Book Title: Indian Antiquary Vol 62
Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Charles E A W Oldham, S Krishnaswami Aiyangar, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarka
Publisher: Swati Publications
View full book text
________________
52
DRAVIDIC PROBLEMS
[MARCH, 1933
Finally, we may cite here the observations of a recent editor of Toikappiyam : "The nature of is similar to that of jihvámúliya in Sanskrit as in kah-karoti if it precedes a guttural and upadhmânîya as in Sanskrit kaḥ-pathati if it precedes a labial, i.e., its organ of articulation is determined by the succeeding consonant. Air is allowed to pass till the place of articulation of the succeeding consonant is suddenly arrested. Since it is not an open (sic) sound inasmuch as it is invariably preceded by a short vowel, it cannot be classified as a vowel; neither is it a consonant since it cannot be followed by a vowel. In modern times it is pronounced even before c, t, t, p and, as it is done before k. When this mistake (sic) began to creep in, is not easily traceable."
Conflicting in some respects are the views cited above regarding the value and the origin of the aydam. Mr. S. A. Pillay would consider it to be a native sound in Tamil; Vinson is inclined to regard it as an "invention by pedants," and Mr. Sastri (so far as we can see from his comparative references to Sanskrit spirants) is probably also inclined to this view. As to the value of the sound, Caldwell, Vinson and Mr. Pillay recognize its essentially aspirate character (despite the spirantic enunciation given to it today when texts are read), while Mr. Sastri would regard the sound as a spirant varying in value with the immediately following consonant, and would consider the modern velar spirantic value to be a "mistake" which crept in at some time " which is not traceable."
[C] WAS THE AYDAM A PEDANTICAL INVENTION' INSPIRED BY SANSKRIT ?
The arguments of those who would uphold a Sanskritic inspiration for this sound may be summed up thus :-- (1) The term sio and the form of the Tamil letter could be connected with the Sanskrit word g (weapon, trident). Other suggestions in this connection are that the Tamil term may be the adaptation of Sanskrit sa âérita or of आयत ayala.
(2) The shape of the Tamil letter oo is allied to that of the Sanskrit visarga
3
(3) The aydam occurs only in a few words and combinations in old Tamil texts, and
it has not survived anywhere in the colloquial.
(4) Some of the words in which this sound occurs, alternate with forms without this sound; these latter are the common forms and, therefore, the sound itself was invented' for prosodic purposes, probably on the model of the Sanskrit visarga.
(5) Certain resemblances between the aydam on the one hand and the Sanskrit spirantic jihvimúliya and upadhmânîya are very striking.
(6) The postulate that Sanskrit grammatical systems had exercised great influence on ancient Tamil scholars would also tend to support this, generally speaking. Those who argue contra would maintain the following:
(1) The aydam need have nothing to do with Sanskrit sg, as it is a native word signifying minuteness' or 'subtlety,' and this meaning would very appropriately convey the minute value and character of this sound. The semantic confusion with Skt. rgy should have arisen from the mistaken impres sion created by the shape of oo. There is no conceivable reason why the name and form of a trident' or a should originally have been conferred upon this sound.
4 Cf. the observations made on pages 161-3 of vol. XXV of the Tamil journal Qrd Sendamil. An attempt is made in this article to establish a rapprochement between the Tamil term in and either áérita or ayata of Sanskrit.
5 The article in Sendami! (referred to above) suggests that the original shape given to the symbol for dydam might not have been oo, but more allied to, the visarga symbol of Sanskrit.
