Questions for Dr Loganathan Part 1மரபு விக்கி இருந்துReply by Dr. K.Loganathan Questions for Dr.Loganathan- 1
The First Question of Ramesh
QUOTE
Linguistics – I am open to your theory that ancient Sumerian language was archaic Tamil. My take on linguistics is that it is a type of philosophical enterprise and not a discipline of hard sciences at all as there seem to be a severe lack of conclusive evidences as to which sound/word originated from where etc. I have tried to understand a little bit of the principles of Linguistics (doesn't reject it altogether either) and got discouraged with the speculative theories about the reconstruction of sound changes in languages. For speculative theories, I choose to study philosophy and not linguistics. So for a novice like myself, the arguments of an European linguist vouching on the existence of the Proto-Indo –European (or arguments about sound shift etc) is not much different from your claims of Sumerian being archaic Tamil. Both are speculative theories. It is just that the Europeans control the process of research today and they deny (and even denigrate) those who disagree with their world view like we see in the Indo Eurasian Reasearch forum etc. But I do think that behind every linguistic hypothesis of language reconstruction there is a cultural/national/religious and even atheistic motive.
UNQUOTE
Evolutionary Linguistics as I have developed is an Hermeneutic Science (HS) and which is NOT anything like the statistically motivated positive science. For that reason it is NOT speculative - it is TRUTH oriented and this is how the Utti Science of Ancient India like the Linguistics of Tolkaappiyam was developed. As said by Tolkaappiyar it is Mey NeRittu : directed towards seeking TRUTHS. The battles between HS and the so-called hard sciences is going on even in the West only in India the best sciences developed were basically HS.
Now unlike the Constructive Linguistics of protoforms Sound shifts and so forth, Linguistics as Hs is NOT speculative at all but seeks to UNDERSTAND and be CLEAR by seeking out TRUTHS in an OBJECTIVE manner. There must NOT be vain speculations fanciful inventions and so forth. The TRUTHS are there already in situ and what we have to do is to bring out these TRUTHS – facts, that remain concealed , articulate them and with that CLARIFY the understanding so that it is free of doubts and uncertainties ( aiyamun tiribum aRRa maaN aRivu)
Let me illustrate the point by discussing an example I have already given earlier
’>>>>>
3. tur-ra-mu-de e-dub-ba-a-a am ( Since my very youth, I belonged to edubba) The Tamil reconstruction would be : Ta. tur-ra mutee il tubbaiya aa aam ( Since my very youth I attended the tablet house(school)) துர்-அ முதே இல் துப்பைய ஆ ஆம் We can also consider another such a sentence:
77. ses-gal a-a na-nam nin-gal ama na-nam ( (The elder brother is indeed a father, the elder sister is indeed a mother!)
Ta. cisukaL aiya nanam ningaL ammaa nanam ( “)
சிசுகள் அய்யா நனம் நின்கள் அம்மா நனம் >>>> You can see these sentences are almost immediately RECOGNIZABLE for a Tamil scholar as Tamil but certainly an Archaic Form of it and hence an Archaic Tamil. It is almost the same process at work when I read the Cagkam Tamil ‘ kaamam ceppaatu kaNdatu mozimoo!” . There is recognizability of the language as Tamil but certainly an older form of it. So it follows that Sumerian is Archaic Tamil but certainly a matter that needs to be investigated further. For in the recognition, I do see a variety of similairities and differences and which make the matter quite UNCLEAR because of the strangeness – it is Tamil but not the same as even CagKan Tamil. Why is this so? Furthermore questions like: Am I imagining, just simply speculating etc arises, Here begins the inquiries in the form of Hermeneutic Science, the search for UTTis that would CLARIFY the matter and bring about certainty. This involves exercising some UTTIS so that CONCEALED TRUTHS already there in these sentences are wrested out and made elements of CONSCIOUSNESS. In other words what are needed are ILLUMINATIONS which would clarify my initial recognizability of these sentences as Archaic Tamil and be certain that I am right, not imagining , not guessing speculating etc.
In the Tamil reconstruction above that constitutes my RECOGNITION of the sentences as Archaic Tamil, in phonology morphology and semantics and so forth, the basic utti-s constituting the Viri Linguistics are already there. Here let me overlook the problems about transcription of the cuneiform texts where some refinements are required but not a fundamental revision. For example ‘e’ is rewritten as ‘il’ and which can be incorporated in future readings of the Sumerian itself. Leaving aside such issues for the time being, let me come to the discussion of the utti-s relevant to the issue. 1. The Phonological Utti-s Here we have ‘mude’ rendered as ‘mutee’ with the mapping of ‘d’ into ‘t” and ‘e’ into ‘ee’ . The root of this could be Su. mus (the foundation, the initial etc) and hence also s > d. t etc. We have also ‘a’ as > Ta. aa (to become) and am> Ta. aam ( a particle of affirmation etc). Here while the ‘–a’ in e-dub-ba-a’ is rendered as ‘y-a’, the next ‘a’ and ‘am’ are rendered as ‘aa aam’ i.e. with the long vowel. Here we note that ‘y’ might have been present but the script was defective for symbolizing it. It could have been read as such but not rendered accurately in the script. We notice that ‘tur’ remains the SAME both in phonological shape and meaning We also have ‘dub’ rendered as ‘tub’ where we have d > t , something we see also in Sumerian itself e.g dug and tuk 2. The Semantic Utti-s Now looking at the meanings we see that the meaning of ‘tur’ remains the same as Ta. where tur, tul, tun means ‘small, fine’ and metaphorically ‘evil” etc. The Tamil tur-umbu means something small , tul-li-yam means something fine, minute etc. Tur-neRi is the ‘little way”, the evil way in semantic implications. The ‘mude’ has become Ta. mutee and mutalee as in ‘akaram mutala ezuttellaam ( KuRal 200 AD). The Mutu also means ancient old etc. The ‘mutal’ also means the foundation, the basis etc. In all these we see a family of semantic relationships that are linked to each with some meanings, perhaps the metaphorical as historically later. The most primordial meaning may be that of Su. mus, the foundation, the basis etc. 3. The Morphological utti-s Now we notice that ‘dub’ or ‘dub-ba’ has the Tamil equivalent of Tubbu, the clue, the sign etc that has to be read or deciphered as in tuppu tulangkaL etc. Now we can also see some grammatical operations: dub-ba> bud-da > buddi (Ta. putti) ; intelligence etc. What we have here is metathesis along with the birth of an associated meaning – from a tablet of knowledge to that of intellect of intelligence. We can also see the possible derivation: dub-ba> bud-da> poti and il-dub-ba> poti-il, the famous centre in the ancient Madurai where the Tamil Academy is said to have functioned. The “poti-il’ may actually be ‘il-tub-bu” but distorted or extended somewhat in meaning Here we also notice the SAMNESS of meaning in relation to ‘tur’ ‘a or aa’ ‘am or aam’ etc. Thus the Semantic Utti-s bring out both the SAMENESS in meaning as well DIFFERENCE but where the difference can be explained in terms of historical evolution of various kinds. 4. The Grammatical Utti-s Now when we take up ‘e-dub-ba-a” and render it as Ta. il tubbaiya we have ‘-a’ as the Tamil genitive. locative suffix “-a” that is also widely present in C. Tamil and with same grammatical function. The ‘am’ and Ta. aam are almost the same in grammatical function – an enclitic of agreement, emphasis etc. Now in the clause ‘tur-mu-de’ we have an identity in grammatical function in the word order: akara mutal, iLamai mutalee etc. Here the “mu-de’ is an adverb of time(?) and the same word order holds in Tamil as well. Now in ‘e-dub-ba’ we see a different word order - in fact the reversal – tubbaiya il etc. This is one of the DIFFERENCES in grammar and which is rule governed. While there is agreement in having the formative ‘-a’ as the adjectival format, ( nall-a maintain ( good man), peri-a viidu ( big house) while in Tamil it is before the Noun in Sumerian it is post the qualified noun. For example e-gal-la > Ta. il kaLLa> kaLLa il etc. The rule is : N1 ^ N2-a > N2-a ^ N1
Linguistics as HS is NOT Speculative Now Evolutionary Linguistics (EL) here is strictly scientific and NOT speculative at all. All the utties listed above just clarify the intuitively available processes in the initial recognizability of these sentences as Archaic Tamil. At the end of such Utti exercises my initial understanding becomes better illuminated and all because the TRUTHS in situ have been wrested out and made to shine forth illuminating the mind, the understanding. I do not seek out some protoforms of Sumerian , construct a protoform of Dravidian languages and seek out another protoform common to both and so forth, That the sentences in Sumerian are Tamil albeit an Arhchaic Tamil is the empirical and basic FACT that sets off the various processes of CLARIFICATION in terms various kinds of utties. The utties bring out the concealed facts make one understand clearly why a Tamil scholars can see the Sumerian sentences as Archaic Tamil. Loga ( 19-2-11)
Reply by Ramesh Sunday, February 20, 2011 2:51 PM From: "mrithak" <Paangloss@aol.com> Add sender to Contacts To: akandabaratam@yahoogroups.com
Dear Dr.Loganathan, Thank you for your reply. I joined this forum as you suggested so that we can discuss more freely. Please note that I don 't desire to disprove you or anything. But we should not neglect the present understanding of the many issues that we may address in this exchange. You wrote: <<< Evolutionary Linguistics as I have developed is an Hermeneutic Science (HS) and which is NOT anything like the statistically motivated positive science. For that reason is NOT speculative - it is TRUTH oriented and this is how the Utti Science of Ancient India like the Linguistics of Tolkaappiyam was developed. As said by Tolkaappiyar it is Mey NeRittu : directed towards seeking TRUTHS. The battles between HS and the so-called hard sciences is going on even in the West only in India the best sciences developed were basically HS I am afraid that I lost you on the first sentence itself. Aren't the mainstream linguists also involved in "speculating" on the evolutionary changes of sounds in languages ?. How is your "evolutionary linguistics" different from the mainstream linguist's claim of the evolutionary shifts of sounds from one language to another language ?. It looks to me that both of you seem to be indulging in speculative hypothesis. You say your claims are NOT speculative and I am trying to understand the logic behind your claims. As I see it, the term "hermeneutic" means a "science of interpretation" or something to that effect . How can you avoid speculation when the term "hermeneutic" has something to do with interpretations ?. Interpretations are speculative in nature. Wouldn't it be speculative if there are more than one interpretation to any one scenario ?.I fail to understand the very foundations of your "evolutionary linguistics" and "hermeneutic (interpretive) science". What are it's principle foundations ?. Do they have any basic rules that I can use to distinguish it from the main stream linguistics ?. By hermeneutic science, do you mean that you have developed a science to"interpret" the similarities between Sumerian and the Tamil culture ?. I can agree with you that trying to study a language and not understanding the cultural ethos of that language is a waste of time as language is the oral transmitter of culture. When you say your evolutionary linguistics is TRUTH oriented, what do you mean by that ?. Do you mean to say that your interpretations (hermeneutics) are inspired by spiritual revelation ?. I am open to that possibility. Recently there was a documentary on the great Indian mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan who is known to have come up with answers to many complicated mathematical equations without the necessary "logical" steps. He attributed his answers to the blessings of the Mother Goddess. Are you saying that your claims on language are divinely inspired ?. I am trying to understand your phrase "TRUTH oriented". Truth in the world are mostly verified through logical arguments and proofs. Truth can also be realized by Divine grace or blessing which I accept as a possibility. Please make me understand how your efforts and methods are different from the mainstream linguists/indologists as I also see them talk about the evolution of the meaning of sounds/words etc and interpret them according to their mental/cultural conditioning. Please note that I would gladly accept your answer that said that your conclusions on language and culture are `divinely" inspired. It is a valid justification for me. After all, Srinivasa Ramanujan was not ashamed about his divine inspirations, especially in a field like mathematics where logical proofs are needed. So in matters of linguistics, it shoudn't be a problem at all since this subject called linguistics is a kind of "logical divination" anyway. It is important for me to understand this as I don't see much difference between your efforts and the efforts of the main stream linguists. But I would say that your claims have as much validity as many of the hypothetical claims made by the main stream linguists. Based on your reply, we can move on to the serious issues of the evolution of the Sumerian cuniform script, it's relation to akkadian (semitic language), the Indus script and it's connections (if any) to Sumerian culture and eventually to Brahminism, Jati/Varna social stratification etc. Let us do it chronologically. PS - Please note that I cannot proceed as fast as you are able to do so. I shall do my best to post one reply a day. Sometime it may take two or three days. So my suggestion is that let us find some common ground on your methods of hermeneutic science first. Then we can progress to the other issues in a chronological fashion. sincerely Ramesh
Dear Ramesh
Thank-you for probing further and which has forced me to think deeper and in that also become clearer about my own views. I take it that your essential questions are as follows (in your own words) QUOTE < Aren't the mainstream linguists also involved in "speculating" on the evolutionary changes of sounds in languages ?. How is your "evolutionary linguistics" different from the mainstream linguist's claim of the evolutionary shifts of sounds from one language to another language ?. It looks to me that both of you seem to be indulging in speculative hypothesis.> < By hermeneutic science, do you mean that you have developed a science to"interpret" the similarities between Sumerian and the Tamil culture ?. I can agree with you that trying to study a language and not understanding the cultural ethos of that language is a waste of time as language is the oral transmitter of culture.> < When you say your evolutionary linguistics is TRUTH oriented, what do you mean by that ?. Do you mean to say that your interpretations (hermeneutics) are inspired by spiritual revelation?. I am open to that possibility.> UNQUOTE All these questions show me that I have not made myself sufficiently clear to you what I mean by “evolutinary linguistics’ as developed by me and as a field of Hermeneutic Science (HS). Now in order to explain further and bring out the possible differences between my way of looking at it from that of the Western Evolutionary Linguistics, I have to bring in the notions of ontic-enigmas and onto-enigmas which are how research problems are encountered and which determine the methodological orientations with the ontic-enigmas leading to the positive sciences and onto-enigmas to the Hermeneutic Sciences. My suggestion is that the Western approach of evolutionary linguistics is basically as a field of positive science where what institutes the METHOD is the ontic-seeing while in my case it is a field of HS as the seeing of the problem that institutes the method is ontological.
To understand all these please read the second part of my introduction to Metaphysica Universalis of Meykandar concerned with the genesis of research problems at: http://ulagan.tripod.com/boint-e.htm I shall provide a summary here and in relation to my claim that Sumerian is Archaic Tamil, that form of Tamil from which C.Tamil such as SaGkam Tamil has EVOLVED and hence requiring an evolutionary explanation. Let me recall also the initial intelligibility of the following Sumerian sentences as Tamil but Archaic Tamil and where the reconstructed forms are C.Tamil or almost as they still some archaisms >>>>> 3. tur-ra-mu-de e-dub-ba-a-a am ( Since my very youth, I belonged to edubba) The Tamil reconstruction would be : Ta. tur-ra mutee il tubbaiya aa aam ( Since my very youth I attended the tablet house(school)) துர்-அ முதே இல் துப்பைய ஆ ஆம் We can also consider another such a sentence:
77. ses-gal a-a na-nam nin-gal ama na-nam ( (The elder brother is indeed a father, the elder sister is indeed a mother!)
Ta. cisukaL aiya nanam ningaL ammaa nanam ( “)
சிசுகள் அய்யா நனம் நின்கள் அம்மா நனம் >>>> When I read the Sumerian sentences I see that they are recognizable as Tamil but certainly an Archaic Form it and the reconstructed form affirms it further. This sets the stage for the methodological principles along which I should overcome the enigma: the Sumerian sentences are in Tamil but an Archaic Form of it, a form from which C.Tamil has evolved but the dynamics of which I am NOT clear. Now I can see the problem either as an ontic-enigma or an onto-enigma and if I see it as the first then I, like most of the Westerners, will end up with the methodology of the positive sciences possibly searching for protoforms sound shifts and so forth. But I don’t do that – I don’t seek out protoforms of words and other particles by comparing with some other languages. To me it is a fact that the language is Tamil but an Archaic form of it and what I want is CLARITY with respect to this perceivable identity and how it could have EVOLVED into C,Tamil and so forth. I see the problem as onto-enigma and which institutes the METHOD of attack as that of Hermeneutic Science where I search for the various kinds of UTTIES such as those I listed to CLARIFY my understanding so I understand with certainty that C.Tamil has EVOLVED from Sumerian and which is Archaic Tamil. So it becomes necessary that I explain what I mean by ontic and onto-enigmas. Let me reproduce the relevant parts from the above reference. Ontic-enigma: The existential enigmas are ontical or ontological in their very genesis and where ontical they give rise to the positive sciences and where ontological to the hermeneutic. The ontical look or way of Seeing (Ta. poRiliyak kaatci) presupposes a way of Being in which we do not have TEMPORALITY in the foreground of understanding but rather the WORLD-TIME mode of time consciousness. The researcher, possibly unknown to himself, comports himself to the world as PHYSICAL with events occurring within a spatiotemporal framework that makes referentiality (Ta. cuddu) possible and hence inter-subjective agreements in terms of identity of reference. Onto-enigma: >> As distinct from this are onto-enigmas where the way of Being and hence Seeing is not ontical but rather ontological where Temporality takes over as the constitutive element of understanding along with causing the absence of referentiality that presupposes the existence of an objective spatiotemporal structure common to all. The ontological looks inwards towards the ways of Being itself, locating problems not in the impersonal spatiotemporal flux of events or a universe of numbers the behaviour of which are consistent with a set of universal laws, but rather in the very Being of man and hence in his own Existence as such. The onto-enigmas demand looking into himself, unearth the hidden elements that unknown to him constitute what he is as a being. >> The peculiarity of the onto-enigmas is that the person gripped with it realizes the existence of a certain IGNORANCE , a certain DARKNESS in the understanding because of which onto-enigmas exist as an enigma for him. The onto-enigma highlights or discloses for the researcher the existence of a BLIND SPOT in HIS OWN UNDERSTANDING, which also impels him to remove it, to eradicate it by demolishing that ignorance. In this manner when this exposure of ignorance orientates him ontologically i.e. towards a Way of Being in which there is an awaiting for a way of Being that is a NOT YET but which is a strong possibility, a way of Being that he CAN BE but NOT YET, we have the genesis of an onto-enigma and which would result in hermeneutic scientific efforts to resolve if its character remains undistorted. The recognition of the presence of a DARK SPOT in one’s own understanding is constitutive of onto-enigmas and as long as this essence is kept there without transforming it to the ontical, it calls for improving one’s own understanding so that with regard to the phenomena in question, one stands under it, one gains a vision, an illumination that removes the initial blind spot, the patch of darkness in understanding. The avoidance of transforming it to the ontical and remaining steadfast within the ontological and seeking to resolve the enigma by a restructuring of one’s own understanding and hence by self transformation brings about hermeneutic sciences as opposed to the positivistic. >>>>>>> So my suggestion is that in pursuing Historical linguistics as Evolutionary I see the problem itself as an Onto-enigma in the above sense and which drives me to seek out the various utties that will diffuse the ignorance within me that gets exposed by the problem. Now I must add here that seeing a problem as an Onto-enigma that comes along with Temporaltiy of Time Consciousness, the kuRippuk Kaalam, the Intentional Time of Tolkaappiyar, also makes the object of investigation a TEXT with a DULAITY of structure, the Surface Structure(SS) and Deep Structure(DS), When I appropriate an object, say the Sumerian sentences along with the reconstructions above as a TEXT with SS pointing out the presence of DS, I seek to wrest out the DS elements that would illuminate the matter and hence work within a temporality of Time Consciousness of Intentional time, a kind of time conscious that would disappear the moment the enigma ceases to exist and which happens with the discovery of the utties above. Now it is here there is some place for what you’ specualtion’ but which I would call, deep reflection, meditation a seeking out , even praying to Siva and where some INSIGHTS are sought. Such insights emerge, perhaps as divine inputs and which I call the Utties that illuminate the matter by dispelling the existent doubts uncertainties qualms and so forth. But I do not insist that my claims are VALID because at the depths of understanding there are such divine processes. My claims are VALID only if another person proceeds along the same lines i.e sees the problem as an onto-enigma and comes to the SAME understanding i.e C.Tamil has evolved from Sumerian the Archaic Tamil as myself. Here I can expect AGREEMENT only if there is “otta Kaadci’ as Tolkaappiyar put it. Another person has SEEN the problem as seen by myself I,e, as an Onto-Enigma and then ascertain whether the utties I suggest helps him also become just as clear as myself. If he in fact enjoys the same clarity as I do, then he would AGREE with me and if not interrogate me further (as you are doing right now) or just reject my claims totally. What brings about such agreements is TRUTH esperience – I and the other person experience something objectively there and that my claims are fanciful imaginations (kaRpitam) a wishful thinking etc. Yes deep within my understanding there is at work the Play of BEING, the various divine forces inserting certain insights through mantra complexes and so forth. But though I guess the presence of such processes, I do NOT make this feature a part of my claim for being TRUE, I suspect that the Evolutionary Linguistics of the Western scholars with their penchant for protoforms systematic sound shifts changes and so forth is methodologically positivistic because they see the problem itself as ontic-enigma and hence a problem in an objective and quantitative universe. Now I leave it to scholars well versed in Western models of Evolutionary Linguistics to compare their methodologies with that of Hermeneutic Science that I propose as the methodology for Evolutionary Linguistics as Viri Linguisitcs and so forth. Also I must mention here that once we push the inquiry further into the various insights that are received on meditations struggling to understand and so forth, the inquiry becomes metaphysical and no more linguistic. We may end up with Mantryana and perhaps the elaborate verses on Mantrayana of Tirumular came about this way. Mantrayana is a field of metaphysics still quite peculiar to India perhaps for reasons such as these.
Loga (23-2-11) |