Perhaps the line between what is Telugu and what is Sanskritam (only
as far as individual words) is blurred. Grammarians can see the line
clearly. But in ordinary usage, without resorting to poetic flourishes,
don't we use quite a lot of Sanskrit words (tatsama & tadbhava included)?
I have been going through telugu mahAbhArata (more on this in another post)
and see that whereas nannaya used a variety of meters occasionally in
his 2.x chapters, tikkana in the 15 that he authored, rarely used an
unusual meter. By unusual I mean other than the set [GOF, ATaveladi,
tETagIti, kanda, seesa]. Yes, at he end of each ASwAsa, he wrote a GOF,
a kanda, and a mAlini, all using completely sanskrit words. He did this
uniformly in the book. Only in one or two chapters, he used a sragdhara,
a mahAsragdhara, and one or two others. I was surprised at that.
The end-of-the-chapter three poems have all Sanskrit words. Yet, they
wouldn't be considered Sanskrit poems, I think. I would like to hear
comments on this.
I was thinking along the following point when I saw TSR write,
> telugu words end in vowels. Sanskrit also mostly like that.
> It is the key reason we freely mingle Sanskrit words in telugu poetry.
> Some words from foreign languages which either end in vowels,
> or those we have added du-mu-vu-lu for day-to-day use have easy entry
> into telugu for the same reason.
YES! This is the reason English words would usually appear "jarring" in
a telugu meter. In that sense, sprinkling an English word here and
there in a telugu meter is easy, but using many, if not all, is quite
difficult, without making it sound like an impostor. The lack of
vowel ending is quite infuriating. Why don't the English reform their language?
But, how about Italian? It is a language that has many vowel ending words.
I am sure this would make the language easily amenable for our telugu
meters. amici andiamo!
Ramakrishna (nyet, ya na jnAyu itAliyAnO) Pillalamarri