Early Tamil Epigraphy: From the Earliest Times to the Sixth Century A.D. c25.s12.t2: 5.12.2 Tamil-Brāhmī ḷ

Early Tamil Epigraphy: From the Earliest Times to the Sixth Century A.D. c25.s12.t2

Language: English

5.12.2 Tamil-Brāhmī ḷ

The letter *ḷ* of Tamil-Brāhmī is formed by attaching a small angular stroke (looking like an inverted L) to the letter *l* (Chart 3:II. 1 & 2). The same attachment is employed for deriving *ṟ* from *ṭ* and *ṉ* from *n* indicating that these letters were formed at the same time when Tamil-Brāhmī was adapted from the Brāhmī script. The angular stroke is also drawn cursively from the earliest times (ibid. II.³).

c25.s12.t2.3

(b) *Evolution of ḷ

c25.s12.t2.4

In course of time, the attached stroke at the right of the letter moves downwards (Chart 3:II.⁴) or upwards (ibid. II. 5). In Late Tamil-Brāhmī, the right side of the letter and the attachment merge into a single vertical line (ibid. II.⁶). In Early Vaṭṭeḻuttu, there is a change of direction (as in *l*) and the letter is written from the left as a continuous curving line (ibid. II.7). See also Charts 5B and 6 to 8 for attested forms.

c25.s12.t2.5

c25.s12.t2.6

Parker's identification of *ḷ* in the Early Sinhala-Brāhmī inscriptions was disputed by Paranavitana¹ even after the correctness of the identification was proved beyond doubt by the occurrence of the letter in appropriate linguistic contexts in the numerous Tamil cave inscriptions discovered since then. Paranavitana's laboured attempt to read the letter as *lu* is unconvincing, as forms like *ḷi* and *ḷe* occurring in the Sri Lankan cave inscriptions clearly indicate that the basic form must be a simple consonant.² The loanwords from Tamil occurring in these inscriptions can be read meaningfully only if the letter in question is treated as *ḷ*.³ Karunaratne accepts the value *ḷ* and records its occurrence in five early inscriptions assigned by him to the 2nd century b.c.⁴ He has also pointed out that this form of *ḷ* was later replaced by the form in vogue in the Brāhmī inscriptions in India. The occurrence of Tamil-Brāhmī *ḷ* in the Early Sinhala-Brāhmī script proves the contemporaneity of the two scripts.

c25.s12.t2.7

¹ S. Paranavitana 1970: pp. xxiii-xxv.

c25.s12.t2.8

² Ibid. *ḷi* (No. 78), *ḷe* (No. 967).

c25.s12.t2.9

³ Ibid. e.g., *vēḷ* (No. 123), *parumakaḷ* (No. 331), *iḷa-* (No. 94) from Ta. *iḷa-* or *īḻa-*.

c25.s12.t2.10

⁴ S. Karunaratne 1984: pp. 32-33; Fig. 34; Inscriptions 8, 18, 27, 29 & 31. S. Paranavitana (1970: p. xxv) gives a list of 23 inscriptions where this letter occurs. A.H. Dani (1963, Indian edition 1986) does not include this form in his Table (ibid. p. XIX b) which lists only the Southern Brāhmī form of *ḷ* occurring in Late Sinhala-Brāhmī.

c25.s12.t2.11

(d) *Occurrence of Tamil-Brāhmī ḷ in a Southern Brāhmī inscription

c25.s12.t2.12

The hill at Malakonda, Nellore (now Prakasam) District in Andhra Pradesh, is strategically located to the north of the traditional boundary between Andhra and the ancient Tamil country, and probably also marked the southern limit of the Mauryan Empire in this region. The cave inscription⁵ on this hill is in Prakrit written in the Southern Brāhmī script of ca. 1st century a.d.⁶ and is the southernmost example of its kind.¹ The inscription records the gift of the cave shelter presumably to Jaina monks by a Tamil trader (*seṭhi*) who describes himself as belonging to the *aruvāḷa-kula*.² The Tamil-Brāhmī form of *ḷ* occurs uniquely in this expression.

c25.s12.t2.13

⁵ *ARE* 531/1937-38 (with illustration). Also in T.V. Mahalingam 1967: p. 308, Pl. 30.

c25.s12.t2.14

⁶ The inscription is dated in the 3rd century b.c. in *ARE* (ibid.). However, the developed forms of letters like the square *pu* and the triangular *va* indicate a date around the 1st century a.d.

c25.s12.t2.15

(e) *Different forms of ḷ in Early Southern scripts

c25.s12.t2.16

It is interesting that there are three distinct forms of *ḷ*, one each in the Tamil-Brāhmī, Southern Brāhmī and Bhattiprolu scripts (Fig. 5.⁶, a to c respectively). Though the sounds are identical or nearly so, the three forms of *ḷ* appear to be derived from different sources.³ As we have seen above, the Tamil-Brāhmī *ḷ* is derived from *l*. The Southern Brāhmī *ḷ* was developed from the later cursive form of Brāhmī *ḍ* (with a right-facing curve) by adding a small semicircle at the lower end.⁴ The form of *ḷ* at Bhattiprolu cannot be related to any other letter and its origin is unknown; it was probably a short-lived local experimentation.⁵

c25.s12.t2.17

³ C. Sivaramamurti (1952: chart for *ḷ* in Fig. 64 at p. 152) connects the three forms of *ḷ* in a single evolutionary sequence; but the oldest forms in his own chart do not support the arrangement.

c25.s12.t2.18

⁴ G. Bühler 1896 (1959 reprint): p. 30. Dani's hypothetical derivation of the Southern Brāhmī *ḷ* from *ṭ* is improbable (A.H. Dani 1963, Indian edition 1986: p. 54, Fig. 6 viii). Phonetically and graphically, the sound *ḷ* is closer to *ḍ* as pointed out by Bühler.

c25.s12.t2.19

⁵ Bühler 1894b (*EI.* II:p. 324) derives the Bhattiprolu *ḷ* from the Sanchi *ḷ*. Dani (1986: p. 71, Fig 7 vi) derives the Bhattiprolu *ḷ* from the Brāhmī *l*.