{{Short description|Ancient work on Tamil grammar}}
{{use dmy dates|date=February 2016}}
{{use Indian English|date=February 2016}}
{{Contains special characters|Indic}}
{{Sangam literature}} 
{{Tamil transliteration}}
'''''Tolkāppiyam''''', also romanised as '''''Tholkaappiyam''''' ({{langx|ta|தொல்காப்பியம்}} {{audio|LL-Q5885 (tam)-Sriveenkat-தொல்காப்பியம்.wav|listen}} , ''lit.'' "ancient poem"{{sfn|Kamil Zvelebil|1973|p=131}}), is the oldest extant Tamil [[grammar]] text and the oldest extant long work of [[Tamil literature]].{{sfn|Kamil Zvelebil|1973|pp=131–133}}{{sfn|David Shulman|2016|p=28}} 
The surviving manuscripts of the ''Tolkappiyam'' consists of three books ({{Langx|ta|அதிகாரம்|Atikāram|Chapter or Authority}}), each with nine chapters ({{Langx|ta|இயல்|Iyal}}), with a cumulative total of 1,610 (483+463+664) ''[[sutras]]''<!--Sutras must be related to ancient Tamil Tolkappiyam, it is pointing to sanskirt --> in the {{Langx|ta|நூற்பா|nūṛpā|verse}} meter.{{sfn|Kamil Zvelebil|1973|pp=131–132 with footnotes}}{{refn|group=note|The palm-leaf manuscripts and commentaries on the text vary slightly in the total number of verse-sutras; they are all about 1,610.{{sfn|Hartmut Scharfe|1977|pp=178–179 with footnote 2}}}} It is a comprehensive text on grammar, and includes ''sutras'' on orthography, phonology, etymology, morphology, semantics, prosody, sentence structure and the significance of context in language.{{sfn|Kamil Zvelebil|1973|pp=131–132 with footnotes}} [[Vishnu|Mayyon]] as ([[Vishnu]]), [[Murugan|Seyyon]] as ([[Murugan]]), [[Indra|Vendhan]] as ([[Indra]]), [[Varuna]] as ([[Varuna]]) and [[Korravai|Kotṟavai]] as (Devi or Bagavathi) are the gods mentioned.<ref>{{Cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZjoRAAAAYAAJ&q=tolkappiyam+varuna |title=Journal of Tamil Studies, Volume 1 |date=1969 |publisher=International Institute of Tamil Studies |page=131 |language=en |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171113060321/https://books.google.no/books?id=ZjoRAAAAYAAJ&q=tolkappiyam+varuna&dq=tolkappiyam+varuna&hl=no&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiloMXV6bnXAhXiDZoKHXyuDMAQ6AEILTAB |archive-date=13 November 2017 |url-status=live |df=dmy-all}}</ref>

The ''Tolkappiyam'' is difficult to date. Some in the Tamil tradition place the text in the historical Pandya kingdom Second tamil sangam, variously in 1st millennium BCE or earlier.{{sfn|Takanobu Takahashi|1995|pp=16–17}} Scholars place the text much later and believe the text evolved and expanded over a period of time. According to Nadarajah Devapoopathy the earliest layer of the ''Tolkappiyam'' was likely composed between the 2nd and 1st century BCE,<ref>{{Cite book|last=Nadarajah|first=Devapoopathy|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=IZ7b6msS3kgC&q=info:Q1h0NSIwwIEJ:scholar.google.com/&pg=PR9|title=Love in Sanskrit and Tamil Literature: A Study of Characters and Nature, 200 B.C.-A.D. 500|date=1994|publisher=Motilal Banarsidass Publ.|isbn=978-81-208-1215-4|language=en}}</ref> and the extant manuscript versions fixed by about the 5th century CE.{{sfn|Kamil Zvelebil|1973|pp=138–146 with footnotes, Quote: "this fact would give us approximately the 5th cent. AD as the earliest date of Porulatikaram, and as the date of the final redaction of the Tolkappiyam."}} The ''Tolkappiyam Ur-text'' likely relied on some unknown even older literature.{{sfn|Kamil Zvelebil|1973|pp=138–139 with footnotes}}

[[Iravatham Mahadevan]] dates the Tolkappiyam to no earlier than the 2nd century CE, as it mentions the {{Langx|ta|புள்ளி|Puḷḷi|Point resp. [[Virama]]}} being an integral part of Tamil script. The ''puḷḷi'' (a diacritical mark to distinguish pure consonants from consonants with inherent vowels) only became prevalent in Tamil epigraphs after the 2nd century CE.<ref name="Mahadevan2">{{cite book |last=Mahadevan |first = I. |title=Early Tamil Epigraphy - From the Earliest Times to the Sixth century C.E., 2nd Edition |date=2014|pages=271 }}</ref>
According to linguist S. Agesthialingam, Tolkappiyam contains many later interpolations, and the language shows many deviations consistent with late old Tamil (similar to [[Cilappatikaram]]), rather than the early Tamil poems of [[Eṭṭuttokai]] and  [[Pattuppāṭṭu]].<ref>S. Agesthialingam, A grammar of Old Tamil (with special reference to Patirruppattu), Annamalai University, (1979), pXIV</ref>

The ''Tolkappiyam'' contains aphoristic verses arranged into three books – the {{Langx|ta|எழுத்ததிகாரம்|Eḻuttatikāram|Letter resp. Phoneme Chapter|label=none}}, the {{Langx|ta|சொல்லதிகாரம்|Collatikāram|Sound resp. Word Chapter|label=none}} and the {{Langx|ta|பொருளதிகாரம்|Poruḷatikāram|Subject Matter (i.e. prosody, rhetoric, poetics) Chapter|label=none}}.{{sfn|Kamil Zvelebil|1973|pp=131–134 with footnotes, 150}} The ''Tolkappiyam'' includes examples to explain its rules, and these examples provide indirect information about the ancient Tamil culture, sociology, and linguistic geography. It is first mentioned by name in Iraiyanar's ''Akapporul'' – a 7th- or 8th-century text – as an authoritative reference, and the ''Tolkappiyam'' remains the authoritative text on Tamil grammar.{{sfn|Kamil Zvelebil|1973|pp=131–134 with footnotes}}{{sfn|Hartmut Scharfe|1977|pp=179–180}}{{refn|group=note|According to Thomas Lehmann, the ''Tolkappiyam'' rules are followed and exemplified in Old Tamil (pre-700 CE) literature. The Middle Tamil (700-1600 CE) and Modern Tamil (post-1600 CE) have additional distinct grammatical characteristics.<ref name="Steever2015p75">{{cite book|author=Thomas Lehmann|editor = Sanford B. Steever|title=The Dravidian Languages|year=2015 |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=n2DxBwAAQBAJ |publisher= Routledge|isbn=978-1-136-91164-4|pages=75–76}}</ref> Causative stems of verb bases are "lexical in Old Tamil, morphological in Middle Tamil, and syntactic in Modern Tamil", for example, states Lehmann. Nevertheless, many features of Middle and Modern Tamil are anchored in the Old Tamil of ''Tolkappiyam''.<ref name="Steever2015p75"/>}}

== Etymology ==
The word ''Tolkāppiyam'' is an attribute-based composite word, with ''tol'' meaning "ancient, old", and ''kappiyam'' meaning "book, text, poem, kavya"; together, the title has been translated as "ancient book",{{sfn|Kamil Zvelebil|1973|pp=131–132 with footnote 1}} "ancient poem",<ref name="Ziegenbalg2010p1">{{cite book|author=Bartholomaeus Ziegenbalg|title=Tamil Language for Europeans: Ziegenbalg's Grammatica Damulica |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=G1HKzGXIUIUC&pg=PA1 |year=2010|publisher=Otto Harrassowitz Verlag|isbn=978-3-447-06236-7|pages=1–2}}</ref> or "old poem".<ref name="ReijenWeststeijn1999p321">{{cite book|author1=Willem van Reijen|author2=Willem G. Weststeijn|title=Subjectivity|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8F6_FJmaC20C&pg=PA321|year=1999|publisher=Rodopi|isbn=90-420-0728-1|pages=321–322}}</ref> 

According to [[Kamil Zvelebil]] –&nbsp;a Tamil literature and history scholar, Tamil purists tend to reject this Sanskrit-style etymology and offer "curious" alternatives. One of these breaks it into three "tol-kappu-iyanratu", meaning "ancient protection [of language]".{{sfn|Kamil Zvelebil|1973|pp=131–132 with footnote 1}} An alternate etymology that has been proposed by a few purists is that the name of the work derives from the author's name Tolkāppiyan, but this is a disputed assumption because neither the author(s) nor centuries in which this piece of work was composed are known.{{sfn|Kamil Zvelebil|1973|pp=131–132 with footnote 1}}

== Date ==
The dating of the Tolkappiyam is difficult, much debated, and it remains contested and uncertain.{{sfn|Kamil Zvelebil|1973|pp=138–146 with footnotes}}<ref name="bgls2" /> Proposals range between 5,320 BCE and the 1th century BC.<ref name="bgls2">The Date of the Tolkappiyam: A Retrospect." Annals of Oriental Research (Madras), Silver Jubilee Volume: 292–317</ref>{{sfn|Takanobu Takahashi|1995|pp=16–17, Quote=The date of Tol[kappiyam] has been variously proposed as lying between 5320 B.C. and the 1th Cent. B.C.}}

The tradition and some Indian scholars favor an early date for its composition, before the common era, and state that it is the work of one person associated with sage Agastya. Other Indian scholars, and non-Indian scholars such as Kamil Zvelebil, prefer to date it not as a single entity but in parts or layers.<ref name='strata'/> The Tolkappiyam manuscript versions that have survived into the modern age were fixed by about the 5th century CE, according to Zvelebil.{{sfn|Kamil Zvelebil|1973|pp=138–146 with footnotes}}<ref name='strata'>{{cite journal|title=Women and Farm Work in Tamil Folk Songs|journal=Social Scientist|year=1993 |first=Vijaya|last= Ramaswamy| volume=21|issue=9/11|pages=113–129|doi= 10.2307/3520429|jstor=3520429}}</ref>{{sfn|Takanobu Takahashi|1995|pp=16–19}} Scholars reject traditional datings based on three sangams and the myth of great floods because there is no verifiable evidence in its favor, and the available evidence based on linguistics, epigraphy, [[Sangam literature]] and other Indian texts suggest a much later date.<ref name="takahashi" /> The disagreements now center around divergent dates between the 3rd century [[Before Common Era|BCE]] and 8th century CE.{{sfn|Kamil Zvelebil|1973|pp=138–146 with footnotes}}<ref name="takahashi" /><ref name="tiekenbook" />

The datings proposed by contemporary scholars is based on a combination of evidence such as:
*comparison of grammar taught in ''Tolkappiyam'' versus the grammar found in the oldest known [[Tamil-Brahmi]] and old-Tamil inscriptions{{sfn|Takanobu Takahashi|1995|pp=16–17}}{{sfn|Kamil Zvelebil|1973|pp=138–146 with footnotes}}
*comparison of grammar taught in ''Tolkappiyam'' versus the grammar found in the oldest known Tamil texts (Sangam era);{{sfn|Kamil Zvelebil|1973|pp=138–146 with footnotes}}{{sfn|Takanobu Takahashi|1995|pp=16–18}} this evidence covers items such as phonemic shapes, palatals, and the evolution in the use of compounds{{sfn|Kamil Zvelebil|1973|pp=142–146 with footnotes}}
*comparison of grammar taught in ''Tolkappiyam'' versus the grammar taught and found in the oldest known Sanskrit texts;{{sfn|Takanobu Takahashi|1995|pp=16, 18–19}} this includes tracing verses and phrases found in the ''Tolkappiyam'' that borrow, translate or closely paraphrase verses and phrases found in the works of ancient and influential Sanskrit scholars such as Panini, Patanjali, Manu, Kautilya, Bharata and Vatsyayana.{{sfn|Kamil Zvelebil|1973|pp=138–146 with footnotes}}
*comparison of poetry and prose rules taught in ''Tolkappiyam'' versus the actual early Tamil poetry and prose{{sfn|Takanobu Takahashi|1995|pp=16, 20–22}}
*Prakrit and Sanskrit loan words (''vadacol''),{{sfn|Kamil Zvelebil|1991}} and inconsistencies between the sutras of the ''Tolkappiyam''{{sfn|Kamil Zvelebil|1973|pp=138–146 with footnotes}}

=== Dates proposed ===
*In his book published in 1925, T. R. Sesha Iyengar – a scholar of Dravidian literature and history, states that the ''Tolkappiyam'' while explaining grammar, uses terms for various forms of marriage in the ''Kalaviyal'' chapter. Elsewhere it mentions terms related to caste. Such ideas about different weddings and caste, states Iyengar, must be the influence of Sanskrit and Indo-Aryan ideologies. He disagrees with those European scholars who refuse to "concede high antiquity to the Dravidian civilization", and as a compromise suggests the Tolkappiyam was composed "before the Christian era".<ref>Sesha Iyengar, T.R. (1925),  ''[https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.489055 Dravidian India]'', Asian Educational Services, New Delhi, reprinted 1995, pp 155–157</ref>
* In post-Independence India, the Tamil scholar Gift Siromoney states that the Tolkappiyam should be dated based on the chronology of TALBI-P system based inscriptions, which is difficult to date. He suggests that this could be around the time of Ashoka, or centuries later.<ref>Gift Siromoney (1983),  ''[https://www.cmi.ac.in/gift/Epigraphy/epig_origin.htm Origin of the Tamil-Brahmi script]'', Seminar on "Origin evolution and reform of the Tamil script", pp. 21–29, The Institute of Traditional Cultures, University Buildings, Madras-600005</ref>
* [[Iravatham Mahadevan]] dates the Tolkappiyam to no earlier than the 2nd century CE, as it mentions the ''puḷḷi'' being an integral part of Tamil script. The ''puḷḷi'' a diacritical mark to distinguish pure consonants from consonants with inherent vowels only became prevalent in Tamil epigraphs after the 2nd century CE.<ref name="Mahadevan2"/>
* V. S. Rajam, a linguist specialised in Old Tamil, in her book ''A Reference Grammar of Classical Tamil Poetry'' dates it to pre-fifth century CE.<ref>Rajam, V. S. 1992. ''A Reference Grammar of Classical Tamil Poetry: 150 B.C.–pre-Fifth/Sixth Century A.D.'' Memoirs of the American philosophical society, vol. 199. Philadelphia, Pa: American Philosophical Society, p. 7</ref>
* [[Vaiyapuri Pillai]], the author of the Tamil lexicon, dated Tolkappiyam to not earlier than the 5th or 6th century CE.{{sfn|Kamil Zvelebil|1973|pp=138–146 with footnotes}}<ref name="HTLL">Vaiyapuri Pillai, S. 1956. History of Tamil language and literature; beginning to 1000 A.D.. Madras: New Century Book House.</ref>
* [[Kamil V. Zvelebil]] dates the earliest layer, the core ''Ur-text'' of the Tolkappiyam to 150 BCE or later.{{sfn|Kamil Zvelebil|1973|pp=137 and 147, Quote (p. 137): "As we will see later, Tolkkapiyam, the core of which may be assigned to pre-Christian era, consists perhaps of many layers, some of which may be much earlier than others"; (p. 147): "Thus, the nuclear portions of Tolkappiyam were probably born sometimes in the 2nd or 1st century BC, but hardly before 150 BC."}} In his 1974 review, Zvelebil places Book 1 and 2 of the ''Tolkappiyam'' in the 100 BCE to 250 CE period.{{sfn|Kamil Zvelebil|1974|pp=9–10}} Rest of the sections and sutras of the text to centuries between 3rd and 5th century CE. The extant manuscripts of Tolkappiyam are based on the "final redaction" of the 5th century, states Zvelebil.<ref name="kamil">{{harvnb|Kamil Zvelebil|1973|pp=138–147 with footnotes}}</ref>
* [[Takanobu Takahashi]], a Japanese Indologist, states that the Tolkappiyam has several layers with the oldest dating to 1st or 2nd century CE, and the newest and the final redaction dating to the 5th or 6th century CE.<ref name=takahashi>{{cite book|last=Takahashi|first=Takanobu|title=Tamil Love Poetry & Poetics|year=1995|publisher=Brill|location=Leiden; New York; Cologne|isbn=90-04-10042-3|pages=18|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wgCHuVGyZoEC&pg=PA18|chapter=2. Erudite works|quote=These agreements may probably advance the lower limit of the date for Tol[kappiyam], but do not mean more recently than the 5th Cent. A.D., as suggested by some critics such as S. Vaiyapuri Pillai [...]}}</ref>
* In 1875, the Indologist [[Arthur Coke Burnell]] proposed in his book ''On the Aindra School of Sanskrit Grammarians'' that the ''Tolkāppiyam'' was heavily modeled on the pre-Pāṇinian [[Aindra School of Grammar|Aindra school of Sanskrit grammar]].<ref>{{cite book |last=Burnell |first=Arthur Coke |title=On the Aindra school of Sanskrit Grammarians: their place in the Sanskrit and subordinate literatures |year=1875 |publisher=Basel Mission Book and Tract Depository |location=Mangalore |pages=8-20 |url=https://archive.org/stream/onaindraschools00burngoog/onaindraschools00burngoog_djvu.txt}}</ref> Burnell's hypothesis was primarily based on the ''Pāyiram'' (prefatory verse) of the ''Tolkāppiyam'' authored by Panamparanar, which praises the author Tolkāppiyar as ''aintiram niṟainta'' (one who is well-versed in the Aindra system). By comparing the ''Tolkāppiyam'' with the non-Pāṇinian ''[[Katantra]]'' grammar, Burnell concluded that the Tamil grammar was an application of Sanskrit grammatical rules to Tamil. He was of the view that the ''Tolkappiyam'' could not be dated to "much later than the eighth century."<ref name="burnell">"It is thus impossible to put the original text much later than the eighth century, for by the tenth century the whole Pāṇḍiya kingdom had fallen under the orthodox Coḷas." {{Cite book | last=Burnell | first=A. C. | author-link=Arthur Coke Burnell | title=On the Aindra School of Sanskrit Grammarians: Their place in the Sanskrit and Subordinate Literatures | publisher=Basel Mission Book and Tract Depository | place=Mangalore | year=1975 | pages=8–9 }}</ref>
* Herman Tieken, a Dutch scholar, states that the Tolkappiyam dates from the 9th century CE at the earliest. He arrives at this conclusion by treating the Tolkappiyam and the anthologies of [[Sangam literature]] as part of a 9th-century [[Pandyan]] project to raise the prestige of Tamil as a [[classical language]] equal to Sanskrit, and assigning new dates to the traditionally accepted dates for a vast section of divergent literature ([[Sangam literature]], post-Sangam literature and Bhakti literature like [[Tevaram]]).<ref name="tiekenbook">Tieken, Herman Joseph Hugo. 2001. Kāvya in South India: old Tamil Caṅkam poetry. Groningen: Egbert Forsten.</ref>  Hermen Tieken's work has, however, been criticised on fundamental, methodological, and other grounds by [[Gabriella Eichinger Ferro-Luzzi|G.E. Ferro-Luzzi]], George Hart and [[Anne E. Monius|Anne Monius]].<ref>George Hart III. "Review of Tieken's ''Kavya in South India.''" ''Journal of the American Oriental Institute'' ''124'':1. pp. 180–184. 2004.</ref><ref>G.E. Ferro-Luzzi. "Tieken, Herman, ''Kavya in South India'' (Book review). ''Asian Folklore Studies''. June 2001. pp. 373–374</ref><ref>[[Anne E. Monius]], Book review, The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 61, No. 4 (Nov., 2002), pp. 1404–1406</ref>

== Author ==
There is no firm evidence to assign the authorship of this treatise to any one author. ''Tholkapiyam'', some traditionally believe, was written by a single author named Tolkappiyar, a disciple of Vedic sage [[Agastya]] mentioned in the ''[[Rigveda]]'' (1500–1200 BCE). According to the traditional legend, the original grammar was called Agathiam written down by sage Agastya, but it went missing after a great deluge. His student Tolkappiyar was asked to compile Tamil grammar, which is ''Tolkappiyam''.<ref>book titled "Tholkappiyar Kaalam", Madhivanan</ref><ref>Zvelebil, Kamil. 1973. The smile of Murugan on Tamil literature of South India. Leiden: Brill.</ref> In Tamil historical sources such as the 14th-century influential commentary on ''Tolkappiyam'' by [[Nachinarkiniyar|Naccinarkkiniyar]], the author is stated to be Tiranatumakkini (alternate name for Tolkappiyan), the son of a Brahmin ''[[rishi]]'' named Camatakkini.{{sfn|Kamil Zvelebil|1973|p=136}} The earliest mention of Agastya-related Akattiyam legends are found in texts approximately dated to the 8th or 9th century.{{sfn|Kamil Zvelebil|1973|pp=136–137}} According to Hartmut Scharfe, the author of this text was likely a Jain.{{sfn|Hartmut Scharfe|1977|p=[https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.202747/page/n107/mode/2up 179]}}

According to Kamil Zvelebil, the earliest ''sutras'' of the ''Tolkappiyam'' were composed by author(s) who lived before the "majority of extant" [[Sangam literature]], who clearly knew [[Pāṇini]] and followed [[Patanjali]] works on Sanskrit grammar because some verses of Tolkappiyam – such as ''T-Col 419'' and''T-Elutt 83'' – seem to be borrowed and exact translation of verses of Patanjali's [[Mahabhashya|''Mahābhāṣya'']] and ideas credited to more ancient Panini. Further, the author(s) lived after Patanjali, because various sections of ''Tolkappiyam'' show the same ideas for grammatically structuring a language and it uses borrowed Indo-European words found in Panini and Patanjali works to explain its ideas.{{sfn|Kamil Zvelebil|1973|pp=142–146 with footnotes}} According to Hartmut Scharfe and other scholars, the phonetic and phonemic sections of the ''Tolkappiyam'' shows considerable influence of Vedic ''[[Pratishakhyas]]'', while its rules for nominal compounds follow those in Patanjali's ''Mahābhāṣya'', though there is also evidence of innovations. The author(s) had access and expertise of the ancient Sanskrit works on grammar and language.{{sfn|Hartmut Scharfe|1977|pp=180–182}}<ref name="Allan2013p253"/>

According to Zvelebil, another Tamil tradition believes that the earliest layer by its author(s) – Tolkappiyan – may have been a Jaina scholar, who knew ''aintiram'' (pre-Paninian grammatical system) and lived in south Kerala, but "we do not know of any definite data concerning the original author or authors". This traditional belief, according to [[S. Vaiyapuri Pillai|Vaiyapuri Pillai]], is supported by a few Jaina Prakrit words such as ''patimaiyon'' found in the ''Tolkappiyam''.{{sfn|Kamil Zvelebil|1973|p=137}}

==Content==
The ''Tolkappiyam'' deals with {{Langx|ta|இலக்கணம்|Ilakkaṇam|grammar|label=none}} in three books (''Atikāram''), each with nine chapters (''Iyal'') of different sizes. The text has a cumulative total of 1,610 (Eḻuttatikāram 483 + Collatikāram 463 + Poruḷatikāram 664) ''[[sutras]]'' in the ''Nūṛpā'' meter, though some versions of its surviving manuscripts have a few less.{{sfn|Kamil Zvelebil|1973|pp=131–132 with footnotes}}{{sfn|Hartmut Scharfe|1977|pp=178–179 with footnote 2}} The ''sutra'' format provides a distilled summary of the rules, one that is not easy to read or understand; commentaries are necessary for the proper interpretation and understanding of ''Tolkappiyam''.<ref name="Steever2015p76"/>

;Book 1: ''{{Langx|ta|எழுத்ததிகாரம்|Eḻuttatikāram|label=none}}''

{{Langx|ta|எழுத்து|Eḻuttu|label=none}} means "sound, letter, phoneme", and this book of the ''Tolkappiyam'' covers the sounds of the [[Tamil language]], how they are produced (phonology).{{sfn|Kamil Zvelebil|1974|p=132}} It includes {{Langx|ta|புணர்ச்சி|Puṇarcci|joining, copulation|label=none}} which is combination of sounds, orthography, graphemic and phonetics with sounds as they are produced and listened to.{{sfn|Kamil Zvelebil|1974|p=132}} The phonemic inventory it includes consists of 5 long vowels, 5 short vowels, and 17 consonants. The articulatory descriptions in ''Tolkappiyam'' are incomplete, indicative of a proto-language. It does not, for example, distinguish between retroflex and non-retroflex consonants, states Thomas Lehmann.<ref name="Steever2015p76">{{cite book|author=Thomas Lehmann|editor = Sanford B. Steever|title=The Dravidian Languages|year=2015 |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=n2DxBwAAQBAJ |publisher= Routledge|isbn=978-1-136-91164-4|pages=76–78}}</ref> The phonetic and phonemic sections of the first book show the influence of Vedic Pratisakhyas, states Hartmut Scharfe, but with some differences. For example, unlike the Pratisakhyas and the later Tamil, the first book of ''Tolkappiyam'' does not treat /ṭ/ and /ṇ/ as retroflex.{{sfn|Hartmut Scharfe|1977|pp=180–181}}

;Book 2: ''{{Langx|ta|சொல்லதிகாரம்|Collatikāram|label=none}}''

{{Langx|ta|சொல்|Col|label=none}} meaning "word", and the second book deals with "etymology, morphology, semantics and syntax", states Zvelebil.{{sfn|Kamil Zvelebil|1974|p=132}} The ''sutras'' cover compounds, some semantic and lexical issues. It also mentions the twelve dialectical regions of Tamil speaking people, which suggests the author(s) had a keen sense of observation and inclusiveness for Old Tamil's linguistic geography.{{sfn|Kamil Zvelebil|1974|p=132}} According to Peter Scharf, the ''sutras'' here are inspired by the work on Sanskrit grammar by Panini, but it uses Tamil terminology and adds technical innovations.<ref name="Allan2013p253"/> Verb forms and the classification of nominal compounds in the second book show the influence of Patanjali's ''Mahabhasya''.{{sfn|Hartmut Scharfe|1977|pp=180–181}}

;Book 3: ''{{Langx|ta|பொருளதிகாரம்|Poruḷatikāram|label=none}}''

{{Langx|ta|பொருள்|Poruḷ|label=none}} "Porul" meaning "subject matter", and this book deals with the {{Langx|ta|யாப்பு|Yāppu|Prosody|label=none}} and {{Langx|ta|அணி|Aṇi|Rhetoric|label=none}} of Old Tamil.{{sfn|Kamil Zvelebil|1974|p=133}} It is here, that the book covers the two genres found in classical Tamil literature: {{Langx|ta|அகம்|Akam|love, erotics, interior world|label=none}} and {{Langx|ta|புறம்|Puṟam|war, society, exterior world|label=none}}. The ''akam'' is subdivided into {{Langx|ta|களவு|Kaḻavu|Premarital Love|label=none}} and {{Langx|ta|கற்பு|Kaṟpu|Marital Love or Chastity|label=none}}.{{sfn|Kamil Zvelebil|1974|p=133}} It also deals with dramaturgy, simile, prosody and tradition. According to Zvelebil, this arrangement suggests that the entire ''Tolkappiyam'' was likely a guide for bardic poets, where the first two books led to this third on how to compose their songs.{{sfn|Kamil Zvelebil|1974|p=133}} The third book's linking of literature (''ilakkiyam'') to the grammatical rules of the first and the second book (''ilakkanam'') created a symbiotic relationship between the two.<ref name="Steever2015p76"/> The literary theory of ''Tolkappiyam'', according to Peter Scharf, borrows from Sanskrit literary theory texts.<ref name="Allan2013p253"/>

Epigraphical studies, such as those by Mahadevan, show that ancient [[Tamil-Brahmi]] inscriptions found in South India and dated to between 3rd century BCE and 4th century CE had three different grammatical form. Only one of them is assumed in the ''Tolkappiyam''.<ref name="Steever2015p76"/> The language of the [[Sangam literature]] is same as the one described in ''Tolkappiyam'', except in some minor respects.<ref name="Allan2013p253"/>

=== Commentaries ===
The ''Tolkappiyam'' is a collection of aphoristic verses in the {{Langx|ta|நூற்பா|nūṛpā|label=none}} meter.{{sfn|Kamil Zvelebil|1973|pp=131–132 with footnotes}} It is ambiguous without a commentary.<ref name="Steever2015p76"/> Tamil scholars have written commentaries on it, over the centuries:
{| class="wikitable"
|+ Commentaries on ''Tolkappiyam''
|-
! Author<ref name="Allan2013p253">{{cite book|author=Peter Scharf|editor=Keith Allan|title=The Oxford Handbook of the History of Linguistics|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=OE5oAgAAQBAJ |year=2013|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-164343-9|pages=253–254}}</ref>
! Date<ref name="Allan2013p253"/>
! Notes
|-
| Ilampuranar
| 10th to 12th century
| Full: all verses{{sfn|Kamil Zvelebil|1973|pp=134–136}}
|-
| Cenavaraiyar
| 13th or 14th century
| Partial: 2nd book{{sfn|Kamil Zvelebil|1973|pp=134–136}}
|-
| Peraciriyar
| 13th century
| Partial: 1st and 2nd book{{sfn|Kamil Zvelebil|1973|pp=134–136}}
|-
| Naccinarkkiniyar
| 14th century
| Partial: 1st, 2nd and part 3rd book{{sfn|Kamil Zvelebil|1973|pp=134–136}}
|-
| Tayvaccilaiyar
| 16th century
| Partial: 2nd book{{sfn|Kamil Zvelebil|1973|pp=134–136}}
|-
| Kallatanar
| 15th to 17th century<ref name="Allan2013p253"/>{{sfn|Kamil Zvelebil|1973|pp=134–136}}
| Partial: 2nd book{{sfn|Kamil Zvelebil|1973|pp=134–136}}
|}

The commentary by Ilampuranar dated to the 11th or 12th century CE is the most comprehensive and probably the best, states Zvelebil.{{sfn|Kamil Zvelebil|1973|p=134}} The commentary by Senavaraiyar deals only with the second book ''Sollathikaram''.{{sfn|Kamil Zvelebil|1973|pp=134–136}} The commentary by Perasiriyar, which is heavily indebted to the ''[[Nannūl]]'', frequently quotes from the ''Dandiyalankaram'' and ''Yapparunkalam'', the former being a standard medieval rhetorica and the latter being a detailed treatise on Tamil prosody. Naccinarkiniyar's commentary, being a scholar of both Tamil and Sanskrit, quotes from Parimelalakar's works.{{sfn|Kamil Zvelebil|1973|pp=134–136}}

== Reception ==

[[Alexander Dubyanskiy]], veteran Tamil scholar from [[Moscow State University]] stated, "I am sure that Tolkappiyam is a work which demanded not only vast knowledge and a lot of thinking but a considerable creative skill from its composer." Dubyanskiy also said that the authority of the text was undeniable: "It is a literary and cultural monument of great importance."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/tolkappiyam-is-not-dependent-on-sanskrit-sources-tamil-scholar/article489121.ece|title=Tolkappiyam is not dependent on Sanskrit sources: Tamil scholar|author=Karthik Madhavan|work=The Hindu|date=27 June 2010 }}</ref>

== See also ==
* [[Tamil grammar]]
* [[P. S. Subrahmanya Sastri]] – who was the first to translate Tolkāppiyam into English.

== Notes ==
{{reflist|group=note}}

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

=== Bibliography===
{{refbegin|30em}}
* Albert. 1985. Tolkāppiyam phonology and morphology : an English translation. Madras : International Institute of Tamil Studies.
* Burnell, Arthur Coke (1875). On the Aindra school of Sanskrit Grammarians: their place in the Sanskrit and subordinate literatures. Mangalore: Basel Mission Book and Tract Depository, 8-20.
* Hart, George L. 1975. The poems of ancient Tamil, their milieu and their Sanskrit counterparts. Berkeley: University of California Press.
*{{cite book|author1=V Murugan|author2=G. John Samuel|title=Tolkāppiyam in English: translation, with the Tamil text, transliteration in the roman script, introduction, glossary, and illustrations|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=HohkAAAAMAAJ |year=2001|publisher=Institute of Asian Studies |isbn=978-81-87892-05-2 | oclc= 48857533}}
* {{cite book|title=The archaeology of seafaring in ancient South Asia|last=Ray|first=Himanshu Prabha |year=2003|publisher=Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge|location=Cambridge|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=iHHzP4uVpn4C |isbn=9780521011099}}
*{{cite book|author1=Tolkāppiyar|author2=P. S. Subrahmanya Sastri|title=Tolkāppiyam: Poruḷatikāram|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lodkAAAAMAAJ |year=1999|publisher=Kuppuswami Sastri Research Institute|isbn=978-81-85170-27-5}}
*{{cite book|author=Hartmut Scharfe|title=Grammatical Literature|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=2_VbnWkZ-SYC |year=1977|publisher=Otto Harrassowitz Verlag|isbn=978-3-447-01706-0}}
* Selby, Martha Ann (2011) Tamil Love Poetry: The Five Hundred Short Poems of the Aiṅkuṟunūṟu, an Early Third-Century Anthology. Columbia University Press, {{ISBN|9780231150651}}
* {{cite book|author=David Shulman|title=Tamil: A Biography|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fG8NDQAAQBAJ |year=2016|publisher=Harvard University Press |isbn=978-0-674-97465-4}}
*{{citation|author=Takanobu Takahashi|title=Tamil Love Poetry and Poetics|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wgCHuVGyZoEC|year=1995|publisher=BRILL Academic|isbn=90-04-10042-3}}
*{{cite book| author=Eva Maria Wilden|title=Manuscript, Print and Memory: Relics of the Cankam in Tamilnadu|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=KuPmBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA75|year=2014|publisher=Walter de Gruyter|isbn=978-3-11-035276-4}}
* {{citation|author=Kamil Zvelebil|title=The Smile of Murugan: On Tamil Literature of South India|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=degUAAAAIAAJ|year=1973|publisher=BRILL|isbn=90-04-03591-5}}
* {{citation | title=A History of Indian literature Vol.10 (Tamil Literature)| author=Kamil Zvelebil |author-link=Kamil Zvelebil| year=1974| publisher=Otto Harrasowitz|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=OQ33i496MsIC |isbn = 3-447-01582-9}}
* {{cite journal|author= Kamil Zvelebil| title = Comments on the Tolkappiyam Theory of Literature| journal= Archiv Orientální | volume= 59| year=1991| pages= 345–359}}
* {{cite book|title=Companion studies to the history of Tamil literature|author=Kamil Zvelebil | author-link=Kamil Zvelebil|year=1992|pages=73|publisher=BRILL|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qAPtq49DZfoC&pg=PA73|isbn=90-04-09365-6}}
{{refend}}

== External links ==
* {{URL|https://archive.org/details/dli.jZY9lup2kZl6TuXGlZQdjZU3kZly.TVA_BOK_0006660|Tolkāppiyam in English}} at [[archive.org]] 
{{Wikisource|Translation:Tolkappiyam}}

{{Tamil language}}

{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Tolkappiyam}}
[[Category:History of linguistics]]
[[Category:Sangam literature]]
[[Category:Grammar books]]
[[Category:Ancient Indian grammar works]]