[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [Archaeology, epigraphy and coins](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy) › [Early Tamil Epigraphy: From the Earliest Times to the Sixth Century A.D.](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003) › c26.s5 # Early Tamil Epigraphy: From the Earliest Times to the Sixth Century A.D. c26.s5: 6.5 TB-I system of medial vowel notation Early Tamil Epigraphy: From the Earliest Times to the Sixth Century A.D. c26.s5 - **Language:** English ### 6.5 TB-I system of medial vowel notation ### [c26.s5.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s5.1) The Brāhmī principle of the 'inherent' \*-a\* was given up and the consonantal symbol was regarded as basic (mute). This simple but original modification enabled the Tamil-Brāhmī script to depict basic consonants in final position and in consonant clusters without ligatures. The employment of a specific marker to depict the medial \*-a\* follows as the natural corollary to the abandoning of the concept of the 'inherent' \*-a\* in the consonantal symbol. Consequently, the first of the medial vowel markers in Brāhmī, the short horizontal stroke to the top right of a consonant, came to represent the medial \*-a\* in the TB-I notation. ### [c26.s5.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s5.2) \*Examples:\* ### [c26.s5.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s5.3) | Apparent reading | Actual reading (with TB-I notation) | | \*\*kā ṇi ya nā na tā-\*\* | \*kaṇi-y nanta-\* 'name and title of a monk' (1.1-2)¹ | | \*\*ko ṭu pi tā vā ṉa\*\* | \*koṭupitavaṉ\* 'he who caused to be given' (11.2) | | \*\*i ḷā nā tā ṉa\*\* | \*iḷanataṉ\* 'name of a donor' (17.1) | ### [c26.s5.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s5.4) However, a separate marker for the medial \*-ā\* was not developed in this system and the same marker depicted the medial \*-a\* and \*-ā\*, which could be distinguished only from the linguistic context. ### [c26.s5.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s5.5) \*Examples:\* ### [c26.s5.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s5.6) | \*\*sā lā kā ṉa\*\* | \*sālakaṉ\* 'sister-in-law's husband' (2.6) | | \*\*pā kā ṉa ū ra\*\* | \*pākaṉ-ūr\* 'a place-name' (13.1) | ### [c26.s5.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s5.7) The Mangulam inscriptions (Nos. \*1-6\*) are typical examples of the Tamil-Brāhmī script with the TB-I notation. It is difficult to explain why a separate marker for the medial \*-ā\* was not evolved in this system as at Bhattiprolu. The ambiguity in this system was removed in the Bhattiprolu script with the invention of a separate marker for the medial \*-ā\* vowel. --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s5) · Pramāṇa