Talk:Tamil script

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dravidian civilizations, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states. If you would like to participate, visit the project page to join.
History Portal
Geography Portal
Atlas Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. (FAQ).
Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WP Former Countries - Things to do:
"Book" This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project’s quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project’s importance scale.
ə This article contains only non-IPA pronunciation information which should be expanded with the International Phonetic Alphabet.
For assistance, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation).

Contents

[edit] Can be used to write Sanskrit!!!

The ananymous user below doesnt seem to understand linguistics in general and scripts in particular. Each langage has its own sounds and the scripts are tailored and limited to those sounds. Tamil has 3 sounds in L , 2 in R and 3 in N. Sanskrit has only one alphabet for L, R and N.

Hence Sanskrit script cannot be used to write Tamil either. Gandhi is not a Tamil word and hence it is not prudent to expect it to be written correctly in the language. Pugazhendi is a Tamil proper noun and it cannot be written in Sanskrit. Sanskrit actually means refined, which indicates it has been refined from another language and hence is not original. That is why it is still not given the classical status inspite of so many fanatical attempts by North Indians but Tamil got the coveted status because there was a neutral American judge: Dr. George Hart who said that of the Indian languages Tamil and Tamil alone is classical! http://tamil.berkeley.edu/Tamil%20Chair/TamilClassicalLanguage/TamilClassicalLgeLtr.html

Tamil was designed to be a soft languages, all its sounds can be pronounced from the lips, not from the lungs or the throat as in other languages. That is why the aspirated form of T like D or DHA is not present, but it does occur mellifluouly when combined with the nasal N. For example Antha is harder to pronounce than Andha. Hence it is pronounced as Andha. Hence Dha sound does exist in Tamil when nasal N is present. Similarly pandhu, sindhu, vandhu etc.

--68.197.128.134 10:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)Sunil Kumar


LOL!!....how can anybody in their right mind claim this....tamil script can hardly be used to write tamil itself...what with its innumerable non-existent alphabets...

how can anyone claim that a script is so bereft of alphabets be used to write sanskrit!!!

tamil has common alphabets for 'tha'and 'dha', Ta and Da, pa and ba, ka and ga....goes on...

and in sanskrit entire meanings can be altered even with a slight change in spelling...

remove this claim or i will remove it.

p.s: for those not familiar with tamil script, and those who are at a loss to understand this discussion, let me give an example. let us take the word 'Gandhi'. when this word/name is written in tamil, it can be read in any of the following ways,

  • Gandhi
  • Kanthi
  • Kandhi
  • Ganthi

i hope u get an idea now of what i am talking. with a script as severely constrained as this, how can one possibly claim that Sanskrit(a language where pronunciation and diction is considered almost sacred) can be written in this script. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.180.28.6 (talk • contribs).


Anonymous user - It can, and _has_ been used to write Sanskrit, despite not being ideal. In modern times, people have used superscripts to represent the different characters in each row of Sanskrit letters (to distinguish between, for example, ka, kha, ga, and gha), or just ignored the difference. I have in front of me, a Sanskrit prayer, written in the Tamil script, which I can try scanning in, as soon as I get to a scanner.
Arun 03:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
No need. This text of the Aditya Hrudayam shows quite clearly how Sanskrit is written using the Tamil script, as do the several dozen other documents available from the slokas section of that page.
Incidentally, User:209.180.28.6 has a history of... err... discussing "problems" with articles on all things Tamil - take a look at any of the unsigned comments on Talk:Tamil_language. You might also be interested in seeing how he/she voted on the Tiru. Vi. Ka. VfD. Still, I suppose one must assume good faith. -- Arvind 12:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
ya just like i am trying my hardest darndest best to assume good faith on your part...and all those who dump their peurile fantasies on unsuspecting public. huh. signing it to save u some trouble. huh!
and also thanks for letting people know that their vote for or against an article totally irrelevant to the issue/article at hand, goes a long way in your jaundiced eyes, in deciding whether or not they are acting in good faith. so much for good faith. huh.209.180.28.6 19:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
My contributions to the two wikipedia projects I participate in (:en and :nn) speak for themselves as far as my good faith is concerned. I also make it a point to reference articles I write, but please feel free to point out where the books I cite contain "peurile fantasies". --- Arvind 22:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • and coming back to the point, when since did arabic numerals become part of Tamil Script!! i dont care what rules of transliteration some obscure author invented for himself/herself. but tamil script refers to just that - tamil script!! to claim that mere tamil script can be used to write sanskrit is, to put it mildly, foolish.209.180.28.6 20:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The Arabic numerals have been part of the Tamil script since the late 19th century, when they replaced the numerals which had formerly been in use. The use of the Tamil script to write Sanskrit began well after the Arabic numerals were adopted. Thus, at the time this system was adopted, the Arabic numerals formed part of the Tamil script. Nor is it a system which "one" author has adopted. On the contrary, it is quite widely used. -- Arvind 22:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • tamil cannot be used to write sanskrit like devanagari or even kannada script for that matter. tamil script is severely limited to the point of being primitive sometimes. i dont know if the priests in tamil nadu temples use sanskrit books written in tamil script...but now i realise why something as simple as 'namaha' becomes 'namaga'and shiva becomes siva, vinayaka becomes vinayaga or the one that takes the cake of them all - Shri becomes Sri/Sree or sometimes even STi(:O )(the list is endless) when it comes out of their mouths. am i glad that the tamil fanatics among the powers that be are forcing them to switch over to chanting tamil hymns instead of sanskrit ones. so all ye self styled champions of tamil, go ahead, explain...am listening.209.180.28.6 20:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with the script. All Indians pronounce Sanskrit with regional accents. Malayalee Nambutris, for example, have a stronger accent than Tamil Aiyankars if anything, even though the Malayalam script has glyphs for each of the Sanskrit letters. UP Brahmins swallow the terminal "a", massacre conjunct consonants, and seldom achieving anything like an accurate pronunciation of the ऋ and the ऌ, though the Hindi script has letters for all of them. The Bengali pronunciation of Sanskrit sounds quite bizzare to non-Bengalis, with its peculiar consonantal diphthongs. And so on. To my ears the Maharashtrian pronunciation, and the pronunciation of some Kannadiga Madhvas, are the only ones which comes close to sounding like Sanskrit ought to sound. -- Arvind 22:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The reason why Tamils almost universally use "siva" rather than "Shiva" is quite different, though. Shiva was pretty early on identified with the Tamil deity "Seyon". "sivan" and "seyyon" both mean "the red one" in Tamil, with the result that "sivan", thanks to its phonetic similarity with "Shiva" became the name of the god in Tamil. Thus whilst "vishnu" is written விஷ்ணு using the character for "sh", Tamils always write சிவன் -- Arvind 22:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
"people have used superscripts to represent the different characters in each row of Sanskrit letters (to distinguish between, for example, ka, kha, ga, and gha), or just ignored the difference." --- thus spake : Arun, a few paragraphs above this one.
ignored the difference!!! blistering barnacles!! ignoring such differences might not make a difference if the language in question is tamil, but if you ignore such differences in Sanskrit..sorry to say, but u aint talking 'bout sanskrit no more, mate!209.180.28.6 20:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Be that as it may, the fact remains that Tamils DO use the Tamil script to write Sanskrit using the numerical subscripts or superscripts. If you think they shouldn't, feel free to launch a campaign to stop them. Once you succeed in persuading them to abandon the practice, I'll be happy to alter the article. -- Arvind 22:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
"....Tamils DO use the Tamil script to write Sanskrit..."
that precisely is my point. Tamils may jolly well be making do with a grossly inadequate (tamil) script to read and write sanskrit. for that matter, tamil can also be used to write swahili or santali or aramaic or greek. and the same can be said of other languages and scripts too. any script in the world can be used to write and read *any* other language - either by using extra borrowed symbols(like the arabic numerals tamil uses) or by simply 'ignoring the differences' like somebody suggested. that however, is besides the point.
just because tamils are managing with the tamil script to read and write sanskrit does *NOT* mean tamil script is adequate enough to read and write sanskrit nor that it CAN be used to write sanskrit. if a non-tamilian were to pick and choose a script to learn which he/she could use to study sanskrit, nobody in their right mind would recommend tamil. like i said, tamil script is hardly adequate to even write tamil.209.180.28.6 00:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
So all you wanted was that the "can" be changed to "is"? That's been done now. Satisfied?--Arvind 01:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
hey hey hey! take a few deep breaths. dont lose your cool. isnt the talk page meant for people like u and me to discuss any potential additions, deletions and modifications to the article??
isnt this where we are supposed to work towards a NPOV lest any unilateral edits by you or me be branded 'vandalism' by ill informed people?? chill.
btw i have rephrased the article based purely on our discussions here. hope you see that it has added to the objectivity and clarity of the article. if not, we can always discuss. right? 209.180.28.6 01:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I've reworded it further to clarify what you meant by "grossly inadequate in various ways". The reworded sentence gives information instead of weasel terms. By the way, may I request you to limit your talk page edits to your arguments for/against edits avoiding interjections like "LOL" etc?-- Sundar \talk \contribs 13:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
"The reworded sentence gives information instead of weasel terms"
so much for discussing this issue threadbare on the talk page before i made the changes! (huh) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.180.28.6 (talk • contribs).
...may I request you to.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.180.28.6 (talk • contribs).
you may request anything as long as you dont very 'conveniently' turn a blind eye to glaring half truths like "Tamil(script) can be used to write Sanskrit(and Saurashtra)"...it amazes me that i had to labor so much to convince you guys before you changed it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.180.28.6 (talk • contribs).
you should probably start spending more time reading articles for inaccuracies and half truths than scouring WP help pages for fig leaves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.180.28.6 (talk • contribs).
It was an inaccuracy added by someone. You'd pointed that out and it's been fixed. Thanks, but why do you keep harping on that? -- Sundar \talk \contribs 05:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
first of all, you keep me engaged by raising question after question for me to answer...and then when i answer all your questions and you have no more defence, you come and say I keep harping on that!! what cheek!...it was a case of a rank half truth and i pointed it out. and what do i get in return from you...some smartass comments about things as irrelevant as 'my history of edits' or how i voted for or against something somewhere else(what were u trying to do if not playing to the gallery??)...and that indiscretion apart, you guys even kept arguing that the statement was right with all kinds of specious arguments(or should i call it 'weasel') to support it. when that user(Arun, i guess), said, "...or just by ignoring the differences...", it certainly took my breath away! 209.180.28.6 00:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
such a rank half truth shouldnt even have been there in the first place, still its been there for i dont know how long, and you being one of the active users in these parts of the Wiki, expect me to believe that you never noticed it. nor did so many others like you. well, i guess we have to assume some good faith here. 209.180.28.6 00:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Those comments were mine, not Sundar's. I'm sorry I made them. I was a little annoyed, and I'm afraid I lost my temper. Those comments are the reason, incidentally, that I bowed out of the debate thereafter, and asked Sundar to find an acceptable compromise with you.
In any event, I've reworded the relevant bit of the article to read better (and also to fix the earlier version, which made it sound like Tamils used the Tamil script to write Saurashtri). -- Arvind 00:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
and how convenient of you to totally do away with the second of the paragraphs i had added to the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.180.28.6 (talk • contribs).
I've given the reason in the edit summary of my edit. And I've rolled back your reverting back to your original version even after so much of discussion here. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 05:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
"You might also be interested in seeing how he/she voted on the Ti.Ka. VfD."
and pray tell me, why exactly should one be interested in that? why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.180.28.6 (talk • contribs).
for someone who can start talking about etiquette and wikiquette at the drop of a hat, you certainly leave a lot to be desired. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.180.28.6 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Grantha

Please have a look at article Grantha. Pjacobi 11:59, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] voiceless vs unvoiced?

this sentence in the article: "stops were voiceless when at the start of a word and unvoiced otherwise" makes no sense; unvoiced and voiceless are synonymous. it should either read "stops were voiced when at the start of a word and unvoiced otherwise" or it should read "stops were voiceless when at the start of a word and voiced otherwise". I want to fix it, but which one should I choose? -Lethe | Talk

I removed the potentially useful sentence. I can't fix it, and I know it's wrong, so I removed it. When someone comes along who can fix it, it should go back in the article -Lethe | Talk 05:35, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Some scholars have suggested that in Sentamil (which refers to Tamil as it existed before Sanskrit words were borrowed), stops were voiceless when at the start of a word and unvoiced otherwise. However, no such distinction is observed by modern Tamil speakers.

Thanks Lethe. [1] tells that stops were voiceless when at the start of a word and sometimes voiced otherwise. I'll change it. -- Sundar 05:53, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Devanagari is just a script, not an alphabet

Sundar just edited [2], which seems not really fitting. All language comparisons Tamil/Hindi should go into the language article, but there sure can be done some valid script comparisons Tamil/Devanagiri? I'd guess that the extensive occurence of conjunct consononant glyphs in Devanagiri isn't restricted to Hindi? The second part seems to be less clear to me, but I'm no expert anyway. --Pjacobi 09:16, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)

I agree to your point when the glyphs come into play. What I meant was alphabet is a set of characters and script a set of glyphs. On retrospection, I feel that my revision was wrong since the article meant glyphs. Sorry for that. I am no expert on this either :-) Whenever you find time, can you take a look at User:Sundar/Tamil language? -- Sundar 09:30, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
If it would be scholarly consensus, that script and alphabet have different meanings along the lines of your second sentence, some hundred articles in Wikipedia would be in dire need of correction. But as far as my amateurish understanding goes, in loose speak alphabet (in one meaning) and script are the same, the other meaning of alphabet being the actual order of letters. And (also AFAMAUH) in scholarly speak alphabet are subset of scripts, excluding syllabic writing systems and logographic writing systems (and for some authors also excluding abjads and abugidas). Sorry for all the possible confusion. --Pjacobi 09:43, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)


I've tried a new wording now. Can you check if this sounds alright? If it doesn't feel free to revert me. -- Sundar 09:38, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Must just return top day's work. I will check later. --Pjacobi 09:43, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)

[edit] Common material with Tamil language article

Quite a lot of the material here is nearly identical with material in Tamil. We should keep this material in one place, to avoid divergence and the need for double-editing. What is your opinion on what should go where?

ACW 17:58, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Someone copied most of the material instead of keeping a small amount and a Main article link.--Circeus 21:27, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

I copied the stuff. If you have an idea of how much would be sufficient there, feel free to edit. I have a feeling that someone who reads the page and is a non-native speaker might want it to be there. If length of the article and consistence are your concerns, you can move the common stuff to a template. -- 04:56, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

Some scholars have suggested that in Sentamil (which refers to Tamil as it existed before Sanskrit words were borrowed), stops were voiceless when at the start of a word and sometimes voiced otherwise allophonically. However, no such distinction is observed by modern Tamil speakers.

This doesn't seem correct. Formal speech (as opposed to colloquial speech) still observes rules which are extremely similar to the rules in the Tolkaapiyam for native Tamil words. Newer loan words from Sanskrit, Hindiurdu and European languages don't follow the rules for voice and voicelessness, but that's probably always been the case. -- Arvind 00:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC).

Feel free to change it. -- Sundar 05:32, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Carnatic Music

I feel this section - tamil letters to indicate notes of carnatic music is not appropriate here. I'm going to remove this section completely. Any objections?

Kishore 15:06, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I notice the same information is not in the article on Carnatic music (there is a brief glossing over of the names of the notes in various scripts, but not the detail for any of them that we have here). If you delete it completely, is it possible that you could find a more appropriate article? I notice that the article Latin alphabet does not include a section on the usage ABCDEFG for musical notes. However, the articles A, B etc do. So I'm not sure that this section doesn't belong here. Maybe you're right, maybe you can state your case? Lethe | Talk 16:06, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
Thaks for pointing it out Lethe. I've removed the section and enhanced the Carnatic Music page , to accomodate this information - Kishore 11:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sounds

Shouldn't the sounds of the consonants be ik , ing , ich , inj etc. I'm not talking about the IPA but about the second column. - Kishore 04:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A roman consonant unaccompanied by any vowel conveys the desired sound. The interpretation of i in your ik is known only to the native speaker. Hence I would prefer the current scheme. Btw, can you look at Talk:Tamil_language#Stuff that can go into the examples section? -- Sundar 05:22, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
I was not aware of this fact. I knew you wouldn't make obvious mistakes and that's why I didn't change it directly in the article ;-) - Kishore 05:54, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Borrowed Consonants - Issue

I believe that the tamil alphabet#Borrowed consonants section is in error.

The characters displayed in the Consonant column are identical to those displayed in the first five rows of the Vowel column of the tamil alphabet#Vowels. I have reviewed the content at Omniglot and verified that there are other characters used for the Grantha consonants, however I have not as yet discovered the appropriate Unicode character IDs. They appear not to be in the table for Tamil. curiosity1 06:27, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think I have fixed it, just check it - Santhoshguru 10:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nice chart, where to put...

I just took this image out of the article on the Tamil language, because the information is redundant with this article. However, I think the chart is worthy of preserving. Maybe it can be put in Tamil alphabet somewhere?

It might also be nice if it were converted back into HTML...

IceKarma 20:02, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

I think that the charts should be replaced with the png images such as right. In the current charts, a lot of the transliteration symbols are simply represented as squares. → JarlaxleArtemis 20:23, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
That would probably be because you're not using a UNICODE-enabled web browser and/or operating system, and/or you don't have fonts that define the Tamil alphabet (in this case) installed.
The HTML charts have the distinct advantages of being both smaller and faster to download as well as being accessible to handicapped users, unlike the PNG versions.
Actually, I can easily switch to Unicode. When I do, the transliteration symbols are still being represented as squares. → JarlaxleArtemis 21:01, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
And I do have Tamil fonts. See: நிாூபௌவாபிௌலநாிைபௌந்ாபௌத்ரக்ஷஷ்ரஙபபஉஇஈணஈஅஆணஇனஊபளழநலூ்வாௌபலி.
I just can't see some of the transliteration symbols. → JarlaxleArtemis 21:05, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
My apologies, I misread you. IceKarma 21:38, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

Actually it is harder to get a font having all glyphs for scientific transliteration that to get one for Tamil itself. Try Junicode or TITUS Cyberbit Basic. --Pjacobi 21:41, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

This table became an image because of comments during its peer review discussion that it was unlikely to achieve FA status unless we did that. I'm kind of for leaving it as an image - Tamil Unicode displays in a very wonky way on Linux, for example, regardless of what font you have. --Arvind 16:49, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Indus script

I came across an article by Airavatham Mahadevan suggesting a link with the Indus script. Perhaps we could use this information. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:34, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Numbering system by ancient tamils

Dear surfers,

I feel the numbering system followed by ancient tamils using tamil alphabets will add more value to this encyclopedia. Can any one please add such informations. I am looking for a complete information.

[edit] Tamil script *not* an abugida?

According to the Tolkappiyam, isn't the dotted form the basic consonant and the undotted form represents an added vowel? It does seem counter intuitive (the dot, after all, is added), but shouldn't we consider the Tolkappiyam authoritative in this matter? Kingsleyj 00:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Tamil is an abugida, and Tolkappiyam does not reflect the only orthography of Tamil. This is a political issue. Evertype 19:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that Kingsleyj 21:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
The controversy is not over. Many important scholars dispute the theory that Tamil is . Thus it is not accurate to state it as a fact. If no one responds, I will alter the article to reflect this. http://valavu.blogspot.com/2006/12/7.html
--Natkeeran 21:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Consonants are also called the 'body' letters."

AFAIK consonants are called mei ezhuthu which is "real letters"? Arvindn 20:11, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
"Mei" means body in tamil ;) - suren
மெய் means both truth as well as body, but here you have to contrast it with உயிர் எழுத்து, which only mean "life" letters.


[edit] Unicode cleanup

Editors, I have corrected some unicode errors. Before reverting please check your OS configuration for complex character support. You can check out the samples here WP:INDIC. The page also shows how to turn on the support. ɤіɡʍаɦɤʘʟʟ 21:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Samples

I have samples of vatteluthu from stone inscriptions across TamilNadu - http://www.flickr.com/photos/ravages/sets/72157594389987918/ All are under a CC Attrib+Sharealike licenses. You folks are welcome to it. --Chandrachoodan Gopalakrishnan 05:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Great ones. If we can get some possible dates from official sources, it would be even greater. Let's try to use them where applicable. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Will get the approx dates tomorrow. I made a note at home. Two are from Tanjavur's temple, some from Tenkasi, some from Kumbakkonam. Can use the dates these temples were constructed as an approximation --Chandrachoodan Gopalakrishnan 08:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/a/m/Talk%7ETamil_script_6450.html"