Tolkaappiyar and Panini : What’s the difference?

From: "Dr. K.Loganathan" <subas@pc.jaring.my>

To: <akandabaratam@yahoogroups.com>

Cc: <IndianCivilization@yahoogroups.com>; <tamil@tamil.net>; <kalaivani@yahoogroups.com>; <tamil_araichchi@yahoogroups.com>

Subject: Re: [akandabaratam] Fwd: Sanskrit and Natural Life

Date: Sunday, May 25, 2003 11:12 AM

Dear Radha W. and Rajagopal

Thank-you for the questions which give me another opportunity to bring out one essential way Tol. tradition differs from that of Panini and the Sk linguistic tradition. Let me repeat that by arguing for this I am NOT disparaging or minimizing the relevance and importance of the contributions of Sk grammarians( some of which I have read in Tamil translations). I also feel that the distinction is also relevant for understanding a fundamental difference there seems to exist in the philosophies of Tamils as opposed to that in Sk especially the Vedantas.

I think the questions boil down to two:

What is the meaning of Natural Speech? and

What evidences are there to show that Tol. analyses also Natural Speech along with the other forms of Language manifestations.

What is NATURAL SPEECH?

There are many linguistic disciplines now that are offshoots of Husserl's phenomenology such as Discourse Analysis, Conversation Analysis, Ethnomethodology and so forth. In such studies the focus is Natural Speech, the kinds of verbal exchanges people enter into in the course of their natural existence. Of course we do this all the time though we do not normally subject them to linguistic analysis. The casual conversations between friends, the intimate love discourse between lovers, group discussions among peers, the exchanges between husband and wife, between parents and children, the court proceedings, the interrogations of suspected criminals by the police, the various dialogues in the village assembly, the bargaining in the shops and market places and so forth are examples of Natural Speech.

Such uses of language, in order to be studied as belonging to linguistics, they have to recorded as video or audio clips, transliterated with definite rules so that the essence of the original is not lost ( e.g. intonations, pause, alternation etc) and which also includes noting the paralinguistic features which also contribute to the meanings. Saying something with a shrug or frown on the face is NOT saying the same thing in terms of meaning intended without these body language features.

Such instances of Speech or Language by their unpremeditated spontaneity differ from WRITTEN forms in that in the latter there is some kind of PLANNING and DESIGNING and hence some selectional restrictions imposed upon what is written. The written shows more the exercise of the mind than is Natural Speech where there is more of spontaneity .

Now despite the spontaneous character of natural discourses, a study of any sample of such natural speech, even interactional or conversational, show that they are COHERENT, consistent with a thematic organization providing a sense of unity etc. In other words such instances of Natural Speech are not productions of lunatics where such coherence may not be available.

My doctoral thesis was written on a study of Natural Discourse that takes place when teachers teach lessons for children and for which purpose I recorded about 90 video tapes, transcribed the essential ones and analysed them. The thesis has been published as a book" Hermeneutic Analysis of Discourse" , by DLA, Trivandram, KeraLa.

Such specimens of natural speech is possible only if the language exists in the stream of life and which happens to be the case with Tamil and can never the case with Sk which was constructed as a kind of artificial language by extracting some features from the Prakrit ( and hence its scientific precision etc)

Now what evidence are there so suggest that Tol. in fact analyzed such Natural Speech despite the non-availability of recording devices that we have now.

The evidences are numerous and there are references throughout all the three books to such exercises and concerns.

First of all we have in the Preface of Panamparanaar the mention that Tolkaappiyar analyzed both the Primordial conditions of Speech viz. CeyyuL and Vazakku where CeyyuL means the written literature and Vazakku in contrast to that the various forms of natural speech. It was clearly understood that Vaak shows itself in these fundamental forms, as Vazakku and CeyyuL, roughly put, the oral and written forms. Of course Tol's understanding of even CeyyuL is very broad and comprehensive, includes proverbs, mantras, jokes, anecdotes, sutras and so forth.

Now the following sutra is quite unusual to occur in a Grammatical treatises unless natural speech was also analyzed.

In the chapter on MeyPaaddiyal ( ie, On feelings and Emotions) it is said:

1221 :

kaNNinum ceviyinum tiNNitian uNarum

uNarvudai maantarkku allatu teriyin

nannayap poruLkooL eNNaruG kuraitee"

The attainment an understanding what are the most excellent ( nannayap poruL) and articulating it ( uraittal) is difficult if not impossible unless one fine tunes both the eyes and ears and understand the matters with certainty and in depth ( tiNNin uNarum)

Now unless the focus was natural speech, especially in the studies of feelings and emotions, fine tuning both the eyes and ears will not be demanded.

Of course the need for both eyes and ears together may also be relevant for understanding ORAL recitations of written literature. However the whole of Tol. especially PoruL. is full of sutras descriptive of this analysis of Natural Speech and following is just one:

982:

tannum avanum avaLum cuddi

mannu nimittam mozipporuL teyvam

nanmai tiimai accam saartal enRu

anna piRavum avaRRodu tokai.i

munniya kaalam muunRudan viLakkit

toozi tee.ettum kaNdoor paaGkinum

pookiya tiRattu naRRaay pulambalum

aakiya kiLaviyum avvazi uriya

This sutra outlines the kinds of natural speech that a Mother would effect when her daughter elopes with a young man because of which she laments. In such lamentations there is mentioning self, the girl , the young man with whom she eloped, the various signs of it, the divine injunctions, the good and bad of it , her fears and so forth. Such verbal compositions take place with reference to the past present and future and in the context of inquiring her friends, the travelers who could have seem them and so forth.

This sutra, just one among the hundreds available in PoruL. illustrates quite well the Natural Speech, the various types of it and the contextual determinants of such Speech Acts.

Loga

----- Original Message -----

From: "radha_canada" <radha_canada@yahoo.com>

To: <akandabaratam@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2003 12:54 PM

Subject: [akandabaratam] Fwd: Sanskrit and Natural Life

> --- In IndianCivilization@yahoogroups.com, "radha_canada"

> <radha_canada@y...> wrote:

> --- In IndianCivilization@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. K.Loganathan"

> <subas@p...> wrote:

> << ... Thus the analysis of NATURAL LIFE which is so visibly present

> in Tol. and Linguistic tradition it upholds is something that Sk

> language can NEVER do for it has become for long only a language of

> literature and NOT that of Speech Acts daily life. The study of Sk

> literature confines the scholarly mind to literary productions and

> only to the MENTAL creations of man and in that also dissociates the

> mind from the NATURAL and hence the spontaneous productive forces at

> work there.

> This may the fundamental difference in the CULTURE of Sk language and

> that Tamil-- the Tamil culture always accommodating itself to

> NATURAL, to vibrant existential etc. >>

> I am no expert on Tolkappiyam or Panini. I don't pretend to be a

> linguist either. So those subjects are out of scope for me. But I

> fail to understand what is the NATURAL LIFE that Sanskrit can NEVER

> analyze.

> Vedas are considered liturgical literature. But in many portions of

> the Vedas you can find nature and ordinary life portrayed so

> naturally, in such vivid imagery that the vibrancy can be felt even

> when you read translations of the original.

> Coming to more mundane works, take Sanskrit drama. Everyday ordinary

> life is treated so naturally, that the we feel the characters coming

> alive around us. The presentation and language are such that even

> nuances of emotions are conveyed perfectly. Take other works. Take

> Kalidasa's Kumara Sambhava or Raghuvamsha or Meghadoota. You will

> find nature in all her glory presented in exquisite poetry. Take

> Panchatantra. The narration is so interesting that it never fails to

> capture the attention of children even in translation. Take any

> scientific treatise. Take an Ayurveda work like Charaka Samhita or

> Ashtanga Hridaya. Take a work on astronomy like Aryabhateeyam. You

> will find the matter presented with crystal clarity and sharp

> precision. Take Bhaskara's Lilavati, where mathematical riddles are

> presented in beautiful poetry.. Many of the scientific treatises are

> in sutra form that could be easily committed to memory in an era when

> writing materials were scarce.

> There are great and beautiful works in both Tamil and Sanskrit. But

> I couldn't find anything that Sanskrit language failed to "analyze"

> or deal with that Tamil could do in some better way. Please, can

> somebody throw more light on this topic perhaps with some concrete

> examples?

> Best Regards,

> Radhakrishna Warrier

Ø --- End forwarded message –

From: "israbvk" <israbvk@yahoo.com>

To: <IndianCivilization@yahoogroups.com>

Subject: [IndianCivilization] Panini-tolkapiyum – Lakshana traya -Scope regarding

Date: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 7:21 AM

Sub:- Panini-tolkapiyum – Lakshana traya -Scope regarding

Dr.Loganathan,/Rajgopal.S.

1. I am restraining myself from entering to a long drawn debate

on the points you have raised.<< I will not write this response if

not for the fact that you still miss out on the important way

Tolkaappiyam differs not only from Panini but the whole lot of

grammatical studies of the Sk rammarians.>>

2. `Lakshana traya' practically is a subject dealt in alamkara

shastra – especially in the `dhvani' theory of poetics, which has a

close link to the Kashmir saivism and the ;sphota theory of

the `grammarians'. The subject of `how the word gives the meaning' is

a detailed study within each `shastra and darshana'. The general

understanding is `the word has three layers of meaning – (i.)Literal

direct ( called the Abhida, as given by the usage and the

dictionary), where in the primary construction of the word and the

meaning of the word match. Example – one which crawls fast (=sarpati

iti) sarpa (= Sanskrit word); one which holds poison is `vishadhara

(=serpent). ; (ii) The word in which the primary construction meaning

is distinct from the associated meaning – as in the word `Lavanya' (=

beauty). The primary word-form is related to the `lavana'= salt. The

literal meaning of `lavanya' is `related to salt'. The conventional

meaning is `beauty'. (iii) The third type relates to the meanings

that get sparked off in the `listeners' mind, distinct from

the `first two' types of meaning. These are `listener specific and

context based'. Example :- take the statement `It's time now'. This

same sentence would mean different sets of meanings and actions in

different contexts – like an examination hall, the class room, the

hospital maternity ward, the court, the business parlance and the

like.{ the conventional illustration sentence is `sun has set' and

the implied meanings of this to the `student, the concubine, the

mendicant, the housewife and the shop keeper}. This is not the scope

of the `Sanskrit grammarian' by the definition of the `Shasta'. It

does not mean that he does not know it. Panini is recognized as a

great dramatist having a drama by name `jambavati parinaya' to his

credit. Because the `contextual meaning analysis falls to the realm

of a different discipline, Panini does not detail on this issue.

Where as `Bharata, dealing with the word meanings does not deal with

the `grammatical technicalities'. If tolkapiym deals with all the

aspects of the language – the common mans speech and business speech

including the fine arts ( Angika- vachika-bhavika abhinaya modes of

communication), the author is elaborating the application of the

fundamental principles in different domains. And obviously the volume

of the book grows.

3. For information sake, In the `Karaka prakarana', under a

special section called the `karma-pravachaneeya' type of words,

Panini specifically analyses the word processing rules related to the

sentences communicative of ` slang abuse'. The communication in the

English sentence `I don't care you for hoot'; the communication in

the Tamil sentence `naa-ye , poda'; the communication in the Hindi

sentence `ja, ja, mera kya phodega?', in kannada `hogo lo' are the

target illustrative sentences for this rule. Bharata in the Natya

shastra pointsout the characters and standards of linguistic usage

with a graded illustration. Tolkapiyum provides a cross sectional-

cross subject text composition for the specific language

of `Tamil'.

4. I am placing below a web link on the `language study and

concept of word' from one of the premier institutes of linguistics –

where in the views of the conventional and the modern view points are

placed. The extract below also explains the reasons for the

difference in approach between Panini and tolkapiyum. I am sure that

you will reject the writing saying that the `author' of the article

is having `misguided' approach. May be; But please take a look at the

references quoted from the `original work.

5. Let me place an old story useful for it's symbolic value

from the perspective of this discussion. This is in response to your

statement about the comparison of Tamil and Sanskrit literatures'

reading as follows:- << Now even if you put together the whole range

of linguistic studies in Sk, the kavyas Itikasas, the vyakarana

chandas etc. you will find that SK cannot do in principle what Tol

has done admirably i.e.. the study of NATURAL speech ( Vazakku) the

use of language for effecting various kinds of Speech Acts ( KuuRRu)

not in dramas and such other literary productions but as part of the

stream of life. For Sk, perhaps at its inception itself, was

constructed as literary language and hence something torn off from

the stream of life itself.>>

There was a mythical bird called the `Gandabherunda'- a bird with

one body and two heads. One day this bird saw a `sweet fruit'. The

head that actually saw it picked up and tasted the fruit and said to

the other head –`friend, this fruit is beautiful like nectar'. The

other head asked –`why don't you spare a piece of that for me also,

so that I can taste the same with `my tongue'. The first head became

philosophical ( arrogant ?!) and said – after all whichever head eats

it, the essence goes to the same body. Saying so, the first head ate

the fruit completely without sparing the same. The second head

carried this in it's mind. After some time it so happened that the

second head saw one fruit which was very nice to look at it. The

second head thought of tasting it and picked it up. The first head

had the knowledge about the poisonous nature of the fruit and warned

the second head –` Friend, please don't eat it. If you eat , you

are going to die; and along with you I am also going to die, because

we share the same body – supporting system.' Now the second head

became arrogant and said –`the fruit looks very nice and beautiful.

Such beautiful fruit can not be poisonous. You are jealous of me and

want to deprive me of the taste of good fruit. Because `I' saw it and

got it. And , even if the fruit be poisonous, there is a kind of

happiness in eating it and dying. And why should you worry if I die ?

I am tired of co-existence with you. I am prepared to kill you even

if I am to die because there will be `moksha' form me. Next time I

don't have to be `with' you. So saying, the second head followed it's

own impulse and ate the fruit. The rest is left for you to fill up.

Please substitute the following concepts and read the above story

once more:- The body of the mythical bird = the divine upadesha given

by Nataraja to the two heads – Rishis (Sanskrit- veda -Panini) and

Siddhar (Tolakpiyum-Tamil, Agama). The nectar fruit is `vedanta-

yoga'. The `poisonous fruit' is `loose footed modern linguistics

injected with the `p-sec' views, Aryan-dravidian bifurcations,

bifurcating the `shiva-vishnu' thinking, and the like, which is

not defining the fundamentals of the language in relation to

consciousness, goal of life, word-meaning, Indian history and

context, nor is focused on the purpose for which Ashtadhyayi/

tolkapiyum was written to meet the human goal of liberation. This is

because the `modern linguist' has failed to recognize the `roots' of

language' existing in the `consciousness'.'

I hope you don't miss this basic unifying approach of the `pre-

Christian era languages of Ancient India' in the analysis you are

providing. And once you get on this focus, the ;sumero-tamil-veil'

melts away. What at least I see in the `sumero-tamil' view you

present is a period when the entire world had a Vedic culture, of

which sumero tamil is one relic; the abrahamic traditions is another

relic from the `time-space' references. The relics are good for

the `museum' and useful for a reconstruction of historical

understanding. After that reference point, each of the traditions

developed their own native variations of cultural and religious

practices. Compare them for a `scholarly understanding' and to see

how the human nature is aspiring for the same goal all times and all

places. There is no point in creating the fissiparous view points

unsupported by evidence and tradition and logic. Over a period of

time, after loosing the `bearing', the `current day scholars-religion

enthusiasts-evangelists-fundamentalists-fanatics-politicians' do not

want to deliberately see the `truth' because `truth' does not serve a

practical political purpose, in as much as the `mundane practicality'

will not serve for the realization of the `Atman' and `Civajnanam'

you are writing extensively.

Thanks.

BVK Sastry.

WebLink;-

http://www.languageinindia.com/nov2002/vocabulary.html#chapter2

Extract of the Article;-

CHAPTER 2

WORD AND VOCABULARY

The concept of word is definable only in terms of specific structural

characteristics of individual languages. That is, "word" is unique

and specific to individual languages. It is also true that speakers

across languages have certain intuitive notions about the universal

characteristics of the concept of word. Through such intuitive

notions they are able to distinguish what a word is, even in a

language not known to them very well.

An unambiguous and universal definition of word is not available or

possible for many reasons. Each language has its own unique

structural arrangements of its units that are not exactly similar to

the structural patterns of any other language. Every word is a

complex organization of different aspects, linguistic and extra-

linguistic. Because of this, researchers have difficulty in capturing

all the intricacies of language organization and word organization to

arrive at a universal definition of word. However, attempts have been

made both to define word in the context of a particular language and

to define it universally.

In all the scholarly attempts to define word, the general features

that are identified and included in the definition remained the same,

but the weight given to each of these features and the componential

organization of these features in the definition of word differed.

Identification of Word

There are six important criteria used to define word. These are

spatial representation of word, meaning, the intonation with which a

word is pronounced, its vowel harmony, its non-amenability to have

other items inserted, and its indivisibility.

The first criterion is about the distribution of words in printed

space. In the written representation of the language, a linguistic

form between spaces is identified as word because of the convention

of leaving space between two words in writing or in printing. But

this criterion cannot be applied to identify and isolate words in the

spoken language. Moreover, not all the languages are represented in

writing. Also in the case of compound words and in the case of

inflected forms, this criterion will lead to the identification of

the inflected forms as words, although these inflected forms may be

more than words in some sense.

The second criterion that is used to identify a word is meaning. This

criterion is based on the belief that each word has a meaning, and

that, in a language, each unit of meaning or segment of meaning could

be identified and separated from other units of meaning. Each item

thus separated is called a word. This cannot be used as an

independent criterion to define word because the meaning factor used

here poses a problem in distinguishing morpheme and word. When this

criterion alone is applied to identify a word, it is not possible to

distinguish between a word, a phrase and an idiom; even groups of

words that combine to give a single meaning will come under this

category. Another problem with this criterion is that of word

boundary and meaning boundary; if they coincide it is all right; if

they do not coincide, this criterion will not work.

In some languages, the feature of stress is used as a criterion to

identify the word, because, in these languages, stress falls on a

particular syllable in each word. In other words, the position of

stress in a word is fixed. Using this criterion it is easy to

identify in speech these stressed syllables and, in turn, the words.

It can be said that the criterion of isolation and insertion come

into operation normally after the identification of a word in order

to check and confirm whether a particular item is a word or not. If

it is not possible to insert any other linguistic feature into the

identified unit, it is taken as a word. If insertion is possible, it

may not be a word. If the identified word can occur in isolation in

the natural language usage context, it is confirmed that it is a

word. If it cannot occur in isolation, it is not a word. So, word is

taken as an indivisible entity.

In conclusion, it may be said that it may not be possible to apply a

single criterion to identify a word, but recognition of a unit as a

word is generally possible with the application of all these criteria.

Indian Grammarians' Concept of Word

Panini and Word

In most traditional Indian grammars, there are certain elements of

grammar like pratyaya, priiti-padika, and prakruti that are used as

tools to characterize a word or pada. In Asthadyaayi, Panini

identifies word as the one that ends with sup the case suffix or the

tin the tense affix (1.4.14).

Kesiraja and Word

The Kannada grammar Shabdamani Darpana is the oldest grammar

available in Kannada. In this grammar, believed to have been written

in the 13th century, Keshiraja identifies word as a combination of

prakruti and pratyaya. And in places where there is no pratyaya, it

is stated that it should be considered as absent or covert. The

translation of the sutra that identifies the word is as

follows: "Vibhakti is so called because it divides the meaning of the

word. It is also known as pratyaya (suffix), The base (prakrti) takes

its position before the suffix. These two join into a word" (Kulli:

1976). This definition clearly indicates the process that guides the

identification of the word in Kannada. The criterion of affixation

used by him resembles exactly that of Panini. The only difference is

that Panini's definition includes both case and tense suffixes but

Kesiraja's definition includes only case suffixes.

This definition of Kesiraja is unambiguous enough to identify a word

in Kannada, because in stating the options he says that avyaya-s

(indeclinable) to which the case suffixes are not added also should

be considered as pada 'word', because they have covert case suffixes

which have been deleted.

Tolkappiyam and Word

Tolkappiyam, the ancient Tamil Grammar, rather than defining word,

identifies certain characteristics of word. These characteristics are

"155. All the words indicate objects.

156. The scholars say that a word can denote the nature of its object

and its form.

157. They say that the knowing of the object is of two ways -

directly and by suggestion.

158. The linguists say that the words are said to be of two kinds,

noun and verb.

159. They say that the morpheme (iDiccol) and semontemes (uriccol)

may appear depending upon them" (Ilakkuvanar: 1963).</

If the three definitions of word offered by Panini, Kesiraja, and

Tolkappiyar (the author of Tolkappiyam) are compared, it can be said

that Panini and Kesiraja used affixation as the process to identify

word, and that Tolkappiyar used the semantic criterion to locate the

word and referred both nouns and verbs. It appears, then, that the

Indian grammarians generally looked at word as a composite form of

free and bound forms and defined it on the basis of the criterion of

grammatical category.

A Universal Definition of Word

After discussing many definitions of word and their drawbacks,

Kramsky (1969) attempts a definition that is applicable to words in

most of the languages of the world. However, because of the

limitation of the definition, he does not call it a universal

definition. He states, "The word is the smallest independent unit of

language referring to a certain linguistic reality or to a relation

of such realities and characterized by certain formal features

(acoustic, morphemic) either actually (as an independent component of

the context) or potentially (as a unit of the lexical plan)".

At this juncture one may recall Graff (1929) who identified the

errors that are made in defining word. According to him, in defining

the words:

1. Inadequate importance is ascribed to a phonetic or semantic

feature at the expense of complex, semantic-phonetic combination.

2. The relation of the word to the sentence and vice versa is

wrongly appreciated.

3. The character of the word is often identified with its

quantitative extension, or at least, the character and the quality of

the word are not strictly separated.

4. Facts relating to the evolution of language are strictly

separated from those relating to the state system.

Alternative Notions of Word

Because of the difficulties one faces in defining word in languages,

attempts were made to identify certain concepts that might solve the

problem of identification of the word. One such attempt is that of

Harold Palmer, and his concept of monolog, miolog, and phiolog, where

monologs are 'words in conventional sense, represented graphically by

a group of letters beginning and ending with a space functionally

independent unit; miologs as being components of monologs, and

recognizable linguistically as derivational and inflexional affixes

and are made up of two or more monologs; and phiologs as being units

containing monologs but representing in some way a semantic entity.

In this classification, says Bunkin (1968) 'the miolog involves us in

morphology, the phiolog in syntax'.

Length and Number of Words in a Language

An observation of the data from various languages indicates the fact

that neither the length of the word nor the total vocabulary of any

two languages coincides with each other.

Komlev (1976) attributes the reason for this disparity to the

dependence of these factors on the 'number of phonemes in the

language' and says that 'the length is inversely proportional to the

number of phonemes in the phonological system of the language.' And

according to him the size of the vocabulary of the language depends

upon 'the imminent structures of the language and the extra-

linguistic causes'.

Word and Vocabulary

Word and vocabulary are the two terms that are used often as

synonyms. Broadly speaking, one may not make any distinction between

these two, but when it comes to the precise and technical way of

handling these, the difference is evident as these are two different

concepts.

We have seen above that the term word refers to an individual entity.

The term vocabulary, however, is a term referring to a collective

concept; it refers to a collection of many entities that are called

words. Vocabulary refers to the total or partial stock of words that

an individual or a language has. The term word is widely spoken about

in linguistics and the term vocabulary in the field of education, one

at the theoretical level of understanding and the other at the

practical level of application.

==== original message ==

Message: 24

Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 09:51:25 +0800

From: "Dr. K.Loganathan" <subas@pc.jaring.my>

Subject: Re: Sub:- Panini-tolkapium ; Sanskrit Shastra – just two

points if they can be clari

Dear Sastry

I will not write this response if not for the fact that you still

miss out on the important way Tolkaappiyam differs not only from

Panini but the whole lot of grammatical studies of the Sk

grammarians. While I am planning to write more extensively on this

later, meanwhile I write this brief note to impress upon the Indian

scholars that the Linguistic tradition of India will assume added

depth by incorporating the essence of Tol. also as one of

Its achievements, quite comparable in some ways to some recent in

Linguistics studies such as 'Discourse Analysis" "Conversation

Analysis' and so forth.

Now confining our attention to PaNini and Tol. you already admit that

The focus of PaNini is shiksha and which is only part of Tol. and

especially the contents of Ezuttatikaaram and Collatikaaram.

The "shiksha' does NOT include PoruLatikaaraam where the whole eange

of languages, including the nonverbal, the KuRippu Mozi are taken up

for studies and that too to reach the MEANINGS ( i.e.. PoruL) that

constitutes the essence of Existence. This is what is known

as 'Ulakiyal kuuRutal" ( Kallaadam) and from which the proper

MEANING for existence is also enunciaated ( poruL itu venal)

The MEANINGS that are studies in Tol. are the various

intentionalities of human beings and hence the sociapsychological and

metaphysical foundation of Human Praxis.

Here I must point out a fundamental difference even between this

Shiksha of PaNini and the ezuttu/col. of Tol. For there is a linkage

and a hierarchical relationship between these books. Of primordial

importance if the study of PoruL and studies on Col and Ezuttu are

entered into only to understand the PoruL. Thus the shiksha of Tol,

the phonology morphology syntax and so forth, do not stand closed

within themselves as is the case with paNini but are integral parts

of PoruL. The shiksha is entered only to study language is USE and

that too to reach the mind as it is in world and that too through

reaching the various intentionalities of people, the PoruL.

Now even if you put together the whole range of linguistic studies in

Sk, the kavyas Itikasas, the vyakarana chandas etc. you will find

that SK cannot do in principle what Tol has done admirably i.e.. the

study of NATURAL speech ( Vazakku) the use of language for effecting

various kinds of Speech Acts ( KuuRRu) not in dramas and such other

literary productions but as part of the stream of life. For Sk,

perhaps at its inception itself, was constructed as literary

language and hence something torn off from the stream of life itself.

Just to mention one important difference in this regards: while

Baratha Natya Sastra ( written in Tamil Nadu? ) deals with feelings

and emotions in Dance and Drama Tol deals with such things in the

DAILY LIFE of people, how different emotions and feelings (

meypaadu) emerge in course of natural life, what are the linguistic

and paralinguistic features which are indicative of what kinds of

emotions and so forth.

Thus the analysis of NATURAL LIFE which is so visibly present in Tol.

And Linguistic tradition it upholds is something that Sk language can

NEVER do for it has become for long only a language of literature and

NOT that of Speech Acts daily life. The study of Sk literature

confines the scholarly mind to literary productions and only to the

MENTAL creations of man and in that also dissociates the mind from

the NATURAL and hence the spontaneous productive forces at work there.

This may the fundamental difference in the CULTURE of Sk language and

That Tamil-- the Tamil culture always accommodating itself to

NATURAL, to vibrant existential etc.

Loga

From: "Dr. K.Loganathan" <subas@pc.jaring.my>

To: <IndianCivilization@yahoogroups.com>

Cc: <akandabaratam@yahoogroups.com>; <meykandar@yahoogroups.com>; <kalaivani@yahoogroups.com>; <tamil@tamil.net>

Subject: [meykandar] Re: [IndianCivilization] Panini-tolkapiyum – Lakshana traya -Scope regarding

Date: Thursday, May 29, 2003 9:53 AM

Dear Sastry

Thank-you. I shall not comment on SumeroTamil and how even the language of

Vedas are derived from this Language as it is being discussed by eminent

scholars in Akandabaratam.

I am also glad that you have begun to accommodate the thinking of

Tolkaappiyar along with PaNini and which is all that I wanted. The tradition

of Tol. is very ancient and reaches the Sumerian substratum as I have

pointed out and will continue to do so.

Now just a note on the "Lakshana Traya" , a theory of word meaning which is

also available in Tol. However I must point out that Tol. also goes beyond

this notion of word-meanings. While certainly it is true all words have

meanings, it is NOT the case that all meanings are wordy or verbal. There

are meanings there in the world as objective realities and which emerge only

as the significance of the nonverbal , intention-language or as Tol. would

put it , KuRippu Mozi. Now while it is true that such intention-language can

figure in dramas, but Tol. notes it in the stream of life, as part of the

natural mode of human existence and as objective realities in the real world

and not the drama-world.

This emerges in the study of GAZE or (naaddam) and which is nonverbal. While

there are many sutras related to this, I just give the following:

1042: naaddam iraNdum aRivudam paduttaRkuk

kuuddi uraikkum kuRippurai aakum

In Love behavior, the GAZES of the Hero and Heroine are aspects

an intention-language that function to bring about mutual agreement

The language of the eyes where there is gazing intensively ( uNkaN nookku)

and which is MEANINGFUL implies that meanings can be nonverbal as well.

Notice that this kind of meaning is above the type listed in the Lakshana

Traya which confines itself to only meanings that have entered the domain

of linguistic expressions and contextual conditions.

This also shows that meanings in general are objective realities where

only some have entered the domain of language with some others always there

as BEYOND and ABOVE language of ordinary communications.

The linguistic tradition of Sk cannot accommodate such meanings as the

language is only a literary language, torn off from the stream of life

where intention-language also figure and where along with verbal speech

acts there are also NONVERBAL SPEECH ACTS such as Gaze and so forth. This

partial blindness of Sk language and the grammatical theories based on it

extends to the whole of the culture promoted by that language - it does

accommodate itself to the WHOLE RANGE of MEANINGS but only to those which

have entered the verbal mode of being.

This is the fundamental difference between the Viddhantic and Siddhantic

traditions in philosophy as well.

Loga

----- Original Message -----

From: "israbvk" <israbvk@yahoo.com>

To: <IndianCivilization@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 7:21 AM

Subject: [IndianCivilization] Panini-tolkapiyum – Lakshana traya -Scope

regarding

> Sub:- Panini-tolkapiyum – Lakshana traya -Scope regarding

> Dr.Loganathan,/Rajgopal.S.

From: "ovishvesh" <ovishvesh@yahoo.com>

To: <IndianCivilization@yahoogroups.com>

Subject: [IndianCivilization] Re: Panini-tolkapiyum – Lakshana traya -Scope regarding

Date: Saturday, May 31, 2003 12:25 PM

"Thus the analysis of NATURAL LIFE which is so visibly present

in Tol. and Linguistic tradition it upholds is something that Sk

language can NEVER do for it has become for long only a language of

literature and NOT that of Speech Acts daily life. The study of Sk

literature confines the scholarly mind to literary productions and

only to the MENTAL creations of man and in that also dissociates the

mind from the NATURAL and hence the spontaneous productive forces at

work there..."

Dear Dr.Loganathan,

Lets look at the above passage. You may argue that you have not

disparaged the Sanskrit tradition but there is every possibility of a

reader misreading an ambiguous passage as the above. A `language of

Literature' is not much different from `a language of the Speech acts

(of) daily life', for the very breath of life in Literature arises

from the finest speech idiom of the language. I don't understand

what you mean by the analysis of `Natural life', but I would

seriously doubt if such a possibility, whatever is its context, would

be a milestone for judging a literature. (In fact, Sanskrit texts

are abundant of it and Mr.Radha_Canada gave enough instances). When

you make a statement as "The study of Sk literature confines the

scholarly mind to literary productions and only to the MENTAL

creations of man", you seem to me to be confusing the very nature of

Literature with certain received notions that have no basis. For, I

see no qualifying statement as to what you mean by `literary' which

is further confounded by your capitalized `MENTAL'. Literature, for

one thing, is not a cerebral activity, and a great tradition as the

Sanskrit tradition, could not hold any value if it were so. It is

the whole being in active motion to the `word', that in the Indian

tradition is not only `heard' but also `seen' that sets its spirit,

be it in Sanskrit, Tamil or any other language of the sub-continent.

If someone chose to write in one specific language than the other, I

guess the reasons for it must be other than the linguistic

differences of the two languages.

vishvesh

--- In IndianCivilization@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. K.Loganathan"

<subas@p...> wrote:

> Dear Sir

> I think you miss the point of my argument. I said I do not want put

down

> PaNini or the contributions of other Sk gramarians. But I do want

to point

> out the fact the liguistic philosophy underlying Tol. and hence the

essence

> of Tamil linguistic tradition and hence the different schools of

philosophy

> of Dravidian folks has a distinctive flavour about it and which may

> absent in Sk and the culture formed by it.

> There is a vibrant and healthy NATURALISM as part of Tamil culture

and which

> remains its essence to this day.

> Yes it is true the Sk scholars were bilingual and in which they

SPOKE in

> ordinary life a living language but perhaps WROTE in Sk. This was

and is the

> case with Tamil Brahmins . They lived in Tamil but (some) wrote in

Sk. A

> good example is Ramanuja who was a great Tamil scholar and who

learned his

> philosophy from Namazvar (and because of which his philosophy become

> something relevant for existential issues) but who wrote in SK while

> promoting Tamil in other ways.

> Howver all these do not deny the FACT that in Tol. and in Tamil

culture in

> general, the Tamils responded to over and above the MEANINGS that

became

> verbal also to MEANINGS that remained NONVERBAL but formed the

substance of

> intention-language( Ta. kuRipu Mozi). Thus the Tamil culture

responds to

> realms of meanings that become available through literature(

ceyyuL) as well

> as and natural languages including the nonverbal( vazakku) and quite

> comprehensive and exhaustive.

> In the philosophy of Tirumular who knew SK and the culture formed

by it, but

> who choiose to write in Tamil ( ennai nanRaaka iRaivan padaittanan,

tanni

> nanRakkat tamiz ceyyumaaRee : God created me well so that I can

bring BEING

> into Tamil) you can see this differrence.

> In this they were far ahead of times for only in recent times we

hear of

> analysis of natural language and nonverbal speech in the West and

all as

> different developments of the Phemonological Movement of Husserl (

return to

> the things themselves!) that the Tamils called Iyal NeRi even at

the times

> of Tol. (c. 300BC)

> This atitude of Tol. runs through the entire gamut of Dravidan

philosophy

> and in that it also continues without any dilution the essence of

the

> culture of the SumeroTamils

> The metaphysics underlying Dravidian Hindu culture and hence the

Agamic /

> Tantric culture is Natural Metaphysics and which involves accessing

and

> responding to the meaning forming powers in the world as already

there and

> which are accessed at first as ICONS and later as Mantra-complexes

and so

> forth.

> In the course of my studies on Icon Thinking SivaliGkam and so

forth, the

> essence of this Natural Metaphysics is being brought out.

> Let me add that this is NOT peculiar to the Tamils alone. Tantrism

is pan

> Indian and the Icon Thinking is there as long as there are temple

worship

> but they remain submerged and alrgely unattended.

> Loga

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: "ovishvesh" <ovishvesh@y...>

> To: <IndianCivilization@yahoogroups.com>

> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2003 5:41 AM

> Subject: [IndianCivilization] Re: Panini-tolkapiyum – Lakshana

traya -Scope

> regarding

> > Dear Mr.Shastry,

> >

> > Thanks for a beautiful reply.

> >

> > I get reminded of Latin whenever I read any argument stating that

> > Sanskrit was only a `literary' language. Latin was one such in

fact

> > but the difference that one sees with it is that Sanskrit was

mind-

> > forming to an entire tradition while Latin sure didn't serve any

such

> > purpose. When Dr.Loganathan makes statements like "The study of

> > literature confines the scholarly mind to literary productions and

> > only to the MENTAL creations of man and in that also dissociates

the

> > mind from the NATURAL and hence the spontaneous productive forces

> > work there", I feel he is refusing to acknowledge a whole

tradition

> > to whom Sanskrit was vibrant not just a literary expression but

as a

> > cultural force. I know nothing of Panini or Tolkappiar, but from

> > study of English Literature I have seen that a language can

achieve

> > any cultural force only when it has the living-force of the spoken

> > idiom behind it. (It ought to `satisfy the highest conditions of

the

> > art of speech' to be of a literature having any value: Sri

Aurobindo –

> > Foundations of Indian Culture). This spoken idiom need not

> > necessarily relate to the idiom of the masses. There is a central

> > intelligence (promoted by the culture) which directs the general

> > any given period of time; they are in harmony though they may not

> > the same in a period of fine cultural activity, and they get

severed

> > wide in periods of cultural decline as we see in our times. To

harp

> > on linguistic differences ignoring the living-spirit of Sanskrit

> > which gave rise to some of the finest literary expressions not

only

> > in Sanskrit but other languages as well is, I feel, chavunistic.

> >

> > One cannot relate a literary conception to one's fixed

association of

> > an object. That Tamil literature dealt with nature on a broader

> > scale than Sanskrit in its treatment of the five thiNais of

Nature is

> > remarkable, but to measure another language's literature which

> > conceived a poetic truth through another means seems absurd (even

> > we agree that Sanskrit is less nature oriented and

> > less `spontaneous' !) It would be like saying that Boticelli was

> > less `spontaneous' to have gone on drawing Madonnas since he was

> > never inspired by `nature' as a Van Gogh !

> >

> > vishvesh

> >

Dear Vishvesh

Just let me respond briefly to your observation as bellow:

>>>>>>>>>>>>

. A `language of Literature' is not much different from `a language of the Speech acts (of) daily life', for the very breath of life in Literature arises from the finest speech idiom of the language. I don't understand what you mean by the analysis of `Natural life', but I would seriously doubt if such a possibility, whatever is its context, would be a milestone for judging a literature.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The language of literature (Ta. ceyyuL) is quite different from language of Speech Acts (Ta. vazakku) and Tamil linguistic tradition as founded by Tol. takes these two as aspects of Vak ( aayiru mutal) while SK. because of the very inception of it only the CeyyuL, the written literature and hence partially blind with respect to the full workings of Vak. At least from the time of PaNini Sk was never used in natural life for example bargaining in the market place.

Let me add a bit more substance to what I have already said to elaborate it further. Let me recall what I said to Radha W:

>>>>>>>>>>>>

Such uses of language, in order to be studied as belonging to linguistics, they have to recorded as video or audio clips, transliterated with definite rules so that the essence of the original is not lost (e.g. intonations, pause, alternation etc) and which also includes noting the paralinguistic features which also contribute to the meanings. Saying something with a shrug or frown on the face is NOT saying the same thing in terms of meaning intended without these body language features.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

When you go to the market place and BARGAIN with someone for a kilo of cucumber, you are entering into a natural dialogue to bring about an AGREEMENT. Here there is an encounter of SELF and with an independent OTHER and the dialogue is a negotiation of a kind. Now such encounters with an independent OTHER is impossible with written literature for when a drama is scripted everything comes from the head of the writer. It is the writer who takes on the role of both the bargainer and the Shop owner, the self and the Other. There is NO GENUINE ENCOUNTER but only a pretended, a simulated one.

This is NOT to deny the so many esthetic metaphorical rhetoric poetic and such other NEW aspects of the mental that may become available here and only here.

Let me give a specimen from my studies, a dialogue in the primary school, videotaped and transcribed with meticulous care and according to established rules in Conversation Analysis, the new linguistic discipline where Natural Speech is analyzed.( The details not shown here)

TEXT 1 : (Part of classroom instruction on Language in the primary school, first grade. The text is excerpt of a middle of an ongoing lesson, videotaped and transcribed)
1. Guru: Semua sebut [huu....]                                 1. T : All say [huu....]
2. SM : huuu....                                                    2. A.C : huu...
3. G : sekali lagii ....                                              3. T : Once again ...
4. SM : huuu...                                                     4. A.C: huuu.....
5. G : Baik, Kumpulan A                                        5. T : Okay, group A
6. K.A: huu ....                                                     6. G.A: huu ...
7. G : Semua dikumpulan B sebut                             7. T : All in group B, pronounce it
8. K.B: huu ....                                                     8. G.B: huu...
9. G : Baik,sekarang (sticks pictures                           9. T : Okay now ( .... ):
the board): Ini gambar apa?                                                 What is this picture?
10. M : Pokok                                                       10. C : Tree

(G) Guru : Teacher (r): Semua murid (SM) All children (A.C), Murid (M) child.

Here when the children do something that is intended as for them by the teacher there is Intentional-Fusion, the children owing up the intention of the teacher as their own and which gives rise to an Act-Turn such as in 1&2 above. Where there is failure in this, where the children do not understand or simply refuse to comply, we have Quasi Act Turn. Thus a dialogue such as the above is a sequence of act-turns or quasi-act-turns with intentional fusions or the failure of it.

In CeyyuL or written literature such genuine intentional fusions CANNOT take place for everything scripted comes from the author, from his mind and in which he may introduce esthetically novel captivating etc.

Now in Tol. this consensus ( aRivu udan padutal) and the conditions of it ( intentional fusion : kuRittatu KoLLal) are noted in the following sutras:

1042: naaddam iraNdum aRivudanpaduthaRkuk

kuuddi uraikkum kuRippurai aakum.

1043. kuRippee kuRittatu koLLu maayin

aaGakavai nikazum enamaanar pulavar.

Here by kuRittatu KolLLal is meant intentional fusion and sutra 1043 says that intentional fusion is the basis for mutual consent for enjoying conjugal relationship between lovers.

The Natural Metaphysics

Now the next level of inquiry is to seek to UNDERSTAND this phenomena of intentional fusion and thereby the joint social activities with mutual consent ( or discord)

1039 . onRee veeRee enRiru paalvayin

onRi uyarnta paalatu aaNaiyin

otta kizavanum kizattyuG kaaNpa

mikkoon aayinum kadivarai inRee

The essence of this sutra is that two independent anmas who live as together or different, on account of the Decree of the Raidiant Principle that remains one-with both of them, the right man will encounter ( and fuse intentions) the right woman and in which process if the Man exceeds ( in age, status etc) that will not serve as impediments.

Such sutras as this, will NOT be possible unless the natural speech with the Intentional-Fusion as its essential structure forming element is kept alive and made the object of inquiry and because of which there is the birth of an understanding of this natural phenomena as the result of the working of the BEING present as the Radiant Principle in the bosom of both.

Now we can push the inquiry even deeper and as they have already done and because of which we have the birth of Bakti literature Saiva Siddhanta Metaphysics, Mantrayana and so forth and about which I am explaining in other series I am writing.

HOME