Talk:Sangam literature: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:44, 22 October 2006

List of Sangam Literature

Thanks Senthilkumar for adding the more complete list of the literature. However I have removed the mixed cases which are really difficult to read for a non-tamil speaker and added the actual tamil names to them.

Venu62 19:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to create a sub category under Tamil Literature called as sangam tamil literature to collect all Sangam related articles. Any objections ?RaveenS 12:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a very good idea. Would there be any interest in starting a Wikiproject on Sangam literature? There're really a lot of things that could be covered - Classical Tamil language, detailed individual articles on each tinai, briefer writeups on the important turais, expanding the articles on each of the anthologies, Classical Tamil prosody (acai, cir, talai, ati, totai, etc. in the classical period and today, aciriyappa, venpa, kalippa and vancippa), the most important poets... the list could go on. -- Arvind 13:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great. I could contribute towards articles on prosody given that I've done some work (alternate url) in this area. We could get some info from ta:பகுப்பு:யாப்பிலக்கணம் too. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 11:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Actually, should we widen it to include "classical Tamil", which would also include the kizhkanakku and the epics? -- Arvind 14:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super exciting. Count me in. Kingsley2.com 16:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we could have them too though I personally have little knowledge on those subjects. Looks like we can get to somewhere as we have more hands now. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 09:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Tamil now exists. Please feel free to fill in the various sections... -- Arvind 22:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damodaram Pillai

Damodaram Pillai was an earlier pioneer to whom U.V. Swaminatha Iyer owes a debt of gratitude. U.V.S Iyer had written a dirge when Damodaram Pillai died and it is the following song in Tamil, written in Venpaa meter.

தொல்காப் பியமுதலாந் தொன்னூல் களைப்பதிப்பித்(து)
ஒல்காப் புகழ்மேவி யுய்ந்தபண்பின் - அல்காத்
தாமோதரச் செல்வன் சட்டகநீத் திட்டதுன்பை
யாமோ தரமியம்ப வே

In his autobiography called 'En Caritham' (என் சரிதம்)U.V.S Iyer does narrate how Damodaram helped him variously. There were also a few other notable scholars other than these two such as Arumuga Navalar and others. --Aadal 21:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other additions

I've made a few modifications to the write up, including the dates and descriptions. Post 200-300 CE is known as post-Sangam period during wich time such works as Cilappathikaram etc. were written, and after that the Shaivaite Nayanmar's period starts around 500 CE with Karaikkal Ammaiyaar and 700 CE with Appar.--Aadal 21:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aimperum Kaappiyangal

The five epics, AFAIK, are not part of Sangam literature. Are they?

They are not. We can remove them from the infobox. I have been working on the Tamil literature page. May be we can create an infobox there. - Parthi 09:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or should we turn the Sangam Literature Infobox into a Tamil Literature Infobox? Kingsley2.com 16:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do some reading before tagging

I would like to recommed User:Sarvagnya to borrow some books from the local library and do some reading before tagging articles. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 05:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather you save your advice for yourself and do some reading yourself. Commentators of the 10th century(and thereabouts) did NOT classify or 'brand' this body of work as Sangam literature. They collected, collated, consolidated etc., and divided them into mElkaNakku and keeLkaNakku. They didnt classify these works under Sangam literature. In other words, all that the early commentators who consolidated all these bits and pieces of poetry by several poets did, was to classify these works under mElkaNakku and keeLkaNakku.

They didnt say, [(melkaNakku+keeLkaNakku) = Sangam corpus of literature or Sangam literature], ie., there was no classification called 'Sangam literature'.

This above equation was arrived at only in the 20th century, where along with mElk., and keeLk., few other works like Tolk., were also brought under this classification.

And whether AgapporuL talks about the three Sangams and their kings and dynasties or not is besides the point. The author of the AgapporuL was just making a mention of legends and mythology that prevailed in his days. He never claimed that all those accounts were historic facts nor did he have a super-class called Sangam literature of which mElk., and keeLk., were subsets. Sarvagnya 10:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What books have you read which support your statement above. I don't see any citations from you. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 20:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont need to give citations for writing on the talk page. You are the one who has written something on the article page. You should give the citations. What you have given now, does NOT establish that the commentators of the 10-11th centuries classified this corpus of lit., as "Sangam literature". Sarvagnya 20:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And even the Sangam legends were part of the colophons etc., and not part of the poetry themselves that formed part of the mElkaNakku and keeLkaNakku. The poetry themselves didnt talk about any academy or gathering of poets etc.,. Sarvagnya 20:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the article and the citations carefully, instead of trying to abuse me personally, you would see that the article never claimes that the original poets called their poems as part of the Sangam literature. Only the later anthologists of the 7th - 10th century CE classified them as such. The various anthologies of Agananuru, purananuru, etc are ancient, belonging to the earlier date. I can give you any number of citations for this. The existing citation shows that the Sangam legend was prevelant in the 7th century CE. There are a number of commentaries of these early works which were written around the 10th century CE. What I am asking you to prove that your claim above that these anthologies were named as Sangam literature' in the 20th century. Anyone can question anything and offer ridicuous counter suggestions. It doesn't take a lot of intelligence to do it. But to offer believable counter arguments, they need to be supported by valid references. If you don't do that then there is no option but to classify your activities as malicious interference. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 22:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 50: / Line 50: @@
 :::I dont need to give citations for writing on the talk page.  You are the one who has written something on the article page.  You should give the citations.  What you have given now, does NOT establish that the commentators of the 10-11th centuries classified this corpus of lit., as "Sangam literature".  [[User:Sarvagnya|Sarvagnya]] 20:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 ::::And even the Sangam legends were part of the colophons etc., and not part of the poetry themselves that formed part of the mElkaNakku and keeLkaNakku.  The poetry themselves didnt talk about any academy or gathering of poets etc.,.  [[User:Sarvagnya|Sarvagnya]] 20:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
+:::::If you read the article and the citations carefully, instead of trying to abuse me personally, you would see that the article never claimes that the original poets called their poems as part of the Sangam literature. Only the later anthologists of the 7th - 10th century CE classified them as such. The various anthologies of [[Agananuru]], [[purananuru]], etc are ancient, belonging to the earlier date. I can give you any number of citations for this. The existing citation shows that the Sangam legend was prevelant in the 7th century CE. There are a number of commentaries of these early works which were written around the 10th century CE. What I am asking you to prove that your claim above that these anthologies were named as Sangam literature' in the 20th century. Anyone can question anything and offer ridicuous counter suggestions. It doesn't take a lot of intelligence to do it. But to offer believable counter arguments, they need to be supported by valid references. If you don't do that then there is no option but to classify your activities as malicious interference. - [[User:Venu62|Parthi]] <sup><em>[[User_talk:Venu62|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Venu62|contribs]]</em></sup> 22:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)