Tamil Discussion archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [WMASTERS] Selvaa's suggestions on Grantha
This week's sponsors -The Asia Pacific Internet Company (APIC)
@ Nothing Less Than A Tamil Digital Renaissance Now @
<http://www.apic.net> Click now<mailto:email@example.com> for instant info
Thanks for your comments !
You probably have not read my other webarticle at
or seen my table (charset.gif) at the same location.
Let me add my comments to your viewpoint here.
@Frankly, I don't really care what conventions are adopted -- whatever they
@are, if they are widely accepted, we will all get used to them. This even
@means changing the alphabet entirely -- one could argue quite cogently that
@Tamil would be best served by throwing away the present alphabet,
@forgetting it, and writing in some sort of Roman transliteration. That
@would also solve our problems here!
I'm of the same opiion as yours and I've expressed it in this
same tamil.net about using roman (many since Nehru's time have
expressed this and I've said how it will help in certain other
ways of integrating indian languages)
@Since that's not likely to happen, let's consider Selvaa's suggestions.
@They are ingenious, no doubt, but I feel they do violence to the language
@and the writing system (sorry, Selvaa). The reason is the following:
First we have to admit that introducing foreign phonemes ( or
tamil phonemes in inappropriate places) will do similar
'violence'. Then why object to mine ?
@The Tamil writing system carefully follows Tamil phonetics and Tamil
@grammar. Traditionally, as you know, only certain sounds are allowed to
@come together. This system has been preserved remarkably intact -- even
@such a Magazine as Ananda Vikatan uses it most of the time. Selvaa's
The key expression is 'most of the time'. When Ananda Vikadan
( even here the k is violence to tamil) uses words like
'dambam' not only the rule of not starting with 'ta' is
violated but making the first letter soft is another violation.
Similarly words like Babu etc..
Foreign words don't follow tamil system and so there is nothing
wrong in not following tamil rule when writing it as I've
I've avoided 8 unncessary symbols (S,sh,ha,ja, ukara marker and Ukaara
marker, Sri, and the completely uneeded ksha). While avoiding these
8 symbols, I've tried to get similar intended olippu effects.
Prof. Hart, I hope you'll understand the inconsistency in your
stand. If we really care about Tholkaapiyam, and all the valuable
tamil literature, we'll certainly know to avoid grantha symbols.
Doesn't our vast tamil literature show this ?
That we can write without grantha ?
@attempts to get rid of grantha letters amount (to me, at least) cutting off
@one's nose to spite one's face. I would hate to disturb the rest of
@Tolkappiyar by such strange combinations as zcT -- they look more like
@Tibetan to me than Tamil. It seems much better to leave Tamil letters for
@Tamil words and use borrowed lettered for borrowed sounds. This ironically
@is far less harmful to the purity of the language (in my opinion, at least)
@than using strange combinations of Tamil letters that do not fit the
@language and have not been sanctioned by its Grammarians.
I'm also saying that let us follow tamil rules for Tamil and
change our rules slightly to suit for non-tamil, borrowed words.
Why do you try to apply Tholkaappiyaam rules to non-tamil
words ? When we write Jaganathan , are we not using some tamil letters
( in addition to J) ? When we say Gandhi ( writing as kaandhi), it
is much better than what an average westerners says ( GaynDee or
something like that). The problem is : our tamil folks don't see how
their own names and names of non-tamils are mispronounced by the
English, French and otehr folks but they (tamils) want 'purity' of
in the pronounciation of foreign names and expressions even when used
in tamil. The pronounciation of foreign words also change a lot
from place to place and it looks a futile attempt.
@I do appreciate Selvaa's desire to represent voiced stops (Gandhi). In
@fact, I wouldn't even mind seeing the aspiration represented in Tamil (as
@it is in English). Then, maybe, we wouldn't encounter "Ghandi" so often in
@English written by Tamilians! G. Hart.
When used at least a few times, one will see that
my proposal is a reasonably a good solution ( may not be the
only good solution or the best solution). A workable solution.
But I know fully well that our tamil folks are not that committed
to caring for their language and consequently
as a second alternative I've included four grantha
(S,sha,ha,ja) and in addition I've also included Sri in another scheme.
I don't see any need to include ksha and in my opinion it should not
be included. I also feel that symbols for voiced stops should be
available and thats why I've included two diacritical markers
(kIzppuLLi & kIziru puLLi) in my character table. Just as
western scholars use only 26 letters with some diacritical
markers to represent other phonemes *in specialized books
and places*, I would welcome grantha or letters with diacritical
markers for such special purposes.
These need not be taught to everybody.
Do my children growing up here in Canada learn all these
English dacritical markers for Tamil or Sanskrit ?
No. It is one thing to want to represent voiced stops or
other such things in specialized publications and
another to include them as
basic charecater set. Historical, Social circumstances also
have to be taken into account. In any case, I'm not averse to
using a limited set ( my prefernce is only four, but Sri can
also be used, though certainly not ksha), especially when it is
These are my thoughts for now..
Sponsors/Advertisers needed - please email firstname.lastname@example.org
Check out the tamil.net web site on <http://tamil.net>
Postings to <email@example.com>. To unsubscribe send
the text - unsubscribe webmasters - to firstname.lastname@example.org
Main Index |