Learning tamizh

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 13 Feb 2007, 23:04

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 · Post by **arunk** » 13 Feb 2007, 23:07

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 · Post by **drshrikaanth** » 13 Feb 2007, 23:10

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 · Post by **ramakriya** » 13 Feb 2007, 23:10

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

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 13 Feb 2007, 23:11

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 · Post by **arunk** » 13 Feb 2007, 23:12

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 · Post by **ramakriya** » 13 Feb 2007, 23:15

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 · Post by **arunk** » 13 Feb 2007, 23:18

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

ramakriya · Post by **ramakriya** » 13 Feb 2007, 23:22

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

mahakavi · Post by **mahakavi** » 13 Feb 2007, 23:41

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** » 14 Feb 2007, 04:10

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 · Post by **chalanata** » 14 Feb 2007, 13:37

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 · Post by **vgvindan** » 14 Feb 2007, 15:48

The pure Thamizh word for someone to be named மீனாக்ஷி

It is angayaRkaNNi - அங்கயற்கண்ணி

vgvindan · Post by **vgvindan** » 14 Feb 2007, 16:16

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 · Post by **arunk** » 14 Feb 2007, 18:29

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** » 14 Feb 2007, 21:25

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.