"Krishna Kandadai" <OU17023@deere.com> wrote:
-> Me.
Subject: Re: Punctuation (revisited).
namastE
> 1. Indian languqages have a bigger alphabet set but not a whole lot of
> punctuation chatarters ( , . ' ! ; : - ? being those
characters).
>
> 2. English has a smaller char/alphabet set but has a lot of punctuation
> characters( ~ 3rd of the alphabet set).
IMHO, this relation doesn't hold good. The punctuation does depend more
on the length of a sentence, usage of grammar and its construction
rather than on the no. of alphabets of a language. It has nothing to do
with the vocabulary or no. of alphabets. Correct me if I am wrong.
-> I neither said nor implied that punctuation has anything to do with
-> alhpabet/character set OR vocabulary. Just mentioned that as an
-> observation, the # of punctuation characters in proportion to the
-> alphabet set. That's all. It(punctuation) is necessary mostly with
-> long sentences to minimise the ambiguity.
> 3. that Telugu in the olden days had 'poetry' and spoken Telugu but not
> much of 'vavhanam'/'prose' which would probably needs punctuation
unlike
> poetry(spoken languqage being already punctuated by the speaker).
pATalu which may not fall under poetry category, but are more close to
prose, were equally prevalent those days. Also what about vachana
kavitvamu (e.g. ranganAtha rAmayaNamu)?
-> I don't know how prevalent these are. And also what role punctuation
-> had/played in both(pATalu/vachana kavitvamu) of the above forms
-> you mentioned.
-> I hope to hear from someone who/you knows more about them.
Regards
Krishna Kandadai
-> Regards,
-> Ramakrishna.