Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman

Languages used in Carnatic Music & Literature
ksrimech
Posts: 1050
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 04:25

Re: Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman

Post by ksrimech »

arasi wrote:Krishna,
I mean the terrsetrial one--have you got a pAsuram for this? I mean, for the first two lines of what CML says?
Why not. Here you go.

tiruvAymozhi mudal pattu mudal padigam nAngAm pATTu

nAm avan ivan uvan, avaL ivaL uvaL evaL,
tAm avar ivar uvar, adu idu udu edu,
vIm avai ivai uvai, avainnalam tIngavai,
Amavai Ayavai, Ay ninRa avarE. (1.1.4)

Meaning: The emperumAn, SrImannArAyaNan (kaNNan), is and has become that man, this man and the one who is in between that and this man; that lady, this lady and the one who is in between that and this lady; those and these people and ones who are in between them; that and this object and those objects which are in between them; the one who is a question in our minds; the good things; the bad things; past, present and future things; things which are never permanent and are going to perish.

Govindaswamy
Posts: 120
Joined: 21 Feb 2010, 06:55

Re: Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman

Post by Govindaswamy »

This thread which started as a comment on theme song ‘Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman’ has drifted , towards phonetics of Tamiz. It seems to have merged with an earlier thread started by Sridhar Rang on wrong pronunciation of Sa,sa and Sha in songs (mostly by Tamiz musicians).
Dear srkris;
You have asserted as ‘I have 150 years of research on dravidian phonetics on my side’. Have I to understand that you have studied all books on linguitics, and phonetics of Dravidian languages published during the last 150 years, starting probably with Comparative Grammar of Dravidian Languages by G.U.Pope. In case you have written any books on the subject I would like to know about these I have read the above book. I can read the scripts of all the four Dravidian Languages, speak in three and understand the fourth partly.
I would like you and other friends to comment on my observations below..

1 Members have pointed out the mistakes in Tamiz writing non-Tamiz names, particularly samskRtam. Let us admit that Tamiz script is inadequate for tranliteration of other Indian languages and foreign languages as letters like kha, ga, gha etc are not available. Let us not talk about ‘x’, ‘f’ & ‘z’ which can not be written in any Indian language including Tamiz.
It is a pity that Tamiz/Pallava grantham has been thrown out. In place of this Tamiz script with numerls 2, 3 and 4 as subscript/superscript has been tried and used.
2 I have a doubt the letter ‘ca’. srkris insisted that the correct pronunciation is ca and not sa, as is the present practice. I understand that MalayALIgaL and singaLavar pronounce words starting with ‘ca’ only as ‘ca’ (e.g) cAppADu.
3 Though ‘ca’ falls under vallinam, sa definitely qualifies to be under mellinam. Let us take the word, semmozhi. Did anybody in the mAnADu pronounce it as cemmozhi? How many words are there in Tamiz, starting with, ca, cA,ci, cI etc, which have not come from samskRtam. I could hardly count 10.
4 As a digression, let me inform the members, who may not know that unlike the other Indian languages having ca, cha, ja & jha, Telugu has two more letters tca & dja. tamizarkaL who can not cope with Sa/श, sa/स and sha/ष will find this perplexing. However these two extra letters are going out of use. Similarly in Telugu and kaanaDa Ra/ற is disappearing.

Govindaswamy

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

Re: Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman

Post by cmlover »

Bravo srkris!
with one stroke you have dealt a death blow to the unsubstantiated claims of Singapore Siddharthan with authoritative quotes!
Let us close this 'ca' discussion for once and all...a good break for my vacation!
Thanks

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

Re: Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman

Post by arunk »

I think most/many scholars do opine it was ca at beginning (based on malayalam, and iruLa etc.) "initially" (i.e. closer to original form of language - i.e. towards protodravidian) - they so say it isn't 100% certain but they are quite so.

Many of them also readily point out that it changed to "sa" in usage - but maybe not the hissing sibilant sa of sanskrit - caldwell talks about this - although I am quite confused as how this isnt close sa in Sanskrit in usage, it certainly is today.

But more importantly I also dont think these linguists are using this as "right" vs. "wrong". They simply try to deduce how was it before and how it evolved. Right vs. Wrong - what a useless exercise that we love to play. Those highhorses only hurt your behind, and you end up also being a pain in others' behinds ]:)

Anyway, If vaLLuvar's time was pre-change (i dont know if that is claimed and what evidence etc. - it is certainly possible), then one would think he penned ca everywhere. One interesting aspect though is that there are some kuRaLs which use the mei at the end (e.g. #56 -தற்காத்துத் தற்கொண்டாற் பேணித் தகைசான்ற சொற்காத்துச் சோர்விலாள் பெண்) . I would have thought unlike ka/ga, pa/ba pair (where difference in pronunciation is significant), the trailing mei for ca (in the absence of sibilant everywhere?) wouldn't be as significant. But I think I am probably confused. Besides this above representation could be modern adaptation - who knows how vaLLuvar originally inscribed it :)

Arun

ragam-talam
Posts: 1896
Joined: 28 Sep 2006, 02:15

Re: Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman

Post by ragam-talam »

Arun - a fairly large number of Tamilians say 'paLam' instead of 'pazham'. Are you saying that 'paLam' should be accepted as the standard pronunciation? I hope not!

If you listen to Srilankan Tamil or that spoken in Nagercoil area today, you hear people say 'cha' instead of 'sa'. Is their pronunciation non-standard/incorrect? Or is there a possibility that those who say 'sa' are incorrect (or 'lazy' with their pronunciation, as srkris puts it)?

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

Re: Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman

Post by arunk »

If you listen to Srilankan Tamil or that spoken in Nagercoil area today, you hear people say 'cha' instead of 'sa'. Is their pronunciation non-standard/incorrect?
In parts of lands where it is generally accepted as sa It would be non-standard to some and incorrect to some. :)
Or is there a possibility that those who say 'sa' are incorrect (or 'lazy' with their pronunciation, as srkris puts it)?
In parts of land where it is generally accepted as ca, it would be non-standard to some, and incorrect to some :)

The paLam to pazham (or using na/la for Na/La or mixing the nas) - it would probably be judged as incorrect in most places :)

Ultimately it all comes down to what is generally acceptable (in the domain where you are looking for acceptance). But what may be elusive or forgotten is that this continually changes with language (exactly like it is with every aspect of music). Languages are not static, they never were and never will be. We can for our own judgement criteria fix a certain point in time as reference and judge everything else incorrect (or corrupt) - and believe that point referred to golden, uncorrupted version. It obviously is our own prerogative. We can then get into recurring arguments with others with different reference point about who is incorrect, who is flawed etc. ]:)

Arun

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

Re: Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman

Post by arunk »

BTW atleast that Caldwell book requires careful reading. There are some portions where he (when talking about sibilants) clearly is talking about representation in script rather than whether the sound is there (during his time). For example:
The Tamil alphabet is destitute of the Sanskrit sibilants S, Sh, and s. The second and third of these sibilants are occasionally used in pronouncing and writing Sanskrit derivatives; but these letters are never found in the ancient grammars of Tamil, or in the classics, nor have they a place in the Tamil alphabet: when used, they are borrowed from the Grantha, from which a few other letters also are occasionally borrowed to express Sanskrit sounds. The first of the three Sanskrit characters referred to above, namely, the S of Siva, is never used at all in pure Tamil: the Tamil palatal or semi-sibilant which corresponds to the Sanskrit ch, and which is pronounced as a soft S or Sh when single, and as chch or cc when doubled, is the letter which is used instead.
Note: I had to use S, Sh and s because when I converted image to text on google books (yes the whole book is on it) some characters didnt translate properly.

Now if you take the first sentence to mean pronounciation - you automatically conclude that he says there is no sa *pronounced* in Tamil and there is no need to read further :) But he is not talking about pronounciation. Since in the end he says "the Tamil palatal or semi-sibilant which corresponds to the Sanskrit ch, and which is pronounced as a soft S or Sh" - so when he did the work in the sample set he referred to it was sort of mix between sa and Sa (I would wager a guess his contact where mostly upper-class many of whom use Sa or close it for all occurences except when preceded by mei).

Now regarding ancient pronounciation - here is what Caldwell says (my emphasis in places) -
.It has been observed that the Tamil rejects the Sanskrit sibilants S, Sh, and s. The consonant which it adopts instead is ch, which is pronounced in Tamil in a manner somewhat similar to the soft aspirated S of Siva, or as a very soft sh, with as little sibilation or aspiration as possible. In fact, it may be regarded as a palatal, not as a sibilant; and when it is doubled, it takes precisely the sound of the Sanskrit palatal ch or 6, or its English equivalent in which. In Telugu, the sound of ch is that with which this consonant is pronounced, not only when doubled, but also when single ; and a similar pronunciation prevails in the lowest collaouial dialect of the Tamil, in which Sey, to do, is pronounced chev, as in Telugu. It is probably the ancient pronunciation of this letter which is retained by the lower classes. The very soft sound of it as Sa is probably a reiinement originating with the higher classes. When the Tamil alphabet was arranged, and S was made the equivalent of ch, and even after the arrival of the Europeans in India, when the Portuguese wrote Soramandalam as Choramandel, and the missionary Ziegenbalg wrote Sudra as Tshuddira, the harder palatal sound seems to have been the one in general use. This letter should perhaps be represented as ch in the Roman character, like the corresponding Telugu letter, but the sound of S is the sound so generally heard at present, when the letter is single, that the use of ch or c would be puzzling to the student of Tamil. I have, therefore, resolved to adhere to i as in the former edition.
Again note the start of para is misleading as he is again referring to script not having explicit letters for the Sanskrit S, Sh and s. He again notes that the "ca" (letter) in Tamil is (nowadays) pronounced like a weak Sa (but not like sa) - but does think it was probably ca (pronounciation) in olden days. There was some other linguistic article which referred to again Malayalam and iruLa language to conclude that in all probability it was ca.

Arun

Govindaswamy
Posts: 120
Joined: 21 Feb 2010, 06:55

Re: Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman

Post by Govindaswamy »

Dear srkris
In response to mahakavi you have given number of references from 4 books in addition to classification of consonants under 5 categories. Out of the four three are by foreign scholars. Is the fourth one a Tamizan?

All the four scholars confirm that Tamiz did not have sibilants and aspirates probably 150 years ago. The present thread has raised the question of sibilant ஸ . Does it mean the present practice of using ஸ in place of ச is less than 150 years old. Has any scolar done research on this aspect. Or are we waiting for another foreigner to do this?

There is no need to talk about aspirates like kha, cha, dha etc and gutturals like gha,jha, dha etc do not occur in Tamiz either in the beginning or middle of words.

You have said
“In standard Tamil, ச is a voiceless palatal affricate ( IPA: tʃ ); not a sibilant. This is accepted consensually among Dravidian scholars.” What is the name in Tamiz for palatal affricate and which Tamiz grammar book describes this starting with piRappiyal (பிறப்பியல்) of tolkAppiyam. As far as I understand the hard
consonants including sa (ச) are produced when air is blown out with mouth open.
During tolkAppiyar's period ca was not a sibilant but today most of the people use only sa.
As far as I know there are no Tamiz words for the technical terms such as palatal affricates , sibilants, aspirates, and consonantal diphthong. All the learned authors have said that Tamiz does not have these sounds. It is no wonder that there are no Tamiz words for these sounds.
You have split up consonats (மெய்யெழுத்துக்கள்) into 5 categories. Which Tamiz grammar does this classification. Consonants are divided ionly into three cateories, viz; hard, soft and intermediate. (வல்லினம், மெல்லினம், இடையினம்). As far as I know there are no Tamiz words for the terms Velar, Palatal, Retroflex, Dental , and Labial. However a wrong conclusion need not be drawn that tolkAppiyar did not know the source of sounds. The first chapter piRappiyal (பிறப்பியல்) gives the location of tongue during pronunciation of each letter. I will give just one example. த and ந arise when the tip of the tongue touches the middle of front upper teeth. Calling these just dental is too simplistic and is not as elaborate as given by tolkAppiyam. The subtle difference in pronouncing ன which is special may be checked by you by speaking நான். For ன் the tip of the tongue moves to the root
of front upper teeth. This ன is special to Tamiz.

However piRappiyal does not say about the three variations (क, ख, ग) each hard consonant takes. In another thread you have insisted that the soft sounds ga, ja, Da, da and ba were not used in earlier Tamiz. If so these change must have taken place later. Has any research been done. If today all of us are ordered by government, with the backing of people like you, to avoid using these soft sounds as well as sibilant sa, the language will not sound like Tamiz at all.

I would like to know if samskRtam or any other Indian language follows the classification of consonants given above and has names for the other technical terms. If not are we trying to analyse the evolution of an Indian language with the background of English education?

Govindaswamy

mahakavi
Posts: 1269
Joined: 29 Dec 2009, 22:16

Re: Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman

Post by mahakavi »

It is my contention that the vallinam consonant ச் is pronounced "c" or "ch" but when coupled with the vowels after the consonant, it can take on a dual course with one fork palatal sound and the next semi-sibilant. While the sibilant script was not present in script form the semi-sibilant sound was used where appropriate. I don't have proof for this but way back they did not elaborate (in writing) on how to pronounce the compound letters made from the consonant ச். It was perhaps orally conveyed and traditionally followed.

Here the University of Pennsylvania study group has some limited examples. To be fair I am citing both cases they gave.
http://www.southasia.upenn.edu/tamil/tamilwords.html
(quote)
ச is pronounced 's' between vowels and optionally in word initial position
தோசை (toosai ~ doose) 'dosa'
ஆசை (aasai ~ aase) 'desire'
மாசம் (maasam ~ maasa~) 'month'
சக்கரம் (cakkaram ~ cakkara~) 'wheel'
சனி (cani or sani) 'Saturday'
செவ்வாய் (cevvaay or sevvaay) 'Tuesday'

ச is pronounced 'ch' in word initial position and in clusters:
சக்கரம் (cakkaram ~ cakkara~) 'wheel'
சனி (cani) 'Saturday'
செவ்வாய் (cevvaay ~ ceevvaa) 'Tuesday'
பச்சை (paccai ~ pacce) 'green'
எச்சில் (eccil) 'salaiva' (unquote)

Now I like to know how the opposing camp pronounces the following words in Thamizh -- with soft sound or the harsh sound (with respect to the "sa"/"ca")

சில அசடு சட்டி சுட்டதடா பைசா தோசை வசைமொழி
பசி வைகாசி புரட்டாசி ஐப்பசி மாசி பேசு

How do you sing Ghanam Krishna Iyer's song, "summA summA varumO sugam" --chummA chummA....?
How about OVK's "asaindADum mayilonRu..." --acaindADum....?
How about "ADAdu asangAdu vA..." ---acangAdu?

Let us go to tiruppAvai.
"tIyinil tUsAgum seppElOr embAvAy" -- ....tUcAgum...??
"vAsal kAppAnE..." :vAcal ?
"sinattinAl tennilangaik kOmAnAy.." cinattinAl?

Let us go to aruNAcala kavi (here is "cala" because it is an import "acalam")
"mAsilAda mitilEsan peNNuDan..." mAcilAda?
"tUsilAda guham ODattilE.." tUcilAda?

How about PEyAzhwAr:
"tAzh saDaiyum... sUzh aravum... " caDai and cUzh ??

Let us go to Kamban:
"ellai nItta ulagangaL yAvum en sollinAl suDuvEn..." cuDuvEn??

Let us go to tEvAram:
"mAsil vINaiyum ..... vIsu tenRalum...... mUsu vaNDaRai......"
"kAdalAgik kasindu kaNNIr malgi..: kacindu?

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

Re: Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman

Post by srkris »

Does it mean the present practice of using ஸ in place of ச is less than 150 years old.
I think so. Over the last 150 years we have adopted only the grantha letters ஸ, ஜ, ஹ & ஷ. No other grantha letters are commonly used or understood by Tamil people today. We use ஸ only because we know its sound is different from the ச sound.

I know many Tamils today pronounce ச as a sibilant, but it is predominantly a recent practice.
I would like to know if samskRtam or any other Indian language follows the classification of consonants given above and has names for the other technical terms.
Yes, the study of Sanskrit traditionally involves siksha (phonetics), chandas (metrics), vyakarana (morphology) and nirukta (etymology). The terms Velar, Palatal, Retroflex, Dental, and Labial are modern translations of the sanskrit terms kanthya, tālavya, mūrdhanya, dantya and oshthya respectively. These terms are named based on the parts of the mouth where they occur i.e kanthya would occur in the kantha (throat), oshthya will occur at oshtha (lips), dantya at danta (teeth) etc. For example, ga is kanthya since the sound is produced in the throat, and ma is oshthya since it is produced at the lips. It is believed that Tolkappiyam borrowed certain concepts like these from Katantara (Aindra) school of sanskrit grammar. It is possible to use many phonetical concepts used in Sanskrit for any language, but at the same time, sanskrit's morphology or native etymology would be nearly useless for a language like Tamil or Telugu which follow their own grammatical structure and verbal roots.

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

Re: Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman

Post by arasi »

srkris,
I admit that I cannot fully understand all that is going on here. Yet, having heard spoken tamizh longer than almost all of you, I agree with you on this: sa as in samskritam came into usage only of late.
Yes, there was a lot of ca (cattam (noise), catiram (choultry), caNDai (fight) in the speech of urban and rural folks--sometimes the sound falling between ca and sha, but not close to sa. I think hard and can think of one young woman who had a lisp and several overlapping teeth and she was the only one I remember to have heard who used 'sa' with word beginnings! In the recent decades however, I hear it all around me when I'm in India. Among other mispronunciations, vaLam (richness) being valam, kanavu (dream) being kaNavu, kaNavan becming kanavan (dream boy?!) and so on. Not having been around while gradual ignoring of such mistakes among the public was taqking place, it assaults me and that's why I still find it difficult to watch films and programs which are recommended by others. The quality of the show is not what I'm talking about. It is what I have to 'hear' and endure!

Arun,
Good to hear from you!
Last edited by arasi on 04 Jul 2010, 07:32, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman

Post by arunk »

My understanding is that ஸ was introduced for representing sanskrit words with "sa" sound "as-is" (and thus different from how sanskrit imports were done from the beginning where their phonology morphed as-per language rules), So this was e.g for words starting with sa sound and retaining the sa sound unambiguously no matter the context (unlike ச which can adopt ca/sa depending on context similar to other vallinams).

This was supposedly deemed essential for sanskritized tamil - or at least for people who wanted the sanskrit words to not undergo any change when used within tamil. Perhaps a shift in balance w.r.t sanskrit influence on tamil or that of sanskrit influenced communities on tamil language. Hence, I think this is a red-herring but I could be wrong.

There are different theories about this anyway. Caldwell claimed it (sa like sound, and for that matter ga, ba etc.) was there from the beginning. I think Kuiper felt the same. Iravatham Mahadevan thinks it was not there. At least one scholar (dont remember who now) seemed to think it was there in the beginning, then changed to all hard-consonants and then changed again :) . I think there is evidence that use of sa in tamil was earlier than 150 years (i remember some telugu work in 1400-1500 which used sa sound for tamil words - I don't remember the reference now).

From what I can tell, this subject of whether tamil originally used soft (sonants - ga, ba, Da, da, some form of sa) at all is definitely a hotly disputed one. It is not unambiguously established one way or another - nor am I led to believe that scholarly opinion is leaning heavily towards one side. A book as recent as 1970s claimed that opinion at that time was towards Caldwell i.e. soft sounds were there initially. But Mahadevan's book is quite recent and I think (havent read it) he is sure it was not there in tolkAppiyam's time. I also dont know if his book offers the timeline of evolution and supporting facts, evidence etc. - the book is like $80!! - but would be an interesting read.

But one thing the books I have seen say is that the "sa" sound is the commonly used one (or "sa like" if you will per scholars -- although I am still confused by their differentiation from both sa and Sa of Sanskrit - I still wonder if they are referring the form of tamil used by many brahmins where Sa is used consistently instead of sa).

Now if one want to say "that just means everyone is wrong except for the few communities that stick to ca" (not very different from "pretty much all carnatic music today is diluted, corrupted, compromised - only "so-and-so" is pure ;-) ), it is certainly that person's prerogative.

Arun

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

Re: Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman

Post by arunk »

FYI: Here is an abstract of a paper which (presumably - based on title) offers historical evidence for convertibility of surds to sonants (ie. ka to ga, pa to ba etc.) in Tamil historically. It is based on Kuiper's conclusion that Caldwell (who originally proposed it) was right. This is from 1972: http://www.springerlink.com/content/nh68tv0gj3h3lx85/

But note again that is is one position. There are scholars on the other end too. So if any, all it says (to me) is that the matter isnt clear cut at all. But also note that this is a wider problem than just ca vs. sa (although they are related)

Arun

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

Re: Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman

Post by srkris »

I agree with you on this: sa as in samskritam came into usage only of late.
Thanks for your confirmation Arasi. I have heard malayalees pronounce aracan with the ca sound (note the ca sound is close to the original ja of rAjan) which was the main purpose of substituting the foreign ja with the native ca.

Talking of mispronounciation, கிழவி often becomes கிளவி to many Tamils. Most Tamils today cannot distinguish between dentals and alveolars (ர vs ற, ந vs ன etc) except to state generally on the basis of familiarity that the alveolars cannot be used to start a word etc.
unlike ச which can adopt ca/sa depending on context similar to other vallinams
Your assumption that early tamil allowed ca to be allophonic to sa is not borne out by the facts below. Else it would have converted all sa sounds of sanskrit to ச and would not have simply dropped the sa sounds from sanskrit words.

Apart from that the voiced allophones are like this:
ka - ga, ca - ja, ta - da, pa - ba

Where does sa come into the picture at all? sa is not the voiced variant of ca, ja is.

See the aracan example I've given above where rA-ja-n becomes ara-ca-n (if the original word had been rA-sa-n, Tamil would have dropped the sa and converted the word to aran). Other dravidian languages employed other devices to deal with the sanskrit ja. FOr example in kannada/telugu rAja became rAya, like krishna-deva-rAya (compare these with english words like royal, french roi etc which underwent similar changes under entirely different circumstances).

-------------------------------------------

Coming back to the issue of sibilants in Tamil, the language took great pains in the past to remove sibilants even from sanskrit words before absorbing them.

Many Tamil people pronounce the english word school as "iskool", a Tamil word cannot start with a s sound (even for a borrowed word like school). So please note: summA summA solla mudiyaathu.

Tamil did not allow borrowed words to contain 's' sound even in the past; it first simplifies sahasram to sa-ha-si-ram and finally sheds the s and h sounds to form a-a-i-ram = aayiram.

The word stuti becomes tuti (துதி) and correspondingly stotram became தோத்திரம். It even converted AkAsha (sky) to AkAya (ஆகாய), rA-kSa-sa became a-ra-kka dropping the last sa and converting the kSa to kka.

Similarly the sanskrit word sa-bh-A is turned into a-v-ai = avai by shedding initial s sound.

Again consider the month name sr-AvaN-a, where the word becomes AvaN-i in tamil by shedding initial "sr-". Malayalam further changes the Ava (a-u-a) into O and the name becomes ONam

Yet again consider the name of the star sr-a-viSTam, in tamil it becomes a-viTTam where the "sr-" is lost (since in Tamil a word can neither begin with an s or an r) and the complex syllable STa is simplified into TTa.

Again consider the month name A-sh-A-Dha which sheds the sh sound, and becomes A-A-Di in Tamil.

The sanskrit word for month - mA-sa is also changed to mA-ta in standard tamil.

Similarly the name of the month TaiSi becomes Tai in Tamil dropping the last Si.

Also the month mArga-shI-rSa drops the medial shI and becomes mArga-zhi in Tamil, the change to Tamil's retroflex approximant zha is apparently facilitated by the retroflex fricative occuring in the rSa syllable.

So I have shown that Tamil removes sibilants from sanskrit words whether it occurs as the first letter, somewhere in the middle or at the final syllable of the word.

chandra however becomes chandira (சந்திர) because the ca is not a sibilant like sa/Sa/sha. Similarly the word chandana in sanskrit stays the same in Tamil as சந்தனம், since it has the ca sound and not the sa sound. The word vrischika becomes விருச்சிக in Tamil (only ch sound remains shedding the s). So Tamil has in the past accepted ca (ச) sounds which already exists in Tamil, not Sa/sha/sa sound which are alien to Tamil.

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

Re: Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman

Post by arunk »

my reference to "unlike ச which can adopt ca/sa depending on context similar to other vallinams" was not in reference to old times. You claimed in the last 150 years only with introduction of grantha the change happened. I am saying in that peroid (actually longer) there were words proonounced with "sa" (like) sound, where trhe sa would become ca (e.g. muccangam - iccuvai - they were sangam, suvai by themselves). Or you also had some people doing sa and ca. The grantha sa was to avoid that for sanskrit based words - and clearly indicate so that people dont mistake it to be camackurutam :)

I dont follow your use of ca/ja along with ka/ga pa/ba. So then your ca in the middle becomes ja when not preceding mei (it certainly does that when following nasal pure consonant) So like kal and magan (ka to ga), and thus cei and ijai (ca to ja)? That doesnt make sense. Pl. clarifty.

Arun

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

Re: Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman

Post by srkris »

my reference to "unlike ச which can adopt ca/sa depending on context similar to other vallinams" was not in reference to old times. You claimed in the last 150 years only with introduction of grantha the change happened
What I said about last 150 years is only about pronouncing ca as sa. You have now brought another issue into this, which is about "the other vallinams", and you took it to mean that I put an age of 150 years for makan being pronounced as magan (for example). Your issue about "the other vallinams" is wholly irrelevant to the ca/sa issue we are discussing about, since sa is not the voiced form of ca. I am not sure whether you understand this properly.

You also misunderstood my mention of the grantha letters used in Tamil. Grantha was not introduced to Tamil within the last 150 years, its origins go back to the period shortly after the Pallavas came to power (circa 7th-8th centuries AD?). I was not speaking of the entire grantha script in the first place. I was speaking of the retention of specific grantha characters in addition to the regular tamil alphabets, long after grantha itself has fallen into disuse.

What I have however said above is that if you want to claim that there is a phonetic rule that converts intervocalic unvoiced stops to corresponding voiced stops, the voiced form of ca is ja. So if you write அரசன், the ca will change to ja when pronounced (whereupon you get arajan, which is sort of like going back to the sanskrit original). The rule will convert ka to ga, ca to ja, ta to da and pa to ba. The above phonetic rule will not convert for example ca to sa because the voiced allophone of ca is ja, not sa.

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

Re: Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman

Post by arunk »

I could be wrong but that ja is voiced form of ca (like in Sanskrit) I believe is irrelevant - not all languages need follow it - in the sense that the practice in tamil from ka to ga, must imply that ca should become ja, and thus contemporary/modern tamizh (where ca instead become sa all over the place but exactly consistent with how ka becomes ga, pa becomes ba etc,) is inherently illogical because it doesnt follow linguistic principles.

But lets put that aside and please consider the following carefully: Ok lets forget ca becoming sa. Let us go a real time in the past (later than tolkAppiyam if you insist) where all words start with the unvoiced ca, ka, pa etc. but you did have the convertibility to sonants, and thus had magan, iDam, naNban - i.e. the voiced surds became sonants ga, Da, ba. in the middle of word when not doubled (or after R). So you had செய், செல் pronounced as cei and cel (and not as sei/Sei and sel/Sel as it is now). How do you think the word இசை was pronounced then? Was it still icai? This then implies although other vallinams ka, Ta, ta, pa became ga, Da, da, ba - only ca remained unchanged. We have to ask then why ca was special? Or do you think if others went voiced, ca must go only to ja, and hence it must be ijai becauses "ja is voiced allophone of ca"? How does that make sense?

But perhaps you think when ca became sa, is also the time when ka became ga etc. ? This is certainly possible - but then are you implying all sonants came about this happened in just the last 150 years? This would mean before 150 years you had no ga, da, ba, Da in tamizh! Is this what you are implying?

Also, I think you are perhaps still missing my main point about sa (again, after the usage changed from ca) becoming ca when doubled or when combining two words - samayam vs. taRcamayam (in spite of the sanskrit import), suvai (or Suvai) vs iccuvai. The sanskrit grantha sa character I believe is used to explicitly preclude such possibilities for stock sanskrit words, nor to allow for any variability in pronunciation (sa, Sa, ca ). Thus it snt used for samayam, or for isai, asaivu (where some say isai, some say iSai), it is for sahasranAmam, sAhitya, sruthi etc.

I think mixing the Sanskrit grantha sa into this mix is a huge red herring.

Arun

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

Re: Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman

Post by arunk »

What I have however said above is that if you want to claim that there is a phonetic rule that converts intervocalic unvoiced stops to corresponding voiced stops, the voiced form of ca is ja. .
Are you saying you did not know this rule since you say that I am the one claiming there is such a rule? Caldwell proposed it (and Kuiper agreed) - he did so as a basic rule for dravidian languages one that Tamil (and malayalam) still adhered closely but others didnt.

The examples you quote (mAdam, isthri) are directly from Caldwell. You also used him as one of Dravidian scholars for your opinion, quoted from the exact book in which this rule appears. So if you didn't know about this, I would be really surprised! BTW, Caldwell does say that ja is the sonant for ca, but he does mention that the following for ca (page 22 under chapter sonants - its on books.google.com).

(my emphasis )
A similar rule applies to the pronunciation of ch or c (the Tamil c), the [first consonant of the second varga. When single, it is pronounced as a soft, weak sibilant, with a sound midway between S, sh, and ch. This pronunciation is unchanged in the middle of words, and in all cases in which the letter is single; but when it is doubled, it is pronounced exactly like chch or cc. The principle involved in this instance is the same as in the cases previously mentioned, but the operation of the rule is in some degree different. The difference consists in the pronunciation of this consonant in the beginning of a word, as well as in the middle, as a sonant—i.e., as i. By theory it should be pronounced as ch at the beginning of a word,—and it is worthy of notice that it always receives this pronunciation at the beginning of a word in vulgar colloquial Tamil: and in Malayalam and Telugu it is written as well as pronounced ch.
So he is clear that it was a variant of sa/Sa single whether in front or in middle - which is how it is in contemporary use. He doesnt bring ja into the picture, nor does he think the use of sa/Sa as opposed to ja is earth shattering. He of course also notes that by theory it should have been ca (which he elsewhere notes was probably the ancient pronounciation) and he notes it is how it is in malayalam etc. Btw the "rule" in "similar rule is the one about the convertibility of Surds and Sonants (the previous page to above i.e. page 21 under Sonants).

Arun

Govindaswamy
Posts: 120
Joined: 21 Feb 2010, 06:55

Re: Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman

Post by Govindaswamy »

Although many of the members appear to be masters of more than one subject, there had been lot of digressions in this thread, which stared as a comment on the theme song of Tamiz ulaga semmozi mAnADu. I have listed these.

1 Whether the song has even a tinge of CM.
2 Whether Tamizh pronunciation was correct.
3 Does this cacophony thread really belong under kutcheri reviews section?
4 Moved to languages section. (cmlover commented as Semmai + ozhi = semmozhi. Semmai + ozhi will become as per Tamiz grammar smmaiyozhi செம்மையொழி and not செம்மொழி. Tamiz grammar is different from sanskrit grammar)
5 Why does the logo depict indus civilization seals all over?
6 How do you know? Did you hear him (tiruvaLLUvar) speak?
7 It is siRappu and seytozhil not ciRappu and ceytozhil.
8 The same with even our young bArati!-- Is it not bhArati?
9 we sing sanskrit words in tamizh songs as we pronounce them in tamizh.
10 Incidentally, bhArati alias mAhi is one of the three goddesses. In Rg Veda (RV) there are a number of references to three Goddesses.
11 There are several such examples where the Sanskrit names are written differently in Tamizh. Can anyone enlighten?
12 He wrote ciRappu and ceytozhil and the modern Tamilian's preference to pronounce it as siRappu and seytozhil makes little difference to what he wrote.
13 Your side? Hmmm... did you do any of your own or are you banking on others' research. 150 years of phoneticresearch.
14 You tell me how we shold say lotus = pankajam in Tamil. If you say it is pangajam then you are wrong!
15 Sanskrit is a dead language. Thamizh is not.
16 Click on செவ்வாய் and சனி
What do you hear? I don't hear 'sevvAi' or 'sani' - do you?
At this stage the thread has beome a detailed discussion of phonetics of Tamiz mostly focussed on ca vs sa. Let me put in my little bit, even risking repetition.
Ca is a hard consonant. Hence originally the pronunciation must have been so. Sa, sa, sha an ksha (श, स, ष, क्ष) are alien sounds. Hence for comparing ca vs sa detailed research in evolution of Tamiz phonetics has to be made. Knowledge of phonetics of other languages can help but this should not be considered as the standard, as this will totally prejudice one’s mind.
Let us go back to tolkApiyam.
1 க, த, ந, ப, ம எனும் ஐந்தெழுத்தும் எல்லா உயிரொடும் செல்லுமார் முதலே.
The consonants k, t, n, p, amd m with all 12 vowels can come in the beginning of words.

2 சகரக் கிளவியும் அவற்றோரற்றே
அ, ஐ, ஔ எனும் மூன்றலங்கடையே

Conconant c is also like the above, except with the vowels a, ai and au.
I searched TirukkuRaL and did not find any words starting with சை, cai and சௌ cau. The only word starting with ca was calam , meaning cunningness. I think that this is a sanskrit word, as in Telugu (t)calamu means mAtsaryamu. Music lovers will know tyAgarAjA’s kriti (t)calamElarA.
When did sa replace ca. Was it during the influence of sanskrit which created the other three Dravidian languages which borrowed extensively from sanskrit and created their scripts. However the foreign linguists have said about 150 years ago that Tamiz did not have sibilants.
I have read that Tamiz (Pallava) grantham was used in south India only for writing sanskrit just like nAgari script was in North. Most of Indian learning tradition was oral.Due to interacton with people learning sanskrit TamiLargaL were exposd to not only sa but also Sa, sha,and ksha. They were totally perplexed with Sa(श). नमशिवाय namaSivAya becomes nachchivAya (நமச்சிவாய) inTamiz. The above theorising will mean that Tamiz was not not affected by sanskrit influence till about 150 years ago although even tolkAppiyam refers to தற்பவம் and தற்சமம்.

mahakavi
Posts: 1269
Joined: 29 Dec 2009, 22:16

Re: Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman

Post by mahakavi »

For the record, there are 3 kuRaLs which start with sa/ca.
1. sa (ca)man seydu sIrtUkkum kOl pOl.... (12:8)
2. sa(ca)lattal poruL.... (66:10). Here sa/ca/lam means illwill or evil means
3. sa(ca)lam paRRi sAlbu.... (96;6). Here sa(ca)lam means anger

mahakavi
Posts: 1269
Joined: 29 Dec 2009, 22:16

Re: Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman

Post by mahakavi »

>> However the foreign linguists have said about 150 years ago that Tamiz did not have sibilants.<<

Caution is required in taking the implication from the above sentence. It is true, as arunk pointed out in his posts, that there is no sibilant script ஸ் in ancient Thamizh alphabet. That did not rule out the semi-sibilant sound for ச. It was not written down how to pronounce sa/ca by tolkAppiyar. But the dual track sounds of sa/ca could have been in practice from early on by oral tradition/convention.Such a hypothesis remains to be proven yet (from appropriate authoritative sources) (Thamizh folks in early times were not devoid of the ability to pronounce the soft "sa" sound).

mahakavi
Posts: 1269
Joined: 29 Dec 2009, 22:16

Re: Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman

Post by mahakavi »

>>The above theorising will mean that Tamiz was not not affected by sanskrit influence till about 150 years ago<<

Not true! Thamizh trinity in the 16th century CE used Sanskrit words in their kritis. MuttuttAnDavar used "vAcakam" which is an import from Sanskrit "vAcaka". Even MANikkavAcagar blended the vAcak into his work called tiruvAcakam.

For that matter Sanskrit words were brought into Thamizh in the post-sangam period by the Jain and Buddhist scholars. The aimperungAppiyangaL were predominantly authored by Jain and Buddhist scholars. There are extensive Sanskrit words in such works. Just to cite an example: In Aycciyar kuravai, iLangO aDigaL uses the word "panjcavarkku" to refer to the Pandavas, instead of saying "aivarkku".

Govindaswamy
Posts: 120
Joined: 21 Feb 2010, 06:55

Re: Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman

Post by Govindaswamy »

Mahakavi – I have missed the two words saman (caman) and salam (calam) which start with sa/ ca. Are not these two words of sanskrit origin, with the first one starting with ’sa’ and the second one with ‘ca’. Does it mean that between the period of tolkAppiyar and tiruvaLLUvar words beginning with ca (sa) from sanskrit came into use. If we assume that, while borrowing sanskrit words starting with ca/sa, the sibilant/soft sound was introduced in Tamiz. What about the following Tamiz words taken from kuRaL.
சான்றோன், சிறுமை, சீர்மை, சுற்றம், சூழ்ச்சி, செய்க, சேர்ந்த, சொல், சோர்வு. Does anyone pronounce these with ‘ca’ beginning.
We have to consider these letters coming the middle and end of words. I can think of hardly a few.
கசடு, ஆசாமி, பசிக்கிறது, பசுமை, அசைவு
பசி, கொசு, அசை,
These are also pronounced with ‘sa sound only and not ca. Does it mean that ‘ca’ is no longer a vallinam.
Detailed research is needed to find out internal evidence about when the change took place.

mahakavi
Posts: 1269
Joined: 29 Dec 2009, 22:16

Re: Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman

Post by mahakavi »

Govindasamy:
I believe saman perhaps was imported from Sanskrit "sama" which means equal. It may also have evolved independently in Thamizh like "mIn" (fish).
(The mInkoDi of the Pandya dynastry goes in the BCE era).

If sama ----> saman was borrowed by TiruvaLLuvar (he was a Jain, you know) it will have the sa sound, naturally.
"cala" in Sanskrit means moving--acalam means stationary--hence acalam denotes a mountain. In Thamizh salam has many meanings. Among them: anger, falsehood, deceit, evil deed, enmity, rivalry, obstinacy, trembling and many more. In the kuRaL "salam paRRi sAlbu..." salam means anger (சினம்)

>>What about the following Tamiz words taken from kuRaL.
சான்றோன், சிறுமை, சீர்மை, சுற்றம், சூழ்ச்சி, செய்க, சேர்ந்த, சொல், சோர்வு. Does anyone pronounce these with ‘ca’ beginning.<<
These are pure Thamizh words and they are all pronounced (contested by some) with "s" sound. It does mean that the sounds had a track of its own like sa, sA, si, sI....etc.

>>
கசடு, ஆசாமி, பசிக்கிறது, பசுமை, அசைவு
பசி, கொசு, அசை,
These are also pronounced with ‘sa sound only and not ca. Does it mean that ‘ca’ is no longer a vallinam.<<

Yes, these have the sa, sa, si, su, sai, si, su, sai sounds. But it does not mean "sa/ca" letter is not vallinam. It is vallinam alright. But just like ka/ga, ta/da, Ta/Da, and pa'ba the sound of ca morphs to sa. When words begin with ca/sa or when ca/sa occurs in the middle or end the sound softens to sa. Only when the consonant "c" doubles as in "paccai" or when "c" follows vallina R and T, the sound stays hard as "ca, cA, ci....."etc.

Pl refer to my earlier post where I gave several Thamizh words from tiruppAvai, tEvAram etc., where the words "mAsil,...vIsu....mUsu.... tUsu...." and a lot more from the first millenium were pronounced with the "sa" sound. These words were not imports, mind you.

This whole thread contests/dwells on the statement made above. But the Caldwell case applies only to the sibilant script "s" and not the semi-sibilant sound. The semi-sibilant sound where ca changes to sa perhaps existed for a long time per oral tradition. I agree we need authentication of this view from academics. We should not confuse accent with literary/academic phonetics. As arunk quoted from Caldwell, the ca sound has been inherent in "vulgar colloquial" Thamizh.

Pratyaksham Bala
Posts: 4164
Joined: 21 May 2010, 16:57

Re: Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman

Post by Pratyaksham Bala »

mahakavi wrote: TiruvaLLuvar (he was a Jain, you know)
Of course. It is nice of you to have pointed this out incidentally.

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

Re: Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman

Post by ksrimech »

mahakavi wrote:TiruvaLLuvar (he was a Jain, you know)
Aren't jains atheists? His first kuRaL starts with the words Adi bhagavan.

mahakavi
Posts: 1269
Joined: 29 Dec 2009, 22:16

Re: Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman

Post by mahakavi »

Well, Mahavira, the founder of Jainism rejected the Hindu concept of vEdAs, the priestly system, and the sacrifices practiced. The basis of Jainism is asceticism. But the followers of Mahavira (as in the case of Buddha) started worshipping him later on. They thought Mahavira descended from heaven. Jainism became popular in the early centuries of the common era because of ahimsa practice and asceticism by the monks. One wouldn't call it atheism. It was heretical from the veiwpoint of Hinduism with all its entrenched codes and practices.

But tiruvaLLuvar was considered to be a Jain from the topics he chose for kuRaL---such as kollAmai/innA seyyAmai (ahimsA), pulAl maRuttal (rejecting meat), kaLLAmai, and many other virtues.

His very first chapter in kuRaL deals with God--Adi bhagavan (primordial god). Some contend Adi and bhagavan were his parents. It is still under dispute. mu ka has maintained that vaLLuvar does not talk about god but only some model person or some such thing. So irrespective of his belief vaLLuvar is considered a model citizen and preceptor.

It is likely that he followed the principles of Jainism (similar to iLangO aDigaL's belief) but modified it to suit his personal taste..He wrote "aruL illArkku avvulagam illai..."------- definitely not an atheistic statement.

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

Re: Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman

Post by cmlover »

A revised version of the Semmozhi song by ARR cutting out the CM artistes!
Can one of you identify the quote from Bharathi in the lyrics?

Govindaswamy
Posts: 120
Joined: 21 Feb 2010, 06:55

Re: Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman

Post by Govindaswamy »

This thread which started with a comment on the theme song of the recent world/clasical Tamil language became a discussion on Tamiz phonetics with particular emphasis on ca vs sa. This was in fact continuation of the earlier discussion started by sridhar_rand regarding pronunciation of these (mainly by Tamiz musicians) in carnatic music, most of which are in Telugu and samskRtam.
Even after nearly 250 postings no conclusions can be drawn because all of us know only the present pronunciation of these two letters, with regional and other variations. We have no written proof about earler (correct/pure) pronunciation. All of us have been speculating. Except for the remarks regarding sibilats made by couple of foreign scholars about 150 yars ago, no single reference from any Tamiz grammar book has been quoted. Lot of technical terms in English and some in sanskrit, have been thrown about but no single Tamiz term for phonetics was given. Do we assume that Tamiz had no rules on pronunciation.

Now the question of the religion of tiruvaLLuvar has cropped up. If this is to be discussed a separate thread may be started. I suggest the following topica may be discussed with proof from literature.
1 What was the religion if any, in Tamiz nADu prior to arrival of bhuDhDhisam and jainisam.
2. Why all the major kAppiyams (kAvyas) are in these two religion based.
3 What was the period of tiruvaLLuvar.
4 If he or hos ancestors adopted janism what was ther original religion.
5 Who has recorded the ‘yarn’regarding the encounter of his vAsuki with a sAdhu/mendicant and the popular ‘quotation கொக்கென்று நினைத்தனையோ கொங்கணவா.
6 I have heard the following as proofs that tiruvaLLuvar was a jain
- Adhi bhagavan refers to bhagavAn AdhinAth of Jainism.
- மலர் மிசை ஏகினான், பொறிவாயில் ஐந்தவித்தான், and எண்குணத்தான் do not rfer to any vEdic/hindu gods.
- Why immediately after praying to god and rain he had jumped to நீத்தார் பெருமை. Jainism places importande on renunciation. In sanAtana dharma sanyAsam is the last of the four AsramAs.
- Why 14 chapter have been allotted to துறவறவியல் compared to 20 chapters to இல்லறவியல்.
- In the kuRaL அவி சொரிந்து ஆயிரம் வேட்டலின் he had made adverse comments on vEdic religion.

mahakavi
Posts: 1269
Joined: 29 Dec 2009, 22:16

Re: Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman

Post by mahakavi »

Govindaswamy wrote: 1 What was the religion if any, in Tamiz nADu prior to arrival of bhuDhDhisam and jainisam.
2. Why all the major kAppiyams (kAvyas) are in these two religion based.
3 What was the period of tiruvaLLuvar.
4 If he or hos ancestors adopted janism what was ther original religion.
.
1. Again begging an insufficient knowledge, let me venture to say that the Dravidians (who fled the Indus valley upon invasion by the Aryans) had some gods centered on Shiva and Vishnu, I read. Later on the Aryans who brought so many gods with them (called vEdic gods) such as indra, varuna, agni, vayu etc., adopted Shiva, vishnu, and the associated retinue. I guess the Dravidians had Shaivism in a primitive form as their religion.
2. Jainism and Buddhism started to spread to the South in the centuries spanning BCE and CE. iLangO aDigaL converted to Jainism. sIttalaic cAttanAr (author of MaNimEgalai) likewise converted to Buddhism. The two religions spread well in South India because of their basic precepts of non-violence, and renunciation of desire (perhaps acceptable to them since their forefathers experienced violence from the Aryans). The authors of aimperungAppiyangaL happened to be following the two religions while they had their natural poetic/literary acumen coincidentally.
3. tiruvaLLuvar is dated around the beginning of the common era. It could be anywhere from 200 BCE to 500 CE.
4. See point #1

During the 6th through 11th centuries shaivism and vaishNavism got a "revival" through the works of tEvAram trinity and the AzhwArs.. So the pre-conversion period may have been one in which shaivism/vaishnavism prevailed. That is because shaivism was not invented by sambandar or appar. It was there and their parents followed that religion. Since the kings during that period gave royal patronage to Jainism in the Pallava and Pandya kingdoms (6th century CE), shaivism stayed dormant. The prime minister (kulacciRaiyAr) of the Pandya king ninRa sIr neDumARan , and the queen followed shaivism. They invited sambandhar to visit Madurai to change the king's heart.

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

Re: Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman

Post by srkris »

I was trying to approach the topic of Tamil's phonology scientifically. This thread has instead become a hodge podge of everyones' pet theories & fancies with nary a hope for any objectivity.

One may as well consult this book to know a lot about Tamil language and its history. |(

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

Re: Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman

Post by cmlover »

srkris
That presentation should have been at a separate thread. We all appreciate your objective analysis and thanks to Arun for the equally objective comments as against the blind-folded obstinate one-track speculations of a self-professed few ( :D ) !

mahakavi
Posts: 1269
Joined: 29 Dec 2009, 22:16

Re: Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman

Post by mahakavi »

I shall not demean myself to make a comment on the post which is very childish.

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

Re: Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman

Post by cmlover »

....if the shoe fits .... :D

ragam-talam
Posts: 1896
Joined: 28 Sep 2006, 02:15

Re: Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman

Post by ragam-talam »

quick question on the cha-sa topic:
'Chinnanchiru kiliye' is the famous Bharatiyar song. I have heard all singers pronounce this as 'chinnanchiru', never as 'sinnanchiru'.
e.g see this version by TMK: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFZkI5SYCys

Are they pronouncing it incorrectly, or is there a special rule at work here?

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

Re: Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman

Post by arasi »

r_t,
Thanks for the clip. bArati's verses can move us, no matter--this song, more so. Wonder why you chose this particular rendition when there are several versions of the song sung by different performers with the same pronunciation!
A nice rendering by TMK, though I'm not that keen on switching the rAgams ever so quickly before we savor the import of the bard's lines in the mood that a rAgam can convey (songs with lines with lesser emotional impact can take the quick switch, I guess).
That 'uccitanai mugarndAl garuvam Ongi vaLarudaDi' line did not bring (to me at least) the rasAnubhavam of the ultimate (ucci=top of the head, ucci=acme?) in the adoration of a child. Still, this was well illustrated by TMK's hand gestures ;)
Last edited by arasi on 19 Jul 2010, 09:25, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman

Post by arunk »

err... r-t,

I thought I clarified this :) .

1. If this is sung in a Tamil Movie today, it would be considered "non-standard" by some, incorrect by some (but also correct by some) :) - this is MORE because of Selva vs, selva.
1(a) But in Tamil movie today if you sing sinnanjiru kiLiyE kaNNammA selva..., it would be considered "standard" by most fans of than genre (and many people who participate in paTTi manRams), and non-standard and incorrect by some (the set which may have a large intersection with people who also browse rasikas.org ;-) )

2. If this (as TML sings it) was sung in a Tamil movie in the 1940s,1950s, it would have been probably be considered "more standard" !!

3. if someone went chinnanjiru kiLiyE kaNNammA c/b]elva ..., it would probably be considered non-standard in most of Tamil Nadu except the regions that border God's Own Country!!

Arun

ragam-talam
Posts: 1896
Joined: 28 Sep 2006, 02:15

Re: Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman

Post by ragam-talam »

Here's a youtube video clip with the singers identified:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8Rpp0eEAjY

mahakavi
Posts: 1269
Joined: 29 Dec 2009, 22:16

Re: Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman

Post by mahakavi »

ragam-talam wrote:quick question on the cha-sa topic:
'Chinnanchiru kiliye' is the famous Bharatiyar song. I have heard all singers pronounce this as 'chinnanchiru', never as 'sinnanchiru'.
e.g see this version by TMK: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFZkI5SYCys

Are they pronouncing it incorrectly, or is there a special rule at work here?
r-t:
This delivery by TMK in a slow tempo is different from what others have rendered before in a slightly faster pace. I hear TMK sing both ways: "sinnanjciRu" as well as "cinnanjciRu" in repeat utterances. Without doubt he says "selvak kaLanjciyamE.
He goofed at one place. In the lIne "ADittiridal kaNDAl unnaippOy Avi tazhuvudaDI" he sings "ennenjcil" instead of "unnaippOy" which distorts the meaning. I guess he got confused there as that word "ennenjcil" occurs a few lines down in "unkaNNil nIr vazhindAl ennenjcil udiram koTTudaDI" where he uses the correct word "ennenjcil"

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

Re: Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman

Post by cmlover »

Well done R-T!
You have provided objective proof!
Perhaps TMK is not from Sennai for some to accept/digest his pronunciation :D

mahakavi
Posts: 1269
Joined: 29 Dec 2009, 22:16

Re: Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman

Post by mahakavi »

Hmmmmmmmmmm, who said Truth does not hurt?

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

Re: Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman

Post by cmlover »

Why don't we compromise and say that both are correct?
Tamil is not spoken the same way in all parts of TN (or even in the world)!
Actually the Srilankan Tamil frozen in time is more ancient and authentic!
(... in fact it is closer to malayalam from which that language appears to have evolved)!

ragam-talam
Posts: 1896
Joined: 28 Sep 2006, 02:15

Re: Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman

Post by ragam-talam »

cmlover wrote:Perhaps TMK is not from Sennai for some to accept/digest his pronunciation :D
Your mention of sennai raises a question...
When they changed the name of the city from Madras to Chennai, why did they not change it to 'sennai' rather than 'chennai', if that's the way the city's name should be pronounced? The new names Mumbai, Bengaluru etc sound the way they would be pronounced even by people from outside those states.

mahakavi
Posts: 1269
Joined: 29 Dec 2009, 22:16

Re: Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman

Post by mahakavi »

cmlover wrote:Why don't we compromise and say that both are correct?
Tamil is not spoken the same way in all parts of TN (or even in the world)!
Actually the Srilankan Tamil frozen in time is more ancient and authentic!
(... in fact it is closer to malayalam from which that language appears to have evolved)!
When conviction rules there is no room for compromise.
Nobody prevents anybody from pronouncing the words the way they want.
I, for one, wouldn't ridicule anybody saying it is "ceruppu" but I maintain that is not standard. If it is pronounced that way in some parts of the state and some people, so be it. I will not endorse it. Period.

mahakavi
Posts: 1269
Joined: 29 Dec 2009, 22:16

Re: Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman

Post by mahakavi »

ragam-talam wrote:Your mention of sennai raises a question...
When they changed the name of the city from Madras to Chennai, why did they not change it to 'sennai' rather than 'chennai', if that's the way the city's name should be pronounced? The new names Mumbai, Bengaluru etc sound the way they would be pronounced even by people from outside those states.
r-t:
We went through this before. It is an import. The city (fishing village, actually) was originally named for the feudal lord Chennappa Naicker (Telugu person). Hence it was written as Chennai and subsequently pronounced as Chennai.

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

Re: Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman

Post by cmlover »

I, for one, wouldn't ridicule anybody saying it is "ceruppu" but I maintain that is not standard. If it is pronounced that way in some parts of the state and some people, so be it. I will not endorse it. Period.
That is fine. Similarly the other side will maintain that theirs is the right way! That is where compromise arises. No need for any endorsements.
We will blithely sing along with TMK
chinnanchiRu kiLiyE... :D
Incidentally the letter ஸ was available to BhArathy if he really meant to sing
sinnan siRu kiLiyE...

mahakavi
Posts: 1269
Joined: 29 Dec 2009, 22:16

Re: Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman

Post by mahakavi »

childish intransigence. I will not deal with it anymore.

ragam-talam
Posts: 1896
Joined: 28 Sep 2006, 02:15

Re: Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman

Post by ragam-talam »

The word 'sari' (for yes in Tamil) is pronounced in so many different ways:
- 'Sari' by Kerala Iyers
- 'Chari' by Tamilians from border areas (with Kerala)
- 'Shari' by Tamilians who have spent long time in the north
and
- 'sari' by the rest of the Tamlians!

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

Re: Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman

Post by srkris »

About cinnañciru, it often becomes cinnañjiru in speech - the first c (ச), the ñ (ஞ) and the j (ஜ) are all palatal consonants. The corresponding palatal fricative or ushman here is ś i.e. श.

So one can perhaps claim c is historically allophonic to ś in tamil (even as it changes to j intervocalically). In this case, using the sh (i.e श) sound for c makes phonemic sense.

Chennai becoming sennai (सेन्नै/ஸென்னை) does not make any native phonological sense, nor does cinnañciru becoming sinnañsiru, since s (i.e the ஸ/स sound) is not a palatal sound and scientifically cannot be a native substitute for c. The s sound used by some tamils today instead of c is therefore a very recent import (and possibly borrowed from Sanskrit, either directly or through Telugu/Kannada).

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

Re: Semmozhiaam Tamizh mozhi-Karunanidhi-AR Rahman

Post by srkris »

R-T,

I don't think that is correct. I have only heard Chari/Shari (shari being decidedly a tamil alternative, while chari is used by keralites). The sari in Tamil comes from Telugu "sare" (and telugu has had the s sound for long, while it is recent in Tamil). Kerala's relative isolation from the rest of the tamil population keeps them from adopting immediately the new sound laws which creep into tamil.

A Tamil boss I used to work for (belongs to a village near Chengalpet but settled in Chennai for the last 20 years or so) used to say "cherch" for "search". Obviously, his phonology is conservative, of late folks in urban Tamil nadu (and specially Chennai) usually convert all c's into s sounds, and also claim that is the standard.

Post Reply