Sanskrit and Tamil

[Guest guest]

This topic is not directly related to "Bhakthi". However, due to the

special status given to Tamil by Sri Vaishnavas, IMHO, it is an important

topic for all Sri Vaishnavas.

 

During one of the private discussions it was mentioned that Sanskrit is the

mother of all languages (at least the Indian languages). Further, during

the discussion that ensued, it was mentioned that Tamil borrowed lot of

words from Sanskrit; that Sanskrit is older than Tamil; that Sanskrit's

grammatical structure is superior, etc. Some "facts" offered as

corroborating evidence include, Sanskrit is the language of Vedas and Vedas

existed when only the Lord was present; Nithyasoories praise the lord in

Vaikuntam in Sanskrit; Tamil lacks letters such as kha, gha, bha, etc;

Sanskrit is older than Tamil and thus it is obvious that Tamil borrowed

from Sanskrit; etc.

 

The following is a summary of the position that was presented. I am

interested in finding more information about these points from those who

have "hard" information.

 

1. Sanskrit did not borrow anything from Tamil.

2. Even though not to the extent of other South Indian

languages, Tamil did borrow a lot from Sanskrit.

3. Sanskrit is older than Tamil.

4. The grammar structure of Sanskrit is superior.

 

 

-- adiyEn

[Guest guest]

Sri Dileepan raises rather relevant points for further pursuit with

regard to sanskrit and tamil. Samskrit (literally the language

of the evolved or the refined) has been dated to precede tamil by

both European and Indian linguists. The Cambridge encyclopedia of

language places sanskrit as the oldest language of indian

sub-continent; in fact, many westarn scholars clearly placed sanskrit

as the parent of european languages (such as greek, latin, persian

and germanic) till the eighteenth century. While further effort by

german researchers (primarily german philologist franz bopp) led to

the theory of a proto-indo-european language as the parent of all

languages belonging to the indo-european family. (Some Indian

philologists opine that this came about more out of a need to promote

christian/european roots as the bases for culture and civilization).

 

While there is significant difference of opinion as to the period of

origins of sanskrit (Tilak for one indicates vedic sanskrit belonging

to the period 6000 BC as opposed to 3000 BC for Aryan/British

enthusiasts such as Max Mueller - who wrote his currently

'authoritative' translation of the rig veda - and never visited India

even once), there is little argument amongst philologists that

sanskrit predates every other Indian language, including Tamil.

 

The dravidian family of languages (of about 20) of which Tamil has

the oldest written records (dated to 3rd century BC) are believed to

have come from a proto-dravidian parent, in some cases, estimated to

be as old as 4000 BC. The term dravidian itself comes from the

sanskrit word dravida (a general name for five southern tribes -

drAviDa, karNaTa, gurjara, maharAshTra and thailang).

 

Anyone who has had an opportunity to study the sanskrit language and

its vyAkaraNa can only marvel at the structural sophistication and

the inherent beauty of the language. Further, it also becomes

evident that tamil borrows liberally from sanskrit (as do most other

indian languages, and some european too). While there are some

instances of some tamil words used in sanskrit (Prof. George Hart at

Berkeley - an ardent admirer of the Tamil language has a list but I

am unable to recall any now with certainty - varNam, I think is one),

it seems to be often a stretch to make that reverse link.

 

Coming to the issues that sri Dileepan raises:

>During one of the private discussions it was mentioned that Sanskrit

>is the mother of all languages (at least the Indian languages).

 

Quite true by all accounts, and generally accepted (but for a few

die-hards from DMK probably -

>Further, during the discussion that

>ensued, it was mentioned that Tamil borrowed lot of words from

>Sanskrit; that Sanskrit is older than Tamil; that Sanskrit's

>grammatical structure is superior, etc. Some "facts" offered as

>corroborating evidence include, Sanskrit is the language of Vedas

>and Vedas existed when only the Lord was present; Nithyasoories

>praise the lord in Vaikuntam in Sanskrit; Tamil lacks letters such

>as kha, gha, bha, etc; Sanskrit is older than Tamil and thus it is

>obvious that Tamil borrowed from Sanskrit; etc.

 

Ours is the ubhaya vedanta sampradayam. Both the

sanskrit and tamil sides are equally important, in that they are two

complimentary aspects of our philosophy, and our siddhantham hence

represents a symbiosis, rather than a dichotomy. The beauty of the

divya prabandhams (and the incredibly moving poetry that is

thiruvaaymozhi ) can hardly be matched by anything else (in sanskrit

or tamil). Hence, I think, it is irrelevant to argue in terms

inferior and superior.

 

An important point that cannot be overlooked is that to learn and

understand our siddhantham, praveenyam in both sanskrit and tamil is

essential. All our poorvacharyals (from emberumaanaar to maNavALa

maamunigaL) had consummate mastery of both languages. Which brings

to fore the next critical issue: Tamil, by itself, is clearly

inadequate to represent the finer nuances of sounds and expressions

replete in sanskrit. Similarly, there are situations

with respect to tamil (such as zha) that may not have

representation in sanskrit (though this is not a major

source of problems). Unfortunately, many Sri Vaishnavas from Tamil

Nadu with apparently little exposure to sanskrit, do have a hard time

in trying to represent sanskrit sounds and words. There have been

several instances of significant errors (visavis sanskrit words used

by those trying to interpret it in Tamil) by our learned prapannas

even on this forum with respect to properly representing sanskrit

words and slokas. This, in any case, comes about from our

willingness to circumvent the oral tradition and learning directly

from an Acharya - which is clearly a fool proof method of learning

sthotram, prabhandham and vyakhyAnams (It is evident in many

instances that what is written in the Bhakti forum stems from self

study through books). An essential, and immutable requirement, for

learning in our siddhantham, is through an Acharya, and any

digressions from the stated path can clearly lead to incorrect

interpretations and representations.

 

While the enthusiasm of many of

our youngsters and prapannas to write about various important works

and philosophical aspects of our siddhantham is commendable, it is

even more critical to only do so, with ideas and concepts that we

know to be accurate, and true to those engendered by our original

masters, and with the awareness that any dilution stemming from the

error of our ways may often be regressive. I am not in any way

suggesting that we should not strive to learn from books; rather, I

am suggesting that it is important to learn sanskrit (especially if

one comes from a background in Tamil) to avoid rather significant

errors with respect to sounds and pronounciations.

 

Sri Bhuvarahachariyar Swamy is one person that I think can address

this issue adequately, for he is gifted with consummate fluency in

both Sanskrit and Tamil. I wonder if it would be possible for Sri

Kalale to ask him to share his thoughts on this important issue.

 

Azhvaar Emberumaanaar Jeeyar ThiruvadigaLe SharaNam

 

sridhar

[Guest guest]

On the issue of Sanskrit words being used/borrowd in Tamil Works, this

seems

to be a gradual development. For example, P.S. Sundaram, in his

introduction on

Tirukkural, observes that the proportion of Pure Tamil words as compared

to that

of words borrowed or modeled after sanskrit is much higer than what one

might

find in the works of Alvars and Nayanmars. On the other hand this

proportion gets

smaller when compared to the Sangam Works which he claims to have lesser

Sanskrit influence.

 

Smt Vasudha Narayanan, in her book, The Way and the Goal, talks about two

 

ancient tamil works: ettutokai and pattupaattu. I am not sure if these

are part of the

Sangam Tamil or prior to that. These, however, predate works like

Tolkapiyam,

Manimekhalai and Ceevaka cintAmani, which are considered post sangam

works.

 

I gather from browsing the WEB that A.K. Ramanujan has published

translations of

few Sangam era Tamil works. I would appreciate if Smt Vasudha Narayana or

other

learned members of the list familiar with the Sangam and PreSangam era

works to give

a background on history of Ancient Tamil literature.