Whatever theory of Origin of Life one may follow, ab initio the whole
planet was filled with inanimate objects. Life gradually started after
initial chemical evolution. There was no oxygen at the beginning. The whole
planet was a reduced environment - full of hydrogen. Gradually blue-green
algae started evolving. They were the first living species to photosynthesize
and they released oxygen. Then, oxygen supported several aerobic organisms.
Millions of years passed, several species of animals, plants, and microbes
came and became extinct. Catastrophies took place and wiped out several
the then important animal and plant species (nonetheless bacteria too!). The
world still went on. Darwin's "Survival of the Fittest and Struggle For
Existence" has always a place while explaining such mechanism of extinction
of unfit species and survival of the fittest species. The Catastrophic
theory offers good explanation in favor of disappearance of some of the then
species of plants and animals. A massive catastrophy (natural disaster)
wiped out several species from the roots. New species succeeded and took
over. The morphology of the new species may be different but certain genes
as well as the biochemical machinery of the extinct species have been
conserved in the new species. A good example for that is the conservation of
certain genes in tact (certain base pair sequences in the DNA of certain
genes) in humans as well as plants as compared with those of pre-historic
organisms (e.g. cytochrome).
It was not a chance that drove the biological evolution but it was the
chemical evolution in cohort with the changing environmental conditions that
drove the biological evolution forward. The existing genes mutated and some
of those could be propagated. In order to suit to the changing environments,
the organisms had to change right at the gene level (which in turn maitains
the basic physiological, biochemical, and morphological machinery). During
that operation, several of the unfit organisms disappeared as they could not
make it. But, some of their fit genes were conserved in the surviving
organisms. Take home lesson from this is in two parts: (1) Eventhough the
unfit organisms became extinct, the surviving organisms carried some of the
fit genes of the unfit organisms; and (2) changing environmental conditions
direct the extinction of unfit (not suitable to the changing environments)
organisms, hence, the unfit genes disappear. Dinosaurs disappeared and
Archeopteris (an intermediate between aves and reptiles) is a fossil, but we
have the aves (birds). Look at the living fossils (a term coined by Charles
Darwin). Living fossils like Cycads (Cycas : a gymnosperm which looks like a
palm tree) has a lot of affinities with several of its prehistoric ancestors.
Did not Ramapithicus and Sivapithicus disappear? We are still living. We
replaced them (Ramapithicus and Sivapithicus are not fictitious names. They
were pre-historic names for two types of monkies found in the Indian
sub-contenant : a good example for anthropological evolution).
Evolutionary anthropology and evolution of cultural anthropology go
hand in hand with. I don't want to reinvent the wheel. One may ask me a
question and object me from discussing this here. One can not severe
cultural anthropology from classical anthropology. Evolution of fingers and
use of tools by the pre-historic man and primates can not be separated and
should be studied together. Similarly, evolution of the vocal cords, tongue,
and the cognitive sections of brain can not be ignored while studying the
speech, communication and language. When species are not immune to
extinction, the secondary characteristics like speech, communication, and
language are not immune to the same either. It is inevitable that just like
the species, their cultural traits are also subjected to catastrophies,
environmental changes, and evolution. During catastrophies, environmental
changes, and evolution certain unfit features or units (like words, dialects,
even entire languages) disappear and new forms take their place.
There is always an exchange of genes from different gene pools. Same way
there is always an influx (also efflux) of cultural genes (I call this way -
as culture is, to me, genetic). In that course, the cultures are exchanged.
Again depending on the environmental circumstances and catastrophies, certain
cultural genes and cultural units are retained and passed on. Nothing is
concrete in this course. Some of those retained will also either mutate or
evolve. Words, speech, and language do fall in this too.
Coming to preservation of species, yes! I do agree that we have to
preserve the species. Upto what extent? As a society, humans want certain
things their way. We know the story of overpopulation. In a period of 20
years, I watched 90% of the Eastern Ghat forests disappear. I saw the
Costarican forests denuded and decapitated. There is a selection pressure
operationg here. Overgrowing human population puts a lot of pressure on the
environmental resources. Finally the environment is depleted off of the
resources. Human communities can not satisfy their needs. Many of them will
perish. Those fittest will survive, discover new things and invent new
things. Environments will change. Subsequently the humans will change their
basic biochemical mechanisms. Diabetes mellitus may be a disease. But, in
my opinion, it is an evolutionary mechanism forcing humans towards a
nutritional evolution (This may look like a foolish statement. But I always
think this way. I said it today.). What happened to humans when they lost
the gene for the synthesis of ascorbic acid (vitamin C)? Many of them died
of scurvy. Remaining those who survived realized that they would get the
vitamin C from the plants. They ate plants and survived and we do the same
to survive. Is n't that evolution. Molecular biologists and synthetic
organic chemists argue that they can synthesize or biosynthesize any compound
that can be obtained in nature - hence what is the need for preservation of
certain species (just for argument sake!).
Human cultural evolution is a dynamic process just like the biological
process. When a species takes some tens of thousands of years to evolve,
human cultural evolution takes some hundrads of years, if not thousands.
In an era of technarchy like we do live in, it does not take even 1 year to
see a dramatic turn in one aspect of a given culture. Pentiums are already
old which came in yesterday. Yes! Languages, old ones, and their words
are to be kept. Sure! Sometimes history is fun to read. Also, we learn a
lot from history. Will that history repeat? May be. If it repeats, the
conditions now are different. TB disappeared almost. Now TB is back due to
AIDS. TB is handled again with new therapeutics and preventive measures. Will
the older techniques work? May be but with a lot of energy subsidy and a
great effort they will work. Why to go through rough roads if we have modern
immunology and biotechnology (which ofcourse originated from classical
techniques)? (Changing times and tools with new knowledge).
At one stage in India, people spoke their languages and dielects. Somehow
Sanskrit infiltrated and occupied the tongues upto 90%, replaceing the
majority of words in a given language. That is what happened to Telugu too.
But, the real Telugu (what is spoken by the majority or artisans speak it
till today) is dead. For all practical purposes, TELUGU LANGUAGE IS A DEAD
LANGUAGE AND IS ON THE COURSE OF EXTINCTION. Who knows the meanings of real
Telugu words? How many of us understand the Annamacharya kiirtanas word to
word? How many of us understand the Janapada gEyas word by word? How many
of us can make head or tail of some of the Yakshaganas? How many of us do
make out what Yenkanna from Alamooru paSuvula Sa'la says? The Telugu, real
Telugu, is the ma'mDaliika telugu. That is dead already. A lot of English
has crept in. I will give you an example:
A village setting:
ra'muDu: orE! yemkaTii! Etra'! lEjii! phiiDuga' run cEsi O sharba'T
tEra'!
yemkanna: ETra'! bussu jarniila body amta' painlu ra'! okaTE akingu.
ka'mpounder hausukeLLi imDiisanu imjekshanu risiivu cEyimcukOva'la.
Is n't that a tragedy?
Sankrit did the same thing before English did to Telugu. Sanskrit killed
Telugu. Where is an equivalent word for "SupraBa'tam" that we start with
every morning. Where is the usage of a Telugu word for "prEma"? Where is
the right word for "ruci"?
It is unfortunate that we don't have any dictionaries or thesaurus for
ma'mDaliika's. We ignore our own Telugu.
What we have to preserve is the real TELUGU that is on the course of
EXTINCTION. Yes! I agree that species preservation from extinction is
necessary. Telugu was already extinct by the time Gidugu came. But certain
Telugu pools are still active (feebly). Rejuvinate those weak pools of
Telugu. Protect that Telugu from Extinction. Preserve Telugu from
extinction before it becomes a living fossil or a totally petrified fossil.
Preserve Telugu while there are still people alive in every corner of the
world who speak the real Telugu. Why do we force Telugu speaking Telugu
people literally towards extinction by making the real Telugu extinct further
towards fossilization? This fossilization of Telugu will degrade those
Telugu fossil remains so that even traces (residues) of that Telugu may not
be discoved in a couple of centuries. Even with the sudden surge of
vya'vaha'rika Telugu, the Telugu language has taken a strong blow from the
Telugu people. Telugu language, either in communication world or in the
literary arena is a weakling, malnourished, undernourished and suffers from
cultural autoimmune syndrome. Hope we have antiantibodies to cure that.
---pAlana
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POSTED TO NURTURE TELUGU LANGUAGE IN THE NORTH AMERICA.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed above are not those of the CAS.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------