User talk:Vadakkan: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:18, 2 October 2008

ta	இந்த பயநாளரின் தாய்மொழி தமிழ் ஆகும்.

no	(J)eg kan norsk på så godt som morsmålsnivå.

ley
fr

Jeo pet lire et escriver Ley Francais

bamb

अपुन बम्बैया मे खिट्पिट् करता है

Sri Lankan Tamil people

Hi, the above article has undergone extensive copy editing, a final look through would be helpful. ThanksTaprobanus (talk) 03:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Taprobanus. The article looks good. I've read through it, and will read it more closely over the weekend. A couple of initial thoughts:

The "history" section ends fairly abruptly in the 18th century, with the more modern bits being covered in the section on "politics". This is fine, but perhaps you could add a paragraph or so summarising the developments since then, with the details remaining in the politics section?
I think the "marumalarchi" poets (and definitely Mahakavi) deserve a mention, as perhaps do Varadar, Neelavannan, the Marxist poets, Cheran and others? It may also be worth mentioning the fact that authors like Appadurai Muttulingam have won critical acclaim and awards on both side of the Straits - to emphasise the fact that SL Tamil literature isn't just an isolated phenomenon, but something that has an important place in, and has made an impact on, Tamil literature more generally. -- Arvind (talk) 22:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One more point on the "history" section - Iravatham Mahadevan discusses pottery fragments from Poonagari in Jaffna which have inscriptions in Tamil-Brahmi characters. Most of these are too fragmentary to be read, but on one the word "vēḷān" is clearly legible. Mahadevan identifies this as a clan name also found in inscriptions from Tamil Nadu, and says that the inscriptions "leave no doubt that the language of the pottery inscription is Tamil." He also says the sherds have tentatively been dated to the 2nd century BC, pending regular excavation of the site. Mahadevan is clearly a RS (the book in question is part of the Harvard Oriental Series!), so I'd say this epigraphic evidence merits a mention in the article. -- Arvind (talk) 09:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the complete cite for IM's claim. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a quote and full cite from Mahadevan:

"Several inscribed sherds have been discovered during exploration of villages in the Poonagari region of Jaffna. One of the inscriptions reads vēḷāṉ, a clan name related to vēḷ. Most of the other sherds are too fragmentary, but the occurrence of the diagnostic Tamil-Brāhmī letters ḻ ḷ ṟ and ṉ leaves no doubt that the language of the pottery inscription is Tamil. The sherds have been tentatively assigned to ca. 2nd century B.C. pending regular excavations of the sites." - Mahadevan, Iravatham (2003), Early Tamil Epigraphy: From the Earliest Times to the Sixth Century A.D., Harvard Oriental Series vol. 62, Cambridge, Mass: Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies, Harvard University, ISBN 0-674-01227-5 at p. 48.

There is also a photo of the "vēḷāṉ" potshard on p. 56 of the book (Figure 1.21A). -- Arvind (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: Iraiyanar Akapporul

Arvind, thanks for creating the article. Will read it and post my comments here. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 07:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arvind, I finally read the article end-end and made some minor fixes. Thank you for bringing such unique content to Wikipedia as well as shedding light on such remarkable literary works of the Sangam era. Great to know that it was featured in the "Did you know" section.

Regarding the scope, I agree with what has been included. The main challenge is that an unitiated reader might be left wondering what "akam tradition" is until they come to the content section. It would be nice if a short article on that subject can be created and linked to from the lead. I'm not sure whether italicising the Tamil phrases and names further would make the article more readable for non-Tamil readers. If you think so, I can do that. Another issue affecting readability is the length of sentences. Most of them are so "precise and specific" that I dare not try rewording them. :-) However, the following sentence is extraordinarily long as well as difficult to comprehend. Can you please simplify this one?

“

By chronologically ordering the isolated moments which Tamil akam poetry, and describing how they fit into a serialised plot, the text - and in particular, Nakkiranar's commentary - related the emergent ciṟṟilakkiyam tradition to the ancient akam tradition, and thereby helped create a new approach to literature, on the basis on which a plethora of new literary forms developed in succeeding centuries.

”

I think, reading your summary brings the maximum understanding of the subject for a fresher and with the least effort possible. Even though I had read about tinai in my school days, reading your article has helped me by "characterising" the akam literature. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sundar. Thank you for your comments. You're quite right about the sentence length. I'll see if I can get someone to simplify the language. On the other point, I'd quite like to create a good article on Akam poetry. I've been thinking for some time about first writing articles on individual topics such as ullurai, iraicchi, tinai and meyppatu which will help in writing the main article. I'll try and finish the one on ullurai before I disappear again. Hope all's well with you. -- Arvind (talk) 09:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arvind. Looking forward to the said articles starting with ullurai. Things're fine now, but I had been through some difficulties for the past few weeks. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 09:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arvind, please have a look at ta:திணை விளக்கம் when you find some time. It might either help with tinai or could find help from it. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 17:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Sundar. Sorry yet again for the long silence, things have been a little complicated at my end as well (nothing very serious, but wearying). Thank you for the pointer to ta:திணை விளக்கம். Incidentally, couldn't that article simply be merged into ta:அகத்திணை? The old texts treat purattinais are simply being the "purams" of specific akattinais (e.g., "vetchi" is said by Tolkappiyar to be "kurinchiyadhu puran"), so there really won't be anything like that level of detail as far as their mutarporul or karupporul are concerned. -- Arvind (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arvind. I am far from being knowledgeable on this subject. So, I've linked your comment from the article's talk page for other contributors to comment upon. When you write the tinai article, we can have a look at the treatment and possibly adopt the line in Tamil Wikipedia, if people agree. Take care. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 07:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iraiyanar Akapporul

On 15 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Iraiyanar Akapporul, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Userbox!

bamb

अपुन बम्बैया मे खिट्पिट् करता है

Its really classy! --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 13:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Award

Thanks but the article still needs a long way to go:))Taprobanus (talk) 02:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Schalk

Peter Schalk of Uppsala University is one of the strongest proponents of the theory that the Ilam < Simhala derivation (which goes back to Robert Caldwell) is wrong. There's a long piece by him in Jean-Luc Chevillard's felicitation volume for François Gros, published by the Institut Français de Pondichéry. What is the details of this book or article so that I can get it ? Taprobanus (talk) 12:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Taprobanus. The piece I'm thinking of is a contribution in a book. Here's the citation:

Schalk, Peter, "Robert Caldwell's Derivation īlam<sīhala: A Critical Assessment", in Chevillard, Jean-Luc (ed.), South-Indian Horizons: Felicitation Volume for François Gros on the occasion of his 70th birthday, Pondichéry: Institut Français de Pondichéry, pp. 347–364, ISBN 2855396301.

I have a copy, but it is buried somewhere. For the moment, though, I've provided a long quote from Thomas Burrow on Talk:Indo-Aryan loanwords in Tamil - he, too, takes the view that the name is Dravidian. Will that do for now? -- Arvind (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I received an e-mail from PS, he is in Heidelberg now as soon as goes back to Uppsala, he will e-mail me the references. Thanks for your smart analysis of the situation. I do miss the conflict we used to have because sometimes from conflict you get to a better place. Eelam article will be a better one for it one day. Taprobanus (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, that means I can postpone the bookhunt. I agree about articles sometimes becoming better because of conflict. It would be nice if we could manage to improve articles without the conflict, though. It can sometimes get quite frustrating. -- Arvind (talk) 12:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is īr̤am same as īḻam ?Taprobanus (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Thomas Burrow (and a few others) used "r̤" in preference to "ḻ" to transliterate "ழ்", on the grounds that the sound in modern Tamil and Malayalam is actually a retroflex approximant, and is therefore better represented by an r-diacritic than an l-diacritic. So the DED uses "r̤" throughout, as do most of Burrow's publications. The ISO 15919 standard, however, is "ḻ". -- Arvind (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated Eelam. Can you take a look when you have time please? Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-Aryan loanwords in Tamil

You had participated at Talk:Indo-Aryan loanwords in Tamil yesterday. Kindly have a look at revised Indo-Aryan loanwords in Tamil vote at its AfD. Thanks for your time Kris (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've voted to keep the article - I like the form it's moving towards. I still think it'll need more on the historical aspects, and on the impact of modern Tamil cultural nationalism, in addition to the phonological / linguistic aspects you're focusing on, but it's a rather good start. On a separate note, I've changed the example for the loss of an initial "c-" from "ilam" to "amaiyam". From a linguistic point of view, the latter is a better example because the loss of the initial "s-" is the only change that happened. Plus, unlike with "ilam", no serious linguist thinks amaiyam has Dravidian roots, and in an article that aims to provide an overview of processes of linguistic change, it's best to stick to simple, non-controversial examples. -- Arvind (talk) 12:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arvind, loss of s/c to is not the only change I wanted to point out with that word. It was an excellent example of multiple changes, the most primary of them being the development of the retroflex l (which is called zh) in Tamil in an IA loanword, examples of which are otherwise hard to find. I dont find any serious linguist claiming that it is not a loanword, that is merely a case of ethno-nationalistic feelings playing foul. It is a shame that an academic article should thus be disrupted by those who probably have no idea themselves of what they are talking about. I dont mind leaving it out if I can find another example to show the development of zh in another IA loanword in Tamil, otherwise I might have to reuse it with the same authoritative references (or more of them) that I had cited for it, atleast DED and MU Lex. Kris (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely Thomas Burrow is a serious linguist? He says that the word is probably Dravidian in origin. And one of the reasons he gives is that the shift of /hala/ -> /ḻa/ is not a very likely one to have happened. So it's not just ethno-nationalist feelings - there is an actual difference of opinion amongst serious linguists. Given the fact that linguists don't agree on whether this word has Dravidian or Indo-Aryan roots, is it really an appropriate illustration for any shift? A good example of an extremely unusual soundshift - and one which all mainstream linguists agree is an I-A loan - is /śri/ -> /tiru/. Perhaps that would make a better example of multiple sound shifts? But perhaps we could shelve this issue till the rest of the article is done. -- Arvind (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arvind, you cannot say that "linguists dont agree" in the plural when you are just mentioning Burrow's ambivalence and no mainstream linguist's unambiguous disagreement. So there is no difference of opinion, and even if there is, we have to look at which information is more reliable. If everything is quite reliable, then we have to give both views and indicate who says what. In fact, I can myself comfortably explain all the sound shifts from siMhala to Izha, so I am not just basing my choices of words on blind beliefs placed on a few linguists. Moreover I am not to be drawn into ethnolinguistic/nationalistic disputes since I am not interested in such fights. I am just using a word that is very common and at the same time very interesting from a linguistic perspective. As I said, if I found a similar non-controversial word, I would use it. But at the same time, I want to include common words in everyday use so it illustrates the changes more understandably to the common reader. Izham is one such word. Anyways, as you said, I think it will be better to keep it on hold till the article is more complete. Thanks for your thoughts and interest in the article. Kris (talk) 06:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the Dravidian Etymological Dictionary (which marks the Indo-Aryan etymology as being questionable) is about as "mainstream" asx you can get, and even that is ambivalent about whether it's an Indo-Aryan loan word. This means that if we use il</a>am as an example, we'll have to say in the text that linguists (in the plural - the DED was a collaborative project of two of the top linguists of the time) are ambivalent about whether or not it's an Indo-Aryan loanword. Having that sort of a qualification in a list that is supposed to illustrate sound-shifts will make the list seem pretty silly. Anyway, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it - there are plenty of people here who can offer a third (and fourth, and fifth, and sixth) opinion if there's a need. In the meantime, I'll see if I can find the time to add a bit of history to the article. -- Arvind (talk) 08:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 75: / Line 75: @@
 :::::Is ''īr̤am'' same as ''īḻam'' ?[[User:Taprobanus|Taprobanus]] ([[User talk:Taprobanus|talk]]) 20:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 ::::::Yes.  Thomas Burrow (and a few others) used "r̤" in preference to "ḻ" to transliterate "ழ்", on the grounds that the sound in modern Tamil and Malayalam is actually a [[retroflex approximant]], and is therefore better represented by an r-diacritic than an l-diacritic.  So the DED uses "r̤" throughout, as do most of Burrow's publications.  The [[ISO 15919]] standard, however, is "ḻ". -- [[User:Vadakkan|Arvind]] ([[User talk:Vadakkan#top|talk]]) 20:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
+::::::::I've updated [[Eelam]]. Can you take a look when you have time please? Thanks [[User:Taprobanus|Taprobanus]] ([[User talk:Taprobanus|talk]]) 21:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 ==[[Indo-Aryan loanwords in Tamil]]==