Iyan as root of Iyangar - (2)

[Guest guest]

SRIMATHE RAMANUJAYA NAMAHA

 

-

"Ramanujam Varada Srinivasa Thatta" <acharyatvsr wrote

 

>>>>>>>>>> But from your analysis the term Aingaaryam could have been

> distorted to Ayyangar. Could it be then derived from 5?

> Regards,

> Ramanujam.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

 

 

Respected Swamin,

 

>From my mail >>>>

> >If we were to say that it was aindhu, as aindhu + kaaryam or aindhu +

> >angam, then by grammar rule (which shows the way in which

> >combinations occur )it will be aingaaryam and aindhangam. Clearly, no

> >5 can not have become the root of Iyengar. The 'an' vighuthi only

> >makes the difference.If it still be assumed that no 5 had been the

> >basis, then the other questions arise as to who coined this term and

> >when - which need to be answered.

> >

-------------------------------

(continued)

 

Aindhu + angam is ruled out as it would then be aindhangam - no way near

iyengar.

 

Aindhu + kaaraym would be ainkaaryam. Its 'ain' not 'iyan'. Also by

Punarchchi, the 'ka'garam does not become 'ga'karam. It is ainkaaryam not

aingaaryam (like in ain-Kurunooru, ain-Kundru, ain-karuvi, ain-kadal etc -

In combination with no 5, the nilai mozhi ''aindhu" deforms into ain. But

the varumozhi is retained without undergoing changes. The varu mozhi - the

ones which come to join - like karuvi, kaaryam, kundru, kurumai, kadal,

kuravar, koondhal, kaNai etc or other terms such as paal, thinai, thEr,

pori etc do not undergo changes.)

 

If it is to be contended that ain became aiyan in course of time, the route

would have been, ainkaaryam, then aiYANGAryam and then iyengar. It needs

sufficient time to get modified like this in colloquial usage. There are no

proofs by way of references to ain-kaaryam or aiyan-kaaryam in the past as

denoting persons. Whereas Iyengar as such has existed as in Pillai perumal

Iyengar.

 

The other possibility is for someone to have conceived this title, or name

based on the above mentioned (aindhu +kaaryam) and introduced as such. In

that case we have to say who has coined it and from whence this came into

existance. Proofs for this do not exist. It seems that the term has evolved

over years in colloquial usage than by being conceived intellectually and

introduced. It is for these reasons, this way of reasoning is

unacceptable.

 

On the contrary, Iyan as the root of Iyangar can be analysed convincingly.

Iyan has existed for thousands of years. It has modified

into Iyanaar in the very distant past. There is scope for that to have

modified into iyan kaar, only if it has got associated with Telugu or

kananda language. There is no kaaru in Tamil. The kaar, or kaari in Tamil

is the least connected with kaaru. Since the followers of Ramanuaja came to

be called like this and since he had more following (in the early days) from

Telugu and Kannada communities, there is scope to believe that the

Iyan of Tamil origin, who beacme asociated with Telugus and Kannadigas were

addressed respectfully as Iyan kaaru. The other details pertaining to this

can be found in my earlier mail.

 

Now we will see how Iyan kaaru can become Iyangar.

The feminine gender for Iyangar is Ammangar, we call our acharya patni as

Ammangar only. The acharya is referred to as Iyangar in our families.

The words are split like this:-

Iyan + kaar

and

Amman + kaar.

The original kaaru (lets assume that this came from kaaru of Telugu/ kannada

only as explained above) undergoes change as 'kaar' as per Nannool sutra

which says that 'r' is one of the letters by which the word ends.

So when Iyan kaaru was adopted by Tamilians, the first change was Iyan kaar.

There is another Nannool sutra by which the 'n' in nilaimozhi (existing

first word) takes on and combines only with specific letters of varumozhi

(combining word) of which 'k' is one (Na na ina mun ka cha...)

That is, the 'n' in Iyan can combine with 'k' of kaar (k+a =ka)

Further the 'n' and 'ng' (the second vuyir mai, in the ka, nga, cha series),

since they belong to the same group of mellinam undergo thirubu and becomes

'ng' of Tamil.

 

Here the ka of kaar also undergoes change as per another sutra (nga-m-mun

ka-v-vaam..)

When 'nga' of Tamil mellinam joins with 'ka'garam, there is stress on 'ka'.

That is, it becomes 'ga'.

Note that Tamil does not have stress related differences in letters as in

Sanskrit / Hindi/ kannada etc.(no ka kha, ga gha series)

But there are rules to show when such stress happens.

As in sangu, pangu and vangam (vanga-k-kadaindha..)

As per the above sutra,

sangu = sa + ng (mellina stress) + k + vu.

when ng and k join the stress is on k and it becomes ga.

We don't say sanku, but only as sangu.

The same rule can be tested in pangu and vangam.

 

Thus if only it had been Iyan + kaaru, the word could have become Iyangar.

 

If it doesn't bore you, let me repeat the steps.

(1) iyan + kaaru --- the kaaru becomes kaar = iyankaar

(2) the 'n' becomes mellina ng ------ Iyank kaar (here i used nk to show

that is the second in ka, nga series which is a mellinam. There is no

proper word in English to show this letter)

(3) ng + k in ka results in stress added to ka making it ga

This it is Iyangar.

The same rules are applied to Amman + kaaru = Ammangaar as written in Tamil.

 

Regards,

jayasree saranathan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jayasree wrote :-

>Some more inputs from my little understanding of Tamil.

>There is a sutra for Aryar in Tamil

>"aaryar mlehchar nallOr enbathu idai-ch-cholaavaam/

>aariyE kadhavu chozhan azhagodu mEnmaikkum pEr//

>

>By this it is stated that Aryar are mlechchar, foreigners. Also means

>good people. This is a clear indication to Aryar being different from

>Tamil people. But the term has been used with 'aan' idai-ch-chol

>(middle term)like aaryaan to denote people who are good natured. That

>is in writing, it is not 'aaryanai' or 'aaryanukku. It is 'aaryAnai'

>or aaryAnukku'. But this word has not been used anywhere to denote

>Brahmins or vaidiks or learned persons. It is only to denote people

>who did not belong to the Tamil country. This shows that they have

>referred to only the aryans in the north of Vindhyas.

>

>But there is a root word 'aari' in Tamil, which is the other name for

>Chozha king and to any one who was great. Here also there has never

>been any specific refernce to Brahmins.

>

>In conrast,Aiyar has 'ai' root denoting chief or respectable person

>(I have covered this in my previous mail on this topic)which when

>connected with 'an' or 'ar' vighuthi to denote respect to the person

>became aiyan or aiyar(like ai+an= aiyan. ai+ ar= aiyar)

>

>Aiyan was originally (in olden texts)used to denote Lord Iyappan,

>while resepctable persons were addressed to as 'ai' only. In course

>of time, ai+ an = aiyan came into usage (poetry, prose and

>colloquial) and used to denote anyone who was respectable and

>deserved to be worshipped. That is how this word came to mean god as

>well as learned Brahmins. Aiyan was used as aiya and aiyanE in

>address in II person.

>

>As you said, the term had been of mundane relevance and not of

>philosophical, which was only later attributed (the 5 attributes).

>This is proved by the 'punarchi' vidhi of Tamil grammar which has

>rules for how words are to be joined. For numbers like 1, 2, 3 etc,

>the rules are different. For instance if the term Iyengar were to

>have originated from aindhu (no 5), it would have been ainkaar not

>iyENgar, for the word aindhu becomes ain as in ainthiNAi (aindhi +

>thiNAi), ainkurunooru (aindhu + kurumai + nooru), aimpaal (aindhu +

>paal), aimpori (aindhu + pori) etc. But that the word has 'iyan'

>shows that the derivative is not from aindhu (no 5), but from iyan.

>

>If we were to say that it was aindhu +aindhu + kaaryam or aindhu +

>angam, then by grammar rule (which decides the way that such

>combinations occur)it will be aingaaryam and aindhangam. Clearly, no

>5 can not have become the root of Iyengar. The 'an' vighuthi only

>makes the difference.If it still be assumed that no 5 had been the

>basis, then the other questions arise as to who coined this term and

>when - which need to be answered.

>

>Regards,

>jayasree saranathan

>

>

>