Inferior Tamil Language and Dorai Sitaram
Meenaradchagan Vishnu
In response to my posting of Prof. Walker's article on Tamil, Dorai
Sitaram has given some important points.
Prof. Walker writes:
*************************************************************************
"TAMIL is the most highly cultivated of the Dravidian tongues, spoken by about
fifteen million people in south-east Indian and southern Ceylon. The name is
derived from ancient Damila, a non-Aryan Warlike people of South India who
figure in early Buddhist and Jain records. Tamil is an extremely refined
medium of communication, and there is no ground for supposing, as the early
Sanskrit writers did, that it was spoken by a primitive people. The language
has a rich and varied vocabulary and is extraordinary in its subtlety and sense
of logic, and the refinements of its grammer bear comparison with the most
precise for expressing nuances of thought and meaning. It is remarkably rich
is honorifics, a charateristic of a decadent rather than a primitive culture,
which suggests a highly mature satge of civilization. The manner in which the
negative form of the verb is obtained is both ingenious and logical , while
`the system of interrogatives is as perfect as could be formed by the human
mind' (IV,p.202)."
*************************************************************************
Dorai shows that the last two claims of Walker is wrong by giving examples
if imperfection in the current form of Tamil used in MAdras/TN.
I feel there is a serious fallacy in the argument given by Dorai. One
cannot claim a language is "limited" and "inelagent" simply by looking
at a spoken version of that language in a particular region.
This would be like looking at a Pidgin or Creole version of English
and concluding that English language is limited.
My point is that, when a linguist makes an assertion about a language,
he/she is making it with regard to the official written form of the
language as codified in its grammar books (and not by considering the
language spoken by "loose mohan" and his ilks :-).
Tamil as codified in Tholkappiyam and Nannool is an
elegant/flexible/expressive language as asserted by Prof. Walker.
Prof. Selvakumar has given examples showing the elegance of Tamil
grammer. Dorai Sitaram's argument that it is not currently in use
(in TN) does not hold much water in proving the inferiority of Tamil
language. (Please note in TE, these negational forms of the word by
the addition of 'aa' are in everyday use !!!!)
Meenan Vishnu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The period of Brahminical revival was the age that fixed the criterion for
every subsequent interpretation of Hindu life and culture. It was the time
when the ancient Indian traditions as they existed in the regional languages
were taken over, adapted to the priestly bias and hammered into the new mould
of Sanskrit. Into the sacred tongue the earlier tomes were transcribed for the
deification of brahmins and the damnation of sudras. Under heavy pressure of
brahmin orthodoxy the indigenous writings were first sanskritized and then the
whole of Sanskrit literature brahminized.
It was in many ways a calamitous substitute. Local nomenclature was altered to
fit the Sanskrit alphabet (my addition: I heard the name 'KumbakONam' is an
example of this because the earlier Tamil name could not be written in
Sanskrit !!!); native sentiments were put through the mill of
Sanskrit syntax, and a great deal of indigenous material irretrievably lost.
Interpretations of pre-Sanskrit and what might be called `un-Sanskrit' life
were further distorted by wilful tendentiousness that shaped into orthodox
form the mythology, history and even the geography of ancient India. Its
corruptions crept into the regional languages by its insistence on its own
sanctity and stilted rules.
And in most cases it debased what it influenced. The noble early poetry of
Tamil, characterized by simplicity and realism, never recovered its freshness
after contact with Sanskrit, and Tamil literature was thereafter subjected to
the artificialities of the northern tongue. Practically every vernacular
literature has suffered in like manner as long as it lay under the influence
of Sanskrit influence.
--------------------------------------------from "Encyclopedia on Hinduism"
Sundara Pandian
[...]
> I feel there is a serious fallacy in the argument given by Dorai. One
> cannot claim a language is "limited" and "inelagent" simply by looking
> at a spoken version of that language in a particular region.
> This would be like looking at a Pidgin or Creole version of English
> and concluding that English language is limited.
> My point is that, when a linguist makes an assertion about a language,
> he/she is making it with regard to the official written form of the
> language as codified in its grammar books (and not by considering the
> language spoken by "loose mohan" and his ilks :-).
The examples illustrating the irregularities/complexities in the
negation in common Tamil in _usage_ now is not Tamil from a _particular
region_ like Madras, but the commonly spoken and written Tamil in _TN_,
in general. The Tamil grammar books indeed give a regular negation
scheme, but the fact is that Tamils don't follow a regular negation
scheme now in their daily life or in their writings. This may be
rightly noted as an observation or criticism.
[...]
> (Please note in TE, these negational forms of the word by
> the addition of 'aa' are in everyday use !!!!)
How would you negate the following Tamil affirmative sentences
(given in good Tamil) Meenan? (Don't worry about the Hindi/English
equivalents.. I've already negated them..) I don't want the
grammatical negation, but what the TE Tamils would negate in their
spoken or written Tamil in usage now.. This may help you to see
the point..
Some affirmative sentences :
1. nettai manidhan ennaip paarkkiraan. (Tamil)
lambI aadhmi mujhE dEkhtaa hai. (Hindi)
The tall man sees me. (English)
2. thaNNIr kuLiraaka irukkiRadhaa? (Tamil)
kyaa, paaNi thandaa hai? (Hindi)
Is the water cold? (English)
3. paiyan En Hindi pEchukiRaan? (Tamil)
ladkaa Hindi kyOn bOltaa hai ? (Hindi)
Why does the boy speak in Hindi? (English)
4. avaL paattu paaduvaaL. (Tamil)
She will sing a song. (English)
vah gaanaa gaayEgi. (Hindi)
I do agree with Prof. Walker's comments
"The manner in which the
negative form of the verb
is obtained is both ingenious
and logical .."
and I have given a lucid description of how the negation scheme
in Tamil grammar compares well with the negation scheme in other
languages like French, English, Hindi, Sanskrit, Malayalam etc.
This shouldn't prevent us from noting that Tamils don't *follow*
a regular negation scheme *now*. There is no need to get emotional
on this criticism.
-SP-
Srinivasan K.
s...@cec.wustl.edu (Sundara Pandian) writes:
>
> How would you negate the following Tamil affirmative sentences
>(given in good Tamil) Meenan? (Don't worry about the Hindi/English
>equivalents.. I've already negated them..) I don't want the
>grammatical negation, but what the TE Tamils would negate in their
>spoken or written Tamil in usage now.. This may help you to see
>the point..
>
>Some affirmative sentences :
>
> She will sing a song. (English)
> vah gaanaa gaayEgi. (Hindi)
>
>
Apart from negation, you can look at forming interrogation form.
For the sentence above:
1. avaLaa paattu paduvaaL? (Tamil) [avaLaa song sing paNNuvaaL? (Madras)]
2. avaL paattaa paaduvaaL? (Tamil) [avaL songaa sing paNNuvaaL? (Madras)]
3. avaL paattu paaduvaaLaa? (Tamil) [avaL song sing paNNuvaaLaa? (Madras)]
Try translating the above three unambiguous sentences still
in popular use even in Madras city, and see the clumsiness.!
1. Is she the person, who is going to sing?
2. What she sings, is that going to be a song?
3. Will she sing a song? (english)
1. vah gaanaa gaayEgi? raising your eyebrow, when you say vah
2. vah gaanaa gaayEgi? raising your eyebrow, when you say gaanaa
3. vah gaanaa gaayEgi? raising your eyebrow, when you say gaayEgi?
[Note that if you say "vah kyaa gaanaa gaayEgi?", with stress on
wrong word it will mean "which song is she going to sing?",
instead of "avaLaa paattu paaduvaaL". Even more ambiguity, and clumsy]
When writing, I do not know how one can make it unambiguous?
Some ingenious soul might say that more "alphabets" can provide
more room for expression. and Tamil lacks "alphabets" :-)
I think Selva illustrated many such points.
Salom!
ks
Meenaradchagan Vishnu
Sundara Pandian <s...@cec.wustl.edu> wrote:
>Writes Meenaradchagan Vishnu (mvi...@bcr5.uwaterloo.ca) :
>(given in good Tamil) Meenan? (Don't worry about the Hindi/English
>equivalents.. I've already negated them..) I don't want the
>grammatical negation, but what the TE Tamils would negate in their
>spoken or written Tamil in usage now.. This may help you to see
>the point..
>
>Some affirmative sentences :
Since the common usage of verbs in a sentence is the 'vinai-eccam'
for example
paarththu vs paarathu
irunthu vs iraathu
uNdu vs uNaathu
vanthu vs varaathu
I will negate the following. But they are not negated by the addition
of 'aa'.
>
> 1. nettai manidhan ennaip paarkkiraan. (Tamil)
> lambI aadhmi mujhE dEkhtaa hai. (Hindi)
> The tall man sees me. (English)
neddaiyan ennaip paarkkiRaan illai
As far as Tamil is concerned it is a contrieved example. Usually, in
real examples there will be a series of actions which are elegantly
expressed using the `vinai-eccam' form. It is in these commonly used
vinai-eccam form (among others) that an addition of 'aa' negates the
setences.
>
> 2. thaNNIr kuLiraaka irukkiRadhaa? (Tamil)
> kyaa, paaNi thandaa hai? (Hindi)
> Is the water cold? (English)
thaNNeer kuLir aaka illai+y+aa ?
>
> 3. paiyan En Hindi pEchukiRaan? (Tamil)
> ladkaa Hindi kyOn bOltaa hai ? (Hindi)
> Why does the boy speak in Hindi? (English)
paiyan En Indi pEsukiRaan illai ?
>
> 4. avaL paattu paaduvaaL. (Tamil)
> She will sing a song. (English)
> vah gaanaa gaayEgi. (Hindi)
avaL paaddup paadaaL. (Here is an example of 'aa')
>
> I do agree with Prof. Walker's comments
>
> "The manner in which the
> negative form of the verb
> is obtained is both ingenious
> and logical .."
>
> and I have given a lucid description of how the negation scheme
> in Tamil grammar compares well with the negation scheme in other
> languages like French, English, Hindi, Sanskrit, Malayalam etc.
> This shouldn't prevent us from noting that Tamils don't *follow*
> a regular negation scheme *now*. There is no need to get emotional
> on this criticism.
A rationalist do not claim his/her language superior based on some deva
basha myth and without even learning the language properly. He/She
does so by following a scientific enquiry. In this case Prof. Walker is
perhaps the only Indologist who has taken the effort to learn the regional
language of India. Most Indologist just learn Sanksrit and think that is
all that is necessary to learn India. I feel they are sadly
mistaken.
If a future scientific
linguistic research claim Tamil is a thoroughly illogical language and
needs a major rework to make it on par with other languages, I would be
the first to say "Go ahead" for any such re-work. That is there is no
blind attachment to the Tamil language in me.
> -SP-
Meenan Vishnu
Raghavan Jayaraman
Srinivasan K. <sr...@ireq-num.hydro.qc.ca> wrote>
>Apart from negation, you can look at forming interrogation form.
>
>For the sentence above:
>
>1. avaLaa paattu paduvaaL? (Tamil) [avaLaa song sing paNNuvaaL? (Madras)]
>2. avaL paattaa paaduvaaL? (Tamil) [avaL songaa sing paNNuvaaL? (Madras)]
>3. avaL paattu paaduvaaLaa? (Tamil) [avaL song sing paNNuvaaLaa? (Madras)]
>
>Try translating the above three unambiguous sentences still
>in popular use even in Madras city, and see the clumsiness.!
>
>1. Is she the person, who is going to sing?
>2. What she sings, is that going to be a song?
>3. Will she sing a song? (english)
>
Firstly I would attribute 'exclamation'rather than 'interrogation' to 1 and
2. 'pattu' and 'paduthal' are redundant with respect to message being
conveyed above. Consider the following clumsy translations
1. Is she the singer? [!]
2. Can she sing? ['can' is used to indicate ability to do something]
3. Will she sing? ['will' is used to denote simple 'futurity']
Any clumsiness will vanish if one imbibes the idea before translating.
raghavan
PS:-
I always wondered why my friend used to say
"AmAvA" nodding his head in phase with his pronunciation.
Sundara Pandian
[...]
I appreciate your input, Meenan. The negations you provided in
your last posting were regular ones, but I don't know about their
popularity in TE. In Tamil Nadu, non-tense negations are more common
in the commonly spoken or written Tamil.
By `negation' is understood `the action or logical operation of
negating or making negative' or `something considered as the opposite
of something regarded as positive'. (Ref: Webster)
I expect from a regular negation scheme in any language the ability
to construct the corresponding affirmative sentence from a negative
sentence as close as possible.
Let's consider some examples.
Ex 1. Neg. `main aapkaa naam nahIn bhUl gayaa' (Hindi)
`I haven't forgotten your name.' (Eng.)
It's easy to construct corresponding affirmative sentences.
Aff. `main aapkaa naam bhUl gayaa hai (Hindi)
` I have forgotten your name.' (Eng.)
Ex 2. Neg. `main nahIn bOlUngaa.' (Hindi)
`I shall not speak.' (English)
It's easy again.
Aff. `main bOlUngaa.' (Hindi)
`I shall speak.' (English)
Generally speaking, it's easy to construct corresponding affirmative
sentences from the negative sentences in English, Hindi, Sanskrit etc.
In grammatical Tamil also, we can construct corresponding affirmative
sentences from the negative sentences.
Ex 3. Neg. `avan varuvaan ilan.' (Tamil)
`vah nahIn aayEgaa.' (Hindi)
`He won't come' (English)
Aff. `avan varuvaan.' (Tamil)
`vah aayEgaa.' (Hindi)
`He will come.' (English)
It was easy, as the rule is to drop the negative additions like
`not', `ilan', `nahIn' in the negative sentences.
Let's look at the common Tamil, where the non-tense negations
are more common.
Ex 4. Neg. `naan varavillai' (Tamil)
Here, the translation itself is a trouble, let alone worry
about constructing the corresponding affirmative sentence, as
`varavillai' is a non-tense form.
We have a multiple-choice approach here.
Case 1. If `varavillai' was used in a past-tense sense, the
affirmative sentence is
`naan vandhEn.' (Tamil)
`I came.' (English)
Case 2. If `varavillai' was used in a present-tense sense, the
affirmative sentence is
`naan varukiREn.' (Tamil)
`I come' (English)
Case 3. If `varavillai' was used in a future-tense sense, the
affirmative sentence is
`naan varuvEn.' (Tamil)
`I'll come.' (Eng.)
etc.
Unless a context or tense-specifying word like `ippO' (now),
`naaLai' (tomorrow), `nEththu' (yesterday) was present, the
non-tense negations give no clue to the tense as they destroy
the tense in the original affirmative sentences. In the absense
of tense-specifying words, we are clueless to corresponding
affirmations.
Thus, the non-tense negations clearly lead to an irregular negation
scheme in common Tamil, destrying the tense in affirmative sentences.
As the non-tense negations are very common in spoken/written Tamil, the
irregularity in the negation scheme in common Tamil may be rightly noted.
About those who put up a defense that non-tense sentences are common
in Chinese also, I like to know whether Chinese language adopts
non-tense sentences in both *affirmative* and *negative* sense. This is
important to know because in Tamil the affirmative sentences carry
a tense, but their negations lose the tense often in common Tamil..
-SP-
Srinivasan K.
ra...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Raghavan Jayaraman) writes:
"paattu" and "paadudhal" are redundant.
Any clumsiness will vanish, if one imbibes the idea before translating.
I am sorry I used the same sentence of Sundara Pandian. Here is a revised
set for translating. Give it a try.:
Affirmative:
avaL puththagam padippaaL. (Tamil)
vah kitaab padOgi (Hindi)
She will read a book. (English)
Interrogative:
1. avaLaa puththagam padippaaL? (Tamil) [avaLaa book read paNNuvaaL? (Madras)]
2. avaL puththagamaa padippaaL? (Tamil) [avaL bookkaa read paNNuvaaL?(Madras)]
3. avaL puththagam padippaaLaa? (Tamil) [avaL book read paNNuvaaLaa? (Madras)]
4. ........... [avaL book readaa paaNNuvaaL? (Madras]
Try translating the above three unambiguous sentences still
in popular use even in Madras city, and see the clumsiness.!
1. Is she the person, who is going to read a book?
2. Is it going to be a book, that she will read.? (could be a sign board)
3. Will she read a book? (or perhaps write a book)
4. Will she read a book (she might just tear the book, being a baby)?
1. vah kyaa kitaab padOgi? (if stress is incorrect, it will also
mean, which book will she read?)
2. vah kitaab padOgi? (stress kitaab)
3. vah kitaab padOgi? (stress padOgi)
While writing, I wonder how one can do it elegantly as done in Tamil.
HQ- K. Srinivasan
Srinivasan K.
(Sundara Pandian) writes:
>
>I like to know whether Chinese language adopts
>non-tense sentences in both *affirmative* and *negative* sense. This is
>important to know because in Tamil the affirmative sentences carry a tense
>
> -SP-
Incorrect, about Tamil!.
Non-tense sentences in Chinese occur in affirmative as well as negative..
Same thing in Tamil (and Kannada, Malayalam also).
They are not used in Indo-European languages.
[Tamil]
"avan nallavan", (He is good universally)
"avan nallavana irukkaan" (He is good, but could change any time)
"avan nallavana irundhaan" (He was good).
[Madras]
"adhu expensive". (That is expensive, not likely to change)
"adhu expensiva irukku". (That is expensive, hoping for a change)
No tense is used when the statement stays valid, beyond the bounds of time.
A neat construction for time invariable statements.
It is always possible to add the tense, when the statement is time variable.
HQ- K. Srinivasan
Dorai Sitaram
>in Chinese also, I like to know whether Chinese language adopts
>non-tense sentences in both *affirmative* and *negative* sense. This is
>important to know because in Tamil the affirmative sentences carry
>a tense, but their negations lose the tense often in common Tamil..
K. Srinivasan (HQ) was the (only?) one that mentioned
Chinese in this regard. His point was "Tamil non-tense
might appear strange to some", but "Chinese also uses
them", so it obviously is an adequate scheme.
K.S. is belling the wrong cat. Actually, the non-tense
approach, especially in an isolating language like
Mandarin, is a _great_ scheme. It cleanly avoids the
grammatical machinery of flexional languages. Mandarin
has no flexions at all: not only is it non-tense, it is
non-<insert-any-flexion>. So, yes, both affirmative
and negative are expressed with non-tense forms --
after all, they are the only forms in the language.
Optional time specifiers are added when needed. (The
neat thing is that the speaker can control how terse or
redundant she wants to be. In contrast, the Tamil
"Geethaavin petroergaL naetru vanthaargaL" has forced
redundancies on all three fronts: gender, number and
tense. We already know that the parents are
uyarthiNai, but vanthaargaL duplicates this info. We
already know that the parents are plural, but, once
again, vanthaargaL duplicates this. We already that
the parents arrived in the past (yesterday), but, yet
again, vanthaargaL duplicates this. Redundancy is
often good, but certainly it is better to allow the
option to the speaker's discretion instead of locking
her into fixed patterns of redundancy.)
But the issue is: Tamil runs with the hare and hunts
with the hound on this one. "Regularity" -- logical
sufficiency and syntactic economy -- is blown out of
the water because of the affirmative/negative divide
when it comes to favoring non-tense. It is only fair
to point this out when a claim to "far, far
superiority" is made despite this loss (among others).
(And be it known that Tamil's non-tense construct, in
the limited areas it occurs, is by no means as simple
as Mandarin's.)
Presumably we gain some advantage because of Tamil's
combination of tense and non-tense forms? "Best of
both worlds"? No: The economies available in the Tamil
affirmative aren't duplicatable in the negative, and
vice versa.
--d
--
do...@owlnet.rice.edu
Sundara Pandian
[...]
> Non-tense sentences in Chinese occur in affirmative as well as negative..
> Same thing in Tamil (and Kannada, Malayalam also).
> They are not used in Indo-European languages.
I appreciate your comment that Tamil has both affirmative and
negative non-tense forms just as in Chinese.
Can you provide us with the affirmative non-tense sentences that
correspond to the following negative non-tense sentences ?
1. Neg. `naan varavillai'
2. Neg. `avar paadavillai'
3. Neg. `adikaL pEsavillai'
4. Neg. `geetha ezuthavillai'
[Ex 1. Neg. `en peyar Vaisnavi illai'
Aff. `en peyar Vaisnavi'
Ex 2. Neg. `avan nallavan illai'
Aff. `avan nallavan.' ]
Thanks,
-SP-
Dorai Sitaram
>In article <931109021...@cec1.wustl.edu> s...@cec.wustl.edu
> (Sundara Pandian) writes:
>> This is
>>important to know because in Tamil the affirmative sentences carry a tense
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>but their negations lose the tense often in common Tamil..
>
>...
>[Tamil]
>"avan nallavan", (He is good universally)
>"avan nallavana irukkaan" (He is good, but could change any time)
>"avan nallavana irundhaan" (He was good).
>No tense is used when the statement stays valid, beyond the bounds of time.
>A neat construction for time invariable statements.
>It is always possible to add the tense, when the statement is time variable.
Perhaps it would be instructive to remind the reader
that the discourse is about verbs and their flexions.
You are talking about verbless (a fortiori tenseless)
constructions: present indefinites that involve
predicative adjectives and avoid the copula "to be".
Including one empty string among a collection of tense
flexions does not make for tenselessness. The empty
string is sufficiently distinguishable from the rest to
have tense information. "Avan nallavan" is _not_
equivalent to the Mandarin "He good" (Ta hao) (which
also avoids the copula "to be"). The Mandarin sentence
could be any tense whatsoever, including the three
above, not just "universal" or "time invariable" as you
put it. (This holds even if there is a verb.)
BTW, the English
"He is good"
"He is currently good"
have (modulo the copula "is", of course) more claim
than their Tamil counterparts to be tenseless, since an
adverb "currently", not a flexed verb like "irukkaan",
is used to show the change in meaning.
>They are not used in Indo-European languages.
This is too sweeping. Dropping the copula in one
situation is too blinking easy to use as a syntactic
shibboleth.
In other words, Russian is Indo-European.
--d
--
do...@owlnet.rice.edu
Srinivasan K.
(Sundara Pandian) writes:
>Informed K. Srinivasan (sr...@ireq-num.hydro.qc.ca) :
>> Non-tense sentences in Chinese occur in affirmative as well as negative..
>> Same thing in Tamil (and Kannada, Malayalam also).
>> They are not used in Indo-European languages.
>
> I appreciate your comment that Tamil has both affirmative and
> negative non-tense forms just as in Chinese.
>
> Can you provide us with the affirmative non-tense sentences that
> correspond to the following negative non-tense sentences ?
>
> 1. Neg. `naan varavillai'
>
> Aff. `avan nallavan.' ]
Negative non-tense: "naan varavillai"
Affirmative non-tense: "naan vandhu".
Modern Tamil has discontinued such a usage commonly.
Malayalam however retains it as "NYaan vannu".
Similar constructs for your other sentences would lead to
archaic Tamil sentences, and valid Malayalam sentences.
K. Srinivasan
C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering
Srinivasan K. <sr...@ireq-num.hydro.qc.ca> wrote:
>In article <931110012...@cec1.wustl.edu> s...@cec.wustl.edu
> (Sundara Pandian) writes:
>>Informed K. Srinivasan (sr...@ireq-num.hydro.qc.ca) :
>>
>>> Non-tense sentences in Chinese occur in affirmative as well as negative..
>>> Same thing in Tamil (and Kannada, Malayalam also).
>>> They are not used in Indo-European languages.
>>
>> I appreciate your comment that Tamil has both affirmative and
>> negative non-tense forms just as in Chinese.
>>
>> Can you provide us with the affirmative non-tense sentences that
>> correspond to the following negative non-tense sentences ?
>>
>> 1. Neg. `naan varavillai'
>>
>> Ex 2. Neg. `avan nallavan illai'
>> Aff. `avan nallavan.' ]
>
>Negative non-tense: "naan varavillai"
>Affirmative non-tense: "naan vandhu".
I think this was " n^aan van^(n^u) "
I want to add that there were many words which ended
in 'thagara na' oRRu , the mathurai n^ oRRu. These are
not used in tamil anymore. There were also words ending in
double oRRu's. It is my suscpicion (sic ?) that many words which
now end in 'iraNdu suzhi na oRRu' would have been
thagara na oRRu. Even the first person accusative (?) 'en'
might have been 'en^ ', the first person pronoun 'n^aan'
might have been 'n^aan^ ' or merely " n^n^' ".
I have a few things to say on the negational system
but not now..
:) Just imagine that a mother is telling her son that
her brother (son's 'maamaa') is coming and that the son
is not enthusiastic about 'maamaa's impending visit.
ammaa: ' dEy, naaLaikku onga maama varuvaardaa'
magan: 'naaLaikku maamaa varuvaar illaimmaa, vandhu tholaippaar'
Notice that 'varuvaar illai' is the negation used.
I'll elaborate later why such simple negational system
is not preferred by tamils although it is very much there
contrary to some valaiNYars attempts to show that tamil
has an irregular negational system. The fact is tamils
have more varieties of negational expressions, and they
choose according to their moods. To interpret this
as 'irregular, inadequate, inferior' merely shows that
those who argue have not considered the points well.
There is also major misunderstanding about unqique
future negatives. 'maattEn' is just ONE of many possibilities
contrary to popular understanding of grammar ( even
major encyclopaedic linguistic surveys wrongly state that
paada maaTTaaL etc. as _unique_ future negatives and treat 'maattaaL'
as some unique auxilliary verb conjugated ! paada maattaaL
is NO different grammatically from paada oppaaL ( won't agree
to sing), paada iNangaaL ( = won't agree to sing), paada
virumbaaL ( =won't like to sing), paada iyalaaL ( = paada
maattaaL). ) Now, let people conclude that tamil is MORE
irregular because it allows so many negatives ! :)
I think there are many professional linguists are reading these
articles and if they come forward and offer their
understanding without technical jargon that would be great !
Any professional linguist listening ?!!
>
>Modern Tamil has discontinued such a usage commonly.
>Malayalam however retains it as "NYaan vannu".
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Good point !
>
>Similar constructs for your other sentences would lead to
>archaic Tamil sentences, and valid Malayalam sentences.
>
>K. Srinivasan
>
>
anbudan
-Selvaa
Sundara Pandian
[...]
> Negative non-tense: "naan varavillai"
> Affirmative non-tense: "naan vandhu".
^^^^^^^^^^^
Incorrect.
> Modern Tamil has discontinued such a usage commonly.
It is not that the usage has become extinct, it is just
that you have some serious misconceptions in Tamil grammar.
`vandhu' is a *verbal participle* in Tamil, meaning
`having come'. It is not a non-tense verb in Tamil.
How are these verbal participles formed? They are
formed generally from the first person of the past tense,
by dropping the final `n' and changing the preceding `E'
to `u'.
Ex. Past.`enREn' (said) Vbl. Partic. `enRu' (having said)
Past. `koNdEn' (took) Vbl. Partic. `koNdu' (having taken)
There is one exceptional case, where the verbal participles
end in `i' instead of `u' like:
Ex. Past. `ezuthinEn' (wrote) Vbl. Particip. `ezuthi' (having
written)
> Malayalam however retains it as "NYaan vannu".
^^^^^^^^^^^^
`nyaan vannu' is *past* tense in Malayalam, as `vannu' is a
past-tense verb in Malayalam.
> Similar constructs for your other sentences would lead to
> archaic Tamil sentences,
Similar sentences like
`avaL ezuthi'
`geetha pOyi'
are not valid sentences in Tamil grammar or in modern Tamil usage,
as `ezuthi' and `pOyi' are verbal participles in Tamil, meaning
`having written' and `having gone'.
> and valid Malayalam sentences.
They are valid *past* tenses in Malayalam.
> K. Srinivasan
-SP-