Continuing the review of Passions of the Tongue

[nanda chandran]

N Ganesan writes :

>    Note that the town, puumpukaar is pronounced as puumpuhaar;
>  This is in your post itself; In a similar manner, kaNNaki is
>  pronounced as kaNNahi.

But it is a noun - the origin of which might be from anywhere. That's why I
asked Tamizh scholars to give evidence whether 'ha' is part of the original
Tamizh language not used as a noun.

>Pl. refer to Prof. Bh. Krishnamurti's posting where he says
>Skt. kalaha is possibly of Dravidian origin. If so,
>ta. kalakam gives birth to skt. kalaha. k->h.

Possibly? That doesn't prove much. And even if 'kalaham' is
indeed derived from the Tamizh 'kalagam', there's no reason
to believe that 'ha' is also derived. And AFAIK, pure Tamizh
doesn't use 'ha'.

>  Now, you are saying that kaNNaki is not a Tamil?!

How does it matter whether I or you say it? The sheer fact
that kannagi is actually kanna(h)i, seems to imply it.
And how is it that you're now using kannaki instead of kannahi,
which you so obviously preferred before?

For all you know, CilapathikAram might actually be based on an
original JainA text in Samskrutam and hence Illangovadigal
in his adaptation might have used the original name of the
heroine.

If you want to bolster your argument, it would be better
to come up with proof that 'ha' was actually in use
in ancient Tamizh.

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