Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 26

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

2
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

3
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

4
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

5
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

6
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:

7
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 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.

8
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.

9
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

10
(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.

11
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

12
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.

13
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.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 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).

14
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)

15
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)

16
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;/)

17
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

18
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

19
,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

20
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. 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 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.

21
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

22
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,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,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

24
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 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

25
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

26