P. 1
Negotiating Tamil-Sanskrit Contacts-Engagements by Tamil Grammarians

Negotiating Tamil-Sanskrit Contacts-Engagements by Tamil Grammarians

|Views: 633|Likes:
Published by Veeramani Mani

More info:

Published by: Veeramani Mani on Mar 26, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





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 of cultural 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 northern Sanskrit 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 656 InRaal 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 to the 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 in religion 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 like Tolkappiyar (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 and Sanskrit thinkings. The first Saivite or Vedic grammarian Subramania Dikshitar 17th 1

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 and the 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 heritage from 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 on defining 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 the medieval times the Buddhists had switched over to Sanskrit and it echoed in the grammatical tradition followed by Buddhamitranar, the author of Viracoliyam. The hue represented by Tolkappiyar , Kunaveera Pandithar and Pavanandi are still steadfast in their 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 grammatical tradition 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 of commentary 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 of accessories 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 speaks about 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 works which 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


metarules and the phonology presented in a different way. As a follower of Aindra school Tolkappiyar follows the topic wise arrangement found in the Katantra and other similar works with out pratyahara 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 inspiration for 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 and expertise.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 the robust 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 description of 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 as objective 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 Aindra rather 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 grammatical enquiry rather than language specific. An interesting explanation given by Peraciriyar () in his commentary on Porulatikaram 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 him the 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 occasionally throwing implicit allusions to the contrasts with Sanskrit structure and forumulations. When Viracoliyam (11 A.D.)came up after a thousand years the whole language situation 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


years misled him. Even though he has approached the Tamil grammar with a completely Sanskrit model explicitly ( cf.Vatanuul marapum pukanRukontee. Karikai 2 ) he could only 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 the description 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 is one 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 of niiyir 'you(pl)' from the oblique form of num by Tolkappiyar, a lone case of this type was intended to teach the Tamil authors the nature of nominative in Sanskrit(P.V.7). He further opines that the segmentation of gender suffixes in the first chapter of Collatikaaram( 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 consonants as 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 their knowledge 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 into Tamil 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 and Kannada (and also Telugu). Innuul enna peyarttattatoo enin PaaLittiyamennum Paakata ilakkaNamum Pinkalam ennum cantoopicitiyum polavee kaarikai yaappiRRaay kuNakaankiyam ennum karunaaTakac cantamee polavum makaTuu munnilaiyuTaittaay avayaTakkmuTaittaay


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 for Ruupaavataaram being an auxiliary for yapparukalam 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 on prosody,the Vatuka or Telugu prosodical work Vaanciyar's Vatukacantam….Tamil works like Maapuraanam 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 Languages and 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 the grammatical works in Sanskrit and Tamil .The modern Malayalam grammarian A.R.Rajaraja Varma displays his knowledge of Sanskrit and Tamil grammatical works in


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 grammatical tradition 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 matra was 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 Astadhyayi hailed 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 field of knowledge like religion and philosophy, science, architecture, medicine etc the south has 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 link language 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 source of 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 for the 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 may be 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 and multilingualism 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 identified the convergences and. the commonness of Dravidian and Indo Aryan.(3). It seems the substratum and impact of Dravidian could have been one of the external elements in the emergence of Prakrit Middle Indo Aryan Languages in India


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 distinguishing different 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 script 2. the anthologization 3. and the grammar writing. Tolkappiyam or any grammar might have been written due the need for a definition 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 also led 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 a separate 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 it with 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. The language 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 to him 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 his formulations:


1.Codification of the findings of his Tamil predecessors 2. Identification of the grammatical features of Tamil and its uniqueness with a contrastive 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, loan translations etc. Tolkappiyam :First indirect evidence for Dravidian Identifying the Tamil specific structure by Tolkappiyar and his ilk distinguishing it 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 possible because 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 period when 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 Dravidian cognate 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, who was 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 nomenclature, etc. 2. 3. 4. 5. of Morpho-phonemic processes and their classifications

Appellative verb, verbal compound Parts of speech classification into Rational and Irrational class. Akam, Puram classification, and tinai divisions and their details. 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.


Tolkappiyar's Description The above features identified by Sivagnana Munivar is found in the description of Tolkappiyar,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 features 3.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 of Pratyahara .He is a follower of Aindra school which does not follow the pratyahara system.There are many 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. Muuvalapicaittal oorezuttinRee (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 Tamil specific 5. Description of vowel +vowel Sandhi with glide which is Tamil specific 6. Treatment of augments or Caariyai which is Tamil specific 6. 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 from underlying syntactic structures are specific to Tamil and to Tolkappiyam (Nachimuthu K.2008 ) 8.Kaarakas-Tolkappiyar lists eight Karakas where as Panini describes only six. Treating the 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 1934 p.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.


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 may take 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 classified into 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 Tamil aakupeyar 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 rule explaining 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 form num, 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 of Ullurai 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 loans were 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 by Puttamittiran, a local chieftain of PonpaRRi, in honour of his overlord VIrarAcEntira COzan(AD 1063- 1070 ) and commented upon by PeruntEvanAr, possibly a disciple of the author. This is written in the model of aintilakkaNam or pancalakshana of Tamil grammatical tradition i.e. containing five atikArams or sections one each on ezuttu (phonology), col (morphology and syntax), poruL (literary subject matter),yAppu


(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 the pozippurai or a 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 and recognition 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 his grammar is concise and adopts the Sanskrit tradition too. Different observations and evaluations are available of the aims and provocations for 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. provided the 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 tongue could 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 certain sections 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 interpreted as 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 literary works 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 the grammar of VIracOziyam has not fully accounted for such registers normally one encounter in the maNippiravAla literature of the SrivaishNavas and Jains in Tamil.


Another notable feature of VIracOziyam is that it contains the first translation into Tamil 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 might have 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 the likely 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. and literary works like TirukkuRaL, TirukkOvaiyAr etc. never bother to refer to VIracOziyam. Curiously even the 17th century Tamil grammatical work PirayOka vivEkam, which follows a similar transfer comparative model never, shows no explicit evidence 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 and like 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 and prAnaksara 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 cited in 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 Manipravala style and inscriptions (see below), there arose a set of grammarians who called themselves as Vatanuul vazittamizaaciriyar of pro-Sanskritic grammarians. One from such school was Buddhamitranar 11th Century A.D.), a Buddhist who wrote a contrastive transfer 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 contrastive grammar. 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


of differentiating Prakrit and Sanskrit languages.Even in Sanskrit works which deal with Sanskrit like Hemachandra 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 like Cholas 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 a grammar. 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 fully account 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 bilingualism which 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 into Tamil 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 of Tolkappiyar and others (e.g compound classification of Tolkappiyar) but prefers to follow Paninian one.He adopts prakriti 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 not correct (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 but Prayoka vivekam does not do.This is in response to the substantial Sanskrit elements borrowed into Tamil.


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 the tokai.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.206209). 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 number and 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 is a feature in Sanskrit but rarely in Tamil( naam <nam, taan< tan) 5.Aninmate and inanimate classification is basic for Tamil but Viracoliyam left it out, because it is not found in Sanskrit (P.S.S.Sastri (1934)pp.111-120). 9.Viracoliyam for the first time describes the method of Tamilising foreign words as summarily as possible at the end of Tattitappatalam56-58(T.P.M.(1974)pp276-281).He also takes note of the linguistic changes that have taken place in Tamil and described them.( P.S.S.Sastri 1934:231) He has introduced Sanskrit ideas of Alankara Sastra,Prosody etc.One may say that Buddhamittiranar's Viracozyiam, the first grammar which opened the flood gates of Sanskrit influence on Tamil with out any reservation.Dr.S.Rajaram designates the grammatical model found in Veerachozhiyam as contrastive transfer grammar.(See also P.S.S.Sastri (1934) T.P.Meenaskshisundaram(1974) ,.S.V.Shanmugham(2004) and others).P.S.S.Sastri (1934:231) opines that Veerachoziyam has not taken the genius of Tamil grammar and it is a failed attempt. It is clear from the fact that it did not gained much popularity as the mainstream grammatical tradition.However the finer insights and analytical methods have been skillfully incorporated in later grammars like Neminatham and Nannul (morpho phonemic rule of glide, verb classification,morphological analysis,taddhitanta derivations, etc.

Neminatham: Back to Tolkappiyam Tradition Phase I
After the Sanskrit oriented Grammatical treatise of Viracoliyam, came Neminatham written by Kuna Veera Panditha a Jain monk who lived in the 12th Century A.D.He limits his enquiry into the phonological and grammatical parts. It is a relatively a small work mainly intended for students composed in 97 venbas unlike in Sutra style. It has a commentary possibly written in the 14th Century.When it is compared to Tolkappiyam it is a Cinnuul or a concise digest or Katantra. It follows the mainstream Tamil grammatical tradition of Tolkappiyam.But has addressed to the new linguistic changes and has incorporated the findings of his predecessor Viracoziyam (rules on glide,taddhitanta rules ,verb classification etc ) but has retained the model envisaged by Tolkappiyar.(K.Nachimuthu 2007(5):58-61,S.V.Shanmugham (2004),Hepzi Rosemary 2007).


Nannul;Back to Tolkappiyam tradition Phase II
Pavanandi of 13th A.D. who was also Jain monk wrote the popular treatise Nannul reverted to the Tamil tradition of Tolkappiyar in full measure at the same time incorporating 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 his analysis 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 of Tamil 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 the line 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 of Tamil 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 transfer model. A few of his observations may be given as example: 1.The Verbal conjugation markers for animate-inanimate, gender number distinction is found 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 Pratisakhyas but Viracoliyam and Prayoka Vivekam follow Panini's 'suptin antam padam " which is a distortion (P.S.S.Sastri :1934 p.104)


3. Positing of Nic 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 of vikarani or conjugational sign -a etc in examples like unnappatum etc 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 Prayoka Vivekam. (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 like Viracoliyam((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 follows Vararuci 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 of irrational 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 in figurative 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. Thirdly such 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 as figurative 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 and Sanskrit and an argument for his theory of identical structure of Tamil and Sanskrit.(Nachimuthu K.1986)


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 but presents it in the most Tamil grammatical fashion with Tamil terminologies and examples unlike 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 also follows 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 pedagogic method 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 xU g[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;/)


The bilingual discourse and cross fertilization can very well be seen in other literary areas 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 the Tiruvalluva maalai 2. (The stress on the word tapu –Tolkappiyar'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 Sanskirt it is considered as dvanda by Patanjali and madhyama pada lopa by Katyayana.In Tolkappiyam when Tolkappiyar says muunRu talaiyiTTa muppatu. (103) he considers it 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 ceytu pazuuuppallanna 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 tamimozikkum urimaiyaanaaRpoola 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 puNarcciyum kuuRinaar. 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


Oruvianai oTuccol uyarpin vazitte Tol.Col91 .inip Panini out ennum urupu eeRRa collai aprataanam enRum vantaan ennum vinaiyOTu muTinata collaip prataanam enRum kuuRuvar 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.avar uraittaangku 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 uLLatan abhaavamaakak koLka.VaTanuulaar azivupaaTTabhaavattai Pratvamsaabhaavam enpar.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 veeRRumai peyar 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 Grammar indiranum ilakkanai nerntan 26 aakupeyar in Tamil grammatical in Skt it is part of bahuvrihi -totarpuTaiyatu tatguna the other 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 229 vaTanuulaar 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


,irucol irukal uraikka 40, tevvuk koLaRporuTTee Tol345 tevvuppakaiyaakum Tol.coll346 homonym two different words it should be stated twice.Tolkappiyar does according to Vatanul viti

The morphological process of suppletion of Ceyyaay type from Sanskrit models ceyyay 46 uraiyaay enpatu urai ena nirRatu.VaTanuuluLLum pacaki enpatu paca enakkuRaintu 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 and classification 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 particle 4.The enclitic particle 5Expressives 6.Analytical Grammatical Structure: 1.Postpositions 2.the dative subject construction 3.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 in Dravidian 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 a grammar 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 and Telugu follow such model and elements of such approach could be seen in the Lilatilakam and Kerala Paniniam of Malayalam


References Aji,T. A comparative Study of Viracoliyam and Prayoka Vivekam,Ph.D.thesis submitted to University of Kerala,2007 Anandanarayana H.S. 'Nominal derivations in Sanskrit Tamil',International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics,Vol.iv No.1 Janu 1976 pp.108-113 Aravendan,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 of Dravidian Linguistics,Vol.xii No.1 Janu 1983 pp.8-14 Caldwell, Robert. A Comparative Grammar of Dravidian Languages, pp. 465469,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 by KavithasaranChennai 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 Malayalam Dravidian Linguistic 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 A History of Indian Literature, VolX, fasc, 2, Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, 1976. Hepsy Rosemary, A comparative Study of Viracoliyam and Neminatham,Ph.D.thesis submitted to University of Kerala,2007 Israel M.1973 The treatment of Morphology in Tolkappiyam,,Madurai Kamarj University,Madurai Jagannatha Raja, M.K Vatamoli valattirkut Tamilarin panku (The Contribution of Tamilians to Sanskrit) New Century Book House, Chennai, 1994.


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 of Dravidian 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 of extradorninary resemblance' Avanam Seminar 2007 ( The close resemblances of megalithic script and the Harappan script are possible only if they are related and the sequence of the symbols also suggest the language of the two are also related to each other.) 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,Jawaharlal Nehru 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


Nachimuthu K. 'Anpal Penpal Unartturn Tamil Akrinaip Peyarccorkal,'. Venkatarajulu Reddiar Commemoration Volume, Reddy Association, Thiruvananthapuram, 1986 pp.6366. -----------------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,Paper presented 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 International Conference 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 by Centre 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 in the 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 of Pondicherry,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 Nineteenth Century,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 23

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 the Sanskrit Language, ----------------------The language of the Gods in the world of Men-Sanskrit Culture and Power 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 Study of 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,18911970,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


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,2008 Subramanian 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 Takkam,Ph.D.submitted to the Tamil University,2004 Samaskrita Ilakkanattin

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


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 Edition Viracoliyam,Edited by T.V.Gopala Iyer,Srimad Andavan Asramam, SriRagam, Chennai,2005 Nannul with Sankara Namasivayar Commentary,U.Ve.Swaminatha Iyer edition, Chennai 1942 Ilakkanakkottu, Edited with notes by T.V.Gopala Iyer,Saraswathy Mahal Library,1973 Pirayokavivekam, Edited with notes by T.V.Gopala Iyer,Saraswathy Mahal Library,1973 Puranananuru, U.Ve.Swaminatha Iyer edition,Chennai1963 Tirukkural with Parimelazhakar Commentary Tantialankaram,Kazhakam Edition,1963 Maranalankaram, T.V.Gopala Iyer, Srimad Andavan Asramam,SriRagam,Chennai,2005 Kuvalayanandam Jeevasambodhanai Lilatilakam Tamil Translation by M.Elayaperumal,Tamilpputhakalayam,1971 Tolkappiya Mutal Cuttira Virutti, Civagana Munivar, ArumughaNavalar Edition, 1956. Pinkalantai Nikantu,Kazhakam Edition


You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->