Classical vs. Modern

Sat Jan 16 01:39:10 UTC 1999

In a message dated 1/15/99 10:29:24 AM Central Standard Time,
bhk at HD1.VSNL.NET.IN writes:

> You know as much English as I do. Please look up a dictionary.
> Why are  French, Spanish, Italian not called Classsical languges?
> But Latin is. Classical Greek and Modern Greek are different
> languages. Only the Classical Greek is a Classical language,
> just like Classical Arabic.   Such distinction is not maintenable
> in the case of Tamil. For all written  and formal spoken purposes
> (for modern communication and in media) it is the
> literary Tamil that is used because of diglossia. Arabic also
> has diglossia but when we refer to Arabic in the Indian context,
> we mean only the Classical Arabic.

Thanks very much for Bh. Krishnamurti's recommendation to look up a
dictionary. I wanted a definition from Bh. Krishnamurti because I
hoped he might have some rational explanation as to why he does not
want to recognize Classical Tamil. It is obvious he does not have one.

Let me quote excerpts from Wordsmyth English Dictionary-Thesaurus
of ARTFL Project: Webster Dictionary, 1913.

Classic (Page: 261)

Clas"sic, n.

1. A work of acknowledged excellence and authrity, or its author; --
originally used of Greek and Latin works or authors, but now applied
 to authors and works of a like character in any language.

Classic, Classical (Page: 261)

Clas"sic (?), Clas"sic*al (?), a. [L. classicus relating to the
classes of the Roman people, and especially to the frist class;
hence, of the first rank, superior, from classis class: cf. F.
classique. See Class, n.]

1. Of or relating to the first class or rank, especially in
 literature or art.

2. Of or pertaining to the ancient Greeks and Romans, esp. to Greek
 or Roman authors of the highest rank, or of the period when their
best literature was produced; of or pertaining to places inhabited by
the ancient Greeks and Romans, or rendered famous by their deeds.

3. Conforming to the best authority in literature and art; chaste;
 pure; refined; as, a classical style.

Obviously, by these definitions, one should recognize Classical Tamil.
Maureen Fadem mentioned A. K. Ramanujan. In his book "Poems of Love
and War",  Columbia University Press, 1985, AKR explains why
 Classical Tamil is indeed classical.
He says in the Translator's Note, "In this book, Poems of Love and
War, I attempt translations of old Tamil poems selected from
anthologies compiled about two millennia ago. Today we have access
 to over two thousand of these poems composed by nearly 500 poets.
These poems are "classical," i.e., early, ancient; they are also
 "classics," i.e., works that have stood the test  of
time, the founding works of a whole tradition. Not to know
 them is not to know a unique and major poetic achievement of
Indian civilization."

Having seen the postings by Bh. Krishnamurti, I feel that he will
immediately point to AKR's Tamil heritage and say that his judgement
 is, therefore, biased. It should be noted that AKR was also equally
at home in Kannada and had translated Kannada poetry too.
(He was the recipient of the prestigious MacArthur Award.) In any
case, let me quote Siegfried Lienhard, author of "A
History of Classical Poetry: Sanskrit-Pali-Prakrit" in the
 series "A History of Indian Literature" edited by Jan Gonda,
one of the foremost Sanskrit scholars. Discussing the common
 elements between Classical Tamil poetry and Indo-Aryan poetry,
Lienhard notes in p. 73, "The correspondences are  often so
clear that one cannot reject entirely the possibility of Dravidian
influence on early Prakrit and Sanskrit short poems. On the other
 hand it seems improbable that muktaka poetry can have influenced
 classical Tamil lyrical poems as caGkam poetry is not only older
 than the earliest preserved  muktaka stanzas; it had also risen to
far greater heights."

So certainly, one does not need Bh. Krishnamurti's recommendation for
recognition of Tamil as a classical language on par with Arabic and
Greek. Reputed scholars have done that already.

Whatever be the positive and negative aspects of N. Ganesan's
postings, they have certainly done some good in this case.  They
 have serendipitously helped to expose the virulent anti-Tamil
feelings of Bh. Krishnamurti. Under BhK's veneer of objective
academic scholarship lurks a classic embodiment of prejudice and
hatred. Interestingly, on another thread, there was a
recent discussion of the works of Nazis and their sympathizers,
 and how to evaluate their contributions. Based on all these,
hereafter, I shall give due consideration to BhK's anti-Tamil
 bias before I accept his linguistic findings involving Tamil.

If BhK cannot tolerate the concept of Tamil as a classical language
in the same way he is willing to accept Arabic and Greek, then he is
on the wrong list. All he has to do is look at the Scope of Indology
at the Indology list web site. He will find the sentence,"Indologists
 typically have a formal training in classical Tamil, Sanskrit,
Prakrit, Persian, or other  languages that bear on the history of
 Indian culture." Thus the list officially recognizes classical Tamil.
 If BhK does not like this, he can always pick up his marbles and go
 elsewhere. But, it is pathetic to appeal to listen to his
views based on his old age. Age is irrelevant in intellectual
discussions. If age were to be a criterion, one should pay more
respect to a piece of  rock. However, one should note that its age
may be two billion years, but it  does not have any knowledge or
wisdom.

Chris

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com