Dear Devapriya,
Thanking you for your response to my Thread. You have mentioned in same as follows:
".......The Copper Plates belong to 9th Century and written in Vatteluththu. So Quoting that would not help......"
Could you very kindly let me know of the details of the Copper Plates, which you have referred to as "......belonging to the 9th century and written in Vatteluththu......".
Also please indicate as to who has provided this Copper Plate Grant you referred, and to whom ???
Also in the core text of the Copper Plate Grant you have mentioned above, did you see to your own eyes whether the text which I have given above in my Thread about Saint Maanikkavaasakar, is appearing in full or not ???
Please advise.
Also you have mentioned as follows:
".....The Linguistic use of Tamil word and Etymology shall not support Manickavasagar to 3rd Century.......
The poets of the Sangam Tamil Acadamy composed literary works to the grammetical norms set in the Agastiyam, Tholkaappiam and other ancient grammetical works, and the Tamil Sangam too was set up with many scholarly poets in Tamil, with the sole intension of devoloping Tamil and producing high class Tamil literary works of esteem.
Do you think either during Sangam period or post-Sangam period, the religious dignitories or any other countrymen out side the fold of Sangam Tamil Academy, would have spoken, written, or composed Literary works in Tamil to the same norms set up by Agastiyam & Tholkaappiam linguistically, in high class Tamil.
Hence could we say a lilterary or religious work composed by them of either of the above periods, doesnot fall to that period simply because they are not in align to Sangam Literary works liguistically, even though many other evidences point to such literary or religious work - to be of either of the above mentioned periods.
Even in a Tamil University of today, a student doing a specialised degee course in Tamil Lanuage will get accustomed to writing or composing Literary work of scholarly Tamil than the others who didnot have any such specialised study, but the average knowledge of Tamil in their schools and colleges.
Kavignar Vairamutthu and any average laymen of today, composing a poem each, could both be of the same linguistic scholarship. Could people many centuries later point to the poem composed by the average layman and say he doenot belong the period of Kavignar Vairamutthu being year 2008.
Today we hear of Chennai Tamil, Thirutchi Tamil, Thirunelveli Tamil, Mathurai Tamil, Koyaamuththoor Tamil, which are not only linguistically slight different - as spoken and written Tamil, but even some words used too are different. Can the people centuries later taking the composition of the Thirutchi Tamils as yardstick and say the composition of the people of the other regions of today's TamilNadu, doesnot belong to year 2008.
Hence trying to estimate the period of a Literary or Religious compositions purly on the linguistic basis or etymological basis cannot always be taken as the positive guidance in estimating the period of a work. It could be a rough guidance in the absense of any other evidences, but not in the face of many other evidences which are already available.
Please advise your views.
Further you have also stated that:
".......the Kings referred all belong to 2nd Pandya/Chola Period......"
Could you very kindly let me know the relevent years, to which the ".....2nd Pandiya /Chola period......" referred by you belongs to.
Also indicate the reasons you attribute - as to why your reckon these Kings under reference all belong to so called 2nd Pandiya/Chola period.
Awaiting your very kind replies to the above
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks