negotiating tamil-sanskrit contacts-engagements by tamil grammarians

8/9/2019 Negotiating Tamil-Sanskrit Contacts-Engagements by Tamil Grammarians

1/26

1

Workshop on Bilingual Discourse and Cross-cultural Fertilisation: Sanskrit and

Tamil in Mediaeval India

22 and 23 May, 2009 at Cambridge.

Wolfson College.

Negotiating Tamil-Sanskrit Contacts: Engagements by Tamil Grammarians

Krishnaswamy Nachimuthu

Jawaharlal Nehru University

New Delhi-110067

Introduction

The history of relationship between Tamil and Sanskrit in India illustrates

certain unique characteristics which are embedded in the historical and cultural

consciousness of the Tamil speaking people in relation to non Dravidian speaking

linguistic groups in India. More beyond mere linguistic identities it defines a set ofcultural values which are considered opposing in nature. The concept of Tamil Akam

verses Sanskrit Gandharva love is one such thing. Even the earliest grammarian

Tolkappiyar illustrates it contrastively in his work Tolkappiyam(S.V.Shanmugham:1989;Nachimuthu K.2007(4),2008(1))..Sangam literature also recorded

this dichotomy (S.Sathiyamoorthy:1976). Even in the Bhakti movement which followed

the classical Sangam literature between A.D.5-9 and typifies the synthesis of northernSanskrit culture and the native Tamil culture, such notions of opposing identities are

projected (Ariyan KaNTaay ,Tamilan kaNTaay-Appar "You (Siva) is Aryan and Tamil" ;

Tamilil pen maTaleeraar- "Women will not ride 'palm horse' in Tamil tradition"-Nalaayiram).The Ethical literature which describes ethical values too find the different

perceptions of ethical values of Tamil and Sanskrit speaking people (Cf.Kural 656InRaal

paci" Even if the mother is pushed to starvation one can not do unethical things

despised by the great me to save her" ).The origin of this schism could be traced back tothe religious beliefs which were cultivated by the opposing religions. The Jains and

Buddhists who were opposed to Vedic religion were behind the earliest intellectual

efforts that was giving shape to the Tamil ethos and identities which were marked by free

thinking, equality, secularism and promotion of local ethnic and folk traditions .Like inreligion in the linguistic arena the Jains were opposed to Sanskrit and promoted the local

language in a move aimed to be closer to people. The major grammarians in Tamil likeTolkappiyar (B.C. 3 -A.D.1.), Kunaveera Pandithar , the author of Neminatham(12

A.D.), Pavanandi ,the author of Nannul ( 13 A.D.) who were Jains were ardent in

promoting the Tamil identity.Buddhamitran (11th

A.D.) author of Vircoliyam who was a

Buddhisit was a synceretist and tried to give a Tamil identity amalgamating Tamil andSanskrit thinkings. The first Saivite or Vedic grammarian Subramania Dikshitar 17 th


2/26

2

Century was pro Sanskrit and the Saivite Swaminatha Desikar(17th

Cent.)also of the same

opinion with a different accent.From earlier times till 17th

Century the literary field andthe grammatical field including the domains of prosody and poetics was dominated by

predominanantly by Janins and Buddhists to some extent . The Iraiyanar Akapporul (

Circa 10th

Century A.D.)must have been the first attempt by non Jain and Buddhist and

clearly one see the effort by the work of Saivite in it to appropriate the Tamil heritagefrom Jains and Buddhists.

The ideological preference for the native tongue and the local literary

traditions must have been one of the driving forces for devising writing systems,

antholization of literary works and writing the grammatical works with an accent ondefining the specific features of Tamil tradition, right from Tolkappiyar. It seems the

Jains were relatively steadfast in it even when the scenario changed at the Pan Indian

level giving up the preference for Prakrit varieties like Arthamagadhi or Pali in favor of

Sanskrit, which by the time has become the language of power and intellect. By themedieval times the Buddhists had switched over to Sanskrit and it echoed in the

grammatical tradition followed by Buddhamitranar, the author of Viracoliyam. The huerepresented by Tolkappiyar , Kunaveera Pandithar and Pavanandi are still steadfast intheir Tamil identities, Viracoliyam is completely influenced by the new mode of Sanskrit

preference. Thus we see there are two sets of schools vatanul vazit Tamizaciriyar'followers of Sanskrit school'(Yapparunkala Virutti 6 commen.95)and the Tamil

nul vazit Tamizaciriyar ' followers of Tamil school'.The later Prayoka Vivekam

belong to the Vatanulvazi and Ilakkana kothu is a synthesis of both.Veeramamunivar,the

author of Tonnul Vilakkam belongs to Tamil nul vazi.

Pan Indian Perspective in Grammatical Tradition

Like in other fields a Pan Indian perspective is evident in the grammaticaltradition too.1. Phonetic descriptions and the arrangement of alphabetical arrangement,2

the adoption of Sutra style, 3.the conventions of tantra ukti and other devices (like

mnemonic sutras) followed in the composition of scientific texts, 4.Different types ofcommentary making and hermeneutical practices ,5. the book writing techniques

(abridgements, digests, manuals, illustrative works) 6.the employment of technical

vocabulary, 7.the theoretical and methodological approaches.8. the preparation ofaccessories like nighantu,kosa ,akaraati etc. are uniformly found in all Indian

languages.This pattern is discernible in all fields of scientific enquiry including literary

criticism.

The common traditions found in the technical vocabulary and the theoretical and

methodological approaches may be illustrated from many examples from Tamil

tradition starting from Tolkappiyam.The Panamparanar payiram to Tolkappiyam speaksabout the Tolkappiyar as follower of Aindra Traditon.He is also credited with giving a

clear schematic description of the phonological aspect unlike the other works.

Ilampuranar the first commentator of Tolkappiyam interprets it as a reference to workswhich mixes up levels. It is possible he is apparently referring to works like Astadhyayi

of Panini in which the grammar is presented with complicated pratyahara and other


3/26

3

metarules and the phonology presented in a different way. As a follower ofAindra school

Tolkappiyar follows the topic wise arrangement found in the Katantra and other similarworks with outpratyahara devises.

Even Tolkappiyar refers to the treatment of phonetics in musical texts and Vedic

text which he has not attempted (Tol.Ezhuthu 33,102-103).When he drew his inspirationfor his formulations from Sanskrit works he must have looked at it only as a universal

model and he would have synthesized it with the available local knowledge andexpertise.Employing technical terms in Tamil and using Tamil as meta language for the

grammatical description unlike in other Dravidian languages and identifying and

highlighting the special features of Tamil language by Tolkappiyar speak about therobust parallel native grammatical tradition that had preceded him.

Moreover when Ilampuranar( 10th

A.D),the first commentator of Tolkappiyam

refers to other schools he explicitly mentions how Tolkappiyar differs in the descriptionof vocative from Panini ( applying the tantra yukti :aaNai kuuRal or 'Evam naanyataa iti

niyoogaha' Tol.Porul 456) and follows Panini in the description of second case asobjective case ( applying Tantray ukti PiranuTampaTTatu taanuTampaTutal or'paravakhyam aprasiddham anumatam' (Tol.Porul 456)). Cenavaraiyar(14th A.D.) another

commentator agrees that the Tamil grammarians follow Sanskrit theories and there is

always a choice as in the case of vocative in which case Tolkappiyar follows Aindrarather than others ie.Panini( Tolkappiyam Col 74 See the commentary and

Uraiccuttiram).In another place Cenavaraiyar refers to the idea of neeyaartha ,'obcure

meaning' in the Sanskrit text as a parallel (Tol.Col 55 neyam or neyartham enpar

vatanular).It shows that the whole exercise is looked at as a discipline of grammaticalenquiry rather than language specific.

An interesting explanation given by Peraciriyar () in his commentary onPorulatikaram on tankooTkuural Utti or 'Statement of ones own theory'( a variety of

metarule) ( sutra.665)brings a clarity in understanding the approach of Tolkappiyar.

Tolkappiyar has not attempted a morphological segmentation of verbs explicitly. For himthe prakriti + pratyaya model in Sanskrit is not adequate for describing the Tamil

structure which has stem+Tense marker+png and so he indirectly proposes a three way

segmentation still retaining the two way Sanskrit model. His synthesis of approach is the

essence of his theory .(1)

In essence Tolkappiyar was ecletic in his approach and follows the pan Indian

theories and models and succeeds in describing the unique Tamil structure occasionallythrowing implicit allusions to the contrasts with Sanskrit structure and forumulations.

When Viracoliyam (11 A.D.)came up after a thousand years the whole languagesituation and the approach to Tamil grammatical description has changed. He was taken

over by the Sanskrit models and failed to discriminate the basic taxonomic difference

between the two languages. He is under the notion that Sanskrit is the mother of Tamil.Perhaps under the influence of active bilingualism and the lot of convergence that have

taken place between Tamil and Sanskrit and the power Sanskirt had achieved over the


4/26

4

years misled him. Even though he has approached the Tamil grammar with a completely

Sanskrit model explicitly ( cf.Vatanuul marapum pukanRukontee. Karikai 2 ) he couldonly syntheses it with the Tamil approach of five fold grammar retaining the features of

literary critical theories like the porul,ani,and yappu.This work according to Tamil

traditional grammatical view point is a 'perversion' or 'a blemished one' (citaivu)and

according to the view of Peraciriyar it is a spoilt work which is mixing up thedescription of Sanskrit and Tamil(Tol.Porul. marapiyal 111 Peraciriyar

Commentary:Mayankak kuuRal ennum citaivu ) .

Subramania Dikshitar the author of Prayoka Vivekam is also of the

opinion like the author of Veeracoliyam that the difference between Tamil and Sanskrit isone in ten million(P.V.49). But unlike Veeracoliyam he more frequently refers to the

parallels and differences in the structure of Tamil and Sanskrit. On such occasions

he draws the parallels in the different grammatical works in Sanskrit and Tolkappiyam

thereby implying the free exchanges. He states that the derivation of nominative form ofniiyir 'you(pl)'from the oblique form ofnum by Tolkappiyar, a lone case of this type was

intended to teach the Tamil authors the nature of nominative in Sanskrit(P.V.7). Hefurther opines that the segmentation of gender suffixes in the first chapter ofCollatikaaram( n,L,r pa maar etc) and the person number markers in Vinaiyiyal (as an aL

ar etc.) is similar to the description of atmanepadam and parasmaipadam in Sanskrit

(P.V.36).There are also more such parallels noted by him( e.g.kaaram for two consonantsas in talakaaram in Skt.laLaahaan in Tolkappiyam:P.V.50);lengthening of vowels as

found in musical texts (Tol.33 P.V.5)).Even he declares that Tamil too has grammatical

gender as in Sanskrit based on the semantic borrowings from Sanskrit (Nachimuthu

K.:1986).(2)

Example from Yaapparunkalakkaarikai

Examples from Yapparunkalakkarikai, Lilatilakam and Sinhalese grammatical

tradition indicate that grammarians of Tamil Malayalam and Sinhalese shared theirknowledge with Sanskrit but also from other Dravidian Languages. The example from

Yapparunkalakkarikai is more eloquent about it.

Amita Cakarar the author of Yapparunkalak karikai is mentioned as great

scholar in Sanskrit and Tamil and his work is described in the following words:

Ariyam ennum paarirum pauvattaik kaarikaiyaakkit tamizhppatuttiya

aruntavattupperuntanmai amutacaakarar ennum aciriyaraR ceyyappattatu

"This work was composed by the great spiritual masterAmutacakarar who rendered intoTamil in the form of Karikai verse the great ocean of knowledge of Sanskrit ."

The features of the work are compared with the similar works in Prakrit ,Sanskrit andKannada (and also Telugu).

Innuul enna peyarttattatoo enin PaaLittiyamennum Paakata ilakkaNamum Pinkalam

ennum cantoopicitiyum polavee kaarikai yaappiRRaay kuNakaankiyam ennum

karunaaTakac cantamee polavum makaTuu munnilaiyuTaittaay avayaTakkmuTaittaay


5/26

5

mayeeccurar yaappe poola utaaraNameTuttooti icaittamiz ceyyuTTuraikkoovaiyee

poolavum, arumaRaiyakattaTTakavoottil varukkakkoovaiyee poolavum

ruupaavalankaarattukku(uruupaavataarattukku) niitakacculookamee poolavum

muninaippuNarttiya ilakkaNa ilakkiyattaay.veetattiRku niruttamum viyaakaraNattiRkuk

kaarikaiyum avinayar yaappiRku naalaTi naaRpatum poolavee yaapparungkalamennum

yaappiRkangkamaay alangkaaramuTaittaayc ceyyappaTTamaiyaal yaapparungkalak -kaarikai ennum peyarttatu.

Yaapparungkalakkaarikai .1 commentary

"That being so .if you ask what this work is named for: being in the form of Karikai as

the Prakrit grammar called Paalittiyam and as the treatise on Vedic prosody called

Pingalam containing addresses to a woman and( the authors apologetic )submission to

the assembly ,as the treatise on Kannada prosody called Gunagankiyam showing

examples as mayeccurar yappu idicating mnoemonics,as icaittaamizcyceyutturaikkovai

as varukkakovai of the ATTakavottu in the precious Ved and as nitaka sloka forRuupaavataaram being an auxiliary foryapparukalam as nirukta for Veda kariaka for

vyaakaraNa and nalati narpatu for avinayar yappu and being composed with(poetic)embellishment,it is called Yapparunkalakkaarikai"

Gnaancariyam etc,kunakaangki ennum karunaTakaccantamum vaanciyar ceyta

vaTukaccantam .maapuraanam mutalaakiya tamiznuulullum pukutiyuTaiyaar

vaaykkeeTTukkoLka.

"For gaining more knowledge and for clarifying doubts consult teachers who are well

versed in the works like Gnaanacariyam etc.Kunakaanki the Karnataka work onprosody,the Vatuka or Telugu prosodical work Vaanciyar's Vatukacantam.Tamil

works likeMaapuraanam etc."

Itaiccollum uriccollum Tolkaappiyam, TakkaaNiyam, avinayam, NallaaRan mozivari

mutaliyavarrul kaNTukoLka.

"For knowing more on iTaiccol and Uriccol consult teachers who are well versed in

Tolkaappiyam,TakkaaNiyam,avinayam,NallaaRan mozivari."

Apart from Tamil, the traditions in Malayalam and other Dravidian

languages and Sinhalese also provide evidence for the pan Indian trend. Especially the

integrated organic approach to the grammatical and poetical description called the

Pancalakshana model first traced to Tolkappiyam is found in other Dravidian Languagesand Sinhalese.This could be a Southern regional trend.

The anonymous author of the first Malayalam treatise on grammar and poetics

Lilatilakam discusses the structure of the emerging Malayalam by comparing it with

Tamil and Sanskrit and also other Dravidian Languages. He is considered to be a native

comparative philologist(S.V.Shanmugham:1992 ) He refers to the formulations in thegrammatical works in Sanskrit and Tamil .The modern Malayalam grammarian

A.R.Rajaraja Varma displays his knowledge of Sanskrit and Tamil grammatical works in


6/26

6

his work on Kerala Paniniyam. It is also found that the Sinhalese text Sitad Sanghrava

follows the method of the Tamil Buddhist work Viracoliyam (H.Scharfe:1977).

All this is made possible by the Jain Buddhist and Vedic religionists sharing

knowledge under the canopy of their religious institutions, which were all India in

character.

Another important aspect of the Pan Indian character of the Indian grammaticaltradition which has not been properly looked into is the contribution of the South to

Sanskrit. Most of the Siksha works were from South and one Pari Siksha in the name of

the Tamil chieftain Pari of Sangham times. Harmut Scharfe says the definition of matrawas adopted from the Tamil tradition. Katantra in the Aindra tradtion of Sanskrit

grammar was written in the Satavahana court in the south. Dandi and Appaya Dikshita

the rhetoricians wrote their works like Kavyadarsa and Kuvalayanandam were from

South.There is also a legend that Patanjali who wrote the Mahabhasya on Astadhyayihailed from Chidambaram. The influence from Tamil traditions in the development of

grammatical knowledge found in Sanskrit could not be ruled out. So as in the other fieldof knowledge like religion and philosophy, science, architecture, medicine etc the southhas also contributed to the development of the Indian grammatical tradition through

Sanskrit. There should have been bilateral exchanges and influences which have to be

worked out to know the fusion of Tamil and Sansktit. When Sanskrit became a linklanguage and language of higher knowledge the culture it becomes a common platform

integrating several regional strands in it.

Sanskrit grammatical tradition and its grammatical structure are always a sourceof contrast and inspiration for Tamil scholars.(Sivagnana Munivar (A.D.18th

century)declares that only those who are well versed in Sanskrit works could comprehend

the Tamil structure and he praises the commentator Cenaavaraiyar of Tolkappiyam forthe same reason( Tolkappiya Cuttira Virutti).This must have been enabled by the contacts

and convergences through out history. One has to look at the impact of Dravidian on Indo

Aryan and the impact of Sanskrit on Dravidian including Tamil. These two contacts maybe traced to pre historic period through historic period.

Convergence of Indo Aryan and Dravidian: The impact of Dravidian on Indo Aryan

and vice versa

From the early period India has been cradle for the speakers of Dravidian ,Indo

Aryan and Austro Asiatic and Tibeto Buram speakers and so bilingualism andmultilingualism must have been the order of the day.The language contacts and mutual

exchanges led to mutual influence and convergence. Caldwell, Emenau, Burrow,

Andronov,P.S. Subramania Sastri,P.S.Subramaniam and many others have identifiedthe convergences and. the commonness of Dravidian and Indo Aryan.(3).

It seems the substratum and impact of Dravidian could have been one of theexternal elements in the emergence of Prakrit Middle Indo Aryan Languages in India


7/26

7

similar to the impact of Sanskrit to the emergence of South Dravidian into modern

Dravidian Language together with the internal developments.(4)

This has already laid a foundation of commonness. The grammarians like

Tolkappiyar in Tamil might have worked out their grammar in the backdrop of pan

Indian Grammatical tradition and the shared common features and the distinguishingdifferent features when the Sanskrit Tamil contact and bilingualism was in the beginning

stage.

Tolkappiyar's Engagement with Sanskrit Contact

S.V.Shanmugham in his perceptive book on Mozi unarvum mozi valarcciyum(1989) situates the emergence of Tolkappiyam after the Sangam anthologies,unlike the

traditional view that it preceded Sangam anthologies. He delineates three stages in the

early development of language and literature in Tamil.

1. the introduction of the script2. the anthologization3. and the grammar writing.

Tolkappiyam or any grammar might have been written due the need for adefinition of a language and standardization of it from among its spatial varieties.It must

have occurred at a stage when earlier variety of the language became obsolete and a need

arose to preserve and study it by successive generations. The grammar writing exercise

must have happened due to the impetus of some external contacts which might have alsoled to the defining of it and preserve it from the external impact of bilingualism and

linguistic hegemony of some foreign tongue. Lilatilakam the first grammar of Malayalam

testifies to these facts. It tried to define the emerging western dialect of Tamil as aseparate language due to the internal developments and the external contact with Sanskrit

and also the other varieties of Tamil.It delineates the efforts of the author to define the

identity of Malayalam language and literature (manipravalam and paattu) contrasting itwith Sanskrit and Tamil and other cognate Dravidian languages and preservation of it.

In the case of the emergence of Tolkappiyam also a parallelism is apparent. Thelanguage situation with the rise of bilingualism with Sanskrit and its hegemony might

have been one of the reasons for writing a grammar for Tamil defining the uniqueness of

its language and literature and arresting and regulating the influence of Sanskrit .

Drawing on the traditional grammatical analysis of the earlier period that was available tohim in Tamil and Sanskrit Tolkappiyar composed his grammatical text. This is evident

from the description and epithets used in the preface of Panamparanar

(pulanthokuttoonee pookkaru panuval).The following should have been the basis for hisformulations:


8/26

8

1.Codification of the findings of his Tamil predecessors

2. Identification of the grammatical features of Tamil and its uniqueness with acontrastive analysis with Sanskrit

3. Description of the structure of Tamil with models from Sanskrit and improvement

upon it

4. Employment of technical vocabulary based on native Tamil words,loans, loantranslations etc.

Tolkappiyam :First indirect evidence for Dravidian

Identifying the Tamil specific structure by Tolkappiyar and his ilk distinguishingit from the structure of Sanskrit is really a feat in conceptual advancement when viewing

it with the later views of the authors of Veeracoliyam and Prayoka vivekam and the

grammatical works in Kannada and Telugu( Kulli, Purushottam B ).who do not

distinguish the differences between Sanskrit and Tamil/Kannada/Telugu . It was possiblebecause of the active contacts of Tamil with Sanskrit that was in the initial stage where

the differences and sensibilities could be more discernible than in the medieval periodwhen the convergence that had taken place must have blurred the differences.

The Tolkappiyam perspective must have been the inspiration for the later 14th

Century Malayalam work Lilatilakam for identifying the commonness among Dravidiancognate languages. If Lilatilakam is credited with the founding of the view of 'Dravidian

identity (S.V.Shanmugham:1992) we can trace it to Tolkappiyam giving due credit to

Tolkappiyar.

Tamil and Sanskrit Structures contrasted in Tolkappiyam

The eighteenth century commentator of Tolkappiyam Sivagnana munivar, whowas a great scholar in Sanskrit and Tamil points out the following unique features of

Tamil as distinct from those found in Sanskrit: (.Tolkdppiyam Mutual cuttiravirutti

(1956) p.8-9, see also Pirayoka vivekam.49):

1. Description of Morpho-phonemic processes and their classifications

nomenclature, etc.

2. Appellative verb, verbal compound

3. Parts of speech classification into Rational and Irrational class.4. Akam, Puram classification, and tinai divisions and their details.

5. Venpa metre etc. are not found in Sanskrit and are peculiar to Tamil and

Tolkappiyar described all these things on the lines of Agattiyam and other earlier

works.


9/26

9

Tolkappiyar's Description

The above features identified by Sivagnana Munivar is found in the description ofTolkappiyar,which is based on the perception of distinction between Tamil and Sanskrit

after a careful contrastive study .Tolkappiyar's description of contrastive statements are

of the following kind:

1.allusions -direct and indirect

2.avoiding non Tamil features3.adopting descriptions and classifications suitable to Tamil

The reference to the Vedic description of sound features, the reference to

Gandharva marriage as equivalent to Tamil Akam are direct references. The rule for

adopting Sanskrit words and sounds (tadsams ,tadbhava) is an attempt to engage the

emerging bilingual situation. Tolkappiyar has not adopted the system ofPratyahara .He

is a follower of Aindra school which does not follow the pratyahara system.There aremany allusions direct and indirect to Sanskrit structures and theories which are

sometimes identified by the commentators. Some of them may be noted here:

1. Enumeration and classification of Tamil sounds and phonemes avoiding sibilants,

aspirates.When Tolkappiyar makes a rule that a unit phoneme will not have three matras

it is alluding to the Sanskrit phonemes where such things are available. MuuvalapicaittaloorezuttinRee (Tol.Ezuttu 5).

2. Phonotactics- Phonemic distribution specific to Tamil

3. Phonetic description of Tamil sounds

4. Sandhi :Case non case Sandhi for describing Tamil morphophonemics which is Tamilspecific

5. Description of vowel +vowel Sandhi with glide which is Tamil specific

6. Treatment of augments or Caariyai which is Tamil specific6. Tinai Classification and the gender number suffixes which are not found in Sanskrit

7. Noun Structure: Nominative Case- Vocative case as eight case according to Aindra

school accepting Paninian and Aindra views.Derivational rules of vocative case fromunderlying syntactic structures are specific to Tamil and to Tolkappiyam (Nachimuthu

K.2008 )

8.Kaarakas-Tolkappiyar lists eight Karakas where as Panini describes only six. Treatingthe action vinai as one of the Kaarakas is found only in Tolkappiyam .For Tolkappiyam it

is basic syntactic semantic principle for explaining syntax of many features like Tamil

relative participles,kurippu vinai ,aakupeyar tokai etc.(Balasubramanian,K,Meenakshi K.

1997,2008).9. Sociative ooTu .It is attached with the noun indicating more important thing in Tamil

and Tolkappiyar describes it .But in Sanskrit it is with attached with less important thing

. In later usages it is also found attached with less important things (P.S.S.Sastri 1934p.222)

10.Sociative is not known in Skt.It is part of instrumental.But it is essential in Dravidian (

P.S.S.Sastri 1934 p.222).Tolkappiyar combines both in third case as found in Sanskrit.Tamil usages in old times confirms it.


10/26

10

11..In Sanskrit the infinitive of purpose always takes for its subject,the subject of the

finite verb which follows(samaan kartrkeeshu tumun P.A.3.3.158).But in Tamil they maytake the same subject or not (eenai yeccam vinai mutalaanum aan vantiyalum vinai

nilaiyaanum taam iyan marunkin muTiyum enp (Tol.Col.232) P.S.S Sastri 1934

(p.226).This kind of Tol rule has allusion to Sanskrit structures.

12. Semantics : In Sanskrit Alankara works the words and their meanings are classifiedinto three abhida,lakshana and vyanjana.But Tolkappiyar has only two way classification

as velippatai (abhida), kurippu (lakshana and vyanjana)(Tol.Col.642)13.Uriccol: Even though there are parallels between Nirukta model and Tolkappiyam

Uriyiyal Tolkappiyar has left out the names of deities in the list of synonyms.

14.Semantics of Akupeyar:It is treated under kaaraka and vibhakti because in Tamilaakupeyar has grammatical connotation unlike in Sanskrit (Akupeyar as derivatives

belong to different grammatical classes).In Sanskrit it will be treated in poetics.

15 .The semantics of kukrippu vinai is explained applying Karaka relationship in syntax

and the meaning with logical categories (K.Nachimuthu 2007 (6)).16. Like Akupeyar Porulkol will be treated in poetics in Sanskrit.But in Tamil it will be

treated in grammar due to its syntactic aspects.(P.V.19).17. The first person singualar form ceyyay will become cey in imperative.This ruleexplaining suppletion is indicative of Sanskrit rule according to Prayoka Vivekam

(P.V.46)

18. The derivation of the nominative form of pronoun niyir'you (pl)' from oblique formnum, instead of the other way is to show the structure of nominative in Sanskrit to Tamil

teachers according to Prayoka Vivekam (P.V.7).

17. In Poetics Tolkappiyar describes the aspects of the native lyrical poetry specific to

Tamil .His emphasis on the values of chastity,the aspects of Puram poetry ,theory ofUllurai and iRaicci are unique to Tamil.Veeracoliyam who felt need for the description

of the narrative poety like epic adds Kavya Darsa in translation for his poetic theory.

Regarding the technical terms in Tolkappiyam the author has adopted

certain words directly from Sanskrit either as tadsama or tadbhava or sometimes as loan

translation.As the Sanskrit Tamil contact at that point of time was not intense direct loanswere not preferred as they will be unintelligible.But during the hey days of intense

bilingualism in the medieval and later period direct loans were encouraged as has been

done by Veeracoliyam and Prayoka Vivekam.

ViracOziyam : A Brief introduction

VIracOziyam is an important Tamil grammatical work written in 11th century

A.D since about 1000years after TolkAppiyam, the earliest extant grammar of Tamil

language belonging to the beginning of the Ist millenium A.D. It was written byPuttamittiran, a local chieftain of PonpaRRi, in honour of his overlord VIrarAcEntira

COzan(AD 1063- 1070 ) and commented upon by PeruntEvanAr, possibly a disciple ofthe author.

This is written in the model of aintilakkaNam or pancalakshana of Tamilgrammatical tradition i.e. containing five atikArams or sections one each on ezuttu

(phonology), col (morphology and syntax), poruL (literary subject matter),yAppu


11/26

11

(metrics),and alankAram (poetics). The second section on col is further divided into six

paTalams viz. 1.vERRumaippaTalam,2. upakArakappaTalam, 3.tokaippaTalam,4.tattitappaTalam, 5.tAtuppaTalam, 6.kiriyApatappaTalam. The first atikAram has only

one paTalam called cantippaTalam. The other three atikArams contain only one paTalam

under each with the name of the atikAram.

According to the colophon the name of the work is mentioned as VIracOziyakkArikai

and it contains 181 kArikai (a metrical form with 16 or 17 letters) with thepozippurai ora paraphrase commentary.

Peculiarities of ViracOziyam

Introduction of the terminology and theory of Sanskrit grammar, frequent

references to the rules of Sanskrit grammar, greater awareness and recognition of the

borrowed elements (i.e. from Sanskrit and its allied languages) in Tamil, observation andrecognition of linguistic innovations and developments in one thousand years since

TolkAppiyam, deviations from the traditional Tamil grammatical formulations and

adoption of altogether new methods and techniques in the grammatical description etc.are some of the salient features of VIracOziyam. The author himself claims that hisgrammar is concise and adopts the Sanskrit tradition too.

Different observations and evaluations are available of the aims and provocationsfor the author to write such a grammar on a foreign model (see for example: Te.Po.

MinAtcicuntaram(1974), Ce.Vai.CaNmukam(2004), Ca.VE.CuppiramaNiyam(1979) and

others). Cu.IrAcAraAmin his recent books on the Grammatical concepts of VIracOziyam(1992) argues that it was written in the model of a transfer comparative grammar that was

in vogue in Sanskrit and Prakrit in the medieval times. He also observes that the highly

bilingual situation in the COza period with Sanskrit occupying an eminent position in

higher education, religious and philosophic spheres, higher administration etc. providedthe background for the emergence of such a grammar in order to help the learners of

Tamil whose mother tongue was not Tamil. But it is more likely that it could have been

intended for those who had a prior knowledge of Sanskrit, and whose mother tonguecould have been Tamil or who had a familiarity with the spoken Tamil but needed a

better level of knowledge in the written or literary Tamil. Since the higher education in

Tamil speaking areas and elsewhere under COza rule was in Sanskrit at least for certainsections of elitist groups and for certain disciplines, it could have served as a handbook

for such learners . The observation by A.VEluppiLLai about the awareness of the usages

in inscriptional language shown by the author and the commentator could be interpretedas a trace of some links the grammar had to do with the administrators of those times.

VIracOziyam is the first grammar to formulate rules for the Tamilisation of Sanskrit

loans. Such Tamilised forms are found in the language of inscriptions and also literaryworks conforming to Tamil traditions. But VIracOziyam also mentions another two

types of literature namely viraviyal and maNippiravALam, which permit the use of

tadbhava forms and grammatical categories from Sanskrit freely. It seems that thegrammar of VIracOziyam has not fully accounted for such registers normally one

encounter in the maNippiravAla literature of the SrivaishNavas and Jains in Tamil.


12/26

12

Another notable feature of VIracOziyam is that it contains the first translation intoTamil of Dandin's KAvyAdarsa from Sanskrit.It forms the fifth section of the work.

Still another striking feature is that the author of ViracOziyam is a follower of

Buddhism , which was on the decline in the Tamil Country.The commentator who mighthave been a Buddhist,too, has not shown any familiarity with the Buddhist epic

MaNimEkalai, which was likely to have been written in an earlier period. Or else thelikely inference would be that the epic was composed at a date later than eleventh

centuryA.D-after VIracOziyam.

The testimonials in the form of imitations, adaptations, quotation etc. in the later

literature show that it was not very popular as NannUl, the later grammatical work.

NannUl and NeminAtam (13 century) show evidence for an influence of VIracOziyam on

them. Later commentators of grammatical works like TolkAppiyam, NannUl etc. andliterary works like TirukkuRaL, TirukkOvaiyAr etc. never bother to refer to

VIracOziyam. Curiously even the 17th century Tamil grammatical work PirayOkavivEkam, which follows a similar transfer comparative model never, shows no explicitevidence of the existence of VIracOziyam grammar. But the manuscript tradition of

VIracOziyam indicates that it had been continuously studied.

Because of its Buddhist origin or due to the political and cultural links, it was

popular in Srilanka even among the Sinhalese scholars. The Sidat- sangarAva, a

grammar of the old Sinhalese poetic style (Elu), written in Elu in 13th century A.D. by

Vedeha Thera is influenced by VIracOziyam, besides PAnini, KAtantra, MoggallAna andlike the former, it includes the elements of poetics. In the traditional Tamil way

consonants are likened to the 'body' and vowels to 'life' (gatakuru and paNakuru,

gAtraksara andprAnaksara in Sanskritised Sinhalese).(H. Scharfe :p. 195).

Viracoliyam: Engagements with Tamil Sanskrit Contact: Contrastive Transfer

approach

Next to Tolkappiyam there must have activities in the field of grammar as

is evidenced by the works on metrics like Yapparunkala Virutti and a host of works citedin commentaries. Approximatly after thousand years Vircoziyam in the eleventh century

was written by a Buddhist scholar Buddhamitranar.

Even as the use of Sanskrit was on the increase in general and in Manipravalastyle and inscriptions (see below), there arose a set of grammarians who called

themselves as Vatanuul vazittamizaaciriyarof pro-Sanskritic grammarians. One from

such school was Buddhamitranar 11th

Century A.D.), a Buddhist who wrote a contrastivetransfer grammar in Tamil on Sanskritic models. He gave up the Tolkappiyar model

and wrote a grammar on the basis of the Sanskrit and Prakrit grammars. It is

probable that Buddhamitranar took Prakritic grammarian's cue to write a contrastivegrammar. It may be mentioned here that the Prakritic grammars written in Sanskrit

language like Prakrita Prakasa (2nd A.D.) always follow a contrastive transfer approach


13/26

13

of differentiating Prakrit and Sanskrit languages.Even in Sanskrit works which deal with

Sanskrit likeHemachandra Vyakaranam(11th

A..D.),Samkshiptasaara of Kramadeeswara(13th A.D.) follow the same model in describing the Prakrit .In Viracozhiyam the

influence of these traditions are amply clear( e.g.Panini, Katantra ,Kacchayana's Pali

Grammar ,and other Prakrit models)(5)

When Buddhamitranar wrote his grammar the language situation was entirely

different from that of the times of Tolkappiyar.Political expansion by Tamil powers likeCholas and their external contacts, increase in inland and oversea trade, the expansion of

education ,internal and external migrations and the increasing acceptance of Sanskrit as

second and link language had created a language situation which necessitated such agrammar. For Tolkappiyar preservation and innovation were the prime concerns.

For Buddhamitranar the convergence and divergence of languages had thrown new

challenges.For him comparing and contrasting Tamil with Sanskrit had become his

prime concern while the other two aims of preservation and innovation took a back

seat.

Buddhamitranar's approach to Tamil grammar was new but could not fullyaccount the structure of Tamil Language. He was under the impression that Sanskrit is

the mother for Tamil thereby indicating that he could not distinguish the structural

differences between Tamil and Sanskrit. This may be due to the increased bilingualismwhich was active and the convergence that had taken place between Sanskrit and Tamil

over the years since the time of Tolkappiyar. He also adopted Sanskrit terminologies and

proposed rules for Tamil on the models of Sanskrit as a way of contrast and transfer

grammar He paid attention to the elements of Sanskrit structures that have crept intoTamil due to the active bilingualism. He has conveniently gave up Tolkappiyars scheme

of classification like human, non-human and mixed ,case sandhi ,non case sandhi, and

eight fold karaka classification. He just recalls the formulations in Tamil grammars ofTolkappiyar and others (e.g compound classification of Tolkappiyar) but prefers to

follow Paninian one.He adoptsprakriti pratyaya model for morphological analysis. Some

of the other aspects of his grammar may be mentioned:

1. Author of Viracoliyam prefers the term adesa used in Panini's Astadhyayi to the term

vikara used in Pratisakhyas and tiripu in Tolkappiyam (P.S.S.Sastri 1934 : p.93)2.Viracoliyam and also the later work Prayoka Vivekam follow Paninian formulation of

suptin antam padam,which is a distortion according to P.S.S.Sastri (1934)( p.104)

3.Viracoliyam imitates Panini in explaining caseforms (P.S.S.Sastri (1934)p.116)

4.Viracoliyam considers vinaikkurippu as equivalent to bhave prayoga which is notcorrect (P.S.S.Sastri (1934)p.143)

5. Morphological analysis of verbs as tinanta and proposing prakrti +pratyaya is an

imitation of Sanskrit grammar by Viracoliyam and Prayoka Vivekam (P.S.S.Sastri(1934)p.165)

6 .The focus on taddhita formations of Viracoliyam is influenced by the Paninian

model( P.S.S .Sastri(1934) p.204). Viracoliyam mixes Tamil and Sanskrit suffixes butPrayoka vivekam does not do.This is in response to the substantial Sanskrit elements

borrowed into Tamil.


14/26

14

7 Viracoliyam after dealing with tokai on the basis of Sanskrt samasa model refers to

Tamil grammarian's views on it The Tamil names are suggestive of the functions of thetokai.P.S.Sastri shows parallel passages from Vararuci Karikai on Samasas found

translated in to Tamil by Viracoliyam and Prayoka Vivekam(P.S.S.Sastri(1934) pp.206-

209).

8. Point of differences in declension between Tamil and Sanskrtit :.1.One suffix

denotes gender and number in Tamil but one pratyaya for gender another for both numberand case in Sanskrit 2.No dual in Tamil 3.case suffixes are added to the nominative

form in Tamil but in Sanskrt it is to the base 4.The addition of cariyai or augment to the

nominal stem is a feature in Tamil ( except a rare case of n in Skt).5.Vowel gradation isa feature in Sanskrit but rarely in Tamil( naam


15/26

15

Nannul;Back to Tolkappiyam tradition Phase II

Pavanandi of 13th

A.D. who was also Jain monk wrote the popular treatise Nannulreverted to the Tamil tradition of Tolkappiyar in full measure at the same timeincorporating selectively the later innovations introduced by Viracoziyam and

Neminatham ( e.g.uTampaTu mey,morphological analysis of noun and verb,Tamilisation

of Sanskrit words.)

Nannul has more pedagogic aspects and is a concise version of Tolkappiyam.The

author attempts to preserve the old Tamil grammatical tradition and incorporates

innovations selectively taking the pressure of times.

He has also introduced a morphological analysis taking the models from Sankrit

grammarians.He is considered to have followed the Janinendra Vyakharanam in hisanalysis of sounds,cases and compounds (Prayoka Vivekam 49.).A comparison of it with

Kesiraja's Kannada Grammar Sabdamani Darpana which also follows Jainendra

Vyakarana will be rewarding.Kerala Paniniyam a Malayalam grammar of 20th

Century

profusely uses its material in spite of its criticism of certain aspects in it.In essence Pavanandi attempts to bridle the attempt by Viracoliyam to allow

Sanskrit elements freely .He tries to reign in the overwhelming influence of Sanskrit

taking a realistic middle path.

Prayoka Vivekam: A return to Viracoziyam's Sanskrit Model

Subramania Dikshitar of 17th

century,who is a Sanskrit scholar and author ofTamil Prayoka Vivekam gave a new life to the Sanskrit systems in the Tamil grammatical

analysis.The work follows Panini ,Vakhyapadiyam and others for its models.It is in theline of Viracoziyam without acknowledging it in sanctioning Sanskritic uses and

Sanskrit model for Tamil grammar.It also takes the line of thinking like Viracoliyam that

there is little difference in structure between Tamil and Sanskrit. But unlike

Viracoliyam he frequently refers to the parallels and differences in the structure ofTamil and Sanskrit .It has also incorporated the insights of earlier commentators to

grammatical texts in its body of rules.Its approach is on line with the contrast transfermodel. A few of his observations may be given as example:

1.The Verbal conjugation markers for animate-inanimate, gender number distinction isfound in Tamil and is absent in Sanskrit .Case markers for nominative and the

grammatical gender in nouns are absent in Tamil.( Dual number is absent in Tamil.)

(Prayoka vivekam 49). The difference between Tamil and Sanskrit is one in ten million.

2. ellaccollum porul kuRittanave is the definition by Sanskrit logicians and Pratisakhyasbut Viracoliyam and Prayoka Vivekam follow Panini's 'suptin antam padam " which is a

distortion (P.S.S.Sastri :1934 p.104)


16/26

16

3. Positing ofNic or antarbhavita Nic for causal by Prayoka Vivekam is not correct

(P.S.S.Sastri 1934 p.149).4. Morphological analysis of verbs as tinanta and proposing prakrti +pratyaya is an

imitation of Sanskrit grammar by Viracoliyam and Prayoka Vivekam (P.S.S.Sastri:1934

p.165)

5..Identification ofvikarani or conjugational sign -a etc in examples like unnappatumetc are imitation of Sanskrit by Prayoka.Vivekam (P.S.S.Sastri :1934 p.166 )

6. poruTTu,ka ,paan ,taRku and paan are tumanta gerunds according to PrayokaVivekam. (P.S.S.Sastri:1934 p.191); Prayoka Vivekam further gives the equation of

Tamil features with Sanskrit features and describe them according to the Sanskrit

structure: ceyyaa,ceyyuu and ceypu=khamunj; Namul and yap ;cyetena= krtvaa iti,ceyin/ceytaal=karoti ceet; Ceytu =krtva ;ceya =kartum .This is not not necessary in treatise on

Tamil grammar (P.S.S.Sastri:1934 p.194)

7. kon in konnur is like upasarga in Sanskrit

8.On taddhita formation Prayoka Vivekam follows Panini likeViracoliyam((P.S.S.Sastri:1934 p.204).Viracoliyam mixes Tamil and Sanskrit suffixes

but Prayoka vivekam does not do that.9. On the description of tokai or samasa like Viracoliyam PrayokaVivekam followsVararuci Karikai.Nannul follows Jainendra Vyakaranam.

10. On the borrowing Sanskrit technical terms and tadsama and tadbhava he is more

liberal.10.Covergence: Borrowing of Grammatical meaning

.In Tamil irrational class nouns and verbs do not mark for the gender and they

are treated as neuter gender grammatically and separate words are available to indicate

the natural gender of the irrational class nouns(yAnai ,kaLiRu ,piTi) .The gender ofirrational class nouns are only semantically revealed which are dealt with in Marapiyal in

Porulatikaram by Tolkappiyar.

Most of the words of irrational words, which are used with gender

signification in literary idiom.take their gender signification from Sanskrit.It seems such

a borrowing of grammatical meaning of words enlarged their word power to indulge infigurative usages. Therefore the following things are clear.When the borrowing of

Sanskrit words directly was not permissible the meaning transfer had taken place in

different routes. An intense type of bilingualism is implied by these subtle loans. Thirdlysuch loans have been used to enlarge the Tamil idiom with power to literary

embellishment. Fourthly it is a case of convergence creating linguistic universals in two

languages belonging to different families.

Subramania Dikshitar the author of Prayoka Vivakam cites examples from

Cilappatikaram and Cintamani and other works and comes to the conclusion that these

examples are not neuter class nouns and Parimelazakar has not taken naN enum nallAL asfigurative usage and these should be considered as neuter nouns signifying gender.

Obviously he implies that these are from Sanskrit usage and so Tamil too has

grammatical gender. For him it is a case of linguistic universal found in Tamil andSanskrit and an argument for his theory of identical structure of Tamil and

Sanskrit.(Nachimuthu K.1986)


17/26

17

Ilakkanakkothu :Attempt to Tamilise the Sanskrit model

Ilakkanakkothu(17th A.D.) of Saminatha Desikar of the same century who

is also a Saivite closely follows Prayoka Vivekam in its methodology and analysis butpresents it in the most Tamil grammatical fashion with Tamil terminologies and examplesunlike Prayoka Vivekam.He even derides Tamil for not having enough power as Sanskrit

in its sound system and knowledge base.He incorporates many insights from the literary

commentaries of Parimelazhakar to Tirukkural and Peraciriyar to Tirukkovaiyar.

Other notabe works like Ilakkana vilakkam(17th A.D.) ,Saminatham(19th

A.D.),Muthuveeriyam(19th

A.D.) are replica's of Tolkappiyam or Nannul.The work of

Tonnul Vilakkam(18th

A.D.) by Constantine Joseph Beschi alias Veeramamunivar alsofollows the traditional Tamil model.We do not find enough evidence to the influence of

western model in it in spite his being the author of two works on colloquial and standard

Tamil in Latin.

Summing up

The Tamil grammarians (i.e.Tolkappiyar) could recognize the different and

unique features of Tamil language and give a description integrating the native and

non-native traditions. The Tamil grammarians also resorted to Sanskrit models if

there is a lacunae in the description of Tamil structure (e.g.Pataviyal).They also

modeled their grammars on Sanskrit models for alternative description

(e.g.Viracoliyam giving up alvazi verrumai or the description of cases).Fourthly the

preponderance of Sanskrit elements due to borrowings in the form of vocabulary

and other items necessitated the adoption of Sanskrit rules by the grammarians

(taddhitantam ,cases etc.). Fifthly the Sanskrit grammar is followed as a pedagogicmethod to project contrast transfer grammars (Viracoliyam following Prakrit and

Pali grammars) and finally to investigate the linguistic universals (Prayoka Vivekam

on the basis of the semantic borrowings ).

Footnotes

1/(jd; nfhl; Twy; -mk; Mk; vk; Vk; vd;gd Kjyhatw;iw m';'dk; gFj;njhJjw; gaDk; mit

tpidapd;wp mt;tpidbra;jhd; nky; epfH;fpd;w TwhjYnk gw;wp.tpidbrad; kU';fpw;fhybkhL tUet[k;(bjhy;/brhy;/252) vd;W ,ilr; brhy;byhL XJjYk; nghy;td mjw;F

,dbkdg;gLk; bjhy;/bghUs; nguhrpupau; ciu 665 ,jd; tpsf;fk; jd; nfhl; Twypy; gpwu;fUj;ij Vw;Fk; mnj ntisapy; jd; Ma;t[g; bghUspd; ,ay;g[f;nfw;w khw;w';fisa[k; nru;j;J xUg[jpa nfhl;ghl;il cUthf;FtJ ,d;bdhU tif vdg; nguhrpupau; fUJfpwhu;/mjhtJ ,lk; ghy; fhl;Lk;

tpFjpfisg; gFj;njhj mk; Mk; vd gpupj;Jf; fhl;odhu;/gpd; tpidKw;iwg; gFjp fhyk; fhl:Lk;

,ilepiynahL Toa gpuj;jpak; mjhtJ tlbkhHpapYs;s gpufpUjp gpuj;jpaak; vd;w KiwapYk;

fhl;odhu;/,t;thW jkpH; ,ay;g[ tps';f tlbkhHp Kiwiaa[k; Vw;W mjpy; khw;w';fisr; nru;j;J,Uepiyia a[k; jd; bfhs;ifahf ciug;gJ bjhy;fhg;gpau; bfhs;if vd;gjhfg; nguhrpupau;

ciuf;fpwhu;/)


18/26

18

The bilingual discourse and cross fertilization can very well be seen in other literaryareas too.In Tirukkural we see the synthesizing of Tamil akam puram and the four

purushartha of Sanskrit culture and in love the Tamil five fold division and the three fold

classifications.The accerptance of the Jain work Kural by the Vaidika's was possible

because of this cross fertilization .See the sentiments of Vedic acceptance of Kural in theTiruvalluva maalai

2. (The stress on the word tapuTolkappiyar's agreement of antarpaavita Nic (Tol 76 P.V.35

Adoption of kaaram by Tolkappiyar from Sanskrit (Tol.93,98 P.V.2)

Dvandva or Madhyama pada lopa

Muppattu muunru :According to Tolkappiyar it is an ummaittokai or dvandva.In Sanskirtit is considered as dvanda by Patanjali and madhyama pada lopa by Katyayana.In

Tolkappiyam when Tolkappiyar says muunRu talaiyiTTa muppatu. (103) he considersit as madhyama padalopan.It seems that he is agreement with thes two interpretations(P.V.21.)

Pluta in short vowel:Adoption from Sanskrit(P.V.5)

Pluta is three mathra and it will change the meaning in Skt.But it Tamil muvalapicaittal

oorezuttinRe (Tol.ezuthu 5)and will not change the meaning( porul veeRupaTutal Tol col

281)(P.V.5).

vaTanuulaar kuRil ninRa iTattum pulutam varum enpatu paRRittollaappiyarum zakar

ukaram niTiTan uTaitte ukaram varutal aavayinaana (Tol ezu.261) enaccuuttiram ceytupazuuuppallanna ena utaaraNam kaaTTuvar P.V.5).

Technical terms are common to Tamil and Sanskrit:

pakuti vikuti pattam.vikarpam.pulutam,matam,cuuttiram,utaaraNam,ennum

vaTamozikku uriya kuRi ellaam vaTamozikkee anRit tamimozikkumurimaiyaanaaRpoola yam innuuluL kuuRiya vaTamozikkuri ellaam tamizmozikkum aam

enka P.V.2

Sanskrit names of months and stars and the Tamil Sandhi

TinkaLum naaLum muntukiLantanna Tol.ezu 286 ennum cuttirattaal aani,aaTi tai ozinta

tingkaLum naaL irupatteezum taRpavamaakalin avai tamizaal puNarum puNarcciyumkuuRinaar. P.V.2 Compare with Panini( Cf. atipakavan Kural 1-adoption of Sanskrit

Sandhi )

Sociative ooTu with the name of high order:The difference in Sanskrit and Tamil


19/26

19

Oruvianai oTuccol uyarpin vazitte Tol.Col91 .inip Panini out ennum urupu eeRRa collai

aprataanam enRum vantaan ennum vinaiyOTu muTinata collaip prataanam enRumkuuRuvar P.V.16

Case suffixes in Compound :Different views in Sanskrti and adoption of one view by

Tolkappiyar

Case in Compounds:samasanil vipatti 19,paanini pakavaan aRaam attiyaayattul vipatti illaamal patattoTu patampuNarum canti

kuuRuvar.urupu toka varutal enRaar pola iraNTaam attiyaayattuL camaasanul vipattiyum

vitittu loopamum vitittaar.Kaattiyaayanar vipatti illai enRu cittaantam paNNinaar.avaruraittaangku uraippar Ceenaavaraiyar P.V.19 .Tolkaappiyarkkum atuvee tuNipu

Cena.Col 413.Naccinaarkkiniyar IRu tokutalin tokai ayina enpaar matam paRRi avar

uraittaanku uraippar.

Aarupum veLippaTal illatu (Nannul363) uvama urupu ilatu Na366 um ilatu Nann368

enRavaRRai iRRilee ninRu keTTa azivupaaTTabhavamaakak koLLaatu ,mun uLLatanabhaavamaakak koLka.VaTanuulaar azivupaaTTabhaavattai Pratvamsaabhaavamenpar.mun uLLatan abhaavattai pragabhaavam enpar.The case in compound is a

morphemic zero ie.pragabhaavam.

The First Case: the difference in Sanskrit and Tamil

Peyarkku ruupa peetam kaaTTum veeRRumai urupu vaTamozikku allatu Tamiz

mozikku illaamai kaNTu ezuvaay vipatti tiripil peyar (8)enRam.ezuvaay veeRRumaipeyar toonRum nilaiyee Tol.col.65 ezuvaay urupu tiripu il peyaree Nan 295

enattolkaappiyarum nannuulaarum kuuRinaar enka P.V.8

Lakshana in Aindra and Tolkappiyam:The treatment in Grammarindiranum ilakkanai nerntan 26

aakupeyar in Tamil grammatical in Skt it is part of bahuvrihi -totarpuTaiyatu tatguna theother one is atatguna

Participles of pin type:Parallel in naming

pin mun kaalkaTai vazi iTattu ennum

anna marapin kaalam kaNNiya

enna kiLaviyum avaRRiyal pinavee Tol 229vaTanuulaar ceytu enpataRkuk kiruttuva ,ceyya enpataRkuk karttumun ennaatu tuvaa

tumun ena iRu paRRio peyariTuvar.avar matam paRRit Tolkaappiyarum ciRupaanmai

pin mun kaal kaTai vazi iTatu enavum iiRRu vinaiyeccamaakkuvar P.V 38

The treatment of homonyms by Tolkappiyar in accordance with Sanskrit works


20/26

20

,irucol irukal uraikka 40, tevvuk koLaRporuTTee Tol345 tevvuppakaiyaakum

Tol.coll346 homonym two different words it should be stated twice.Tolkappiyar doesaccording to Vatanul viti

The morphological process of suppletion of Ceyyaay type from Sanskrit models

ceyyay 46 uraiyaay enpatu urai ena nirRatu.VaTanuuluLLum pacaki enpatu pacaenakkuRaintu ninRu pacaki enapporuLpaTum.paja,tiyaca,tica enpanavum

atu.VaTanuulaar ivvaaRu uraikkum karuttee paRRit Tolkaappiyarum

ceyyaay..uTaittee enRaar

Panputtokai or Compound of quality(Karmadharaya) and Classification of second

case

Nannul follows Jainendra Vyakaranam in the description of Panputtokai andclassification of second case (P.v.49,12)

Obsolete and innovation in Grammar accepted (Pazaiyana Kazital putiyana pukutal(Nannul 462).Nannular follows Panini P.V.50)]

3.The influence of Dravidian on Sanskrit and Indo Aryan

1.Retroflex Consonants

2.Past participle construction

3.Quotative particle4.The enclitic particle

5Expressives

6.Analytical Grammatical Structure: 1.Postpositions 2.the dative subject construction3.Distribution of alveo-palatal affricate before non front vowel (Could be diffusion)4.Use

of classifiers 5.

7.Loan words four principles a.absence of Indo Aryan etymology b.wide currency inDravidian c.Dravidian roots as source d.Late in Sanskrit and earlier in Old Tamil

Burrow 450 in Rg Veda) (PS Subramaniam:2008).

Ai pronunciation in Sanskrit is due to the influence of Tamil (P.S.S.Sastri pp31-32)

4. Thirugnanasambandam(1992) discusses that assimilation, new phonemic distribution

semantic loans, vocabulary etc.in Prakrit are the results of Dravidian impact on middle

Indo-Aryan Dialects.

5. The popularity of this model continued even in later period.The Paarasi Prakasa

(16th

A.D.) of Krsnadasa a Magha Brahmin lived during the time of Akbar wrote agrammar of Persian in India on the model of transfer Grammar to prove that Persian is a

tranfer from Sanskrit like Prakrit and Sanskrit even though no such parallel could be

established.(Harmut Scharfe ).The grammatical works of Sinhalese , Kannada andTelugu follow such model and elements of such approach could be seen in the

Lilatilakam and Kerala Paniniam of Malayalam


21/26

21

References

Aji,T.A comparative Study of Viracoliyam and Prayoka Vivekam,Ph.D.thesis submittedto University of Kerala,2007

Anandanarayana H.S. 'Nominal derivations in Sanskrit Tamil',International Journal of

Dravidian Linguistics,Vol.iv No.1 Janu 1976 pp.108-113Aravendan,Tamil Sinhala Ilakkana Uravu,Tayaram,Vikkiravandi,2003 Second Edition

--------------Camuka Varalarriyal Nokkil Tamilum Telunkum, Kalachuvadu, Nagercoil,

2008

Balasubramanian K.Studies in Tolkappiyam,Annamalai University,Belvalkar S.K. : Systems of Sanskrit Grammar,Bharatiya Vidya Prakasan,Delhi,Reprint

2004

Burrow T. 'Notes on Some Dravidian words in Sanskrit', International Journal ofDravidian Linguistics,Vol.xii No.1 Janu 1983 pp.8-14

Caldwell, Robert. A Comparative Grammar of Dravidian Languages, pp. 465-

469,M.adras University, 1976.

-------------- A Comparative Grammar of Dravidian or South Indian Family of

Languages, A complete and unabridged Second Edition Renewed after 133 years byKavithasaranChennai 2008

Emeneau MB. and Burrow T. Dravidian Borrowings from Indo-Aryan, Univ. of

California Press, 1962.------------'Linguistic Pre-history of India', Tamil Culture, vol. V:l,pp.30-35, Madras,

1956.

Ezhuthachan K.N. A Hisitory of Grammatical Theories in MalayalamDravidianLinguistic Association,Thriuvananthapuram

George K.M. (Editor) Samskrita Swadhinam Dradvidabhasakalilum Sahityankalilum

(Malayalam), Poorna Publications, Kozhikode,'l992.

The role of Sanskrit in the Development of DravidianLanguages and Literature,

2001.

Hart, G.L.Relation between Tamil and .Classical Sanskrit Literature, in the Series of AHistory of Indian Literature, VolX, fasc, 2, Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, 1976.

Hepsy Rosemary, A comparative Study of Viracoliyam and Neminatham,Ph.D.thesissubmitted to University of Kerala,2007

Israel M.1973 The treatment of Morphology in Tolkappiyam,,Madurai Kamarj

University,MaduraiJagannatha Raja, M.K Vatamoli valattirkut Tamilarin panku (The Contribution of

Tamilians to Sanskrit) New Century Book House, Chennai, 1994.


22/26

22

Kailasapathy,K. 'Tamil Purist Movement', On Art and Literature, NCBH, Madras,1986.

Kulli J.S.Theories of Kannada Grammar, Dravidian Linguistic

Association,Thriuvananthapuram

Kumarswamy Raja K. 'Sanskrit Influnece on Viracoliyam', International Journal ofDravidian Linguistics,Vol.xiii No.2 June 1984 pp.209-212

Mahadevan, Iravatham. 'Tamil-Brahmi Inscriptions of the Sangam Age', Second

International Conference Seminar of Tamil Studies, Madras, 1968.

------------------Early Tamil Epigraphy from earliest times to 6th

century A.D.,CreA,

Harvard,2003

Mahadevan I. 'A Megalithic Pottery Inscription and a Harappa Tablet: A case ofextradorninary resemblance' Avanam Seminar 2007 ( The close resemblances of

megalithic script and the Harappan script are possible only if they are related and thesequence of the symbols also suggest the language of the two are also related to eachother.)

Meenakshi K.Grammatical Method in Astadhyayi and Tolkappiyam, International

Journal of Dravidian Linguistics,Vol xiii.no 1 ,Jan.1984 pp.1-16

---------------Tolkappiyam and Astadhyayi, International Institute of Tamil Studies,

Chennai. 1997.

--------------Presidential Address,31st

All India Conference of Dravidian Linguists,19-21,June,2003 Chennai

----------------Relationship between Sanskrit and Tamil in Shashiprabha Kumar, (Ed)

Sanskrit and other Indian Languages,Special Centre for Sanskrit Studies,JawaharlalNehru University,New Delhi and D.K.Print World (P) Ltd. New Delhi,2007 pp147-172

Meenakshisundaran T.P.A History of Tamil Language, Deccan College, Poona, 1965.

-------------------------Foreign Models in Tamil Grammar, (pp.276281, Dravidian

Linguistics Association, Thiruvananthapuram, 1974.

Mohanty Panchanan , Dravidian Substratum and Indo Aryan Languages, Presidential

Address,35th

All India Conference of Dravidian Linguists,21-23 June, 2007 ,Myaoew

Murugaiyan, 'Did Tolkappiyar translate Paniniya Pratisakhya?', Ayvukkovai, Vol.5

pp.599-606.

---------------Tolkappiyam Pirappiyal and Paniniya Siksha-A comparative Study

International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics,Vol xvi.no 1 ,January,1987 pp.120-132


23/26

23

Nachimuthu K. 'Anpal Penpal Unartturn Tamil Akrinaip Peyarccorkal,'. Venkatarajulu

Reddiar Commemoration Volume, Reddy Association, Thiruvananthapuram, 1986 pp.63-66.

-----------------Tirukkuralil Vatamozicorporul',Ayvukkovai Vol.25 pt.2 , pp.799-803,

Puducherry 1994

--------------------Tamilil Piramozittaakkamum corporul maarramum,Ayvukkovai

------------------ Tamil Commentaries Types Principles and Practices: An over view,Paperpresented in the Conference on Forms and uses of the commentary in the Indian World

French Institute of Pondicherry, Pondicherry ,22nd

to 25th

of February ,2005(forth

coming)--------------- Current Trends in Tamil Classical Studies, Negotiations with the Past:Classical Tamil in Contemporary Tamil,Edited by Kannan M.Carlos Mena,French

Institute of Pondicherry and Tamil Chair,Department of South and Southeast Asian

Studies,University of California at Berkeley,2006 pp.117-150

------------------'The treatment of Vocative in Tolkappiyam',Sixth InternationalConference Seminar on Tamil Studies,Thanjavur 1995 and in K.Ilakkana

Araiyccikkatturaikal ,Nachimuthu Institute of Research For Language

Culture,Coimbatore,2007, pp 35-39 (1)

-------------------'The Mahabharata Text and tradition in Tamil and Malayalalm',Paper

Presented in the National Seminar on Mahabharata, organized by Sri Venkateswara

College,University of Delhi,Delhi from 27th

to 29th

May 2007 under the combined aegis

of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams and the University Grants Commission 2007(2)

-------------------- 'Key Note Address on the Development of Linguistic Nationalism in

Tamil', National Seminar on Political Strands of Regionalism in South India organized byCentre for South Indian Studies, SriVenkateswara College, Delhi University, and

sponsored by the UGC, 20th & 21st August 2007 (3)

--------------Sanskrit Influence on Tamil Language :An Overview ,paper presented inthe International Conference on the Relationship Between Tamil and Sanskrit,Affinities

and Oppositions Organised by the Indology Department,IFP and The Tamil

Chair,SSEAS,University of Californio,BerkeleyFrench Institute ofPondicherry,Pondicherry September 12-14,2007 (4)

--------------------K. Ilakkana Araiyccikkatturaikal,Nachimuthu Institute of Research For

Language Culture,Coimbatore,2007 (5)-------------Tolkappiyakkatturaikal:col , Nachimuthu Institute of Research For Language

Culture,Coimbatore,2007 (6)

---------------A Survey of Tamil Grammatical Traditions:Pre-tenth Century to NineteenthCentury,Seminar cum Workshop on Understanding language, Grammars and literature

February 6-8, 2008 ,Central Institute of Indian Languages,Mysore (1)

--------------------Morphological Analysis of Verbs in Tamil Grammatical Works:Theories

and Practices, paper presented in the International Seminar on Towards an internal


24/26

24

chronology of Theories of Ilakkanam Organized by the French School of Asian

Studies,Puducherry and CIIL ,Mysore 29th

February-2nd

March,2008 (2)

Purshottam,Boddupally ,The Theories of Telugu Grammar, Dravidian Linguistic

Association,Thriuvananthapuram

Pillai, Anavaradavinayagam, 'Sanskrit element in the Vocabularies of the Dravidian

Languages',Dravidic Studies III ,Edited by Collins, Mark, University of Madras, Madras,Reprint, 1974

Pillai, Vaiyapuri S. History of Tamil Language and Literature, pp.6773 Madras, 1956.

-----------'Tamilum Prakritamum',Collected Works of Prof. Vaiyapuri Pillai Vol.1,

Madras, 1989 pp.222-226.

---------'Tamilum Vaidika Varttaikalum', ibid., pp.226-248.

---------'Palimoliyum Tamilum', ibid..pp.249-258.-------- 'Tiruvalluvar', Tamilccutarmanikal 1956, pp; 72-73.

Pollock Sheldon,'The ideology and status of Sanskrit': Contributions to the History of theSanskrit Language,----------------------The language of the Gods in the world of Men-Sanskrit Culture andPower in Premodern India,Permanent Black,New Delhi Indian Edition 2007

Rajam Ramamoorthy. Tolkappiyam and Rgveda Pratisdkhya, Thesis Submitted to

Pennsylvania University, 1981.

Rajan K. 'Graffiti Marks and Brahami Scripts', Paper presented in the Seminar on Studyof Tamil Inscriptions' A Survey and Prospects, Dec.25-26, 1989, Tamil University,

Thanjavur.

Rajaram S.Viracoliya Ilakkank kotpatu,1992 ,Thanjavur

Ramaswamy Sumathi, Passions for the Tongue-Language Devotion in Tamil India,1891-1970,University of California Press,Berkeley,1997

Scharfe Hartmut :A History of Indian Literature:Grammatical Literature,Wiesbaden:1977

Sastri, Nilakanta K.A.History of South India, 3rd Edition, Madras, 1966.

Sastri P.S. Subramania. History of Grammatical Theories in Tamil and their relation to

Grammatical Literature in Sanskrit, Madras, 1934.

------------------An Enqiry into the relationship of Sanskrit and Tamil, Travancore

University, 1946.

Sathiyamoorthy,S. : Philosophic thought in Sangam Literature, Ph.D.Disser.

Submitted to Kerala University (unpublished) 1976


25/26

25

Subramoniam V.I. 'Dravidian LoanWords in Sanskrit', Tamil Culture, voL.XI:3, pp.1-10,Madras, 1961 (July-Sept).

Shanmugham S.V. ' Lilatilakattin Moziyunarvuk kotpatu', Tamilkkalai V01.3 No 3-4,

Tamil University, Thanjavur, 1985.

--------------------- Mozivalarcciyum Mozi Unarvum, Manivasagar Pathippakam,Chidambaram, 1989.

------------------------ Malayala Moziyin Mutal Ilakkanam, Manivasagar Pathippakam,

Chidambaram, 1992.------------------------Ilakkana Ayvu, Manivasagar Pathippakam, Chidambaram, 2004

Sivathamby K. The Political background of the Pure Tamil Movement (in Tamil),

NCBH, Madras, 1979.

Srinivasan K.S. The Ethos of Indian Literature A Study of its Romantic Tradition,Chanakya Publications, Delhi 1985

Subramaniam P.S. Dravidian Comparative Grammar-I,Centre of Excellence for

Classical Tamil,Centreal Institute of Indian Languages,Mysore,2008Subramanian S.V.Viracoliyam,Tamilp pathippakam,Chennai 1979

Sundaram C.S.Contributin of Tamilnadu to Sanskrit,Institute of Asian Studies,

Chennai,1999

Swamigal Chattampi,Adi Bhasa,Mathrubhumi Publications

Tiekan H.: Kavya in South India:Old Tamil Cankam Poetry,Gonda Indological Studies

10.Groningen,2001

Samuel G.John. Tamil Identity and Resistance to Sanskrit, Institute of Asian Studies,

Chennai, 1984.

Sankareswari,B. Itaikkalat Tamil Ilakkanakalil Samaskrita Ilakkanattin

Takkam,Ph.D.submitted to the Tamil University,2004

Sundaramoorthy K. Early Literary Theories in Tamil, Madurai, 1974.

Thirunanasambandam P. Sanskrit Tamil Contacts, DLA Publications, ISDL Complex,Thiruvananthapuram, 1992 pp.250.

Vaidyanathan, S.Indo Aryan Loan Words in Old Tamil, p. 179 ff, Madras, 1971.

Veluppillai A. Cacanamum Tamilum, Yazppanam, 1971--------------------,Tamil Varalaarrilakkanam,Chennai 1986,1980


26/26

Venkatachari K.K.A. Srivaisnava Manipravalam(12th to 15th CenturyA.D.),

Ananthachary Research Institute, Bombay,1978.

Vijayalakshmi R. A Study of Clvakacintani, L.D. Institute of Indology,Ahemadabad.

----------------------- A Study of Perunkatai, International Institute ofTamil Studies,Madras.

Ancient Tamil Texts

Tolkappiyam Collatikaram,Senavaraiyar Commentary,Kazhakam EditionViracoliyam,Edited by T.V.Gopala Iyer,Srimad Andavan Asramam, SriRagam,

Chennai,2005

Nannul with Sankara Namasivayar Commentary,U.Ve.Swaminatha Iyer edition, Chennai

1942Ilakkanakkottu, Edited with notes by T.V.Gopala Iyer,Saraswathy Mahal Library,1973

Pirayokavivekam, Edited with notes by T.V.Gopala Iyer,Saraswathy Mahal Library,1973Puranananuru, U.Ve.Swaminatha Iyer edition,Chennai1963Tirukkural with Parimelazhakar Commentary

Tantialankaram,Kazhakam Edition,1963

Maranalankaram, T.V.Gopala Iyer, Srimad Andavan Asramam,SriRagam,Chennai,2005Kuvalayanandam

Jeevasambodhanai

Lilatilakam Tamil Translation by M.Elayaperumal,Tamilpputhakalayam,1971

Tolkappiya Mutal Cuttira Virutti, Civagana Munivar, ArumughaNavalar Edition, 1956.Pinkalantai Nikantu,Kazhakam Edition

negotiating tamil-sanskrit contacts-engagements by tamil grammarians

Documents