This is an excursively alien terrain for me .Not that i have understood the technical side of the data, and the true potential of the factors you have explained.
As is indicated by Taha Taha garu, it is to be reread.
I specially appreciate you for never shying from using the technical terminology , and for being natural in your flow of syntax. Never succumbing to the lure of translating into imprecise Tatsama terminology.
It is a foregone conclusion that the two works, one by Yelakuchi Balsaraswathi, and the other by Ahobalapandithudu, are sham manuals. Both the authors resorted to faking the existing clauses that were formulated by other law givers. A few of these regulations are preposterous; not figuratively , but literally. The chronology of the mutations described can be attributed only to later periods, but not to the age ascribed to Adharvana and to Nanniya. .Certain established rules, gleaned from Telugu authors, have been manipulated into crisp, epigrammatic theorems by wrapping them in verbose Sanskrit jargon.
Elakuchi Bala Sarswathi makes you believe his work to be a commentary of Andhra BhashaBhushnam, which purportedly to have been a work by Nannaya. The author, whose original name is Yelakuchi Venkata Krishnayya, calls the commentary as Balasaraswateeyam, it is a commentary elaborating the regulations found in an original Sanskrit treatise.
The other treatise is called “Adharvana Karikaavali ” The original, according to the claims by the author by the name , Obulayya, who prefers to call himself as Ahobala Pandithudu, was compiled in Sanskrit by one Adharvanacharya. You have only passing references to this Adhrvana. It is yet to be proven that he really existed in the purported age of early eleventh century. As to the existence of this treatise, called “Adharvana Karikalu” attributed to him, cant not but be factious. With considerable certainty ,the” Adharvana Karikalu” can be said to be non existent. First , a sham treatise is fabricated in Sanskrit ,and attributed to a medieval personality. And the game is to add a commentary .
This cluster of rules, going by the title’Atharvana Karakavali’ has been attributed to the medieval personage Atharbnaa charyulu.. In case of Adhrvanacharulu, it is not plausible even to prove his existence.
Some of the clauses laid down by these two authors cannot be attributed to the grammatical practices of the times of the purported authors of the treatises. In the case of both the works modern research uncovered the blatant subterfuge employed Yelakuchi Balsaraswathi and by Obulayya , who preferred to be called as Ahobalapandithudu.
Each writer lays claims to substantiate the authenticity of the respective sham work. Yet, neither is successful in avoiding anachronistic utterances in the “original “works attributed to the ancients.
To keep patronizing these sham works is tantamount to relegating the grammar culture of a modern language to a substandard beginning.
The history of prosody and that of grammar of Telugu , we wish, to be erected as grand edifices. They cannot afford to have been built on an infirm, wobbly plinth.
ఈ వ్యాసం పట్టిక 2 చదువుతూ ఉంటే ఒక విషయం గుర్తుకి వచ్చింది. విశాఖపట్నం జిల్లాలో, నా చిన్నతనంలో, “పరక మామిడి పళ్లు” అంటే 14 వచ్చేవి. అప్పట్లో లెక్క ఇలా సాగేది: వంద (112), ఏభై (56), పాతిక (28), పరక (14), అరపరక (7). ఇంగ్లడ్ లో “హండ్రెడ్ వెయిట్” అంటే 112 పౌనులు అవడం, విశాఖలో వంద అంటే 112 అవడం కేవలం కాకతాళీయమా? – వేమూరి
ఈమాట పూర్వాపరాలు – నా జ్ఞాపకాలు I గురించి Siddineni Bhava Narayana అభిప్రాయం:
03/23/2016 12:40 pm
Suresh Kolichala garu,
This is an excursively alien terrain for me .Not that i have understood the technical side of the data, and the true potential of the factors you have explained.
As is indicated by Taha Taha garu, it is to be reread.
I specially appreciate you for never shying from using the technical terminology , and for being natural in your flow of syntax. Never succumbing to the lure of translating into imprecise Tatsama terminology.
Warm Regards.
Yours Faithfully,
Siddineni Bhava Narayana
తెలుగు వ్యాకరణాల పరిచయం గురించి Siddineni Bhava Narayana అభిప్రాయం:
03/22/2016 4:01 am
Suresh Kolichala Garu,
It is a foregone conclusion that the two works, one by Yelakuchi Balsaraswathi, and the other by Ahobalapandithudu, are sham manuals. Both the authors resorted to faking the existing clauses that were formulated by other law givers. A few of these regulations are preposterous; not figuratively , but literally. The chronology of the mutations described can be attributed only to later periods, but not to the age ascribed to Adharvana and to Nanniya. .Certain established rules, gleaned from Telugu authors, have been manipulated into crisp, epigrammatic theorems by wrapping them in verbose Sanskrit jargon.
Elakuchi Bala Sarswathi makes you believe his work to be a commentary of Andhra BhashaBhushnam, which purportedly to have been a work by Nannaya. The author, whose original name is Yelakuchi Venkata Krishnayya, calls the commentary as Balasaraswateeyam, it is a commentary elaborating the regulations found in an original Sanskrit treatise.
The other treatise is called “Adharvana Karikaavali ” The original, according to the claims by the author by the name , Obulayya, who prefers to call himself as Ahobala Pandithudu, was compiled in Sanskrit by one Adharvanacharya. You have only passing references to this Adhrvana. It is yet to be proven that he really existed in the purported age of early eleventh century. As to the existence of this treatise, called “Adharvana Karikalu” attributed to him, cant not but be factious. With considerable certainty ,the” Adharvana Karikalu” can be said to be non existent. First , a sham treatise is fabricated in Sanskrit ,and attributed to a medieval personality. And the game is to add a commentary .
This cluster of rules, going by the title’Atharvana Karakavali’ has been attributed to the medieval personage Atharbnaa charyulu.. In case of Adhrvanacharulu, it is not plausible even to prove his existence.
Some of the clauses laid down by these two authors cannot be attributed to the grammatical practices of the times of the purported authors of the treatises. In the case of both the works modern research uncovered the blatant subterfuge employed Yelakuchi Balsaraswathi and by Obulayya , who preferred to be called as Ahobalapandithudu.
Each writer lays claims to substantiate the authenticity of the respective sham work. Yet, neither is successful in avoiding anachronistic utterances in the “original “works attributed to the ancients.
To keep patronizing these sham works is tantamount to relegating the grammar culture of a modern language to a substandard beginning.
The history of prosody and that of grammar of Telugu , we wish, to be erected as grand edifices. They cannot afford to have been built on an infirm, wobbly plinth.
Warm Regards.
Yours Faithfully,
Siddineni Bhava Narayana
ఏం జీవితం! గురించి suresh babu అభిప్రాయం:
03/20/2016 9:17 pm
ఒక వీడుకోలు ఎలా ఉండాలొ హృదయానికి హత్తుకునేలా చెప్పారు.
మనుషులెందుమూలంగా జీవిస్తారు? గురించి read and blog అభిప్రాయం:
03/19/2016 11:57 am
చాలా బాగుంది , ఆలోచింపచేసే కథ
తెలుగు లలిత సంగీతంలో “రజనీ” గంధం గురించి Siddineni Bhava Narayana అభిప్రాయం:
03/16/2016 8:59 am
ఆనందమూర్తి గారా?వేటూరి ఆనందమూర్తి గారా?
బెజవాడ K B N College లో 30 యేళ్ళనాడు మీ ఉపన్యాసం చెవులప్పగించి విన్నాము.
ఈ స్పందన చూస్తే ప్రజ్ఞా, పాండిత్య ప్రాభవాలే కాదు, సౌజన్యం కూడా మీకు వారసత్వంగా సంక్రమించినత్తుంది.
నమస్కారాలతో,
సిద్దినేని భావ నారాయాణ.
రాగలహరి: మోహనం గురించి Siddineni Bhava Narayana అభిప్రాయం:
03/16/2016 7:36 am
“మోహనరూపా గోపాలా..” అన్న పాట చెంచులక్ష్మి సినిమాకోసం స్వరం చేయబడింది……….
ఈ పాట ” కృష్ణ ప్రేమ ” లోనిదనుకుంటాను లక్ష్మన్నగారూ!
ఏం జీవితం! గురించి Suja అభిప్రాయం:
03/13/2016 11:49 am
చంద్ర గారూ, జీవితాన్ని పూర్తిగా చూపించారు – జీవితం అంటే ఏమిటో చాల బాగ వ్రాశారు. శుభాకాంక్షలు.
తెలుగు సినిమా పాట గురించి Siddineni Bhava Narayana అభిప్రాయం:
03/13/2016 4:21 am
ఇలపావులూరి గారూ,
ఈ పాట రాసింది ఆత్రేయ గారనుకుంటాను. శ్రీశ్రీ గారు రాసిన పాట వేరు. అది ‘డాక్టర్ చక్రవర్తి’ కోసం రాసింది.
“మనసున మనసై బ్రదుకున బ్రదుకై
తోడొకరుండిన అదే భాగ్యమూ అదే స్వర్గమూ”
ప్రాచీన తెలుగు కొలమానం గురించి Rao Vemuri అభిప్రాయం:
03/12/2016 5:53 pm
ఈ వ్యాసం పట్టిక 2 చదువుతూ ఉంటే ఒక విషయం గుర్తుకి వచ్చింది. విశాఖపట్నం జిల్లాలో, నా చిన్నతనంలో, “పరక మామిడి పళ్లు” అంటే 14 వచ్చేవి. అప్పట్లో లెక్క ఇలా సాగేది: వంద (112), ఏభై (56), పాతిక (28), పరక (14), అరపరక (7). ఇంగ్లడ్ లో “హండ్రెడ్ వెయిట్” అంటే 112 పౌనులు అవడం, విశాఖలో వంద అంటే 112 అవడం కేవలం కాకతాళీయమా? – వేమూరి
ధీర గురించి శశిధర్ పింగళి అభిప్రాయం:
03/12/2016 6:47 am
కథ, కథనం రెండూ అద్భుతంగా వున్నాయి. పాత్ర సృష్టిలొ రచయిత అంతర్మధనం బాగా కనిపించింది.