Learning tamizh

Languages used in Carnatic Music & Literature
Post Reply
rshankar
Posts: 13754
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:26

Post by rshankar »

mahakavi wrote:Try to write tamizh in Sanskrit and one would know how awful it would be.
Arun,
To this day, my siblings and I write tamizh using a modified dEvanAgarI script...ones who know dEvanAgari usually dont understand what the words mean, and vice versa, and we do not have any issues with communication at all....and it is certainly not awful at all...

Ravi

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

Post by vgvindan »

Try to write tamizh in Sanskrit and one would know how awful it would be.
Fortunately, the formulators of Unicode have included this - ழ - ऴ and the key-strokes in the normal (a-z) keyboard is same for all languages. I have found this scheme very convenient in my effort of conversion (transliteration) of Thyagaraja Kritis to other languages. I thank those who pioneered such all-inclusive Devanagari script.

Contrary to this other Indian languages stand exposed practising exclusivism - that is more applicable to Tamil - particularly because the slots meant for ख ग घ छ झ ठ ड ढ थ द ध फ ब भ are all left empty - (similarly ऴ slot in Telugu and Kannada is empty). Now that I have seen an ad in the papers in regard to modification of unicode allotment for Tamil, I hope good sense prevails over the sponsors of Tamil.

Bharati sang - பிற நாட்டு நல்லறிஞர் சாத்திரங்கள் தமிழ் மொழியிற் பெயர்த்தல் வேண்டும். But unfortunately, this seems to be applicable only to foreign languages and not to other Indian languages - The opposition to singing Thyagaraja Kritis in the very town of Tiruvaiyaru is well-known.

As opposed to this, Government of Karnataka has sponsored all the Dasara Kritis on its official website - I hope they transliterate these in other languages too.

Such a sponsorship of religious literature of Tamil cannot be expected to happen, particularly when the guiding spirit of Dravidian Movement has burnt himself Kamba Ramayanam and Periya Puranam.

Bharati further wrote -
ஆதி சிவன் பெற்று விட்டான் - என்னை
ஆரிய மைந்தன் அகத்தியனென்றோர்
வேதியன் கண்டு மகிழ்ந்தே - நிறை
மேவும் இலக்கணஞ் செய்து கொடுத்தான்

So, Bharati himself being a 'vEdian' has been side-lined in Tamil Nadu in spite of his utterance 'சாதி இரண்டொழிய வேறில்லை' - it is better not to speak about the condition of the community as a whole in Tamil Nadu.

Therefore, any translation of other Indian Languages works to Tamil and vice-versa has to be purely a private effort. Towards, this I find that Devanagari script acting as a catalyst as common platform for all Indian Languages and I thank those who visualised such a coalescing effort.
Last edited by vgvindan on 05 Feb 2007, 11:31, edited 1 time in total.

mahakavi

Post by mahakavi »

vgvindan wrote:Bharati sang - பிற நாட்டு நல்லறிஞர் சாத்திரங்கள் தமிழ் மொழியிற் பெயர்த்தல் வேண்டும்.


Bharati further wrote -
ஆதி சிவன் பெற்று விட்டான் - என்னை
ஆரிய மைந்தன் அகத்தியனென்றோர்
வேதியன் கண்டு மகிழ்ந்தே - நிறை
மேவும் இலக்கணஞ் செய்து கொடுத்தான்

So, Bharati himself being a 'vEdian' has been side-lined in Tamil Nadu in spite of his utterance 'சாதி இரண்டொழிய வேறில்லை' - it is better not to speak about the condition of the community as a whole in Tamil Nadu.
vgvindan:
I have no qualms with what you have written in your post. In the spirit of Bharathi we must have intermixing of all Indian languages to the extent possible. Exclusivity among certain scholars may be OK since they may prefer purity of the language. (The Japanese practice ethnic purity too and they are not worse off for that). But all others must embrace a blend.

As for Bharathi's first quote mentioned above, Bharathi meant "sAttirangaL" only and not linguistic works. "sAttiram" is generally taken to mean "science" and in this context Bharathi meant to translate the scientific works of the western world into Thamizh since he thought the Thamizh folks should have a current knowledge of scientific breakthroughs.

Regarding the second quote of Bharathi, the way I understand it is that Bharathi is mentioning agattiyar as the vEdiyan. "Ariya maindan agattiyanenROr vEdiyan" --the Aryan brahmin by the name agattiyan-- "ilakkaNanjceydu koDuttAn"--constructed the grammar.

Any comments?

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

Post by arunk »

Yes devanagiri is indeed an impressive design. But to introduce it now to replace a well established tamizh script which has wide and deep reach into the populace? Forget it - It isnt going to happen.

The goal is noble but in real world, people arent going to buy nor should government get into the role of enforcing it. No government can realistically justify extending a script to represent works other languages. A nobler (personal) goal is for people to actually learn the other languages and read the other scripts.

But it would easier to extend the tamizh script to accomodate sounds - particularly those that in well known words already unoffcially part of in the language. It has happened before (ja, ksha, sha), and at that time more should have been done.

If I may be the devil's advocate, as I hinted earlier, this "free and uninhibited" mixing of sanskrit words into tamizh context was probably an inclination of people only of some communities - communities who were signicifantly powerful in the social strata in the past. And they unknowningly (or let us say not deliberately), made the problem significantly worse than it could have been. This would be the counter-argument.

For example, in tamizh CM krithis it may be easier to find occurences of kamalalOcani instead of tAmaRaikkaNNi :). Although no trouble representing either one in this case - i hope you get my point. Why is this? Why does a tamizh krithi begin "gajavadana karuNA sadanA, Sankara bAlA lambOdara sundara". Dont get me wrong, i like this krithi, i love the composer and greatly admire his works and I am not singling him in any way. But notice that every word is a sanskrit word or sanskrit based word, and some of them have no meaning in tamizh, and some do have but are used in forms which i do not think is proper in tamizh (karuNA!). This simply points to a trend in tamizh CM krithis, which magnifies the problem significantly, and in many ways made the problem take on giant arms and tentacles.

But this the past and things are the way it is. Given all this, IMO, the solution that could work is to extend the tamizh script. Atleast try to differentiate bAvam (a well known tamizh morph of bhAvam) from pAvam for god sakes :)!

Arun
Last edited by arunk on 05 Feb 2007, 21:27, edited 1 time in total.

mahakavi

Post by mahakavi »

arunk wrote:For example, in tamizh CM krithis it may be easier to find occurences of kamalalOcani instead of tAmaRaikkaNNi :). Although no trouble representing either one in this case - i hope you get my point. Why is this? Why does a tamizh krithi begin "gajavadana karuda sadana, Sankara bAlA lambOdara sundara". Dont get me wrong, i like this krithi, i love the composer and greatly admire his works and I am not singling him in any way. But notice that every word is a sanskrit word or sanskrit based word, and some of them have no meaning in tamizh, and some do have but are used in forms which i do not think is proper in tamizh (karuNA!). This simply points to a trend in tamizh CM krithis, which magnifies the problem significantly, and in many ways made the problem take on giant arms and tentacles.

But this the past and things are the way it is. Given all this, IMO, the solution that could work is to extend the tamizh script. Atleast try to differentiate bAvam (a well known tamizh morph of bhAvam) from pAvam for god sakes :)!

Arun
arunk:
I agree with you on this. As for using Sanksrit words in Thamizh CM kritis, some like Bharathi, Papanasam Sivan, and P. Thooran included the deliberate maNipravALam style of composing. It was probably more of a natural flow rather than by design. That is why I suggested (even years ago) that the ba, ga, Da, and da sounds must have been incorporated in the text when written or printed by BOLD letters which would definitely alleviate the misery caused by words like pAvam vs bhAvam when written in Thamizh script.

By the way the word mInalOcani (fish-eyed) appears to be a blend of Thamizh and Sanskrit introduced by Thamizh brahmins who started composing kritis. mIn= fish and lOcani = eye. While mInam is mentioned in Sanskrit dictionaries (to denote the rAsi in astrology) I do not find "mIn" there. Sanskrit uses "matsyam" to denote fish normally. mIn has been in Thamizh usage before the CE as the flag symbol for the Pandyan kings.
Last edited by mahakavi on 05 Feb 2007, 21:23, edited 1 time in total.

rshankar
Posts: 13754
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:26

Post by rshankar »

mahakavi wrote:mIn has been in Thamizh usage before the CE as the flag symbol for the Pandyan kings.
Remember Kalki's ponniyin Selvan (I have to 'fess that I have only read the English version of this wonderful tale) - where the bad guys use the samyuta hasta symbol for fish to signal to the other villains?:)

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

Post by arunk »

mIn is said by some researchers to be a dravidian word. I remember reading it in connection with arguments about Indus script (where fish and star pictures are associated with each other, and in tamizh mIn is used for both).

As for tendency of tamizh composers to use maNipravaLam (albeit intertwined very intricately in some case as even the anupallavi of gajavadana), my take is
(a) they were well versed or very familiar with sanskrit (thats a given)
(b) they were significantly influenced by existing popular/respected krithis which were not in tamizh and which used many common phrases in praise of different deites (like the term "gajavadana", "lambOdara" etc.)

The style was probably natural to them but borne out those 2. Now I have not paid extra attention to nAyanmArs and AlwArs, but I thought in their case one doesnt find this much of sprinkling. They probably had influence of sanskri, but the important factor missing would be the influence from existing krithis above. It would be interesting to analyze the level of this trend over time - as in the composers by time period
(a) Alwars, nAyanmArs
(b) muttuttANDavar, aruNagirinAtar (prior to telugu/sanskrit as CM lingua-franca, and standard CM lyrical structure?)
(c) OVK (at the early part of telugu/sanskrit as CM lingua-franca, and standard CM lyrical structure)
(d) Modern composers - Papanasam Sivan, periyasAmi tUran, ambujam krishna, etc. Post trinity and hence heavy influence of telugu/sanskrit composers

(Note of course that technically they are not all in the same genre of poetry)

My (sort of blind) guess is it would be there would be a possibly significant jump from (b) to (c), but a much much more jump from (c) to (d). Doesnt that sound like an interesting research topic :)?

Arun

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

Post by vgvindan »

mahakavi,
sAttirangaL - I agree with you - Bharati was more interested in scientific knowledge being brought into Tamil language.

vEdian - You are right - it is agattian who is vEdian. But what I brought out was Bharati himself being a vEdian, he has been sidelined.

arun,
"free and uninhibited" mixing of sanskrit words into tamizh
The reason why I pointed out the 'empty slots' is that these could be allotted to specific symbols corresponding to ग घ च छ etc so that these could be utilised when transliterating other languages texts to Tamil. I am aware it is utopian.
A voice in wilderness!
Last edited by vgvindan on 05 Feb 2007, 21:50, edited 1 time in total.

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

Post by ramakriya »

mahakavi wrote:By the way the word mInalOcani (fish-eyed) appears to be a blend of Thamizh and Sanskrit introduced by Thamizh brahmins who started composing kritis. mIn= fish and lOcani = eye. While mInam is mentioned in Sanskrit dictionaries (to denote the rAsi in astrology) I do not find "mIn" there. Sanskrit uses "matsyam" to denote fish normally. mIn has been in Thamizh usage before the CE as the flag symbol for the Pandyan kings.
Although mIna decidedly has a southern origin, it has been taken into samskR.ta lon..g back :) Probably around the CE ; The rAshi names came in to vouge sometime between 400 BC- 0AD and what we have is a mIna rASi and not matsya rASi. I am almost sure the term mInalOcani or mInAkshI has been used in samskR.ta by the likes of kALidAsa, although I can not give a reference off-hand.

-Ramakriya
Last edited by ramakriya on 05 Feb 2007, 22:35, edited 1 time in total.

mahakavi

Post by mahakavi »

>>A voice in wilderness!<<

Yes. Does it still make a sound even if no one is in the wilderness to hear it? Yes, by the definition of physics. The sound waves are there and perhaps someone will pick it up and run with it. You never know.

vgvindan:
I recognize you included Bharathi as vEdiyan along with agattiyar. I was just emphasizing the fact (not explicitly though) that agattiyar as a Brahmin was responsible for constructing Thamizh language and grammar( through his disciple tolkAppiyar).

arunk:
I am not sure whether we (at least I am) are qualified to do "research" on the transition from pure Thamizh to Sanskritized Thamizh from the early centuries to the later ones. But we can certainly discuss them. For that matter even iLangO aDigaL has sprinkled Sanskrit words in his SilappadikAram. That was perhaps due to the influence of Jainism which he embraced. In addition during that time period sEran SenguTTuvan began an odyssey to the Himalayas and cross-cultural influences were possible. The two North Indian kings "kanaka and visaya" were brought to the south after their defeat. During the Pallava period too there were scholars from Benares who visited Kanchipuram. The splendor of Kanchipuram was described in the following lines (Kalki mentioned this in Sivakamiyin sabadam) "pushpEshu jAti purushEshu vishNu, nArIshu rambA nagarEshu Kanchi" Perhaps it was a visiting Sanskrit pundit who wrote those lines!

As for the stars referred to as viNmIns iLangO aDigaL refers to Kannagi as ..sAli orumIn tagaiyAlaik kOvalan mAmudu pArppAn maRai vazhi kATTiDa tIvalanjceyvadu... Here orumIn refers to Arundati and Kannagi is compared to Arundati who was seen as a star in the galaxy.
Last edited by mahakavi on 05 Feb 2007, 22:38, edited 1 time in total.

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

Post by arunk »

mahakavi - right. I am not qualified at all either:). I was merely suggesting that the topic sounded interesting.

BTW, i do not classify the language of some of PS and PT krithis as "sanskritized tamizh", It is much beyond that, and as you said, it is really close to maNipravaLam.

Sanskritized tamizh would be like using sanskrit based words well incorporated into tamizh like sangu, cakkaram etc. - not a stream of sanskrit words and sanskrit phrases like you find in krithis. On a related note, it is interesting to note that Azhwars use Azhi, sudar Azhi etc. to describe vishnu's cakra. Not cakkaram which is what you would probably find in modern day usage.

Arun
Last edited by arunk on 05 Feb 2007, 22:49, edited 1 time in total.

cmlover
Posts: 11498
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:36

Post by cmlover »

has been used in samskR.ta by the likes of kALidAsa, although I can not give a reference off-hand.
kalidasa writes 'suptamIna iva h^RdaH' (lake with sleeping fish) while comparing the silence of VashiShTha (Raghuvamsha 1.73). Hence the word had currency in Sanskrit from early times. However it is derived as
'mI (himsAyAM) + nak' where the dhatu mI refers to killing or hurting. I do not recall any association of killing with mI in Tamil and hence they may be of different origins and refer to the same object through serendipity!

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

Post by drshrikaanth »

arunk wrote:mIn is said by some researchers to be a dravidian word.
Yep but a prehistoric loan
I remember reading it in connection with arguments about Indus script (where fish and star pictures are associated with each other, and in tamizh mIn is used for both).
In kannaDa also, mIn means both star and fish. Theword mIn with the connotation of star is derived from the verb "min"- "that which twinkes is a star"

srkris
Site Admin
Posts: 3497
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 03:34

Post by srkris »

If we regard the Mahabharata as being extant atleast around 600BCE (owing to Panini's time being commonly fixed at 500BCE, and one of his sutras (iv.iii.98) mentioning "Vasudevarjunabhyam Vun", we can safely say the word "mIna" appears in Sanskrit by at least 600BCE since its found in the Mahabharata. This does not make it impossible though, for the word to have been of Dravidian origin, but makes it more unlikely than it is otherwise.

Lakshmana becoming ilakkuvan was not entirely original by Kambar. Lakshana/Lakshya had become ilakkanam/ilakkiyam earlier (owing to Pali/prakrta influence - pali doesnt retain complex sounds like ksha, simplfies to kkha).

mahakavi

Post by mahakavi »

arunk wrote:On a related note, it is interesting to note that Azhwars use Azhi, sudar Azhi etc. to describe vishnu's cakra. Not cakkaram which is what you would probably find in modern day usage.
iLangO aDigaL refers to vishNu as tirumAl, and Krishna as mAyavan. because at that time there was no letter in Thamizh to write "sh". It was an innovative way to find alternative names which were prevalent at that time.

All the Azhwars including ANDAL refer to rAdhA (or nILA devi) as nappinnai as did iLangO aDigaL.

I think the divya prabhandhams refer to KaNNan which was the equivalent of kannAh.
Last edited by mahakavi on 06 Feb 2007, 03:18, edited 1 time in total.

mahakavi

Post by mahakavi »

srkris wrote:Lakshmana becoming ilakkuvan was not entirely original by Kambar. Lakshana/Lakshya had become ilakkanam/ilakkiyam earlier (owing to Pali/prakrta influence - pali doesnt retain complex sounds like ksha, simplfies to kkha).
On top of that no word in Thamizh should start with the letters: ra, la, La,zha, Ta, Ra, na, and Na (iraNDu suzhi and mUnRu suzhi).

ksrimech
Posts: 1050
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 04:25

Post by ksrimech »

arunk wrote:
On a related note, it is interesting to note that Azhwars use Azhi, sudar Azhi etc. to describe vishnu's cakra. Not cakkaram which is what you would probably find in modern day usage.
arunkji,
Here are all the instances where azhvArs have used the word chakkaram (some places comes in with sangu).

(1) viSnuchitta - "... theeyiRpolikinRasenchudaraazhi thikazhthiruchchakkaraththin ...."
- "...saamaaRu_avanain^eeyeNNich chakkaraththaalthalaikoNdaay!..."
- "...naaNolichchaarngamthiruchchakkaram....."
- "...veLLaiviLisanguvenchudarththiruchchakkaram...."
- "....aayirandhOLum thiruchchakkaramadhanaal...."

(2) nIlan - "....iNangkuthiruch chakkaratthem..."
- "....chakkaram maRRivar vaNNameNNil..."
- ".... chakkaramu nEnNdhum...."
- "....maarvil thiruvaNn valaNnEnNdhu chakkaraththaNn..."

(3) mAran saDagOpan - "...kaiyaarchchakkarak kaNNapiraanE.."
- "....thEvaar kOlaththodum thiruchchakkaram sanginodum.."
- "...changodu chakkaram kaNtu kandhum..."
- "...chakkarach chelvan_dhannaik kurukoorchchata kOpanchonna...."
- "....chiththirath thErvala vaa!thiruch chakkarath thaay!aruLaay..."
- ".....changu chakkarak kaiyava Nnenbar charaNamE...."
- ".....uruvaar chakkaram changu chumandhiNG kummOdu..."

(4) bakthisAra - "... chakkaramkoL kaiyyanE saDangarvAy aDangiDa..."

AnDAL uses pAncasanniyamE in her mAlE maNivaNNA pAsuram, clearly derived from pAnchajanyAm, a sanskrit word. This word can be found is first chapter of bhagavadh gita adyaya of mahAbAratAm. "pAncajanyam hrushikesha devadattam dananjanyaha......". The word sangu also occurs at number of locations in divya prabhandam.
Last edited by ksrimech on 06 Feb 2007, 04:46, edited 1 time in total.

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

Post by arunk »

ksrimechji,

Thanks! i once again stand corrected :)! But what I was indirectly implying was that there was an alternate word for cakkaram in this context, which i didnt know about, and was theorizing that it perhaps it is not much in use today (or even say say 17-20th century) - ???.

I am quite certain that Azhwars would have had influence of sanskrit in their lives.

Arun

ksrimech
Posts: 1050
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 04:25

Post by ksrimech »

Oops sorry arunkji, I was editing my posting when you posted. Sorry for not reading it earlier. Got your point.

All the AzhvArs were experts in samskrita vEda (Ref. line in nammAzhvAr's first pAsuram: mayarvara madinalam aruLinan evan avan). But the did not use it because of the hard nature of sanskrit (murraTTu svabhAvam). Only kulaSekarazvAr dared to touch sanskirt (viz. mukunda mAlA) and was not be affected by it.
Last edited by ksrimech on 06 Feb 2007, 04:51, edited 1 time in total.

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

Post by arunk »

thanks ksrimechji.

Btw i should have said "i didnt realize the implication of (sudar)Azhi" as opposed to "did not know". It figures right in the famous tiruppallANDu (vaDivAr sOdi valattuRaiyum sudar Azhiyum pallANDu) :) .

In fact, so does pAnchajanya - pAnjasanniyamum pallANDE.

I dont know all other references (my knowledge here is close to zero - although it shouldnt be ;)), but one other reference to Azhi comes in the pAsuram tirukkaNDEn of peyAzhwAr (pon Azhi kaNDEN)

Arun

mahakavi

Post by mahakavi »

Please permit me to narrate a joke. This is in connection with the exchange of "ji" while addressing each other.

In one of the concentration camps, some new German military officers were visiting. As they approached the camp in their jeep they kept hearing a mild rumbling, a distinct murmur, and then a loud murmur. They didn't know what was going on. Once they reached the camp they saw a lot of men lining up and passing bricks to the ones next to them. Once the officers were near the men they heard, "danke doktor, bitte doktor, danke doktor, bitte doktor...." as they passed the bricks. When the officers asked the site director as to why they were saying that, the director replied that all those workers were doctors (physicians and professors) and so they were exchanging compliments by saying "thank you doctor(to the one who handed them the bricks) and please doctor to the one who received them"

So from one "ji" to the other "ji" danke and bitte!;)
Last edited by mahakavi on 06 Feb 2007, 07:44, edited 1 time in total.

mahakavi

Post by mahakavi »

Even in tiruppAvai ANDAL says, "pAlanna vaNNattun pAnchasanniyamE pOlvana sangangaL pOyppADuDaiyanavE" (# 26)

Also "sangoDuc cakkaram Endum taDakkaiyan pangayak kaNNAnai.." (#14)

So, in the 6th-9th centuries sangu and sakkaram were used both in Sanskrit and Thamizh. Where the words required "ja" sound they replaced with "ya" or "sa/ca" in Thamizh.

ksrimech
Posts: 1050
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 04:25

Post by ksrimech »

arunkji,

Yes your are right. Azhi word does occur very often and in different ways. One meaning is it refers to sudarSanAzhvAr and the other one is as a sea/ocean. Look at this beautiful pAsuram by poygaiyAzhvAr, in the very first pAsuram of nAlAyira divya prabandam in which he is using the word Azhi with both the meanings.

vaiyam thakaLiyaa vaar_kadalE neyyaaga,
veyya kathirOn viLakkaaka, - seyya
sudaraazhi yaanatikkE soottinEnson maalai,
idaraazhi neengukavE enRu.

The samiliar prayOgA is done by bhudEvi pirATTi in here thiruppAvai pAsuram #4 tuned in varALi by "the Hero was a musician'. She uses the Azhi Sabda three times. Here the first and second usage mean the deep expansive oceans. The third is for sudarSanAzhvAr. We can also find two "tamizh"-fied Sanskrit words (Sorry, I dont know how to put it). parpanApan from padmanAbhan and cArnGam from SarnGa.

aazhi mazhaik kaNNaa! onRu nI kai karavEl *
aazhiyuL pukku mukan^thu kotu aarththERi *
Uzhi muthalvan uruvam pOl mey kaRuththup *
paazhiyan^ thOLutaip paRpanaapan kaiyil *
aazhi pOl minni valampuri pOl ninRathirn^thu *
thaazhaathE caarNGkam uthaiththa caramazhai pOl *
vaazha ulakinil peythitaay * naaNGkaLum
maarkazhi nIraata makizhn^thu ElOr empaavaay.

Ain't tamizh a beautiful language? :)
Last edited by ksrimech on 06 Feb 2007, 08:12, edited 1 time in total.

rshankar
Posts: 13754
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:26

Post by rshankar »

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?

BTW, why should sangItam become sangIdam? It is a word from sanskrit, isn't it?

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

Post by arunk »

sangItam no doubt is sanskrit word but i say it is sangIdam in tamizh due to (a) a combination of tamizh pronounciation rules (which disallows harder sound in the middle of a word unless preceded by an approp me) and (b) the prevalence of the word itself in tamizh (in addition to isai), where the pronounciation is more sangIdam as per pronounciation rules.

As I hinted it doesnt follow any logic and so it can be hard :). It all depends on sort of how prevalent the word is.

Another amusing irony for all the people who have complained about "harshness" of tamizh (and applicability to music): it supposedly avoids harder sounds in these cases precisely to avoid harshness. In other words maragada is softened form of marakata and in the eyes of some is less harsh, because it the 2 middle harder sounds ka and ta. But then tamizh uses kka, ppa, TTa etc. more, resulting in unvoiced stops in middle of the words more than other languages and that can work in a counter way :). To me anyway, all languages are beautiful in their own way.

Arun
Last edited by arunk on 13 Feb 2007, 08:07, edited 1 time in total.

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.

Post Reply