude-prompt.md | AI assistant overview |