Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Elements of South-Indian Palæography, from the Fourth to the Seventeenth Century A.D. c10.s1: § 1. Tamil Phonetics

Elements of South-Indian Palæography, from the Fourth to the Seventeenth Century A.D. c10.s1

Language
English

§ 1. Tamil Phonetics

c10.s1.1

As the Tamiḻ alphabet now stands it is a very imperfect representation of the sounds to be met with in Tamiḻ.

c10.s1.2

There are at present vowel-marks for a, ā, i, ī, u, ū, ĕ, ē, ai, ŏ, ō and au; but of these in addition to the usual pronunciation of u and ai, these two letters have very commonly the value of ṳ, and this is noticed by the earliest grammarians¹. Again a, i, ī, and ū have distinct secondary² values in some cases, viz., they become ‘mixed’.

c10.s1.3

¹ Tŏlkāppiyam, i., 2, 24. Nannūl, ii., 6, etc.

c10.s1.4

² The cause of this I have been able to discover by means of Mr. Melville Bell's admirable book “Visible Speech”. These simple vowels are effected by the *following* consonant when it closes the syllable in certain cases. These consonants are ṭ, ḻ and ḷ, but at the end of a syllable they necessarily induce modification of the vowels. As Mr. Bell (p. 75) says: “The various positions of the tongue which produce ‘centre-aperture’ consonants, form vowels when the channel between the organs is sufficiently expanded and firm to allow the breath to pass without oral friction or sibilation. The vowel positions thus bear a definite relation to the consonant attitudes of the different parts of the tongue.”

c10.s1.5

These values occur in certain definite circumstances, but they are so numerous as to render the Tamiḻ alphabet very defective as far as the vowels are concerned.

c10.s1.6

The expression of the consonants is also defective³.

c10.s1.7

³ It is quite certain that the Tamiḻ alphabet was always limited in extent, for the Tŏlkāppiyam (i., 1, 1) and Nannūl (ii., 4) expressly put the number of *letters* at thirty. The Nannūl (ii., 8) says also: “Beginning with a, twice six are vowels beginning with k, (there) are thrice six consonants: thus say the learned.” It is remarkable that only in one system of writing and that just deciphered, we find the same character used to express both the sonant and surd consonants of the same class; I mean the mysterious Cypriote syllabary (*“Journal des Savants”*, Sept. 1877, p. 560). At the very first view it is easy to trace striking resemblances between some of the Cypriote characters and Vaṭṭeḻuttu letters (e. g. [Figure:] = **ϰε, ϰη; χε, χη; γε, γη**); but the syllabic nature of the former makes it difficult to suppose any real connection between the two in their forms as now known. Further research into the systems of writing once used in the Levant and in the Aramean country will, I have no doubt, eventually clear up the origin of the Vaṭṭeḻuttu.

c10.s1.8

Thus the following letters have distinct values:—

c10.s1.9

| *Letter* | *1. Initial* | *2. Medial* | *3. Medial (if doubled)* |
| k | = k | ɣ | k |
| č | = č | š, ǰ | ţ₈ |
| ṭ | = ṭ | ḍ | ṭ |
| t | = t | δ | t |
| p | = p | b | p |

c10.s1.10

According to the pronunciation of some places k following a nasal = g, and t following a nasal = d; but it is impossible to ascertain now if this was originally the case⁴.

c10.s1.11

⁴ In Canarese and Telugu, as spoken in some places, ద (d) has distinctly the value of ð; but not everywhere.

c10.s1.12

Now the earliest specimens of Tamiḻ that are to be found in foreign records show that the language then possessed these sounds for which there are no separate alphabetic characters, and which seem to have puzzled the Tamiḷ grammarians who leave them unnoticed[^1). These words are as follows:

c10.s1.13

In the second Girnar tablet of Açoka’s edict (ç. 250 B. C.) we find Pā(ṇ)ḍā as the name of a king; there can be no doubt that Pāṇḍiyan or the Madura king is here intended; and Pliny, Ptolemy and the Periplus also have Pandion.

c10.s1.14

The next traces we find are in Ptolemy and the Periplus of the Red Sea which may be put as representing Tamiḷ from the first to the third centuries A. D., and Kumārila Bhaṭṭa who lived in the 7th century. As regards the various powers of some of the vowels there is not much satisfactory evidence to be found[^2), but the evidence regarding the consonants is conclusive. It is as follows:

c10.s1.15

k, γ. 1) Sangara (=šaṅyāḍam) in Periplus Maris Eryth. § 60. 2) Sangamarta = Tam. šaṅga-maratta; (*i. e.* the town or camp by the *Monetia Barlerioides* trees; a station of the Nomad Sorae. Ptolemy vii., 1, § 68). 3) Bēttigō (*Ptolemy* vii., 1, § 68) which Dr. Caldwell has rightly identified with the Pōḍiyai mountain. 4) Μαγουρ (do:).

c10.s1.16

ṭ, ḍ. 1) Pandion = Pāṇḍiyan. (Periplus Maris Eryth. § 58. Ptolemy vii., 1, §§ 11 & 79. Pliny, vi., 105.) 2) Tundis, *i. e.* the Tam. tuṇḍi (Periplus Maris Eryth. § 54. Ptolemy, vii., 1, § 8). 3) Cottonara (Pliny, vi., 104); the last part is here evidently nāḍu (country) and the expression of ḍ by r is also found in the ‘sangara’ of the Periplus. 4) Kumārila has naḍer = naḍai[^3).

c10.s1.17

t, d. 1) Kolandiophōnta (Periplus Maris Eryth. § 60). The first part of this name for boats or ships is most probably the Tam. kuḷiṅda = hollowed; the last, ōḍam = boat[^4). 2) Modoura = Maḋurai. (Ptolemy, vii., 1, § 89. Pliny, vi., 105.) 3) Puḋu-paṭṭana (Cosmas)—πουδοπατανα. 4) ποδοπερουρα in Ptolemy.

c10.s1.18

p. b. 1) Kēprobotros = Keraputra (Periplus M. Er. § 54). The b here clearly shows the influence of the Tamiḷ pronunciation. Pliny (vi., 104) has Caelobothras. 2) Αρεμβουρ (Pt.) 3) Kumārila has pāṁb or pāṁp = pāmbu. The best MSS. I now find have pāṁb.

c10.s1.19

It would be easy to add other words from the Greek geographers which point to this fact, but as their identification presents more or less difficulty, I shall omit them here.

c10.s1.20

The omission of the Tamiḷ grammarians to notice this fact that the consonants have

c10.s1.21

[^1): Except they intended to include them under vague statements of irregularities of pronunciation.—Nannūl, ii., 33, etc., copying Tōlk. i., 3, 6. [^2): Except in the words which occur in Kumārila Bhaṭṭa, and as these neglect the final u (as it is now written), it is safe to assume that it was then pronounced ŭ as is the case at present, and was therefore neglected in the Nāgari transcriptions as being a sound unknown to the Sanskrit alphabet, and almost imperceptible to foreigners. [^3): I have already discussed the passage where these words occur in the *Indian Antiquary*, vol. i., pp. 309-310. Dr. Caldwell (C. Gr. 2nd ed. p. 5 *note*) has misunderstood what Kumārila says about ‘āḷ’. [^4): It seems to be contrasted with the ‘šaṅyāḍam’ or raft.

c10.s1.22

double values (viz., as surds and sonants) is unaccountable except that they had to deal with a language already reduced to writing. Tamiḷ words, however, appear to have puzzled northern and Singalese authors, and they evidently were aware that the Tamiḷ and Sanskrit or Pāli t did not mark the same sounds. Thus the Pāli has Damila; the Sanskrit Dramila, just as Ziegenbalg in his Tamiḷ Grammar (1716) calls the language “Lingua Damulica,” though Baldæus (1672) being a Dutchman has T[^1). To show how the Dravidian sounds differ from the Sanskrit sounds indicated by the same letters would take too much space to be admissible here, and would need the use of special type. Since Mr. Melville Bell’s “Visible Speech” has been published, and the Prātiçākhyas have been edited by Profr. Whitney and others, (to which may be added the use of the phonograph), an enquiry of this kind need not present any special difficulties. At the present stage of philological research in S. India it is indispensable.

c10.s1.23

The Tamiḷ alphabet differs from the other Dravidian alphabets in using ṉ (ன்) which is simply a *final* n (*i. e.* of the syllable), and is therefore unnecessary according to the S. Indian system. It is here, however, a distinct letter as it was in the Vaṭṭeḷuttu, and in its original form not unlike the Sassanian [Figure:] generally read *man*.

c10.s1.24

It follows, then, that the pronunciation of Tamiḷ cannot have changed materially since the third century B. C.; but, as it is impossible to put the introduction of writing into the Tamiḷ country at so early a date, it is evident that the Tamiḷ alphabet is an imperfect expression of the phonetic system of that language from its origin, and that it cannot have become so by progress of phonetic decay[^2). As the alphabets used in

c10.s1.25

[^1): So the Peutingerian Map and the Ravenna geographer (ed. Parthey, pp. 14, 40, etc.) have Dimirice (*i. e.* Tamiḷ + ikē) which is the proper reading for the name, and not Limurikē as printed in the Periplus and Ptolemy. [^2): The utter uncertainty of S. Indian chronology renders it difficult to use the Tamiḷ literature for purposes of illustrating the history of Dravidian phonetics; but I can help, in a small way, to clear up the existing darkness. Buddhamittra (a Buddhist of the Coḷa country, and apparently, a native of Malakūṭa or Malaikkūṛṛam) wrote in the 11th century a Tamiḷ Grammar in verse, with a Commentary by himself, which he dedicated to the then reigning Coḷa king and called after him ‘Vīraśōḷiyam’. This C. cites a great number of Tamiḷ works current in the 11th century, and is therefore of much historical importance, for the approximate dates even of most Tamiḷ works are hardly known. He cites: Amṛitasāgaram; Avinayanār: Ārūrkōvai; Ĕliviruttam; Kapilar; Kamban; Kaviviruttam; Kākkaipāḍiniyār; Kātantra(s); Kānḍi; Kundalakēśiviruttam; Kuraḷ; Šaṅyaiauthors; Šintāmaṇi; Šoḷarājavariśai; Taṇḍi; Tiruśśiṛṛambalakkōvai; Tirumaṇṇivaḷaru; Tŏlkāppiyam; Nambi; Naḷavĕnbā; Nariviruttam; Nāḷaḍiyār; Nīyāyaśšūḍāmaṇi; Nēminādam; Pĕrundēvar’s Bhārata (Vĕnbā); Maṇippiravaḷam; Mayēśuranār; Vīraśōḷaṇmēṛkavi. This then represents the *old* Tamiḷ literature prior to the 11th century, and to it must be added the older Çaiva works. The above mentioned literature cannot be older than the 8th century, for in the 7th century Hiouen Thsang expressly states that the Tamiḷ people were then indifferent to literature. That this literature arose under N. Indian influences and copied N. Indian models, can hardly be disputed; but it is time now to assert that it is nothing more than an exact copy; if there be any *originality*, it is in some of the similes and turns of expression only. This was, long ago, remarked by Mr. Curzon (*J. R. As. Soc.*), and has since been emphatically asserted by M. J. Vinson. (“Le Verbe dans les langues Dravidiennes”, pp. viii-ix. and in Hovelacque’s “La Linguistique”.) Some have supposed, but without the least reason or evidence, that this Sanskritizing literature supplanted an older Tamiḷ literature of an indigenous growth.

c10.s1.26

the Açoka inscriptions prove, the Sanskrit grammarians had already extended the alphabet to suit their marvellously accurate discrimination between the different sounds of the language in the 3rd century B. C.; it is impossible, therefore, to suppose that the Tamil alphabet is to be attributed to them. Besides their treatment of the Canarese and Telugu phonetics is totally different, as I shall now show, though the Canarese grammar was formed on the same model as the Tamil.

Cites (3)