The Tamil Process Grammar

PROCESS GRAMMAR AND TOLKAAPIYAM

I study very deeply Tolkaappiyam (Tol) ( 3rd cent BC ) and I find the Process Grammar implicit in it, very useful for understanding the Evolutionary dynamics underlying the transformations of SumeroTamil into Cankam Tamil and how Rigkrit (Rg) is also a language that branched off from SumeroTamil.

What appealed to me about the Process grammar of Tol. is that he recognized Transformational and Generative ( TG ) processes as parts of language features i.e., IlakkaNam. He also has listed TG processes at phonological, semantic, syntactic and prosodic levels. You can see that in my derivation of base language of Rig Veda and Bagavath Gita I am using these TG notions. As such studies progress I am sure we can list out the details of these TG rules.

Just to give an example: we can trace the Rigkrit ‘bhir’ to Sumerian ba-ere and relate them to Tamil, Peer. Another one is Rg ‘tanve’ to Su te-en-bi and Ta. taNivi. As we collect more and more such words we can formulate rules: Su. ‘-e > Rg –O, Ta. –O (empty, deleted and so forth). We can also say Su. –n > Ta. –N , Rg –n and so forth.

Such studies are made possible only because there is an enormous range of Sumerian literature that is available now and which were not available (as far I know) for Tolkaappiyar or PaNini.

Yes I am stretching the history of Tamil and Sanskrit BEYOND the traditionally accepted dates. I do not see anything wrong with it. There is NEW data that has become available and therefore new kinds of perspectives on the historical origins of these languages and how they are interrelated.

Why should this be surprising or unacceptable? For more than two hundred years and even now many Indian scholars go along with the notion that Sanskrlt is Indo-European and that as such it belongs to the same family of language as German, Greek, Latin and so forth.

Did PaNini, Tolkaappiyar or any other Indian linguists ever said anything like this? It held sway and continues to do so but at the same time declining only because it is all false, a build-up on a very flimsy data-base as Aurobindo himself recognized decades ago.

Now while I admit that more studies may be relevant for showing that Rg has SumeroTamil as its base, I have already provided tons of evidences, according Dr Winters, to show that Sumerian is Archaic Tamil.

In hermeneutic Science there is NOTHING such as PROVING but also helping out or demonstrating and so forth.

I recognize and understand that Sumerian is Archaic Tamil and have posted tons of materials. So the onus is on the part of other scholars who have to READ seriously what I have posted, examine the truths of what I have written. seek to recognize what I have recognized, raise questions when problems are encountered SPECIFIC to the problem in understanding.

So far most of the scholars just simply react globally and emotionally (some even going to the level of calling a crack-pot!)

The claims that I make are serious claims and after decades of careful study of original texts. While I admit I can be wrong here and there but in essence and majority of cases I am right. 

Sumerian is Archaic Tamil and while Cankam Tamil constitutes a continuation of it, Rigkrit branched off from it.

Loganathan Krishnan @ Ullaganar