BTW, I did not know that Sri PALANA garu has commented on Chinnayya.
I think I lost many mails due to inconsistency in my Internet mailing
system.
>Addressing some comments made recently at first:
>I did n't understnd the first sentence. Are you implying that there are no
>faults?
Yes there are no faults....
>When and where did Tapi say that one 'd listen to (believe) him?
tATiceTTu ekki pAlu tAgutunnAnaMTE nammutArA! Why should anyone
write? are they not meant for public reading? for educating people?
Books, Libraries are there to educate everyone. Possiblility is
there that some books may mislead readers.
>Well, his comments on one particular occasion; i.e. in his _soori
>maraNam (lEka) banDi ra pallaki_,were admittedly harsh.
Thanks. This is one point which I did not like. When I said
something against Tapi Dharma Rao, it must have hurt someone's
feelings. Sri Tapigaru commented on Chinnaya, I did not like that,
and I wanted to clear this point to you.
> goppa goppa kaaryaalu chEsinavaariki punarjanma lEkunDaa chEstaavaTa!
> intakanna goppa kaaryam chEsina vaaLLunDaTam kashTam. kaabaTTi
> O dayaamayaa! maa yandu karuNinchi ee soori gaariki, ee
> vyaakaraNaaniki , ee banDiraalaki, ee arasunnaalaki tirigi maa
> lOkamlO eppuDoo janma lEkunDaa unDETaTTu tappakunDaa chEyaali.
> idokkaTE maa praarthana."
cooDaMDi, idi eMta bAdha kaligiMcE vishayaM! A person can be harsh
But I did not expect this ruthless comments from the pen of Sri Tapi.
nEnu adE level_lO tApigarini aMTE evarainA voppukuMTArA? :-)
>To make my old posting clear, it was n't an attack on Chinnaya, but a
>question wanting to know the importance of his books and style of
>lang., still adored by some.
I understood from Sri Ramakrishna Pillamarri's message on Telusa
that this TELUSA is an open forum to discuss various aspects of Telugu
Literature. Please do not think that I have taken your comments as an
attack on Chinnayya. And I also request you, Sri Veluri Raogaru
and others, not to misunderstand me either. It is said in Geeta
"vAdaH pravadatAmasmi" means, "I am the decent discussion among the
debates". Debate is of four types 1. jalpamu 2. alpamu 3. vitaMDamu
4. pravadamu.
1. jalpamu = idle talk (talking without substantial knowledge over
the subject or just for the sake of passing time)
2. alpamu = getting unnecessary topics and unimportant topics into
discussion. Using obscene words to insult others.
3. vitaMDamu = Not accepting the others points and trying to foolout
the others. (tAnu paTTina kuMdEluku mooDE kALLu anaDaM)
4. pravadamu = Trying to understand others points. Joking sometimes,
accepting if others are correct at their point and
improving ones knowledge.. etc. This is called as
healthy discussion.
(pravada = prakarshENa + vada = adbhutaMgA vivariMpabaDina)
When I say "vAdamu" I always do mean the last one. The other 3 are
not appriciated by the society. Infact, from your article I came
to know many points which I am not aware of, I am sure yours is
"pravadamu". Please accept my regards for your exposition on the subject.
>> bhAshaku dhAtuvu moolaM. A dhAtuvulEkuMDA sAgE E padamainA "vyAvahArikaM"
>> ani pilavabaDutuMdi.
>Could you please quote your source, where did you find the above definition!
Please excuse me! this is from my own thoughts, would you mind :-)
this is my own definition. I have reasons to define like that.
>> Sri Cinnaya suri's telugu is *real* and *original* telugu.
>Then why is it no more used today? Certainly not a rhetorical
>question from my side!
As I said earlier "Stalin ni tAligADu" ani eMdukannAru? nOru
tiragakEgadA?. "bhAsha oka nadee pravAhaM lAMTidi adi enni malupulainA
tirugutuMdi" (this is again my quote) A kAlaMlO adi vADagaligAru ivALa
adi moolabaDiMdi, saMskRUtaM okAnokappuDu aMdarU mATlADEvALLu ivALa adi
eMduku koddi maMdikE parimitaM ayiMdi? This is my question to
your question. If you find any answer please educate me too.
>[Aside: Was n't it this SEshayya who initially claimed the authorship for
>_baala vyaakaraNam_? And said that "para vastu chit + maya soori" (parula
>vastuvalanu dongilinchuTalO panDituDu.)]
ee mATatOTE Ayana bhAshA jnAnaM ardhamaipOtuMdi. bhAsha aMdarikee talli,
okariki dAnimeeda adhikAraM unnadanO, nAsoMtamainadAnni itarulu
doMgiliMcAranO ceppaDaM (aMdulOnU vyAkaraNa vishayaMlO) avivEkaM.
Does he mean grammer was not at all existed before him, so that he
can claim his author-ship on it?
>staunch, vehemant supporter of "graanthikam" (already explained by Sri PALANA)
>also made fun of all those bhaava kavulu, Gidugu & co.
This is another point. deeninE "svapaksha niMda" ani cebutAru.
tanataraphuna vAdiMcamanna lawyer Court_lO haTAttugA prativAdi
taraphuna defence teesukunnaTlu :-)
>As PALANAgaaru said Tapi realized the real world. Is n't it beyond any doubts
>that Tapi and Gidugu were well versed in literary matters? Both had command
>over grammar and prosody.
Yes I accept this. I do not have Sri PALANAgari message at the moment.
Please let me download the archive file and read Sri PALANA's message.
Seems very interesting. I need time to read it.
>I think his scientific essays way back in 1920s, on the origin of Telugu
>letters, on Temples, the marriage system, etc. etc. are of very high calibre.
>If the word multi talented genius were to be ever used in A.P, he would be
>certainly one of the first recipients.
ee vishayAnni evarU kAdanalEru. TapigAru oka mahA paMDituDu, kAnee
oka bhAshA vEtta maroka bhAshAvEttani isthaM vaccinaTlu mATlADaDaM
avamAniMcaDaM cAlA garhaneeyaM. iMtakumiMci nEnu ceppagaligiMdi
Emee lEdu.
Regards,
-Madhava-
=-------=
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"cEtulu alasipOtAyi rAta alasipOdu..
vidhi nidurapOtuMdi vidhi likhitaM nidurapOdu"
-Dr. C. Narayana Reddy
Madhava Kumar Turumella
MBL Research and Consultancy Group, 506, Arun Chambers,
Tardeo, Mumbai, India. Phones : 4965264, 4965265
Fax : 4965266, Internet : madhava@giasbm01.vsnl.net.in
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~