The Linguistic Philosophy of Tolkaappiyar
Dr K. Loganathan (revised 6-7-10)
The Linguistic Philosophy of Tolkaappiyar-1
Introduction.
Tolkaappiyam is perhaps the greatest treatise not only for Dravidian philosophy but also for Indian philosophy as a whole overlooked only because the persistent projection of Vedanta tradition as that which is Indian and the best. It is hardly noticed that Nyaya Sutras of Gautama is essentially a summary of Tolkaappiyam where the Hermeneutic Logic is distorted into Epistemological Logic and which in turn led to the various kinds of logical traditions of the Buddhists and Jains. This story has to be recalled and the important insights Tol brings into the analysis of Human Behavior must be retold . The purpose of this series in precisely that up to a point
The Text as a Whole
The TEXT is massive running into more than 1630 sutras and divided into THREE books, the Ezuttatikaaram Collatikaaram and PoruLatikaaram. While the final book Marabiyal is normally taken as part of the third but I believe that it is more ancient than Tol proper going back perhaps to the period of Second Academy consistent with the traditional account that Tol belongs to the Second Academy. I have written a separate paper on this and will post in the near future a revised version of it. While Tol proper is ascribed to a period around the 3rd Cent BC, there are also those who believe that some parts of it, especially that of Ezuttatikaaram had been revised consistent with the changes in Brahmi script that was current at that time. We may note here that it is only in Marabiyal that we find mention of jaties, communal groupings that are profession based - trade agriculture priesthood, political leadership and so forth. But this marabu -historically derived traditional groupings is NOT VarNasrama Dharma. For it is said that the Mutalvan -- the most authoritative person is a Munivan , one who has freed himself from the prejudices and shines forth in TRUE understanding that clarifies all. (Vinaiyin niiGki viLaGkiya aRivin munaivan). In order to become the metaphysically LUMINOUS, one does not need any smrities and sruties but only that of becoming FREE of prejudices of all kinds. Anyone who studies the History of Dravidian Philosophical Developments and how while deconstructing Buddhism Jainism and Vedanta, there were also furtherance of its own by deepening and broadening of the nuclear ideas, can see the continuous impact of Tol in all these.
Tolkaappiyam has constituted the MODEL and take off point for the numerous grammatical treatises that have been written since that time: IRaiyanaar AkapporuL (fully available) Cempuut Cey’s KuuRRiyal (lost), Panniru Padalam (CaGkam work but lost) puRapporuL VeNba Maalai (later work fully available) Mayeeccuram (only a few sutras available), Kaakkaip Paadiniyam (fully reconstructed from various secondary references and quotations) the massive Avinayam (only partly existent), Viiracooziyam (13th cent, fully available with commentary) Nannul ( fully available with several commentaries) , YapparuGkalam ( an encyclopedic work on Tamil Prosody) the IlakkaNa viLakkam ( 17th cent AD), the Muttuviiriyam ( 19th cent) and numerous others. We should also mention that though PaNini was known from ancient times, it is only with Viracozilyam, Pirayoka Viveekam and IlakaNNak Kottu that we see the impact of it in Tamil grammarians. Fortunately these studies also deal with similarities and differences between Tamil and Sanskrit and where as in Pirayokao Viveekam, they note that the similarities outnumber differences and all these before the European Indologists entered the scene and Aryanized Sanskrit etc and with that also introduced a racial split among the Indian folks.
The Organizational Principles.
Tol differs not only from PaNini but also from some recent developments in Linguistics in the West. And this emerges from the fact that among the THREE books, the primordial is the Third Book, the PoruLatikaaraam and it is only to make sense of the studies in PoruL that the semantic morphological syntactical studies are taken up in Collatikaaram. And further it is only to understand the grammatical intricacies as in Col that phonemic phonological phonetics morphophonemic and so forth are taken up in the Ezuttatikaaram.
Now PoruL means MEANING but here the MEAINGS people LIVE with in the world. Thus PoruLatikaaraam turns out to be Existential Analytics where the MEANING that agitate people in their life are accessed through the Speech Acts viz. KuuRRu. It must also be mentioned that the concept of LANGUAGE itself is also very broad. Not only it includes the VERBAL both the oral and written forms (vazakku and CeyyuL) but also the KuRippu Mozi (the body language, the symbolic gestures etc) and so forth. The MEANINGS emerge in all kinds of communicative acts and unless we capture them and analyze them scientifically we cannot ACCESS the truths about the world and people.
(To continue) 1
The Linguistic Philosophy of Tolkaappiyar-2
That which distinguishes Tolkaappiyam from PaNini and the tradition of Sanskrit linguistic studies is the massive PoruLatikaaraam and which also makes it quite contemporary. Such studies as contained here, began in the West only from the beginnings of 20th cent and because of stimulations provided by the Phenomenology of Husserl. We have fileds as Conversation Analysis Ethnomethodolgy and so forth because of this. But what are the essences of this PoruLatikaaram?
The PoruLatikaaram.
The Sutras number around 563 and the topics are essentially a Hermeneutic Analysis of EXISTENCE and hence can be easily confused with anthropology ethnology and so forth. However we should remember that by PoruL is NOT meant here the material wealth, which is also one of its meanings but rather the Existential Meanings people have and which makes them ACT in various ways. People in all walks of life are SEEKING something and what they seek out, the MEANINGS are the matter of study here and for which the various kinds of languages people use - the Vazakku, the ordinary speech, CeyyuL, the composed literature, the Meyppaadu, the body language and so forth are used. There is also mention of the language of Mantras but an analysis of which, except for a broad delineation, is not given.
This book, interestingly enough begins with AkattiNaiyiyal, the Hermeneutic Science of Domestic Life and goes onto to PuRattiNaiyiyal, a study of akam’s sociological expressions. Then it returns to Akam where KaLaviyal takes up pre-marital love behavior and KaRpiyal, the dynamics of married life. The next chapter that follows, PoruLiyal, deals with the common elements to both KaLaviyal and KaRpiyal in addition to some extraneous elements.
Then it is followed with what can be called essentially socio-psychological i.e. Meyppaaddiyal where the feelings and emotions are taken up for an exhaustive study. ‘Meypaadu’ means the bodily experiences emotions and feelings (uNarvu, uNarcci uruci, cuvai etc) and are called so only because they are the accessed inner states of the anmas by inferring from the observable bodily features. In fact the principles of Hermeneutic Science are more evident here than anywhere else.
This is followed with Uvamaviyal, the Science of Analogy and which initiates studies into THINKING processes but as they occur in natural life both in oral and written discourses. In the History of Indian Logic, later it became incorporated as one of PiramaaNas. This chapter also distinguishes analogy (Uvamam) from metaphors (ULLurai Uvamam), a distinction that became lost and replaced with that of Uruvakam, figures of speech and possibly because of the influence of Sanskrit treatises on AlaGkaaram, i.e. Poetics. For Tol the uLurai Uvamam was important because it is that which allows the determination of TiNai, the Inner Ecology of speech
This is followed by the massive CeyyuLLial, the poetics, stylistics and rhetoric as well as an understanding of various kinds languages. In fact in this chapter we have some sutras that pertain to some interesting observations on the communicative acts in general.
The Ecological Thinking
The first chapter AkattiNaiyiyal is philosophically and historically the most important in the sense it outlines some central insights that gave Dravidian Philosophic Thinking its distinctive identity as well as the insights that served the later Tamil philosophers to assimilate and deconstruct the various streams of metaphysical thinking that poured in form various parts of India and eventually led to the burst of Bakti movement along with the formulation of philosophical treatises like MeykaNda Sastras and Sri VaishNava Acarya Hridayam and so forth.
All communicative acts of which only some are verbal are said to issue from the Inner Ecologies of TiNais, altogether SEVEN in number. They are also divided into Akam with PuRam reflexes. The Akam are: the LOVE dominated KuRinjci Mullai Marutam, Neytal, and Paalai and the socially disapproved KaikkiLai and PeruntiNai. The PuRam reflexes are: the Vedci, the PuRam of KuRinjci, Vanjci that of Mullai, Uzinjai that of Marutam, Tumbai that of Neytal, Vaakai that of Kaanjci and PadaaN of Paalai, Kaanjci that of PeruntiNai and PaadaaN that of KaikkiLai.
Thus we can see the WHOLE domain of Human behavior is analyzed and made sense of in terms of SEXUALITY and in which LOVE based ecologies are said to be ACCEPTABLE while those not so, the KaikkiLai and PeruntiNai, are not acceptable. Thus we see that Sexuality is already analyzed along with ETHICS and that both domestic and public behavior are taken to be founded upon these basic instinctual forces.
These insights, not accepted because they are mystic disclosures or the contents of smrities and sruties, but rather as TRUTHS ANYONE can see for themselves provided they analyze EXISTENCE hermeneutically, gave the solid foundations for battling with the nonscientific elements that poured from within and without into the Tamil countries. This battle continues to this day only that now this tradition immensely rational and scientific is almost dead.
(to continue)2
The Linguistic Philosophy of Tolkaappiyar-3
The Metaphysical Thinking
Before we pass over PoruLatikaaram, we should consider in some details what can be called the Metaphysical Thinking underlying it and which was enormously influential and one could say, provided the metaphysical insights for the burst or recovery of the ancient Bakti a few centuries later. Though Metaphysical Thinking is as ancient as human civilization itself, what Tol does is to RECOVER it within the Ecological Thinking that became well established as part of the MEANINGS people live with and which is COMMUNICATED by verbal and nonverbal communicative acts.
We have noted that all acts of communications can be classified into 14 TiNais or departments of behavior and that among these there are 2 akam departments called KaikkiLai and PeruntiNai where the sexual behavior is one-sided or where mutual agreement is absent and which applies also to social reflexes of it viz. Kaanjci and PaadaaN TiNais.
Thus the first FIVE of Akam, called also the Anpin AintiNai, the Five departments of LOVE are ethically acceptable while the KaikkiLai and PeruntiNai which are DEVOID of love are said to be UNACCETABLE. But the difference does not end here. Tol also notes that these LOVE dominated departments of human behavior have as their animating Deep Structures various deities - the Ceeyoon (Muruka) for KuRinjci, Maayoon (VishNu) for Mullai, Veentan (Indra) for Marutam, and VaruNa for Neytal. The Paalai is left out and for a good reason. This Paalai is peculiar for it does stand on its own but as the Deep Structure of all the four ecologies, KuRinjci and so forth. As observed in Cilappatikaaram, the KuRinjci and so forth are transformations of this deeper Paalai and hence cannot be put along side them but as different. The deity of Paalai is simply called Paal, the Brilliant in KaLaviyal and which carries the important metaphysical insight that these deities of surface ecologies are TRANSFORMS of this Paal and hence this Paal or Sivan or Brahman remains the Deep Structure (DS) of these deities.
This understanding only hidden in the body of PoruL (perhaps we have lost a number of sutras related to this theme) is the recovery of the very ancient Metaphysical Thinking where the deities are seen as the animating principles of the essentially inert physical realms and that the Brilliant, the Paal or BEING-as-LIGHT remains the DS of all these ecology pervading deities.
Thus we have an understanding that all departments of human behavior are not only expressions of the instinct of SEXUALITY but also are ordained by specific deities and which are different expressions of the one and same BEING-as-Pure Light, the Paal.
Here we should NOT fail to note that the KaikkiLai and PeruntiNai are OUTSIDE the prevalence of these deities and hence the UNACCETABLE in behavior are also NON-DIVINE. It carries the ETHICAL understanding that the GOOD is divinely ordained and EVIL is NOT so, the unacceptable in ethics are forms of behavior where they are OUTSIDE the Grace of BEING.
The Vedic Gods
It is interesting that in the list of deities we also find Indra and VaruNa who are also mentioned in the Rig Veda. This shows that at the time Tol was composed these Vedic gods were acknowledged and worshipped and there was a kind of continuity with Vedic culture. Tolkaappiyar was also quite familiar with the fact that the Vedic slokas were RECITED with peculiar cadence of their own but which is NOT what he deals with and calls ezuttu, the phonemes of Tamil language. We have a mention by Panampaaranaar in the Payiram, the Preface that Tolkaappiyar had to convince one ataGkooddu Acaan who is also mentioned as well versed in the four Vedas (naan maRai muRRiya). Here we must not JUMP to the conclusion, as is the habit of the Brahmans that Tolkaappiyar was a Brahmin, a dwija by birth etc and which notion never existed or even when mentioned never was accepted by the Tamils. Tolkaappiyar could never have been a Dwija Brahmin for with his casteic thinking he could NOT have written Tol itself, which embodies the principles of Hermeneutic Science. Furthermore he also defines implicitly himself as Munaivan, one who is FREE of all kinds of PREJUDICES ( vinaiyin niiGki viLaGkiya aRivin Munaivan)
There could have been Acaans (< Su. Ga-sa-an) or simply TEACHERS or gurus who were also well versed in the Vedas and since VarNasrama Dharma was absent, it could have been an occupational or academic preference and probably OPEN to all.
Furthermore we must recall that the Rig Vedas and allied scriptures are in Archaic Tamil of a kind and hence maintained by some Tamils during Tol times as part of their OWN ancient heritage. We should also note that Indra and VaruNa are Dravidian gods and though Vedic but not gods brought into Dravidian culture by some Indo-Aryans with European connections. Indra is to be derived from the Sumerian Indu-ra, an emanation of the heavenly Moon (Indu: moon). VaruNa can be derived from ‘bar” meaning the sun as in Paruti and hence the divine force that expresses itself as the sun etc.
We should also note that while Indra Vizaa, a massive festival for Indra was celebrated even during post CaGkam period as mentioned in Cilappatikaaram and MaNimekalai, NO mention is made of them and no hymns composed in praise of them during the Bakti and Post Bakti period. It appears that there was a revolution among the Tamils where at least it is on the death of Vedic gods that bakti movement crystallized and became the most powerful cultural force that swept across the whole of India and overseas giving rise to the dominance of Siva and VishNu. Thus Agamic Hinduism with Temples hymns and so forth, not only weakened Buddhism and Jainism but also Vedism where only the recitations of Vedas were allowed to be continued in the periphery of the Hymns in Tamil that constitutes\ the Tevaram and Divvya Prabantam.
(to continue) 3
The Linguistic Philosophy of Tolkaappiyar-4
The Syntax and Semantics of Tolkaappiyam
Let us keep in mind that for Tol the MEANINGS constitute the basis for linguistic studies and hence the various kinds of COMMUNICATIVE acts - verbal and nonverbal - are the events that are studied. Such studies are complied as PoruLatikaaram where PoruL here means the MEANINGS people live with and hence a kind of existential analytics. Now the Second Book Collatikaaram (Col) deals very specifically with the Coherence of Discourse and the syntactic and semantic issues related to that. The kiLavi, the meaningful utterance becomes the unit that is analyzed and where COHERENCE of sentence structure is dealt with. It is here GRAMMAR in the strict sense of the word, evolves with delineation of the RULES implicit in the structure of sentences coherent both syntactically and semantically.
The Eccaviyal, the final chapter is of peculiar importance for here we have not only a discussion of the agglutination of Noun Phrases but also a kind of Linguistic Survey of ancient India where almost all Indian languages are classified into Centamil and Koduntamil with Sanskrit separated out as Vadamozi i.e. the Northern Language, or Dead Language (pada> vada: to be dead)
The Book begins, interestingly enough with a chapter on KiLaviyaakkam, the formative processes of speech and which turns out to be actually a Discourse Analysis where the units of discourse, the KiLavi are various kinds of Speech Acts like questioning replying requesting commanding and so forth. After that it begins an analysis of the constituents of such linguistic units and for which purposes the Case Markers are studied followed with an analysis of ViLi Marabu or the Vocative that is quite intimately related to the cases. Then we have an extensive analysis of the Noun Phrases (NP) followed with an equally extensive analysis of Verb Phrases (VB). Then we have a study of what are called Idaiccol- the particles, enclitics and so forth followed with Uriyiyal that gave rise to the tradition of dictionaries - the explication of the meaning of rare words with commonly occurring words. One could say that this chapter of Uriyiyal is the first DICTIONAARY or NikaNdu in Tamil that set the model for some ancient NikaNdus like Tivaakaram and so forth, which finally led to a proper dictionary, the Caturakaraty of Rev Beschi or Viramamunivar (c. 17th cent)
The final chapter is Eccaviyal and which literally means the Chapter on matters that were left out in the earlier chapters. In seeking out what kind of words can legitimately be used in literary compositions, Tol ranges very wide into all the languages of India and classifies them variously. It is here that we find an explicit mention of Sanskrit and the rules that must be applied to words that have phonemes peculiar to that language before being accepted into Tamil.
KiLaviyaakkam: Discourse Analysis
This is the chapter not only that sets the framework for the various rules of grammar that are noted later but also that which links up with PoruLatikaaram, the third book.
The Discourse is an organized dialogue with questions and replies alternating but with a COHERENCE of their own and which is RULE BOUND. Now here the notion of coherence is tackled at several levels- the discourse level, the sentential level and morphological levels. For example for a discourse to be coherent it is noted that a reply to a question must be relevant to the issue raised by the question and that sometimes a counter question itself can serve as an implicit reply. Quite interesting in this matter is the observation that when questions are raised about nonexistent objects like Flower in the Sky and so forth, it is WRONG to reply positively or negatively, as that would implicate that one accepts the existence of the object. The best thing to do under such circumstances is to refuse a reply and remain SILENT. Questions about nonexistent objects terminate the dynamic flow of the discourse itself and hence nonproductive.
Now grammatical considerations proper begins only at the level of coherences at the sentential level and it is here that the basic categories like TiNai (person non-person gender distinctions) the number (one and many), the pronominal considerations ( the firsd person second person etc), tenses and aspects and so forth are considered along with the distinction between NP and VP, the basic constituents of all sentences that have a coherent meaning. There are morphological elements like number indicating infixes both in the NP and VP and there must be AGREEMENT between the NP and VP of a single sentence for it to be grammatically acceptable. So is the case with other categories like gender tense pronominal structures and so forth.
(To continue) 4
The Linguistic Philosophy of Tolkaappiyar-5
The Intention Generative Grammar ( or the Process Grammar) of Tolkaappiyam
The way Tol understands the important constituents of KiLavi - the minimal unit of meaningful discourse, and its constituents, the NP and VP is very peculiar and quite unparalleled to this day either by the Linguists of the West or even the Sanskrit grammarians of India including PaNini. We must remember the important chapter of KiLaviyaakkam, the genesis of Speech Acts and hence discourse and how and why they are coherent. It is only with the notion of coherence at the sentential level over and above at the discourse level, that the distinctions between the NP VP and the enclitics and so forth are entered into. A sentence gets used in a Speech Act and because of it becomes a KiLavi, something that is expressive or communicative of something.
Now looked at this way what is thus communicated are INTENTIONS and therefore the poruL, the substance of PoruLatikaaram, what we have called the MEANINGS as such are intention-meanings, the INTENTIONALITIES. Such intentionalities are NOT the same as word meanings that constitute the SEMIOTICS of a language but rather something ABOVE such word-meanings. There appears to be a dynamic relationship between the two: the historically transmitted word-meanings help in the generation of a sentence that can be used as a KiLavi, effect a Speech Act and hence with that communicate an INTENTION. And it is the emergence of such intentional meanings that also gives rise to the development of word meanings and semiotics. This is quite clear in the natural situation where the effort is to get at what a person MEANS in saying something and for which we also use the paralinguistic and contextual factors. The INTENTION, what the person MEANS comes through the speech, helped along by the word meanings as well the implications of the paralinguistic and contextual factors.
The science of word meanings, part of the semiotics as such, is dealt with by Tol in his Uriyiyal and because of which it gave rise to the tradition of NikaNdu, the modern expressions of which are Dictionaries including Thesaurus Etymological Dictionaries and so forth.
But the meaning of PoruL is NOT exhausted by this for more importantly it means the Intentional Meanings and which is the substance of PoruLatikaaram, and which accomplishment to this day remains quite unparalleled both in India and the West.
Intentionalities and the Coherence of Discourses
The Collatikaaram of Tol contains within itself a Transformational Generative Grammar but quite different from that of Noam Chomsky and other such generative grammars and using which I have developed what I called the Process Grammar, where the primary linguistic process is that of COMMUNICATING and in that indicating also what is ASSERTED as opposed to what is being PRESUPPOSED. Even the normal communicative act has the intention structure of Presupposed: Asserted and it is this distinction underlies our perception that a sentence is a union of NP and VP and where the NP shows what is presupposed and VP what is asserted. This also shows that there are syntactically atomic or basic sentences, called simply Cuddu by Tol, the deictic as the building blocks of complex sentences or speech acts.
Let me illustrate the point by taking as example: King Raja Raja Chola was very brave. Here it is presupposed that there was King Raja Raja Chola whose truth is beyond doubt and then it is asserted as something unknown or NEW that he was also brave. Thus we can see this having the structure: {There was King Raja Raja Chola1) o (He1 was very brave) where the symbol “X o Y’ shows that ‘X” is presupposed and ‘Y’ is asserted. And the number ‘1’ indicates IDENTITY of the named and pronominally indicated.
Notice that:
1.
If ‘X’, the truth about King Raja Raja Chola is disallowed and there was no such a person, then the assertion as a whole FAILS as a Speech Act for it fails to elicit from others either as affirmation or denial.
2.
Now if the pronoun ‘he” in Y does not identify the SAME person as the named in X, then again the assertion as such will NOT materialize as a Speech Act, i.e. a KiLavi.
When Tol in KiLaviyaakkam says that one can only remain silent in the face of assertion of nonexistent objects, it is clear that he is having such discourse grammatical notions though he may not have spelt out explicitly.
Now when we look a bit deeper at the phenomenon of FAILURE of discourse in the face of non-existent objects, it also follows that in the case of discourses that proceed with a COHERENCE, what constitutes it is the INTENTIONAL- FUSION, the reply consistent with the intention of the question etc.
The Grammar of NP and VP
Now we are in a position to understand the grammar of NP and VP as observed in Tol. Simply put while the NP-s conjugate with case markers number gender markers and so forth but DO NOT CARRY or even implicate the time-related tenses aspects and so forth and which is the essence of the VP-s. Thus TEMPORALITY is brought in to clarify the grammatical intuitions that underly our grasp that a phrase is a NP and another VP. And also while VP may implicate case markers, e.g. adi-t-taan (he beat) implicating that the NP carries the Accusative Case Marker ‘ai’ (x-ai adittaan), a nominal stem like ‘maram, naay”and so forth may not implicate any specific verb etc.
But why this feature of sentence structure?
The information communicated by the NP also communicates that it is something being PRESUPPOSED as TRUE, generally agreed upon by all and that which is communicated by the VP, is not so but that it is which is being ASSERTED with the implicit demand that it be agreed upon by others as well.
The NP tears a certain understanding away from the world process and makes it ABOVE it as a TRUTH already accepted and hence something that can be PRESUPPOSED by the speaker and because of which it is time free and which is NOT the case with what is communicated by the VP. Of course the audience can question this very presupposition itself and in which case the discourse will develop in directions unintended by the speaker.
Thus we can see that implicit in Tol is this Process Grammar which unlike the TG Grammar of Chomsky does NOT make Linguistic Competence simply a mechanical process already innate and so forth. The Linguistic Competence in the Process Grammar of Tol comes with the ability to intentionalize notions ideas and so forth and muster the auxiliary skills and courage to communicate effectively.
(To continue) 5
The Linguistic Philosophy of Tolkaappiyar-6
The Earliest Linguistic Survey of India.
Before I pass over Collatikaaram, I must point out something very interesting in the final chapter of Col the importance of which has been overlooked.
In this chapter Tol is concerned among others what words can be allowed to enter the literary compositions in Tamil so that they are not in conflict with the grammatical essences of Tamil language. This drives him to make a kind of SURVEY of all the languages in India and with that work out RULES on which words are admissible and what must be phonetic adaptations the scholars should impose if their phonological shape is foreign to phonemic repertoire of Tamil as such. It begins with the sutra:
iyaRcol tiricol ticaccol vadacolenRu
anaitttee ceyyuL iiddac col
Meaning: All the words that are deemed suitable to be used in the composition of verses are classified into iyaRcoL, Tiricol, Ticaccol and Vadacol
The meanings of classifications of words into Iyarcol etc are given as follows:
Among these word classes the Natural Words, the ItaaR Ciol are those
That are in agreement with the usages
in the lands of Centamiz and in active use
without distortions of their natural meanings.
Comments ( Teyvasilaiyaar) :
Now since it is said in the forward:
(Tollkaappiyar investigated) the phonology
morphology grammar and meanings of both
the language of speech and literature in the lands of Centamiz (the Chaste Tamil)
that lie between Vengadam in the North and Kumari in the South”
the lands meant by the Lands Centamiz are in fact the countries lying on the South of Vengkadam, North of Kumari, East of the Western seas and West of the Eastern seas.
Sample of words that are in agreement with the language in use in these lands and which function without deviating in meaning are: cooRu( cooked rice), kuuz ( porridge), malai( hill), maram (tree) ; uNdaan ( he swallowed), tinRaan (he ate), oodinaan ( he ran), paadinaan ( he sang) and so forth.
Such words, because in these lands are in active use without any deviations, are called Natural Words (iyaR col). They can also be termed Cenjcol ( the proper words)
Notes (Loga): This classification is rather different from that available in Sk grammar. What we have here is reference to the LIVING PRESENCE and ACTIVE USE of a language and uniformity in their morphology and semantics throughout the countries demarcated. This comment and definition also points out that at the time of Tol. the whole of South India, the vast stretch of land that now is divided into Tamil Nadu KeraLa Karnadaka and TuLu were known as the land of CenTamiz and hence a land unified with the rule of the SAME language, viz, CenTamiz.
The meaning of Tiricol are given as below:
The Tiricol are the semantically ambiguous words where the dual processes hold viz. the same word meaning different things and the same meaning being conveyed by different words.
So such words are those which communicate the same meaning as communicated by the Natural Words but in different ways.
Notes:( Loga)
Another meaning implicit in the concept of Natural Words is brought out here. While the natural words are semantically unambiguous throughout the whole land of Centamil and hence with univocity in meaning, the Tiricol are different in being polysemantic and polymorphic and thus requiring disambiguation using regional and contextual factors. The morphologically same word may have different meanings in different regions and contexts(polysemantic). Similarly the same MEANING may be communicated by morphologically different words in different regions etc (polymorphic). They are called Tiri Col i.e. deviant words on account of this. Note that this definition presupposes the meaning of the Natural Words.
That which is the substance of the claim that there was a kind of (primitive) linguistic survey of India is the following clarifications of Ticaicol ( regional words?)
centamiz ceernta panniru nilattun
taGkuRip pinavee ticaiccoR kiLavi
The Ticaic Col are those words which have only regional prevalence in the 12 countries that linguistically belong to the lands of Centamiz.
The TWELVE countries are as follows: -- The PotuGkar Naadu on the South East of the River Vaiyai; oLi Naadu,Ten paaNdi Naadu, karuGkudda Naadu, Kuda Naadu, the PanRiNadu, the KaRkaa Naadu, the Siitai Naadu, the Puuzi Naadu, Malaadu, Aruvaa Nadu and the country on the north of AruvaNadu.
The following comments are given by Teyvaccilyaiyaar:
Now because it is said “ the 12 countries one with the lands of Centamiz” , these lands (of Ticaic col) are different from the above. Some scholars enumerate them as follows:
The lands beyond the boundaries -ancient island in the seas south of Kumari, Kollam, Kuupakam , SingkaLam and Kannadam, teLiGkam koGkaNam TuLuvam Kudakam and kuNRakam. The Sutra from Akattiyam will enumerate them as follows: The countries on both sides of the Western hills where a deviant type of Tamil is prevalent, the words that are pleasant in the lands of the TEN governors along with another TWO who co-exist and who all rule the lands under the control of the Three Rightful Kings. Here the twelve countries are those beyond the boundaries of Tamizakam and where a deviant kind of Tamil is prevalent and where the prevalence of Centamiz was very welcome. This interpretation is further supported by the fact that in the Forword (Paayiram to Tol) , over and above saying “ in the countries where speech in Tamil is prevalent, investigating both the literary and verbal expressions etc” it is also said “ also examining the ancient texts in the lands which are in essence the same as the lands of Centamil’, it has to be taken that the lands meant are those which are related to the above boundaries. Thus the 12 countries are: the ancient island in the seas south of Kumari, Kollam, kuupakam, SingkaLam, the countries West of the Hills such as KoGaNam, TuLuvam Kudakam and KuNRakam; the countries on the East Karnaadakam, Vaduku TeliGku and Kaligkam
Among these it may be possible that because Kuupakam and Kollam were swallowed by the sea, people migrated to the northern shores of Kumari and called the lands with the same name. Now the people in the North also call these lands the Panjc Dravida , and hence these five cannot be countries on the South of Vengkadam
The words in these countries, even if different from the Natural Words of Centamil, but on account of they occurring in the literary compositions of great scholars, they will not be disallowed.
Notes( Loga)
It appears that at the time of Tol (c. 3rd cent BC) the whole of the South , the lands on the South of the Vindhyas, were essentially Tamil with the languages beyond the borders of CentamiL Naadu, considered the lands of Kodun Tamil, a kind of deviant Tamil and hence only dialectically different and where the Tamil language was most welcome. It is interesting that in this list we have Sri Lanka, KaliGka, Andhra, Karnadaka and perhaps also Maharastra and Gujarat ( as they were also known as lands of Pancha Dravida)
There is clear recognition of DIALECTICAL variations of Tamil which was a living language in the whole of the South with the rule that even words specific to a dialectic variety will be accepted by scholars as part of Centamil language.
The Vadacol, Sanskrit words were identified as a separate category:
VadacoR kiLavi vadavezuttu orIi.i
ezuttodu puNarnta collaa kummee
Meaning: The words designated as Vadacol ( Northern Words) are those which are incorporated into Tamil by deleting those phonemes specific to the Northern languages and replacing them with equivalent phonemes available in Tamil
Even though common to all the nations, because current in the Northern countries, they are termed as Northern Words. Now because it is said Vadacol ( Northern Words), the living languages such as Prakrit are also included. ( prakiritam> paakatam)
The example of words of Northern Language: vaari , maNi, kungkumam and so forth. The Prakrit words are : vaddam, naddam, paddinam and so forth. There are many such words (in Tamil)
Now there is an interesting corollary to the above sutra of Vadacol
citaintana varinum iyaintana varaiyaar
Meaning: Even if some words come with gross distortions and where systematic phonemic mapping does not hold, even such words will not be rejected as long as they are overall consonant with the phonemes of Tamil
The examples are : kantam, tasanaangku, saakaram sattiram pavaLam and so forth.
Among these FOUR different kinds of words, it may be observed that the Natural Words may occur as Nouns Verbs, the Enclitics, the Prepositions and so forth; the TriCol and Ticaic Col occur mainly as Nouns and in a limited way as Verbs. The Northern Words do not occur except as Nouns
Notes ( Loga)
We shouldn’t fail to notice that Tolkaappiyar offers here a linguistic survey of a kind of the WHOLE of INDIA, where the Tamil lands are designated as the lands of CenTamil, the adjacent lands, including Maharastra Gujarastra ( the lands of Pancha Dravida) are designated as lands of Kodun Tamil, which is perhaps a native term for what is called now as dialectical variations. The countries outside these are simply termed Northern lands and where Sanskrit Prakrit and such other languages prevailed with their distinctive phonemic clusters.
We should also note that Tol. does not speak of lexical borrowings and hence Sanskritization/ Aryanization of the Tamils and Tamil language ( something that came in vogue only at the beginning of the 17th cent.) . Though there may be words with
peculiar phonetic realization in Sanskrit and Prakrit, but they are taken as COMMON WORDS (potu coL) which shows of there being cognition that throughout India there was a common repertoire of lexemes but with different kinds of phonological realizations, some even undergoing gross distortions (citaivu).
It may also be possible that Tol does recognize a difference between Sanksrit and Prakrit, both being called Vadacol and only because they contain phonemic innovations of the same words not available in the different registers of Tamil.
It also follows that Tol. notices that there can be differences in what can be called STYLES of Language use where while one term may be actively in use in one linguistic community, this may not be so in another ( even neighboring) community. Thus the Vadacol are such words, words which are also native to Tamil but NOT in current active use, and hence words that have become obsolete.
to continue-6
The Linguistic Philosophy of Tolkaappiyar- 7
The Transformational Grammar of Tolkaappiyar
It is generally taken even by Indian linguists that Transformational Generative Grammar came into the linguistic world only after Chomsky’s Aspects of Syntax and which was born out of a criticism of Structural Linguistics such as that of Harris. But this may not be true if we look at the several sutras in Eccaviyal that deal with MozimaaRRu, how sentences become transformed in the context of generating more complex meanings where semantic ambiguity comes to prevail because of that.
Tthere is an important difference. While Chomsky’s TG grammar deals with syntactic transformations independent of meanings, this is NOT SO with Tol where it is semantically founded. Basic sentences are combined and complex sentences are generated to create more complex and sometimes ambiguous meanings - i.e. by poruL puNar iyalbu - ways of generating complex meanings. Here because of semantic considerations, transformed sentences that undergo changes in prosodic features are also noted.
The FOUR classes of transformations recognized are called : NiranniRai, CuNNam, AdimaRi amd MozimaaRRu and of which the NiraniRau appears to be purely syntactical while the remaining prosodic.
The Four Different Ways Meanings are Communicated in Verses.
399
niraniRai cuNNam adimaRi mozimaaRRu
ena n_aan kenpa poruLpuNar iyalbee
It is intended to explicate how words are combined in literary compositions so that appropriate meanings get communicated.
Meaning:The scholars will say that the different patterns of word combinations in literary compositions that communicate meanings are the four: niraniRai, cuNNam, AdimaRi and MozimaaRRu.
Comments:
Tol. isolates here only the non normal ways in which meanings are communicated in literary compositions, it being unnecessary to explicate the natural ways in which meanings are communicated in both existential and literary uses of the language where the meanings are immediately grasped. These will be explained at the appropriate sutras.
Notes (Loga)
In this sutra and those that follow, what we have is the study of meanings which are ambiguous or uncertain and which require various of kinds of TRANSFORMATIONS to disambiguate. The natural order of words are disturbed and transformed and in that specific meanings are communicated. These sutras deal with the various ways in which these transformational processes must be overcome to get at the meanings.
401
The Way of getting at the Meaning by the Method of NiranniRai
avaRRuL
niraniRai taanee
vinaiyinum peyarinum ninaiyat toonRi
colveeRu nilai.i poruLveeRu nilaiayal
Meaning: Among the ways (of getting at the intended meaning) enumerated above, the NiraniRai method consists in reflecting on the scattered NPs and VPs collectively and reorganizing them so that each NP is followed with the most appropriate VP.
adal veel amar nookkki ninmukang kaNdee
udalum irintoodum uuzmalarum paarkkum
kadalumkanaiyiruLum aampalaum paambum
tadamatiyam aamenRu taam
Here the VP’s udalum ( will suffer) oodum ( will run away) , uuzmalarum (will blossom) paarkkum (will see) must be connected with the NP’s kadal ( the seas)iruL ( darkness) aambal ( the lotus) paambu (the snake) in that order and reorganize all as the conjunction of the sentences : kadal udalum ( the seas will suffer ), iruL oodum ( the darkness will run away) ,aambal malarum (the lotus will blossom) and paambu paarkkum ( the snake will see)
When it is said : kodikuvaLai koddai nucupuNkaN meeni”, the NP’s kodi ( creeper), kuavaLai (the flower), koddai (the seeds) go with the NP’s nucuppu ( the waist), uNkaN (the devouring eyes),and meeni (the body) where we have to derive the sentences ‘ kodu nucuppu ( the creeper-like waist), kauvaLaik kaN ( the lotus-like eyes), koddai meeni ( the seed colored (i.e. black) body
Now when you come across such constructions only with verbal nouns and VP’s, then apply the same rules.
On account of it being said, only by reflection that the proper meaning emerges, we can consider all constructions where unless properly reorganized the meanings do not emerge clearly. When it is said “ kaLiruG kantum poola naLikadaR kuumbuG kalanum toonRum( Mayilai- pp 282), because the kuumbu( the beams) is not a possible analogy for kaLiRu (the elephant) and the Kantu (the pole) for the kalan ( the boat) , it is best to reorganize as :the boat-like elephant, the beams like the wooden pole(for tying down the elephants)
Notes ( Loga)
It looks as though we have here some elementary principles of Transformational Grammar as aspects of disambiguation whereby the HIDDEN and CONCEALED proper form and order of a number of sentences juxtaposed are RECOVERED through appropriate reordering and reorganizing maneuvers. The initial sentence has the surface form of : {{NP1, NP2, NP3, NP4 }& {VP1, VP2, VP3, VP4}} This surface form is semantically ambiguous or confusing and in order to disambiguate and attain an understanding of the intended, the whole sentence has to be CAPTURED semantically the SAME as { NP1&VP1, NP2&VP2, NP3&VP3, NP4&VP4}. Here the recovered set is the INTENDED and which has the SAME MEANING as the presented. The order of words in the presented form or the Surface Structure, does not make any sense immediately but which contains within itself the Deep Structure on the recovery of which the meaning becomes quite obvious.
Using this and other truth-functional notions, I have developed Process Grammar as an alternative to the TG Grammar of Chomsky. For example the subject-predicate sentence “The dog is barking” when used for assertion, meaning a certain proposition in which the referred object the dog is presupposed as real and assertion being an attribution of something to this and which can agreed upon or not so.
This sentence and hence the assertion can be considered to have been generated out of TWO more primitive kinds of assertions : ( That1 is dog ) O (That1 is barking) ------àThe dog is barking ( the number refers to the identity of the object). As Teyvaciliaiyaar has noted in the chapter on KiLaviyaakkam ( the genesis of speech), unless it is presupposed that the first is true ( as indicated by the symbol “o” ) the assertion “ The dog is barking” will be impossible. In making truth presuppositions central in the generation of subject-predicate and other kinds of complex sentences, Process Grammar differs from not only the TG Grammar of Chomsky but also the predicate Calculus of Russel-Whitehead.
Remarks:
We can see that it is the question of AMBIGUITY in meaning that forces one to RECOVER another sentence by de-transforming the given where the meaning is not ambiguous at all or less ambiguous. This, I understand, was also the take-off point for the TG grammar of Chomsky. The TG Grammar of Tol or what I have called Process Grammar is semantically based and is not purely syntactical.
Such matters remain to be studied in greater depth and I hope to take up such issues in greater details later.
To continue-7
The Linguistic Philosophy of Tolkaappiyar- 8-1
The TG Phonology of Tolkaappiyar
The Transformational Generative view of the grammatical processes of language or Process Grammar runs through the entire spectrum of Tolkaappiyam - in the Books on Phonology, Syntax and Semantics and Intentional Meanings people live with. It is this Process Grammar that I have modernized and now extending to the field of Historical Linguistics where the notion of cognate languages are seen in terms of evolutionary developments. I see Rigkrit Sanskrit and Classical Tamil as cognate to each other because they all have as their BASE language SumeroTamil and in which Classical Tamil is a CONTINUATION because of the retention of the basic grammatical processes of the initial SumeroTamil. In terms of the technical terms of Naccinaarkkiniyar, we can say the SumeroTamil is the Karuvi Mozi and Rigkrit Sanskrit and C.Tamil the Ceykai Mozi but in which while C.Tamil serves as a continuation of SumeroTamil, Rigkrit as something that branched off in view of drastic phonological and other transformations.
Now before I lose the insights I have gained on the TG Phonology and which is part of Process Grammar, as observed by one of the brilliant commentators Naccinaarkkiniyar, and who uses these technical terms of Karuvi and Ceykai, I want to write this piece and which I hope to revise later.
The most interesting observation of Nac about overall philosophy of Tol on Ezuttu, the phonemes implicit in all the sutras is contained in his concepts of Karuvi and Ceykai and their differentiations as below:
>>>>>>>>>>
இக்கூறிய இலக்கணங்கள் கருவியும் செய்கையும் என இருவகைய.
அவற்றுள் கருவி புறப்புறக் கருவியும் புறக்கருவியும் அகப்புறக் கருவியும் அகக் கருவியும் என நால்வகைத்து. நூன்மரபும் பிறப்பியலும் புறப்புறக் கருவி, மொழிமரபு புறக்கருவி, புணரியல் அகப்புறக் கருவி. ‘ஏகார ஓகாரம் பெயர்க் கீறாகா' (எழு.272) என்றாற் போல்வன அகக் கருவி.
இனிச் செய்கையும் புறப்புறச் செய்கையும் புறச் செய்கையும், அகப்புறச் செய்கையும், அகச்செய்கையுமென நால்வகைத்து. ‘எல்லா மொழிக்கும் உயிர் வருவழியே' (எழு. 140) என்றாற் போல்வன புறப்புறச் செய்கை. ‘ல ன வரூஉம் புள்ளி முன்னர்” (எழு. 146) என்றாற் போல்வன புறச்செய்கை. ‘உகரமொடு புணரும் புள்ளி யிறுதி” (எழு. 163) என்றாற் போல்வன அகப்புறச் செய்கை. தொகை மரபு முதலிய ஓத்தினுள் இன்ன ஈறு இன்னவாறு முடியுமெனச் செய்கை உறுவன வெல்லாம் அகச்செய்கை. இவ்விகற்பமெல்லாம் தொகையாக உணர்க.
Translation(Loga)
All these phonological processes pertaining to the grammatical coherence (of Tamil) can be further classified into Karuvi and Ceykai.
Among these the Karuvi (the Generative Basis or Deep Structure) is further divided into PuRappuRak Karuvi, PuRak Karuvi, AkappuRak Karuvi and Akak Karuvi. The chapters of Nuun Marabu and PiRappiyal (phonetics) pertain to PuRappuRak Karuvi, the chapter on Mozi Marbu is PuRak Karuvi while the chapter on ‘puNariyal” (word conjuncts) is AkappuRak Karuvi. The sutras like “ eekaaram ookaaram peyark kiiRaakaa ( Ezu. 272) belong to Akak Karuvi.
Now the Ceykai ( the transforms ) are also four types: the puRapuRac Ceykai, puRac Ceykai, AkappuRac Ceykai and Akac Ceykai. The sutras like “ellaa mozikkum uyir varu vaziyee” (Ezu. 140) belongs to PuRappuRac Ceykai. The sutra ‘la na varUum puLLi munnar ‘( Ezu. 146) elucidates the PuRac Ceykai. The sutras like ‘ ukaaramodu puNarum puLLi yiRuti” ( Ezu. 163) are instances of AkappuRac Ceykai. Now in the chapters like ‘Tokai Marabu” where it is described which word final phonemes will get transformed into which phonemes, are instances of Akac Ceykai. All these must be understand collectively.
>>>>>>>>>>
Semantically the term Karuvi and which means the womb, karu, also relates well with the English ‘generate’ and we can equate ‘karuvi’ with the Generative Basis. The Ceykai can mean the products of actions and hence the transforms. Let me explain this matter with a concrete example.
We have the words ‘pal’ (many) and ‘cuvai’ (taste) and when in conjugation we have ‘pal-cuvai’ but which is NOT uttered as such but rather as ‘paRcuvai’. Thus we have here the Deep Structure, the pre-transformational BASE form’ pal-cuvai’ and post transformational Surface form ‘paRcuvai’ . When such phonological transforms in the entire language are studied and which are studied very extensively by Tol. we have the phoneme ‘l’ in the DS getting transformed into the phoneme ‘R’ of SS and which constitutes the IlakkaNam, a linguistic processes that constitutes our pre-existent understanding of grammatical coherence. The ‘-l’ in the DS is the Karuvi Nilai and its transformed state ‘-R’ occasioned by the union of ‘cuvai’ with ‘pal’ is the Ceykai Nilai.
Thus we see that as Nac. has noted, the meta-concepts of Karuvi and Ceykai go together and anticipate each other.
Also it makes clear that such a linguistics is immensely HERMENEUTICAL for we are NOT hypothesizing and then testing and so forth. The understanding that uttering ‘pal-cuvai’ as ‘paRcuvai’ is grammatical is ALREADY there as the linguistic competence of anyone who has a mastery of Tamil and in explaining this pre-understanding in terms of meta-concepts of Karuvi Ceykai and so forth, we are only CLARIFYING, making CONSCIOUS what already remains part of the unconscious or TACIT understanding of the grammar of the language.
Unlike in the positive sciences we do not have Theory Building , formulating hypothesis on the basis of it to reach BEYOND the existent conditions and then TEST how true the hypothetical construction is and so forth and which is so evident in the IE linguistics. Such IE Linguistics that seeks out PIE as a hypothetical construct cannot be part of Process Grammar and which is the proper shape of Linguistics as much as all the human sciences.
As part of Linguistic Competence of the Tamil language any fluent speaker has ALREADY an understanding of the IlakkaNam, the grammar constituting processes and what a competent linguist does is to CLARIFY this pre-existent understanding.
Such an activity is VALID when it SUCCEEDS in clarifying the matter and which is shown by the AGREEMENT any speaker shows towards the explanation. I agree with the derivation of PaRcuvai from pal-cuvai and with the above meta-concepts only because such an understanding is ALREADY with me but which I was not conscious.
In other words Linguistics can be practiced as a science only as Hermeneutic Science and this is how it has been in the tradition of Tolkaappiyam in India, setting the model for many other sciences that also developed .
(to continue) 8-1
The Linguistic Philosophy of Tolkaappiyar- 8-2 (Final)
The TG Phonology of Tolkaappiyar
The Linguistic Theory of Tolkaappiyar is a form of TG grammar but quite different from that of Chomsky. The Process Grammar of Tol. moves around the notions of Ilakkiyam , the texts and IlakkaNam the processes ALREADY within the language and which go to account for the grammatical COHERENCE that any normal speaker understands implicitly. Part of this implicit understanding are the TG processes that he sees at various levels, the phonological syntactical semantical the prosodic and so forth. The Uriccol are those words which have undergone SEMANTIC transformations and as such in order to get the root meaning one has to PEEL OFF (urittal, the peeling off the superficial layers) the transformations it has undergone. This line of thinking can easily be extended to form the basic principle of Etymological Science where the collection of similar etymas is just the beginning but where the real task is TO GO TO THE ROOTS of these semantic clusters by processes of de-transformation evidenced by archaic occurrences of the these words. For example we have ‘karam” meaning hands and which can be connected with Su. gar-u: to do or Su. suu : hands. This ‘suu’ itself can be related Su./Ta: suur, suul: to radiate out. The common theme is that of radiating out like rays- the hands radiating out from the body just like the rays of light radiate out from the sun.
Meanings evolve and so do the sounds that have words and sentences that are collections of words with a grammatical coherence. Thus the Process Grammar of Tol allows the looking at the Linguistic Competence of Man on an evolutionary model. And as another development of this Process Grammar is Mantrayana, the science of meaning (and objects) creations where the notion of ezuttu but as mantra-phoneme plays a crucial role as in the Mantrayana of Tirumular.
With this prelude let us come back to the TG notions implicit in Tol. that Nac. is trying his best to bring out in the passage quoted above.
We have already mentioned that Karuvi means the Generative Basis, that which serves as the basis for the transformations and Ceykai are the various kinds of transforms that have actually taken place. Now we shall inquire why they are sub-classified into Akak Karuvi Purak Karuvi, PuRac Ceykai Akac Ceykai and so forth.
Let us consider Nac. observation that the chapter of Nuun Marabu and PiRappiyal (phonetics) are PuRappuRak Karuvi i.e. very very distant Generative Basis. The chapter on Mozi Marabu that deals extensively with the dependent phonemes, the caarbezuttu is said to be Purak Karuvi (distant generative basis), chapter on PuNariyal that deals with the transformation processes when two independent words conjugate in a sentence is said to be Akak Karuvi and those sutras that say the phonemes of the type short ‘e’ and ‘o’ will not occur as word endings are said to be Akak Karuvi.
What additional meaning is implicit in this classification of the Generative Basis?
The essential notion is available in the Akak Karuvi and which is said to be the study of phonetic transforms the phonemes undergo when two words conjugate. The most distant are the chapters that simply either enumerate or describe the various processes underlying their production. Thus it is clear the various chapters of Ezu. have IMPLICIT ANTICIPATION or hidden intentions. Where the description do not have in mind of the transformational processes the different phonemes may undergo, then phonemes of such description are said to be the Most Distant (PuRappuRam) in the sense that there is NO ANTICIPATION of the possible transforms they may undergo. And when such transforms are explicitly spelt out as PuNariyal, then because the hidden intention is made explicit then it is said to be Akak Karuvi, the kind of descriptions that are in fact intended. We can make sense of the intermediate categories in terms of these basic notions.
Now what about the PuRpuRac Ceykai and so forth? Is there also a HIDDEN INTENTION that Nac. saw in the sutras of Tol?
Here as an instance of the Most Distant Transform he cites the sutra 140 concerned with the appearance of the semivowels in the context of word conjugations and it goes as below:
140:
ellaa mozikkum uyirvaru vaziyee
udampadu meyyin uruvukkoLal varaiyaar
and it means: for both the initial word and conjoining word, the insertion of semivowels to the vowels that occur initially will not be censored as ungrammatical.
As example we have : kiLi azakitu> kiLiyazakitu where the ‘a’ is transformed into ‘ya’ by the insertion of the new ‘y’. Here we note the semivowel is IMPORTED from the general phonological basis of the language.
As an example of the Akac Ceykai is said to be Tokai Marabu and which mentions which phonemes are replaced with what phonemes etc. An example of this will be the following sutra:
143.
ka sa ta pa mutaliya mozimeeR RoonRum
meelelzutt tiyaRkai colliya muRaiyaal
nga nja n_a ma vennum oRRaa kummee
anna marabin mozivayi naana:
This explains what phonemes are DISPLACED by what phonemes and in what kind of conjugations. For maram+ kuRitu > maraGkuRitu and where we have the ‘m’ displaced with ‘G’
But what is the difference between this and the above where there is an INSERTION of the semivowel?
While in the former there is ADDITION of the semivowels, in the latter we have DISPLACEMENT of one phoneme with another that makes the utterance more convenient. While the Most Distant Transform is one of insertion of an extraneous sound, the Most Intimate Transform is that of DISPLACEMENT of one phoneme with another.
Thus the MEASURE used in the classifications of TRANSFORMS appears to be that of insertion of additional phonemes compared to that of DISPLAMENT where the former counts as the Most Distant while the latter the Most Intimate.
Thus Tol in his TG phonology in describing the phonemes seem to had the INTENTIONS or not at all of describing also how the phonemes suffer TRANSFORMS when words conjugate and how in such transforms we have either insertion of new phonemes along with the existing or displacement of one phoneme with another and so forth. Thus such phonemic insertions and displacements are phonological TRANSFORTMATIONAL processes of the language and which constitute the IlakkaNam of the language.