Learning tamizh

Languages used in Carnatic Music & Literature
Post Reply
mahakavi

Post by mahakavi »

arasi wrote:viNmInagaLil
Nice and crisp song, arasi!
Is there a superfluous "a" after the viNmIn or is it intended?

Unrelated to your lyrics, I also have a doubt about the use of "c" sound in Thamizh words which is very cumbersome to handle. For example I always thought it is written as "salangai" rather than "calangai" except when it is coupled with a previous word that requires the use of "c" (mey ezhuttu)--as in "sinnac calangai". That is because the Thamizh letter with the "ca" (uyir mey ezhuttu) sound cannot appear at the beginning of a word. It has got to go with "c" (mey ezhuttu) in front. On the other hand one would write "konjum salangai" and not "konjum calangai". Right? Please, anybody, educate me on this.
Last edited by mahakavi on 03 Feb 2007, 19:48, edited 1 time in total.

arasi
Posts: 16774
Joined: 22 Jun 2006, 09:30

Post by arasi »

sub,
No, it was a typo! (I am correcting it in the text now).It is mIngaLil, as you say--as for cha and sa, I have no idea. I go by my own rule! Why? If I write salangai, some may pronounce it as in sammadam--which to me is not agreeable. I find in spoken tamizh: sollunga, seigirEn, and in song, solla vallAyO kiLiyE! I break my rule sometimes, because the particular word does not need to be saved from misspelling. Now, chalangai, though acceptable, is not my choice. I like shalangai as in shyAmalA--but if I use sh, then it may end up as being pronounced as in sugar! I have no idea either!

arasi
Posts: 16774
Joined: 22 Jun 2006, 09:30

Post by arasi »

As I went to the song to correct the typo, I found another ?? : vIsum--if I write it as vIshum, trouble again! Not as bad as the s at the start of the word, and so, I go for the 's', I suppose!

jayaram
Posts: 1317
Joined: 30 Jun 2006, 03:08

Post by jayaram »

Arasi - I think we use the following scheme to disambiguate these:
s : as in sammadam
S : as in Salangai
sh : as in sugar

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

Post by arunk »

i always thought it was pronounced salangai (as in sammadam) and not calangai. I dont know if it was the other way around in olden days but today as far as i know, today even in tamil literary circles it is salangai.

Of course the sa, ca, ja triplet unique as you have two "softer" forms of the harder ca and unlike ka/ga, ta/da, Ta,Da, pa,ba. For all others, the norm is for the harder sound at beginning of word, and softer in middle unless preceded by appropriate mei. But for ca/ja/sa, atleast nowadays it is "sa" at the beginning, and BOTH sa/ja as soft form in the middle (although ja only when preceded by nasal mei n), and ca definitely when preceded by approp mei. It is a puzzler alright. If one were to take "ja" as in nja and is really a modified form of ca sound, then you have softer "sa" in middle, AND softer sa at the beginning!

One could be tempted to say "sa" was never around and was an import, and indeed had taken over the use of "ca" at the beginning but it is way too prevalent for that. It is possibility a linguistic change towards easier pronounciation (sort of similar to why harder sounds dont occur in the middle of the word after a vowel)?

Arun
Last edited by arunk on 04 Feb 2007, 05:56, edited 1 time in total.

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

Post by arunk »

Pl. check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_language under phonology. Per rules in tolkAppiyam the voiced (soft) and unvoiced (hard) sounds for alll combinations had same rules and the only rule that is not followed today is of course our friend ca. :)


The Tolkāppiyam cites detailed rules as to when a letter is to be pronounced with voice and when it is to be pronounced unvoiced. The rule is identical for all plosives.

With the exception of one rule - the pronunciation of the letter c at the beginning of a word - these rules are largely followed even today in pronouncing centamil.


Arun

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

Post by vgvindan »

Though I am not academically qualified to comment, IMHO, Tamil does not have 'ca' sound in the beginning or in the middle of the word - it is only 'sa' (சிறுத்தை, சிலம்பு, சிங்கம், சினம், பசை, மீசை, தோசை etc).
When preceded by a virAma of the same letter in the same or previous word, 'ca' sound comes (பச்சை, இச்சை, காய்ச்சல், பசிக்குச் சோறு) or when preceded by letters ட், ற் (பட்சம், மோட்சம், பாற்சோறு, கற்சிலை)
This, however, is not applicable to tatsamam and tatbhavam words - Sanskrit words migrated to Tamil.
Last edited by vgvindan on 04 Feb 2007, 09:14, edited 1 time in total.

mahakavi

Post by mahakavi »

I endorse what vgvindan has written. As I said in my earlier post, "sa" sound can come at the beginning of a word but not "ca". So it has to be written as "salangai" as a stand-alone word. When compounding the "ca" will appear on certain occasions (e.g., veLLIc calangai). The examples of vgvindan illustrate this further.

Likewise"ka", "Ta", "pa" "ta"sounds can appear in the middle of a word only when "k","T", "p", and "t", respectively precede them. Examples: pakkam (side), paTTam (kite, title), kappam (dues), sattam (sound). maTam (mutt) will become maDam in Thamizh, SutA will become SudA, and gItam will become gIdam. "Ta" sound cannot be at the beginning of a word but "ka" "pa" and "ta" can (TaNDA=cold in Hindi will be awkward to write in Thamizh). (other examples: kappal=ship, pattu=ten, taTTu=plate).

If these cases sound complex they are meant to be that way just like the British constitution. As you know the British constitution is an unwritten one. One gets to know if something is consitutional or not through practice. It is also like defining obscenity. Similar to what US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said about obscenity " I can't define it but I can know it when I see it", these oddities can be recognized when one encounters them. What is the function of grammar if not to entangle us?

arasi
Posts: 16774
Joined: 22 Jun 2006, 09:30

Post by arasi »

Arunk,
I am always awed by all that you have to say, and given the 'mEdA vilAsam' (now, how do I spell it in tamizh?) in grammar and kaNakku (ah, tALam!), it is all above my head, sometimes! I am an intuitive learner and writer, that's all. It is a bit difficult to retain what I learn, at this age. The more I see things written the proper (?) way, the more I will conform. mahakavi might remember my early postings on the BB. I learnt some, and sometimes, I have my own preferences, logical or not. I am more than willing to learn new ways, though.

Sub,
Thanks for your analogy. I will learn by practice.

Vgovindan,
I appreciate your learned comments. I will improve, with all the help I get here...:)

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

Post by arunk »

arasi - thanks but I dont deserve it! My knowledge in all of this (music, language etc.) is definitely arai-korai (ara-kora) :)! I miss as often as i hit.

mahakavi,vgvindan - from googling yesterday, i found that there are a couple of tamizh speaking people who use "ca" at beginning - folks around tirunelvEli and folks in Sri Lanka. Also of course malayalam which is similar to tamil uses it. But we dont if they are retaining an older form or whether it is external influence, or whether it is an aspect of local dialect.

mahakavi - good point about Ta not being at the beginning. Also note that the harder sound for ka,pa etc. can come in the middle also when following the T and R (vETkai, kaRpu).

Arun
Last edited by arunk on 04 Feb 2007, 20:38, edited 1 time in total.

mahakavi

Post by mahakavi »

arunk wrote:mahakavi - good point about Ta not being at the beginning. Also note that the harder sound for ka,pa etc. can come in the middle also when following the T and R (vETkai, kaRpu).

Arun
Agreed. We knew some of these all along but do not get to realize it. I am glad I am not a Thamizh grammar teacher--I would have been fired long ago!

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

Post by vgvindan »

i found that there are a couple of tamizh speaking people who use "ca" at beginning - folks around tirunelvEli and folks in Sri Lanka.
The letter ழ which Tamils boast of being their pride, could not be pronounced properly by more than 50% of Tamils - even those educated, particularly, those in Southern Tamil Nadu. But that does not mean, the letter would lose its sound value or the literary usage would be modified to suit the colloquity. Such variations do exist in every spoken language.

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

Post by arunk »

vgvindan - the za usage is irrelevant here. And people mispronounce it even in northern parts of tamil nadu! There is no need to indict a entire dialect (variation) based on this.

Do we have good evidence it used to "sa" at the beginning in olden days. All we know it is indeed so nowadays in literary circles. As for olden days, I dont know for sure but tolkAppiyam does not point towards sa

Arun
Last edited by arunk on 04 Feb 2007, 21:41, edited 1 time in total.

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

Post by arunk »

Although malayalam gets a much much better deal from its practioneers w.r.t za. What does that say about tamizh pride ;);)!

Arun

mahakavi

Post by mahakavi »

arunk wrote:Do we have good evidence it used to "sa" at the beginning in olden days. As for olden days, I dont know for sure but tolkAppiyam does not point towards sa

Arun
I am not sure if you are questioning or stating for a fact. Anyway there were 3 sangams (mudal, iDai, kaDai) , the last one spanning the early CE. Since they existed (at least we are told that) and they were called "sangam" we know that is an evidence for using "sa" at the beginning of a word.

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

Post by arunk »

do we know it wasnt pronounced cangam then? I know it sounds odd today :) but bear with me.

We know tolkAppiyam got into phonetics, and precisly on this related topic. But it looks like it did not lay things unambiguosly, since if it did, there wouldnt even be a possibility of a discussion right?

Btw, i also think it was sa then. But i would like to see some evidence to remove the ambiguity. IMO, one cannot ignore malayalam that easily since ca at beginning is not a sanskrit influence as sa in beginning is very common in sanskrit too. If I remember jayaram right, there are common words between tamil and malayalam, where malayalam uses ca. But again, in spite of all this my leaning is also towards sa in the beginning (in tamizh) from olden times.

(correction added later: Although sangam - doesnt that have the same root as sanskrit word for gathering? So in this case it would have been sangam. Of course then you get into the rathole of which language had it first :))

Arun
Last edited by arunk on 04 Feb 2007, 22:22, edited 1 time in total.

jayaram
Posts: 1317
Joined: 30 Jun 2006, 03:08

Post by jayaram »

I agree these 'digression posts' should be moved to language section (to "arun's thread"?) - out of respect to arasi!

Meanwhile, let me respond here regarding the ca-sa discussion:
- sri lankan tamils do tend to use the 'ca' sound, and i understand sri lankan tamil (more precisely jaffna tamil) is the closest to the original tamil. if that be the case, this is more support for the 'ca' sound. this makes sense in the context of malayalam using the 'ca' sound also. (sri lankans also say things like 'kugan' in place of 'guhan' - would these be the original versions?)
- and i guess the use of 'namaccivAyam' instead of 'namasivAyam' is in agreement with what has been mentioned here before?

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

Post by arunk »

Mods - PLEASE move these posts :). A separate topic w.r.t Tamil Language and pronounciation? (certainly not transliteration thread as it would be a digression there too).

jayaram - believing that one's own dialect was old(est) is not very different from believing one's own language is the oldest. It is a common theme and IMO a natural fallout of pride in one's own lanugage, and we all suffer from it from time to time;):). So when some one says that a certain dialect is old(er) we need to look at evidence before taking it in. But from what I have read, linguistic evidence can be very very murky underneath. Certain languages/dialects from a common ancestor retain some olden forms, but other other derivatives may retain other olden constructs.

Btw, I do not think guhan is a original tamil word - nor is nama and siva. They are all sanskri based words I think and if I am right, then pronounciation leanings there do not indicate anything.

Arun

Suji Ram
Posts: 1529
Joined: 09 Feb 2006, 00:04

Post by Suji Ram »

continuing the discussion on ca sa

I heard tamizh cangam/sangam
which is correct?

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

Post by arunk »

suji,

it is sangam only today. It only morphs to cangam as in muccangattamizh (the tamizh that is known-for/associated-with/whose-pride-is the 3 sangams)

Arun
Last edited by arunk on 05 Feb 2007, 00:09, edited 1 time in total.

meena
Posts: 3326
Joined: 21 May 2005, 13:57

Post by meena »

but all this is a digression from the main topic and should be moved to languages section (mods can you please do this?)
arun
i've moved posts. Just once u or others 'alert' the mods will do :)

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

Post by rshankar »

Whether it is chalangai or salangai or shalangai/Salangai maybe moot, but what gets my ire up is the mixing up of caraNam (pAdam/feet) with SaraNam (aDaikkalam/refuge) - both probably words borrowed from sanskrit...would be nice if the original intent was maintained with the pronunciation...and saraNam is definitely awful!

mahakavi

Post by mahakavi »

Suji Ram wrote:continuing the discussion on ca sa

I heard tamizh cangam/sangam
which is correct?
Some people write it as tamizh sangam which is not technically correct. sangam means assembly (noun). When tamizh qualifies it as an adjective the conjunctive link "c" is added to indicate the linkage. It is known as "puNarcci" (combination or coalescence) in grammatical construction. Then it becomes tamizhc cangam.

mahakavi

Post by mahakavi »

rshankar wrote:Whether it is chalangai or salangai or shalangai/Salangai maybe moot, but what gets my ire up is the mixing up of caraNam (pAdam/feet) with SaraNam (aDaikkalam/refuge) - both probably words borrowed from sanskrit...would be nice if the original intent was maintained with the pronunciation...and saraNam is definitely awful!
Every language has its own peculiarities. Try to write tamizh in Sanskrit and one would know how awful it would be. Self-sustaining languages had their heydays way back and they did not need to borrow words/letters from other languages. Thamizh was blessed in that sense. But when the need arises to borrow it is the responsibility of the borrowers to adapt. There is no use in criticizing the language's "deficiency". Kamban did his own innovations when he had to convert Sanskrit words which would not fit Thamizh construction: LakshmaNan --> ilakkuvan, pankajam ---> pankayam, etc.,

So those who want to use Sanskrit words are better advised to learn to pronounce them properly and also when writing them in Thamizh script use appropriate symbols to indicate proper pronunciation. One would be to use bold letters and other would be to italicize and so on. The purists in Thamizh would not want to meddle with words from other languages or invent their own words (example: minnanjal for email, taTTezhuttu for keystroke etc.)

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

Post by arunk »

i will be bolder and suggest that one/both of SaraNam/caraNam do not belong in tamizh :). I sympathesize with the argument for tatsamam (sp?) words, but i think it is a loosing cause given the tamizh script. The inclusion of many such words in tamizh context were done nilly willy with no attention paid to the language they are included in and what the repurcussions may be (no - this is not a langage purist argument, read on ...).

This is true especially with many tamizh cm composers, who didnt stop with a word here or there, but brought in entire phrases. Brought them within the framework of a krithi in a language which didnt have some of those sounds, and had a script which cannot accomodate those sounds. What do you expect then? It is not a good recipe for preservation of pronounciation (not that the composers had that in mind - they were probably beyond all this)

BTW, this is why I argued that even for tamizh krithis qualifiers is a must!

Arun
Last edited by arunk on 05 Feb 2007, 03:01, edited 1 time in total.

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.

Post Reply