Tamil Heritage

[nanda chandran]

P Chandrasekaran writes :
>You have repeatedly been doing so. You threw a challenge to cite Tamil
>*verbs* with specific phonemes and when shown  a handful of them, you
>declare "I am not familiar with these words"! Please then do not *initiate*
>such discussions if you are not capable of doing  the basic homework. This
>is a scholarly forum.

Though it's true that I admitted ignorance of *some* of the
words, my last post pointed out that 'gha' is the actual
use instead of "ha" - for which there was no reply. For
example cloud is pronounced not as "me(ha)m" but "me(gha)m"
ny non brahmins.

And Ganesan came out with an ambiguous statement that based
on the context and situation, "ga" is pronounced as "ha". So
can you please verify from TolkAppiyam whether the alphabet
"ha" actually finds mention?

Even if it does find mention, then why is megham pronounced
in three different ways - megham, meham, megam?

>Please substitute Sanskirt for English and proto-Dravidian/Tamil at IVC for
>Greek/Latin. Then that would explain how Skt. and Ino-Aryan heritage got
>where it is. Let us get that straight :-))

But the problem is, while even brAhmanic life of today finds
great parallels with Manusmriti, non-brAhmanic Tamil life doesn't
with Thirukkural.

>The forum is still waiting for you references to chastity of brahmins in
>the most readily accessible book in the tamil land, viz. "thirukkuRaL".
>Can we continue any discussion on thirukkural after that, please?

Even in my original posting, I'd made the statement expressing
my hesitation about its correctness. If I'd a copy of the kural
with me, I'd verify the statement. Unfortunately I don't. And
even if I'm wrong, I've no hesitation in admitting it.

>I have not seen a single philological evidence cited by you to support your
>claims in the dozens of posts in the previous month; you habitually fail to
>fulfill scholarly obligation on your side by citing any decent evidence but
>spawn a new thread of debate that presupposes the factuality of your (as
>yet open) assertions in preceding posts.  It is very difficult indeed to
>engage in fruitful discussions with you.

Why is it that all threads eventually end up in personal attacks?
If you've any problems with my posts, please be specific and I'll
try to answer you to the best of my ability. If not, I'll be the
first one to admit my inability to do so. Please do not waste the
time and resource of everybody/everything concerned, in personal
attacks.

And concerning S Mathuresan's point that Sanskrit "phalam" is
derived from dravidian, can you please explain how such an
assertion is made? Please tell us the method used to verify
whether a word is derived from an external language?

It can be noticed that most illiterate Tamils pronounce "pazham"
as "palam". Infact very few non brAhmanic Tamils can even pronounce
"zha". Why is this so? Was "palam" the original pronounciation?
Then is "zha" derived from external sources?


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