The science of Historical Linguistics has not been yet well established. The European Constructive Historical Linguistics where they construct protoforms is a miserable failure where such constructions are merely hypothetical and are not historically
The relationship between languages and grouping them into families is a very complex issue where not only lexical correspondence, grammatical features and so forth but also many others.
I began to relate Sumerian to Tamil by identifying first Sumerian as Archaic Tamil. This involves recognition first Sumerian as Archaic Tamil and then seeking out how I am able to RECOGNIZE Sumerian as Archaic Tamil and so forth.
I call such a science as Utii Science where I notice that in recognizing Sumerian sentences as a whole as sentences in Archaic Tamil and hence as Tamil, I practice various utties such phonological, lexical, semantic, morphological, grammatical and so forth. These utties collectively help out the linguistic identity of a language here Sumerian as Tamil.
Below I give the detailed analysis of a single sentence as an example. Now such a approach may be rejected outright by many Europeans, as such an approach is basically very Indian, particularly Tamil.
>>>>Viri Linguistics is a Hermeneutic Science
Just as Uri Linguistics is a science where various kinds of Utti-s are applied, so is Viri Linguistics only that the set of utti-s are different. Each scientific field calls for it’s own set of Utti-s and where the central meaning of Utti is captured by Tolkaapiyar in the clause “otta kaadci utti” where utti, the interpretive movement of the mind sheds light upon the matter under analysis and provides a VISION (kaadci, darsana). This darsana when also enjoyed by another person makes him agree with the initial proponent with such a possibility, making the initial claim an OBJECTIVE TRUTH and not a fancy, a fiction and so forth and which are always possible. So Logic of Hermeneutic Logic at work here has the dialects of SHOWING and SEEING with agreement coming forth when the new person sees the same as what is shown and as shown. If what is shown is idiosyncratic, a fancy, 'vittai' etc, then there cannot be such an agreement (unless a common and collective prejudice holds sway)
Now here the Tamil word ‘Viri’ is very appropriate for it means to develop, expand, spread out, differentiate, grow and so forth. This is also the root of Tamil 'Virudsam' : tree which is seen as something that grows with many branches. So is the case with ancient languages such as Tamil – from embryonic forms it has developed into various matured forms, one constituting the main trunk while others the various branches. While the trunk-like relationship is studied by Viri Linguistics, the branch-like developments by Uri Linguistics. Thus Sanskrit (and Prakrit languages) in relation to Tamil is studied in terms of Uri Linguistics while C. Tamil in relation to Sumerian in terms of Viri Linguistics
But what are the Utti-s that constitute this science and gives it an identity?
The Utti-s of Viri Linguistics
While I hope to write in the near future a monograph on this, for now I shall contend myself by providing some concrete examples of such utti-s that constitute the essence of this science for which there are NO other ways.
For this let me take the following sentence from Sulgi Hymn B (C. 2000 BC)
13. tur-mu-de e-dub-ba-a-a am ( Since my very youth, I belonged to edubba)
The Tamil reconstruction would be :
Ta. tur-mutee il tubbaiya aa aam ( Since my very youth I attended the tablet house(school))
துர் முதே இல் துப்பைய ஆ ஆம்
In this reconstruction , in phonology, morphology and semantics and so forth, the basic utti-s constituting the Viri Linguistics are already there. Here let me overlook the problems about transcription of the cuneiform texts where some refinements are required but not a fundamental revision. For example ‘e’ is rewritten as ‘il’ and which can be incorporated in future readings of the Sumerian itself. Leaving aside such issues for the time being, let me come to the discussion of the utti-s relevant to the issue.
1.
The Phonological Utti-s
Here we have ‘mude’ rendered as ‘mutee’ with the mapping of ‘d’ into ‘t” and ‘e’ into ‘ee’ . The root of this could be Su. mus (the foundation, the initial etc) and hence also s > d. t etc.
We have also ‘a’ as
> Ta. aa (to become) and am> Ta. aam ( a particle of affirmationetc). Here while the ‘–a’ in e-dub-ba-a’ is rendered as ‘y-a’, the next ‘a’ and ‘am’ are rendered as ‘aa aam’ i.e. with the long vowel. Here we note that ‘y’ might have been present but the script was defective for symbolizing it. It could have been read as such but not rendered accurately in the script.
We notice that ‘tur’ remains the SAME both in phonological shape and meaning
We also have ‘dub’ rendered as ‘tub’ where we have d > t , something we see also in Sumerian itself e.g dug and tuk
2.
The Semantic Utti-s
Now looking at the meanings we see that the meaning of ‘tur’ remains the same as Ta. where tur, tul, tun means ‘small, fine’ and metaphorically ‘evil” etc. The Tamil tur-umbu means something small , tul-li-yam means something fine, minute etc. Tur-neRi is the ‘little way”, the evil way in semantic implications.
The ‘mude’ has become Ta. mutee and mutalee as in ‘akaram mutala ezuttellaam ( KuRal 200 AD). The Mutu also means ancient old etc. The ‘mutal’ also means the foundation, the basis etc. In all these we see a family of semantic relationships that are linked to each with some meanings, perhaps the metaphorical as historically later. The most primordial meaning may be that of Su. mus, the foundation, the basis etc.
3.
The Morphological utti-s
Now we notice that ‘dub’ or ‘dub-ba’ has the Tamil equivalent of Tubbu, the clue, the sign etc that has to be read or deciphered as in tuppu tulangkaL etc. Now we can also see some grammatical operations: dub-ba> bud-da > buddi (Ta. putti) ; intelligence etc. What we have here is metathesis along with the birth of an associated meaning – from a tablet of knowledge to that of intellect of intelligence. We can also see the possible derivation: dub-ba> bud-da> poti and il-dub-ba> poti-il, the famous centre in the ancient Madurai where the Tamil Academy is said to have functioned. The “poti-il’ may actually be ‘il-tub-bu” but distorted or extended somewhat in meaning
Here we also notice the SAMENESS of meaning in relation to ‘tur’ ‘a or aa’ ‘am or aam’ etc.
Thus the Semantic Utti-s bring out both the SAMENESS in meaning as well DIFFERENCE but where the difference can be explained in terms of historical evolution of various kinds.
4.
The Grammatical Utti-s
Now when we take up ‘e-dub-ba-a” and render it as Ta. il tubbaiya we have ‘-a’ as the Tamil genitive. locative suffix “-a” that is also widely present in C. Tamil and with same grammatical function. The ‘am’ and Ta. aam are almost the same in grammatical function – an enclitic of agreement, emphasis etc.
Now in the clause ‘tur-mu-de’ we have an identity in grammatical function in the word order: akara mutal, iLamai mutalee etc. Here the “mu-de’ is an adverb of time(?) and the same word order holds in Tamil as well. Now in ‘e-dub-ba’ we see a different word order - in fact the reversal – tubbaiya il etc. This is one of the DIFFERENCES in grammar and which is rule governed. While there is agreement in having the formative ‘-a’ as the adjectival format, ( nall-a maintain ( good man), peri-a viidu ( big house) while in Tamil it is before the Noun in Sumerian it is post the qualified noun. For example e-gal-la > Ta. il kaLLa> kaLLa il etc.
The rule is : N1 ^ N2-a > N2-a ^ N1
The IlakkaNam is Already There
Now the kind of phonological, morphological, semantic and grammatical features that I have discussed briefly are the IlakkaNam in the sense of Tolkaappiyar, the features that constitute the identity of the object ,here the language These are the features that constitute the identity of Tamil Language as such and since they are present in Sumerian either as the same and where different, it is something that can be explained in terms of evolutionary developments, it follows that Sumerian is Tamil but Archaic Tamil as it is an earlier shape from which C.Tamil has evolved.
The most important aspect of such studies is that I need NOT fall back upon PaNini or Tolkaappiyar or anyone for the matter to work out these aspects. Everything that we need is ALREADY THERE in situ in the Sumerian texts as transcribed (but which we can improve upon here and there). What we have to do is study the texts and let them disclose from within themselves as to what kind of language it is and so forth. We have take the TEXTS and let them SPEAK to us from within themselves.
In order to understand as what exactly they are, e.g. it is Archaic Tamil etc, our mind must be FREE and OPEN (Tolkaapiyar's vinaiyin niiGki) and should not be fixated to PaNini and such others. We can consult them but we should NOT let them dictate what we see in the Sumerian Texts. We must delve deep into the texts themselves and UNEARTH the grammar and so forth already there by the application of utti-s that will illuminate the mind by making us UNDERSTAND them better.
ULLAGANAR
( 27-12-2013 )
Note : The Tamil word 'utties' can be grossly translated as 'tools' in English.
( editing and re-paragraphing by his student )
( photo taken from https://www.shutterstock.com/ with thanks )
No comments:
Post a Comment