Re: living being, living (human) being.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bis_mala
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sar
வாழும் உயிர்க்கு
மன்னும் உயிர்க்கு
நிச்சயம் வேறுபாடு உண்டு....
living being என்று இரண்டு இடத்திலும் exact பொருள் தராது...
ஆனால் 'வாழும் மனித உயிர்க்கு' என்ற பொருள் இரண்டு இடத்திலுமே பொருத்தம்
living being ±ýÚ ±ùÅ¢¼ò¾¢ø ¦À¡ÕûÀÎõ; ±íÌ «í¹Éõ ¦À¡ÕûÀ¼¡Ð? ¿£í¸û ¦º¡øŨ¾ô ÒâóЦ¸¡ûÇ ÓÂüº¢ ¦ºö¸¢ý§Èý.
Å¡Øõ ÁÉ¢¾ ¯Â¢÷ ±ýÚ ®Ã¢¼í¸Ç¢Öõ ¦À¡Õû¾Õõ ±ý¸¢È£÷¸û. «ôÀÊ¡ɡø living being ±ýÚ ¦À¡ÕûÜÈôÀð¼ þ¼í¸Ç¢ø, «Ð Å¡Øõ ÁÉ¢¾ ¯Â¢÷¸û ±ýÚ ¦À¡ÕûÀ¼¡¾¡? living being ±ýÀÐ ±í¦¸íÌ Å¢Äí̸¨Çì ÌȢ츢ÈÐ?
"Å¡Øõ/ ÁýÛõ ¯Â¢÷" ±ýÉ¡Áø, ¦ÅÈ¢§¾ ¯Â¢÷ ±ýÚÁðÎõ À¡Ê þ¼í¸Ç¢ø, Å¡Æ¡¾, ÁýÉ¡¾, þÈ󦾡Ƣó¾, «Æ¢óЧÀ¡É ¯Â¢÷¸¨ÇÔõ ¯ûǼì̧Á¡? þó¾ ³Âò¨¾Ôõ §À¡ì¸§ÅñÎÁ¡öì §¸ðÎ즸¡û¸¢§Èý. §ÅÚ ¯ð¦À¡Õû ¯ûǾ¡ ±ýÀ¨¾Ôõ ¦¾Ã¢Å¢Ôí¸û.
¯í¸û ¦¾Ç¢¨Å ¡Ûõ ¦ÀÈ ¯¾Å§ÅñÎõ. ¿ýÈ¢.
All I meant was 'living human being' although not an exactmeaning but a suitable substitute... in those TWO couplets alone...
190. ஏதிலார் குற்றம்போல் தங்குற்றங் காண்கிற்பின்
தீதுண்டோ மன்னும் உயிர்க்கு.
See also Translation :
If each his own, as neighbours' faults would scan,
Could any evil hap to living man?
±ñ¦½ýÀ ²¨É ±Øò¦¾ýÀ þùÅ¢ÃñÎõ
¸ñ¦½ýÀ Å¡Ø Ó¢÷ìÌ.
Quote:
®¾ Ä¢¨ºÀ¼ Å¡ú¾ ÄÐÅøÄ
ྡྷ Á¢ø¨Ä ¯Â¢÷ìÌ.
þò¾¢Èò¾É þýÛõ º¢ÄÅü¨È ¿£í¸û ±ÎòÐ Óý¨Å츧ÅñÎõ.
¯Â¢÷ìÌ, Å¡ØÓ¢÷ìÌ, ÁýÛõ ¯Â¢÷ìÌ, ÁýÛ¢÷ìÌ, --- þÅüÚð §À¡ó¾ §ÅÚÀ¡Î¸û ¡¨Å?
þÅüÚû, Å¡Øõ, ÁýÛõ, Áý ±øÄ¡Óõ «ôÒÈôÀÎò¾¢Å¢ðÎì ÌȨǧ¡¾¢ý, «¾É¡ø Å¢¨Çó¾ ¦À¡Õð§¸Î ¡Ð? «øÄÐ þ¨Å ¬ñÎò ¾ó¾ ¦À¡Õðº¢ÈôÒ Â¡Ð?
all this came up into reasoning behind 'mannum uyirkku' means what?: living man? as it was translated by Rev.
and this was only for that purpose... See also these kurals for further study on மன்னுயிர்...
உங்கள் தேடல் மன்னுயிர் என்ற சொல்லுக்கு கிடைத்த குறள்(கள்) :5 (0.009 நொடிகள்)
1
அறத்துப்பால்
புதல்வரைப் பெறுதல்
68.
தம்மின்தம் மக்கள் அறிவுடைமை மாநிலத்து
மன்னுயிர்க் கெல்லாம் இனிது.
அருளுடைமை
244.
மன்னுயிர் ஓம்பி அருளாள்வார்க்கு இல்லென்ப
தன்னுயிர் அஞ்சும் வினை.
இன்னாசெய்யாமை
318.
தன்னுயிர்ககு ஏன்னாமை தானறிவான் என்கொலோ
மன்னுயிர்க்கு இன்னா செயல்.
பொருட்பால்
சிற்றினஞ்சேராமை
457.
மனநலம் மன்னுயிர்க் காக்கம் இனநலம்
எல்லாப் புகழும் தரும்.
காமத்துப்பால்
படர்மெலிந்திரங்கல்
1168.
மன்னுயிர் எல்லாம் துயிற்றி அளித்திரா
என்னல்லது இல்லை துணை.
in the above kurals we have got scope to find/study about whether all of the above refers to human being or what?
still I need to emphasise here that I am not an expert but a learner...
[/b]
clarifying... of மன்1 and &
Thiru selvi Bismala avargale...
மன்னுயிர் = நிலை பெற்ற உயிர்
மன்னன் = நிலை பெற்றவன்
என்று தாங்கள் கூறியது தானே? இல்லை... அல்லது கூற்றை வாபஸ் வாங்கி மறுக்கிறீர்களா? என்னவென்பது சரியாகப் புரியவில்லையே...
firstly, I thought, let us make this clarification first before getting me involved in understanding of your description regarding discerning of மன்1 and மன்2...
hope you understand better where I am coming from now? Am I mistaken...if then please help...much thanks for patience
Re: manithan, maanthan, mannuyir, mannutal, munnutal
Quote:
Originally Posted by bis_mala
Quote:
Originally Posted by sar
Dear thiruselvi Bismala,
what would be the meaning மன்னுதல்? To mind? (மனம்) To rule? மன்னன்) To Value/estimate/respect? (மானம், மதி)
நான் இதைக் கேட்க நினைத்த பொழுது உங்கள் இடுகையையும் படிக்க நேர்ந்தேன்...
Quote:
மன் > மன்+இது+அன் = மனிதன்.
மன் > மன்+ தன் = மாந்தன். (முதலெழுத்து நீண்டது),
மன் > மன்னுயிர். = உலக மாந்தர். "மன்னுயிர்க் கெல்லாம் இனிது" என்ற வள்ளுவத் தொடர் காண்க
இவை மன்னுதல் தொடர்புடையதைப் போல் 'மன்றம்' என்பதும் இதனுடன் தொடர்புடையது தானே அல்லவா?
ஆனால் இவை எல்லாத்துடன் பொருள் தொடர்பு பற்றி யோசிக்கத் தக்கது...
மன்னுதல் according to dictionary means:
1. To be permanent; to endure; 2. To remain long; to stay; 3. To agree;
4. To persevere; 5.To be steady; 6. To abound; 1. To go near, approach;
2. To pull or tuck up one's clothes, as in crossing a river;
Dear Sar. According to research, this root word "man" (Áý) was derived from mun (Óý) > ÓýÛ¾ø, which means to think. Thus man ( Óý > Áý > ÁÉ¢¾ý ) is a thinking being or entity. This is according the pattern of change ¯>«. In my post which you have cited, I did not refer to this root of man (Áý).
However commentators have interpreted ÁýÛ¢÷ as ¿¢¨Ä¦ÀüÈ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
¯Â¢÷¸û. Thus you may also point to ÁýÛ¾ø as the root. It is also a
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
possible derivation.
-------------------
ÁÉõ ±ýÈ ¦º¡øÖõ ÓýÛ¾ø ±ýÈ ¦º¡øÄ¢ý ¾¢Ã¢À¡¸¢Â Áý ±ýÀ¾¢É¢ýÚõ «¨ÁÂô¦Àüȧ¾.
ÓýÛ¾ø = º¢ó¾¢ò¾ø, ±ñϾø.
Óý > ÓýÛ¾ø (Å¢¨É¡ø).
þ¾ý «Ê Óý ±ýÀ§¾.
Óý > Áý > ÁÉõ.
Óý > ÓÉ¢ > ÓÉ¢Åý. º¢ó¾¢ôÀÅý, (includes meditating which is a form of intense thinking)
ÓÉ¢×+«ý = ÓÉ¢Åý ±ýÀ¡Õõ ¯Ç÷.
ÁýÈõ ±ýÀÐ §ÅÚ.
ÁýÚ > ÁýÚ¾ø. (¬û ) Üξø.
ÁýÚ + «õ = ÁýÈõ.
Á¡ý > Á¡Û¾ø. (´ò¾ø, «Ç×. Á¾¢ôÀ£Î ±É¢ÛÁ¡õ)
Á¡Û(¾ø) > Á¡Éõ.
ÁýÉý = ¿¢¨Ä¦ÀüÈÅÉ¡ö ¬ûÀÅý. The Crown never dies ±ýÈ ¬í¸¢Ä ¯¨Ã¨ÂÔõ §¿¡ì̸. It is said that a mystical aura surrounds the Sovereign.
Thiru Sar,
Please read my message carefully. I said commentators have
interpreted ( differently from me - in other words). These commentators are kuRaL commentators, not etymologists. I cannot stop anyone from interpreting as they did. I do not subscribe to such view. I just cite it in my post as the view of others. The view does not therefore become mine.
I always cite even views opposed to mine if I am aware of such views,
In etymology, we often have to take note of the view of others too. If I feel strongly against the other view (opposed to mine or different from mine) then there may be a case to refute it outright. Most ancient writers and modern writers on literary topics do so. Such approach is good and it permits readers to judge for themselves.
There is therefore nothing to withdraw. I still say that others have said it but it is not my view or the result of my own research or analysis.
I assume you have got it right now.
Re: clarifying... of மன்1 and
Quote:
Originally Posted by sar
Thiru selvi Bismala avargale...
மன்னுயிர் = நிலை பெற்ற உயிர்
மன்னன் = நிலை பெற்றவன்
என்று தாங்கள் கூறியது தானே? இல்லை... அல்லது கூற்றை வாபஸ் வாங்கி மறுக்கிறீர்களா? என்னவென்பது சரியாகப் புரியவில்லையே...
firstly, I thought, let us make this clarification first before getting me involved in understanding of your description regarding discerning of மன்1 and மன்2...
hope you understand better where I am coming from now? Am I mistaken...if then please help...much thanks for patience
Thiru Sar avl,
Please read my post supra. Page 7.
From this point onwards whenever I cite the views of others so indicated, you are to read it as views of others known to me and therefore made known to you by me as a bonus knowledge for you now as a true forum friend (which I am or others are not obliged to, strictly). I always aim to get my readers a balanced view from my posts. . Many authors and writers too do so.
Reporting on the existence of a certain conclusion or view is not to be taken as the writer's own view unless it is expressly so stated. . "Other commentators have said....." These words mean I am not saying or proposing it, merely reporting it. By the words: "Other commentators....et all" I have clearly dissociated myself from the view that followed.. To crown it further, I have given in that post my own preferred view.
Diacritical phrases in the posts such as for example " என்பாரும் உளர்" "It has been variously rendered as...." "Others have stated..." &c draw a clear distinction as to others being at variance with the writer. I will continue to write on such variances where necessary or for clarification.
As you would be reading my posts - I believe regularly from now - it is necessary to make clear how my writings should be read or interpreted. Among other reasons, I have to say that I do not always render a long explanation of each word development instance I write on. Thus the necessity for this post.
I hope it is now clear. thiru Sar.