Definitive guide to Tamil sounds ca, sa, Sa, sha?
-
- Posts: 13754
- Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:26
Sri Govindaswamy,
I think the final consensus is that there is no way of figuring out who has the 'right' to determine which is the correct way of pronouncing these sounds unfortunately represented by a single letter, and which pronunciation is incorrect. The arguments, though tedious and tangential at times, seem to have established that fact. This is what I got from these 4 pages: let us pronounce it any which way we please, and desist from correcting others!
I think the final consensus is that there is no way of figuring out who has the 'right' to determine which is the correct way of pronouncing these sounds unfortunately represented by a single letter, and which pronunciation is incorrect. The arguments, though tedious and tangential at times, seem to have established that fact. This is what I got from these 4 pages: let us pronounce it any which way we please, and desist from correcting others!
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3497
- Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 03:34
If the tolkappiyam is taken as the standard, then it is not followed in practise today. So the authority's prescriptions are violated.
There seems to be no modern authority to say that modern pronounciations are correct. So one has to still follow the older authority to determine what is correct, until it is superceeded by another authority.
Although everyone duplicates the previous vowel for the visarga in sanskrit, that is not how it should be, for it affects the chandas and is hence wrong. We have to go back to Panini, and everyone who violates Panini's sutras when speaking sanskrit is speaking incorrect sanskrit. We dont have such a sound grammatical tradition for tamil, hence all these confusions about what to consider acceptable vs. what not.
Grammars define languages (grammars describe the lakshaNa of the language). In tamil, the word lakshaNam is simplified into ilakkaNam, but the meaning is the same. That is why tolkappiyam is said to define tamil's lakshanam (ilakkanam).
It is the grammar that defines the language. An undefined language is anarchy (alakshana prayogas). We are in a state of anarchy now, and whoever thinks he or she is speaking tamil with whatever pronounciation, will deem their tamil is correct because they inherited it like that. In other words, everyone takes the authority into their own hands. But still one has to have an authority (whether it is oneself or someone/something else) to determine correctness or incorrectness. It's all relative.
There seems to be no modern authority to say that modern pronounciations are correct. So one has to still follow the older authority to determine what is correct, until it is superceeded by another authority.
Although everyone duplicates the previous vowel for the visarga in sanskrit, that is not how it should be, for it affects the chandas and is hence wrong. We have to go back to Panini, and everyone who violates Panini's sutras when speaking sanskrit is speaking incorrect sanskrit. We dont have such a sound grammatical tradition for tamil, hence all these confusions about what to consider acceptable vs. what not.
Grammars define languages (grammars describe the lakshaNa of the language). In tamil, the word lakshaNam is simplified into ilakkaNam, but the meaning is the same. That is why tolkappiyam is said to define tamil's lakshanam (ilakkanam).
It is the grammar that defines the language. An undefined language is anarchy (alakshana prayogas). We are in a state of anarchy now, and whoever thinks he or she is speaking tamil with whatever pronounciation, will deem their tamil is correct because they inherited it like that. In other words, everyone takes the authority into their own hands. But still one has to have an authority (whether it is oneself or someone/something else) to determine correctness or incorrectness. It's all relative.
-
- Posts: 1896
- Joined: 28 Sep 2006, 02:15
-
- Posts: 287
- Joined: 16 Jan 2006, 10:09
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3497
- Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 03:34
-
- Posts: 2056
- Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 07:12
-
- Posts: 1896
- Joined: 28 Sep 2006, 02:15
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYuSgs5VPtUsrkris wrote:Lankan tamizh IMHO comes closest to old-tamizh.
In this excerpt from the movie 'Tenali' there is a long monologue by Kamal (starts at 3:00) that seems to capture the essence of Lankan Tamil.
What is interesting is the pronunciation of words like 'bhayam' and 'dhairyam' - which sound closer to Malayalam than today's Tamil!
-
- Posts: 809
- Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 11:36
-
- Posts: 11498
- Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:36
avaHaL HathaikkaRathu Eezhat thamizh. nIHaL atthai malayaaLaminnu Sollap paDAthuragam-talam wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYuSgs5VPtUsrkris wrote:Lankan tamizh IMHO comes closest to old-tamizh.
In this excerpt from the movie 'Tenali' there is a long monologue by Kamal (starts at 3:00) that seems to capture the essence of Lankan Tamil.
What is interesting is the pronunciation of words like 'bhayam' and 'dhairyam' - which sound closer to Malayalam than today's Tamil!
-
- Posts: 1896
- Joined: 28 Sep 2006, 02:15
-
- Posts: 16826
- Joined: 22 Jun 2006, 09:30
-
- Posts: 10957
- Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 00:01
Yes VKR. Over the years I had had a lot of interactions with SL Tamils including a room mate, a long time back. At first it took some time to get used to the fact that their conversational tamil is much more formal than mine. It was quite comedic at first including some odd usages of words ( like kIru for dig, kiNaru kIru to refer to digging a well ) but the problem was, what mode do I get into, formal or my usual bad colloquial one. If I am watching TV, they would ask casually 'enna kanDu kaLiththu kondirukirErkaL?' do I say say 'Chumma TV pAkkarOm'. That kind of formal-informal stuff does not quite fit. We adapted and switched to English just kidding.. With great difficulty I made an attempt to speak in formal tamil, it is not easy at all.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3497
- Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 03:34
Not so. They more often convert loanwords to tamil's phonology than the mainland tamils do. So what they speak "sounds" more tamil.VK RAMAN wrote:We have a few Srilankan tamils in the community and I am always attracted how they express without any sanskrit words. Their slokams and kirtans are also purely tamil.
Someone said SL Tamil sounds more like malayalam. Of course it would. In Kerala, there are a big caste called eezhavar, where do you think they are from. No, they are not from SL (as far as I know). Rather the SL tamils are migrants from Kerala to SL at a time when malayalam was still a close dialect of old-tamil (and not a separate language unlike now). Another apparent link is the kannaki worship which is common in both Kerala and SL, but not in TN.
-
- Posts: 2246
- Joined: 10 Jun 2007, 12:23
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3497
- Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 03:34
I am not sure about the connection between siMhala and Izham (there is an explanation connecting it with sihala and ceylon). Tamil usually drops the beginning sa sound (example sahasram becomes saasiram in kannada and aayiram in tamil, sabhA becomes avai etc). So siMhala would become iMhala, further shedding the anuswara and ha since it cannot accommodate them, the word could have become ila and later izha.
The tamil sound zha has connections with both la and ra.
Examples : Phalam vs pazham, amirtam vs amizhtam, pravAlam vs pavazham. So both ra and la can probably become zha.
Probably the name Izham originated at a late date. When is it first mentioned in tamil literature?
The tamil sound zha has connections with both la and ra.
Examples : Phalam vs pazham, amirtam vs amizhtam, pravAlam vs pavazham. So both ra and la can probably become zha.
Probably the name Izham originated at a late date. When is it first mentioned in tamil literature?
-
- Posts: 726
- Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 21:43
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3497
- Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 03:34
Erode,
That is quite odd. Vallinam is not for strength to bear the load of other sounds in a single character, that's a funny explanation at best. They are called vallinam to show that they are hard sounds (vanmai ~ hard), as contrasted with mellinam (menmai ~ soft sound). Ga Ja da ba are not vallinam, they should have been properly called idayinam if they existed in old tamil, but they didnt exist and they dont have any such name. And contrary to your presumption, it is not the written alphabet that is called vallinam or mellinam (because written alphabet does not belong to any "inam" or category), it is the sound that is classified so.
If you pronounce pogalAm as pohalAm, it is a plain and simple error, it would not indicate either the speaker's linguistic vidwat or the genius of the language. One cannot claim that one's errors occur because the language is great, it is simply due to the speaker's ignorance.
This is what I have been talking about in this thread all along. Let us not glorify errors by saying that the language is great because it admits the errors. Tamil does not admit a mispronounciation of pogalAm as pohalAm.
You also want the the error to spread among all. God forbid.
Do not make simplistic comparisons of English with Indian languages. Indian languages are phonetic languages, English is a non phonetic language.
The tragedy of many of us Indians is we derive conclusions from incomplete knowledge. There are people who have dedicated their lives to historical linguistics, we should not simply brush their research aside. Linguistics is a science, and only experts who have done significant research can opine about the subject in an informed manner, more so for historical linguistics.
Like how there are specialists for each organ of the human body, there are modern-day specialists for each language and part of the language like phonology, morphology, comparative linguistics, historical linguistics, grammar, metre etc (we had such people even in ancient India).
It is a fallacy to assume just because one speaks the language, one knows everything about it.
To theorize with incomplete knowledge is like me claiming that one can produce the sound of a car horn from a mridangam. You as a mridangist know better.
That is quite odd. Vallinam is not for strength to bear the load of other sounds in a single character, that's a funny explanation at best. They are called vallinam to show that they are hard sounds (vanmai ~ hard), as contrasted with mellinam (menmai ~ soft sound). Ga Ja da ba are not vallinam, they should have been properly called idayinam if they existed in old tamil, but they didnt exist and they dont have any such name. And contrary to your presumption, it is not the written alphabet that is called vallinam or mellinam (because written alphabet does not belong to any "inam" or category), it is the sound that is classified so.
If you pronounce pogalAm as pohalAm, it is a plain and simple error, it would not indicate either the speaker's linguistic vidwat or the genius of the language. One cannot claim that one's errors occur because the language is great, it is simply due to the speaker's ignorance.
This is what I have been talking about in this thread all along. Let us not glorify errors by saying that the language is great because it admits the errors. Tamil does not admit a mispronounciation of pogalAm as pohalAm.
You also want the the error to spread among all. God forbid.
Do not make simplistic comparisons of English with Indian languages. Indian languages are phonetic languages, English is a non phonetic language.
The tragedy of many of us Indians is we derive conclusions from incomplete knowledge. There are people who have dedicated their lives to historical linguistics, we should not simply brush their research aside. Linguistics is a science, and only experts who have done significant research can opine about the subject in an informed manner, more so for historical linguistics.
Like how there are specialists for each organ of the human body, there are modern-day specialists for each language and part of the language like phonology, morphology, comparative linguistics, historical linguistics, grammar, metre etc (we had such people even in ancient India).
It is a fallacy to assume just because one speaks the language, one knows everything about it.
To theorize with incomplete knowledge is like me claiming that one can produce the sound of a car horn from a mridangam. You as a mridangist know better.
-
- Posts: 3424
- Joined: 07 Feb 2010, 21:41
srkris,
It would help if you support your proclamations with some iota of evidence as in quotes to researchers, aricles which I have been *requesting* from the start. Unless I am mistaken your score is a zero so far.
In fact, from what I understand, linguists (and even grammarians) are way way more accomodating to *actual* use of the language rather than treating grammars as bibles as your statements indicate (Tamil, a phonetic language? Where is the evidence?). Again, without proper quotes etc. this seems like empty rhetoric not unlike the kind I had mentioned earlier.
Arun
It would help if you support your proclamations with some iota of evidence as in quotes to researchers, aricles which I have been *requesting* from the start. Unless I am mistaken your score is a zero so far.
In fact, from what I understand, linguists (and even grammarians) are way way more accomodating to *actual* use of the language rather than treating grammars as bibles as your statements indicate (Tamil, a phonetic language? Where is the evidence?). Again, without proper quotes etc. this seems like empty rhetoric not unlike the kind I had mentioned earlier.
Arun
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3497
- Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 03:34
Arun, would you claim that the sounds ca and ja are both represented by the letter ச? If you know a bit of phonetics, there are laws on phonetics describing how sounds can change and cannot change.
Someone cannot simply say போகலாமà¯ÂÂ
Someone cannot simply say போகலாமà¯ÂÂ
-
- Posts: 3424
- Joined: 07 Feb 2010, 21:41
Your assertions are not. Nobody claimed that tamil is phonetical except you.
> The sounds are ordered based on Sanskrit sounds
No. Sounds already existed. They chose a script that can be used to support existing sounds.
> (carefully eliminating the non-existing sounds)
There is no unambiguous proof of this. Besides there is evidence pointing to phonological variance then. Btw, i found your "maybe greeks communicated with people with malayalam accent" dismissal quite humorous - but mainly argumentative.
Your axiom that there is ONE correct pronunciation for a language is false, as it is never realized. Your axiom that grammar of a language always unambiguously determines phonology is also false.
But my point is you are pointing to "scientific approachers", "linguists", "historical linguistic research" many times (and what is scientific approach and not), and that you believe them (rather than "others"). I ask for references, by now a tiresome number of times, - you have provided none, zilch. Do you have any? Or are these your conclusions only? If so, stop using references to linguists and linguistic research. If these aren't your conclusions but ones made by researchers, then provide info.
I find it ironic that you are able to see tradition is everchanging, but cannot see the same for language. Although I agreed with the gist of your argument there, regarding - adding new meanings to existing words - humans have been doing that for time eternity. Check ANY language (formal dictionary) for words with multiple meanings.
I have said it before, it is a mistake to assume that languages are 100% unambiguous. But then why I am rehashing my arguments when it looks like you don't have what I ask (i am still hoping I am wrong)?
I will shut up again.
Arun
> The sounds are ordered based on Sanskrit sounds
No. Sounds already existed. They chose a script that can be used to support existing sounds.
> (carefully eliminating the non-existing sounds)
There is no unambiguous proof of this. Besides there is evidence pointing to phonological variance then. Btw, i found your "maybe greeks communicated with people with malayalam accent" dismissal quite humorous - but mainly argumentative.
Your axiom that there is ONE correct pronunciation for a language is false, as it is never realized. Your axiom that grammar of a language always unambiguously determines phonology is also false.
But my point is you are pointing to "scientific approachers", "linguists", "historical linguistic research" many times (and what is scientific approach and not), and that you believe them (rather than "others"). I ask for references, by now a tiresome number of times, - you have provided none, zilch. Do you have any? Or are these your conclusions only? If so, stop using references to linguists and linguistic research. If these aren't your conclusions but ones made by researchers, then provide info.
I find it ironic that you are able to see tradition is everchanging, but cannot see the same for language. Although I agreed with the gist of your argument there, regarding - adding new meanings to existing words - humans have been doing that for time eternity. Check ANY language (formal dictionary) for words with multiple meanings.
I have said it before, it is a mistake to assume that languages are 100% unambiguous. But then why I am rehashing my arguments when it looks like you don't have what I ask (i am still hoping I am wrong)?
I will shut up again.
Arun
Last edited by arunk on 20 Jun 2009, 18:55, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3497
- Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 03:34
>>Nobody claimed that tamil is phonetical except you.<<
Perhaps academics over the world are wrong, but http://www.artsci.utoronto.ca/languages ... ered/tamil
Just keep in mind I am not talking of modern tamil where phonetics has gone haywire.
I didnt think I was even getting into a serious discussion to start proving anything or quoting academic literature.
>>No. Sounds already existed. They chose a script that can be used to support existing sounds.<<
Did u read what I wrote? I was talking of the ordering of the sounds in Tamil - the permutation (the script itself was a derivative of Brahmi). I was not talking about "existence" of sounds.
>>Btw, i found your "maybe greeks communicated with people with malayalam accent" dismissal quite humorous - but mainly argumentative.<<
Have you heard of a straw-man? You are talking against points that were not put forth by me. I did not speak of any "malayalam" accent, nothing to do with malayalam at all in-fact.
The time of the greek/roman trades (late centuries BC & early centuries AD) didn't have any malayalam to speak of. Even as late as the 10th century AD, both kerala and TN were a single tamil land (tamilakam). The region where malayalam later developed would have been the first to assimilate foreign sounds into their tamil (which explains why they are the most different from literary tamil today), and it is very likely the greeks traded with western ports rather than eastern ones (most of the oldest trading centres like Muziris, Tyndis, Naura, Nelcynda are along the western coast in the kingdom of the cheraputras ~ present day kerala). These places were speaking tamil, not malayalam.
>>Your axiom that there is ONE correct pronunciation for a language is false, as it is never realized. Your axiom that grammar of a language always unambiguously determines phonology is also false.<<
I did not say there is one way of pronunciation. But definitely there is a standard, and it determines correctness or otherwise of pronunciation etc. If something were acceptable but ambiguous, the grammar would state it, else it would find mention in other old literature. If you dont accept grammatical authority, it's not my lookout. But you cannot claim I didn't cite anything to back up my claims. Your issues are then with the grammatical authority, not with me.
>>I find it ironic that you are able to see tradition is everchanging, but cannot see the same for language.<<
All traditions, including those that pertain to languages, change. However, there are standards to measure the extent of deviation. The standard prescribes what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. The unacceptable deviations are errors according to the standard. This is not some subjective catch-all mumbo-jumbo talk. As I said linguistics (the study of languages and changes in it) is an objective science. If you claim that something is correct, you must be able to cite the authority which defines correctness of particular usage.
If I say it is incorrect to use dhaivata in hamsadwani, you cannot say its all not so unambiguous and point at persons who sing hamsadwani with dha. The authority defines hamsadwani's arohana and avarohana, the authority should prescribe what is acceptable for the raga. Usage is never an indicator of acceptability.
>>I have said it before, it is a mistake to assume that languages are 100% unambiguous. <<
The skilled vidwan has no doubts about which notes he has to touch for a particular raga. The skilled speaker has no doubts about which sounds form a part of proper language. Maybe you are talking about the rest of humanity who dont care how they speak.
Maybe you can start with why ja is alone not recognized as a voiced equivalent of ca, when you claim all unvoiced consonants have voiced equivalents in speech and not in writing.
Perhaps academics over the world are wrong, but http://www.artsci.utoronto.ca/languages ... ered/tamil
Just keep in mind I am not talking of modern tamil where phonetics has gone haywire.
I didnt think I was even getting into a serious discussion to start proving anything or quoting academic literature.
>>No. Sounds already existed. They chose a script that can be used to support existing sounds.<<
Did u read what I wrote? I was talking of the ordering of the sounds in Tamil - the permutation (the script itself was a derivative of Brahmi). I was not talking about "existence" of sounds.
>>Btw, i found your "maybe greeks communicated with people with malayalam accent" dismissal quite humorous - but mainly argumentative.<<
Have you heard of a straw-man? You are talking against points that were not put forth by me. I did not speak of any "malayalam" accent, nothing to do with malayalam at all in-fact.
The time of the greek/roman trades (late centuries BC & early centuries AD) didn't have any malayalam to speak of. Even as late as the 10th century AD, both kerala and TN were a single tamil land (tamilakam). The region where malayalam later developed would have been the first to assimilate foreign sounds into their tamil (which explains why they are the most different from literary tamil today), and it is very likely the greeks traded with western ports rather than eastern ones (most of the oldest trading centres like Muziris, Tyndis, Naura, Nelcynda are along the western coast in the kingdom of the cheraputras ~ present day kerala). These places were speaking tamil, not malayalam.
>>Your axiom that there is ONE correct pronunciation for a language is false, as it is never realized. Your axiom that grammar of a language always unambiguously determines phonology is also false.<<
I did not say there is one way of pronunciation. But definitely there is a standard, and it determines correctness or otherwise of pronunciation etc. If something were acceptable but ambiguous, the grammar would state it, else it would find mention in other old literature. If you dont accept grammatical authority, it's not my lookout. But you cannot claim I didn't cite anything to back up my claims. Your issues are then with the grammatical authority, not with me.
>>I find it ironic that you are able to see tradition is everchanging, but cannot see the same for language.<<
All traditions, including those that pertain to languages, change. However, there are standards to measure the extent of deviation. The standard prescribes what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. The unacceptable deviations are errors according to the standard. This is not some subjective catch-all mumbo-jumbo talk. As I said linguistics (the study of languages and changes in it) is an objective science. If you claim that something is correct, you must be able to cite the authority which defines correctness of particular usage.
If I say it is incorrect to use dhaivata in hamsadwani, you cannot say its all not so unambiguous and point at persons who sing hamsadwani with dha. The authority defines hamsadwani's arohana and avarohana, the authority should prescribe what is acceptable for the raga. Usage is never an indicator of acceptability.
>>I have said it before, it is a mistake to assume that languages are 100% unambiguous. <<
The skilled vidwan has no doubts about which notes he has to touch for a particular raga. The skilled speaker has no doubts about which sounds form a part of proper language. Maybe you are talking about the rest of humanity who dont care how they speak.
Maybe you can start with why ja is alone not recognized as a voiced equivalent of ca, when you claim all unvoiced consonants have voiced equivalents in speech and not in writing.
-
- Posts: 396
- Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 23:56
I don't wish to debate the larger arguments in this thread (I don't understand them), but I completely disagree with the quote above. When it comes to grammar, usage is the best indicator of acceptability. If a majority of native speakers of a language use a word (or pronunciation or spelling or grammatical construct) then by definition it is accepable to a majority of these speakers. Likewise if a large minority uses some construct, it is by definition acceptable in certain contexts or as an alternative usage. If some individuals do not find it acceptable, too bad for them.srkris wrote: Usage is never an indicator of acceptability.
Update: I understand your quote was referring to ragas, but your larger point was about grammar. And yes, Philistine that I am, I think usage defines acceptability in music as well.
Last edited by gn.sn42 on 21 Jun 2009, 03:45, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 10957
- Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 00:01
I am hopelessly lost as to what we are discussing here but this led me to The Book itself and started reading it.
Surprisingly, it is quite a readable document though difficult to understand on first read.
I strongly recommend those who can read Tamil script to make an attempt to read this. It is quite shameful that I had so many years of formal tamil education in high school but
reading the original grammar book was not part of the study.
Here is the link to Tolkappiyam: http://pm.tamil.net/pub/pm0100/tolkap.pdf
Let us see if a cursory reading of it reveals if Tamil of its time is a phonetic language or not ( phonetic as in strict context free sounding of the script, there may be other definitions ).
BTW, just as a teaser, the various chapters of Tolkappiyam itself seem to contain examples of words that we have been arguing about here.
Chapter 1: EzuththadikAram or EzutthathikAram
1. nUl marabu ( or nUl marapu? )
2. mozhi marabu
5. thogai marabu OR thokai marabu
6. urubial ( or urupial ? )
7. uyir mayangiyal ( or uyir mayankiyal ? )
8. puLLi mayangiyal
Chapter 2: sollathikAram ( or collathikAram ? )
etc.
See if the following from Chapter 1, section 7, verse 2 sheds any light ( refer to the tamil script equivalent since my transliteration may not be according to Tolkappiyam phonology )
Anga ennum urai asaikkiLaviyum
ngyangark kiLanda vallezhetthu migume
On a casual reading, the verse itself seems to be not strictly phonetic by my definition above but still may conform to unambigous rules when the same letter is pronounced differently in different contexts. And the verse seems to set out rules for such pronounciation which I do not quite get.
So, in my transliteration above:
Shoud Anga be Anka?
Should asaikkLaviyum be AcaikkiLaviyum?
Should migume be mikume?
Should kiLanda be kiLanTa?
Should marabu be marapu?
In other sections there are definitions on how each of the sounds are produced and which anatomical parts of the mouth are
involved: Teeth, pallete, lips etc. So it is quite scientifically done. May be these things are clearly defined which will put the discussion
in this thread on a solid foundation, as far as tolkappiyam is concerned.
I am hoping that many of you will give tolkappiyam at the above link a serious reading and provide a commentary on what it says about the rules on
how the sound of a letter changes depending on the context in which it appears ( if that is what the puNarciyal section is all about )
Surprisingly, it is quite a readable document though difficult to understand on first read.
I strongly recommend those who can read Tamil script to make an attempt to read this. It is quite shameful that I had so many years of formal tamil education in high school but
reading the original grammar book was not part of the study.
Here is the link to Tolkappiyam: http://pm.tamil.net/pub/pm0100/tolkap.pdf
Let us see if a cursory reading of it reveals if Tamil of its time is a phonetic language or not ( phonetic as in strict context free sounding of the script, there may be other definitions ).
BTW, just as a teaser, the various chapters of Tolkappiyam itself seem to contain examples of words that we have been arguing about here.
Chapter 1: EzuththadikAram or EzutthathikAram
1. nUl marabu ( or nUl marapu? )
2. mozhi marabu
5. thogai marabu OR thokai marabu
6. urubial ( or urupial ? )
7. uyir mayangiyal ( or uyir mayankiyal ? )
8. puLLi mayangiyal
Chapter 2: sollathikAram ( or collathikAram ? )
etc.
See if the following from Chapter 1, section 7, verse 2 sheds any light ( refer to the tamil script equivalent since my transliteration may not be according to Tolkappiyam phonology )
Anga ennum urai asaikkiLaviyum
ngyangark kiLanda vallezhetthu migume
On a casual reading, the verse itself seems to be not strictly phonetic by my definition above but still may conform to unambigous rules when the same letter is pronounced differently in different contexts. And the verse seems to set out rules for such pronounciation which I do not quite get.
So, in my transliteration above:
Shoud Anga be Anka?
Should asaikkLaviyum be AcaikkiLaviyum?
Should migume be mikume?
Should kiLanda be kiLanTa?
Should marabu be marapu?
In other sections there are definitions on how each of the sounds are produced and which anatomical parts of the mouth are
involved: Teeth, pallete, lips etc. So it is quite scientifically done. May be these things are clearly defined which will put the discussion
in this thread on a solid foundation, as far as tolkappiyam is concerned.
I am hoping that many of you will give tolkappiyam at the above link a serious reading and provide a commentary on what it says about the rules on
how the sound of a letter changes depending on the context in which it appears ( if that is what the puNarciyal section is all about )
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3497
- Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 03:34
Too much hot air. I was talking of acceptability to the standard-setter (the grammarian). He is the only authority who can be called competent enough to have a view on such matters. He is the one who has the best knowledge about the language, it is his informed opinion (and those of his ilk) that matters. I thought it was obvious I was not talking about the opinion of the laity, howsoever large their numbers be.gn.sn42 wrote:I don't wish to debate the larger arguments in this thread (I don't understand them), but I completely disagree with the quote above. When it comes to grammar, usage is the best indicator of acceptability.
-
- Posts: 396
- Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 23:56
I understand what you're talking about, and I disagree. In my opinion, the community of speakers of a language collectively decide what the language is all about, and the opinion of an individual "authority" cannot override this consensus.srkris wrote: I was talking of acceptability to the standard-setter (the grammarian). He is the only authority who can be called competent enough to have a view on such matters. He is the one who has the best knowledge about the language, it is his informed opinion (and those of his ilk) that matters.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3497
- Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 03:34
There is no such consensus as you think.
People do not discuss and reach a consensus before speaking the way they do. They look up to the grammarians and linguists to define the standard language, but even then most do not follow the grammar for their day-to-day talk.
Even for music it is the same thing. The large majority do not sing in strict adherence to pitch and ragas, it is for the musicologists and professional musicians to define what is right and what is wrong. So in the strict sense, not all those who sing do so correctly in adherence with the lakshana of music. The authority is always the erudite people to determine what is right or wrong, not the laity.
Let's take law. There are legislations that date from the 19th century (the Contract Act, 1872 for example) which are still regarded as legal. The utimate arbiters of legality and illegality are the judges who have spent their lifetime studying the legislations (which are the authority), not the layman who may be transgressing some law or the other in his daily life. The common man does not sit on judgement on such matters.
The doctor prescribes what one should do to avoid disease. Here the system of medicine is the authority and the doctor is the person who prescribes what is proper and what is improper. The common man may or may not follow such prescriptions. The common man is not the authority of his own body. He goes to a doctor to find out what is going good or bad with his body.
Thus the speaker of a language is not an authority of the language unless he has specialized knowledge in it (i.e he is a linguist or some such authority). Just because the tolkappiyam is an old authority doesnt mean it cant be applied today, unless some newer authority has superceded it (like the contract act, 1872 is still valid in courts unless it has been repealed/replaced by newer legislation).
People do not discuss and reach a consensus before speaking the way they do. They look up to the grammarians and linguists to define the standard language, but even then most do not follow the grammar for their day-to-day talk.
Even for music it is the same thing. The large majority do not sing in strict adherence to pitch and ragas, it is for the musicologists and professional musicians to define what is right and what is wrong. So in the strict sense, not all those who sing do so correctly in adherence with the lakshana of music. The authority is always the erudite people to determine what is right or wrong, not the laity.
Let's take law. There are legislations that date from the 19th century (the Contract Act, 1872 for example) which are still regarded as legal. The utimate arbiters of legality and illegality are the judges who have spent their lifetime studying the legislations (which are the authority), not the layman who may be transgressing some law or the other in his daily life. The common man does not sit on judgement on such matters.
The doctor prescribes what one should do to avoid disease. Here the system of medicine is the authority and the doctor is the person who prescribes what is proper and what is improper. The common man may or may not follow such prescriptions. The common man is not the authority of his own body. He goes to a doctor to find out what is going good or bad with his body.
Thus the speaker of a language is not an authority of the language unless he has specialized knowledge in it (i.e he is a linguist or some such authority). Just because the tolkappiyam is an old authority doesnt mean it cant be applied today, unless some newer authority has superceded it (like the contract act, 1872 is still valid in courts unless it has been repealed/replaced by newer legislation).
-
- Posts: 10957
- Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 00:01
There are 'prescriptive' specifications and 'descriptive' specifications. Many musicologists take pains to say that what they are writing is 'descriptive' and not 'prescriptive'.
Meaning, they are providing form and structure to what exists around them. They are describing what is out there in a formal fashion.
On top of that, they make a note that whatever is written in prior works is no longer practised and hence applicable.
A few others try to reverse engineer what is out there in to a general model and fit the existing description into that model. This results in new things being
born out of thin air since the model is much stronger and general than what is out there. Over time, people start following those things that were born out of that model
and someone else comes along later and writes a descriptive document of those practises and how well it fits into the model or not.
Some authors then say certain things are 'Wrong' because it does not fit the model without acknowledging the fact that model itself is a creation of reverse-engineering and it is not perfect.
Panini is widely understood to be prescriptive. Fine.
Where does tolkappiyam stand on this prescriptive - descriptive spectrum?
Meaning, they are providing form and structure to what exists around them. They are describing what is out there in a formal fashion.
On top of that, they make a note that whatever is written in prior works is no longer practised and hence applicable.
A few others try to reverse engineer what is out there in to a general model and fit the existing description into that model. This results in new things being
born out of thin air since the model is much stronger and general than what is out there. Over time, people start following those things that were born out of that model
and someone else comes along later and writes a descriptive document of those practises and how well it fits into the model or not.
Some authors then say certain things are 'Wrong' because it does not fit the model without acknowledging the fact that model itself is a creation of reverse-engineering and it is not perfect.
Panini is widely understood to be prescriptive. Fine.
Where does tolkappiyam stand on this prescriptive - descriptive spectrum?
-
- Posts: 1896
- Joined: 28 Sep 2006, 02:15
Grammarians and linguists do act as referees for language standards; however, what is 'correct' usage itself changes over time. And this aspect of language is driven by public usage.
For instance, one increasingly comes across sentences such as "He gave some money to John, Mary and I" where 'I' is incorrectly used in place of 'me'. I have a feeling this could become accepted usage in, say, 50 years.
As another example, one regularly sees usages such as "thats" to mean "that is" where one should write "that's". Again, the incorrect usage could become the norm in another few decades, just because more and more people write this way!
I am sure the story is not that dissimilar for other languages too.
For instance, one increasingly comes across sentences such as "He gave some money to John, Mary and I" where 'I' is incorrectly used in place of 'me'. I have a feeling this could become accepted usage in, say, 50 years.
As another example, one regularly sees usages such as "thats" to mean "that is" where one should write "that's". Again, the incorrect usage could become the norm in another few decades, just because more and more people write this way!
I am sure the story is not that dissimilar for other languages too.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3497
- Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 03:34
Panini's grammar was also descriptive attempt, the same thing holds for most grammars (meaning that the grammarian took cues from the way people spoke at that time), and standardized them into rules. However, usually the grammarian knows enough about the way the language developed, and can indicate if some usage (even if common in his day) is not authentic.vasanthakokilam wrote:Where does tolkappiyam stand on this prescriptive - descriptive spectrum?
For example, seeing that people did not pronounce the alevolar "ra" (ற) at the beginning of words, Tolkappiyar would have formulated the rule that the ற sound should not be used in word-initial positions. But if they had pronounced ழ as ள (like how most people do now), Tolkappiyar would have said that it was wrong. So an error cannot become authentic merely because it gets frozen into a tradition.
These rules are scientific in nature, they are not "opinions" of the grammarian, and if some layman says à®± can occur in word-initial positions, that does not hold. If there was a real and significant diversity in the way the language was spoken, this is usually mentioned by the grammarian or linguist as an alternative, or at least told that such a use is not authentic for reasons described therein.
However the grammatical rule itself is prescriptive, and in that sense, all grammars are prescriptive authorities for their users.
Today most tamil speakers may not know that à®° & à®± are different sounds, some even think they are the same sound written with two different characters. Such ideas are misconceived, and cannot hold against a grammarian or linguist.
-
- Posts: 726
- Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 21:43
dear skris,srkris wrote:Erode,
If you pronounce pogalAm as pohalAm, it is a plain and simple error, it would not indicate either the speaker's linguistic vidwat or the genius of the language. One cannot claim that one's errors occur because the language is great, it is simply due to the speaker's ignorance.
............
To theorize with incomplete knowledge is like me claiming that one can produce the sound of a car horn from a mridangam. You as a mridangist know better.
it might have been a plain or special error. but, ja becoming ya would have been an error for sometime and it becomes part of life in centuries... 'jamunA - yamunA' 'jeeva - eve'
well... as you say, in any subject, there are greats to explain. let us leave it to them.
so far the horn is concerned there is an incidence to quote, it cannot be written as the comedy involves sound, i shall share in person...
-
- Posts: 726
- Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 21:43
srkris wrote:
if they had pronounced ழ as ள (like how most people do now), Tolkappiyar would have said that it was wrong. So an error cannot become authentic merely because it gets frozen into a tradition.
......
Today most tamil speakers may not know that à®° & à®± are different sounds, some even think they are the same sound written with two different characters. Such ideas are misconceived, and cannot hold against a grammarian or linguist.
true, in my recent trip to nAgakOil, i saw "லாறி " written in most of the lorry s...
-
- Posts: 809
- Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 11:36
And what did you expect, Erode? "ilARi" (இலாறி)- so that they are on the right side of tolkappiyan grammar?erode14 wrote:
true, in my recent trip to nAgakOil, i saw "லாறி " written in most of the lorry s...
-
- Posts: 726
- Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 21:43
No, I have seen "லாரி" in many lorries... So, I thought rr would have made them write so.
It's ok, if a lorry has national permit or container type let it be லாறி with vallina Ra and ordinary ones and mini lorries can be "லாரி".
It's ok, if a lorry has national permit or container type let it be லாறி with vallina Ra and ordinary ones and mini lorries can be "லாரி".
-
- Posts: 1896
- Joined: 28 Sep 2006, 02:15
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3497
- Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 03:34
There are different kinds of 'a' sounds (recognized in phonetics, corresponding to the Indian siksha, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiksha):
- the a sound as in and/at
- the a sound as in made/ale (combination a and i)
- the a sounds as in cut/duck (the short a of indian languages)
- the a sound as in curd/dirt
- the a sound as in far/ah! (the long aa of indian languages)
- the a sound as in lord/god (this is not the o sound as in low)
- the a sound as in and/at
- the a sound as in made/ale (combination a and i)
- the a sounds as in cut/duck (the short a of indian languages)
- the a sound as in curd/dirt
- the a sound as in far/ah! (the long aa of indian languages)
- the a sound as in lord/god (this is not the o sound as in low)
-
- Posts: 366
- Joined: 24 May 2006, 22:29
Is it just sheer coincidence!! in German ja (as in english) is pronounced as Ya. Even in spanish I think j is pronounced y.erode14 wrote: dear skris,
it might have been a plain or special error. but, ja becoming ya would have been an error for sometime and it becomes part of life in centuries... 'jamunA - yamunA' 'jeeva - eve'
well... as you say, in any subject, there are greats to explain. let us leave it to them.
so far the horn is concerned there is an incidence to quote, it cannot be written as the comedy involves sound, i shall share in person...
-
- Posts: 1896
- Joined: 28 Sep 2006, 02:15
-
- Posts: 1896
- Joined: 28 Sep 2006, 02:15
My post under the CM Books forum has some relevance here:
http://rasikas.org/forums/post126937.html#p126937
http://rasikas.org/forums/post126937.html#p126937
-
- Posts: 10957
- Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 00:01
Yes, especially what keerthi wrote, since we brought in musicologists for comparison purposes with natural language grammar.
"...More often than not, the wise grammarian isn't trying to prescribe a set of rules that should or ought to be done.. instead he/she tries to articulate the general principles that seem to define the nature of the mode-of-expression and thereby gives experession to the inherent logic and syntax of the art/music/language.."
"...More often than not, the wise grammarian isn't trying to prescribe a set of rules that should or ought to be done.. instead he/she tries to articulate the general principles that seem to define the nature of the mode-of-expression and thereby gives experession to the inherent logic and syntax of the art/music/language.."