Millennium Malayalam

2010-09-18T22:38:00.000-07:00

2005-09-20T09:19:00.000-07:00

ALPHABETIC ORDER
Order is the most fundamental requirement for anything to be intelligible, basic in any intellectual activity or function. Alphabetic order is inevitable in any list of written material, the importance of which does not need explanation.

Now how well does it work in Malayalam?

We are well aware that there is no such thing as alphabetic order in Malayalam. Guess that this may be the reason for the unending chaos, or want of ordered progress in our social or political life. The reason for failure of early development of this ordering system in our language is naturally the unsuitability of out alphabet itself. This is painfully evident in our dictionaries: Often you are not very sure of ‘where’, that is, immediately after which letter you are to look for a particular word.

For example, can every one of us recall, in a fraction of a second, and open up a fast, the word t{] m »w, if that word is in a Malayalam dictionary?*********

The problem here is great because basically, as they say, ours is a syllabic system of writing- we write, sort of, syllables (also called atsharams) and their number is so vast we cannot get at them in a quick order. The total number of possible syllables is unmanageable when you intend to order them ‘alphabetically’. We do not have an alphabet in the true sense; that is what it means. All the same, we perfectly recognize the great importance of alphabetic ordering, so we resort to the English alphabet. This is happening ever since Malayalees learned English, and we are indebted.
How about it if we now have an alphabet, with 42 characters (letters) that behave like an alphabet? Try comparing the resulting situation with the now prevalent one.

ORDER AND RECALL
We have not studied much about the ‘recall mechanism’ of mind; at least, the average people do not have much knowledge about any such mechanism, even though they all have it functioning within them. We as ordinary persons can do with some inklings about it; some tips, perhaps.
Suppose we know to recite the English alphabet without any mistake, and we know the total number of letters in the alphabet is twenty-six. Now, look at three questions; they must all be answered the moment each one is read:
1. Which is the first letter of English alphabet?
2. Which is the nineteenth letter?
3. Which is the last letter?
[Assess for yourself, the success percentage]

Now answer another set of three questions:
1. Which is the letter before M?
2. Which is the letter after M?
3. Which are the letters before and after P?

The statistics of success in this test is likely to tell the greatest success rate. Why?
The mechanism of recall works like a torch flashed, focused on a point in the past. If it is a point on a list or a series or sequence, the torch does light up a point behind and a point ‘after’ the focal point. In other situations, the torch throws light on any one circle or another, of points around the focus; if not it shows up a sequence or series (starting) ahead from the focal point.

This discussion could be stretched to any length in order to establish that in Malayalam there is neither an ordered alphabet nor an alphabetic order!! However, there seems to be no such need for over-exertion.

WE ARE GOING TO ACHIEVE THESE WITH OUR MILLENNIUM ALPHABET!!!

2005-09-20T09:10:00.000-07:00

ATSHARAM – ATSHARAJNANAM

In fact, there is no English synonym for this word. Yet, it is a word, which English people would not borrow because of its ambiguity of meaning. Every Malayalee begins school education learning atsharams. He rises in learning heights, becomes pundits, linguists and yet he confesses he cannot answer the question: “how many atsharams are there in Malayalam?” Why after all? He is counting something different, under the heading ‘atsharam’. The same ‘guru’ at the same time he teaches little students that there are 56 atsharams in Malayalam. Look into any primary level Malayalam grammar book to see that this is true. Look at a Malayalam dictionary "iÐXmcmhen' stating: A is the first atsharam in the atsharamala. Mark well the citations below, from the same book:

1. AþA£camebnse BZys¯ A£cw

2. BþA£camebnse cmas¯ A£cw

3. Eþ A£camebnse Ggmas¯ A£cw

4. -A£camebnse F«mas¯ A£cw

5. -A£camebnse H³]Xmas¯ A£cw

6. þA£camebnse ]¯mas¯ A£cw

7. HuþA£camebnse ]Xn\mdmas¯ A£cw

8. Iþ A£camebnse H¶mas¯ hyRvP\w

9. Jþ A£camebnse cmas¯ A£cw

10. Kþ A£camebnse aq¶mas¯ A£cw

11. £þA£camebnse ap¸¯©mas¯ A£cw Whereas it is the 35^th atsharam why are the words beginning with it given beneath other words under I?

12. d þ A£camebnse ap¸t¯gmas¯ A£cw.

13. Aw, Ax At the times when I learned the alphabet’, there were these two entities in the ‘alphabet’. Where and when did they disappear? I did not study that part of history. Was the alphabet ‘re-created’ at some time later? NO problem, it still has room, for being ‘re-created’ again.

14 A£cwþ1. AImcmZnhÀ®§fnÂHmcm¶pw,

alphabet,

hyRP\t¯mSpIqSntbm IqSmsXtbm DÅkzcw

2. Fgp¯p,

en]n

Comments: These selections from a high standard reference book of our language ought to be strongly criticized. Together, they demonstrate unpardonable negligence and persistence in error.

AþA£camebnse BZys¯ A£cw . O.K. We agree No arguments to start with.

BþA£camebnse cmas¯ A£cw. This is what you find in the second place on the list.

Eþ A£camebnse Ggmas¯ A£cw. I have not seen this letter in action but for two words in Malayalam. Why? Possibly because there is something wrong with it? Its serial number is approved, however. We shall study its properties in a later section

A£camebnse F«mas¯ A£cw. Most of Malayalees may not have had the good fortune to see a couple of words using this letter. Why does it exist then?

A£camebnse H³]Xmas¯ A£cw. How many words do we have using this letter? Its eligibility to stand as letter is examined later on.

þA£camebnse ]¯mas¯ A£cw Has any one seen a word using this letter?. Moreover, some pundits do not include this letter in the alphabet! Is that a correct practice? That omission leads them to get a different number of letters in the alphabet. Is that permissible?

Iþ A£camebnse H¶mas¯ hyRvP\w

There is some amount of doubt as to the propriety of this statement, even though tit it is apparently true. As per the ‘current’ habit the word A£cw should have come in place of hyRvP\w. Then, the term H¶mas¯ would not apply. The term hyRvP\w does not appear later in this list. Why forgot?

Jþ A£camebnse cmas¯ A£cw. We have been chasing round to catch this ‘bug’. Read it with No.2 in the list. This is not a simple error, which is shown by what follow. Travel on the wrong track continues until the end of the ‘dictionary’. Read No 12 to see how. At this point, one is able to see the long array of errors.

d þ A£camebnse ap¸t¯gmas¯ A£cw It is the last any way as one sees no more A£cw after this one. That implies that the total number is 37. Does that stand hold?

My own view is that these are not simple errors to be corrected; the time for correction is long lost. Rather, these are sins, requiring ‘forgiveness’ through generations. Because, the book is already in the hands of innocent students, who cannot, and are not supposed to correct or proof read a currently popular dictionary. Now, the gravest sin of all appears in No.14 above. Let us look through it for details?

A£cwþ1. AImcmZnhÀ®§fnÂHmcm¶pw, ------------------( a )

alphabet, ------------------------------------------------( b )

hyRP\t¯mSpIqSntbm IqSmsXtbm DÅkzcw ( c )

2. Fgp¯p, .--------- -----------------------------------( d )

en]n ----------------------------------------------------( e )

The word A£cw, has been given two sets of meanings, a total of five meanings.(we bookmark them as (a) to (e), so we can deal with each one separately.

(a) AImcmZn hÀ®§fnÂHmcm¶pw contains two terms which has consistently defied definition and keep defeating the intellect. Ask any student what he understands by hÀ®§Ä. What he is likely to give out as an answer might at best say that hÀ®§Ä are atsharamgal. Of course, that is what the dictionary has said. That is playing with words, not science. The master and the student are just where they started: at zero definition.

(b)alphabet, This word has no Malayalam equivalent. Alphabet for English means that set of 26 letters, nothing more nothing less. It is not yet clear if the word can mean also our atsharamala consisting of all those swaraatsharams and vyanjanams. The problem remains that atsharam is not defined, and no final count has been available. Even if the student can ‘mug’ up this ‘meaning’ he would not have understood what it means.

(c)hyRP\t¯mSpIqSntbm IqSmsXtbm DÅkzcw This is most stupid. This means that atsharam is a swaram standing alone, or with a vyanam. A swaram it is any way. This is rather difficult to understand. What is a hyRP\t¯mSpIqSnb kzcw ? Is that an entity different from swaram?

. (d)Fgp¯p, This is most non- specific word and is no good where what you want is a definition of sorts

(e)en]n If the student is now asked what en]n is, he might answer-A£cw. This is confusing and the English people call it a ‘vicious cycle’. en]n does not state the meaning of atsharam. We shall need to define what ‘lipi’ means.

The overall argument is that the entries under A£cw do not help us understand what atsharam is or means.

The situation becomes more difficult if you now read foot- note No.18 of Keralapanineeyam (page 57, iXmÐn¸Xn¸v) There it says the noun is used in the sense- a syllable. I cannot adequately criticize that foot- note, in a few sentences. Perhaps no one is likely to understand the intricacies of the problem situation unless the solutions are on hand.

Look at one sentence: IrXyambn¸dªmÂ Cw¥ojnÂ 26 hÀ®hpw AhtcJs¸Sp¯m³ 26 en]nbpaméÅXv.

How ‘accurate’! There is no greater mistake possible. For one thing, the English do not recognize at all, which even we do not understand. They have simply 26 letters. That is all. Those do not represent 26 anything. They do not have 26 varnams. They have more than 26 phonemes. ‘Segmental phonemes’ as they call them. Some letters represent more than one phoneme, but one at a time. Conversely, certain phonemes are represented by more letters than one. That is, several letters do represent one phoneme. These phenomena are demonstrated in a section of this treatise. Thus, the statement above is fallacious, and demonstrates lack of understanding of the English alphabet

aebmf¯nÂ F{XA£capv F¶ptNmZç¶hÀ F{XhÀ®apvv F¶dnbm\mWv vB{Knç¶Xv

. Does this not sound strange? The answerer interprets the meaning of a question, in terms that he himself does not understand. As if the questioner does not ‘know’, what he is asking? Of course it is true that the questioner does not understand what an atsharam is, to start with. However, he has no means of learning it because there is no one to teach him that. There is no one who knows. However, the answerer keeps on answering, hoping all the while that someone may detect all errors he is committing, of which

aebmf¯nse A£ckwJybw en]nkwJybpw IrXyambn Xn«s¸Sp¯nbn«nÃ Why not, yet? Even after centuries? Has it been impossible? Did nobody need it yet? Did nobody try? Don’t we actually need it right now?

What, however, is the relation between A£cw and hÀ®w ? Draw a correspondence? May some body write /draw hÀ®§Ä on one side and lipis (en]nIÄ) on the other side of a line to show how they correspond?

hÀ®kwJybmWv Gsdçsd IrXymbntcJs¸Sp¯nIn«pÅXv

Some meaning of Gsdçsd can be visualized in the table give below (extracted from page 57 of K.P.)[Dr.1] [Dr.1]

Authority	Year	Number
slÀa³ KpÀ«v	1851	49
tPmÀPv am¯³	1863	48
dh.]oddv	1841	56
BÀ.cmPcmPhÀ½	1917	53
tijKncn{]`p	1904	53

How was this possible? How, ‘only partially’, or ‘approximately’ (Gsdçsd), possible? Why could not any body just complete the counting? What does Gsdçsd mean? It is used to speak of a quantity, which can be now more now less. The number of hÀ®§Ä cannot thus vary in time; if it does, the count got at one time may not be true at other times, and is not to be taught as “the number of varnams”. You still lack ‘the number’. Moreover, Gsdçsd IrXyw cannot be a valid usage where the IrXyw is not known at all. Gsdçsd IrXyw= Not IrXyw. Nearly correct is judged only on comparison with the correct, or the fully correct. You cannot know or say that Y is part of X unless you know the whole of X, and the whole of Y. Can you? The truth of “hÀ®kwJybmWv IrXymbntcJs¸Sp¯nIn«pÅXv” is that “the correct account is not known”.

The net result is that we do not know the correct number of ‘varnams’ or atsharams or lipies. Is that not a pity? We have to stop beating about the bush and come to face facts as they are. Nobody has done it so long because the difficulties encountered while attempting are unfathomable and dangerous. Precision is a habit we need to learn yet.

Our present treatise is for the ever-eluding solutions to be materialized.

Nothing in the treatise has been said simply to satisfy the desire for saying something. It is deep diving, only.

[Every sentence in it must be seriously taken, as if it is a small thesis.]

Authority	Year	Number
slÀa³ KpÀ«v	1851	49
tPmÀPv am¯³	1863	48
dh.]oddv	1841	56
BÀ.cmPcmPhÀ½	1917	53
tijKncn{]`p	1904	53

Comments:

Let us take two people at a time-

tPmÀPv am¯³

Disapproved: 8

48 - 56= -8

dh. ]oddv

56 - 48= +8

The difference is plus or minus 8

tijKncn {]`p

Disapproved: 3

53-56 = -3

dh. ]oddv

56-53 = +3

The difference is plus or minus 3.

Authority	Number	Disapproved
slÀa³ KpÀ«v	49	7
tPmÀPv am¯³	48	8
dh.]oddv	56	0
BÀ.cmPcmPhÀ½	53	3
tijKncn{]`p	53	3

We Malayalees are bound by birth to agree that these ‘five’ most eminent persons form a bench of judges who gave their verdict on one issue; only their timings are different points in history. There was not any agreement among the judges whatsoever. That leaves the situation quite pathetic, for Malayalam and for Malayalees.

If tPmÀPv am¯³ disapproved 8 swarams which dh. ]oddv counted as swarams, there were 8 different instances of disagreement on what a swaram is. With eight points of disagreement, there were sixteen ‘sides’; sixteen acts of disagreement; sixteen minds in two persons. If that is so, what should be the picture like, if there are five persons in the ‘disagreement competition’? That is sufficient to argue/ pass judgment that there is no definition of swaram acceptable to all experts or even to two experts of a most diversified panel of five.

To top it all, we now have the greatest number of disapprovals in this treatise: It is difficult to work it out without getting the ‘largest and smallest’ tables of swarams as well as the largest and smallest tables of vyanams. The sources ought to be different persons.

Here for practical purposes, I presume the largest count [Dr.2] [Dr.2] of swarams is 18 (the table which

I learned before entering school and was taught thereafter-A B C Cu D Du E F G sF H Hm Hu Aw Ax). Out those 18 only 5 (five) are now found to stand all the new tests devised to check swarams.

The smallest list I saw is one with 14. (A B C Cu D Du E F G sF H Hm Hu)

However, the list we now have has only six [6] swarams.

Please see Simplifying Swaratsharams

Page: 3
[Dr.1]K.P.= Kerala Panineeyam, centenary edition, D.C. Books, Kottayam.

Page: 1
[Dr.2]Can also call it ‘font’

2005-09-18T12:55:00.000-07:00

Swarams & upaswarams

2005-09-18T09:10:00.000-07:00

Diphthongs in formation

2005-09-18T08:49:00.000-07:00

Counting Possibility of diphthongs

2005-09-18T08:47:00.000-07:00

Genesis of Diphthongs

2005-09-15T11:40:00.000-07:00

Shortcut Lessons

2005-09-15T11:39:00.000-07:00

New Swarams and New Vyanams

2005-09-15T11:37:00.000-07:00

THe New Swarams

2005-09-15T11:35:00.000-07:00

The New Letters

2005-09-15T11:27:00.000-07:00

Millennium Malayalam
Writing The Quasi Swarams

We did find that there are only six Swarams, whereas there were eighteen Swaratsharams in use. We have to handle the sounds represented by thirteen of the old letters.
The “long” swarams: Repeat the letter
The diphthongs: already explained
Others are written in a consonant and a swaram as are involved in the sound.
Shortcut To The Vyanjanamaala
One need not go through the tedious study of concerned articles before one starts using the vyanjanamaala.
Carefully study the pictures to recognize the new letters. Then move to the transcriptions.
Especially use the “Lessons”

2005-09-14T13:47:00.000-07:00

Eternal Confusion

2005-09-14T13:46:00.000-07:00

New Concept of "varnam"

2005-09-14T13:44:00.000-07:00

Value for Symbols

2005-09-14T13:42:00.001-07:00

Another presentation of the vowel disk

2005-09-14T13:42:00.000-07:00

The Vowel Disk

2005-09-14T13:40:00.000-07:00

The Vowel Wheel or Swarachakram

2005-09-14T13:36:00.000-07:00

The Swaramaala- new and old

2005-08-30T11:50:00.000-07:00

Comments
Let me put in a few more words about S2 (swaram no.2); that would apply to S4, S6, S10 and S13, in exactly the same way. Imagine a boy, Tom, now about three feet tall; in course of time, he grows and attains the height of four feet,.. five feet etc.. During all this growth phase, does he become another person and then yet another person? He is Tom all the way, changes in height (length) or weight notwithstanding. A palm tree ten feet tall does not become another kind/species of tree as it attains twenty feet height.

The summary result, of the exercise carried out in full, is: out of the sixteen items, only five do qualify as swarams. Kindly go to file: “Exercising Swarams” (it is a big file)

The search for swarams does not end here. Some sound, called by a mysterious name ‘samvrutha ukaram’ is subjected to meticulous study. At the end, it is re-presented as the ‘sixth swaram’. Please study the document: “The Sixth Swaram”.
Thus, at last, we have six swarams in all; the Swaramaala is ready. In order to bring an item to a table, it must have its symbol - a letter, here- to represent it. We instantly created a letter, out of sheer necessity.

Next, we shall study the possibilities of ‘simplifying ‘ the vowel letters and ‘straightening the writing style’ according to the law of representation Go to article “Simplifying the Vowel Letters”
You must also; study the articles “The Invisible Swaram” and “the Negative Symbol” (the negative of a letter)

2005-08-29T00:46:00.000-07:00

ATSHARAMAALA
General Knowledge
Speech is the medium of communication, using human voice plus ‘oral sounds’ as the base substance. The base substance is available as simple discrete elements- the speech sounds- called phonemes(swanams in Malayalam)
Humans did not develop, to start with, a science of speech sounds; they simply started speaking. They could isolate and designate these elements only later on, even after having learned to transcribe sound into ‘visible’ symbols.

Of such symbols, those used in any one language, are collected and arranged in some permanent order; and that is the alphabet of that language, as we know. For the purpose of this study, we call the items of an alphabet as letters and hold that these letters represent elements of speech sound. (Though this assumption of course leads us into trouble at some places). In the case of Malayalam, alphabet is named atsharamala; the letters are atsharams, the phonemes vyanjanams (vyanams for short). (This is outbidding some silent debate in the minds of scientists, perhaps.)
Speaking about speech
Some difficulty in speaking about speech is natural. Early men spoke about things- real things, i.e. objects- but perhaps not about ideas. Their sound symbols carried these objects as “meaning”. It is a different case when we speak about speech, since we have to use ‘speech to speech about speech’. Note the error above? ‘The middle speech of the three speeches above’ acted as a verb by my intention; it should have been “to speak”, if the sentence was to be correct English. It is an example of how we re-shape words in order to carry different meanings. (To re-shape we cut a word in two, take one –the first- part as the root form and alter the other, or simply bring an add on to the root) This helps in ascribing different layers of meaning to a word (verbs and nouns), each time ‘disconnecting the word from a previous layer. Long ago in this process, our words lost touch with ‘their’ real meanings/objects, before we of now inherited the words from our ancestors.
Therefore, in speaking about speech we may have to keep track of every change of meaning of all words we use for a current project. This necessitates re-defining meaning of words in and for the current context. If, however, we stick fast to this as a rule we would hardly make progress; so the task of redefining is left to the reader most of the time leaving thereby some amount of difficulty in understanding the intended meaning. Misunderstanding is the inevitable result, just as inexactitude is the inevitable defect where you want to be exact.
Getting into action, we are to examine the atsharamala in detail. The two well recognized sections of the atsharamala are the swarams, and the vyanjanams.
The Swarams.
Swarams are defined as speech sounds, which can be uttered independently of other swarams or vyanjanams (the wording is mine, and may not be as good as a classical definition) .No definition is legally binding. Let us try to understand swarams, not the definition as given to us. No discussion is possible without real time reference to the subject matter- the swarams.
There is a problem in that we do not have names of swarams, which can e rendered in English letters. We overcome this by designating the letters with numbers, thus:
S1 for the first swaram on the Swaramaala (‘a’ in Manglish)
S2 for the second swaram on the Swaramaala (‘aa’ in Manglish)
S3 for the third swaram…
S4 for the fourth swaram…
…
S9 for the ninth swaram, which is sounded like ‘eru’ (as in Peru)
S15 The (swaram) item sounded like ‘am’, or ‘um’ as in sum (also called anuswaaram)
S16 The one sounded like ‘ah’ (also called visargham)

I have had serious doubt whether the definition justifies all the items on the swarams list. We therefore go for some refinements on the definition, taking three unquestionable, indubitable swarams- S1, S3 and S5- for a special study. Designate them as the ‘core group’.
Result:

1.Each of these swarams can be made audible as though they were pure elements. There is no admixture of any extraneous element. Say the sounds have purity
2.They have quantity and measurability they extend in time from a starting point to an endpoint. One average measure is called a ‘mathras’ (a meter of a special variety).
3.They can be prolonged in one utterance- to several mathras, that is. Call this ‘Malleability’ (or some other term)
4.They can climb, up or down, the musical scale (in one breath): Musicality
5.They can expand or shrink in volume: ‘elasticity’
These are intrinsic properties of the swarams of the core group. O. K.?
In addition, we postulate that each swaram must be unique: There shall be no two swarams, which sound ‘similar’. This is a condition warranted by the property (6) uniqueness
Now the rest of the work is to test the remaining items of the table to see if each of them posses all or any of these properties.
The revised definition of swaram would now be: “speech sounds, which can be uttered independently of other swarams or vyanjanams, and possessing the certain properties, namely…”
Item by item:
S1, S3 and S5 have proved that each of them possesses all these properties.
S2. This item is a repetition of S1 (!!), only two mathras long. There is no and unique swaram here, which is distinct from all the other items of the core group. Item no. 2, or S2, therefore, is not a swaram different from S1. Law [Dr.1] requires that S2 be removed from the table.
[Don’t you worry, we shall keep them in the “recycle bin [Dr.2] ” for the real recycling; in the meanwhile we let all copies of it to be in circulation as usual.]
S8. Here we may cut down this sound in three: (i) ‘e’ the ninth swaram (ii) the vyanjanam ‘r’ and (iii) the fifth swaram ‘u’. It therefore does not possess the property no.1. It starts as one swaram passes though a vyanjanam and ends in another swaram (u). Therefore, it cannot be quantified like other swarams. Try to prolong the sound: what gets prolonged is the last part of it namely the swaram ‘u’. Moreover, none of the other properties can be ascribed to this ‘item’. Item eight is therefore not a swaram.
Now for the rest of the exercise, I invite dear friends to try for themselves. The results may seem incredible. Yet inevitable they are. Please invite your near friends, too. (My own findings will be published soon)

[Dr.1]This law will be presented in a later section

[Dr.2]Those letters which we may have to delete do represent some sounds, which must be written. Alternatives we shall work out in due course

2005-07-14T04:29:00.000-07:00

For all Malayalees,
I can see how a malayalee is in great trouble when he/she is on the typewriter or the computer keyboard. The truble was there all along, in 'writing', too. Why? It is the alphabet that is the sourse of all troubles.
I also understand how greatly we treasures our atsharamaala as a beautiful one. Really it is far from that. It is difficult to say in a few words how uncouth our alphabet is. It would be difficult to understand if I tried to say something in that direction. "A problem is fully understood only when it is solved"
So I have worked through several years, trying to solve rather than criticize. "Solution is criticismin full shape. If I undertook to express all my criticism of 'Keralapanineeyam' it would have made a larger volume than the book itself. And who would read it ?
Instead, I tried to reach solutions, and have them. The net result is:
we need to have only 38 letters plus 2 special characters
plus all punctation marks, numerals and arythmetic symbols
to write Malayalam most perfectly.
The letters are as follows

SIX vowels/ swarams
Thirtytwo consonants/vyanjanams

Dr. James Austin