||This article has an unclear citation style. (February 2014)|
The Tolkāppiyam (Tamil: தொல்காப்பியம்) is a work on the grammar of the Tamil language and the earliest extant work of Tamil literature. It is written in the form of noorpaa or short formulaic compositions and comprises three books – the Ezhuttadikaram, the Solladikaram and the Poruladikaram. Each of these books is further divided into nine chapters each. While the exact date of the work is not known, based on linguistic and other evidence, it has been dated variously between the third century BCE and the 10th century CE. Some modern scholars prefer to date it not as a single entity but in parts or layers. There is also no firm evidence to assign the authorship of this treatise to any one author.
Tolkappiyam, deals with orthography, phonology, morphology, semantics, prosody and the subject matter of literature. The Tolkāppiyam classifies the Tamil language into sentamil and koduntamil. The former refers to the classical Tamil used almost exclusively in literary works and the latter refers to the dialectal Tamil, spoken by the people in the various regions of ancient Tamilagam.
Tolkappiyam categorises alphabet into consonants and vowels by analysing the syllables. It grammatises the use of words and syntaxes and moves into higher modes of language analysis. The Tolkāppiyam formulated thirty phonemes and three dependent sounds for Tamil.
Etymology of the name
The name Tolkāppiyam derived from the combination of the two words Tonmai and kāppiyam. Tonmai means ancientness and Kappiam means literature. Kappiam is derived from Sanskrit Kavyam ( काव्यम् ).
ஈறு போதல் இடையுகரம் இய்யாதல்
நன்னூல் - 136
தொன்மை + காப்பியம்
"முன்னின்ற மெய்திரிதல்" என்னும் விதிப்படி
|Last one goes away, Middle "U" becomes "E"
First one elongates, Bottom "A" becomes "AI"
|Tonmai + Kappiam
As per rule "Last one goes"
The dating of the earliest Tamil grammatical treatise Tolkappiyam has been debated much and it is still imprecise and uncertain and has seen wide disagreements amongst scholars in the field. It has been dated variously between 3rd century BCE and the 3rd century CE.
The antediluvian datings stemmed mostly from a descriptive commentary in an 8th-century work called Iraiyanar AgapporuL, about the existence of three Tamil Academies; they have now been rejected as being devoid of any archeological/linguistic evidence. The disagreements now center around divergent dates from the 3rd century BCE or later, with one estimate (by a botanist-author) being as late as the 10th century CE. Some scholars prefer to date it not as a single entity but in parts or layers which are estimated as written between the 3rd century BCE and the 5th century CE. There is also no firm[weasel words] evidence to assign the authorship of this treatise to any one author.
- Iravatham Mahadevan, an Indian epigraphist, argues that epigraphy sets an upper limit of around the 7th century CE on the date of the Tolkappiyam, on the basis that the Tolkappiyam is familiar with the use of the puḷḷi – a diacritical mark to distinguish pure consonants from consonants with an inherent vowel – which does not occur in inscriptions before that time.
- Vaiyapuri Pillai, the author of the Tamil lexicon, dated Tolkappiyam to not earlier than the 5th or 6th century CE.
- Kamil V. Zvelebil, a Czech Indologist specialised in the Dravidian languages, dates the core of Tolkappiyam to pre-Christian era.
- Robert Caldwell, a 19th-century linguist who prepared the first comparative grammar of the Dravidian languages, maintains that all extant Tamil literature can only be dated to what he calls the Jaina cycle which he dates to the 8th to 13th centuries CE. However, Caldwell did not have the benefit of reviewing a large section of ancient Tamil literature (including ancient texts such as the Tamil: பத்துப்பாட்டு paththuppaattu and Tamil: புறநானூறு puranaanooru) that were later uncovered and published by C. V. Thamotharampillai and U. V. Swaminatha Iyer.
- Dr. B. G. L. Swamy, a botanist and historian, contends that the Tolkappiyam cannot to be dated to anything earlier than the 10th century CE.
- Takahashi Takanobu, a Japanese Indologist, argues that the Tolkappiyam has several layers with the oldest dating to 1st or 2nd century CE, and the newest and the final redaction dating to the 5th or 6th century CE.
- T.R. Sesha Iyengar, a scholar of Dravidian literature and history, estimates the date when the Tolkappiyam has been composed to lie "before the Christian era".
- Dr. Gift Siromoney, an expert on ancient languages and epigraphy, estimates the date of Tolkappiyam to be around the period of Asoka (c. 300 BCE), based on an analysis of the Tamil Brahmi inscriptions found at Anaimalai in Tamil Nadu.
- V. S. Rajam, a linguist specialised in Old Tamil, in her book A Reference Grammar of Classical Tamil Poetry: 150 B.C.–pre-Fifth/Sixth Century A.D. dates it to "pre-fifth century AD".
- Herman Tieken, a Dutch scholar, who endeavours to trace the influence of the Sanskrit Kavya tradition on the entire Sangam corpus, argues that the Tolkappiyam dates from the 9th century CE at the earliest. He arrives at this conclusion by treating the Tolkappiyam and the anthologies of Sangam literature as part of a 9th-century Pandyan project to raise the prestige of Tamil as a classical language equal to Sanskrit, and assigning new dates to the traditionally accepted dates for a vast section of divergent literature (Sangam literature, post-Sangam literature and Bhakti literature like Tevaram). Hermen Tieken's work has, however, been criticised on fundamental, methodological, and other grounds by G.E. Ferro-Luzzi, George Hart and Anne Monius.
- A C Burnell, a 19th-century Indologist who contributed seminally to the study of Dravidian languages was of the view that the Tolkappiyam could not be dated to "much later than the eighth century."
Tholkapiyam was written by "THOLKAPPIYAR" Tholkappiyar, the disciple of Agasthya, was born on May 1 in the Tamil month of Chitirai on a pournami(full moon) day in 865 BC. He was said to have been born in an agrarian family in Adankodu village in Vilavankodu taluq in Kanyakumari district,Tamil Nadu. There are references to this in his work, Tholkapiyam," explained R. Madhivanan, former Director, Tamil Etymological Dictionary Project of Government of Tamil Nadu. He further explained that since Agathiam, the grammar compiled by Agastya, went missing after the great deluge, Tholkappiyar was asked to compile Tamil grammar. Many authors however, ascribe the work to Jaina traditions and the earliest of the possibly many authors, who has been identified as Tolkappiyanaar to a heterodox Jaina order. S. Vaiyapuri Pillai has suggested that Tolkappiyanaar may have belonged to a grammatical tradition called "Aintiram", referring to the Aindra school of grammar, one of the eleven schools of grammar of Sanskrit, as mentioned in Ashtadhyayi (a view which other scholars like Burnell, Takanobu and Zvelebil share) and that he was a native of Tiruvatankotu in present day Southern Kerala.
Opinions on the influence of Sanskrit
According to a few scholars, the grammar expounded by the Tolkappiyam owes a great deal to Sanskrit. The influence or relationship of various Sanskrit works like Manavadharmashastra, Arthashastra, Natyashastra and grammarians like Pāṇini and Patanjali can be attributed in Tolkappiyam. Some scholars feel that influence of Sanskrit texts are more pronounced in Collathikaram. The eight feelings or meyppaadu mentioned in the Porulathikaram seem to agree with the eight rasas or the rasa theory of the Natyashastra.
The relationship between the Tolkappiyam and the various Sanskrit grammatical schools has also been debated. The preface to the Tolkāppiyam says that its author was well versed in aintiram. Burnell takes this to be a reference to the Aindra school of grammar referred to by other Sanskrit grammarians. He suggests that this was a pre-Pāṇinian school, and argues that the first two books of the Tolkappiyam, the Vedic Pratisakhyas, a Sanskrit grammar called the Katantra from the 3rd or 4th century, and Kaccayana's Pali grammar show significant similarities in terms of their organisation and the terminology they use, suggesting that they all belong to the same school. Takahashi, citing the views of Zvelebil and Vaiyapuri Pillai, suggests that the Aindra school is a post-Pāṇinian school, of which the Katantra is an example. Rajam argues that these studies are methodologically flawed and, after re-examining the question in relation to the first book of the Tolkappiyam, comes to the conclusion that whilst the Tolkappiyam does share characteristics with various Sanskrit works indicating a relationship, it also shows dissimilarities which are significant enough to make it unlikely that they share a common source. Instead, she suggests that these are best viewed as individual nodes within a manifold grammatical tradition.
Starting in the 11th or 12th century CE, several commentaries came to light. Of these, the one by Ilampuranar dated to the 11th or 12th century CE is considered one of the best and most comprehensive. This was followed by a commentary dateable to 1275 CE by Senavaraiyar which however, dealt only with the Sollathikaram. A commentary by Perasiriyar which is heavily indebted to the Nannūl followed. This commentary which can be dated to the 12th or 13th century CE, if not later, frequently quotes from the Dandiyalankaram and Yapparunkalam, the former being a standard medieval rhetorica and the latter being a detailed treatise on Tamil prosody. Naccinarkiniyar's commentary, which can be dated to the 14th if not the 15th or 16th century follows. Naccinarkiniyar, himself being a scholar of both Tamil and Sanskrit quotes from Parimelalakar's works. Teyvaccilaiyar's commentary follows in the 16th or 17th century. Finally, the latest available commentary, that of Kallatar comes to light. Of these commentaries, those of "Ilampooranar", "Deivachilaiyaaar" and "Natchinaarkiniyar" is regarded highly and the triumvarate are also called "Urai-asiriyargal".
|This section does not cite any references or sources. (May 2007)|
||This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. (December 2009)|
The Tolkāppiyam consists of three books each of which is divided into 9 chapters. The books are called atikarams (Sanskrit:adhikara). The three books are
- Ezhuththathigaaram - Formation of words and combination of words
- Sollathigaaram - Syntax
- Porulathigaaram - Conveying thoughts.
Ezhuththathigaaram is further subdivided into the following 9 sections - Nuul Marabu, Mozhi Marabu, PiRappiyal, PuNaRiyal, Thokai Marabu, Urubiyal, Uyir Mayangial, PuLLi Mayangial and the KutriyalukarappunaRiyal.
Nuul Marabu - (the contents of the section) This section enumerates the characters of the language, organises them into consonants, vowels and diacritic symbols. The vowels are sub classified into short and long vowels based on duration of pronunciation. Similarly, the consonants are sub classified into three categories based on the stress.
Mozhi Marabu - (the contents of the section) This section defines rules which specify where in a word can a letter not occur and which letter can not come after a particular letter. It also describes elision, which is the reduction in the duration of sound of a phoneme when preceded by or followed by certain other sounds. The rules are well-defined and unambiguous. They are categorised into 5 classes based on the phoneme which undergoes elision.
- Kutriyalugaram – the (lip unrounded) vowel sound u
- Kutriyaligaram – the vowel sound i(as the vowel in 'lip')
- Aiykaarakkurukkam – the diphthong ai
- Oukaarakkurukkam – the diphthong au
- Aaythakkurukkam – the special character (aaytham)
PiRappiyal (The content of the section) – This is a section on articulatory phonetics. It talks about pronunciation methods of the phonemes at the level of diaphragm, larynx, jaws, tongue position, teeth, lips and nose. The visual representation of the letters is also explained.
PuNaRiyal (The content of the section) The structural combination of words. (This section talks about the changes to words due to the following word i.e. it specifies rules that govern the transformations on the last phonem of a word (nilaimozhi iiRu) because of the first phonem of the following word (varumozhi muthal) when used in a sentence.)
Thokai Marabu – Combination of words based on meaning.
Urubiyal – Combination of words with case-ending along with euphony particles. (This section talks about the word modifiers that are added at the end of nouns and pronouns when they are used as an object as opposed to when they are used as subjects.)
Uyir Mayangial – Combination of words with an initial vowel-phonetic upon vowel-ending.
Pulli – Combination of words with an initial consonant-phonetic upon consonant-ending. (Pulli concept is one of the distinguishing feature among the Tamil characters. Although it is not unique and brahmi also has pulli. It is distinguished by placement. According to tolkappiam which talks about pulli and its position, that is on top of the alphabet instead of side as in Brahmi. This is also one of the characteristics of Tamil brahmi according to Mr. Mahadevan. The first inscription of this type of pulli is in Vallam by Pallvas dated to the 7th or 8th century CE by Mahendra Varman Pallava.) KutriyalukarappunaRiyal - Combination of words with an initial vowel-phonetic upon the shortened 'u' vowel-ending.
Sollathigaaram deals with words and parts of speech. It classifies Tamil words into four categories - iyar chol (words in common usage), thiri chol (words used in Tamil literature), vada chol (words borrowed from Sanskrit), thisai chol (words borrowed from other languages. There are certain rules to be adhered to in borrowing words from Sanskrit. The borrowed words need to strictly conform to the Tamil phonetic system and be written in the Tamil script.
The chapter Sollathigaaram is subdivided into the following 9 sections – KiLaviyaakkam, VEtRumaiyiyal, VEtrumaimayangial, ViLimaRabu, Peyariyal, Vinaiyiyal, Idaiyiyal, Uriyiyal and the Echchaviyal.
VEtRumaiyiyal – Role of case in syntax.
VEtrumaimayangial – some case-suffix denote other case-meaning
ViLimarabu – Formation of vocative case
Peyariyal – This section deals with nouns.
Vinaiyiyal – This section deals with verbs.
Idaiyiyal – Partial words of prefix and suffix and their formation in syntax.
Echchaviyal – Other points to be considered in syntax-formation.
The Porulathigaaram gives the classification of land types, and seasons and defines modes of life for each of the combinations of land types and seasons for different kinds of people. This chapter is subdivided into the following 9 sections – AkaththiNaiyiyal, PuRaththiNaiyiyal, KaLaviyal, KaRpiyal, PoruLiyal, Meyppaattiyal, Uvamayiyal, SeyyuLiyal and the Marabiyal.
AkaththiNaiyiyal – This section defines the modes of personal life i.e. life of couples.
PuRaththiNaiyiyal – This section defines the modes of one's public life.
KaLaviyal – Who and how expose the secret love
KaRpiyal – Behavior of the 'United couples'
PoruLiyal – How the couples expose themselves and how the kin and kith correlate with them.
Meyppaattiyal – Impact of feelings, a psychological views exposed in ancient literatures.
Uvamayiyal – The name Uvamayiyal literally translates to the nature or science of metaphors.
Marabiyal – Hereditary Tamil language
- Tamil grammar
- Scholarly articles on Tolkappiyar and Tolkappiyam [RAGHAVA IYENGAR,R.1941 Tamil Varalaru(in Tamil),Annamalai, University(Reprint 1978 )]
- * Zvelebil, Kamil. 1973. The smile of Murugan on Tamil literature of South India. Leiden: Brill. - Zvelebil dates the Ur-Tolkappiyam to the 1st or 2nd century BCE
- Ramaswamy, Vijaya (1993). "Women and Farm Work in Tamil Folk Songs". Social Scientist (Social Scientist) 21 (9/11): 113–129. doi:10.2307/3520429. JSTOR 3520429. "As early as the Tolkappiyam (which has sections ranging from the 3rd century BC to the 5th century AD) the eco-types in South India have been classified into ..."
- According to latter commentators, there were twelve regions (panniru nilam) which were the sources of the dialectisms. Zvelebil, Smile of Murugan, p 132.
- Nannūl by Pavanandhi Munivar
- Zvelebil, Kamil (1973)
- Takahashi, Takanobu (1995). "2. Erudite works". Tamil Love Poetry & Poetics. Leiden; New York; Cologne: Brill. p. 16. ISBN 90-04-10042-3. "The date of Tol[kappiyam] has been variously proposed as lying between 5320 B.C. and the 8th Cent. A.D."
- The Date of the Tolkappiyam: A Retrospect." Annals of Oriental Research (Madras), Silver Jubilee Volume: 292–317
- Takahashi, Takanobu (1995). "2. Erudite works". Tamil Love Poetry & Poetics. Leiden; New York; Cologne: Brill. p. 18. ISBN 90-04-10042-3. "These agreements may probably advance the lower limit of the date for Tol[kappiyam], but do not mean more recently than the 5th Cent. A.D., as suggested by some critics such as S. Vaiyapuri Pillai [...]"
- Caldwell, Robert (1974)
- Tieken, Herman Joseph Hugo. 2001. Kāvya in South India: old Tamil Caṅkam poetry. Groningen: Egbert Forsten.
- "This theoretical deduction is also confirmed by the actual occurrences of Pulli from about the end of the Arikamedu Period (Century 200 AD) [...] The age of the invention of the Puḷḷi has a bearing on the date of Tolkappiyam which is quite familiar with the device.Mahadevan, Iravatham (1970). "Tamil Brahmi Inscriptions". "State Dept. of Archaeology. Govt. of Tamilnadu. pp. 6–7.
- Vaiyapuri Pillai, S. 1956. History of Tamil language and literature; beginning to 1000 A.D.. Madras: New Century Book House.
- Zvelebil, Kamil (1973). The Smile of Murugan: On Tamil Literature of South India. Brill Academic Publishers. p. 137. ISBN 90-04-03591-5. "As we will see later, Tolkkapiyam, the core of which may be assigned to pre-Christian era, consists perhaps of many layers, some of which may be much earlier than others"
- Sesha Iyengar, T.R., Dravidian India by , Madras, 1925, Asian Educational Services, 31 Hauz Khas Village, New Delhi 110016, reprinted 1995, pp 156.
- Dr. Gift Siromoney, Origin of the Tamil-Brahmi script, Seminar on "ORIGIN EVOLUTION AND REFORM OF THE TAMIL SCRIPT", pp. 21–29, The Institute of Traditional Cultures, University Buildings, Madras-600005, 1983.
- Rajam, V. S. 1992. A Reference Grammar of Classical Tamil Poetry: 150 B.C.–pre-Fifth/Sixth Century A.D. Memoirs of the American philosophical society, vol. 199. Philadelphia, Pa: American Philosophical Society, p. 7
- George Hart III. "Review of Tieken's Kavya in South India." Journal of the American Oriental Institute 124:1. pp. 180–184. 2004.
- G.E. Ferro-Luzzi. "Tieken, Herman, Kavya in South India (Book review). Asian Folklore Studies. June 2001. pp. 373–374
- Anne E. Monius, Book review, The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 61, No. 4 (Nov., 2002), pp. 1404–1406
- "It is thus impossible to put the original text much later than the eighth century, for by the tenth century the whole Pāṇḍiya kingdom had fallen under the orthodox Coḷas." Burnell, A. C. (1975). "On the Aindra School of Sanskrit Grammarians: Their place in the Sanskrit and Subordinate Literatures". Mangalore: Basel Mission Book and Tract Depository. pp. 8–9.
- book titled "Tholkappiyar Kaalam", written by Dr. Madhivanan,
- Zvelebil, Kamil. 1973. The smile of Murugan on Tamil literature of South India. Leiden: Brill.
- Hart, George Poems of Ancient Tamil, There can be little question that the grammatical system expounded by the Tolkappiyam owes much to Sanskrit grammar, pp78-79
- Zvelebil, Kamil The smile of Murugan, "...Much more important is the fact that some of the nurpas seem to have been directly influenced by Sanskrit texts such as Manavadharmashastra and Arthashastra, p143
- Zvelebil, Kamil The smile of Murugan, The relationship between Patanjali, an early Skt., grammarian and the Tolk., is well established.
- Zvelebil, Kamil The smile of Murugan, "...In fact, Tolk., Col 419 seems to be almost a translation of Patanjali's Sanskrit text.", p143
- Zvelebil, Kamil The smile of Murugan, In Tolk., Porulatikaram, the eight feelings agree with the eight rasas or moods of Bharata's Natyashastra. I am very much convinced that in this point, Tolk., Porulatikaram is indebted to the Sanskrit source. p143
- Burnell, Arthur Coke (1875). On the Aindra school of Sanskrit Grammarians: their place in the Sanskrit and subordinate literatures. Mangalore: Basel Mission Book and Tract Depository. pp. 8–20.
- Takahashi, Takanobu (1995). Tamil love poetry and poetics. Leiden: E.J. Brill. p. 26.
- Rajam, V. S., A comparative study of two ancient Indian grammatical traditions: The Tamil Tolkappiyam compared with the Sanskrit Rk-pratisakhya, Taittiriya-pratisakhya, Apisali siksa, and the Astadhyayi (Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania: 1981). See pp. 1-5, and esp. 464-466: "The variation among these texts prevents me from proposing a common source for them, whereas the characteristics they share with each other prevent me from proposing mutually exclusive models as their sources... This situation provides us with a nebulous picture of a manifold ancient Indian grammatical tradition. In a tree model one can concretely talk about the definite relationship between the existing branches and nodes. But this study demonstrates that the relationship between our branches and nodes are not very definite."
- Zvelebil, Kamil, The Smile of Murugan, p134
- Zvelebil, Kamil. 1975. Tamil Literature, Leiden, Brill, ISBN 90-04-04190-7.
- Zvelebil, Kamil. 1973. The Smile of Murugan on Tamil literature of South India. Leiden: Brill.
- Takahashi, Takanobu. 1995. Tamil love poetry and poetics. Brill's Indological library, v. 9. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
- Hart, George L. 1975. The poems of ancient Tamil, their milieu and their Sanskrit counterparts. Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Burnell, Arthur Coke (1875). On the Aindra school of Sanskrit Grammarians: their place in the Sanskrit and subordinate literatures. Mangalore: Basel Mission Book and Tract Depository, 8-20.
|Wikisource has original text related to this article:|