> Yes there are no faults....
I mentioned in my earlier message that the old texts were rewritten following
Chinnaya Suri's rules. Today if those (rewritten) old texts are taken as
references and said that Chinnaya did nothing but followed the tradition,
hence his Telugu is real and original is IMHO not a correct argument.
> >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.
I 'd appreciate if you could explain your reasons.
> 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.
First of all how many could use that language in 1850s, 60s and 70s, or for
that matter can use it today? And who understood that? I quoted Gidugu
exactly quoting this. I repeat:
ayitE ee kRtakabhaasha vaaDukalO lEni samskRtaandhra bhaashaa
SabdamulatO panDitulu prayatna poorvakamugaa nirminchinadavuTavalla
panDitulakE saadhyamu kaani saamaanyulaku kaadu. panDitulalOnaina
nirdushTamugaa aa bhaashalO granthamulu rachinchagalavaaru arudu.
And when was Sanskrit spoken by "all"? As I see you subscribe to
"Sanskrit-Digest". Was it ever said there that even common folk spoke
Sanskrit? On similar lines Latin was n't spoken by "all" in Europe.
If interested, I can quote one or more titles on this subject. I have posted
a long message in last March addressing similar assumptions by a nettor.
I am appending some excerpts below.
Also please note that the famous plays (dramas) in Sanskrit were different,
not in "Suddha graanthikam". Even in Telugu! Please refer to the old "yaksha
gaana" texts of "koochipooDi bhaagavatulu" or the early Telugu plays like
K.R.Sastri, vEdam's _prataaparudreeyam_ etc. etc. It was kokkonDa
vEnkaTaratnam pantulu to write a play in "Suddha graanthikam" (I wonder
whether it was at all staged and if yes how many watched till the end.) at
first.
[Aside: In school days read a small news clipping in "eenaaDu" saying that
theres a tribe in Himachal Pradesh whose langauge is "very" similar to
Sanskrit. The news item ends with the quote (not verbatim): "dEva bhaasha
maaTlaaDutunnaaru. mari dEvatalaa?"]
=========================================================================
From: sreeni@ktpsp2.uni-paderborn.de (Sreenivas Paruchuri)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian.telugu
Subject: Re: Sanskrit and Sanskruti!!!
Date: 10 Mar 1995 11:49:14 GMT
Girish Chirovolu wrote:
> my school teacher [telugu teacher,] used to
> say , "Oray pilla kayalu, manavandarivi sankrit
> mohaalu (faces), b'cos there is no other word
> (local/even slangs/dialects) for "FACE". !!
> yep, its true,[if not I request netters to come up with
> alternative word,I mean Indian languages, as far as my
> knowledge goes,all are variants of the word 'mukh'.
There is a large number of "sanskrit" words with their origins in
socalled "Dravidian languages". Just to give you an example the word
"aravind(a)" is apparently derived from telugu "araviri". You find this
word in "annamayya kIrtanalu" or I can recall an old film song, which
goes like: "araviri lOni andamu nEnE! andulOni makarandamu nEnE!".
Coming to your posting:
Who said that the word "mukhamu or mogamu" is derived from Sanskrit
"mukh"? Have you refered to any standard "Etymology" dictionary?
Mayrhoffer's _A concise encyclopedia of the etymology of Sanskrit
words_ did n't give me a satisfactory answer (it says: the origin
could be in Afghan, Caucasian languages; "muh", "muha"). Then
I asked Dr. kalyANarAman, Madras, whether the words: mukam, mogamu,
moga (Tamil, Telugu, Kannada) derived from "mukh" or vice-versa?
I am appending excerpts from his reply below.
---------------------------------------------
the etyma related to mukha = mouth, face
(Rgveda) will continue to be a bone of contention between the
proponents of the so-called Indo-Aryan and Dravidian language streams,
each claiming 'ancient' status. I believe, that it is not necessary to
establish 'ancestry' for a word. If it is found across scores of
languages spread across vast distances, and authenticated in very,
very ancient literary texts and epigraphs, it does not really matter
which phonetic variant came first, despite Mayrhoffer and
Burrow/Emeneau disagreeing.
Burrow and Emeneau's Dravidian etyma include: muukku nose (Tamil);
mukku nose (Telugu); muucuucu to smell (Telugu); muka- id. (Tamil);
mukam face, mouth (Tamil); mogamu id. (Telugu); muum face (Pengo);
muun~ci face (Tamil); muuti mouth (Telugu); mu.ti mouth, beak
(Kolami); mudra face (Maltese); muun~ju to suck (penis) (KoDagu);
mokku bow, obeisance (Kannada); moqtre to bend (head)(Maltese); moqe
to eat (Maltese); mOvaay chin, beard (Tamil)
Turner's Indo-Aryan etyma include: mukha entrance (Skt.); mouth, face
(Skt.Pali); muha id. (Prakrt); muy, mui face (Gypsy); muh, mu~h
(Hindi); mucha mustache (Sindhi); mo~-ch hair on face (Awadhi);
muhanaa river mouth (Bengali); mukhya pertaining to face of mouth
(Atharva veda); chief (Taittiriiya samhitaa); mukhiyaa village headman
(Nepali); muuka dumb (Vaajasneyi samhitaa); muuga id. (Pali)
Tell me, Srinivas, is it really possible to isolate the substratum
phoneme: (m-k) from its inherent 'meaning' or 'image' related to:
beak, nose, mouth, chin, mustache, face.
Munda languages provide the firm foundation to link the linguistic
unity of South Asia in such substantive 'images' as I have tried to
demonstrate in my dictionary. ..........
If artists contend that the most distinguishing feature of a person
that strikes a beholder is the nose, the phoneme (m-k) seems to be an
adequate sound representation of the asscciated image or face of a
person. If this is so, Burrow and Emeneau may be proved right.
....................
see the contours of the face of a South Asian lingua franca, bhaashaa,
that dates back to great antiquity [rather than trying to split-hairs
(mustache) on surface-level, superficial grammatical divergences
between the so-called Indo-Aryan, so-called Munda and so-called
Dravidian tongues].
----------------------END------------------
My friend says: "sanskrit doesn't have nOru and English doesn't have
have gontu (gontu and nOru to speak out ! You don't speak out with
neck.)" :-) He also adds: "In Hindi (I don't know, may be even in
sanskrit) the word 'mukh' is used to refer to 'nOru'. They use,
'vadan(am)' for face."
> were times [historically] that even common man
> used to speak sanskrit [yep, for me its a tough
Common man?? I am n't aware of that. Could the knowledgable nettors
tell more!
> sweetly!].why even english has some of the words
> like mother (matru/mAtah) etc from sanskrit
Please refer to some (etymology) dictionary! I also have heard people
strongly guessing; the German last name Brahms(well-known componist
J. Brahms) is derived from "Brahma" and the word "Hansa" in "Lufthansa"
is from "hamsa" in Indian languages (the swan symbol as Lufthansa's logo
adds weight to their arguments.). But both the above assumptions are
wrong.
=============================================================================
> 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?
I should have narrated the incident a little more in detail. There was a big
controversy in 1850s on the authorship of _baala vyaakaraNam_. I think it was
Seshayya (Will conform the name and get back soon.) who claimed the
authorship and accused Chinnaya Suri of plagiarism.
Where did I say that no grammar existed before? BTW, there was a query on
Telugu grammar prior to Chinnaya (was it by Dokka?) a while ago. If time
permits I 'd certainly like to write on that. Here is one book tip until
then:
Korada, Mahadeva Sastri
Historical Grammar of Telugu; with special reference to old Telugu,
c. 200 B.C - 1000 A.D.
Published by S.V. Univ., Tirupati in late 60s.
> This is another point. deeninE "svapaksha niMda" ani cebutAru.
> tanataraphuna vAdiMcamanna lawyer Court_lO haTAttugA prativAdi
> taraphuna defence teesukunnaTlu :-)
No! IMHO your above example is not appropriate. Does it mean that one should
not correct himself, if he thinks that he is doing wrong!
Oh! It has really become long. Time to stop.
Regards,
Sreenivas
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"teluguni samskRtam oka chempakaayaa hindustaanee oka chempakaayaa vELLu
anTugunETTu koTTaayi. ika chempalu lEka ingleeshu vacchi teluguni o'
moTTikaaya vEsindi. inni debbaloo telugu tini teerindi. pratidebbakee
gaayam paDakapOtE e'm adhamam boppi ayinaa kaTTi teerindi."
-- bhamiDipaaTi
----------------------------------------------------------------------