SANGAM LITERATURE & TAMIL

[mahadevan]

Firstly, just because there is an alternative for a word in Tamil it does not mean that word is not Tamil, for instance for water there are more than 50 words in sanskrit, does it mean that, but for one the rest all are non sanskrit ?

Secondly, if a word exist in Tamil and sanskrit, why it is assumed that Tamil got it from sanskrit ? it is more probably the other way around. Sanskrit is an artificial language perfected for liturgical purposes and for recording (supposedly) complex thought, the language was created from the existing languages, that includes Tamil and prakrits. If we get to the root of the word in tamil/prakrit better than that language is the original source of the word. For instance deepam/dheep the root is thee ie., fire in tamil, sanskrit does not have such roots for this word.

[FloraiPuyal]

Please see my reply to kannann in the other thread

http://forumhub.mayyam.com/hub/viewtopic.php?t=6806








யாகாவா ராயினு னாகாக்க

[aravindhan]

பகுதி விகுதி இடைநிலை சாரியை
சந்தி விகாரம் ஆறினும் ஏற்பவை
முன்னிப் புணர்ப்ப முடியுமெப் பதங்களும்
- நன்னூல்

What is your point? The nannul uses "santhi", and modern Tamil grammatical terminology being derived from the nannul, we call the inserted morpheme "santhi". That is beside the point. The question asked was whether there was a native Tamil term that could be equivalent to "santhi", and the answer is yes, the term is "punarcchi".

Let me put it this way. Tolkappiyar says that Tamil words do not begin with "ca". "canthi" begins with a "ca." The seeming contradiction can be resolved in one of three ways.

1. Tolkappiyar was an idiot who didn't know what he was talking about.
2. Tolkappiyar deliberately and maliciously included a rule in his work he knew to be false.
3. In Tolkappiyar's day, the "santhi" had a different name.

Wouldn't you agree that (3) is the likeliest option? Given that nearly all the terminology associated with santhi even today is derived from the "punar-" root: that division of grammar is called "punariyal", it seems to me to be quite likely that that was the term originally used to refer to the added morpheme. And that is all I was trying to say.

[FloraiPuyal]

பகுதி விகுதி இடைநிலை சாரியை
சந்தி விகாரம் ஆறினும் ஏற்பவை
முன்னிப் புணர்ப்ப முடியுமெப் பதங்களும்
- நன்னூல்

What is your point? The nannul uses "santhi", and modern Tamil grammatical terminology being derived from the nannul, we call the inserted morpheme "santhi". That is beside the point. The question asked was whether there was a native Tamil term that could be equivalent to "santhi", and the answer is yes, the term is "punarcchi".

Let me put it this way. Tolkappiyar says that Tamil words do not begin with "ca". "canthi" begins with a "ca." The seeming contradiction can be resolved in one of three ways.

1. Tolkappiyar was an idiot who didn't know what he was talking about.
2. Tolkappiyar deliberately and maliciously included a rule in his work he knew to be false.
3. In Tolkappiyar's day, the "santhi" had a different name.

Wouldn't you agree that (3) is the likeliest option? Given that nearly all the terminology associated with santhi even today is derived from the "punar-" root: that division of grammar is called "punariyal", it seems to me to be quite likely that that was the term originally used to refer to the added morpheme. And that is all I was trying to say.

Dont you see the possibility that tholkappiyam is misinterpreted by us. Please refer to what iraamaki says on this. I had given the link in one of my replies.

http://valavu.blogspot.com/2006/03/3.html
(if someone doesnt know how to open this link: click on it.)

Anyway, since many hubbers dont take pains to see the link, I am giving an extract from this.
//
க, த, ந, ப, ம எனும் ஆவைந் தெழுத்தும்
எல்லா உயிரொடும் செல்லுமார் முதலே
சகரக் கிளவியும் அவற்றோர் அற்றே
அவை ஔ என்னும் ஒன்றலங் கடையே

"அய்யா, சகரக் கிளவி மற்றது மாதிரித்தான்; ஆனா கௌ, தௌ, நௌ, பௌ, சௌ என்ற ஔகாரம் மட்டும் மொழிக்கு முதல்லே வராது"

மேலே சொல்றபடி பார்த்தா சகரம் மொழி முதல்லே வரும். பாவாணர் எதுனாலே அப்படிச் சொன்னாருன்னா, நன்னூல் மயிலைநாதர் உரையிலே ஒரு பழைய மேற்கோள் வெண்பா வருது. அதுலே ஆணித்தரமா, சகரம் மொழி முதல்லெ வரும்னு சொல்லியிருக்கு.

சரி சமழ்ப்புச் சட்டி சருகு சவடி
சளிசகடு சட்டை சவளி - சவிசரடு
சத்து சதங்கை சழக்காதி ஈரிடத்தும்
வந்தனவாற் சம்முதலும் வை
//

You still havent answered my question. Please explain the morphology of sanskrit and explain how it is a sanskrit word.





யாகாவா ராயினு னாகாக்க

[aravindhan]

Dont you see the possibility that tholkappiyam is misinterpreted by us. Please refer to what iraamaki says on this. I had given the link in one of my replies.

That is quite interesting - I hadn't read the article earlier because I mostly use Linux and Tamil unicode is impossible to read on Linux (Linux can't render the uyirmey letters in the right order). I've read it now, and whilst this interpretation is quite fascinating, I still have some difficulty believing that the traditional interpretation is wrong. I'll need to think about it for a while.

You still havent answered my question. Please explain the morphology of sanskrit and explain how it is a sanskrit word.

I 'm not a Sanskrit grammarian, you'll have to ask someone who is. I was operating under the assumption that it could not have been a classical Tamil word because of the conventional understanding of the Tolkappiyam.

[devapriya]

Friends,

My purpose of this thread is more to discuss about contents of Sangam and the Unity of Indian Civilisation, which is purposfully been divided as Aryan-Dravidian myths by Missionary Indologists and these have been exploited by Thani Tamil and Dravidian movements

Vedic Culture is prevalent in evey Sangam collection.

Can we please read more of this.

Devapriya.

[bis_mala]

Vedic Culture is prevalent in evey Sangam collection

Prevalent? how?

Please kindly give us the percentage of Sangam stanzas dealing with vedic stuff according to you, upon the total number of stanzas in Sangam lit.

Thank you.

[bis_mala]

My purpose of this thread is more to discuss about contents of Sangam and the Unity of Indian Civilisation, which is purposfully been divided as Aryan-Dravidian myths by Missionary Indologists and these have been exploited by Thani Tamil and Dravidian movements

Do not worry! Once BrahmaNa girls freely get married to non-Bramana and vice versa, there will be unity of Indian civilization. There won't be any Aryan - Dravidian divide or myth as you say. Missionary indologists will fall silent. Thani Tamiz and Dravidian movements will pack up.

Devapriya, why don't you inaugurate this unique movement rather than writing all these stuff here?

You mix Sankrit and Tamil but do not want to get married to non-BramaNa, what is the use? No Indian unity can emerge.

[devapriya]

My very purpose of Starting this Thread is proved by the Language of Bismala’s posting of un said things using unwanted Caste remarks and nature of the Link from FLoraipuyal and IRAAMAKI’s interpretation is completely false-
¸ ¾ ¿ À Á ±Ûõ ¨ÅóÐ ±ØòÐõ
±øÄ¡ ¯Â¢¦Ã¡Îõ ¦ºøÖÁ¡÷ Ó¾§Ä. 28
º¸Ãì ¸¢ÇÅ¢Ôõ «ÅüÚ µÃü§È
« ³ ±Ûõ ãýÚ «Äí¸¨¼§Â. 29
¯ ° ´ µ ±ýÛõ ¿¡ýÌ ¯Â¢÷
Å ±ý ±Øò¦¾¡Î ÅÕ¾ø *ø¨Ä. 30
± ´ ±Ûõ 㠯¢÷ »¸¡ÃòÐ ¯Ã¢Â. 31

Tholkappiyar has framed Rules of Tamil, They include for

TholKappiyar has given us rules for Tamil words, that include ச - சை – சௌ and ய, ஞ can not be a word start. Tamil. Friends Tholkaapiyar formed Tamil Lettering Arrangement Grammer especially following Sanskrit Pattern as Caldwell showed and his Verses very clearly confirms that.

Every Language keeps changing over time, on influence from Other Languages and that Nannul reduced the exemptions given by Tholkappiyar. But basing 13th Cen. Nannul and 20th Cen, Lexicon to misinterpret Tholkappiyar is of course Pavanar and Thani-Tamil Movement Scholar’s way. These can be proved by Historical Linguistics.

Brahmi Scripts are made for Sanskrit and not for Prakrit is confirmed by Linguists who knows these Languages and Thokkappiyam confirms it (Details shortly). Now coming to sa – We can take Tirukural dated to 250-300 CE, just 200 years later than Tholkaapiyam(50-100CE) we See Kurals with Words starting with க-77, த-35, -43, ப -62, ம-60, வ- 20 ய -nil and that ச is just 3 and One word is repeated twice, so only two words starting with ச words in Kural and both the words are of Sanskrit Origin as demarcated by Many Tamil Scholars.
On saying this is of Tamil and that is Sanskrit, I request friends- Further to Burrows Lexicon claiming many Indo-European words as Dravidian, the research by otherside proved :

The Dravidian Etymological Dictionary of Burrow and Emeneau contains over 5,000 etyma and it has been shown that over 4,000 of these etyma have Indo-Aryan, Munda cognates (cf. http://www.hindunet.org/saraswati/Indian_Lexicon which contains over 8,000 semantic clusters.)


I shall put as Bilingualgai said on quoting interesting section from Sangam than on the Unity of Indic Culture that exists for more than 5000 years. But the posts and links only prove that my original thinking is right.

To make matters straight I WELCOME Intercaste marriages and all becoming as Vegetarians as VALLUVAR Said.

My request to everybody is to use this Thread with what you liked from Sangam Literaure with verses please, and I start agains with Tamil Marriages

Now On Old Tamil Marriages-
Now Let us Understand Velvi:

Nan Pala Kelvi Murriya Velvi Anthanarukku - Puram 361.

Anthi Anthanar Arunkaden Irukkum
Muththie Vilakirru Injum Puram -2

Now Velvi and Marai are always One Every where for the world, and We have to now Clearly Live by Concluded Datings of the Literature- Sangam to Kural to Silaptahikaram- 200BCE to 200 CE,
and Tholkappiyam very clearly 50CE TO 100CE, any thing beyond this are mere Speculations.

Now In Silapathikaram on Kannagi Wedding:

Malai Thal Chenni Vairamani Thoonagathu
NilaVithanathu NithilapPum Panthar Kil
Vanur Mathiyan sgadanaya Vanthu
Chali orumean thakaiyalai Kovalan
MAMUTHU PARPPAN MARAIVAZHI KATITA
Thii Valandh Seithu..... and again


we see the song continues :

Vilakinar Kalathinar Virintha Paligai
Mulaikuta Niraiyinar
Friends Detailed Marriage function is mentioned and most of what is mentioned is followed even today By Orthodax Tamils even today.

Now Let us TholKappiyam We See PolyGamy is Openly Practised by Society-
PinMurai akkiya PerumPorul Vathuvai
Thonmurai Manaivi Ethirpadayinum - Karpiyal 31

Kamak Kilathi Manaiol Enrivar
Emuru Kilavi Solliye ethirum and

In every House Girls are grown for additional Wifes(?)

KadarParathai Ellarkum Vurithe So POLYGAMY was certainly Present.

SATHI was also Prevalent, Mentioned in PuraNanuru247 - Wife of Puthapandian Jumping in to fire is mentioned.

Tholkappiyam is Clear on Castelism:

MELOR Moovarkum Punarntha Karanam
Kilorku Akiya Kalamum VUnde Karpi3

Pirape Kudimai Anmai Andodu..... Thol. Mei -25

and on Love Marriages:

Kamak Koottam Kanum Kalai
MARAIOR TheEthu Mandral Ettanul
Thuraiamai Nal Yal Thunaimayor iyalbe- Kalbi 1
Here when Lovers meet and mind meets they Unite, and THOLKAPPIYAR says Like- Maraiyor- i.e., In Vedas Kandarva Manam is allowed, like this it is.

Now further when this Lovers meet and Mental Marrages, cheating happened, then came -

Poiyum Valuvum Thondriya Pinnar
IYER Yathanar KARANAM enba- Karp -4,

Marraiges became a big function and Iyers- Brahmins doing Velvi, and with God's Presence this functions were conducted.

So This is what is Tamil Marriages about.

DEVAPRIYA.

[bis_mala]

There are some mistakes in Tolkappiyam copies; these mistakes were made by those guys who copied the olaich-chuvadis. Do not argue that these mistakes were no mistakes and claim that Tolkaapiyanaar wrote them as such!! Human beings can make mistakes. They are not gods. I have explained this before. Read my old post.

You do not want to admit the situation and do not like to come to terms with realities.....!! There are differences between the copies of Tolkappiyam. (commonly known as paada bEtham or paada vERupaadu).

To make matters straight I WELCOME Intercaste marriages and all becoming as Vegetarians as VALLUVAR Said.

You get married to a non-BrahmaNa girl first and lead by way of example...As more people join you, Indian Unity will be unbreakably cemented forever. To welcome something good is just "oral". Proceed further and further.....

Follow the examples of Sonia Agarwal and Nayanthaara who are - I understand - trying to get married outside their castes.

During Sangam, no castes; only professions. LOVE MARRIAGES were the order of the day. No dowry, OK?