Lyrics for "nIdAn tuNai nIlAmbari"

kmrasika · Post by **kmrasika** » 25 Oct 2007, 14:53

Appreciate it if someone could post the lyrics to the above song composed by late tanjAvUr ShrI kalyANarAman. It is set to a garland of rAgAs, names of which are included in the sAhitya.

Lakshman · Post by **Lakshman** » 25 Oct 2007, 17:59

nI tAn tuNai. ragamalika. cApu tALA. Composer: N.S.Chidambaram.

(rAgA: nIlAmbari)
P: nI tAn tuNai nIlAmbari nIlakantan manOhari
(rAgA: vasantabhairavi)
nI dayavAi ennai Adari nirmala vasantabhairavi
(rAgA: gaurimanOhari)
A: AdhAramAi ulag-anaittum ANDaruL gaurImanOhari
(rAgA: sarasvati)
pAdAravindam paNi sarasvati pADi pOTriDum paramEshvari
(rAgA: shrIranjani)
C: mAtA manamagizhndaruL tara innum vAtA maraipura shrIranjani
(rAgA: mOhanakalyANi)
mati aNi shankaranin manam kavar mAlini gati nIye mOhanakalyANi
(rAgA: durgA)
manamighu mahishan mAnriDa vadam sheida mahimaiyuTra mAyE shrI durgE
(rAgA: jyOtisvarUpiNi)
mAdar tam tuyar iruLai aghaTriDum mangaLa jyotisvarUpiNi

srinivasasarma · Post by **srinivasasarma** » 25 Oct 2007, 18:54

Neethan thunai-
I have the tape of late s. kalyanaraman- from Sangeetha 6 MSC 1047.
it says the lyrics by Suddha Satvananda.

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 25 Oct 2007, 19:49

some corrections:

nI tAn => nIdAn
nIlakantan => nIlakANTan
ulag-anaittum : correct phoentically but "ulaganaittum" is better as it is formed ulagu + anaittum and not ulag + anaittum
mighu => migu
AdhAramAi => AdAramAi (tamizh form)
aghaTriDum => agaTriDum

mAnriDa => mANDida (?)

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 25 Oct 2007, 21:07

Arun,
I am so glad to see your post here. This way, your efforts with the standardization of scripts can be illustrated by you with actual samples. I am not there yet, but the more we practise, the better we get.

mAnRiDa=mayangiDa (being enchanted)--as mahESan was enchanted by your bravery of your slaying the demon.

other typos:
madi (moon), not mati
vAdA? (not vAtA?) Is it to be questioned? (vAdu=argument)

I do feel that differentiating among the sounds sa, Sa and sha makes it very easy for us to read and to understand the meaning of words.

I am glad that you indicate that migu is the way you write it instead of mighu. That extra h in a word makes it sound like sanskrit or other languages.

A question. agaTRiDum to me is a better indicator of the sound than agaTriDum. Does it make sense to you?

srinivasasarma · Post by **srinivasasarma** » 25 Oct 2007, 21:17

friends

I heard only as " nIlakantan" which means Lord Shiva (person with blue neck)

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 25 Oct 2007, 21:35

srinivasasarma:
It is a sanskrit name and thus nIlakaNTAn (and thus morphed as nIlagaNDAn in tamizh usage)

arasi:
I am quite rusty (and was never that good) with language stuff. The transliteration stuff worked for me - because it was more tangible - i.e. based on fairly well known (or devisable) rules.

mati => madi: Ah ok. Then gati should probably become gadi for better fit w.r.t prAsa?

Same way, since if it is vAdA (vAdA-maraipura? what does it mean?), then mAda. But then it seems too colloquial - i mean it is not as well-used a morph as mugam or even gadi. This is the danger - sanskrit words in tamizh context - it can be connundrum

.

mahiSan => mahEsan Now it makes sense! I could not quite figure out how manamigu and mahiSan went along

. And with mahEsan, would be mAnRiDa.

agaTRiDUm vs. agaTriDum: I then when you have T before it, I think the ra that follows automatically hardens. One has to work really hard to go otherwise. So from a phonetic standpoint I think agATriDum may be good enough.

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 26 Oct 2007, 03:46

Arun,
A lot of questions here which are not that easy to deal with! It is better to be a scientist than a person who merely deals with words, because I have no science to back me up!
When it comes to it, reading tamizh in tamizh would be the most natural way to get to know the sAhityA. Even then, we get into trouble because tamizh speakers are not perfect in pronouncng and their tamizh pronounciation of certain words are variable too. Example: nIlaganDan, nIlakantan. Lyrically, nIlakantan is preferable. Then, how about mati, madi, you ask. Well, it gets more complicated because while singing--which way is better--comes into the picture. Take pAdi madi jOdi paLIr paLIrena: pAdi madi jOdi?? I prefer pAdi mati (or madi) but jOti!
In a contrived script which is not the original, all these problems have to be dealt with it. What is correct? From whichever angle(s) of grammar, rhyme, rhythm, aesthetics and musical presentation that you consider it--there seems to be no perfect answer!

Yet, we do need the romanized script--the only way in which non-tamizh singers, dancers and rasikAs can get to know the words and the meaning of what they sing, dance to and listen to. It is a blessing that we can instantly give the lyrics to those who request them. Of course, we need to improve on it as we go along.. .

Well, the agaTRiDum bit was a mere suggestion. I feel that it may make it more difficult for the non-tamizh to work it out otherwise. Still, it is better than agaRRiDum, as far as I am concerned!
What I realize is that for those who cannot understand the language but are very keen on CM and want to know the words and meaning of a song, romanized script is invaluable.
As for mati and such, it is our hearing ear. In the context of CM, we have to go by our ear too. When we hear the song, which sound is pleasing and flowing, keeps its tamizh-ness and borrows the sanskrit sounds here and there are points to think about too.
As you have walked the path before working on this, you would understand, I think. Rules are essential, but they cannot be adhered to if it comes to sacrificing other elements in music.
A laywoman's thoughts: ta and da sounds, we don't have to be picky about, but tha and dha, ca and cha, ga and gha sounds can be dealt with. That is because in tamizh, we don't use strong cha jha gha and so on.
As in english pronounciation of 'but' and 'put' which we have learnt to pronounce correctly(!) some day, we may overcome these hurdles too...

Musically speaking, let's take EdaiyyA gati (gadi)! Now, which seems more pleasing? If you sing it as gadi, it may not appeal to one and one may also think that the vocalist is from kerala.
tamizh is an old language; rich, and as a result, complicated. Then there are interpretations too. DO we give it up? No! Do we stop listening to CM because even the best among the veterans had Sruti and layA lapses and occasionally meandered into other rAgAs? No!

kmrasika · Post by **kmrasika** » 26 Oct 2007, 13:40

I just checked in to see if there were replies to my post and was surprised to read quite some discussion on the song, of whose authorship I know now is NS cidambaram's (he is also known as Shuddha satvAnandA). Thank you all!

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 26 Oct 2007, 20:15

(Sorry for the diversion. But this time, I blame arasi

Mods, please move this as you feel.)

yes arasi - these are hard issues. I do think people mix the pronunciations freely. So for pAdi mati jOti or pAdi madi jOdi or pAdi mati jOti or pAdi madi jOti or perhaps even pAdi mati jOdi

(although never pAti mati jOti).

While I think one can say poetically the composer meant for those rhyme (and hence pAdi madi jOdi would make best sense as pAdi cannot become pAti), I also wonder - whether they just meant it to rhyme "visually" (written form) only, and were flexible phonetically. I see in many cases sanskrit based words being used for prAsa/rhyme where sometimes tamizh-morph would make best fit - since that word would be matched against a native word.

Even in ekkAlattilum maravEn (nATakurinji) - the caranam as written goes like:
Isanai, prakAsanai, guhadAsanai, kAkkum nEsanai, nal-pUsanai sei visvAsanai, tillai vAsanai.

THEN you have the word which throws a wrench - DKP/DKJ sing it as naTarAjanai. But it is sort of obvious where the composer was going with the whole line. "naTarAsanai" is a colloquial morph/form and IMHO he must have intended it particularly in a line where "sanai" (as written) prefix is the common theme. But even if we take the written form as naTarAsanai for rhyme, there is still a (subjective) ambiguity. Are all "sa" letters really pronounced sa, or are some "Sa" - i.e. ISanai, prakASanai but guhadAsanai etc.? One can take the same argument above and imply that it must ALL be "sa" (since you have dAsan) however colloquial it sounds - it just must have been the composer's intention. However, when I sing this, I do mix the sa and Sa - but I sing naTarASanai. So we freely apply our own preferences

.

Ah! How I wish the Tamil script was unambiguous! Or how I wish we all could simply decide one way and stick to it! But that is like wishing everyone had the same ideas!

Arun

Lakshman · Post by **Lakshman** » 26 Oct 2007, 21:51

arunk wrote:
Ah! How I wish the Tamil script was unambiguous!

It can be made unambiguous if all of us, at least in this forum, start using subscripts 1, 2,3 and 4 for the various sounds of ka, ca, ta and pa.
I also feel that the use of h can be reduced, i.e it is overused (like in thiththikkum). But there is no consistency here as well. while it is used in "madhu" it isn't not in "indu".
The ha sound also is one which poses problems. Should it be dAham or dAgam or dAgham etc?
There is no w sound in tamil or english but people got used to writing Vishwanathan instead of Vishvanathan (do some write Viswanadhan?)
Words using both h and w - Swathi Thirunal instead of Svati Tirunal.
These are my views and others may disagree.

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 26 Oct 2007, 22:03

lakshman - subscripts would work - but I dont think forum post submission support it yet.

But I think the fundamental, and perhaps irreconcilable fact is that tamizh pronounciation is innately flexible - that is how the language is used by its speakers. This is not restricted to just imports as the "ga" to "ha" morph is a legitimate flexibility in native words itself. You write as tAkam - and you can pronounce it BOTH as tAgam and tAham. (well and in between).

This is perhaps no different from ca => tsa in telugu but just more prevalent (i.e. because of Sanskrit imports and how they cannot be represented as-is in tamizh). If you write it as ca in Sanskrit, anybody who cannot read/know telugu will take it as ONLY ca, and think a "tsa" there is incorrect. But when written in telugu, people can interpret it either way.

This is the same reason people say tamizh songs are better represented in tamizh script is that e.g. the "sa" letter appears as is - and all legitimate morphs/interpretations are "allowed" - i.e. people have the freedom to choose their own preferences. We lose that with a phonetically strict representation like phonetic based translit schemes as well as writing it in other phonetically strict languages.

Arun

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 26 Oct 2007, 23:11

Lakshman,
Very intersting point about the way our names are 'written' in english (your example, viswanathan) which in itself is confusing! Srinivasan spelt as Srinivasun (odd as it looks) would have helped non-indians pronounce the name correctly without the 'san' ending as it occurs in viswanathan, narayanan and so on, sounding as san as in sand. The britishers helped (!) us in that with our names and with names of places!
Yes, I have come to realize that 'th' is not necessary when 't' is clear enough. viruttam. takka. Otherwise, it can lead to one pronouncing them as in 2nd tha!.
As for dAham and dAgam, they can be interchanged without any problem (not dAgham, though).
The placement of a word in the song and the musical phrasing also comes into play.
I am also with you on the 1 2 3 4 qualifying of the sound. It is perfect for other languages. Will help with tamizh too, but not always, for the above mentioned (not so rational?) reasons!

yes, svAti (though familiarity with swAti makes it a bit difficult). tirunAl, of course!

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 27 Oct 2007, 01:28

Arun,
You put it in a nutshell--tamizh pronounciation is innately flexible! We are happy with it, and sometimes, not!

Diversion or not (!), we need to have a peek at the transliteration system every now and then, to refresh ourselves. When it comes to CM, we do value the facility of writing and reading in english script so that those who do not know the language in which the song happens to be, can benefit. It means catering to students, performers and rasikAs. The lyric meanings make it doubly valuable for them. Even for those tamizh speakers who need to decipher age-old tamizh words or anything beyond slang-ridden, generously english-sprinkled conversational tamizh, they come in handy.

As for the rhyme and alliteration reasons that you mention that concern composers (Ramaraj and others can substantiate), I don't think it is a big thing with us. These happen naturally in a song. The only thing (as my experience goes) is that while we sing the song out, we once in a while insert little fillers for reasons of rhythm, for the flow of music, rAga bhAvA or for rounding up a line.

Flexibility factor: let's take your natarAsan! To me, give me the flavorful rASan, and yes, rAjan too. (If it is a folk song, rAsan goes too--aNNAmalaik kavi rAsan magizh nESan!)
In that verse you have given, but for dAsan and vAsan, all else to me are Sa! not sei but Sei and viSvAsanai (which has both!).

Again, you are absolutely right about the innate beauty of tamizh in being flexible when it comes to pronunciation, though it can be complicated from another angle. For that reason, as you say, wishing uniformity in this is like wishing we all had the same ideas. Then again, it's nice that we don't and that is how we enrich ourselves with each other's ideas and resemble one of the richest languages in the world in our unity and in diversity

K Nagarajan · Post by **K Nagarajan** » 15 Aug 2020, 17:38

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK2rn7bxvRY

This is the link for an album by the maestro Sri Thanjavur S Kalyanaraman and
the song being discussed is available in this album and it starts at 30:08.

rasikas.org

Lyrics for "nIdAn tuNai nIlAmbari"

Re: Lyrics for