[Big A]

Originally Posted by aravindhan
You can also use "punarcchi" (and related words such as "punartal") in non-grammatical contexts, to refer to meeting or union. In ancient Tamil prosody, for example, one of the poetical divisions which dealt with one lover longing for the other and grieving over their separation was called புணராவிரக்கம் (punaravirakkam).

I think, virakkam, is a Samskritham word again, which is "Viraham". I am sure there shd be a Thamizh word for this too...

I have veryu very very poor knowledge about Thamizh literature and grammer. Whaterver, said and argued, after seeing the available quotes from Literature, I feel this, that in ancient days, our ancestors didn't hesitate to use other language's words and they meant no superioarity or inferiority. I think, only in the middle ages, due to some mal-elements, unncessary politcs were created and in resolving this politics, we hav lost many valuable things.... I totally agree with you. But since the other group started derogating our language comparing with a long dead language, we are forced to defend. The polemics were started by sanskritists a long time back and they went to the level of saying that tamil is a barbarian language.

For the viraham/ virakkam - it is not virakkam, it is irakkam, which transforms as virakkam following tamil morphology. I understand it is difficult for someone to trace the origin when both these languages have so many words in common. That is the reason I asked for someone to explain sanskrit morphology. Both sanskrit and tamil are unique in a way that they follow a strict morphology. Let us wait till someone explains it for sanskrit.



யாகாவா ராயினு னாகாக்க

[9mm_fan]

Firstly, just because there is an alternative for a word in Tamil it does not mean that word is not Tamil, for instance for water there are more than 50 words in sanskrit, does it mean that, but for one the rest all are non sanskrit ?

Secondly, if a word exist in Tamil and sanskrit, why it is assumed that Tamil got it from sanskrit ? it is more probably the other way around. Sanskrit is an artificial language perfected for liturgical purposes and for recording (supposedly) complex thought, the language was created from the existing languages, that includes Tamil and prakrits. If we get to the root of the word in tamil/prakrit better than that language is the original source of the word. For instance deepam/dheep the root is thee ie., fire in tamil, sanskrit does not have such roots for this word.

[radikal]

பகுதி விகுதி இடைநிலை சாரியை
சந்தி விகாரம் ஆறினும் ஏற்பவை
முன்னிப் புணர்ப்ப முடியுமெப் பதங்களும்
- நன்னூல்

What is your point? The nannul uses "santhi", and modern Tamil grammatical terminology being derived from the nannul, we call the inserted morpheme "santhi". That is beside the point. The question asked was whether there was a native Tamil term that could be equivalent to "santhi", and the answer is yes, the term is "punarcchi".

Let me put it this way. Tolkappiyar says that Tamil words do not begin with "ca". "canthi" begins with a "ca." The seeming contradiction can be resolved in one of three ways.

1. Tolkappiyar was an idiot who didn't know what he was talking about.
2. Tolkappiyar deliberately and maliciously included a rule in his work he knew to be false.
3. In Tolkappiyar's day, the "santhi" had a different name.

Wouldn't you agree that (3) is the likeliest option? Given that nearly all the terminology associated with santhi even today is derived from the "punar-" root: that division of grammar is called "punariyal", it seems to me to be quite likely that that was the term originally used to refer to the added morpheme. And that is all I was trying to say.

[Lt_Apple]

Originally Posted by FloraiPuyal பகுதி விகுதி இடைநிலை சாரியை
சந்தி விகாரம் ஆறினும் ஏற்பவை
முன்னிப் புணர்ப்ப முடியுமெப் பதங்களும்
- நன்னூல்

What is your point? The nannul uses "santhi", and modern Tamil grammatical terminology being derived from the nannul, we call the inserted morpheme "santhi". That is beside the point. The question asked was whether there was a native Tamil term that could be equivalent to "santhi", and the answer is yes, the term is "punarcchi".

Let me put it this way. Tolkappiyar says that Tamil words do not begin with "ca". "canthi" begins with a "ca." The seeming contradiction can be resolved in one of three ways.

1. Tolkappiyar was an idiot who didn't know what he was talking about.
2. Tolkappiyar deliberately and maliciously included a rule in his work he knew to be false.
3. In Tolkappiyar's day, the "santhi" had a different name.

Wouldn't you agree that (3) is the likeliest option? Given that nearly all the terminology associated with santhi even today is derived from the "punar-" root: that division of grammar is called "punariyal", it seems to me to be quite likely that that was the term originally used to refer to the added morpheme. And that is all I was trying to say. Dont you see the possibility that tholkappiyam is misinterpreted by us. Please refer to what iraamaki says on this. I had given the link in one of my replies.

http://valavu.blogspot.com/2006/03/3.html
(if someone doesnt know how to open this link: click on it.)

Anyway, since many hubbers dont take pains to see the link, I am giving an extract from this.
//
க, த, ந, ப, ம எனும் ஆவைந் தெழுத்தும்
எல்லா உயிரொடும் செல்லுமார் முதலே
சகரக் கிளவியும் அவற்றோர் அற்றே
அவை ஔ என்னும் ஒன்றலங் கடையே

"அய்யா, சகரக் கிளவி மற்றது மாதிரித்தான்; ஆனா கௌ, தௌ, நௌ, பௌ, சௌ என்ற ஔகாரம் மட்டும் மொழிக்கு முதல்லே வராது"

மேலே சொல்றபடி பார்த்தா சகரம் மொழி முதல்லே வரும். பாவாணர் எதுனாலே அப்படிச் சொன்னாருன்னா, நன்னூல் மயிலைநாதர் உரையிலே ஒரு பழைய மேற்கோள் வெண்பா வருது. அதுலே ஆணித்தரமா, சகரம் மொழி முதல்லெ வரும்னு சொல்லியிருக்கு.

சரி சமழ்ப்புச் சட்டி சருகு சவடி
சளிசகடு சட்டை சவளி - சவிசரடு
சத்து சதங்கை சழக்காதி ஈரிடத்தும்
வந்தனவாற் சம்முதலும் வை
//

You still havent answered my question. Please explain the morphology of sanskrit and explain how it is a sanskrit word.





யாகாவா ராயினு னாகாக்க

[brraverishhh]

Dont you see the possibility that tholkappiyam is misinterpreted by us. Please refer to what iraamaki says on this. I had given the link in one of my replies.

That is quite interesting - I hadn't read the article earlier because I mostly use Linux and Tamil unicode is impossible to read on Linux (Linux can't render the uyirmey letters in the right order). I've read it now, and whilst this interpretation is quite fascinating, I still have some difficulty believing that the traditional interpretation is wrong. I'll need to think about it for a while.

You still havent answered my question. Please explain the morphology of sanskrit and explain how it is a sanskrit word.

I 'm not a Sanskrit grammarian, you'll have to ask someone who is. I was operating under the assumption that it could not have been a classical Tamil word because of the conventional understanding of the Tolkappiyam.

[Slonopotam845]

Friends,

My purpose of this thread is more to discuss about contents of Sangam and the Unity of Indian Civilisation, which is purposfully been divided as Aryan-Dravidian myths by Missionary Indologists and these have been exploited by Thani Tamil and Dravidian movements

Vedic Culture is prevalent in evey Sangam collection.

Can we please read more of this.

Devapriya.

[Peptobismol]

Vedic Culture is prevalent in evey Sangam collection Prevalent? how?

Please kindly give us the percentage of Sangam stanzas dealing with vedic stuff according to you, upon the total number of stanzas in Sangam lit.

Thank you.

[Drugmachine]

My purpose of this thread is more to discuss about contents of Sangam and the Unity of Indian Civilisation, which is purposfully been divided as Aryan-Dravidian myths by Missionary Indologists and these have been exploited by Thani Tamil and Dravidian movements
Do not worry! Once BrahmaNa girls freely get married to non-Bramana and vice versa, there will be unity of Indian civilization. There won't be any Aryan - Dravidian divide or myth as you say. Missionary indologists will fall silent. Thani Tamiz and Dravidian movements will pack up.

Devapriya, why don't you inaugurate this unique movement rather than writing all these stuff here?

You mix Sankrit and Tamil but do not want to get married to non-BramaNa, what is the use? No Indian unity can emerge.

[Lt_Apple]

My very purpose of Starting this Thread is proved by the Language of Bismala’s posting of un said things using unwanted Caste remarks and nature of the Link from FLoraipuyal and IRAAMAKI’s interpretation is completely false-
¸ ¾ ¿ À Á ±Ûõ ¨ÅóÐ ±ØòÐõ
±øÄ¡ ¯Â¢¦Ã¡Îõ ¦ºøÖÁ¡÷ Ó¾§Ä. 28
º¸Ãì ¸¢ÇÅ¢Ôõ «ÅüÚ µÃü§È
« ³ ±Ûõ ãýÚ «Äí¸¨¼§Â. 29
¯ ° ´ µ ±ýÛõ ¿¡ýÌ ¯Â¢÷
Å ±ý ±Øò¦¾¡Î ÅÕ¾ø *ø¨Ä. 30
± ´ ±Ûõ 㠯¢÷ »¸¡ÃòÐ ¯Ã¢Â. 31

Tholkappiyar has framed Rules of Tamil, They include for

TholKappiyar has given us rules for Tamil words, that include ச - சை – சௌ and ய, ஞ can not be a word start. Tamil. Friends Tholkaapiyar formed Tamil Lettering Arrangement Grammer especially following Sanskrit Pattern as Caldwell showed and his Verses very clearly confirms that.

Every Language keeps changing over time, on influence from Other Languages and that Nannul reduced the exemptions given by Tholkappiyar. But basing 13th Cen. Nannul and 20th Cen, Lexicon to misinterpret Tholkappiyar is of course Pavanar and Thani-Tamil Movement Scholar’s way. These can be proved by Historical Linguistics.

Brahmi Scripts are made for Sanskrit and not for Prakrit is confirmed by Linguists who knows these Languages and Thokkappiyam confirms it (Details shortly). Now coming to sa – We can take Tirukural dated to 250-300 CE, just 200 years later than Tholkaapiyam(50-100CE) we See Kurals with Words starting with க-77, த-35, -43, ப -62, ம-60, வ- 20 ய -nil and that ச is just 3 and One word is repeated twice, so only two words starting with ச words in Kural and both the words are of Sanskrit Origin as demarcated by Many Tamil Scholars.
On saying this is of Tamil and that is Sanskrit, I request friends- Further to Burrows Lexicon claiming many Indo-European words as Dravidian, the research by otherside proved :

The Dravidian Etymological Dictionary of Burrow and Emeneau contains over 5,000 etyma and it has been shown that over 4,000 of these etyma have Indo-Aryan, Munda cognates (cf. http://www.hindunet.org/saraswati/Indian_Lexicon which contains over 8,000 semantic clusters.)


I shall put as Bilingualgai said on quoting interesting section from Sangam than on the Unity of Indic Culture that exists for more than 5000 years. But the posts and links only prove that my original thinking is right.

To make matters straight I WELCOME Intercaste marriages and all becoming as Vegetarians as VALLUVAR Said.

My request to everybody is to use this Thread with what you liked from Sangam Literaure with verses please, and I start agains with Tamil Marriages

Now On Old Tamil Marriages-
Now Let us Understand Velvi:

Nan Pala Kelvi Murriya Velvi Anthanarukku - Puram 361.

Anthi Anthanar Arunkaden Irukkum
Muththie Vilakirru Injum Puram -2

Now Velvi and Marai are always One Every where for the world, and We have to now Clearly Live by Concluded Datings of the Literature- Sangam to Kural to Silaptahikaram- 200BCE to 200 CE,
and Tholkappiyam very clearly 50CE TO 100CE, any thing beyond this are mere Speculations.

Now In Silapathikaram on Kannagi Wedding:

Malai Thal Chenni Vairamani Thoonagathu
NilaVithanathu NithilapPum Panthar Kil
Vanur Mathiyan sgadanaya Vanthu
Chali orumean thakaiyalai Kovalan
MAMUTHU PARPPAN MARAIVAZHI KATITA
Thii Valandh Seithu..... and again


we see the song continues :

Vilakinar Kalathinar Virintha Paligai
Mulaikuta Niraiyinar
Friends Detailed Marriage function is mentioned and most of what is mentioned is followed even today By Orthodax Tamils even today.

Now Let us TholKappiyam We See PolyGamy is Openly Practised by Society-
PinMurai akkiya PerumPorul Vathuvai
Thonmurai Manaivi Ethirpadayinum - Karpiyal 31

Kamak Kilathi Manaiol Enrivar
Emuru Kilavi Solliye ethirum and

In every House Girls are grown for additional Wifes(?)

KadarParathai Ellarkum Vurithe So POLYGAMY was certainly Present.

SATHI was also Prevalent, Mentioned in PuraNanuru247 - Wife of Puthapandian Jumping in to fire is mentioned.

Tholkappiyam is Clear on Castelism:

MELOR Moovarkum Punarntha Karanam
Kilorku Akiya Kalamum VUnde Karpi3

Pirape Kudimai Anmai Andodu..... Thol. Mei -25

and on Love Marriages:

Kamak Koottam Kanum Kalai
MARAIOR TheEthu Mandral Ettanul
Thuraiamai Nal Yal Thunaimayor iyalbe- Kalbi 1
Here when Lovers meet and mind meets they Unite, and THOLKAPPIYAR says Like- Maraiyor- i.e., In Vedas Kandarva Manam is allowed, like this it is.

Now further when this Lovers meet and Mental Marrages, cheating happened, then came -

Poiyum Valuvum Thondriya Pinnar
IYER Yathanar KARANAM enba- Karp -4,

Marraiges became a big function and Iyers- Brahmins doing Velvi, and with God's Presence this functions were conducted.

So This is what is Tamil Marriages about.

DEVAPRIYA.

[Lillie_Steins]

There are some mistakes in Tolkappiyam copies; these mistakes were made by those guys who copied the olaich-chuvadis. Do not argue that these mistakes were no mistakes and claim that Tolkaapiyanaar wrote them as such!! Human beings can make mistakes. They are not gods. I have explained this before. Read my old post.

You do not want to admit the situation and do not like to come to terms with realities.....!! There are differences between the copies of Tolkappiyam. (commonly known as paada bEtham or paada vERupaadu).


To make matters straight I WELCOME Intercaste marriages and all becoming as Vegetarians as VALLUVAR Said. You get married to a non-BrahmaNa girl first and lead by way of example...As more people join you, Indian Unity will be unbreakably cemented forever. To welcome something good is just "oral". Proceed further and further.....

Follow the examples of Sonia Agarwal and Nayanthaara who are - I understand - trying to get married outside their castes.

During Sangam, no castes; only professions. LOVE MARRIAGES were the order of the day. No dowry, OK?

[Peptobismol]

My purpose of this thread is more to discuss about contents of Sangam and the Unity of Indian Civilisation, which is purposfully been divided as Aryan-Dravidian myths by Missionary Indologists and these have been exploited by Thani Tamil and Dravidian movements

Do not worry! Once BrahmaNa girls freely get married to non-Bramana and vice versa, there will be unity of Indian civilization. There won't be any Aryan - Dravidian divide or myth as you say. Missionary indologists will fall silent. Thani Tamiz and Dravidian movements will pack up.

Devapriya, why don't you inaugurate this unique movement rather than writing all these stuff here?

You mix Sankrit and Tamil but do not want to get married to non-BramaNa, what is the use? No Indian unity can emerge.
Ms. Sivamala,

I fail to undertand how Brahmana or Non-Brahmana come in to this isuue...Can't you argue with out a pre-judice or hatred? You consistently show hatred towards a section, or a group, which you feel different from you. Come up with more magnanimous discussions...

[9mm_fan]

Dear Friends,

Tholkappiyar refers to Vedas.

How WAS Vedas seen during Sangam.

Paripadal says- A tAMIL FOR Madurai(Pandya Capital)- you people in Uraiyur (chola capital ) and Vanchi(chera Capital) wake up against the Crawl of Hen, WE Madural Tamil wakeup at Vedic Chantings, and in another song even Vishnu is called as Samavedha.

âÅ¢Ûû À¢È󧾡ý ¿¡Å¢Ûû À¢Èó¾
¿¡ýÁ¨Èì §¸ûÅ¢ ¿Å¢ø ÌÃø ±ÎôÀ
²Á ý Тø ±Æ¢¾ø «øĨ¾,
šƢ ÅﺢÔõ §¸¡Æ¢Ôõ §À¡Äì
§¸¡Æ¢Â¢ý ±Æ¡Ð, ±õ §À÷ °÷ Т§Ä. , this is a Song from Paripadal and Paripadal song -3 says Lord Vishnu as
º¡Á §Å¾õ ÜھĢý ¦¾Ç¢ó¾ ¦À¡Õû

So look and read SAngam and then post please, most of Sangam collections are available in www.tami..net/projectmadurai

Devapriya

[tgs]

Dear Friends,

Tholkappiyar refers to Vedas.

How WAS Vedas seen during Sangam.

Paripadal says- A tAMIL FOR Madurai(Pandya Capital)- you people in Uraiyur (chola capital ) and Vanchi(chera Capital) wake up against the Crawl of Hen, WE Madural Tamil wakeup at Vedic Chantings, and in another song even Vishnu is called as Samavedha.

âÅ¢Ûû À¢È󧾡ý ¿¡Å¢Ûû À¢Èó¾
¿¡ýÁ¨Èì §¸ûÅ¢ ¿Å¢ø ÌÃø ±ÎôÀ
²Á ý Тø ±Æ¢¾ø «øĨ¾,
šƢ ÅﺢÔõ §¸¡Æ¢Ôõ §À¡Äì
§¸¡Æ¢Â¢ý ±Æ¡Ð, ±õ §À÷ °÷ Т§Ä. , this is a Song from Paripadal and Paripadal song -3 says Lord Vishnu as
º¡Á §Å¾õ ÜھĢý ¦¾Ç¢ó¾ ¦À¡Õû

So look and read SAngam and then post please, most of Sangam collections are available in www.tami..net/projectmadurai

Devapriya

Tolkaappiyar refers to Tamil vEdas. vEtham is a Tamil word from vEythal. the verb. Sanskrit borrowed it because they needed a word to refer to the religious anthology those people were compiling. Thus they called arya vEtham also as vEda. Well, you already know that the famous Nachinaarkiniyar said that Tamils had their own vEthangkaL.

vishNu is forged from the Tamil word viNNu, means sky God.

Tamil vEtham had much in it, unlike arya vedas which are a collection of chantings for religious purposes.

[PhillipHer]

Dear Friends,

Can bismala get those Myth- Tamil Vedas?
Has it eaten?
where is it?

Why Every Authority agrees that what is referred is Sanskrit Vedas


Where as Thani- Tamil Scholars went on to go by the Jainistic Probaganda- that Silapathikaram and Kural are Jainistic, with very flimsy few picked verses. Even few went on to say that Marai or Vetham or Ooththu in Tholkappiyam, Sangam-Kural – Manimekhalai could be some Non Existent Tamil Vedams etc., and The Missionary Motived Pavanar had to himself has to admit-
// " Nalvetham or Nanmarai, Arangam Agamam enbana ellam Arya Noolkale enbathum, Thirukural thavira ippothulla Pandai Noolkalellam Anthanar enbathum Brahmararie Kurikkum Enpathu Sariye. Page- 102 Tamilar Matham.//

Devapriya.

[Beerinkol]

Dear Friends,

Can bismala get those Myth- Tamil Vedas?
Has it eaten?
where is it?

Why Every Authority agrees that what is referred is Sanskrit Vedas


Where as Thani- Tamil Scholars went on to go by the Jainistic Probaganda- that Silapathikaram and Kural are Jainistic, with very flimsy few picked verses. Even few went on to say that Marai or Vetham or Ooththu in Tholkappiyam, Sangam-Kural – Manimekhalai could be some Non Existent Tamil Vedams etc., and The Missionary Motived Pavanar had to himself has to admit-
// " Nalvetham or Nanmarai, Arangam Agamam enbana ellam Arya Noolkale enbathum, Thirukural thavira ippothulla Pandai Noolkalellam Anthanar enbathum Brahmararie Kurikkum Enpathu Sariye. Page- 102 Tamilar Matham.//

Devapriya.

You are saying that PaavaaNar was motivated by missionary men and yet you are citing his conclusion to support you. He was missionary-motivated so was he also so motivated into saying that anthaNar meant BrahmaNa etc., ? Or are you saying that he spoke what is acceptable to you even though he was so motivated and did not lose his balance? You need to clarify the contradictory stances you are taking Devapriya!

[Beerinkol]

Originally Posted by bis_mala My purpose of this thread is more to discuss ............................ists and these have been exploited by Thani Tamil and Dravidian movements

Do not worry! .................................................. ...... No Indian unity can emerge.
Ms. Sivamala,

I fail to undertand how Brahmana or Non-Brahmana come in to this isuue...Can't you argue with out a pre-judice or hatred? You consistently show hatred towards a section, or a group, which you feel different from you. Come up with more magnanimous discussions... Please do not misinterpret my call for integration as one of anti-anyone!! I am saying integrate and do not remain as a separate section and then pretend to work for Indian Unity.
Unity is in integration. Not holding your section separately.

[Lt_Apple]

Friends,

we need to look at them in great depth, because the Last Generation of Scholars have made very bad use of Research and Virtually this generation hardly knows Sangam Literature.

[Slonopotam845]

Even few went on to say that Marai or Vetham or Ooththu in Tholkappiyam, Sangam-Kural – Manimekhalai could be some Non Existent Tamil Vedams etc., and The Missionary Motived Pavanar had to himself has to admit-

Hindus believe in many things including deities. They also believe in maharishis. What evidence is there to say that Maharishis existed? A mere mention of their name in some religious book. Similarly, the names of four Tamil vedas are mentioned in Tamil literature. So we can believe the statement, just like you believe in the existence of those rishis because of some statement in some religious book.

There are several reasons why we are able to believe that maRai in Tolkappiyam does not refer to the Arya Vedas. Before I enumerate them once again for you,please let me know your answer to the paragraph in this posting in red.

[Ifroham4]

Why Every Authority agrees that what is referred is Sanskrit Vedas

Correction: Why Every Authority I read agrees that what is referred is Sanskrit Vedas. Every - exaggeration!

It is usual for one authority to just blindly follow an earlier authority. If you bring them to Police for interrogation, you will be surprised at the revelations from the police statements.(Of course, these matters are not criminal and such investigations are not possible). Besides, authors normally do not decide every point they touch upon. This should be evident to you from their bibliography appended at the end of their books. For many of them, questions such as whether naanmarai refers to this or that was not an issue or question they specifically selected for their own research and decision!! If it were a PhD thesis, the candidate is not going to get his degree based on what he says about this issue, because his topic is different. All of us tend to treat matters in this manner.
Many scholars followed Maraimalai Adigal, a pioneer in this kind of literary research. Others follow his Tamiz student, the advocate turned professor Vaiyapuri. The master and student differed in their views on dates and chronology. I will stop here for the moment.

Do not believe in international scholars too much. They made a mess of the WMD question in Iraq and all of them are sky level scholars, aren't they?

[softy54534]

Dear Friends,

We need to understand how datings have been done.

The best and good Guide is Asoka's Stone Inscriptions all over India, in colloauial Sanskrit or Prakrit. They are dated in 3rd Cen. During this period Pandyas, Chera, Chola and Sathiya Putros i.e., Athiamans were big rulers of Tamilnadu. Later Athiaman's lost much contral in over 150 years and after 50 or more years Tamil country was referred as 3 Rulers Muventar country, this is almost only in around Ist Century Common Era(CE). Details in Sangam Lieterature confirm that Pandyas are outsiders who came after their Land was swallowed by water.

During early peeriod Korkai was not ruled by Pandyas and only later they won it and named as Mathurai, I st Cen BCE..

Similarly the dating of Srilanks's Gajawahu helps, which is in 2nd Century CE. So 200BCE- 200 CE, is now widely Historically acceptable dates for Sangam Literature.

We have many Inscriptions of Samana muni's though we do not have any Samana Lit of this period. We also have few Buddist Vihars dated to this period, though we do not have much about them in Lit.

Sangam Lit. is predominantly Hinduism Oriented and Vedic in nature.