From: selvakum@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering)
Subject: KuRaL
Keywords: kuRaL
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 17:29:45 GMT


    Was: Subject: Re: Kamban, VaLLuvan and KaNNadhaasan

In article <1992Aug28.025219.24933@wuecl.wustl.edu>, sp2@cec1.wustl.edu (Sundara Pandian) writes:
> In article <Bto1HK.D0G@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> selvakum@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering) writes:
> >In article <BtnztC.BzD@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>, selvakum@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering) writes:
> >> In article <9208272123.AA01028@cec1.wustl.edu>, sp2@cec1.wustl.edu (Sundara Pandian) writes:
> >> > Natarajan Sureshbabu writes :
> >> > >>exchanged)
> >> > >>
      [deleted some stuff]
> >> >  
> >> >   `yaan-nOkkum kaalai nilan-nOkkum nOkkaakkaal
> >> >    thaan-nOkki mella nagum.'
> >> > 
> >> >    The usage of the word `nagum' may be thought about.
> >> >  I think that `avaL nagum' is grammatically incorrect.
> >>                  ^^^^^^^^^^
> >> >  The correct form is `avaL nagaiththaaL'. `nagum' is
> >>                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> >  used for `onRan paal' [ adhu, idhu, mudhaliyana.]
> >> >  May be, that such grammatical rules are relaxed for
> >>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> >  poems. 
> >>   ^^^^^^^
> >> 
> >>           Please allow me to observe that ThiruvaLLuvar
> >>           *does not* say 'avaL nagum'. If you read the 
> >>           kuRaL carefully, you can perceive that VaLLuvar
> >>           means "kaathaliyin uLLam" or her deeper feeling
> >>           and not mere external facial "nagai". There is
> >>           a deeper import and a more sublime love-feeling
> >>           in vaLLuvar's words. I don't think vaLLuvar made
> >>           any grammatically incorrect thodar in this kuRaL
> >>           NOR is it any poetic licence. I honestly feel that
> >>           vaLLuvar conveys a more sublime deeper love-feeling
> >>           that's all. 
> >
> >   I just wanted to add that in the VaLLuvar's kuRaL the subject is
> >   not explicitly stated vis-a-vis "nagaum", therefore it is not
> >   right to infer that "avaL nagum" was implied. uLLam( innuNarvil
> >   kaLikkum kaathal uLLam) nagum is grammatically correct. The subject
> >   corresponding to the predicate ( verb) "nagum" is NOT explicitly
> >   given by VaLLuvar and it is one of the beauty of this kuRaL rather
> >   than the flaw ! 
> 
>       Besides the grammatical purity of the kuRaL under consideration,
>  the question raised here is what is being addressed here, the lover
>  [ her looks ] or her `uLLam' [ inner feelings ].     

              As I mentioned in my earlier posting, it is her "uLLam".
              If one wants greater accuracy one might say "through
              facial and bodily *signs* her uLLam" esp. about "nagum".
              As you say in the following line it is from "kuRipparithal"
              athikaaram. puRak kuRippu "kanDu" akak kuRippu "uNarvathu"
              akath thuRaiyil adippadaiyaana onRu. ( = seeing the 
              outer signs and understanding the inner feelings is 
              a fundemental theme in "akam" songs)
              

>       First I like to remark that this kuRaL is from the chapter
>  `kuRippaRidhal' [ reading the signs ]. A reading of this chapter
>  reveals that the poet indeed is talking about the looks of her
                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^ 
>  lover, like         
   ^^^^^^

            Yes, through her "looks" the lover sees her inner
            "kuRippu" and feels her love. Or would you say that
             the lover saw only the looks and did not *see* her
             "kaathal uLLam". The tamil word "nOkku" has a 
             meaning " to see with a serious intent". nOkkam means
             "intention"  "idea".  See also the words "nOttam vidu"
             where nOttam means "see with a view to extract info"
             [ any semantic connection with English verb note ?!]
             as I said in another post on the same topic, vaLLuvar says
             "piRan manai nOkkaa peraaNmai" where he means ( i think)
             "the great manhood ( aaNKaRpu) is in not thinking 
              another man's woman". You can see another man's 
              woman/wife but should not "nOkku" ( see with ulterior
              intentions - here it means bad intentions). nOkku means
              "uL kuRippOdu kaaNthal" roughly speaking. 


>       " She has two looks ; one causes pain ;
>         That same pain, the other heals again."
> 
>       "With tenderness I look upon her face,
>        And she relents ; her smile is full of grace ."
> 
>  The kuRaL under discussion falls in the same pattern,
>       " If I should look, her eyes are on the ground,
>         If I look away, her looks with a smile are bound."
>     [ Translations by Kasthuri Srinivasan ]

             With no disrespect, I feel the above translations are
             seriously lacking the "uyir" in Tamil KuRaL in my honest
             and humble opinion.
> 
>        It is also clear from the kuRaL itself.
>     " yaan nOkkum kaalai nilan-nOkkum"
>                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  This is clearly a description on the lover's looks. 
>  The poet is observing her lover's face trying to read the signs.
> When he looks at her, he notices that her eyes don't meet his
> eyes, but instead fall on the ground. If he looks away, she looks
> at him and smiles. So I would take `thaan nOkki mella nagum' as
> the signs that the poet notices on her lover. These signs are read
                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> from the facial looks of her lover and we can't take `nagum' as
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> `avaL uLLam nagum', as `nagum' is a facial sign here.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
          
          I agree that facial and bodily *signs* are "read".
          I ask: of what ? Is it not her uLLam ? You say "eyes
          fall on the ground" in the above which I think is a more 
          accurate translation in spirit but does it not reveal that 
          she is not "looking" but just the eyes "seem to be 
          looing the ground" ? . [ eyes don't "fall" on the ground
          (-: just kidding, but in the sense the English "fall" in
          love, i liked the semantic kinship in your expression of
          "eyes fall" (-:  although you might not have intended)

          Would you say she was 
          *looking* at the ground as a geologist ? [ Please don't
          think I'm ridiculing.. my point is she may be looking
          but she can't *see* anything there ( she may not even know 
          if a snake or a scorpion were to be crawling there I would
          guess) because her heart ( uLLam) is elsewhere ] 

>   Nevertheless, the kuRaL is grammatically correct. 
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
         Thanks, that's what I was trying to point out based on your
         original post.

>  There are two Tamil words ending with -um in this kuRaL used a
> total of three times : nOkkum (2) and nagum (1).
>  nOkk-um (1) : yaan nOkkum kaalai - This is a conditional
>                                    sentence, meaning `If I look at
>                                    her..'
>  nOkk-um (2) : nilan nOkkum - Here the subject is the lover's eyes.
>                               Though they are plural, as they are
>                                   . 
>                               `a . . RiNai', the verb `nOkkum' is
>                               correct. We can say `avai pOkum', `avai
>                               paRakkum' etc.

        I agree with these points. But not the following one..


>  nagum (1) : thaan nOkki mella nagum - Here the subject is the lover's
>                                        look. One can take the subject
>                                        as the lover's eyes again. Her
>                                        eyes looked at him when he looked
>                                        away and they smiled. Or one can
>                                        take the subject as the lover and
>                                        the verb `nagum' is correct here
>                                        as only her look is read by the
>                                        poet. However, her `uLLam' is not
                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>                                        implied here as claimed by Selva-
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>                                        kumar. 
                                         ^^^^^

           Here the subject is very clear which is "thaan" and NOT the
           "lover's looks". The question is what is meant by "thaan".
           I perceived that it is the kaathali's "kaathal-niRaintha
           kavin uLLam". kaNkaL nokki uL_uLLam nagum if would prefer.
           A gentle curl of smile might escape from her heart to adore 
           her face but if a lover saw only this 
           I pity him (-: (-: and her (-: (-:
          If you insist that vaLLuvar only meant her "facial smiling" 
          I beg to differ. akath thuRai paa is supposed to be understood
          in a personalized way in any case. My intent is not to argue
          or claim but to share my "view", if it is not appealing, 
          you/one may leave it. I felt certain sublimity was conveyed by
          this kuRaL and hence my min_urai (posting). Thanks for listening.
>                    
> >   
> >         anbudan 
> >         Selva Selvakumar
> 
>                                                             S.Pandian
>                                                    sp2@cec1.WUSTL.edu
>  [ logo deleted] 
 
      anbudan
      Selva Selvakumar
Xref: sparky soc.culture.tamil:1759 alt.culture.tamil:1250