Q: Historical Tamil syntax

[Venkatraman Iyer]

"avar nalla uyaramaay iruntaar" sounds real strange;
Does it not imply? :, "ippOtu avar uyaramaay illai"

Using present tense for past occurences is called
"kAla vazuvamaiti". I think you can find it in na_n_nUl grammar
some examples. "nA_n iLamaiyil viLaiyATuvatu intap paLLit tiNNai." etc
tiNai vazuvamaiti eg., calling the daughter: "vATA, vATA! kaTaikkup
pOkalAm." etc. iTa vazuvamaiti is there too.

----------------
Vidyanath Rao wrote:
<<<
I would like to know how far back we can trace the following usage in
Modern Tamil: The "future" form (historically derived from the
non-past) is also used in case of states considered to be intrinsic
or permanent, even if the referent is not alive. For example,

     1) avar nalla uyaramaay iruppaar
         He was quite tall. [In English, 'was' is required if the
         referent is dead.]
     2) madurai maNi iyer na_nRaaka shaNmugapriyaa paaDuvaar.
         Madurai Mani Iyer was good at singing Shanmugapriya.

It does not seem easy to find examples of such situations from the
oldest Tamil texts. Whether a given form is considered a participle
or a finite verb also seems to vary with the authority consulted,
making it harder to classify a given sentence as nominal or not.

[These cannot be waved away as historical presents. Use of past forms
here change the meaning: saying paaDi_naar in 2) makes it seem to
refer to a specific concert; saying iruntaar in 1) sounds strange.]
>>>
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.