Footnotes to Eva's edition & translation of Kuṟuntokai

[FNote_1] See Tieken 1997, Wilden 1999 and the introduction to the vol. I of the present work.

[FNote_2] That is, Gros 1968 for the Paripāṭal and Hart/Heifetz 1999 for the Puṟanāṉūṟu, both poetic translations, but endowed with some (actually few) philological notes.

[FNote_3] I think, however, this is also a task, and an important task at that, for scholars working with texts as these - to build a bridge for ordinary interested readers of literature which is the only way to allow the texts to be what they are, a great common heritage. And as for English translations, the situation is not that bad. The ones of Ramanujan are unsurpassed and, in a way, unsurpassable, some of them at least unforgettable to any reader sensitive to poetry. (That they have virtually created a new fashion of translating poetry is another thing and can hardly be blamed on them.) As for German translations, there is as good as nihil (a few poems given in recent years by the Cologne internet journal Kolam). I hope to be able to prepare a selection of Kuṟuntokai poems for German readers in the near future.

[FNote_4] This process of emancipation from blind adherence to tradition, by the way, will presumably remain far from complete. Though I had the personal good fortune to be raised by a teacher not interested in tiṇai-s and the like, all our "knowledge" of language and literature has been shaped by what seems to be basically an uncritical inheritance of rather inflexible notions, and in many cases I might have been too biased already to perceive the surface of the wording.

[FNote_5] For a detailed interpretation of a poem along this line of thought see Wilden 1999: 239f. on KT 40.

[FNote_6] This has to some extent already been done by Caminataiyar who gives extremely useful cross-references from all over Caṅkam literature, but not in a systematic way, while in the present volume the whole Kuṟuntokai material is represented.

[FNote_7] A complete rendering of the/a traditional interpretation, however, desirable though it would be, has been beyond the scope of the present work. This might come to pass in the Cologne translation by Ulrike Niklas available on internet though as yet far from completed.

[FNote_8] See chapter II.2 and IV.1.1 of volume I.

[FNote_9] This poem is traditionally supposed to be spoken by the confidante. It stands to reason, however, that it is the original Mangalam verse of the collection. Firstly it deals obviously with a description of god Murukaṉ and his hill, as is typical for the invocatory stanza, secondly the anthology has the odd number of 401 verses. Probably it has been replaced by one of those Mangalams composed by Pāratam Pāṭiya Peruntēvaṉār on all the old anthologies, the KT, the NA, the AN, the PN and the AiN (for an interpretation in this sense see IV.1.4, p. 272f.).

[FNote_10] This is a peculiar sandhi: final -u + initial y- inserts -i-. Further occurrences: (12.1), 32.2, 34.4, 43.1, 75.3, 91.6, 96.2, 110.2, 113.3, 140.4, 169.2, 170.3. (See Zvelebil 1967: 33 epenthetic -i- before y- with loss of final extra-short -u and lengthening of a preceding short vowel.)

[FNote_11] The traditional identification of avuṇar with Skt. asura- is a morphological enigma, and the context doesn't give any hint besides that the avuṇar seem to be enemies of Murukaṉ. The only other occurrence in the early anthologies is PN 174.1 where they are enemies of Māyōṉ.

[FNote_12] Here (like on many occasions) one might ask, why ampu comes as an oblique in -iṉ, but yāṉai stays unchanged, while both of them must be interpreted as attributes to cēey (Murukaṉ). The traditional answer is: for metrical reasons; just ampu, with over-short -u is not a complete metrical foot.

[FNote_13] Tradition understands ceṅ kōl as "straight" and "thick", that is, a deviation from the play on the colour red, though the words stay the same.

[FNote_14] Or perhaps it is only one elephant, because the elephant seems to have preceded the peacock as the animal carrying Murukaṉ.

[FNote_15] The formulaic kaḻal-toṭi is one of those cases where Cam.'s gloss (uḻala iṭṭa "swinging") deviates from the obvious. Otherwise (cf. KT 7.1) kaḻal is used for the anklets of (warlike) men. Presumably he bases himself on the gloss of the formula to be found 2 times in the old commentary on PN: kaḻala iṭuppaṭṭa vīravaḷai (PN 31.2, 128.5).

[FNote_16] añciṉai: here Cam. understands, instead of the common adjective am "pretty", akam ciṉai which he glosses with uḷḷiṭattē ciṉai "inner wings", a fine example for the at times surprising deviations from the expected on the part of the tradition. Such a question might be impossible to decide even if there were an ancient commentary; anyway there would be ambiguity. Though here it seems possible to argue that with this deviating interpretation nothing is won for the content of the poem.

[FNote_17] koṅkutēr: T.V.G. explanation is "to examine [the smells of] pollen" which is much nicer in the given context, because it would relate this otherwise merely adorning attribute to the theme of the poem.

[FNote_18] This line is really hard in several respects. Neither semantics nor syntax are in any way clear. The alternative, i.e. to take payiliyatu as an adverb to be construed together with moḻimō (proposal of Tieken unpublished??) is difficult because of its position after the sentence-final predicate. The traditional solution, on the other hand is semantically weakly founded and thematically more than improbable. It sees two attributes, one the comparison of woman and peacock where the tertio is supposed to be beauty ("beautiful as a peacock"), the other an Indo-Aryan reinterpretation of the translation given above: "[full] of intimacy that has been united for seven births".

[FNote_19] uyarntaṉṟu: 3.sg.n.p.a.: "has risen" = "is high"? Of the three predicates in anteposition this is the only one not marked with -ē as is to be expected. T.V.G. explains this by metrical reasons: uyarntaṉṟē would exceed the boundaries of one metrical foot. In this case, why not uyarntatē?

[FNote_20] The meaning of ār aḷav' iṉṟē is difficult. It seems to be a conflation of two comparisons, that is, on the one hand ār aḷavu "difficult to measure" and on the other hand aḷav'iṉṟu "without measure". The traditional attitude is here to take the iṉṟu not as a negation but as oblique in -iṉ plus suffix -tu for n.sg. (for which it would be nice to have parallels). This, then ("more difficult to measure than water"), could also be taken to aim at the floating character of water, its instability. But in the given context it seems better to understand with Cam. a comparison to the unmeasurable seas.

[FNote_21] tīyppu: the index gives 'the act of scorching'. Better might be an absolutive to tīy-ttal "burn"?

[FNote_22] ākutal: the function of the verbal noun here is a pointed "that" (cf. 195.7, 360.2, 386.6).

[FNote_23] Literally: "in having endured tears like burnt the lids."

[FNote_24] am "pretty" too often occurs in places where it is impossible to find a semantic relevance. It might rather be explained as a suffix used for the derivation of adjectives, and quite often a transitional moment "x is pretty by y" seems observable. Examples: 5.4 (mellam pulampaṉ - one lexem in TL), 9.7, 125.7 (taṇṇan tuṟaivaṉ), 16.5, 67.5 (kaḷḷiyaṅ kāṭu), 17.2 (erukkaṇ kaṇṇi), 34.4 (yāṉaiyaṅ kuruku, kāṉalam perun tōṭu), 124.2 (ōmaiyam peruṅ kāṭu), 127.3 (kaḻaṉiyam paṭappai), 145.2 (kāṉalañ cērppaṉ), 154.5 (kāyaṅ kavaṭṭu), 163.3 (kāṉalam perun tuṟai), 177.3 (maṉṟavam peṉṉai), 183.1 (koṉṟaiyam pacu vī), 197.3 (ūtaiyaṅ kuḷir).

[FNote_25] pulampaṉ is one of the usual words denoting the man in Akam poetry, but here the semantical affiliation is unclear, except for the association with the seaside. An etymological connection can be seen: pulampu is "loneliness", i.e. pulampaṉ is the one connected with loneliness in any way, be it that he himself is lonely, that he makes lonely or even that he comes from a lonely country (T.V.G. affirms that he stems from a country where one goes to be lonely). Here, however, it is difficult to provide an adequate translation, because the etymological translation is devoid of the Tamil terminological association. Another alternative is considered in DEDR 4303 pulam "arable land", in which case a pulampaṉ would be a "man form the fields".

[FNote_26] T.V.G. in this context explains the attribute tīm to the water as meaning "useful", because the water of the ocean is not sweet but salty, though I'm not sure what might be useful about ocean water. I think it is rather used in a derived sense of "pleasant", perhaps because it is cool, in one line of association with the shade.

[FNote_27] The traditional connection arumpum with puṉṉai as a subject is, of course, in accord with the usual syntax of -um-participles, but more appealing is the image of the waters that bring forth buds.

[FNote_28] naḷḷeṉṟaṉṟu is ambiguous; either (see above) naḷ eṉṟ' aṉṟu = two times n.sg. and negated ("... does not say 'middle'") or n.sg. positive with expletive infix -aṉ- ("... said 'middle'"). The figure of speech gives rise to the consideration whether naḷ might be an onomatopoeic, but a noun with the meaning "middle" (or as an adjective meaning "dense") and always employed in this particular combination, namely together with eṉ and meant to describe the night (one time also the evening) is possible as well. (Further occurrences: KT 107.3, 118.2, 160.4, 163.5, 244.1, 261.4, 312.4).

[FNote_29] Or, because the form is ambiguous, due to the absence of a clarifying particle, a subordinate participle tuñcum: "as the whole wide world is sleeping ...".

[FNote_30] Here a priority of the variants is not easy to establish. mēlaṉa could be explained as a secondary parallel formation to kālaṉa; the short n.pl. mēla against that is the lectio difficilior, though on the other hand only mēla is combined with the sentence-connecting -um. Good sense as well makes mēvuna, participle to mēvu, that is, "anklets put on the tender foot".

[FNote_31] kālaṉa: here one pointed example for a denominative usage of the appellative noun, just as mēlavum in line 2 (i.e. literally: "anklets are on the legs of the man with the bow").

[FNote_32] cilampu is explained by poetics as a kind of anklets with little bells an unmarried woman wears and which are removed by her elders on the day she marries (see Zvelebil 1986: 54f.). This is viewed as a hint that the poem describes a case of elopement.

[FNote_33] aḷi, the noun base of a frequent appellative noun taking different pronominal suffixes, is one of the difficult words in need of a word analysis. According to the dictionaries, it covers elements as different as "pity" and "love". While the meaning specific for the Akam context is certainly something like "pitiable", the case is to be found quite often where a meaning "loving" produces at least interesting undertones or, as here, even a second possible reading of the whole poem.

[FNote_34] For muṉṉu a homonym root of the 5. class with the meaning "consider" is to be found, but aḻuvam "road" is not attested in the dictionaries.

[FNote_35] Is māttu to be read as an oblique of mā (also in 278.1)? The variants show some degree of uncertainty. While māattu can only be interpreted as a metrical lengthening of māttu, marattu, the normal oblique of maram "tree" might be a "correction" which, however, has the disadvantage that it is no longer possible to recognize the fruit in question.

[FNote_36] Since the designation of the man in line 2, ūraṉ, is not endowed with the honorific suffix -r (ūrar), the pl. of tam-m-il "their house" ought to be taken literally, that is, presumably, HIS and HER house, or the house of the family.

[FNote_37] The translation "mirror image" for āṭip pāvai would presuppose the existence of mirrors big enough to see ones whole body in, rather unlikely for a bronze mirror as might have been current in Caṅkam times (a is pointed out by Dub.). So one might rather think of a kind of doll - a marionette?

[FNote_38] Here the variant offers an alternative relevant for the content. Instead of the contrastive nam-um ("also, even of us") there is the neutral locative nam-uḷ ("among us"), while the verb āṭutum is 1.pl., which means a change of perspective from the one looked at to those who are looking: the speaker/s (friend/s) want to spare HER embarrassment: "ashamed among us we play hiding the faithlessness of the man from the cool ghat ...".

[FNote_39] tamiya, n.pl., has to be taken as an indication of number for the comparison. The variant tamiyaḷ looks like a bad correction, namely as an adaption to the feminine cāyiṉaḷ, but since the elements of the flower comparison are to found in front as well as behind it seems more appropriate to coordinate tamiya with pū. T.V.G. sees tamiya as an adjective derivation (here in an adverbial function. Cf. KT 62.4 naṟiya, 77.5 aṟiya.

[FNote_40] yāy "mother" in this connection is interpreted by T.V.G. as the person who feels responsibility for the integrity and honour of her house and who accordingly wishes to keep secret HIS escapades - an appealing sense for a rather enigmatic phrase. Though taking it literally should also be considered: since SHE has become mother, HE has an even transcultural reason for going astray.

[FNote_41] maṭai māṇ is explained by T.V.G. as "tight clasp", but that is, as far as the context is concerned, not much better and it should rather have the sequence māṇ maṭai.

[FNote_42] āṭum: the choice of habitual future should emphasise the durative character; one is tempted to translate "she usually plays over".

[FNote_43] T.V.G. sees iṉam mīṉ as "varieties of fish". This might be an explanation for the unusual positioning (contrary to mīṉ iṉam "fish swarm", i.e. many of one sort).

[FNote_44] paṟīiyar, inf. to paṟi "escape" seems to be lectio difficilior, but can also be understood: "so that the fresh pollen is set free".

[FNote_45] T.V.G.'s interpretation of the image is that, as the pollen settling on the bodys of the ploughmen gives notice of what they have been doing, on HIM unmistakable indications of his nightly roaming about can be found.

[FNote_46] varum: here again the choice of the form in -um to mark the habitual character.

[FNote_47] Thus Cam., i.e. a sentence without final particle, the postpositioned part of which is also subject to the next sentence. The exact meanig, by the way, of viḻavu mutal āṭṭi is unclear. It might either be understood as: now that SHE has born HIM a child there would be reason for feasting (instead of which he is unfaithful), or as: in earlier times when she was in the bloom of youth she has been the cause of festivals, now she is mother.

[FNote_48] Thus the traditional interpretation on the lines of the kiḷavi.

[FNote_49] In KT 365.1 we find the identical first line with the opposite variant, that is, nāḷum in the text, nāṭorum as a variant. What might have been Cam.'s criteria for the decision?

[FNote_50] kaliḻ/kaluḻ should have the same meaning, but the -am of the variant is strange. Adjectival force can be excluded with a participle in -um, so it has to be taken as an attribute to kaṇṇoṭu ("with pretty eyes").

[FNote_51] uyaṅkuvam, 1.pl.i.a. to uyaṅku "suffer" seems to be equally possible at a first glance as uykuvam, though semantically less terse. Nevertheless the question should be asked whether it couldn't be read as a gloss to uykuvam, which in a first sense means "live". The second meaning "escape" (also understood by Cam.) is actualised here only by context (i.e. the āṅkē which can, by position, establish double relation and the vaḻipaṭal cūḻnticiṉ).

[FNote_52] vāḻiya neñcē is attested as a formula in 19.3 and 199.2.

[FNote_53] As to vaḻipaṭal as well as vaḻiviṭal the question is in how far the compound is already understood as a lexeme. In any case the peculiarity of the latter is that it implies a (moral) assessment of what is happening: "Consider deviating from the (real?) path for his land!", that is, an action contrary to the common codex of behaviour prescribed for women.

[FNote_54] The end of the poem seems in any case somewhat unsatisfactory, though naṭpē is obviously the lectio facilior. "Consider setting out for his friendship" is a little strange with regard to semantics, but "for his land" is even more strange in the given context where we find explicitly stated that he is not there (he is tēettar, not nāṭar). Identical lines are to be found in AN 127.17f.

[FNote_55] koṭ' īr...vaḷai are, according to T.V.G. and Cam. (who relies on Nacciṉārkkiṉiyar and gives parallels from the Kalittokai), bangles that have been cut as pieces from big conches. But as īr may also mean "smoothness" or "moistness", an image might be intended here as well, that is, bangles shining smooth or moist like conches.

[FNote_56] ila, participial noun n.pl., must be read as an antepositioned apposition to kaṇ.

[FNote_57] uraitalum: here the -um should have a diminutive function.

[FNote_58] uykuvam: for the euphonic infix -ku- with the "Nicht-Praeteritum" see Lehmann 1994: 97f. (further references: 26.5 poykkuvatu, 189.7 uvakkuvam, 191.7 eṉkuvem.) For a discussion see chapter on syntax, p. 54?.

[FNote_59] muṉaiyatu: muṉai front + -atu to be taken as an adverb? Or as a predicate noun to nāṭṭu in the following line? Would that be admissible? Srin. reads with Cam. "beyond"(?) T.V.G. understands an adverb "in front of".

[FNote_60] tēettar: the appellative noun to tēm (> deśa- country) of the obl. tēttu, seems to function, in contradistinction to nāṭaṉ which is completely nominalised, as a predicate noun, that is, as a denominative: "he abides in a country". (Srin. proposes: peyar "greatness" + tēy-ttal "destroy": "though [the people there] have destroyed the greatness of the language".

[FNote_61] T.V.G. takes the unequivocal form cūḻnticiṉ to be a 1. sg. Because unlike in other cases the explication yāṉ "I" is missing and the context gives reason to expect another imperative directed to the heart, the supposition lies close at hand that there are reasons of content for such a decision: poetics don't allow for HER actually setting out for HIS place - she only may think of it.

[FNote_62] The formulation moḻi peyar is just too short to be understood on its own. moḻi vēṟupaṭṭa (nāṭṭil) is Cam.'s gloss. For Srin.'s alternative see note 60?

[FNote_63] muṉātu: here to be understood as an adverb? And to be connected with what? (Cf. KT 34.4) T.V.G. understands a deictic pronoun from the perspective of the speaker.

[FNote_64] ulaik kaṉal aṉṉa is lectio difficilior from a morphological point of view and preferable as to content. While the smoother ulaik kal aṉṉa compares a noun to a noun (the "smithy's stone" whatever that might be with the pāṟai "rock"), without making clear the tertium comparationis and consequently the significance of the comparison, the variant gives a verbal root kaṉal "glow" (the noun kaṉal "fire" is attested significantly later, according to the TL). Apart from the morphological harshness that would result in a comparison "rock (as hot) as the glowing of a smithy" - a statement well reconcilable with the motif of shadeless summer heat in the desert.

[FNote_65] tēr is lectio difficilior in so far as avar ceṉṟa vāṟē is a well-known formula, though avar tēr vāṟē "the way of his chariot" is equally good from the point of view of content.

[FNote_66] eṟumpi has to be understood as a rare deviation (here and AN 377.3) from the common erumpu "ant".

[FNote_67] Many of the numerous nominal derivations ending in -a can be explained neither by a suffix of genitive plural (Lehmann 1994: 47), nor as verbal nouns in neuter plural (Rajam 1993 et.al.). Much more likely, however, is a suffix forming adjectives (as has already been suggested by Srinivasan 1977: 205. References: 12.1, 193.2 (cuṉaiya), 25.3 (kāla), 89.1 (urala), 92.3 (marāatta), 110.2,3 (nīra, putala), 114.4 (vayiṟṟa), 138.3 (ilaiya), 144.1 (kaṭala, kaḻiya), 148.2 (vāya), 183.1 (nāṭṭa), 186.2 (puṉatta), 197.2 (karuviya), 198.2 (mutala).

[FNote_68] Here koḷ is employed as an embedding verb instead of eṉ, concluding a sentence of direct speech in which the predicate noun is marked by the restrictive particle maṟṟu.

[FNote_69] kaḻaṟu is a slightly problematic lexical item. According to DEDR 1354 it is nothing but "to thunder", but its use in the KT shows quite clearly that it is meant as a kind of incessant talking - which is in one case (KT 158.2) metaphorically transferred to thunder.

[FNote_70] The formulation notumal kaḻaṟum is not unequivocal and seems to have created problems, if the variants are considered. Firstly it is possible to understand "... talks this ... village about indifferent things" (i.e. things nothing to do with HIM). This interpretation is called for with the variant notumaṟ kaluḻum "... is this ... village sad about indifferent things". More difficult is the other variant, notumalar kaḻuṟum. This might be read either as an exclamation: "this ... village, where strangers are talking", that is, people strange to HER and her sorrow. It might also be understood as an allusion to the topos of the threatening marriage with strangers: "... talks this ... village about strangers" (as possible candidates for marrying HER).

[FNote_71] The variant keḻīiya, part. to keḻuvu "be full" ("elephants with dust all over"), seems in this context to be the lectio difficilior, because in line 2 the stones compared to the elephants are said to be immersed in rain.

[FNote_72] Here two variants are to be found the first of which, a part. to ār + oblique of the personal pronoun 1.pl., has to be regarded as lectio difficilior. It would be possible to construe one continuous sentence: "he gave pain ... to our eyes lovely as water-lilies which have become full of pallor". But the latter, 1.pl. i.a. to akal "leave", seems to be without sense ("we left the pallor of eyes lovely as water-lily"), that is, under the condition that akal is has to be understood in its usual sense.

[FNote_73] paital is not without problems regarded semantically; it should be a kind of nominal derivation of pai "become green/pale" (though not the verbal noun of the 11{X}th{/X} class = paittal). The TL gives, among others, the meanings "affliction" and "cold". The former might be derived from the second connotation of "become green", i.e. not the fresh sprouting of plants, but bodily decline. The latter, seemingly the only one to make sense here, is harder to justify, though the DEDR includes it under the same lemma 3821.

[FNote_74] What is achieved by oru here, is wholly unclear to me; in any case its relation to paital is formulaic - see 180.4 - where it is equally unclear. Could it mean "at the single cool spot"?

[FNote_75] Thus, against the usual syntax of participles in -um connected with nāṭaṉ (though possible, of course), the interpretation of Cam. and T.V.G., justified by the latter with an understanding of the image: the "elephant-stone" served to protect the lovers, because no one will want to rouse a sleeping elephant.

[FNote_76] vārntu, abs. to vār, is explained by T.V.G. as "standing in a row" which might be one way of interpreting the TL entry "to be in order".

[FNote_77] A problem here is peṟṟ'āṅku. The usual form of absolutive + āṅku as a particle of comparison doesn't fit. Cam. glosses peṟṟapiṉpu "after having obtained", and this seems to be the only thing that makes sense.

[FNote_78] yām, that is, the exclusive "we", will hardly be employed by chance here.

[FNote_79] The amma, ignored by Cam., in my opinion adds to til, the particle of wishing, in peṟukatil the nuance of an irreal wish (see chapter on syntax, p. 111?). An air of hopelessness is also backed up by the kiḷavi which shows HIM on the verge of making use of the very last means, the mounting of the Palmyra horse.

[FNote_80] kūṟa: the infinitive must be read as a conditional.

[FNote_81] If, as seems to be demanded by the particles, the two optative sentences have to be understood as irrealis, the same, of course, has to be valid for the last sentence. Now the verb is simply i.a., but how to express an irrealis in the indicative mode? Alternatively the sentence might be understood as an image of HIS fantasy in the indicative. The traditional interpretation of the poem is, of course, directed by the kiḷavi and views the fulfilment of HIS wish in the near future, enforced by mounting he Palmyra horse - which isn't mentioned at all by the text itself.

[FNote_82] toṉ mutu - "old old": is this supposed to mean "age-old"? Or "venerable"?

[FNote_83] potiyil literally is a "public house", but what is meant here is clearly a banyan tree (in the middle of the village?) as a place for public meeting. The same ambiguity between building and an area with boundaries is, according to T.V.G., also to be found with maṉṟam "village common".

[FNote_84] vāy ākiṉṟu: T.V.G. reads present/future "will become perfect". To ways of analysing seem possible, namely either āku-iṉ-tu (extended root + infix of the p.a. + n.sg.) or ā-kiṟ-tu (short root + present-tense infix + n.sg.). As ākiṉṟu is the only form (however attested several times) with the infix -iṉ- - otherwise the infix of the p.a. is -iy- - the question is not to be resolved on morphological grounds, but since the present tense is not yet in existence, this form would have to be declared to be an archaic predecessor.

[FNote_85] This is the first of quite a few hypermetrical lines (KT 16.4, 18.4, 23.4, 34.4, 43.3, 81.1, 93.3, 107.6, 113.5, 124.1, 216.1,3, 222.6, 255.3, 266.3, 292.7, 309.7, 372.1), called kūṉ "hump" by tradition, especially frequently a fourth foot to the penultimate line which usually comprises only three feet, but also in different places. In those different places the "hump" is in Cam.'s edition mostly separated from the rest of the line by a comma and thus to be read as a kind of prelude (it needn't even be a complete foot). Now what is noticeable - these "humps" are frequently explicative in character (many consist in pronouns suited to clarify clause relations and moreover marked by -ē), so that it seems justified to reflect whether they should be evaluated as glosses that have at some time made their way into the text. In what follows the "hump" will be, where ever possible, printed in a line of its own (as has already been done by Shanmukam Pillai 1994), while a possibly explicative status will be pointed out in a note. Basis of the translation, however, will be Cam.'s edition, even with seemingly obvious cases. Here, for example, the tāṉ tuṉai might be considered as a clarifying insertion; the motif of calling the mate would be understood also without object (as in fact happens several times as in KT 79.4 and 151.3).

[FNote_86] uḷḷar - iṟantōr: while in the root uḷ "remember" the second root uḷ "be" reverberates (different flexion) and evokes a sub-tone of anxiety whether he is still alive after all, in the root iṟa "traverse" there also is a connotation of traversing in the sense of dying (cf. iṟanta in KT 297.3).

[FNote_87] Evoking: having gone beyond the desert, that is, having come to death there.

[FNote_88] The exact syntax and meaning of ukir nuti puraṭṭum ōcai is unclear, and unfortunately this is the only occurrence of this verb in the Eṭṭuttokai.

[FNote_89] Thus a literal translation of poṉpuṉai. Cam. glosses here irumpiṉāṟ ceyyapaṭṭa "made of iron" - which is quite unlikely as arrows will have to fly and iron is too heavy. But perhaps what should be thought of is "armed with metal", for instance the tip of the arrow.

[FNote_90] piṟitum ākupa is a combination of a pronoun in n.sg. as a subject with a 3.pl. for predicate: this is unusual, but it might be explained as a literary freedom for the sake of the parallelism of the 4 lines.

[FNote_91] So that means, they will make themselves a public nuisance - KT 32 in this connection talks about paḻi "disgrace". If so, it means taking paṭupa already as a marker of the passive. There are a few passages in the KT where this seems possible (cf. 194.1, 288.5).

[FNote_92] So Cam.'s alternative interpretation; for the traditional last escape is jumping off a mountain. (Where this is clearly attested for the first time I don't know.) A similar suggestive formulation with piṟitu is to be found in KT 69.1, 302.9.

[FNote_93] Again a hypermetrical penultimate line. Here the suspicion lies at hand that the pronoun ivaḷ is a clarifying insertion. If this is set aside it would be possible to scan the rest of the line differently which would result in three normal metrical feet: ciṟukōṭṭup perumpaḻan tūṅkiyāṅ / kuyirtavac.

[FNote_94] kōḷ: Cam. glosses paḻakulai "bunch of fruit"; cf. KT 198.4, 257.3.

[FNote_95] aṟinticiṉōr: this is one of the cases where it is impossible to understand a preterite. Now what is the function of aspects with participial nouns?

[FNote_96] The -ō in this place is very odd and certainly not to be understood as an interrogative particle. For this and other problematic instances see chapter on syntax, p. 95?.

[FNote_97] Strange is here the wording cevviyai y-ākumati, literally "please become the season". Dub. considers the possibility of taken it literally and understand it as a metaphor: "please become the (rainy) season", i.e. the time where HE usually comes back which would mean here the time to marry HER.

[FNote_98] The meaning of this question is unclear. Cam. glosses atu with annilaiyai "that state", so it might be: "who has understood that condition (SHE is in)?" Another possibility might be: "who knows (what will/can happen)?"

[FNote_99] pal in this connection is explained by T.V.G. as a hint to the five ways of doing the hair on one head as described by Nacc. in his commentary to Cīvak. 2437.

[FNote_100] How to understand the syntax of pirivōr uravōr? Cf. KT 22.2 piri kiṟpavaṟ.

[FNote_101] āka: the "correct" optative of ā would be ākuka (cf. KT 91.4,8, 137.4). Tradition, however, reads ā-ka, optative, nevertheless: is this possible? Moreover - is āku here terse in the sense of a change in condition (= "become) or is it simply used predicative ("may ... be")?

[FNote_102] The point here is, as Dub. puts it, a sarcastic play on the connotations of uravōr. Strength is, of course, a social virtue, especially in men. But in this context it also implies cruelty which is not a virtue. Her promise of acquiring maṭam then is a sarcastic consent not to perceive the double connotation.

[FNote_103] yāṉō: for an attempt to explain this special usage of -ō as a particle demarcating a topic ("as for me, I don't believe it") see chapter on syntax p. 93f.?.

[FNote_104] Whether the 1{X}st{/X} line also belongs to the comparison, that is, whether it is the women who wear not only golden ornaments but also flowers in their hair, or whether the line deals exclusively with the Laburnum flowers, is not to be decided on the syntactic plain. The motif of bees visiting the hair of women is in any case also attested.

[FNote_105] valam is glossed by Cam. with valamāka curitta = "wound to the right"? This doesn't make things any clearer.

[FNote_106] The oblique marāattu as a metrical lengthening of maram (instances in Lehmann 1994) or as a specific tree called marām, whatever that may be (the usual translation with "common Cadamba" is misleading as, according to the Sanskrit Dictionaries, there is no clear identification, but at least four different trees called Cadamba). In the latter case the attribute valañcuru might refer to a specific feature of that tree.

[FNote_107] tēm ūr ... nutal: this is the only instance in the KT where tradition takes ūr not as "village", but as a verbal root ūr "creep". Now in the one further passage (KT 205.7) where the participle of that root is used in connection with the forehead, it is unequivocally negative: pallor (pacappu) creeps over the forehead. Moreover this is one of the occasions where tēm is explained simply to mean "fragrance", thus leveling the image of honey as the essence of all sweet scents. T.V.G. accordingly understands "bright forehead full of fragrance".

[FNote_108] -um: not from HER, but from HIS perspective, that is, only with her, but additional to him (cf. 25.5).

[FNote_109] cilamp' aṇi koṇṭa: literally "which the mountain side has taken as an adornment" or "which [one] observes as an adornment of the mountain side" (cf. 341.2).

[FNote_110] Here also the possibility of an explicative gloss is not to be set aside. The avar in fact only establishes the connection between HIM and the mountain, but by theme, of course, this connection is already given.

[FNote_111] For the function of an akavaṉ makaḷ see Kailasapathy 1968: 66, Zvelebil 1986: 37.

[FNote_112] Whatever exactly is maṇavu - T.V.G. takes it to be a kind of white crystals -, the point of the comparison is the white colour, that is, it is directed to the age of the woman. T.V.G. takes the designation kūntal in this connection to be an ironical reminiscence. kūntal, in contradistinction to ōti, is read as a term for hair properly dressed, while old people (people above 45) don't dress their hair anymore, but wear it open and only tie it at the ends (thus Nacc. to Pattup. 407-9).

[FNote_113] yāṇar: Cam. "fresh income"; otherwise "fertility" (cf. KT 85.6, 106.6, 171.1).

[FNote_114] kuḷiṟu is glossed by Cam. with naṇṭu "crab", a singular occurrence in the whole Caṅkam literature. The TL gives only "noise", which might lead to the interpretation 4b which is at least meaningful. The variant kaḷiṟu "elephant bull" would be the lectio facilior, but is badly suited to the image (what would a fig trampled by seven elephants look like?). An emendation to kuḷir should be considered, a common word for "crab", though not attested for the KT.

[FNote_115] What is meant by kalleṉṟa? kal traditionally is explained as an onomatopoeic for something ominous or fearful (cf. KT 179.1). Is it here the portent that has actually come true = p.a.? It might, however, also be taken literally (with Srin.) = 5+6b.

[FNote_116] I.e. literally "trampled with noise arising". Against this otherwise acceptable reading is to be said that it is not backed up by the context. The half-line about the neighbourhood to the river (as the place where crabs live) would be rather pointless.

[FNote_117] For a rare sequence of discussions of this famous poem which has served as an exemplary case for several problems connected with the interpretation of Caṅkam poetry see Zvelebil 1973: 83f., Srinivasan 1977: 204f. and Gros 1983: 101f. (It has been taken up again in chapter IV.3.2, The Symbolic Code, p. 307f.?.)

[FNote_118] T.V.G. suggests to read not kaḷvaṉ "robber", but kaḷavaṉ "evidence" - both undistinguishable in the manuscripts -, which would change the character of the poem to a considerable degree. (So far, however, I'm unable to find even a trace of a kaḷavaṉ with such a meaning in dictionaries or indices.) On text level, what could be held against it is the image of the fish-devouring heron as a robber par excellence. Moreover the connection between the kaḷvaṉ and "stolen love" is otherwise attested, more, the transfer to the female kaḷvi "robberess" in KT 312.1 would be unintelligible without such a context. An what should be kept in mind is the sound-allusion to kaḷavu "secret love", a semantic and etymological connection that might even have been recognized. One might even be tempted to explain the usage the other way round: a kaḷvaṉ or a kaḷvi are secret lovers, who are, because of the secretiveness and notorious uncertainty of relations illegalised are identified with the robbers of the desert: they may turn up here and there, not to be counted on, taking whatever they can.

[FNote_119] Would tāṉ avaṉ be possible at all and if so, what is the difference to avaṉ tāṉ?

[FNote_120] atu must be taken as a direct object to poyppiṉ. "If he lies about that (i.e. the promised marriage?) ...".

[FNote_121] ciṟu pacuṅ kāla: as Srinivasan 1977: 205f. rightly points out, in the given context it wouldn't make much sense to understand ciṟu as an additional attribute to the legs, since heron legs are not small but rather long and stalky (like millet stalks), though one might be justified in calling them "thin". His proposal is to take it as a qualification of pacum, "green", instead. Now it seems more rational to take that as literally as possible, that is not "fresh green" (for which meaning at least one would want parallels, and those are not to be found in the KT), but "a little green", i.e. "greenish" which by the way would aptly describe the brown-greenish colour of the legs of the grey heron (Ardea cinerea) common in India today.

[FNote_122] -um indeed sometimes can be understood by implication as "only", that is, literally, "also", meaning besides the man just the heron. Moreover it can be construed in the circular way: the robber ... and the heron.

[FNote_123] uḷ is a word for "be" meaning more than mere coincidence (iru) and properly only used for entities not changing place. Here it evokes the second root uṇ, "eat": the heron having devoured its prey.

[FNote_124] tāṉ maṇanta ñāṉṟē: there has been a discussion as to the impact of maṇa-ttal in the context by Srinivasan 1977: 206ff., resulting in the provisional translation "[on] the day he touched [my shoulder (or: shoulders)]", an idiom conveying also an implication of a promise to marry. I think, this promise is indeed implied, which is supported here also by the presence of atu poyppiṉ. But in my view the use of maṇa-ttal points rather directly to sexual intercourse, which is, however, not had just for fun, but implies a intention to establish a lasting relationship (kēṇmai, naṭppu) which will result in marriage (occasionally maṇam has already that sense). The frequent combination of maṇa-ttal with tōḷ, "shoulder" (or shoulders), pointed out by Srin. can be explained in a different way. tōḷ is often used as a pars pro toto for the female body as such, or as a metonymy for HER, and thus "uniting with the shoulders" (also to be found with several other verbs of a similar meaning) can indeed be interpreted as a decent expression for the coitus. Accordingly the direct object required by the verb and thus to be complemented here can be either tōḷ, an expression for body or simply SHE, and the latter seems indeed preferable to me. The problem with the literal translation "the day he united with [me]" is that it doesn't convey the implication of marrying. My proposal (or rather the proposal of D.G.) is "to claim" which has, in English, both the implication of physical intimacy and mental/emotional commitment, though it probably still lacks the additional social connotation of the Tamil word.

[FNote_125] While the second variant for line 6, muḷḷeyiṟṟuvarvāy, presumably is to be explained as a haplography, the first gives a totally different wording for the first epithet, one as good as the other and even endowed with the advantage of explaining the oblique eyiṟṟu (which is not directly disturbing, but also not necessary), namely as a plural marker: "thorn[like] teeth resembling a hoard of pearls".

[FNote_126] What is achieved by this formulaic irunta, always connected with birds staying on a branch/twig? Why an emphatic verb of existence and why p.a.? (Cf. 191.2, 207.2, 296.2, 391.7).

[FNote_127] The decisive point of the whole is the clause of the 4{X}th{/X} line: tāṉ tītu moḻiyiṉum. Cam. glosses, as far as I can see without being in any way justified by the text (though in accordance with the kiḷavi), tāṉ with kaṭṭuvicci, that is, the woman responsible for the divination. To take the nāṭaṉ as the subject of the sentence would be closer to the wording, and that would mean taking the first lines as his statement about himself. This would also supply an explanation for the poykkuvatu in line 5 as well as for the koṭiyōṉ at the end (and moreover an interesting message for the poem which was for tradition no longer allowable or even understandable already in the times of the kiḷavi-s): HE has taken HER, so much is beyond doubt (kaṇṭatu poykkuvatu aṉṟē), but he refuses marrying her while referring to his unsuitability - because of that he is cruel (or perhaps rather infidel - the usual context of context of the derivation of koṭumai). Fitting also the image of the peacock looking like a bunch of flowers: SHE took HIM for something different from what he is. The second image, that of the father monkey then might serve to counterbalance the first: like the playful, notoriously unreliable monkeys are, in the end, good parents he will at last remember his duty against her and marry her.

[FNote_128] In the context of the explicit singular of the personal pronouns (eṉakku, eṉ) em, plural, would be the lectio difficilior, unless it is simply a scribal error.

[FNote_129] alkul is, according to T.V.G., "buttocks" (not "mount of Venus" as it is often translated), referring to Nacc. on Pattuppāṭṭu 204 where a man is said to have this selfsame part of the body. Judged by the descriptions of the KT (the line, the adornment of foliage, etc.), however, one rather thinks of the "hip".

[FNote_130] The construction of uṇīiyar vēṇṭum can either be: "it is necessary for the pallor to eat the beauty" or "it is necessary for the beauty to eat pallor (= to absorb)".

[FNote_131] The variant mūṭṭuvēṉ ("I kindle") seems more difficult, for one thing because of the disproportionate means, and moreover because it would go against the climactic construction that culminates in shouting, that is, in making it public.

[FNote_132] ōrē yāṉum: what could be the sense of this exclamation, what of the -um of yāṉum?

[FNote_133] peṟṟi is hapax, but Cam.'s "pretext" is meaningful, if a context is presupposed where SHE is not allowed to publicly admit her sorrow, or at least the reason for her sorrow. This might be viewed as a play with the topos of being possessed by the god: according to poetics, the relatives call in the soothsayer when SHE is overthrown by grief; here SHE behaves like one who is possessed, because this is the only way open to her to express her grief.

[FNote_134] alamaral: what is the function of the verbal noun? What is its meaning here is about clear, but what is the grammatical explanation? (Cf. 55 taivaral ūtai.) Srin.: "the moving wind that owns whirling".

[FNote_135] ūrkku: problematic here the dative, as a direct object for the verbs of the first lines was to be expected. T.V.G. sees a poetical usage of dative for accusative. Cam. ponders the further possibility that the aggression of the speaker might be directed against herself ("lege ich Hand an [mich] ...?"). My proposition is to take the third of the verbs connected with ūr, i.e. kūvuvēṉ, as the one responsible for the form. In contradistinction to the verba dicendi (to be construed with a double accusative) kūvu can be intransitive and thus connected with an indirect object "to crow out to some one".

[FNote_136] arit' ayarv' uṟṟaṉai: perhaps "forgetfulness was difficult to you". This is certainly lectio difficilior, as also the following variant (s. next note).

[FNote_137] The eṉṟum could be read as an embedding clause final, that is, the lines above as a subordination qualifying pūcal: "big, verily, your struggle which means: ...". Only the niṉ of pūcal wouldn't have an explicit addressee, namely the heart, but would have to be taken to refer to some one directly spoken to.

[FNote_138] pacuṅ kalam is, according to Cam., a pot unburned and thus water-sensitive.

[FNote_139] nīrkku ēṟṟa: here I suggest to analyse ēṟṟa as the perfective peyareccam of ēl "to be suitable, to happen". It might be just about possible to see an intransitive semantic variation "to be exposed to", which would fit in well with the dative also attested elswhere (cf. KT 291.8, 382.1).

[FNote_140] Or naṉṟum is to be understood as an adverb ("very big"); cf. 226.3, 237.3, 327.3. The problem in this case is the -um. Peculiar is also the position which is invariably the last foot of the line preceding the reference word.

[FNote_141] The subject and presumable sentence final pūcal is not marked with -ē, but the ante-positioned predicate noun is marked with the particle -āl. As this particle commonly calls for an -ē to complement it, the rest of the poem ought to be read as belonging to the same sentence, in other words the pūcal sentence is the back part of a conditional the front part of which is put in the prominent final position to emphasize its urgency: "if only there were some one to hear..., [than], verily, your struggle [be] big."

[FNote_142] For peṟiṉē expressing an irreal wish see 98.2, 310.7, 136.5.

[FNote_143] ēṟṟ' eḻuntu is to be found in the TL as one lexeme meaning "to rouse from sleep" which seems to be suitable already here.

[FNote_144] cāay cannot be interpreted as a regular absolutive to cāy 4. "emaciate" (that should be cāyntu), but only to cā 13. "die, be exhausted". Tradition seems to hold a different view (cf. 50.4, 93.1, 125.1, 132.6, 185.2, 289.3, 381.1).

[FNote_145] This variant disposes of the parallelism of the repeated ōr, presumably to be understood as "any".

[FNote_146] Tradition takes the two forms -āṉum at the end of the 1{X}st{/X} and 2{X}nd{/X} line as a locative suffix + -um "and" which doesn't make any difference with regard to content.

[FNote_147] What is the exact meaning of māṇ takutal (cf. also 184.4)? T.V.G. explains māṇ in this connection as "majestic", but that doesn't make it much better.

[FNote_148] kaḷam is, according to Zvelebil 1979: 177 et p. (n. 180, 181) the "threshing floor" which is also used for public meetings of a religious or irreligious kind (like exorcism and dance).

[FNote_149] Is the message in this that the two, though there is no point of contact between them, be it for social reasons or because of their sex, can approach each other on the dance floor?

[FNote_150] iṉṟi "without" seems to be the lectio difficilior, but it would be possible to understand the first two lines as a preceding description of HIS factual state: "without morning and midday and deed-ending evening/ and [without] midnight when the village is sleeping and dawn/ - if [still] familiar ...".

[FNote_151] poyyē kāmam: the antepositioned predicate noun poy is marked as such by -ē; the sentence remains open-ended.

[FNote_152] What is meant is the public announcement of the secret.

[FNote_153] aṉṉāy, understood by Cam. as an address to the friend, could also be read as aṉṉā (+ -y- in sandhi) = vocative to aṉṉai "mother" (the same in 150.5; aṉṉā see 161.4, 397.5). This would be one unexplained word less.

[FNote_154] māṇakkaṉ: is this really to be derived from Skt. māṇavaka-?

[FNote_155] ūrum "creeping": what is said here? Is it a slow movement or also pejorative in sense? Srin.'s proposition: He creeps and creeps (habitual future) to banquets, because he is mal-nourished and can for once eat his fill there.

[FNote_156] Considerable exegetical capers (exercised silently by the kiḷavi and Cam.) are necessary to relate this strange poem to a bard received favourably. The wording points to an erotic and moreover socially taxing fancy for someone begging food (who, as she says, needn't be a beggar, but can be in the position of a student - which, however, sounds rather North-Indian). This is also one of the few poems free from formulae, though aṉṉāy as a beginning is also recorded in AN and AiN.

[FNote_157] Tradition here takes ōr as a verbal root in the function of an imperative to ōr "regard". T.V.G. mentions as parallels Nacc. on Cīvak. 204 and Nacc. on Kal. 81.

[FNote_158] muṉāatu renders the line unmetrical and difficult is to integrate with respect to content. It might be understood as an explicative insertion meant to establish a connection between two independent sentences, namely, as in 11.4, a deictic indication of place: ... the village. There: (the following happens). Such an interpretation is backed up by the variant muṉāatu yāṉai which doesn't use the sandhi. According to Sh.Pillai 1985 this is to be found in all manuscripts but one. In any case this metrically difficult passage has numerous variants for the whole line (Sh.Pillai gives even more of them than Cam.).

[FNote_159] The two variants marantai and māntai are graphically indistinguishable in the manuscripts and both forms of this toponym are to be found in the prints of the different anthologies (Cam. always prints marantai). According to T.V.G., one occurrence in the Muttoḷḷāyiram, verse 95, shows marantai to be correct because of the metre (Veṇpā).

[FNote_160] Is -am used here as an adjective suffix? This would suggest yāṉaiyam kuruku "herons that belong to elephants" (like cow herons with cows), or possibly also herons that are of dark grey colour like elephants.

[FNote_161] Line 1 is a problem with regard to syntax as well as to content. My proposition is to take it as an aphoristic prelude (most of them noticeable for the lack of particle marking; for the aphorisms see chap. IV.1). We would then have here a general statement about the lack of sympathy on the part of the people of the village towards HER grief in the time of waiting (as it is to be found in KT 24).

[FNote_162] iṉṟ' āy: is ā here to be understood as a designation of a change of the state ("to come to nothing") or is it only meant as an embedding verb ("as there is no affliction")?

[FNote_163] Here the problem is tamiyar, honorific plural and not feminine, although it is certainly SHE who sleeps alone. But it might be possible to read a transition from the general statement of line 1 to the concrete situation of the poem: SHE is, until HE is accepted (which is the theme of what follows, as is also stated by the kiḷavi), one of those reproached in public and alone in a double sense: HE isn't there and no one stands by HER.

[FNote_164] What is the exact nuance of the -um with kiḻavaṉ? HE is not only HER lover, but will from now on also be her husband? T.V.G. explains it to be exclusive: only HE, nobody else, will marry HER, but then the -um would be expected with the avaṉ.

[FNote_165] kuḻalviḷaṅku: What is meant by this strange attribution (not commented on by Cam.)? The variant kuḻai viḷaṅku could intend an elliptical comparison: the forehead shining "[like] a sprout".

[FNote_166] kāṉalam: even if the -am here is understood as an adjective suffix, it is difficult to see what should be expressed here. Herons belonging to the seashore grove = herons living there?

[FNote_167] Thus the traditional interpretation which has in its favour the usual participle syntax. If only the image were a little less odd. T.V.G. explains that the birds are afraid of the warriors, without reason, because these have already killed (aṭṭa) and now celebrate their victory - just like SHE has been afraid of her parents without reason who have after all already consented to the marriage.

[FNote_168] kūmpu potiyaviḻa is read by tradition. A further meaning of kūmpu (though not attested otherwise in the KT) is also "bud", while poti can form a lexeme with aviḻ still with the meaning "to open". Also the second formulaic occurrence of this collocation, in KT 330.7, doesn't give a decisive clue.

[FNote_169] taṇ varal: does the verbal noun here function as mere noun apposition, varal being identified with vāṭai? Cf. note on KT 28.

[FNote_170] The poem leaves open two possibilities. The day mentioned could be the day of HIS return, for which the two have made a secret appointment, or it could be the day of his departure, to which SHE had agreed, but cries now nevertheless. The traditional view is the latter, that is, her eyes, though having let him go, now shed shameless tears. The interpretation according to which the eyes are shameless in having made an agreement, however, is better suited to the plural of the last line, pirinticiṉōrkku, which, in the second case, would have to be read as a switch to a general statement.

[FNote_171] niṉvayiṉāṉ: it seems possible that vayiṉ here is to be understood as sematically stronger than a mere locative suffix. Then for the locative there would still be the suffix -āṉ, generally understood as an expletive, especially frequent at the end of a poem.

[FNote_172] The background of the image is, as not infrequently, that the creepers also mistake the elephant for a stone. T.V.G. explains that the woman has mistaken the man, just as the creepers the elephant, to be steady.

[FNote_173] nāṉ as a personal pronoun of the first person is not attested with any certainty for this layer of the texts (see, however, the variant in KT 40.3 nāṉum instead of yāṉum). But if it is possible then that is a conceivable second reading for the last line.

[FNote_174] piḷakkum to piḷa "to tear open" seems to be semantically equivalent, while a verb piḷi doesn't exist at all(?)

[FNote_175] T.V.G. explains paci as thirst which is alleviated by chewing the moist bark.

[FNote_176] peritu here is probably to be understood adverbially; cf. KT 213.1.

[FNote_177] What is the nuance of the figura etymologica nalkal nalkuvar? (This rhetorical figure is explained by Nacc. on Tol. col. 113 as: x cey-tal.) Moreover the connection of the first line to the rest is not clear. If this were an independent sentence, a particle marking would be expected. As this is not the case, I see two possibilities: either an antepositioned apposition to the avar of the last line, or, once again, an unmarked aphoristic prelude. In that case the implication would be that HE, in contradistinction to the careful elephant, obviously doesn't possess much longing, because he wanders in the desert instead of being with HER. Or perhaps also, as is supposed by the kiḷavi, a consolation: because he has longing he will be back again soon.

[FNote_178] aṉpiṉa, n.pl., is either to be connected with the elephant couple (as above), or it could be a real predicate noun: "the ways he has gone [are] full of love" (namely that of the elephants).

[FNote_179] yāam is not given by the TL, but it is traditionally understood as a certain kind of tree and as such rather well attested.

[FNote_180] From the first variant (akaṟṟal, verbal noun to akaṟṟu "banish") would follow an interesting alternative with regard to content (transgressing the later conception of what was permissible for the female protagonist and thus forming the lectio difficilior): "for those able to banish [him] without remembering ...". It is unclear to me what could be made of akaṟal. (Both variants are mistakenly attributed to line 2 by Cam.).

[FNote_181] Viz. "at the very instant that water [appears] in [my] collyrium eyes".

[FNote_182] The variant malaiyiṭai would invert the direction of the message: "on the way he has gone who hates it [to be] in the midst of mountains ...", that is, pity instead of implicit criticism.

[FNote_183] T.V.G. explains that the ripe nuts open with a loud sound and shed the seeds. The wording is, as so often, much too elliptical to decide the matter, and equally uncertain is the identification of the plant.

[FNote_184] mulaiyiṭai muṉinar is literally "he who hates the space between [HER] breasts" (as a bed for his head; motif cf. 178.4).

[FNote_185] An alternative not considered so far would be evvaḻi aṟitum with evvaḻi as a direct object: "which way do we know [to each other]", which would make excellent, perhaps even better sense in the case of the first reading, but somehow is at odds with Tamilian linguistic instinct.

[FNote_186] For aṉpuṭai neñcam cf. 86.1 paṉi yuṭainta ... kaṉ: "eyes from which dew has broken forth", that is, "hearts from which love is breaking/has broken forth".

[FNote_187] For a different interpretation of this poem see Tieken 1997: 316f. For criticism against Tieken and a detailed discussion of the two possible ways of reading this poem see Wilden 1999: 239ff.

[FNote_188] In this version the infinitive āka has to be understood as a conditional which is not impossible, for sure, but also not very usual.

[FNote_189] Instead of perit' uvantu it is also possible to read peritu vantu: "as something big has come", that is: like a village having a festival for a special occasion.

[FNote_190] aṅ kuṭi: rendered by T.V.G. as "with good inhabitants", that is, kuṭi is meant to denote the inhabitants of the ūr. Cf., though, the descending climax of KT 130.3f. nāṭu - ūr - kuṭi where kuṭi is obviously the smallest habitation unit.

[FNote_191] karuvi mā maḻai is explained by T.V.G. (with reference to Nacc. and deviating from Cam.) as a big cloud endowed with the attributes of a thunderstorm such as lightning, thunder and so forth. The word order (karuvi mā instead of mā karuvi "big amount") is odd enough to suspect a special meaning.

[FNote_192] oḻivatu as a form is ambiguous, that is, either finite verb or participial noun. If the latter, then the nuance might rather be attributive and general: "even if desire is transitory ...".

[FNote_193] nāṉ: cf. note on 36.6.

[FNote_194] āyiṭai is hypermetrical and here once again the sandhi doesn't operate, seemingly according to all manuscripts. And again it can be understood as a bridge between two rather unconnected parts of the poem.

[FNote_195] T.V.G., like Cam., explains ā-y-iṭai as a special sandhi of poetic texts between the enclitic pronoun a- and iṭai.

[FNote_196] Is the meaning of āṇmai special here, or how is it possible to connect lines 1 + 2 with line 3? T.V.G.'s understanding of the line is: "the encounter of two great individual prestiges".

[FNote_197] alamalakku can also be read as one lexeme denoting more or less the same, but with a certain onomatopoeic quality.

[FNote_198] nal-arā: is nal "good", also "auspicious", here a kenning for the cobra as nallapāmpu is in modern Tamil? Srin. and T.V.G. both think so.

[FNote_199] Is the message here that HE has, against all appearances, really gone?

[FNote_200] This variant, though semantically meaningful ("my eye"), deviates from the formal scheme with the three -ē's in line 1.

[FNote_201] peritu seems to be an adverb in emphatic postposition. But even if the syntax is quite plain, what is the exact message of this sentence. An ironical statement?

[FNote_202] In the first interpretation the speaker rather seems to express pity with the child arisen from this relationship than pity with HER. The second, tiṇai as "sex", is tendentious and may be anachronistic; but see NA 94 where SHE complains about the difference in the rules set up for men and women.

[FNote_203] kurīi, literally a "small bird", might here - judging by the habits described in the text - be a "sparrow", as it is usually translated. The same might be true for KT 85.2. But in KT 72.5 the kurīi are scared away from the millet field, a motif otherwise definitely connected with the parakeets, and in KT 374.5 we have the tūṅkaṇaṅ-kurīi, whatever that might be.

[FNote_204] kuṭaivaṉa-v-āṭi: how to understand this syntactically? Are the lines 3+4 dependant on kuṭaivaṉa (coordinated with mānti) to be read as apposition to kurīi, while the "main sentence" consists in āṭi + vaṭiyum?

[FNote_205] Cam. takes paḷḷi here as a locative suffix. Taken semantically strong the following alternative arises: "(birds that ...) are living in a nest at the eaves of the house roof with their children". T.V.G. for his part reads iṟai "abiding", that is, "abiding in a nest by the house".

[FNote_206] nallai yallai cf. KT 102.4 cāṉṟōr allar.

[FNote_207] ōrai is, according to the TL, a kind of game played by women. It is not included in the DEDR, and T.V.G. wants to render it just by "play" (thus also in the case of vaṇṭal, cf. KT 238.3, 243.3).

[FNote_208] aṉṉa nacai-y-āku paṉpiṉ oru col: the meaning of the phrase is sufficiently clear, but not its exact syntax. Is it: "a single word of a nature to convey such longing"? And what about this aṉṉa, obviously here used in an attributive position, not as a particle of comparison, and corresponding (in which way?) to the iṉṉa of line 4?

[FNote_209] peritu must be taken as an adverb.

[FNote_210] Syntax and message of lines 1+2 are fairly unclear. The traditional interpretation (which is neither syntactically nor semantically clear to me) is that HER companions even care about her doll (coloured with pollen) which feels cold in the morning dew and must be consoled, how much more then she herself, who is enduring separation.

[FNote_211] koṅku mutir: T.V.G. understands "satiated with fragrance" and takes as tertio of the comparison the elliptical buds of the Muṇtakam - as would be more in the line of the common motif.

[FNote_212] cērppaṉ presumably has to be taken as a derivation cērppu "coast".

[FNote_213] Striking is here the way āyiṉum is used in a semantically terse sense, not just as a conditional particle.

[FNote_214] Cam. 1955 erroneously reads: ūḻē; cf. edition of 1937.

[FNote_215] aṇintaṉṟu: here another clear example for the aspectual character of the "preterite". The nuance is not to be found in a retrospective, but rather in the fact that the blossoms have already fallen and the loneliness has been put on as an ornament.

[FNote_216] A smaller syntactical problem here is the absolutive iṟantu. One would expect either infinitive (as in the above translation) or a different sequence: bangles first become loose and only then slip down.

[FNote_217] Also possible is a transitive rendering of vēṇṭum: "and my father wants to give ...".

[FNote_218] cūr is according T.V.G. an evil, or at any rate ambiguous, female deity to be found in the open and connected with Murukaṉ. Another word to denote them is cūrara makaḷir (see note on KT 53.7), that is, they are supposed to be a group of deities. The occurrences in the KT don't allow for any conclusions. In two other passages (KT 105.5, 376.2) all that can be gathered is that they/she/he resides in the mountainside. Another connection might be possibly drawn to the kaṭavuḷ of KT 87.1 and 105.2, also an ambiguous god once said to inspire fear and to reside in a tree, the other time obviously receiving sacrifical gifts. As the makaḷir of KT 53 the deity seems to be connected with the avenging of unlawful behaviour.

[FNote_219] For the possibility of analysing nacaintaṉaiyai as nacainta aṉaiyai see note on maṇantaṉaiyam in KT 106.6 (another parallel is picaintaṉaiyēm in KT 289.3).

[FNote_220] kaṇṭē: the unexpected -ē in this place is one of the most difficult of the whole anthology; see chapter on syntax, p. 74?. T.V.G. simply explains it as a metrical necessity; kaṇṭu alone wouldn't be a metrical foot.

[FNote_221] T.V.G. understands here, like Cam., an elliptical sentence: "on the mountain slope glittering with water [standing in the footprints] trampled by roaring elephants.

[FNote_222] The parintaṉeṉ line is understood by T.V.G. (deviating from Cam.) as "I arranged [everything] one by one, didn't I?", but according to the TL pari in the meaning of "to carry on, conduct, manage" is 11{X}th{/X} class. Moreover the interpretation seems not warranted by the context, but rather inspired by the kiḷavi, which talks about the prospect of marriage.

[FNote_223] Presumably the first alternative has precedence - the type of negation with postpositioned verb of negation, but since in such cases usually both forms take the same personal suffix (i.e. alleṉ would have to be expected; attested in KT 99), the question is whether at least an allusion to the second reading hasn't been intended.

[FNote_224] cūrara makaḷir: instead of postulating an adjective ara celestial (with a dubious etymology to Skt. amara- "immortal") another reading of the text might be considered here, namely cūrar makaḷir (as the dot is usually absent in the manuscripts the burden of interpretation is that of the editor in any case). That would be the "women inspiring fear" and might be read as an explication of the more frequent cūr without further qualification (see note on KT 52.2).

[FNote_225] -oṭu must be understood here in the sense of "in the presence of". Another possibility (D.G.) would be "together [with the names of] awe-inspiring celestial damsels". Unfortunately we don't even know whether they have names.

[FNote_226] cennel is explained by T.V.G. (as by Cam.) to be not red rice but a particular sort of rice (an especially good one). Is it possible that the gist of the image is that red flowers are coming down into the white sand just as on the Veṟi ground red rice contrasts with bright corn? But to make an argument out of that one would have to know the colour of Puṅku blossoms.

[FNote_227] It is difficult to tell whether ayar is used here in a semantically strong sense, or rather as a copula for the Veṟi dance, i.e. a floor for the Veṟi.

[FNote_228] puṉai otherwise is clearly used in the sense of "adorn", so perhaps puṉainta should not be connected with the dance, but with the place.

[FNote_229] nalam/nalaṉ literally "goodness" can be explained as HER integrity, i.e. the feminine quality of being physically and emotionally in accord with social expectations, especially connected with HER establishing a sexual relationship with HIM, and manifested in HER physical wellness and beauty, and thus dependent on HIS course of action. One way of distinguishing her general integrity of her virginity, an important aspect of it, is to employ the distinctive suffix -ṉ instead of the more general -m.

[FNote_230] taivaral: function of the verbal noun? Cf. 28 alamaral acaivaḷi.

[FNote_231] uṟaiyuṭṭu is to be analysed as an appellative noun n.sg. to uṟaiyuḷ "place to stay", just as ciṉṉāṭṭu to nāḷ, both of them predicate nouns to the ūr at the end.

[FNote_232] The syntax of the lines 1-3, or rather the connection between the three joint elements tirai "wave" - maṅkul "cloud" and ūtai "cold wind", is rather unclear. T.V.G. understands taii (even more favourable to such an interpretation is the variant taiiya) as a link between maṅkul and ūtai, that is "wind tied to clouds with [rain]drops". The problem, then, is the connection to the preceding elements. He can only read "and foaming spray of clear waves".

[FNote_233] cennāy perhaps doesn't simply mean a "red dog", but a particular species.

[FNote_234] vaḷai-y-uṭai: a little strange here is the uṭai. The bangles as an inalienable possession of HER hand. What might that mean? Or is -uṭai to be regarded just as a possessive particle?

[FNote_235] varuka tillamma: tilamma clearly marks the unreal (unfortunately unrealisable) wish, while tilla (see 57.4 pōkuka tilla) goes with the urgent wish (the fulfillment is in heaven's hand).

[FNote_236] amarntōḷē is another example for the functioning of the p.a. Here the point is not past, but being already realised: she has taken her place in his heart.

[FNote_237] At times even the different semantic possibilities look like variants. Here it is hardly possible to decide what is meant: on the one hand kuḷavi is used elsewhere several times in the sense of jasmine, but on the other hand mōy is by nature a verb of movement and thus easier to combine with an animal than with a plant. So compositional design should at least be considered: the very openness of expression permits the actualisation of both images.

[FNote_238] aḷiyaḷō vaḷiyaḷ: a great problem is here -ō, and the traditional solution is once more to ignore it. It might be possible to read an inserted, quasi-rhetorical question: "Is she pitiable? She is pitiable who...".

[FNote_239] Compare pōkuka tilla, urgent wish, with 56.4 varuka tillamma, unreal wish.

[FNote_240] The play with uyir (line 4) and uyal (line 6), one a noun, the other verbal noun to uy "live", cannot be reproduced in a translation. While uyir is "life", uyal moreover comprises the verbal nuance of "escaping, salvation". So there is the double possibility that on the surface a religious tone is brought forward (the association being the escaping from the circle of rebirth), but this tone is playfully secularised and turned upside down: fulfilled love in the lives to come. Thus also Cam.'s interpretation, and if this is not to be seen as a superimposition of younger associations, it might be a hint for a late origin of this poem.

[FNote_241] Is vevvaṟai a printing mistake for -varai: cf. 396.5 vevvarai? Sic already the edition of 1937. Perhaps a contamination of aṟai and varai (vemaṟai/vevvarai)? Cam. and T.V.G. have no problems in accepting this as a sandhi ve-vv-aṟai.

[FNote_242] āṟṟiṉō: here by -ō is achieved a marking of the conditional as the subject of the nominal sentence, connected with a polite request/question: "it [would] certainly be good, if [you at least] considered ...". Cf. KT 98.2, 112.2 conditional + -ē.

[FNote_243] Construction and meaning of line 1 are dubious. Even more to the point might be a rendering "... if you considered that your duty is ...", but then the definition of that duty would have to be elliptical. This is what T.V.G. understands, the implied duty of the friend being to help HIM.

[FNote_244] aralai: the Ind. gives for this passage N.pr. of a mountain, but for 214.6 the meaning "oleander". The TL knows neither of these!

[FNote_245] Solicitors with drums presumably are the travelling minstrels for whom the king is always at home. If HE is the subject also of line 1 (1+4b), this might be considered as an elliptical metaphor about his generosity.

[FNote_246] nīṭalō: the -ō here is one of the difficult cases. It seems possible to understand an actual question which is negated immediately afterwards (iṉṟē). Possible as well is a demarcation of topic (see chapter on syntax, p. 93f.?)

[FNote_247] Both KT editions give kūṭaḷi as the name of the plant, the TL knows only kūtāḷi as in the variant.

[FNote_248] This is the first example for the elliptical metaphor: the main verb from the emotive level has to be substituted on the figurative level.

[FNote_249] Does āṭiya here, as an image for the movement of plants in the wind, really mean "dance"? And why p.a.?

[FNote_250] kiḻ iruntu has to be taken adverbially and related to the place where the lame one stays: below, not on the mountain.

[FNote_251] Srin. considers ciṟu (DED 1858) + uṭkai ciṟukuṭai "honey comb".

[FNote_252] What is the exact syntax of lines 2-4?

[FNote_253] What is expressed here by the p.a.? The message must be that the bangles, even in unfavourable circumstances, are still tight - so perhaps it is "they have ever since been tight".

[FNote_254] uṟṟu: the absolutive is a problem here. We expect uṟṟa, the participle.

[FNote_255] The last two variants, 1.pl. i.a. to muyaṅku "embrace" + iṉi "now", demand another construction of the line (perhaps an attempt at simplification; in any case the number of variants suggests that the whole was felt to be problematic): "We embrace now that which was excellent, even if it is transitory/something that surpasses a sprout [in freshness], [that is,] the body ...".

[FNote_256] viraii poses a semantic problem. Of the several roots virai (viraivu doesn't exist) not one comes close to the traditional interpretation of "combining" (Cam. glosses with kalantu "mixed"). Still a root virai, 11. class, with the meaning "to emit fragrance" is not attested otherwise.

[FNote_257] naṟiya: how to construct and understand a n.pl.? The variant naṟiyaḷ might either be an attempt at adjustment or a definitely superior reading. T.V.G. reads, as also in 9.2 for tamiya and 77.5 for aṟiya, the modern adjective.

[FNote_258] The subtle syntax of the lines 1-4 is nearly unmarked and accordingly left to an effort of interpretation (see Wilden 1999: 219f.).

[FNote_259] The analysis (deviating from Cam.) of muṟiyiṉum as a concessive to muṟi goes back to Tieken 1997: 314f. (see also Wilden 1999: 217).

[FNote_260] Thus the usual interpretation, which follows Cam. In favour of it could be said that the comparison woman - sprout is one of the Caṅkam standard comparisons.

[FNote_261] Is this to be understood as viṉai kai: "work" "deed", that is, a synonym compound? Or kaimmika as an adverb "overmuch"? The formulaic occurrence (and perhaps the sandhi) speaks in favour of the latter.

[FNote_262] T.V.G. (as Cam.) reads am-mā "pretty [and] black", but wouldn't, in that case, the regular sandhi be amā?

[FNote_263] This connotation presumably is also present: at home a man can't win a fortune, as is emphasised over and again by the poems.

[FNote_264] eṇṇuti/uytti: how to distinguish the 2.sg.ind. in -ti from the imperative in -ti? The first looks to me like an imperative, the latter like an indicative. But two indicatives are also possible.

[FNote_265] The variant kaṉṟu "calf" could easily be explained as a haplography; a further calf is impossible to accommodate.

[FNote_266] The variant eṉa vantaṉarē creates a new text (perhaps a "simplification" of the unusual aṇavant'aṉṉa): "he has come, thinking of the calf ...", while the last line, as so often, could be read as a circular subject apposition.

[FNote_267] aṇavā is given in the TL as lexicalised compound of aṇa + vā with the same meaning as the simplex aṇa "to raise the head".

[FNote_268] The traditional interpretation takes maṉṟam here to mean "cow shed". Accordingly the phrase might also be: "like the calf, observing ... the cow shed, a desolate place, ...", that is, the place is desolate without the cows which belong there.

[FNote_269] And thus also its mother.

[FNote_270] Literally: "because many cows, after they had left [the village in the morning] for the long way, [now] come [back] ...".

[FNote_271] cēyar - cēynāṭṭōr: this play on words might mean the inner and outer distance: if HE were still to think of HER he would come now.

[FNote_272] teḷ is given in the TL only as a verbal root.

[FNote_273] tā as an auxiliary verb doesn't seem to change the semantics of the preceding verb, but it adds a nuance of abruptness in what happens. Further instances are: 66.3, 134.4,6 (neri tara), 78.3, 95.1, 134.6, 200.3 (iḻi taru), 79.4 (pulampu taru), 94.7 (cilai tarum), 110.7 (eṟi tarum), 162.2 (puku tarūum), 195.3,5 (eḻu tarum, pāynt' uṟu tara).

[FNote_274] varunti nont' uṟaiya viruntir: if already uṟai is an auxiliary (see next note) it is difficult to understand the function of iru here. Is this a double auxiliary construction? There are still more problematic cases of infinitive + iru: 109.3 (puṇariya v-irunta), 154.6 (tayaṅka v-iruntu). Also remarkable is the number of variants. While iruntīrō and iruntaṉirō are morphological alternatives, viruntiṉar (how to be analysed? Obl. to viruntu "festival" + -ar?) obviously connects also the last line with HIM, and iruntaṉṟ' āl, n.sg., seems unconstruable to me. The traditional approach is to take iruntir literally and read an elliptical question referring to HER ability to go on living in this world when HE had not returned.

[FNote_275] vārāt' uṟaiyunar: the most natural interpretation is that of uṟai- as an auxiliary verb giving an aspect of continuity: he is one who doesn't come permanently - who stays away. Cf. also 116.1 nayant' uṟaivōḷ, 145.4 tuñcāt' uṟainar.

[FNote_276] taṭavu: according to DEDR 3020 "largeness, greatness"; taṭa "large, broad, full", thus my suggestion "breadth". Cam. glosses vaḷainta "curved" (given in the TL under taṭavu as "curve, bent", though not in the DED). In Caṅkam texts it is usually found in connection with nilai (and thus to be related to the trunk of trees): KT 66.1, 219.6, 301.1; AN 10.3, 165.10, 320.10; PN 140.1.

[FNote_277] kal piṟaṅk' attam is explained by T.V.G. as a desert path with protruding stones which make it even more difficult to walk.

[FNote_278] Tradition takes vampa as a term denoting the rains that come outside the proper season, but it is equally well possible to take it literally.

[FNote_279] nūl: here a glossing substitution of nāṇ, not as common in this meaning, by the usual word for "thread" is to be thought of.

[FNote_280] Cf. note on KT 16.1.

[FNote_281] Evoking: having gone beyond the desert, that is, having come to death there.

[FNote_282] Namely the nails of the kaḷvaṉ (see KT 16.1-3): a metonymy, morphologically marked by the masculine ending of the preceding verbal noun! (For an analysis see chapter IV.4.1, p. 344f.?) Tradition doesn't see a relation between the two poems and inserts a gold smith (Cam.: poṟkollaṉ) who is working on a new ornament.

[FNote_283] How to analyse ūḻppaṭum? ūḻ several times seems to be used nominally (in the sense of "turn"; KT 270.2, 285.4, 293.6), but apart from paṭu, it is also combined with uṟu (KT 228.1, 278.5), and so it could also be read as a verbal compound, either with ūḻ 4. "to age" or 11. "to rot".

[FNote_284] When is acciram? Autumn and frost in Tamilnadu? The inner season or an Indo-Aryan loan (> Skt. śiśira- autumn)? T.V.G. suggests analysing: al "night + Skt. śiśira-. For a discussion of the poems connected with this season see chapter III.3.2.1, p. 195f.?.

[FNote_285] avar maṇanta mārpu: this has to be rendered literally "the chest he united with me/mine".

[FNote_286] T.V.G. affirms as a second meaning for paṉi here the "shivering fever" caused by the cold season, which might be an allusion in accordance with maruntu "remedy".

[FNote_287] ūḻppaṭu mutu kāy: Cam. glosses mika mutirnta kāykaḷai "very ripe kāy's", and T.V.G. explains here kāy as "seed", i.e. tradition takes the image to be positive: the animals are sufficiently supplied with food.

[FNote_288] tā: Cam. glosses with tāvutalaiyumuṭaiya "jumping"?!

[FNote_289] Is mutal here used as a mere locative suffix?

[FNote_290] perum piṟitu: this phrase is traditionally explained as a circumscription of death, and this is indeed what is suggested at least by the parallel in KT 302.3, where SHE fears that the suffering on account of HIM might kill her.

[FNote_291] nīraḷ: tradition here takes "nature, disposition" as a meaning for nīr, but I rather like the metaphor of HER being like water.

[FNote_292] The meaning of this strange phrase might be: "I don't know how much is artifice".

[FNote_293] aṇaṅku as a verb leaves open both possibilities, transitive or intransitive. The topos is, of course, that SHE is plaguing HIM, but in the given context, together with the equally ambiguous aru, the intransitive variant might also be understood.

[FNote_294] nalk'uṟu makaḷ: tradition splits thus, taking uṟu simply as a meaningless auxiliary to nalku 5. "to bestow", that is, "the daughter given to the man of the forest". On the one hand, this breaks up the well-attested formula kuṟumakaḷ; on the other, nalku plus uṟu is unknown, at least to the TL.

[FNote_295] parīi is not to be found in the TL, but is glossed with parutti "cotton". A few occurrences are to be found also in AN, NA and PN.

[FNote_296] vittiya-v-ēṉal: ēṉal "millet" reads Cam., and this praxis of doubly sowing a field seems also to be found in KT 82 (beans and millet). As for the wording, it seems equally well possible to read vēṉal "summer" (4b), but arguably cotton is in less danger of being eaten away by birds than millet, which latter in any case is the topos.

[FNote_297] That is, not his personal situation, but referring to love-pain as such.

[FNote_298] The nī, put without particle-marking at the end of line 1, can function as a subject for line 1 and for line 2.

[FNote_299] The legend (attested only in KT 292) says that Naṉṉaṉ in rage had a girl killed who had by accident eaten a mango fruit (fallen into the river) of his tutelary tree. Indignant about this disgraceful deed (the killing of a woman) his enemies, the Kōcars, decided to destroy him: they cut down the tree of the defeated king. The only further textual reference is an allusion in PN 151.

[FNote_300] vaṉkaṇ or vaṉ kaṇ "strong eye" = "sharp-eyed planning" (cf. also 274.4).

[FNote_301] Tradition reads āṉ ēṟu, which would either be "bull bull" or the "bull of cows".

[FNote_302] paṭarntamai, acc. object to aṟiyāṉ: "he didn't know us as such who thought of him". An alternative reading would be abstract noun in -mai: "he didn't know about our thinking of him" (thus Cam.).

[FNote_303] eṉpa here is explained by T.V.G. to be an expletive, under reference to the context (i.e. the phase of kaḷavu - secret love) and to the according glosses of Nacc. like those to Kal. 46.19, p. 140?.

[FNote_304] māṇ is one of the most problematic and frequent attributes to a variety of subjects. The usual "glorious" is very often impossible as a translation. Whatever the precise meaning, the word appears often to be applied to things that are treasured.

[FNote_305] nacaiyiṉam: what is achieved here by the p.a.? Retrospective? Or rather durative: we have long been longing for? The latter is unknown to Srin.

[FNote_306] Pāṭali is, according to the traditional view, the town Pātāliputra, i.e. Patna in modern-day Bihar.

[FNote_307] alaṅkal: what is the function of the verbal noun? Srin.: "on the many leaves [with their] fluttering".

[FNote_308] taṇ varal: is the function of the verbal noun here simply an apposition? Srin.: "North wind the coming of which [is connected] with coolness".

[FNote_309] celpa actually is plural, presumably in adjustment to eṉpa. Is it possible to use it as an honorific (i.e. constructed with mārpar)? (The simpler variant reads celvaṉ ... mārpaṉ.)

[FNote_310] The point of the comparison must be the ongoing movement of the leaves and the ears, one caused by the wind, the other a habit of elephants.

[FNote_311] Srin. on this -ō: the same as in modern Tamil, that is, as to errors, they are verily not there. Accordingly he connects ila with tavaṟu.

[FNote_312] ila: n.pl., to be connected with tavaṟu or with tōḷ.

[FNote_313] Is vampalaṉ really ambiguous and does it designate the traveller as well as the highwayman who attacks him? Literally it should just mean "new-comer".

[FNote_314] patukkai: for an explanation why this is, contrary to the traditional explanation, rather a "stone-heap" than a "leaf-heap" see note on KT 297.4.

[FNote_315] aṟiya: just as with tamiya (KT 9.2) and naṟiya (KT 62.4), it might be preferable to read an adjective derivation in the sg., though it is tempting to see the parallel construction aṟiya kāṉam - eḷiya ... tōḷ.

[FNote_316] eḷiya vākiya: of a kind that have become thin? Or a predication, like Sanskrit bhavati?

[FNote_317] micaiyatu: adv. "in an elevated position"? Or is -atu here for once a real genitive suffix? Cf. iraiyatu in KT 128.1, karaiyatu in KT 246.1, 313.1. Suspicious is also the constant position in the second foot of the 1{X}st{/X} line.

[FNote_318] mutu vāy: according to T.V.G. mutu in combination with sentient beings (as contrary to things) has to be related to mutumai "keen knowledge", while mūppu "old age" (i.e. mū?) should be used to denote old age in people. Thus the gloss given by Nacc. on Ciṟupāṇāṟṟuppaṭai 40, p. 153: pēraṟivu vāy.

[FNote_319] takkaṉṟu: why p.a.? Situative: suitable for the folly you have just exhibited?

[FNote_320] māṭṭu as a locative suffix might be alright, but what is achieved by -um?

[FNote_321] ceṉṟē niṟkum: "going [and] standing" = "permanent"? This is one of the most problematic passages with -ē.

[FNote_322] ulavai, in contradistinction to ciṉai, is explained by T.V.G. to be a twig bared of leaves at the top of a tree. The opposite is given by the TL ("green twig with leaves upon it").

[FNote_323] The function of tā- here seems to be the perspective of matters: "to inflict loneliness", that is, the voice of the doves causes a feeling of loneliness in the listener. Cf. pulampu koḷ (KT 207.3 etc.) and pulamp' uṟu (KT 174.1).

[FNote_324] kurala, n.pl., must be read as a plural marker for puṟavu.

[FNote_325] neṟi: according to the Ind., "a flower stripped of its calyx"; to the TL, a verb: "to strip a flower of its calyx". If so, what would be left then? Is she supposed to wear the stems in her hair? Or is this an elliptical statement: stripping the flowers of their calyxes (muḻuneṟi) she puts them into her hair?

[FNote_326] kiḷai is otherwise used of bigger crowds as for example hordes of monkeys (cf. KT 69.3). Are we to perceive here a pejorative nuance?

[FNote_327] kākka is a regular infinitive, not optative (cf. note on KT 20.3,4). Tradition reads optative, and in any case it seems impossible to avoid a modal interpretation.

[FNote_328] Here too it is clearly possible to take the kūṉ as a secondary addition intended to make the syntax clear.

[FNote_329] The function of -ār, one of the rare particles (here and KT 247.3), and one which always follows an -um, continues to be obscure. Unfortunately the same is true of the -um in this place.

[FNote_330] koṇṭa: "my words that had taken [up] your words [and transmitted them to her]".

[FNote_331] Actually, since the temporal sequence is clear, the participle iḻanta is hard to defend, that is, clearly preferable is the variant iḻantu, absolutive.

[FNote_332] The putu nalaṉ (with -ṉ), 'the new integrity' is presumably a way of referring to her virginity.

[FNote_333] Here word order ñāḻal palciṉai might be explained as an inversion for the sake of euphony.

[FNote_334] Srin. suggests: -teyya as a particle of admonition.

[FNote_335] Or, perhaps equally convincing, a circular connection: "This one ... in our small good village ...", inserting the line of the main sentence consisting in imperative + comment: "just look there: Remembering is necessary."

[FNote_336] One further meaning of vār, commonly used in connection with water (nīrvār) is the transitive "to comb". Thus also possible T.V.G.'s interpretation of vār uṟu vaṇar katuppu as "nicely combed curly hair".

[FNote_337] tuṭaippār is taken by Cam. as a finite form and thus the end of the sentence. The form itself is ambiguous, either finite or participial noun and, as it is not marked by a sentence-final particle, the continuous construction seems preferable. The employment of the i.a. to denote a kind of habitual past is already taught in the Tol. col. 248. Another possible interpretation, however, could take an independent sentence in present or future tense which includes a change of perspective: HER inner picture of what will happen when HE comes back.

[FNote_338] puṟañ cēr: literally 'joining the back', i.e. he may be pressing the hair such that it joins with the back or undoing her coiffure such that her hair hangs down touching her back. T.V.G. thinks HE just touches/strokes HER back.

[FNote_339] The exact relation of beans and millet is not to be established on the basis of this text, where the syntax is totally unmarked. T.V.G. affirms that, after the millet has been harvested for the first time, it sprouts out again, and then the beans will be sown in between. A comparative praxis might be alluded to with cotton and millet in KT 72.

[FNote_340] Literally, with accusative: "who has said the man from the mountain as coming".

[FNote_341] Cam. reads viyartteṉaṉ, but his 1937 edition is correct.

[FNote_342] What is the exact syntax of line 1? However it is understood there are problems of position and morphology. The inf. muyaṅka has to be taken together with peyarttaṉeṉ. If so, then the translation given above shouldn't be blamed for connecting the viyarttaṉeṉ with the postpositioned eṉṟaṉaḷ (the postpositioned object of line 2, ākutal, is marked by -ē). The particle-marking, or rather non-marking, seems to me to require three parallel (and consequently coordinated!) main verbs, each with object postpositioned. The problem with this is that it requires taking eṉṟaṉaḷ with the infix -aṉ- as a participial noun. In any case the theme is interesting: jealousy between the women, not on account of the man.

[FNote_343] aṟintēṉ: the function of the p.a. is resultative here.

[FNote_344] ākutal needn't be employed in a semantically strong sense; it could also be predicative: "that this is (or rather, in the given context, was) disgust".

[FNote_345] What is the function of the absolutive? Could this line be coordinated with taṇṇiyaḷ: "[it is true that] she smells of ..., [but] she is cooler than ... ".

[FNote_346] Or: "with loosening armlets"; see note on KT 1.3.

[FNote_347] Literally: "when I, as one who came back, embraced [her]". There are two problems, however, with this (the traditional) interpretation. Firstly, the meaning "to come back" (i.e. to repeat in this context) is one of peyar 4. class, and here the form is clearly 11. class, which is supposed to mean something like "remove, dispel". Secondly, the infix -aṉ- usually marks a finite form and should not be found with participial nouns.

[FNote_348] With this interpretation a minor problem is that the eṉṟaṉaḷ would be a particle-less sentence ending. It is, however, minimally marked by the infix -aṉ-. More problematic is the question of content. But why not read the whole line as one long pretext?

[FNote_349] Combinations such as uḷḷūr literally "inner village" might be read as a kind of inverted compound similar to Sanskrit pūrvakāya? T.V.G., however, reads uḷ as root "to be" and takes it as the native village of the birds.

[FNote_350] The metaphor of the "sweet bamboo" as sugarcane can't be conveyed in a translation, because exactly that frozen metaphor has become the word to denote the plant: sugarcane.

[FNote_351] Another possibility is to read kural not as an object to kēṭkunar, but to take the last three lines as a postpositioned exclamation: "[O], the voice of the bell ...!".

[FNote_352] An alternative to the syntax of the last two lines by Srin.: "the tender sound of the cruel bell which sounds if the tongue [of the bell] moves, every time (-toṟu) a fly buzzes (around a) cow".

[FNote_353] The cow stirs up the fly, that is, it moves its head to get rid of the fly and thus makes the bell move.

[FNote_354] marāatta: adjective in -a to maram or marāam? Thus also in 92.3. Cf. note on 22.3.

[FNote_355] Is this the meaning of the figura etymologica ñekiḻa ñekiḻntaṉṟu (= "... is emaciated as it emaciates")? T.V.G. understands: "as [the mind] is becoming weak the ... shoulders are emaciated".

[FNote_356] Thus Cam., but without marking with -ē I don't believe in an independent sentence. T.V.G., however, affirms that the negation with allar cannot appear in a subordinated position.

[FNote_357] The expression vaṭu nāṇalam "we won't be ashamed of reproach" seems to call for an interpretation of naṭunāḷ as "midday", because at daytime it is reasonable to expect reproaching witnesses. This would also account for the -um of varutalum. But on the other hand the description of the way HE has to take belongs to range of motifs connected with night-time, according to the understanding of Cam. and T.V.G.

[FNote_358] toṉ muraṇ cōrum: does this mean that the fight has ended in a draw, that is, that it has ended for the time being but may spring up again? Both variants, kollum "killing" ("where the elephant attacks the tiger [and] kills [him] in old antagony") and collum "giving up" ("where the elephant attacks the tiger [and] gives up the old antagony" (i.e. after having got rid of the enemy), are transitive and demand kaḷiṟu as a subject. A hierarchy doesn't seem possible. The image in any case emphasizes the dangers on HIS way.

[FNote_359] In the absence of morphological marking of the object we have to take recourse to the word order; so puli has to be direct object to kaḷiṟu.

[FNote_360] mākkaṉ/mākkaḷ, depending on the dissolution of the sandhi here. Cam. reads the latter.

[FNote_361] pāṭiṉaḷ: what is achieved here by the p.a.?

[FNote_362] So SHE sang while working and is well, though people are talking.

[FNote_363] In this poem the syntax is very odd. For reasons of content it seems impossible to avoid taking the Vaḷḷai song at the end of line 1 as a direct object to pāṭiṉaḷ in the last line, but that is clearly beyond any word order rule. Does this point to a further rule, namely that, if need be, common sense has to be used?

[FNote_364] This image of the deity on mount Kolli seems to be a topos. Besides KT 100, compare, for example, Kal. 56.

[FNote_365] Cam.'s diction doesn't make clear whether yiṉaivarai is to be read as a variant for the beginning of the next line or a hypermetrical appendage of this line.

[FNote_366] For the gift of the waters cf. 109.2: ikutirai tarūun tuṟaivaṉ.

[FNote_367] uṇ tuṟai is ambiguous and may on the one hand refer to the collyrium-dark colour of the water, on the other hand to its status as drinking water reservoir. In KT 399.1 a uṇ kēṇi "drinking water well" precedes the uṇtuṟai. Perhaps the double employment of uṇ in one phrase points to the fact that both meanings could be actualised.

[FNote_368] Fragrant flowers although the fruits are ripe?

[FNote_369] poṅku, literally "to foam", but with hair "to become erect", seems to be to special in formulation to be just taken as an attribute denoting the mass of hair, as is understood by Cam. T.V.G. renders it with "bushy".

[FNote_370] Is the vīḻnteṉa clause to be connected with varaiyiḻi yaruvi?

[FNote_371] According to T.V.G. koṉ is to be understood as a particle, namely the only one not to be post- but antepositioned. In Tol. col. 254 four meanings for this koṉ are taught, that is, accam "fear", payam-ili "futility", kālam "time" and perumai "greatness". For the first of these meanings our KT passage here is the only example given by the commentators, so according to them we would have a "dreadful front line". (The TL takes koṉ as a lexeme which results in a row of meanings hardly compatible with one another, and obviously following the TP definition.) Here word analysis would be in place.

[FNote_372] Here again one of the cases of āyiṉ in clearly semantic use.

[FNote_373] Here Srin. (with Cam.!) thinks it natural for the keṇṭai to be fished, because of the position of katūum! Decidedly different Cam. about the identical construction (with almost identical wording) in KT 8.2.

[FNote_374] varippuṟam: in 364.1 perhaps "striped back", but here? Just "fruit striped outside"?

[FNote_375] The internal syntax of line 1 is once again totally unmarked and not to be gleaned from the content (see 1b). T.V.G. understands the fruit of the pirampu creeper, but if pirampu is reed, it is neither a creeper nor does it produce fruits which are likely to fall into the water. The variant to the first half, arippavarp parampiṉ might be a simplification: "... fruit from the shore with stalks [and] creepers".

[FNote_376] So the whole is either to be read as a well-intentioned warning (as seems to be implied by the image; cf. 8), or the curse of a rival woman.

[FNote_377] marāatta: adjective in -a to the oblique of maram or marāam? Thus already 87.1. Cf. note on 22.3.

[FNote_378] koṇṭamaiyiṉ: Cam. reads an abstract noun in -mai from the participle + -iṉ oblique. Wouldn't it be better to read koṇṭu amaiyiṉ, the usual abs. to koḷ + cond. to amai 4. "become quite"? It is true that there are parallels for such a mode of expression, like in 173.7 uṇarntamaiyiṉ. On the other hand there are passages like 132.3 with maṟant' amaiku (see also 137.2, 225.5; cf. also 117.5 abs.neg. + amaiyiṉ), i.e. unequivocally absolutive + amai, so that the question is justified whether amai can be understood as an auxiliary verb.

[FNote_379] paṟavai is one of the exemplary problematic words. In 201.3 and 352.2 epithets and context speak in favour of the traditional rendering with "bat". But here, though the epithets are not markedly different, the context doesn't demand such an identification. One possible answer to this might be, of course, that a description in accord with nature has not been intended. Is that argument strong enough to translate with "bat" nevertheless?

[FNote_380] uṟa: the infinitive together with the p.a. participle ōṅkiya gives rise to the suspicion that the phrase might mean something more specific than just a nest in a high tree.

[FNote_381] A detailed discussion (though unfortunately no longer up to date because a better understanding of the function of -āl) is to be found in Wilden 2001a.

[FNote_382] In this variant the hypermetrical tōḻi is missing - an effort at straightening?

[FNote_383] According to whether kaṭai is taken as a noun meaning, "limit" or simply as a locative suffix, contrary statements are made. The former is related to her love for him: it is without bounds (which he just seems to be about to transgress). The latter means his love for her: it doesn't exist any longer, and still she stands by him. Can this be chance? Srin. doesn't believe in verbal nouns + locative ending. His suggestion: "we are without love [for one another (cf. StII 11/12 '86: 282, note 4/ZDMG 135 '85: 384, note 1)]. Stop (kaṭai-ē)!" Tradition, however, doesn't read a 1.pl. (ilam) at all, but a further expletive infix -am-, so that would be simply the absence of love plus a locative suffix.

[FNote_384] Here it stands to reason that the variant put into the text by Cam. and others, namely the infinitive tolaiya, doesn't make sense at all. Definitely preferrable is the variant tolaintu, the absolutive. Unfortunately it is only since I started working with manuscripts on the Naṟṟiṇai that I have discovered the problem of parellel versions with different types of Peyareccam/Viṉaiyeccam. Now it is too late actually to begin tempering with Cam.'s text, but ocasionally it seems unavoidable to point the problem out at least in the notes.

[FNote_385] Here again by another attribute, i.e. nal "good", nalam appears to be divided into two varieties, and presumably the distinguished kind refers again to her virginity (cf. putu nalaṉ KT 81).

[FNote_386] A little difficult to integrate into the question is atu. The question is whether it is only a formulaic addition (tradition doesn't take it in a semantic sense).

[FNote_387] Or Srin.: "I am going mad".

[FNote_388] This is so far the only case where an object appears outside the borders of a subordinate clause. So perhaps above in line 4 an elliptical statement should be read ("if he hears [it] again"), while the last two lines are to be taken as a postpositioned exclamation: "[oh] the voice ...!".

[FNote_389] That is, the noise of the water in the "real" season.

[FNote_390] If that is what was meant, tamiyeṉ (1. sg.) would have been expected, but tamiyar as well would not be impossible(?)

[FNote_391] A kuṟa-makaḷ would be a woman from the Kuṟava tribe, and, as that would be a deviation from the formulaic kuṟu-makaḷ, certainly the lectio difficilior, even though it would be possible to argue that it has been adapted to the kuṟavaṉ in the same line.

[FNote_392] ōr-aṉṉa is traditionally read as one lexeme and ōr as an expletive element. It is to be found in other combinations, though: KT 38.5, 282.5, 316.5 ōrāṅku; KT 312.4,8 ōraṉṉaḷ.

[FNote_393] cāyal: here it seems possible to see, at least by sound association, a conscious connection to the topological cāy "emaciate", and thus a double sense: HER emaciating makes HIM waver in his decision to leave her. In that case he would already have been united with her and the uraṉ would gain quite a different tone.

[FNote_394] ciṟukuṭi is explained as a nomen proprium by T.V.G., but with a designation as frequent and formulaic as this such an interpretation sounds quite baroque, unless the context supplies some hint.

[FNote_395] Here the kiḷavi interpretation of speaker and listener seems to be blatantly off the mark, and presumably so for reasons of moral; see chap. III.3.3, p. 206f.?.

[FNote_396] It is quite improbable that such an interpretation has been the one predominantly intended, but how to exclude the possibility that such additional associative games have also been calculated by the poets? T.V.G., by the way, actually reads in the sense of the kiḷavi, that is, the reported direct speech of the first two lines from the mouth of the friend supposed to say that HE deserves punishment (nāṭaṟk' i-yāṉ evaṉ ceykō "what shall I do (as a punishment) to the man from the land ...?), an odd interpretation of a dative, and not counting the unequivocal erotic associations and the ambiguities of the poem (which are supported by formulae or even based on a real quotation).

[FNote_397] The deviation from the structure of this peculiar prelude to a poem, containing three -ē's has to be taken as the lectio difficilior.

[FNote_398] ūrāṉ: in the whole Caṅkam literature only here and in PN 144.14 there is the long -ā- in the second syllable. The main reason certainly is to distinguish the usual appellative noun from a real denominative as it is here (cf. nāṭṭar/nāṭaṉ). Is this moreover play with the positive and the negative form, to emphasize the uncertainty of HIS whereabouts? T.V.G. attributes the long syllable to metrical requirements. Yet another possibility to be considered is -āṉ as a locative suffix, as is read by the old commentary on the PN passage ("the man from the ghat [is] in [his] village").

[FNote_399] maṉṟattaḵt'ē: the form should be explained as an oblique to maṉṟam + atu, n.sg. (i.e. predicate noun to maṟai) in front of the vowel -ē changed to aḵtu as the sandhi demands it.

[FNote_400] tuṟaivaṉ (sg.) + tam (pl.): how to understand this? He is not in their (i.e. his own people's) village?

[FNote_401] For peṟiṉē expressing an irreal wish see 29.7, 310.7, 136.5. For a conditional as a subject sentence and thus marked by -ē see 58.2, 112.2.

[FNote_402] maratta: adjective in -a to maram? Cf. maṟātta in 87.1, 92.3.

[FNote_403] malir niṟai: Srin. reads an intensifying synonym compound(?); the TL gives one lexeme "full flood". niṟai "flood", however, is not to be found in the TL.

[FNote_404] What is the exact syntax of uṇac ceṉṟ' aṟṟu?! And what is achieved with the image regarding the message of the whole? The wording seems to be a lament on the transitoriness of desire, but tradition understands, in accordance with the kiḷavi, in the first three lines a solemn affirmation by the man that he has thought of HER when on his way, while the last line is read as desire satisfied in the moment of return ("while [now] such a big desire comes to an end ..."), and this is what agrees with the image: the flood doesn't disappear totally, but becomes useful by dwindling.

[FNote_405] paṇai perun tōḷ: the word order is difficult. Possible are two coordinated attributes "shoulders [like] bamboo [and] big" or a hierarchy "shoulders big as bamboo"?

[FNote_406] maṭa-vantaṉaḷ: I don't believe in either a compound (Ind.) or in "beauty" and the like; that doesn't fit to the usage of maṭam in the KT, though something like "simpleness, naivety" might be meant. An exact parallel of expression nevertheless is to be found in KT 113.6: varukuvaḷ perum pētaiyē.

[FNote_407] According to T.V.G. Ōri is not the same ruler who is named Poraiyaṉ in 89.4, but the former lord who was defeated in a battle after which the land came into the possession of the Chera king.

[FNote_408] The wording seems to imply that besides planting mountain rice the hemp and jasmine (presumably as hair dress) play a role in the livelihood of the obviously not well off families from the mountains. T.V.G., however, understands the tearing out of weeds in the paddy field.

[FNote_409] cālā is according to Srin. not the negative absolutive, but (reference to Agesthialingom p. 112f.) pl. of the negative neuter. The p.a. expresses that HIS decision has been made: he does not go. Or it may be grammatically/syntactically resultative: the outcome of weighing?

[FNote_410] uṇkaṇ: uṇ is frequently read as a comparison particle by Cam., but revealingly not in the gloss to this passage (gloss: maiyuṇṭa). This seems to be a point for taking this usual compound like above.

[FNote_411] The phrase tōḷ māṟupaṭūum is not totally clear. It might be connected, like in the first translation, with the poetological idiom where the noun māṟupāṭu refers to HER changes due to HIS absence (i.e. the sense here being that he would not leave her and expose her to suffering for the world). "Exchanging shoulders" could also be taken as a rather euphemistic or elliptical phrase for their making love, in fact that is the explanation given by T.V.G. who cannot, however, in this case name parallels from Caṅkam literature itself (the meaning being then that their embrace was worth to him more than anything else).

[FNote_412] aḷavaittu has to be understood as predicative (to kāmam), just as the postpositioned kāmam is the subject of all three sentences. To the first, however, it could also be the object, depending on a transitive or intransitive interpretation of the vēm.

[FNote_413] Problematic is the connection of em. It is hard to understand it as a genitive (as is suggested by form and position, unless we take it as in 2b. Possible seem either a locative ("with us") or, as above, as a dativus ethicus.

[FNote_414] cāṉṟōr allar cf. nallai yallai KT 47.4.

[FNote_415] The colour description makes one rather think of a flamingo, but that doesn't fit in well with the behaviour (looking for prey, and moving singly). The explanation adduced by T.V.G. is that nārai-s (by him translated as cranes which need mean nothing in particular) turn a little red in colour when they are aged. He gives another reference in Nacc. on Kal. 124 where nārai-s are compared to brahmin sanyasins who traditionally wear red clothes.

[FNote_416] This is one of the strangest kiḷavi-s in the whole collection of the three old Akam anthologies. According to T.V.G. it means: in order to forget HIS big fault of not coming back in time, SHE should think of the little pleasures of being together.

[FNote_417] Of the three variants the first is merely morphological, the second, the optative, is formulaic, but not fitting here, and the third one is problematic, because usually the suffix -pa is employed with persons.

[FNote_418] tāḷi can mean, among other things: a Palmyra palm or a certain kind of creeper. If the latter is meant here, then the relation between tāḷi and pavar presumably has to be taken to be an apposition, if the former, then in the sense of 3b.

[FNote_419] The segregation of sentences is difficult, because of "irregular" particle marking with nāḷē. I read the infix -aṉ- in pirintaṉar as a minimal marking of the finite form and accordingly an independent sentence. Perhaps nāḷ couldn't be postpositioned because of the long dependent string of subordinate elements, and it receives by the marking with -ē, which is notable in this place, a special emphasis. T.V.G. sees in this -ē - besides, of course, metrical necessity - the flavour of complaint or admonition.

[FNote_420] vēr tuṟṟu, "full of sweat", is equally possible.

[FNote_421] The variant in the habitual future makes one wonder whether the analysis as a present tense would not be possible in the case of ākiṉṟu (cf. note on KT 15.4).

[FNote_422] puṉam is supposed to be not just any cultivable field, but the rather arid kind of field of the hilly tracts. Accordingly, the puṉavaṉ is the cultivator of that area.

[FNote_423] The phrase kaṭi-y-uṇ kaṭavuḷ is rather unclear. According to the DEDR there are three meanings of kaṭi which might be possible here: 1124 "biting", 1129 "scent", 1135 "swiftness". So either the god is supposed to take a mouthful from the offering, or is supposed to enjoy the scent only, or he should be eating quickly.

[FNote_424] Niṉai-tal, in contradistinction to uḷḷu-tal, is explained bei T.V.G. as a thinking full of desire, with a reference to Nacc. on TP 240 (viṟupp'uṟṟu niṉai-tal).

[FNote_425] For cūr cf. note on KT 52.2. Perhaps here it denotes both, i.e. fear and the awe-inspiring, female deities.

[FNote_426] It is equally well possible to understand the neñcattu as a genitivus objectivus: "Word has come to us, o friend, of the faultless heart of the man from a land ...", i.e. word that HIS heart is faultless.

[FNote_427] T.V.G., being a little more baroque than the kiḷavi, situates this poem in marutam tiṇai and takes HIS messenger to arrive shortly before himself when returning from the courtesan's house. The message implied in the simile of the first two lines then is supposed to be: just like people mistake the roots of the Iṟṟi for a waterfall, people tend to make rash conclusions about HIS behaviour, but he is without fault. Another explanation more easily to be connected to the rest of the poem might be that SHE is as much rooted in HIM as the Iṟṟi in the stone. In this case the comparison would still not be accounted for.

[FNote_428] While the variant tāmaḷant'... "mix" seems to be a semantic one (apart from the pl. tām which is hard to explain, because it doesn't go well with the nāṭaṉ in the 2{X}nd{/X} line), tāṉ varaint'... "marry" is at least a support for Tieken's interpretation (2001: 39f.) of the fire image as an allusion to the wedding ceremony. It would be the only one, not only in this anthology, and to conclude that this is a vedic marriage solely on the grounds that fire and ghee are mentioned seems a little too daring. Moreover there is the possibility of connecting the image with His message (5b).

[FNote_429] maṇant' aṉaiyam presents a morphological problem. It could be analysed as maṇantu aṉaiyam (absolutive plus adjectival base aṉai, "such", plus suffix of the 1.pl. = appellative noun in denominative function), as maṇanta aṉaiyam (participle of the perfective aspect with a special sandhi - which might have parallels in nacaintaṉaiyai in KT 52.2 and picaintaṉaiyēm in KT 289.3 - plus appellative noun in denominative function; T.V.G. also reads it thus), or as maṇantaṉaiyam (a compound of uncertain morphology and sense). In every variant, however, the exact meaning and temporal implication of this is anybody's guess. In spite of the sandhi problem, I prefer the second possibility, i.e. the participle plus denominative, because it is most easy to make sense of: "we are [still] those he united with".

[FNote_430] The last but one line is hypermetrical. Is to be surmised that the variant has removed the reflexive pronoun taṉ to set this right, or is it rather that taṉ has been inserted as a clarifying pronoun? Since here it doesn't really clarify and open relation, it seems, however, that Cam.'s text presents the lectio difficilior.

[FNote_431] naḷliruḷ yāmattu might have to be understood as naḷ [ḷ-eṉa], as it is actually to be found in all the other formulaic parallels in the KT (cf. 6.1, 118.2, 160.4, 163.5, 244.1, 261.4, 312.4).

[FNote_432] tōṉṟi: this ought to be taken as the earliest (and only Caṅkam?) instance of this word as a synonym of kāntaḷ "Malabar glory lily" - the TL adduces a passage from Cīvak. The alternative would be to take tōṉṟi as the absolutive of tōṉṟu-tal "to appear", which is quite difficult to make any sense of ("like the light flower after heaping clusters have appeared"), because it doesn't explain the association with red colour.

[FNote_433] alk' irai: T.V.G. explains in a sense that it is a prey enough for several days for the young cat to eat.

[FNote_434] The variant is vaṉaṉ "drought, dried out soil" instead of vāṉ. This seems equally possible, for we may recall the red soil in the rain of KT 40. But the sky metaphor is constitutive for the message of the poem because it is principally through the sky that there is a specification of poetic time: sunset, that is, evening. In this light the variant would be the lectio difficilior.

[FNote_435] uyvaṉ, positive, seems to be more difficult to understand, but perhaps we may understand it thus: "it [only] seems as if I would live".

[FNote_436] paṭara: paṭar-tal is several times to be taken as "thinking of", though the semantic nucleus rather seems to be the direction of movement towards a desired aim. Here it has to be surmised that the description is situative: at sunset, in the rainy season, the cows return to the village, to their calves. Cf. KT 64 with the cows returning in the evening.

[FNote_437] T.V.G. explains ciṟukuṭi as the type of little village to be found in the woodlands.

[FNote_438] A poetologically interesting alternative interpretation of the jasmine image is given by T.V.G. He takes it as "the flawless white jasmine flower has taken the beauty of the red sky", that is, the white jasmine blossoms would look against the fertile red soil like stars in the night sky - which would imply a sort of poetic license, because in fact what is to be seen in the sky is either sunset red or stars at night. I prefer to think that the very bright, white blossoms are supposed to reflect the red of sunset - which might be another kind of poetic license implying colour symbolism: positive white infested by painful red.

[FNote_439] The beginning of the 2{X}nd{/X} line has several variants. While I can't think of anything making sense in case of uṇari for puṇari, and while miku-tirai "many waves" has to be evaluated as a semantic variant, is the first variant more interesting, iḵt' irai "this prey", given by the ocean. In that case one would be tempted to understand the image in another way, namely as a parallel between the ocean and the man on the one hand, between the prawn swept to the beach and HER.

[FNote_440] ñāṉṟum: what is the function of -um here? It could be the indefinite suffix: every time she meets him. Or "also when" in the sense of "already" or "since"?

[FNote_441] For the gift of the waters cf. 90.5: ... aruvi yuṇ tuṟait tarūum / kuṉṟa nāṭaṉ.

[FNote_442] Here we have to read an elliptical crossing of the levels of statement: HER good forehead no longer clear is the white beach littered with prawn.

[FNote_443] Thus the traditional interpretation which makes better sense of the -um with ñāṉṟum, but, however, completely ignores the -ō and needs an additional meaning of maṉ (which is, to be sure, backed up by the Tol. col. 254).

[FNote_444] yār ākiyar-ō: here āku-tal is clearly used in a predicative sense like Skt. bhū, though when read as a perfective aspect a change of state could also be implied, i.e. a reference to HIS former behaviour which had effected a change in HER feelings. This aspect has been rendered in the translation by "now".

[FNote_445] The internal syntax of lines 3-6 is once again unmarked and gives room for different possibilities, though without effecting major changes in the message.

[FNote_446] nīra might either be taken as an elliptical allusion to the flowers growing there, i.e. the lilies, or as a specification to the nīla of the following line.

[FNote_447] vallē: here is one of the few cases where -ē marks an adverb in the middle of the sentence, obviously in emphatic function.

[FNote_448] The syntax of lines 1-3 is not so easy. My proposition is to read vēlaṉ eṉṉum + aṉṉai uṇarum as dependent on āyiṉ āyiṭai (parallel construction: subject plus habitual future positioned at the end of the preceding line), and connected by -um. And the whole is described at not yet having happened, that is, at a time when the vēlaṉ is awaited in the house.

[FNote_449] An additional irony lies in the choice of the word vēḷ as a designation of Murukaṉ, a word etymologically meaning "desire", and thus containing the "correct solution", which nevertheless escapes the notice of the mother.

[FNote_450] The use of the word uṇaru- is difficult to explain here, since the meaning is not that the mother at least understands the truth, but that she believes in the wrong judgement of the priest (the reason why the people of the house laugh). So the sentence has to be read from the perspective of the mother who believes to have an insight.

[FNote_451] The rendering 7b is supported by the variant, allōr, which can only be understood as a negation with al. It is, however, a little strange from the syntactical point of view; one would expect an inserted eṉa - if it is not just the ambiguity of the phrase that has been wanted. (Moreover it would be possible to read the illōr/allōr as an unmarked direct object to a still strongly verbal and transitive nakai: "the laughter about the one who is it not".)

[FNote_452] The first two lines, however to explain the exact syntax, have to be understood as an aphoristic prelude (see IV.1.3). Strange is the lack of particle marking in the first, the double marking with -ē in the second line, while the most natural way of constructing is to take two parallel conditional clauses. The marking of a conditional in the function of a subject clause is also attested elsewhere; cf. KT 58.2, 98.2.

[FNote_453] ociyal is literally a verbal noun to oci, i.e. something like "splittering". The meaning "tree with a broken branch" as given in DEDR after the TL very likely could be traced back to this KT passage. The most satisfactory explanation however is an elliptical crossing of the levels of expression as in 109: the nalaṉ which is intended on the emotive level is missing on the figurative level.

[FNote_454] nār'uṭai: the point of mentioning the bark might be twofold. Either we have an allusion to the wasteland topos of the hungry elephant scraping off the bark (so that is why he bows the branch). Or, and this is T.V.G.'s interpretation, the bark is the thing still holding the splintering branch together.

[FNote_455] The alternative 5b is certainly not in accord with usual Akam sense, especially since the avar generally denotes HIM, but in this context, and taking into consideration the prelude, this sub-level message might still be intended.

[FNote_456] Here the penultimate line is hypermetrical, and there are two long variants (both equally incomprehensible to me). This might show difficulties with the kūḻai: erumaṇ could simply be an inserted gloss.

[FNote_457] For the structure of lines 1 and 2 compare KT 188.1,2.

[FNote_458] em kūḻaikk' erumaṇ: the traditional interpretation of this peculiar phrase seems baroque (see 5b). kūḻai "that which is short" is taken as a word for hair (T.V.G. explaining that girls below 12 years of age have short hair). The trouble is that the meaning of eru is "dung" (DEDR 813 "manure, excrement", not a thing likely to be put into women's hair (whatever their age). So, Cam. ignores the eru and interprets maṇ like a kind of cleaning mud substance. A rather clever step is taken by Shanmugam Pillai. He finds the reading erumaṇam in some manuscripts and adopts it to the text. Now this would be a kind of red water-lily, quite appropriate to the context, but unfortunately a hapax in Caṅkam literature (though attested lateron). Another strategy might be to take kūḻai in another meaning. According to the DED kūḻai can also mean "mud". It might be conceivable that for the usual mud mixture used for the mending of the house walls dung and earth have to be collected, a necessary domestic task generally taken over by the women.

[FNote_459] pētai can at least two shades, namely that of "folly" (cf. the village in KT 89.3) or innocence (cf. SHE in KT 142.2). Here it depends on whether we see the confidante solely as a matchmaker or whether she is supposed to act in accordance with HER wishes.

[FNote_460] According to Tak. (with reference to Nakk. on IA and AV) the friend has led HER to HIM.

[FNote_461] The variant eṉ mati nutalē, the heron treading on "my moon[like] forehead", would be a strange kind of realism.

[FNote_462] koṇkaṉ is one of the few designation of the man with regional association which defy etymological analysis (it is not included in DEDR). So what else is there to do than to follow tradition and take it as one of the words for the man from the seashore?

[FNote_463] vayiṟṟa: -a has to be understood here as the adjective suffix.

[FNote_464] The traditional interpretation, in accordance with Tak.'s explanation of the kiḷavi and with T.V.G.'s reading of the text, is that the friend has brought HER to HIM, but that she adds that both SHE and herself will soon have to go. What one would expect in this case, however, is that there would be a vantanam "we have come" and a celkō "I go", referring to the friend about to leave the couple. Another problem with this is the viyaṅkol, which is to be found in the TL (as one would expect by etymology) as a lexeme meaning "to obey" ("to receive an order"). So it would be more natural to take the whole as HER speech to HIM, saying that she has come to meet him (vantaṉeṉ), but that they should now go to another (safer?) place (celkam). The doll then can be either understood as a pretext, or as a peculiar kind of coquetry, because she is presumably not about to play with dolls with him.

[FNote_465] āral arunta vayiṟṟa nārai: arunta to aruntu-tal 5. "eat" cannot be the particle of the p.a., as is glossed by Cam., but only infinitive. So literally this phrase would be: "the heron with a belly to eat Āral" - presumably a voracious, insatiable heron.

[FNote_466] The alkalum is a little awkward. I can think of no way of construing it than with the arunta clause.

[FNote_467] This obviously aphoristical prelude to the actual poem is a little disconcerting (as most of such preludes are). Perhaps the sense is that, even though HE has done well by HER, she doesn't value it, but scolds him. The rest quite clearly is a request to make up the quarrel that presumably SHE has started. The traditional interpretation goes another way by taking the first line as a rhetorical question, -ē having, according to Tol. col 259, also this function: "If [someone] does something very good, are there also people who don't value [it]?".

[FNote_468] tēmpāy can also mean "frequented by bees": pāy, the verb of movement, might be explained as a means to activate the (metonymic?) association of tēm with bee.

[FNote_469] nayantu uṟaivōḷ: the most natural interpretation might here be one of uṟai-tal as an auxiliary verb with the aspect of continuity: she is one who is continuously longed for by him. See also 145.4 tuñcāt' uṟainar, 65.4 vārāt' uṟaiyunar.

[FNote_470] aṟal can also be, with Cam., "black sand", that is, "like black sand flown over fine [white] sand"; thus unequivocally in KT 286.3, but equally certain "water" in KT 65.1 - and in the KT there are just these 3 occurrences.

[FNote_471] Again the elliptical crossing of expressive levels: the white sand through which the water flows in curl-like, winding tracks evokes her face, otherwise not mentioned, and/or her white body which is contrasted by her black hair.

[FNote_472] Instead of taking nal "good" as a further and difficult to explain predicate noun, the possibility of an adverb might be considered, i.e. "very curly".

[FNote_473] So T.V.G. with Cam.; of course there is the topos of bees coming to women's hair.

[FNote_474] Of interest is here the variant and clearly the lectio difficilior: no ox, but the coming away from the rope of the herdsman, in other words once again an elliptical metaphor, and moreover without a comparison particle.

[FNote_475] varāt' amaiyiṉum amaika: this is a play on the root amai-tal, but still one has to ask the question whether amai-tal is not an auxiliary in the first case, in the sense of reaching permanently a new condition. Cf. note on 92.5, 132.3.

[FNote_476] What is the function of the verbal nouns? pārval certainly is actualisation (in this moment), but what is paruvaral, a fixed state? Or: "the wet crab, all suffering, as it fears to be seen ..."?

[FNote_477] Is this an intended ambiguity?: either HE has come free from HER like the ox from the herdsman, and thus content in the sense of indifferent towards her (2-5b), or HE has come free from his duties and is hurrying back, but is delayed on the way. In the first case SHE can do nothing but put up with it, in the second she needs the strength to go on waiting: line 6.

[FNote_478] T.V.G. explains nār'il as "without love". The metaphorical transposition is undoubtedly there, but it is hard to decide whether it is already a semantic extension. DEDR 3652 just gives "fibre, string, cord, rope".

[FNote_479] For naḷ cf. note on KT 6. Here we have obviously an onomatopoeic, but what is the message? Is it the sound (or soundlessness) or is it something like "suddenly, inevitably"? T.V.G. takes it to refer to the insects to be heard at night.

[FNote_480] The form kātalōr for kātalar seems to be obligatory in poem final position.

[FNote_481] Does this poem allude to a well-known story (a myth, a fable or something similar)? (T.V.G. obviously knows the cobra as an enemy of the elephant.) It seems neither comprehensible by itself how the young of a snake, even a poisonous one, could trouble an elephant, nor is the function of the demonstrative pronoun a- evident. Cam. (T.V.G. along with him) read am, "pretty", (final -m is lost in sandhi before v-), that is, "the young with pretty stripes".

[FNote_482] Is this attribute of relevance for the message, for example in the sense of: the bangles on HER hand are comparable to the bonds with which she has fettered HIM?

[FNote_483] In the case of a row of snakes the tertium comparationis presumably must be the row of teeth, though this would not be easier from the point of view of contents.

[FNote_484] What is the function of ākutal here? It looks very much like Skt. bhavati, that is, either wholly predicative or actually connected with a change of condition.

[FNote_485] This would mean, probably, that SHE has stopped to meet HIM in secret.

[FNote_486] mey can either be understood literally as "body" or in a figurative sense as "truth/reality". The variant meyyē would have to be taken as an antepositioned exclamation: "[It is] true, oh friend!" or "[My] body, oh friend!"

[FNote_487] Here Srin. proposes an alternative interpretation: "because of the mistake that his sign has not come true" (which would mean that he has stayed away from the appointment). In this case one would have to assume that actually taṉ kuṟi is meant, but that the tām of the next line has produced an analogous lengthening to tāṉ.

[FNote_488] maipaṭṭ'aṉṉa is literally "as if collyrium had happened to him".

[FNote_489] For ēṟṟa cf. note on KT 29.2.

[FNote_490] T.V.G. takes āṟṟa as an adverbial derivation from āṟu, literally "river, path", but also, in a transferred sense, "right way, conduct". One would like, of course, parallels for such a usage, as well as a general study on the employment of adverbs in these texts.

[FNote_491] uṭaittu is, according to Lehmann 1994: 89, to be taken as a finite form of a defective verb uṭai.(?)

[FNote_492] The oblique puṟattu suggests an ellipsis of this kind.

[FNote_493] vāḻiyō: T.V.G. sees in this -ō following the imperative vāḻi one of the cases where -ō conveys distress: SHE cannot really wish to welcome evening. Although quite attractive here, such an interpretation seems arbitrary when one considers the number of passages where this imperative + -ō is to be taken seriously.

[FNote_494] Literally uṭaittē says that evening possesses night - actually a fine example for Srin.'s interpretation of -uṭai as inalienable possession: evening without night is an impossibility.

[FNote_495] īrntaṇ: the wording is problematic here. If this is really meant to be īr-taṇ (as Cam. and T.V.G. read), an inserted nasal would not be expected. T.V.G. asserts that this inserted nasal is a kind of sandhi, but one would like to have other instances.

[FNote_496] It is true that the TL knows only specific meanings for eṉṉai ("my father, my mother, my master"), but here the general variant seems in place and morphologically equally possible.

[FNote_497] T.V.G. here takes the infinitive pulampa in an optative sense: "may become lonely ...".

[FNote_498] maruṅkiṉ akaṉṟalai: What is achieved by this hypermetrical redundancy? Srin. proposes to connect the latter with the ūr of the next line: something like "important place" ("main-ūr" + akaṉ "broad" in the sense of "wide" or, figuratively, "important").

[FNote_499] cērntu could also be used to denote the whole of the salt merchants, that is, the salt merchants travelling in a group (thus T.V.G.).

[FNote_500] The cultural impact of this image is not clear and we are missing the sociological background. T.V.G. gives a nice interpretation, namely that the group of travelling salt merchants (on their way to sell their salt across the country) just take rest in this deserted place and then move on. Now the kaḷinta semantically rather seems to mean "to pass by", that is, without even taking a short halt, but that might be just a stronger version of the same interpretation: the village is so run down that it is not even considered as a resting place.

[FNote_501] -nōy is a printing mistake for -tōy (see edition of 1937).

[FNote_502] mēmpaṭṭa: the TL lexicalises (though with a younger reference) mēl-paṭu-tal "to rise high, as in status, to be pre-eminent"; there are a few further passages in Caṅkam, especially in PN.

[FNote_503] Does line 2 really belong to the text? There are only phrasal expressions which are necessary neither for grammar nor for contents, and on top of that this unrelated cāral! If it is genuine, then what is the connection to line 1? Is this an antepositioned exclamation or an antepositioned subject? Also the following eṉ-nalaṉē sentence can be understood only as an exclamation.

[FNote_504] Does this mean a fighting injury? Srin./T.V.G. understand: "... a heron with whom the strength of the wings, an old strength (= one which has always been there) has failed".

[FNote_505] The traditional interpretation doesn't read exclamations at all, but takes the first line ending in yāṉē as attributed subject of ulaṉē in the second. Similarly, the nalaṉē of line 4 is taken as the subject of kaṇmāṟiṉṟē. Now this is in several respects tricky. For one thing, there is the problem of semantics. What is kaṇ-māṟu-tal? T.V.G. takes kaṇ in the meaning "place" and translates thus "to exchange place". The TL adduces "to be humbled down from a high position", with reference to this KT passage, which seems to be the same thing in moralistic extension. One the other hand, neither of these doesn't seem to go all too well with the further construction (tuṟaivaṉoṭu). The nalaṉ has certainly not changed place with the man from the ghat; it might have done so for or because of him, that is, one would expect rather a dative. Thus to me it feels safer to take the kaṇ māṟu-tal literally: "to exchange eyes", i.e. glances, or here, sg., one glance. The ruinous consequence of such glances is a topos found not unfrequently, and in this case the tuṟaivaṉoṭu seems quite in place.

[FNote_506] The variant with eṉpa, 3.pl., presupposes a division of the poem into two levels of expression, which is a fairly frequent feature. Here the first two lines would have to be read as a commentary of the inhabitants of the village. Taking into consideration, however, the parallel in KT 65, where also the rainy season itself speaks, and the image of the laughing mouth, Cam.'s text might be preferable.

[FNote_507] Another possible interpretation of the syntax would be a sentence division after nakumē tōḻi: "... thus laughs the ... jasmine, so that [its] dense buds become shining teeth, friend. [It is] fragrant [and] cool rainy season." In both cases the -ē can be read additionally as a particle of regret/lament.

[FNote_508] puṟam tā is, according to the TL, "protect", but here the message rather seems to be that in spite of heavy rain the jasmine is still full of flowers. Since it is visible from afar it doesn't seem plausible that it is sheltered from the rain, for example by growing underneath a tree, but that it protects itself, that it defies the rain, a solution even closer to the etymology of puṟam tā: "to give the back - defy".

[FNote_509] kaḻaṉiyam: is -am here adjective formans or "pretty"?

[FNote_510] Is urukeḻu here epitheton ornans (beautiful lotus) or does it belong into the image (lotus of heron-like form)? Is the wording deliberately open to make both associations possible?

[FNote_511] It is tempting to read the infinitive āka here as a conditional and to understand ā like Skt. bhū merely predicative. Srin.'s alternative is, however: "since your one bard turns out to be a liar".

[FNote_512] Here the syntax is not unequivocal. It would also be possible to read pāṇar ellām as the subject to kaḷvar pōlvar. This sentence division presupposes a completion of the missing predicate noun in the pāṇar line, which is preferable from the point of view of contents, because it results in a climax from liar to robber.

[FNote_513] Is uḷḷa, infinitive of uḷ, to be taken here adverbially? T.V.G. takes it as the participle: "all bards that exist".

[FNote_514] Srin. sees difficulties in paṭar "to think of", as the basic meaning is rather something like "to set out" ist. But at least in 74.3 it is impossible to avoid the former. Here both alternatives seem possible. Srin.: "she is far away, difficult [to obtain], [and yet] you set out [for her]."

[FNote_515] As for the description in the poem the bird rather looks like a cormorant - these hunt while flying. Probably the explanation of words like nārai/kuruku that they are generic terms, which denote, in this case, big fish-eating water-birds, who are marked within the specific context as heron, cormorants, egrets and the like.

[FNote_516] iraiyatu: here an adverbial reading of -atu doesn't make sense, and also a genitive suffix lacks conviction. Cf. micaiyatu in KT 78.1, karaiyatu in KT 246.1, 313.1. Notable is this identical position in the 2{X}nd{/X} foot of the first line. The best solution seems to be a appellative noun n.sg., used in an attributive function.

[FNote_517] muṉtuṟai is understood as a compound by T.V.G., that is, "front ghat".

[FNote_518] According to T.V.G. the point of the image is that the heron is longing for the better fish of the western coast (Toṇṭi is associated with the Cēras and has been identified with the Greek Tyndis on the west coast). Even if this were not the case, it could be maintained that the heron is no longer strong enough to hunt for its prey, but has to take whatever the waves give.

[FNote_519] eluva(ṉ) DEDR 831 "friend"; naṇpaṉ DEDR 3563 "friend, companion, associate"; tōḻaṉ, m. to tōḻi attested only here, twice in PN and once in Kal. According to the tradition eluvaṉ is a word for friend only occurring in the vocative (the TL gives Tolkāppiyam as the source). Etymologically it might, however, be connected with elu "bear", which would be fitting in the context, an ironical allusion to "strength".

[FNote_520] attai obviously has to be taken as a particle (it is impossible to integrate a noun meaning "father's sister"), and at that one of those that are too rare, at least in the KT, to say anything constructive about. The only further reference is KT 389.2, in identical position, that is, at the end of the 2{X}nd{/X} line, though there with a directly following vocative tōḻi.

[FNote_521] pakkam (presumably Skt. pakṣa- "wing") can also denote the lunar phase, but if what is meant were the 8{X}th{/X} day of the lunar phase it should proceed the eṇṇāḷ. As it is it might also simply be a locative suffix. This, however, would be an isolated instance in the KT.

[FNote_522] The tradition reads ēm uṟu as "to have joy in" and connects it with ciṟāar as a subject: little children have joy in HIS friend, an at least rather untypical message in these texts. The TL, however, adds another meaning "to be perplexed". And if one takes also into consideration the second ciṟu of this poem, namely ciṟu nutal, "small forehead", there appears to be a better solution: the friend is to liable to confusion on account of insignificant things like female foreheads, with the -r of persons, because it has to be taken as a metonymy. Thus the point might be that he addresses himself, as so often his heart, in an ironic-sarcastic way.

[FNote_523] munnīr is a fixed expression. Cam. glosses "sea", as one containing three kinds of water (river- spring- and saltwater), presumably basing himself on the oldest gloss available, namely that in the commentary on PN, where munnīr is fairly frequent and usually glossed by kaṭal. Later commentators, such as Nacc. on Cint. 5, explain it also as sea water, but as water possessing three qualities (creative, protective, destructive). But perhaps it simply means the three oceans, i.e. the eastern, the western and the southern.

[FNote_524] Srin. proposes, since cel is rather "to get into motion in the direction of an aim": "he hasn't set out [to cross] the ocean on foot".

[FNote_525] kuṭimuṟai could either be the rows of houses or the different kinds of homes.

[FNote_526] What is the function of -um here? Is he, in addition to all the other things he has not done, one to get lost?

[FNote_527] paṇai appears, in the KT, 15 times as an attribute to tōḷ "shoulder" (though sometimes not in the directly preceding position). Generally it is glossed as bamboo but, for unclear reasons, in 5 places it is understood as "bulged". This is one of these, presumably because there is the comparison with another kind of bamboo in the same line.

[FNote_528] pēr amar kaṇṇi: or "she with big, beautiful eyes".

[FNote_529] What is the function of irunta here? Has this description to be understood in a situative way: thus she has been at the time he set out?

[FNote_530] The neñcē as the joint between the two sentences can either be a postpositioned vocative in the first sentence, or an antepositioned one in the second. (For an antepositioned vocative, however, references are few, if not amma vāḻi tōḻi has to be counted as such.) But since the atu is also marked by -ē, and accordingly the first sentence can be understood as complete, it seems reasonable to suppose that the double relation of neñcē is calculated.

[FNote_531] The second sentence allows for two ways of construction, namely either with neñcē or with vituppu as a subject to uṟṟaṉṟu: ("o heart, great haste arose [for you]")?

[FNote_532] In this well-attested ending formula nōkō yāṉē the -ō is so far not explained satisfactorily. A close parallel is to be found in the formula aḷitō tāṉē (see II.3.4, p. 232f.?). The -ō seems to convey in these cases a certain quality of lament.

[FNote_533] Cam. scans the feet as kuvavu kaṭuṅkuraiyaḷ, but doesn't the parallel in KT 350.2 (paṉikaṭuṅ kuraiyam) show that the split after kaṭum is to be preferred?

[FNote_534] kurai is given by DEDR 1796 either as a verb, "to bark, jubilate, shout", or as noun, "noise, roar, shout". kuraiyaḷ here quite obviously might be an appellative noun, perhaps, in accordance with the context, rather jubilating than shouting. Tradition rather tunes down this quite overt statement by taking -kurai- as an expletive infix, coming thus to kavavu kaṭuṅ(kuraiy)aḷ, "she who is quick to embrace". Similarly the nōkkiṉaḷ should not be taken as a finite verb, but can be read as an appellative noun (nōkku "glance" + -iṉ obl. suff. + -āḷ pron. suff. 3.sg.f.), "she who has glances", in a denominative function. In accordance with this, the cāay is taken by T.V.G. as a qualifier in the sense of "she who gives glances out of half-closed eyes". In this case also the ñāṅkar will not be understood as a temporal, but as a spacial adverb, meaning something like "to one side".

[FNote_535] maṟant' amaiku: see note on 92.5. Here too the auxiliary function is close at hand, in the sense of a permanent conclusion: "How can I permanently forget [her] ...?"

[FNote_536] nallāṉ, "good cow" here obviously means "milk cow", that is, the cow that is fit for giving milk.

[FNote_537] nōkkiṉaḷ: the sense of the p.a. is here once again situative, and supposedly qualified by the adverb ñāṅkar "afterwards", namely after their lovemaking.

[FNote_538] Beautiful the play on cāay ... māayōḷ. There are reverberations of the second root cāy "to emaciate", a process connected with arising pallor. She is called māayōḷ, "the dark one" here, because she was like that when he departed, but presumably it couldn't last.

[FNote_539] Here there is another opportunity to propose the use of nāṉ as a pronoun of the 1. sg.; the last line in this case might be taken as an independent nominal sentence: "I [am] in loneliness which has eaten ... ".

[FNote_540] uṇmaiyiṉ is literally "because of the existence", in other words, the millet sprouts again since there happened to be rain, which is not self-evident in the semi-arid tract.

[FNote_541] What can be expressed by the play on uṇ: uṇta - uṇmaiyiṉ - uḷeṉ - uṇta? Is it just the contrast between being and not being?

[FNote_542] What is the function of puṉavaṉ here? Firtsly it might be possible to get closer to the etymological meaning: puṉam is a field in the higher, drier regions, and puṉavaṉ accordingly should be the man who cultivates these fields. Now the singular is significant enough to raise the question whether this cultivator of the millet field is not the very man who caused the trouble. Combined with a circular construction of the poem, the pulampiṉāṉ would make an excellent nomen agentis to puṉavaṉ. In this case, of course, one would rather expect uṇṭu, absolutive.

[FNote_543] poṟai seems, judging by the lexica, to be just another of the numerous words in the direction of "mountain, hill" and the like. T.V.G. takes it to mean "round stone", rendering the whole phrase of kuṟum poṟai taṭaiya neṭuntāḷ vēṅkai as "the Vēṅkai trees with high bases which had become broad on the small round stones".

[FNote_544] taṭaiiya is a morphological problem. T.V.G. takes it as a past participle of a verb taṭai-ttal "to be round, plump", which is, of course, what it looks like, and unfortunately this seems to be the only derivation available.

[FNote_545] Is koḷ used here to describe the advance of the snake? It might be "to take the ground" in the sense of "occupy" (to leave no room for others) or simply "to cover a route", then, because of the connection with the snake, a winding movement, an apt image for a waterfall which doesn't run in a straight line.

[FNote_546] viṉaiyē: noticeable here the exclusive effect to be observed with -ē in anteposition (cf. II.1, p. 66f.?; see also KT 174.6,7).

[FNote_547] Or all the plurals have to be taken seriously, that is, several men are about to set out.

[FNote_548] Or the first two lines have to be read as an aphoristic prelude, subsequently contrasted with reality.

[FNote_549] The exact nuance of piṇi is unclear. The verb is obviously used in the sense of "to fetter" (cf. for example KT 129.6), and in the formula poruṭpiṇi also the noun has the meaning "fetter". But it can also mean "illness" (Cam. glosses with nōy "pain"), and it has to be thought in a complementary relation to aṇaṅku (here unequivocally something like "plague").

[FNote_550] The absolutive nuṇaṅki is best to be construed as above as an adverb, but it is also possible to connect it with kāmam: "after it has become fine (= less) ...".

[FNote_551] For the construction of the irreal conditional, mostly at the end of the poem, cf. KT 29.7, 98.2, 310.7.

[FNote_552] Is -um to be understood here as an indefinite suffix?

[FNote_553] pāṇi is semantically unclear; one might also understand pāṇi "rhythm": "it also has a rhythm like the rut of the elephant ...". In this case, however, the -um would have to be taken as a rather vague "also".

[FNote_554] Is this an allusion to the Sanskrit topos? matam is certainly Skt. mada-, but what about these herbs?

[FNote_555] Whatever might be the precise impact of the image, it seems to be used in a positive sense - against the general opinion that desire is a plague. In KT 204 the same prelude is connected with the image of a cow who gets hold of young grass.

[FNote_556] uṭaittu atu is difficult. Is the sandhi to be dissolved like this? Srin. understands uṭaittatu: "it has taken possession of". But this would be the regular flexion of a non-existent verb.

[FNote_557] The following seems to be more or less the traditional rendering of this piece. It is in itself very beautiful and coherent, but there are a number of philological problems. Firstly, it seems impossible to make out a base for interpreting kaṭu-ttal as "to increase" (of course one would like a survey of other references to be sure). Secondly, T.V.G. here explains the -um added to pāṇiyum in the last line as an expletive. This is quite forced. Thirdly, we have to assume and supply an elliptical direct object to kāṇunar (i.e. the object which rouses kāmam). Fourthly, there are a number of other passages with the x-nar peṟiṉē construction where the syntax works differently (see above).

[FNote_558] For tuṟant' amaiku see note on 92.5, 132.3.

[FNote_559] Is this the way to understand takavu? Srin.'s alternative is an independent sentence for the second half of the line: "That I am about to go is fitting, (unfortunately)." In any case, he has to go, but in case he should forget her, then he shall lose all future wealth (which to obtain he has set out). Difficult is the variant with the negative absolutive celāatu.

[FNote_560] koṉ is one of the remaining difficult particles; cf. note on KT 91. Here Cam. chooses greatness among the 4 meanings enumerated in the Tolkāppiyam (in fact the only one which makes at least a vague sense, though not one very specific to the poem).

[FNote_561] How to understand this description? The most meaningful seems a connection of ilaiya with kural, that is, a leaf made up of single leaf-elements (in the form of a peacock's foot). If we don't take the morphological mark with ilaiy-a that serious, the kural could also refer to flower clusters. For mā the question is whether it simply means "big", though Cam. glosses with kariya, "black".

[FNote_562] maṇi ... pāṭu can almost certainly be taken as an intended pun: we may recall the topos of the bells on the cows which keep HER awake at night because they remind her of HIS chariot bells.

[FNote_563] veruk' iṉam mālai uṟṟeṉa is presumably to be construed literally and with pēṭai as the subject: "because in the evening a family of wild cats happened to them" (cf. 151.1f.: pēṭai/ ēḻāl uṟa).

[FNote_564] aṟintaṉṟu: what is achieved here by the p.a.? "What has the village understood?" Or a real question: "How has this noisy village got knowledge of my trouble?"

[FNote_565] celk' eṉṟōḷē is an "abnormal" sandhi occasionally to be observed for an optative in -ka before a form of eṉ-tal, i.e. celka eṉṟōḷē (thus also Cam.'s gloss; cf. KT 217.1, 219.4, 325.3, 383.3). It would, however, also be possible to construe the 1.sg. celku, namely an indirect speech instead of an account of direct speech.

[FNote_566] The two eṉa (eṉa nī 2{X}nd{/X} line and eṉavē at the end) are best to be explained as final marks (like Skt. iti) of the two informations SHE wants HIM to get with the help of the friend.

[FNote_567] How to understand evaṉō? Is this a polite suggestion/request? Srin. goes along with Cam.: "What would be wrong if you said ...?"

[FNote_568] Topos and description (neṭuṅkai) require an elephant, but why the word māṉ, usually employed for the stag of deer?

[FNote_569] naṭunāḷ varuti: here lies the point of fracture for the allusively suggested appointment at day time (for once a case where the kiḷavi is very convincing!). naṭunāḷ is not only "midnight", but also "midday" (the classical time for day trysts), and varuti can be read either as a 2.sg. non-preterite or as an imperative on -ti.

[FNote_570] The variant with the n.sg. aṟintaṉṟu is certainly the lectio difficilior. Here the metonymy is kept up also on the formal level, since the subject is pētai, "foolishness/innocence". However, the following ilaḷ, f., would be hard to explain. In any case the variant contains not an either-or question (-ō - -ō), but a question with a negative answer.

[FNote_571] Or this could be an asyndetical coordination: "very anxious [is] he and he fears blame, the man from the yielding mountain land ...".

[FNote_572] Do the lines 3+4 also belong to the comparison or are they to be connected with mēṉi? And what is the message here? The affluence of a generous man is not permanent, but at least he wishes to be praised for that quality, similarly the woman of transient beauty. And then line 3 with the aphorism that in this world nothing has permanence? And why nilaiyiṟṟu, p.a.?

[FNote_573] nallicai is literally "good sound". Presumably what is referred to is the wish for fame, that is, a name sounding well in the ears of others.

[FNote_574] What is explained by this obviously justifying ākaliṉ sentence, and what is achieved for the general message? The very strange -ē in the subordinate clause, nillāmaiyē, seems to have the exclusive function occasionally to be observed with anteposition (cf. KT 135.1).

[FNote_575] Thus Cam.'s interpretation, that is, two independent sentences, lines 1+2 and lines 3-7. In this case the rationale of the first two lines would be that HE will be conscientious and come back (to make HER pallor vanish). But this doesn't fit in well with the image of the wealth given away, if it is not implied that the wealth of generous people is in a magical way inexhaustible.

[FNote_576] T.V.G. takes the ivvaḻi/avvaḻi in spatial sense: "here"/"there".

[FNote_577] The ollāḷ is traditionally not taken as the subject of the ceṉṟaṉaḷ, but is interpreted as a kind of muṟṟeccam, to be understood as an absolutive (ollāḷ āki).

[FNote_578] Construction and meaning of uriyat' oṉṟu remain unclear to me.

[FNote_579] The exact syntax and meaning of lines 1-4 are highly questionable. In any case it seems that ivvaḻi - avvaḻi imply a contrast between HER two different ways of behaviour. Doubtful is, whether the naṉṟē at the end of line 2 is to be taken as a predicate of what would be a subject sentence consisting in two coordinate absolutives (kuṟṟ'um āṭi-y-um - naṉṟē; as above), or whether it is a strongly emphatic, inserted interjection with the absolutives also dependent on the infinitive ayara.

[FNote_580] mātō is one of the particles rare in the KT (besides this passage only KT 253.4), but in both cases it seems to express, in the form of a rhetorical question, surprise in the face of an indisputable fact (see II.3, p. 97?). Of course one should be careful without further references.

[FNote_581] Or: permanent rain (ceṉmaḻai)?

[FNote_582] -am is used as an adjective suffix. Here it seems possible to perceive the semantic transition. It would be still conceivable to read: "he from a coast beautiful by seashore groves". But there are too many cases where this notion has evaporated.

[FNote_583] T.V.G., with reference to Nacc. on Tolk. col. 337 (discussing this passage as an example), reads ēṟṟi in this place and follows Nacc.'s gloss with niṉai "to think of" (presumably the reason why such a meaning of ēṟṟu "to lift" has found entry into the dictionaries.

[FNote_584] In this line one would expect an aṉṟē, a particle marking of the predicate in anteposition. This place, however, is occupied by the enclitic demonstrative pronoun i-, which is frequently to be found in "enpemthetic" position, i.e. at the end of the metrical foot preceding its actual antecedent (cf. ... iv vaḻuṅkal ūrē).

[FNote_585] Is it possible to construe cāvā in this way with -oṭu? Srin.'s alternative: two attributes to the night, that is, "long nights with sleepy-eyed people who do not ask [and] with those who remain sleepless". This is less satisfactory from the point of view of contents.

[FNote_586] For uṟai in such a function cf. 116.1 nayant' uṟaiyōḷ.

[FNote_587] For a new interpretation of this poem see Tieken 1997: 305.f, as well as Wilden 1999: 234f. for a counterproposal.

[FNote_588] puṇarppōr iruntaṉar: this construction with a predicative verb of existence following a participial noun subject can well be understood literally, namely as a (rhetorical) question inquiring about past conditions (the perfective aspect of iruntaṉar), preluded by a lamenting amma, and quite obviously expecting a negative answer. So far Tieken's interpretation most certainly is correct.

[FNote_589] The problem in this poem are the social lacunae: there are no helpful parallels illuminating the notions connected with this kind of assembly, and the kiḷavi dubious, because it is not backed up by the wording in any way. Here Tieken's interpretation (a bad outcome of the marriage negotiations) is as preposterous as those of his predecessors. The poem simply doesn't allow for conclusions as to Caṅkam marriage customs of the kind that HIS people usually come to HER house and propose. And yet, so many Caṅkam cultural notions discussed in secondary literature are based on poems as allusive as this.

[FNote_590] This line obviously gives a sequence of epithets of honour, the staffs and the white hair of old age, the worn cloth (citaval), which has kept, according to Srin. and T.V.G., the same association of honour up to this day. T.V.G. holds it to be used to wrap the hair, but it might also simply refer to the clothes they wear.

[FNote_591] tantōy pōla: what is the relation of this construction of a finite verb plus the infinitive pōla to that of double finite verb as in KT 103.6: vāḻēṉ pōlvaṉ?

[FNote_592] The phrase mayir ērp' oḻukiya is quite unclear in construction and meaning, but mayir means obviously her body hair. A possibility making sense at least is to connect oḻukiya with maṭantai and take the whole as a memory of a moment in lovemaking.

[FNote_593] This comparison seems to refer to a peculiar kind of plant the flowers of which have fur reminiscent of raised body hair.

[FNote_594] Remarkable is here that the wording of the poem contains the kiḷavi phrase. Is the variant to be seen as a gloss? It seems to be explicative in character, because it breaks the image: "if you don't believe that [this] is the rainy season ...".

[FNote_595] kiṇkiṇi is presumably an onomatopoeic for something making a tinkling sound on metal. The context allows to identify it here as an ornament worn on the leg. This may be the oldest attestation of the word.

[FNote_596] Is this a botanical information? Are these two notoriously flowering at the same time?

[FNote_597] tavaḷai vāya: the associations connected with the epithet, literally "frog-mouthed", presumably is twofold, namely on the one hand acoustic and on the other poetological. The coins on the anklets sound in moving like the croak of the frogs, and the frogs are associated with the rainy season. Another possibility is to take it as an optical comparison: kacu might also be little bells with frog-mouth-shaped slits.

[FNote_598] aḷitō: this formula remains one of the most difficult occurrences of -ō. Is it conceivable that -ō should function as a metrical filler here - since with other persons the formula contains a complete cīr (i.e. KT 7.3: aḷiyar tāmē)? But then, why -ō and not -ē? Simply because -ē already concludes the two following cīr-s? In any case this fact seems to be an argument against the b-solution, that is, to take it as a question mark.

[FNote_599] kai nillātu: this could be understood as a metaphor: kāma as a forceful hand. T.V.G. takes it with Cam. as "side": "now ... it doesn't stand at [my] side [any longer].

[FNote_600] Here we have the only poem in the KT which ends on aṉṉāy instead of -ē (a few variants have -ō instead of -ē; see KT 158)! For aṉṉay cf. note on 33.1.

[FNote_601] Or rather literally: "[in turn] inflamed by one who is far"?

[FNote_602] Possible would also be a construction in the sense of KT 89.3: "What (why), mother, does it vanish when embracing, / the interior pain which increases when ...".

[FNote_603] kaṭa here is not easy, and unfortunately there are only two occurrences in the KT. Literally (DEDR 1109) it is something like "to pass by", but it can be used in a figurative sense as "to overcome" (thus probably in KT 80.5). The further construction with here with eḻāl uṟa, though, gives rise to the presupposition that the female bird is further specified by vaṅkā, so that "overcome" as a meaning can be excluded, if one doesn't want to surmise that an unspecified kind of bird is subject to attacks from two enemies.

[FNote_604] īṇṭu "here" can be used like Skt. iha as a particle of universalisation: Srinivasan 1967: 194 Anm. 131.

[FNote_605] Unclear is whether ciṟu neṟi has to be taken as a direct object to iṟappal. An elliptical statement is equally possible, which would mean to supplement one of the usual direct objects of iṟa-ttal like kāṭu and to understand the eṉṉātu sentence as a further qualification.

[FNote_606] How to understand the exact syntax of this line? The n.pl. has to be connected with the multitude of tones, not with several birds, that is, literally: "where the female bird calls many short [tones] in the voice of a flute-sound ... ". (kurala is - against the rendering given above marked by position as determinans, not as determinandum to kuṟumpala.)

[FNote_607] So in this case she would call out in fear for him.

[FNote_608] aṟikilar: how to analyse this form? aṟi-k'-il-ar = verbal stem + infix -ku- shortened in sandhi in order to mark the i.a. + negative infix -il- + personal suffix -ar? (not Agesthialingom).

[FNote_609] This comparison has to be understood "asyndetically": SHE without HIS desire is like the abandoned young of the tortoise.

[FNote_610] cāyiṉ allatu: this is a very strange construction. Literally this can only be: "apart from when ... ". For the rendering given above which follows the traditional interpretation one would like to have parallels at least. (a parallel is KT 305.7 viḷiyiṉ allatu, but unfortunately that is just as uncertain.)

[FNote_611] cāyiṉ: cāy-tal is mostly "to emaciate", but also stronger "perish". Perhaps here the openness is intended: it is unclear whether SHE/the young one still have a chance of recovery.

[FNote_612] uṭ kiṭantu: a coordination is also possible: "... than to rest inside [and] emaciate/perish ...".

[FNote_613] pāyntu-ukaḷiṉ: is this to be understood as a synonym compound with intensifying function ("to jump to and fro").

[FNote_614] iṉiy-ē is the syntactical junction connecting both sentences of the poem, and probably also expression of regret.

[FNote_615] yāṅk' aṟintaṉar kol: how to understand this question? Is it really possible to find in valluvōr the content of the knowledge, which would mean to take a verbal noun as modal in character? Srin. prefers to take the question independently and to relate it to the content of 7b.

[FNote_616] Srin. proposes tentatively to connect iruntu adverbially with pulampa: "so that [one] feels lastingly (iruntu) loneliness". This doesn't seem impossible, but there are many parallels of irunta being used for birds perched on branches.

[FNote_617] tayaṅka: it is hard to decide whether a rather strong actual infinitive sentence is intended or whether this ought to be taken as an adverb (T.V.G.: "clearly").

[FNote_618] The syntax of the comparison is a little awkward. The tertium comparation is certainly the glittering, so it would be more natural to have the nimir as a participle in attributive position.

[FNote_619] poḻutō can either be understood as a preceding (rhetorical) question or as a particle of demarcation of topic (see II.3, p. 93f.?).

[FNote_620] ār kali: Cam. glosses with āravāram "loud noise" to kali-ttal 11. "roar", but here as well as in 223.1 the above alternative seems more fitting. More difficult are KT 186.1, 257.4 and 353.1.

[FNote_621] Cam. explains the content as follows: the ploughmen return to the village in the evening to have a feast, carrying baskets, which had been full of seed, now full of flowers.

[FNote_622] koṉṟa is peyareccam to kol-tal "to kill, to cut down", and there is a parallel in KT 198.1 where it obviously refers to a clearing by fire. Or is it to be taken, with Cam., as "ploughing" = the preparation for sowing (which is what the ploughman do at day time), and how to explain that semantically? Is it an act of violence to cultivate the earth?

[FNote_623] I have connected the bells with the chariot the approach of which SHE is waiting to hear. Syntactically it is equally possible to take these two-and-a-half lines together with viruntu, that is, as part of the festival noise.

[FNote_624] The phrase meḻuk' āṉṟ'/ūt' ulaip peyta has to be connected with maṇi, whatever may be the exact meaning, in any case a technique of bell making. āṉṟu poses a semantic problem; it is traditionally glossed with akaṉṟu (according to T.V.G. this is based on Nacc. on AN ???[CHECK]). peyta might go back to the second root pey (DEDR 4408 "to wear, put on, tie, fasten").

[FNote_625] Read thus instead of taḻākamaṇ as in the 1955 edition (correct in 1937 ed.).

[FNote_626] pārppaṉa: how to understand here the ending in -a? A vocative would be strange, followed by the nominative makaṉ. Can it be the adjective derivation?

[FNote_627] No matter whether seeing pārppaṉa makaṉē as a noun derivation of the Dravidian root pār "to see" (i.e. "son of a seer") or, with the TL (the DED doesn't take the word up; in other words it seems to consent to this) a tamilisation of Skt. brāhmaṇa- ("son of a brahmin"), the further Sanskrit words and allusions (taṇṭa-, kamaṇḍalu-, unwritten teaching) are clear enough to recognise a description (and perhaps an ironic one) of Northern culture. But what precisely is said here? The description of the ascetic in lines 2-5 is specific enough, but specifying what? Is this the way brahmins behaved in the South? Or is it conceivable that there was a certain familiarity with the sight of the strange culture, but no precise information as to the cultural and social varieties (Hindu, Jain and Buddhist religion)? In the same way the "unwritten teachings" seem to allude, though in Tamil words, to the Veda. Is this to be taken in a direct way as an allusion to the Atharva-Veda, which actually contains the words wished for (in the form of love charms of different kinds)? Is this irony against the strange "religion", like often enough against the own? Or, even more subtle, a criticism against the brahmins, who tend to be arrogant about wordly things like kāmam, and yet have the Atharvaveda as one of their holy texts?

[FNote_628] uḷḷum: how is -um to be understood here? Srin. reads: "even in your words of unwritten teaching", because the Veda doesn't know of anything real like love.

[FNote_629] Is mayal here deliberately chosen as an allusion to Skt. māyā-?

[FNote_630] tuṭk' eṉṟaṟṟu: this verb form presumably has to be taken as n.sg. of the perfective aspect, and thus the variant means the opposite, that is that the heart does not stop beating, but beats loudly.

[FNote_631] The variant on -ō is presumably original, and certainly the lectio difficilior. The question, of course, is marked already by the interrogative pronoun evaṉ, but the nuance is shifted by the particle towards a direction of marked evaluation ("what is that worth?"). In the text as it stands we find the regular -ē instead.

[FNote_632] kaṭuvicai: in this place it might be asked whether the sandhi is to be dissolved to yield kaṭu vicai, that would be, an intensifying "synonym" compound, or kaṭu -v-icai, the thunder with loud sound. The second formulaic occurrence in KT 272.5, however, leaves little doubt that it is the former which is actually meant (kaṭu vicai kalai "the lightning-quick male monkey").

[FNote_633] With iṭikkum, urum and kaḻaṟu three words are assembled here which denote "thunder" or "to thunder". Their exact valence is, as with nearly all of the numerous words connected with sound, unclear, except for the verb kaḻaṟu, which generally has to be counted among the verba dicendi and accordingly denotes a loud and continuous verbal utterance ("to murmur"), and thus it is not by chance that it is combined here with kural "voice".

[FNote_634] pāmpu paṭa: for the motif of the snake in the thunderstorm cf. 190.4, 268.4, 391.3. Cam.'s interpretation of paṭu as "die" is also not to be excluded.

[FNote_635] What is the function of the construction cāvu + -oṭu (cf. 145.4)? Either as above as an indirect object(?), or also to be connected with the mākkaḷ: "distressed people who do not inquire, with afflicted hearts: ...".

[FNote_636] How do we have to understand the construction and content of ceppuṭaṉ etiriṉa? In any case this n.pl. needs a subject, which cannot but be mulai. Cam. glosses with ceppoṭu māṟupaṭṭaṉa "at variance with pots", presumably in the sense of the Sanskrit topos of breasts competing with pots for their shape and extension.

[FNote_637] niṟaiya: is this infinitive to be understood adverbially?

[FNote_638] What is the difference between mulai and ākam? Does the former refer to the actual breasts and the latter to the bosom?

[FNote_639] tāṅkal cellā is to be taken adverbally; cf. KT 265.1, 287.4, 340.4 for the construction of verbal noun plus cellā(tu). Moreover cel might have the function of an auxiliary: "not arrived at bearing". Srin. suggests understanding cel as "to be suitable, acceptable".

[FNote_640] The variant varavē would be formulaic, but less easy to accommodate in the context of the vārār in the line before.

[FNote_641] taṭavu is little attested; the TL says only "a tree"; DEDR 3020 gives taṭa "large, broad, full", respectively taṭavu "largeness, greatness", that is, perhaps a lexicalised metaphor (the tree as the broad one). Further Caṅkam references are: NA 19.1, 235.1; PN 105.2, 199.1, 201.8.

[FNote_642] Or peṭaiyoṭu ... naralum: "calls out for its female"?

[FNote_643] ataṉ-talai should be analysed as the oblique of the demonstrative pronoun + talai as a pointed locative "on top of that" = "moreover" (thus also Cam.).

[FNote_644] eṉṉum could equally well be a habitual future: "Mother who says, again and again, ..."?

[FNote_645] The question eṉ malaintaṉaṉ kol is semantically doubtful. One possibility is, as above, to understand malai-tal = DEDR 4741 "to be opposed, fight against" with eṉ as oblique of the personal pronoun 1. sg., that is, to understand a question on HER part as to whether HE had been angry about her not turning up. The other possibility for malai-tal is DEDR 4736 "to be staggered, doubtful, confused". If we take eṉ as the interrogative pronoun in a weak sense here, we could also read the question as: "was he confused?", which seems to be Cam.'s (and T.V.G.'s) view of the matter.

[FNote_646] Cf. note on KT 126.3.

[FNote_647] palar puku tarūum: this means presumably that people return home in the evening after work. What is the function of taru-tal here? Is it the nuance of suddenness from the perspective of those who are inside: suddenly they enter the house?

[FNote_648] takumō maṟṟ' itu: for maṟṟu in this peculiar position see II.3.6, p. 115?.

[FNote_649] veḷḷai is literally "whiteness"; according to the index it is a variety of sheep; Cam. on his part glosses with veḷḷāṭu "he-goat".

[FNote_650] yār aṇaṅk' uṟṟaṉai is literally "whom did you have/experience as trouble?" It is impossible to decide whether the p.a. here expresses a completeness of action (who has troubled you last night?), or a state which had begun in the past but does still last.

[FNote_651] alai: this is a remarkable use of the mere verbal root, namely in a syntactically relevant position at the end of the penultimate line. What would be expected is the participle in -um, so frequently to be found in this position. But aḷaikkum would be here hypermetrical.

[FNote_652] Cam. reads eṉiṉ here as a mere particle of conditional, that is, he glosses with āyiṉ. Apart from being inexact this seems to be a loss also from the point of view of content. After all public talk is one of the main topoi in connection with infidelity.

[FNote_653] It is suspicious that this is the only instance in the KT in which the parattai is presented as having a confidante, tōḻi, to whom she talks. Perhaps this could be used as an argument in support of the interpretation of a rival woman rather than courtesan.

[FNote_654] toṉṟu mutir (n.sg. + verbal root) is strangely terse and gives rise to the expectation of a special nuance of meaning. A comparable, though less "suspicious" synonym compound (of the same metrical length and the same semantical substance) is toṉmūtu in KT 15.2.

[FNote_655] T.V.G. takes kuṉṟūr as a nomen proprium: Kuṉṟūr.

[FNote_656] kaṇaik kōṭṭu: T.V.G. explains this as a protrusion at the mouth of the fish, i.e. actually as a kind of horn. Since kōṭu usually seems to refer to branched or forked items (the branch of a tree, the tusks of an elephant) I prefer to interpret fin here, but the possibility of a single "horn" cannot be excluded.

[FNote_657] The last two variants seem to imply that the pronoun ivaḷ is missing and that accordingly the -k' of āṅku has joined the irum of the next line. As often it is not necessary and rather has explanative value.

[FNote_658] upp' oy cakaṭam: the word order here suggests that it is the cart, cakaṭam, which is the subject of vīntu, which would be, of course, a slanting image. T.V.G. explains this as a poetic change of word order (i.e. to be interpreted as cakaṭam oy uppu), but it might also be taken as above.

[FNote_659] arum karai: this expression seems to be an elliptical formulation (as quite usual with arum) for a shore difficult to pass, presumably since the sand is deep and difficult to draw a cart across when passing the river.

[FNote_660] makiḻntataṉṟalaiyum and viḻaintataṉṟalaiyum presumably have to be analysed with Cam. as participial nouns of the p.a., n.sg.obl. + talai + -um, but what is the function of -talai here? Is it more than a mere locative suffix, is there a connotation of "moreover"? And what is the function of -um? Another possible analysis would be makiḻntu/viḻaintu ataṉ-talai-y-um, that is, absolutive plus a kind of adverb "moreover" (as in KT 161.2), which would be more favourable to Srin.'s interpretation (1+2b).

[FNote_661] For marantai/māntai see note on KT 34.6.

[FNote_662] ūrō naṉṟumaṉ marantai: for an analysis of -ō as a possible particle of demarcation of topic and marantai as an openly postpositioned subject see II.3, p. 93f.?, 103?.

[FNote_663] peyarttaliṉ: how to understand the -iṉ-suffix? Conditional doesn't fit (since this is a verbal noun), so it might be a kind of oblique of simultaneousness? (Cf. uṇṭaliṉ 167.5) And is this the perspective of the heron: the waves coming in bring the fish and the birds try to seize it before the waves rolling out take it back again?

[FNote_664] Is paṭu to be understood as attribute to tirai, and does it denote a continuous existence, or does it, on the contrary, mean the suddenly approaching breaker, which washes away the fish and startles the herons?

[FNote_665] ākiṉṟu: is the p.a. here used in a resultative sense (now, since HE has gone away, the village has become a lonely place)?

[FNote_666] The variant kaḻuma(t), inf. of kaḻumu-tal "to fill", is the one accepted into the text by Sh.P. It seems to be slightly easier to construct ("while spicy smoke filled the eyes ...").

[FNote_667] pākar is attested only here in the early anthologies; according to the index, it is "curry" - according to the TL "chariot"! Can this be a secondary formation to pākam > Skt. pāka- "cooking, cooked food" similar to kāmam/kāmar (the DEDR doesn't include it).

[FNote_668] mukaṉ: what is the function here of the -ṉ-suffix instead of the usual -m? Is this a positive setting off?

[FNote_669] nuṇṇitiṉ: here we find a quite unusual -iṉ-suffix, the oblique mark, added to a n.sg. used as an adverb.

[FNote_670] uṇṭaliṉ: what is achieved by verbal noun in -tal + -iṉ? See note on 166.1.

[FNote_671] kaḻuvuṟu kaliṅkaṅ kaḻāat' uṭīi: the construction of this line is dubious. The first half might be literally "the garment which obtains washing", and so I decided to connect this with the viral of line 1. T.V.G. reads the other way around, that is "pulling up (uṭīi) a [newly] washed garment without washing the fingers ...". The problem with this is on the one hand the positioning of the kaḻāatu, on the other the semantics of uṭu, which seems to be rather simply "wearing" than "pulling up".

[FNote_672] T.V.G. explains this strange comparison, with reference to Kal. ???[CHECK], as a simile: the shoulders (a frequent metonymy or pars-pro-toto expression for HER) would be the raft on which to cross the flood of desire.

[FNote_673] virittuviṭṭu: viṭu is used as an auxiliary, denoting, according to Srin., a vigorous and uncontrollable accomplishing, that is, perhaps here just marking a second movement opposite to the first: potintu as bundling together in the basket, virittu as taking out again.

[FNote_674] ataṉiṉum: is this the comparative of the demonstrative pronoun = "moreover"? Has it a quasi-conjunctional function similar to that of ataṉṟalai?

[FNote_675] What is the difference between taṇa-ttal and piri-tal? Does the former denote a short-term absence and the latter going abroad? Srin. suggests the following tentative distinction: with the former the emphasis is on the separation from the lover, with the latter a separation aiming towards something.

[FNote_676] Line 4 is hypermetrical. Here also the question could be raised whether pāṇar has not been inserted to clarify the comparison.

[FNote_677] What is teṟṟeṉa? Srin. proposes an adverb, but cf. KT 32.5.

[FNote_678] aiya maṟṟu: the maṟṟu here is hard to account for; see, however II.3, p. 116?.

[FNote_679] pacumīṉ: or "fish having become greenish = rotten fish" or "raw fish"?

[FNote_680] emakkum - nummum: how to understand the syntax of the last two lines? The two -um cannot possibly be used to coordinate the absolutive and the optative (with an apposition inserted)? And is there any other way to understand the syntax than taking the negative verb peṟēem as a participial noun apposition to em, which would be literally: "... may the life of us, who have not obtained you, burst"? Or should we read, with Srin., a sentence division: "... have we (on the one hand) become a great disgust to [ourselves], have we (on the other hand) not obtained you - may our life burst."

[FNote_681] Or, with the tradition: "... where the elephant (normally) feeds on rice-balls, (but now) searches the pond / for Eruvai plants ...". (Cf. PN 101.7, 114.3, 337.14).

[FNote_682] nāḷ is somewhat strange here. T.V.G. reads it as "in the early morning", but that seems quite arbitrary.

[FNote_683] What might eruvai be (not included in the DED)? And what is meant by the specification aruvi tanta nāḷ? What is expressed by the image? HE will return to HER, just as the elephant gets enough of the eruvai found by chance and comes back to his usual kavaḷam?

[FNote_684] itu maṟṟu: the particle maṟṟu can only be rendered by word order here. For its contrastive function see II.3.6, p. 114f.? The subject itu remains wholly unspecified with respect to the Akam context. All the comparison suggests for the emotive level is that the itu is in distress. A plausible referent would be for example nalaṉ: HER nalaṉ has been caught in the fish net of love (or of kāmam?) and is unable to free itself. Noteworthy in this context is also the openness of mā "animal". It remains unclear whether the animal caught in the net is a fish, meant to be caught in the net, or a careless land-animal. The question raised by the poem would be then how this sorrow will appear if seen from outside. Cam. sees implied a marriage proposal on the part of a stranger, notumalar (thus the word in the formulation of this poetological theme in the kiḷavi-s). L./Sh.P., however, see HER as caught in the net of gossip.

[FNote_685] The metaphorical meaning of this interpretation would be "how is this observed by strangers"? But talai-y-ē is read by Cam. as a mere locative suffix, and one formulaic parallel in the NA 13.2 indeed points to the possibility that it is an emphatic locative ("in the presence of strangers"). Another possibility might be a designation of HIM as the stranger (D.G.).

[FNote_686] The variant tamiyam, 1.pl., implies a slightly changed central message: "is he happy that we are alone?" In any case the indirect hint to his dutiful absence is there.

[FNote_687] Here T.V.G. interprets the īṅku not as a designation of place, but as a substitute for the missing (or ellipitical) personal pronoun and direct object emmai, "us", (thus Nacc. on Tol.col. 29).

[FNote_688] āka here and in the following line has to be taken in a predicative sense.

[FNote_689] Once again a piece of social information without the necessary context? And what is achieved by the image? It must be a metaphor for accelerating heartbeat, but why the hyperbole?

[FNote_690] Is it possible to take talai literally in the above sense? Or (Srin.): "without knowing beginning and end" = permanently? T.V.G. feels that talai- in this position conveys no semantic flavour (i.e. talaivarampu = varampu). D.G. suggests that the talai might imply the semantic information of an upper limit (see 7b).

[FNote_691] nēr can either be DED 3125 "fineness, minuteness, slenderness" (cf. KT 53.6, 335.1) or DED 3124 "to agree", but also "to resemble".

[FNote_692] muṉṉiṉṟu is the absolutive of muṉ-nil, literally "to stand in front of someone", but in the kiḷavi-s it clearly means "to entreat". Here the nuance might rather be "to confront".

[FNote_693] uṇarntamaiyiṉ/uṇarnt' amaiyiṉ see note on 92.5. Here the traditional interpretation seems more convincing; if not the amai is to be taken in a sense of finality: when the village realises once and for all what has happened.

[FNote_694] Srin. to line 4: "while (Inf. ciṟappa) the interior pain became stronger and stronger (vaḻivaḻi), spreading (paṭar) [as] destruction (namely of the woman who is treated as guilty now by the ūr) ...".

[FNote_695] The syntax of the last three lines is unclear in several respects. For one thing, how to understand the construction of ēkumār uḷeṉ? Cam. glosses with pōkum poruṭṭu uḷḷēṉ, while it remains unclear, whether he takes uḷḷēṉ as the "modern" 1.sg. of the verb of existence or as 1. neg. to uḷ "remember". The latter, of course, would be conceivable ("I don't think of going"), but the negative forms of uḷ also in Caṅkam texts are only attested with double-ḷ. Secondly, there is certainly a correspondence between aṅku - īṅku in the last lines, which seems to point to modal, not spatial use. Thirdly, besides the decision between the two possibilities of uṇartamaiyiṉ (see last but one note), the participle nuvalum before ivvūr raises problems. What kind of subordinate clause can be meant here? With regard to content the point must be in any case the reaction of the village to the realisation.

[FNote_696] The circular structure here is impossible to represent in the translation: on the one hand SHE is one (iṉṉaḷ), who has caused the first four lines, on the other hand these four lines also give the content of uḷeṉ.

[FNote_697] What is the function of eṉṉāṟ here, neg. part. nom. of the 3.h.? Is it coextensive with the negative absolutive eṉṉā(tu), the form actually to be expected in this place? More literal would be a rendering with: "[and] abandons us as one who doesn't say ...".

[FNote_698] ārum can be read as 3.sg.hab.fut. of ār "to become full", or as ār, parallel form to yār "who" (thus Cam., i.e. 7b).

[FNote_699] pulamp' uṟu is the choice of words from the perspective of the observer: "so that [one] experiences loneliness" (cf. pulampu koḷ, KT 207.3, and pulampu taru, KT 79.4).

[FNote_700] For the exclusive nuance of -ē in anteposition cf. II.1, p. 67?; see also KT 135.1.

[FNote_701] Srin. on line 7: aruḷukku ārum illai, s.v.a. "there is none who would show aruḷ" aruḷ ārukkum illai "there is none who would have aruḷ"; cf. StII 11-12 (1986) 282 n. 4.

[FNote_702] How exactly to understand the syntax of nacaii? Are the bees subject? The variant nacaiiya (part. of the p.a.) is easier to understand.

[FNote_703] As an alternative to the last three lines Srin.: "For ... I don't feel pity, friend, saying 'what ever is this here!?', (namely) the calls (of the people against him), so that all of them come to know (what he has done to me); may (this gossip) remain as it has been up to now! What kind of talk is this?"

[FNote_704] The syntax and message of the last two lines are not wholly clear. Sentence division seems possible either before or after ampal, so that for the subject of the optative amaika, kūral and ampal seem equally conceivable. The sense seems to be in any case that SHE abandons the man, so that gossip is superfluous.

[FNote_705] naṉṉar: how to account for this formation? A nomen agentis doesn't seem to fit here. cf. 265.6.

[FNote_706] uḷaṉ: noticeable is here the choice of the pronominal suffix, namely sg., not h., in spite of the designation entai.

[FNote_707] This comparison would be easier to understand in connection with the softened heart, but position seems to forbid this. As it stands, the only point can be that he has disappeared like the honey will disappear as soon as it is ripe, because it will be taken away by someone.

[FNote_708] āku is predicative here: "the father who actually, according to definition is a prop". Or Srin.: "my father, who could become a prop [now], where is he?"

[FNote_709] ēṟuṭai maḻai: ēṟuṭai can either be connected with the sound of the rain itself, that is, something like thundering rain, or what is meant is that rain comes along with thunder, that is, a thunderstorm.

[FNote_710] vēṟu pulam: what is meant here? Different kinds of earth, as a qualification to naṉṉāṭṭu (good through variety)? T.V.G. reads something different (in accordance with Cam.), but this also doesn't seem very clear (and not corresponding to the usual meaning of peyta): "like thundering rain that had flown from other fields onto [this] good land".

[FNote_711] For pulleṉṟaṉṟē cf. nalleṉṟaṉṟē in 6.1.

[FNote_712] What is meant to be conveyed by the first four lines is not clear. It might be the description of a certain unrealness coming along with the onset of evening. Srin., however, thinks the first four lines might represent bad omens.

[FNote_713] The exact syntax and message of the last two-and-a-half lines are unclear. The point seems to be that she is struggling with kāmam: either he doesn't come, and then she will have to endure separation, or he comes, and in this case she is determined not to yield, but fears she will be unable to. T.V.G. thinks the point is that HE insists on having union with HER, even if she is sulking in love quarrel: "he who compels our love, difficult to escape, as if fearing separation even if we sulk with him", and from the syntactic point of view it is of course more natural to take HIM as the subject not only of taṇṭiyōrē, but also of the absolutive añci. In accordance with this interpretation he also assumes a scholastic reading of the main sentence: varuvar-kol "it seems he will come" (thus Nacc. on Kal. 11.5).

[FNote_714] pulappiṉum is traditionally analysed as a concessive conditional, but morphologically it might also be a parallel formation to pulampu "loneliness", as it is attested also in KT 41.5, in which case it would have to be a comparative here. Then the meaning of the whole would be that SHE fears kāmam more than loneliness and separation, which seems to make excellent sense.

[FNote_715] malara: it is unclear what is to be achieved by the appellative noun here. Perhaps it is rather to be analysed as an infinitive: "so that they flower eminent in grace"?

[FNote_716] Cam.'s gloss, according to which Ayirai fish feed on water-lilies, would explain their presence in the poem, but it is not supported by the text in any way. Moreover it is unclear whether paranta is to be connected with paḻaṉam or with āmpal, in other words, whether it is intended to establish a relationship between the fish and the lilies or only between the fish and the pond.

[FNote_717] For nōkō yāṉē cf. note on KT 131.6.

[FNote_718] For an interpretation see Tieken 1997: 309f., contra Wilden 1999: 227f.

[FNote_719] kal eṉa: this expression is supposed to be onomatopoeic, but, once again, what are the associations? T.V.G. connects it with the various sounds made by the animals of the forest.

[FNote_720] For the asyndetical -um construction see II. appendix p. 121f.?.

[FNote_721] The connection of this line with the rest is not wholly clear. If it were the elephant that had not only eaten bamboo but also torn the honey[combs], one would expect an absolutive kiḻittu. T.V.G. sees kaḻai as the subject of kiḻitta, which is syntactically more likely. That would mean, the high bamboo stems (probably moved by the wind) are full of honey and thus presumably the more delicious to the elephant.

[FNote_722] paḻūu is attested only here in Caṅkam literature; the TL refers to this passage. What is attested is, as in the variant, paḻu "devil" (whatever that may be exactly), so the explanation lying at hand would be a metrical lengthening, as is confirmed also by T.V.G.

[FNote_723] ēntal: the TL and also Cam. read "king". How is this to be understood? Is it a transposition of an abstract like "eminence, majesty"?

[FNote_724] paital: in order to understand the image the double association of paital has to be taken into account, namely on the one hand "suffering", or here rather "miserable", on the other hand the acoustic closeness to pai-ttal "become green". The bamboo green in the (hot, dry?) desert like the sugarcane trod on by the elephant. And what is the message? A ray of hope?

[FNote_725] The relation of tuṉiyiṭai is not marked. It can be integrated into the main sentence or into the indirect speech, which might be more convincing with respect to position: "thus is he, a cause of disgust".

[FNote_726] peru mutu peṇṭir: the attributes probably have to be understood in a transferred sense. When SHE has actually born a child, she is not old, but has outgrown youth, is mature, and peru, "great", presumably refers to her status in the house.

[FNote_727] How to understand the syntax and message of line 3, especially the absolutive īṉṟu? Actually it only makes syntactical sense if understood as a closer qualification of aṇi, which, in its turn, must be more than a mere epitheton ornans ("fine buffalo cow"). The rationale of the image might then be: the cow who has born a male calf is honoured, on the one hand by decoration, on the other it is fed with corn. The application on the emotive level is close at hand: the woman has born a son to this man, whatever he might do, and has thus found her proper place. T.V.G. on his part reads īṉṟ' aṇi, with an adverb aṇi "near", that is, the buffalo cow having newly given birth ...".

[FNote_728] pāl is difficult to accommodate from the point of view of syntax as well as of content. Cam. glosses with pakattiluḷḷa "at the side". The variant pāaṟ pey rather points to a reading pāl "milk"; the cow feeds on the fresh corn "so that the milk streams" (i.e. the verbal root pey in the function of an infinitive), that is, it satisfies its own hunger and has enough milk for its calf.

[FNote_729] The main problem of the whole poem is the construction of taruvatu, n.sg., which is in need of a subject in n.sg. and a direct object. Under the presupposition that an infinitive + -um can function as an accusative object, tūtu "message" would be a possible subject. This is the reading proposed by T.V.G. The question the man poses himself would be then, whether he should make his message to HER at once as drastic as threatening to ride the Palmyra horse. Cam. sees another solution, namely sentence division (7b), but I don't understand his way of constructing the taruvatu sentence.

[FNote_730] oru nāḷ maruṅkil is literally "at the side of one day", that is, not a special moment, but in the course of a day.

[FNote_731] What is marapiṉ? For the meaning given above one would like to have parallels. The variant maṟpiṉ, a garland fastened at the chest, however, is certainly the lectio facilior.

[FNote_732] māmaṭal: here it is clear from the parallels reading mā v-eṉa maṭal that this is not simply a big Palmyra stem, but Palmyra stems made up to represent a horse.

[FNote_733] How to understand viḷaiyal? The verb may also mean "to produce", so perhaps it refers not to the natural process of ripening, but to what is done to the stems to make them a horse. There is no criterion, however to exclude the alternative 1b.

[FNote_734] The construction nām viṭaṟk' amainta tūtu is unusual. I see no other possibility of understanding than above (Cam. supplies only the indirect object: talaiviyiṭaittu).

[FNote_735] Has kaliḻnt' avir to be understood as an elative: "especially brilliant" (an elative synonym compound; Zvelebil would say intensifying)? And is it, then, a second attribute to pētai, which metonymically refers to HER? Or as a second attribute to naṭai: "especially brilliant, agile gait? It has to be read in a transferred sense in any case, since neither SHE nor her gait can actually be brilliant.

[FNote_736] puṉpulam can either be understood as "grass ground" (the first element taken literally, the second in a transferred sense) or as "meagre soil" (pulam literally, but puṉ "low" in the sense of "worthless"). Since the cows graze in the woodlands and less productive fields are cultivated there, both appear possible. The second variant changes the sequence of the characterisation: "in the forest in an area of grassy grounds/meagre fields".

[FNote_737] What is expressed by the comparison? Are the kāyā flowers blue like a peacock's neck? And why is the ironwood tree pul? Is it still leafless, so that the flowers are its only decoration? Or is this to be understood, with the tradition, that the comparison alludes to the time before the rainy season: compared to the Laburnum blossoms flowering now (and fading again already!) the earlier ironwood tree flowers seem measly?

[FNote_738] Here the first line has to be taken as an aphoristic prelude. As usual the message is far from self-evident. Does this mean: with those who are noble/wise(?) there is no false testimony (implying: and this speaker is such a one, so listen to his words)?

[FNote_739] What is achieved here by the pointed postposition of celavu where kuṟukal would be semantically sufficient? Do we have to think of a special kind of going, such as the setting out for a task the completion of which is prevented by being caught in the net?

[FNote_740] The epithet maṭam for the fishermen's daughters is contrary to the message of the image. Is this to be understood in an ironical sense (the fishermen's daughters, so very innocent, throwing out their eyes' nets) or does it mean that they really do not know yet about the effects they achieve?

[FNote_741] Are syntax and meaning of the line to be understood as dependent on pāvai? A parallel mode of expression is to be found perhaps in KT 220.2. T.V.G. proposes a comparison with dolls, the tertium comparationis being beauty.

[FNote_742] A play on māṇ (māṇṭatu - māṇ takai neñcam - maṇ muṭi) is presumably intended. The sense eludes me. Or are there scribal errors here? māṇ takai neñcam doesn't seem to make immediate sense, while the variant nāṇ takai neñcam, a heart which should be ashamed would be convincing in the context, as would mā muṭi "big hair knot" instead of māṇ muṭi.

[FNote_743] ataṟ paṭṭ(u) is transitive if understood literally, and has neñcam as a subject: "after it (the heart) suffered that (viz. being caught in the eye net) ...".

[FNote_744] koṇṭal is, according to DED 1730 "rain, cloud". Moreover, the traditional rendering by "east wind" doesn't seem to fit, at least here. The north wind is the one that brings thunderstorms, and the motif of the snake's hood, even if only in the comparison, points to the rainy season. (There are, however, further instances of koṇṭal in the other anthologies which ought to be taken into account.)

[FNote_745] talaimaṇanta is already lexicalised, according to the TL, but presumably it still retains the erotic component of maṇa- "to unite".

[FNote_746] ārkali ēṟṟoṭu: Cam. glosses with mikka muḻakkattaiyutaiya iṭiyēṟṟoṭu "with a thunderbolt possessing much noise" (kali 11. "to make noise").

[FNote_747] Or perhaps the syntax has to be understood, in spite of ēṟṟoṭu, in another way. The land has joined with rain clouds (which in their turn have joined with thunder): in that case we would have a familiar image of union, and the jasmine with its teeth-buds would hint at the smile of the satisfied woman.

[FNote_748] varuṭai maṉ is an eight-legged fabulous beast according to Cam. (T.V.G. adduces Nacc. on Maturaik. 502.3). The text itself doesn't give any hint that might help us to decide the matter. The other old anthologies don't contain parallel material.

[FNote_749] takai muṟṟiṉa is actually plural - is this just for the sake of parallelism or does it mean: the different glorious aspects have reached a climax? Moreover, is takai just something like "splendour", or is there a note of destination: the jasmine as the epitome of the rainy season?

[FNote_750] Or does kuṟittu say more than this? Srin. thinks, with Cam., that the evening aims at HER nalam.

[FNote_751] And again: what is māṇ? As an epithet of HER bosom it seems possible, though the addition pal is a little awkward, since it is not commonly used in an adverbial sense, which is, of course, also the problem of solution b. T.V.G. gives yet another interpretation (based on Nacc. on Kal. 45.8, 47.8): "in many ways", that is, as referring to various love games.

[FNote_752] ceyporuṭk' akaṉṟōr: literally "who has left for the sake of the wealth that is to make".

[FNote_753] arai yiruḷ naṭunāḷ: how exactly to understand this phrase? At midnight half of the dark time has already passed?

[FNote_754] paintalai: here the question seems legitimate whether this is a misreading of paittalai, "hooded head", i.e. part of the usual description of the cobra (cf. KT 391.3).

[FNote_755] poṟi varai / veñ ciṉa varaviṉ: what is the impact of these epithets to aravu?

[FNote_756] Has atuvē the connotation of not being new (the same again!) as in modern Tamil?

[FNote_757] ētilāḷar: the tradition takes this as a designation of the man, i.e. as a feminine ētilāḷ "stranger" + masculine honorific (thus also the TL ētilāḷaṉ with a reference to the Puṟapporuḷveṇpāmālai, a later Puṟam poetics). Morphologically, however, it should rather be a feminine plural (resp. honorific), and we seem to be confronted here with a topos explained away by poetics, but not totally unattested elsewhere, namely the jealousy of a female friend directed against a faithless companion who comes back from a man she is in love with. (The honorific might be understood in this case as a means of dissociation.) Srin., however, considers an alternative analysis ētil-āḷaṉ, and there is at least one other passage in the KT (231) where the masculine makes more sense.

[FNote_758] puṇarntamaiyiṉ: cf. note on 92.5. Possible here is a construction with amai- as an auxiliary as above or the abstract noun: "because of the connection".

[FNote_759] irunta denotes the temporary sojourn in a place, one further aspect of the picture of inconstancy.

[FNote_760] itu veṉ moḻikō: it is possible to understand moḻikō as an embedding verb for the question itu veṉ or to read the whole as a question sentence.

[FNote_761] kēṭṭu nīṅkiya can also be read as kēṭṭum nīṅkiya, which would be an absolutive given concessive force by the particle -um.

[FNote_762] Here ētilāḷar is understood as a masculine, as is the traditional reading.

[FNote_763] Or miṉṉ' iṉ: "flash- pleasant" with Cam., that is, two attributes to tūvi.

[FNote_764] Here for once is a clear example of an inserted imperative: avar, the subject to varuvar, is positioned only after the iṉaiyal. And still it would also be possible to read an appellative noun with a complete pronominal ending: iṉaiyalavar "he, who doesn't know despair".

[FNote_765] If taking iṉiyē not in the temporal sense, we are forced to understand it as a recourse to the 1st line. (The message would be: the attempt at consolation is failing.) The variant iṉiya, n.pl., "pleasing [words]" also suggests this.

[FNote_766] nōy nont' uṟaivi: here uṟai- can be understood as an auxiliary or as literal, depending on the relation of the statement. Either it means the friend, as is assumed by tradition, who stands by her in her suffering, that is literally stays with her. Another possibility is to read a postpositioned question of general impact: "[are such words] pleasing (= a consolation) for one, who remains in permanent pain?" In this case, however, a second interrogative particle would be missing. Can the -ō of aḻāaṟkō apply to the whole line?

[FNote_767] poḻutum: is -um an indefinite particle here?

[FNote_768] miṉṉiṉ can also be analysed as the noun miṉ "lightning" + -iṉ-suffix of comparison, i.e. the dark Coel with feathers like lightning.

[FNote_769] Or another connection for line 1: "If I won't cry now, saying [to myself] '...', o you ...?"

[FNote_770] taṭṭai, just like kuḷir and taḻal, designates clattering or loud tools made to chase the birds away from the fields of ripening corn. At least taṭṭai and taḻal seem likely to be different things, since in 223.4 they are both mentioned side by side.

[FNote_771] For maṭṭam peyta maṇi kalattu T.V.G. considers the alternative interpretation of maṭṭam as Greek wine, brought in naṉ kalam, in "good vessels", as mentioned in PN 56.16-21, though there is no hint as to the colour of these kalam-s.

[FNote_772] maṇantaṉaṉ: here it is uncertain whether the perfective aspect is used to denote past tense. It might also mean that the union is already on the way.

[FNote_773] The sandhi also allows for the reading iṉṟum "even today, still today".

[FNote_774] Thus the scholastic interpretation in accordance with the kiḷavi: SHE reassures her friend that she will patiently await his coming for the marriage, because sweet memories keep her upright.

[FNote_775] eṉa paṭum: besides in KT 17.3 and 288.5 this seems to be the only place in the KT where the verb paṭu-tal might already be a passive forming auxiliary, i.e. literally "Is it asked by you, friend?" T.V.G. understands: "Does it happen [that someone asks] what [is it with you]?"

[FNote_776] The syntax of this sentence is slightly awkward. T.V.G. prefers to take the vāṉ as "cloud" and thus subject of the sentence: "Is the cloud, risen after lightning [and] thundering, the only thing?" Here still the position of miṉṉupu is a little uncomfortable.

[FNote_777] kaṭiya is best rendered as an adverb in English, though actually it is a direct object in n.pl.: "the peacock wails loud [notes]". And it should be noted that the evaluation of the sound is a question of perspective: lament to HER, but joy to the peacocks themselves.

[FNote_778] What can be expressed by ētila kalanta? Of course these two sounds are not identical in their kind, but they usually occur together (peacocks call out in the rainy season), so why ētila? Is it that they are "strange/unfriendly" to her rather than to each other?

[FNote_779] The syntax of the last four lines is hardly marked and difficult to understand. The -ō in line 2 (oṉṟō) has induced me to read an independent sentence. And it seems plausible, even if there is no marking, to end the second sentence with ēṅkum, thus reading for each of the two noises one sentence. It is, however, also possible to construe one long sentence and read the two participles in -um (iraṅkum and ēṅkum) as dependent on iraṇṭaṟku, as is obviously done by Cam., though the oṉṟō remains problematic.

[FNote_780] The idiomatic flavour of the first sentence is unclear. This second possibility, question + vocative, would be literally: "what is said, friend", namely by you and me to what follows (cf. eṉappaṭum in modern Tamil).

[FNote_781] eḻu taru: here taru-tal as an auxiliary, namely the evening which comes up irresistibly.

[FNote_782] For parallels to ākutal as "that" see KT 4.4, 360.2, 386.6.

[FNote_783] ceyvuṟu pāvai: the attributive position and the mere verbal root are a little strange in this place; one would rather expect a subsequent absolutive, but the meaning is quite clear (literally: "like a doll that suffers action").

[FNote_784] acai vaḷi: "wind which moves [permanently]"?

[FNote_785] mey pāynt' uṟu tara?! Without uṟu this would be: "to start abruptly" (= Srin.'s "assail"). The variant mey pāynt' ūrtara should be "so that it leaps [and] moves slowly".

[FNote_786] Here Cam. didn't take the kūṉ, the hypermetrical foot, into the text. Why in this case? As in several other passages what is inserted is an explicative pronoun.

[FNote_787] Here the perfective aspects (eṉṟaṉir in lines 2 and 5) are used to express the hypothetical character of the conditional clauses.

[FNote_788] veyya vuvarkkum is presumably literally "[these] hot [water draughts taste] salty". veyya here can also be taken as an infinitive of vey-tal "to burn", that is, "[so] salty that it burns".

[FNote_789] aṉpiṉ pāl might also be read as a general statement, "the fate of love". Also pāl "milk" = essence might be considered.

[FNote_790] The new edition reads kuruviṟ. As above in the 1937 edition.

[FNote_791] nōtaka: index/Cam. read an infinitive, but that should be nōva/nōka, so it might be preferable to separate into nō taka?

[FNote_792] According to the DED 1618 kuṟṟam doesn't necessarily come with the aṉ-suffix in order to designate Yama, so the traditional understanding is equally possible: "The god of death comes in the form of autumn ...".

[FNote_793] pēt' uṟṟu mayaṅkiya: is this simply to be understood as elativic redundance?

[FNote_794] What is the exact syntax and meaning of nīr etir karuviya kār etir? This is one of the passages where one asks whether also in the KT we have to reckon with textual corruption.

[FNote_795] cuṭṭu: how to construe an absolutive? One would expect a participle here, and that is indeed what Cam. (and T.V.G.) read: cuṭṭa, with an irregular sandhi.

[FNote_796] kōḷ is glossed here by Cam. with kulai, DED 1504 "cluster, bunch".

[FNote_797] karikkuraṭṭu: why here the oblique marking? Is this a trace of an elliptical comparison particle -iṉ?

[FNote_798] I can grasp neither the structure nor the content of lines 2-4! Srin. considers a double intrusion of the parakeets, namely on the one hand into the kural, on the other hand into the tiṉai. But since kural doesn't denote a particular cereal, only the ears of anything (apart from the fact that the topos is parakeets coming to feed on millet), this is not overly helpful either.

[FNote_799] How to understand the exact syntax of line 6? I think the traditional interpretation, according to which he will obtain the woman in the next life, is not to the point. Even if in nōy is taken as the subject, what is said is simply that he will not before the next life get over the pain she has afflicted him with, and it remains open at least whether pain-free steadiness of the heart is congruent with love fulfilled.

[FNote_800] What is the difference between kūntal (line 4) and ōti (line 5)? T.V.G. explains that ōti is the hair itself, kūntal the coiffeured hair.

[FNote_801] What is the difference between neṟi (cf. 116.4, 190.1) and neṟi paṭu with reference to the hair? Is one naturally curly hair and the other hair that has been put into curls?

[FNote_802] mīmicai: is this a synonym compound? But in which function? Cam. reads micai as a locative suffix and so does T.V.G., but this doesn't make sense when taken as above (water descending from the height). T.V.G. takes it as "on the surface" and connects it with the blossoms (which would be swimming on the surface of the water), but at least the 2nd occurrence of the formula mīmicai in the KT (284.2) is definitely referring to mountains.

[FNote_803] ēmañ ceytu: what is meant here? Literally HE has "given pleasure" or "brought confusion", but the point common to both is presumably (as usual) that he said he would come and didn't.

[FNote_804] mayiliyal āṭṭi: this variant containing an attribute of feminine beauty ("the woman of peacock nature"; cf. KT 2.3, AN 369.4) might be explained as a formulaic mistake, i.e. as a reproduction of a familiar sequence which makes, however, less sense in the specific context.

[FNote_805] mānti yallatu: here the time sequence in the poem appears to be slightly changed. While the series of two absolutives plus a habitual future (aruntupu - mānti - tūṅkum) suggests a linear temporal sequence (eating mango, feeding on Nelli, resting), the allatu might rather point to a triangle: after eating mango, besides feeding on Nelli, resting, that is, alternately feeding on Nelli and resting in the bamboo. From the point of view of construction this would be the lectio difficilior, and it would suit the image better (cf. last note to this poem), because it would mark the mango-eating as an exception, which would be quite in accordance with its symbolic value, to be seen for example in KT 8.

[FNote_806] paṇai - mūṅkil - kaḻai: three different words for 'bamboo', the peculiarities of which are not at all clear.

[FNote_807] pāl kalapp' aṉṉa tē[m] is a little awkward. One would prefer an absolutive kalant' aṉṉa: "sweet as [honey] mixed with milk". The syntax of this kind of comparison, a comparison connected with the attribute of a noun, would deserve special investigation. Here it seems obvious that with respect to the noun kokku tē[m] is a mere adjective ("sweet mango") - if one does not want to follow the tradition that it is a generic name for a special kind of very sweet (T.V.G.: "superior") mango. With respect to the comparison, however, it retains its nominal force, i.e. the comparison refers to a mixture of milk and honey, honey of course as the epitome of sweetness.

[FNote_808] What does the image achieve for the message of the poem?! At least paṟavai here actually seems to denote a bat. Is the point that the man (the bat), after having tasted the excitement of being abroad (the 'extraordinary' mango), will be content at home with HER (the Nelli fruit)?

[FNote_809] Both nōma ṉeñcē and nōmē nēñcē (i.e. line 5) are particle variants which seem to give additional emphasis. The former might also be a simple writing mistake - Pillai doesn't include it at all in his list of variants. The latter is more interesting, all the more since it is also the variant of KT 4 which is governed by the identical phrase. Here the pattern of thrice repeated half-line ending in -ē, also to be found, for example, in KT 156, seems to be confounded with the first-line pattern of repeated -ē as in KT 44, 54 et al. In this case, however, the -ē usually occurs after the 1st, 3rd and 4th foot, but not after the 2nd (cf. Vol. I, p. 234f.?).

[FNote_810] The choice of the plant Neruñci (whatever it is) might not be chance. There seems to be a connection between Neruñci and physical love; cf. KT 315 where HER shoulders are likened to it, while HE is compared with the sun (see also interpretation in Vol. I, IV.2.1, p. 280f.?).

[FNote_811] nāṭṭar, in contradistinction to the frequent nāṭaṉ, is not to be understood as a lexicalised appellative noun, but as a denominative, meaning "one who [temporarily dwells] in a land (see also nāṭṭār KT 228.5).

[FNote_812] pariyaleṉ is a semantically and morphologically ambiguous form. It can either be 1.sg.neg. of the root pari-tal or 1.sg. denominative of the verbal noun pariyal. The verb pari is split in DEDR into several homonyms, among which at least DEDR 3964 "to be affectionate" and 3965 "to be troubled, distressed, suffer" are possible. In other words, we have several possible statements (6b+c), and perhaps such an emotive elusiveness is precisely what is intended here.

[FNote_813] orīi yoḻukum: is this to be understood as a coordination ("who abandons [me and] goes") or does oḻuku function as an auxiliary ("who abandons [me] completely")? Alternatively it is possible to relate oḻukum to a second root oḻuku-tal "to act according to the law" (DEDR 1011), which would in quite well with the topos of HIS dutifully leaving HER (5b).

[FNote_814] kaṭavu ṇaṇṇiya pālōr: this phrase is sociologically difficult. The verb naṇṇu-tal usually denotes a spacial situation of something (as to be seen in line 3, naṇṇu vaḻi). Here it must be used in a transferred sense. So literally the phrase might mean "one (h.)/those whose fate is attached to god". Does this refer to someone who has given up worldly attachments?

[FNote_815] This means, they are visible from where the speaker is.

[FNote_816] malai yiṭai yiṭṭa literally presumably refers to mountains which are set between HER place and his country. The DED lexicalises iṭaiyiṭu as "to intervene, to be interposed".

[FNote_817] eṉpar: eṉpa is the common word for sayings that are general in status; is eṉpar to supposed to be referring to a particular person (or persons).

[FNote_818] niṉaiyiṉ: Srin. considers the possibility of taking this as a reference to an actual situation: "when [I] think of [it] (i.e. the last time it happened to me, that is, the last meeting with HER)" ...

[FNote_819] taivantāṅku: how exactly to construe these frequent absolutives plus comparison particles - Lehmann 1994: 126 calls them equative participle, but strangely enough only if they end in āṅku, although aṉṉa at least is quite as frequent. My impression is that they are nearly always anacolouthic or elliptical: the reader has to infer the intended connection.

[FNote_820] The kiḷavi opts for an address of man to man, but the vocative at the end of the poem is not conclusive in this respect, since also HER shoulders are often called "big" or "broad".

[FNote_821] paṭai is, according to DEDR 3860 "army, crowd, weapons, battle", and in KT 333.1 and 350.6 it seems to denote something like "weapon".

[FNote_822] Since iṭu-tal is transitive, the phrase iṭu maṇal must be understood as elliptical: "sand deposited [by the sea]".

[FNote_823] nivantu: so the departure of the white chariot is compared to the ascent of the bird?

[FNote_824] It is difficult to discern the sentence border here. From parallels such as KT 212.4 it is quite certain that the sentence doesn't end with aritē (in which case the uṟai would have to be the subject, which is unlikely of the mere verbal root - usual would be the verbal noun uṟaital). It is quite probable that we are dealing with an open-ended anteposition of predicate, that is, kāmam is the subject, but in these cases the point tends to be that the word on the border of sentences is part of both. Now it is quite well possible to integrate kāmam also into the last sentence, either as a direct object of kuṟukal (instead of HER) or even as its subject (4+5b,c).

[FNote_825] Syntactically ceppiṉam has to be taken as the subject of celiṉē, that is, literally, "if we go as those who have spoken [to her]".

[FNote_826] The connection of the first line with the rest is a problem. To me it seems most meaningful to take the eṉṟu at the end of the line not as a mere quotative particle, but as semantically strong and having as a subject the man who is said to have gone in the last line. Then we have the topos of HIS going away without giving HER notice (because she would try to stop him), and the ārvalar are those who bring the news that he has gone, having decided not to inform her in advance.

[FNote_827] The construction also of the last line is not easy. There is no finite verb, so we have to take palar as a predicate noun. In the embedded sentence too the finite verb is missing. Cam. glosses the absolutive ceṉṟu with the finite form ceṉṟār. Another possibility is to read ceṉṟa ēṉa, with special sandhi, i.e. a finite verb in n.pl. and take nal l-aṭi as the subject. In this case, however, one would expect the poṟippat tāay to precede nal l-aṭi. The actual agent, HE, has to be complemented in either case.

[FNote_828] tāay: tāvu-tal is elsewhere used in the sense of "to spread", here "to leap over (from one thing to the other)" = "to set out"?

[FNote_829] pulampu koḷ: this is probably the perspective of the observer, "so that [one] takes it as loneliness" or "which [one] takes as loneliness" (thus also 279.3, 314.3; cf. KT 79.4 pulampu taru and 174.1 pulamp' uṟu).

[FNote_830] Yet again: what is conveyed by irunta in these cases (cf. KT 26.2, 191.2, 296.2, 391.7)?

[FNote_831] How to understand the statements in lines 1 and 5 and their relation to one another? Is line 1 meant generally, while line 5 names the special occasion of HER being not content with HIM? In any case the oṉṟu remains mysterious, and Cam.'s explanations, that either a stranger has come to marry her or that he has failed to come to the appointed meeting are pure speculation. And the kiḷavi doesn't even venture to give a solution.

[FNote_832] What is expressed by niṉṟu? That even the women can now reach the branches now that the tree is crushed?

[FNote_833] What can be said by aṟan talai paṭṭa with reference to a tree? It dutifully yields fruit? Or do we have to assume that it relates, in spite of being far separated from it, to the subject of the main sentence, yām, (that is, a coordination with iṟanta): "we, who have taken up duty [and] traverse ..."? But wouldn't we, in this case, expect an absolutive? Or should we argue that with the participle on the one hand (which lets it look naturally related to nelli), and the exposed position at the beginning of the poem and the word association with the behaviour of people point to a deliberate openness? T.V.G. explains it totally different, namely as Nelli trees planted out of piety, so that people walking in the wilderness would have at least the fruit to quench their thirst. In any case the problem seems to have been felt already somewhere in the process of transmission, as is shown by the variant curantalaip, which is unequivocally the lectio facilior.

[FNote_834] Which nuance of meaning is given by kaṟaṅku? Usually it seems to denote a kind of sound (KT 173.3 bells/jewels of a horse, 193.3 a drum compared to a frog, 263.3 musical instruments). Does here the young tiger play noisily with the fruits?

[FNote_835] kuṟunaṭai seems to be intended as a vocative, though its position is strange and it does not contain an element unequivocally belonging to the range of female attributes (like tōḷ)? Or is it to be read as an attribute to pala: "many things of short run (= duration)"?

[FNote_836] tiṇṭōr is a misprint of the new edition.

[FNote_837] kākkaiyatu: is -atu here a gen.suffix? Or can it be understood as an appellative noun n.sg. in attributive position?

[FNote_838] The positioning of toṇṭi is slightly awkward. We would expect it to stand in a genitive relation with ney and thus should precede it. Either it is literally "together with the whole Toṇṭi [possesses] in ghee", or, as T.V.G. takes it, the muḻuṭaṉ has to be taken together with cōṟu at the end of the line (the ghee of Naḷḷi's forest together with the whole cooked rice of Toṇṭi).

[FNote_839] Literally the meaning is: "who cried that a festival will come". So, either we have to read an ellipsis easy to complement for a reader familiar with the messenger topos (the happy message is, of course, that HE is coming home), or we have to allow for a further twist: if a festival will be held in the village, it is because of HIS return.

[FNote_840] nontu nam aruḷār is strictly speaking not a variant, for it can be read alternatively from the same Tamil grapheme. Of course we have no means to decide whether this way of writing was already practiced in Caṅkam times, but it is not to be excluded that also the graphical ambiguity was used to produce puns, and this one considerably changes the emotive value of the statement: HE still has no consideration, but at least he is pained at the prospect of HER bangles becoming loose.

[FNote_841] añ cil ōti could also mean: "[and] hair pretty [but] few", or with Cam. vocative: "[o you with] pretty, thin hair". In any case, what is the rationale behind this - formulaic - characterisation? Generally hair ought to be full (one of the standing epitheta is pal "much"), so why is it few here? Does also HER hair diminish with sorrow? Does she offer it for his safe return?

[FNote_842] ūti: the verb ūtu-tal is ambiguous (see DEDR 741). It denotes the blowing of the wind, and also the sounds produced by the wind or by musical instruments that are blown, and thus it could well refer to the humming sounds of bees. But a further meaning is to be "inflated from eating", and since here the ūti is preceded by tēṉōṭu (and in KT 239.4 there is naṟun tāt' ūtum), it seems probable that at least the main meaning here is that the bees are inflated by eating honey (which can be explained as an ellipsis: bees eat the nectar which by them will be changed into honey).

[FNote_843] The second bee of Cam.'s commentary seems unnecessarily complicated. According to him tēṉ here refers to a second kind of bee, which sucks from the single cluster together with the tumpi.

[FNote_844] ōṅkal: what is here the function of the verbal noun? Does it emphasize the pathetic braveness of the one surviving branch?

[FNote_845] This seems to mean, the bee returns again and again to the single flower cluster. Is this a play on the bee-flower symbolism with a double twist? Unlike the bee, that doesn't give up, SHE lets go of an unfulfilled love?

[FNote_846] What exactly is meant by koṭuñci? The variant koṭuñ ciṉai ("bent twig") might be explained as an attempt to make sense of an unfamiliar word, though unfortunately it doesn't make sense in the context. The DEDR gives, presumably going back to a commentator, the meaning "lotus staff", whatever that may mean, and T.V.G. explains it as a handle to hold in the chariot (which would doubtless be a useful device).

[FNote_847] For the idiom of varu-tal/peyar-tal see parallels in KT 221.3, 228.4, 246.4, 321.3, 330.5.

[FNote_848] What is the message conveyed by this main statement? Is this a transfer of HER self-pity onto the kāmam? Is it she who will perish because of kāmam? Or is actually the kāmam going to perish - which would mean she would be rid of it? The only certain thing is that she doesn't expect a happy outcome.

[FNote_849] For nōkō yāṉē see note on KT 131.6.

[FNote_850] This alternative means SHE is not speaking about her own desire, but about HIS, and she is not willing to accept him, which would not be totally uncommon as well (see KT 74, 298, 346). T.V.G. even gives this a further twist (in order to reconcile it with the kiḷavi), namely that he come for her to see and goes for her to be ashamed, since she doesn't know what to do with him. This still would have to be HER words then, before the confidante comes and persuades her to yield to him, as the kiḷavi says.

[FNote_851] What exactly is ñerēr? (The eṉa is a kind of adverb formation, as with teṟṟ'eṉa.) And what is here expressed by it? T.V.G. understands it as "speedily".

[FNote_852] kalai is usually a word for the male of the monkey, but here it has to be taken to refer to a kind of deer, since monkeys don't have horns.

[FNote_853] This poem start is best explained as ironical. For an interpretation of KT 213 as an ironic conflation of two formulaic schemes and as echo of KT 37 see vol. I, p. 336f.?.

[FNote_854] tataral: Cam. understands "bark", but the TL knows only tataru-tal "to be crushed". So perhaps this is another elliptical metaphor playing with the motif of the crushed tree and peeled-off bark.

[FNote_855] vaḻuvil neñciṉ is taken by T.V.G. to refer to the lack of selfishness of the adult that gives shade to the young.

[FNote_856] What is here the function and meaning of marapiṉ? Is this semantically weak meaning just something like "usually" (i.e. the calf tends to frolic about when it is not subdued by hunger and heat)? Or is this a joke with the poetological idiom: a calf that traditionally is attributed with a leaping gait? In view of the sophisticated irony of line 1 this possibility should not be ruled out.

[FNote_857] koṭicci: the tradition and the TL take this as a denotation of a woman from the Kuriñci region (Cam. accordingly glosses with talaivi), but is not an etymological understanding here quite obvious: koṭi "creeper" + fem.suff. -ci (thus already L./Sh.P. 1976 "vinelike girl")?

[FNote_858] aralai: the index gives the meaning "oleander" (Cam. glosses with alari) or the proper name of a particular hill; the TL says "bowstring hemp", which would be better suited from the point of view of content; the point seems to be that lesser plants are from confusion preferred to higher ones. Moreover there is the explanation of T.V.G. who takes the aralai to be a kind of red flower sacred to Murukaṉ.

[FNote_859] tirunt' iḻai can also be an extra attribute to alkul: "the hip with perfect jewellery".

[FNote_860] The meaning of acai y-iyal, attributed to the koṭicci, is unclear. It might refer to her way of moving (acai-tal is a verb of physical movement used for example with the wind; cf. DEDR 37). It might also refer to her behaviour and denote something like "unsteady nature". Alternatively the acai might also belong to acai-tal DEDR 341 "to be slender, flexible". A "slender nature" might also mean she is by nature slender (like a creeper).

[FNote_861] Do we have to understand tuḷarntu here, in consideration of maraṅ kol, as "to clear"?

[FNote_862] This is the reading in accordance with the kiḷavi, namely understood as a reference to the exorcism scene, when SHE is adorned with red flowers sacred to Murukaṉ: this is, according to T.V.G., the occasion the confidante chooses to mention to her mother the other kinds of decoration SHE used to wear, which have been given her by HIM.

[FNote_863] Or the elephant embraces his mate, and the tiger is on guard. Or perhaps the tiger protects his mate against the elephant.

[FNote_864] This is T.V.G.'s understanding (in accordance with Cam.), and this is indeed what is suggested by the particles, the double marking with -um at the beginning and the end of the first line, provided that we take paṭar and cuṭar to be nouns and not participles. There is, however, a problem of content, namely the fact that it is not at all sure whether HE will come or not and thus it is not at all clear whether HER affliction will vanish. This problem induces Cam. and T.V.G. to ignore the established meaning of kol as an interrogative particle and to declare it to be an expletive here: he will come. My suggestion is rather to take the paṭarum as a pun, which leaves open the possibility that the affliction might vanish in case he should come: "Today, when the sun that is glowing [and] slowly moving on vanishes behind the great mountains also [my] affliction [will vanish]."

[FNote_865] Here the question arises whether avarē and yāṉē have not been interpolated to ensure the better understanding on the part of the listener. (Similar in KT 300.5,6 nīyē, yāṉē).

[FNote_866] kūrnticiṉ: the forms in -ticiṉ usually stand for an imperative of the 2. sg. (KT 11.8, 30.1, 63.4, 112.5), but here it seems impossible to avoid connecting it with the yāṉē of line 3, and accordingly read it as a 1. singular. Similar are 217.7: eṉṟiciṉ, 262.5 āynticiṉ.

[FNote_867] Is pac' ilai vāṭā an attribute of general impact, that is, Vaḷḷi leaves which are always green, or is it just momentary, green Vaḷḷi leaves not yet faded?

[FNote_868] What is the nuance of tōṭ' ār el? Just "very bright"?

[FNote_869] pāṭ' amai cēkkai: is this a "bed on which sleep becomes still", that is, stops? Or the other way round: "bed on which one - actually - sleeps deep?

[FNote_870] A second possibility of construction is circular syntax, i.e. the absolutive kurittu also with avar/iṟantōr as a subject: "He, he is one who ... traversed the wilderness ... having marked my sweet life, where the black cloud makes thunder and lightning ...".

[FNote_871] Here we have to assume another case of the special sandhi for optative in -ka plus eṉ-tal (cf. KT 141.2, 219.4, 325.3, 383.3). The variant kaṭit' eṉiṉ might either betray a certain unfamiliarity with this (a 1.sg. kaṭiku would be difficult to construe) or exactly the contrary, namely the supplementation of an abstract verbal construction by a fairly frequent idiomatic peculiarity.

[FNote_872] Here is one of the especially awkward etymologies to be found in the TL: cettu is supposed to be from citvā, but how otherwise to analyse the form?

[FNote_873] mutukkuṟaimai is a problem. While mutu is, of course, "old", kuṟaimai is not attested otherwise, besides in Kal. 62.9 (disputably dependent on the KT passage), one mutukkuṟai is to be found in NA 366.9. Cam. glosses with mikka aṟivuṭaimai, "great wisdom" (thus also T.V.G.'s understanding, who explains it as mutukku-uṟaimai, which likewise doesn't seem attested). If we take a look at the etymology, kuṟaimai should or at least could be an abstract noun to kuṟai-tal "to shorten". If the kiḷavi here is applicable, this would make good sense: going away together would indeed be the classical short-cut to circumvent further family complications.

[FNote_874] The conditional presumably has to be taken as a hypothetical one. This is preferred also by T.V.G. who thinks the point is that the field is already harvested, so the lover can't meet there anymore.

[FNote_875] Is there any way to avoid here the poetological interpretation, namely that HE listens to the confidante's words and is ready to flee with HER? (So the poem has to be understood as a discussion between HIM and the confidante, which, according to the kiḷavi, is repeated to HER by the confidante).

[FNote_876] cūli, quite obviously a designation of a god here, is widely interpreted as Skt. śūlin- "spear/trident bearer" and in Tamil is supposed to be a feminine, i.e. Durgā as a bearer of the trident (which should go back to Skt. śūlinī, but since -i is feminine suffix in Tamil, this short version might be conceivable). This is the only occurrence in all of Caṅkam literature.

[FNote_877] viricci is not included in the DEDR; according to TP 58 it is, an utterance on part of a passer-by overheard by HER (thus KT 218, NA 40.4 and PN 280.6). Are cūli and viricci to be seen as hints to a late origin of this poem?

[FNote_878] viṭarmukai can also be read as a synonym compound, in which case it might convey plurality: many caves.

[FNote_879] On nūl the -um is missing; better is the variant puṇātu ("not taking up duty we don't bind the thread ... "). In this case the religious duty would consist of binding a thread, whatever that may mean - T.V.G. explains it as a turmeric thread worn on the left hand by women, on the right by men, during pūjā.

[FNote_880] uḷḷalum uḷḷām aṉṟē: this is presumably a figura etymologica with intensifying sense.

[FNote_881] ceṟivu is literally something like "denseness, closeness", but it may also mean "restraint" (Cam. glosses with aṭakkam "patience"). This seems to be meant here; it the only occurrence in the old anthologies. Possible is an affiliation to the poetological idiom (note the kiḷavi phrase ceṟiv' aṟivuṟīi).

[FNote_882] Cf. note on KT 66.1.

[FNote_883] The sentence structure here is a little awkward. One would expect HIS heart as the subject, but neñcattu is marked as oblique. On the other hand nayappa cannot very well be the subject, since it would be strange to call longing a place (and moreover in this case neñcattu as a genitive should precede its reference word). T.V.G. understands this as HER longing being on the way to HIS heart. But ār-iṭai in the sense of a place difficult to reach is well attested (cf. KT 131.3), and moreover in this case we would expect a dative with neñcam, not just oblique, the dative being the one case-ending which generally is marked.

[FNote_884] T.V.G. and Cam. construe one sentence from aṟivu up to irukkum. This would be a completely unmarked syntactical connection against every particle "rule", but it would make sense (see 3-5b).

[FNote_885] eḻuk' eṉa: again the special optative sandhi (cf. note on 141.2).

[FNote_886] Traditionally the man is supposed to be the speaker of this question, but this doesn't make much sense. If SHE asks him, the point might be that she has been waiting for him to speak and now considers the possibility of forcing him into an open statement (a proposal of marriage?).

[FNote_887] kūṟi yirukkum: can iru be auxiliary for a kind of continuous form?

[FNote_888] In the very least from line 3 onwards construction and message of the poem are elusive and completely open to doubt. The kiḷavi conspicuously desists from any serious comment: "hedge".

[FNote_889] īṅkē is by commentators sometimes explained to mean eṉakku (thus Cēṉ. on Tol. col. 28).

[FNote_890] The relation of cēr is unmarked; it might also go together with iruvi, i.e. "stubbles joining" = all the stubbles.

[FNote_891] pāvai is explained here by T.V.G. to be a quasi-synonym of iruvi (with parallels in AN 23.7f., 136.11-13). It also seems possible to understand it in the usual meaning, though the impact is slightly unclear.

[FNote_892] kuṟait talai pāvai: the meaning of this phrase is mysterious, since the relations are once more totally unmarked. It might be an attribute to iruvi: the stubble has been bereft of ears by the grazing animals, and thus has, so to speak, missing heads.

[FNote_893] paḻa maḻai might refer to the topos of the mistaken rainy season, only that the rest of the poem seems to describe the rainy season proper. What other reason is there to term the rain old?

[FNote_894] This is one of the places where -ō can be understood in the sense of a pre-positioned question or as a demarcation of topic: "as for him, he has not come". For T.V.G. here the -ō conveys the sorrow of separation.

[FNote_895] mullai-y-um: here the -um can either coordinate two not totally syndetic sentences, and then the unmarked mullai has to be read in accordance with the plural verb pūttaṉa, or it is to be understood as an indefinite, which would give the meaning "all the jasmines have flowered".

[FNote_896] The position of ellām (which usually follows its word of reference) prevents from taking it as a mere attribute ("all the little green buds"). Presumably it has to be taken as the subject of a nominal sentence the predicate noun of which is mullai, thus implying the speaker's perspective: all she can see (instead of HIM) is these jasmine buds.

[FNote_897] cūṭiya: here the perfective aspect doesn't signify a past event, but that the boy has already put the flowers on his head and still wears them there.

[FNote_898] The point is that he exchanges the fresh milk for food for himself and his colleagues. For the vantu-peyarum construction see KT 212.3, 228.4, 246.4, 321.3, 330.5.

[FNote_899] Obviously paṟi y-uṭaik kaiyar denotes the herdsmen staying behind with the sheep. What may these things signify? Do the shepherds sleep on these mats? T.V.G. asserts that they are a device to be held over the head as a shelter against rain.

[FNote_900] The penultimate is hypermetrical. Here there is no reason to suspect a gloss.

[FNote_901] koḷiṉē: here and in the following line there are two conditionals marked by -ē without being subject sentences. What is conveyed by this unusual marking? Just a kind of emphasis?

[FNote_902] tuḷi talait talaiiya: this curious phrase is difficult to construe. What is the meaning of talai? It cannot very well be a locative suffix (as it is explained by T.V.G.), since tuḷi is clearly direct object here, and if anything then the sprout (taḷir) should be in the locative. The verb talai-tal, by the way, is not included in the DEDR. One possibility is that this is a formulaic phrase transferred from an originally fitting context. There is AN 8.15, in the part of that text which preserves the old commentary: tuḷi talait talaiiya maṇi y-ēr aim pāl, where it is glossed as maḻaittuḷiyait taṉiṭattu koṇṭa, i.e. "the five parts (of her hair) resembling jewels, as the head has been offered drops" ("has taken rain drops upon itself"). Cam.'s gloss seems to go back to this (maḻait tuḷi taṉiṭattē peyya peṟṟa). This still seems a little awkward, because talai is understood simultaneously as a noun and as a locative suffix, but the image as such makes sense.

[FNote_903] koḻuṅ kaṭai: what is the kaṭai of an eye? And what is the meaning of koḻu here? Quantity (rich or big rims) cannot possibly be meant, so just, more general, beautiful? T.V.G. understands it as "fat" = "protruding" eyes.

[FNote_904] Here is a case of completely embedded sentence with a verb of comparison in the form of an -um-participle; how exactly to understand the syntax? And what is the nuance of māṇṭa? If it is not simply to be read as an attribute to māri (see above) it might also have to be construed with taḷir aṉṉōḷ, that is, she is "glorious, as she is similar to ..."?

[FNote_905] What is the point in all this? A man observes two women playing in the water before they are supposed to come to the rendezvous? T.V.G. here understands the kiḷavi (which is clearly a TP quotation) to the effect that HE, by watching the relation of the two women, has just realised that the confidante is the ideal mediator for his purposes.

[FNote_906] Here the syntax is tricky, and the addressee of the first lines is not marked at all. Perhaps it works thus, with at least one switch of perspective, namely at the beginning HER remembering the man's words, and then an account of what happened further. T.V.G. takes the beginning as HER report of the confidante's words, who induces her to go to the festival once again, while afterwards she relates what happened the last time they went there.

[FNote_907] For ārkali see note on KT 155.1.

[FNote_908] -āl-tilla without -ē seems to be longingly-surprised affirmation.

[FNote_909] This sentence can be read as HER commentary on the festival scene, or a second part of the quoted direct speech, that his, HIS argument for going to the festival. T.V.G., however, explains it as the good omens that speak in favour of going to the festival.

[FNote_910] It is also possible to read the 2 absolutives tantu and kūṟi as dependent on aṉṉai, as L./Sh.P. do. But how to arrive from there at the notion of guarding the fields is mysterious. A better point is made if HE entices HER with words about her beauty (for a comparison of HER with a sprout see KT 61.). T.V.G. has another alternative in taking muṟi to mean the young leaves of which skirts are made, and than the ottaṉa ought to mean something like "to be suitable for" (see 4+5b).

[FNote_911] nalam eṉṉai is a construction problem; it probably has to be taken as an apposition: "he took me, [that is, my] integrity (virginity)".

[FNote_912] yātta presumably has to be analysed as an adjective derivation from the oblique stem yāttu.

[FNote_913] For eṟṟi see note on KT 145.2.

[FNote_914] kavalai is perhaps also resonant with its second meaning "distress".

[FNote_915] The social implications of this comparison are not totally clear. The man is dumb, so he can't call for help. But why can't he do anything himself? Is it his noble birth which prevents him from doing the dirty work? T.V.G. takes uyartiṇai, occurring, besides in the Tolkāppiyam, only in this particular place, as the grammatical term for high-class (non-neuter entity), which would have been used in order to distinguish the dumb man (ūmaṉ: DEDR 746) from the owl (ūmaṉ: DED 2 747).

[FNote_916] Thus T.V.G.'s interpretation, meaning that he actually in accordance with the kiḷavi takes HER as a speaker, who would be not only struck with HIS behaviour, but moreover grieved by the empathy of the confidante.

[FNote_917] kēṭṭiṭattu: T.V.G. explains this a the (later?) temporal construction of peyareccam + iṭattu, with special sandhi, that is, kēṭṭa, not an absolutive (kēṭṭu). (It is otherwise not attested in the KT, but common in the kiḷavi-s).

[FNote_918] payam mulai: this can be understood as paya (verbal root DEDR 3937) mulai "yielding breast", that is, a breast which gives milk. T.V.G. suggests payam "milk", which would have to be explained as a borrowing from Skt. payas.

[FNote_919] Here amai-tal is best explained as an auxiliary verb expressing final settlement.

[FNote_920] Here the uriya cannot be taken as denoting possession (usually it is used parallel to uṭai), but in the sense of the idiom known from the poetological texts: uri- + dat. means "to be appropriate for". The ām added here can only be predicative.

[FNote_921] naṉṟum apparently has to be understood as an adverb (cf. KT 29.4, 237.3, 327.3).

[FNote_922] pūvoṭu puraiyum: one assumes that the instrumental here doesn't make a change in the understanding of the comparison.

[FNote_923] T.V.G. understands the whole, in explanation of the very elusive kiḷavi, which says just "hedge" (ciṟaippuṟam), as an indirect message to HIM via the confidante speaking to HER, in order to explain a failed meeting: the women would have noticed the traces his chariot left on the lilies and thus have known he had tried to come and see them. All of this seems rather far-fetched, and actually the poem might rather be understood as a case of incorporation. SHE remembers the place in seashore grove where she has met HIM (and presumably lost her nalaṉ to him) as the spot where the wheels of his chariot have cut down the water-lilies (for such an interpretation of the poem see vol. I, p. 270f.?).

[FNote_924] neytalum: the -um is problematic here. Perhaps this is another case of the peculiar exclusive: apart from myself (i.e. the speaker) also x (cf. KT 25.5 kurukum uṇṭu). T.V.G. explains it as an indefinite ("all the blue water-lilies"), which amounts to the same as regards content.

[FNote_925] vāṇ mukam: the sharp blade or edge of a weapon seems to be called mukam "face" or vāy "mouth"; cf. KT 378.4 cuṭar vāy neṭu vēḷ. Still the transfer to the wheels of a chariot seems a little awkward. Perhaps the point is rather the emotive value: the implicit identification of HER with the flowers cut down.

[FNote_926] polañ cūṭṭu nēmi: T.V.G. here explains polam to refer to iron (black gold), but since it is compared to pūṇ, an ornament, it might also refer to a kind of decoration on the wheel.

[FNote_927] For the vantu-peyarum construction see KT 212.3, 221.3, 246.4, 321.3, 330.5.

[FNote_928] nāṭṭār is, in contradistinction to nāṭaṉ, not an appellative noun but a denominative (cf. KT 203.1 nāṭṭar, 11.7 tēettar).

[FNote_929] This poem has been treated extensively in the introduction to vol. I, as an example of the complexity of Caṅkam poetry (see p. 40f.?).

[FNote_930] ōri is, according to DEDR 1061 only "male jackal", according to the TL "hair of a male"; in KT 244.4 it seems to denote the crest of a peacock.

[FNote_931] ētu is explained as Skt. hetu-, "reason", however it seems possible to read the interrogative pronoun (DEDR 5151), which, in combination with -il, might give a similar sense: "without anything" = "without reason".

[FNote_932] The sandhi here actually should be resolved as maṉṟu, not maṉṟa + amma. Is this another special case (besides optative in -ka + eṉ-tal) where ending -a is treated like -u?

[FNote_933] aim pāl: Cam. glosses with "hairstyle"; in the commentary on Cīvak. 2437 written by Nacc. there is an extensive description of the ways to dress the hair in five different ways on one head.

[FNote_934] vāṅkunaḷ pariya is literally "runs as one who is pulling".

[FNote_935] Or the three infinitives + -um have to be taken in an optative sense: shall they do so - it will be but a little quarrel.

[FNote_936] The whole poem as it stands is best understood as irony: a wonderful pair indeed, or rather pair to be, are these two quarrelling children. T.V.G. however explains the first part as the memory of the spectators of the kiḷavi: such have they been, namely quarrelling children, but now that they are grown they have eloped together and are inseparable. There is, however, no specification as to the time to be found in the first four lines which would mark them as a memory from the past - T.V.G. asserts that maṉ can have the function of marking a sentence as past tense. He also takes maṇam in the stronger sense of "marriage".

[FNote_937] tuṇi-tal ("to resolve, determine" etc., DEDR 3305) might here also have the flavour of the second tuṇi-tal ("to dare, venture"; DEDR 3306), i.e. a note of daring resolution, though here once again the question arises whether we really ought to accept two lemmata.

[FNote_938] taku is, with all its derivations, a semantically problematic item. This phrase perun takai keḻumi can refer to their being exceptionally fit for one another. T.V.G. explains the phrase as "taking special rights", i.e. presumably "taking liberties [with him]" (see 3b).

[FNote_939] The exact syntax and the meaning of this whole line are dubious. For nō-taka see note on KT 197.1. I wish to take it as an adverbial infinitive: "in a way that it is fit [to feel] pain". Then the whole might be taken literally: "Is with me (uṭaiyēṉ) something that has been done such that it was fit [to feel] pain [about]?"

[FNote_940] What is the impact of aṉṉa here? Is it "as if [it were only] a few days", saying actually HIS absence has not been that short? T.V.G. doesn't take it as a comparison particle here, but joins it with varavu: "such coming" (presumably implying "such as he used to come").

[FNote_941] varav' aṟiyāṉ: the meaning of aṟi-tal in this kind of phrase is probably just a kind of emphasis on his not coming. T.V.G. explains it accordingly as being synonym to vārāṉ "he didn't come". (See also KT 302.8; in KT 233.6, 242.6, however, it is still possibly to understand similar phrases literally.)

[FNote_942] T.V.G. thinks that cēri already means "quarters" rather than "street", as it doubtless does in later Tamil. Cam., however, glosses it with teruvu "street", and actually neither of the KT passages provides any context which would help to decide this issue.

[FNote_943] Here morphology gives reason to presuppose a plurality of lovers (and of women waiting for them), because kaḻipa is supposed to be a plural form, and no honorific. (kaḻivōr should not have been a problem, if it had been intended.) T.V.G., however, sees no problem in taking also the 3.pl. in -pa as a honorific form, and there is at least one more instance of this in KT 348.1. Perhaps the explanation here is to be thought in a peculiar device of the Tamil poem, which unfortunately sounds rather awkward when reproduced in the translation, namely the nearly complete lack of marking the persons involved. Who speaks, who lives in the street or who wants to be embraced (i.e. "me" or "we") is not specified, as isn't the possessor of the desire that vanishes. T.V.G. even gives a b-version, in which HE is the one whose desire goes astray (towards the parattai, to be sure).

[FNote_944] Or the other way round: in the way that strangers pass a cremation ground.

[FNote_945] nal-aṟivu allows for different interpretations. Either it means, parallel to killed shame, the knowledge of what is good = proper behaviour, or, also an occasional topos, the knowledge of HIS friendship being good, so that the affair will have to end happily.

[FNote_946] Or: "because he doesn't observe an opportunity", that is, in one case the blame is HIS, in the other bad luck. Moreover it is possible to separate the text differently: vāy-puṇarvu ("... he won't come, with the result that the union of mouths does not come to pass").

[FNote_947] mā and irum both are adjectives meaning "big" as well as "black/dark". So the combination of them might be an intensifying(?) synonym compound ("huge"/"pitch-dark") or a combination or both together, which latter is actually what is conveyed by the "big dark woods" of the translation. T.V.G. explains this as a special combination (with a special sandhi: māyirum instead of the regular māvirum) meaning "big [and] dark".

[FNote_948] maral pukā v-aruntiya: this mode of expression seems unusually heavy. Possible here the sandhi has to be dissolved differently, namely not aruntiya "eaten", but varuntiya "suffered", meaning that the deer have to be content with bowstring hemp, just like the elephant could find nothing to eat but Yām.

[FNote_949] Or: "in the shade of a row of Yām trees".

[FNote_950] Cam. reads kōl here, but kōḷ is possible as well and easier to understand.

[FNote_951] kuṟun toṭi: what may kuṟum "short" mean with reference to armlets? It presumably can either refer to their shape ("thin") or to their size ("tight"). Since in a parallel passage in KT 267.5) one further attribute possibly means "broad", it seems more probable that the meaning is "tight".

[FNote_952] Literally: "rice without knowing of taking a measure".

[FNote_953] nīroṭu corinta miccil: Cam. understands as a rest (= an addition) to the gift given into the hand together with water.

[FNote_954] uyarntōrkku: Cam. understands "for the erudite ones", but possible is also "for the highborn ones" as it is in the poetological idiom. Another possibility is yet that the whole refers to a kind of śrāddha ceremony, and that the uyarntōr are the ancestors who receive the offering, while the rest is given as food to the guests.

[FNote_955] So this means the Koṉṟai flowers have already fallen down = the rainy season is well in progress?

[FNote_956] Or: "dug on crossroads".

[FNote_957] eṉmaṉār: for this participle formation see Agesthialingom 1977: 178, col.2.

[FNote_958] pular, elsewhere (KT 150.3, 347.1, 372.6) used in the sense of drying, according to DEDR 4305 can also be "to dawn".

[FNote_959] It is not clear whether nakar denotes a house or a town. Probably the attribute neṭum goes easier with a town, i.e. in the sense of spacious.

[FNote_960] kuṭumi here probably just achieves the marking of the gender-neutral kōḻi as a masculine, that is, a cock's crowing, not the cackle of chickens, and thus dawn.

[FNote_961] Perhaps perum is better taken as an adverb modifying pular here.

[FNote_962] nal, as so often, is problematic as an attribute here. Does it refer to her outer appearance, that is, "good" in the sense of "lovely" or something similar? Does it refer to her social status, that is, she is acceptable in spite of obviously being poor?

[FNote_963] This second alternative is Cam.'s choice. Probably both possibilities are intended: there are clear parallels with ōmpu in both senses (cf. KT 186, 206 - KT 223), among them a formulaic parallel of ōmpumati in KT 186 which seems to justify the primary reading - which is especially interesting because it represents an unusual topos (see III.3.4, p. 211?).

[FNote_964] viṭṭeṉa is probably here just an adverb for rhetorical emphasis. T.V.G. understands it as marking the finality of his letting go of her.

[FNote_965] tantaṉai definitely looks like a finite form, with the infix -aṉ- plus ending -ai of the 2.sg., but here is a certain temptation to read it as a vocative. Cf. a parallel construction with koṇṭaṉai ceṉmō in 238.5. Cam. glosses in both cases with an absolutive, which presumably means that he took them as that suspect form called muṟṟeccam, which is indeed tempting here, all the more since the conditional preceding it can be understood either as past or hypothetical (see 1+2b).

[FNote_966] pirintaṉṟ' āyiṉum: either the heart has actually made the way before HE himself can, or it is to be understood hypothetical: "even if the heart were to separate ...".

[FNote_967] naṉṟum has once again to be understood as an adverb, though it is puzzling here, because one would rather expect an adjective (cf. KT 29.4, 226.3, 327.3).

[FNote_968] cēya cannot but be read as the neuter pl. to cēy "distance" - is this the predicate noun of an nominal sentence with iṭai as a subject (thus also Cam.)?

[FNote_969] valaṉ can be understood either adverbially or as a metonymic apposition: "a power rising [and] thundering ...".

[FNote_970] vaṇṭal is, according to the TL "girls' game of making toy-houses; sediment, mud ...". Only the latter meaning is to be found in the DEDR (5237). T.V.G. explains it, just as in the case of ōrai (another women's game not included in the DEDR) simply as "play", which is the occupation by girls/women who are not working. Is there an old explanation of Nacc.?

[FNote_971] Meaning (and impact) as well as precise construction of the lines 1-3 are quite unclear. T.V.G.'s explanation is that the region of Toṇṭi is so fertile that the women do not need to work too much, but are able to rest and play when the work is done.

[FNote_972] koṇṭaṉai either has to be read as a vocative ("you who took") or, as tantaṉai in 236.2 it gives the facts ("As you have given back my integrity, you have [already] taken back your oath"), while the imperative just draws the consequence: "go!".

[FNote_973] koṇṭaṉai: so here once again the form is taken by tradition as a muṟṟeccam, though in this case it would be more difficult to account for the perfective aspect. If there is a hypothetical nuance to the whole, as T.V.G. asserts, then it can only be expressed by theme (SHE actually never is allowed to break with him), not by morphological means.

[FNote_974] muntūḻ: the TL refers only to this passage; M./L. note moreover AN 78.8.

[FNote_975] This seems to be a topos occasionally referred to - cf. AN 32.

[FNote_976] uṭaṉ kamaḻum: it seems best to take uṭaṉ here not as a case marker for cilampu, but, with Cam. (thus also T.V.G.), for a modificator of kamaḻum, that is, literally: "smelling together".

[FNote_977] vantataṉṟalaiyum: this form presents morphological difficulties. It might either be analysed as absolutive vantu plus the usual "conjunction" ataṉṟalaiyum "and on top of that, moreover" (which literally is a pointed locative of the demonstrative pronoun atu plus -um), but in this case one would rather expect a finite n.sg. than an absolutive, or as vantat'-aṉ-talai-y-um, the neuter verbal noun in the locative plus -um, which would be literally "on top of [the north wind] having come".

[FNote_978] oḷi viṭu: what is meant by this? Do the blossoms (suddenly) send out light = they open?

[FNote_979] Does putal refer to the jasmine shrubs?

[FNote_980] Cam. takes maṇi as an attribute to kuṉṟu (a hill yielding sapphires), but the image is more convincing if it is taken as an apposition.

[FNote_981] Or: "see, oh friend, his long hill, a sapphire vanishing in the evening ... ".

[FNote_982] keḻutakaimai is, according to L./M., attested only here in Caṅkam literature (once keḻutakai in AiN 245.4; comparable is also KT 230.3 peruntakai keḻumi). This seems to be the only formation where keḻu, otherwise used more or less similar as -uṭai and thus following its word of reference, is placed in front. But literally this combination should mean something like: "existing suitability (for each other)". Or "suitability in embracing" (keḻuvu-tal "to embrace)?

[FNote_983] Can iṭṭa be construed this way with ciṟāar as subject?

[FNote_984] puṉ-talai in the case of children might refer either to small height or to scanty hair growth. The latter is clearly the case in KT 229.2, where puṉṟalai is followed by ōri "male's hair". T.V.G., however, takes puṉ as a word denoting red colour, as well in connection with hair as with puṟam "back" (cf. KT 274.1, 285.5).

[FNote_985] What is the message of this? The noise of children playing (and working) in the village is to be heard up in the mountains? What is the significance of the Vēṅkai line? Does patam mean something eatable'? T.V.G. explains that the children want the flowers on the tree, but don't climb it in order to get them, but just cry 'puli, puli!' ("tiger, tiger!"), upon which the tree would yield its flowers.

[FNote_986] Here the particle marking is different from what would be expected. maṭantai is placed after the sentence-final -ē without being part also of the next sentence. Or should this special position be taken seriously and maṭantai read also as the aim of varal (as is certainly implied in any case)?

[FNote_987] cēntu varal is literally "coming after having stayed [there]".

[FNote_988] See note on KT 238.3.

[FNote_989] tārmaṇi: these might either refer to blue flowers for a garland, or, as T.V.G. takes it, flowers resembling "bells on a string" (cf. KT 182).

[FNote_990] paṭīiyar can also be read as an infinitive and thus as a clause, not an independent sentence. Possibly the many nuances of the root paṭu-tal are exploited here to have a kind of double entendre: SHE has decided not to remember HIM anymore, but it is uncertain whether her eyes won't betray her.

[FNote_991] ōri cf. note on KT 229.2; Cam. glosses here talaik koṇṭai "head tuft" (thus also T.V.G.).

[FNote_992] How to understand here the temporal impact of the verb forms? Either kēṭṭaṉam with perfective aspect is used as an aorist, i.e. direct past, and thus the poem would be spoken still that night. Or it is actually past tense, and muyaṅkum in the last line is durative/iterative: mother embraces us still (as she did at midnight).

[FNote_993] aṟaṉ-il can also be "derelict of duty", namely viewed from the perspective of the lovers.

[FNote_994] karaiyatu might here for once actually be interpreted as a genitive, unlike the micaiyatu of KT 78.1 and the tiraiyatu of KT 128.1, though it remains unclear why it should be marked as such. Just for metrical reasons, i.e. in order to complete the foot?

[FNote_995] Cf. note on KT 221.3.

[FNote_996] ciṟu veṇ kākkai: is this a standing phrase to denote a seagull, which is a white bird of the seashore, by size, voice and behaviour comparable to the crow? T.V.G. explains it as a particular kind of crow to be found on the seaside, which has a white spot on its neck.

[FNote_997] piṉṉu viṭu: what is achieved here by viṭu-tal? T.V.G. takes it just as "well-decorated".

[FNote_998] How to account for the syntax of these four lines? Probably it is best to explain it as a change of word order for reasons of emphasis. miṉṉiḻai makaḷir and piṟar are to be read as the coordinate subjects of uḷarē, and iḷaiyar and maṭavar are subject appositions just to makaḷir. The last line is to be read as an independent sentence which comments on the makaḷir. So the piṟar who logically come second, are put in front in order not to interrupt the climactic three-lines description of the makaḷir.

[FNote_999] For -umār see note on KT 81.3.

[FNote_1000] aṇip paṭuum: how to understand the morphology and the syntax? aṇi presumably should be understood as DEDR 120, verbal root "to join with" or adv. "near". T.V.G. reads the first line as two sentences, one about the friendship possessing beauty, the other about marriage: "[marriage] is coming near for us".

[FNote_1001] Is the inset to be understood symbolically: HE goes away from HER to do his work, but that doesn't shatter the friendship, just as the trumpeting of the elephant costs the Vēṅkai some of its flowers, but does not bring it to ruin?

[FNote_1002] How to understand the syntax? And what is the relation to the rest of the poem? SHE is content that HE has gone abroad because this is his duty?

[FNote_1003] Literally this first sentence is: "As for the not being thus of the coming of that, it [is] difficult", i.e. -ō is used as a particle of demarcation of topic.

[FNote_1004] Here the point of the inset is that the long, long number of days SHE had to spend waiting has become short, just as the trunks of the Palmyras are ever growing shorter since they are buried by the sands (see also KT 372).

[FNote_1005] poḻinta: why here the perfective aspect?

[FNote_1006] Thus T.V.G. who thinks the point is that seeing his hill is a restorative for her beauty, nearly as much as seeing himself.

[FNote_1007] vārā v-avaḷai: "to a measure that not ...", i.e. "before ... comes".

[FNote_1008] neṟi-mutal: mutal might be taken as a loc. suff., thus Cam., but the possibility should be considered whether this combination might be a transposition of Skt. adhyadhva, "everywhere", which would make probable a plurality of deer: "good Iralai stags bouncing about everywhere ...".

[FNote_1009] teri tīṅ kiḷavai: it is also possible to understand this as a metonymy, i.e. "[she of] words sweet in understanding". Thus T.V.G. who takes teri to refer to the scarcity of her words ("choice, sweet words").

[FNote_1010] uṇkaṇ: uṇ might actually be here a particle of comparison (cf. note on KT 101).

[FNote_1011] neṭu nīr poru kayal: here we probably have a double entendre. The neṭu nīr poru can either be read as an attribute to kayal, the fish, in which case poru should be analysed as DEDR 4541 "to join together, to unite" (two fish - two eyes). Or it can be read as another attribute to kaṇ, and in this case it would be eyes fighting against tears.

[FNote_1012] The vāḻi may either be read as the prelude to a vocative not actually in the text, that is, as a kind of address, and than it probably has to be completed by tōḻi. Or it can be taken literally as a benediction of the foolish peacocks ("may you live"), but this wouldn't make much sense in the context.

[FNote_1013] peyteṉa v-ataṉetir: this is syntactically tricky. It might be explained as a transitional passage in the formation of the causal participle (absolutive + eṉa = "because"). Taken in this way the sentence here would be slightly redundant: "in the face of that, because showers have rained". Taken as an embedded direct speech the peytu would have to be taken not as an absolutive, but as a n.sg.p.a.

[FNote_1014] varuvatōr can be analysed as an appellative noun to the verbal noun varuvatu, which might imply the nuance "who constantly comes".

[FNote_1015] kaṭavuṭ kaṟpiṉ: the connotations of this phrase are not at all clear. It could either be 1. "in divine fidelity", 2. "like the fidelity towards a god", 3. "as [according to] the teachings of god".

[FNote_1016] Or, with T.V.G., "the pleasant face unchanged in the morning, when he is coming".

[FNote_1017] muṉṉar: literally "as such that are in front of [someone]".

[FNote_1018] kāṇuṅ kālai: this phrase could also be understood in a general sense ("when one considers it"), as such identical to an idiom that occurs frequently in the TP and probably having the purport that anybody considering it would come to the same conclusion.

[FNote_1019] Syntax and impact of the cāṉṟōr sentence are enigmatic, and the rendering given above is convincing neither syntactically nor from the point of view of content; it seems to be Cam.'s way out of the mud. Better would be an application to the personal situation, but that would mean taking nāṇupa and kolpa as honorific plurals along with the varuvatōr: "Being in front [of me] he is ashamed when he is praised as noble; how could he bear blame while he is seen?" Srin. suggests a totally different alternative: "The noble ones who were praised by the ancients (muṉṉar in the temporal sense) would be ashamed (to act like that). How would blame be possible to them, if one considers it?"

[FNote_1020] uṟutta can be taken as DEDR 711 uṟuttu-tal "to increase".

[FNote_1021] Srin. proposes to read ākuvar here as a presumptive future: "he will not hear it/have heard it" (thus also T.V.G.).

[FNote_1022] For mātō see note on KT 144.5.

[FNote_1023] cēr aṇaiyiṉ might be the bed where the lovers used to join, and then the nekiḻ nūṟ pū could be read as a metonymic apposition for her.

[FNote_1024] nekiḻnūṟ pū: meaning and relation of that phrase are not clear. It can be taken as a metaphor for her solitary wasting away (cf. KT 9). It can also be connected with cēr (thus T.V.G.): a bed "where flowers are joined on a thread, [now] wilting". This might refer to a/the flower garland with which SHE has adorned the bed expecting HIS return, and which now fades, just like herself.

[FNote_1025] Because of the predicate vārā, n.sg.neg., it is necessary to understand the subject tūtu not as a "messenger" (as it is mostly) but as the inanimate "message", which is equally possible. The variant vārār, however, reflects uneasiness with that construction: a tūtu is in the Akam context expected to be a person, and vārā has been changed into vārār. T.V.G. explains the problem away by taking tūtu to be an aḵtiṇai (low-class) noun with an uyartiṇai (high-class) meaning.

[FNote_1026] eytiṉar: the p.a. can be explained here as the use of the p.a. for something lying immediately ahead, as taught in Tol. col. 241.

[FNote_1027] Lines 4 + 5 could also be read as independent sentences (thus Cam.), but better might be a sequence of appositions containing HER complaint about HIS behaviour. He has left her to make wealth and does not think (this a reminiscence of their common nights) of her hair. Line 4, then, might be understood as reminiscence on her part of the even more distant past: when they still were together he didn't think of sleeping.

[FNote_1028] Line 3 is read by Cam. as hypermetrical, which T.V.G. denies who takes y-uyaṅkunaṭai as a single metrical foot.

[FNote_1029] kaṇṭaṉar: for this special use of the p.a. Srin. proposes the designation fictive preterite.

[FNote_1030] The exact syntax is hard to explain as it is once more totally unmarked. The point seems to be that the tree is still strong and healthy (not hollow), but that the elephant out of care for his family uses all its strength to bend it.

[FNote_1031] iṟīiya can be both inf. to DEDR 520 iṟu-tal "to break" or to DEDR 521 iṟu-tal "to pay", one probably the "official version", the other her private opinion on the matter.

[FNote_1032] terivai is, according to the TL a woman between 25 and 32, which presumably must mean a married woman. T.V.G., however, denies the age implication and takes it just a "woman".

[FNote_1033] What is the meaning and function of piṉ-paṭa?

[FNote_1034] Why māṉ-ēṟu, a double-designation of the male animal?

[FNote_1035] piṇi kāl meṉ kompu? This description of the Aṟukai is difficult. Is it a creeper (koṭi), a grass (TL; kāl) or a shrub with twigs (kompu)? T.V.G. explains that it has soft twigs, but that its stems are firmly rooted in the ground so that it is hard to pluck.

[FNote_1036] That is, the rain drops, thus specifying the time of his proposed return as the rainy season (cf. KT 104.2). T.V.G., however, wants to take it as part of the description of the Aṟukai grass itself, which is supposed to be dark green/blue: "as if sapphires had been spread".

[FNote_1037] vilaṅku: T.V.G. thinks that the eyes of the formerly happy woman are "crying, for a change", but I think it is better to take this literally and fitting the image of hyperbole: the water cried by the woman is so much that can be called "transverse", like elsewhere the mountains (cf. KT 134.7, 144.7, 262.6).

[FNote_1038] pakai: here "enemy" is apt, not "enmity"; cf. tūtu, which may mean "messenger" or "message".

[FNote_1039] ār kali: here the formulaic epitheton is problematic (cf. note on KT 155.1). How can a mountain be noisy? Bustling with life, in a figurative sense, might be conceivable. Or is it the veṟpaṉ himself who is very busy?

[FNote_1040] What does kōḷ here refer to? Bundles of fruit? But what, then, is the nuance of vīḻ? The weight of the many fruit hanging so low? T.V.G. explains it as "bundles of fruit desired by all", but something like vīḻ-tal "to desire" is not supported by the DEDR.

[FNote_1041] Is this the meaning of kīḻ tāḻ here? T.V.G. thinks the fruit seem almost to fall down to the ground.

[FNote_1042] The syntax and message of the first three lines is far from clear. Some kind of word-play, however, is implied: there is a triad of words of comparison (āṅku - pōla - aṉṉa) and of verbs for a descending movement (tūṅkupu - kīḻ tāḻ - vīḻ).

[FNote_1043] kāmattu: the oblique can be understood here as a genitivus explicativus.

[FNote_1044] niraiya: instead of reading here a problematic derivation of Skt. naraka- via Prākrit niraiya- it might be reasonable to take it as an infinitive of DEDR 3673 nirai-tal, "to place in a row", in adverbial function. T.V.G. reads: "young men with bright swords like [the guards of] hell".

[FNote_1045] The comparison with the town might either be for beauty (glory) or because it has suffered a similar defeat.

[FNote_1046] peru makaṉ: why this designation for someone who is described as father of somebody? Does it just mean "great man" here?

[FNote_1047] The inner syntax of the whole comparison is unmarked, but especially with this line one would welcome some help for the combination of the details.

[FNote_1048] The fettering of elephants to particular trees seems to be a topos in Sanskrit Kāvya literature, as is pointed out by D.G., to be found, for example, 4 times alone in Raghuvaṃśa 4 (4.48, 4.57, 4.69, 4.76).

[FNote_1049] pallitaḻ: T.V.G. explains this as a metonymy for lotus, as the flower having many petals, which would then be the usual metaphor of HER having lotus eyes. It might, however, also be taken literally, namely as referring to her eyelashes.

[FNote_1050] olvai yāyiṉuṅ kolvai yāyiṉum: this is literally "if it is possible to you or if you kill", but the point is the alliterative combination of a pair of verbs of consent and dissent, in other words the dark one is requested to take a decision.

[FNote_1051] What is the theme of this poem? Cam. reads with the kiḷavi: the friend seeks HER permission officially to tell the truth. In this case, the last sentence has to be read as a reassurance as to HIS intentions, which seems possible in the light of the parallel in KT 265.6 (see T.V.G. rendering 8b). Note the lack of particle marking in line 6, after puraimai.

[FNote_1052] The double marking kuruk'um - putal-um leaves no doubt that both sentences have to be read as coordinated by "and" - in spite of the strangely incompatible verb forms ivarum and nekiḻtaṉavē. Perhaps this could be a passage to demonstrate the advantages of the concept of an aspectual system: ivarum expresses the continuous event (ever more herons, or, every now and then another heron), while nekiḻtaṉa is not past tense, but either a perfective or a kind of aorist: they have opened, and now they are open.

[FNote_1053] ūta here is ambiguous. The verb can either refer to blowing as a sound or to being inflated by eating (cf. note on KT 211.5). Since here (unlike in the two KT parallels 211.5 and 239.4) the object is missing (the thing on which the bees are feeding), ūta might also refer to their humming.

[FNote_1054] T.V.G. reads also the third line as an independent sentence ("Also [your] upper arms, glittering with curved bangles, are resisting.") and takes the first three lines as good omens for HIS imminent arrival (the nimittam, "signs", the confidante of the kiḷavi sees). Therefore he has to explain the kol of varuvar-kol as an expletive and read an assurance on the part of the confidante that HE will come now.

[FNote_1055] vilaṅkiya is difficult here. Is the point that the trees are so small that the cow has to lie along several of them in order to get some shade? T.V.G. prefers to take it as a metaphor: the Ōmai trees, which give at least a little shade, stopped the cow on her way (see 7b).

[FNote_1056] poruvār maṇ ṇ-eṭutt' uṇṇum: Cam. explains this strange expression as a Sanskritism, namely as a transliteration of bhū-bhuj, taking enemies' land. This would deliver us from having to assume that elephants eat earth, or even worse, buried warriors.

[FNote_1057] The variant paṭumaḻai, "falling rain" is clearly an attempt to get rid of the unsatisfactory paḻamaḻai, which in either interpretation is a little awkward. If it is taken in T.V.G.'s sense as "old rain" (see 1+2b), it creates the problem that the poem would start with a phrase indicating a wrong topos, namely the false rainy season (the time when the clouds release the old rain in order to have room for the new one), which is not what the poem is dealing with. If it is taken as "fruit", we would have to assume that it would once more refer to the fruit termed kāy, "unripe fruit", in the second line, which would be slightly odd since paḻam, at least in modern Tamil, rather refers to ripe fruit.

[FNote_1058] viḻumam is a problematic word. Derivations of viḻu are not accounted for by the DEDR. While viḻu(itu) is supposed to mean something like "excellent" (KT 182.1, 216.1, 253.2) the noun occurs in two places in the KT (261.8, 397.8) where Cam. glosses it with tuṉpam, which seems to fit the context.

[FNote_1059] For -ticiṉ as 1.sg. with antepositioned yāṉē see 216.4, 217.7.

[FNote_1060] aṟanil: or "derelict in duty", cf. 244.6.

[FNote_1061] aṭi-vaḻi: is this a single footprint or is it a downtrodden path? And what does it suggest? The danger of a path also used by elephants?

[FNote_1062] How to understand the construction of this comparison? Does it refer to the size of the footprints?

[FNote_1063] maṟi is one of the terms denoting the young of an animal, and especially a lamb, but T.V.G. asserts that the offering consists in the young of a goat, as is mostly the custom nowadays. Neither this poem nor KT 362, however, contains any hint that would settle this question.

[FNote_1064] I.e. to this, pain is the proper reaction on her part? Or as a punishment for someone else, namely, HIM, who has let this happen instead of marrying her in time?

[FNote_1065] I have understood the construction as follows: as an indirect object to takkaṉṟu the verbal noun paṭutal (in appositional relation to the infinite paṭa at the end), on which are dependent three absolutives (uṟuttu, iṟīi and vāḻtti), while dependent on the third absolutive vāḻtti is the negative absolutive ākā, to which, in turn, the infinitive kaṟaṅka is subordinate.

[FNote_1066] Note the Skt. word teyvam for "god" here. What kind of ritual is described?

[FNote_1067] Does tōṟṟam denote here something that looks as it actually isn't, that is, translated freely, a good spectacle? T.V.G. explains it as the appearance of the god who takes possession of the entranced priest.

[FNote_1068] What is the impact of piḻaiyēm here? There is no point in saying that SHE has stood by HIM, because it is her relatives who have started the exorcism rite. The question might be whether she has done something wrong with the man from the land. But nātaṉai is a marked accusative, and consequently a direct object.

[FNote_1069] maḻai viḷaiyāṭu: or "where clouds are playing".

[FNote_1070] In the given context one could ask whether nayantaṉaṉ makes sense in its usual meaning "to long for". He obviously has already got the kēṇmai. The perfective aspect too is slightly strange, or at least it cannot mean a past tense. So perhaps the shade is: he has established respect/esteem for the kēṇmai he has taken.

[FNote_1071] Since this line is not concluded by -ē the construction is ambiguous. Perhaps it is necessary to take, in spite of the aṉ-infix, nayantaṉaṉ as a participial noun and read kēṇmai as a subject to the last line, thus 3-5b. In any case the word order is strange. It is tempting to connect the nammoṭu with koṇṭa kēṇmai ("the intimacy he has with us"), which however seems to be forbidden by position, unless we understand koṇṭa kēṇmai as an open-ended postposition.

[FNote_1072] What is the impact of this poem? Considering the depth of HIS feelings it is very improbable that he won't be back with the rains, and thus SHE has no reason to be upset?

[FNote_1073] ēkal, is according to Cam., a noun meaning "height." (Cam. glosses uyarcciyaiyuṭaiya). But TL/DEDR know only ēku-tal "to go", and thus ēkal should be a verbal noun "going" (which is incomprehensible in the context). T.V.G., however, splits it as ē kal "abundant stones" (see DEDR 870 ē "abundance").

[FNote_1074] iṭaṉ viṭṭu: literally "having let go of the place" = "not having resisted"?

[FNote_1075] What is the exact construction? What is the meaning of this comparison, which has to be connected with the petals?

[FNote_1076] For the construction of verbal noun + cellā(tu) see 159.1, 287.4, 340.3.

[FNote_1077] Probably here his good heart refers to his having proper intentions (namely of marrying her), for which KT 259.8 is perhaps a parallel.

[FNote_1078] Here we either have to suppose that the penultimate is hypermetrical, or that the actual penultimate line is somehow missing. Such a line (see line in brackets above) is given in the Eṭṭuttokai edition of Vaiyapuri Pillai 1940 (arranged not along the anthologies, but according to the alphabetical order of the poets). It is, however, not included in any of the other editions either of Caminataiyar or of the Saiva Siddhanta, until the quite recent Shanmugam Pillai 1994. This supposedly means it must have been missing in most of the manuscripts (as is also shown by Sh. P.'s apparatus).

[FNote_1079] Here read valliyōr instead of valliyēr (Cam. 1937 correct).

[FNote_1080] Here and in the following line Cam./T.V.G. explain the oṉṟu as the verbal root "to be one", that is, the message suitable to us/to the Vēṅkai tree.

[FNote_1081] Here, as often, the circular construction means that the confusing word order is explained at the very end: the last line contains subject and direct object.

[FNote_1082] For kuṟun toṭi see note on KT 233.7.

[FNote_1083] Does marapu here mean something like law?

[FNote_1084] uṟal muṟai is an awkward phrase. T.V.G. here takes muṟai not as "kind, turn", but as "fate". It might also be possible to understand something like "when it is [their] turn".

[FNote_1085] kōl amai? - or kōlam-ai "decoration(acc.)", but how to construe this? (In KT 364.3 too there is kōl in connection with armlets, toṭi). T.V.G. explains it as meaning "broad", but how to account for morphology and semantics?

[FNote_1086] Srin. reads īṇṭu together with ñālattu "the whole world", while T.V.G. here explains the īṇṭu as a verbal root "to gather" (DEDR 538), which would be "together with great wealth, the gathered gain of the wide world".

[FNote_1087] iruṅkaṇ ñālam: "the world which [is] a big place"?

[FNote_1088] T.V.G. takes aṟanil kōḷ as referring to the way the god of death takes away old people as well as young ones, and thus deserves to be termed "dutyless", which supposedly means here "without moral consideration".

[FNote_1089] viṉaval viṉa: is this a figura etymologica = intensifying "to ask urgently"?

[FNote_1090] Or the last line can be read as an independent sentence implying a change of perspective, from report to the confidante over to direct memory.

[FNote_1091] This line unfortunately is ambiguous. Since tā-ttal "to give" may mean either actually "give" or something like "bring" (cf. the phrase poruḷ taral KT 216.1 et al.), and māṟu-tal can be exchange either by buying or by selling. Since elsewhere there is a mention of salt merchants (cf. KT 124.1, 388.4), one might conclude that the mother goes to purchase salt (and this is indeed the interpretation of T.V.G.), but the possibility cannot be ruled out that she has salt and needs rice (which presumably does not grow directly on the seaside).

[FNote_1092] uppu viḷai kaḻaṉi: literally "the fields where salt is ripening", i.e. probably extracted by evaporation, just as nowadays.

[FNote_1093] By position the penultimate line is bivalent. On the one hand the cērppaṉ is the addressee of the message, i.e. indirect object of the main sentence of line 2, on the other hand he is the one for whom she would be weak (indirect object to eḷiyaḷ).

[FNote_1094] muḻaṅki iṭitt' iṭittu: is this a synonym compound plus repetition, achieving an intensification?

[FNote_1095] How to understand ūḻiṉ?

[FNote_1096] kūntal mel l-aṇaiyēm might also mean "we [are] on the soft bed of [her] tresses" (thus the explanation of T.V.G.).

[FNote_1097] uṟṟatu maṉṉum: What can be the function of -um here? Adding an additional reason (to one which has not been uttered: "it verily happened also ..."?

[FNote_1098] Here is another passage where tōḷ is obviously used in a metonymic-metaphorical way to denote HER body as having been touched by a man.

[FNote_1099] vauvum paṇpiṉ can either be read as a qualification of an elliptical subject or as an attribute to nōy (see 5b).

[FNote_1100] Thus the sentence splitting by Cam./T.V.G. - in order to be able to decide between the two it would be necessary to study in full the usage of the particle maṟṟu. The instances from the KT analysed in the II.3.6 (p. 114f.?) seem to allow for both possibilities.

[FNote_1101] māṟukoḷ cannot but be read as a lexeme, and is, according to the TL, "to be opposed, disagree, be discordant, be inimical".

[FNote_1102] T.V.G. understands an implication that HE has already had HER, taking the tīṇṭalum iyaivatu to mean "will there be an opportunity to touch again" the shoulder, but something like this is at least not attested by the dictionaries.

[FNote_1103] Cam. understands that the eyes are opposed to each other like arrows (or something like this), but would that fit to the further image? T.V.G. explains the eyes to be sharp as arrows, which would weaken the connection even more.

[FNote_1104] kaṭu vicai: is this an intensifying synonym compound?

[FNote_1105] Cam./T.V.G. take here the kalai to be the male of the deer and the māṉ of line 4 as its female, thus deriving one of the common images of separated mates. But kalai usually denotes a male monkey and māṉ usually denotes a male deer (although one might argue that the attribute maṭam which commonly is applied to females gives a hint to understand it that way). If we take the beginning seriously, that is, in the sense that HE has not yet touched HER shoulders, then the image of the monkey coming by chance in the way of the hunters who are actually after deer would make sense.

[FNote_1106] niṟatt' aḻutti means presumably dyed red by blood.

[FNote_1107] It seems to make more sense to connect cilai māṇ with vāḷi, although they are quite far apart, but of course it could also be a further attribute of the kalai, or a qualification of its quickness.

[FNote_1108] The impact of this complicated image is presumably that SHE is well protected and HE ponders his chances. But how to understand the syntax? I take aiyar as a possessive genitive to vāḷi, and accordingly as the subject of line 2-4, and vīḷaiyar as an apposition to aiyar.

[FNote_1109] Or kaṇpaṭu is simply a lexeme "to be situated" (thus T.V.G.); but the image is nicer when the aspect of the honeycomb being visible is also expressed.

[FNote_1110] ēmā, 12., is according to the TL "to be protected", according to the index "to be disappointed"; not in the DEDR, but see DEDR 898 ēmāṟ (according to the TL the origin of ēmā) "to be confused, bewildered".

[FNote_1111] teḷimē: the form can be explained as an imperative teḷi plus -ē, while -m- is inserted as a special gliding consonant. One might, however, also consider the habitual future in -um, which presumably can have, besides teḷiyum, also the short form teḷim ("[thus much] is clear:").

[FNote_1112] taṇṇiya has to be taken as an adverb, since nutal "forehead" cannot be construed with a n.pl. Or is this meant as an elliptical metaphor for her hair?

[FNote_1113] kāciṉai: even if the comparison sometimes takes the oblique - why here acc.?

[FNote_1114] Cam. reads a noun vaṉkaṇ "strength", but doesn't it make more sense in the context to read vaṉ kaṇ? (Both are fitting in 73.5).

[FNote_1115] Is iṉiya to be read as an attribute to maṇi or to alkul, or is it a kind of summary of all the things remembered? Or it is to be taken as the predicate of a second main sentence, probably coordinated by -um (see 6+8b)?

[FNote_1116] T.V.G. takes this strange comparison differently, reading puṉ (as quite often) as a word for "red", the red legs of the Ukay tree thus being compared to the backs of rosy doves (see also KT 285.5).

[FNote_1117] ceṉmō: here the imperative rather has the flavour of a particle of invitation (similar to Skt. hanta).

[FNote_1118] kaṇṭaṉam varukam: T.V.G. here explains the perfective aspect kaṇṭaṉam as a means of expressing the duration of the stay there on the height, and he of course takes it as a muṟṟeccam: "having seen [him/it] we will come [back]". This is an attractive idea indeed, but doubtful is whether the varukam actually refers to their coming back or whether it means their reaching the place of their destination, the height (the stress of varu-tal being not so much on the direction of movement, as on the notion of arriving; contrast pōku-tal and cel-tal which stress, respectively, setting out (or going with a direction in mind) and being on one's way.

[FNote_1119] cēr tarum: here tarum presumably in its auxiliary verb function as of a process set in motion and continuing.

[FNote_1120] Or: "in the bright village", i.e. the village where the lamps/fires have been kindled (which might not be very bright, but brighter than the forest certainly).

[FNote_1121] kāṭṭ' āṟu might rather refer to a "forest river", which has a sand bank, for otherwise one has to explain why there are wet sands in the wilderness.

[FNote_1122] val vil iḷaiyar: this phrase is taken by T.V.G. to refer to the young warriors who are with HIM on the chariot (and there is a parallel in KT 258.7, where iḷaiyar probably refers to the entourage of a king): "while young warriors with strong bows protect its sides". Slightly problematic in this case would be the fact that there is no other noun which might refer to HIM, so one would have to take cemmal uḷḷam as a metonymy.

[FNote_1123] aṟital aṟiyār: the nuance of the figura etymologica is presumably emphasis/intensification?

[FNote_1124] uruttu: is there any way than to take this adverbially?

[FNote_1125] How to understand the construction with maṟṟu here? For another possibility see 2-4c.

[FNote_1126] Or cuḻ-tal DED 2735 "to deliberate, consider, select ...": "that the Pañcāy grass ditch has been selected [as a meeting point]". The point about the ditch must be in any case that the lovers have met there.

[FNote_1127] These four lines definitely look as if three unknown facts have been coordinated with -um, though the construction seems anacolouthic. (Or is there an exact construction for taii and cūḻntu?).

[FNote_1128] This topos of the image which is made of the girl is strange and attested several times. Does this allude to an unknown social symbolism? (Cf. KT 48.1, 89.6, 100.6, 114.1, 279.3, 292.4).

[FNote_1129] Or up to line 6 inclusively this is one sentence, and those who keep watch on her, but don't know, are the direct object to kaṭaviṉ ("If I urged those, who ...).

[FNote_1130] muṟaiyuṭai: is "just" according to Cam.

[FNote_1131] Here again is the problem of the nuance conveyed by -ō. Even if the -ō in a certain number of formula has originally been one of mourning (see p. 95f.?), if seems likely that in some cases it is just transmitted with the formula. Of course one might argue here, that it is used in an ironical sense.

[FNote_1132] Thus T.V.G.'s interpretation who asserts that HE uses the grass to fashion a doll for HER, and moreover he is the one who paints her breasts. If, however, attention is paid to the "expletive" maṟṟu, followed by ivaḷ, which presumably marks a change of subject, yet another rendering is more likely (i.e. 2+3c).

[FNote_1133] Perhaps the clue to this seemingly strange piece of information lies in toyyil, the sandal paste. Usually it is HIS chest which is said to be smeared with sandal paste. So the point might be that in their embrace SHE has got her part also of this sandal paste.

[FNote_1134] veṇmai veḷ and, two lines on, veyya veppam: are these intensifying repetitions? There is, however, also a lexeme veḷḷiḻutu "butter" in the TL. As for veyya, n.pl., this probably means "hot draughts of water" (cf. KT 196.4,5).

[FNote_1135] cēma is believed to be a derivation from Skt. kṣema-. Its precise meaning in this context is unclear, and there are only three further occurrences in Caṅkam literature (Pari. 10.34, 36; PN 102.5).

[FNote_1136] taṇṇīr here already looks like a lexeme for "water" generally or perhaps "fresh water". T.V.G., however, explains the line differently, namely water which has been boiled and then left to become cool again - which somehow seems to have a taste of modern hygienic provisions.

[FNote_1137] Streets without rubbish and dogs are explained by T.V.G. to be brahmin's streets, which might be possible, of course, but this is one of the innumerable cultural details which are neither denied nor actively confirmed by the text.

[FNote_1138] What is meant by kaṭaippeyal? The north wind is supposed to be the start of the second rainy season, i.e. the winter monsoon, but why kaṭai?

[FNote_1139] miṉṉiṭai: Cam./T.V.G. explain this as a metonymy for "her of a waist [as narrow as] lightning". (This strange phrase is to be found only here in Caṅkam literature, but there are a few further passages in the Cilappatikāram.) In this case the speaker would have to be the confidante as the kiḷavi says, since "the one with a lightning-narrow waist" would be the one who is said to be shivering.

[FNote_1140] For mā(a)ttu cf. note on KT 8.1.

[FNote_1141] Here is just one more of the strange passages connected with pāvai "image/doll". Here, however, T.V.G. has to make an interesting suggestion. He sees pāvai as a metaphoric reference to HIS and HER female child, which would a rare occurrence indeed, but would make sense also with respect to the further description ("the little fresh doll ..."). So he would not only forget HER, but also the child.

[FNote_1142] What is expressed by uṟu? Is it a sudden gust of wind or, on the contrary, a constantly moving wind?

[FNote_1143] Are these the fruits of the mango tree in line 1? How to explain the connection - is this just free association?

[FNote_1144] pulampu koḷ yāmattu: cf. note on KT 207.3. Cam.'s gloss vaḷarkiṉṟa "long" is probably just a conjecture.

[FNote_1145] Is this the meaning of varu miṭaṟu?

[FNote_1146] Do erumai and maiyāṉ refer to the same animal? T.V.G. takes the latter to be the cow of the former, which would again give a nice male-female pair. Actually the ending -āṉ would suggest another male animal, but since in the case of ā/āṉ "cow" both terms can refer to the female animal, the same might be conceivable for maiyāṉ.

[FNote_1147] puṇarap puṇariṉ: what of this half repetition? Is this playing on the double connotation of puṇar-tal and bringing out the erotic connotation (to come together to copulate)? Or is it just emphasis?

[FNote_1148] ākam is taken in this case by Cam. as "body", but why not literally "bosom" as a pars pro toto?

[FNote_1149] To take cēyiḻai as a vocative means reading it as a totally unmarked metonymy. There are few examples of this kind. So it might also be possible to take it as an attribute for HIM, "who has a red decoration" (which makes even better sense in the close parallel of 348.6 with māṇiḻai which might be "who has glory for his decoration"). But on the other hand iḻai is otherwise always used for the decoration of women (but once, namely a chariot in 345.1), so it seems safer to follow Cam. and read a vocative.

[FNote_1150] The talai of kuṉṟu talai has been taken as a locative suffix, though it might have been chosen intentionally here: the heads of the hills.

[FNote_1151] So to me the picture seems to be that the heads of the hills have for their full and curly hair the fronds of the Palmyra, adorned with Neem flowers.

[FNote_1152] Strange here the accumulation of light: poliya ... vāṉpū ... veṇṭōṭṭu ... paiṅkāl ... veṇmaṇal (contrasting moreover with the cēyiḻai of the last line). Is the focus a peculiar illumination, perhaps at the moment of sunset? Palm leaves at least are usually not white.

[FNote_1153] Are paiṅkāṟ karukkiṉ attributes of the tree or of the leaves?

[FNote_1154] Strange is also the amalgamation of regions. There is kāṉam in line 5 combined with kuṉṟu. This might be read as a climax of distance and the direction of HER look: she in the village, then the forest, behind it the hills. But what of veṇ maṇal, a typical attribute of the seaside region?

[FNote_1155] This poem is an especially fine example of 5 lines of unmarked syntax. It can be construed in several ways, and none of them is much more satisfactory than the other as far as content is concerned.

[FNote_1156] Cam.'s gloss ignores the talai of this line.

[FNote_1157] Is the connection of the Neem with the Pāṇṭiyas really enough to justify the conjecture of His wearing a flower garland and going to war for them? Certainly men too are occasionally said to wear flowers (when mounting the Palmyra horse in KT 17 or the shepherd wearing jasmine buds in KT 122), but what is the point here? Dub. thinks that the confidante reassures HER by reminding her that he has left the village well protected - the white flowers of the Neem or Margosa having protecting quality. But why the addition as to the Palmyra? T.V.G. explains that the Neem flowers are to small to have hold by themselves, and that the Palmyra-leaves are used to stabilise them.

[FNote_1158] Actually the Palmyras of line 1 and 2 can either be part of the headdress, or they can be understood as attributes of the attam, the road he travels.

[FNote_1159] nāṇ maṟi: what can this mean? A calf of one day won't feed on millet. Can navvi be the subject of the clause? By position it should be genitive ("the calf of the doe"), eventually a coordination can be considered: "the doe [and] the calf".

[FNote_1160] kaṭaṉ kaḻikkum: does this mean the animals are acting immorally if they eat millet not planted for them?

[FNote_1161] ār is glossed here by Cam. with kāmpu "flower/leaf-stalk)", but this is to be found neither in the TL nor in the DEDR, but it seems to make more sense, provided the comparison is here used in a negative way: unlike the blossoms which fall down her bangles won't, and in the parallel in KT 329.2 it is the only thing that makes sense.

[FNote_1162] colliya is a participle and thus presumably must have vaṇmai as a subject: it is strength which speaks out of him.

[FNote_1163] illōr must refer to men who stay in the house = at home instead of going out to make wealth, and paṭāar an apposition to illōṟ.

[FNote_1164] Literally this is a second sentence of direct speech embedded into the first. Presumably this is the attitude towards the matter of work generally expressed by people and shared by HIM.

[FNote_1165] What is expressed by iṭaiya? In any case it is marked as a n.pl. and must be construed as an appellative noun referring to āṟu. Perhaps it is the reference noun of the irukkum of line 7, but then, how can a place be called neṭum "long"?

[FNote_1166] Cam./Trad. understand the maṟavar to be predatory inhabitants of pālai. It should, however, be considered whether this is not rather an epithet for the kaḷvar, who otherwise have the same function and are described in the same way (watching out for travellers, having bows etc.; cf. also 297.1).

[FNote_1167] irunt' alki: the absolutive presumably makes clear that the subject is not vaḻaṅkunar but maṟavar.

[FNote_1168] cekutta: this participle is definitely odd. If the way of construction as shown above is correct, one would rather want an infinitive.

[FNote_1169] koṉ cf. note on KT 91.7.

[FNote_1170] maṉṟam cannot very well be understood here in its usual sense of "village common". It may also mean "free, open space" - perhaps thus?

[FNote_1171] So the stones (a standard comparison/"mistake" is between stones and elephants), have blood-red lily spots.

[FNote_1172] That is, what has taken place between HER and the man.

[FNote_1173] koṉ ilai kurampai: one possibility to make sense of the koṉ might to apply it adverbially to the leaves, which supposedly cover the huts. So the wild waters will ruin the huts?

[FNote_1174] tam m-ilar kollō: this elliptical statement is hard to interpret, but probably it is to be read as a negated parallel construction to nam m-ēcuvar-ō with an elliptical verb, meaning that they should mind their own business.

[FNote_1175] The double -um (vaikavum, ellaiyum), though asyndetic, can only be understood as a coordination of the two lines.

[FNote_1176] puṉpuṟap peṭai: or, according to T.V.G., its "red-backed female" (thus also 374.1 where the trunk of the Ukāy tree is compared to a dove's back).

[FNote_1177] paruvamō: here once again the -ō as a demarcation of topic ("as for the season he had spoken of, it [is] this").

[FNote_1178] The sentence can also be understood, a little more elliptical: "As for the season he had said he [would be] here, [it is] this."

[FNote_1179] mūraṉ muṟuval: again a synonym compound with intensifying intention? Or is this even a figura etymologica (the DEDR has both in one lemma, 5687)?

[FNote_1180] pēr amar maḻai kaṇ: or "with very beautiful rain-eyes".

[FNote_1181] kamaḻ akil: how to understand the syntax here? Is this a chiastic structure kamaḻ akil - āra nāṟum, in which both are to be construed with kūntal? Or is it "smelling of sandal [and] fragrant eagle wood"?

[FNote_1182] koṇṭu ... tāṅkupu puṇari - nōkki: this row of absolutives is difficult to construe, unless we take nōkki in a transferred sense of "facing". Otherwise we would have to assume an unmarked change of subject. While the subject of nōkki must be the man, who is supposed to see the time, the rest can only be understood as an explication of peruṅ kali, that is, with an elliptical subject "clouds", which is only suggested by the comparison with the pregnant women.

[FNote_1183] Here the clouds have to be supplied, another case of elliptical metaphor: the clouds are missing in the factual description, but they correspond to the women of the comparison.

[FNote_1184] otuṅkal cellā: otuṅku-tal is, according to DEDR 973, not just walking (as one would like to have in the context) but stepping aside before someone. The main point, however, seems to be the heaviness which means slow movement.

[FNote_1185] mu-n nāl tiṅkal: the numbers are problematic. Either we read it as 3 times 4 = 12 months for a pregnancy, which is quite unlikely (except for divine children, as T.V.G. asserts) or, thus T.V.G., as 3 plus 4 = 7, which is likewise not totally satisfactory, since the tertium between women and clouds must be their being about to deliver.

[FNote_1186] iṉam presumably refers to HER family who interferes because of HER commitment to HIM, and the (in this connection) uncommon word is chosen because of the alliteration with the iṉ-derivations. So the sense is that as long as HE is there even the trouble with the family is preferable to the bliss of heaven.

[FNote_1187] For picaintaṉaiyēm see note on maṇantaṉaiyam in KT 106.6 (parallel nacaintaṉaiyai in KT 52.2).

[FNote_1188] māṉṟu paṭṭaṉṟē: here paṭu-tal as an auxiliary adding a flavour of an undetainable, sudden happening.

[FNote_1189] On kaṇ Cam.'s gloss is muṉṉarē "before", and T.V.G. explains it as a locative suffix, which presumably means a kind of temporal clause with a peyareccam: "even before the fallen shower had fallen". The sense in this case is that the village had started to pity HER even before the onset of the rains, thus showing their expectation that HE would not be back in time.

[FNote_1190] The point here is the play with paṭu-tal (paṭṭaṉṟē - paṭṭa - paṭāa). The line is ambiguous, and possibly on purpose. On the one hand there is the idiom kaṇ paṭu-tal "to close the eyes" = sleep (cf. KT 243.5). On the other hand the shower happening (or not) to the eyes could, of course, be tears. So the second meaning is: "eyes not shedding [tears along with] the shower that has fallen".

[FNote_1191] tuṉi is not easy to understand in this context. Usually it refers to the negative feelings towards another person due to quarrelling (cf. KT 84.12, 181.1). So either they have quarrelled, and this is the reason why HE doesn't come (but this is otherwise not warranted by the poem), or, more likely, tuṉi here expresses a more general disgust for living under the giving circumstances (cf. KT 169).

[FNote_1192] icaiyā here must be read as a positive absolutive.

[FNote_1193] kuḷir ("kettle drum" according to DEDR 1831) is supposed to be one of the instruments used to drive away the parrots (just as paṟai in 193.3, otherwise a "drum"). In any case it clearly seems to be a percussion instrument.

[FNote_1194] Thus Cam.; a similar idea is to be sought behind 220.1 putuppuṉam; that would be a better explanation for maruṅkiṉ than a double locative.

[FNote_1195] pōṉṟaṉa: the p.a. presumably has to be understood to be perfective: by crying, the eyes have become similar to the flowers.

[FNote_1196] Once again a hypermetrical penultimate line.

[FNote_1197] tuñcal-ō v-ilaḷ: the -ō presumably has to be taken here in the function of demarcating the topic: "as for sleeping, not she".

[FNote_1198] The legend rather alluded to than told here seems to have no fuller version, at least not in Caṅkam literature. What is made of it by tradition is the story of king Naṉṉaṉ, who had a woman killed because she had unknowingly eaten a fruit from a favoured mango tree under his protection. Even a high ransom of gold and elephants would not appease him. Because of this atrocity he was fought and ultimately defeated by his enemies, the Kōcars (who are alluded to in KT 15 and 73).

[FNote_1199] For pañci the DEDR only gives the meaning "cotton", but here the "fibre" read by Cam./T.V.G. seems to make much more sense.

[FNote_1200] Actually one would expect it the other way round: "when [my] husband sees the [one with] red jewels", but that would mean reading an unmarked direct object as preceding its subject. Still one could argue that the content is clear. Moreover it seems also possible that the direction of seeing is left open on purpose: it is left in the open who will bring whom into temptation.

[FNote_1201] What is the meaning of pakai here? T.V.G. explains it as an alternation of calyx and foliage (similar NA 8.2).

[FNote_1202] Is this the meaning of uḻ māṟu?

[FNote_1203] If āttirai is indeed a Sanskritism and goes back to yātrā-, the question arises whether it is used in an ironical sense here. yātrā- is primarily a pilgrimage. On the other hand this would be a hapax in Caṅkam literature, and the variant makes excellent sense as well: "where they come back ... from the inner village, where the friends have clamoured in the toddy house."

[FNote_1204] The syntax of the first three lines is totally unmarked, and unfortunately the impact is likewise unclear. T.V.G. explains that the drinkers give in exchange for the toddy the unripe Palmyra fruits, which are eatable, but actually the usual meaning of peyarum in this construction is "coming back" (cf. the shepherd coming with milk and going with gruel of KT 222.5).

[FNote_1205] taḻuvaṇi is, according to the TL, with reference to this passage, a dance of women (thus also T.V.G.); here is the only occurrence in the whole Caṅkam literature, and I prefer translating it literally.

[FNote_1206] alarntaṉṟu has certainly to be taken with Cam. as a denominative to alar "gossip".

[FNote_1207] muyaṅkiṉaṉ celiṉē: the meaning here is clear enough, but how to account for the finite form before the conditional? Or is it to be seen as a participial noun "he who embraced [me]"?

[FNote_1208] Has paittu to be taken as an adverb?

[FNote_1209] kāttu is presumably meant as an enhancing adverb?

[FNote_1210] Shouldn't the sandhi for nalam before k- actually be -ṅ?! (The older edition too reads -k).

[FNote_1211] Cam.'s patavurai reads: iḵtu-ōr-āṉ. Or does this only mean he takes -ō as an expletive?

[FNote_1212] āyamoṭu (since āyam always is the word for HER playmates) points to the addressee being of female gender, not of male, as is assumed by Cam.

[FNote_1213] How to understand syntax and reference of line 1? Is this a row of activities with āyam as a subject, depicting the busy process of decorating for a festival?

[FNote_1214] This seems to be what the wording says. It points to a change of perspective between the first and the second half. At the beginning the approaching kuṟumakaḷ is addressed, and afterwards she is described from the perspective of the village. The tenor seems to be that her physical/social qualities make up for her bad material position. Cam. and the kiḷavi understand something totally different, namely a speech of the confidante directed to HIM who comes back from the courtesan: "[for you life] has become a pleasant festival, because ..., you with the livelihood of ...!". This seems to be contextualisation by fantasy, since neither the addressee nor the speaker are marked in any way.

[FNote_1215] Since the relation of line 4 and 5 is totally unmarked (and in no way obvious), it is equally possible to see it as an independent statement. This would better account for the iḵtō.

[FNote_1216] uṟu kaḻi: what does uṟu here mean? Does it refer to the fish, i.e. backwaters full of little fish?

[FNote_1217] muṉṉiṉṟu: whether the nuance is rather "entreat", as it seems to be in the kiḷavi-s or "oppose" is hard to tell. The three KT occurrences allow for both interpretations, though here "oppose" seems more fitting to the context.

[FNote_1218] kaṭiya: the nuance might be either rash, that is, the confidante should not use ill-considered words, or harsh, i.e. she shouldn't scold him.

[FNote_1219] iṟanta: here we have a clear example for iṟa-ttal, so frequent as "to traverse" in the formulaic poems ending 'x iṟantōrē', is used in the sense of "to die" (cf. note on KT 16.5).

[FNote_1220] uṇarā v-ūṅkē: the Tamil uses in this formation the negative form where Indo-European languages would use the positive.

[FNote_1221] puṇarnt' uṭaṉ pōtal poruḷ y-eṉa: the whole line seems to be a play on the poetological idiom, puṇarntu refering to the fact of their union, and uṭaṉ pōtal drawing the consequence of going away together. This gives rise to a re-evaluation of poruḷ, here not (as one would have expected on account of the setting) connected with HIS leaving HER at home while he tries to make wealth, but the "real" wealth, namely being together (for a similar implicit deconstruction of poruḷ see KT 174.6f.).

[FNote_1222] patukkai (one of the words not included in the DEDR) is traditionally explained as a heap of leaves piled up to cover the corpses of people who die on the desert path. T.V.G. rightly points out that this is unlikely because there aren't handy masses of foliage in the desert. Moreover the image of the village manifestly suggests heaps of stone, perhaps thatched in some way with foliage which from a distance have the appearance of houses, or rather huts. (Apart from that the only reason to cover a dead body is to prevent its being torn apart by animals, and these are not likely to be stopped by leaves).

[FNote_1223] The syntax and impact of line 2 are quite unclear; it could also be connected with the vampalar.

[FNote_1224] av viḷim purīiya: whatever is meant here exactly, the maṟavar (or the bold kaḷvar) seem to lay claim to a certain territory. T.V.G. explains that they simply clean the rims of their weapons, but this seems to be a makeshift solution: why would bows or arrows need such a treatment? How to account for the demonstrative a-? And what of the semantics of uruvu-tal (DEDR 652), which seems to have nothing to do with cleaning?

[FNote_1225] The syntax and impact of line 1-3 are partly uncertain. Can HE be subject of all the absolutives or is niṟam peyarntu to be understood adverbially. Or is this an auxiliary construction niṟam peyarnt' uṟaiyum: "... [and] keeps on changing colour every day".

[FNote_1226] maṭam: this frequent epithet of female entities can't be taken in a semantically strong sense here. But then, what does it express? Simply "young"?

[FNote_1227] piṉṟai: is this supposed to mean that the akavaṉ makaḷ stands behind Akutai just as HE stands behind HER? (Is there a reminiscence of the kiḷavi verb piṉṉil-tal "to implore"?

[FNote_1228] puṇar kuṟi is literally "the union sign". Here one gets the impression that kuṟi is already used in the kiḷavi sense, i.e. as "meeting place".

[FNote_1229] Here the two hypermetrical lines contain once more explicative pronouns (cf. note on 216.1 + 3).

[FNote_1230] añcalai: Cam./T.V.G. read here too a negative imperative (as añcal), but formally it rather looks like an indicative (for this and similar cases see Agesthialingom p. 77). As for the sentence, it would be nicer with two imperatives: HE begs HER to put trust into his words of reconciliation at the time he has to leave her.

[FNote_1231] What is achieved by this line? Is this more than a long, conventional epithet for the sea?

[FNote_1232] kaṭal cūḻ - viṭal cūḻalaṉ is a play on two homonymous roots cūḻ-tal, which unfortunately cannot be reproduced in English.

[FNote_1233] niṉṉuṭai naṭpu: "your (unalienable) friendship".

[FNote_1234] Regarding the word-order, one would expect peṭai to be the direct object here, because otherwise with aṉṟil we have an unmarked direct object preceding its subject, but with respect to contents the calling female alone makes sense (she, not he, is bound to the nest by "pregnancy"), and emotionally she of course represents the longing woman.

[FNote_1235] Syntax and intention of line 1 are not wholly clear, but it seems best to take the first half as an unmarked comparison for the base of the tree (which is quite rare in the KT).

[FNote_1236] atu puraittō v-aṉṟē: the impact of the short sentence remains unclear because it is not made explicit to what the atu refers here, any more than to what refers the ataṟku of line 6. Is it HIS action of coming or not coming which is meant?

[FNote_1237] Here just like in KT 69.1 the perum piṟitu seems to refer to dying.

[FNote_1238] añciṉaṉ: the perfective aspect probably expresses the aorist of a concrete situation.

[FNote_1239] For varav' aṟiyāṉē see note on KT 230.6.

[FNote_1240] mukampaṭa maṭutta: the latter has presumably to be analysed as DEDR 4681 "to gore, pierce", used here in a weaker sense as "to join". The former might be read as an adverbial specification of the intended connection: on the top of the bamboo rods the chisel/blade or whatever is fastened.

[FNote_1241] What means kōṭṭu in connection with fish? Cam. glosses with curā mīṉ "sword fish" but this doesn't seem to fit in KT 164.1 kaṇai kōṭṭu vāḷai, clearly a fresh water fish - does it mean fins there?

[FNote_1242] The quite enigmatic eṟintu vāṅku vicai is explained by T.V.G. as an attributive phrase to be connected with paratavar, the "fishermen", and it would refer to their skill with the bamboo rod weapon described in the first 2 lines.

[FNote_1243] The syntax of the lines 1-3 is partly unmarked and on the whole quite unclear. The intention, however, is apparently a description of the fishing process.

[FNote_1244] kāṭciyam, appellative noun in denominative function to kāṭci, presumably means that SHE is difficult/rare to look at. T.V.G.'s interpretation, that she is one to have the opportunity is not backed up by the lexica, though syntax here seems to speak in favour of it, because the nominative nām preceding the uyaṅkaṟku should mean that SHE is the subject ("we are rarely to be seen in embracing").

[FNote_1245] avaroṭu pēṇic / ceṉṟu? How to understand this phrase? Can cel-tal here be used as an auxiliary, and then coordinate to uyaṅkaṟku: "embracing [and] becoming tender with him"?

[FNote_1246] viḷiyiṉ allatu: how to understand this construction (cf. cāyiṉ allatu in KT 152.3)? Is this simply the way to negate a conditional?

[FNote_1247] The whole line probably refers to the nōy of the end line. If it doesn't subside by itself, SHE who is subject to it will succumb.

[FNote_1248] This line probably has to be read as a part of the fighting-cocks simile, but how to understand its construction? The point seems to be that there is nobody to separate the fighting cocks, just as there is nobody to alleviate HER pain.

[FNote_1249] mē-varu can be analysed as mē "desire" plus vā, or it can be taken as a lexeme, for which the TL gives the meaning "to fit". The latter possibility seems to be difficult to reconcile with the following takuna, but with only two occurrences it is hard to be certain (the second in KT 357.3 is even less helpful).

[FNote_1250] tāt'amar pū: it seems reasonable to trace amar here back not to DEDR 162 "beauty, fitness", but to DEDR 161 "to abide". Still also "flowers beautiful with pollen" are possible.

[FNote_1251] So the first rendering implies that SHE is trying to ward off memory, while HE is away. The second rendering (that of T.V.G.) takes the poem as an admonition to HER heart, not to receive HIM graciously once he comes back.

[FNote_1252] Here we have one of two nine-liners in the KT - one line more than "officially" permitted.

[FNote_1253] What is the emotive impact of the onomatopoeic "ai"? T.V.G. explains it to mean either "wonderfully" or "speedily".

[FNote_1254] T.V.G. explains the presence of the crescent moon in this poem as an allusion to a later poetic and poetological topos, namely that the new moon would be worshipped by virgins, so that the confidante by HER not worshipping it any longer is able to deduce the fact that she has had connection with a man. The point in this poem then might be, that instead of worshipping (along with the confidante?) the new moon just arising SHE begins to talk of her man. Apart from the poetological unlikeliness of such a way of revelation: pālai poems are supposed to belong to the kaṟpu stage, also the wording doesn't exactly encourage such a reading. The forthcoming moon might only be meant as a signal of the evening, the long and lonely time for sad musings on the whereabouts of the beloved.

[FNote_1255] Is it possible to take ōr in this way as an adverb?

[FNote_1256] kai tāḻtaṉṟu has presumably to be taken in a transferred sense, namely the giving hand as a metaphor for active attachment.

[FNote_1257] aritu must be taken as an adverb here.

[FNote_1258] It is quite difficult to make any sense of arun talai. What might be meant is that the affliction of his head is difficult to endure, but then the word-order is strange. The variant irun talai, "dark head", makes no problems at all, and one is tempted here to take it not as the lectio facilior, but as the correct reading.

[FNote_1259] What is expressed by uyaṅk' uyir? Is she exhausted after copulation?

[FNote_1260] The subtle syntax as well as the intention of lines 1-4 are fairly hard to understand. Is the point of the whole an erotic transfer? Like the elephant which is utterly exhausted after excessive sexual activity, HE is afterwards good for nothing? T.V.G. explains it completely different, namely as one (the clearest) occurrence of a rare topos, namely that elephants are in danger of loosing their strength upon the contact or consummation of tender banana leaves. Here the bull is weakened so much that he is falling asleep, which is said to be rare with elephants.

[FNote_1261] Thus the interpretation of T.V.G. who thinks the point SHE wants to bring home to the confidante is the sexual nature of HER attachment to HIM. A rendering of tāḻntaṉṟu by "it resulted" is not encouraged by the semantics of this root, which is usually applied to fruits or branches hanging down, sometimes falling down, from a tree.

[FNote_1262] The penultimate line is hyper-metrical.

[FNote_1263] amaital vallām āṟu: or is this to be read as "being content without you is a way we are not able to", while aṉaiyēm then has to be taken as a subject apposition?

[FNote_1264] uṟai-tal as an auxiliary adds the nuance of permanence: to go away once and for all.

[FNote_1265] kai viṉai mākkaḷ gives which information: "people working with their hands" or, in a transferred sense "the busy people"?

[FNote_1266] cey viṉai is the work to be done, which presumably means "the work of the day"?

[FNote_1267] nammē: here the -ē probably cannot but be understood as kind of emphatic particle.

[FNote_1268] For peṟiṉē clauses expressing an irreal wish cf. KT 29.7, 136.5.

[FNote_1269] taṇṇiya can be either understood as an attribute to ñāral, which would mean to take also the participle kamaḻum as a mere adjective, or it can be an adverb modifying kamaḻum: "cooly smelling".

[FNote_1270] The new edition falsely reads "HE".

[FNote_1271] Is there a special nuance to the pl. of alar (visible in the n.pl. oḻiva)? One might consider rendering it "rumours".

[FNote_1272] tāṅka-vum: the infinitive plus -um presumably has to be taken in a concessive sense. But what is the impact of this line? That HE actually wanted to stop, but didn't dare because he did not find HER alone?

[FNote_1273] kaṇṭaṉṟu, n.sg., has to be construed as an intransitive here, i.e. in the sense of "becoming visible".

[FNote_1274] For ōraṉṉaḷ cf. note on KT 95.4.

[FNote_1275] For kaḷvi as the feminine counterpart of kaḷvaṉ is singular in the old anthologies.

[FNote_1276] vaikaṟaiyāṉē gains emphasis by the case suffix and the end position.

[FNote_1277] amarā is to be understood either as a positive absolutive in -ā, or, in case this should be the more usual negative absolutive in -ā, then derived from the transitive amar "to wish" = "without wish". T.V.G. reads it as a negative, giving the meaning a "face not suitable [to betray our intimacy]".

[FNote_1278] For karaiyatu see note on KT 246.1.

[FNote_1279] For ciṟu veṇ kākkai see note on KT 246.1.

[FNote_1280] muṭint'amaintaṉṟu: here amai-tal can be taken as an auxiliary in the sense of permanent completion "it became perfect once and for all". Interestingly something like this might also have been felt in the tradition (which didn't, however, have the concept of an auxiliary verb): one form of muṭintamai-tal is explained as a lexeme by Cēṉ. on Tol. col. 66.

[FNote_1281] pulampu koḷ cf. note on KT 207.3.

[FNote_1282] The construction beginning from varūum in line 4 is difficult. Cam. takes vaṟuum miṉ also as epithets of mulai, which is definitely unsatisfactory, because it is not at all clear what breasts have in common with lightning. Since there is, however, a construction exactly similar in KT 123, I prefer to take it as a new main sentence starting with the verb form (instead of him comes the lightning). Read like this the last line is no problem, because in the circular construction in can be bound to the beginning. More difficult is the infinitive clause on ñemuṅka. On the one hand by position it belongs to the last line and might express her feelings at his going away (we have to understand it in any case as a metaphor for being depressed). But since the varūum miṉ is not marked by a sentence ending particle or the like, we might see the ñemuṅka as a floating clause which goes with the preceding and the following part. T.V.G. comes up with an interesting alternative in taking the mālai of line 3 as the subject of varūum - which would, of course, make perfect sense as far as content is concerned. The word order to be expected in this case, however, would be varūum vāḻi tōḻi vārār, and one would at least like to have parallels for this kind of oxymoron, which are not to be found in the KT.

[FNote_1283] Cam.'s gloss for the infinitive clause goes: vaḷarukiṉṟa miṉṉutal mikka iḷaiya mulaikaḷ aḻuntumpaṭi taḻuvutaṟku "so that the growing, [meaning] lightning, very young breasts are pressed for embracing".

[FNote_1284] For ōrai see note on KT 48.3.

[FNote_1285] ayar mey niṟuppa: taken as above there would be an unmarked exchange of subject and object. But is there another possibility?

[FNote_1286] For ōrāṅku cf. note on KT 282.5.

[FNote_1287] Is this the intended statement? Cam. takes both pulam simply as "direction" (but why then not just vaṭa/teṉ?) and doesn't consider aḻi at all. In any case it seems unavoidable to understand the dative vāṭaikku in the way of an ablative "from - to", because surely nothing can be supposed to set of towards the wind.

[FNote_1288] ōmaṟṟē seems to mark a rhetorical question (expecting a negative answer), but what is the exect valence?

[FNote_1289] Here again amai-tal as an auxiliary expressing the obtaining of a new, stable state.

[FNote_1290] T.V.G.'s idea for the rationale of this line is that the flowers on the water would have grown so dense as to form a kind of carpet on the water. By the breath of the thirsty animals the water is rippled so that the plants move apart and allow them to drink.

[FNote_1291] kaḷattiṉiṉ: here we obviously have to read a double marking with -iṉ, once for the oblique, once for the comparison (thus also Cam.).

[FNote_1292] Cam. explains this to be the arrival of another suitor.

[FNote_1293] According to Cam.'s gloss whether HE intends to marry or not.

[FNote_1294] This elaborate construction of three lines seems to miss a subject. Awkward enough is nīr as subject to tōṉṟum; that is to say that the water surface strewn with flowers resembles the dancing floor. In this case the double marking of kaḷam is problematic. Or are the fish moving in the water elliptically compared to the dancers on the Veṟi floor? But when cuṟā is taken as the subject to tōṉṟum, the construction of kalitta is difficult.

[FNote_1295] The end of this sentence is not marked by a particle at all, which means, the māri māmaḻai could as well be taken with the next sentence: "if he doesn't come even now, with great rain in showers, ...". T.V.G. even prefers to take māri māmaḻai as the subject of vantaṉṟu: "great rain clouds have come in the evening ...".

[FNote_1296] The collyrium adornment of the mountains are the black rain clouds. I would rather see here metaphorical use then lexicalisation (Cam.); cf. KT 339.2, 371.2.

[FNote_1297] The elephant with the trunk hand.

[FNote_1298] maṟaint' oṭuṅka is presumably to be understood as an intensifying synonym compound.

[FNote_1299] maruḷ kūrntu has to be taken in an adverbial sense, that is, in a way that the animals cannot be seen. Cam. understands: in great confusion, which T.V.G. interprets as amorous excitement.

[FNote_1300] For koṉ cf. note on KT 91.7. Here the nuance supposedly is futility.

[FNote_1301] ōr paḻi-yum: as the -um to be read as a marking of the indefinite?

[FNote_1302] uṇaṅkal ... vāṭaloṭu is literally "the drying of fish spreads together with the fading of crabs", that is, emphasizing the process.

[FNote_1303] Is there more than an ablative function in koḷ and koṇṭa in the next line?

[FNote_1304] aruṅ kaḻi doesn't make much sense. This is perhaps a mistake for the formulaic iruṅ kaḻi - Sh. Pillai 1985 adduces two manuscripts/editions(?) which attest this reading, and he adopts it into the text.

[FNote_1305] marīiya: are the clusters joined with the birds or with the branches?

[FNote_1306] Up to line 7 any particle marking is missing. Yet it seems reasonable to see a sentence border at least in line 4 (in which case the peyarum clause would be dependent: "when he comes [and] goes - unwise to come ..."), or otherwise in line 3 and 4 (line 3 ends with the predicate and the following sentence starts with it, in which case a sentence-ending particle is not to be expected). Another possibility would be a construction up to the end (apart from an insertion in lines 5-7) with the friend as a speaker: "to the dear companion of the young woman ... I open the door, mother".

[FNote_1307] maṭavaral is traditionally read as an attribute to HER (T.V.G.: "young woman who has modesty as character"), but this seems to be an odd usage of varal "coming". Further disadvantages would be the vocative opening a line (but not a sentence) followed by a postpositioned subject without particle. Yet it might also be the predicate noun to the subject tuṇai at the end of the line.

[FNote_1308] mārpu is usually a designation of the male chest (the female breast is called mulai or ākam). T.V.G. brings forth a single parallel from the Kalittokai (18.1f.), but it seems also possible to understand the phrase here in another way: "your dear companion with a chest fit [for your embrace]".

[FNote_1309] Is ataṉāl, instr., governing the participle kuḻumum? Is it the beginning of a new sentence?

[FNote_1310] What is the function of vēṇṭu here? Is it just a quasi-particle inviting consent ("all right?")?

[FNote_1311] maruviṉ iṉiyavum uḷavō: the same construction as in KT 2.4,5 (kūntaliṉ/ naṟiyavum uḷa), i.e. literally "are there things pleasing also from [the point of view of] joining?".

[FNote_1312] The parallel in KT 64, where the calf is termed maṭakkaṇ makes me wonder whether amarkkaṇ might here as well be rather an attribute of kuḻavi than of āmāṉ.

[FNote_1313] The syntax of lines 1-5 is difficult. Perhaps kuḻavi is the subject of all the absolutives, as Cam. has it, but once again I suspect that he is trying to make sense of something strange in the best way that he can.

[FNote_1314] It is only the variant ollāṅku I can make sense of: "be-possible- like" = adv. "as far as possible". Then naṭa would be a pointed expression for walking, the only possibility open to an eloping woman, and the absolutive naṭantu should be taken adverbially "on foot". But what is to be made of vāṅku (T.V.G. splits olvu-āṅku, with olvu as an alternative verbal root for ol(lu))?

[FNote_1315] pataṭi vaikal is not marked by a particle, but it has to be taken as an independent sentence. Or can it also be read as the specification of ellām: "What of all these useless days?"

[FNote_1316] Caminataiyar doesn't read a comparison here, but real music (in this case the infinitive vīḻa has to taken as "while"). But isn't just this vīḻa rather a reason to understand a comparison of the falling rain with music?

[FNote_1317] paṭumalai can either be understood (with Cam.) already as a type of melody, or literally: "sounding on the mountain".

[FNote_1318] The new edition reads erroneously kōṉ instead of kāṉ (thus Cam. 1937).

[FNote_1319] Can vaḻi vaḻakk' aṟukkum be construed like this?

[FNote_1320] kavai, "to fork", presumably has to be taken here, as Cam. suggests, as "twin".

[FNote_1321] For cettu cf. note on KT 217.4.

[FNote_1322] Here we have the special sandhi: -k(a) eṉṟu (see note on KT 141.2). Here the optative in -ka is the only form which makes sense, not the 1.sg. in -ku.

[FNote_1323] cēṟum cēṟum might be, taking into consideration the parallels, not a simple repetition, but a construction: "we are going to go" = "we are setting out".

[FNote_1324] maruṅk' aṟṟu maṉṉik kaḻika how to construe and understand this exactly? T.V.G. takes it as HER direct answer upon his announcement of going, which she doesn't take seriously: "May you tear [yourself] away from [our] side and go [somewhere else] permanently!" Apart from unnecessary elusiveness the problem with this seems to be the semantics of kaḻi-tal, which is usually either intransitive "passing" of time, or "passing by" something.

[FNote_1325] For paṇaipperuntōḷ see note on KT 100.7.

[FNote_1326] orunāḷ: or even "one day"?

[FNote_1327] iṉṉāmaittu: the choice of this word for a predicate noun to the subject naṭpu might not be chance not one of the usual words for sorrow. The things HE does to HER are called iṉṉa, the life she leads with him is her iṉṉuyir, etc.

[FNote_1328] kaluḻi: Cam. glosses āṟu "river", but literally it is "muddy water", which is probably a rapid river after the rains.

[FNote_1329] What is denoted by uṇar-tal here?

[FNote_1330] How precisely to construe this eṉa-clause and what does it mean? In any case it seems to be an aphorism. Is it that men fulfill a social duty when they go abroad in spite of their women to make wealth?

[FNote_1331] eṉṉāy is not absolutive, but either a participial noun 2.sg. as subject ("as one, that doesn't say/ consider ... you have ...") or an independent sentence.

[FNote_1332] What is the point in this accusation? The river has brought a tree/trees from HIS mountainside, but not him?

[FNote_1333] With what to connect pulleṉa? Is it the present state of the mountainside, which resembles her own state?

[FNote_1334] Kuṟumpūr: Cam. reads a proper noun, but it could also be an "desert village".

[FNote_1335] What does pāṇar puli nōkk' uṟaḻ nilai mean? T.V.G. explains the situation of the comparison as a competition of bards who would exchange challenging looks with each other.

[FNote_1336] Vicciyar: is this the name of a people/tribe? Further references are missing in L./M. and in the TL. The point is, however, as T.V.G. explains, that they have taken up a fight against one (or several) of the three great kings (Cōḻa, Cēra, Pāṇṭiya), since only these are called vēntar.

[FNote_1337] For ārkaḻalpu see note on KT 282.7.

[FNote_1338] It is possible to construe the absolutive iṟantu as coordinate with paṭarntu, but what should also be considered is iṟantavar, a participial noun with a complete personal pronoun as suffix (which is otherwise not attested in the KT).

[FNote_1339] maṇam ila kamaḻum is literally "smelling without fragrance", that is presumably, emitting an unpleasant smell.

[FNote_1340] Here we presumably have to understand an elliptical metaphor: tiri means the piece of washed cloth wrung out by the washerwoman, as a comparison for the form of the Pakaṉṟai leaves.

[FNote_1341] puṭai pōkki: can the causative of pōku-tal be explained as a kind of auxiliary here, expressing the force of the movement?

[FNote_1342] What can be the meaning of nalan takai? T.V.G.'s explanation is something like "fit for work", which is unconvincing.

[FNote_1343] kūṭṭu is actually transitive/causative, that is, possibly also to be connected with what is eaten: "after having gathered it together" (which may mean it is difficult to find enough to eat). T.V.G., however, explains this as a lexeme kūṭṭuṇṇu-tal, "to plunder" (see 2+3b).

[FNote_1344] Or: "like a sprout of the fresh-stemmed mango tree with fragrant green fruit " - does vaṭi designate the unripe fruit or a special kind of mango?

[FNote_1345] The absolutive nayantu is strange; in case the first two lines are supposed to give the speech to be spoken, one would expect a 2. sg. Or do lines 1+2 only give the reason why she should speak: "since you longed ..., what if you spoke, friend"?

[FNote_1346] The syntax of naṇṇiya is so well attested by many parallels, but what is this supposed to mean, a mountain situated on the village place? Irony? T.V.G. explains the small villages (ciṟukuṭi) to be situated in the mountains, and the elephant pair to roam about on the village common, but that doesn't make the word order any more plausible.

[FNote_1347] nāṟ'uyir: "breath" is the proposal of Cam., and otherwise it is difficult to make sense of it at all.

[FNote_1348] What is added here by paṭai DEDR 3860 "army, crowd, weapons, battle"? Is it an apposition to pakaḻi or another thing? Or should we prefer the verbal root paṭai-ttal DEDR 3853 "to create, form, produce" ("arrows formed short")?

[FNote_1349] ciṟu veṇ kākkai, in this formulaic expression, probably refers rather to seagulls than to crows (see, however, note on KT 246.1).

[FNote_1350] pulant'uṟaiyum can be taken as an auxiliary construction. Or else: "sulks with the dew [and yet] remains ".

[FNote_1351] To call the wetness, which distresses the birds, paṉi probably implies a play with the different notions of the words, which means predominantly "dew", then "the season of dew" and because this is the cold season also "coldness", and moreover it denotes also the illness associated with that season, a kind of shivering fever.

[FNote_1352] Thus the interpretation of Cam. - and this deserves at least to be called an understandable sense in this minimally marked sentence. What is most confusing is probably the absolutive iḻintu, a rather typical case of anacolouthic construction. A participle iḻinta would be much smoother.

[FNote_1353] teṟu vara: is this to be read as an auxiliary construction? So that it inevitably gives pain to HER?

[FNote_1354] ceṟuvar: Cam. glosses with "HER enemies", which must presumably mean that part of the village people who are not favourable towards secret affairs.

[FNote_1355] varupa: who is "they"? The theme seems to be that HE comes to see HER although it will cause gossip, but why this 3.pl.? T.V.G. explains it as a rhetorical question: "will wise people come here", namely under these circumstances, addressed as an indirect reproach to HIM.

[FNote_1356] tēm pāy: pāy is probably meant to express the enormous amount of honey in HIS country.

[FNote_1357] vīḻntaṉavē: here the perfective aspect marks that the bunches have already reached the bottom.

[FNote_1358] Since this sentence is coordinated with the following one by -um, its predicate nirampiṉa is not marked by -ē.

[FNote_1359] paṟi muṟai presumably has to be understood as an adverbial phrase qualifying nirampiṉa, either "sproutingly" or "as if sprouting".

[FNote_1360] Or: "I know her to be a plague [to me]".

[FNote_1361] While nakar in KT 234.4 seems to mean rather "town" than "house" (cf. note on KT 234.4), here the latter makes more sense: SHE doesn't go out while HE is not there.

[FNote_1362] Is "cloud" here already one further lexical meaning of mai "collyrium" (cf. the images in KT 319.4, 371.2)?

[FNote_1363] Is thus the image of lines 1-3, once again hardly marked as for syntax?

[FNote_1364] How to understand the syntax of ūṅk' alaṅ kaṭaiyē (literally: "on the nightly border, before ...")? Tradition reads the whole alaṅ kaṭaiyē as expletive, which changes the message considerably: embracing is sweet, before pallor comes, that is, generally, not situative

[FNote_1365] Do we have to understand māyitaḻ as "black petals", which would be a play on the age-old motif of HER lotus eyes (lotuses, or water-lilies for that matter, don't have black petals like lids)? Cam. glosses kariya without adding further reflexion. Or is it only mā "big" which is intended here?

[FNote_1366] Meaning the heart doesn't choose between HER and the lover? T.V.G. explains the phrase as "not being stable on one side", but how to account for syntax and semantics?

[FNote_1367] What is the nuance conveyed by irunta here? Is it temporary stay, that is, he has been with her heart, but is no longer? Or rather the fear that it might be so?

[FNote_1368] peyar taru has the nuance of involuntarity/inevitability of the movement, while the repetition is iterative.

[FNote_1369] niṉṟa: why here the perfective aspect? Is it that the trees have found hold in the depth?

[FNote_1370] poḻil aṇik koḷāa: expression cf. KT 22.3: cilamp' aṇi koṇṭa. Here, too, it would be easier to construe a participle instead of an absolutive.

[FNote_1371] porip pū: T.V.G. explains this slightly strange phrase as flowers which become puffed up like roasted rice corns.

[FNote_1372] Is this supposed to mean HE didn't have a good reason to leave HER, and she doesn't forgive him?

[FNote_1373] For kaṭi cf. note on KT 105.2.

[FNote_1374] Or: "the male monkey has dug [its] hand in".

[FNote_1375] How to understand payan talaippaṭāa?

[FNote_1376] The impersonal peyarum speaks in favour of the traditional interpretation as an indirect invitation to eloping with HIM (thus already the kiḷavi).

[FNote_1377] The image contains the key to the construction once again not given by the syntax: the flowers of the Vēṅkai are often compared to a tiger (thus in KT 47), which means that puli must be taken as the subject of kiṭakkum.

[FNote_1378] What is the meaning of this formulaic epithet here? In KT 193.2 it is used of a frog, in KT 155.4 and 279.2 of a bell, in KT 89.1 of a mortar. What is the analogy between the mouth of a tiger and these three?

[FNote_1379] Does aṇi refer to the bloodstained tusks or does it mean, rather flatly, "beautiful"?

[FNote_1380] naṉai kavuḷ is explained by T.V.G. to refer to the rut of the elephant, a time when he is supposed to be especially fierce.

[FNote_1381] pirint'uṟai: here the durative function of the auxiliary.

[FNote_1382] aṇala "those with dewlaps" (aṇal DEDR 114 "dewlap"), is probably a pan-Indian designation for the cow. Thus also Cam.; different L./Sh.P., who take ceruttal "Euter" as a word for cow.

[FNote_1383] That is, the mother cows go in front. The sequence of absolutives in this line (vārpu...uḷḷi...iṟantu) is not well-formed in such a way as to be construable with aṇala as a subject. uḷḷi and iṟantu certainly evoke the formulaic uḷḷar kollō...iṟantōrē, i.e. HIS memory of HER.

[FNote_1384] For koṭuñci see note on KT 212.1.

[FNote_1385] Srin.'s proposal of taking teyya as a particle of admonition makes sense also here (cf. KT 81.4).

[FNote_1386] taṅkiṉir: the perfective aspect expresses here once again the hypothetical character of the question.

[FNote_1387] niṉṟ' acaii: is this an intensifying (quasi-)synonym compound or is niṉṟu to be understood as an adverb to acaii?

[FNote_1388] Why is the chariot iḻai aṇintu? And why here an absolutive and not a participle (aṇinta)?

[FNote_1389] Is the connotation of iḻum "sweet" or rather "loud"?

[FNote_1390] What is expressed by taiiya here?

[FNote_1391] muḷai kōṭu might also intend a comparison: "tusks [like] sprouts", i.e. still very small.

[FNote_1392] What is the function of kuṉṟa naṇṇi here? The elephant's place is the hills, but in search of his female he comes down into the village and gives people a fright - just like HE will upset HER people if she doesn't give in to him?

[FNote_1393] What is meant by maruṅkiṉ? Just a pronounced loc. suff.?

[FNote_1394] How to integrate the kālai vantu?

[FNote_1395] How to understand the syntax and function of ākātu? And is the third -um (collavum ākātu) to be read as a coordination to the two preceding absolutives tantum and oppiyum?

[FNote_1396] What is conveyed by oṉṟu? Is this the one, decisive union?

[FNote_1397] Does tāṉ-um emphasize HER part in the undertaking, that is, she has done it of her own free will?

[FNote_1398] The rest probably should be connected with eṉiṉ, not with ceytaṉaḷ, that is, when HE is on his way his heart thinks of the one left behind.

[FNote_1399] Why the pronounced -uṭai? The blossom sticks out just like the crest of the peacock, because the stalks are so long?

[FNote_1400] Namely, to judge from the situation of this interior monologue in the desert (and contrary to the kiḷavi, which reads the whole as taking place before setting out), the decision to return to HER. The direct object to nayanta supplemented by Cam., poruḷ, would give a different note: in spite of HIS sympathetic(?) memory of HER who has stayed behind he moves on.

[FNote_1401] T.V.G. reads in accordance with the kiḷavi, namely a hypothetical request to the heart to take HER along when going - which is impossible and implicitly means HE is not willing to go at all. This does not seem to pay attention to the peculiar oṉṟu maṇam.

[FNote_1402] tām-ē would be awkward in the subordinate āyiṉ clause, so the best might be to take it as an antepositioned subject to kāṇār.

[FNote_1403] Here the question arises whether the plural is to be understood as such. celpa usually is a real pl. form, not an honorific. From the point of view of metre celvar would not have been a problem. Still, there at least one more instance (cf. KT 231.4) of a form in -pa that has to be read as honorific.

[FNote_1404] What is meant by pūṇ akam? Her decoration is wet through and through?

[FNote_1405] aḻintu most probably refers to HER state of mind.

[FNote_1406] itaḻ aḻintu' ūṟum kaṇ paṉi might be understood as a mixed metaphor: aḻintu and kaṇ belong to the human-emotive range, the rest belongs to the nature image of dew on blossoms.

[FNote_1407] How to understand syntax and impact of line 1-3? Judged by the image it must mean that HER tears come onto HIS breast like the jasmine blossoms hang on the tusks of the elephant (the man taking what he needs and leaving). On the other hand there is a parallel (KT 325) where SHE wets her breast, and mulai usually denotes the female breast.

[FNote_1408] aruntum: the um-participle is a little awkward here; one would expect aruntiya (or perhaps also an absolutive), but the motif is clear and so the subject has to be also nārai.

[FNote_1409] paṇi kaṭuṅ kuraiyam: see note on the parallel in KT 132.1. Here the point presumably is that she will cry (quick with eye dew) when he goes.

[FNote_1410] cellātīm is, according to Cam., a negative imperative (cf. Agesthialingom p. 91).

[FNote_1411] colliṉam: this perfective aspect might mark the hypothetical character of the conditional. We know it must have been in the past because of the pirinticiṉōr. So, in order not to have to understand the celvar as a past tense, we have to explain it as a (tenseless) participial noun, i.e. literally "[would] he [have been] one who goes".

[FNote_1412] That is, SHE threatens to cry, as is usual in the case of HIS imminent departure. Since the kurai forms are rare, this might even be a half quotation of/allusion to 132.1, in an appellative function: she will change from the one he makes happy by his embraces to one dissolved in tears.

[FNote_1413] talaippeyar-ttal: what does this mean? According to the TL, it is a lexeme "to redeem, recover", which doesn't seem helpful here. T.V.G. reads "they move [their] troupes from [that] place, i.e. they choose a different route in order to avoid potential danger.

[FNote_1414] urimai is, according to T.V.G., to be distinguished from uṭaimai, which would mean any "possession", while urimai is a form of connection not to be broken up again, and as such to be reserved for the wife (as the one possession a man cannot give up or share with others). Apart from the question whether it can only be said of the wife - the concept seems to have resonances with Srin.'s explanation of the suffix -uṭai as an unalienable possession.

[FNote_1415] There are a few, though not many cases of vocatives starting as sentence or even a poem (not counted the formulaic prelude amma vāḻi tōḻi), some of them even unmarked metonymies (cf. KT 209.4, 358.2).

[FNote_1416] ciṟu is taken here by T.V.G. as denoting the short duration of evening. It might, however, as well function as an intensification of puṉ here.

[FNote_1417] ciṟupuṟam: the TL lexicalises "neck". Since there is no gemination, do we have to assume it is a compound? (a simple attribution rather ought to give ciṟuppuṟam)?

[FNote_1418] For ārkali see note on KT 155.1.

[FNote_1419] Or: "in the waterfall sweet in singing".

[FNote_1420] In order to account for the absolutive taḻīi we have to assume a change of subject. T.V.G., however, reads differently: "the mother who embraces [my] neck upon which braids are descending".

[FNote_1421] Here we presumably have to assume a double function of -um, coordination and enumeration.

[FNote_1422] This obvious aphoristic prelude of two lines is not particle-marked. It would also be possible to read a participle in causal function: "since [as is known] ... turns sour".

[FNote_1423] kaṭum pāmpu vaḻaṅkum teruvil: is this supposed to denote the danger HE undergoes by coming? Or is it to be read as a metonymic apposition: "in the street, a quickly wandering snake", i.e. a meandering road.

[FNote_1424] Why is there no marking with -ē behind paṭṭaṉṟu? In any case here the p.a. seems to determine the tense of the preceding lines: it was bad weather yesterday night (cf. KT 161).

[FNote_1425] What is the nuance of ōṅkal here?

[FNote_1426] What is the associative range of this onomatopoeic syllable? T.V.G. explains it as denoting a pleasant sensation: better hot muddy water than none at all.

[FNote_1427] Is maṟuku, according to the TL used of the wind, to be understood literally, that is, does it refer to veils of vapour moved by the hot wind?

[FNote_1428] For kōl amai see note on KT 267.5.

[FNote_1429] Is am here an adjective? Does it mean something like nal?

[FNote_1430] Or: "held [by me]".

[FNote_1431] The maṉṉiya unmarked by any particle gives rise to confusion. Cam.'s interpretation as the verb of the main sentence is the only construable possibility, but even if we read a circular construction, an -ē would be preferable. The only alternative would be an um-participle dependent on tiṉai (the millet resembling the shoulders), but then there wouldn't be a main sentence.

[FNote_1432] paṉikāl is ambiguous, namely either the season of dew when HE has set out, or the time of tears.

[FNote_1433] ēṉalam ciṟutiṉai: what is achieved by -am here? Is ēṉal a synonym of tiṉai? Or is one a special kind of the other, and if so, which of the two is the generic term?

[FNote_1434] Is īṅkē the end of the sentence, that is, an exclamation? Or is it to be understood as an antepositioned adverb? Actually it is too long to be one.

[FNote_1435] For another unmarked metonymy as a vocative beginning a sentence see KT 209.4.

[FNote_1436] This is explained traditionally as the number of strokes on the wall to mark the days of HIS absence. One would like to have parallel material.

[FNote_1437] How to integrate the last three lines into the poem? Conceivable would be a second direct object to utukkāṇ (which would be, however, problematic with respect to position, if we don't assume a special form of circular construction). Or the construction is the simple circular one, and the buds are the reason for HER sobbing (HE has obviously not yet returned).

[FNote_1438] The traditional interpretation of the elephant sighing when laying down doesn't seem to have a semantic basis (see DEDR 4018 paḷḷi "sleeping place").

[FNote_1439] kaṭṭil certainly has to be the cot of the son, not HIS bed.

[FNote_1440] Since kavai-ttal is 11. class, kavaiyiṉaḷ ought to be a nominal derivation. The verb cane either be DEDR 1325 or 1326 (the former "to bifurcate", the latter "to embrace", which is Cam.'s gloss, but a noun is attested only to the former. This might be seen as a play with the ambiguity, but the main message is negative (amma!).

[FNote_1441] For the construction with ākutal cf. KT 4.4, 386.2.

[FNote_1442] kuḷirē: taking the particle marking seriously, this either has to be read as an inserted exclamation with a subordination, or an antepositioned subject (in which case the particle is limitative) with an unusually long string of attributes.

[FNote_1443] The -ē here follows upon the -āl in a long postposition (to be connected with the beginning of the poem).

[FNote_1444] Does uyarnilai ulakam refer to the world of the gods (cf. puttēḷ nāṭu in KT 101.2)?

[FNote_1445] naṭutal: what is this supposed to mean? To plant? Or to put into a vase?

[FNote_1446] kuḻaiya presumably has to be understood as an adverbial infinitive. T.V.G. reads "so that it (i.e. the plant) becomes soft (i.e. looses shape)", but doesn't fit the context so well.

[FNote_1447] The choice of maṇam, which doesn't mean only "fragrance" but also "union" (and is mostly used in the latter sense), is certainly not by chance.

[FNote_1448] kaṇṇi maruppu means either actually horns, which lie around the head like a chaplet (which is not inconceivable with water buffalos), or horns which are garlanded with flowers (here less probable, since it seems to be wild animals).

[FNote_1449] Cam. dissolves the sandhi in a different way, namely varai ā "mountain cow". However, is varaiyā taken as an adverb, maṭakkaṇ has to be understood as a metonymy; because kaṟikkum is in need of a subject. And the image implies, of course, the happiness on an animal pair which is not separate.

[FNote_1450] vantaṉa: is this the (not particle-marked) end of a sentence or do we have to take the maḷḷar pōr at the end as a subject apposition?

[FNote_1451] Or does maṇam mean "marriage" here, presumably with an erotic undertone?

[FNote_1452] The syntax of lines 7+8 is, if marked (maṟṟu) at all, then in a way incomprehensible to me, likewise the sense of line 7. What is meant by avvarai? Can it be a mere connecting link? Does the maṟṟu go with the ataṉ-kaṇ (and is kaṇ a loc. suffix here)? Can the avar refer not to the men (maḷḷar), but to the women (makaḷir)? The point in any case is probably a rivalry among the men.

[FNote_1453] This variant ending on nāṭoṟum exactly corresponds to KT 11.1 (where the variant is nāḷum, which is put in the text here).

[FNote_1454] maruṅkiṉ koṇṭa: can this refer simply to the trees way of growing, as rendered above?

[FNote_1455] tatumpiya: why here the perfective aspect?

[FNote_1456] taṇ eṉ is taken here by Cam./T.V.G., different from the other four passages (see above), as an onomatopoeic: "the drum tha goes 'taṇ'".

[FNote_1457] piṇi yaviḻnta means the opening of the buds enveloped in green.

[FNote_1458] Is the mountain pool like an eye (the reversal of the eye-water metaphor)? Or does it have many flower eyes? T.V.G. simply understands it as the green area around the pool.

[FNote_1459] What is expressed here by the pronoun i-? Can this be a short form of ivaḷ?

[FNote_1460] This presumably means, she sticks to him, although the time for the exorcism is already set.

[FNote_1461] yāḻa is supposed to be an expletive particle, only to be used in 2nd person addresses. This is the only case attested in the KT.

[FNote_1462] For nalkār cf. KT 60.5: if HE is not generous with his presence.

[FNote_1463] Here it is impossible to understand a- but as aṅkē (as is also done by Cam.).

[FNote_1464] uva-ttal, a root of the 12. class "to rejoice", is read as part of the root imperative kāṇ by Cam. I think it is more faithful to read either an adverb or a second root imperative "rejoice".

[FNote_1465] What is ōṅkiya malai in contradistinction to the formulaic ōṅku malai? Is the above emphatic rendering probable?

[FNote_1466] pukaṉṟu is syntactically difficult to connect, if not as an adverb to iḻi, or maṇṇuṟu has to be taken not in a passive sense, but as an um-participle with āyam as subject: "where the attendant women appear like jewels that delight [and] ... take a bath ".

[FNote_1467] How to understand the syntax of maṇṇ'uṟu? Can uṟu-tal be an auxiliary? Cf. KT 167.2 with kaḻuv'uṟu.

[FNote_1468] What is expressed by toyyal? T.V.G. understands a rain making the ground wet - according to DED 3555 there is a root tōy-tal with that meaning, but toyyal, a noun derivation is given as "mud".

[FNote_1469] nīttat / tiṇ: shouldn't the sandhi be nīttan / tiṇ?

[FNote_1470] paḻi tīr: or the "darkness ending in blame".

[FNote_1471] māmai refers to her physical beauty, her dark colour before misery begins.

[FNote_1472] Where is the connection for the dative ūrkkē? Is this a postpositioned indirect object to colla: "we cannot speak - [but] to the (ill-willing) village!". Or is it an anteposition of the indirect object of the following sentence? But the latter wouldn't make much sense from the point of view of content. T.V.G. reads an independent sentence with vāḻum as main verb and takes the dative as locative: "in the village small and great people are living".

[FNote_1473] Here we have an elliptical metaphor: the direct object, the man, is missing on the emotive level.

[FNote_1474] nāḷ iṭaipaṭāa: literally "without [anything] appearing in between the days"; cf. pū viṭaipaṭiṉum in KT 57.1.

[FNote_1475] What is this supposed to mean? Is SHE perishing or not? Why embracing in the present tense?

[FNote_1476] Or: "the many light nuts".

[FNote_1477] What exactly is meant by vil laka viraliṉ?

[FNote_1478] nal l-akam: T.V.G. proposes here to understand akam as a reference to HIS chest, which would indeed be better in the context.

[FNote_1479] Line 1 can also be read as an independent sentence. Not so Cam., who takes nekiḻtal and ūrtal as direct objects to maruvēṉ, which considerably changes the message. In one case SHE doesn't want to get involved with kāmam, since she knows about the consequences, in the other kāmam helps her bear the time of waiting. Problematic about this latter solution is that it requires taking the sociative nāṭaṉoṭu as a causal instrumental, which is at least unusual.

[FNote_1480] Is mai "collyrium" still a metaphor or already a word for "cloud"? (Cf. KT 319.4, 339.2).

[FNote_1481] Line 1 is hypermetrical.

[FNote_1482] The sense here is incomprehensible to me. Cam. takes kūḻai as "woman's hair" and patukkai as "mud" and tells the same story of mud for the hair as in KT 113. But how to account for one or the other semantically?

[FNote_1483] What is aruvi supposed to be here? There is an extra entry in the DEDR 225 giving "river mouth" as a meaning of aruvi. Can this be the point - a mixture of the different kinds of soil coming together where the river mounds into the sea?

[FNote_1484] How about āḻitalai "sea heads" as a metaphor for "wave" instead of taking talai as an expletive?

[FNote_1485] Is this supposed to mean that the heaps of sand already there (= cimaiyam) suffer from the newly coming sands?! Presumably this has to read as a transfer from the emotive level: actually it is She who suffers from the increasing gossip.

[FNote_1486] The construction and impact of lines 1-6 are insufficiently marked and quite unclear, apart from the topos of the Palmyras being buried by sand (cf. KT 248).

[FNote_1487] How to understand the dative kaṭaṟku? If something happened to the sea? But what - a limitation where none is to be expected, that is, somewhere in the middle?

[FNote_1488] vevvāy = "talkative" or "foul-mouthed"?

[FNote_1489] toṭupu: Cam. glosses toṇṭiyataṉāl "hollow, pierced".

[FNote_1490] What is conveyed by the image here? A trace of fear, contrary to the superlatives? She is no longer in the tree, like the fruit taken by the inconstant monkey.

[FNote_1491] Difficult: veṟpaṉ talai vantu. Another possibility is: "after they (the parents) had come to the place of the man from the mountains". (See Wilden 1999: 233f. + n. 31).

[FNote_1492] For the lines 1-3 there are several alternatives. For an extensive discussion see Wilden 1999: 219, 232f. (versus Tieken 1997: 295f.). Here just the different possible renderings are listed.

[FNote_1493] For a discussion about the identity of the bird see Tieken 1997: 297f., contra Wilden 1999: 234, n. 32.

[FNote_1494] The third possibility is to take veṟpaṉ as the subject of the first three lines. The advantage would be that the subject would actually be there and would not have to be taken as implied. But from the point of view of contents this seems less probable and in any case it has no explicit parallels elsewhere. Further disadvantages would be the redundancy of the statements of lines 1+2, and the missing representation of talai in line 3.

[FNote_1495] Cam. glosses tūṅkāmaiyiṉāl, which is probably situationally, though not semantically correct.

[FNote_1496] Is pāṉāḷ yāmattum a synonym compound of emphasis: "even at midnight itself"?

[FNote_1497] What is expressed by kaṇ as an extension of viyaṉ?

[FNote_1498] How to integrate syntactically maṉṉuyir aṟiyā? T.V.G. explains that nobody comes near the mountain where the cūr are residing, and consequently nobody knows what is on the top. In this case maṉṉuyir would have to be understood as an actual bahūvrīhi ("those of stable life/breath" meaning something like "sentient beings"), which seems quite untypical for this stage of the language.

[FNote_1499] Is taṇṇiyaḷ put between vēṉilāṉē and paṉiyē for stylistic reasons, although it syntactically belongs to the former - and because the termination of the natural affinity of taṇ and paṉi is the topic of this poem?

[FNote_1500] Does poṭinta, perfective aspect, express that the lotus is not by itself warm, but after it has bundeled the sunlight?

[FNote_1501] Is wonder the connotation of ai here?

[FNote_1502] vāṅku katir tokuppa probably refers to the last beams of the sinking sun which are encapsulated in the closing flower.

[FNote_1503] vaḷai ēr is difficult; the usual comparison particle cannot be meant, and Cam. glosses with vaḷaiyaiyuṭaiya aḻakiya, without apparent semantic basis (though even the comparison particle is missing in the DEDR). T.V.G. explains it as worthy to wear, which probably reveals that the strategy of both of them simply was to make sense in the context.

[FNote_1504] ñekiḻntu is difficult to construe. One would rather expect a finite verb, and in n.pl., as the parallels with tōḷ as a subject show. Therefore I don't believe in Cam.'s ñekiḻntataṉ, a principally possible declined form of the participial noun in n.sg. Moreover this doesn't go well with the otherwise frequent use of ataṉ-talai.

[FNote_1505] Difficult is also the -um added to ataṉṟalai. Therefore too one would like a preceding finite verb.

[FNote_1506] ceytu koṇṭatu: is koḷ-tal used as an auxiliary here? Is it already reflexive: "friendship, which has made itself = arisen"?

[FNote_1507] While the first rendering explains the situation by referring to the secret state of the affair (SHE has become emaciated, because they still have to conceal it from the public), the second amounts to HER realizing that he is not a gentleman, a topos likewise not unknown (cf. KT 102).

[FNote_1508] Is talai used here just as a word to name the location, i.e. as "place"?

[FNote_1509] The absolutives paṭṭu and tāay have to be read coordinate to āka, whether this be infinitive or optative.

[FNote_1510] cuṭar vāy can be connected either with the tip of HIS spear or with his expression of, say, determination.

[FNote_1511] In other words when the secret relation is no longer secret. Differently Cam.: when HER knowledge has come to maturity, which means the whole would be the putting off of a girl not of age.

[FNote_1512] paḻam = paḻaiya "old", as read by Cam., doesn't make sense. It rather might be read either as an adverb to akaḻnta (a pit dug successfully) or attributive to kuḻi: a "fruit pit", that is, a pit which actually does contain something.

[FNote_1513] kaṇ ṇ-akaṉ: T.V.G. explains this as a jewel of broad area, i.e. a big jewel.

[FNote_1514] What is expressed here by vāṉam? T.V.G. takes it as the subject of the preceding sentence (see 3b). In this case it would be an open-ended postposition without apparent function. And what is the difference between vicumpu and vāṉam?

[FNote_1515] muṉṉar might also have a temporal sense, then having the implication of the dew going to fall before HE has come back.

[FNote_1516] mayakku presumably has to be construed like this, but can it be used in more than a weak sense of disturbing by wetting?

[FNote_1517] kaṇṭiciṟ ṟōḻi: this is one of the rarer cases of a totally unrelated variant. What to do with such cases?

[FNote_1518] vampu (DEDR 5252 "instability") is attested only here in the KT (1 AN, 3 NA, occasionally in the kiḷavi-s). Cam. glosses "raining at a time out of time" (kālam allāta kālattu peyyum), and this certainly makes sense, even if it stretches semantics.

[FNote_1519] Is micai here a mere locative suffix (thus also T.V.G.)?

[FNote_1520] ceṉṟaikka (attested only here in Caṅkam according to L./M.) is glossed as kaḻika by Cam., which means it should be an optative to cel-tal. Such a thing is not registered by Agesthialingom, and we have to assume again the special sandhi for -a before eṉ (cf. KT 141.2, 217.1, 219.4, 325.3).

[FNote_1521] aḻuṅka can be analysed either as DEDR 276 "to suffer" or 284 "to be spoiled, injured, disfigured". Cam. glosses varunta, but the latter makes more sense in the context.

[FNote_1522] Line 3 is without any particle marking, but it has to be read as an independent sentence.

[FNote_1523] Line 4 is difficult to construe. mōyvaṉa doesn't have an -ē, but an -aṉ-infix, and thus should be finite. It would be possible to read an independent sentence ("hands and feet become tired.") and take the infinitive aḻuṅka alone together with what follows (the sprout is spoiled). More interesting from a poetic point of view, however, would be the integration: the sprout lets sink its leaves like SHE her hands and feet.

[FNote_1524] For kuṟun toṭi see note on KT 233.7.

[FNote_1525] Thus Cam.'s gloss, backed up by several parallels, though none of them older than the Kal. (Kal. 63.7f., 64.19, 76.15, 112.6, 131.13f., 143.31f.; Cilap. 2.29): karump' eḻutiya toyyilaiyuṭaiya "with a sugarcane drawn with sandal paste"(?!) (See, however, also NA 39.11).

[FNote_1526] Thus Cam and T.V.G., unfortunately without being able to give parallels(?!) Line 1 is strange in any case.

[FNote_1527] For an interpretation of the syntactical ambiguity of this poem see IV.3.2, p. 323f.

[FNote_1528] cilai is supposed to be a kind of tree here, according to Cam., which is not attested by the lexica, but a noun "bow" (DEDR 2571) (thus already L./Sh.P.). T.V.G. explains that bows were made from the strong wood of the Cilai tree, as is to be seen in a gloss by Nacc. on Kal. ??[CHECK].

[FNote_1529] naṭpiṉaṉ is denominative and end of the sentence, unmarked because the next sentence starts with the predicate.

[FNote_1530] Or: "the straight arrow".

[FNote_1531] As so often the relations are unmarked. I understand kalai as the subject to verīi and pāyum, but amai as subject to poṅki and tayaṅka.

[FNote_1532] One possibility to come to terms with two words for bamboo here is to take amai as a part of the vetir plant, as is done by T.V.G.

[FNote_1533] ūṅk'ē is one of the rare cases of subordination marked with -ē, though here one can ask whether this is not due to a kind of formulaic compulsion (negative absolutive + ūṅkē is in 4 further cases in the KT at the end of poems).

[FNote_1534] aṟivēṉ: the future has to be read as a kind of habitual past here.

[FNote_1535] mālai-y-ō is difficult, though it might be explained as a case of demarcation of topic (II.3.13, p. 93f.?): "as for the evening ...".

[FNote_1536] For the function of ākutal as a pointed "that" cf. KT 4.4, 360.2.

[FNote_1537] nīntiṉam: the perfective aspect doesn't mark a past tense, but the irreal character of the conditional.

[FNote_1538] āka marks ira varampu as an apposition to mālai, the function of which as a direct object in its turn is supported by -um.

[FNote_1539] ākum (line 2) and ām (line 7) are used in embedding function, the former for embedding an aphorism, the latter for the main sentence statement. Have both to be coordinated by "and"?

[FNote_1540] ām can either be dynamic ("will become") or predicative, that is, the ascertainment of a fact.

[FNote_1541] This means presumably: "trunks lowered".

[FNote_1542] What is put in row can either be the exhausted animals, or, as T.V.G. asserts, the trees which with their raised dried branches remind of the open wood carts. In both cases the image is optical: they have the sight of a caravan.

[FNote_1543] porutu is actually absolutive, that is, we have an anacolouth, since with acāa as the subject of porutu and pūṭṭu we would expect acāa poruta.

[FNote_1544] kavaṇai y-aṉṉa pūṭṭu is taken by T.V.G. as referring only to the oxen and rendered as "yoked as if with a stone", of which meaning for kavaṇai there is no trace in the lexica.

[FNote_1545] Line 3 can either be connected with the ox-cart comparison or directly with the elephants.

[FNote_1546] Cam. takes kuṟumpūḻ as the name of the bird (T.V.G. adduces a corresponding gloss given by Nacc. on Kal. 95.8), but see KT 68.1 pūḻ. And an attribute "short" = "small=young=tender" is perfectly adequate in this context of festival food.

[FNote_1547] Here just as in KT 129.2 attai is supposed to be expletive.

[FNote_1548] What is the function of āka here? Something like "consisting of"?

[FNote_1549] varainteṉa: here presumably the eṉa has not yet causal function, or at least the literal understanding better fits the context. The people of the village say HE has been selected as a bridegroom. It might, however, also be taken the other way round: "the man from a land of big stones has fixed [everything for the marriage]" (thus T.V.G.).

[FNote_1550] avaṉ etir is literally "in front of him" or "confronting him", and the nuance of this strongly marked direct object might be the expectation of an answer, which lays weight on his judgement.

[FNote_1551] The subject to peṟuka is postponed to the end: uraittōṉ. The circular structure of the Tamil is here, because of the inserted main sentence, not even representable.

[FNote_1552] For cellātīm see note on KT 350.2.

[FNote_1553] This looks like a hybrid structure, a coordination of an indicative and an imperative by -um - -um in line 1: ind. + ipt. [ipt + voc.-ē inserted] ... dir. object-ē(?).

[FNote_1554] ēnti has to be taken as an anacolouth, because there is no subject, if not we have to read a metonymy for those who are adorned with bangles in vaḷi y-aṇi. This is perhaps the best thing to do with this phrase hard to reconcile with the context: spears can hardly be adorned with bangles. T.V.G. produces two ad-hoc solutions (without parallels), one being that vaḷai would refer to the handle of the spear, the other that it would be a discus, i.e. another weapon to be hurled (but why would it be somehow fixed on the spear?).

[FNote_1555] How is the exact construction and what is the message of the whole?

[FNote_1556] Here the reading in accordance with the kiḷavi: the ciṟu piṭi is taken as a metonymic comparison referring to HER who is accompanying HIM through the wastelands. Closer to the wording is a reading as an invitation by a woman to a man, as is even clearer in the formulaic parallel in KT 179.

[FNote_1557] With 9 lines this poem actually should be included in the NA.

[FNote_1558] pukari is to be found neither in the TL nor in DEDR, and according to L./M. a hapax in Caṅkam literature. According to the DEDR 4232 pukar is "tawny colour", so the word pukari might mean "the tawny ones" - T.V.G. explains it as "spotted ones".

[FNote_1559] How to construe uvari and what does it mean? The situation described in the first two lines is obviously one before the rains, so seemingly the bull doesn't like ploughing dry soil (who would try to do this?). Actually one would expect a peyareccam, not an absolutive, but T.V.G. explains it might be taken as adverbially to uḻātu, i.e. "loathingly not ploughing".

[FNote_1560] For kaṭamai see also KT 179.1 kaṭam-ā "wild cow".

[FNote_1561] kaḷaiñar is presumably a participial noun, where the -n- is palatalised because of the stem in -ai (see Beythan par. 84 end).

[FNote_1562] The end of the illai sentence is not marked in any way, but it seems impossible to construe in any other way.

[FNote_1563] How to understand the subtle syntax and meaning of line 5? According to T.V.G. the people have little pickeaxes to remove the weed from the millet fields, and these tools are named tuḷar. Neither of both meanings is attested by the DEDR (the word is simply missing), but there are several parallels which seems to refer to the same situation (AN184.13; see Nacc. on Malaipaṭukaṭāṉ 123, Nacc. on Perumpāṇaṟṟuppaṭai 201).

[FNote_1564] What is here the function of tuṭavai-yam? Is the millet meant to be planted close to the wood and thus quasi belongs to it?

[FNote_1565] While the first rendering would contain a reassurance (SHE won't stay with her family forever, i.e. you have a chance of getting her), the second seems to be a complaint, which is in accordance with the kiḷavi: you still have not married her.

[FNote_1566] Read thus instead of muḻaṅkiya (correct in Cam. KT 1937).

[FNote_1567] vākai is understood here by Cam. as the name of a place. This is not known to the TL.

[FNote_1568] paṟantalai is given in DEDR 4026 as "desert village" (there is a number of occurrences in AN and PN, and apparently a direct parallel in AN 125.19). What is here the etymology? T.V.G. explains it simply as "vast area", but there is no trace of paṟam/paṟamai in such a sense.

[FNote_1569] pacum pūṇ is explained by T.V.G. as referring to a special kind of gold, called "green gold".

[FNote_1570] What is a kūkkaik kōḻi? Different owl-like birds? A statement to the effect that there are owls in the Sirissa trees in the desert place where the armies meet would be just as well as that they are in the place Vākai. T.V.G. explains that owls and forest fowl come to devour the dead on the battlefield, which doesn't sound very plausible.

[FNote_1571] This additional line is given by T.V.G., but not found in the other editions (including Vaiyapuri Pillai 1940), except for Shanmugam Pillai: 1994.

[FNote_1572] Is muḻam tāḷ: "yard foot" here already lexicalised as "lower leg"? But that would be difficult to understand in the context. (It is attested only here and in later Caṅkam texts.)

[FNote_1573] kuṟi-yiṟai: Cam. glosses here kuṟi with kuṟiya, that is, presumably, "short"?! Something special must be meant here, because the author is named after this word creation Kuṟiyiṟaiyār. T.V.G. explains it as having little intermediate space between the finger joints, which would presumably mean "short-fingered".

[FNote_1574] nakai viḷaiyāṭṭu can be seen in an attribute relation or coordinate: "laughing/jesting play" or "laughing/jest [and] play".

[FNote_1575] For eṉmar as a special form of the participial noun see Agesthialingom par. 14.7.1:5d.

[FNote_1576] So HE has the strength to go and he forces HER to consent, without being restrained at least by consideration, if not by love.

[FNote_1577] The object to kaḷaiyār is to be found only on image level: people cannot hinder the snake from swallowing the moon, but their compassion is consoling.

[FNote_1578] Is this an allusion to the Rāhu myth?! A parallel is to be found in Kal. 140.14.

[FNote_1579] How to understand pant' uṭaṉ mēvāḷ? It might either be wishing nothing in addition to a ball (as above), or, thus T.V.G., "she wouldn't wish ever for the ball [by herself]".

[FNote_1580] From the motif of the pierced tree it is possible to conclude that the animal is an elephant, and accordingly kōṭu refers to its tusks.

[FNote_1581] What is expressed by the accumulation of kuṉṟam, varai and kavāaṉ, three words for something like "mountain"?

[FNote_1582] For viḻumam cf. note on KT 261.8.

[FNote_1583] For kaḷaiñar see note on KT 392.5.