This article has really improved. A big round of applause to Venu62 for his work!
An interesting, but little-marked, feature of the purananuru is that it does not follow the 7 puraththinais of the Tolkāppiyam, but uses a very different system. Some of the difference is just that a few thinais have different names (e.g. karanthai instead of vetchi) but there are also some substantive difference (relating to kanchi, I think), and there are even some poems belonging to akam thinais. The article ought to discuss these points, I think. I've not volunteered to add these myself because I've broken too many promises already about contributing to various articles, but I'll put it on my list of things to do if no-one else wants to take it up. -- Arvind 15:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I decided to stop making excuses and actually do something. Feel free to improve on my description of the thinais as used in the purananuru. -- Arvind 22:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I have added a few more lines on thurai, etc. I found an excellent online source for the commentary on Purananuru by Dr. U.V. Swaminatha Iyer : http://www.tamilvu.org/library/l1280/html/l1280bod.htm. It is part of the Tamil Virtual University website which has excellent resources for Tamil lit. - Parthi 00:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I think this is a general question for all Tamil literature related pages. Personally I don't use special characters in writing Tamil names such as Choḻan Poravai Kopperunarkiḷḷi for two reasons: it is harder to type :) and it is not search engine or wikilink friendly. I am also not in favour of using mixed cases such as KopperunkiLLi. It makes words harder to read for a non Tamil speaking person.
I think we should come to an agreement on the transliteration standards for the English WP. My suggestion is to not to use any of the special characters, but simply transcribe the names phonetically with normal English characters. I agree that there will be a loss in terms of the confusion regarding how the names are pronounced, but considering that we are writing in English and the fact that when we write English names in Tamil we don't seem to bother about presenting the exact pronunciation. Take for example "Francis Bacon" and "Egypt". They can only be written in Tamil to sound "Piransis Bahkon" and "Yeghipthu". Parthi 03:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree. For pronunciation help, we should add IPA and/or audio files. -- Sundar\talk \contribs 06:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the idea as far as names of people are concerned, but we need to agree on a set of rules. After all, what is "normal". Tholkappiyar? Tholkaappiyar? Tolkapiyar? Tolkappiyar? Tolkaapiyar? You see the problem, I hope. I also think that when it comes to things other than names of people - names of technical terms and literary works - there is a stronger case for using special characters. I'm not for going totally ballistic in their use, but I think there may be something to be said for using them to differentiate long and short vowels and some characters. I'm not too insistent on this, though. -- Arvind 12:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
We do need to arrive at a set of standard notations for this. However since this is the English language encyclopedia, and (hopefully) we want readers from both Tamil and non-Tamil background to read and appreciate Tamil literature, it will be counter-productive IMO to use very technical language in these articles.
As Sundar suggested we can use IPA and actual Tamil characters to document complex pronunciation.
I will try and document my own conventions on transliteration of Tamil I use in my articles. We can all review and contribute to a general guideline. - Parthi 22:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
That would be great. Could you do that on the WikiProject page? A transliteration scheme is one of the things to do listed there, and having it there would make it an easy point to refer people to. I'm not sure if we should use IPA or the ISO 15919 standard - the latter is easier to read than the IPA and is what is generally used in both scholarly and popular literature for transliteration. Well, we can take a call on which is more appropriate later. -- Arvind 12:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I know of that, but if you take a look at the template on this page it will be obvious that we have not been following it at all. Do you think we should go over to it? At the present, it won't be too difficult to go over all articles and rename as necessary, but it will mean that we have "tinai" and "turai" (not "thinai" and "thurai"), "palamoli" (not "pazhamozhi"), "Kampar" (not "Kambar"), and so on, which is why I was a little unsure about whether we should adopt it. Because there is such a wide variation in transliterating, most names won't have primary transliterations. -- Arvind 22:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I think we should. When I started editing I wasn't aware of these conventions and I was just following and building on already existing naming conventions. Also, Tamil literature or linguistics are not my forte. I am grateful for any advise from you and others. We should go over the articles and change the names to comply to these guidelines. It shouldn't be too difficult. - Parthi 22:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree it won't be too hard to do this - we will essentially have to simply run through all the articles in Category:Tamil literature. Shall we wait and see what Sundar's opinion is before getting started? -- Arvind 22:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Sure. I'll be a bit busy today anyway. - Parthi 22:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)