Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Negotiating Tamil-Sanskrit Contacts-Engagements by Tamil Grammarians
Negotiating Tamil-Sanskrit Contacts-Engagements by Tamil Grammarians
Negotiating Tamil-Sanskrit Contacts: Engagements by Tamil Grammarians
Krishnaswamy Nachimuthu
Introduction
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.
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.
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 ) .
"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).
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"
"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."
"For knowing more on iTaiccol and Uriccol consult teachers who are well versed in
Tolkaappiyam,TakkaaNiyam,avinayam,NallaaRan mozivari."
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)
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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).
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).
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.)
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.
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.
16
Ilakkanakkothu :Attempt to Tamilise the Sanskrit model
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
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).
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
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.
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
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)
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
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
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
23
chronology of Theories of Ilakkanam Organized by the French School of Asian
Studies,Puducherry and CIIL ,Mysore 29th February-2nd March,2008 (2)
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.
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.
24
Subramoniam V.I. 'Dravidian LoanWords in Sanskrit', Tamil Culture, voL.XI:3, pp.1-10,
Madras, 1961 (July-Sept).
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
Samuel G.John. Tamil Identity and Resistance to Sanskrit, Institute of Asian Studies,
Chennai, 1984.
Vaidyanathan, S. Indo Aryan Loan Words in Old Tamil, p. 179 ff, Madras, 1971.
25
Venkatachari K.K.A. Srivaisnava Manipravalam(12th to 15th CenturyA.D.),
Ananthachary Research Institute, Bombay,1978.
26