Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Telugu terms for vowels and consonants

[narayanan er]

Dear Sh. Nityanand Misra,

Telugu, Kannada and Malayalam have all vowels and consonants that Sanskrit have and moreover short vowels for ए and ओ too (but Sanskrit एचामपि द्वादश, तेषां ह्रस्वाभावात्). But Tamil does not have ऋ ऌ etc. Tamil Consonants: first and fifth group letters are well there. A few more which are not in Sanskrit. No ac and hal concept is applicable in Tamil, but there are all ac and hal in the rest of three languages. In Malayalam also അച്ചുകള്‍ (accukal) and ഹല്ലുകള്‍ (hallukal) are used on the basis of Sivasutra pratyahara sutras. All Sanskrit syllables plus a few from Tamil are also there in Malayalam.

In Tamil it is not possible to have an ac hal system like Sivasutra pratyahara sutras. Please see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_language

Regards,

Narayanan

---

From: Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, 28 September 2012 5:51 AM
Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Telugu terms for vowels and consonants

Namaste

I was reading the Wikipedia article on Telugu script under http://te.wikipedia.org/wiki/తెలుగు_లిపి.

I noted that in the article, the vowels are called అచ్చులు (acculu) and the consonants are called హల్లులు (hallulu). Are these standard terms for vowels and consonants in Telugu? My intuition tells me the terms come from the अच् (ac) and हल् (hal) pratyāhāras in Paninian grammar, but I would like to confirm.

Are these terms or similar terms used in other Dravidian languages as well?

How about Tolkāppiyam - does that use any Samskrita/Paninian technical terms?

I would be much obliged if the Dākṣiṇātya scholars on the forum can throw some light on this.

Thanks, Nityanand

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
to subscribe go to the link below and put a request
https://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat/subscribe
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com

[Sivasenani Nori]

Yes, they are the standard terms. డు, ము, వు, లు (Du, mu, vu, lu) are the prathamaa vibhakti pratyayas in Telugu, which when attached to అచ్ (ach) and హల్ (hal) result in అచ్చులు (acchulu) and హల్లులు (hallulu).

 

If one has seen the Praakrit grammar of Vararuchi, what is striking is that the language described is Prakrit(s), but the language used to describe is Sanskrit. A somewhat similar situation obtains in Telugu; the grammar (బాలవ్యాకరణము, baalavyaakaraNamu) is actually in Telugu, but the influence of Sanskrit is very strong with words like తుమునర్థకము (tumunarthakamu), క్త్వాంతములు (ktvaantamul) etc. being used. Almost all scholarly books I have seen speak of Telugu as a Dravidian language, but as a native speaker, I see that 90% of the words are derived from Sanskrit roots - now I do not understand the nomological status of a science (Linguistics) which classifies languages like this. Rajeev Malhotra's "Breaking India" seems to offer a reason: the Aryan-Dravidian divide was engineered by the Imperialists as part of the 'Divide and rule strategy'. It is not merely the experience with language; as per traditional reckoning Maharashtrians are amongst the panchadraaviDas (example: consider the eminent cricketer, Rahul Dravid, a Maharashtrian whose family name itself is Dravid) and Guajratis amongst the daSadraaviDas. There are many similarities between Marathi and Telugu, but the one is an Indo-Aryan language and the other, a Dravidian language. Meanwhile, most of the classical Telugu poets (who have written prabandhas etc.) till the seventeenth century (in fact, many even in twentieth century, like Viswanatha Satyanarayana who had characters called haahaa and hUhU speak in Prakrit in one of his historic novels) knew Telugu, Sanskrit and eight Prakrits. Sanskrit was not merely a necessary language to know; many poems would also count as poems in Sanskrit. For instance, in the Daasarathi Satakam of Kancherla Gopanna (Bhakta Ramadas), the first six poems, all using only sambodhana-prathamaa-vibhakti, would count as Sanskrit poems as well. Then, there is this saying about Telugu poets (like Srinatha) writing in Sanskrit, with Du, mu, vu, lu (i.e Telugu vibhakti pratyayas) attached to claim them as Telugu poems. All the vrittas of Sanskrit are used to compose poems in Telugu as well, sometimes with additional yati and praasa niyamas. (There are also Telugu meters, not to be found in Sanskrit, but the Sanskrit vrittas are very common, maybe more than half in the major kaavyas). When it comes to poetics or alankaara Saastra, KaavyprakaaSa remains the most popular. After all, most examples of sambhoga Sringaara in AlankaaraSaastra are in Maahaaraashtri or Sauraseni - so it is no wonder that the tenets of the Saastra apply in all languages, or that Indian languages use the work for the evaluation of their own poetic works. Recently I was reading the evaluation of YenkipaaTalu, which is written in a dialect of Telugu, which stands in the same relation to 'standard' Telugu, as would Sauraseni to Sanskrit, (in Telugu there are two types of words - prakriti and vikriti; say, katha and kata; though the vikriti words are Telugu only, they are typically used for non-learned characters and the derivation of these words clearly requires more steps, sometimes using the rules of Vararuchi's Prakrit grammar itself) based totally on the Dhvanyaaloka framework. In short, one cannot view literary Telugu separately from Sanskrit [1].

 

Yet, a mere hundred years later, in early nineteenth century, we have this new family of Dravidian languages - which by way of repetition over 150 years culminates in educated North Indians (with more than a fair exposure to South India, enough to be able to read South Indian scripts) to be surprised at the amount of Sanskrit to be found in these 'Dravidian' languages! I think the way linguistics is taught in India needs to be changed and the point needs to be made that the so-called Dravidian languages indeed have many common Dravidian roots like kai (hand), but that Telugu, Kannada and Malayalam are much closer to Sanskrit than is generally believed now; surely less closer than Marathi and Gujarati, but not by a long way. This is not merely a more factually correct position, but it has ramifications in terms of the self-impression that our countrymen have of our country. That apart, books on linguistics in Indian languages need to be updated. The book of Kapildev Dwivedi on Bhaasha Saastra (in Hindi) is an excellent introduction but quite dated with all the new developments in linguistics. At least these kind of books should bring out the close affinity between the major South Indian languages and Sanskrit.

 

Regards

N. Siva Senani

 

[1] There are kaavyas like Yayaaticharitra written in jaanutenugu, or pure Telugu without using words derived from Sanskrit roots, but these are a small subset of Telugu literature (I know of 3 or so jaanutenugu kaavyas, compared to about 50-60 standard Telugu kaavyas) and most people would require koSas to understand them.

[Dr. Tirumala Kulakarni]

Namaskara

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste

I was reading the Wikipedia article on Telugu script under http://te.wikipedia.org/wiki/తెలుగు_లిపి.

I noted that in the article, the vowels are called అచ్చులు (acculu) and the consonants are called హల్లులు (hallulu). Are these standard terms for vowels and consonants in Telugu? My intuition tells me the terms come from the अच् (ac) and हल् (hal) pratyāhāras in Paninian grammar, but I would like to confirm.

Are these terms or similar terms used in other Dravidian languages as well?

As per my knowledge Kannada Vyakarana books use the words स्वर and व्यंजन.

By the by, in day to day Kannada hundreds of words from Araby and Persian have entered, resulting the % of Sanskrit words less.

TK

How about Tolkāppiyam - does that use any Samskrita/Paninian technical terms?

I would be much obliged if the Dākṣiṇātya scholars on the forum can throw some light on this.

Thanks, Nityanand

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
to subscribe go to the link below and put a request
https://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat/subscribe
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com

--
Dr. Tirumala Kulakarni
Asst. Prof. Alankara Dept.
Poornaprajna Vidyaapeetha
Vidyapeetha Circle
BANGALORE 560 028
Ph: +91 9448879734

[Ganesh R]

Dear Sri Shivasenaani,

Your views are true and as is the case of Telugu so is that of Kannada
and Malayaalam. Even Tamil derives much from Sanskrit.Since long I
have been writing on these aspects and a book will follow soon by me
in Kannada. Thanks for sharing your keen observations. I have also
noticed these and the like during my studies in Telugu.


regards

ganesh

[V Subrahmanian]

Namaste.

I have been looking at the topic for quite a long time now.  Once, by chance, I discovered the Tamil colloquial word 'kasmAlam' (it is a word to rebuke someone/something as useless/junk/absolutely devoid of any value) as having come from the Sanskrit word 'kashmalam'.  In fact the word to denote 'grammar' in Tamil is 'ilakkaNam' which is nothing but the corrupt form of the Sanskrit 'lakShaNam'.  In Kambaramayanam each section is named a 'paTalam' which is a Sanskrit word.  The name 'tamizh' itself is, I think, a corrupt form of 'DramiDa'/'draviDa.  'Tol-kAppiam' has the word 'kAvyaH' in the name itself.   In fact the five mahAkAvya-s of ancient Tamil: 'silappadikAram', jIvaka-chintAmaNi, vaLayApati, kunDalakesi and maNimekalai - all contain easily recognizable Sanskrit words.

The name 'veShTi' for dhoti is from the Sanskrit 'veShTanam'.  A student is called 'mANavan'. A sari is called 'chelai' (chelam of sanskrit).

Regards
subrahmanian.v 

[narayanan er]

Dear Sh. Nityanand Misra,
உயிர் எழுத்து (uyir eḻuttu) and உயிர்மெய் எழுத்து (uyirmey eḻuttu) are the singular forms. The Plural forms are உயிர் எழுத்துகள் (uyir eḻuttukaḷ) and உயிர்மெய் எழுத்துகள் (uyirmey eḻuttukaḷ). The Bāṅlā স্বরবর্ণ  (ṣoroborṇo) is quite O.K. But the Asamiya (horoborṇo?) স্বৰবৰ্ণ (svarabaṇar) is appearing wrongly. When you combine the Asamiya ৰ্ and ণ it appears ণ followed by ৰ্ is due to the Unicode character problem. So, the Bāṅlā সংযুক্ত (the conjunct-ṣoñjukto) is appearing র্ণ  ( র্ + ণ ) in correct form whereas the Asamiya (Ohomiyo??) (ṇar) ৰ্ণ ( ণ + ৰ্ instead of ৰ্ + ণ ) is appearing in place of (rṇa) র্ণ. I think there is not much of change in Tirutākṣarī ( for the Maithilī ), Bāṅlā and Asamiya. The difference is there between Bāṅlā "ra" ( র ) and Asamiya "ra" ( ৰ ). Similarly, the Kannada "ka" ( ಕ ) is appearing differently from the Telugu "ka" (క ).
Regards,
Narayanan

---

From: Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com

Cc: Me <nmi...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, 1 October 2012 9:24 PM
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Telugu terms for vowels and consonants

Dear Dr. Narayanan, Sh. Shivasenani, Dr. Kulkarni and Sh. Narasimhacharya

Thanks a lot for your valuable inputs on the technical terms used for vowels and consonants. So far I have compiled the list of terms in 11 major Indian languages (apart from Samskrita). This is gleaned from multiple sources (Wikipedia and online dictionaries) and from your inputs along with those of Dr. Harekrishna Meher for Oriya. I am not sure about the pronunciation in Assamese so I have marked it in red. There may be other mistakes below so please feel free to correct.

No.	Language	Term for vowels	Term for consonants
1.	Assamese	স্বৰবৰ্ণ shôrobôrno?	ব্যঞ্জণবৰ্ণ bênjonbôrno?
2.	Bengali	স্বরবর্ণ shôrobôrno	ব্যঞ্জনবর্ণ bênjonbôrno
3.	Gujarati	સ્વર svara	વ્યંજન vyañjana
4.	Hindi	स्वर svara	व्यंजन vyañjana
5.	Kannada	ಸ್ವರಗಳು svaragaḻu	ವ್ಯಂಜನಗಳು vyañjanagaḻu
6.	Malyalam	അച്ചുകള്‍ accukaḻ	ഹല്ലുകള്‍ hallukaḻ
7.	Marathi	स्वर svara	व्यंजन vyañjana
8.	Oriya	ସ୍ଵରବର୍ଣ୍ଣ svarabarṇṇa	ବ୍ୟଞ୍ଜନବର୍ଣ୍ଣ byañjanabarṇṇa
9.	Punjabi	ਸਵਰ savara	ਵਿਅੰਜਨ viañjana
10.	Tamil	உயிர் எழுத்து uyireḻuttukaḻ	உயிர்மெய் எழுத்து uyirmeyeḻuttukaḻ
11.	Telugu	అచ్చులు acculu	హల్లులు hallulu

A few observations

• Except for Tamil, Telugu and Malyalam, terms in all other languages above come from Samsrkita स्वर and व्यञ्जन
• Tamil technical terms are unique to Tamil, shared by no other language
  
• Only Telugu and Malyalam terms derive from the पाणिनीय प्रत्याहारs अच् and हल् (this was my original question)
  
• Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Marathi and Punjabi (Gurumukhi) scripts use the अनुस्वार and write व्यञ्जन as व्यंजन, which is as per the [unscientific] convention in all these scritps
• Oriya has the द्वित्व of ण, i.e. वर्ण becomes बर्ण्ण
  

As for the observations by different members of Samskrita influence on all southern languages, I have witnessed the same as a non-native speaker. The ubiquitous advertisement hoardings in Bangalore have highly Samskritised usages like ಸಂಪರ್ಕಿಸಿ (samparkisi, meaning "[you] contact") and ಉಪಯೋಗಿಸಿ (upayogisi, meaning "[you] use"), while advertisements for TV soaps on Kannada channels use forms like ವೀಕ್ಷಿಸಿ (vīkṣisi, meaning "[you] see") instead of the more common ನೋಡಿಸಿ (noḍisi). I have also come across words possibly originating from Persian/Urdu in Kannada that Dr. Kulkarni is referring to. Some are used liberally in administrative terminology like ಇಲಾಖೆ (ilakhe, meaning "area"), ಕಚೇರಿ (kaceri, meaning "office"), ವಕೀಲರು (vakīlaru, meaning "lawyer"), et cetera.

Regarding Indo-Aryan/Dravidian language taxonomy, I used the term "Dravidian languages" only in the geographical sense to refer to southern languages. I do not have any strong views for or against the currently accepted taxonomy, though I do want to say "heavily influenced by Sanskrit" may not the same as "derived from Sanskrit" or "belonging to the same family as Sanskrit".

Thanks, Nityanand

On Saturday, September 29, 2012 6:25:48 PM UTC+8, Dr. Tirumala Kulakarni wrote:

Namaskara

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste

I was reading the Wikipedia article on Telugu script under http://te.wikipedia.org/wiki/ తెలుగు_లిపి.

[Shrivathsa B]

hariH OM,
pariShade namaH,

"Except for Tamil, Telugu and Malyalam, terms in all other languages above come from Samsrkita स्वर and व्यञ्जन"

   The terminology used by tamizh is much more in line with shikShA granthas. "uyir" means "life". The ones having life are svaras. Calling a svara as having "life" is much closer to the definition of svara in shikShA, than merely calling it "ach" ("ach" is a technical terminology used by pANinii, outside aShTAdhyAyii it has no independent existence).
   The tamil terminology for vya~njana just corroborates this.

"Some are used liberally in administrative terminology like ಇಲಾಖೆ (ilakhe, meaning "area"), ಕಚೇರಿ (kaceri, meaning "office"), ವಕೀಲರು (vakīlaru, meaning "lawyer"), et cetera."

   Administrative terms became persianized during the time of the fanatic tipu sultan in the old mysore region and during the reign of nizams in the hyderabad karnataka region.

"Regarding Indo-Aryan/Dravidian language taxonomy, I used the term "Dravidian languages" only in the geographical sense to refer to southern languages. I do not have any strong views for or against the currently accepted taxonomy, though I do want to say "heavily influenced by Sanskrit" may not the same as "derived from Sanskrit" or "belonging to the same family as Sanskrit". "

   One is amused at these quibbles (heavily influenced is not same as derived from!). Moreover, one uses loaded terms (terms used by colonialists to divide India on linguistic and caste lines) and then says that these are merely "geographical". These aren't geographical terms. If that were so, some languages of Pakistan and Afghanistan wouldn't have been classified as "dravidian".
   If one removes samskR^itam words from kannaDa (there are many such enthusiasts who draw their inspiration from the anti-national movements which were led by Ramasami Naicker and were quite successful in tamizhnADu), there is no soul left in it.
   The great enthusiasm to call some languages as "belonging to a family" and others otherwise is again falling to a colonial trap! At any rate, even if one takes this childish "family" construct seriously, one can safely say that samskR^itam is closer to kannaDa than german.

"The ubiquitous advertisement hoardings in Bangalore have highly Samskritised usages like ಸಂಪರ್ಕಿಸಿ (samparkisi, meaning "[you] contact") and ಉಪಯೋಗಿಸಿ (upayogisi, meaning "[you] use"), while advertisements for TV soaps on Kannada channels use forms like ವೀಕ್ಷಿಸಿ (vīkṣisi, meaning "[you] see") instead of the more common ನೋಡಿಸಿ (noḍisi)."

   " ನೋಡಿಸಿ" Why would someone use this? "ನೋಡಿಸಿ" does not mean "you see", it means "make someone see". "ನೋಡಿ" has the meaning of "you see" which is widely used and more common than "ನೋಡಿಸಿ". (We forgive the non-native for having tripped here and don't exhort him to "when in doubt google it" and also not harangue him on getting this fact wrong).


svasti,
           JAYA BHAVAANII BHAARATII,
                                                           shrivathsa.

2012/10/1 Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com>

[Nityanand Misra]

Dear Dr. Narayanan

Thanks a lot for pointing out the singular and plural forms - I have made the corrections. The Bengali and Assamese are in Unicode Vrinda font - I suspect the font does not display uniformly or correctly on some platforms, which may be the reason why bôrno appears differently for you in the two scripts and same for me. 

It appears that the plural suffix ಗಳು in Kannada is cognate with the strikingly similar plural suffixes കള്‍ and கள் in Malyalam and Tamil respectively, the sounds ga (ग) and ka (क) being both velars (कण्ठ्य). It would be great if somebody can confirm this.

Best regards, Nityanand

--
Nityānanda Miśra
Member, Advisory Council, Jagadguru Rambhadracharya Handicapped University
Chitrakoot, Uttar Pradesh, India
http://nmisra.googlepages.com
http://jagadgururambhadracharya.org/donate.php

|| आत्मा तत्त्वमसि श्वेतकेतो ||
(Thou art from/for/of/in That Ātman, O Śvetaketu)
     - Ṛṣi Uddālaka to his son, Chāndogyopaniṣad 6.8.7, The Sāma Veda

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Dr. Narayanan

Thanks a lot for pointing out the singular and plural forms - I have made the corrections. The Bengali and Assamese are in Unicode Vrinda font - I suspect the font does not display uniformly or correctly on some platforms, which may be the reason why bôrno appears differently for you in the two scripts and same for me. 

It appears that the plural suffix ಗಳು in Kannada is cognate with the strikingly similar plural suffixes കള്‍ and கள் in Malyalam and Tamil respectively, the sounds ga (ग) and ka (क) being both velars (कण्ठ्य). It would be great if somebody can confirm this.

Best regards, Nityanand

There appears to be an exception in Kannada (and Tamil): the word 'ಮಕ್ಕಳು’ for instance has no ಗಳು; it is only 'kaLu'.  In Tamil it is a little peculiar: in words like 'avargaL', 'paDigaL' (steps), there is a 'gaL'. But in other words like 'makkaL', 'kaRkaL' (stones) there is 'kaL'.  I think it goes with the pronunciation.  It would be rather difficult to pronounce 'kaRgaL' and 'makgaL'. 

I noticed, as Shrivatsa did, your word '’ನೋಡಿಸಿ’.  It should be either 'ನೊಡಿ’ or 'ನೊಡಿರಿ’.  'ಪರೀಕ್ಷಿಸಿ’ (you - plural - examine) is another example. ಪ್ರಶ್ನಿಸಿ (you - plural - question).

Regards
subrahmanian.v       

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 7:23 AM, Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 9:33:23 AM UTC+8, V Subrahmanian wrote:

There appears to be an exception in Kannada (and Tamil): the word 'ಮಕ್ಕಳು’ for instance has no ಗಳು; it is only 'kaLu'.  In Tamil it is a little peculiar: in words like 'avargaL', 'paDigaL' (steps), there is a 'gaL'. But in other words like 'makkaL', 'kaRkaL' (stones) there is 'kaL'.  I think it goes with the pronunciation.  It would be rather difficult to pronounce 'kaRgaL' and 'makgaL'. 

Thanks for the additional information. My question was are these suffixes cognate? They appear cognate to me, but I am not sure about this.

As we delve deeper into the topic more instances are coming into the limelight.  While taking bold to say that these suffixes are cognate, I would also like to point out certain peculiar usages like, for instance, when the word 'magaLir' is used, to mean, in plural, women.  magaL is a daughter and to indicate the generality of womenfolk this word magaLir is used.  Here we see a strange suffix used 'ir'.  I have seen another similar usage: 'penDir' to mean the same: womenfolk, the word 'peN' is a girl/woman and the plural referring to the woman jAti is penDir.  

 

Also, I have seen the usage of "Swamigal". Is that use of plural in respect, like the Samskrita "Swaminah"?

Yes.  In other languages like Kannada, 'swamigaLu' and Telugu 'svAmulu and an optional 'vAru' to add even more respect.

I am often amused over a very special feature in Telugu:  a number of words come in default plural as if to indicate the very jAti.  For example: godumulu (wheat), miryAlu (pepper/chilli), poovulu (flower),  yeNTikalu (hair), aTTakulu (flattened rice), etc.  There may be some spelling mistakes here but I have observed Telugu people using plural very freely.  In Tamil and Kannada I see these names being used in singular:  godhumaii/godhi, miLagu/meNasu, poo/hoovu, talai muDi/koodalu, aval/avalakki, etc.

regards
subrahmanian.v    

[Hnbhat B.R.]

In Telugu, often used suffix is seen used in respect, gaaru, vaari :

subrahmanyagaaru, 

*vaari may also be derivative, of avaru, avar in the cognate of Tamil where a combination of

avarkal/ avargal is seen.

 pronominal form plural plus one more suffix.
-- 
Dr. Hari Narayana Bhat B.R. M.A., Ph.D.,
Research Scholar,

Ecole française d'Extrême-OrientCentre de Pondichéry

16 & 19, Rue Dumas

Pondichéry - 605 001

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com> wrote:

In Telugu, often used suffix is seen used in respect, gaaru, vaari :

Sir,

I think here 'vaari' is actually ShaShThI like there is one 'kammavAri sangha' in Bangalore which is an 'association OF kamma (naidu-s).  So the prathamA is 'vaaru'.  It is 'guruvuluvAru'.  In Kannada also they use: ...mahAswAmigaLavaru where the rule 'adhikasya adhikam phalm' seems to be applied. 

Regards
subrahmanian.v

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 1:59:12 PM UTC+8, hnbhat wrote:

In Telugu, often used suffix is seen used in respect, gaaru, vaari :

subrahmanyagaaru, 

*vaari may also be derivative, of avaru, avar in the cognate of Tamil where a combination of

avarkal/ avargal is seen.

This seems cognate with "varu" in Kannada as in "Annavaru" (respected elder brother?) to refer to the thespian Rajkumar.

Here it is 'aNNa avaru' that is pronounced as 'aNNAvaru'.  The Telugu word is ' vaaru' like in 'swAmuluvAru'. 

 

 

[Shrivathsa B]

hariH OM,
pariShade namaH,

"Well the terms Dravid/Dravidian are not exclusive to linguistics, but have many meanings depending on context. Dravid/Dravidian are indeed used geographically to refer to South India/South Indian (excluding Gujarat and Maharashtra) - the most famous use being in our national anthem by Gurudev Rabindranath Tagore which refers to South India as দ্রাবিড় (द्राविड़) "
   rabindranath's usage of "drAviDa" is alluding to geography as given in our scriptures, but the question which was asked was this:

"Are these terms or similar terms used in other Dravidian languages as well? "

   This is a linguistic-specific question and in the absence of any disclaimers, clarifications, the prasiddha terms are accepted. The context is lingustic and crystal-clearly so. There cannot be any confusions about contexts here. A similar confusion may occur when a doctor asks a patient to infuse insulin using a "pen" and the patient pierces his arm with a ball point pen and sprinkles insulin powder!!! Or when a person was asked to visit vishveshvara's temple at kAshi but instead goes to rAma temple in AyodhyA (thinking the word to be vishveshvara = rAma, kAshI = one which shines = ayodhyA, a similar line of argument was used recently to assert sha~Nkara = rAmabhadra).
   I am amazed that the questioner doesn't realize or refuses to realize that the question is loaded. Let us try to dissect it for our own benefit. This question is like the question asked by a prosecution lawyer to the accused, "have you confessed to the judge that you have committed murder? answer in 'yes' or 'no'" or some question on similar lines. Here, the question is whether certain terms have been used in "Dravidian languages" without any clarification as to whether it means the colonial classification (Aryan = languages spoken by those who conquered India and Dravidian = languages spoken by those who were conquered by the former) or the geographical classification (northern India, southern India). Any person who knows the "prasiddhi" of the colonial classification will know that this ("Dravidian language") is a loaded term. Answer to the question will accept the loadedness of the term. If the questioner were specific about geographical southern languages, he would have said "southern Indian languages".
   One doesn't understand the need for so many intellectual gymnastics and call to authority (given in bA~Ngla script!!!). A humbler, straight-forward and easier approach will be to accept that it is a loaded term and it was used innocently and move on with life. The classification of languages as "Aryan" and "Dravidian" has nothing to do with geography regardless of what rabindranath tagore says. as explained earlier, Sanskrit and German, both are Indo-Aryan languages, kannaDa and some afghanistani languages are "Dravidian" what is the geographical sAmya between them? (one can quote a higher authority and say vasudhaiva kuTumbakam!!! and then bring about a sAmya between avadhi and language of martian critters) One will be interested in seeing people use the term jap or negro and get away with it in popular discourse in the west (or even worse, justify it with a call to authority). So much of finickiness about the usage, authenticity, citation, attribution, precision in geographical location etc. of others, while relative nonchalance / fake innocence about one's own? One doesn't get the smell of a healthy debate here, or worse, one gets the smell of a bad debate.

"Thanks for pointing out the difference between direct imperative and the causative imperative which I was unaware of. I would be obliged if you can tell me the causative versions for samparkisi, upayogisi, et cetera."
   there will be no single word usage here. upayogisuvante mADu (make him use), samparkisuvante mADu (make him contact / communicate).

svasti,
              JAYA BHAVAANII BHAARATII,
                                                                 shrivathsa.

2012/10/3 Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com>

On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 2:10:53 AM UTC+8, Shrivathsa B wrote:

hariH OM,
pariShade namaH,

One is amused at these quibbles (heavily influenced is not same as derived from!). Moreover, one uses loaded terms (terms used by colonialists to divide India on linguistic and caste lines) and then says that these are merely "geographical". These aren't geographical terms. If that were so, some languages of Pakistan and Afghanistan wouldn't have been classified as "dravidian".

Well the terms Dravid/Dravidian are not exclusive to linguistics, but have many meanings depending on context. Dravid/Dravidian are indeed used geographically to refer to South India/South Indian (excluding Gujarat and Maharashtra) - the most famous use being in our national anthem by Gurudev Rabindranath Tagore which refers to South India as দ্রাবিড় (द्राविड़)

"Pañjāba Sindhu Gujarāṭa Marāṭhā Drāviḍa Utkala Baṅga"
 

"ನೋಡಿಸಿ" Why would someone use this? "ನೋಡಿಸಿ" does not mean "you see", it means "make someone see". "ನೋಡಿ" has the meaning of "you see" which is widely used and more common than "ನೋಡಿಸಿ".

Thanks for pointing out the difference between direct imperative and the causative imperative which I was unaware of. I would be obliged if you can tell me the causative versions for samparkisi, upayogisi, et cetera.
 

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

On Oct 2, 9:33 pm, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahman...@gmail.com> wrote:

> There appears to be an exception in Kannada (and Tamil): the word 'ಮಕ್ಕಳು’
> for instance has no ಗಳು; it is only 'kaLu'.  In Tamil it is a little
> peculiar: in words like 'avargaL', 'paDigaL' (steps), there is a 'gaL'. But
> in other words like 'makkaL', 'kaRkaL' (stones) there is 'kaL'.  I think it
> goes with the pronunciation.  It would be rather difficult to pronounce
> 'kaRgaL' and 'makgaL'.

If one steps back a bit and considers that tamizh has the oldest
documented grammar among south Indian languages, the root plural
suffix stands out as -kaL. It becomes -gaL (-gaLu in kannaDa) in
pronunciation, based on context. This follows from the rule governing
how a vallina sound is pronounced as per its position in a word. For
example, kAy = vegetable and pazham = fruit, begin with ka-kAra and pa-
kara, which become ga-kAra and ba-kAra in the pronunciation of the
words mAngAy/mAmbazham = mango. When a duplication is called for, the
sound does not change e.g. vAzhaikkAy/vAzhaippazham = banana. The same
process operates with the tamizh/kannaDa word makkaL/makkaLu - it is
the duplication that is reponsible for retaining the hard ka sound.

The script in tamizh uses the same letter for both ka and ga, so we
don't see the change in writing. In kannaDa script, we see a
correspondence with the pronunciation. That is all. So, there need be
no doubt that the tamizh/kannaDa -kaL/-gaLu are indeed cognate. They
were indeed the same before the languages diverged. A lot of the
divergence between tamizh and kannaDa has happened within the well
documented history of the last few centuries, e.g. among the
compositions of the Karnataka based dAsas, many retain the word pADu,
instead of hADu (to sing). That it is not just the tamizh speaker who
perhaps mistakenly renders it as pADu is easily obvious from
considerations of alliteration and dvitIyAkshara prASa (what is called
etukai and mOnai in tamizh).

Regards,
Vidyasankar

[Nityanand Misra]

On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Shrivathsa B <shrivath...@gmail.com> wrote:

"Are these terms or similar terms used in other Dravidian languages as well? "
   This is a linguistic-specific question and in the absence of any disclaimers, clarifications, the prasiddha terms are accepted.

"Dravidian languages" followed by "Dākṣiṇātya scholars" makes the context clear. You can choose to ignore it and continue writing theses which add no value to the discussion. That is not my problem.
 

"Thanks for pointing out the difference between direct imperative and the causative imperative which I was unaware of. I would be obliged if you can tell me the causative versions for samparkisi, upayogisi, et cetera."

   there will be no single word usage here. upayogisuvante mADu (make him use), samparkisuvante mADu (make him contact / communicate).

Is not the person different here? Second person versus third person?

[Shrivathsa B]

Forgot to mail the response to the group. please accept this mail.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Shrivathsa B <shrivath...@gmail.com>
Date: 2012/10/3
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Telugu terms for vowels and consonants
To: Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com>


hariH OM,
namaH pariShade,

""Dravidian languages" followed by "Dākṣiṇātya scholars" makes the context clear."

   one more somersault.  Why not "dAkShiNAtya bhAShA"s or "southern languages"? But then, we have stopped expecting precision from the precision mongers! All the precision mongers' mails come with riders, clauses, sub clauses and sub sub clauses similar to what we find on insurance policies! finally the clauses etc. are meant to protect the one proposing them, not the ones who propose to take them. :-)

" You can choose to ignore it and continue writing theses which add no value to the discussion. That is not my problem. "

   No, one hasn't ignored it, one has noted it as another intellectual somersault in a series of intellectual-gymanastic-phantasmagoria. Noting these (fallacies, intellectual somersaults etc.) have added great value to us inasmuch as it has added to our knowledge base of "how fallacies are used as arguments". Fallacies used against others cause no "problem" to the perpetrator, but are quite tortuous on the victims (certain bodily emissions are known to do the same). Theses are necessitated by anR^iju atmosphere of discussion and debate. They (the theses) also clarify to the pariShat that one isn't over-reacting nor nit-picking.

"Is not the person different here? Second person versus third person?"

   A clarification with examples may help.
Clarification: upayogisuvante mADu = this is the verb: to make me / him / someone use. (happens to be the loT, madhyama puruSha form also).
Examples:
prathama puruSha: avanu "niti"yannu oLLeya tarka upayogisuvante mADuttAne = he makes "niti" use good logic. (in other words, prevent "niti" from using fallacies).
i.e. upayogisuvante mADuttAne = he makes him use.
madhyama puruSha: niinu "niti"yannu oLLeya tarka upayogisuvante mADuttiiye: you make "niti" use good logic
i.e. upayogisuvante mADuttiiye = you make him use.
uttama puruSha: nAnu "niti"yannu oLLeya tarka upayogisuvante mADuvenu = i will make "niti" use good logic.
i.e. upayogisuvante mADuvenu = I make him use.

In the easier forms (non-two-word-verb forms)
prathama: avanu tanna maneyannu tOrisuttAne = he showed (him / her) the home. and the like.

svasti,
             JAYA BHAVAANII BHAARATII,
                                                              shrivathsa.

2012/10/3 Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com>

[subrahmanyam korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

When I did भाषाप्रवीण (equal to B A) from  1971-75 (five years) there used to be all major Telugu Grammars , Chandas , Literature , Sanskrit Grammar(five papers) etc. Now it is Oriental B A - a highly diluted course 

Just like Panini , we used to get by heart the Telugu Gr works also . Hundreds of Telugu poems from Bharatam , Bhagavatam , Pancakavyas etc. were (and still are) on the tip of the tongue . Today not even 5% of Telugu teachers can read a poem with intonation.

All vernaculars are like that.

अच् and हल् - are taken from Panini but not as / the Pratyaharas . 

कळु / गळु  - are  used for बहुवचनम् in Tamil and Kannada and in Telugu only लु ramained

In Telugu also there is त्रिमुनि व्याकरणम् -- all the three works are in Sanskrit --

The first Vyakaranam in Telugu was penned in  by Nannaya / Nannaparya in 11 AD along with first ever translation of Mahabharatam (some parts only) - आन्ध्रशब्दचिन्तामणि is compiled on the lines of Panini 

There are अथर्वणकारिकाः by Atharvanacarya that are akin to वार्तिकानि ।

अहोबलपति compiled अहोबलपण्डितीयम्  on the lines of महाभाष्यम् -- the only difference is that the former runs like a commentary whereas the latter is like वाकोवाक्यम् ।

सन्धि - कारक - समास-तद्धित - कृत् - क्रिया etc. is just a copy of  Panini and it is clearly stated / quoted by authors .

In 19 th Century Cinnayasuri of Madras Chrisstian College authored the famous बालव्याकरणम् - one will find translations  of the Sutras of Nannaya and Panini --

डुमुवुलवः प्रथमा (आन्ध्रशब्दचिन्तामणि) - डुमुवुलु प्रथम (बालव्या)

कर्मणि द्वितीया (पाणिनि) - कर्मंबुन द्वितीय यगु (बाल)

Even  the concept of आर्य s is borrowed - आर्यव्यवहारंबुल दृष्टम्बु ग्राह्यंबु (बाल - संज्ञाप्र) , i.e. even if it is ग्राम्यम् one can accept.

बहुजनपल्लि सीतारामय्य later built प्रौढव्याकरणम्  with some modifications and additions -- महावाक्यम् ( प्रोक्ति in Hindi)  etc. are discussed .

By and large , right from वर्ण down to महावाक्यम् , all aspects are discussed / defined in Telugu Grammatical works .

Without the knowledge of Panini one cannot teach  Telugu Vyakaranam at a satisfactory level .

'लक्षणविरुद्धंबगु भाष ग्राम्यम्बु (बाल - संज्ञाप्रक.) .

तत्सम - तद्भव - देश्य - आच्छिक - ग्राम्य --- are the categories in Telugu . तत् = संस्कृतम् ।  आच्छिक is pure Telugu - अच्चतेलुगु (here च्च is दन्त्यम् )।

ग्राम्य is always prohibited --

'कन्ये कामयमानं मां न त्वं कामयसे कथम् ? ’ -- is an example of दण्डी in काव्यादर्श  for ग्राम्योक्ति ( may be acid etc was not available to deface the girl who refused) .

Among the 11 Dravidian Languages 6 (?) do not have script . There are many books which compare the Langs .

क च ट त प - are परुषाः and ग ज ड द ब - are सरळाः - there will be replacement of the former by the latter .

धन्यो’स्मि

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
to subscribe go to the link below and put a request
https://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat/subscribe
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com

--
Prof.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit,
CALTS,
University of Hyderabad 500046
Ph:09866110741(R),91-40-23010741,040-23133660(O)

[Hnbhat B.R.]

Thanks for the authentic assertions from Prof. Korada.

By the way, अच्च is commonly used for Kannada also, अच्चकन्नड, which was a movement in Kannada literature, managing with तद्भव and देश्य words called देसि normally against the influence of over Sanskritization.  ಕಬ್ಬಿಗರ ಕಾವ of Andayya, seems to be the first of product of the movement and latest ರಾಮಾಶ್ವಮೆಧ of end of 18th century by Muddana alias Lakshminarayana who started his career as a physical teacher, but gained a name in Kannada Litrature.

On the other side, Rudrabhatta's ಜಗನ್ನಾಥವಿಜಯ has verses in highly Sanskritized Kannada, and the first benedictory verse itself in quite unintelligible without a commentary. Jain writers contributed a large part in the early and middle part of the history of Kannada  Literature, and of whom one wrote a ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಶಬ್ದಾನುಶಾಸನಮ್ completely in Sanskrit, but examples from different texts or himself provided as compared to the standardized grammar in versified form of Keshiraja which is called ಶಬ್ದಮಣಿದರ್ಪಣ considered as more authentic than the other later one ಶಬ್ದಾನುಶಾಸನ कर्णाटकशब्दानुशासन of Bhattakalanka.
Earlier to him, Karnataka Bhasha Bhushana, Nagavarma II's grammatical model is based on the Katantra school of Sanskrit grammar and the author styles himself Abhinava Sarvavarma ("Modern Sarvavarma"), Sarvavarma being a noted Sanskrit grammarian to a Satavahana king.  This shows the influence of Sanskrit Grammar and Language over Kannada. Bhattakalanka's 

Shabdanushasana is much more comprehensive in its scope.


Caldwel's Comparative Grammar of Dravidian Languages provide a comprehensive and comparative study of the grammars, both spoken and written main Dravidian Languages.

Linguists differ in the analysis of the प्रत्यय-s of case-endings, as earlier grammarians followed the model of Paninian grammar and offer certainly different opinions. Emen Burrow's Dictionary of Dravidian Languages is being revised yet finding sources to Sanskrit vocabulary. I think by now the revision should be completed.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidya...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 2, 9:33 pm, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahman...@gmail.com> wrote:

> There appears to be an exception in Kannada (and Tamil): the word 'ಮಕ್ಕಳು’
> for instance has no ಗಳು; it is only 'kaLu'.  In Tamil it is a little
> peculiar: in words like 'avargaL', 'paDigaL' (steps), there is a 'gaL'. But
> in other words like 'makkaL', 'kaRkaL' (stones) there is 'kaL'.  I think it
> goes with the pronunciation.  It would be rather difficult to pronounce
> 'kaRgaL' and 'makgaL'.

If one steps back a bit and considers that tamizh has the oldest
documented grammar among south Indian languages, the root plural
suffix stands out as -kaL. It becomes -gaL (-gaLu in kannaDa) in
pronunciation, based on context. This follows from the rule governing
how a vallina sound is pronounced as per its position in a word. For
example, kAy = vegetable and pazham = fruit, begin with ka-kAra and pa-
kara, which become ga-kAra and ba-kAra in the pronunciation of the
words mAngAy/mAmbazham = mango. When a duplication is called for, the
sound does not change e.g. vAzhaikkAy/vAzhaippazham = banana. The same
process operates with the tamizh/kannaDa word makkaL/makkaLu - it is

the duplication that is responsible for retaining the hard ka sound.

The script in tamizh uses the same letter for both ka and ga, so we
don't see the change in writing. In kannaDa script, we see a
correspondence with the pronunciation. That is all. So, there need be
no doubt that the tamizh/kannaDa -kaL/-gaLu are indeed cognate. They
were indeed the same before the languages diverged. A lot of the
divergence between tamizh and kannaDa has happened within the well
documented history of the last few centuries, e.g. among the
compositions of the Karnataka based dAsas, many retain the word pADu,
instead of hADu (to sing). That it is not just the tamizh speaker who
perhaps mistakenly renders it as pADu is easily obvious from
considerations of alliteration and dvitIyAkshara prASa (what is called
etukai and mOnai in tamizh).

Regards,
Vidyasankar

This is very true.  In old Kannada which is identified as 'haLagannaDa' one would find a striking similarity to Tamizh.  Especially the 'gaL' profusely used.  Words like 'piDidu' (Tamil 'piDitthu'), 'pogu' (instead of 'hogu' and the Tamizh 'pogu') can be seen in Purandara Dasa's works.  'peLidAn..' ('he said') instead of the modern 'heLidanu' is another example of how 'ha' was 'pa' in the olden literature.  Even 'pAlu' (milk) in old Kannada is an instance of similarity with Tamil/Telugu.  The modern word is, however, 'hAlu'.  'PeNNu' ('heNNu') to denote a woman, the same as 'peNN' of Tamil.  One can see such usages in the Kannada KumAravyAsa's 'BhArata'. 

Regards
subrahmanian.v

 
 

[Hnbhat B.R.]

I have seen "Gavi" in some village names in Kannada. E.g. Balligavi and Belagavi the name preferred by Kannada organizations for Belgaum, and Gavi the village . Not sure where that is from, likely Sanskrit.

It is very natural that natural bordering regions of different language speakers to have give and take from each other even though they be borrowed in common from Sanskrit, either via Prakrit or directly तत्सम or तद्भव. The same applies to grammar patterns also to be influenced by the bordering  languages, in addition to the dialectal difference. 

There is no obsession between the speakers in this matter like the growing language according to the needs of the time. Tamil has the oldest of literature of the Dravidian Languages or द्राविडभाषा. While we are discussing the point in English for our convenience, we can accept the habit of English also accepting both Yogi and ascetic as English words equally without any discrimination Dravidian or Dravida languages both as English. Anyway we are not using Sanskrit itself even though we are discussing the influence of it over other languages for our convenience of expressing freely our feelings or opinions.

 

 

[V Subrahmanian]

On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 5:56 AM, Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

As a non-native speaker, I have also noted the "p" to "h" sound shift as one goes from Tamil/Telugu to Kannada. The number 10 is pattu in Tamil, padhi in Telugu and hattu in Kannada. The "p" to "h" shift is also seen in the word for village.

paḷḷi in Tamil - as in "Tiruchirapalli"

Actually there is another object denoted by the word 'palli' (not paLLI), the  common domestic lizard which is called 'halli' in Kannada.  One can add many more instances for the 'pa ha' shift across these languages:  'panRi' in Tamil is pig and it is 'handi' in Kannada, 'panni' in Malayalam.  'pon' is gold and 'honnu' is the name in Kannada.  'parundu' is a kite (bird) which is 'haddu' in Kannada.  'periya' in Tamil is to note something big and it is 'hiriya' in Kannada.  'pazhaiya' is old in Tamil and it is 'haLeyadu' in Kannada, 'pAtadi' in Telugu.  So we can strike a lot of such common features across the southern languages.

The Malayalam 'cheTTan' for elder brother and 'anujan' for younger brother are the Sanskrit 'jyeShTha' and 'anuja'.   The Sanskrit 'pArthiva' for King is having a Tamil 'pArthiban' (the famous novel of Kalki 'pArthiban kanavu'). 

Regards
subrahmanian.v 
 

[Hnbhat B.R.]

If one tries, all the Dravidian terms could be traced to Sanskrit by hooks or crooks or we have to accept as them native terms.

Linguists trace many Sanskrit terms to Tamil origin. पल्ली is listed in Sanskrit Lexicons, as in Amarakosha, "घोष आभीरपल्ली स्यात्" which means huts or group of huts, i.e. small village as noted by शाश्वत - "कुटिग्रामकयोः पल्लिः" as quoted by Bhanuji Dikshita in his commentary.

There is no wonder, even though common origin, may find used in different meanings entirely transferred or specialized to certain meaning borrowed either from Sanskrit or neighboring languages.  Even polysemy words specialized to certain dialectal usages also could be found.   

[Shrivathsa B]

hariH OM,
namaH pariShade,

"If you have problems or get offended with the phrase "Dravidian languages", then I cannot help."

   Any right thinking and self respecting Indian should be offended by the usage of the terminology "Dravidian" languages. Recently we saw a person calling for a public apology from others for having called him by a shortened version of his name. He seems not to be offended by a wrong classification of languages which was designed to make a North-South divide, Aryan-Dravidian divide, Brahmin-Anti Brahmin divide etc. We are amazed at the intellectual dishonesty.

"Dr. Bhat has used the phrase and so has Dr. Korada and they do not seem to have a problem. You may publish your theses and propose a new nomenclature along with taxonomy and push for ISO standardization of the same. Once that happens, I will consider using the new terminology."
   Again a call to two authorities. The two authorities are great and humble people and don't pick at others for being geographically imprecise (amongst other stifling requirements as imposed by the precision mongers), whereas the one calling upon their authority is. And if convinced about the issue, they (korada garu and bhat sir) will be graceful enough to not use loaded terms.

   I needn't make any new nomenclature or taxonomy, it has already been made by the colonialists. This again is a deviation. The prasiddhi of these terms as colonial terms stays. The debater seems to be hell bent on using colonial terms. May the Parishat decide. We (those against colonial classification of languages as designed to divide India) rest our case here.

svasti,
              JAYA BHAVAANII BHAARATII,
                                                                shrivathsa.

2012/10/4 Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com>

On Thursday, October 4, 2012 12:26:02 AM UTC+8, Shrivathsa B wrote:

   one more somersault.  Why not "dAkShiNAtya bhAShA"s or "southern languages"? But then, we have stopped expecting precision from the precision mongers! All the precision mongers' mails come with riders, clauses, sub clauses and sub sub clauses similar to what we find on insurance policies! finally the clauses etc. are meant to protect the one proposing them, not the ones who propose to take them. :-)

   No, one hasn't ignored it, one has noted it as another intellectual somersault in a series of intellectual-gymanastic-phantasmagoria. Noting these (fallacies, intellectual somersaults etc.) have added great value to us inasmuch as it has added to our knowledge base of "how fallacies are used as arguments". Fallacies used against others cause no "problem" to the perpetrator, but are quite tortuous on the victims (certain bodily emissions are known to do the same). Theses are necessitated by anR^iju atmosphere of discussion and debate. They (the theses) also clarify to the pariShat that one isn't over-reacting nor nit-picking.

If you have problems or get offended with the phrase "Dravidian languages", then I cannot help. Dr. Bhat has used the phrase and so has Dr. Korada and they do not seem to have a problem. You may publish your theses and propose a new nomenclature along with taxonomy and push for ISO standardization of the same. Once that happens, I will consider using the new terminology.