From Thu Sep 23 10:58:35 1999
Delivered-To: listsaver-of-agathiyar@egroups.com
Mailing-List: contact agathiyar-owner@egroups.com
X-Mailing-List: agathiyar@egroups.com
X-URL: http://www.egroups.com/list/agathiyar/
Received: (listserv 1.259); by m5; 23 Sep 1999 18:01:36 -0000
Reply-To: agathiyar@egroups.com
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-agathiyar@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 1361 invoked from network); 23 Sep 1999 18:01:27 -0000
Received: from law-f278.hotmail.com (HELO hotmail.com) (209.185.130.194) by qh.egroups.com with SMTP; 23 Sep 1999 18:01:27 -0000
Received: (qmail 37184 invoked by uid 0); 23 Sep 1999 18:01:25 -0000
Message-ID: <19990923180125.37183.qmail@...>
Received: from 204.68.140.34 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 11:01:25 PDT
X-Originating-IP: [204.68.140.34]
From: "Nagamanickam Ganesan"
To: agathiyar@egroups.com
Cc: tamil@...
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 11:01:25 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: [agathiyar] Re: How many alphabets are there in Tamil
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 2212


N. Ganesan writes:
>
> Selva makes a very good point. Let us wait.
> May be 2050 AD. No problems. My dream is *one day*
> a simple symbol/modifier (it could be a separate symbol
> placed after the mey or a combinatory one
> (like the "kIz vaLaiyam" u-uu uyirmey I have posted),
> aesthitically pleasing, and fitting with Tamil
> orthography is chosen for Tamil "ukara-uukaara uyirmey" letters.
> This is the only change needed. When? It does not matter.
> as I said, may be 2050 AD.

Chandra writes:
<<<
2050??? even if you threw a number, it is too far away.
I would like to clarify my comment yesterday: I simply intended to
state that Selva's was a new way of *analyzing* the consequences,
since it brought an entirely new but important dimension to the
problem. Now that we need to have that perspective too, still we
need to discuss what weightage is due to it.
>>>

My point is that it is a *good* change. When? I can wait.
Say, 2025 or 2050 or 2100 AD. It does not matter.

Briefly: Earlier, many authors were advocating "ezhuththu
cIrthirththam" for the sake of helping typewriting efforts;
Arranging Tamil letters on a Typewriter keyboard, etc.,
Now, the technology has rendered them all obsolete and unnecessary.

I am not forwarding the "ukara, uukaara uyirmey" format changes
for any machine. It is needed (at some point in time. 2050 AD??)
to simplify teaching the "culture" tongue to Tamil children.

Other than this "u-uu" uyirmey format change, NOTHING else
is needed. Why? There is a *great* order in all the rest of
Tamil orthography.

Some suggest changing vowels' shape. For example:
Let me call "kAl" = the lengthening symbol that makes
any "akaram ERiya mey" into "aakaara neTil" like kaa, caa, Taa.

Some have written that the Tamil vowels aa, ii, uu, ee, oo
can be written as a+kAl, i+kAl, u+kAl, e+kAl, o+kAl
respectively. If you ask me, it is not *good* or *needed* at all.
All these vowel linearizations are not at all
needed, since "kAl" is used only to create "aakaaram" series,
and not for "ii", "uu", and so forth. The 12 vowels are just fine
and easy to pick up. Any other series in Tamil neDumkaNakku also
need not change, since there is *great* order in them.

Only, ukara and uukaara uyirmey letters need to change.
Then 39 symbols: 12 for uyir, 18 for mey, 1 for aaytham,
8 for creating the entire uyir-mey matrix.

Like you say below, effecting ukara-uukaara uyirmey change
with a suitable, pleasing and simple post-modifier to a mey letter
will not be disastrous. We can bring this change well planned
at a later date, say 2050 A.D.

In Tamil, the basic books, ancient and modern, will *not*
exceed about 2000. We must write more path breaking
books and render many new knowledge into Tamil.
The subject range in Tamil is rather not too broad.
We can easily convert the 2-5 thousand Tamil books
and publish them all in the new format of u,uu uyirmey series.
I do not think it is a major hurdle in terms of cost or technology.
Once the TN Govt. enforces, market forces will take care of them.

anbuDan,
nA. kaNEcan

Chandra writes:
>Here's where the issue of when we cut over to the new alpahabet.
>While I myself am a big supporter of the changes proposed by Ganesan
>(actually I would like an even further changes pending full knowledge
>of Ganesan's reasoning why they would be unnecessary), I would like
>to take into account the consequences.
>But what if the existing script itself weakens the survival of the
>language

>(or in a less alarmist way, the computerization of the language)
>owing to its complexity?


>I have been thinking that if we are "simply" changing the >ukaram/UkAram
>series the script might still be identifiable.
>Does Selva have any thoughts about how he would compare the situation in
>1978 when the periyar schemes incorporated with the
>present scheme?

Pl. see above.

>What criteria do we employ to decide when we have satisfactorily put
>Tamil corpus in e-format?
>Cangkam and medieval texts? plus modern? plus "important" prose in
>the last two centuries?


N. Ganesan wrote:
>>Then, teaching Tamil to Children will be easier than the present:
>>Only 38 symbols to represent Tamil, 12 for uyir (existing today),
>>18 for mey (existing today), 1 aaytham (as existing today),
>>8 for uyir-mey. Only 39 symbols in all! (Compare to 52 symbols
>>for even English).
>>
>>BTW, I very much like Selva's propsal to use single quotes
>>to represent alien sounds from other languages. That is
>>the use of single quotes (mun-koTTu) for f,h,j,g,s,D(.d),d,b,sh.
>>Stripping those "munkoTTu"s will render the naturalized
>>Tamil forms for the foreign words right away. Selva's proposal
>>will apply for all words from any non-Tamil language,
>>example: English or Sanskrit or Persian or Arabic. N. Ganesan



______________________________________________________