[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 # Early Tamil Epigraphy: From the Earliest Times to the Sixth Century A.D. c26: 6. Orthography Early Tamil Epigraphy: From the Earliest Times to the Sixth Century A.D. c26 - **Language:** English ## Contents - [c26.s1 6.1 Introduction](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s1) — 2 parts - [c26.s2 6.2 Orthographic 'peculiarities' of Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s2) — 1 part - [c26.s3 6.3 Orthographic conventions in Brāhmī inscriptions](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s3) — 10 parts - [c26.s4 6.4 Evolution of alternative medial vowel notations in Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s4) — 3 parts - [c26.s5 6.5 TB-I system of medial vowel notation](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s5) — 7 parts - [c26.s6 6.6 Medial vowel notation in Bhattiprolu inscriptions](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s6) — 13 parts - [c26.s7 6.7 TB-II system of medial vowel notation](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s7) — 5 parts - [c26.s8 6.8 TB-III (puḷḷi) system of medial vowel notation](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s8) — 7 parts - [c26.s9 6.9 The puḷḷi in Tolkāppiyam](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s9) — 6 parts - [c26.s10 6.10 Medial vowel notations in Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions: a comparative study](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s10) — 15 parts - [c26.s11 6.11 Medial vowel notations in cave inscriptions](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s11) — 4 parts - [c26.s12 6.12 Medial vowel notations in pottery inscriptions](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s12) — 4 parts - [c26.s13 6.13 Medial vowel notations in legends on inscribed objects](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s13) — 5 parts - [c26.s14 6.14 Use of ī as i in Early Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s14) — 13 parts - [c26.s15 6.15 Special usage governing u- vowels in Early Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s15) — 2 parts - [c26.s16 6.16 Dual values of the letters e and o](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s16) — 3 parts - [c26.s17 6.17 Doubling of consonants in Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s17) — 6 parts - [c26.s18 6.18 Analytical writing in Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s18) — 8 parts - [c26.s19 6.19 Pause in Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s19) — 3 parts - [c26.s20 6.20 Assimilation and epenthesis in loanwords](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s20) — 4 parts - [c26.s21 6.21 Orthographic changes in loanwords](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s21) — 10 parts - [c26.s22 6.22 Voicing of consonants: evidence of Tamil-Brāhmī orthography](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s22) — 10 parts ### 6. Orthography ### 6.1 Introduction ### [c26.s1.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s1.1) One of the most interesting but least studied aspects of the Tamil-Brāhmī script is its orthography.¹ A study of the inscriptions reveals that early Tamil writing experimented with different orthographic models especially for denoting medial vowels before settling down to the system described in classical Tamil grammar. In retrospect, one can see that the palaeographic discoveries relating to the external features of the script were the easier ones to make than the unravelling of the internal orthographic conventions, which took longer to accomplish. A comparative study of the origin and evolution of the orthographic systems provides fresh insight into the relationship of Tamil-Brāhmī with the Mauryan and Bhattiprolu scripts and their relative chronology. ### [c26.s1.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s1.2) ¹ The term 'orthography' is used in this book in the sense of conventions adopted for spellings in the inscriptions. ### 6.2 Orthographic 'peculiarities' of Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions ### [c26.s2.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s2.1) The Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions could not be read satisfactorily even after their palaeographic features had become known, mainly because the unusual orthographic conventions in the script were not fully understood. Even such simple Tamil words like \*tantai\*-y 'father' and \*makaṉ\* 'son' assume the apparently strange forms \*tānataiya\* and \*mākāṇa\* in the Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions. Again, the simple Tamil word \*kal\* 'stone' is spelt \*kāla\* or \*kala\* or \*kal\* in different inscriptions indicating the presence of more than one orthographic convention in the script. There are also other orthographic 'peculiarities' like, for example, the employment of the \*ī\* symbol for \*i\*, the \*ū\* symbol for \*u\*, the same set of symbols for \*e\*/\*ē\* and \*o\*/\*ō\*, avoidance of doubling of consonants, absence of voiced consonants, etc. These usages are too numerous and too systematic to be dismissed as scribal errors. An attempt is made in the present study to investigate them and find explanations. ### 6.3 Orthographic conventions in Brāhmī inscriptions ### [c26.s3.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s3.1) The Brāhmī script is a syllabary in which each \*akshara\* is an open syllable, either a vowel or ending in one (except in the case of the \*anusvāra\*). A basic consonant being mute is not regarded as an \*akshara\* and cannot stand alone. These principles resulted in a system of writing with the following conventions: ### [c26.s3.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s3.2) (i) A consonantal symbol is invested with the 'inherent' \*-a\*; ### [c26.s3.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s3.3) (ii) The notational system of medial vowels commences only with the medial \*-ā\*, since \*-a\* is 'inherent' and does not require a marker; ### [c26.s3.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s3.4) (iii) A basic consonant cannot be represented except as part of a conjunct-consonant (\*samyuktākshara\*); ### [c26.s3.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s3.5) (iv) A \*samyuktākshara\* being an open syllable cannot depict a consonant in final position. ### [c26.s3.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s3.6) This orthographic system suited the Prakrit languages perfectly as they did not have basic consonants (except the \*anusvāra\*) in final position. To illustrate, we may look at the first two lines of the text of the famous Rummindei Pillar Edict of Asoka marking the sacred spot where the Buddha was born:¹ ### [c26.s3.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s3.7) Lines: 1. \*dē vā na pi yē na pi ya da si na lā ji na vī sa ti va sā bhi si tē na\* 2. \*a ta na ā gā ca ma hī yi tē hi da bu dhē jā tē sa kya mu nī ti\* ### [c26.s3.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s3.8) Note the absence of final consonants and how the only mute consonant is combined with the next syllable to form the \*samyuktākshara\* (\*kya\*).² ### [c26.s3.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s3.9) ² Incidentally, this analysis indicates that the Brāhmī script was designed initially for the Prakrit (Middle Indo-Aryan) languages and was adapted later for Sanskrit which employs final consonants freely as in \*yat\*, \*tat\*, etc. ### [c26.s3.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s3.10) The Brāhmī notational system described above is unsuitable for Tamil which abounds in final consonants (e.g., \*kaṇ\* 'eye', \*maram\* 'tree', \*tāy\* 'mother', \*nīr\* 'water', \*kal\* 'stone', \*yāḻ\* 'lute', \*nāḷ\* 'day', \*avaṉ\* 'he', etc.). Tamil which has much fewer consonant clusters than Indo-Aryan (mostly geminates and nasal-homorganic clusters) does not also need the \*samyuktākshara\* system of writing. Those who were responsible for the adaptation of the Brāhmī script for Tamil must also have decided to modify the notation for medial vowels to suit Tamil phonetics. A period of bold and innovative experimentation followed during which no less than four alternative systems of vowel notations were evolved, all different from one another and from that of the parent Brāhmī script. ### 6.4 Evolution of alternative medial vowel notations in Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions ### [c26.s4.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s4.1) Decipherment of Tamil-Brāhmī has now firmly established that there were originally two parallel and seemingly independent systems of medial vowel notations (designated here as TB-I and TB-II) in this script. Both systems were evolved with the same objective, namely, to be able to represent basic consonants in final position and in consonant clusters. They were successful in doing so and obtained the additional advantage of getting rid of the cumbersome \*samyuktākshara\* system of the Brāhmī script. However, both systems proved to be imperfect and unstable, each giving way, in a characteristically different manner, to another improved system. One of them is known only from the Bhattiprolu casket inscriptions, and the other, the \*puḷḷi\* notation (TB-III system), is the one described in the earliest extant Tamil grammar (\*Tolkāppiyam\*) (see Table 6.¹). ### [c26.s4.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s4.2) ¹ \*CII\*. I: pp. 164-165, Pl. facing p. 164 (1991 reprint). ### [c26.s4.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s4.3) Table 6.1. Evolution of orthographic systems in Tamil-Brāhmī. ### 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. ### 6.6 Medial vowel notation in Bhattiprolu inscriptions ### [c26.s6.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s6.1) Bühler has pointed out that the notation of the medial vowels in the unique inscriptions on the stone caskets at Bhattiprolu shows the following orthographic peculiarities:² ### [c26.s6.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s6.2) (a) The short \*-a\* is invariably marked by the horizontal stroke to the right of the consonant, which denotes the long \*-ā\* in the Mauryan alphabet except when an \*anusvāra\* follows; ### [c26.s6.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s6.3) (b) The long \*-ā\* is usually marked by a horizontal stroke and a vertical hanging down from its end. ### [c26.s6.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s6.4) There is no ambiguity in this system, unlike in TB-I, between the medial \*-a\* and \*-ā\* which have distinct markers (see Figs. 6.¹ & 6.²). ### [c26.s6.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s6.5) ¹ For the system of Reference Numbers to words in the Corpus, see Table of Conventional Symbols. ### [c26.s6.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s6.6) ² G. Bühler 1894b: p. 324. See also section 5.6.3 in this vol. ### [c26.s6.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s6.7) \[Figure: Figure 6.1. A casket inscription from Bhattiprolu (C. Sivaramamurti 1952: Fig. 67).\] ### [c26.s6.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s6.8) \[Figure: Figure 6.2. Medial vowel notation in the Bhattiprolu script (after T.N. Subramanian 1957: Fig. 5).\] ### [c26.s6.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s6.9) \*Example:\* ### [c26.s6.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s6.10) | Apparent reading | Actual reading with Bhattiprolu notation | | \*\*sā mā ṇō sā mā ṇā dā shō\*\* | \*samaṇō samaṇadāshō\* 'Samaṇadāsa, the monk' (on the lid of Casket III. See Fig. 6.1, middle, third and second lines from the bottom). | ### [c26.s6.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s6.11) Bühler deduced from these 'peculiarities' that "the consonants have no inherent \*-a\*" and that the vowel notations of the script were "invented in order to avoid the necessity for ligatures".¹ His deductions are astonishingly correct considering that neither can be illustrated from the inscriptions he edited. However, his conclusion "I do not think that it (the Bhattiprolu script) teaches us much regarding the history of the Southern Maurya characters"² has turned out to be wide of the mark. We can now see that the basic principle behind the Bhattiprolu notation must have originated in Tamil-Brāhmī and that its use at Bhattiprolu (probably by a Tamil scribe) was fortuitous because the casket inscriptions are in Prakrit which does not require this special notation. In fact, there is not a single example in these inscriptions of a final basic consonant which is the \*raison d'etre\* of the Bhattiprolu notation. However, the evolution of a separate marker for the medial \*-ā\* removing the ambiguity between the medial \*-a\* and \*-ā\* in the TB-I notation is an advance presently known only from Bhattiprolu. ### [c26.s6.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s6.12) ¹ G. Bühler 1896 (1959 reprint): p. 31. ### [c26.s6.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s6.13) ² G. Bühler 1894 b: p. 325. ### 6.7 TB-II system of medial vowel notation ### [c26.s7.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s7.1) The characteristic features of this system are as follows. ### [c26.s7.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s7.2) 1. The consonantal symbol is read either as basic or with the 'inherent' \*-a\* depending on the linguistic context. 2. There is therefore no separate marker for the medial \*-a\*. 3. The short horizontal stroke attached to the top right of a consonantal symbol stands only for the medial \*-ā\* as in the Brāhmī script. ### [c26.s7.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s7.3) \*Examples:\* ### [c26.s7.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s7.4) | Apparent reading | Actual reading (with TB-II notation) | | \*\*a ti ya na ne ṯu mā na a ña ci\*\* | \*atiyan neṭumān añci\* 'name of a chieftain' (59.2) | | \*\*vi ya ka ka ṇa ko pa ṇa ka ṇa te va ṇa\*\* | \*viyakkaṉ kōpaṉ kaṇa tēvaṉ\* 'name of a donor' (84.4) | ### [c26.s7.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s7.5) The Cēra inscriptions at Pugalur (Nos. \*61\* & \*62\*) are typical examples of the Tamil-Brāhmī script with the TB-II notation. The ambiguity in this system in distinguishing the basic consonant from the one with the 'inherent' \*-a\* was removed in the next stage (TB-III) with the invention of a marker (\*puḷḷi\*) for the basic consonant. ### 6.8 TB-III (puḷḷi) system of medial vowel notation ### [c26.s8.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s8.1) The characteristic features of this system are as follows. ### [c26.s8.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s8.2) 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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.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](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. ### [c26.s8.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s8.7) ² I. Mahadevan 1992: p. 146. ### 6.9 The puḷḷi in Tolkāppiyam ### [c26.s9.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s9.1) The functions of the \*puḷḷi\* are described in \*Tolkāppiyam\* as follows: ### [c26.s9.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s9.2) The nature of the consonant is to be provided with a dot. \*e\* and \*o\* are also of the same nature. ### [c26.s9.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s9.3) All consonants without dots retain their own forms when animated with the sound \*-a\*, and change their form when combined with other vowels. These are the two ways to vocalise (consonants). (\*Tol. Eḻu.\* 15-17)¹ ### [c26.s9.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s9.4) ¹ Translation after Kamil Zvelebil 1972: p. 46 (with minor changes). ### [c26.s9.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s9.5) We can see at once that this is the last stage (TB-III) in the evolutionary development of the medial vowel notations in the Tamil-Brāhmī script. TB-I notation, with its denial of the principle of inherent \*-a\*, treating the unmarked consonant as basic, and providing a marker for the medial vowel \*-a\*, is unknown to \*Tolkāppiyam\* and precedes it chronologically. \*Tolkāppiyam\* not only describes the \*puḷḷi\* as the 'natural' (\*iyaṟkai\*) adjunct of the basic consonant and the short vowels \*e\* and \*o\*, but also uses the expression \*puḷḷi\* to denote the basic consonant itself by transfer of meaning.² It is thus clear that this grammatical work must have been composed after the \*puḷḷi\* was invented and had become an integral part of Tamil writing. Judging from the available evidence of the earliest occurrences of the \*puḷḷi\* from about the end of the 1st century A.D.,³ \*Tolkāppiyam\* was composed most probably not earlier than the Late Tamil-Brāhmī Period (ca. 2nd-4th centuries A.D.). ### [c26.s9.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s9.6) ² According to the Index Verborum of \*Tolkāppiyam\*, \*puḷḷi\* is used with the meaning of 'dot over a letter' 3 times, while it has the meaning 'basic consonant' 33 times. (\*Tolkāppiya-c-ciṟap-p-akarāti\* 2000: p. 241). ### 6.10 Medial vowel notations in Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions: a comparative study ### [c26.s10.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s10.1) The characteristic features of the five stages of development of medial vowel notations which have been described above are summarised in Fig. 6.³.⁴ A comparative study of the notations shows clearly that all of them are ultimately derived from the original vowel-marker system of the Mauryan Brāhmī script. The modifications are minimal and specifically designed to suit the needs of Tamil. However, TB-I and TB-II systems were, in spite of the advantages gained by the respective modifications, no more than transitional, short-lived experiments replaced by the more stable systems. The comparison also brings out the fact that the Bhattiprolu system which developed from TB-I, and the \*puḷḷi\* system from TB-II, must be later than the respective systems replaced by them. ### [c26.s10.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s10.2) ³ See discussion in section 5.14. ### [c26.s10.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s10.3) ⁴ In Fig. 6.3, the personal name \*cātan\* is merely illustrative; the alveolar nasal \*ṉ\* of Tamil-Brāhmī is not shown in order to simplify the comparison. ### [c26.s10.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s10.4) In my earlier studies of the cave inscriptions, I had suggested that TB-I and TB-II notations are successive stages in the orthographic evolution of the Tamil-Brāhmī script.⁵ However, further structural studies and stratigraphy of inscribed pottery from excavations of ancient Tamil sites indicate that it is better to consider TB-I and TB-II as parallel and independent developments from the Mauryan Brāhmī script. The essential evidence is as follows. ### [c26.s10.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s10.5) ⁵ I. Mahadevan 1970a: pp. 5-7; 1971: pp. 82-83. ### [c26.s10.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s10.6) (1) Gift Siromoney has pointed out that the TB-II notation seems to be structurally closer to the Mauryan Brāhmī and is more easily derived from it directly than through TB-I.⁶ ### [c26.s10.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s10.7) ⁶ Gift Siromoney 1982: pp. 13-21; 1983: pp. 27-28; 1990: pp. 105-106. ### [c26.s10.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s10.8) Figure 6.3. Medial vowel notations in the Mauryan, Bhattiprolu and Tamil-Brāhmī scripts. ### [c26.s10.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s10.9) Figure 6.4. Chronology of medial vowel notations in the Corpus. ### [c26.s10.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s10.10) | Medial vowel notations | Number of inscriptions |||||||| Total | | | \*\*Early Tamil-Brāhmī\*\* | | | \*\*Late Tamil-Brāhmī\*\* | | | \*\*Early Vaṭṭeḻuttu\*\* | | | | | \*\*2 cent. B.C.\*\* | \*\*1 cent. B.C.\*\* | \*\*1 cent. A.D.\*\* | \*\*2 cent. A.D.\*\* | \*\*3 cent. A.D.\*\* | \*\*4 cent. A.D.\*\* | \*\*5 cent. A.D.\*\* | \*\*6 cent. A.D.\*\* | | | TB-I | 35 | 16† | | | | | | | 51 | | TB-II | | 3 | 5 | 8 | 11 | 3 | 2 | | 32 | | TB-III (\*puḷḷi\*) | | | | 1 | 5 | 2 | 14 | 5 | 27 | | Total | 35 | 19 | 5 | 9 | 16 | 5 | 16 | 5 | 110 | ### [c26.s10.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s10.11) † 8 inscriptions in TB-I and 8 others in TB-I / TB-II mixed notations. ### [c26.s10.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s10.12) Table 6. 2 : Frequency and chronological distribution of medial vowel notations in the Early Tamil inscriptions in the Corpus (2) At Arikamedu, Casal excavated a potsherd inscribed in the TB-II style from the 'megalithic' level predating the period of Roman trade.¹ This inscription, which appears to be securely dated by stratigraphic evidence to ca. 2nd century B.C., vouches for the existence of the TB-II notation also from the earliest times in the Tamil-Brāhmī script. ### [c26.s10.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s10.13) ¹ Casal J.-M., 1949: Pl. XIII D. Vimala Begley drew my attention to the significance of this discovery. Casal's sherd is illustrated in Vimala Begley \*et al.\* 1996: Fig. 5. 17 at p. 304. ### [c26.s10.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s10.14) The revised model² for the evolution of medial vowel notations in Tamil-Brāhmī leads to another problem: How did two parallel, mutually exclusive and competing systems of medial vowel notations appear at about the same time and within a relatively small and homogenous linguistic community? No solution to this problem is yet in sight.³ ### [c26.s10.15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s10.15) ³ For a discussion on the unsolved problems of Tamil-Brāhmī, see I. Mahadevan 1985b: p. 126 and the response in K.G. Krishnan 1990: pp. 92-93. ### 6.11 Medial vowel notations in cave inscriptions ### [c26.s11.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s11.1) The earliest and most abundant occurrence of the TB-I notation is found in the cave inscriptions, especially from the southern region, the ancient Pāṇṭiya country (see Map I). The first 35 inscriptions in the Corpus, assigned to ca. 2nd century B.C. from palaeographic evidence, are exclusively in the TB-I style (with a few exceptions where the medial \*-a\* marker is absent due to scribal omission or weathering of the stone). All the 11 sites where these inscriptions are found are in the southern region (see Map I, detail). The TB-I notation becomes extinct after the 1st century B.C. ### [c26.s11.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s11.2) The TB-II notation appears in cave inscriptions from about the 1st century B.C. Both TB-I and TB-II notations occur in contemporary inscriptions at the same site or even within the same inscriptions (e.g., Nos. \*\*38-45\*\* from Alagarmalai). The TB-II notation becomes the dominant style in the cave records (with only occasional occurrences of TB-I spellings) during ca. 1-4 centuries A.D. ### [c26.s11.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s11.3) The TB-III (\*puḷḷi\*) system appears for the first time in ca. 2nd century A.D. at Anaimalai. The \*puḷḷi\* occurs rarely in the beginning, but gradually increases in numbers till it virtually becomes (with only a couple of exceptions) the exclusive notation in the Early Vaṭṭeḻuttu Period (ca. 5-6 centuries A.D.). The chronological sequence of medial vowel notations in the Early Tamil inscriptions in the Corpus is illustrated in the bar-chart (Fig. 6.⁴). The frequency and chronological distribution of the notations are shown in Table 6.². ### [c26.s11.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s11.4) ² See I. Mahadevan 1990: pp. 39-41. ### 6.12 Medial vowel notations in pottery inscriptions ### [c26.s12.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s12.1) There is a striking contrast between stone and pottery inscriptions in Tamil-Brāhmī in the matter of medial vowel notations. While the TB-I notation is more ancient and more frequent in the cave inscriptions, the TB-II notation appears to be the dominant style in pottery inscriptions from the earliest period. The TB-I notation also occurs in pottery inscriptions from the earlier levels, but relatively in much fewer numbers. The TB-III (\*puḷḷi\*) notation occurs rarely in pottery inscriptions. These conclusions are based on a preliminary survey of inscribed pottery.⁴ ### [c26.s12.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s12.2) ⁴ See Map II, Tables 1.4 & 1.5 and Figs. 1.19 to 1.21. ### 6.12.1 At sites in Tamil Nadu ### [c26.s12.t1.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s12.t1.1) (i) \*Arikamedu:\* Only 5 out 66 pottery inscriptions from this site follow the TB-I notation,¹ and the remaining except one are in the TB-II notation. One inscription with distinctly late palaeographic features of about the 3rd century A.D. depicts the \*puḷḷi\*.² ### [c26.s12.t1.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s12.t1.2) ¹ I. Mahadevan 1996a: Nos. 5.1, 5.24, 5.25, 5.26 and 5.31. ### [c26.s12.t1.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s12.t1.3) ² Ibid. No. 5.28. Note especially the late form of \*ṟ\* with the \*puḷḷi\* in this inscription. ### [c26.s12.t1.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s12.t1.4) (ii) \*Uraiyur:\* Only 4 out of 20 pottery inscriptions from this site are in the TB-I notation³ and all the remaining are in the TB-II notation. No pottery inscription with the \*puḷḷi\* has been reported from this site. ### [c26.s12.t1.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s12.t1.5) ³ K.V. Raman (ed.) 1988: Fig. 24: Nos. 3 & 10 (Pl. 16 & 19.11) and probably Fig. 24: Nos. 4 & 9 (Pl. 19.5 & 19.9). ### [c26.s12.t1.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s12.t1.6) (iii) \*Kodumanal:\* Out of 170 pottery inscriptions from this site, only 7 are in the TB-I notation⁴ and 6 more with mixed TB-I & II notations.⁵ All the remaining legible Tamil inscriptions are in the TB-II notation except in one case where the occurrence of a \*puḷḷi\* is doubtfully reported.⁶ Both TB-I and II notations occur in Periods I and II (ca. 200 B.C.-150 A.D.) at this site.⁷ ### [c26.s12.t1.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s12.t1.7) ⁴ Y. Subbarayalu 1996: Nos. 3, 23, 24, 78, 127, 166 & 169. ### [c26.s12.t1.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s12.t1.8) ⁵ Ibid. Nos. 6, 17, 38, 40, 88 & 113. ### [c26.s12.t1.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s12.t1.9) ⁶ Ibid. No. 39. ### [c26.s12.t1.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s12.t1.10) ⁷ Personal communication from Y. Subbarayalu. ### [c26.s12.t1.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s12.t1.11) (iv) \*Other sites in Tamil Nadu:\* A pottery inscription recently found from excavation at Teriruveli (Ramanathapuram District) has the legend \*koṟṟaṉ\* in which both basic consonants are marked by the \*puḷḷi\*.⁸ The inscription may be assigned to ca. 2nd century A.D. on palaeographic evidence. ### [c26.s12.t1.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s12.t1.12) ⁸ Unpublished. I have seen the pottery inscription in the collections of TNSA at Chennai. ### 6.12.2 From sites outside Tamil Nadu ### [c26.s12.t2.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s12.t2.1) (i) \*Salihundam\* (Andhra Pradesh): The Tamil inscription on pottery found at this site is partly in the TB-I notation.⁹ ### [c26.s12.t2.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s12.t2.2) ⁹ See sections 1.13.8 and 4.19.6 (iv). ### [c26.s12.t2.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s12.t2.3) (ii) \*Ports on the Red Sea Coast of Egypt: Quseir al-Qadim and Berenike\* ### [c26.s12.t2.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s12.t2.4) Two pottery inscriptions from Quesir al-Qadim¹⁰ and one more from Berenike¹¹ on the Red Sea coast of Egypt follow the TB-II notation. ### [c26.s12.t2.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s12.t2.5) ¹⁰ See section 1.13.9 (ii). ### [c26.s12.t2.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s12.t2.6) ¹¹ Ibid. ### 6.13 Medial vowel notations in legends on inscribed objects ### [c26.s13.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s13.1) All three types of vowel notations appear in Tamil-Brāhmī legends on inscribed objects like coins, seals and rings.¹² The TB-I notation occurs in fewer and earlier legends. The \*puḷḷi\* appears only rarely. Only legends with the TB-I notation or the \*puḷḷi\* are noticed below. ### [c26.s13.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s13.2) ¹² See Tables 1.6 to 1.8 and Figs. 1.22 to 1.24. ### 6.13.1 Coins ### [c26.s13.t1.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s13.t1.1) | Apparent reading | Actual reading | | \*\*(i) With TB-I notation\*\* | | | \*\*pe ru vā ḷu ti\*\* | \*\*\*peruvaḷuti\* (Early Pāṇṭiya)\*\*¹ | | \*\*ka ṭā la a ṇa\*\* | \*\*\*kaṭalaṉ\* (coin from Sri Lanka)\*\*² | | \*\*ū ti rā ṇa\*\* | \*\*\*u(t)tiraṉ\* (coin from Sri Lanka)\*\*³ | | \*\*pi ṭā ṇa\*\* | \*\*\*pi(ṭ)ṭaṉ\* (coin from Sri Lanka)\*\*⁴ | | \*\*(ii) With the \*puḷḷi\*\*\* | | | | \*\*\*vāciṭṭi makaṉ\* (portrait coins of the Sātavāhanas; the \*puḷḷi\* is placed next to -\*ṭ\*-).\*\*⁵ | | | \*\*\*atiṇṇaṉ etirāṉ cēntaṉ\* (coin from Andippatti; the short vowel \*e\* has a \*puḷḷi\* inside).\*\*⁶ | | | \*\*\*kuṭṭuvaṉ kōtai\* (Early Cēra; with two \*puḷḷi\* marks, one of them incorrectly placed).\*\*⁷ | ### [c26.s13.t1.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s13.t1.2) ¹ See Nos. 1 & 2, Table 1.6 and Fig. 1.22A. See also section 4.2.2. ### [c26.s13.t1.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s13.t1.3) ² See No. 4, Table 1.6. ### [c26.s13.t1.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s13.t1.4) ³ See No. 5, Table 1.6. See also section 4.19.5 (iv). For the use of \*ū\* in lieu of \*u\*, see section 6.15. ### [c26.s13.t1.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s13.t1.5) ⁴ See No .6, Table 1.6. ### [c26.s13.t1.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s13.t1.6) ⁵ See Nos. 9 & 10, Table 1.6. See also section 5.15 and Fig. 5.9. ### [c26.s13.t1.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s13.t1.7) ⁶ See No. 13, Table 1.6. See also section 4.5.4. ### [c26.s13.t1.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s13.t1.8) ⁷ See No. 12, Table 1.6 and Fig. 1.22 E. See also section 4.3.4. ### 6.13.2 Seals with TB-I notation ### [c26.s13.t2.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s13.t2.1) | \*\*pā rā ta ṇa\*\* | \*\*\*parataṉ\*, 'a clan name'. (A terracotta seal from Kadathur).\*\*⁸ | | \*\*ku ṟā vā ṇa\*\* | \*\*\*kuṟavaṉ\*, 'a clan name'. (A silver seal from Karur).\*\*⁹ | ### [c26.s13.t2.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s13.t2.2) ⁸ See No. 3, Table 1.7 and Fig. 1.23 B. See also section 4.18.1 (v). ### [c26.s13.t2.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s13.t2.3) ⁹ See No. 2, Table 1.7 and Fig. 1.23 A. See also section 4.18.1 (iii). ### 6.13.3 Rings with TB-I notation ### [c26.s13.t3.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s13.t3.1) The following legends are on gold rings from Karur: ### [c26.s13.t3.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s13.t3.2) | \*\*ū pā ā ṇa\*\* | \*\*\*upa\[c\*\]aṉ\* 'preceptor'\*\* ¹⁰ | | \*\*ti yā ṇa ō tā lā ṇa\*\* | \*\*\*tiyaṉ ōtalaṉ\*, 'a personal name'\*\* ¹¹ | | \*\*mi ti rā ṇa\*\* | \*\*\*mi(t)tiraṉ\* 'a personal name'\*\*¹² | | \*\*ti yā ṇa\*\* | \*\*\*tiyaṉ\* 'a personal name'\*\*¹³ | ### [c26.s13.t3.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s13.t3.3) ¹⁰ See No. 4, Table 1.8 and Fig. 1.24 A. See also section 4.9.3 (iii). ### [c26.s13.t3.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s13.t3.4) ¹¹ See No. 2, Table 1.8 and Fig. 1.23 D. See also sections 4.18.1 (v) and 4.19.4 (i). ### [c26.s13.t3.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s13.t3.5) ¹² See No. 3, Table 1.8 and Fig. 1.23 E. See also section 4.19.3 (i). ### [c26.s13.t3.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s13.t3.6) ¹³ See No. 1, Table 1.8 and Fig. 1.23 C. See also section 4.19.4 (i). ### 6.14 Use of ī as i in Early Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions ### [c26.s14.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s14.1) Subrahmanya Aiyer thought there was an exchange of values between the letters \*i\* and \*ī\* in the cave inscriptions.¹ The present evidence does not support this generalisation. He himself reads the letter \*i\* with the normal value in the Anaimalai inscription.² Out of the five occurrences of \*i\* in the Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions,³ it has the normal value in four, and hence the lone exception with the value \*ī\* noticed by Subrahmanya Aiyer in the Tirupparankunram inscription⁴ is best explained as a scribal error. It is, however, true that the symbol for the initial vowel \*ī\* (a vertical line flanked by a pair of dots) stands for the sound \*i\* in most places. The symbol occurs 26 times in the Corpus, all in the Early Period. It has the normal value \*ī\* in only 4 places (in \*Nos. 2, 12, 16 & 59\*), and has to be read as \*i\* in all others to suit the context (e.g., \*iḻañcaṭikan\*, 'a personal name' in \*No. 2\*).⁵ ### [c26.s14.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s14.2) ¹ K.V. Subrahmanya Aiyer 1924: p. 284. ### [c26.s14.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s14.3) ² Ibid. p. 294. (\*Corpus: No. 60\*). ### [c26.s14.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s14.4) ³ \*Corpus: Nos. 17, 55, 60, 76 & 89\*. ### [c26.s14.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s14.5) ⁴ K.V. Subrahmanya Aiyer 1924: pp. 288-289. (\*Corpus: No. 55\*). ### [c26.s14.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s14.6) ⁵ See section 5.10 (\*i / ī\*) for a possible explanation. ### [c26.s14.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s14.7) The use of the symbol \*ī\* for \*i\* is also noticed in the Tamil-Brāhmī legends on pottery and other inscribed objects. ### [c26.s14.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s14.8) (e.g.) \*cāttaṉ āvi-iṉ\* 'of Cāttaṉ Āvi' (pottery inscription from Arikamedu).⁶ \*vāruṇi -iy\* 'Vāruṇi' (pottery inscription from Kodumanal).⁷ \*kol-i-p-puṟai\* 'Poṟai of Kolli' (legend on an Early Cēra coin from Karur).⁸ \*kol-irumpuṟai-y\* 'Irumpoṟai of Kolli' (legend on an Early Cēra coin from Karur).⁹ \*veḷ-i cāmpāṉ\* 'Veḷḷi Cāmpāṉ' (legend on a silver ring from Karur).¹⁰ ### [c26.s14.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s14.9) ⁶ R.E.M. Wheeler \*et al.\* 1946: No. 9, Pl. XLI. I. Mahadevan 1973: No. II. See also No. 2, Table 1.5 and Fig. 1.19B. ### [c26.s14.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s14.10) ⁷ Y. Subbarayalu 1996: No. 114. See also section 4.19.3 (ii). ### [c26.s14.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s14.11) ⁸ See No. 7, Table 1.6 and Fig. 1.22 B. See also section 4.3.2. ### [c26.s14.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s14.12) ⁹ See No. 8, Table 1.6 and Fig. 1.22 C. See also section 4.3.2. ### [c26.s14.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s14.13) ¹⁰ See No. 7, Table 1.8 and Fig. 1.24 B. ### 6.15 Special usage governing u- vowels in Early Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions ### 6.15.1 Apparent lengthening of u as ū ### [c26.s15.t1.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s15.t1.1) Another orthographic peculiarity of the Early Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions is the apparently 'unnecessary lengthening' of the short vowel \*u\* (initial and medial) as \*ū\* in certain positions. The present Corpus records 16 instances of this special usage in 12 inscriptions from 8 sites, far too many to be dismissed as scribal errors. All the inscriptions except one belong to the Early Period (ca. 2nd century b.c.-1st century a.d.) and occur in association with TB-I or mixed TB-I and II notations.¹¹ All of them are clustered around the Madurai region (see Map I, detail). The frequency and distribution of this peculiar usage justify the search for a rational explanation.¹² ### [c26.s15.t1.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s15.t1.2) ¹¹ The exception is the inscription at Anaimalai (\*No. 60\*) assigned to the Late Period (ca. 2nd century a.d.). ### [c26.s15.t1.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s15.t1.3) ¹² I. Mahadevan 1985a: pp. 22-27. The data has been updated in the present study. ### [c26.s15.t1.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s15.t1.4) The following is the complete list of words in the Corpus with the special usage:¹ ### [c26.s15.t1.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s15.t1.5) ¹ The list does not include words in which the vowels \*u\* and \*ū\* occur with normal values. It also excludes obvious scribal errors (e.g., \*ur\* for \*ūr\* 'village'). ### [c26.s15.t1.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s15.t1.6) | S.No. | Apparent reading | Actual reading | Meaning | Ref.No. | | 1. | \*\*a na tū vā ṉa\*\* | \*antuvaṉ\* | 'a personal name' | 53.1 | | 2. | \*\*a va \[v\]i r\[u\] a a ra ū ma\*\* | \*avviru-ar-um\* | 'those two persons also' | 45.3 | | 3. | \*\*a sū tā ṇa\*\* | \*a(s)sutaṉ\* | 'a personal name' | 3.7.b | | 4. | \*\*ū tā yā ṇa sa\*\* | \*utayaṇa(s)sa\* | 'of Utayaṇaṉ' | 24.5 | | 5. | \*\*ū pā cā a ṇa\*\* | \*upa(c)caṉ\* | 'preceptor' | 10.1, 11.3 | | 6. | \*\*ū pā cā ṇa\*\* | \*upa(c)caṉ\* | 'preceptor' | 9.1 | | 7. | \*\*ū pā ṟu vā . . .\*\* | \*u(p)paṟuva\[ṉ\]\* | 'a personal name' | 11.4 | | 8. | \*\*ū pu vā ṇi ka ṇa\*\* | \*u(p)pu vāṇikaṉ\* | 'salt merchant' | 39.1 | | 9. | \*\*ū ṟai\*\* | \*uṟai\* | 'abode (of ascetics)' | 9.3, 24.4 | | 10. | \*\*ku ṉa ṟa tū\*\* | \*-kuṉṟa(t)tu\* | 'of the hill' | 60.1.b | | 11. | \*\*ko ṭa ṭū pi ta tā a\*\* | \*koṭṭupitta-a\* | 'which was caused to be carved' | 1.8 | | 12. | \*\*ko ṭa ṭū pi to ṉa\*\* | \*koṭṭupi(t)tōṉ\* | 'he who caused to be carved' | 8.3, 9.4 | | 13. | \*\*ko ṭū pi to ṉa\*\* | \*koṭu(p)pi(t)tōṉ\* | 'he who caused to be given' | 5.2 | | 14. | \*\*ni kā mā tū\*\* | \*nikama(t)tu\* | 'of the merchant guild' | 3.4 | | 15. | \*\*pā ra a cū\*\* | \*paracu\* | 'a personal name' | 9.2 | | 16. | \*\*pi ṇā ū\*\* | \*piṇa(v)u\* | 'cleft?' | 3.8 | ### [c26.s15.t1.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s15.t1.7) This special usage is also known from legends on pottery and other inscribed objects: ### [c26.s15.t1.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s15.t1.8) | 17. | \*\*ū ti rā ṇa\*\* | \*u(t)tiraṉ\* | 'a personal name' (coin from Sri Lanka).² | | 18. | \*\*ū pā ā ṇa\*\* | \*upa\[c\*\]aṉ\* | 'preceptor'(gold ring from Karur).³ | | 19. | \*\*ū mā ṇ(a) . . .\*\* | \*umaṇa\[ṉ\]\* | 'trader in salt' (pottery inscription from Uraiyur).⁴ | ### [c26.s15.t1.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s15.t1.9) ² See No. 5, Table 1.6. ### [c26.s15.t1.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s15.t1.10) ³ See No. 4, Table 1.8 and Fig. 1.24 A. ### [c26.s15.t1.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s15.t1.11) ⁴ K.V. Raman (ed.) 1988: Fig. 24.3 and Pl. 16. (See also No. 3, Table 1.5 and Fig. 1.19C in this vol.) ### 6.15.2 Empirical rules for the special usage of u- vowels ### [c26.s15.t2.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s15.t2.1) The clue to the understanding of this special usage comes from the TB-I notation with which it is closely associated as may be seen from the word list above. The TB-I notation attempted to distinguish three medial vowel-lengths viz., \*-ā\*, \*-a\* and Ø, but provided for only two as it employed the same marker for both \*-ā\* and \*-a\*. On this analogy, we may formulate the following empirical rules for the special usage relating to the \*u-\* vowels: ### [c26.s15.t2.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s15.t2.2) (a) The symbols for \*ū\* (initial and medial) stand for the sounds \*ū\* (long) or \*u\* (short). (b) The symbols for \*u\* (initial and medial) stand for the sounds \*u\* (short) or \*u\* (shortened). ### [c26.s15.t2.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s15.t2.3) Let us examine the words in the list given above in the light of these empirical rules. ### [c26.s15.t2.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s15.t2.4) \*\*Rule (a): \*ū\* to be read as \*u\*\*\* ### [c26.s15.t2.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s15.t2.5) 9 initial occurrences of \*ū-\* have to be read as \*u-\* (items 4 to 9, 17-19); 6 medial occurrences of \*-ū-\* have also to be read as \*-u-\* (items 1 to 3, 11 to 13). ### [c26.s15.t2.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s15.t2.6) The situation is less clear in respect of the final occurrences of \*-ū\* which have to be read as \*-u\* according to rule (a). Items 15 and 16 may be read respectively as \*paracu\* and \*piṇa(v)u\* probably with the short \*-u\* finally as required by the rule. However, as item 15 is a personal name and item 16 is not attested elsewhere, one cannot be sure about the length of the final \*-u\* in these cases. Items 10 and 14 have to be emended respectively as \*kuṉṟa(t)tu\* and \*nikama(t)tu\* as in Literary Tamil; one should then expect the shortened \*-u\* in the final position in these cases and not the short \*-u\* as required by this rule. ### [c26.s15.t2.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s15.t2.7) \*\*Rule (b): \*-u\* to be read as shortened \*-u\*\*\* ### [c26.s15.t2.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s15.t2.8) The diagnostic word in the list (item 8) is \*\*ū pu\*\* to be read as \*u(p)pu\* (with short and shortened \*u\* at either end) according to this rule: Apparently the shifting of the long \*ū\* symbol to represent the short \*u\* was for the purpose of leaving the short \*u\* symbol to represent the shortened \*-u\* in word-final positions. There are, however, no other such clear instances in the word list to confirm this hypothesis. ### [c26.s15.t2.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s15.t2.9) On the whole, the evidence from the word list supports the empirical rules formulated above governing the usage of the \*u-\* vowels in the Early Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions. But, as in the case of the TB-I notation, this system is also defective as it provides for only two symbols (\*ū\* and \*u\*) to represent three sounds (\*ū\*, \*u\* and shortened \*u\*). This is almost certainly the reason why this orthographic experiment failed. While the TB-I notation was replaced by better systems, the special usage governing the \*u-\* vowels disappeared without any replacement, thus ending an interesting, though short-lived, attempt to depict the shortened \*u\* graphically in the Tamil-Brāhmī script. ### 6.16 Dual values of the letters e and o ### [c26.s16.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s16.1) The length of \*e\* and \*o\* (initial and medial) is not indicated in the Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions of the Early Period,¹ and only sporadically in the Late Period and in the Early Vaṭṭeḻuttu inscriptions with the addition of the \*puḷḷi\* ('dot'). There is, however, no doubt that the respective short and long vowels existed in the language. This is proved by the following contrasting pairs of words in the Corpus. ### [c26.s16.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s16.2) ¹ See sections 5.10 & 5.13 (\*e/o\*). ### [c26.s16.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s16.3) | \*teṉ-\* | 'southern' (49.5.a) | \*tēṉ-\* | '(pleasing as) honey' (73.2.a) | | \*peru(m)-\* | 'great' (83.1.a) | \*pēr-\* | 'great' (13.2.a) | | \*veḷ-\* | 'white' (3.3.a) | \*vēḷ\* | 'a clan name' (32.1.c) | | \*koṭu-\* | 'to give' (3.9) | \*-kōṭu\* | 'mountain' (120.1.b) | | \*poṉ\* | 'gold' (36.2.a) | \*-pōṉ\* as in | \*vep(p)ōṉ\* (\*vaippōṉ\*) 'he who has endowed' (13.4) | ### 6.17 Doubling of consonants in Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions ### [c26.s17.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s17.1) One of the characteristic orthographic features of the Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions is the employment of a single consonant in writing to represent the doubled consonants in the language. This feature is due to the influence of Prakrit inscriptional orthography which seldom permits doubled consonants in writing. However, unlike in Prakrit inscriptions, doubling of consonants is present as an optional feature in the Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions from the earliest times.¹ The presence or absence of doubled consonants in any particular inscription is unpredictable. The same inscription or even the same word is found to employ or avoid doubled consonants at random. However, a survey of the inscriptions in the Corpus shows a clear trend towards increasing use of doubled consonants approximating to the linguistic norms. The main features of this development which may be interpreted as due to the waning influence of Prakrit inscriptional orthography and the growing influence of the local language, are summarised below. ### 6.17.1 Doubling of consonants in loanwords ### [c26.s17.t1.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s17.t1.1) As may be expected, avoidance of doubling of consonants is more pronounced in loanwords from Prakrit.² (In the following examples, the basic consonant not in the original is shown within brackets.) ### [c26.s17.t1.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s17.t1.2) (e.g.) \*a(s)sutaṉ\* (3.7.b), \*āy(c)ca-\* (55.5.a), \*upa(c)caṉ\* (9.¹), \*ka(s)sapaṉ\* (45.²), \*ta(c)caṉ\* (73.8), \*-pu(t)ta\* (80.1.b), \*-pu(t)tō\* (59.1.b), \*vi(s)suvaṉ\* (27.2.b), \*sa(p)pami(t)tā\* (41.1); (cf. also) \*\*ū ti rā ṇa\*\* for \*u(t)tiraṉ\* (legend on a coin from Sri Lanka).³ \*\*mi ti rā ṇa\*\* for \*mi(t)tiraṉ\* (legend on a gold ring from Karur).⁴ ### [c26.s17.t1.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s17.t1.3) ¹ See, for example, Nos. \*1, 8, 9, 12, 13, 24\*, etc., in the Corpus for the occurrence of doubled consonants in the Early Period. Subrahmanya Aiyer's observations that "doubling of consonants came into later use in the Tamil language" and that its absence "is a telling feature of (the) records" (1924: p. 288) are incorrect. He did not read the longest inscription at Mangulam (No. \*1\* in the present Corpus) which contains no fewer than five of the earliest instances of doubled consonants. His own reading of the Anaimalai inscription (No. \*60\* in the present Corpus) has two more instances. He missed two more instances in the Kongarpuliyankulam inscriptions (Nos. \*12\* and \*13\* in the present Corpus). ### [c26.s17.t1.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s17.t1.4) ² See Appendix V for the word list in Indo-Aryan and Appendix VI for a few more doubtful items. ### [c26.s17.t1.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s17.t1.5) ³ See No. 5, Table 1.6. ### [c26.s17.t1.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s17.t1.6) ⁴ See No. 3, Table 1.8 and Fig. 1.23 E. ### [c26.s17.t1.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s17.t1.7) Loanwords are sometimes written with doubled consonants, no doubt reflecting the influence of the local language: ### [c26.s17.t1.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s17.t1.8) (e.g.) \*attuvāyi\* (read \*attavāyi\*) (60.6), \*atiṭṭāṉam\* (63.6), \*cāttaṉ\* (85.⁴.b), \*dhammam\* (1.³), \*viyakkaṉ\* (84.4.a). ### [c26.s17.t1.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s17.t1.9) There are occasional hypercorrect doubling of consonants in loanwords reflecting the unsettled orthographic convention: ### [c26.s17.t1.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s17.t1.10) (e.g.) \*atiṭṭāṇṇam\* (for \*atiṭṭāṉam\*) (64.¹), \*vāṇṇikaṉ\* (for \*vāṇikaṉ\*) (70.1.c). ### 6.17.2 Doubling of consonants in Tamil words ### [c26.s17.t2.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s17.t2.1) There are numerous examples, especially in the Early Period, of Tamil words written with single consonants in lieu of doubled consonants:¹ ### [c26.s17.t2.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s17.t2.2) (e.g.) \*aṟu(p)pi(t)a\* (62.14), \*u(p)pu\* (39.¹.a), \*ko(ṭ)ṭiy-avaṉ\* (4.³), \*ko(ṭ)ṭi-ōr\* (6.3), \*ko(ṟ)ṟi\* (65.⁴.b), \*to(ṭ)ṭa\* (84.⁵), \*tai(t)ta\* (101.²), \*pa(ḷ)ḷi-\* (1.9), \*ma(l)laṉ\* (42.2.b), \*vai(k)ka\* (16.2); ### [c26.s17.t2.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s17.t2.3) (cf. also) pi ṭā ṇa for \*pi(ṭ)ṭaṉ\* (13.2.c and in a legend on a coin from Sri Lanka²). ### [c26.s17.t2.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s17.t2.4) The number of native words employing doubled consonants is more than that of such loanwords, especially in the Late Period and in the Early Vaṭṭeḻuttu inscriptions. Of special interest are pairs with and without doubling of consonants in adjoining inscriptions proving conclusively that the doubled consonants were present in the spoken language: ### [c26.s17.t2.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s17.t2.5) (e.g.) \*koṟi\*/\*koṟṟi\* (65.⁴.b & 66.4.b), \*nali-\*/\*nalli-\* (65.¹.a & 66.1.a), \*paḷi-\*/\*paḷḷi\* (89.4 & 88.1). ### [c26.s17.t2.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s17.t2.6) A few of the numerous Tamil words written with doubled consonants are given below: ### [c26.s17.t2.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s17.t2.7) (e.g.) \*aṟaṭṭa\* (60.7.a), \*īttavaṉ\* (12.³), \*koṭṭupitta-\* (1.8), \*koṟṟantai\* (67.¹.a), \*ceyvittāṉ\* (88.²), \*nōṟṟa\* (116.3), \*peruṅkūṟṟaṉ\* (88.6), \*muṭitta\* (115.8), \*yāṟṟūr\* (61.3); ### [c26.s17.t2.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s17.t2.8) ² See No. 6, Table 1.6. ### [c26.s17.t2.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s17.t2.9) (cf. also) \*cāttaṉ āvi\*, \*tevvaitattu\* and \*uttiraṉ\* (pottery inscriptions from Arikamedu).³ ### [c26.s17.t2.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s17.t2.10) ³ R.E.M. Wheeler \*et al.\* 1946: Figs. 46-47: Nos. 9 & 19; I. Mahadevan 1996a: No. 5.30 respectively. See also Table 1.5, Nos. 1 & 2 and Figs. 1.19A & B in this vol. ### [c26.s17.t2.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s17.t2.11) \*atiṇṇaṉ\* (coin from Andippatti).⁴ ### [c26.s17.t2.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s17.t2.12) ⁴ See No. 13, Table 1.6. ### [c26.s17.t2.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s17.t2.13) \*tittaṉ\* (silver ring from Karur).⁵ ### [c26.s17.t2.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s17.t2.14) ⁵ See No. 12, Table 1.8 and Fig. 1.24 D. ### [c26.s17.t2.15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s17.t2.15) There are also a couple of hypercorrect forms with doubled consonants in lieu of single consonants in Tamil words in the Early Period before the orthographic conventions settled down. ### [c26.s17.t2.16](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s17.t2.16) (e.g.) \*vaḷutti-\* for \*vaḷuti\* (1.7.b), \*mattirai-\* for \*matirai\* (38.¹). ### [c26.s17.t2.17](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s17.t2.17) ¹ See Appendix IV for the word list. ### 6.17.3 Doubling of consonants as a grammatical feature ### [c26.s17.t3.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s17.t3.1) Doubling of word-initial and word-final consonants in sandhi are well-known morphophonemic features in Tamil (\*mikutal\* and \*iraṭṭittal\* respectively). These are represented in the Late Period and in the Early Vaṭṭeḻuttu inscriptions.¹ ### [c26.s17.t3.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s17.t3.2) ¹ See sections 7.15.3 & 7.15.4. ### [c26.s17.t3.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s17.t3.3) (e.g.) \*mikutal\*: \*tiṭi-kkāttāṉ\* (58.1-2), \*cē-kkanti\* (83.². a-b). \*iraṭṭittal\*: \*cell-irumpoṟai\* (61.7.b-c) ### 6.17.4 A special orthographic convention for doubling of consonants ### [c26.s17.t4.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s17.t4.1) Doubling of consonants in the inscriptions does not follow the rules of grammar in some cases.² As such usage is also seen in later Tamil inscriptions,³ they should not be dismissed as 'scribal errors', but regarded as an orthographic convention of the inscriptional language: ### [c26.s17.t4.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s17.t4.2) (e.g.) \*amaṇṇaṉ\* (for \*amaṇaṉ\*) (61.²), \*kuṟṟaṉ\* - \*aṟupitta\* (for \*kuṟṟaṉ aṟuppitta\*) (63.4-5). ### [c26.s17.t4.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s17.t4.3) ² Ibid. ### 6.17.5 Doubled consonants in Early Tamil inscriptions: a statistical study ### [c26.s17.t5.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s17.t5.1) As mentioned earlier, the inscriptions represent doubled consonants with increasing frequency in the Late Period and in the Early Vaṭṭeḻuttu inscriptions, moving closer to the linguistic usage. This trend is brought out in Table 6.³. The overall trend is quite clear. While avoidance of doubled consonants was the norm in the Early Period, the employment of doubled consonants became dominant in the Late Period and almost the exclusive orthographic convention in the Early Vaṭṭeḻuttu inscriptions. ### [c26.s17.t5.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s17.t5.2) | | Early Ta. Br. | | Late Ta. Br. | | Early Vaṭṭeḻuttu | | | | No. | % | No. | % | No. | % | | No. of times doubling of consonants is avoided | 77 | 83.70 | 25 | 37.31 | 4 | 13.33 | | No. of times doubling of consonants is present | 15 | 16.30 | 42 | 62.69 | 26 | 86.67 | | Total No. of times doubling of consonants is expected | 92 | | 67 | | 30 | | ### [c26.s17.t5.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s17.t5.3) Table 6.³. Frequency of doubled consonants in the Corpus. ### [c26.s17.t5.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s17.t5.4) ³ See Commentary (63.4). See also A. Velu Pillai 1976: pp. 35-36 for examples from later inscriptions. ### 6.18 Analytical writing in Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions ### [c26.s18.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s18.1) One of the characteristic orthographic features of the Tamil-Brāhmī inscriptions, especially in the Early Period, is what may be called 'analytical' writing in which non-initial word-segments and grammatical suffixes commencing with vowels occur separately without sandhi or the glides \*y\* or \*v\* in between. This style of writing in which segmentation occurs at the junction of words, or words and suffixes, cannot be described as alphabetic as suggested by Subramanian.¹ His theory is not borne out by the evidence,² though it has been repeated in later publications.³ The Tamil scripts have remained basically syllabic (as the parent Brāhmī) with the exception of free-standing basic consonants. ### [c26.s18.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s18.2) ¹ "The vowelled consonants (are) sometimes written not as one letter, but as two separate letters, with the consonant and the vowel side by side". (T.N. Subramanian 1957: p. 1509). ### [c26.s18.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s18.3) ² Ibid. Figs. 7a & b. The first example \*y ū\* is probably from the Karungalakkudi inscription (No. 34) in which the place name \*eḷaiy-ūr\* is written as two words. His second example \*ṭ ā\* (sic) is probably taken from \*atiṭ-aṇam\* (read \*atiṭ-āṇam\*) in the Sittannavasal-A inscription (No. 49) in which the pause serves the same function as doubling of consonants (\*atiṭṭāṇam\*). These are not cases of alphabetic writing. ### [c26.s18.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s18.4) ³ E.g., K.A. Nilakanta Sastri 1955 (4th edn. 1975): p. 90. ### [c26.s18.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s18.5) Two types of segmentation through analytical writing are illustrated below, each involving non-initial word-segments and grammatical suffixes commencing with vowels.⁴ ### [c26.s18.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s18.6) ⁴ For more examples, see section 7.4.4. ### 6.18.1 Consonant followed by vowel: ### [c26.s18.t1.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s18.t1.1) (e.g.) (i) between word-segments: ### [c26.s18.t1.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s18.t1.2) | \*\*\*pākaṉ-ūr\*\*\* | \*\*Pākaṉūr\*\* | \*\*'a place name'\*\* | \*\*13.1\*\* | | \*\*\*veḷ-aṟai\*\*\* | \*\*Ve(ḷ)ḷaṟai\*\* | \*\*'a place name'\*\* | \*\*6.1\*\* | ### [c26.s18.t1.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s18.t1.3) (ii) between word and suffix: ### [c26.s18.t1.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s18.t1.4) | \*\*\*kaṭal-aṉ\*\*\* | \*\*Kaṭalaṉ, a personal name\*\* | \*\*1.7.a\*\* | | \*\*\*cēvit-ōṉ\*\*\* | \*\*\*cēvi(t)tōṉ\*\*\*, \*\*'he who caused to be made'.\*\*⁵ | \*\*18.3\*\* | | \*\*\*kuvira-aṉ-a\*\*\* | \*\*'of Kuviran' (pottery inscription from Alagankulam)\*\*⁶ | | ### [c26.s18.t1.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s18.t1.5) ⁵ See comments on the verb \*cē\* in section 3.2.2 (v). ### [c26.s18.t1.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s18.t1.6) ⁶ Natana Kasinathan 1997: No. 12; Pl. VI, Fig. 14. ### [c26.s18.t1.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s18.t1.7) (iii) both types: ### [c26.s18.t1.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26.s18.t1.8) | \*\*\*pēr-ay-am\*\*\* | \*\*\*pērayam\*\*\* \*\*'large tank'\*\* | \*\*35.2\*\* | _First 200 of 339 passages. [Read on](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26)_ ## Linked texts (6) - [Tolkāppiyam](https://indike.org/pramana/in.sangam.grammar.tolkappiyam) — Tolkāppiyar, Tamil - [Dēva](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.east.deva) - [Kodumanal](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.kodumanal) - [Bhaṭṭiprōlu](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.deccan.bhattiprolu) - [Salihundam](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.salihundam) - [Uṟaiyūr](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.uraiyur) --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.mahadevan-2003.c26) · Pramāṇa