Definitive guide to Tamil sounds ca, sa, Sa, sha?

Languages used in Carnatic Music & Literature
arunk
Posts: 3424
Joined: 07 Feb 2010, 21:41

Post by arunk »

I can see the point in that written form is more conservative as in spoken forms has many variations compared to written form.

However, I do not buy the claim the written form of any language is unambiguously authoritative (even at the time of its writing) in the sense that it has one and only one phonological interpretation. I say so because I think it is impractical and not realized in practice of the language. And, we cannot really separate the script from the practice of it. We are talking about something (i.e. the script) that really has no meaning and purpose outside of its practice as in how humans interpret and communicate the using script. And humans always exhibit variations in everything they practice. Thus IMO, the unambiguous phonological interpretation is a flawed expectation.

To say it stronger, IMO, language whether it is in spoken or written form can never be unambiguous since it is an instrument of humans and hence is inherently subjective.

Let us take some work written in script in some language. As implied above, the words/thoughts expressed there-in as such is useless unless they are consumed by humans as in used in communication between humans. There it is subject to phonological variations. Now, the words/thoughts etc. in the work were most probably inspirations the author got in his/her comminique with others i.e. in practice. There they are subject to phonology but perhaps one specific interpretation, say a region specific phonologic variation of a language that is used by the region in which the author lived. I would be bold and suggest that this would apply even to grammatical works. So that the words of one person or a representative of a section of populace can be taken as "this IS the ONLY way this language should be spoken in its purest form" would contain a lot of subjectivity. I would argue that neither Tamizh nor Sanskrit had a single unambiguous phonology at the time of the earliest grammatical works. In practice, there would have been differences. So then how come the early grammatical books be taken at face value that one particular variation of practice is the only correct way?

Formal American English is as formal and offical as Formal British English - it is as right as it can be in the proper context (i.e. within America). Now Britishers would have trouble accepting that of course, but that does not change the recognition and value given to formal american english by a significant % of practioneers of the language.

Arun
Last edited by arunk on 05 Jun 2009, 19:40, edited 1 time in total.

vasanthakokilam
Posts: 10956
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 00:01

Post by vasanthakokilam »

How most people speak now is not the point at all. I am not even giving a prescription that people should speak in a different way to agree with Old-Tamil phonology.

The point is about what the grammar describes (as the tamil of the grammar's time). The point is about not confusing today's speech with Old-Tamil. So however intuitively you put forth the argument that no one today pronounces ingu as inku, or that inku is unnatural, that's not the point.
srkris, that is why I was very careful in phrasing my statement as 'formal tamil as it exists today/near past/past few centuries' and not how most people speak it in a colloquial fashion.

How about this? Let us not even debate the facts of Old Tamil, let us stipulate what you are saying about Old Tamil is absolutely correct. This includes the old phonetics rules.

What does that have to do with the Tamil that has evolved from it and practised now? It is a new language and so new phonetic rules apply. I just don't understand why you are insisting that this evolved tamil (for native tamil words ) has to follow the old tamil phonetics.

arunk
Posts: 3424
Joined: 07 Feb 2010, 21:41

Post by arunk »

I agree. srkris - pl. disregard (or at the least put on the back-burner) the issues I was raising - those are too academic to be of any immediate tangible use to most of us :). Instead, I am also interested in the answer to the questions raised at the end of vk's post as I am also quite confused by your earlier statements.

Arun

srkris
Site Admin
Posts: 3497
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 03:34

Post by srkris »

vasanthakokilam wrote:I just don't understand why you are insisting that this evolved tamil (for native tamil words ) has to follow the old tamil phonetics.
I am not insisting that modern tamil should follow the phonology of old-tamil. I am simply saying this is not the way old-tamil would have sounded.

What is considered acceptable for modern tamil is not necessarily grammatical or acceptable as far as the tolkappiyam (the grammar of old-tamil) is concerned.

So I am suggesting we should acknowledge these differences, since they are real, not deny them.

For a striking analogy, compare Chaucer's English with today's English -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_C ... 7s_English

arunk
Posts: 3424
Joined: 07 Feb 2010, 21:41

Post by arunk »

I am simply saying this is not the way old-tamil would have sounded.
What is considered acceptable for modern tamil is not necessarily grammatical or acceptable as far as the tolkappiyam (the grammar of old-tamil) is concerned
But srkris, although i did not know about the hard consonants only theory for old tamil (you always learn something new :) ), I did not think anyone was claiming that modern tamil was identical to old tamil (did i miss that)? Per usability in the real world, we can only confine into "what is accepted as formal/correct tamizh today". The "right" vs. "wrong" here itself is time-relative ;). What is right today, would be wrong few centuries earlier and what would be right few centuries from now, could be wrong today. Languages are constantly changing, just as human societies and cultures change. This is unavoidable and inevitable as you yourselves have indicated.

Besides in this thread, when people seemed to talking talking about modern (but not colloquial) usage, you have repeatedly made statements like:
1. Wherever a Tamil word has a cha/sa/sha/śa, it should be cha which is correct, since tamil does not have the sibilants sa, śa and sha.
2. cendUrAn is right ...
3. You are correct, it is prevalent in current-day spoken tamil, it is present in colloquial use. We were speaking of sa not being present in "correct" tamil (old-tamil) (my emphasis).
4. By the way, ga is also not there in "correct" tamizh. We can understand what is correct tamizh by looking at how it is written. Writing does not change as fast as the spoken language, so what is written (at least for tamil) is more authentic than spoken language.
5. It should be pronounced cOlai (சோலை), not as sOlai. Let me give other examples - caRukku (சறà¯ÂÂ

srkris
Site Admin
Posts: 3497
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 03:34

Post by srkris »

As per my understanding formal (standard) modern tamil is still old-tamil (since we still follow the tolkappiyam as the grammar of modern tamil too).

In everyday informal speech, it is not necessary to go back to old-tamil.

But when the claim is that one is speaking formal or grammatical tamil (certainly the compositions are in formal tamil), one should use the attendent phonemes of old tamil and not replace them with the phonemes of modern tamil.

Else it is time we should discard the tolkappiyam as a grammatical authority since we dont follow it fully anymore for formal tamil (why should we claim to follow it then?)

It is precisely the distinction between sanskrit and the various prakrits some 2500 years back. Prakrits (middle indo aryan) were the non grammatical dialects evolved from old-indo-aryan (classical and vedic sanskrit). For these prakrit speakers, there was no such thing as a grammatical prakrit, they had to go back to sanskrit grammar. When they thus spoke formally in sanskrit and informally in prakrit, they could not use prakrit's phonology for sanskrit (although most did out of ignorance and poor education). The standard dialect (sanskrit) was the older dialect, but it was also the formal dialect.

However the difference here is that old-tamil had a lesser inventory of sounds than modern tamil, whereas for sanskrit, it had a greater inventory of sounds than prakrits.

Later on, each of the prakrits had come so far away from sanskrit as to necessitate the use of their own grammar and phonology.

All I'm asking is why do people prefer to stay ignorant of the correct pronunciation for formal tamil even when it is pointed out to them. Are carnatic musicians not educated folks? Some sing "enna sholli...", others sing "enna solli...", no one sings correctly as "enna cholli..."

Is this the reason why the old composers who could speak tamil considered it too harsh (in terms of proper pronunciation) for music and therefore didnt compose in it?

gmohan
Posts: 125
Joined: 06 Apr 2007, 01:58

Post by gmohan »

srkris's statement " are carnatic musicians not educated folks" in the guise of a question is very distasteful, to say the least. One, his judgement is based on some very opinionated view and two education cannot be equated only with language skills, least of all in music. I for one have been listening to carnatic music from the time I was a small kid and for me music is everything and i do not care two hoots for lyrics or their proper pronounciation. Lyrics and pronounciation is but one part of carnatic music and classifying the entire tribe as uneducated for these minor lapses is ridiculous.

srkris
Site Admin
Posts: 3497
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 03:34

Post by srkris »

I agree with you gmohan, it was said in the heat of the moment. I apologise. I was not trying to judge anyone. But as a statement of fact, those who are educated in the phonetics of the language do not not commit such mistakes regularly. I was therefore wondering aloud whether carnatic musicians pay heed to phonetics, although I know it could potentially offend someone's sensitivities.

vasanthakokilam
Posts: 10956
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 00:01

Post by vasanthakokilam »

srkris, in Post 54 when you wrote "I am not insisting that modern tamil should follow the phonology of old-tamil. I am simply saying this is not the way old-tamil would have sounded", I thought we were getting on the same wavelength but now I see that what you were referring to colloquial tamil and not formal tamil.

My questions before were with respect to modern formal tamil of native tamil words and not colloquial tamil.

I am with you about enna Sholli, that is sankritized brahmin accented tamil and I grant you that it is not correct tamil.

If you want carnatic music singers to sing 'inku vA' etc. you have a tough road ahead. This has nothing to do with their education. It has everything to do with your conception that modern formal tamil phonetics is unchanged from Tolkappiyam times. You will have to work on convincing people of that first.

I want to know if this thesis of yours is accepted by the majority in the tamil academic and scholarly community. Do they speak like what you suggest in formal settings?

S.Govindaswamy
Posts: 47
Joined: 23 Oct 2006, 06:48

Post by S.Govindaswamy »

This discussion started with a query about guide to Tamil sounds, ca,sa,Sa and sha. As a large number of kRitis in Carnatic music are in Telugu and SamskRtam, Tamil musicians are facing trouble in pronunciation. I brought into the discussion the subject that as Tamil has only one letter each (க,ச,ட,த &ப)for hard consonants, there is confusion about pronunciation of names in other Indian languages. The discussion is now centered around evolution of sounds and scripts (ஒலி வடிவமà¯ÂÂ

ragam-talam
Posts: 1896
Joined: 28 Sep 2006, 02:15

Post by ragam-talam »

This article on Sri Lankan Tamil has some relevance to the discussion here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Tamil_dialects
The dialect used in Jaffna is the oldest and most archaic and is claimed to be closest to old Tamil. It is considered to preserve many antique features of old Tamil that predates Tolkappiyam, the grammatical treatise of Tamil. According to F B J Kuiper an Indologist, the Jaffna dialect with voiceless plosives preserves an antique feature of the language because the Jaffna Tamils, long isolated and noted as having retained many archaic Tamil customs long since lost by their continental kindred employ a form of ordinary speech closely approaching the classical Tamil.

gmohan
Posts: 125
Joined: 06 Apr 2007, 01:58

Post by gmohan »

Govindaswamy mentions about lack of short e and o in sanskrit and North Indian languages. I have noticed that lot of North Indians cant pronounce properly words like "Petrol", "Record", "The" etc precisely for that reason. Are there any words in sanskrit which uses this sound (short e or o) if not in written at least in spoken sanskrit?
Last edited by gmohan on 06 Jun 2009, 15:46, edited 1 time in total.

keerthi
Posts: 1309
Joined: 12 Oct 2008, 14:10

Post by keerthi »

gmohan wrote:Govindaswamy mentions about lack of short e and o in sanskrit and North Indian languages. I have noticed that lot of North Indians cant pronounce properly words like "Petrol", "Record", "The" etc precisely for that reason. Are there any words in sanskrit which uses this sound (short e or o) if not in written at least in spoken sanskrit?

Nope.. there is no short e or o in sanskrit words..


every word in sanskrit is pronounced EXACTLY the way it is written.. except a couple of conjunct consonants (samyukta-aksharas) like the hma in brahma which is pronounced mha.. and 'ahni' is pronounced anhi in ahna and vahni..

arunk
Posts: 3424
Joined: 07 Feb 2010, 21:41

Post by arunk »

srkris wrote:As per my understanding formal (standard) modern tamil is still old-tamil (since we still follow the tolkappiyam as the grammar of modern tamil too).
This does explains your position more (although you are still confusing me and I guess vk also). However, I want to know on what basis you claim this besides "since we follow tolkappiyam grammar today"? As far as I can remember, I cant recollect any formal tamizh discourses in Tamil Nadu following the pronounciation that you prescribe. I don't remember hearing inku vantAn ever in formal tamil discourses. Basically it all follows the pronunciation I had mentioned earlier.

Now, we may follow tolkappiyam grammar now, but tolkappiyam (supposedly - i have not checked myself) does NOT unambiguously say only hard consonants everywhere. So per phonological perspective w.r.t. hard/soft the text as such is unhelpful. This is why modern tamizh (even formal modern tamizh) still can confirm to all the grammatical aspects with the current pronunciation even if it is hard+soft consonants today, but only hard consonants then. Besides, the "only hard consonants" claim is not even claimed by all researchers. There is some evidence (e.g. greek inscriptions) that softer consonants were in use in the first millenium itself. At the least by 12th century ga/ba/da/Da were profusely used based on the evidence from that telugu text.

Arun
Last edited by arunk on 06 Jun 2009, 18:15, edited 1 time in total.

arunk
Posts: 3424
Joined: 07 Feb 2010, 21:41

Post by arunk »

ragam-talam wrote:This article on Sri Lankan Tamil has some relevance to the discussion here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Tamil_dialects
The dialect used in Jaffna is the oldest and most archaic and is claimed to be closest to old Tamil. It is considered to preserve many antique features of old Tamil that predates Tolkappiyam, the grammatical treatise of Tamil. According to F B J Kuiper an Indologist, the Jaffna dialect with voiceless plosives preserves an antique feature of the language because the Jaffna Tamils, long isolated and noted as having retained many archaic Tamil customs long since lost by their continental kindred employ a form of ordinary speech closely approaching the classical Tamil.
Yes. The google books link I had mentioned earlier has (some not all pages) of the a couple of articles in this regard, IIRC from FBJ Kuiper - I guess the articles on which the above statement is based upon. In the article "On Old Tamil and Jaffna Tamil" (or something to that effect), he brings up the Greek inscriptions to put forth that the voicing (i.e. softening) had either started to happen even early on and possibly was there from the beginning of the era (i.e. AD).

Arun
Last edited by arunk on 06 Jun 2009, 18:50, edited 1 time in total.

arunk
Posts: 3424
Joined: 07 Feb 2010, 21:41

Post by arunk »

(Note: All this IMO is irrelevant to what is considered correct formal tamizh today. Expecting "only hard consonants" today because that is correct as in how tolkAppiyam tamizh is etc. is like saying only Old English is correct, and all modern formal English is wrong. You can substitute "English" with your favorite language)

I checked and it is "Note on Old Tamil and Jaffna Tamil" and it is by FBJ Kuiper. Here is a relevant portion:
...
Since only the letters for the surds were adopted from the existing Brahmi script, there was apparently no need for letters for the corresponding sonants, which were used, about the same time and in the same script, in the Pali cave inscriptions of Ceylon. It might seem tempting, then to conclude that these phonemes were also pronounced as surds in every position. For the first centuries A.D., however, this conclusion is unequivocally contradicted by the Greek transcription of Old Tamil geographical names, which proves that the Greek interpreted the intervocalic plosives of Old Tamil as sonants. Since the principles of the Tamil orthography had not materially changed by that time the question arises if there is any reason to suppose that in the 2nd cent. B.C. the pronounciation was different in this respect.
...
(my underline emphasis)

For what I can understand, surds => ka,Ta,ta,pa and sonants => ga,Da,da,ba (not sure about ca, sa etc.). Also I am not sure if this was on "older" work of FBJ Kuiper and whether he has changed his stance due to any new evidence later. I do believe that Iravatam Mahadevan strongly believes that tolkAppiyam tamizh had no sonants.


Arun

ragam-talam
Posts: 1896
Joined: 28 Sep 2006, 02:15

Post by ragam-talam »

If you take Jaffna Tamil to be closest to old (original) Tamil - as the above cited article seems to suggest - then the sounds in Jaffna Tamilians' speech should provide us clues to Tamil pronunciation.

And we do find that the 'soft' sounds are mostly absent.

arunk
Posts: 3424
Joined: 07 Feb 2010, 21:41

Post by arunk »

Yes that is one side of the argument - but the flipside is even around tolkappiyam's time, there was probably phonological variance w.r.t soft consonants as suggested by evidence. So while this does not rule out the theory that "tamizh in its earliest form had only hard consonants and no soft consonants", it does not support the theory "At tolkappiyam's time or even during the first written form of tamizh only hard consonants were used in all regions where tamizh was the predominant language".

All it perhaps says is that tamizh's immediate precursor perhaps had only hard consonants and that jaffna tamizh stayed close to it. It is certainly possible and plausible that tamizh in its earliest form had only hard consonants - but if it was so, that does seem long, long ago. And it looks like that for the last 1500-2000 years (if you take into account the greek transcriptions) we have had soft consonants in some form in regions where tamizh was the main language. So to now claim that if we want to use "correct" tamizh, we should only use hard consonants seems far fetched to me. I also fall back to my claim that languages always had variations as-in as soon as the humans who had used it first, came into contact with others and also migrated. This is inherent. So the terms "original, correct tamizh" or "original, correct sanskrit" etc. could be argued against as somewhat an arbitrary assignment achieved by fixing one time period (or one work from a time period) as the final arbiter.

Arun
Last edited by arunk on 06 Jun 2009, 19:58, edited 1 time in total.

srkris
Site Admin
Posts: 3497
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 03:34

Post by srkris »

The language fixed by a grammar is the standard dialect. In the brahmin dialect ca may be pronounced as sha, that is of no consequence.

One cannot deal with all the dialects of a language simultaneously.

When I say tamil, I mean only the standard language as fixed by its grammar (unless indicated otherwise).

When I say English, I would refer to grammatical or standard english only, not some obscure dialect of it.

The grammatical language is usually fixed by informed opinion (of the grammarian and his contemporaries). We may doubt the knowledge of the grammarian about the various dialects of his time, but that is not my lookout. I dont doubt a well known grammarian's grasp of his language or his conclusions unless I have strong evidence to the contrary. The wide level of acceptability of a grammar among the speakers of a language is itself indicative of mainstream opinion about its authenticity and reliability in the old days.

We may take it that the greeks traded spices with kerala, and there may be coins that identify a kerala-based tamil (precursor to malayalam) dialect with sonants. That may still not explain mainstream tamil's phonetics.

The aksharas of the vallinam are not pronounced ka ca Ta ta pa ra; rather they are pronounced ka sa Da ta pa ra. Even what is clearly ca and Ta are pronounced as sa and Da.

arunk
Posts: 3424
Joined: 07 Feb 2010, 21:41

Post by arunk »

But this is not just about ca vs sa as used today. You are claiming it must be ka ta pa Ta everywhere today in order for it to be correct today. Please provide details as to how well accepted this is. I do not think this phonological interpretation of tokappiyam is first of all unambiguously accepted, and secondly even if so that it would be accepted by scholars as applicable to the language as practiced 2000 years later.

Arun
Last edited by arunk on 06 Jun 2009, 21:14, edited 1 time in total.

srkris
Site Admin
Posts: 3497
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 03:34

Post by srkris »

venkaTAcalapati is commonly mispronounced vengaDAjalabadi.

tancAvUr is mispronounced tanjAvur, pancam is mispronounced panjam. I hope no one doubts the non-existence of ja in tamil. Yet people unanimously use it.

It takes us no closer to old-tamil by claiming people use the mispronounced variant invariably.

The truth is not arrived at by averaging current opinion/usage.

arunk
Posts: 3424
Joined: 07 Feb 2010, 21:41

Post by arunk »

Although your quote is about a non-tamizh word, Agreed. But where is the question of "truth" here? You are saying a specific phonological interpretation of tolkAppiyam is the truth. Again, please provide evidence that clearly establishes it as so. If we are talking about truth, there should be little ambiguity here and no room for other interpretations. From what I can gather, this clearly is not the case among scholars and researchers.

While this specific one is a valid interpretation, at this point it is a theory. The act of raising it to truthhood is subjective at this point. Even if it was established so as for tolkAppiyam in particular 2000 years ago (which again is certainly a possibility), and even disregarding my point about how languages at any point always show variance, what bearing does it have today, 2000 years later? Take any old language and trace it back a millenium - you will find enough variance. So basically all of us in the world are using our respective languages incorrectly today in formal usage. I find little credence in that conclusion.

In any case, please quote tamizh scholars and/or research works who maintain that the first kural phonetically is: akara mutala ezhuttellAm Ati pakavan mutaRRE ulaku and claim it is the only correct way to do it today. Note this is very different from someone who claims "This must have been how tiruvalluvar intonated it in the tamizh practiced then".

Arun
Last edited by arunk on 06 Jun 2009, 23:11, edited 1 time in total.

arunk
Posts: 3424
Joined: 07 Feb 2010, 21:41

Post by arunk »

One more thought
It takes us no closer to old-tamil by claiming people use the mispronounced variant invariably.
???? But who beside you is even talking about "taking us closer to Old Tamil"? To put it bluntly, strict and full conformance to Old Tamil is as irrelevant, and useless in the context of formal usage today as Old English is to modern English, or Old/High German is to today's German. If we want correct usage of any language during a certain time, we should depend on books/works of that time - not ones ages earlier.

Arun
Last edited by arunk on 06 Jun 2009, 23:20, edited 1 time in total.

srkris
Site Admin
Posts: 3497
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 03:34

Post by srkris »

I agree. If the tolkappiyam is everyone's authority defining what is correct/standard tamil, I would call any deviations from it errors, regardless of whether it is old-tamil or modern tamil.

One cannot claim that one is speaking proper tamil (taking its authority as the tolkappiyam) if one does not actually follow the rules of old-tamil (tolkappiyam-tamil)

arunk
Posts: 3424
Joined: 07 Feb 2010, 21:41

Post by arunk »

srkris wrote:I agree. If the tolkappiyam is everyone's authority defining what is correct/standard tamil, I would call any deviations from it errors, regardless of whether it is old-tamil or modern tamil.

One cannot claim that one is speaking proper tamil (taking its authority as the tolkappiyam) if one does not actually follow the rules of old-tamil (tolkappiyam-tamil)
Well obviously you can certainly claim that and more. But regarding "tolkAppiyam is everyone's authority defining what is correct/standard tamil"? Is this so? Then, can you quote some modern grammatical works - which simply defer everything, and particularly phonology to tolkAppiyam (and thus Old Tamil i.e. only hard consonants etc.). If it indeed is everyone's authority an overwhelming % of them should corroborate what you say. If not, then your assertion is wrong, and so are all conclusions derived from it.

Arun
Last edited by arunk on 07 Jun 2009, 00:01, edited 1 time in total.

srkris
Site Admin
Posts: 3497
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 03:34

Post by srkris »

arunk wrote:Although your quote is about a non-tamizh word, Agreed. But where is the question of "truth" here?
The truth is the original (the authority), and where there is a deviation from the truth, it is false/erroneous.

There is a strong mainstream opinion about the inadmissibility of voicing in old-tamil (I am not talking about the acceptance levels of self-styled tamil scholars here but about the findings of critically acclaimed research by modern linguists). Calling it a mere theory will not diminish its importance (the scientific notion of a theory is a coherent and structured statement of conclusion together with evidence, it does not mean some poor guesstimate, as a dictionary meaning would imply). The theory of gravitation is also a "mere" theory but practically no one doubts its factuality. Granted there may be some odd self-styled non-mainstream people who have enough room to doubt gravitation, but you get the idea!

Also it does not matter if the general tamil speaking public does not consider something authentic or real or even relevant for their day-to-day speech. That is wholly another topic. That doesn't make what they speak right (if they hold the tolkappiyam as their authority for correct tamil).

Quoting the first Kural as "akara mutala...." may be an attempt to hint at the perceived absurdity of a strange phonology, which is the same as mocking it because it looks odd in the present day, rather than objectively studying it for what it's worth. You are making the mistake then of seeing the past through the tint of the present, which is not an academically sound approach. In other words, it is a logical fallacy. Linguists do not pre-judge the past of a language from the present.

Also you are making a judgement by claiming something is irrelevant and useless, while I am simply stating a fact (if one claims tolkappiyam as their authority on standard tamil, and still deviate from it when they speak standard tamil, they are erring) without judging the issue. I guess you did not then understand what I am upto.

srkris
Site Admin
Posts: 3497
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 03:34

Post by srkris »

I do not make a claim that everyone speaking tamil should follow tolkappiyam. I am only saying if the speakers themselves claim it as their authority for standard tamil, then if they deviate from it, they are erring.

If someone does not accept the tolkappiyam as the grammar of standard tamil (I am intentionally leaving out colloquial tamil here), then they can follow a different grammar and call it proper grammatical tamil (according to the other grammar), I dont have an issue with that.

vasanthakokilam
Posts: 10956
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 00:01

Post by vasanthakokilam »

srkris: This is getting to be too theoretical to sustain my interest. Obviously, what you say is true if one accepts all your premises. How can there be a debate? If I say tolkapiyam is my grammar and if I violate it, of course I am erring.

Let us answer this question in a very straightforward manner. What is the grammar and phonetics for today's formal tamil?

arunk
Posts: 3424
Joined: 07 Feb 2010, 21:41

Post by arunk »

I must say I still have not quite understood your intent here. Btw, your recent statement to the effect "let them call it something else other than tolkappiyam tamizh and I would fine" tells me I have wasted a whole lot of time and effort in this i.e. arguing about applicability of Old Tamil pronounciation to today. If you had said this from the beginning, I would have shut up as this is not worth debating. Based on this, your points about today's pronounciation seem simply argumentative and have really no merit of use to the topic of modern day formal tamizh phonology. So I am going to shut up after this post.

It seems like you have a problem with (presumably strong pro-tamizh?) people claiming that today's tamizh is a reflection of tolkAppiyam tamizh (when they talk about the greatness of tamizh etc. etc.) when they really cannot be identical. Like I said, please point me to a grammar book which says today's tamizh is identical to tolkAppiyam. Please point me to scholars who are claiming it as standard tamizh. In the absence of either, anyone claiming so is simply involved in rhetoric. And is there any reason to weight it more significantly? Is this that different from people passionate about carnatic music and Bharatanatyam claiming stronger (than really there) connections to Natya Sastra etc.?

BTW, as far as I can tell, no one here is confusing the issue with colloquial tamizh. All my posts (and vks) from the beginning is about formal tamizh but in the context of usage today.

That today's tamizh w.r.t pure tamizh words shares a lot of tolkAppiyam tamizh cannot be ignored. I mean it is not even as disconnected as how cm is w.r.t Sarngadeva or earlier works. But besides interpreting the statements of claims of strong connection to tolkAppiyam as greatness of for what it is, there is no need to believe that today's tamizh was identical to tamizh 2000 years ago. This would be untrue for any language.

BTW, I have asked you to provide some info on researchers who claim the facts you quoted i.e why no voicing is a strong mainstream opinion now - what evidence supports it, and how do we counter some of the evidence that runs contrary. You have not yet. Please do so. This is not a challenge now (not was it earlier). I had to go dig up the info myself. I do not think the link I quoted (i.e. works of Kuiper) was that bad - I did think it was from a linguistic scholar's perspective and not "self-styled scholars".


Arun
Last edited by arunk on 07 Jun 2009, 01:02, edited 1 time in total.

srkris
Site Admin
Posts: 3497
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 03:34

Post by srkris »

If I say tolkapiyam is my grammar and if I violate it, of course I am erring.
Now ask everyone what their grammar for tamil is. If they say tolkappiyam, and yet they say the standard tamil they speak is proper, then do you see a contradiction? I do.

What is modern standard tamil's grammar is a question of point of view.

I may say we should not claim tolkappiyam to be our grammar for modern-standard-tamil since no one can speak the tamil of the tolkappiyam even if they try (because the phonology no longer holds). In this case, I would be right in using modern tamil phonology on modern standard tamil.

For people who claim that modern standard tamil is tolkappiyam tamil, they would obviously err when they try to speak it.

In other words, we need another standard now, the tolkappiyam and its language is outdated. This is my view, since when everyone deviates from the standard, its time to change the standard rather than claiming no one deviates.

srkris
Site Admin
Posts: 3497
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 03:34

Post by srkris »

Like I said, please point me to a grammar book which says today's tamizh is identical to tolkAppiyam. Please point me to scholars who are claiming it as standard tamizh.
The tolkappiyam is the defacto grammar of tamil (similar to Panini's sutras for classical sanskrit) even today. In sanskrit whoever doesnt follow Paninian grammar is said to speak improper sanskrit. In tamil, people claim to follow tolkappiyam but do not actually follow it completely. Moreover, they still claim authority from the tolkappiyam even if they deviate from it.

If you know someone who claims that tolkappiyam is not their authority for modern standard tamil, I would like to know. The tolkappiyam is as universally accepted for tamil as the Ashtadhyayi is for sanskrit.

One need not explicitly claim that old tamil is identical with modern standard tamil. If one says "I am following the same grammar that tamils used to follow 1500 or 2000 years back", one is making that assertion implicitly that it is the same language. What is not practical about this? Do carnatic musicians or composers who deal with tamil kritis disassociate themselves from tolkappiyam or claim some other standard to be authoritative? So should they not (leave alone the voiced consonants) atleast pronounce the ca as ca instead of replacing it with one of the sibilants? What is so impractical about my question?

And yeah, we need a modern grammar to explain all the changes that have happened till today, and include all the phonemes of modern tamil.

It would look something like this:

a aa i ii u uu e ee ai o oo au H

ka ga nga ca ja nya Ta Da Na ta da na pa ba ma ya ra la va sa sha ha zha La Ra n2a

VK RAMAN
Posts: 5009
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 00:29

Post by VK RAMAN »

Are you equating and finding similarities with malayalam?

ragam-talam
Posts: 1896
Joined: 28 Sep 2006, 02:15

Post by ragam-talam »

srkris wrote:The tolkappiyam is the defacto grammar of tamil (similar to Panini's sutras for classical sanskrit) even today. In sanskrit whoever doesnt follow Paninian grammar is said to speak improper sanskrit.
An important distinction needs to be made here. Sanskrit has been a classical language, used mostly for formal occasions - hence has been 'preserved' in its original form, like Latin.
On the other hand, with Tamil being a more 'active' language, used by people in day-to-day life, you can expect some evolution from its original source. And some borrowing from other languages with which it had interacted over time.

vasanthakokilam
Posts: 10956
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 00:01

Post by vasanthakokilam »

I may say we should not claim tolkappiyam to be our grammar for modern-standard-tamil since no one can speak the tamil of the tolkappiyam
Fair enough.

Modern tamil is based on tolkappiyam but it does not strictly adhere to it. Would that sit with you well?

Personally, as a tamil speaker, I do not even remotely claim to know anything about tolkappiyam. Frankly, with 4 years of Tamil in high school where grammar was a major element of stufy, I do not think they even made a claim that they are teaching us excerpts from Tolkappiyam. All we know is the basis for the modern tamil is tolkappiyam and the language has evolved and it no longer follows that grammar and phonology.

So my honest question is, What is the modern standard tamil grammar? I am not trying to be argumentative.

( btw, I also sense a 'me' vs 'them' kind of vibe in your replies. I do not know who that 'they' are ( scholars, linguists, etc? ). I am only interested in finding out what the correct modern tamil pronounciation is for native tamil words ).

S.Govindaswamy
Posts: 47
Joined: 23 Oct 2006, 06:48

Post by S.Govindaswamy »

This discussion started with a query about guide to Tamil sounds, ca,sa,Sa and sha. As a large number of kRitis in Carnatic music are in Telugu and SamskRtam, Tamil musicians are facing trouble in pronunciation. I brought into the discussion the subject that as Tamil has only one letter each (க,ச,ட,த &ப)for hard consonants, there is confusion about pronunciation of names in other Indian languages. The discussion is now centered around evolution of sounds and scripts (ஒலி வடிவமà¯ÂÂ

rshankar
Posts: 13754
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:26

Post by rshankar »

Duplicate post in error!
Last edited by rshankar on 07 Jun 2009, 20:23, edited 1 time in total.

rshankar
Posts: 13754
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:26

Post by rshankar »

[quote="S.Govindaswamy"]Of course Adi and Bagavan are sanskrit words referring to Jain God, BhagavAn AdinAth. During TiruvLLuvar’s time were these read as Ati and pakavan?
In the next few verses these words are occur.
வேணà¯ÂÂ

srkris
Site Admin
Posts: 3497
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 03:34

Post by srkris »

vasanthakokilam wrote:So my honest question is, What is the modern standard tamil grammar? I am not trying to be argumentative.
There is no such thing as a separate grammar for modern standard tamil. Most people still claim tolkappiyam as the grammar for modern standard tamil, though they do not follow it fully. This the root cause of the confusion.

I therefore make a distintion between modern standard tamil and tolkappiyam tamil (old tamil). This distinction is real and it is recognized by professional linguists, and I am comfortable with it.

The me vs. them vibe is about the difference of opinion between the professional linguists (whom I follow) and most of the traditional tamil scholars who believe they are still following the standard i.e the tolkappiyam.

So what is the correct pronounciation? This can only be known if there is a standard to compare the spoken language against. If the standard is the tolkappiyam (as most claim), then the common modern pronunciation (to the extent it differs) is wrong. Else one should have a different standard to compare it with.

srkris
Site Admin
Posts: 3497
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 03:34

Post by srkris »

rshankar wrote:But as someone who has very strong views on how to pronounce certain words, I would like to know not merely the reference for the 'correct' pronunciation but the validity of that refernce as well. My point is, if there is a certain deviation from the 'standard', who has the right to say how much deviation is 'right', and when the deviation starts to be 'wrong'? For example, if 'mukam' was the 'original', and some one declared 'mugam' to be an acceptable deviation (and still correct), who has the right to determine that 'mukham' is inappropriate?
Precisely! Where is that standard to define what is correct tamil. It is the tolkappiyam, right? So as per tolkappiyam we are making mistakes when we deviate.

arunk
Posts: 3424
Joined: 07 Feb 2010, 21:41

Post by arunk »

This I agree. There is no standard for tamizh (there are certainly people using tolkappiyam when it fits them to fight against loan word pronounciation - but like I said, pure rhetoric, has little or no correlation to actual formal usage today). At best there is one for non-import words (the rules I had mentioned earlier which are in general what is followed today in literary circles), but the sheer number and ubiquity of loan words, and huge variance in how they are actually pronounced today, makes this of little significance.

ravi - "right vs. wrong" w.r.t language pronounciation is an extremely slippery slope and I think is an misguided notion at the core. For example, who is to say American prounciation is wrong English even when delivered from the most polished speaker (say President Obama)? Sure it is wrong per British standard (phonologically) but Obama's English would be near perfect per American Standard. Thus there are 2 standards - one could argue that American English is a different language from British English - not that different from Modern Tamil and Old Tamil. Many of the grammar rules are shared, just like Modern Tamil shares many (but not all) rules with Old Tamil.

But more importantly, how is the standard established? Is it some Body of people acting on the authority of all speakers? Does that make sense? It is as meaningless as people claiming "only music of this person is most authentic" (I find interesting correlation to what Sriram claims about pristine CM in the video whose link ragam-talam posted). IMO, a standard is formed in a very organic process via some sort of (informal) consensus among people generally recognized at authorities, and one that eventually, probably gets codified in some work during the time/era. But does this mean once a standard is set, everyone follows it to a tee then or is recognized as "faulty in their language"? Or more importantly, what is the "life of the standard"? Would it remain so for the next 1000 years? History proves this certainly wont be the case. Has the British standard remained constant for 1000 years? Languages are not constant - not at any point in time.

So regarding "who deemed muka is inappropriate" - at best one can say, per current informal consensus, this would be considered "non-standard" (rather than inappropriate) :) with the additional caveat that "what is the current tamil standard" itself may not be formally codified today :) ! Does that stop one from using it? No - only that one cares that the tamizh he/she speaks isn't deemed as "non-standard" by literary circles. He/She can argue till the cows come home that it was mukha in Sanskrit and thus muga is wrong, but the language that imported it has changed its phonology within its context, most people have accepted that change.

Arun
Last edited by arunk on 07 Jun 2009, 20:57, edited 1 time in total.

srkris
Site Admin
Posts: 3497
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 03:34

Post by srkris »

Surely Arun, you dont mean to say anything goes. There should be a difference between a genuine change in trend vs. an error. A change in trend should be shared across a group consistently over time.

Standards have their purpose. Without a standard, there is no prescriptive value to a language. Anyone will speak anything they like, and that may or may not make any sense to anyone else. It will become a state of anarchy.

Law has its own use whether people follow it or not. It is a standard to guide us on the distinction between acceptability and non-acceptability. If no one follows the standard (law), everyone is committing illegal acts. We can then either amend the law or hold everyone illegal.

Standards are formed out of a genuine necessity to prevent anarchy, and not because someone wanted to impose their notions of perfect language on the rest of the population.

arunk
Posts: 3424
Joined: 07 Feb 2010, 21:41

Post by arunk »

No no. I dont mean anything goes - because in order for "it to go", you need acceptance and consensus. What I meant is a standard doesnt get established "just like that" as in by say "one book", more importantly I dont meant to say standards remain unbroken - as they do are dynamic along with the language they represent. Standards certainly have a purpose until the language changes enough to require a new standard. I dont mean that the language is just unfettered from the standard - a standard once it is established does have a "limiting and a controlling" factor on the dynamics of the language - but change always wins in the end. The human nature to change is unstoppable. I think in the end usage of the language always tows (sp?) the standard, rather than the other way around.

To summarize: I do recognize the value of a standard - certainly. But it takes a while to take shape, and once it is done, it is not written in stone either.

Arun

vasanthakokilam
Posts: 10956
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 00:01

Post by vasanthakokilam »

>But as someone who has very strong views on how to pronounce certain words,

On a lighter note, I think this whole discussion should put a dent on that 'strong' opinion for the very same reasons you cite.

Also, if we can not even agree on currently prevailing rules for saying native tamil words, there is just no point in being a stickler for sanskrit words borrowed into tamil.
I thought there are 'tharchamam' and 'thatbhavam' type of rules for imports which can resolve questions for such words, but what trumps all that is the widely prevalent usage
even if it is not written down.

The infamous mukham vs mugam vs muham issue has to be resolved by that measure. Mukam would raise eyebrows and so it is out ;)
It is a bitter pill to swallow to let the majority of people make such decisions on imported words when they themselves make a lot of mistakes on other words. But that is how it is, fair or not. ( only solace is you can catch a lot of people say 'mugari' or 'muhari', we can pounce on them for that ;) )

On the other hand, using the sanskrit sound 'S' for 's' of native tamil words is not considered part of the standard tamil, that will be considered brahmin accent. So, we can fight about 'sOlai'' vs 'cOlai' but I think 'SOlai' is out by that yardstick. It is not 'vanDADum SOlai', it is 'vanDADum sOlai' ( or cynical srkris may claim it to be vanDADum cOlai ), it is not 'pazhamudirSOlai' it is 'pazhamudircOlai', etc.

On the 'what is the grammar for modern formal tamil':
We have a modern language which traces its origin to an ancient book but has deviated from it. The rules of this modern version is basically governed by what is taught in schools and how people
speak in formal circles. We had a subject, Tamil II, which was about Grammar and there was a standard text book for it. I do not know where that came from, probably a committee put that together. They never claimed it was strictly excerpted from Tolkappiyam.

So it does not make sense to me to take a black or white approach regarding tolkappiyam. Acknowledge deviations and move on. I am with Arun on that.

Srkris, whoever you say that claim that tamil grammar is tolkappiyam, are you sure they do not acknowledge that Tamil has changed?

I see the reason why people invoke Tolkappiyam. Though modern tamil has changed, when questions arise about Tamil's antiquity, quoting tolkappiyam is quite convenient. I personally do not have a problem with that. I do not think we need to disown tolkappiyam as Tamil's grammar for such purposes since the changes are not so monumental.

BTW, it need not have taken these many posts to get to where we are. I think we have a communication problem ( ironical, given the topic is about languages ).
It looks like you were cynical all along when you wrote that we all should speak 'inku', 'col', 'cOlai' etc. And now I understand that is all to point out the absurdity
of the claims by some who strongly claim that today's Tamil is exactly same as tolkappiyam tamil. Hope I got your drift right. ( I am still not 100% sure )

arasi
Posts: 16774
Joined: 22 Jun 2006, 09:30

Post by arasi »

My head is reeling and I haven't got anywhere near understanding this charade of what tamizh pronounciation ought to be (at least is acceptable) in this day and age.
Now, a related to music question where you are voicing the sounds (as opposed to reading it in tamizh script):
In singing, do you find it appealing and deem it correct if sanskrit words are pronounced in a tamizh song the same way as they are done in sanskrit? jagannAthA Sanka cakradharanE, or as in tamizh (jagannAtA, sanka cakradaranE?
Going back to cendUrAn (SendUrAn) unai Sindaiyil niRutti...how would each one of you sing it?

vasanthakokilam
Posts: 10956
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 00:01

Post by vasanthakokilam »

My criteria is, "will any odd pronounciation make me pay attention to that thus losing the focus on the song'.

If a word is not in Tamil puzhakkam, then sanskrit pronounciation is the one that works for me. So if someone sings it like Sanskrit, that will sound fine to me.

Second one, cendUrAn/SendUrAn can go either way but Sindaiyil will get me distracted for a couple of sangathis!!

arunk
Posts: 3424
Joined: 07 Feb 2010, 21:41

Post by arunk »

I think cm songs are a different animal because they use many sanskrit words in stock sanskrit phrases, that people are also used to hearing in telugu and sanskrit songs. But here also context is important. pAl vaDiyum mugam or un mugattil ... would be better than pAl vaDiyum mukham or un mukhattil but gajamukha would probably be better received than gajamuga (because we all treat stock sanskrit phrases as such even within a tamil composition). This is for a word like mukha that is well ingrained as muga in tamil usage. So you can imagine for lesser ingrained imports. But ultimately in tamizh usage (formal + colloqual), most of the consonants would be softened in the middle of the word because that is the phological rule today. So you will here vengadesh or vengades, sabAbadi etc. - it may be less so in formal usage compared to colloquial but it will be there to some extent. I think the script plays a lot of rule in paving way for this morph. I think if randomly poll 100 people in Tamil Nadu cities (small and big), I would think at least 75% would have names that are really Sanskrit based - you know the Ramesh, Suresh, Karthik etc. etc. :).

Now many may cringe, frown and scowl at all this as abomination (some of it is enhanced due to the value of assigned to Sanskrit by them) - but while such morphs are somewhat unique to tamizh in the Indian language spectrum, think of how some of the common christian names take variances in French, Spanish etc. etc. You have jorge (as something like hOrhE) for George, jacques for jack, eDuArd for Edward etc. etc. I mean it is all part of language dynamics that one language imports a word but changes it. In tamizh case, although I dont have all the data, I think it is somewhat of an extreme case because of the huge difference in phonology of it vs. say Sanskrit.

For me in CM context, "Sa" for sa is completely normal. So is vice-versa. I find it somewhat amusing that in CM circles use for "sa" (say saRRu) is considered less kosher than SaRRu. There seems a tendency to equate "saRRu" as colloquial since you see it in daily usage. Are people not paying enough attention to paTTi manDrams. vazhakkADu manDrams, and other tamizh soRpozhivus to see that "sa" instead of Sa is pretty much the standard?

Arun
Last edited by arunk on 09 Jun 2009, 03:24, edited 1 time in total.

gn.sn42
Posts: 396
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 23:56

Post by gn.sn42 »

A couple of articles by Harold Schifman may be of interest:

The Ausbau Issue in the Dravidian Languages: the Case of Tamil and the Problem of Purism (in this paper he has the purists going back "only" to the thirteenth century and the Nannul by Pavanandi)

[url=http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/pub ... zation.pdf]Standardization or restandardization: The case for "Standard"

S.Govindaswamy
Posts: 47
Joined: 23 Oct 2006, 06:48

Post by S.Govindaswamy »

Sridhar_rang started this thread asking if there is a definite guide for pronunciation of ச. I elaborate his question as "how a single letter ca (ச), in tamil can represent ,sa,Sa and sha, (స, శ & ష ; स,श & ष) in the kRitis in Carnatic music, a large number of which are in Telugu and SamskRtam. Tamil musicians are facing trouble in pronunciation. Although lot of useful information has been exchabged. The specific rules for pronunciation, if any, either in old or new Tamil grammar books, were given by any member.
By the time a child joined class I at the age of five, he/she already has a sizable vocabulory. Hence when the script teaching starts there is no confusion regarding pronunciation: ஆடà¯ÂÂ

vasanthakokilam
Posts: 10956
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 00:01

Post by vasanthakokilam »

Govindaswamy: It took us three days of back and forth with srkris in this thread to understand his corrections to our posts ( inku vs ingu etc. ) are just an indirect and rather intentionally cynical way to make the point that today's modern tamil does not follow tolkappiyam phonology and scholars should avoid invoking tolkappiyam when it is convenient to them. I only wish he had explicitly mentioned his intentions while correcting your rules. His corrections to your rules need to be understood in that context. What you wrote about modern tamil, which was subsequently commented on by Arun, made sense to me. ( I am sure srkris will provide the needed correction if I am not paraphrasing his views properly )

We should all go back to the way we normally speak Tamil ;) This thread can mess people up. In another thread, there is a modified reference to the thirukkuraL 'sevikkuNavillAdapOdu siridu vayitrukkum IappaDum'. As Arun pointed out about the first kuraL, tokappiyam will make you read it as 'CevikkuNavillATapOTu CiriTu vayitrukkum IyappaTum'. People will laugh at me as illiterate even if I claim till cows come home that this is tolkappiyam tamil. It is a nice comedy material for a tv show!

S.Govindaswamy
Posts: 47
Joined: 23 Oct 2006, 06:48

Post by S.Govindaswamy »

Vasanthakokilam: I am sorry to point out that although manyof the members have made lenghthy and scholarly postings, specific answers to the points originally raised have not been made. Not a single rule of pronunciation either from old Tamiz grammar, tolkAppiyaM , nannUl etc or modern tamiz grammar books has been quoted and explained by any member. I only posted the present practice of pronuncition which has so many variations, regional, caste etc.
Will any member, having access to these and knowledgable, please post do so, in order to keep the exchange focussed on the original question without flying off tangentially all the time?

Post Reply