Early Tamil Epigraphy: From the Earliest Times to the Sixth Century A.D. c26.s8: 6.8 TB-III (puḷḷi) system of medial vowel notation

Early Tamil Epigraphy: From the Earliest Times to the Sixth Century A.D. c26.s8

Language: English

6.8 TB-III (puḷḷi) system of medial vowel notation

c26.s8.1

The characteristic features of this system are as follows.

1. The basic consonant is marked by the *puḷḷi* ('dot').
2. The unmarked consonantal symbol is read with the 'inherent' *-a*.
3. The short horizontal stroke at the top right of a consonantal symbol represents the medial *-ā* as in Brāhmī.
4. The *puḷḷi* is also employed to mark the short *e* and *o* in initial and medial positions.

c26.s8.3

The Nekanurpatti inscription (No. *83*) with all the nine basic consonants in it marked by the *puḷḷi* is a good example of the Tamil-Brāhmī script with the TB-III notation. The brief Early Vaṭṭeḻuttu inscription (No. *102*) at Sittannavasal-B, in which the basic consonants as well as the short medial *-e* and *-o* are marked with the *puḷḷi*, illustrates the fully developed *puḷḷi* notation.

c26.s8.4

Since the use of the *puḷḷi* was optional in practice, the question arises whether there is any real difference between the TB-II and TB-III systems. Can we not explain the absence of the *puḷḷi* in the TB-II system by assuming it was 'implicit' as in medieval writing?¹ It is, however, most unlikely that originally an 'inherent' *-a* could have been cancelled by an 'implicit' *puḷḷi*. It seems necessary on theoretical considerations to postulate two stages, as the *puḷḷi* is clearly a response to the felt need to obviate the confusion in having to read the unmarked consonantal symbol either as basic or with the inherent *-a* as in the earlier system.

c26.s8.5

¹ K.G. Krishnan 1990: pp. 92-93. According to him, there is no need to distinguish between TB-II and III stages since the marking of dots over mute consonants is not uniformly observed; and since the *puḷḷi* is "an integral part of the system in Tamil, it is futile to argue that the Tamils or the authors of the cave inscriptions had to wait till the script came from the north".

c26.s8.6

Another interesting question is why the *puḷḷi* system alone survived, but not the Bhattiprolu system which has an equally unambiguous though different orthographic notation. Firstly, it appears that the removal of the 'inherent' *-a* from the consonantal symbol was too radical a departure from all other Indian systems of writing which still follow this principle. Influence from Upper South India and Sri Lanka must have brought about the acceptance of the principle of the 'inherent' *-a* in the TB-II and TB-III systems. Secondly, as the syllables ending in *-a* outnumber all others in Tamil, it is more economical to treat the unmarked consonantal symbol as having the 'inherent' *-a* and invent a marker (*puḷḷi*) to denote the relatively infrequent basic consonants. The *puḷḷi* also became a convenient marker to distinguish the short *e* and *o* from the respective long vowels. These improvements enabled the *puḷḷi* system to survive all the other systems and become the sole standard notation in Tamil grammatical tradition.²

c26.s8.7

² I. Mahadevan 1992: p. 146.