Talk:Tolkāppiyam

message: Tholkaappiyam is definitely pre 300 BCE. Sangam literature is proven to be 200 BCE - 200 CE based on  epigraphical evidences, numismatics, literary citations etc.(for example Dr. I. Mahadevan). Tholkaappiyam is pre-Sangam work (while the existence of 2nd Sangam and 1st Sangam may be questionable, due to lack of concrete evidence other than iRaiyanaar akapporuL, a work of later period, the existence of the so called last sangam is not in doubt. Tholkaappiyam belongs to a period before the 'last' sangam. There are opinions that some parts of it are of later period etc., but the consensus is that it is pre-300 BCE, with very littel dispute. (claiming 500 BCE, 700 BCE etc. require more support). --Aadal 18:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dates

message: It is said in the article, 'earning the sobriquet, kannith thamil, which can mean ever-young Tamil or "virgin Tamil".' But the word kanni means either First or 'azhivillaa' (invincible, deathless, endless). The names KanniammaaL, Kanniyappan means one who is invincible (azivillaathavaL/n).
KannippOr (kanni+pOr) means maiden war (first participation/debut in war). Kannith thamizh does not mean virgin tamil. It means ever-fresh, unspoiled, ever-vibrant thamizh. In the sense of virgin forest etc. virgin tamil would be correct. --Aadal 18:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: kannith thamizh

message: The edit history of Tolkaappiyar says, June 2006, created the page since no page is preexist on this wonderful master piece in Tamil. Someone who knows the subject should obviously merge the duplicated articles. --Mereda 16:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger from Tolkaappiyar 

message: According to A Concise History of Classical Sanskrit Literature, By Gaurinath Shastri, The Aindra schools of Sanskrit grammarians was one of a dozen or so ancient sanskrit schools 'each of which is represented by a reputed writer or established reputation'. Indra, or Aindra is mentioned as the first of the grammarians. This was later subplanted by Panini's schools of grammar.
I read a parallel to the legend that Tolkappiyam is based on Agattiyam, the grammar book written by Agastya and that Tolkappiyar was a student of Agastya. 'Was there an ancient Aindra school of grammar? Taittiriya samhita (6.4.7) connects the vedic god Indra to the origin of grammar: "Speech indeed spoke formerly without manifestation (avya krta). The gods said to Indra: 'do manifest this speech forus'... Indra approaching it from the middle made it manifest. Therefore speech is manifest (vya krta)"  - From Patanjali's introduction to the Mahabhashya, quoted in Staal, J.F., "Sanskrit Philosophy of Language", Current Trends in Linguistics, 5, pp. 499-531, 1969.'
Panini: a survey of research By George Cardona states that there is no proof that there was indeed an Aindra school of grammar. It also states that this legend was concocted to state that Panini's work was based on older grammatical works of divine origins. It quotes Patanjali's Mahabhasya: '...Bhraspati proclaimed to Indra for a thousand heaven years a complete text of words listed individually and yet he did not get to teh end' (evam hi sruyate: brhaspatir indraya divyam varsa-sahasram prati-paroktanam sabdanam sabda-parayanam provaca nantam jagama. On the bases of such passages, it has been supposed that there was a grammar (vyakarana) by Indra (hence called Aindra), the pupil of Brahaspati.
Conclusion: Sastri's claim is simply a means to note that Tolkappiyam was ancient by alluding to the legends that it was based on the grammar of Agastya and Indra. 
I am removing the mention about the Aindra school based on the above argument.
- Parthi talk/contribs 01:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your arguments do not anywhere counter N.Shastri's version.Even if there is a counter version to that ; the correct way will be to insert that argument into the article rather than removing the referenced information .-Bharatveer 04:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Aindra' schools of grammar 

message: Can someone please include translations of the chapter names when they are listed?
--Selket 17:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chapter names 

message: The dating of the tolkaappiyam supplied (600BC) is probably too far back in time. Most historians place it at 7th to 10th century AD. It cannot be before that. Simply because of pulli. Pulli concept is one of the distinguishing feature among the tamil characters. Although it is not unique and brahmi also has pulli. It is distinguished by placement . According to Tholkappiam which talks about pulli and its position, that is on top of the alphabet instead of side as in Brahmi. This is also one of the characteristics of tamil brahmi according to Mr. Mahadevan. The first inscription of this type of pulli is in vallam by pallvas dated 7-8th century AD. --comment was originally added by   Sarvagnya 10:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sarvagnya, foget about 10th century, Tolkappiyam was written in 1968. Before that we were all talking in mime language. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.182.124.1 (talk) 07:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pulli 

message: Sarvagna has added the following passage:
I'll assume good faith and wait for Sarvagna to provide proper reference information including quotes and page numbers (instead of simply 'Hart' or 'Zvelebil' etc). Failing that this passage will be deleted as OR. Parthi talk/contribs 22:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent POV additions by [[User:Sarvagna|Sarvagna]] 

message: Sarvagnya: You are giving book citations without page numbers. If the page numbers are given it would allow for verifiability (If you could quote relevant portion, it will be great, but provide page numbers at least). Praveen 22:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will add both page numbers and quote the relevant portions.  Give me some time.  Thanks.  Sarvagnya 22:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand. Do you have access to the books at present? It would have been logical to get the references first & then edit the content. Anyways, take your time & provide the references within reasonable time. Thanks Praveen 23:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page numbers

message: Under this section do we have any citations for influence of Pali and Prakrit grammar upon Tolkapiyam (via Buddhist and Jaina influences) Was the Sanskrit influence direct or indirect via Pali and other Prakrits ? Just a thought. Thanks Taprobanus 13:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Influence of Sanskrit

message: Editors I find the article surprisingly inaccurate on quite a few aspects given the recently witnessed discussions and history on the rigor for some edits. 
There is too much mention of Tolkappiyam dealing with writing, characters, optimal writing etc. We need t correct this. Also it is wrong for the Overview section to claim etymology is a subject of Tolkappiyam. Tamil grammatical tradition  has conspicuously avoided etymologizing in stark contrast to Sanskrit.
Also dating aspects should clearly mention that the range of 1st century BC to 5th century AD is based on various layers/divisions not for the whole entity.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perichandra1 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a pleasure to see you here on Wikipedia!  You are of course quite right on both counts.  The idea that the Tolkappiyam discusses etymology is actually quite common - I have even seen a reference to it in the introduction (by somebody else) to a recent edition of book by Prof. Ilakkuvanar.  But obviously, it isn't correct.  The idea of layers in the Tolkappiyam absolutely needs to be given a fairly prominent place here (also in relation to authorship), and also in Date of the Tolkappiyam (where, at present, it is mentioned in passing).  It would be excellent if you could do this, if you have the time. -- Arvind 00:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious edits needed 

message: I rolled back to the earlier version as two large paragraphs of referenced text were removed. Anyone know why it was done? --Nate1481(t/c) 16:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing to lose sleep over.  Just a passing vandal.  Sarvagnya 19:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert 

message: #Ref 11 says, "Much more important is the fact that some of the nurpas seem to have been directly influenced by Sanskrit texts such as Manavadharmashastra and Arthashastra, p143", which the editors want but not the original term used for Tolkaappiyam? 
#The world Tolkapiyam is Tol + kappiyam directly. The word "Tonmai" is "ancientness" if there is such a word in English. Further, there is no reference given to the the way the word Tolkapiyam was shown to be composed of. 
--Aadal (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverted the recent revert by Sarvagnya

message: This article is one of a  number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue   are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes"  would be appreciated.
Please update the Queue page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Pending changes

message: I have read through this article and past comments on this talk page. This version of the article is in bad shape and hardly reflects the mainstream scholarship on Tolkāppiyam. I will update it. Comments/discussion welcome, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review and update 

message: It's so long. Too long, as a matter of fact. Is there anything we can do about it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.53.218.5 (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The image