3 ms·
Let's see: - Iyengar is not of Sanskrit origin. On the other hand the unambiguously Dalit surname Chamar is. - First names are dictated more by fashion than b
by unmole 4y ago
Let's see:
- Iyengar is not of Sanskrit origin. On the other hand the unambiguously Dalit surname Chamar is.
- First names are dictated more by fashion than by caste. And the names of deities are used across castes. The idea that first names are markers of caste will sound patently absurd to anyone living in India.
- Rao and Murthy are used across castes. No South Indian will mistake them for caste markers.
> I don't claim to generalise
Really? Because "is a tell-tale of upper-caste origin" and "This rule works across the North-South divide in India" sound like generalizations to me.
Do you really think propagating these misconceptions is productive?
- delta_p_delta_x 4y ago> - Iyengar is not of Sanskrit origin. On the other hand the unambiguously Dalit surname Chamar is. You are cherry-picking examples from my list to prove a point. Furthermore, the etymology of 'Iyengar' is contested, and possibly cognate to the Sanskrit 'ārya'. Perhaps I should clarify: there are always exceptions to the rule. However, I resolutely assert that Sanskrit-derived first and last names are markers of upper-caste ancestry. Yes, there are people of lower-caste with Sanskrit-derived names, and there are people with Dravidian/tribal names from so-called higher castes. That said, the latter is a highly unlikely combination.
- unmole 4y ago> You are cherry-picking examples from my list to prove a point. I am pointing out that the generalizations you made don't even hold in the small examples that you came up with. > I resolutely assert that Sanskrit-derived first and last names are markers of upper-caste ancestry. and > there are people of lower-caste with Sanskrit-derived names These both can't be true. > Dravidian/tribal names I don't understand this bizzare conflation of Dravidian with tribal. What does tribal even mean in this context?