Confusion between "tha" and "dha" [part 1/3]
Narasimham Iswara
to post articles. To reply personally to this articles send e-mails to
sur...@yesac.columbiasc.ncr.com - Suresh Kolichala ]
While telugus claims that their pronunciation of sanskrit is the
best and impeccable, we do not seem to realize that majority
of us mis-pronounce a particular letter almost always.
Yes, I am agian speaking about the letter "tha".
Most of the telugus, and particularly only telugus, mispronounce
the letter "tha" as "dha" (leave tamilians who have the same
letter for all the four sounds ta, tha, da, dha). Even the big
litterateurs of the telugu language do not seem to care to
distinguish these two letters. If such trend of replacing "tha"
with "dha" is allowed to continue soon the letter "tha" would
become extinct from telugu language.
Around an year ago I posted an article in telugu digest bringing
this wrong usage to the netters' notice. I am posting another in
the similar lines, as I find lot of people still using the "in-
correct dha" in place of "tha".
Consider these two letters:
_
/
_ /
\/
_____
/ \ This is "tha" as in katha, arthamu (meaning)
| 0 | rathamu (daaSarathi, atirathi, saarathi)
| ^ | nAth (jagannath, viSwanAth, veerendranAth)
\_/|\_/
|
_
/
_ /
\/
_____
/ \
| | This is "dha" as in dhanassu,
| ^ | dharmamu,
\_/|\_/ ardha (half) etc.
|
One might immediately ascribe such tendency to the "very small
difference between the representation of these letters in telugu
script".
But kannadigas who also have (almost the) same representation for
these two sounds dont seem to have any confusion in
distinguishing these letters and most of the common words telugus
mispronounce like katha, artha, etc., they seem to pronounce
correctly.
I want people to become aware of this common mistake and thus
help salvaging this "aksharam" and make it an a+ksharam (nASamu lEnidi)".
Regards,
Suresh.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
mAvi komma chivara madhu mAsa vELa
pallavamekki kOyila pADuTEla ?
parula taniyinchutako ? tana bAgu korako ?
gAna monarimpaka bratuku gaDapa bOko ?
------- kRshNa SAstri
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
--
Suresh. Kolichala (OFF): (803)-926-5528
NCR Corp., MCPD,E&M-Columbia sur...@yesac.columbiaSC.NCR.COM
C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering
>[ Thanks to Mr. Narasimham Iswara for allowing me to use his account
>to post articles. To reply personally to this articles send e-mails to
>sur...@yesac.columbiasc.ncr.com - Suresh Kolichala ]
>
>While telugus claims that their pronunciation of sanskrit is the
>best and impeccable, we do not seem to realize that majority
>of us mis-pronounce a particular letter almost always.
>Yes, I am agian speaking about the letter "tha".
>
>Most of the telugus, and particularly only telugus, mispronounce
>the letter "tha" as "dha" (leave tamilians who have the same
>letter for all the four sounds ta, tha, da, dha). Even the big
I think you don't understand tamil rule. Tamil does NOT have
4 sounds. The two sounds ( phonemes) tamil has namely
ta and da are well defined. The morpheme ( letter) is
just one but depending upon the well defined situations
it take one of two distinct 'sounds'. The rule as
specified in Tolkappiyam says 'ta' will be hard after
a hard pure consonant ( usaually pure 't') and at the beginning
of a word and elsewhere it will be 'da'.
For example 'pattu' = ten ( hard 't' since it is preceded by 't')
but 'pantu' = ball ( pronounced as pandu since the 'tu
is not preceded by hard letters, say
like 't')
at the beginning 'talai' = head the letter 'ta' is hard.
Tamil pronounciation is simple and clear. The confusion is only for
those who don't understand its system or for those who have to
unlearn 4-consonant habit.
>Suresh. Kolichala (OFF): (803)-926-5528
>NCR Corp., MCPD,E&M-Columbia sur...@yesac.columbiaSC.NCR.COM
-Selva
Zombie Dude
>
> I think you don't understand tamil rule. Tamil does NOT have
> 4 sounds. The two sounds ( phonemes) tamil has namely
> ta and da are well defined. The morpheme ( letter) is
> just one but depending upon the well defined situations
> it take one of two distinct 'sounds'. The rule as
> specified in Tolkappiyam says 'ta' will be hard after
> a hard pure consonant ( usaually pure 't') and at the beginning
> of a word and elsewhere it will be 'da'.
|__ (ta), |__ | | (taa)
______ ______ ______
| _|__ | _|__ | |
| |_| | (tha) | |_| | | | (thaa)
_____| _____| | |
| |
>
> For example 'pattu' = ten ( hard 't' since it is preceded by 't')
When U write this word in Tamil it sounds "paththu".
Don't U use "tha" rather than "ta" ?
> but 'pantu' = ball ( pronounced as pandu since the 'tu
> is not preceded by hard letters, say
> like 't')
Same as above!
> at the beginning 'talai' = head the letter 'ta' is hard.
Same!
J Anand.
--
There are glimpses of heaven to us in every act, or thought, or word,
that raises us above ourselves.
-- Arthur P. Stanley
Suresh Kolichala
> >
> > For example 'pattu' = ten ( hard 't' since it is preceded by 't')
>
> When U write this word in Tamil it sounds "paththu".
I think selva was conforming to SCIT standard of representation.
Even I also initially mistook it to be "Ta", as in paaTTu (song).
Regards,
Suresh.
Suresh Kolichala
> I personally think that this virtual extinction of "th" is a
> part of the natural evolutionary process of the language. Who really
> mourns the disappearance of sakaTa re'pham and
> ardhaanusvaaram nowadays? So it will be with "th" ( _may_ be, see 2
> below.)
I consider it as an aberration which needs to be corrected than a
part of the evolution to be accepted.
Imagine, teaching to the later generation the alphabets
of telugu as "ta, da, dha, na", with omission of "tha".
With still 1/2 of the telugus (I dont have exact figures of what is
telangAna's population) speaking it right, I think we are not prepared
to see the death of "tha". We still find lots of places where people
use the letter "tha". All the puritans still use the word "tha".
Our magazines one would find the same word once used with letter "tha"
and find in the same page the same word is used with "dha". Thus "tha"
is not totally forgotten. There just seems to be a prevailing confusion
(only with one section of telugus) as related to the usage of these letters.
And if right people take necessary steps, I think, it would not take much
efforts to correct this aberration.
>
> One may quibble that sakaTa re'pham and ardhaanusvaaram are Telugu
> letters while the "th"-->"dh" transformation is a mangling of Sanskrit
> words, which should be pronounced as intended in the original
> language.
Let me organize my view-point:-
1. I think, we cannot afford loosing the common vocabulary which works as
cultural bridge between most of the indian languages.
2. Not all the telugus replace "tha" with "dha", so when we have choice
to define the standard of telugu, why not retain the original sound.
3. In the ancient times, the language took every random course it could take
without much logic behind that. We are very well aware of the problems with
the illogicity of the all the natural languages. But I think, in this age, we
cannot (and should not) allow the language to take any illogical twist, and
the efforts I think are in that direction to make languages more and more
logical and simpler to learn and use, (that is why the SakaTa rEpha and
ardhanusvAra disappeared). We can see through that the development
of language is done in a logical and systematic way in contrast to how it
happened in the past. Thus with as more and more people are becoming
literate, they would understand if they are explained why it should be
pronounced as "tha" than "dha". Does anyone concur with me ?
Regards,
Suresh.
--
Suresh Kolichala (OFF): (803)-926-5528
NCR Corp., MCPD,E&M-Columbia sur...@yesac.columbiaSC.NCR.COM
=============================================================================
nEnoka durgam
nAdoka swargam
anargaLam, anitara sAdhyam naa mArgam
--SrISrI
=============================================================================
C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering
Zombie Dude <jan...@vela.acs.oakland.edu> wrote:
>In article <CD9w1...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> selv...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering) writes:
>>
>> I think you don't understand tamil rule. Tamil does NOT have
>> 4 sounds. The two sounds ( phonemes) tamil has namely
>> ta and da are well defined. The morpheme ( letter) is
>> just one but depending upon the well defined situations
>> it take one of two distinct 'sounds'. The rule as
>> specified in Tolkappiyam says 'ta' will be hard after
>> a hard pure consonant ( usaually pure 't') and at the beginning
>> of a word and elsewhere it will be 'da'.
> ___
> |__ (ta), |__ | | (taa)
>
> ______ ______ ______
> | _|__ | _|__ | |
> | |_| | (tha) | |_| | | | (thaa)
> _____| _____| | |
> | |
>
>>
>> For example 'pattu' = ten ( hard 't' since it is preceded by 't')
>
> When U write this word in Tamil it sounds "paththu".
> Don't U use "tha" rather than "ta" ?
When I write in SCT I use 'tha' instead of 'ta'
since the tranliteration schemes vary between sct and scit.
I think the original poster realized on his own. Sorry
if I've introduced some confusion.
Partly anticipating this I included the meaning of the words.
>> but 'pantu' = ball ( pronounced as pandu since the 'tu
>> is not preceded by hard letters, say
>> like 't')
> Same as above!
>> at the beginning 'talai' = head the letter 'ta' is hard.
>
> Same!
>
>
>J Anand.
>
>--
>There are glimpses of heaven to us in every act, or thought, or word,
>that raises us above ourselves.
> -- Arthur P. Stanley
-Selva
Ramarao Kanneganti
>>
>> I personally think that this virtual extinction of "th" is a
>> part of the natural evolutionary process of the language. Who really
>> mourns the disappearance of sakaTa re'pham and
>> ardhaanusvaaram nowadays? So it will be with "th" ( _may_ be, see 2
>> below.)
>
>I consider it as an aberration which needs to be corrected than a
>part of the evolution to be accepted.
:-), you must read the article, _Sakata rEkha yuktaayukta vivEchani_.
>
>With still 1/2 of the telugus (I dont have exact figures of what is
>telangAna's population) speaking it right, I think we are not prepared
>to see the death of "tha". We still find lots of places where people
>use the letter "tha".
Why fight the trend? What does it mean by correct Telugu if 50%
falling either way? Anyway, a good excersize is finding the minimal
pairs.
Therefore all I ask you is to come up with a few words that differ in
oly one place. By replacing tha with dha you get the other word.
Mind you, these words should be common.
Example of minimal pairs for ta and da:
1) matamu -- madamu
2) taggu -- daggu
3) tummu -- dummu
>Let me organize my view-point:-
>
>1. I think, we cannot afford loosing the common vocabulary which works as
>cultural bridge between most of the indian languages.
>2. Not all the telugus replace "tha" with "dha", so when we have choice
>to define the standard of telugu, why not retain the original sound.
>
>3. In the ancient times, the language took every random course it could take
>without much logic behind that. We are very well aware of the problems with
>the illogicity of the all the natural languages. But I think, in this age, we
>cannot (and should not) allow the language to take any illogical twist, and
>the efforts I think are in that direction to make languages more and more
>logical and simpler to learn and use, (that is why the SakaTa rEpha and
>ardhanusvAra disappeared). We can see through that the development
>of language is done in a logical and systematic way in contrast to how it
>happened in the past. Thus with as more and more people are becoming
>literate, they would understand if they are explained why it should be
>pronounced as "tha" than "dha". Does anyone concur with me ?
Languages, except the ones appropriated by the organized religion,
tend to become simpler over the times. And, the times reflect the need
to change the language. I respectfully submit that our language needs
a sound that represents "a" in English such as "damn!!" I burst out
laughing when I see it written as "DEm!!" or "Dyaam!!" With more and
more english entering out language, we require such a sound to
meaningfully transliterate.
I think there are several more candidates for the alphabet soup, which
are more useful than "tha". Even though they logically make sense,
historically it might not. That is, people have extrordinary
resistence to new ideas.
Bapa Rao
>I consider it as an aberration which needs to be corrected than a
>part of the evolution to be accepted.
>
>Imagine, teaching to the later generation the alphabets
>of telugu as "ta, da, dha, na", with omission of "tha".
I think that if there is a need to teach a child ta, tha etc. it will
be taught. If not, "tha" will become vestigial like alu-aluu or the
banDi-ra.
Specifically considering "tha", I can't think of any native Telugu
words that contain "tha". If it comes to the correct pronunciation of
tatsamas containing "tha", my point is that modified pronunciation for
_all_ import words is normal due to "naluguDu" (mastication) of the
words in Telugu mouths, so why the special concern about correct
pronunciation and writing of tatsamas containing "tha"? Are we
pronouncing English words as the native speakers would pronounce them?
If not, then we have even more freedom with Sanskrit, where there are
_no_ native speakers!
Further, (to my knowledge) virtually every living language in the
world treats import words in a similarly cavalier fashion. So, rather
than occassioning concern, the example of "tha" should serve to teach
us something about the evolution of our language.
>
>With still 1/2 of the telugus (I dont have exact figures of what is
>telangAna's population) speaking it right, I think we are not prepared
>to see the death of "tha". We still find lots of places where people
>use the letter "tha". All the puritans still use the word "tha".
>Our magazines one would find the same word once used with letter "tha"
>and find in the same page the same word is used with "dha". Thus "tha"
>is not totally forgotten. There just seems to be a prevailing confusion
>(only with one section of telugus) as related to the usage of these letters.
>And if right people take necessary steps, I think, it would not take much
>efforts to correct this aberration.
I don't disagree that correct pronunciation and spelling must be
encouraged. But we should also be aware that gradual and incremental
change is a natural property of every living language, so that what is
correct today will be archaic tomorrow.
>1. I think, we cannot afford loosing the common vocabulary which works as
>cultural bridge between most of the indian languages.
Hindi people say "shri", we say "s'ri". Does it mean that we have
burnt our bridges with Hindi?
>2. Not all the telugus replace "tha" with "dha", so when we have choice
>to define the standard of telugu, why not retain the original sound.
As I pointed out, those who don't replace "tha" with "dha" _tend_ to
replace it with "ta", still "incorrect", so your premise is moot.
"Standard" of a language is a real, but vague, flexible, and evolving
concept. Language police are at best an exercise in futility (as in
the case of the French Academy) and at worst can be fatal to the
language, as in the case of Sanskrit.
>3. In the ancient times, the language took every random course it could take
>without much logic behind that. We are very well aware of the problems with
>the illogicity of the all the natural languages. But I think, in this age, we
>cannot (and should not) allow the language to take any illogical twist, and
>the efforts I think are in that direction to make languages more and more
>logical and simpler to learn and use, (that is why the SakaTa rEpha and
>ardhanusvAra disappeared). We can see through that the development
>of language is done in a logical and systematic way in contrast to how it
>happened in the past. Thus with as more and more people are becoming
>literate, they would understand if they are explained why it should be
>pronounced as "tha" than "dha". Does anyone concur with me ?
No offense, but I find this rather quixotic. Languages evolve by
Natural Selection, to correspond to the changes in the sounds and
thought concepts that its native speakers employ. Those that fail to
do this will gradually decline. In that sense, a living language, by
definition, has always evolved in a "logical" direction otherwise it
wouldn't be here today. banDi-ra and arasunna were pure Telugu
characters that represented sounds uttered commonly by Telugu people at
one time. The sounds became extinct, and the letters became defunct.
Someone compared language to a river. Your idea is akin to controlling
the flow of the river. Firstly, I don't think that there ever will be
adequate social mechanisms to accomplish this effectively with a
living language. Secondly, even if it were accomplished, the language will,
like a river dammed, will lose its vitality and may well perish.
I would say, though, as the media of communication evolve, the ways
in which the language evolves will change. It is interesting to
speculate that your "tha"-->"dha" example may be a classic example of
this: they look almost identical in print, especially on cheap paper.
Literate people may have unconsciously developed the habit of
conflating the two sounds when reading. An indicator of this is the
correlation between the literacy rates of Andhra and Telangana on the
one hand and the prevalence of the confusion of the sounds on the
other hand. If my speculation is correct, then actually the right way
to accomplish your goals in the case of "tha"-->"dha" would be to make
people illiterate!
Thanks for bringing up an interesting discussion.
(My comments all refer to _spoken_ Telugu.)
Bapa Rao
My personal views.
u v babu srinivas
%
% But we should also be aware that gradual and incremental
% change is a natural property of every living language, so that what is
% correct today will be archaic tomorrow.
and
% Languages evolve by Natural Selection, to correspond to the changes in
% the sounds and thought concepts that its native speakers employ. Those that
that's YOUR THEORY.
Language didn't evolve. Its origin was divine.
And it was Perfect.
-- srinivas udu...@vanilla.wpi.edu
C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering
>In article <1993Sep13....@cybernet.cse.fau.edu> isw...@cse.fau.edu (Suresh Kolichala) writes:
>>pronounced as "tha" than "dha". Does anyone concur with me ?
>
>Languages, except the ones appropriated by the organized religion,
>tend to become simpler over the times. And, the times reflect the need
>to change the language. I respectfully submit that our language needs
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>a sound that represents "a" in English such as "damn!!" I burst out
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>laughing when I see it written as "DEm!!" or "Dyaam!!" With more and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>more english entering out language, we require such a sound to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>meaningfully transliterate.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[1] I agree that indian languages do not have the
'a' phoneme as in 'fat' ( compared to fate)
[ other exampples are mat, mate etc..)
[2] If needed a letter can be created ( or 'a' or 'e'
can be modified to to refer this sound.
In fact I had been using in personal letters
in tamil suing a special symbol for this 'a' and
the phoneme 'f'. But the important question is
should one increase the alphabet set ( there are
ever so many that will keep coming up; there are many
French sounds that can neither be represented in
English or indian languages .. and so many other
nuances too)
[3] You said you laughed when 'damn' is written as DEm.
I can understand that DEm does not sound as damn but
it is natural, though it soundfs funny if you don't
expect a distortion. My name is selvakumar and english
language has _all_ the phonemes in this name but none of the
native english speakers pronounce it correctly.
Some say selVAEkumar, some selvakUUUmar, selvakuMAEr
^^^^
\__ here AE as in damn :-)
and this is because English is used to placing an
emphasis on a syllable while sel-va-ku-mar has an
_even_ emphasis on all syllables which is SO DIFFICULT
to native english speakers. Many tamil phonemes
can not be weitten in english and it will be difficult
to properly write these without additional devices..
My point is nothing to laugh about and such distortions
are inevitable, unless one generates a cumbersome set of
letters. Does english has the 'a' in damn ? NO.
Does english has 'a' as in 'See ya !' ( some write ciao).
English has just a 'convention' to pronounce in a particular
way certain words and the pronoinciation varies wildly
across the english speaking world ( Liverpool, Texas,
Australia, Canada, 'standard British', etc..).
English is extremely inconsistent and a very unphonetic
language ( put-but, that-fat-fate and so on). If we can not
write and say Faraday but can only write FAradE or even
pAraDE ( like tamils do )why should we worry ? English
can not wirte or say tamil pazhani , a place name nor
can english write or pronounce one of the germanic place
names like Koeln, although English is a germanic language.
My point is why not accept the distortion as natural.
[ I know that some confusion can arise from some
word-sets but so what ? Are we writing english in telugu ?
Japanese is good at samshing english words until it sounds
something like a japanese words, I'm told ]
>
>I think there are several more candidates for the alphabet soup, which
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Needed ?
>are more useful than "tha". Even though they logically make sense,
>historically it might not. That is, people have extrordinary
>resistence to new ideas.
>
>
>
>>Regards,
>>Suresh.
>>--
>>Suresh Kolichala (OFF): (803)-926-5528
>>NCR Corp., MCPD,E&M-Columbia sur...@yesac.columbiaSC.NCR.COM
>>=============================================================================
>>nEnoka durgam
>>nAdoka swargam
>>anargaLam, anitara sAdhyam naa mArgam
>> --SrISrI
>>=============================================================================
>
>
-Selva
Seetamraju UdayaBhaskar Sarma
+ I think you don't understand tamil rule. Tamil does NOT have
+ 4 sounds. The two sounds ( phonemes) tamil has namely
+ ta and da are well defined. The morpheme ( letter) is
+ just one but depending upon the well defined situations
+ it take one of two distinct 'sounds'. The rule as
+ specified in Tolkappiyam
+ For example 'pattu' = ten ( hard 't' since it is preceded by 't')
+ but 'pantu' = ball ( pronounced as pandu since the 'tu
+ is not preceded by hard letters, say
+ like 't')
+ at the beginning 'talai' = head the letter 'ta' is hard.
Thiru Selvakumar (I remember article wherein you (?) were against "Sri"
-- Just noting that - nothing more. This goes on scit also!)
I have questoin that I couldnt answer myself. Maybe you can tell us
how tamil is managing in this regard.
For one, tamilians also use samskRtam words. I saw the telugu dubbing
of "daLapati" - which I heard was so named in tamiL also.
Its a samskRtam word. Please explain how the rules have been changed
(the above rule you mentioned) to enable new words to enter the language.
I am observing such mangling of grammer w.r.t. new words (especially the
urdu and hindi and english) that have entered telugu. Cant give an
example off the head right away.
You seem to have an intricate historical knowledge of the tamil language
in general.
Hoping for a concise response PLEASE.
Sorry for bringing back an old thread. (Catching up on usenet).,...
+ Tamil pronounciation is simple and clear. The confusion is only for
+ those who don't understand its system or for those who have to
+ unlearn 4-consonant habit.
---
Seetamraju Udaya Bhaskar Sarma
(email : seetam @ nova . eng . wayne . edu)
Please check if the address you are replying to is the above.
Seetamraju UdayaBhaskar Sarma
+With still 1/2 of the telugus (I dont have exact figures of what is
+telangAna's population) speaking it right, I think we are not prepared
+to see the death of "tha"
.................
+And if right people take necessary steps, I think, it would not take much
+efforts to correct this aberration.
1/2 the population !
Here in detroit we had a second priest for teh "bharatiiya temple", which
has larger participation by NI than by SI. (Say about 80-20), though
there are equal # of NI and SI. But the first purOhitulu was a telugu
person - Srii jaanakiiraama Saastrii. When they hired another purohit
from Delhi ( to even out the imbalance ) it turned out he too was of`
telugu origin, but knew little telugu and all hindi.
And no one believed that he was a telugu for one single reason.
His pronunciation was
XXXXXXXXXXXXX sidhyar__th__am
rather than sidhyaa__dh__am -- it is a very commonly occuring Sabdam
in mantraalu.
Go figure !
+3. In the ancient times, the language took every random course it could take
+without much logic behind that. We are very well aware of the problems with
+the illogicity of the all the natural languages.
Logic never works. Using Logic our seers and sages rejected materialism.
What are we doing today ?
Again logic says english should be obselete no matter what. Ever seen
a language spread as crazyly as it has ?
Seetamraju UdayaBhaskar Sarma
+Languages, except the ones appropriated by the organized religion,
+tend to become simpler over the times. And, the times reflect the need
+to change the language. I respectfully submit that our language needs
+a sound that represents "a" in English such as "damn!!" I burst out
+laughing when I see it written as "DEm!!" or "Dyaam!!" With more and
+more english entering out language, we require such a sound to
+meaningfully transliterate.
Something I tried to make as a new thread a while ago. Given that
this is a more open world wherein words and pronunciations from all
parts of the world enter our languages, is there any sense in trying
to comeup with a "truly phonetic" extension of our telugu language ?
English and Tamil are doing just great. I dont see people complaining
about the use of "rama" as the spelling for male and female names ?
And do you really think you can "phonetize" <Reagan> as its
EXACTLY pronounced by the americans? Do you wanna add an "amerika ra"
to the alphabet ?
The whole raison de etre of "phonetic" scripts loses sense today.
Let's "anglicise" our scripts. And yes, "DEm" is quite unsightly,
but the next generation weaned completely on english wont be complaining.
+I think there are several more candidates for the alphabet soup, which
+are more useful than "tha". Even though they logically make sense,
+historically it might not. That is, people have extrordinary
+resistence to new ideas.
Its not resistence. Its just "Why do it, when we are all shifting
over to english" attitude.
C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering
Seetamraju UdayaBhaskar Sarma <see...@eng.wayne.edu> wrote:
>In article 7...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca, selv...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering) writes:
>
>
>Thiru Selvakumar (I remember article wherein you (?) were against "Sri"
> -- Just noting that - nothing more. This goes on scit also!)
I don't think so, but I sure will prefer tamils using thiru to
address other tamil males in formal address ( will look awkward between
friends :-) ). Even Sri is in my
opinion from tamil sIr > sIraaLar etc. :-) [ but let us not
debate this, at least for now - just a flame bait -please
ignore :-)]
>
>I have questoin that I couldnt answer myself. Maybe you can tell us
>how tamil is managing in this regard.
>
>For one, tamilians also use samskRtam words. I saw the telugu dubbing
>of "daLapati" - which I heard was so named in tamiL also.
>Its a samskRtam word. Please explain how the rules have been changed
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
First, 'thaLapathi' is NOT a sanskrit word but a Tamil word.
thaLam = army ( tamil 'padai'). In general 'thaLam' means
'thick, dense, enriched, strengthened'.
'thaLameduththal' is a verbal form meaning 'to send army forces'.
'thaLam' means 'ceiling, floor, stage' ,
'thaLavAdam' means weapons
thaLavAy = thaLapathi
[ the root word apears to be 'thaL' = to be able, to be capable,
to bear;
the word 'thaLLaamai' means ' inability and 'thaLLuthal' means
'to bear, to withstand', thus 'thaLam' is used for ceiling or floor
since it 'bears' ]
The popular hindi word 'dal' is thus hindiization of tamil word
thaLam ( a plank, party, stage, a force)
Therefore the word in tamil is pronounced with a hard 'tha'
( for scit folks 'ta'). Thus the rule of initial hard consonant
to be pronounced as hard is not changed.
However, if we assume some other word with an initial 'da', then
tamil will still let it be pronounced as 'ta' although
those who wish to retain the original sound 'da'
will pronounce as 'da'.
[ I can cite the name 'damayanti' which tamils using tamil rule
can pronounce only as 'tamayandi' although there are ways
to overcome this, they are not preferred ]
As you might guess, three different 'ta' will be transformed into
one 'ta' and it is inevitable ( although there are methods to
carefully transliterate like the subscripts used in musical
works or other methods using the 'Aytha' letter).
>(the above rule you mentioned) to enable new words to enter the language.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
New words will enter with tamilized pronounciation. Why should
original pronounciation be kept when used in tamil ?
>
>I am observing such mangling of grammer w.r.t. new words (especially the
>urdu and hindi and english) that have entered telugu. Cant give an
>example off the head right away.
>You seem to have an intricate historical knowledge of the tamil language
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>in general.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thanks for the complement but I'm sure there are many out there
with better knowledge...
>
>Hoping for a concise response PLEASE.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hope this is concise enough ?!
>
>Sorry for bringing back an old thread. (Catching up on usenet).,...
>
>
>
>+ Tamil pronounciation is simple and clear. The confusion is only for
>+ those who don't understand its system or for those who have to
>+ unlearn 4-consonant habit.
>
>---
>Seetamraju Udaya Bhaskar Sarma
>(email : seetam @ nova . eng . wayne . edu)
>Please check if the address you are replying to is the above.
>
-Selva