Zha in Tamil

One of the defining characteristics of Tamil is its 30th letter, zha/Ḻa (ழ) and has been in use at least since 3rd century BCE. The letter finds its place in Malayalam also. Many Tamils like me are quite possessive and proud about zha and find the correct pronunciation of zha as the hallmark of one learnt in Tamil. Recently, I had a shocking conversation with a Malayali colleague working in Chennai. 

Colleague: Do you know there is a letter zha in Malayalam that is not there in Tamil? 

Me: (quite shocked after hearing this) What? Zha is there even in Tamil. In fact, we Tamilians are very proud about it.

Colleague: Aah that cannot be correct! No Tamilian I know can pronounce zha. They all say valapalam (banana) and cannot pronounce zha.

Me: It is shameful that most of us Tamilians are not able to pronounce zha although we consider it to be the USP of Tamil.

My colleague's observation, although shocking, was true. For all the chest beating by us Tamilians about our Tamil heritage and protecting our culture, most of us  cannot even pronounce an important letter in our mother tongue, which Ashokamitran says is "one of the glories of Tamil language." [Ashokamitran, Tamil Scene: Good Work Continues, Indian Literature, Vol. 32, No. 6 (134) (November-December, 1989), pp. 189-195].

Two things should be done:

1.  No Tamil teacher should be recruited who cannot pronounce zha.
2. People should not accept any politician who cannot say zha. 

Naanmarai and Mundhunool in Tolkappiyam's Prolegomenon

Tolkappiyam is an ancient Tamil work on Grammar. This very short post discusses certain interesting facts/ debates relating to Tolkappiyam's prolegomenon. Tolkappiyam's payiram or prolegomenon was penned by Panampaaranar, who is regarded as a contemporary of Tolkappiyar, the unknown and mysterious author of the great work. 

The history of Tamil literature and various constructions provided to the text, like in any age, are tainted by the commentator's ideologies. This is well-accepted and is no big deal. Only rigorous and scientific methods of research can alleviate ideological biases. To the extent possible, this blogger will present facts sans ideological biases.

Some interesting debates on the words naanmarai and mundhunool in the prolegomenon are listed below:

• Tolkappiyam's prolegomenon was written by Panampaaranar, a contemprary of Tolkappiyar.
• The prolegomenon casts some light on Tolkappiyam and how it came to be.
• The prolegomenon refers to mundhunool kandu and naanmarai. Mundhunool apparently refers to Vedas and so does naanmarai, marai refers to vedas and the prefix naan refers to the number four (four vedas). 
• There is also another construction offered to these phrases. Mundhu nool refers to previous works and this phrase is juxtaposed with muraippada enni (meaning, well-thought as per norms) supporting the construction that the Tolkappiyam was a work with great insight and was written as per the established norms of research, including researching on prior work/ authorities. Prolegomenons in Tamil literature do generally state that the author has referred to the mundhunool. So mundhunool may not really refer to the vedas. There are close to about 240 references in Tolkappiyam to earlier authorities [Dr. V. Murugan, Tolkappiyam in English ix (2000)] supporting the inference that mundhunool refers to prior work/ authorities and not vedas.  
• However, naanmarai is a different story altogether. Naanmarai has been consistently translated to have referred to the four vedas [Dr. V. Murugan, Tolkappiyam in English xxiii (2000)]. Another construction has been afforded to Naanmarai: as aram (virtue), porul (material wealth), inbam (pursuit of happiness and pleasure), and veedu (salvation) but why this construction is given instead of the standard "four vedas" is anybody's guess.

More on this in another post.