From <nagamani ganesan@...> Sat Sep 11 10:48:19 1999
<BR>Delivered-To: listsaver-of-agathiyar@egroups.com
<BR>Mailing-List: contact agathiyar-owner@egroups.com
<BR>X-Mailing-List: agathiyar@egroups.com
<BR>X-URL: http://www.egroups.com/list/agathiyar/
<BR>Received: (listserv 1.255); by m5; 11 Sep 1999 17:51:13 -0000
<BR>Reply-To: agathiyar@egroups.com
<BR>Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-agathiyar@egroups.com
<BR>Received: (qmail 3866 invoked from network); 11 Sep 1999 17:51:09 -0000
<BR>Received: from law-f83.hotmail.com (HELO hotmail.com) (209.185.131.146) by qg.egroups.com with SMTP; 11 Sep 1999 17:51:09 -0000
<BR>Received: (qmail 98851 invoked by uid 0); 11 Sep 1999 17:51:08 -0000
<BR>Message-ID: <19990911175108.98850.qmail@...>
<BR>Received: from 216.118.12.47 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sat, 11 Sep 1999 10:51:06 PDT
<BR>X-Originating-IP: [216.118.12.47]
<BR>From: "Nagamanickam Ganesan" <nagamani ganesan@...>
<BR>To: SiSrivas@...
<BR>Cc: tamil@..., agathiyar@egroups.com
<BR>Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 10:51:06 PDT
<BR>Mime-Version: 1.0
<BR>Subject: [agathiyar] Re: [tamil] ukara, UkAra uyirmey ezhuththu uruva mARRam. (gif attached)
<BR>Mime-Version: 1.0
<BR>Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
<BR>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<BR>X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 1973
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>Dear Srivas,
<BR>
<BR>Your glyphs look nice.
<BR>
<BR>One another choice will be an inverted "oRRaic chuzhik kombu".
<BR>_
<BR>/ \ \
<BR>\ / | for "u" symbol in "ukara uyirmey"
<BR>0___/
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>Pl. put a knot at the end of inverted "oRRai kombu" for "uu uyirmey".
<BR>_
<BR>/ \ O_
<BR>\ / | for "uu" symbol in "uakaara uyirmey"
<BR>0___/
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>Can you please make two glyphs for these?
<BR>
<BR>Thanks,
<BR>N. Ganesan
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>From: SiSrivas@...
<BR>To: tamil@...
<BR>Subject: [tamil] ukara, UkAra uyirmey ezhuththu uruva mARRam. (gif attached)
<BR>Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 09:14:52 EDT
<BR>
<BR>I'm in favour of Thiru Ganesan view.
<BR>
<BR>Tholharpiyar had defined 30 core characters with additional aytha kurihaL.
<BR>Also by checking the Tamil characters which were used in and around 3rd BC,
<BR>it is obvious that the pin-uharam and pin-uuhaaram were independent glyps.
<BR>This suggests that the notion of using this technique again is not going
<BR>against the marapu.
<BR>
<BR>I'm attaching a gif file to propose the ezuththu vadivams for pin-uharam and
<BR>pin-uuhaaram. Thiru Ganesan and others please check this and write your
<BR>openion.
<BR>
<BR>Nantry
<BR>Sinnathurai Srivas
<BR>
<BR>In a message dated 9/11/99 3:44:50 AM GMT Daylight Time,
<BR>nagamani_ganesan@... writes:
<BR>
<BR><<
<BR>யஉயகரஜ, யஊயகயாரஜ யஉரஸ்ரீயிரஃயரெ�ரஔ யஎர�ரஏர� யஉர�ரஸ ர�யாரடரஜ்ரஓ
<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------
<BR>யடயாரஆயடரஃ. யநயா. யகயயேணயசரண, பூ��ய�வ�யடரண
<BR>
<BR>1. யதர�யிரச யஎர�ரஏர�ரஈ யசயிரஜ்ரஒர�
<BR>----------------------------------- >>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><< UHARAM.GIF >>
<BR>
<BR>______________________________________________________
<BR>
<BR> 
<BR><!-- text below generated by server. PLEASE REMOVE --><!-- Counter/Statistics data collection code --><script language="JavaScript" src="http://us.js2.yimg.com/us.js.yimg.com/lib/smb/js/hosting/cp/js_source/whv2_001.js"></script><script language="javascript">geovisit();</script><noscript><img src="http://visit.webhosting.yahoo.com/visit.gif?us1231391768" alt="setstats" border="0" width="1" height="1"></noscript>