[FNote_1]: How to take uritiṉiṉ? uritiṉ as an adverb could claim a parallel with nuṇṇitiṉ in KT 167.6, but how to account for the second -iṉ? Possible parallels for double -iṉ are to be found in AN 149.6 (eḷitiṉiṉ) and AN 220.6 (aritiṉiṉ), but at least in the latter case we might ask whether this is not just a transmissional, or rather, an editor's error, since the mss. read aritaṉiṉ. [note of J.-L.]
[FNote_2]: Or the metaphor works the other way round: "as if fish are seen subjected to the spray of the extension of the sky[-bright] ocean". In any case it is difficult to account for tūvaṟku etiriya.
[FNote_3]: Perhaps here too it is possible to connect the nalaṉ, even easier since there is no dative mark.
[FNote_4]: Or: "of women knowing something cruel".
[FNote_5]: Is nal used here in an ironical sense of "socially acceptable"?
[FNote_6]: alkiṉam probably cannot be taken as a finite verb here, unless we want to read it as an unmarked sentence end.
[FNote_7]: kaṭal pāṭ' aḻi is a bit strange, but we might take it as a parallel expression to AN 50.1, KT 177.1: kaṭal pāṭ' avintu. (That x avi-tal refers to the ceasing of a sound can be made probable by parallels like AN 70.17 (oli avintaṉṟu) and KT 6.1 (col avintu). Another question to be asked in this connection is whether pāṭu is meant to refer to the sound made by the sea in similar contexts (cf. AN 40.2 50.1 260.4 350.5 400.25), in which case we would analyse pāṭu as verbal root "to sing", or whether it rather means the activity of the waves (AN 260.4: tirai pāṭu aviya), in which case it should be an abstract noun "happening", belonging to the root paṭu. [J.-L.'s note?]
[FNote_8]: vāṅki: one of these very open verbs, and no object in sight. Is it that they are dragging the net(s) full of fish across the sand to some sort of song or group noise?
[FNote_9]: What can be the impact of this comparison? And is it given for the fishermen or for the beggars?
[FNote_10]: Thus the traditional rendering which has to take eṉṟaṉir as a muṟṟeccam.
[FNote_11]: Presumably, since we have kuruku in line 3 and nārai in line 14, we are confronted here with 2 varieties of water birds, though we can identify neither of them with any certainty.
[FNote_12]: Since the usual temporal meaning doesn't seem to make sense here, it possible to take piṉṟai in a spatial sense?
[FNote_13]: The first version is the one understood by tradition, but syntactically it is as well (or even better) possible to link this way, and it also would be in accordance with the topoi: that of wishing HIM not to come (which is, however, mostly connected with the dangers of the route or with HER being guarded) and that of the heart surviving his misbehaviour.
[FNote_14]: Supposedly the iṉīyē marks the upper lines as past, inspite of the hab.fut. verb varum which might be read as a "vergegenwärtigendes Präsens".
[FNote_15]: maṇapp' arum kāmam: here one is tempted for once to deviate from the usual syntactical pattern for arum and take this as "desire for union, difficult [to endure]".
[FNote_16]: The verbal root ñemukku seems to be attested just here and in PN 337.22, there (like ñemuṅku mostly) in a context of breasts to be squeezed.
[FNote_17]: ñemukkātīmō teyya: here the marking might be read as for a polite but determined imperative (-ō as particle of politeness and teyya as particle of admonition).
[FNote_18]: Here probably puḷi, literally "sourness", refers to a sauce the girl has cooked (cf. KT 167.4), and the fish is not stirring in the curry, but has been cooked in it.
[FNote_19]: koṭun toḻil mukanta: how to construe here? toḻil is probably not to be taken as a direct object. Actually, once again, infinitive or no, the natural direct object is cēyiṟā. Otherwise we have to read an ellipsis.
[FNote_20]: oḷiyeṉa: rather an adverb than an ideophone?
[FNote_21]: palarum: what to do with this -um? There is a variant without, but this is clearly the lectio facilior.
[FNote_22]: Is it possible to read putuvatu as a postpositioned adverb?
[FNote_23]: According to the TL, the verb kaviṉ is only intransitive. We have to search for parallels.
[FNote_24]: What to make of varikkum is this context? Parallels are necessary.
[FNote_25]: yiṭaiccura is the much less well attested variant, and it is no doubt the lectio facilior, but I for one fail to make sense of yiṭṭucura without semantic brutality.
[FNote_26]: A transitive/causative 11. class of oy-tal (4.), "to go away", is not attested in the TL, but it is well conceivable, and this would certainly be the lectio difficilior.
[FNote_27]: nīṅkuku eṉṟu; or we dissolve the sandhi into nīṅkuka eṉṟu: "how can I say to you "leave!", taking niṉvayiṉ as a locative for the dative.
[FNote_28]: Or: "that didn't make suffer [her of] coming breasts".
[FNote_29]: irump' iṭam paṭutta: here we either have to assume that iṭam is used as a locative suffix (and the locative is used as an intrumental), or that it is a verbal prefix not really altering the meaning of the verb. As such it is attested in the TL to the 4. class paṭu, but not to the causative.
[FNote_30]: arai uṟṟ' amainta: arai as a verbal root is not satisfactory in this position, but the known nouns (meaning "half" or "trunk") do not seem to make sense. However, even if there were an attested noun arai "grinding" it would be difficult to tell what the subsequent auxiliary construction is meant to express: sandal that has been grinded once and for all = completely?
[FNote_31]: Here we have a slightly asyndetic construction with nī vanta, but niṉ peyartal.
[FNote_32]: nārai here probably does not refer to herons, since herons are solitary. Egrets are just one type of wader to be found in larger groups.
[FNote_33]: pāṭunar toṭutta: is this supposed to mean: "who is favourable to bards"?
[FNote_34]: iyakk' avint' irunta: which is the nuance added by iru in this auxiliary construction? Supposed kaṭal is the word of reference, is it that the sea rested for the time being calm, i.e. a past continuous form?
[FNote_35]: Will this do as a rendering for teyya as a particle of admonition or is it too outdated?
[FNote_36]: vaikuṟu viṭiyal: is this supposed to be mīmicai, or is there any significance in this assortment.
[FNote_37]: What is the idea conveyed by ammeṉa as an ideophone? The TL gives the notion of being overfull. Parallels?
[FNote_38]: varuntiya varuttam: usually one of the words for the pains of love, it here seems to refer simply to the gril's physical fatigue after play. What is the rhetorical nuance of employing it here, and even as figura etymologica?
[FNote_39]: I take eyta vantu together with the main sentence predicate moḻintaṉaṉ, i.e. HE is the subject.
[FNote_40]: maṭa nallīr: this is literally "you inexperienced good ones", but while maṭam probably simply refers to age, nal is used to denote social superiority, hence "ladies".
[FNote_41]: The ideophone iḻum-eṉal is meant, according to the TL, to denote a pleasing sound.
[FNote_42]: Here we have two different ways of expressing the same message, depending on whether we want to read peyarku or peyarka. Either SHE tells HIM that she won't stay in the place, or she sends him off.
[FNote_43]: aruntu, the variant read by the mss. (and probably mechanically corrected in the editions), actually is preferrable here, because we get another attribute, not a subordinate clause: vāṉam tīṇṭi makes sense only if connected with paṟai ukappa.
[FNote_44]: puṭṭāḷ: this unexpected sandhi for puṇ tāḷ seems to be formulaic - cf. NA 279.9.
[FNote_45]: neṭu vēḷ: this well-attested formula referring to Murukaṉ might of course simply mean the god's tall growth, but its similarity to another formula neṭu vēl "long spear", suggests that it might be meant as a kind of pun, appropriate for the description of a martial god (whose priest is called vēlaṉ), namely "Murukaṉ with long [spear]".
[FNote_46]: cērntaṉai as the tough form of muṟṟeccam.
[FNote_47]: vāḷ mukam might either directly refer to the sword-character of HER eyes (cf. KT 227.2 for vāḷ mukam as the edge of a wheel), or to her "bright face", but then word order is slightly odd: the look of her face with eyes.
[FNote_48]: Here we can read either pōtupuṟam koṭutta as above (taking koṭu as a word of comparison in analogy to taru), or pōtu puṟaṅkoṭutta, the latter being lexicalised as "to turn one's back as a sign of defeat", meaning here that the eyes are even more beautiful than lily buds.
[FNote_49]: vaṭu tapukkum actually is a fairly strong, but slightly unclear expression, perhaps "to destroy by injury". (Moreover it is certainly active and has muttam as subject, but this had to be changed for the sake of the English word-order.)
[FNote_50]: porutu aḻitta: literally we find a metaphor of war here - the flowers have "beaten [and] destroyed" the odour of fish.
[FNote_51]: talaiya as an adjective is a little awkward here. Perhaps it works as a genitive compound: "trunks of demon-head roughness".
[FNote_52]: eṉṟūḻ viṭara kuṉṟam: this is a strangely nominal expression. We would prefer a verbal form to establish a relation between the sun and the hills instead of an adjective. Like this it might also be "clefted hills [lying under] the sun".
[FNote_53]: How to understand the sequence vilai māṟu? One would expect māṟu vilai "exchange price". [J.-L.'s explanation]
[FNote_54]: nērē: this construction can be analysed in different ways. It might either be read as a nominal sentence with predicate noun in anteposition and exclusive -ē: "salt in white lumps [is] the only similarity to rice". Or it might be read as an imperative: "let salt in white lumps be similar to rice". [J.-L.'s note]
[FNote_55]: cil kōl el vaḷai: kōl is a standard epitheton of bangles (cf. AN 300.6, KT 267.5, KT 356.8, KT 364.3, with vaḷai as well as with toṭi) and its literal meaning (a staff, a stem, a stalk) doesn't make sense in this connection. TVG explains it as "broad"; my suggestions is to take it as a row of banlges, with a possible semantic connection to "stem" in "a stretch of bangles".
[FNote_56]: nōy ākiṉṟē: actually with kaṇ, they eyes, as subject one would expect a plural predicate, but since nōy ākiṉṟē is a formula we might explain this discrepancy as a formulaic conservatism.
[FNote_57]: kāṭṭi is one of these awkward typical AN absolutives. Either we have to read an inserted change of subject (cērppaṉ, but subject of añci must once again be the horses) or we have to take it as a passive.
[FNote_58]: vāvu uṭaimaiyiṉ: here the meaning probably is causal and elliptical; the lash is shown in order to induce the horses to move faster.
[FNote_59]: If cērppaṉ is not supposed to be subject of kāṭṭi, we might see him in a genitive relation to tiṇtēr. (a thoroughly unsatisfactory construction at least over lines 8-15!)
[FNote_60]: S.A. takes kōṭṭu here to refer to the tusk of an elephant, and thus as ivory pawns.
[FNote_61]: val vāy probably refers to the gossiping women. And then iḷaiyar might mean the young men of the village (although they are usualy called ciṟāar, while iḷaiyar is reserved for HIS attendants). In any case olleṉa olikkum refers to their being noisy, but the connotations of this noise are not clear: just noisy? lively? spiteful?...
[FNote_62]: Here tēṉ, being followed by imir "to hum", is used as a metonymy for "bee" (cf. AN 280.13). (I nevertheless do not think that this ought to be lexicalised at this stage.)
[FNote_63]: tuṟaivaṉai is slightly puzzling. Actually, for the sense given above one would rather expect something like avaṉ tuṟaiyai. An alternative way of construing would (in spite of the position before nīyē) take it as acc. and direct object of collal vēṇṭum, but col does not seem to take a direct object, at least not in the KT and NA. The implication is of course nevertheless that the crab ought to talk to the man from the ghat.
[FNote_64]: How to integrate kaḷi ciṟantu? The bees cannot very well be the subject, so it seems best to take it as an inserted cause for their setting off. [J.-L.'s note]
[FNote_65]: vēṭṭam maṭi is a problem, since it cannot be read as an attribute to parappiṉ. Perhaps we have to take it again as an asyndetic absolutive insertion, to be connected with kākkai...kaṉavum. [J.-L.'s note]
[FNote_66]: Here we have the choice (as so often) between 2 unsatisfactory variants. The rarer koḷaṉē might be read as an inserted and elliptical exclamation (see above). The koṉṉē, as usually printed, could be understood as an adverb of the type of vallē, "futilly"(?), only that koṉ so far has been always understood as particle, and as such it is usually proclithic, and preceds the sentence. What can it do here in coordination with -ē? [point out parallels! J.-L.'s note]
[FNote_67]: piṉṉu puṟam tāḻa: this phrase might refer to HER hair being undone while playing. Another way of reading it would be more elliptical: "so [it] hang down on my back [along with my] braids".
[FNote_68]: ataṟkē seems to be a slightly asyndetic (and unusual - why not say ataṉāl here?) insertion meant to link the 2 sentences of the poem by declaring the first to be the reason for the second: HIS behaviour a cause of mirth in the village.
[FNote_69]: tuṟaivaṉoṭu: position is a little disconcerting here, but in any case we probably have to read this -oṭu as mark of the instrumental in causal sense.
[FNote_70]: pariyaṉ is literally he "who has motion", and it might refer to him, coming speedily in the chariot. The index takes it as a word for "horse", but in that case, how to account for the masculine suffix -aṉ? (the -aṉ of peculiarity (mā/māṉ) should not be used as a secondary suffix(?)) TVG has another solution, reading pari as a metonymy for "horse" and thus taking pariyaṉ as "he who has horses". Moreover he takes āynta here in the meaning of "tired" (with reference to Nacc. on Kal. 124 and Kuṟiñincip. 21 [CHECK]), so that the whole phrase would be: "he having come with horses that are tired".
[FNote_71]: iḻumeṉa: this ideophone is supposed to be connected with a (pleasing) sound (cf. AN 110.17). What can be expressed here where there is no obvious relation to sound at all?
[FNote_72]: Thus the traditional interpretation of line 12, which is very elliptical, but seems to have a topological parallel in AN 120.10. I have nothing better to offer.
[FNote_73]: Here we seem to have a totally asyndetic alignment of lines. I suggest to integrate the part dependant on uriyaṉ by taking it as an apposition to ilaṉ.
[FNote_74]: Or, changing the message of the poem, koṭumai can be connected with HIM (who does not marry HER although the secret has come out), perhaps an intended double entendre.
[FNote_75]: Cf. the formulaic parallel in KT 55.
[FNote_76]: peṭkuvam, 1.pl. i.a. supposedly of peḷ (9.), according to the index "to protect", but according to the TL "to desire", and according to DED2 4441 "to ease oneself" (paralleled in other Dravidian languages by "to defecate"). Unfortunately the context is far from clear here.
[FNote_77]: uṭuttu: here the absolutive is very awkward; the construction demands a peyareccam.
[FNote_78]: What is the exact impact of vantaṉai ceṉmō? The traditional reading is something like "you may go [only after] you have come..." But perhaps ceṉmō is to be read as a mere particle of request/invitation/order (like Skt. hanta), and vantaṉai as a vocative.
[FNote_79]: parappa can also be analysed as a vocative of an appellative noun parappaṉ (o you of the extension where shells graze) of parappu, "extension" (occasionally used for the surface of the sea), but are there any parallels?
[FNote_80]: kammeṉa is one of the rarer ideophones, and in NA 154.1 it is explained by T.V.G. to denote silence (the sound of a forest at night.).
[FNote_81]: pūṭṭalum --- what to make of the -um?
[FNote_82]: Again, what is the impact of cērntaṉir celkuvir (p.a. + i.a.)? Is it a hypothetical conditional? Again cel seems rather to denote an intention than a second action.
[FNote_83]: What is the function of -um here? Just SHE and the confidante? The whole family/village? The point might be a warning: if HE stays he will be confronted with all of them, and this in its turn might be understood as an implicit request for marriage, and this would be a good way of accounting for the "heavy" last line. [Or is it we in opposition to you: "as for us, we ..."? In that case one would rather expect yāmē.]
[FNote_84]: kuṟiyiṟai = kuṟiy(a) iṟai seems to be an occasionally attested special sandhi (cf. NA 207.2).
[FNote_85]: uḷi is lexicalised as chisel, but is clearly used as instrument in fishing (cf. KT 304.1, NA 388.3)
[FNote_86]: aritaṉiṉ/aritiṉiṉ: here it would be possible to argue that the former is lectio facilior, but before having seen a ms. actually reading the latter I'd rather suspect that the latter is a mistake copied by successive editors.
[FNote_87]: keṭāa tīyiṉ urukeḻu: S.A. takes this epithet as a reference to the sacrifial fire burning perpetually in Cellūr, but how to understand uru, in that case?
[FNote_88]: varuntiṉai āyiṉ: this might either refer to an action of the past or to a hypothetical situation. The message is in any case that he has hesitated long enough and should take official steps now.
[FNote_89]: cāykāṉattu, literally a "brilliant forest", is, according to the index, the name of a place, which is otherwise not known (cf., however, cāykāṭṭu in NA 63.9, likewise a single reference). In combination with the description of fields and fishing habits of the preceeding lines, however, a place name seems preferable to a forest. [J.-L.'s note]
[FNote_90]: Is this strangely elliptic simile meant to express the constant state of overexcitement on the part of the two hearts involved, comparable to that of a bird caught in a net? Or is this a reference to a well-known story? How otherwise to integrate the description of yet another place, named Ūṇur this time?
[FNote_91]: This different split of cīr, with āyiṉ still in the second metrical unit, is not convincing but revealing: why aḷapeṭai, if eṉaiyatum is supposed to be a single cīr?
[FNote_92]: uṟu kaḻi: does uṟu express here, similar to paṭu at times, that the backwaters are filling with the flood?
[FNote_93]: kaitoḻutu ētti ... ayarum: actually one would expect the mother to be immersed in something (i.e. a construction with a noun as in viruntu ayarum). Can this position be taken by an absolutive or do we have to read an ellipsis?
[FNote_94]: The perfective aspect in amarntaṉai and maṇantaṉai (the latter a muṟṟeccam) show that the whole has to be read as a hypothetical conditional, a mere suggestion. The direct imperative, strengthened by the exhortative particle teyya, doesn't go along too well with this - we would expect a subjunctive.
[FNote_95]: The three infinitives --- varippa, kāṇvara, āṭa --- are a problem here. In any case the subject is unmarked, but it supposedly is the speaker represented in the poem by the pronoun of the 1. pl. (nammoṭu). If, however, the subject is identical to all three of them, then why not the usual absolutives for the first two of them?
[FNote_96]: mayaṅku tirai: The meaning of mayaṅku in such contexts probably is "finely distributed in the air". [Think of a better translation!]
[FNote_97]: aruṅkuraiyaḷ: here we cannot but take -kurai- as an infix whose meaning escapes us; see however notes on KT 132.1, 350.2.
[FNote_98]: Or do we have to understand kalam here rather as a measuring unit?
[FNote_99]: Here makaḷ might actually mean "daughter" for once, since the one to receive the prize certainly is HER father.
[FNote_100]: acaiyiṉaḷ irunta: what is the impact this combination? Even if we understand the former as a muṟṟeccam, why here a perfective aspect? The same relation is to befound in line 10 between the iruppiṉ and 3 1.pl. perfective aspects. In the first case one might ask whether he is expressing a memory --- the way SHE is kept in HIS mind. In the second case we rather seem to have a hypothetical conditional, but then, why not simply use āyiṉ?
[FNote_101]: What is paṭuttaṉam supposed to mean here? Actually, with a causative/transitive verb like this we are in need of a direct object.
[FNote_102]: kaṇ tiraḷ muttam: for a possible parallel to this type of description cf. NA 316.5 (kaṇ akal vicumpiṉ mati eṉa ... nutal).
[FNote_103]: This nāḷ is awkwardly placed, but the idea probably is that the boys went out early in the morning and accidentily caught the male egret, so that his family, having waited for the whole day, begins to feel stavrd when night falls --- just like HER who has been waiting all day for HIM to come/to speak.
[FNote_104]: This is a second way of reading the poem, depending on the interpretation of muṉṉum either as an adverb or as a predicate in the form of a habitual future. The first solution is the traditional one, and it has three problems: firstly, the usual adverb to form subclauses of temporal anteriority is ūṅku, and not muṉ; one would want parallels for such a construction. Secondly, in this interpretation koṇṭa in the last line has to be read as a full-fledged p.a. n.pl., which is possible but rare. Thirdly, the whole looks very similar to a frequent topos, namely the fore-reaction of HER body to the actual events --- which is certainly what the commentators saw here. But it doesn't really make sense to say that HER eyes turned pale before HE started coming to her --- unless the message is different here: she would have suffered in longing for him even before. But this is not a topos. As for the second solution, it poses slight problems with word order, but we can read kaṇ as direct object to muṉṉum in a circular construction. Then the message might be related to two topoi, namely either that HE is still coming to see HER, but his zeal is diminishing, or that he is seeking her presence without actually daring to speak his mind. In the latter case again the idea would be that SHE has begun to suffer before anything has happened, but the admittance of anything like this is one of the things the later tradition wants to get rid of, hence the unequivocal preference of the former reading.
[FNote_105]: māṉṟiṉṟu: here we encounter a morphological problem, since the regular form would be māṉṟaṉṟu (which is the form read by ER and EC, but this is almost certainly a silent emendation). How to account for the iṉ-infix?
[FNote_106]: How to take tāṅkātu? Perhaps also: "without [her] bearing it".
[FNote_107]: = tīm kāy iṉaḷ; the image of HER being like a mashed fruit is not unfamiliar (cf. KT 24). It is, however, possible to dissolve the sandhi in a different way: tīṅku āyiṉaḷ "when she has come to harm", which is quite as plausible.
[FNote_108]: maṟuka ukka: perhaps this refers to the fish too small to be of use and simply thrown aside.
[FNote_109]: Cf. KT 176.2.
[FNote_110]: nīyum - ivaḷum: here we have in either version the problem that we have a clear coordination of ideas, but not of syntax. In the a version we have one indirectly imbedded clause (payiṟṟaliṉ ōrum) and a directly embedded one (uṟṟaṉaḷ ōrum). In the B version we have the coordination of a clause and a main sentence: nīyum payiṟṟaliṉ - ivaḷum uṟṟaṉaḷ.
[FNote_111]: How to render here the suitably admonishing flavour of teyya?
[FNote_112]: In this case all the printed editions seem to have settled on one variant which is not supported by any of the mss. that have so far been used (which does not prove very much). Since this variant poses syntactical difficulties (perhaps we would have to read a short independent nominal sentence: "[to this] the sea [was] a knowing witness"), I have chosen the one variant from G1 which seems to make sense.
[FNote_113]: Both variants seem somehow unsatisfactory.
[FNote_114]: What to make of vāṅku vicai koḷīi? "speed" for vicai seems incontestable, and there are several occurrences of vicai koḷ, which is lexicalised, unsurprisingly, by the TL as "to make haste". The question is whether we are entitled to take koḷīi rather as an aḷapeṭai variant of koṇṭu than as a causative form. If so, it seems best to take timilōṉ as subject and read vāṅku as a verbal root for verbal noun, which calls for a direct object, implicitly either the fish or the boat. [J.-L.'s note?]
[FNote_115]: Or: "from the time you ate the new [beauty] of [her] shoulders".
[FNote_116]: From 330 onwards G2 is no longer extant.
[FNote_117]: Is the point of this description that HE joined with HER in girlish games without confessing his love?
[FNote_118]: nivantu paṭu tōṟṟamoṭṭu ikantu: what is meant by this phrase, and how to connect nivantu and paṭu?
[FNote_119]: These two lines ending in locatives might as well be connected with the vanishing of the chariot.
[FNote_120]: This poem is missing in TT, as well as in G1+2, which, along with the misnumbering neytal as the ninth poem in every decade, makes probable that these 3 belong to the same line of transmission.
[FNote_121]: J.-L.'s rendering: "considering the fact that evening was effecting(?) trouble-in-the-mind".
[FNote_122]: How to account for the -um in nīyum? Do we have to read it as a kind of minimal coordination with the ceppiṉ evaṉō clause? In that case, the eṉa at the end of line 11 would just enumerate 2 reasons for staying, given with the kaḻiyē and the vaḻiyē sentence. And -um would have to be rendered by connecting the ceppiṉ clause with "And".
[FNote_123]: paṇ āyntu: this most probably is meant to refer to the chariot (literally "having selected/examined the preparation"). Is valavaṉ subject of the phrase or is it better to understand it adverbially?
[FNote_124]: All the particle marking in this poem is incomprehensible to me. kaḻiyē, vaḻiyē are decidedly strange, the position of maṉṟa (which does not seem to mark a finite verb and predicate noun, but an indirect object) impossible, ārkunavē, niṉakkē again strange.
[FNote_125]: I do not see any other way of constructing the maṉṟa line, but word order (the position of maṉṟa) and non-marking of the dative do not convey any certainties.
[FNote_126]: ūrkku: here we cannot but read the dative as a locative?
[FNote_127]: Thus J-L.'s proposal for the abs.-uṭaṉ construction. [J.-L.'s note!] Unfortunately this doesn't help with the construction of the rest of the line. What is the relation to māṭṭutaliṉ, a v.n. in the oblique which is mostly used in a causal sense?
[FNote_128]: Or: "who professionally(?) kindled lights..."?
[FNote_129]: Here again a completely unmarked sentence end.
[FNote_130]: Line 16 appears to be formulaic and as such reccurs in Neṭunalvāṭai 51 [CHECK], where it is explained by Nacc. as a particular kind of stone employed for grinding sandal and coming from the North.
[FNote_131]: In this case there seems to be a good reason to deviate from the variant adopted by all the printed editions, which is on the surface clearly the lectio facilior, namely the formulaic uvakāṇ. However, if we take into account the rest of the line we find tōṉṟum, which is hard to make sense of in this context (and which has been ignored by translators and glossed but not explained by commentators). "Look there --- our good little village appears." Why would it appear? And why have not only uva "yonder", but at the end of the penultimate also āṅkaṇ "there"? If we adopt uvavu and accept the meaning "moon", for which there is at least one parallel in PN 3.1, the village might appear in the moonlight (see translation). This can also be defended by pointing out the poetic situation: the request to stay is usually uttered at the end of the day, when HE is about to leave after having spend the day with HER.
[FNote_132]: āṉātē: see next note.
[FNote_133]: āṉṟaṉṟu: this might be analysed as p.a. n.sg. of a root āṉ "to end", to be postulated also to account for the more numerous negative forms of āṉā-. In line 2 we find āṉātē, and there indeed it makes sense to take it as a finite verb, for if we were to take it as usual adverbially, we would be landed with the mere verbal noun taral as the predicate of this sentence. [J.-L.'s note?]
[FNote_134]: vāṉ timil: according to the dictionaries vāṉ as an adjective can also mean "strong" or "great", but since it is actually used in the texts as a frequent attribute especially to the buds of jasmine, I suggest to take it as a colour attribute here too, meaning "sky[-bright" = "white".
[FNote_135]: Is line 3 supposed to be a description of the crabs' legs? In that case we have to take maruppu simply as a kind of protrusion, and it will be best to take pōkiya as an final infinitive here: crabs indeed are moving sideways.
[FNote_136]: oli talai: thus VMS.'s version of this slightly puzzlinbg attribute. A "sprouting head" probably does not make sense.
[FNote_137]: The meaning given in the index ("joined") would go back to aṭai 4. class and should form the pey. aṭainta.
[FNote_138]: How to render here teyya, particle of admonition?
[FNote_139]: Here we probably have a problem of grapheme interpretation. The pukar-il of the edition might be an emendation from pukari as attested by the manuscript (hapax in KT 391.2, possibly a designation for deer, which doesn't make sense here). If it is, it is a bad emendation, since it might be convincing in a motific sense, but it would be definitely strange in the context: shade usually is called "dappled", also in connection with Puṉṉai trees (cf. KT 232.5 variniḻal, NA 3.2 puḷḷiniḻal; in connection with puṉṉai KT 5.2 and 299.3, NA 4.2, 91.1, 101.4, even both in KT 303.6 puṉṉaiyam pukarniḻal). Moreover pukar is not one of the numerous words for flaw which is attested with a negation (typical is the formulaic pukarmukam, said of the elephant). So I suggest another reading, namely pukar iṉ, dappled [and] pleasant shade. In the traditional way of writing this would be the same grapheme as pukar il, just changing the dental of the following nīḻal to an alveolar ṉ (see also NA 91.2 puṉṉai pūtta iṉṉiḻal).
[FNote_140]: kāyal: this word poses a semantic problem. According to TL/DED there is kāyal "lagoon, salt-pan", which doesn't fit the context of a thatched house. Unfortunately in Caṅkam there is only a single parallel (AN 366.5 where it means salt pan), and probably the index with its "dried grass" goes back to an adhoc explanation by the modern commentary.
[FNote_141]: vaḷai vāy, one of the formulaic epitheta, denoting the curved beak of parrots, is strangely out of place here. S.A. understands it as referring to the bends of the garlands here, but that would mean to take vāy as a mere possessive suffix, which it usually is not.
[FNote_142]: vaṇṭal taii: this is likewise a formula (cf. NA 254.1). S.A. takes it as the play which consists in the making of toyhouses of sand, but if vaṇṭal, as G.I. seems to think, denotes just "play" of any kind, it might also refer to the winding of the garlands (it usually occurs in the context of plucking flowers).
[FNote_143]: iḷaiyōr usually means HIS entourage, so there is no immediate reason to take it as an equivalent to āyam, which is what S.A. suggests. (The absolutive taii need not at all be connected with the main verb; there are scores of counter examples.) The gist of the sentence might just be alluding to an encounter between the male and the female party that ends with the sunset.
[FNote_144]: ellum elliṉṟu: and yet another topical formula - cf. KT 179.1f.
[FNote_145]: pakalē, iravē, nīyē, yāṉē: 4 very unusual markings with -ē just in the middle of the subconstruction!
[FNote_146]: The point of this reported conversation seems to be that SHE does not seem to want to return home in the evening, in order to be able to meet HIM alone at night, while the confidante (who is talking) seems to give in, though not without pointing out the consequences.
[FNote_147]: This variant can be explained as a conflation of utir and uku.
[FNote_148]: The variant pāṟṟu certainly has to be read as pāl-tu, an appellative noun n.sg. to pāl "share, fate". pāṟṟam then might be explained as a further appellative noun 1.pl. formed on pāṟṟu "we are those connected with this of good fate" (which would certainly be the lectio difficilior).
[FNote_149]: koṇṭ' uṭaṉ: cf. J.-L-'s note of pāyp' uṭaṉ in AN 340.20.
[FNote_150]: Here the purikka of the olf palmleaf is not even confirmed by the paper ms., but, inspite of the lacunae in the preceding cīr, G1 seems to confirm the reading muḻuvatum against the muḻutumaṉ of the printed editions, disturbing because it seems really hard to make sense of maṉ in such a position.
[FNote_151]: pērvaṉaḷ: this might be analysed as an imperfective aspect f.sg. of pēr, 4. class, "to depart", but how to account for the infix -aṉ-, which usually occurs with the perfective aspect. Parallels?
[FNote_152]: olkuvayiṉ olki: is this meant as a figura etymologica? But what is to be conveyed here?
[FNote_153]: paṭai DED2 3852: "layer" - DED2 3860: "weapon"?.
[FNote_154]: The index wants to see here an, as far as I can see freely invented, vām "gallopping", although the peyareccam of ā "to become" makes perfect sense.
[FNote_155]: What is here the significance of tāṉē?
[FNote_156]: paḻa viṟal: here the construction is slightly awkward, since we don't have a clearly marked subject. S.A. takes it to be ūr. In any case the point seems to be that now HE comes openly, so the secret phase is at its end.
[FNote_157]: Here iṭṭu curattu doesn't make more sense than in 80.2 - above all one would want a peyareccam here -, but unlike there we don't find the expected variant iṭai curattu.