Indic is an adjective referring to the Indo-Aryan languages such as Hindi-Urdu or Bengali. These languages are spoken mostly in the northern parts of India, as well as in Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, and the Maldives. This term can be confusing, because hundreds of millions of people in the Indian subcontinent (and nearby island nations) speak non-Indic first languages: over 250 million people, particularly in the south of India and the north of Sri Lanka, speak Dravidian languages, which include Malayalam, Tamil, and Telugu. Austronesian, Tibeto-Burman, and Tai-Kadai languages, and many language isolates, are also spoken in the India and the other nations of subcontinent, as is English (and French, and Portuguese). Unfortunately, there is now a trend to use Indic to mean ‘languages of the subcontinent’. See here for a prominent example. This is a new sense for Indic, and while there is probably a need for such a lexeme to express the notion (language of India or subcontinental language would work), reusing Indic, which already has a distinct and well-established sense, just adds unnecessary confusion.
Hi, this is so valid. Recently, however, I found out living close to the Toda community in Nilgiris in southern India, many community members do not wish their Toda language which is linguistically classified as a South Dravidian language to be considered closely related to the major Dravidian languages such as Tamil, Malayalam, and Kannada. Nor do they wish their language to be categorised as Dravidian. They (believe) that the Toda sound system and grammar differ significantly from those of the other Dravidian languages. My knowledge of Toda is very limited. This is something my Toda friends shared with me. Moreover, these speakers also reject the use of broader labels for Indian languages to include Toda. For them, Toda is neither Dravidian, let alone Indic. Toda is not a well documented language. Speakers use a version of Tamil script to write their language (adapted).
Interesting. I can certainly understand wanting not to be classed in with these larger groups. Is there a specific way the community would prefer to have Toda’s genetic affiliation described? Langauges families often have clear substructure and I don’t see any reason why we coudln’t use a more specific term if desired.