Continuing the review of Passions of the Tongue

[Narayan S. Raja]

S. Palaniappan writes:

>What may be interesting to some is that while the north Indian kings are
>called Arya and contrasted from Tamil kings, a brahmin poet is called a
>Tamil. Moreover, another brahmin called mATalan2 from the Chola country is
>portrayed as going on a pilgrimage to potiyil mountain, kanniyAkumari, and
>the Ganges. Thus he is shown to have had religious affiliation to a site
>outside tamizakam. But he calls the Tamil ceGkuTTuvan2 "his king". Thus
>mATalan2's political affiliation to tamizakam and religious affiliation to
>Hindu sites outside tamizakam are clearly distinguished by iLaGkO.  This is
>not very different from a Tamil Christian going to Jerusalem or a Tamil
>Muslim going to Mecca.

So far, so good.  No problem.


>Clearly iLaGkO was articulating a  case of linguistic nationalism.

Could he just have been stating a simple fact,
i.e., that ceGkuTTuvan2 was mATalan2's king,
rather than "articulating a  case of linguistic
nationalism"?


Recently, my 4-1/2 year-old daughter told
me that her languages are English and Tamil,
and her country is Hawaii.  Is she articulating
a case of Hawaiian nationalism, or merely
stating (what she sees as) a fact?

Regards,


Raja.