Learning tamizh

Languages used in Carnatic Music & Literature
arunk
Posts: 3424
Joined: 07 Feb 2010, 21:41

Post by arunk »

CM tamizh krithis as I mentioned are a separate animal. Just way too much mixing of sanskrit phrases - many from krithis of other languages, and intricately mixed in with tamizh words. For a lack of better phrase - its a can of worms

Arun

mahakavi

Post by mahakavi »

rshankar wrote:BTW, why should sangItam become sangIdam? It is a word from sanskrit, isn't it?
It is not Thamizh changes gItam to gIdam. When you write it in Thamizh you cannot use the "ta" in the middle of a word without preceding it with "t". It has to be gIttam which is not right. As you see the sound is understood in the context. There is only one "ta" letter in Thamizh. It takes on the "ta" sound or "da" sound depending on whether it is in the beginning or middle of a word, respectively like "tappu"(wrong) vs "mudal" (first). If the "ta" sound has to come in the middle it has to be preceded by the mey ezhuttu (true consonant) "t" as in the word "sattam" (sound).

I know you are asking why it has to be written as gIdam if it is a Sanskrit word gItam. We get into this problem only when we transliterate the Thamizh word into Roman script. Otherwise we have to pronounce it hard or soft using the Thamizh grammar rule cited in the previous paragraph. The same situation occurs when we pronounce maTam as maDam in Thamizh. Thamizh did not have words which required "Ta" sound such as maTam. It has got to be maTTam or maDam.

arunk
Posts: 3424
Joined: 07 Feb 2010, 21:41

Post by arunk »

mahakavi,

We are talking about usage in tamizh itself (sangIdattai, sangIdattil etc. etc.) and not when writing a sanskrit phrase in tamizh. I believe in usage in tamizh, it is pronounced by most as only sangIdam (one popular but not a nice "adage": sangIdam teruinjavanukku ... ;) - sorry i cant think of anything else now!

Arun

vgvindan
Posts: 1430
Joined: 13 Aug 2006, 10:51

Post by vgvindan »

why should sangItam become sangIdam? It is a word from sanskrit, isn't it
The difference betweent tatsamam words and tatbhavam words need to be appreciated. For example, 'pankajam' is changed as 'pangayam' in tamizh which sounds very natural to the language. Just because 'pankajam' happens to be Sanskrit word, the tamizh version need not be changed - that is the flavour of the language.

In all my translations of tyAgarAja kritis into tamizh (meaning), I have not used a single Sanskrit letter like - S, Sh, j, h - because I love the language as it is and respect the sweetness of tamizh language without Sanskrit sounds.

I also have found that telugu is similar to tamizh almost word-for-word. But telugu has its own flavour. We should not put tamizh flavour into telugu.

I have come across a number of words migrated from tamizh to Sanskrit. We do not expect the tamizh version of the word to be maintained in Sanskrit.

Every language absorbs many words from other languages and turns them into their own style.

'ManipravALa' attitude has brought about tamizh exclusivism. tamizh and Sanskrit are sister languages. If mInAkShi is pronounced as 'mInAtchi' and 'mukham' is pronounced as 'mugam', so what?

vasya10
Posts: 101
Joined: 26 Mar 2005, 22:32

Post by vasya10 »

I have come across a number of words migrated from tamizh to Sanskrit.
can you share some of them ? will be interesting to know!

vgvindan
Posts: 1430
Joined: 13 Aug 2006, 10:51

Post by vgvindan »

The Tamil word 'muttu' which means 'pearl' is 'muktA' in Sanskrit.

drshrikaanth
Posts: 4066
Joined: 26 Mar 2005, 17:01

Post by drshrikaanth »

vgvindan wrote:The Tamil word 'muttu' which means 'pearl' is 'muktA' in Sanskrit.
This is not a cut and dried case. It is actually believed to be the other way round. BTW- I do have an issue with the way you say things VGV (We have been here before). muttu is a draviDian word, the moment you say "tamil word", you are marginalising and excluding the other dravidian languages which is incorrect, misleading and unacceptable. As Ravi and mysef have pointed out before, these are prehistoric borrowings from the proto-dravidian tongue. While you may not know other languages, it should not stop you from recognising and acknowledging facts for what they are. (I have no intention of making you quit the forum :)

drshrikaanth
Posts: 4066
Joined: 26 Mar 2005, 17:01

Post by drshrikaanth »

vgvindan wrote:tamizh and Sanskrit are sister languages.
This is incorrect as the 2 languages belong to entirely different linguistic family groups.

vgvindan
Posts: 1430
Joined: 13 Aug 2006, 10:51

Post by vgvindan »

drs
I have no intention of belittling any language; in fact, I have a very high regard for Sanskrit; probably I may not be able express how deeply I feel about the language. All the same, I am not able to subscribe to your view that Tamil and Sanskrit belong to two entirely different linguisting family groups - I have my own reasons; I would not like to make it an issue.

I have equal regard for every other language, be it Tamil, Telugu, Kannada or Malayalam. Some people say Telugu is a very sweet language, but I know urdu to be equally sweet language - notwithstanding the fact that my mother tongue is Telugu. I also know how sweet Tamil is. I may not be able to express how much highly I regard Dasara kritis. So do I regard kabir's poems rendered beautifully by Bhimsen Joshi and Hari On Saran, so and so forth.

My humble submission to people is not to look at any language through the prism of other languages. Tamil is not to be seen through the prism of Sanskrit or vice versa. Similary Sanskrit, Kannada, Telugu and Malayalam should not be seen through the prism of Tamil.

Elsewhere I have objected to parochialism in promoting Tamil by deriding other languages - this is in particular reference to kritis of Sri Tyagaraja, at Thiruvaiyaru - his home-town. Therefore, I am not at all interested in promoting Tamil in this forum.

In a Telugu website, I came across a critical reference about Annamayya about his bent towards Azhwars. Obviously, people want to look everything through language angle only.

The language of music transcends language boundaries. The language of bhakti transcends even the musical boundaries.

As this thread pertains to Learning Tamil, I only wanted to highlight that the Tamil language words should be rendered as such only and not sanskritised. I regret for some unnecessary digression.
I have conveyed my viewpoint and I would like rest at that.

arunk
Posts: 3424
Joined: 07 Feb 2010, 21:41

Post by arunk »

vgvindan wrote:If mInAkShi is pronounced as 'mInAtchi' and 'mukham' is pronounced as 'mugam', so what?
It is not just a matter of pronounciation anymore (it may have started so lo..ng ago). These morphs are official - although kshI is very very much in common use. Else there would have been no need for ksha character in tamizh. Yes some people reject it, but you look at boooks and magazines - they all willingly admint sha, ja, ha, and ksha. Those sounds are very much part of the language. Those who are language fanatics (and reject ja, ha, ksha etc.) cant wish that away either :)

Arun
Last edited by arunk on 13 Feb 2007, 18:46, edited 1 time in total.

vgvindan
Posts: 1430
Joined: 13 Aug 2006, 10:51

Post by vgvindan »

Those who are language fanatics (and reject ja, ha, ksha etc.) cant wish that away either
Thanks for the compliments.

chalanata
Posts: 603
Joined: 06 Feb 2010, 15:55

Post by chalanata »

let me start my kalakshebam:
(namah parvathi pathaye ! hara hara maha deva! gopika jeevanasmaranam govinda govinda!)
1. Tholkappiyar clearly says he is devising a language which has simple sounds unlike the 'maraiyor mozhi'.
2. many words are common in sanskrit and tamil. when the pronounciation is exactly the same they are called 'tharchamam' and when different they are called 'tharpavam'.
3. nagareshu kanchi was sung by paravi who was a poet in pulikesin II's court.
4. sa and cha confusion happens in tamil because there is no in between whereas in sanskrit there is a third letter which sounds as 'sssa'. please remember 'namassivayacha ssivacharayacha' in rudram. the same namassivaya is pronounced in tamil as 'namaschivayacha'.
5. i'm repeating the same thing which i mentioned in another thread again. sanskrit served the same purpose as that of internet of today. the knowledge of many regions were pooled and exchanged and sanskrit was used for this. for example srivaishnavism was a concept which was brought about by nammazhvar and that spread to other regions through sanskrit. (please remember i do not suscribe to the view that the virada purusha mentioned in purusha suktham does not necessarily indicate vishnu.
6. VGV, please do not show that you are an easy target for getting hurt. the more you try to display it the more people are tempted to trigger it!
7.most unfortunately though all the dravidian languages are from the same root they do not share the same grammer as far as phonetics are concerned and that is why we do not see eye to eye with one another.
Last edited by chalanata on 13 Feb 2007, 19:59, edited 1 time in total.

arunk
Posts: 3424
Joined: 07 Feb 2010, 21:41

Post by arunk »

vgvindan wrote:
Those who are language fanatics (and reject ja, ha, ksha etc.) cant wish that away either
Thanks for the compliments.
Hey! I wasnt referring to you! I was referring to the political elements! :/

Arun

arunk
Posts: 3424
Joined: 07 Feb 2010, 21:41

Post by arunk »

chalanata wrote:4. sa and cha confusion happens in tamil because there is no in between whereas in sanskrit there is a third letter which sounds as 'sssa'. please remember 'namassivayacha ssivacharayacha' in rudram. the same namassivaya is pronounced in tamil as 'namaschivayacha'.
I dont think the ca/sa confusion is restricted to (or caused by) sanskrit based tamizh words.

Arun
Last edited by arunk on 13 Feb 2007, 21:01, edited 1 time in total.

mahakavi

Post by mahakavi »

arunk wrote:mahakavi,

We are talking about usage in tamizh itself (sangIdattai, sangIdattil etc. etc.) and not when writing a sanskrit phrase in tamizh. I believe in usage in tamizh, it is pronounced by most as only sangIdam (one popular but not a nice "adage": sangIdam teruinjavanukku ... ;) - sorry i cant think of anything else now!

Arun
OK. What I was saying was that there is no Thamizh word called "sangItam". The equivalent word is "isai". So when you import a word from Sanskrit or any other language and write it in Thamizh script you have to folow Thamizh grammar or else don't use it. That is my point. As for pronunciation, it follows the written script form and the formula in grammar. If someone can pronounce it as "gItam" when singing a song which contains that word, well and good. But if they sing it as "gIdam" I wouldn't excoriate them.

arunk
Posts: 3424
Joined: 07 Feb 2010, 21:41

Post by arunk »

mahakavi wrote:[OK. What I was saying was that there is no Thamizh word called "sangItam".
This was the case long ago, but i think the word has been adopted into (modern) tamizh vocabulary.

Arun

mahakavi

Post by mahakavi »

rshankar wrote:Arun,
I agree with your iteration that mukham should be mugam in tamizh - here is an amusing tale told by DKJ (he also mentions it in a lec dem)...when P Sivan first composed the song 'vadanamE candrabimbamO' he actually composed it as 'mugam adu candrabimbamO', and when he demonstrated it to DKJ and asked him what he thought, DKJ apparently said - "Sir, ennamO mAdiri irukku idu...''mugamadu' appuram 'yEsuadu' appaDiyellAm problem varalAm" - P Sivan was struck by that and quickly changed the words to 'vadanamE'. Probably would not have happened with mukhamadu candrabimbamO, huh?
I am wondering about the authenticity of this amusing tale. This is not to question the jocular nature of the word usage. DKJ was born in 1928. The song "vadanamE candrabimbamO" was used in Sivakavi which came out in 1943. So it was perhaps written in 1942-43. At that time (assuming DKJ was with Sivan) DKJ was 14 years old and I wonder if he was that much equipped with a sharp mind to talk about muhammad and Jesus as they related to mugamadu. Perhaps Sivan told DKJ much later that he was experimenting with the word and changed it anticipating a possible corrupt interpretation. You know how tales get twisted!

By the way was DKJ associated with Sivan from his (DKJ's) pre-teen years?

mahakavi

Post by mahakavi »

arunk wrote:
mahakavi wrote:[OK. What I was saying was that there is no Thamizh word called "sangItam".
This was the case long ago, but i think the word has been adopted into (modern) tamizh vocabulary.

Arun
Yes, but the "ta"vs "da" distinction remains. That has not changed!

arunk
Posts: 3424
Joined: 07 Feb 2010, 21:41

Post by arunk »

Some questions on a related topic - sanskrit based words in tamizh krithis and pronounciation implications.

Take the famous GB composition in AbhOgi : I presume the sanskrit word is sabhApati (?). I dont think this is part of tamizh vocabulary (?) except as a specific name of Siva (although the tamizh form of kanakasabhA is pronounced kanagasabai (?)).

In any case, the word sabhApati is used with tamizh construct and written in tamizh as சபாபதிக்கு (no qualifiers on purpose). This form of construct makes sense only in tamizh. But how would most tamilians tend to pronounce this construct?

(a) Would it be sabhApatikku (retaining all sanskrit parts as such), or (even slightly tamilized) sabApatikku. But doesnt the "patikku" part sound like a odd tamizh construct in the middle of a word - it as too many harder forms in succession (pa ti kku)? Or am I wrong?

(b) Or would it be sabApati for sabhApati, but sabAbadikku :)? Here some of sanskrit form is retained in first (we lost bha), but in later all of it was lost to avoid patikku.

(c) Or sabAbadi and sabAbadikku: all tamilized

The krithi also as kRpAnidhi => which cannot be represented. Wouldnt people tend to prnounce it as krupAnidi (க்ருபா1னிதி/க்ருபா1நிதி)? Note that kirupai/kirubai is not applicable here as it will affect flow (and also mess up prAsa). Also: is bha/ba vs pa as in here still valid as per dviaksharaprAsa rules?

Thanks
Arun

Lakshman
Posts: 14019
Joined: 10 Feb 2010, 18:52

Post by Lakshman »

In the song by GKB, in vasantA, the starting words are naTanam ADinAr and in all the renditions that I have heard the word is pronounced as naTanam. No one sings it as naDanam ADinAr.
But in Nilakantha Shivan's song in pUrvikalyANi why is sung as Ananda naDamADuvAr tillai and not Ananda naTamADuvAr?

vgvindan
Posts: 1430
Joined: 13 Aug 2006, 10:51

Post by vgvindan »

Arun,
I have referred to the website - http://www.shaivam.org/tamil/sta_gkb_u.htm
The word is 'kirupAnidi' கிருபானிதி and not 'krupAnidi' க்ருபானிதி.

In regard to sabApatikku - when we transliterate to other lanaguages IMHO, we should use 'bha' because it is Sanskrit word.

In the previous case 'krpAnidhi' also for 'nidhi' - we should use 'dhi' because again this is a Sanskrit word.

There was an earlier example of 'SivakAmi' - Here also, while transliterating from Tamil to other languages, it is better done as 'SivakAmi' and not as 'sivagAmi' - again because it is a Sanskrit word.

arunk
Posts: 3424
Joined: 07 Feb 2010, 21:41

Post by arunk »

i have observed it too :), but actually i have also heard naDanam ADinAr.

Is naTanam as a whole a valid sanskit form? i.e.we know naTa, but how about naTanam?

If not, one (like me ;)) could argue it is a tamizh word and tamizh pronounciations apply. Besides, the tamizh word pronounced naDanam is quite common - sort of like mugam.

Similar argument to naDamADuvAr - perhaps it is a more obvious tamizh construct than naDanam.

Arun

vgvindan
Posts: 1430
Joined: 13 Aug 2006, 10:51

Post by vgvindan »

Lakshman,
It all depends who sings and from which source he or she learnt. A Tamilian singer who learnt from Tamil source should be faithful to the composition. On the other hand, a transliterated version sung by a person belonging to other language, if he or she sings as 'naTanam' there should no objection.

drshrikaanth
Posts: 4066
Joined: 26 Mar 2005, 17:01

Post by drshrikaanth »

arunk wrote:Is naTanam as a whole a valid sanskit form? i.e.we know naTa, but how about naTanam?

If not, one (like me ;)) could argue it is a tamizh word and tamizh pronounciations apply. Besides, the tamizh word pronounced naDanam is quite common - sort of like mugam.
I can seee you are arguing to win only. Have a good day.

drshrikaanth
Posts: 4066
Joined: 26 Mar 2005, 17:01

Post by drshrikaanth »

arunk wrote:Is naTanam as a whole a valid sanskit form? i.e.we know naTa, but how about naTanam?

If not, one (like me ;)) could argue it is a tamizh word and tamizh pronounciations apply. Besides, the tamizh word pronounced naDanam is quite common - sort of like mugam.
You are arguing to win only, I can see. Have a good day.

arunk
Posts: 3424
Joined: 07 Feb 2010, 21:41

Post by arunk »

vgvindan wrote:In regard to sabApatikku - when we transliterate to other lanaguages IMHO, we should use 'bha' because it is Sanskrit word.
Here is the rub - there is no sanskrit word "sabhApatikku". Contrast it with dharmasamvardhani or "gajavadanA karuNA sadana!" where it is used like a sanskrit form as such.

I think if the word used with a tamizh construct, it is harder to retain the original pronounciation as it may start to sound unlike tamizh - it pretty much goes into no-man's land neither here nor there. Even SivakAmi perhaps - although I agree in general when it comes to names of Gods, the original pronounciation is more preserved. But once you start using them in tamizh constructs, we may run into the same problem.

BTW, kirupAnidhi (pronounciation - not necessarily spelling) would be definitely wrong in this context because of definite violation of prAsa rules (ru vs ba). I think GB would have definitely meant it to be kR.pAnidhi (i.e. the sanskrit form)

Arun

arunk
Posts: 3424
Joined: 07 Feb 2010, 21:41

Post by arunk »

drshrikaanth wrote:You are arguing to win only, I can see. Have a good day.
Well too bad you see it that way. I cant change headstrong positions either!

Arun

drshrikaanth
Posts: 4066
Joined: 26 Mar 2005, 17:01

Post by drshrikaanth »

Better hold your tongue Arun. I can say a few things too. From your post, you are only showing that you are headstrong. We better leave this here before things get worse. Have a GOOD day

ramakriya
Posts: 1876
Joined: 04 Feb 2010, 02:05

Post by ramakriya »

arunk wrote:Is naTanam as a whole a valid sanskit form? i.e.we know naTa, but how about naTanam?
Yes, it is.

It does not confine the meaning to dance, but has a wider meaning (act/dance/perform).

-Ramakriya
Last edited by ramakriya on 13 Feb 2007, 23:12, edited 1 time in total.

arunk
Posts: 3424
Joined: 07 Feb 2010, 21:41

Post by arunk »

Forgot to add: I also think he (GB) meant it as sabhApati.

My question was that once you start combining with tamizh constructs, does it make things more odd? (a crude comparison: Tanglish)

Arun

arunk
Posts: 3424
Joined: 07 Feb 2010, 21:41

Post by arunk »

ramakriya wrote:
arunk wrote:Is naTanam as a whole a valid sanskit form? i.e.we know naTa, but how about naTanam?
Yes, it is.
Thanks. That could explain the stronger tendency towards naTanam here, but naDamADinAr in the other krithi.

Arun

ramakriya
Posts: 1876
Joined: 04 Feb 2010, 02:05

Post by ramakriya »

drshrikaanth wrote:
vgvindan wrote:tamizh and Sanskrit are sister languages.
This is incorrect as the 2 languages belong to entirely different linguistic family groups.
We could say these two old ladies are neighbours, but not related by blood :)

But being neighbours for so long, there has been give-and-take!

-Ramakriya

arunk
Posts: 3424
Joined: 07 Feb 2010, 21:41

Post by arunk »

drshrikaanth wrote:Better hold your tongue Arun. I can say a few things too. From your post, you are only showing that you are headstrong. We better leave this here before things get worse. Have a GOOD day
Ok. We will leave as is.

I know this may not help: but one last claficiation: my only position is there are very valid tamil morphs for sanskrit words in formal usage, which when occuring in tamizh constructs in tamizh krithis/contexts, should carry those morphed pronounciations. But when they appear in very obvious sanskrit constructs in tamizh krithis, the same rules dont apply. The last question was a doubt about "combinatory constructs" where things didnt seem to me as cut and dry as the above two cases.

I dont understand why this is so controversial or maybe it came off extremistic. But if it did, i apologize as i certainly didnt mean it to be so.

Arun
Last edited by arunk on 13 Feb 2007, 23:33, edited 1 time in total.

ramakriya
Posts: 1876
Joined: 04 Feb 2010, 02:05

Post by ramakriya »

chalanata wrote:3. nagareshu kanchi was sung by paravi who was a poet in pulikesin II's court.
Historically, this is not correct. bhAravi was in the court of king durvinIta of ganga dynasty, who ruled from talakADu. Probably 2-3 generations before pulikESi II.

-Ramakriya
Last edited by ramakriya on 13 Feb 2007, 23:22, edited 1 time in total.

mahakavi

Post by mahakavi »

Regarding singing:
Thamizh compositions should be sung according to Thamizh pronunciations. Period.
Thamizh compositions which incorporate imported words can be sung either in a morphed form(to suit Thamizh pronunciation) or in a way the original word was supposed to be pronounced. If it is done in the former way it should not be criticized. In fact many folks swear by the music and not by the word! So what is the rub?

While writing:
Thamizh compositions should be written according to standard grammatical constructs for Thamizh pronunciations even while incorporating imported words.

Accommodation in pronunciation of imported words (Thamizh singers) is discretionary.

mahakavi

Post by mahakavi »

I want to revisit the mode of writing "mInAkshi" in Thamizh.

I contend the word "mIn" denoting fish is originally a Thamizh word. "Akshi" is a Sanskrit word meaning eye. The compounding of the two was done by Brahmins. When the grantic letter "ksh" was adopted into Thamizh script then it was written as மீனாக்ஷி. If it was not adopted it would be written as மீனாட்சி. DRS is right when he said the majority of Thamizh folks (if they are literate at all) would write it in the latter form and pronounce it crudely as மீனாச்சி.

However, when it comes to uttering stOtrams or using it in CM songs it is pronounced and written as மீனாக்ஷி. During the sangam period, I contend, there was no coinage of the word "mInAkshi". I don't recall when the Madurai MInAkshi temple was built and then again how it was written in Thamizh at that time. Currently,as arunk pointed out, the brahmins and few others write and pronounce it as "mInAkshi" (மீனாக்ஷி). The pure Thamizh word for someone to be named மீனாக்ஷி is "mInvizhi" (மீன்விழி) or more specifically "kayalvizhi" (கயல்விழி).

There is another word which resembles மீனாட்சி in sound. ஆட்சி in Thamizh means "rule". அரசாட்சி means "king's rule". So the correct usage to represent the goddess mInAkshi in Thamizh is மீனாக்ஷி. Only those who reject the grantic letter usage would write it as mInATci.

QED

chalanata
Posts: 603
Joined: 06 Feb 2010, 15:55

Post by chalanata »

ramakria,
thanks a lot for the correct information and the correct pronounciation. it is high time i came and met you seperately for some sanskrit lessons.
(is it the same durvinitha who was defeated by the pallava kings?)

vgvindan
Posts: 1430
Joined: 13 Aug 2006, 10:51

Post by vgvindan »

The pure Thamizh word for someone to be named மீனாக்ஷி
It is angayaRkaNNi - அங்கயற்கண்ணி

vgvindan
Posts: 1430
Joined: 13 Aug 2006, 10:51

Post by vgvindan »

Only those who reject the grantic letter usage would write it as mInATci.
I beg to differ. There are may tamizh words like
ATchi - mATcimai - attATci - kATci - tiRaTci - iruvATci - iruTci - puraTci - uruTci - uvaTci - kaTci - maruTci - vaRaTci - veTci - cETci - puraTci - tiruvATci - nITci - tuvaTci - teruTci - mITci - pUTci - veruTci
I have avoided all the Sanskriti words. The word 'manaccATci' is a very common usage word, though 'sAtchi' is 'sAkShi'

arunk
Posts: 3424
Joined: 07 Feb 2010, 21:41

Post by arunk »

vgv - very good points!

My point was mInaKshi (as written) is common in the applicable context (i.e. referring to deity in religious contexts and also cm krithis), and the ksha letter is in fair use albeit in very select words. But mInATci as written is also common both when it applies to the deity, as well as common lingua like what drs/mahakavi indicated. In fact usage of mInATci is indeed a lot more common than what I indicated in the other thread.

I said mInAkshi is "the norm" - that would be wrong if applied to overall use. Even in the applicable context, at best it should have been "mInAkshi is very acceptable". I just felt one need not mandate mInAkshi => mInATci, just because of mukham => mugam (or sukham => sugam). I feel the latter is in the category of very well established morphs, such that the morphed words are treated as well recognizable tamizh words.

Btw, not that this need be taken as very official indicator, but a simple google search on the tamizh word (i.e. type in tamizh script) for either returns many hits - but the hits for mInATci dwarf the hits for mInAkshi :). Similar for visAlAkshi vs visAlATci.

Also - in case anyone cares, for the vasanta GB krithi, unless Ta <=> Da also counts for prAsa/edugai (??), it would be naDanam, as the anupallavi starts as vaDakkayilayil (http://www.geocities.com/promiserani2/c1351.html). But if Ta/Da is ok for prAsa, then pl. disregard this.

Arun

mahakavi

Post by mahakavi »

vgvindan wrote:
The pure Thamizh word for someone to be named மீனாக்ஷி
It is angayaRkaNNi - அங்கயற்கண்ணி
vgvindan:
I was just giving a literal thamizh equivalent for mIn Akshi = mIn vizhi.
kayal is a special type of fish. The prefix "am" means "beautiful". So am+kayal+kaNNI = angayaRkaNNi is an embellished form of mInAkshi.

Also regarding mInATci, I said people who do not want to use the grantic script would write it as mInATci, as attested by the google hits cited by arunk, since most Thamizh writers use it.

Post Reply