[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.s8.4 # Early Tamil Epigraphy: From the Earliest Times to the Sixth Century A.D. c26.s8.4 Early Tamil Epigraphy: From the Earliest Times to the Sixth Century A.D. c26.s8.4 - **Language:** English ### [c26.s8.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.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. - [Previous: c26.s8.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s8.3) - [Next: c26.s8.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s8.5) - [Up: c26.s8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s8) --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s8.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s8.4) · Pramāṇa