-
This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
The most selfish one letter word
- Thread starter Uma Raja Ramakrishnan
- Start date
- Status
M.A.M is magnetic and you can see and feel the attraction on A.M
by the angle of inclination of his head towards her!
by the angle of inclination of his head towards her!
Dear Raghy ji,
Why do you think so much like me?
I was thinking on the same lines that the letter U is more selfish than the letter I on the same lines you wrote.
The word U totally divorces the other individual from ourselves.
U denotes duality in full force.
I have a friend who never says the word I Love You even to his loved ones and in fact he said 'I love us"
He feels that the word U denotes separate entities hence he says I LOVE US!!
M.A.M is magnetic and you can see and feel the attraction on A.M
by the angle of inclination of his head towards her!
May be AM is having Torticollis where the neck bends to one side.
Can be treated with Botox.
Botox relaxes the neck muscles and the neck will be straight again!!
Ha Ha Ha..!!
namaste everyone.
If 'U' is selfish, how about the alphabet 'W' (double U)?
Here is some interesting information about the English alphabets 'V,U,W':
• Did you ever wonder why the alphabet 'W' is pronounced as 'double U' while it is written using 'double V'?
• The reason is that in old English of the times of poet Geoffrey Chauer (1340-1400), the alphabets U and V were used interchangeably, both as a vowel and as a consonant. Only during the 18th century the letter U was established for use as a vowel only.
• The alphabet V was from the Latin V, derived from one form of the Greek Y (upsilon), and was pronounced 'U': thus the letter W came to be pronounced as 'double U', although written using double V.
If 'U' is selfish, how about the alphabet 'W' (double U)?
Here is some interesting information about the English alphabets 'V,U,W':
• Did you ever wonder why the alphabet 'W' is pronounced as 'double U' while it is written using 'double V'?
• The reason is that in old English of the times of poet Geoffrey Chauer (1340-1400), the alphabets U and V were used interchangeably, both as a vowel and as a consonant. Only during the 18th century the letter U was established for use as a vowel only.
• The alphabet V was from the Latin V, derived from one form of the Greek Y (upsilon), and was pronounced 'U': thus the letter W came to be pronounced as 'double U', although written using double V.
Dear Raghy ji,
My elder bro thinks like me and he can be real crazy too but my younger bro does not think like me..he is way too serious and prim and proper especially now since he is a father.
The most selfish letter is Z!!
You know why?
Cos when someone is talking to us we zzzzzzzzzzzz off(sleep off!!)
Naina_Marbus
Active member
Dear AM-ji:
When you say “that’s how senior people are”, are you complimenting URR as a young mademoiselle? How do you know that URR does not belong to the same camp as the rest of the gang here?
namaste everyone.
Speaking of English words, here is a gem from KAnchi ParamAchArya:
inimai is the equivalent Tamil for madhuraM. Colloquially, we use the term thitthippu; the literary word is inimai. Some words are distinctively beautiful in Tamil. In those words, the sound is set to match the meaning. inimai is one such word. Of the three letters that occur in the word, every letter is soft, none being harsh.
They term madhuraM is 'sweet' in English. Although the beginning with 'swee' is soft, the 't' sits at the end in the form of a 'takara' as a harsh sound. As somebody said jocularly, when the line 'kuzhalinithu, yazhinithu', which sounds sweet and soft in speech, is translated as 'flute sweet, lute sweet' with the lottu, lottu sound... (without finishing the sentence, Paramacharya gracefully gestures and closes his ears with his palms!)
Even in Sanskrit, when we say madhuraM that 'dhu' sounds a bit harsh. There is another, softer word svAdu. The 'du' here is not the hard 'dhu' that occurs in madhuraM, but a softer 'du'.
The English (term) 'sweet' came only from svAdu, changing the lighter 'du' into a harder 't'.
There are many words in English that are beautiful. With distinctions of sound and meaning, and with different words to indictate subtle variations of a common thing or object, that language also has a lot to talk about. As dRSTAnta, to take the word pani (ice): if the wet leakage of 'moisure' becomes a chill drop of water, it becomes 'dew'; if it is misty, it is 'fog'; and then the 'smog' that is the mixture of 'smoke' and 'fog'! If the dew drop solidifies it is 'frost'; if it freezes from previously being water, it is 'ice'; if the steam becomes ice straight from the atmosphere, it is 'snow'. If that steam condenses and while falling as rain hardens, (we call it Alangatti) it is 'hail'. Like these, there are many words that indicate the many shades of the same thing. What we say with a single word uNarcchi, they classify into two as 'felling' and 'emotion'.
Except that in the discussion of madhuraM as sweetness, the speech digressed a little and I said something amadhuraM, I did not proceed to make comparisons of the greatness or smallness of any language.
--from the book Sollin Selvar Sri Kanchi Munivar by RA.GaNapati
Speaking of English words, here is a gem from KAnchi ParamAchArya:
inimai is the equivalent Tamil for madhuraM. Colloquially, we use the term thitthippu; the literary word is inimai. Some words are distinctively beautiful in Tamil. In those words, the sound is set to match the meaning. inimai is one such word. Of the three letters that occur in the word, every letter is soft, none being harsh.
They term madhuraM is 'sweet' in English. Although the beginning with 'swee' is soft, the 't' sits at the end in the form of a 'takara' as a harsh sound. As somebody said jocularly, when the line 'kuzhalinithu, yazhinithu', which sounds sweet and soft in speech, is translated as 'flute sweet, lute sweet' with the lottu, lottu sound... (without finishing the sentence, Paramacharya gracefully gestures and closes his ears with his palms!)
Even in Sanskrit, when we say madhuraM that 'dhu' sounds a bit harsh. There is another, softer word svAdu. The 'du' here is not the hard 'dhu' that occurs in madhuraM, but a softer 'du'.
The English (term) 'sweet' came only from svAdu, changing the lighter 'du' into a harder 't'.
There are many words in English that are beautiful. With distinctions of sound and meaning, and with different words to indictate subtle variations of a common thing or object, that language also has a lot to talk about. As dRSTAnta, to take the word pani (ice): if the wet leakage of 'moisure' becomes a chill drop of water, it becomes 'dew'; if it is misty, it is 'fog'; and then the 'smog' that is the mixture of 'smoke' and 'fog'! If the dew drop solidifies it is 'frost'; if it freezes from previously being water, it is 'ice'; if the steam becomes ice straight from the atmosphere, it is 'snow'. If that steam condenses and while falling as rain hardens, (we call it Alangatti) it is 'hail'. Like these, there are many words that indicate the many shades of the same thing. What we say with a single word uNarcchi, they classify into two as 'felling' and 'emotion'.
Except that in the discussion of madhuraM as sweetness, the speech digressed a little and I said something amadhuraM, I did not proceed to make comparisons of the greatness or smallness of any language.
--from the book Sollin Selvar Sri Kanchi Munivar by RA.GaNapati
namaste shrI Raghy.
With reference to your post #34, the word 'We' can be selfish as well, because the person who says/thinks about it, more often than not includes only him/her and the people of his/her kind, leaving out the others.
Is there any word in English, Tamizh or Sanskrit (or any other language for that matter) that as a pronoun includes the entire humanity? I don't think so. To include the whole world, we often need to qualify our pronoun: as samasta loka in Sanskrit, ulakam muzhudum in Tamizh or the entire world in English.
Such is perhaps the nature of speech--vAk, which is at best a reduction of thought. In this sense, we might as well say that 'I' is the most unselfish word, because it is the personal expression of the entire humanity and so universal.
With reference to your post #34, the word 'We' can be selfish as well, because the person who says/thinks about it, more often than not includes only him/her and the people of his/her kind, leaving out the others.
Is there any word in English, Tamizh or Sanskrit (or any other language for that matter) that as a pronoun includes the entire humanity? I don't think so. To include the whole world, we often need to qualify our pronoun: as samasta loka in Sanskrit, ulakam muzhudum in Tamizh or the entire world in English.
Such is perhaps the nature of speech--vAk, which is at best a reduction of thought. In this sense, we might as well say that 'I' is the most unselfish word, because it is the personal expression of the entire humanity and so universal.
Raji Ram
Active member
The conclusion may be because the thread started disappears after the OP!
The 'seniors' are more likely to spend time in :argue: -ing in this forum!!
- Status
Share this page
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
