Talk:Tolkāppiyam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Untitled[edit]

The dating of the tolkaappiyam supplied (600BC) is probably too far back in time. Most historians place it at 500BC~200BC. Additionally, this article is marred by hyperbole - can the people-who-know update this page with more concrete information?

Can you provide the concrete proof for your counter argument. If so, we can fix it up. --Rrjanbiah 05:56, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am very much interested (and have done some work on this) in contributing material on the scientific manner in which TolKaappiyam describes Tamil Grammar. Will do so in the coming days. Not very much knowledgable about the history though. -- Sundar 14:50, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Sundar, I appreciate it. --Rrjanbiah 06:29, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
tolkaappiyam is older then 200 B.C.

vEtRumai urubu[edit]

Does some one know the English equivalent of vEtrumai urubu? -- Sundar 11:35, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

It is called cases in english. It is characteristic feature of indian languages. It is called vibhakthi in sanskrit -- {venkat} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.206.71.61 (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Doesnt it mean prepostion(though not exactly?) -- Sanjeeth

Yeah, I'm concerned about the not exactly part. Actually it is the English equivalent, as you know, but the actual position in the sentence syntax is very different from that of Tamil. I remember having read something similar being called a conjugal. -- Sundar 06:14, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps it might mean postposition, which is a type of word which functions just like a preposition but comes after the noun phrase rather than before. — Hippietrail 11:46, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ya, after coming across that, even I feel that would be appropriate. -- Sundar 12:06, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Alphabet[edit]

Both this article and Tamil language use the word alphabets in the plural sever times over in contexts which make it quite clear that the correct word should be either letters or characters. Is this a mere oversight or is there some reason for it? — Hippietrail 11:46, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It was partially due to the fact that I am not a native English speaker. Thanks for pointing out. Will correct that. -- Sundar 12:01, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

It is alphabet, however the world got it wrong in copy/defining alphabet. The reason is as follws... ... Starting with alphabet, there are many opposing philosophies and some converging philosophies used in both Tamil Grammar and Sanskrit Grammar. It is evident from the definition of alphabet as the names for the "Places of Articulation" [http://bharani.dli.ernet.in/pmadurai/mp100.html |3.பிறப்பியல்]in Tolkappiyam which was misunderstood and misinterpreted during its journey around the world. The definitions similar to names of phonemes used around the world today are drastically different to the original definition of alphabet as names for the "places of articulation". This alone and many other entities in Tolkappiyam give support to the theory that Tolkappiyam is the oldest written grammar for any language. The acceptance of this theory by IPA and its attempt to link the two forms of alphabet in a meaningful way is another factor that proves that Tolkappiyam predates any other Grammar. - SiSrivas

Book[edit]

Got the text from the Tamil language page Tholkappiam-In English with Critical Studies-By Dr.S.IlakkuvanarM.A.M.O.L.Ph.D. Published By: M.Neelamalar,Educational Publishers,52/3 Soundarya colony,Annanagar west,Chennai-600101

Dates[edit]

Tholkaappiyam is definitely pre 300 BCE. Sangam literature is proven to be 200 BCE - 200 CE based on epigraphical evidences, numismatics, literary citations etc.(for example Dr. I. Mahadevan). Tholkaappiyam is pre-Sangam work (while the existence of 2nd Sangam and 1st Sangam may be questionable, due to lack of concrete evidence other than iRaiyanaar akapporuL, a work of later period, the existence of the so called last sangam is not in doubt. Tholkaappiyam belongs to a period before the 'last' sangam. There are opinions that some parts of it are of later period etc., but the consensus is that it is pre-300 BCE, with very littel dispute. (claiming 500 BCE, 700 BCE etc. require more support). --Aadal 18:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What does 'antediluvian' mean here?Nidhishunnikrishnan (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

kannith thamizh[edit]

It is said in the article, 'earning the sobriquet, kannith thamil, which can mean ever-young Tamil or "virgin Tamil".' But the word kanni means either First or 'azhivillaa' (invincible, deathless, endless). The names KanniammaaL, Kanniyappan means one who is invincible (azivillaathavaL/n). KannippOr (kanni+pOr) means maiden war (first participation/debut in war). Kannith thamizh does not mean virgin tamil. It means ever-fresh, unspoiled, ever-vibrant thamizh. In the sense of virgin forest etc. virgin tamil would be correct. --Aadal 18:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merger from Tolkaappiyar[edit]

The edit history of Tolkaappiyar says, June 2006, created the page since no page is preexist on this wonderful master piece in Tamil. Someone who knows the subject should obviously merge the duplicated articles. --Mereda 16:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

'Aindra' schools of grammar[edit]

According to A Concise History of Classical Sanskrit Literature, By Gaurinath Shastri, The Aindra schools of Sanskrit grammarians was one of a dozen or so ancient sanskrit schools 'each of which is represented by a reputed writer or established reputation'. Indra, or Aindra is mentioned as the first of the grammarians. This was later subplanted by Panini's schools of grammar.

I read a parallel to the legend that Tolkappiyam is based on Agattiyam, the grammar book written by Agastya and that Tolkappiyar was a student of Agastya. 'Was there an ancient Aindra school of grammar? Taittiriya samhita (6.4.7) connects the vedic god Indra to the origin of grammar: "Speech indeed spoke formerly without manifestation (avya krta). The gods said to Indra: 'do manifest this speech forus'... Indra approaching it from the middle made it manifest. Therefore speech is manifest (vya krta)" - From Patanjali's introduction to the Mahabhashya, quoted in Staal, J.F., "Sanskrit Philosophy of Language", Current Trends in Linguistics, 5, pp. 499-531, 1969.'

Panini: a survey of research By George Cardona states that there is no proof that there was indeed an Aindra school of grammar. It also states that this legend was concocted to state that Panini's work was based on older grammatical works of divine origins. It quotes Patanjali's Mahabhasya: '...Bhraspati proclaimed to Indra for a thousand heaven years a complete text of words listed individually and yet he did not get to teh end' (evam hi sruyate: brhaspatir indraya divyam varsa-sahasram prati-paroktanam sabdanam sabda-parayanam provaca nantam jagama. On the bases of such passages, it has been supposed that there was a grammar (vyakarana) by Indra (hence called Aindra), the pupil of Brahaspati. Conclusion: Sastri's claim is simply a means to note that Tolkappiyam was ancient by alluding to the legends that it was based on the grammar of Agastya and Indra.

I am removing the mention about the Aindra school based on the above argument. - Parthi talk/contribs 01:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Your arguments do not anywhere counter N.Shastri's version.Even if there is a counter version to that ; the correct way will be to insert that argument into the article rather than removing the referenced information .-Bharatveer 04:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


Hi guys its seems like that Sanskrit lover are always irked with Tamil language and this inclusion and discussion about the a school that doesnt even have existence prove is discussed and that too in the first passage. Hats off to your dedicated love to "Hamara Bharat" slogan, i think it goes only for non-hindi speakers. Get off from this page and do something usefull for the country.

YOU IDIOTS FOR YOUR INFORMATION THE NAME THOLKAPIAM MEANS 'OLD LITERATURE' AND SINCE NAME IS DATED FROM THE COPY VERSION AND ACTUAL PERIOD OF HIS OR HER LIFE TIME IS NOT KNOWN, EVEN HIS NAME IS NOT KNOWN THATS WHY THE NAME OF THE LITERATURE IS GIVEN AFTER THE BOOK. AND YOU IDIOTS WITH KIDNEY IN HEAD ARE ARGUING THAT HE IS RELATED TO A BULL SHIT HEAD. HA HA DONT EXPOSE YOUR KNOWLEDGE.--Rxasgomez 21:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Chapter names[edit]

Can someone please include translations of the chapter names when they are listed?

--Selket 17:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


Influence of Sanskrit grammarians See also: Aindra school of grammar Tolkāppiyam is claimed to have been modelled on the Sanskrit grammar of the Aindra school.[1] The preface of Ilampuranar's twelfth century commentary of the Tolkappiyam, describes it as aindiram nirainda ('comprising aindra').[2]. This annotation was interpreted by Arthur Coke Burnell as alluding to the pre-Paninian Aindra school of Sanskrit grammar mentioned in the Ashtadhyayi. To investigate his hunch, Burnell compared the Tolkappiyam with the non Paninian Katyantra grammar and concluded that the Tolkappiyam indeed exhibited a strong influence of the non Paninian school of grammar.[3] However, this claim has also been met with skepticism from recent researchers.[4][5]

Is it relevant to this artica and especially Aindra school of grammer story? Its very much racially manipulated passage.

Pulli[edit]

The dating of the tolkaappiyam supplied (600BC) is probably too far back in time. Most historians place it at 7th to 10th century AD. It cannot be before that. Simply because of pulli. 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 Tholkappiam 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 7-8th century AD. --comment was originally added by MGC22T (talk · contribs) Sarvagnya 10:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, foget about 10th century, Tolkappiyam was written in 1968. Before that we were all talking in mime language. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.182.124.1 (talk) 07:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Recent POV additions by Sarvagna[edit]

Sarvagna has added the following passage:

I'll assume good faith and wait for Sarvagna to provide proper reference information including quotes and page numbers (instead of simply 'Hart' or 'Zvelebil' etc). Failing that this passage will be deleted as OR. Parthi talk/contribs 22:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have done the hard work and found the missing citations for the POV text. I have tried to de-POV the passage on the influence of Sanskrit with appropriate quotes from Zvelebil's book. However thre is one sentence I couldn't find any refs for:

The original author will need to provide the citations for this. 'Pompous' Parthi talk/contribs 23:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Page numbers[edit]

Sarvagnya: You are giving book citations without page numbers. If the page numbers are given it would allow for verifiability (If you could quote relevant portion, it will be great, but provide page numbers at least). Praveen 22:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I will add both page numbers and quote the relevant portions. Give me some time. Thanks. Sarvagnya 22:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I understand. Do you have access to the books at present? It would have been logical to get the references first & then edit the content. Anyways, take your time & provide the references within reasonable time. Thanks Praveen 23:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

meghamitra 07:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Pulli theory Nobody is willing to accept the pulli theory just because it shows the real time the Tholkappiam is written. There are lot of references that show that tholkappiam is of later time. According to Tholkappiam 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 7-8th century AD by Mahendra varman pallava.

Here is what even Mahadevan writes about puLLi and TolkAppiyam in his 2003 book: "Judging from the available evidence of the earliest occurrences of the puLLi from about the end of the 1st century AD, TolkAppiyam was composed most probably not earlier than the Late Tamil-Brahmi Period (ca. 2nd-4th centuries A.D.)."

Sangam literature does not confirm to tholkappiam is yet another matter.

meghamitra 11:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC) Iraiyanar Agapporul is dated 10-12th century AD in tamil history page. he cannot be before 10th century AD as he is said to have written on the sangams periods and last sangam as 1000AD . So he should be of later period

Influence of Sanskrit[edit]

Under this section do we have any citations for influence of Pali and Prakrit grammar upon Tolkapiyam (via Buddhist and Jaina influences) Was the Sanskrit influence direct or indirect via Pali and other Prakrits ? Just a thought. Thanks Taprobanus 13:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, now. What, precisely, is "weasel" about these words? The question of the overall relationship between the Tolkappiyam and the schools of Sanskrit grammer is both wider and more general than the question of whether specific rules have been influenced by Sanskrit texts or not. -- Arvind 17:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Rajam[edit]

A good while ago, I had added a reference to Rajam's analysis of the similarities and differences between the Tolkappiyam and various Sanskrit grammars in the section on Sanskritic influences. This appears to have been removed at some stage. Was there any specific reason for this? -- Arvind 10:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Because you're a weasel artist, don't you know? -- 86.57.250.95 20:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I must confess I find that edit summary somewhat irksome. A cited reference to a scholarly work is "weasel"? Rajam *is* skeptical of Burnell's conclusions - she expressly mentions his work when questioning the methodology of past scholars. Not to mention that the author of that comment is quite wrong in relation to the scope of Burnell's treatise. Anyway, I think I'll leave this article alone for a while. -- Arvind 14:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I've restored the reference. Deleting sourced material without discussion is one thing, commenting on a good-faith editor is a personal attack too. Civility demands an apology here. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 16:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
not half as uncivil or vindictive as making oblique references to me in an unrelated arbcom or using an old CU report to misrepresent me as a sockpuppet/master on ANI, i'd reckon. wonder if those things call for apologies too :|
and, jftr, i was shooting in the dark there coz I couldnt figure who'd written those lines; suspected that it might be the work of a 'weasel artist' who was prowling my edits back then(still does)..
anyway, coming to the point, if rajam is *explicitly* skeptical of Burnell's conclusions, you'd do well to fix up the quote and p# in the ref so the ref supports what is claimed. or if anybody feels that burnell himself hasnt been represented properly, feel free to fix it. this is a wiki that anybody can edit.
atm, it is like you're using rajam's refutation of something/somebody else to refute burnell. that *is* weasel and sorry to say, doesnt fly. am removing it. fix it up if you want to bring it back. and before any more self righteous finger pointing, stop for a moment to reflect on the fact that it is thanks to me that the article even reads half decent. it used to be an incoherent ramble before I laid my hands on it. Sarvagnya 20:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like you're running a vendetta against some editors because of some perceived injustice on you! Can your hubris and stop deleting cited information. Parthi talk/contribs 00:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Could you for once make an effort to address the issue at hand instead of giving vent to your imagination? Sarvagnya 01:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Rajam between pages 1 and 3 of her work summarises the work of nine previous researchers on the Sanskrit influence in the Tolkappiyam, one of whom is Burnell (mentioned on page 2). She then argues that all of these suffer from a fundamental methodological problem, which she explains on pages 3 and 4. Page 5 explains what sort of a study would avoid this problem. She then spends four hundred and fifty pages (pp. 16 - 466) doing that study and explaining what her results mean. This makes it difficult to provide a specific quote, as you can imagine. It's not like there's one paragraph where she analyses the influence of Sanskrit grammars on the Tolkappiyam - that's just about all she does in the work - which, to my mind, makes it quite apposite to provide a cite to the entire work, rather than specific pages. After all, the section is about Sanskrit influences on the Tolkappiyam, not Burnell's views on Sanskrit influences on the Tolkappiyam, and Rajam's work is a good bit more than a mere refutation of Burnell (whose analysis is itself nowhere as Katantra focused as this article suggests).
Quite apart from that, the article as it stands does not provide page numbers for its reference to the works of Burnell, Caldwell or Trautmann. Further, some of the page numbers it provides do not bear out what the article says they do. For instance, there's nothing on page 18 of Takahasi about Katantra (or "Katyantra", as the article chooses to call it), and page 26 of Takahashi does not say that the Tol. has been "demonstrated" as having been modelled on as Katantra, merely that these authors suggest that Katantra is a work of the "aindra" school in which Panamparanar suggests Tolkappiyar was well versed. Given that, I find the repeated singling out of this one reference for removal rather frustrating.
As far as the section having been an incoherent ramble goes, such assessments are, obviously, a matter of opinion. I for my part must respectfully dissent from your assessment, both of earlier versions (such as this one from before your edits) and the present version. -- Arvind 14:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, I've rewritten the second paragraph of this section, based on what the cited sources actually say. The most substantive changes that've resulted are that:

  • the suggestion that the Tolkappiyam was "modelled" on Katantra has gone. Neither Burnell nor Takahasi make that claim, and on a quick search of the academic literature, I couldn't find anyone else who did. If anyone can find a source which actually does make that claim, please do add it in.
  • Trautmann is not cited any longer - it was being used to support what Burnell said, and all that's now directly cited to Burnell's work. Again, if there're any points he makes which aren't currently covered, add them in.
  • There's a couple of lines added at the beginning to give some context to Burnell's and Rajam's views - and Rajam's views have been expanded on, and supported with a quote as requested.

I have not at this stage added any new sources, though there are a number that should be in here. Scharfe, for example, should be cited, and the views of both Hart and Zvelebil should be considered in some more detail. There's even more to be done as far as the question of Sanskrit influences on the Porulatikaram is concerned - this section doesn't really even begin to touch on the debate. It seems to me that the best way forward is to put together an article on Sanskrit influences in the Tolkappiyam or some such title, and once that's done, summarise it briefly for this section. I won't be able to get started on this till I'm done moving house (as things stand, almost all my Indological books are neatly packed in cartons), but if anyone'd like to take a crack, I'd welcome it. -- Arvind 22:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


Serious edits needed[edit]

Editors I find the article surprisingly inaccurate on quite a few aspects given the recently witnessed discussions and history on the rigor for some edits. There is too much mention of Tolkappiyam dealing with writing, characters, optimal writing etc. We need t correct this. Also it is wrong for the Overview section to claim etymology is a subject of Tolkappiyam. Tamil grammatical tradition has conspicuously avoided etymologizing in stark contrast to Sanskrit.

Also dating aspects should clearly mention that the range of 1st century BC to 5th century AD is based on various layers/divisions not for the whole entity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perichandra1 (talkcontribs) 15:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a pleasure to see you here on Wikipedia! You are of course quite right on both counts. The idea that the Tolkappiyam discusses etymology is actually quite common - I have even seen a reference to it in the introduction (by somebody else) to a recent edition of book by Prof. Ilakkuvanar. But obviously, it isn't correct. The idea of layers in the Tolkappiyam absolutely needs to be given a fairly prominent place here (also in relation to authorship), and also in Date of the Tolkappiyam (where, at present, it is mentioned in passing). It would be excellent if you could do this, if you have the time. -- Arvind 00:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Layers[edit]

That the Tolkappiyam is usually treated by modern scholars as having various layers dating from different periods is not "BS". It's pretty well settled in modern scholarship. Obviously, 19th century authors and modern authors who aren't formally trained in this area won't advert to it, but all serious scholars accept that the text of the Tolkappiyam as we have it is stratified, with different layers dating to different dates. I'm not sure it makes sense to cite 19th and early-20th century scholarship to rebut late-20th century scholarship that applies newer techniques. -- Arvind 17:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added the information with a reference. It can be reworded though. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 17:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
sigh. Nobody is saying that it isnt stratified. It is wishful, however, to assume that bgls or tieken or caldwell or burnell or vp were dating only the final layer when they gave the dates they gave. Even these authors didnt give absolute dates and only gave ranges. Caldwell/burnell gave 8th CE and later, Tieken gave 10 CE and later. bgls gave similar dates too. And oh btw.. VP, ht or bgls are not 19th CE scholars. They're 20th and 21st CE scholars. And Caldwell, Burnell have made signal contributions and continue to be cited widely to this day. They're anything but dead and gone. We certainly arent resurrecting them on wikipedia. That, however is perhaps what we're doing when nitpicking trolls weasel away citing Kanakasabhai on Gajabahu synchronism. Unsubstantiated as Kanakasabhai's conjectural claims were, they have been demolished by 21st century stalwarts like Gananath Obeyesekere.. not to mention tieken or bgls. hmm.. Sarvagnya 16:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Apologies then, but when the addition of a reference to layers is summarily reverted as being "BS", it does create the impression that the reverter disutes the existence of layers.
In any event, since BGL Swamy, Caldwell, Burnell, Vaiypuri Pillai and Mahadevan make no reference whatsoever to stratification in their work, I really don't see how we can possibly assume they were dating specific layers. Their works assigning dates / ranges for the work as a unity, rather than for layers in it, to which possibility they do not aver. Note also that I said "19th century authors and modern authors who aren't formally trained in this area" not just "19th century scholars." And I'm not saying that Caldwell et al don't merit a cite here. Obviously they do. But to use Caldwell to rebut the argument that the Tolkappiyam is stratified - as your edit summary suggested you were doing - is just wrong (although using Tieken - who specifically considers the question of stratification and argues that it is a unified work - would not be).
FTR, Burnell actually says the Tolkappiyam cannot be much later than 8th century. In addition, in my opinion, Tieken's theory is an entirely different kettle of fish, and needs separate treatment, since he is in essence arguing that Sangam literature is a deliberate 10th century forgery (and it's worth noting that every single review of his book, including generally appreciative ones like Cox's, call his dating unconvincing - which does not mean that it shouldn't be mentioned, it's notable enough for that, but the fact that everyone else disagrees is equally worthy of mention). -- Arvind 13:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Revert[edit]

I rolled back to the earlier version as two large paragraphs of referenced text were removed. Anyone know why it was done? --Nate1481(t/c) 16:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to lose sleep over. Just a passing vandal. Sarvagnya 19:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverted the recent revert by Sarvagnya[edit]

  1. Ref 11 says, "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", which the editors want but not the original term used for Tolkaappiyam?
  2. The world Tolkapiyam is Tol + kappiyam directly. The word "Tonmai" is "ancientness" if there is such a word in English. Further, there is no reference given to the the way the word Tolkapiyam was shown to be composed of.

--Aadal (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Sourceless claims with the title Influence of Sanskrit. The content under the title is "copy paste" from the blog [1]. The references provided do not endorse the claim. The title changed to Other Claims.Kavitha Swaminathan (talk) 07:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC) Reordering "Proposed Dates" under Other claims.

Pending changes[edit]

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

  • Experts are requested to refer the article தொல்காப்பியம் in Tamil and correct accordingly in English, particularly with the concept of name and the age. Regards --Sengai Podhuvan (talk) 00:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Please note the words below for suitable actions தொல்காப்பியர் செய்தது தொல்காப்பியம்

தொல்காப்பிய நூல் முழுமைக்கும் உரை எழுதிய இளம்பூரணர், தொல்காப்பியர் கூறும் ஆகுபெயர்களில் ஒன்றான 'வினைமுதல் உரைக்கும் கிளவி என்பதற்குத் 'தொல்காப்பியம்' என்னும் எடுத்துக்காட்டினைத் தந்துள்ளார். (2-3-31) இது தொல்காப்பியர் செய்தது தொல்காப்பியம் என்னும் கருத்தை வலியுறுத்துகிறது.

அகத்தியர் செய்தது அகத்தியம். பன்னிருவர் செய்தது பன்னிரு படலம். இந்திரன் செய்தது ஐந்திரம். காக்கை பாடினியார் செய்தது காக்கைபாடினியம். பல்காப்பியனார் செய்தது பல்காப்பியம். திருமூலர் செய்தது திருமூலம். இப்படித் தொல்காப்பியத்துக்கு முந்திய இலக்கண நூலும், தொல்காப்பியத்தை முதல்-நூலாகக் கொண்ட தமிழின் பழமையான இலக்கண நூல்களில் பலவும், பிறவும் ஆசிரியராலேயே பெயர் பெற்றுள்ளன. இந்த வகையில் தொல்காப்பியர் செய்தது தொல்காப்பிம் எனக் கொள்வதே முறைமை.

கபிலர், தொல்கபிலர், பரணர், வன்பரணர் என வேறுபடுத்தப்படும் புலவர்களை நாம் அறிவோம். அதுபோலக் காப்பியனார் என்னும் பெயரில் தொல்காப்பியனார், பல்காப்பியனார், காப்பியாற்றுக் காப்பியனார் என்னும் புலவர்கள் இருந்துவந்ததை வரலாறு காட்டுகிறது.

தொல்காப்பியப் பாயிரம் “புலம் தொகுத்தோன் … ஐந்திரம் நிறைந்த தொல்காப்பியன் எனத் தன் பெயர் தோற்றிப் பல்புகழ் நிறுத்த படிமையோன்” என்று கூறுகிறது. இதில் தொல்காப்பியன் புலம்(=இலக்கணம்) தொகுத்தான் என்பது தெளிவுபடுத்தப்பட்டுள்ளது.

இவற்றை விடுத்துத் தொல்காப்பியம் செய்தவர் தொல்காப்பியர் எனக் கூறுவோர் வரலாற்றை எண்ணிப்பார்க்க வேண்டும்.

kind --Sengai Podhuvan (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)