Lyrics -Ramanai tharuvai & varadhan pughazh

vvk · Post by **vvk** » 21 Feb 2007, 10:34

Pl. post the lyrics for thr follg songs.
1.Ramanai tharuvai - sindubhairavi - arunachala kavi
2.varadhan pughazh paduvai - hindolam - kalyanapuram aaravamudhan

meena · Post by **meena** » 21 Feb 2007, 10:39

vvk

Before u request of the lyrics PLEASE PLEASE read this thread first:
http://rasikas.org/forums/viewtopic.php?id=349

we have requested u many times PLEASE do label the thread.

meena · Post by **meena** » 21 Feb 2007, 10:59

P: rAmanait-taruvAi jaga rakSaka rAmanait-taruvAi
A: tAmasam ceppAdE dasharatEndrA ippOdE
C1: aranpakkam shelvEn arimunnE sholvEn iraNDum tappinAl unai viTTevarAl paghai velvEn
2: tATakaip-pAvi tavirttAL en vELvi pIDai varAmark-kAttArp-pizhaikkumen Avi
3: umbar vicAram ozhikka annEram shambaranaik-konrAyE dayavAi innEram
4: kOpattil rudram guru visvAmitran Apattuk-kAkka vENum adanAl un puttiran

rshankar · Post by **rshankar** » 21 Feb 2007, 17:59

BTW, when did the songs from the rAmanAtakam get relegated to folk song status? They were tuned by MD's disciples....

Lakshman · Post by **Lakshman** » 21 Feb 2007, 19:52

varadan pugazh is available on this cassette:
http://giritrading.com/product.asp?item ... me=&dept=2

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 21 Feb 2007, 20:45

pallavi: jagat (not jaga)

Lakshman · Post by **Lakshman** » 21 Feb 2007, 20:56

arasi:
The text is from Ramanataka Kirtanaigal, a Saraswathi Mahal, Tanjavur, publication.
The printed word is "jagarakshaka" unless it is a typo.

mahakavi · Post by **mahakavi** » 21 Feb 2007, 21:04

Should it be
"tAmasam seyyAdE" instead of "ceppAdE"? The former denotes "don't delay" while the latter denotes "don't tell". The rhyming with "ippOdE" may not be that relevant.
I understand the version may be from an authentic text. But it could be a typo too! --The Thamizh "y" and "p" differ in just one more/one less stroke.

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 21 Feb 2007, 21:12

Lakshman,
That is how I have heard Ariyakkudi sing it, if I remember it correctly.

rshankar · Post by **rshankar** » 21 Feb 2007, 21:59

I have heard versions of the song by various singers belonging to different 'schools', and since all of them render it as ceppAdE and jagarakshakA, I have a tough time accepting that all of them corrupted the words in the same fashion!

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 21 Feb 2007, 22:06

I dont know which one is official myself but have some questions.

But doesnt tAmasam ceppAdE dasharEndrA, ippOdE rAmanaittaruvAi - come out to mean "Dont tell late! Dasharata! Give Rama now!"? Or am I reading the connotation of tAmasam ceppAdE wrong and it can also mean "Dont be/make late!"?

Also do both jaga rakshaka and jagat rakshaka mean the same or is one invalid (say in sanskrit or even as a imported construct in tamizh)?

Thanks
Arun

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 21 Feb 2007, 23:55

tAmasam ceppAdE can mean: don't delay (we need him pronto) (and/or) do not give excuses that he's too young for the task.
It is not just the literal meaning we are looking for; it is also what is implied.

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 22 Feb 2007, 01:14

thanks arasi

mahakavi · Post by **mahakavi** » 22 Feb 2007, 02:55

I still have a problem with "tAmasam ceppAdE". The lyricist may take some liberties in figure of speech. But let us face it. "tAmasam" just means "delay". "seppu" means "say" or "tell". "seppAdE" means "don't tell". Unless you say "tAmasam" means "excuse", the words don't fit right. ("don't give excuses" is implied but only upon interpretation). "sey" means "do". "seyyAdE" means "don't (do)". Here Viswamitra demands Dhasaratha to send rAma immediately (ippOdE). That requires "don't delay" the action. That is my take!

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 22 Feb 2007, 03:02

btw, i checked the tamizh lexicon for just "tAmacam" (ca => sa) and what showed up is interesting:

தாமசம் (p. 1836) [ tāmacam ] n tāmacam . < tāmasa. See தாமதம். தாமச நீ செப்பாதே தசரதேந்திரா (இராமநா. பாலகா. 9).

Yet another reference to ceppAdE but not necessarily from the same source as it is tAmasa nI ceppAdE - compared to tAmasam ceppAdE. I am unable to figure out exactly how much of a difference it makes

Arun

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 22 Feb 2007, 03:05

btw, these lexicons are proving to be very useful! Both tamil and sanskrit ones! These are some of the things I just love about the internet - valuable information literally at our fingertips (although subject to judicious use!)

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 22 Feb 2007, 09:49

sub,
What you say is correct. Yet, investing new meanings to words comes naturally to a poet. Take our mahA kavi--I am not sure if someone has used the word 'vinachchi' before him for shakthi. I would think it is a word he created, and how beautiful it is! Consider the number of meanings a word gained in Shakespeare's writing, Kalidasa's and so on! Or, was it just that Arunachalakkavi was not paying attention to the expression while he was occupied with the staging of the play? He could have dictated it, and someone wrote it down differently!
The way I got the words in the song inRu varuvAnO , which CML sang, was like this: senRu vArEn enRu seppiya sol ninaindu. Now, though I liked that languishing vArEn musically too, I settled for varEn! seppia goes with sol unlike tAmasam seppudal!
You are writing your verses which would afford you plenty of instances like this...

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 22 Feb 2007, 20:29

we have discussed probably this to death, but i was thinking that perhaps aruNAchala kavi meant "dont be late or dont delay your reply/answer, (with your words) give Rama now", and so ceppy could mean not the general "say/tell" but more specifically reply/answer (#2 below). It is still not a perfect fit w.r.t literal meaning conveyed by the words employed here, but seems like a better fit.

செப்புÂ² (p. 1592) [ ceppuÂ² ] n ceppu . < செப்பு. 1. Speech, word; சொல். ஏதுபோ லிருந்த தைய னிசைத்தசெப் பென்றார் (திருவிளை. வளையல். 9). (சூடா.) 2. Answer, reply; விடை. செப்பும் வினாவும் வழாஅ லாம்பல் (தொல். சொல். 13).

Arun

mahakavi · Post by **mahakavi** » 22 Feb 2007, 21:11

Well, these are interesting discussions. I like jogging the mind on the nuances that the poet might have indulged in as well as possible transpositional errors that creep in. My point was that Viswamitran asked Dhasarathan to send Rama with him. When Dhasarathan protested about the young age of Rama and offered to go himself instead, Viswamitran got angry and told him not to delay sending Rama with him or else....

It could very well have been poetic indulgence in ascribable meaning or, just as arasi said, transcribing errors or even plain printer's devil. All the more interesting to talk about!

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 23 Feb 2007, 09:17

Checked with several contemporaries about 'jaga(t) rakshaka, and all concur on jagat...

mahakavi · Post by **mahakavi** » 23 Feb 2007, 10:11

jagat, rakshakaH
जगत्, रक्षकः
ஜகத், ரக்ஷக:

I do not see a word in the Sanskrit dictionary for "jaga" whereas "jagat rakshakaH" would mean protector/guard of the world/universe.

Sarvam vishNu mayam jagat is a favorite expression of vaishNavaite devotees, I guess!

Thamizh kritis use the word, "jagam" (jagam pugazhum) to mean the universe.

Does the compounding of Jagat and nAth produce JagannAth?

vgvindan · Post by **vgvindan** » 23 Feb 2007, 10:48

jaga n. = %{gat} KaushUp. i , 3.
http://webapps.uni-koeln.de/cgi-bin/tamil/recherche

செகசாலம், s. A kind of magical illu sion, See சகசாலம்.
செகசாலக்குளிகை, A magical pill, supposed to enable persons to perform deceptive feats.
செகதலம், s. The world itself, See மகிதலம்.
செகமோகினி--செகன்மோகினி, s. As மோகினி, which see.
http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/romadi ... le=winslow

By the above examples it is possible the poet has has used ஜக ரக்ஷக (jaga rakShaka) - ஜக (jaga) in place of செக (sega)

Though in Sanskrit, 'jaga' is not used independently as adjective - always conjoined with 'c', 'd' 'n' etc depending on the word being joined - we may not be able apply Sanskrit rules to Tamil.

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 24 Feb 2007, 10:22

Good examples, vgovindan.

My point was about usage. If Ariyakkudi and others had sung it that way, it was perhaps because they percieved the word that way--jagat rakshakan was a familiar expression. Not with this particular song perhaps--but generally, the way their gurus and those before them sang a song (by hearing, reading, etc) could have been the reason.
Take the two versions of rAmanukku mannan muDi, in rAma naTakam: muDi thandAlE is one version. daritthAlE is another. The grammarians here can explain whether dariththaLE can only be correct if one were to wear and not to be crowned (that is, to make one wear)! That it has been enacted as a folk play for a long time could have been another reason for such changes...

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 28 Feb 2007, 02:02

dont mean to rehash this still but it so happened that i just now ran across this when listening to a KVN concert (1987, Bangalore). He sings the second line ramanai taruvAi as tAmadam nI SeyyAdE. So there you go - yet another variation.

Arun

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 28 Feb 2007, 09:16

Which goes to say, you don't have to be a composer to edit kritis! As time goes by, words get changed here and there, and we may not even know what the originally intended ones were.

mahakavi · Post by **mahakavi** » 28 Feb 2007, 09:22

Sometimes musicians change certain words (either inadvertently or deliberately). KVN has done it while singing "varugalAmo ayyA" (mAnji) where he changes pulaiyanAy in "bhUmiyil pulaiyanAyp piRandEnE" to InanAy. The former word was considered derogatory and out of sensitivity considerations he used Inan (low class).

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 28 Feb 2007, 21:17

Exactly! With the other meaning of Inan, you can get away from caste altogether--interpreting it as lowly.

jayaram · Post by **jayaram** » 28 Feb 2007, 23:32

In the song 'Vaa vaa murugaiyya' in Sindhubhairavi, DKJ takes liberties with the sahityam when he sings 'pADuvEn eppOdum' also as 'pADinatu pOdum' - he literally alternates between these two when he sings! It's lovely...(btw, which is the correct version?)

See here - http://file.uploadr.com/ce73

mridu · Post by **mridu** » 01 Mar 2007, 16:09

Thank ypu for the lovely DKJ music.
- perhaps this should be under DKJ topic?

kutty · Post by **kutty** » 16 Jun 2007, 22:47

Here is the one I have for Raamanaiththaruvaaye' published around 19th century from which it is established what Mahakavi says is correct:

Mohanam Arunachalakkavi Ata thaaLa chaapu

P: Raamanaiththaruvaai chega ratshaka (Raamanai)

AP: Thaamasam nee sheyyaadhe' dhasharathe'ndhraa ippo' (Raamanai)

C1: Aranpakkam sholve'n Arimunne' shelve'n iraNdum
Thappinaal unai vittavaraal pagai velve'n (Raamanai)

C2: Thaatakaippaavi ThavirththaaL en ve'Lvi
Peedai varaamal kaaththaal pizhaikkum en aavi (Raamanai)

C3: Umbar vichaaram ozhikka anne'ram
Shambaranaikkondraaye' dhayavaai inne'ram (Raamanai)

C4: Kopaththil Rudhdhiran Guru Vishwaamiththiran (the word used
actually is Vishwaasamiththiran)
Aapaththu kaakka ve'Num adhanaal un puththiran (Raamanai)

Please note that the original raagam suggested is Mohanam.

vgvindan · Post by **vgvindan** » 16 Jun 2007, 23:27

ப: ராமனைத்தருவாய் ஜெக ரட்சக (ராமனை)

அ: தாமசம் நீ செய்யாதே தஷரதேந்த்ரா இப்போ (ராமனை)

ச1: அரன்பக்கம் சொல்வேன் அரிமுன்னே செல்வேன் இரண்டும்
தப்பினால் உனை விட்டவரால் பகை வெல்வேன் (ராமனை)

ச2: தாடகைப்பாவி தவிர்த்தாள் என் வேள்வி
பீடை வராமல் காத்தால் பிழைக்கும் என் ஆவி (ராமனை)

ச3: உம்பர் விசாரம் ஒழிக்க அன்னேரம்
ஷம்பரனைக்கொன்றாயே தயவாய் இன்னேரம் (ராமனை)

ச4: கோபத்தில் ருத்திரன் குரு விஷ்வாமித்திரன்
ஆபத்து காக்க வேணும் அதனால் உன் புத்திரன் (ராமனை)

C1 is not clear
(PS : Corrections incorporated)

kutty · Post by **kutty** » 17 Jun 2007, 09:07

VGV:

The following do not tally the Thamizh version:

In Dhasarathe'ndhraa, 'Dhasara' needs to be replaced by 'Dhashara' ('sa' to become 'cha')

Arimunne' needs to be replaced by arimunne' (kuRil 'a'). It was a Typo by me; for Hari, I used Ari, being a proper noun forgetting that it would be read as nedil 'a' in the standard transliteration scheme. Sorry.

Sambaranai will be Shambaranai (sha to become cha). Here incident of slaining Shambaraasuraa which Dhasharathaa did for the Dhe'vaas is mentioned.

Viswaamiththiran will have 'sha'(i.e. cha)

I will hereafter try to post the Thamizh version in unicode font.

BTW, I am also unable to make up the meaning of C1, though I have reproduced the original version. As I understand, here, Vishwaamithraa tells Dhasharathaa that he will go to Lords Shivaa and VishNu first and failing he would turn to the deserters of Dhasharatha (or is it the 'Pithrus') to eliminate his enemies, if the king does not agree for Raaman to accompany him.

rshankar · Post by **rshankar** » 17 Jun 2007, 11:35

In C1, I think viSwAmitra is saying, after hari and haran have expressed their inability to help me, to whom will/can I turn for help to defeat my foes, but you, Oh, mighty dasharatha?

vgvindan · Post by **vgvindan** » 17 Jun 2007, 12:26

'unnai viTTavarAl' may mean paraSu rAma.

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 17 Jun 2007, 14:53

In the above song, is it right to pronounce ceyyAde and colven as sheyyaadhe &
sholve'n?

Many singers pronounce cha as sha! Changing cha to sa is understandable, but why sha?

vgvindan · Post by **vgvindan** » 17 Jun 2007, 18:12

kutty,
The corrections have been incorporated in Tamil version in the original post.

kutty · Post by **kutty** » 18 Jun 2007, 09:59

srkris

In the above song, is it right to pronounce ceyyAde and colven as sheyyaadhe &
sholve'n?

Many singers pronounce cha as sha! Changing cha to sa is understandable, but why sha?

The actual pronounciation of 'cha' in Thamizh is in between "Sa" (Sarpam) and "sha" (Shankar). If I use "sa" only people not knowing Thamizh well may infer it to be the "Sa" of Sarpam and if I use "sha" they may immediately think it to sound like "Sha" of Shankar. My version in English is not for transliteration purpose but to understand the Thamizh or Sanskrit words as they are pronounced normally. To avoid confusion, I will use "cha" hereafter for "chonnaar" type words. However, it looks odd for me to use just "c" for "cha" since immediately I visualise "k' when pronouncing it. It is better if we give side by side the original version of the language in which the song is written.

mahakavi · Post by **mahakavi** » 18 Jun 2007, 19:45

kutty:

The use of "ca" for the "cha" sound in Thamizh is kosher. For example in Italian, the "c" letter is used to denote the sound "ch" (as in Thamizh vAyc col --வாய்ச் சொல்---to denote the spoken word) as in Leonardo da vinci (லீயோனார்டோ ட விஞ்சீ , लीयोनार्डो ड विञ्ची )

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 18 Jun 2007, 20:31

Coming from thAmra varNi riverside, cha (as in de vinci) is how I would say Salangai, Saliththal (to be bored of). I also pronounce it as Salangai and Saliththal sometimes, dependent on where the word occurs, and with what other words. I gladly adopted venkat's S for the soft sha sound as in ShyAmalA in writing. It is different from the sound in uShA. I have no problem with either cha or Sa. sha as in ushA is different.
da vinci being a renaissance man-sakala kalA vallavan-he fits in very well in our music forum...

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 19 Jun 2007, 19:49

(Sorry for a post on transliteration and pronounciation - and besides something we have discussed before. I realize I am taking it more firmly in that direction. I just wanted to try to clarify some of things discussed above)

We have been through this many times. In many transliteration schemes, the 4 sounds discussed above are adequately represented as "ca" (cAmaram/tAiccol), "sa" (samam), "Sa" (Sankara), "sha/Sha" (Shanmukha/mUshika).

So for the 3 "not obvious to represent" sounds you have: sa => Sa => sha/Sha. The "middle" sound as kutty refers is simply upper case "S".

In tamil, i believe the letter ca is supposed to carry a pronounciation of "ca" or "sa", where the harder ca sound figures in the middle (as in tAiccol), and the softer one in pretty much all other places. However, in carnatic music circles, and communities which practice carnatic music, the use of "Sa" (i.e. the middle sound above) instead of "sa" is quite prevalent and quite acceptable as a dialect variation. As arasi noted even there it is not consistent and so some use sa and Sa interchangeably.

I have seen arguments that "Sa correct" but I really doubt it. As per tamil scholars it is only "sa". The "Sa" seems like a Sanskrit influence i.e. influence from communities who were also fluent in Sanskrit. The trouble of course is for works like Sankara etc. which are Sanskrit based, the usage of "sa" would seem odd, but in "purist" circles that is precisely what is done. Some people in tamil nadu have difficulty getting the "ha" sound mixed in i.e. whether Sa or Sha, they simply say "sa" - but then the same and others have trouble with Na, La and zha as well. I mention this to indicate that we should not equate the argument of "sa" sound for ca letter as a justification for inability to pronounce. In any case, IMHO particularly in cm contexts, either sa and Sa (for native tamil words) is quite acceptable.

Also, we had noted earlier among similar tamil syllables, the "ca" *letter* is unique. Others (ka, ta, pa) employ harder sound at the beginning and in middle if preceded by an appropriate mei, and softer sound elsewhere. Here, the softer sound (sa or Sa depending on your preference) appears at the beginning as well as middle, the only exception being the harder sound used when following mei. I note this to mainly indicate that besides the sa vs Sa pronounciation, this is yet another idiosyncracy regarding the phonetics of the tamil ca letter.

Arun

mahakavi · Post by **mahakavi** » 19 Jun 2007, 20:53

>>I note this to mainly indicate that besides the sa vs Sa pronounciation, this is yet another idiosyncracy regarding the phonetics of the tamil ca letter.<<

arunk:
It may be idiosyncratic alright, but one has to honor it since it is so individualistic of the language and when the rules of grammar call for "ca" or "sa" in Thamizh songs, one MUST use them appropriately. As you said, when the word is imported from Sanskrit or other languages one is free to use "Sa" or "sha" as the situation dictates (the adopters) or convert it to suit their needs (the purists). For example Kamban uses "vIDaNan" for vibHIshaNan (at a time when Thamizh did not have the "sha" letter) while AK used vibhIshaNan when the grantic letter was available and adopted.

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 19 Jun 2007, 21:16

Exactly. The word ambuyam (for lotus) barely occurs in compositions. 'pAdAmbujam' is what you come across in songs rather than 'pAdAmbuyam". Of course, if you are singing from an ancient verse (from kamban, for example, you sing it the way he wrote it)...

vgvindan · Post by **vgvindan** » 19 Jun 2007, 21:18

mahakavi,
The example quoted by Arun is 'tAiccol' 'தாய்ச்சொல்'. This has to be invariably transliterated as 'cc' in Tamil version. However, for other languages, as such double consonants 'kk', 'cc', 'tt' etc are not in vogue, the 'c' with virama is required to be dropped. In such cases, still it is to be transliterated as 'ca' and not in any other form because that will be going against the rules of pronunciation of Tamil.

Taking liberty by Tamil musicians while singing Tamil songs in the name of individual or regional variations is very regrettable and should not be encouraged by adopting a transliteration scheme to suit individual whims and fancies as opposed to set rules of the language. How musicians of other languages pronounce is a different matter altogether.

As regards Sanskrit words, transliterator has to adopt certain definite rules and not go by whims and fancies in the name of idiosyncracies of musicians.

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 19 Jun 2007, 21:29

mahakavi,

i wasnt necessarily talking about morphing words used by kamban. While the case of vIDanan seems to imply more than an lack of ability to represent original sound with then used tamil letters (i.e. why not vibIDanan or something? I mean why didnt bhI become bI?), in other cases, i wonder if they write it differently but still may have stuck to the original Sanskrit pronounciation. I dont know - just a thought.

Also, i meant *even* for non-Sanskrit words, the use of "Sa" vs "sa" is acceptable in normal practical use - but I think they must be interpreted as only variations of dialect. This is more so for cm contexts. The schemes were Sa (or sha as we also find - but are really meant to convey Sa) are used for words like salangai, Asai, asainDadum, asangAdu etc., IMO should be interpreted to simply imply an acceptable form of pronounciation today. Anything beyond that as e.g. if one were to imply or say interpret them as the correct pronounciation (i.e ASai is right and Asai is corruption), i think would be misinterpretation. But this already happens.

The fact is in many cases transliteration texts are also used to educate non-tamils (in case of tamil krithis) as to what the sounds are to be - and i find that to be an wonderful and very important use. Originally they were intended ONLY to represent the letters in the other script. As Drs and I had noted in some other thread that is unforunately a limiting view as it helps only native speakers - it is a lot more powerful and useful to represent the sounds. So I would like to say transliteration no longer should be viewed to only represent what the target language script is.

Anyway, in this case, the fact Sa and sa can be used in some contexts, and that it should really be "sa" is not very easy to convey. For example, let us say you put it all as "sa" you transliterate to Sanskrit/Telugu/Kannada it comes out as unambiguously "sa. How does a non-tamil rasika reconcile this with a musician Y who say ADAdu aSangAdu vA? The exact reverse would happen if we take something where it is all Sa - the non-tamil rasika may end up thinking someone sing ADAdu asangAdu vA is mispronouncing the second word. Only Tamil speakers can know and as we have seen even in this thread, even they dont always agree with each other!

(mods: sorry again for continued digression)

Arun

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 19 Jun 2007, 21:50

vgvindan wrote:Taking liberty by Tamil musicians while singing Tamil songs in the name of individual or regional variations is very regrettable and should not be encouraged by adopting a transliteration scheme to suit individual whims and fancies as opposed to set rules of the language. How musicians of other languages pronounce is a different matter altogether.

I think people have accents depending on regional and cultural background. So I think it is natural for a language to have dialect variations. I think to look at language sounds as set in stone, or one set of sounds as the "most official" and any variation is a mistake etc., is too idealistic which may not be accounting the dynamics of human behaviour enough.

Does that mean all variations are equal? I dont think so but cant prove why

. The doubt is how we prove that one variation is "the official"? We accept tolkAppiyam, panini etc. but are we to imply (at least in tolkAppiyyar case) there werent any dialect variations during there time? Were humans that different then? If there were variations then, how did tolkAppiyar know the official sound and why should we take his word? Is the "official sound of a language" an artificial creation of ruling/educated elite sometime in the past?

Again, dont mean to ask these as challenges, but just doubts i have which could be food for thought.

Arun

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 19 Jun 2007, 23:47

Well, it isn't my linguistic background or individual whim speaking here. Let me say it as a vAggEyakArA. Arun, I am going to be adding to the confusion too, may be, so don't be concerned. I remember saying it elsewhere, but let me say it again. In any language, in compositions (even in literature), a grammar book is not what the writers go by. They may abide by it but they do not create their work with grammar alone in mind. Besides, language is dynamic. It keeps developing as cultures and the Arts do.
Let's take thamizh. One of the oldest dictionaries we have in the language is Pope's. How many of us refer to it?
Now, to music: vENum or vENDUm? That's easy. whichever way you sing it, the meaning stays intact. Then the aesthetics of its fitting in with the musical line comes into the picture. We do not discriminate among vAggEyakArAs because one is more schooled than the other. A song of ANDavan pichchi can be as touching as that of a scholar. Personally, I catch myself sometimes singing a particular line of mine differently. Let's take the same example 'vENum, vENDum' for illustration. I will eventually see that the word sounds better in the song than the original word. So, I may be improving on it without realizing it. Occsionally, it turns out that I have forgotten the word and have substituted it to carry the tune! Then I go back to the original word.
Slight variations should not matter, in my view, even with pronouncing. I make exceptions when na and NA or interchanged, and so too, la and La. I am thinking of slight variations where meaning and grammar are intact. Among telugu speaking vocalists, I find it charming, even when the most erudite among them pronounce Sankara as Senkara. Please don't misread my post and think I like people making mistakes.
In the end, even individual words don't matter when it comes to singing a song with feeling, minding the impact of the composer's feelings...

mahakavi · Post by **mahakavi** » 20 Jun 2007, 01:10

vgvindan:
I am with you (regarding your most recent post)
arunk:
I was only reemphasizing what you had to say earlier. I am not concerned about the regional variations in pronunciations. It would be uncharitable if we take exception with somebody's pronunciation based on what is "standard" according to us. One other thing that bothers me in pronunciation is the overall sacrifice of the words in the name of musicality. Take "rangapura vihArA.. " of MD. To my knowledge nobody sings it according to the break in the words as given above. I have only heard "ranga pu ravihArA" (spacing exaggerated to make the point).

My point (I presume it is the same for vgvindan too) is that when writing in the transliterated form (in Roman script) the fidelity of the original language script has to be maintained so that when the transformation is made into the original language it will read right for the person whose mother tongue is that language. In order to accommodate the speakers of other languages we should not butcher the original language. As I said earlier no transformation is perfect and adjustment of the letters to accommodate everybody universally will be satisfying to none. Take the case of "vAyccol aruLIr" of Bharathi. If, as vgvindan posted earlier, if you drop one "c" then one is mutilating the Thamizh version. Besides, non-Thamizh speakers may not understand the meaning and in that sense too it is futile to sacrifice the fidelity of the original script.

I have heard many Telugu people mispronounce as well as compound Thamizh words wrongly (when they recite nAlAyira divyap prabhandam in temples). I don't find fault with that because that is the way they learnt it and the person who taught them did not have the benefit of proper orientation either. It is their devotion that is to be recognized here. But to write it the way they pronounce is not acceptable even though they are not used to the conformity to the original script.

To make a long story short (!!!) it is OK to sing/recite according to how ( in diction and pronunciation) you learnt it but when you put it in print the original language's rules have to be followed.

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 20 Jun 2007, 07:08

My take is slightly different. I do not think transliteration in any way needs to convey the fidelity of original script. I say this because everyone is subsconsciously doing some sort of mapping in translating something in English to a sound in another language (e.g. E, O, A etc. as such do not readily convey different letters - it is just that many of us are acccustomed to it.). Or more generally, it alll depends on what the transliteration scheme is intended for. There is no set rule is "it must obviously imply how it should be written in the original language". That is how it used to be and I argued above that this is a very limiting use of transliteration.

Instead, what the transliteration must do is capture ALL aspects of *sounds* of the word that is being transliterated. Per that if the extra "c" in tAiccol has a phonetic role, it cannot be foregone.

On regarding phonetic roles of the extra mei, I sometimes wonder what the original intent was vs. how it has turned out. If taiccol is phonetically different from tAi col (i.e 2 words), then if we take other cases things seem to get a bit murkier. For example, must one write alaipp pAyudE (i.e. 2 words but still a mei at the end - this is not uncommon) to imply pa and not ba for pAyudE? Or is alai pAyudE ok? Also is alai pAyudE (with spacing) pronounced differently from alaippAyudE (concatenated)?

While phonetic role of the extra mei is clearer to me in tAiccol, it seems a bit less obvious to me in the other cases. Also take pArttasArati in tamizh. But does(nt?) extra "t" play an extra role beyond the PHONETIC combination pArtasArati (which is how it would written in kannada, telugu, sanskrit and malayalam)?

Finally, if we were to follow the "faithfulness to fidelity of original scripts", then e.g, all telugu krithis MUST use caMdra, SaMkara etc. where the M is the anuswara. Telugu speakers will know, but tamil speakers unless they know what to do, will completely get it wrong. Basically we are back to square one, where each transliteration is intended only for speakers of that language. Nothing wrong but quite limiting. Might as well post in the original script.

Arun

mahakavi · Post by **mahakavi** » 20 Jun 2007, 07:20

Well, I'd like to respond in detail ( but will not) at the risk of carrying this thread farther into transliteration and phonetics to the chagrin of mods. On the other hand I do not like to discuss it in the boondocks of the language thread either. So let me rest it there.

vgvindan · Post by **vgvindan** » 20 Jun 2007, 08:17

Arun,

We have gone through this discussion a number of times.

The point of mahakavi of giving word breaks appropriately is besides the Transliteration scheme per-se. Those who write notations for CM kRtis seem to have taken liberty with the kRtis of vAggEyakkaras - otherwise you can't explain the 'candra varNuni' in the tyAgarAja Pancha Ratna kriti 'endarO mahAnubhAvulu'. The same is probably applicable to 'ranga pura vihAra' also.

The transliteration scheme, IMHO, cannot possibly cater for such notational requirements unless notation is bundled with transliteration. In my case, I have used brackets to indicate the word breaks and word-joinings. Yet that will not cater for the situation quoted by mahakavi - 'pura' is a single word - how can one break it as 'pu' and 'ra'?

Once we start questioning the rules of written language - to the extent of doubting even tolkAppiar, I have my own doubts whether this discussion will lead us anywhere.

Before closing I would like to make an observation; Sri tyAgarAja has used colloquial language extensively in this kRtis, but then they are situational - these were directly addressed to the Lord. Similar is the case with songs composed in a conversational tone like 'nIdAn meccikkoLLa vENum'. I did not mean to say that, if the poet has written as 'vENum' it should be converted to 'vENDum'. We are not discussing these from the point of view of vAggeyakkara. Whatever has been written by vAggEyakkAra has to be rendered faithfully by the musicians and transliteration is an aid in that regard. Therefore, let us not mix the two issues here.
A transliterator's job is to be faithful to the wordings of vAggEyakkara.