By beautiful phonetic character, I meant it has a very interesting "texture", the way the words sound. You are right, it's not soft in that sense, I wouldn't call it harsh, it appears "textured" to me. I think this has something to do with the subtleties of different "la"s and "ra"s, "zha", etc(personal opinion, I have almost no knowledge of Tamizh, would love to hear what others think of this).
Of course, no comparison intended with any other language, they are all beautiful in their own ways. I said this about Tamizh as this is a language I have learned to appreciate purely for the "sound" of it! Thanks. --- In arrahmanfans@yahoogroups.com, V S Rawat <vsra...@...> wrote: > > On 5/6/2010 11:14 PM India Time, _diya_ wrote: > > > Oh I have to say something here. > > > > What do you mean by "beautiful phonetic character" and "phonetic > richness"? > > > Tamizh has a very beautiful phonetic character which I believe not > > understanding the language makes it easier to appreciate > > > > (your entire focus is on the phonetics rather than the meanings). > > You wouldn't be saying that if you had known how meticulously they had > "cleansed" their language by removing the impurities of > Sanskrit-origin words from it. > > > > I love > > listening to Tamizh songs a) for the melody b) for the phonetic > > richness of the language. > > > > And yes I am a Bengali too. I would urge all those who do not > > understand the language to listen to the words a little more > > attentively. Trust me, it's really beautiful even if you don't > > understand..not something you would want to miss out on :) > > Some languages are by nature harsh and some are soft. like, Bengali, > Italian are softer languages, Asamese is almost like one is singing > when speaking routine things, German and Tamil are harsher languages. > If I have used "harsh" wrongly, just speak one sentence of each of the > above and tell me what is the correct term for this property that I am > calling harsh. > > -- > Rawat >
