Early Tamil Epigraphy: From the Earliest Times to the Sixth Century A.D. c25.s12.t2.6

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.