Re: [WMASTERS] Grantha etc.

[Anukanth Anumanthan <anuman@mbcrr.harvard.edu>]

On Mon, 15 Sep 1997, George Hart wrote:

> 
> I should like to make the point that standardizing a Tamil font and
> including "grantha" characters does not mean endorsing their use. 

	This is what Maraimalai adikal's, Parimelazakar's and my worry is.  
	I have given in this net historical evidence that this happened 
	in the past.  It has come down mcuh after the tireless works
	many like Maraimali adikal.  Subsecuently the dravidian parties
	which ruled/rule tamilnadu all helped/help development of tamil.

	Now, we suggest to the TNG to officially recognize grantha as 
	part and part of tamil.  This is where many misunderstand.
	If grantha scripts were not standardized along with tamil
	it does not mean they won't be available for use.  Therer are
	innumerable scripts, characters and figures available on the
	internet.  Any one who wishes to use why don't they
	downl load and use it?  What is the need to bundle it
	offcially along with tamil?  This is where I strongly
	oppose others view.  There are languuges which have
	such phonems naturally in their language.  Let them include
	those fonts in thier language.  Any one who wants to use
	those scripts, let take the pain of finding it or switching
	fonts and use it.  It looks every body is so interested
	to save grantha as opposed tamil.

	If anyone wants to limit the usage of grnatha scripts and
	sanskritise tamil, this is the way.  I am sure it will not
	eliminate the use of such scripts.  Some one argue
	that if we do not bundle with our tamil SW, some one is
	going to provide those scripts and people who wish to
	use are always going to use.  I have no worry about
	such people.  Let them coin tingleskrit words and let
	tamils try to over come such attempts.

	Where in the world that in font encoding of one language
	would worry about the fonts of some other language?
	This is the first time I am seeing this attempt.
	Instead of talking about tamil fonts, we are wasting most
	of our time in talking about something that is foreign
	to tamil.  Are we going to worry about all other phonems in the
	world?  No body answered this question.

	If not, then why these grandha scripts?
	
	That is when, George, you said, it is part of tamil.  

	I refuted.  Whether we accept or reject grantha as part and part
	of tamil is not within our rights.  It is history.  
	I have said very many times that a language is defined by its
	phonems.  The grantha phonems which some like to include
	are quite foreign to tamil.

	No body is ready to understand that our "la"s, "na"s and "ra"s
	are not there in other languages and no body is going to
	include in their language.


 It is
> quite possible to feel that Tamil should be written in a pure style without
> foreign sounds while still employing "foreign" characters to transliterate
> a stray word from English or other foreign language. 

	This is what my point is.  Even if some one wants to create
	such tingleskrit words let him/her find those for herself.
	Why should we make their job easier.
	Also, transliteration of foreign words is not the right way
	to coin new words.  In an earlier mail I gave scientific
	examples to prove my point.

	I do not doubt Dr. Kalyan's love for tamil and his intention for
	including grantha scripts.  But, the result of such inclusion
	will be evil to tamil in the first place.  Second, 
	if we include grantha for preserving our old works in its 
	original form as interested by Kalyan, we may need hundreds
	of thousands of fonts for tamil alone as its scripts got
	changed periodically.  This is an impossible task.
	That is not the way to preserve old works.  It is all
	simple.  One can photograh it, scan it, microfilm it, 
	videograph it and store in many forms of bitmap
	files.  From scalable to RLE, there are many formats
	available.  This is not a valid reason at all.
	

	
 I think part of the
> opposition to including grantha is inspired by certain writers who seem to
> use upwards of 50% of English words.  My only comment: leaving grantha out
> of the standard will not deter such writers.  They'll just develop their
> own fonts and use them. 

	George, this is a good point.  I am quite aware of this.
	Some arguments that I wrote above would answer this point.
	Stopping some body from using such words is only a minor
	point, George.  Please understand me.
	Recognizing officially those fonts is very dangerous.
	It is not a committee constituted by some private vendors.
	It is an official committee of government of tamilnadu.
	In other words it represents the people of tamilnadu.
	Recommending inclusion of grantha scripts by this committee
	amounts to that the people of tamilnadu has accepted these
	fonts as part of tamil scripts.  This not true.  That is
	when I say it is a disgrace to tamil and should be
	prevented by all means.

	Just think about murasu-anjal I am using.  It may have
	grantha scripts.  I put the verb "may" because I never
	used garantha scripts.  That is Muthu's business plan.  Who am I
	to suggest something on this?  Likewise every other 
	vendor may come up with different fonts and symbols including
	a few more from other languages also.  That is upto
	the individual vendor's choice.  It is entirely a different
	issue.  But a state government should not commit a crime.

	Let us take for example , arrack, cigarette, addictive
	drugs like coccaine, brown sugar etc.  If some one
	argues that if govt. would not sell them, then those who 
	are going to use them may always find ways to get them and we can not
	stop them.  Therefore, can the govt. legalize and produce
	and sell them?  


 Anyway, you can write quite a bit of English --
> and, for that matter, Sanskrit -- even without grantha (I love you, get
> out, naliniidala, etc.).  I'd hate to transliterate "strange" without them,
> however! 
	
	Please, George, again, look at my point.  Transliteration is the
	last thing one should do.  That is not the first choice.
	If you state a particular situation wherein you believe
	transliteration is the only way, tell me.  I will suggest
	alternate way.

 Note that both the English and Russian alphabets include letters
> for sounds that are foreign to them: English has "ph," "x," "z," (usually
> used for Greek words) while Russian has "f" (used mainly for French and
> Greek words)
  G. Hart
> 

	It is not quite right.  The sound of "f" and "ph" most of the time
	do not differ much as I observed people using these.  This sound is 
	not foreign to English either.
	Was there any official effort to include this foreign sound
	into English?  I do not know.  I would appreciate if you
	could provide such information.

	Again english did not bring in foreign scripts.  I do not
	know about Russian.

	Thanks for rasing these issues which gave me an  opportunity
	to explain my views.  A long time after I see questions addressed 
	the way I feared.
	

	Anu