Topic suggested by aruLarasan on Wed Feb 17 20:14:58 .
All times in EST +10:30 for IST.
|
I am starting this thread solely on selfish motives. :-))
|
Responses:
- Old responses
- From: Chandra (@ user-38lcabn.dialup.mindspring.com)
on: Sat Jun 19 19:44:31
Vanchi,
I checked tholkAppiyam.
cUththirams 229, 230 & 231 are the relevant.
231 ¡ Ҩ:
:: ¢ :
229:
¡ Ţ ǡ
̧
"¡ ǡ
ҽ"
230.
.
" "
[ Ģ ɡǢ
ɢ츧 ]
231.
Ţ
ȡ
ū ¡
ɸ .
( ʸ ):
"( Ţ Ȣ.)
,
š (229/230 š) ҽ..."
Ȣ Ǣ Ģ
Ţ Ȣ æš
ҽ...
- From: vanchi (@ isdn2.pppmad.vsnl.net.in)
on: Mon Jun 21 06:00:02
Thanks Chandra. I still don't have the confidence to read tholkaappiyam and understand it.
Though this rule gives legitimacy to maangani etc. my feeling is that it must be the urge of grammarians to put their stamp of approval to a usage and legitimize it.
That brings to my original suggestion earlier in this thread. Why not our learned academic friends in Thamizh universities/research centres make an effort to legitimize widely prevalent (but strictly) wrong usages.
I can give many examples of usage (outside oRRilakkaNam) which are badly in need of
sympathetic treatment. Should I list those examples?
- From: Chandra (@ viking2.delta-air.com)
on: Wed Jun 23 20:17:50
Vanchi said:
"Though this rule gives legitimacy to maangani etc. my feeling is that it must be the urge of grammarians to put their stamp of approval to a usage and legitimize it. "
--------------------
You seem to imply that these rules were artificially created by grammarians.
These seem very intuitive to me.
People spoke Tamil like this...inserting mellinam with tree names and vallinam otherwise.
Actually we might be artificial in *separating* the compound word "mAngkompu" into "mA + kompu"!
In Tamil such grammar rules were always grounded in reality.
These grammar rules codified what was commonly in *use*.
Uneducated country people use these "rules" in their Tamil...
I do not really understand what the problem here is.
The pAyiram of tholkAppiyam itself states clearly that tholkAppiyar studied the *vulgar* usage and poetic usage of Tamil all over the Tamilakam before embarking on writing tholkAppiyam.
Note:
"vazakkum ceyyuLum Ayiru muthalin"
vazakku = usage by common people
"
ץכ
ǀ
ҍ
ݙ ð
ള
퀍 Ҵ
ù À鿺
ŗ
Ű ƴ
ō
() () ְ
ƛ ̻ ള À
׀̿ 鹰
֍ 헺
ֽ 촰 Ƒ".
Tamil civilization's specialty is that everything in its intellectual pursuit was always "grounded" in reality. They strongly rejected abstraction for the sake of abstraction and rejected rejection of aspects that were integral part of them. A start example is the constitution of thirukkuRaL:
rejection by vaLLuvar of vIdu as the fourth pAl and incorporation of kAmam as the third pAl.
I would surely like to see your list of cases to be discussed.
Surely, we need to allow for a healthy evolution of the language over time.
- From: Chandra (@ viking2.delta-air.com)
on: Wed Jun 23 20:28:19
ai
݀ ϴ:
֍
(ź Ƴ)
ץכ
ǀ
ҍ
ݙ ð
ള
퀍 Ҵ
ù À鿺
ŗ
Ű ƴ
ō
() () ְ
ƛ ̻ ള À
׀̿ 鹰
֍ 헺
ֽ 촰 Ƒ".
ain-thiram = said to be a grammar book by in-thiran (now lost)
- From: Pas (@ pas.dialup.cs.toronto.edu)
on: Thu Jun 24 10:26:15
Vanchi, Chandra,
While I am not a language expert, my gut feeling is that grammar came *after* literature in *all*
languages....including Tamil. It defies intution to think otherwise. ( I understand grammarians "helping" or trying to straighten out ambiguities,
by defining conditions for certain usage etc... I have seen similar grammar employed in music... just to make it easier for future users to follow and as a summary of past practices )
- From: Chandra (@ viking2.delta-air.com)
on: Thu Jun 24 19:31:09
Pasupathy,
Yes...grammar comes after literature or usage.
Grammars are quite a bit like standards established these days in various technical fields.
A standard is a consensus standardization of the best *practices*.
Pasupathy, I observe you alluding to music a handful of times. Could you write something about what you know in icaith thamiz?
- From: Pas (@ pas.dialup.cs.toronto.edu)
on: Thu Jun 24 21:52:52
Chandra,
thanks.. I am a music enthusiast and I have had thoughts about Tamil isai etc on and off...
When I get some time and some new ideas, I will write something....
( I wrote an article on Thyagaraja and Tamil for
a Tamil music magazine (of Chennai) called "sarigamapadhani" and republished it in 6mthiNai sometime ago. If interested, you can read it : Go to
http://www.chennaionline.com/6mthinaithoguppu/sirappupparvai/index.asp
and then click on my article published in April 99. Incidentally, it contains one of the first veNpoids I had produced!
( I hope there is no mistake in the link I have given above...6mthinai keeps changing things around...)
- From: vanchi (@ isdn2.pppmad.vsnl.net.in)
on: Fri Jun 25 04:01:17
Here are my examples of wrong usages that are badly in need of sympathetic treatment:
(Compare with the grammatically incorrect English sentence "It is me"
as opposed to "it is I". The former is now acceptable due to heavy popular usage).
Some Thamizh words which are systematically spelt wrongly even while an author avoids colloquial terms:
1. sembaruththi (I am told correct term is sembaraththai)
2. maruthaaNi (maruthOnRi)
3. pavazam (pavaLam)
4. kaRuppu (karuppu; I don't know which is strictly correct)
When such things are legitimized care must be taken to distinguish real colloquial and
colloquial thta sounds like formal term.
(In English, 'It is me" is ok but not "I wanna")
I have some more in a different contexct. I am posting it on the dormant "more Sounds in Tamizh alphabet" thread.
- From: vanchi (@ isdn2.pppmad.vsnl.net.in)
on: Fri Jun 25 04:07:14
Chandra: Learned person that you are immediately you are able to quote that rule about tree names
warrant mellinam etc.
Still you haven't clarified the anamalous
"pUkkaari" Versus "pUngodi"
I agree you put it nicely: "standardization is
made by adopting the best practices".
- From: ananth (@ 130.219.170.46)
on: Fri Jun 25 08:53:15
Great discussion! I really like Chandra's quotations of past literature. In the panampAranAr 's pA, what does tholkAppiyan enath *thaRpeyar* thORRi mean? Is thaRpeyar thannudaiya (conthap) peyar or punaippeyar?
Also, in the last adi, isn't is niRuththa*p* padimai (when we are talking about oRRu)?
- From: Pas (@ ramanujan.comm.utoronto.ca)
on: Fri Jun 25 10:44:54
Vanchi,
There are two broad issues in what you have written.
1. colloquial speech, reporting about colloquial use in formal writing, and formal writing.
A story book which says.
The child cried." I wanna go home"
The telephone rang. I said "It's me" .
It was finally I who blurted out the truth.
All three are acceptable but not substituting "me"
for "I" in the last two. Similarly in Tamil we have different 'maN vaasanai" stories who do use colloquial terms . Whether these will replace
the correct grammatical terms ...who knows? I like to think that ungrammatical colloquialisms will not replace the original grammar. A dictionary of colloquialisms can come out spelling out these differences. I generally feel that formal reporting of colloquial terms or story with colloquial terms should still be in a formal
language. I believe that most writing fall under this umbrella..except those who deliberately want to make a point and use colloquialism in entire writing of a story or novel.
2. Words which have changed over time like the ones you quoted. I would think a good dictionary
would include these terms and give the origin or give cross-references. The grammarians do not have much of a role here... I don't think that grammarians will frown on "pEran" for "peyaran"
and " maruthaaNi" over "maruthOnRi".I think both
should find a place in dictionaries... every year
Oxford and Cambridge adds new words ... after careful consideration.
- From: Chandra (@ viking2.delta-air.com)
on: Fri Jun 25 11:02:09
Ananth:
Ye, "thaRpeyar thORRi" means "thAnE oru peyaraic cUttikkoNdu".
And the "p" should not double after "n-iRuththa".
JUst like in:
"pArththa + peN" = pArththa peN
"kEtta + kathai" = kEtta kathai etc.
I.e. peyar echcham does not cause consonantal doubling.
List all pages of this thread