meaning of the word 'chitrannam'?
Raghu Seshadri
: Prakash Jayaraman wrote:
: > What is the meaning of the word 'chitrannam'? It is a section of food
: > which includes lemon rice, coconut rice, puLiyOdharai and such
: > not-easily-perishable food. I think they were made in temples first
: > and then became popular in the households.
: Chitra = from the month 'chitrai'/moon???
: annan = rice.
: Perhaps another word similar to nilA chOru.
Not really. One of the meanings of "chitra"
in Sanskrit is variety. Thus Chitrannam is
a variety of dishes, primarily rice dishes.
RS
Badrinarayanan Seshadri
* sesh...@cup.hp.com (Raghu Seshadri) wrote:
* >Thathachari (tha...@utxsvs.cc.utexas.edu) wrote:
* >: Prakash Jayaraman wrote:
* >: > What is the meaning of the word 'chitrannam'? It is a section of food
* >: > which includes lemon rice, coconut rice, puLiyOdharai and such
* >: > not-easily-perishable food. I think they were made in temples first
* >: > and then became popular in the households.
* >
* >: Chitra = from the month 'chitrai'/moon???
* >: annan = rice.
* >
* >: Perhaps another word similar to nilA chOru.
* >
* >Not really. One of the meanings of "chitra"
* >in Sanskrit is variety. Thus Chitrannam is
* >a variety of dishes, primarily rice dishes.
* >
* >RS
* Prakash asked for a lesson in tamil. Now he gets two in sanskrit.
* Now, thatha & shesha, stop your mischief.
* From your names we can guess you thathachari & sheshadari are either
* brahmins or one of their crosses. Very common mischief amoung brahmins is
* to go in circles and when convenient depart from the main.
* From Chitrannam (a pure tamil word) we have now reached "Chitra" (a
* sanksrit loan word).
Namaskar Shriman Rethinam Sabapathyji!
Your little tutorial was very helpful to me in understanding
the wonderful language Tamil.
Pardon me if the representation of various tamil letters
using the roman transliteration is confusing. I believe you
are mixing up ('th' + 'r') with repeating 'R' which you
represent as 'tr'.
Unfortunately, I can not elaborate further on this, since
being a brahmin, I can not do anything but mischief.
You may be able to find much more information from a posting
made by Prof. Selvakumar in this same thread.
adhi dhanyavaad!
badrinarayanan seshadri
* Sabapathy
--
--------------------------------------------------
S.Badrinarayanan
Graduate Student
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
Cornell University
--------------------------------------------------
Sage
Chithraannam is traditionally distributed on Adi Perukku, the day when Kaveri is
in floods; occurs in the month of August. It is the distribution of several rice
dishes such as cocoanut-rice, puliodhari, thairchadam, lemeon rice, sesame-rice etc.
Since these are distributed in small quantity it may be called 'chitrannam'
(chiru+annam) as you correctly derived from tamil grammer. But since the proper term
is 'chithraannam' which is sanskrit based (Chithram+annam) it means 'fancy rice'
(similar to vichithramana chaadam).
It is a nice practice popular in Tamilnad and should be followed by all expatriates.
If there is sufficient interest I will post how to prepare these different delicious
rice recipes, which you can enjoy any time.
Sage (Munivaran)
VICTOR Gnanapragasam
> sesh...@cup.hp.com (Raghu Seshadri) wrote:
> >Thathachari (tha...@utxsvs.cc.utexas.edu) wrote:
> >: Prakash Jayaraman wrote:
> and so on. Comming back to Chitrannam, you are right in saying that the
> are commonly used to term the not easily perishable food. In ancient
> tamil stories we have mentions of these. Travellers who go far for days
> carry these with them for snacks. The acids in these sour preparations
> acts as preservatives - Citric acid in lemon rice, mallic & acetic acids
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There is also this possibility....
Citric acid + rice ===> Citric + annam = Chitrannam....:)
cheers,
vic. g.
> in puliyotharai (tamarind rice) etc.
> So Chitrannam means purely - "a snack" - not a full meal.
> And a few words about full meal - The Periyannam - Big rice.
> The meal consists of these and sometimes more.
> Satham, sambar, nei, paruppu, curry, rasam, thayir, oorukai, keerai,
> kilangu, kai, kani, appalam, vadai, payasam etc.
> And and a few words to thatha & shesha - Stop your mishcieve.
> Sabapathy
Kathiravan Krishnamurthi
In article <4hvc2b$8...@hpindda.cup.hp.com>, sesh...@cup.hp.com (Raghu Seshadri) writes:
|> Sankaran, Sam (SANK...@Meena.CC.URegina.CA) wrote:
|>
|> I read the other suggestions like siru + annam,
|> but that doesn't seem correct, because
|> siru + annam becomes siTTRAnnam ( I don't know
|> Adami, I hope you can figure it out),
|> not chithrannam.
thooNGkaravana ezhuppalaam.
nadikaravana ezhuppa mudiyaathu.
Forget about Rethinam for a while.
Have you seriously considered what
Selva's article said.
What is siRu + ambalam
in Tamil. Forget for a minute all
Tamil words do not have to come from
Sanskrit.
To be mischievous let us give
you an exercise. Please tell me Sanskrit
derivations for.
uzhavu
Er
kOdaaLi
maNvetti
saal
kaLappai
vaaykkaal
payir
kathir
viLaichchal
pOkam
naaRRu
After that we shall accept your statements
about overwhelming cultural influence of Sanskrit
on ordinary Munusami/Muniamma in Tamil Nadu. We would not
have survived as a civilisation without the above.
Kathiravan
|> Guys like Rethinam are so busy fantasizing
|> about extermination and killing and blood
|> and hate, they don't have time to learn
|> even elementary Tamil syntax.
|>
|> RS
Kathiravan Krishnamurthi
In article <4i5ijo$s...@hpindda.cup.hp.com>, sesh...@cup.hp.com (Raghu Seshadri) writes:
|> From: kkri...@bnr.ca (Kathiravan Krishnamurthi)
|>
|> In article <4hvc2b$8...@hpindda.cup.hp.com>, sesh...@cup.hp.com (Raghu Seshadri) writes:
|> |> I read the other suggestions like siru + annam,
|> |> but that doesn't seem correct, because
|> |> siru + annam becomes siTTRAnnam ( I don't know
|> |> Adami, I hope you can figure it out),
|> |> not chithrannam.
|>
|> -nadikaravana ezhuppa mudiyaathu.
|>
|> I hope we can rise above insults,
|> dear sir. I assure you I am not
|> "pretending" or "acting", I genuinely, completely,
|> totally, heart&soul, cross-my-heart-and-hope-to-die
|> believe whatever I write.
If you are not pretending
then listen to what is said. Examine
that. Do not jump around coming out
with Chitra-color rice etc.
It is not a question of only
ethymology but also fitting into the
scheme of things. Selva explained chiRRannam
in a context of ethymology. If you were
sincere you would consider all the words
and meanings attached to the Tamil words.
If you were sincere you would
make a sincere attempt not to repeatedly
mispell the word as siTTRAnnam you would
Go back to basics.
Again. I just do not believe about
a pure language. But it would be nice if
you are serious about what you are talking
about and not indulge in frivolity.
|> -What is siRu + ambalam
|> -in Tamil. Forget for a minute all
|> -Tamil words do not have to come from
|> -Sanskrit.
|>
|>
|> Please note that I have said nothing
|> in this thread about culture - only
|> language. Are you saying Sanskrit
|> words have not become part of Tamil
|> thousands of years ago ? You are
|> wrong then.
I am not saying that Sanskrit has
not influenced Tamil. I am also not throwing 10
non-sanskrit words. Some of you guys have
a frivolous way of coming up with words.
That is all. The substrate of Tamil language
/culture has not much to do with sanskrit.
If you extend your frivolity to those above
substrate words [I mean cultural words that have
let a civilisation survive] you can go and
say uzhavu comes from ulava, naaRRu from naaththa
and give your own sweet explanations.
Now tell me Sir! chitrA and annam are
words for you. Make a Tamil word from
that. What will you do to the nedil.
Donot say siTTRAannam as you have written.
Sounds ridiculous.
Kathiravan
|> I admire your nerve, though.
|>
|> RS
Kathiravan Krishnamurthi
In article <4i5ng9$a...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>, ng...@u.washington.edu (V. Nagarajan) writes:
|> In article <4i4gso$f...@bmerhc5e.bnr.ca>,
|> Kathiravan Krishnamurthi <kkri...@bnr.ca> wrote:
|> >
|> >In article <4hvc2b$8...@hpindda.cup.hp.com>, sesh...@cup.hp.com (Raghu Seshadri) writes:
|> >|>
|> >|> I read the other suggestions like siru + annam,
|> >|> but that doesn't seem correct, because
|> >|> siru + annam becomes siTTRAnnam ( I don't know
|> >|> Adami, I hope you can figure it out),
|> >|> not chithrannam.
|> >
|> >nadikaravana ezhuppa mudiyaathu.
|> >Forget about Rethinam for a while.
|> >Have you seriously considered what
|> >Selva's article said.
|> >
|> > What is siRu + ambalam
|>
|>
|> Kathir, you are not being mischievous; you are being dense, perhaps
|> intentionally. siRu amabalam is si(t)Rambalam not sithrambalam.
|> I haven't a clue what the etymology is of the word under question,
|> but it is entertaining to watch some of the people here invent
|> new syntactical rules in their quixotic defence of kannitthamizh.
|>
|>
Yes Nagarajan. I was intentionally dense.
I read RS's mails. I think he is dense. Hence
my reply. Now let the small dancing hall literally
become colorful with yellow turmeric, sandal, red
kumkum etc.
I am not here to defend anything.
But I think it is intentionally dense to
simply say something and not examining what
others say.
Kathiravan
Raghu Seshadri
: |> -nadikaravana ezhuppa mudiyaathu.
: |>
: |> I hope we can rise above insults,
: |> dear sir. I assure you I am not
: |> "pretending" or "acting", I genuinely, completely,
: |> totally, heart&soul, cross-my-heart-and-hope-to-die
: |> believe whatever I write.
: If you are not pretending
: then listen to what is said. Examine
: that.
But I did ! I did !
:Do not jump around coming out
: with Chitra-color rice etc.
Why not ? Don't stop with telling me
what not to do, tell me why not.
: It is not a question of only
: ethymology but also fitting into the
: scheme of things. Selva explained chiRRannam
: in a context of ethymology. If you were
: sincere you would consider all the words
: and meanings attached to the Tamil words.
Please stop this 'if you were sincere'
stuff. I cant make any sense out of
that kind of phraseology.
I did read Selva's explanation.
Unless I am mistaken, he didn't
disagree with my chitra + annam
answer. So what are you talking about ?
: If you were sincere you would
: make a sincere attempt not to repeatedly
: mispell the word as siTTRAnnam you would
: Go back to basics.
And if you were acting like a grown-up,
you would give up this 'if you were
sincere' stuff, something only
children use in their kids' talk.
I didn't misspell siTTRAnnam. I claim
that siRu + annam is siTTRAnnam,
not chitrannam.
: Again. I just do not believe about
: a pure language. But it would be nice if
: you are serious about what you are talking
: about and not indulge in frivolity.
What frivolity ? I am very serious
about my claim that siRu + annam
can never be chitrannam.
: |> Please note that I have said nothing
: |> in this thread about culture - only
: |> language. Are you saying Sanskrit
: |> words have not become part of Tamil
: |> thousands of years ago ? You are
: |> wrong then.
: I am not saying that Sanskrit has
: not influenced Tamil. I am also not throwing 10
: non-sanskrit words. Some of you guys have
: a frivolous way of coming up with words.
: That is all.
I don't understand what you mean here.
:The substrate of Tamil language
: /culture has not much to do with sanskrit.
I know that. Did I claim otherwise ?
: If you extend your frivolity to those above
: substrate words [I mean cultural words that have
: let a civilisation survive] you can go and
: say uzhavu comes from ulava, naaRRu from naaththa
: and give your own sweet explanations.
Again i don't get it. Why should I
give some crazy derivations for these
words ?
Are you having a problem differentiating
between SOME and ALL ? Just because
SOME words have a Sanskrit origin, does
it mean ALL of them do ?
What craziness is this ?
: Now tell me Sir! chitrA and annam are
: words for you.
You mean they are not words for you ?
What are they then ?
:Make a Tamil word from
: that. What will you do to the nedil.
: Donot say siTTRAannam as you have written.
: Sounds ridiculous.
Yes, of course it does. That is the
point. Chitra + annam -> chitrannam,
NOT siTTRAannam.
I think discussing this with you is
futile, you seem to have a serious
block against grasping what I am
saying in this thread. Please contact
Selva , he may explain it in a way
you can understand.
Sincerely,
RS
Kathiravan Krishnamurthi
In article <4i7hpu$h...@hpindda.cup.hp.com>, sesh...@cup.hp.com (Raghu Seshadri) writes:
|> you can understand.
|>
|> Sincerely,
|> RS
It is just so mutual. I think the same
. Discussion with people pretending to listen
but side track is futile. Did you consider
deriving siRRambalam->siththambalam from
Selva's mail.
I did not follow-up to Selva's
mail. I looked into the words and the connections
that Selva discussed. I felt very convincing.
I also felt color-rice theory is rather side tracking.
From Selva's mail I could see the ethymology
for words like siththi-thiRamai-aRivu=delicate skill
as in siRpam etc. His article was to me profound
and convincing. It reinforces many things we come
across in day to day language.
Please do not paint colors
like color-rice etc. It is side tracking from
the ethymological discussion of the word.
Also I wish to point another thing.
It is not in your mail. Nagarajan brought up
kanniththamizh. This was discussed many a time by selva.
I am convinced after his articles and looking into
tamil dictionary that it is azhivillaa thamizh.
I wish that our language is not destroyed.
Kathiravan
Thathachari
[Stuff Deleted]
> Also I wish to point another thing.
> It is not in your mail. Nagarajan brought up
> kanniththamizh. This was discussed many a time by selva.
> I am convinced after his articles and looking into
> tamil dictionary that it is azhivillaa thamizh.
> I wish that our language is not destroyed.
What exactly do you mean by 'azhivillaa thamizh'? Tamil did not
just materialize out of thin air one sunny day. Did it not grow
out of other languages that preceded it? Are these languages not
dead now? My point has always been that a language *has* to grow.
And in the process of growth it changes. At some point the
*evolved* language will not completely resemble its parents.
What is destruction? Being influenced by another language? It
is my view that a language has to allow itself to be influenced to
survive.
Thaths
C.R. Selvakumar
I wish to clarify a few things as many seem to be
'fighting' over minor things. My post in this thread was
to point out that 'ci' + 'oRRezhuththu' has oftentimes
a root sense of 'small'.
Most of the words cikku, cikkanam to cinnam have the
root sense of 'small'. cith is one of them. The expressions
'ciththa n^Eram cummaa irukka maattaan' = "He won't be quiet
even for a short while, Geez!"
Similarly, "ciththa poRuththu vaappaa" = "Please
come after sometime ( short while), my dear fellow".
In the above examples 'ciththa' = short time.
The words ciththi, ciththappan ( < ciRRappan)
ciththaanai = young elephant etc. etc.
The word chithra is the same as ciththiram ( small replica, small
representation) which can mean a drawing as well as a painting.
When you say fast it becomes chithra and it is written in roman
as chitra.
There are many derivative meanings and one of them is
'small embellishment' and thus the expressions
like 'andha citramellaam enkitta vachchukkAthE' meaning 'don't
try all those small tricks on me'. Or 'O avanaa ! avan cariyaana
citrakaaranaachchE' = Oh, he is a clever trickster.
(also note that while chithtirar means 'artistic painter', it can
also mean one who causes 'split' ( cithaRac ceybavan = kalagam
viLaivippOn).
Chitra meaning 'fancy' is also from the
tamil root sense ( small embellishment).
Thus you see that both negative and positive connotations arise.
Tamils use Oviyam, ezhuthu,
varai, thIttu in connection with drawing and painting.
( many ancient literary works devoted to 'Oviyam'
are believed to be lost)
Thus ciththira (small embellishment or fancy innovation) + annam=
ciththraannam, written as Chiraannam.
The soRpuNarchchi ( sandhi) follows sanskrit rule; note the
long 'aa'. While
sindhanai+ saththi should be written as sindhanaicchaththi, I find
some people writing in Tamil sindhanaasakthi. Other examples of
sanskritized usages ( in joining words) are manObalam, manOdhidam etc.
( Note manaththidam would be ambiguous and a good Tamil usages
will be manaththitpam, manaththiNmai etc.)
Once before I explained words like ciththam, ciththu etc. ciththu
is 'attaining ease in a trick', 'play'. The root sense of tamil
'ease' ( short time, reaching a stage of perfection in the
fulfilment needing negligible effort. "With ease")
I can elaborate but I'm sorry I can not do it now.
anbudan selvaa
Balaji Thirumalai
seen Kannadigas use the term "Chitra-Anna" more
than the Tamilians. And they use it to refer
to Lemon Rice more than anything else. This
is a personal observation and I might be wrong!
But, maybe its a Kannada word. Just maybe...
Worth xposting to the Karnataka newsgroups ?
Cheers,
Balaji.
--
(First post from my new Email id.
For those who know me formerly at bthi...@ingr.com
my new email is bal...@beast.amd.com).
Thathachari
> In article <314897...@utxsvs.cc.utexas.edu>, Thathachari <tha...@utxsvs.cc.utexas.edu> writes:
> |> What exactly do you mean by 'azhivillaa thamizh'? Tamil did not
> |> just materialize out of thin air one sunny day. Did it not grow
> |> out of other languages that preceded it? Are these languages not
> |> dead now? My point has always been that a language *has* to grow.
> |> And in the process of growth it changes. At some point the
> |> *evolved* language will not completely resemble its parents.
> |> What is destruction? Being influenced by another language? It
> |> is my view that a language has to allow itself to be influenced to
> |> survive.
> O ! naughty thats.
> lemme explain what I think is
> azhivillaamai-iRavaamai.
Oh no! Not the accusation of being naughty once again! First RS and now me?
> Tamil has grown throughout its history.
> Influence of many cultures and languages
> have enriched Tamil. Tamil remains continuous
> throughout its history. It is an expression
> of a wide spectrum of people. It continues
> to be vibrant.
> That is azhivillaath thamizh.
Can you (or Selva) please explain the meaning of the word 'azhivu'? From my
understanding of Tamil it means destruction/end. Doesn't 'iRappu' mean death?
What continuum are you talking about when you say that Tamil remains continuous
throughout history? Obviously not continuation of "purity" because by your
own admission Tamil has grown and has been *influenced* (meaning changed) by
many cultures and languages.
Upon removing the fluff out of your posting I see that you have chosen not to
respond to any of my questions.
> If you and your cohorts
> want to continue your favorite
> pastime of searching for a word to put Tamils
> down you are looking for the wrong word.[Stuff Deleted]
Jeeze! Not the conspiracy theory!! Been reading Nazim's postings lately? ;-)
I will continue discussions if we can get the Elvis-is-alive /
moon-landings-were-fake theories out of the way.
Thaths
M.Ranganathan
Have'nt you ? Especially the one about evil vegetarian sailors of the
Sri Lankan navy knocking off our Tamil fishermen ? Wazzat ? Did I say
"our" ? Sorry. I am still awaiting a reference for the "Collected
works of Nazim Mohamed".
>I will continue discussions if we can get the Elvis-is-alive /
>moon-landings-were-fake theories out of the way.
But Elvis *is* alive. And those moon landing pictures - why thats
just a scene from the grand canyon. Did you know that the Earth is
actually flat and the pictures that show it round are just part of
the conspiracy? Ooops I better not let these little secrets out.
Your co-conspirator,
Ranga.
>
>
>Thaths
Kathiravan Krishnamurthi
In article <3149AE...@utxsvs.cc.utexas.edu>, Thathachari <tha...@utxsvs.cc.utexas.edu> writes:
|> Kathiravan Krishnamurthi wrote:
|> > In article <314897...@utxsvs.cc.utexas.edu>, Thathachari <tha...@utxsvs.cc.utexas.edu> writes:
|> > of a wide spectrum of people. It continues
|> > to be vibrant.
|> > That is azhivillaath thamizh.
|>
|> Can you (or Selva) please explain the meaning of the word 'azhivu'? From my
|> understanding of Tamil it means destruction/end. Doesn't 'iRappu' mean death?
|> What continuum are you talking about when you say that Tamil remains continuous
|> throughout history? Obviously not continuation of "purity" because by your
|> own admission Tamil has grown and has been *influenced* (meaning changed) by
|> many cultures and languages.
It is not just my statement about
continuity of Tamil throughout its history.
Read again sincerely commentary about Tamil
language by Kamil Zvelebil or George Hart.
You will know what they mean.
I remember you once told in this forum that
most of old Tamil works are incomprehensible for an
urbanite like you. I posted an old poem and
identified the words and you found out yourself
that most of the words were close to today's
Tamil. That is why I consider you a naughty
boy:
Coming to iRavaatha:
What did Bharathi mean when he
said something close to \iRavaatha
pugazh koNda puthu noolkaL thamizhlil aakka vENdum\.
Naughty boy should know it. The language
is not archaic.
If you sincerely don't know
what Bharathi said 60-70 years ago then
you should be kidding bigtime.
Even take Bharathi's poems that were
written 70 years ago.
When one reads poets like thaayumaanavar,
pattinaththaar and a host of poets just
before him in Tamil history one can easliy
find out that there is no step change in the
language itself.
Kathiravan.
|>
|> Thaths
Kathiravan Krishnamurthi
|> [Stuff Deleted]
|> > Also I wish to point another thing.
|> > It is not in your mail. Nagarajan brought up
|> > kanniththamizh. This was discussed many a time by selva.
|> > I am convinced after his articles and looking into
|> > tamil dictionary that it is azhivillaa thamizh.
|> > I wish that our language is not destroyed.
|>
|> just materialize out of thin air one sunny day. Did it not grow
|> out of other languages that preceded it? Are these languages not
|> dead now? My point has always been that a language *has* to grow.
|> And in the process of growth it changes. At some point the
|> *evolved* language will not completely resemble its parents.
|>
|> What is destruction? Being influenced by another language? It
|> is my view that a language has to allow itself to be influenced to
|> survive.
|>
O ! naughty thats.
lemme explain what I think is
azhivillaamai-iRavaamai.
Tamil has grown throughout its history.
Influence of many cultures and languages
have enriched Tamil. Tamil remains continuous
throughout its history. It is an expression
of a wide spectrum of people. It continues
to be vibrant.
That is azhivillaath thamizh.
If you and your cohorts
want to continue your favorite
pastime of searching for a word to put Tamils
down you are looking for the wrong word.
The word you are looking is not kanniththamizh
. It is called thaniththamizh coined during
the early part of this century.
kathiravan
C.R. Selvakumar
Balaji Thirumalai <bal...@beast.amd.com> wrote:
>Now, I am sorry for jumping in late, but I have
>seen Kannadigas use the term "Chitra-Anna" more
>than the Tamilians. And they use it to refer
>to Lemon Rice more than anything else. This
>is a personal observation and I might be wrong!
>But, maybe its a Kannada word. Just maybe...
>Worth xposting to the Karnataka newsgroups ?
Kannada is a Dravidian language that shares
the same base with Tamil. If you could cite
Kannda usages for the word Chitra other than
'drawing, painting, fancy', it might add a
perspective. The Tamil word chiththiram > chithra
written as 'Chitra' is one of a family of more than
100 words. Unfortunately a lot of people don't
understand the semantic ramifications of Tamil
words. DevanEyap PaavaaNar, a great scholar,
showed numerous examples. In a book called
'sollaaraaychchik katturai' he shows how
a simple word 'ul, ula' leads to more than 300
words. Tamil semantic history is quite rich and
extremely interesting and the words of Telugu, Kannada,
Malayaalam and other dravidian langauges
( numbering more than 20) illuminate many areas.
>
>Cheers,
>Balaji.
>(First post from my new Email id.
>For those who know me formerly at bthi...@ingr.com
>my new email is bal...@beast.amd.com).
selvaa
Thathachari
> In article <3149AE...@utxsvs.cc.utexas.edu>, Thathachari <tha...@utxsvs.cc.utexas.edu> writes:
> |> Can you (or Selva) please explain the meaning of the word 'azhivu'? From my
> |> understanding of Tamil it means destruction/end. Doesn't 'iRappu' mean death?
> |> What continuum are you talking about when you say that Tamil remains continuous
> |> throughout history? Obviously not continuation of "purity" because by your
> |> own admission Tamil has grown and has been *influenced* (meaning changed) by
> I remember you once told in this forum that
> most of old Tamil works are incomprehensible for an
> urbanite like you. I posted an old poem and
> identified the words and you found out yourself
I still firmly believe that there is a gap between pEcchu Tamil and yEzhutthu Tamil. I
first started noticing this in the letters written in Tamil. Poems and Prayers (IMO)
come under yEzhutthu Tamil. Can somebody (Selva, Sam, Dan, Badri?) please explain why
there is this gap between the spoken and written versions of Tamil. I have noticed
that the written version of Tamil is overly formal (even between friends). Why hasn't
written Tamil gone the Spoken Tamil way? Why is it that people try to be grammatically
correct in their writing but not in their speech?
It is like a person sho would normally say "How are you?" writing "How art thou?".
Have also noticed this in old B/W Tamil Raja-type movies. The movie is mostly in
formal Tamil except for the comedy sections which are in common spoken Tamil.
Thaths
Suresh Rajan
I usually notice the transition from informal Tamil to really formal
Tamil when a movie gets to the emotional bits. That's when you get
people like Sivaji, SSR & this actress whose name I can't remember
(she acted as Sivaji's mother in Manohara) launch into their non-stop
dialogues.
Suresh
Paul E Jeganathan
>I still firmly believe that there is a gap between pEcchu Tamil and yEzhutthu Tamil. I
>first started noticing this in the letters written in Tamil. Poems and Prayers (IMO)
>come under yEzhutthu Tamil. Can somebody (Selva, Sam, Dan, Badri?) please explain why
>there is this gap between the spoken and written versions of Tamil. I have noticed
>that the written version of Tamil is overly formal (even between friends). Why hasn't
>written Tamil gone the Spoken Tamil way? Why is it that people try to be grammatically
>correct in their writing but not in their speech?
Written T. is formalized. It is difficult to do the same with spoken T.
This is because the diff. in spkn T from region to region. My b-i-l who
was born and raised in Madras could never understand anything my aunt from
Coimbatore said. My other aunt from Madurai had a very difficult time
communicating with certain people in Madras. In the USA they say that
TV has standardized spoken English. I have difficulty visualizing
such a thing
happening in TN. In my opinion short story writters of TN could try
to bring some kind of stdzn to spoken t. The way it is now each one uses
the type of spkn t. they are used to or use the spkn t that would fit
the charactor.
Also certain spoken expressions might sound abusrd when written (?). Here
is an example...my mother is feeling better now was written in kotchchai
Tamil by a friend as ....ammavukku ippoa udambu thevai-illai! Someone
airing their grievance saying that they felt like taking a plunge to
death wrote....chadi ullunthu chagalampola irukku. People in Madras had
diff understanding what the writer was saying. Remember though these
people were using kotchai thamizh using local expressions/pronouciation.
This is an interesting topic. I am looking forward to read what others
have to say.
pej
Badrinarayanan Seshadri
* I still firmly believe that there is a gap between pEcchu Tamil and
* yEzhutthu Tamil. I first started noticing this in the letters
* written in Tamil. Poems and Prayers (IMO) come under yEzhutthu
* Tamil.
The earliest thamizh grammar tholkaappiyam notes the existence of this
difference and denotes the two different forms of thamizh as
'kodunthamizh' & 'senthamizh'. So, this is not a new phenomenon that
happened over the last few hundred years.
* Why hasn't written Tamil gone the Spoken Tamil way? Why is it that
* people try to be grammatically correct in their writing but not in
* their speech?
Why? I believe every language is like this in this respect. Some
qualified linguists can inform us the reasons. Usages like 'gonna' and
'wanna' exist in English too. This is perhaps more pronounced in
thamizh because dropping off or rounding off the suffix denoting
gender and number from verbs or replacing them by dilaectical
variations doesn't affect the meaning, and in fact there is no need
for such a suffix at all to the verbs. It should be enough if the verb
provides the right tense.
[vaareehaLaa?, vareengaLaa? varrELaa?, varukireeraa?, varukireerkaLaa?
etc. aren't really that far away from each other, right?]
There have always been a rigid set of standards (which evolve over
time) for the written language and hence people try to adhere to those
set of standards while writing.
* Have also noticed this in old B/W Tamil Raja-type movies. The movie
* is mostly in formal Tamil except for the comedy sections which are
* in common spoken Tamil.
It is interesting to note that in Kalidasa's (and perhaps with other
kavya writers too) kavyas, the vidhooshaka speaks in prakrt while the
kings and the learned men speak in samskrt. In silappadhikaaram,
aaychchiyar kuravai has some slang verb forms while serious material
involving the hero/heroine/king etc. are in senthamizh. The old B/W
thamizh movies haven't done anything revolutionary:-)
--badri
* Thaths
Ravi Sundaram
> 'Naughty boy' Thathachari (tha...@utxsvs.cc.utexas.edu) wrote:
>
> * I still firmly believe that there is a gap between pEcchu Tamil and
> * yEzhutthu Tamil. I first started noticing this in the letters
> * written in Tamil. Poems and Prayers (IMO) come under yEzhutthu
> * Tamil.
>
> The earliest thamizh grammar tholkaappiyam notes the existence of this
> difference and denotes the two different forms of thamizh as
> 'kodunthamizh' & 'senthamizh'. So, this is not a new phenomenon that
> happened over the last few hundred years.
>
> * Thaths
Written versions of the languages (tamil/english) have always been
more formal than the spoken versions. The dichotomy is striking
in Chinese. The various dialects have common script but the
pronounciations are completely different.
I think in TN there is less opportunity to use formal spoken tamil.
Radio/TV news, speeches from lecterns, patti manRam, songs
and church sermons are the only places where I have "heard" formal
tamil.
Also spoken formal English does not sound odd because it is much
more common. While presenting term papers, during thesis defence,
in interviews we quite frequently hear/speak formal English.
But in TN even in formal settings like offices and interviews
spoken tamil is less formal. Try saying "illai aiyaa" in an
job interview instead of "illE saar". And the lone conductor
in a PTC bus who used to say, "munnaal sellungaL aiyaa" made it
to all the weekly magazines.
If more of the common folk get more opportunity to speak in formal
settings, may be formal spoken tamil would also sound less odd.
Ravi Sundaram
03/20/96
--
Ravi Sundaram.
(Opinions are mine, not Ansoft's.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dorai Sitaram
usage. Tamil is a classic case of diglossia -- the
phenomenon Thaths describes whereby the spoken and the
written language differ spectacularly at the morpheme level
itself. A few other languages exhibit this trait (I believe
Arabic is the canonical example, although from the
descriptions I remember, it is nowhere as drastic as Tamil).
Uncritical fans of Tamil tend to view the two-facedness of
their language as a strength, though there is more than a
hint of making the best of a bad situation behind this
approach. For instance, they have been known to claim
rather disingenuously that all languages, "even English",
are diglossic "anyway", when the most that one can say is
that most languages tend to distribute certain types of
_register_ across their spoken and written norms, which is
not at all the same thing as diglossia.
Certainly diglossic languages are still usable, if only as a
purely commercial standard (provided there are no competing
languages that tempt the user with their more uniglossic
charms; otherwise, a good-sized de facto linguistic
migration, even if it is never admitted as such, is
inevitable). Diglossia is also one way to preserve or at
least pretend to preserve the continuity of a language from
a distant past. But at a terrible cost, for:
Language _is_ speech. All else is transcription thereof. A
language that makes a written (or a composition) standard
the preferred norm and lets its spoken form follow its own
necessity-driven evolution uncoupled to writing can help
neither its speech nor its writing. The written word is
alive and moving inasmuch as it has the genius of speech
behind it. Diglossic languages deprive their users of this
immediate and informing feedback.
For an illustration, consider this: diglossic languages tend
invariably to have their best and often only inspired
written samples, _even by the standards of their users_,
from a bygone era, when the diglossia wasn't as acute. (Not
surprisingly, a "can't top the past" syndrome is often a
hallmark of users of such languages. The older canon is
always timeless and blemishless.)
In sum, diglossia is a collective compromise: users
voluntarily give up a linguistic resource in order to better
focus on and preserve a package from the past. Whether this
is a good trade each user has to answer for hirself.
--d
Shabari Kumar
> language that makes a written (or a composition) standard
> the preferred norm and lets its spoken form follow its own
> necessity-driven evolution uncoupled to writing can help
> neither its speech nor its writing. The written word is
> alive and moving inasmuch as it has the genius of speech
> behind it. Diglossic languages deprive their users of this
> immediate and informing feedback.
>
but what happened to the whole movement of literati such as bharatiar to
write in more colloquial speech, both in terms of vocabulary and in terms
of form (prose poems etc)?
> For an illustration, consider this: diglossic languages tend
> invariably to have their best and often only inspired
> written samples, _even by the standards of their users_,
> from a bygone era, when the diglossiwasn't as ute. (Not
> surprisingly, a "can't top the past" syndrome is often a
> hallmark of users of such languages. The older canon is
> always timeless and blemishless.)
>
r. parthasarathy has written about this weight of the past cramping the
style of contemporary poets, and compares it to the situation for greeks,
until odysseus elitas (sp?) came along to rework the language.
a similar point is made also by eliot, who says that a great artist
produces a new literary language to fit the needs of his time (dante etc).
so without such a great artist, the language stays at the level of the
last greats.
however, it's a trade-off. you can get closer to everyday speech, but
you give up your closeness to teh great lit. of the past.
Sundar
> This is indeed one of the pernicious problems with Tamil
[...]
> In sum, diglossia is a collective compromise: users
> voluntarily give up a linguistic resource in order to better
> focus on and preserve a package from the past. Whether this
> is a good trade each user has to answer for hirself.
>
> --d
Thanks Dorai for your nice article. It is well-known to
South-Asian linguists that Tamil is a classic case of diglossia,
and recently a western linguist (not K. Zvelebil) has published a
book on this. I remember reading a review of this book somewhere
in a south-asian journal, but it suffices to say that it is a
silly idea for badri or others to compare the diglossia in tamil
with any of the European languages like English, German, or French.
I have some ideas to write a socio-linguistic paper on this
diglossia aspect, when I find the resources. It is important for
all the Tamils to understand that diglossia in Tamil is drastic,
and different from that seen in the European languages.
As an aside, the modern tamil literature has done a good job
in *registering* the spoken tamil in arts. As Sam Sankaran
remarked, Jayakanthan pioneered this with freely using the spoken
tamil, and others followed suit, though they dont succed in arts
as much as they succeed in using rich colloquial language, the
so-called 'vattaara vazhakku'. Also, the modern Tamil writers I
spoke to like Sundara Ramaswamy and others feel that it is indeed
a very good idea to narrow the gap between the spoken and written
Tamil.
How this is effectively achieved in Tamil is a good resarch topic.
- Sundar
Thathachari
[Dorai's Diaglossia Comments Deleted]
> Thanks Dorai for your nice article. It is well-known to
> South-Asian linguists that Tamil is a classic case of diglossia,
> and recently a western linguist (not K. Zvelebil) has published a
> book on this. I remember reading a review of this book somewhere
> in a south-asian journal, but it suffices to say that it is a
> silly idea for badri or others to compare the diglossia in tamil
> with any of the European languages like English, German, or French.
What I find most surprising about the arguments put forward by Badri
and "Call Everybody A Naughty Boy" :-) Kathir is the differences in
the explanations that these people have provided. Why is there no
consensus in the explanation of the diaglossic nature of Tamil?
Thaths
Kathiravan Krishnamurthi
Look at the first article that you posted.
After that you changed topics atleast 2 times
and now you are
hanging to Dorai's article and Sundar's response.
You are not serious and don't stick to what you
started with. Now is it diaglossia or diglossia?
You seem to be confused now? Check the spelling.
Read some of the new Tamil works
. There are literary works in Tamil that use
down to earth colloquial Tamil. A kuRunaaval
written by IlakkiyamaNi Gunaratnam of Elam
that won the Subhamangala contest could be
a starter.
Kathiravan
Badrinarayanan Seshadri
* Sundar wrote:
* [Dorai's Diaglossia Comments Deleted]
* > Thanks Dorai for your nice article. It is well-known to
* > South-Asian linguists that Tamil is a classic case of diglossia,
* > and recently a western linguist (not K. Zvelebil) has published a
* > book on this. I remember reading a review of this book somewhere
* > in a south-asian journal, but it suffices to say that it is a
* > silly idea for badri or others to compare the diglossia in tamil
* > with any of the European languages like English, German, or French.
* What I find most surprising about the arguments put forward by Badri
* and "Call Everybody A Naughty Boy" :-) Kathir is the differences in
* the explanations that these people have provided. Why is there no
* consensus in the explanation of the diaglossic nature of Tamil?
I am not an expert on this topic and I suspect neither is kathir.
I didn't even offer any explanation in the first place! I didn't
realise that the diglossia (in fact, I just learnt this word
after the posting from Dorai) in Tamil will be detrimental to the
growth of the language and/or development of good literature in
both the literary and the colloquial dialects. I have observed
similar differences in the case of spoken Hindi and written
Hindi. Perhaps this diglossia is of the same order in most Indian
languages.
I fully agree that the diglossia in Tamil (or Hindi) is not
really comparable with the same in the European languages. I was
not comparing the orders of magnitudes. I mentioned that one can
find diglossia in almost every language, and that it is much more
pronounced in Tamil, and requested the linguists among the
esteemed SCT audience to provide us the reasons.
--badri
Badrinarayanan Seshadri
Prof. George Hart. I am posting the following on behalf
of sundar (sun...@zach.wustl.edu).
=========
From: George Hart <gh...@garnet.berkeley.edu>
To: Sundar <sun...@zach.wustl.edu>
Subject: Re: A question on Tamil diglossia
Dear Sundar,
I don't have time to reply properly to your letter, but here are some
thoughts:
1. The diglossia in Tamil is largely, but not entirely, the result of
historical change. At one point, something close to "written Tamil" was
spoken. It became the accepted way to write the language. Then the
spoken language changed, but the written language changed much less.
Many languages have diglossia -- in fact, most written languages do. In
Switzerland, for example, the spoken language is quite as far from the
written one as the two types of Tamil are from each other. Greek is the
same (in fact, I think the Greek is quite similar to Tamil in many
respects -- note it also has an old classical literature, and the
written form uses classical vocabulary, forms, and spellings).
2. Diglossia seems especially a feature of Indian culture. If you read
the old Sanskrit plays, you'll find the high-born men speaking Sanskrit
while everyone else uses various forms of Prakrit. The distance between
Sanskrit and Prakrit is roughly the difference between spoken and
written Tamil. Telugu has a very distinct diglossia, though in recent
times the spoken language has been used more and more for writing. But
the older classical Telugu is extremely different from what is spoken.
3. I don't think the development of the Dravidian languages is much
related to diglossia. There are some interesting facts, however -- for
example, the spoken "uciru" is original while the written "uyir" is a
Tamil innovation.
4. Naturally, the development of the Tamil diglossia is quite complex.
The written language maintains features of archaic Tamil (i.e. what was
spoken long ago), but it has obviously changed a lot. No one writes
Sangam Tamil. There has always been a sense of what "formal" Tamil
should look like, though this has changed over time. In fact, "formal"
Tamil has many many styles -- highly Sanskritized, unsanskritized, very
formal, somewhat formal, etc. It's really a fascinating subject, as you
know. G. Hart
Thathachari
> In article <315712...@utxsvs.cc.utexas.edu>, Thathachari <tha...@utxsvs.cc.utexas.edu> writes:
that what I wanted to discuss did not fit any longer into the 'meaning of
chitrannam' thread. What is your problem with my changing the subject in the
post? Did I not have the old subject within brackets? I did not find
anything interesting in the old thread and stopped writing there.
> and now you are
> hanging to Dorai's article and Sundar's response.Reasons for your judgement that I am "hanging to Dorai's article and Sundar's
response" please. I merely quoted the articles because what I had written
had some relevance to it. Also note that I had written "Dorai's Diaglossia
Comments" (I reproduce along with my mis-spelling) and NOT "Dorai's Diglossia
Commandments". I did this because I feel that it is Dorai's comment on the
phenomenon and not necessarily the explanation of the phenomenon. Whatever
gave you the impression that I am deeply moved by Dorai's piece? Are we not
making assumptions here?
> You are not serious and don't stick to what you
> started with. Now is it diaglossia or diglossia?
> You seem to be confused now? Check the spelling.Do you honestly think that we should start exchanging pot shots about
spelling? I assumed a seasoned USENET-er like you would have learnt enough
not to comment on typos. Guess I was wrong.
> Read some of the new Tamil works
> . There are literary works in Tamil that use
> down to earth colloquial Tamil. A kuRunaaval
> written by IlakkiyamaNi Gunaratnam of Elam
> that won the Subhamangala contest could be
> a starter.
Thanks for your suggestion of books. I find it difficult to converse with
people who make baseless judgements and who want to continue with a topic
till somebody emerges "victorious/enlightened." I had merely expressed
my opinion (based on what has been going on this thread and it's parent)
about the lack of uniformity of explanations for the phenomenon and you seem
to find that offensive. This is my last post in this thread as no good
seems to come out of it.
Thaths