The Period of Tolpkaapiyam not earlier than 3rd century A.D.
The period of Tolkāppiyam not earlier than 3rd century A.D.
An epigraphic approach
Dr. A. Kamatchi
Assistant Professor
CAS in Linguistics
Annamalai University
Courtesy:
The Paper was published in the International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, Vol. XXXV , No : 1 January, 2006 (pp.127- 142).
Abstract
Different scholars have differently assigned the period of Tolkāppiyam between 1000 B.C. and 500 A.D. But, the authenticity is not so reliable from the point these scholars mention.The comparison of the corpus of Tamil-Brāhmi scripts (both early and late Tamil-Brāhmi scripts) as well as the early Vatteluttu with the sutras alluding the phonological system described by Tolkāppiyam could bring to light the period of Tolkāppiyam, which is the earliest extant grammar not only to Tamil but also to the other Dravidian languages all. Based on the period, Tamil-Brāhmi inscriptions are classified into two types – early Tamil-Brāhmi and late Tamil-Brāhmi – which the epigraphist found mostly in the caves of mountains in the land of Pandiya country. The early Tamil-Brāhmi is determined to the period from 3rd century B.C. to 1st century A.D. while the late Tamil-Brāhmi is assigned to 2nd to 4th century A.D. Based on the evidence of original inscriptional written materials / records given, as it is, in the form of photostat copies provided in the book, “Early Tamil Epigraphy (from the earliest times to the sixth century A.D.)”, written by Mahadevan (2003) and what are the alphabetical system enumerated by Tolkāppiyam in the form of sutras in his work, this pioneer study attempts to find out the approximate period of Tolkāppiyam.
Introduction
The antedating and post-dating of Tolkāppiyam is not uncommon among the scholars. Different scholars have fixed its age differently. It is the established fact that a number of scholars have agreed in assigning Tolkāppiyam to the pre-Christian era though they differ among themselves by fixing it to different centuries. As Subramoniam (1971:108) points out, “among the literary works of Tamil a few can be dated definitely. An example is Njāna Campantar’s tēvāram. The works before this period, including Tolkāppiyam, the Sangam anthologies, the epics Cilappatikāram and MaNimēkalai and the renowned TirukkuRaL are of uncertain dates”. Nevertheless, there are a number of photostat copies of the cave inscriptions which explicitly make it clear what are the graphemic symbols available in the inscriptions in the earliest period. With these graphemic symbols recorded in the inscriptions, it could be compare the graphemic descriptions which are dealt with by many sutras in Tolkāppiyam. Based on the period assigned to the inscription by epigraphists, it is feasible for the scholars to determine the date of Tolkāppiyam by more legitimacy as well as authenticity.
Pre-Ashoka’s inscription period assigned to Tolkāppiyam
Putting forward a series of arguments, Ilakkuvanar (1963:11) comes to conclude that “the age of Tolkāppiyam is found to be of high antiquity, somewhere between 1000 B.C. and 600 B.C., probably 700 B.C.” In the same manner, Subramonyam, in his introduction to the commentary on Tolkāppiyameluttatikāram by Naccinārkkiniyar (kalakam patippu (1955:6)), asserts that “the date of Tolkāppiyam must be fixed prior to that of Valmiki’s work which is earlier than seventh century B.C.” According to Naccinārkkiniyar, one of the commentators of Tolkāppiyam, “the word nānmaRai mentioned in the ciRappuppāyiram by Ataŋkōttāsān refers to taintiriyam, paudikam, talavakāram and cāmavēdam and hence Tolkāppiyar lived before the Vēdas in Sankrit were classified by Vyāsa into Rgvēda”. Arguing with this statement, Sastri (1979) says that “taintiriyam is a sākha or recension of the Yajurvēda; paudika is the tadbhava of Bahrcyam which refers to Rgvēda; talavakāram is a sākha of sāmavēda. Hence Naccinarkkiniyar’s statement that Tolkāppiyar lived before Vyāsa classified the Vēdas does not seem to be sound”(p.xxix).
On the other hand, Varadarajan (1944:4) claims that “Tolkāppiyanār’s work belongs to a period not later than 500 B.C”. In the same way, Chidambaram Chettiyar (1943:3) states that “Tolkāppiyam arose about 4th century B.C”. Submitting a series of internal evidences, Rajamanikkam (1964:17) expresses his view that “unless otherwise proved by proper evidences, it is right to say that Tolkāppiyar might have lived during the fourth century B.C.” Similarly, Srinivasa Ayyangar (1974:117) is of the opinion that “Tolkāppiyar must have lived anterior to B.C. 350, which is the date assigned to Panini”.
Srinivasa Pillai (1984:9) states that “Tolkāppiyanār must have lived before the advent of Jainism in Tamil country and according to historians the advent of Jainism took place at the end of 3rd century B.C”. Stating a number of arguments from internal and external evidences, and refuting the arguments by Sivaraja Pillai in his book “the chronology of the Early Tamils”, Bharati (1936: 258-65) comes to the conclusion that “Tolkāppiyam must have belonged to a period not later than the 6th century B.C.”
It is significant to note here that there were oral and written traditions (existed in our country), the former of which is, as we all know, earlier than the latter. It is regretted to argue that the scholars who assigned Tolkāppiyam to the period earlier than 3rd century B.C. have, knowingly or unknowingly, failed to know the fact that the written tradition in India has been recorded only in the 3rd century B.C., which is, of course, known from the Asokan’s inscription on the Sthupi. That is, the history of decipherable epigraphy in India commenced from the time of Asoka (272 to 232 B.C.). In this regard, it is noteworthy to mention the quotation of Gai (from Indica (1991:125-6)) that “Megasthenes, the Greek Ambassador to the court of the Maurya King, Chandragupta, writes that milestones were fixed on the roads for the convenience of the travelers” (1986:15). This discussion, according to him (ibid), shows that “the writing system existed in India prior to the Mauryan King, Asoka. But, unfortunately we have not yet come across any material evidence like inscriptions to enable us to know about the nature of this writing. Any future discovery in this regard will be an event of great significance. Till then, we have to take it that the earliest datable epigraphs discovered and deciphered so far in India are the famous edicts of the Mauryan King, Asoka”. Because of this reason, the date of early Tamil-Brāhmi inscriptions mostly available in the cave-beds of the jurisdiction of then Pandiya kingdom has been assigned to 3rd century B.C. to 1st century A.D. So, the determinations of the age of Tolkāppiyam assigned (by those scholars) to the period before 3rd century B.C. do not seem to be empirical.
Post-Ashoka’s inscription period assigned to Tolkāppiyam
Now, let us come to the views of the scholars who assigned the period of Tolkāppiyam to not earlier than 3rd century B.C. Tolkāppiyam, according to Sastri (1979), “cannot be later than 2nd century B.C”(p.xxx). In the same manner, Kanakasabhai (1904:116) considers that Tolkāppiyam must have been composed in the first or second century B.C.” “A few learned scholars rightly consider that a few sutras, which deal with the later-day developments of different aspects of Tamil language, would have been interpolations of a later period. Excluding those few sutras, the remaining major portion can easily be assigned to the pre-Sangam period”, Meenakshisundaran (1965:52,53) states. However, he could not come forward to mention the date of pre-Sangam.
In the same manner, without indicating the period of Tolkāppiyam, Israel (1973:7) notably points out that “a good number of rules found in Tolkāppiyam are not in agreement with the usages of Sangam period or of later period. So, it would be better and befitting to take those rules to represent the period earlier than the Sangam age. However, it is very difficult to fix the exact date of Tolkāppiyanār”.
Later period assigned to Tolkāppiyam
Quoting the statement made by Vaiyapuri Pillai (1956:58) that “on the basis of certain words, rules or ideas alleged of later period and appearing in Tolkāppiyam, it is itself assigned to a later period and is brought as far as down to fifth century A.D”, Meenakshisundaran (1965:47) states that “those who made intensive study of this and Sangam literature like the old commentators hold that Tolkāppiyam belongs to pre-Sangam period”. “The symbol of diphthong ‘au’ seems to have got representation only in the period of Tolkāppiyam and in the same way, the script of ‘āytam’, too, should have been incorporated in the Tamil alphabetic system only after the period of Tolkāppiyam” (Shanmugam 1978:12).
According to the introduction to introduction of the Irayanar Kalaviyal Urai, “those who have made an intensive study of this work and the Sangam literature, like the old commentators, hold that Tolkāppiyam belongs to a pre-Sangam period”, On the other hand, materially examining the rules and explanations noted in the Tolkāppiyam sutras, Meenakshisundaran (1965:52) logically concludes, “Tolkāppiyam, as far as major portion is concerned, belongs to the pre-Sangam period. The language of the Brāhmi inscriptions is not different from the language which Tolkāppiyam portrays for us”. In contrast to his statement, as far as phonological part of Tolkāppiyam is concerned, the corpus of the photostat copy physically provided in the book makes it clear that the language of early Tamil-Brāhmi inscriptions, in many ways, differs from the rules and explanations enumerated by Tolkāppiyam.
It doubts that Tolkāppiyar’s statement that the vowel a does not occur with the consonants c, n and y at initial position in the word, but how the word Sangam existed in the period when his work was produced at the Pandian’s Court. According to Nakkīrar, Tolkāppiyam was referred by the people belonged to medieval as well as last Sangam period.
It is to be magnificently pointed out here that Tolkāppiyam, according to Nakkīranar, was very helpful to the people of medieval as well as later Sangam period. From his point of view, we came to know the fact that Tolkāppiyam was not composed at the time of firstSangam and therefore, Tolkāppiyam was not used by the people belonging to the first Sangam period. In addition, it could be assumed that there is no literary evidence to claim the existence of Tolkāppiyam at the period at which the first Sangam prevailed in the country.
Sivaraja Pillai (1984:258) Tolkāppiyam “belongs to an anterior stratum, the so-called ‘second Sangam literature’, and that it is far too much older than puRanānūRu, akanānūRu, etc., which are relegated to a special class, the ‘Third Sangam classics”. Having put forth the historical and literary evidence, Srinivasa Iyengar (1982:155-61) emphasizes that “all the poems in each anthology do not belong to one age and comes to determine the age of anthology between the 4th and the 6th century A.D”. While comparing the points discussed so for in this study with the literary evidence given by Sivaraja Pillai & Srinivasa Iyengar, empirically speaking, their findings about the age of Tolkāppiyam could not be set aside.
Twelve vowels
It is precisely emphasized that the corpus of the early Tamil-Brāhmi indisputably shows only eight vowel symbols – a, ā, i, ī, u, ū, ē, ō. Contrary to this record, there are twelve vowels which include the short vowels of e and o, as enumerated in the sutra of Tol. elu. 8.
aukāra viRuvāyp
pannī reluttu muyirena molipa (Tol. elu. 8)
Considering the short vowels e and o, which the author of the book, Early Tamil Epigraphy (from the earliest times to the sixth century A.D.), has considered to be the graphemic status in the early Tamil-Brāhmi script, they were actually not developed to graphemic status, as far as the paleographic status is concerned. The scholars working in the field of inscriptional Tamil might astonishingly have adopted the alphabetic system of either Tolkāppiyam or Sangam literature but not the original inscriptional literature reading. Therefore, it is reason to believe that no separate primary vowel symbols for e, o, ai and au were, as enumerated in Tol.elu.3 & 4, attested in the early Tamil-Brāhmi inscriptions.
AvaRRul a i u
e o ennu mappālaintu
mōrala picaikkuŋ kuRRelut tenpa (Tol. elu. 3)
ā ī ū ē ai
ō au ennu mappā lēlu
mīrala picaikku nettelut tenpa (Tol. elu. 4)
Short vowels e and o
ekara okarat tiyaRkaiyu maRRē (Tol. elu.16)
Tol. elu. 16 obviously explains the distinction between the short and long vowels of e and o. According to this sutra, the dot with the symbols represented by the long vowels of ē and ō is employed to be the representative for the short vowels of e and o, respectively. But the close watch on the vowel symbols employed in the early Tamil-Brāhmi, belonging to 3rd century B.C. to 1st century A.D., evidently shows that there was no distinction between short and long vowels of e and o. That is, no separate symbol for either short e or o has been recorded in the early Tamil-Brāhmi period.
Despite the fact that the primary short vowel e with dot on the symbol was recorded only in the late Tamil-Brāhmi inscriptions, which belong to 2nd century to 4th century A.D., there was no dot on the symbol to represent the secondary vowel of e up to the period of late Tamil-Brāhmi inscriptions. On contrary, it is apparent to say that the dot was put on the secondary symbol of long vowel ō to represent the short vowel of o whereas the dot on the primary symbol for representing the primary short vowel o was not recorded in the corpus even up to the period of earlyVatteluttu, the period of which is determined between 5th and 6th century A.D.
Further, it is established that there was no secondary symbol for the short vowel e at the period of Tamil-Brāhmi, the primary symbol of which was, however, attested with a dot on the symbol of the long vowel ē from the period of the late Tamil Brāhmi. Considering the corpus of the late Tamil Brāhmi and earlyVatteluttu, the symbol ē with the dot to represent the primary short vowel e occurs first in the inscription no. 85 (of the late Tamil-Brāhmi), which belongs to 4th century A.D. and subsequently in the inscription no. 117 (of the earlyVatteluttu) belonging to the period of 6th century A.D.. The secondary symbol for the short vowel o gets a dot on the combination of the long vowel ō and the consonant though it does not get the dot on the basic symbol of the long vowel ō to represent the primary symbol of the short vowel o. As far as the records on late Tamil-Brāhmi and earlyVatteluttu are concerned, the secondary short vowel o with the dot has attested only in three inscriptions – first one in 77 (of the late Tamil Brahmi inscriptions) belonging to 3rd century A.D. and the other two in 102 and 104 of the earlyVatteluttu in the corpus.
It is noteworthy to express that observing the system of dot with the symbol, Tolkāppiyar emphasized for making the short vowels of e and o from the long vowels ē and ō, respectively, as mentioned in the sutra Tol. elu. 16.
ekara okarat tiyaRkaiyu maRRee (Tol. elu. 16)
The evolution of such system seems to have sporadically developed only from the period of late Tamil-Brāhmi, the period of which is, according to the scholars from the epigraphy research, determined to 2nd to 4th century A.D. only. It is, moreover, reiterated that the existence of the dot system putting on the long vowels, ē and ō for shortening them were nowhere available in the early Tamil-Brāhmi scripts. Further, it is significant to note that the sutra Tol. elu. 16 does not, however, explicitly indicate whether putting the dot is only for the primary symbol of vowels e and o or for the secondary symbols of these two vowels, too.
As far as the vowel ai is concerned, the secondary symbol of ai splendidly occurs right from the period of early Tamil-Brāhmi. Notwithstanding, it is surprised to note that there was no attestation of primary symbol for vowel ai in both the period of early as well as late Tamil-Brāhmi inscriptions. But, Tolkāppiyar mentions about the primary vowel symbol of ai in sutras, like
ā ī ū ē ai
ō au ennu mappā lēlu
mīrala picaikku nettelut tenpa (Tol.elu. 4).
Further, it is undeniably reported that the primary basic symbol indicating ai, was, of course, found only in earlyVatteluttu even though its secondary symbol, in fact, was evident to occur even right from the period of early Tamil-Brāhmi. It is evident to express that the primary vowel symbol of ai is recorded for the first time only in the inscription No. 116 (of the early Vatteluttu) belonging to 6th century A.D. from the site of Thirunatharkunru.
Vowel symbol for au
aukāra viRuvāyp
pannī reluttu muyirena molipa (Tol. elu. 8)
It is important to mention here that despite the fact that the sutras of Tol. elu. 4 & 8, talks about the symbol for the diphthong au, -- either the primary symbol or the secondary symbol for au – was not put on record from the period of early Tamil-Brāhmi script up to the period of earlyVatteluttu. Then, it is, still, absurd to know how Tolkāppiyar mentions about the symbol of au and its combination with consonants.
Dot on the Consonants
A close observation on these two materials remarkably exhibits that the language of early Tamil-Brāhmi was, to great extent, not at all close to what sutras of Tolkāppiyam enumerates the then language of Tamil. Accordingly, the dot (pulli) system, about which Tolkāppiyar mentions in his work, was not at all available in the early Tamil-Brāhmi, belonging to 3rd century B.C. to 1st century A.D.
Of course, there is no dispute in the alphabetic system of consonants attested in both Tolkāppiyam and the early Tamil-Brāhmi since Tolkāppiyam identifies eighteen consonants and the same member of consonants existed in the early Tamil-Brāhmi. However, all the consonants,
meyyi niyaRkai pulliyotu nilaiyal (Tol. elu. 15)
according to Tol. elu.15, get dot with the symbols to represent the consonants but such a dot system was not found in the period of early Tamil-Brāhmi. If there is no dot on the consonant symbol, then that symbol should be treated as the combination of consonant plus vowel a in the Tamil alphabetical system, according to sutra (Tol. elu.17).
pulli yillā vellā meyyu
muruvuru vāki yakaramō tuyirttalum (Tol. elu.17)
Now it is clear that the system of dot on the symbol to represent the consonant is not identified in the early Tamil-Brāhmi scripts (3rd century B.C. to 1st century A.D.) though the system seems to have developed from the period of late Tamil Brahmi (2nd to 4th century A.D.). Because of this reason, in the early Tamil-Brāhmi, finding out the distinction between the individual consonant and the combination of consonant plus vowel a was difficult for the people who wants to read the inscription made in the period of early Tamil-Brāhmi. Based on the context only, the symbol was determined (by epigraphists) whether it was the combination of consonant plus vowel a, or the individual basic consonant.
It is interesting to note here that although Tolkāppiyam merely says that the significant characteristic feature of the consonant symbol is getting dot on it. Moreover, though he mentions about the dot system, there is no reference to state where the dot should be put on the symbol. In other words, it is not able to know from the sutra whether the dot was on the top of the symbol, or right, or left side of the symbol, or inside the symbol. Nowadays we put the dot on the top of the symbol. Nevertheless, no dot system had prevailed in the period of early Tamil-Brāhmi. On the other hand, it is remarkably reported that the dot has astonishingly been put on the left, right, top or even inside of the symbol in the late Tamil-Brāhmi and early Vatteluttu inscriptions. What the sutra Tol. elu.15 indicates that there is a dot on the symbol to represent consonant. Pointing out the ‘dot system’ developed from the late Tamil-Brāhmi, Mahadevan (2003:231) is of the opinion that Tolkāppiyam “must have been composed after the pulli was invented and had become an integral part of Tamil writing. Judging from the available evidence of the earliest occurrences of the pulli form about the end of 1st century A.D., Tolkāppiyam was composed most probably not earlier than the late Tamil-Brāhmi period (2nd – 4th century A.D)”.
Shortened u,i and āytam
Tolkāppiyam is talking about cārpeluttu, dependent sounds, like kuRRiyalikaram, shortened i, kuRRiyalukaram shortened u and āytam, sound like h, the latter of which is a unique sound in Tamil. There is no evidence to have a separate symbol to denote either shortened i or shortened u in any period of Tamil. So does the āytam in the corpus of the Tamil-Brāhmi and the earlyVatteluttu. That is, no separate symbol for āytam was found in the corpus of both the Tamil-Brāhmi (3rd B.C. to 1st Century A.D.) and the earlyVatteluttu (5th to 6th century A.D). But the description of the symbol āytam occurs in many sutras in Tolkāppiyam.
avaitān
kuRRiya likaraŋ kuRRiya lukara
māytamenRa
muppāR pulliyu meluttō ranna(Tol. elu. 2)
According to Tol. elu. 2,āytam with kuRRiyayalukaram, the shortened u, and kuRRiyalikaram, the shortened i, is enumerated and listed out in the Tamil alphabetic system.
Space system
Observing the corpus of the Tamil-Brāhmi, no space has been found between the forms or the words. Only one of the inscriptions (in Sittannavasal, belonging to 5th century A.D.) in the corpus, however, shows a vertical line which is alleged to function as the line boundary only in two occurrences. However, it is undoubtedly indicated that even this vertical line represents the line space but not the word space, at all. On the contrary, while observing the Tolkāppiyam sutras, space has been given only based on the system of a kind of verses. However, such a space was not based on the words, which are available nowadays in the prose writings, but mostly based on the four-foot of ‘āciriyavuriccīr, feet peculiar to the akaval verse – as 1) tēmā, a spondee a foot of two simple syllables, 2) pulimā, an iambus, one compound and one simple syllable, 3) karuvilam, an pyrrhic, two compound syllables and 4) kuuviam, a trochee, one simple and one compound syllable.
Glide system
ellā molikku muyirvaru valiyē
utampatu meyyinu ruvukolal varaiyār(Tol. elu. 140)
Tol. elu. 140 indicates about the glides, which would, in term of sandhi system, be present when two forms – one ending with vowel and the other beginning with vowel – combine together. But the early Tamil-Brāhmi inscriptions bring to light only the non-occurrence of glides – y and v in the external sandhi except in only one case as attested in elai–y–ūr(34). Orthographically, this case, too, can, in other way, be construed as elai-ya-ūr since the symbol y could be interpreted as either y or ya, as far as the early Tamil-Brāhmi is concerned. As a result, there may be a chance not to treat it glide. Moreover, in many occurrences where the glide should have been present, the presence of glide had not been recorded. Nevertheless, there are cases where the so-called glides were said to be present. Scrutinizing these inscriptions, these all are internal sandhi, but no external sandhi exhibits the glide system. Only four cases are reported in the early Tamil-Brāhmi.
kotiyōn (4) lāvōn (10) īttāvān (12) īruvār (48).
There are more than 34 occurrences where the vowels followed by other vowels were recorded in the corpus of earlyTamil-Brāhmi scripts. Of them some of the instances are given for the perusal, as shown below:
One of the characteristic orthographic features of the Tamil-Brāhmi inscriptions is the employment of a single consonant in writing to represent the geminated consonant sounds in language with only exception in five words. These are evidently attested in the medieval position with double consonant clusters which are the same kind of consonants, i.e. geminated consonants. Observing the data provided in the early Tamil-Brāhmi inscriptions, there is no geminated consonant system (except only in five words like dhammam, kottupit(t)ōn, attiran, kāttān and īttā) available in the early Tamil-Brāhmi inscriptions. Subramanya Aiyer (1924:288) observes that “doubling of consonant (gemination) came into late use in the Tamil language” and that its absence “is a telling feature of the records”. But Mahadevan (2003:240), arguing the above statement, expresses his concerns that “he (Aiyer) did not read the longest inscription at Mangulam (No.1 in the present corpus) which contains no fewer than five of the earliest instances of doubled consonant”.
Examining the data provided in the early Tamil-Brāhmi inscriptions, the characteristic feature of gemination system is attested only in four sites where they occur in six out of fifty nine inscriptions. Only six words – dhammam, kottupitōn, kottupittōn, attiran, kāttān and īttā – have geminated consonants. Out of these six forms, the form īttā occurs in four inscriptions from three sites – Mangulam, Kongarpuliyankulam and Jambai whereas the form kottupittōn is attested in three inscriptions from one site in Mangulam and the form kottupitōn in two inscriptions – one in the same site of Mangulam and the other in Thiruvadavur. The form attiran, which seems to have denoted a personal name, is available only in one inscription in the Mettuppatti site whereas the form dhammam, which appears to have borrowed from Sanskrit, is found in the inscription of Mangulam site. The occurrence of the form kāttān, probably denoting a village deity, is available in the inscription of Muttuppatti site.
One and the same word dhammam, which has, otherwise, been inscribed without gemination, is also attested in another inscription in the same site of Mangulam. In the same manner, there are many instances without gemination of t and t in kotupitoon ‘one who made the inscription’ available in the corpus of the early Tamil-Brāhmi. So, what the corpus of the early Tamil-Brāhmi exhibits is that only three consonants – m, t , t – have been geminated, however. Apart from these, the geminated consonant of –tt- is also available in two cases where there is no need of gemination at all. Those forms are valutti instead of valuti and mattirai instead of matirai attested in the inscription of Mangulam site and Alagarmalai site, respectively.
It is notably pointed out that according to the tabulation of Mahadevan (2003:242), the total number of occurrences where geminated consonants are expected to occur is only sixteen percentages in the period of early Tamil-Brāhmi. On the other hand, comparing to the late Tamil-Brāhmi as well as the early Vatteluttu, the gemination system has substantially increased in both the periods of time. Thus, sixteen percentages of gemination system in the period of early Tamil-Brāhmi had considerably increased to 63 percent in the period of late Tamil-Brāhmi and this figure, in turn, went up to 87 percent in the period of the early Vatteluttu. So what it means is that the system of gemination which might have been uncommon in the early period (i.e. before the period of Tolkāppiyam) might have been gradually developed in the Tamil language in the later period. .
Thus, in spite of the fact that the gemination system of plosive is sporadically found in the early Tamil-Brāhmi (3rd B.C. to 1st A.D.), there was no occurrence of other consonants gemination (except with the bilabial nasal of m. Moreover, these rare gemination systems, too, have not found both in initial and final position of the word but only in the medieval position. But, Tol. elu. 30, which explains that all the consonants except r and l can occur in gemination makes it clear that there is no possibility for the period of Tolkāppiyam to be assigned before or the contemporary period to which the early Tamil-Brāhmi inscriptions belong.
meynnilai cutti nellā veluttun
tammul tāmvarūum ra la valaŋ kataiyē (Tol. elu. 30)
Conclusion
To conclude this paper, the study elaborately discussed about the phonological system enumerated by Tolkāppiyam sutras and the scripts repertoire as a corpus of early Tamil inscriptions given by Mahadevan (2003) empirically exhibits the reverse side of the coin as against the obverse side of the coin as we have assumed about the writing system so far.
As against Sutras of Tol. elu. 3, 4 & 8, which enumerate twelve vowels, only eight vowels – a, ā, i, ī, u, ū, ē and ō – had been attested in the earlyTamil-Brāhmi inscriptions.
As mentioned by Tolkāppiyar in Sutra of Tol. elu. 16, there was no reference of dot on the symbol to represent the short vowels e and o in the early Tamil-Brāhmi (belonging to 3rd century B.C. to 1st century A.D.).
As opposed to the enumeration in Sutra of Tol. elu. 4, the primary symbol for ai was not reported in the Tamil-Brāhmi even though its secondary symbol was attested right from the earlyTamil-Brāhmi to up to this stage.
As far as the vowel symbol au is concerned, nowhere it was recorded in the period of Tamil-Brāhmi and the early Vatteluttu (i.e. even from the period of 3rd century B.C. to 6th century A.D.).
On contrary to the Sutra of Tol. elu. 2, the symbol for āytam did not occur in the Tamil-Brāhmi and the early Vatteluttu.
The dot on the primary symbol of e was at the first time reported in the period of late Tamil-Brāhmi inscriptions in general, in only one inscription belonging to 4th century A.D. in particular.
The dot on the symbol to represent the pure consonant at first started from the inscription no.60 alone (late Tamil-Brāhmi inscription) belonging to the 2nd century A.D. and widely used in the period of 3rd century A.D. The dot was reported in five inscriptions (no. 67, 69, 74, 76 and 77) in this period. After the long gap, from inscription no. 100 onwards, one can notice the dot system in almost all the inscriptions belonging to the early Vatteluttu period.
From this only one insight, it is not possible to conclude that Tolkāppiyam might have been composed in the period to which this inscription belongs. Moreover, Many points put forward by Tolkāppiyam Sutras had not been attested even in the period of 3rd century A. D. what it means is that empirically speaking, Tolkāppiyar’s work could not at all have been composed at the period of 2nd century A.D. if the scholars have given due importance to the writing system attested up to 2nd century A.D. in the inscriptional Tamil. Secondly, the inscription belonging to 3rd century A.D. put on record the dot on consonant and the vowel e and o.
Although the presence of dot on the symbol to represent consonant began only one in the inscription belonging to 2nd century A.D., the widespread development of dot system for the pure consonant has anchored only after the period of 3rd century A.D. So ignoring the only one inscription where the dot system to represent the pure consonant, the period in which Tolkāppiyam was composed could not be earlier than 3rd century A.D. Further, it can be claimed that most of the phonological features enumerated by Sutras in Tolkāppiyam have not attested in the earlier inscriptions belonging to before 3rd century A.D. In this circumstance, such as empirical study has been forced by proper and material evidence to arrive at a conclusion that Tolkāppiyam must have been composed not before 3rd century A.D. unless some one argues the period which is assigned to the Tamil-Brāhmi as well as the early Vatteluttu as available in the corpus of the inscriptions with the authentic photos in the book on ‘Early Tamil Epigraphy (from the earliest times to the sixth century A.D.)’, written by Mahadevan (2003).
The table below shows the details of the occurrences where the various script items attested in different period of early Tamil Inscriptions and the Tolkāppiyam sutras (with numbers) where they were enumerated.
Bharati, S. S. 1936. The Age of Tolkappiyam. Journal of Annamalai University, VI. pp. 121 – 138 and 216 – 229.
Chellam,V.T. 1982. The Age of Tolkappiyam. Ayvukkovai (14:2), 123 – 28. Annamalai Nagar.
Chidambaram Chettiyar, A. 1943. Advanced Studies in Prosody. Annamalai Nagar : Annamalai University Publications.
Gai, G. S. 1986. Introduction to Indian Epigraphy (with Special Reference to the Development of the Scripts and languages). Mysore : CIIL Publications.
Ilakkuvanar, S.1963. Tolkappiyam with Critical Studies. Madurai : KuRaL neRi Publishing House
Israel, M. 1973. The Treatement of Morphology in Tolkappiyam. Madurai : Madurai University Publications.
Kanakasabhai, V. 1904. The Tamils Eighteen Hundred Years ago. Madras : Higgimbotham and Co.
Mahadevan, I. 1970. Tamil-BrāhmiInscriptions. Madras : Tamilnadu State Development of Archaeology.
Mahadevan, I. 2003. Early Tamil Epigraphy (from the earliest times to the Sixth century A.D.). Chennai : Cre-A & Cambridge : Harvard University.
Manickam, V. Sp.1969. The Age of Tolkappiyam. Ayvukkovai (1:2). Annamalai Nagar.
Meenakshi, K. 1984. Grammatical Method in Astadhyayi and Tolkappiyam. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics (13:1). Thiruvananthapuram.
Meenakshisundaran, T. P.1965. A History of the Tamil Language. Poona : Deccan College Post Graduate and Research institute.
Rajamanikkam, M. 1964. The Date of Tolkappiyam. Annuals of Oriental Research, Madras University.
Rathnasabapathi, U. 1970. puLLiyum uyirum. Paper Presented in the Seminar on Tolkaappiyam. CAS in Linguistics, Annamalai university.
Sastri, P.S.S. 1979. Tolkappiyam – Collatikāram with An English Commentary. Annaalai Nagar : Annamalai University. (First published in 1945)
Shanmugam, S. V. 1978. eluttuc cīrtiruttam. Annamalai Nagar : All India Tamil Linguistics Association.
Sivaraja Pillai, K.N. 1984. The chronology of Early Tamil. Madras : University of Madras. (First published in 1932).
Srinivas Iyengar, P.T.1982. History of the Tamils (from the earliest times to 600 A.D.). Asian Educational Service : New Delhi
Srinivasa Ayyangar, M. 1974. Tamil Studies. Madras : The guardian Press
Srinivasa Pillai, K.S.1984. Tamil varalāRu (Part–II, Sec.– I), Kumbakonam : Kamakshi Amman Press. (First published in 1924).
Subramaniyan, T. N.1999. paNTaittamil eluttukkaL, Madras : International Institute of Tamil Studies. (First published in1938)
Subramanya Aiyer, K. V.1924. The Earliest Monuments of the Pandiya Country and their Inscriptions. In proceedings and Transactions of the Third All India Oriental Conference, (pp.275 – 300), Madras.
Subramoniam, V.I. 1971. Landmarks in the History of Tamil Literature. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference-Seminar of Tamil Studies (1968), ed. By R.E. Asher. International Association of Tamil Research : Madras (pp. 107-16)
Swamy, B.G. L. 1975. The Date of Tolkappiyam : A Retrospect. AOR. (Madras). pp.229 – 317.
Vaiyapuri Pillai, S. 1956. History of Tamil languages and Literature (beginning to 100 A. D.). Madras : New Century Book House.
Varadarajan, M. 1944. Origin and Development of Verbs in Tamil. (Unpublished Dissertation), Madras: University of Madras.
------------- 1955. Tolkappiyam-eluttatikāram. Commentary by Naccinārkkiniyar. Madras : Kalakam Edition.
தொல் காப்பியத்தின் காலம் - பேராசிரியர் B.G.L. சுவாமி
தொல் காப்பியத்தின் காலம் ஹாவர்டு பல்கலைக்கழக வரலாற்று ஆராய்ச்சியாளர் சீ பார்மர் தளத்தில் தொல்காப்பியம் காலம் 11- 12ம் நூற்றாண்டு பேராசிரியர் B.G.L. சுவாமி கட்டுரை பசவங்குடி குண்டப்பா லட்சுமிநாராயண சுவாமி (1918௧980, B.G.L. சுவாமி - இந்திய தாவரவியலாளர் மற்றும் கன்னட எழுத்தாளர் ஆவார், அவர் பேராசிரியர் மற்றும் தாவரவியல் துறையின் தலைவராகவும், சென்னை பிரசிடென்சி கல்லூரியின் முதல்வராகவும் இருந்தார். அவர் இந்திய எழுத்தாளரும் தத்துவஞானியுமான டி.வி.குண்டப்பாவின் மகன்.
வள்ளுவர் போலவே அறம், பொருள், இன்பம், (வீடு) (தர்ம அர்த்த காம (மோட்ச) என்ற வேத வழி முறையை வலியுறுத்துவது ஏன்?
பாயிரம்
.இந்த நூலை ஒட்டி வளர்ந்த சொற்களான சூத்திரம், காப்பியம், அதிகாரம் ஆகியன வட மொழிச் சொற்கள். சங்க இலக்கியத்தில் 27,000+ வரிகளில் காண முடியாதவை. புலவர் பெயரில் மட்டும் ‘காப்பிய’ உண்டு. ஏனெனில் அவர்கள் காப்பிய (உஷனஸ் மஹா கவியின் காவ்ய கோத்திரம்) கோத்திரத்தைச் சேர்ந்த பிராமணர்கள்.
தொல்காப்பியன் என்று பிற்காலத்தில் புகழப்பட்ட பேரறிஞரைப் பற்றி சங்க இலக்கியத்தில் ஒரு குறிப்பும் இல்லாதது ஏன்?
தொல்காப்பியர் 68 இடங்களில் பயன்படுத்தும் “என்மனார்” முதலிய சொற்கள் சங்கச் சொல்லடைவில் இல்லை என்பதோடு ‘ஆர்’ விகுதி பிற்கால விகுதியாகும். வினைச் சொற்கள் ஆன், ஆய், ஆர் என்று நெடிலில் முடிவது கலித்தொகை, பரிபாடலில் அதிகம் வரும். இவை பரிபாடல், கலித்தொகை காலத்தைச் சேர்ந்தவை. இந்த இரு நூல்கள் பற்றிய குறிப்பும் தொல். இல் உண்டு. இதற்கு முந்திய பரிபாடல், கலித்தொகை பற்றிய சான்றுகள் இழந்த நூற்பட்டியலிலும் இல்லை.
தொல். பயன்படுத்தும் இலக்கணம் ,வணிகன், காரணம் போன்ற வடமொழிச் சொற்கள் சங்க கால நூல்களில் இல்லை.
பாண்டியன்
தர்ம, அர்த்த, காம, (மோட்சம்)= அறம், பொருள், இன்பம், (வீடு) என்ற வடமொழி வரிசை திருக்குறள் காலத்தில் தோன்றி பதினென் கீழ்க்கனக்கு நூல்களில் பெருகுவதைக் காணலாம். புறம் 28, 31 பாடல்களில் காணப்படும் இந்த இந்து மதக்கருத்துக்கள் தொல். இல் 1363, 1038 சூத்திரங்களிலும் காணக்கிடக்கிறது.
9.பரைத்தமை: பரத்தையிற் பிரிவு என்பது தலைவனின் ஒழுக்கக் கேட்டிற்கு அடையாளம். சங்க நூல்கள் இவைகளை அன்றாட வாழ்வியல் நிகழ்ச்சியாகப் பேசும். ஆனால் திருக்குறள் காலத்திலிருந்து இதைக் கண்டனப் பார்வையில் காண்கின்றனர். தொல்காப்பியர் இதை ஒரு பிரிவாக இலக்கணத்திற் சொல்ல மனமில்லாமல் ஒதுக்கிவிட்டது போலத் தோன்றுகிறது. அதாவது காலத்தின் தாக்கம். பிற்கால இறையனார் களவியல் இதை ஒரு சூத்திரமாக வைத்து நூல் செய்துள்ளார். ஏழாம் நூற்றாண்டில் எழுதப்பட்டதாக பலர் சந்தேகிக்கும் சிலப்பதிகாரத்தில் பரத்தையர் வாழும் வீதியை இளங்கோ அடிகள் 22 வரிகளில் வருணிக்கிறார்.
எதுகை:- குறளைப் போல, அதிகம் காணப்படுகிறது. ஆய்த எழுத்துப் பிரயோகமும் சங்க நூல்களை விட அதிகம்.
11.ஒட்டகம்: தொல்காப்பியர் ஒட்டகம், குதிரை முதலிய சொற்களைப் பயன்படுத்துவதும் இவரது காலத்தைக் காடுகிறது. சங்க காலத்தின் இறுதிகட்டத்தில் வந்த சிறுபாணாற்றுபடையிலும் அகம் 245லும் மட்டுமே ஒட்டகம் வருகிறது.
எழுத்து அதிகாரம்: உவமம், காலம், காரம், காயம், திசை, பூதம், பூதன், மதி, ஆசிரியர், இமை, உரு, உருவு, துணி (12)
சொல் அதிகாரம்: அத்தம், ஆனை, இலக்கணம், உவமம், கருமம், களம், காரணம், திசை, தெய்வம், பூதம், சுண்ணம், வண்ணம் (12)
பொருள் அதிகாரம்: அத்தம், அந்தரம், அம்போதரங்கம், அமரர், அமுதம், அவை, ஆரம், உலகம், உவமம், உரு, ஏது, கபிலை, கரகம், கருமம், கரணம், காமம், காயம், காரணம், காலம், குணம், குஞ்சரம், சிந்தை, சின்னம், சூதர், தாரம், திசை, தூது, தெய்வம், நாடகம், நிமித்தம், பழி, பருவம், பலி, பூதம், மங்கலம், மண்டிலம், மந்திரம், மதி, மாயம், மானம், முகம், முரசு, வருணன், வள்ளி, வாணிகம் (46)
கீழ்கண்ட வார்த்தைகள் பிராக்ருதம் மூலமாக நுழைந்த சம்ஸ்கிருதச் சொற்கள்: அரசன், அரணம், அவை, ஆசான், ஆசிரியர், ஆணை, இமை, இலக்கணம், உரு, ஏமம், ஐயர், கவரி, சுண்ணம், தாமதம், தூணி, தேயம், நிச்சம், பக்கம், பண்ணத்தி, பார்ப்பனன், பையுள், மாராயம், வண்ணம்.
தொல்காப்பியத்தின் துவக்க வரியே நெருடலாக இருக்கிறது. “எழுத்தெனப்படுவது” என்று செயப்பாட்டு (வினை) பொருளில் –Pseudo Passive voice–துவக்குகிறார். இதை பொருளதிகாரத்திலும் காண்கிறோம்.உலகத்தில் எந்த நூலும் இப்படி துவங்குவது இல்லை.
சொல்லப்/ பட்டன/ படும்/ பட்ட (3-564-1, 651-1; 3-63-22, 68-8, 253-2,). இது போல மணிமேகலை-24,30. திருக்குறளிலும் ‘கொல்லப்படு’ என்ற சொல் வருகிறது. இதுவும் தொல்காப்பியத்தின் காலத்தைக் காட்டுவதோடு மூன்று அதிகாரங்களும் ஒரே காலத்தவை என்பதையும் காட்டும். புரிதல், புரிந்தோள் என்பன தொல்காப்பியத்தோடு சிலப்பதிகாரம், மணிமேகலையில் மட்டூமே வரும்.
