Guest guest Posted July 7, 2002 Report Share Posted July 7, 2002 bhakti-list, jasn sn <jayasartn> wrote: >The word /pakti is not a proper /tamiz word. Poets >like /tAyumAvar have not >used it. 'patti' and 'pattar' are old words used repeatedly by the Azvars. In addition to the many references Ms Saranathan has given, perumAL tirumozi may also be cited here: manniya taNcAral vaTa vEGkaTattAntan ponniyalum cEvaTikaL kANpAn purintiRaiJci konnavilum kUrvEl kulacEkaran conna panniyanUl tamiznUL pAGkAya pattarkaLE. (perumAL tirumozi 4.11) Kamparamayanam (as does villibharatam) also has many references to 'patti' and 'pattar'. Hence it is not clear the basis on which a statement like the one quoted above has been made. Hope this helps, Lakshmi Srinivas PS: Although this is scarcely the place to discuss these references, I just include them here for completeness i.e., Campantar, Appar and Sundarar's tevaram verses are replete with references to 'patti' and 'pattar' as does tirumantiram of tirumular. References for 'patti': tevaram: 3.98.10, 5.97.4, 1.91.1, 1.93.2, 3.51.2, 2.66.3, 3.119.2, 7.43.9, 2.59.7, 3.120.7, 4.23.1, 4.64.9 tirumantiram: 347.4, 893.3, 2890.2, 1639.2, 2069.1, 2628.4, 2668.4, 3104.1 References for 'pattar': tevaram: 1.56.11, 1.96.4, 2.28.10 etc etc tirumantiram: 1446.1, 2623.4, 2626.3 etc etc I stop here being increasingly apprehensive of carpal tunnel syndrome :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.