VEDICRELIGION INSTITUTE FOR VEDIC RESEARCH AND PUBLICATION

Sumerian and classical

Tamil language –
Morphology of the Verb
A first study in the Historical Evolution of the
Tamil Verbal system

Andreas Leitz
01.07.2019

Investigation in linguistic affinities , view of compound and echo words found in Sumerian texts, with
view on the rules found in the Grammar of Tolkappiyam
Sumerian and classical Tamil language –
Morphology of the Verb

Introduction

With the availability of the Sumerian texts in the electronic collection of Sumerian texts and our
previous work on the relationship between the Sumerian language and the classical Tamil language
we got a new view on the history of the languages and the cultural connection between them. We
saw a cultural continuity from the Sumerian Period down to the classical Sangam Period and the
present day tradition of the Agama and Tantric tradition. We know from the archaeology close
relationship between the Indus Valley and the Sumerian and Akkadian people on trade connections.
We find various tablets, weights and goods from the Indus Valley in the Sumerian city states and also
in the Royal Cemetery of Ur. The Sumerians addressed the Indus Valley as Meluhha. We will here not
go too much in this subject. From the testimony of Akkadian tablets, we know the merchants and the
officers at the court of King Sargon the Great; the founder of the Akkadian Empire needed translators
for to communicate with the Meluhha people. Therefore the Sumerian language will not help us very
much for to decipher the script from the Indus Valley.

Picture 1 the inscription on this seal says: "this seal belongs to Su - ilisu, the interpreter of the Meluhha language

The obvious close relation between Sumerian and the classical Tamil language requests the need of
linguistic studies, which will be the subject of this treatise. Here in the introduction we will give a
view on some grammatical feature in both languages.

The Sumerian language is called by Sumerian people eme.gir, native tongue and we can divide it into
5 periods:

1. Early of archaic Sumerian 3200 to 2600 b. C. ; this is the time of the earliest Sumerian
inscriptions, which belongs to the of Jemdet Nasr. This period followed the proto – literate
period, which is dated from 3500 b. C.
2
 2. Classical Sumerian 2600 to 2300 b. C.
3. Neo – Sumerian 2300 to 2100 b. C. ; in this period Sumerian came under the influence of
Akkadian language and we see many Sumerian cultural and literal influence on the Akkadian
people, culture and language.
4. Late Sumerian 2100 to 1800 b. C.
5. Post Sumerian 1800 to 1000 b. C.; this period is understood as the time, when the Babylonian
and Assyrian scholars used Sumerian only for liturgical, artistic and scholarly purpose. At this
time the spoken Sumerian didn´t be used anymore.

We find the Sumerian language possessing some dialects, which are shown in literature. We have

- eme.sal; the fine of high pitched voice

- eme galam; the high tongue
- eme-si – sa; the straight tongue
- eme – te – na; the obligue tongue

The dialect eme.sal is used by female characters in literary texts and it the main version og the
language, which is used in cult songs. In this version we find the letter “m” is often used for ḡ, but we
find also the use of different words compared to the standard language.

Grammatical features

1. The Alphabet of Sumerian

The system of writing shows the existence of 4 vowels in the Sumerian alphabet. They are:

i, u, e and a. The length of the vowels is phonetic, but is not shown in the transliteration of the
cuneiform signs. We see the existence of long vowels in the Akkadian alphabet. We can suggest the
existence of long and short vowels as well for the earlier time in Sumer as well. The problem of
indicating long and short letters and consonants with or without vowel is not unknown to the Tamil
Brahmi script. The Sumerian knew a vowel harmony and the assimilation of certain verbal prefixes,
which containing the vowels i or e in respect to the height of the vowel of the following syllable,
which is called the “old Sumerian vowel harmony” was a mark for dividing the cities in the southern
part of Babylon – Lagaš, Umma, Ur and Uruk, where the assimilation is exibited – from the northern
cities; Nippur, Adab, Šuruppak and Isin. This assimilation is seen in the time 2500 – 2300 b. C. In the
subsequent centuries the assimilation disappeared.

If we look on the Sumerian consonants we get the following

Bilabial Alveolar Palatal Velar Glottal

Aspirated p t k
Stops
not aspirated b d g
Stops
Aspirated z
3
Affricates
not aspirated ř
Affricates
Fricatives s š ḫ
Nasal m n ğ
Approxmiant l, r j

The Akkadian alphabet:

Here we find the vowel in clear long and short versions of the vowel: a, e, i and u. For the vowel “o”
we can`t find any sign and we need to suggest this vowel didn`t had a sign in Akkadian if it was used.

Here in the old version we find diphthong ay + aw, which became in the later Babylonian time
written as ī + ū.

If we look on the Akkadian consonants we have:

Labial Dental Interdental Sibilant Lateral Palatal Uvular Pharyngale Laryngale

voiceless p t ṯ s, š ś k ḫ ḥ h
emphatic ṭ ṱ ṣ ṩ q
voiced b d ḏ z g ḡ

We find in the Akkadian grammar, what we find called in Sanskrit and in Tamil Sandhi rules. This
means the change of a consonant in a specific constellation. We will give here only a few examples. A
dental or a sibilant will become in combination with a š of the beginning of the next syllable also š.
for example: māt + šu = māššu; his country. From the grammars on the Sumerian language, written
by present day scholars, we see the existence of change of consonants or what we call Sandhi in
Sanskrit and Tamil as well. We find the rule of prohibited emphatics behind each other ṣ becomes s
before q, q will become k before ṣ. The single consonant n will be assimilated to the following
consonant; example an + pum = appum. We find also in the vowels, what we call sandhi, dami + qum
= damqum; good.

We see in a comparison of the Sumerian and the Akkadian the following:

1. Sumerian b, d, and g correspond to the voiceless graphoneme in Akkadian. For example:

„e – gal“ in Sumerian -> ekallum in Akkadian. The meaning of this word is palace. The word
“barag” of Sumerian -> parakkum in Akkadian. The meaning of the word is dais.
2. Sumerian p, t and k correspond to the voiceless graphonemes in Akkadian. For example:
pisaƞ -> pišannum in Akkadian. The meaning of the word is basket.

2. The alphabet of the classical Tamil from Sangam Period:

The vowels as we find them given in the grammar Tolkappiyam are:

4
Short vowels: a, i, u, e and o

Long vowels: ā, ī, ū, ē and ō

Diphthong: ai and au ; Tolkappiyam didn`t use the term diphthong, but we can suggest it from his
verses: “APµ CPµ ø©Põµ ©õS®. APµ EPµ ö©ÍPµ ©õS® “(Tol. E. 54,55)

We further have the shortened vowels i and u, which are marked by a dot. In the later period of the
medieval period we find also the ai shortened. We find the nature and the vowels defined by
Tolkappiyam as open sounds, which expressed by the word “antikantiyalum” in the verse:
AÁØÖÒ A B B°µsÍ[Põßv¯¾® (Tol. E. 86). The shortened vowels are not
taken by Tolkappiyam as explicit vowels, but he knew secondary vowels as we read from the verse
“JÍPõµ ÂÖÁõ#¨ £ßܺ GÊzx® •°öµÚ ö©õÈ£ “(Tol. E.8.). This words of
Tolkappiyam is remarkable close to the verse found in the Natya Sastra from Bharata Muni “AH$mamÚm…
ñdam ko¶m… Am¡H$mamÝVm… MVwX©e “.
Regarding the diphthong ai we read in Tolkappiyam:”ai may be split into a + i and ay may be used
APµ CPµ ø©Põµ©õS®. APµzv®£º ¯Pµ¨ ¦Òβ®
instead of ai;
Iö¯öÚx[]øÚ ö©#ö£Óz@uõßÖ®.” This suggests Tolkappiyam took the ay as we
saw it above in Akkadian as diphthong as well. Possible we have here a connection between
Sumerian, Akkadian and Tamil in the remembrance of this diphthong.

The consonants are 18 according to the Tolkappiyam and they are

Voiceless Voiced
Plosives: Guttural k ṅ
Palatal c ñ
Cerebral ṉ
Alveolar ṭ ṇ
Dental t n
Labial p m
Semivowels Palatal y
Cerebral r+ḷ
Dental l
Labio - Dental v
Fricatives Cerebral ṟ ḻ

Tolkappiyam classifies the consonants as valliṉam, melliṉam and iṭaiyiṉam. We need to keep in mind
the Tamil letters covers more than just one sound. We find the letter k covers the sounds k,kh, g and
gha. We find in Tamil further the letter aytam (L), which is in the Tolkappiyam neither classified as
vowel or consonant.

The Sandhis as we mentioned them in the part of the Sumerian and Akkadian alphabet we find
clearly defined by Tolkappiyam and this is according to him of two kinds. One having change in the
sound and the other has no change. These changes are done by

5
 1. assimilation (ö©#¤ÔuõuÀ)
2. insertion (ªSuÀ)
3. elision (SßÓÀ)

The verse of Tolkappiyam is as follows “ö©#¤Ô uõuß ªSuÀ SßÓÀ GßÖ

CÆöÁÚ ö©õÈ£ v›²®B@µ“. This is exactly what we saw above in the Sumerian and
Akkadian words as well. While we have an authentic grammar on classical Tamil from Tolkappiyam
we have a lack of this from Sumerian side. We will give an example from Tamil: maram + kuṟitu =
maraṅkuṟitu (©µ® + SÔx & ©µ[SÔx) or āyiram + pāṉai = āyirappāṉai.

3. Grammatical view on Sumerian

The Sumerian language is a subject – object – verb language and is in this view conform with Tamil.
The Sumerian divides the noun into two grammatical genders:

1. Animate nouns; they include humans, gods and in some places the word for statue
2. Inanimate nouns, which are all the nouns, which didn´t fall into the first group

We find difference in number and name of the Sumerian case according the differing analyses of
Sumerian linguistic. We will not discuss these differences. We find the following cases:

Case Animate Inanimate

Absolutiv, Nominative no ending no ending
Ergative e e
Dativ,Allativ; to and for ra e
Genitive; of ak ak
Locative; in and at a, ne
Comitative; with da da
Equative; like gin, gen gin, gen
Ablative; from ta
Directive, towards še,e še, e
Adverbiative eš eš

The Sumerian noun is made of one to three syllable roots. The adjective and of the modifier of the
noun follow the noun. The noun itself is not inflected; the grammatical markers are attached to the
noun phrase as a whole in a regular order. We find usually the following order: noun – adjective –
numeral – genitive phrase – relative phrase – possessive marker – plural marker – case marker. The
possessive, plural and case marker is usually referred to as suffixes, but we find them described as
enclitics post positions, too.

The Sumerian verb knows contrast in complete and incomplete actions of states. They are different
in conjugation and have many different roots. The verbs mark mood, voice, polarity, iteratively and
intensity. They agree with subject and object in number, person and case. The Sumerian verb has the
moods:
6
 - indicative
- imperative
- co hortative
- precative / affirmative
- prospective aspect / co hortative
- affirmative, negative and volitive
- polaritive

These moods are marked by verbal pre – fixes, which appear to show aspect and polarity as well.
Their meanings are influenced by the tense aspect of the verb. The Sumerian knows active and
passive and we find the verbs marked of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd person in singular and plural.

The finite verbs have 3 pre – fixes

- Modal pre – fix, which refers to the mood of the verb

- Conjugational pre – fix, which are suggested to confer being, action, focus and voice
distinction of the verb
- Pronominal pre – fix, which correspond to noun phrases and their case

The infinite verbs include particles and relative clause verbs, both are formed through
nominalisations. The infinite verbs take only suffixes. The verb roots are usually monosyllabic and by
duplication of the verb root can indicate plurality, intensity and continuity of the action.

The Sumerian verb makes distinctions between some categories of tenses; past, present and future,
perfect and imperfect. The verbal root is almost a monosyllable and with various affixes it is formed a
verbal chain, which is described by the scholars as a sequence of about 15 slots, through the precise
models differ. The finite verb has pre – fix and suffix, while the infinite verb has only suffixes. The
order of the pre – fixes is: modal pre – fix – conjugation pre – fix – pronominal and dimensional pre –
fix. The suffixes are a future or imperative marker, pronominal suffix and an ending, which
nominalises the entire verb chain. The Sumerian verb stem is divided by the scholars according to the
Akkadian grammatical definitions into hamtu, quick, and maru, slow or fat, forms.

The pre – fixes for modal

In the texts and grammars made by the scholars we find the following modal pre – fixes:

- no pre – fix; indicative

- nu, la and li; negative, la and li are used before the conjugation pre – fixes ba and bi
- ga; cohortative, let me and let us
- ha and he with further assimilation of the vowel in later periods; precative
- u; after, when, if also used as a soft imperative
- na; negative
- bara; negative or vetitive
- nus; an unrealizable wish
- sa; with further assimilation of the vowel in later period

The pre – fix for conjugation

7
This pre – fix is subject of controversial discussion between the scholars. This includes the meaning,
structure and also the number of conjugation pre – fixes, we will not discuss them in details. The
finite verb in the indicative mood needs to have one of them.

The pronominal and dimensional pre – fix

The Dimensional prefix of the verb corresponds to the case marker of the noun phrase. Often the pre
– fix repeats the case marker of the noun phrase. They became attached to the head, which was the
definition for a pronominal pre – fix. The pronominal pre – fix was often placed before the stem,
where it could have different allomorph and expresses the absolutive or ergative participant, which
means the transitive, the intransitive or the direct object. The pronominal suffixes are:

3rd person, singular animate and inanimate: n , b

2nd person; singular: e, but as r before the dative ra, this made some scholars to suggest a phonetic ir
or jr.

1st person; e, but it is often not expressed at all, but this we see for the other persons, too.

We find regarding them discussions between the scholars. If the conjugation pre – fix is mu the plural
infix for all the three persons is me, re. The combination of mu + a = ma.

The pronominal suffixes

1st Person Singular; en

2nd Person Singular; en

3rd Person Singular; e

1st Person Plural; enden

2nd Person Plural; ezen

3rd Person Plural; ene

A verb of the hamtu form is in union with the pronominal and conjugation express the transitive
subject is marked by the pre – fix and the direct object by the suffix. In verbs of the maru kind it is in
the other way around. The intransitive subject is marked by the suffix in both forms of the verb. Here
we find different opinions among the scholars. The subject and object pre – fixes are usually not
spelled out in the early texts, which become usual in later texts from the 3rd dynasty of Ur onwards.
The suffix for nominalising “a“ changes an infinite verb and a finite verb into participles and relative
clauses. If this “a” is added after a future or modal suffix it forms a kind of gerund.

The syntax of the Sumerian sentence is subject – object – verb. The position of the verb as the final
position is only in poetry not observed.

8
 4. Grammatical view on classical Tamil

We will use for this short view on the grammar of classical Tamil in the grammar of Tolkappiyam
together with some views on the Pratisakhya (àm{Vem»¶) literature of the Vedas. The ancient scholar
Tolkappiyanar defined the words col () as that, which conveys sense “GÀ»õa öŒõÀ¾®
ö£õ¸Ò S›z uÚ@Á “. (Tolk. Col. 155) By this he is in union with the scholars of the
Pratisakhya literature “AW}… nX‘“. (Sukla Yajurveda Prat. 3.2). The parts of the speech is according to
the Tamil grammarian primarily of two kinds

- peyar, noun
- vinai, verb

These would give in a secondary sense dignity to two more categories of words:

- itaic col
- uric col

We give their definition later in short. We read on them in the Tolkappiyam: “öŒõÀö»Ú¨
£k£ ö£¯@µ ÂøÚö¯ß Óõ°µ[öuߣ ÁÔ¢v]@Úõ@µ. Cøha öŒõØ
QͲ•›aöŒõØ QͲ® Áº¸ÁÈ ©¸[UQØ @ÓõßÖö©ß£.“(Tolk. Col.
158 + 159). This is again in a remarkable parallel to the definition given by Yaksa in his Nirukta “MËdm[a
nXOmVm{Z Zm‘m»¶mVo M CngJ©{ZnmVmíM “, which is explained by in the comment from the scholar
Durgacarya; the priority given to the noun and the verb indicates their primary importance, while
upasara and nipata are of a subordinate position. “AÌ Zm‘m»¶mV¶mo… nyd©‘ A{^YmZ‘ àmYmݶmV
AàmYmݶVwngJ©{ZnmVmZ§ níMmV& C^o A{n Zm‘m»¶mVo {ZnVmongJ©{Zanojo A{n gVr ñd‘ AWª~«yV…& Z Vw
CngJ©{ZnmVmZm§Zm‘m»¶mV {ZanojoUm‘ AWm} @pñV“. A similar classification we find in the Pratisakhya
literature. Therefore if we look into the Tamil grammar of Tolkappiyam and the Sanskrit works we
can set in relation:

- peyar = nama
- vinai = akhyata
- itaic col = upasarga
- uric col = nitapa

1. Peyar, the noun

The noun is classified by the ancient Tamil grammarians into three kinds:

1. High cast; uyartinai (E¯ºvøÚ), Tolkappiyam counts here the human beings and gods
2. castless; afrinai (ALÔøÚ), Tolkappiyam counts here all other than humans beings
3. cast common to both; viravut tunai (µÄz vøÚ)

9
We find the nouns of the kind from number one divided into three groups

1. male, anpal (AߣõÀ)

2. female, penpal (ö£ß£õÀ)
3. more than one male or female, palarpal (£»º£õÀ)

The second kind of nouns are divided into two

1. an animal or other than human being or a lifeless object, onranpal (JßÓߣõÀ)

2. the plural of number one, palavinpal (£»ÂߣõÀ)

From this it is evident the gender and numbers are not taken as separate entities in Tamil. But we
can understand from Tolkappiyam:

- ending “n” denotes masculine singular

- ending l (Í) denotes female singular
- ending tu denotes neutrum singular
- ending r, mar (º, ©õº), denotes epicene plural
- ending a denotes neutrum plural.

The Tolkappiyam lists 8 cases for declination:

1. Nominative; peyar verrumai (ö£¯º @ÁØÖø©)

2. Akkusative; irantam verrumai (Cµsu® @ÁØÖø©)
3. Instrumental; munram verrumai (‰ßÓõ® @ÁØÖø©)
4. Dative; nankam verrumai (|õßPõ® @ÁØÖø©)
5. Ablative; aintam verrumai (Ißu® @ÁØÖø©)
6. Genitive; aram verrumai (Bµõ® @ÁØÖø©)
7. Locative; elam verrumai (HÇõ® @ÁØÖø©)
8. Vocative; vili verrumai (ÂÎ @ÁØÖø©)

The Tamil language has only singular and plural for numbers, no dual as we find it in Sanskrit. In the
ancient Tamil from the period of Tolkppiyam one suffix denotes number and gender1. According to
the ancient Tamil grammar flexional increments are added between noun and the case suffix. The
cases have in the ancient period the endings:

- Nominative; no case ending

- Accusative; ai
- Instrumental; otu (Jk) and an (Bß)
- Dative; ku
- Ablative; in

1
In Sanskrit, like we see it above in Sumerian grammar, we have a suffix to denote gender and another one for
to denote number and case. The same we find in the Tamil of the medieval and modern period.
10
 - Genitive; atu (Ax), if the following word is a non – human and ku if the following is a
human being or god
- Locative; kan

From these kinds of the Tamil case we can see, the cases found in the Sumerian grammar, we find in
these 8 cases of Tolkappiyam included.

2. The Verb in classical Tamil

The definition of the verb in Tamil is given by Tolkappiyam “the verb does not take the case – suffix,
ÂøÚö¯Ú¨ £kÁx @ÁØÖø©
but is found generally denoting the tense, too.
öPõÒÍõx {øÚ²[Põø»U Põ»ö©õk @uõßÖ® “ (Tolk. Col. 198). We find this
definition understood from all his commentators given on this verse. But this verse suggests because
of the word “Põ»ö©õk “the verb denotes something else beside the time. Further the word
“{øÚ²[Põø» “ suggests the verb did not always denotes time. We can therefore suggest
the verse above is not Tolkappiyanar´s definition of the verb. His definition is the word “ÂøÚ “,
which means action. This definition is found in the Pratisakhya literature in a similar way for the verb.
There we find the definition “VX Am»¶mV‘ ¶oZ ^md‘ “ and “{H«$¶mdmMH$‘m»¶mV‘ “.

Tolkappiyam divided the verbs into two kinds

- appellative verbs, called kurippuvinai (SÔ¨¦ÂøÚ)

- simple and causal verbs called terinilaivinai (öu›Ûø»ÂøÚ)

1. appellative verbs

This verb is formed from words denoting qualities, from compounds made up of a word denoting
quality and a word denoting any limb. It is made from a word made up of noun and a particle of
comparison. “SÔ¨¤Ý® ÂøÚ°Ý ö|Ô¨ £hz @uõ@ÛU Põ»ö©õk Áõ¹
E® ÂøÚa öŒõÀö»À»õ® E¯ºvøÚU S›ø©²® ALÖCøÚU
S›ø©²® B°¸ vønUS@©õº AßÚ Ä›ø©•® A®‰ÄE¸¤Ú
@uõßÓ»õ@Ó “(Tolk. Col.201). Further Tolkappiyam added the verbs inru (CßÖ), ila (C»),
utaiya (Eøh¯), anru (AßÖ), utaittu (Eøhzx), alla (AÀ») and ula (EÍ),which are
common to all genders and number2. We discuss here only the classical period of Tolkappiyam. The
Tamil appellative verbs are invariably added to the nouns directly and have no tense element in their
form.

2
If we look into the later work of Nannular (|ßÞ»õº), we find a little different definition of this
appellative verb: “the appellative verb is this, which can take only a subject before it and is not governed by
nd rd th th th
ö£õ¸Ò•u»õÔÝ® @uõØÔ•ßÚõµõÝÒ
any word in the 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 or 7 case.
ÂøÚ•uÀ ©õzvøµ ÂÍUPU ÂøÚU SÔ¨@£ “ (Nannul 321). We find some more
verbs and words added, which are not mentioned in Tolkappiyam
11
 2. The simple and causal verbs

The classification of the Tamil verb into

- simple verb, tan vinai (ußÂøÚ)

- causal verb, pira vinai (¤µÂøÚ)

We find from a very early time and these both terms didn´t correspond to the Sanskrit groups of
atmanepadam (AmË‘ZonX) and parasmaipada (nañ‘¡nX) at all. The “tan vinai” denotes an action done
by the person or thing as the subject, while the “pira vinai” denotes an action done by one other
than the agent denoted by the subject. But in Sanskrit, if the root can take both termination of
atmanepadam and parasmaipada, the former are used when the result of the action goes to the doer
and the latter when it goes to someone other than the doer.

The simple or tan vinai (uß ÂøÚ) is transitive “öŒ¯¨ £k ö£õ¸Ò SßÓõÂøÚ “or
intransitive “öŒ¯¨ £k ö£õ¸Ò SßÔ¯ ÂøÚ “, according if it takes an object after it or not. We
give shortly an example for both forms. “ÁÖø© @|õUQßÖ“ here “ö|õUQßÖ “ is transitive,
because varumai is here the object. The sentence translated: “noted the povertry”. In the sentence
“öŒÀ»õ@©õvÀ ]ÀÁøÍ ÂÓ¼ “ the word “öŒÀ»@©õ“ is intransitive The sentence
translated: “Oh Virali with a few braclets, shall we go?. Here we see that the statement of Dr.
Caldwell: “the simple verbs are all necessarily as well as formally intransitives” is obviously wrong.
We find in Tolkappiyam the simple and the causal verb denoted a “tanpalanum (uߣõ£õÝ®)
and piranpalanum (¤Óߣõ»õÝ®) in the following verse: “Cx
öŒ¯À @Ásk®
GßÝ[QÍ CxÁ°Ûø»²® ö£õ¸mhõ S®@© uߣõ»õÝ®
¤ØÓߣõ»õÝ® “ (Tol. Col. 243.).
The formation of the causal verb we didn`t find mentioned in the Tolkappiyam, but we find in the
Sangam Period forms of causal verbs. There we find the following:

1. causal verbs are formed from the simple verb by doubling the consonant of the formative
2. by doubling of the initial consonant of the signs of tense
3. by doubling the final consonant of the root
4. by adding ttu (zx) to the root
5. by adding vi (Â) or pi (¤) direct to the root
6. by adding vi (Â) to the causal forms3.

3
We read in the later grammar viracoliyam (µ@Œõȯ®): “ attu, arru (Bmk, BØÖ) are causals
and if vi or pi is added one after the other they become double causals (Põ›uUPõ›u®). “ We read here
also on the triple causal formed by adding vi or pi is added twice after each other
(Põ›uUPõ›uUPõ›u®)” and we find the example attuvippan (Bmk¨£õß) as an example
for a triple causal from. In the grammar of Nannular (|ßÞ»õº) we find the causal called eval (HÁÀ)
and they are made by adding vi or pi to the root. Double causal are called ireval ( C@µÁÀ) and formed by
12
Our focus in this treatment is on the verb; therefore we will give to the formation of the causal form
as mentioned above one example to each of them.

1. Verb doubling the consonant of the formative: “marrai yaman pakal urakkalippi (©ØøÓ
¯õ©® £PÀ EÓUPȨ¤), having spent the remaining part of the day (Pattu
236.653)
2. Verb doubling the initial consonant of the sign of the tense: “parruvali c certti (£ØÖÁÈa
@μzv), having tuned it to a song called parru (Cilap. 337.108)
3. Verb doubling the final consonant of the root: “alitirappata vurutti (BÈvÓ¨£hÆ
E¸mi), having rolled the wheel, so that it become firm”. (Mani Megalai 61.76)
4. Verb adding ttu (zx) to the root: “atan tal valtti (Auß uõÒÁõÌzv), having praised
its feet.” (Pattu 220.222)
5. Adding vi or pi to the root: “ulappikun cutu (EǨ¤USg
‹x)” (Kural 938),
attuvittalar oruvar atatare (BmkÂzuõ»õº J¸Áº Bhõuõ@µ)”(Tevaram 1229.
3)
6. Adding vi or to causal form: “kattaruppippanai (PzuÖ¨¤¨£õøÚ)” (Tevaram 17.4)

3. Mood, voice and tenses of the classical Tamil verb

The verb in classical Tamil has four modes: indicative, imperative (HÁÀ), optative
(¯[@PõÒ) and infinitive (GaŒ®). We have two voices, active affirmative and active
negative4. In the ancient period we have 3 tenses in the indicative and infinitive mood, while in
imperative and optative we have only one tense. The verb in the indicative mood of the active
affirmative voice denotes three points: action, time and person. The root denotes the action, the
personal element denotes the termination, and the time denoting element is not mentioned by
Tolkappiyanar. In the grammar Tolkappiyam we find a number of personal endings for singular and
plural. They are:

Singular Pural
1. Person en (Gß), een (Hß), al, ku, tu am (A®), aam (B®), em
(k), tu (x), ru (Ö) (G®), eem (H®), kum, tum
(k®), tum (x®), rum (Ö®)
2. Person i, ai, ay (B#), oy (K#) ir (Cº), iir (Dº)
3. Person
- masculine an (Aß), aan (Bß), on ar (Aº), aar (Bº), or (Kº),
(Kß) pa and mar (©õº)
- femine al (AÒ), aal (BÒ), ool epicene plural

adding them twice of both once. “öŒ#ö¯ß

ÂøÚÁÈ Â¨ ¤ uÛÁ›ß
öŒ#Âö¯ß@ÚÁ¼øn°Ü@µÁÀ “(Na. 138.). He didn´t mention triple causal forms.
4
In medieval and present period we find further passive affirmative and passive negative
13
 (KÒ)
- neutrum tu, (k), tu (x), ru (Ö) a (A), aa (B), va (Á)

Regarding the plural marker kal (PÒ), which we find used in forms of enkal, irkal and arkal
(GßPÒ, DºPÒ, BºPÒ) we read in Tolkappiyam it is used for the pluralising of the castless
nouns (ALÔøÚ ö£¯º)

Regarding the tense we read in Tolkappiyam: “there are three tenses, past, present and future.
Põ»ß u@© ‰ßöÓÚ ö©õÈ£. CÓ¨¤ÛPÌÂß GvºÂß GßÓõ A®•U
PP•s SÔ¨ö£õk[ öPõÒЮ ö©#ßÛø»# ²øh¯ @uõßÓ»õ@µ .
(Tol.Col. 199.)“ He didn´t mention any suffix denoting tense. The great commentators of Tolkappiyam
mentioned this fact and gave them in their comment on the last sutra of Tolkappiyanar`s
collatikaram (öŒõÀ»vPõµ®). Tolkappiyanar says at the same time in his grammar: “the past
tense is used to denote either the present or the future when such actions take place immediately.
ÁõµõU
The past and the present tenses are used to denote the future for the sake of clearness.
Põ»zx {PÊ[ Põ»zx® Jµ[S Á¹® ÂøÚa öŒõØQÍ CÓßu
Põ»zxU SÔ¨ö£õk QÍzuÀ Âøµßu ö£õ¸ÍöÁß©Úõº ¦»Áº. ÁõµõU
Põ»zx ÂøÚa öŒõØ QÍ CÓ¨¤Ý {PÌÂÝg ]Ó¨£z @uõßÖ®
C¯ØøP²ß öuÎÄ[ QÍUS[ Põø». (Tol. Col. 241, 245.)”In the work Viracoliyam
we read that ta, na and ya are added tothe root to form the past participle, kira, aninra and cu to
form the present participle and kum, um and m froto form the future participle. “uõx Âߤߦ
uÚ¯ÂÓ¨¤ÛPm] °ºPönõk[QÓ‹öÁõh{ßÓÁõ[S®•®
@©õk®PLPõß @£u©¼²ö©v›ßPnS® ¤ÓÄ® Á¢uõÀ GuÛÀ
Avµ¢u® ¤øǯõ©¼¯ØÔU öPõÒ@Í “ (V. Tat.7.1).

On the passive affirmative voice we didn`t read anything in Tolkappiyam, or on “Âva

öŒ¯¨£õmkÂøÚ“as we find it called by the author of the work “ilakkanakkottu
(C»UPnUöPõzx)”, but in connection with the third case Tolkappiyanar says, the third case
– suffix is used to denote the doer of the action also. This is only possible if the passive voice was
used in his time. Passive forms in the classical literature are very rare, in the later periods the passive
voice is frequently used.

On the imperative mood we read in the Tolkappiyam; the form of ceyyay (öŒ#¯õ#) of the 2nd
person singular is sometimes used as cey (öŒ#) and in such cases i (D) or e (H) preceded by a
suitable consonant is added after it, like cenri (öŒßÕ) from the root cel (öŒÀ) and ninme
({ß@©) from the root nil ({À) “öŒ#¯õö¯ßÝ •ßÛø» ÂøÚa öŒõØ
öŒ#ö¯ß QÍ ¯õQhÝøhz@u. •ßÛø» •ßÚº D²® H²®
AßÛø» ©µ¤ß ö©#³ºßx Á¸@© “ (Tol. Col. 450 + 451). We know from the
Sangam literature the forms ceyyay, cey, ceyyi and ceyyii (öŒ#¯õ#, öŒ¯, öŒ#°,
öŒ#±)were used as 2nd person singular and the forms ceyyir, ceymin (öŒ#±º, öŒ#ªß) as
14
2nd person plural in the imperative mood. The from ceyyum (öŒ#²®) was used in the time of
Tolkappiyam only as the 3rd person singular and the 3rd person neutrum plural in the indicative mood
“£À@»õº £hºUøP •ßÛø» ußø© AÆÁ°ß ‰ßÖ {PÐ[ Põ»zxa
5
öŒ#²® GßÝ[QÍÂö¯õk öPõÒÍõ“(Tol. Col.227) . For the negative imperative
mood Tolkappiyanar used the words aliyal (AίÀ) and ancal (AgŒÀ) in the 2nd person
singular.

The mood of optative in Tamil verbs expresses wish, injunction and request. Tolkappiyanar says, this
mood is expressed in the 3rd person only, both in singular and plural, where it has the same form
“Gg]¯
QÍ °hzöuõk ]Áo I®£õØS •›¯@uõßÓ»õ@µ. AÁØÖÒ
•ßÛø» ußø©¯õ±º Chz@uõk ©ßÚõuõS® ¯[@Põm QÒ “(Tolk.
Col. 225 + 226). He didn´t mention the form, but in the work Ilakkanavilakkam
(C»UPnÂÍUP®) we get all the forms found in the Sangam period. He gives the forms ka,
iya, iyar, al (AÀ), aal (BÀ), um, mar (©õº) and ai. In the negative, the particle al (AÀ) is added
to the root of the verb.

The infinitive mood of the verb is primarily divided into two kinds:

- peyareccam (ö£¯öµaŒ®), which is a participle and is of four kinds. They are: active
affirmative relative participle, active negative relative participle, passive affirmative relative
and passive negative relative participle. They are again of 3 kinds: past, present and future.
They all invariably qualify a noun following it.
- vinaiyeccam (ÂøÚö¯aŒ®); which is an indeclinable past participle. We find this form
in Sanskrit as well. We have further have infinite verbal forms, which denotes condition and
cause. This is not found in Sanskrit.
The indeclinable past participles are of two kinds: affirmative past and negative past
participle. The forms given by Tolkappiyam are ceytu, ceyyu and ceypu (öŒ#x, öŒ#³,
öŒ#¦). He didn`t mention explict a negative fom, but he uses the form kollatu
(öPõÒÍõx) in Tol. Col. 198. This form we find used frequently in the classical literature.
This participle can form the gerund by the forms of ceyyiyar, ceyiya, ceyarku, ceytena and
ceya (öŒ#°¯º, öŒ#°¯, öŒ¯ØS, öŒ#öuÚ, öŒ¯) according to
Tolkappiyam. The form ceyin (öŒ°ß) is used as infinitive to denote conditions.

3. Itaic col + uric col

We will look just shortly into the definition of Tolkappiyam from the secondary word itaic col
(Cøha öŒõÀ), which has no separate existence of its own. It is used together with nouns and
verbs as either a part of them, before or after them. They consist of flexional increments, personal

5
Here we see a difference of the imperative to Sanskrit. While in Tamil it is used only in the second person, we
find it used in Sanskrit in all persons.
15
terminations of verbs, case suffix and so forth. We read in Tolkappiyam “Cøhö¯Ú¨ £kÁ
ö£¯öµõk® ÂøÚö¯õk® |øuö£ØÔ¯¾® u©UQ¯À ¤»@Á “(Tolk. Col.
249). By this it takes the function what we saw in the Sumerian grammar denoted as slot. The word
uriccol (E›aöŒõÀ) is defined by the word himself. This word denotes the independent part of
the noun or verb. It is defined by Tolkappiyam: “it is not capable of being further analysed.
GÊzx¨ ¤›ßvøŒzu¼Áo¯À ¤ß@Ó .”(Tolk. Col.395)
We gave here only a very short introduction into Sumerian and Tamil grammar, which is for our
purpose and for a better understanding of the following discussion of the morphology of the verb.

16
Morphology of the Verb in Sumerian and Tamil language

In this study we will discuss the linguistic affinities, which exist between the Sumerian and the
Dravidian language with a specific focus on the classical Tamil of the Sangam Period. At the beginning
of this study we give lexical and morphological similarities, important insights will be given regarding
the origin and the development of the classical Tamil verbal system, which help us for to understand
the Sumerian with much better clarity.

The morphological similarity between the Sumerian “si – in” and the classical Tamil word cin (]ß) is
obvious. They are both morphological elements in the verbal complex with remarkable similarity in
their grammatical function. At the same time we see there are important differences in the
distribution of the word. The inquiry for to give an explanation on this similarity and difference, give
the beginning for the presented theory of the origin and the development of the Tamil verb system.
In the following examples we give some use of the word sin, written in syllabically form “si – in”and
with the word “si” alone in connection with other formants. The Sumerian verse we give with their
form in Tamil, which is a little more anterior to the classical Tamil of the Sangam Period. A discusion
of these Tamil versions will be given at suitable place. A very important focus has to be given to the
different order of the various formants in the verbal complex. The situation in the Sumerian grammar
is unsystematic and confusing; we have therefore the need of further research work on their order
seen in the Tamil reconstructions, which was possibly their origin order already during the Sumerian
period.

1. The first examples

1. Verse taken from the text Dumuzi´s dream:

“utu a – igi – ni su ba – si – in – ti” are the Sumerian words and the translation we find: “utu
received his tears.” This in Tamil version will be: “uti aal aakkinna cey vaticin (Ev
B»UQßÚa öŒ# Áv]ß).” We look shortly on the words. The Sumerian word “a” will
become in Tamil aa, aam (BÀ, B®) and means water. The Sumerian word ba – si – in – ti ->
ba – ti – si – in will become in Tamil vaticin (Áv]ß). The Tamil words til, ti, vati (vÀ, v,
Áv) means to exist. The Sumerian word “utu”will become in Tamil uti (Ev) and means to
arise and that, which arise. The Sumerian word su -> sey -> key-> kai may develop in this form or
su -> suur -> karam, the hands.

2. Again a verse from Dumuzi´s dream, which is nearly the same as before

“utu a – igi – na su ba – si – in - in – ti” in Sumerian words and translated like above: “utu
received his tears.” The Tamil version of his verse is. “ uti aal akina cey vaticinin (Ev BÀ
AUQÚa öŒ# Áv]Ûß).”
3. Another verse from Dumuzi`s dream

“gal – la gal – la – ene ba – da – an ze – er ku – bi – re – es dil – da – re – es zi – ni ba – si – in –

tum“. We find this translated: „He escaped all his demons and saved his life, feeling to ku – bi –
re – es dil – da – ra – es.” The Tamilversion of this verse is: “kaLLa kaLLayinee ceeyirpaddaan
17
 (PÒÍ PÒÍ°@Ú @Œ°º£mhõß) ku – bi – re – es – dil – da – r – es jiivanin pa
toommucin (ãÁÛß £ @uõ®•]ß).” The Sumerian word “gal – la” will become in Tamil
kaLLa (PÒÍ) and means thieves. The Sumerian word “ene” will become Tamil inam (CÚ®)
and means a multitude. The Sumerian word “zi” will become in Tamil jiivan (ãÁß) and
denotes life.

4. This verse is taken from the lamentation over the destruction of Ur

“u – tur – bi – se ki – na – ma mu – us – la – bi ki – na – ma gis – la – bi nu – si – in – ga – ma – ni – ib –
tum.“ We read in Sumerian words. This we find translated:“ Nor, verily because of its affliction, the
quiet of my sleeping place, the quiet of my sleeping place has been allowed me.” This verse will be in
Tamil: “u – tur pi sey kiiz aNaima oosai ilaapi kiizaNaima (gis) ilaapi toom na ma ipicinka (¤öŒ#
RÌ Aøn© KøŒ C»õ¤ RÇøn©) gis (C»õ¤ @uõ® |õ© C¤][P).” The
Sumerian word “ki” will become in Tamil kiiz (RÌ) and denotes place. The Sumerian word “na” wil
become in Tamil aNai (Aøn) and means sleep. The Sumerian word “mu – us” will become in
Tamil oosai (KøŒ) and means noise. The Sumerian word “la” will become in Tamil ilaa, ala (C»õ,
A»), which is a particle of negation. The Sumerian syllable “ib” will become in Tamil ip, vi , vai
(C¨, Â, øÁ) and has the function of a causative particle.

These examples are all in the indicative mood. The verb complex sin is used also in optative,
interrogative and hortative mood. We give in the next examples the use of sin in interrogative mood.

5. This verse is taken from the hymns for the temple of Keš

“kes – gin rib – ba lu si – in – ga tum – mu“ the verse in Sumerian word is translated:” one as great as
Kes has any born this worthy?” The Tamil version of this verse is “keeciyin irippa uLu tommucinka
(@P]°ß C›¨£ EÐz @uõ®•][P)”. The Sumerian word “gin” will be in Tamil in
(Cß) and a case marker or a particle of comparison. We take it here as a particle of comparison.
The Sumerian word “rib – ba” will become in Tamil iruppa, irippa, iru (C¸¨£, C›¨£, C¸)
and means great. The Sumerian word “tum – mu” will become in Tamil toonRu (@uõßÖ) and
means to show up.

6. one more verse from the same hymns

“ur – sag – bi as – sir – gin rib – ba ama si – in – ga utu” we read in Sumerian and find the following
translation:”one as great as its hero Assir, has any mother ever born him.” The Tamil version of this
verse will be: “ saanRoon pi assirngin iribba amma utu cinka (Œõß@Óõߤ Aa^ºßQß
C›¨£ A®©õ Exa ][P).” The Sumerian word “ur – sag” will become in Tamil saanRoon
(Œõß@Óõß) and means great man. The Sumerian word “ama” will become in Tamil ammaa

18
(A®©õ) and means mother. The Sumerian word “utu” will become in Tamil utir (Evº) and
means to drop, while the word utu (Ex) means to give rise to.

The Sumerian verb complex si – in appears also in the form of “si – ni, sin – i”, which we find in our
next example taken from the Hymn C of King Šulgi

7. “ka – bi u – gu – na ki he – im si – ni – sub” in Sumerian words, which we find translated:”Its

head and neck did I throw to the ground.” The Tamil version will be: “ka – bi um kavuna kiiz
kupicini “ka”(¤²® PÄÚ RÌ S¤]Û) .” The Sumerian word „gu“ means neckand
the Tamil word kavuL (PÄÒ) means armpit. The Sumerian “u” will become in Tamil um
(E®) and is a particle of conjunction. The Sumerian word sub will become in Tamil kupi,
kuvi (S¤, SÂ) and means to pile up.

We find the word “si” also in combination with other particles, where the grammatical use is exciting.
We give a few examples.

8. This verse is taken from the hymn B of King Šulgi:

“si – ag – ne – da nu – mu – e – si – ib – gaz – e“ we read in Sumerian words and we get the

translation: “and in their preparation I did not bungle anything.” The Tamil version of this verse is:”cii
akkidam ila mo ee kaziyicippee (^ AUQh® C»ö©õ @¯ PÈ°]¨@£).” The Sumerian
word “si” will become in Tamil cii (^) and means to fill up. The Sumerian word “ag” will become in
Tamil akku (AUS), to make. The Sumerian word “gaz” will be in Tamil kazi (PÈ) and means tolet
go.

9. This verse is taken from the hymns from the temple of Keš:

“kus – ub kus – a – la – e ara si – im – ma – gi – gi“ we read in the Sumerian verse and get the
transaltion.” ha has the drums and timpani sounded.” The Tamil version of this verse will be: “koos
uppu kucci alaiyee aRai simma miimiL (@Põ”¨¦ Sa] Aø»@¯ AøÓ ]®©õ «ªÒ).”
The Sumerian word “kus” will become in Tamil koosam (@PõŒ®), which denotes the covering skin.
The Sumerian word “kus” can also become in Tamil kucci (Sa] ). The Sumerian word “a – la” will
become in Tamil alai (Aø») and means wavering. The Sumerian word “a – ra” will become in
Tamil aRai (AøÓ) and means to beat. The Sumerian word “gi – gi” we can read as well as “mi – mi”
and in Tamil the word miimil («ªÒ) means repeatedly.

We find in the Sumerian literature the word “si” alone without and independent of any grammatical
particle. We give a few examples.

10. This verse is taken from the lamentations over the destruction of Ur:

19
“lu – lu – bi sa – hul – a – bi he – im – ma – si – kug – gi“ we read in the Sumerian verse and this got
translated:”may every evil heart of its people be pure before thee.” The Tamil version of this verse
is:”aLuLupi saanollapi konkkammasi (AÐФ ŒõöÚõÀ»¤ öPõ[UP®© ] ).” The
Sumerian word “kug” will become in Tamil konk (öPõ[U) and means high.

11. This verse is from the same collection of temple hymns as the example before:

“sa – kalam – ma gal – la – ke he – im – ma si – dug – e“ we read in the Sumerian verse and in the
translation we read:” may the hearts of those, who dwell in the land be good before thee.” This verse
will be in Tamil:” saan kaLamma kaallakkee tunkimma ci (Œõß PÍ®© PõÀ»U@P x[Q®©
] ).“ The Sumerian word “kalam” will become in Tamil kaLam (PÍ®) and means land or country.
The Sumerian word “gal” will become in Tamil kaL (PõÀ) and means to stand firm, to get rooted.

12. This verse is taken from Dumuzi`s dream:

“ku – bi – re – es dil – da – ra –es- zi – mu ga – ba – si – tum“ we read in Sumerian words and

intranslation:”Let me save my life fleeing to Ku – bi – re –es dil – da –re – es.” The Tamil version will
be “ku – bi – re – es dil – dara –es ciivanmoo kaaval toomici (^Áß@©õ PõÁÀ @uõª])“ The
Sumerian word “ga – ba” will become in Tamil kaaval (PõÁÀ), to protect.

13. We give one more verse taken from Dumuzi`s dream:

“ga nam – ma – an – ze – en amas – tur – se ga – ba – si – gin” we read in the Sumerian verse and in
translation: “come. Let us go to the sheepfold and stall.” The Tamil version will be. “ vaa nammaan
ceeyen maadu toRusee naan avva niLci (Áõ |®©õß @Œö¯ß ©õk öuõÖ@Œ bõÚÆÁ
}Ò] ).” The Sumerian word “nan – ma – an” will become in Tamil naam, namma (|õ®, |®©).
The Sumerian word “tur” will be in Tamil toRu (öuõÖ) and means the cattle fold.

14. Here we give a verse from the poem exaltation of In – Anna by Priestess Anna:

“ezinu la – ba – si – gal” in Sumerian words, which we find translated:”no vegatation stands up.” The
Tamil version of this verse will be. “ ezinu ila av kaalci (GÈÝ C» AÆ PõÀ]).” We can
change easily this negative verse into a positive one, we only need to remove the particle of negation
“la”. “ezini ba – si – gal” in Sumerian will be translated:” vegetation stands up.” An in Tamil we will
have:” ezinu av kaalci (GÈÝ AÆ PõÀ]).” The Sumerian noun “ezinu” will be in Tamil ezinu
(GÈÝ) and denotes that, which grows up.

20
 15. This example is taken from the lamentations over the destruction of Ur

“musen – an – na gim a – dub he – en – si – ag – en, me – e uru mu – se he – en – si – dal – dal – en“

we read in the Sumerian verse, which we get translated: “I like a bird of heaven flap my wings and to
my city I fly.” This verse will be in Tamil: “ musen vannankin aa aadupu yaan akksiyen, meyyee
uuruooseey yaan taLtaL siyen (•öŒß ÁõßÚ[QßB Bk¦C¯õß Bòö¯ß,
ö©#@¯ F¸@©õ@Œ# ¯õß uÒuÒ ]ö¯ß).” The Sumerian word “musen” will
become in Tamil musal, muyel (•ŒÀ, •ö¯À) and denotes a creature with protruding face. The
Sumerian word “an” will become in Tamil vaan, aan (Áõß, Bß) and means the sky. The
Sumerian word “me” will become in Tamil mey (ö©#) and means truly and really. The Sumerian
word “dal – dal” will be in Tamil taLtaL (uÒ uÒ) and means to push forward.

16. We show one more verse from the lamentation over the destruction of Ur

“lu siskur – siskur – ra – ke mu – gub – ba – bi igi – zi u – mu – e – se – bar“ we read in the Sumerian

words, which we get translated: “upon its man of offerings, who is standing, gaze with steadfast
eyes.” The Tamil version of this verse will be: “uLu siskur – siskur re kee moo kuppuvaabi akkisii
umoo ee paaruci (EÐ) siskur – siskur – ra (@P @©õ S¨¦Áõ¤ AUQ^ F@©õ H
£õ¸]).” The Sumerian word bar will be in Tamil paar (£õº) and means to see.

17. This verse is from the hymn B of King Šulgi

“gis – kak u – tag – ga la – ba – si – gid – en“ we read in the Sumerian verse, which is translated:”I did
not reach it with javelin.” The Tamil version will be: “kucci kakam uu taakkal kidciyenpa ila (Sa]
PP® FuõUPÀ Qm]¯ß£ C»).” The Sumerian word “kak” will become in Tamil kakam
(PP®) and means arrow. The Sumerian word “tag – ga” will become in Tamil taakku (uõUS) and
means to attack. The Sumerian word “gid” will become in Tamil kiddu (Qmk) and means to reach.

18. The next example is again a verse from hymn B of King Šulgi

“edin – ta du – a – mu – de nig mu – un – si – la – la“ we read in the Sumerian verse and the

translation is: “ coming back from the steppe I would hang everything there.” We have in Tamil the
following verse: “etintu viduvamutee nika mun alai alai ci (Gvßx ÂkÁ•@u {P
•Úø»Áø»]). The Sumerian word “edin” will become inTamil etin, etil (Hvß, HvÀ) and
denotes the outskirts of a city. The Sumerian word “la – la” will become in Tamil alai alai (Aø»
Aø») and means to wave about.

19. One more verse given from King Šulgi´s hymb B

21
“sal – mu di – nig – gi – na – ka dudu mu – e – si – gal“ we read in Sumerian words and this is
translated:”my open-mindedness prompted words that were pronouncements of justice.” The Tamil
version will be:” calmoo viti niRkinnaka tuuttu tuttu moo ee kaalci (ŒõÀ@©õ {ØQßÚP
yzx @©õ@Á PõÀ] ).” The Sumerian word “di – nig – gi – na” will become in Tamil viti nikkina
(Âv {UQÚ) and means judgements, which are long lasting. The Sumerian word “du(g) – du(g)”
means pronouncements.

20. One more verse from the hymn B of King Šulgi

“a – na gin – nam nar – re en – du – a mu – e – si – ga – ga – a“ we read in the Sumerian verse and in

the translation we read:” what can ever a singer place in songs as I have done.” In Tamil the verse
will be: “yaaz nankinam naree eentuva muuvee kal kal siya (¯õÌ |[QÚ® |õ@µ HßxÁ
‰@Á PÀ PÀ ]¯). The Sumeian word “a – na” will become in Tamil yaan, yaaz (¯õß, ¯õÌ),
while the Sumerian word “nar – e” will become in Tamil naar (|õº) and means a stringed
instrument.

21. This verse is also taken from the hymn B:

“lugal – me – en a – ga lama – bi – im, kalag – ga – ga sir – bi – im, kir – kir – gin – na – mu nare – e
mu – si – gal.“ We have in Sumerian words, which got translated:“I, the king, my arm is the
protecting genius and this is the song of my valour, which I placed in my library for the use of the
singer.” This verse will be in Tamil: “uLukaLmanaaL karamabiyam kaaLaikka siirbiriyam kiiz kiiRkaNNa
moo naaree moo kaalci (EÐPÒ©ÚõÀ Pµõ©õ¤¯®, PõøÍUP ^º¤¯®, RÌ
RØPsn@©õ |õ@µ @©õ PõÀ] ). The Sumerian word “sir” will be in Tamil ciir (^º) and
means song. The Sumerian word “kir” will become in Tamil kiir (Rº) and means to scratch and to
write.

If we look on the examples given above on the correspondence between the Sumerian and the Tamil
verses, we see clearly the simple assumption on the Sumerian words “sin” and “si” to correspond
with the Tamil word cin, ci (]ß, ]) is not working so easily. We have only the possible
correspondence from vaticin (verse 1), vaticini (verse 2) and kuvicin (verse 7) and the
correspondence of sin and sini are not satisfying. The result for the word “si” is a little better. Forms
like niil ci (}À]), kaalci (PõÀ]) kid – si alai ci and so forth seem to be similar in form to such
verbal nouns like aaraycci (Bµõ#a] ), nikazcci ({PÌa]) pukaRci (¦PØ] ) and so forth. The
occurrences of this kind of forms in classical Tamil were collected by Rev. Fr. H.S. David in 1973. To
his collection we can add the rare appearance of “ci” in the following verse: “veenkai viiyukum
oonkum malaicatci mayil aRibu (@Á[øP òS® K[S ©ø»Pz] ©°À AÔ¦),
where we have malaikaNci (©ø»Ps] ) -> malaikatci (©ø»Pz] ), which means the thing
that live in hill tract. In the epic Cilappatikaram (]»¨£vPõµ®) we find some verses, whichare
close parallels to the Sumerian construction with “si”. We find there the verse: “ kankul kanaicudar

22
kalciyamun (U[SÀ PøÚ”hº PõÀ]¯õ•ß). This verse we find two times in the chapter
“kaNattiram uraitta kaatai (Pnzvµ® Eøµzu Põøu) at the end. In the commentary from
P. V. Somasundaranar we read this means “before the sun removes the darkness” A better literal
rendering will be. “Before the sun becomes the one that removes the darkness.” The particle “a”
after ci (]) he explains as to be a short form of aku (AS), become. The word “kaal – si” is related
to the present day word kaLai, kuLai (PøÍ, SøÍ) and we understand this early form has
survived.

Our exception the Sumerian word “sin, si” was phonological transformed to cin, ci (]ß, ]) is too
much simple. Considering the remarkable correspondence in the stems we have to suggest a
complex phonological and grammatical transformation for “sin, si”. In a study of the
correspondences between lexical items containing the letter “s” and their equivalent in classical
Tamil will give to us an idea of the involved complexity.

We give examples for to illustrate:

The Sumerian word “musen” in Tamil musel, muyel, muukku, muunci (•öŒÀ, •ö¯À, ‰US,
‰g]); has the meaning creatures with protruding features.

The Sumerian word “sir” in Tamil ciir (^º), has the meaning song.

The Sumerian word “isi – isi” and “isi – si” in Tamil icai, ocai (CøŒ, KøŒ) has the meaning music
and noise.

The Sumerian word “sub” becomes in Tamil cup, cump (”¨, ”®£) and has the meaning to duck
down.

The Sumerian word “tus” will be in Tamil tucc, tuncu (xaa, xg”) and means to stay, to sleep
and so forth.

The Sumerian word “su – su – bu” will be in Tamil kubu kubu (S¦ S¦) has the meaning to gush
forth.

The Sumerian word “sag, sang” is in Tamil cenni, ceenai, taan, taanai (öŒßÛ, @ŒøÚ, uõß,
uõøÚ), meaning head, person

The Sumerian “gestu” will be in Tamiil kaatu (Põx) ears.

The Sumerian word “kas – bur – ra – am” will be in Tamil kaRpuram (Pاµ®) with the meaning
libations.

The Sumerian word “mus” will be in Tamil mutal (•uÀ), meaning foundations.

The Sumerian word “mas” will be in Tamil maan (©õß), meaning deer. The word maa (©õ) means
animals, the word maadu (©õk) means cow.

23
The Sumerian word “pi – es”, “pi – is”, “pes” will be in Tamil patti, pakkam, paakkam (£zv,
£UP®, £õUP®) meaning sea, town and sides.

The Sumerian word “munus” will be in Tamil manuci (©Ý] ) and means woman.

Much more extensive examinations will be necessary for to determine the phonological conditions
that requires the phonological transformation of “s” under the condition it will be removed from the
surface form. We will use for this study such transformations given below on the basic of the
illustrated examples given above.

si(n) --> i(n) / (t) ti(n) / (c)ci(n) / (k)ki(n) / (d)di(n) (R)Ri(n)

With this suggestion of development we see a much better evolutionary relation between Sumerian
and the classical Tamil of the Sangam Period. The transformational construction is given below.

Sumerian: “e”; to go out -> Tamil ee (H), Sumerian “e – si(n)” --> Tamil eki(n) (GQß), ettin
(Gzvß), eRRi(n) (GØÔß), eyyi(n) (G#°ß).

Sumerian “si” to fill up -> Tamil cii (^), Sumerian “si – si(n)” --> Tamil ciittin (^zvß)

Sumerian “si” to give -> Tamil ii (D), Sumerian “si – si(n)” --> Tamil iittin (Dzvß) , iini(n) (DÛß),
iiyyi(n) (D#°ß).

Sumerian “ilu” to cry -> Tamil azu (AÊ), Sumerian “ilu – si(n)” -->Tamil azuti(n) (AÊv) , azuki(n)
(AÊQß).

Sumerian “gar” to do -> Tamil kaR, kar (PØ, Pº), Sumerian “gar – si(n)” --> Tamil kaartti(n)
(Põºzvß).

Sumerian “ug” to die -> Tamil ukku (EUS), Sumerian “ug – si(n) “ --> Tamil ukki(n) (EUQß).

Sumerian “gu” to call -> Tamil kuu (T), Sumerian “gu – si(n)” --> Tamil kuukki(n) (TUQß),
kuyiRRi (n) (S°ØÔß), kuutti(n) (Tzvß).

Sumerian “na” to sleep -> Tamil aNai (Aøn), Sumerian “na – si(n)” --> Tamil aNiti(n)
(Aovß), aNaitti(n) (Aønzvß).

Sumerian “zu” to inform -> Tamil co (öŒõ), Sumerian “zu – si(n)” --> Tamil conRi(n) (öŒõßÔß),
colli(n) (öŒõÀö»õß).

Sumerian “bu – uh” to get frightened -> Tamil pee (@£), Sumerian “bu – uhsi(n) --> Tamil payatti(n)
(£¯zvß), peytti(n) (ö£#zvß), peetti(n) (@£zvß).

24
Sumerian “gur” to scratch -> Tamil ur (Eº), Sumerian “gur – si(n)” --> Tamil uraikki(n)
(EøµUQß), uraitti(n) (Eøµzvß).

Sumerian “gur” to cut -> Tamil kuR (SØ)6, Sumerian “gur – si(n)” --> Tamil kuRRi(n) (SØÔß),
koyti(n) (öPõ#vß).

Sumerian “tum” to bring -> Tamil toonR (@uõßØ), Sumerian “tum – si(n) --> Tamil toonrici(n)
(@uõßÔ]ß), tooRRi (@uõØÔ).

Sumerian “bur” to relate -> Tamil paRai (£øÓ), Sumerian “bur – si(n)” --> Tamil paRayi(n)
(£Ó°ß), paRaytti(n) (£Ó#zvß).

Sumerian “mu” to grow -> Tamil muL (•Ò), Sumerian “mu – si(n)” --> Tamil muRRi(n) (•ØÔß),
mutti (•zv), Sumerian “mul – si(n)” ---> Tamil muLaitti(n) (•øÍzvß).

Sumerian “ti” to live -> Tamil vati (Áv), Sumerian “ti – si(n)” --> Tamil vatiki(n) (ÁvQß), vatiti(n)
(Ávvß).

Sumerian “gid” to reach -> Tamil kid (Qm), Sumerian “gid – si(n)” --> Tamil kiddi(n) (Qmi).

Sumerian si – ig” to tear down -> Tamil ciikku (^US), Sumerian “si – gi – si(n)” --> Tamil ciikki(n)
(^UQß), ciiRRi(n) (^ØÔß).

Sumerian “hur” to rub -> Tamil ur (Eº), Sumerian “hur – si(n)” --> Tamil uraci(n) (Eµ]ß),
uraici(n) (Eøµ]ß).

Sumerian “dur” to scatter -> Tamil turat (xµz), Sumerian “dur – si(n)” --> Tamil turatti(n)
(xµzvß)

Sumerian “gal” to establish -> Tamil kaal, naal (PõÀ, |õÀ), Sumerian “gal – si(n)” --> Tamil natti(n)
(|zvß), naRRi(n) (|ØÔß).

Sumerian “si – re” to join -> Tamil ceer (@Œº), Sumerian “si – re – si(n)” --> Tamil ceertti(n)
(@Œºzvß), ceerkki(n) (@ŒºUQß).

Sumerian “kin” to search, to see -> Tamil kaN, kaan (Ps,

Põß), Sumerian “kin – si(n)” --> Tamil
kaNti(n) (Psvß), kaatci(n) (Põz]ß), kaatti(n) (Põzvß).

6
Here we find a word, which suggest the existence of two kinds of “r” already in the Sumerian script, which is
not shown in transliteration. We suggest the existence of r (º) and R (Ø) in the Sumerian script. We have to
study the cuneiform texts, if we can see a distinction between these both “r” there.
25
We could give many more construction in this way, but these given above are enough to reveal the
connection between Sumerian and the classical Tamil verb. We need of course much more research,
but at the moment we can give the connection in the following way.

1. Expects some letters, which do not exist in the classical Tamil alphabet as given by
Tolkappiyanar, the structure of the verb stem in both languages are made of (C) V ~(C), with
a similar range of phonemic repertoire. The letters from the Sumerian alphabet “z” is given in
Tamil by different consonants, inside the word the Sumerian “z” is often given by Tamil “Ì “.
The Sumerian “h” is often given in Tamil by “E, J”.
2. The secondary verb stems of classical Tamil serve obviously as the base for to form the finite
verbs, the verbal and relative participles, which are development or transformation from the
Sumerian verbal complex of the kind A – si(n). Here A denotes the verbal stem of the (C) V ~
(C) kind.

Here we get certainly a useful and exciting insight of the verbal system of the classical Tamil Period.
We can go on with our investigation on these given examples for to get additional insights, which
make the entire subject exciting. For forms like kandi (Psi), ceertti (@μzv), kiddi (Qmi)
and so forth are the base. These bases are formed by phonological transformation of the Sumerian
verb complex of the “A – si” kind. To these bases the syllable cin (]ß) is added as a suffix and
became further transformed. We can consider the classical Tamil verb complex with cin (]ß) as a
phonological transformation from the Sumerian verb complex of the kind “A – si, A – sin” kind. For
this we could suggest a rule:

In this rule A’ denotes the transformation of A, which depends on the structure of A. The B’ denotes
the form of “s” in “si” takes specified in the examples above roughly. We give a few examples fro to
clarify our suggestion:

(kin – si) – sin from Sumerian -> kaNd – i – cin (Psm + C +]ß) in Tamil

(bar – si) – sin from Sumerian -> par – tt – i – cin (£õº + zz + C + ]ß) in Tamil

(gul – si) – sin from Sumerian -> kon – ri – cin (öPõß + Ô + ]ß) in Tamil

(sire – si) – sin from Sumerian -> ceer – tt – cin (@Œº + zz + ]ß) in Tamil
If we can establish this for to be correct, we have here a distinct possibility.

Wefind various evidence from the Sumerian texts to indicate this way of transformation. In the
Sumerian language this transformation didn´t go so far, we still can find the appearance of the “si”
and “sin” without any phonological change in a quite number of cases. They appear also, where
phonological changes took already part and go from partial to a complete transformation. The verbal
complex “a – dub he – en – si – ag – an” we understand as a transformation from a – dub si – en – si –

26
ag – an” where “si” got transformed into “he”. We have various appearances of “he”, where it will
substantiate this possibility. We will discuss this later further.

But accepting this possibility, we have to show and understand the underlying generative process,
which have resulted in this kind of syntactical and morphological forms. This brings us to examine the
grammatical and semantic functions of the word “sin” and “si”.

3. The grammatical function of “sin” and “si”

We are lucky for to have given by Rev. H. S. David in 1973 a long list of the appearance of i – cin in
the Sangam literature of classical Tamil. His conclusion after he has examined them is a variation of
purposes, which he enumerates in the following way:

1. They form verbal participle as he give for example in the Kural 367: “uvak kaaN tozi
avvaticinee (EÁU Põs @uõÈ AÆÁßv]@Ú), oh friend come and see this.
2. They form the present perfect like in An.7 :” puuNdicin (§si]ß), have worn.”
3. They form the past tense like in An. 77:” cuuznticin (‹Ìv]ß), you have considered.”
4. They form the optative mood like we find it in Na. 1280: “ anRicin (AßÔ]ß), PN. 180 P:
vatitticin (Ávzv]ß), Par. 8.79: “kaNdicin (Psi]ß), An. 164.11: “terinticin
(öu›ßv]ß) and Naer. 200.5: “nuvanRicin (~ÁßÔ]ß)
5. They form the imperative, which is always singular like in PN. 202.16:” nooRRicin
(@|õØÔ]ß) and Nar. 78.7: “keddicin (@Pmi]ß).

His list is much longer and this giving of linguistic function of this morpheme, specific if there are well
established enclitic and particles for this function, is not completely satisfying. We miss the power of
explanation, which is the goal of our examination. The above list of function based on the contextual
kind than on the narrowly true on the morpheme in question. But whatever our examination does
reveal, it has to be consistent with the functions given in Rev. David`s list. In the book of Prof. P. S.
Subramanian we find suggested the “c” in the suffix “cin” is connected to the past tense, which can
be reconstructed for Dravidian languages. He removed the “i”, which precedes the cin and which is
according to him without any grammatical or semantic significance, because it didn`t appear after
the past stem ending in”i”. He gives as an example munticinoor (•ßv]@Úõº). He further
analyses cin as c – in and says; that in can also be a past suffix that appears after verbs of the 5th
conjugation. He denies the possibility of “in” being a pronominal suffix, because in the past nominal
it is followed by the regular pronominal suffixes. This view is completely contrary to what we read in
the grammar of Tolkappiyanar. In the Tolkappiyam we read on cin (]ß)and not of icin (C]ß),
which suggests clearly to take icin as i – cin. We read twice on cin (]ß) in the Tolkappiyam. We
read first in Tol. E. 333:

“©ßÝ® ]ßÝ® AÝ® CÝ®

¤ßÝ® •ßÝ® ÂAÛö¯ß” QͲ®

27
AßÚ C¯» Gß©Úõº ¦»Áº.“
The second time we read on cin in Tolk. Col.274:

“ª¯ CP @©õ ©v CS® GßÝ®

B Á°ß BÖ® •ßÛø» AøŒaöŒõÀ .“

What is here pertinent is the idea that cin is the marker of the second person. In the following verse
Tolkappiyanar adds some occasions, where it is used as the first and the third person. From the
examination by Tolkappiyanar we can understand “cin” as a pronoun of a kind of interpersonal
relationships. If we look into other Dravian languages we find a more complicated situation. The
scholar M. S. Andronov explains that “sin”, “jin” and “zin” appear as the formants of the present
continuous tense in Konda (1970). He gave some examples:

- kot, to cackle; kot – sin

- suur, to see; suur – jin
- tila, to fear; tila – sin

The present continuous tense is an innovation in Dravidian languages and we can conclude the
function of “sin” in Konda is something new, a development from a past and primordial function,
which we have not yet found and be ascertained. Prof. P. S. Subramanian recognises “isu” as a suffix
for to form transitive causatives in Kannada, with variants in old Kannada; “- su” , middle Kannada; “-
cu” and dialectical “- asu”. These different formants appear to be allomorphs of “isu”. We have
examples:

ii; to give, ii – su / iiy –su; to cause to give

en; to say, en – isu; to cause to say

tir; to be finished, tir – cu, tir – isu; to cause to finish

The causative – transitive function of “isu” in Kannada is not needed to be a very early Dravidian. In
early Kannada we find – ppu and – pu serving this function. This is similar to classical Tamil, where we
have – ppi and – pi like we have in Sumerian ib. The word “si” cannot be a very early Dravidian
formant of transitive, because in Sumerian “si” appears with intransitives. We have to suggest, even
the Kannada “isu” is related morphological to the Sumerian “sin”, but the function it is used for is not
the function it was used in the very early Dravidian and classical Tamil language. In Prof. P. S.
Subramanian´s book we find discussed a situation in Telugu, which is obviously comparable to the
case in Kannada. Here we find the transitive suffixes – cu, – pu and – incu. Here we have – cu and –
pu to be morphologically allomorphs of a single morpheme.

Examples:

ceeru, to reach -> ceeru – cu; to cause to reach

kuulu, to fall down -> kuulu – cu; to cause to fall down

udu gu , to end -> udu – pu; to cause to end

28
The suffix – incu is clearly a causative suffix and forms causative verbs from transitive verbs, both
inherent and derived. This suffix is in free variations with – cu and – pu, we find it in allomorphs –
pincu and – incu. It is used in some cases for to mark the transitive verb.

Examples:

ceeyu; to do -> cey – incu; to cause to do

koddu; to beat -> koddu – incu; to cause to beat

kaalu, to burn intransitive -> kaalu – cu; to burn transitive; -> kali – p – incu; to cause to burn
something

To the importance of – cu or – incu of Telugu we have to say the same as for the “isu” in Kannada
before. We see the above mentioned analysis of the semantic significance of “cin” and it`s related
morphemes are made of later developments and as such are observations, which have to be
explained in terms from an earlier, more simple function. The way, how we can identify this earlier
function, we will give here.

What we said before on the relation in morphological view between Sumerian and Classical Tamil
verbs, we have clearly to distinguish between primary and secondary appearances of “sin, si”. By the
primary appearance we understand the addition of the suffix “sin, si” to the verbal stem having the
structure (C) V ~ (C), like ti – sin, gal – sin and so forth. We have to remark here, that the verb stems
are not verbs in the grammatical sense, but rather action names. They appear verbal only, because
they name actions and processes that allow the formation of grammatical verbs by the process of
adding suffixes. By secondary appearance we understand the further adding of the suffix “sin, si” to
the verbal stem. With types like gal – si – sin, ku – ra – sin – si and so forth. With our contention that
– kin, - tin, - Rin, - cin and so forth are transformations of the underlying “sin, si” it will become
possible to assess more accurately the function of “sin, si” in its original and early function. In this
relation we need to understand the difference between “sin” and “si”.

The primary appearance of “si” gives birth to nouns that are stative and mostly in the second person.

en – si -> en – Ri (GßÔ) ; you, who has said something

kin – si -> kaN – di (Psi), you, who have seen

kur – si -> kuR – Ri (SØÔ); you, who have cut

If we add pronominal suffixes to these words, then we will get relative participle nouns as such.

en – Ri + eL (GßÔö¯Ò)

kaN – di + oor (Psi@¯õº)

kuR – Ri + en (SØÔö¯ß)

29
From this we can conclude that the 2nd person significance is derivative and due to a dominant and
more frequently used in this sense than in the 1st and 3rd person, which are inherent possible as the
possibility of forming relative participle nouns with them seems to show. This includes the
implication that “si” is a stative noun formant with a general personal notion than with any specific
pronominal significance. From this it follows the original and real meaning of kaNdi (Psi) will be,
one, who sees rather than he, she or I, who sees. Here we need to remark “si” as a variant of “zi”,
which has the meaning which lives, to live and so forth. From “zi” we can derive ciivan (^Áß) and
jiivan (ãÁß). We can therefore suggest the cin (]ß) of Tolkappiyam is a nasalized form of “si /
zu”, which is distinct from Sumerian “si – in”.

In distinction to this, the primary appearance of “si – in” is to give birth to verbs rather than to nouns.
Verbs, which could have appeared as finite forms by themselves:

Examples:

en – sin -> en – Ri (GßÔ); said

kin – sin -> kaN – di (Psi); saw

kur – sin -> kuR Rin (SØÔß); cut

If we add here pronominal suffixes we get clearly finite verbs.

en – Rin + aaL (GßÔßõÒ)

kan – din + aan (PsiÚõß)

kuR – Rin + aaL (SØÔÚõÒ)

We see if „sin“ in the primary appearance is a verb formant, a morph, which when it is added as
suffix to basic action names of the (C) V ~ (C) kind produce clearly finite verbs.

At this place we should discuss the imperative formant “u” in Sumerian, which is possibly a
phonological transformation of “su”. We saw already the word “su” in Sumerian means hand and it is
obviously related to Tamil kai (øP). We can suggest two possible transformations:

1. su -> sey -> key -> kai

2. suur -> kuur - > karam

It is simultaneously a noun meaning hand and a verb meaning to do. We can find the primary
meaning of “su” in Sumerian as to do and if it is added as suffix to a verb stem the verb complex

30
become the imperative sense of to do that. We find a typical appearance of “u” in the following verse
from “Dumuzi`s dream:

“i – lu gar – u i – lu gar – u edin i – lu gar – u“ are the Sumerian words and we find the translation:”
set up a lament, set up a lament, o plain set up a lament.” Further:

“edin i – lu gar – u ambar gu gar – u“ in Sumerian words, which are translated: “o plain, set up a
lament, so swamp, set up a cry.”

The Sumerian word “i – lu” will be in Tamil azu (AÊ). The Sumerian word “gu” will become in Tamil
kuuv (TÆ). The Sumerian word “edin” will become in Tamil eetil (HvÀ) and the Sumerian word
“ambar” will become in Tamil ambalam, ambal (A®£»®, B®£À).
If we add this imperative marker to the above given verbs as suffix, we will get finite verbs in the non
– past tense with the morphological features identical how they appear in the classical Tamil.

en – Rin – su -> en Rin + Ru / tu (GßÔßÖ, GßÔßx)

kaN din – su -> kaN din + Ru / tu (PsißÖ, Psißx)

kuR – Rin – su -> KuR – Rin + Ru / tu (SØÔßÖ, SØÔßx)

It is required to compare these verb forms with the finite verb forms in the present tense found in
the Sangam Literature.

AN. 340. 9 + 12.:

ootam mal – kin – ru (Ku® ©ÀQßÖ)

pozutu manRa man – Rin – Ru (ö£õÊx ©ßÓ ©ßÔßÖ)

AN. 340. 13.:

yaam atu peeNin – Ru (¯õ® Ax @£oßÖ)

PN.24:

uzavar .. veNKadaRRirai micaip paayun – tu (EÇÁº .. öÁ¢PhØÔøµ ªøŒ¨ £õ²ßx)

paratavar .. taN kuravaic ciir tuukkun – tu (£µuÁº .. us SµøÁa ^º yUSßx)

31
We see it matches nicely. This distinction in the meaning between the complexes formed with “si”
and “sin” as suffix is defined by Tolkappiyanar as VanaikuRippu (ÂøÚSÔ¨¦) and vinaimuRRu
(ÂøÚ•ØÖ). The importance in this definition is laid on the meaning of murru (•ØÖ), which
has the meaning of attaining, reaching, effecting and so forth. We can explain this definition by
Tolkappiyam as follows: “both “si” and “sin” are being formants with “si” as a stative are being
formant and “sin” as effectors being formant. The combination A + si will have the meaning of “one,
who does, while A + sin will have the meaning one, who has effected A. A is the name of an action or
process. This stative being formant is stative and can`t become conjugated by tense without a change
of meaning. It can conjugate only with terms that introduce agents like pronouns. This restriction is
not hold with effectors being formants, as the effecting of an action, in addition to being a temporal
event requires also an agent. The effectors being sense of “sin” is in contrast with the “be – the
effectors of an action” sense of “su” the imperative marker. What is asserted by such complexes as A
– sin can be said to be true or wrong while such a truth functional evaluation is not possible with A –
su. We remark here the evaluation of A – sin as true or wrong, presupposes the alleged effecting of
an action by someone at some time in the past. From this it is possible for complex verbs of the kind
“A – sin” to have become gradually understood as verbs in the past tense. Verb complexes of the
kind “A –su” are in contrast to this, in imperative sense in original intention, it is possible for this kind
of morphological structure to have become in contrast with the past tense, a state of affairs that
have prevailed during the period of classical Tamil and can be seen in the above examples from the
Sangam period.

Our understanding of the grammatical and semantic significance of the primary appearance of “si”
and “sin” seems to be correct for Sumerian as well. We watch shortly on the examples:

ba – si gal in Sumerian -> naal si pa -> naattiba (|õÀ] £Úzv£); stand up they / he

ba – si – dig – en in Sumerian -> pa kidd si en --> pa kiddiyen (£ Qmiö¯ß); one, who has
reached them.

si ag – an in Sumerian -> ak – al – si -> aakkatti (BUPzv); one, who makes or one, who becomes

su – ba – si – in – ti in Sumerian -> suur pa – sin – ti -> karam vatittinpa (Pµ® Ávzvߣ);

effected it staying in the hands

zi – in ba – si – in - tum in Sumerian -> ciiv – anin pa sin – tum -> aanin ciivan toonRipa (BÛß
^Áß @uõßÔ£); he saved his life

Now we have to answer the question, if the same interpretation can be hold for the secondary
appearance of “sin” and “si”. We have four distinct possibilities:

- (A – si) – si
(gal – si) – si (naaddi) – si naaddi – i
(ti – si) – si (vatitti) – si vatitti – i
(vati – i) – si vati – i – i
(gid –si) – si (kiddi) – si kiddi – i
32
In these cases the stative – being formant function of “si” will be redunant for the secondary
appearance. However, if words like naaddi (|õmi), vati – i (Áv C), and kiddi (Qmi) are
reinterpreted as indicating the successful effecting of an action named by the verbal stem, then will
be the secondary appearance of “si” be understood as having the same function as the primary
appearance.

(A – si) – sin; in this case we should have forms like kiddikin, kiddiyin, kiddicin (QmiQß,
Qmi°ß, Qmi]ß ), kaNdikin, kaNdiyin and kaNdicin (PsiQß, Psi°ß,
Psi]ß) and so forth. If the pronominal suffixes are added; they are also available in Sumerian;
we should get forms like kiddicinoor (Qmi]@Úõº), kaNdicinoor (Psi]@Úõº), forms
which are attested in the classical Tamil literature. While the grammatical and semantic function of
“sin” remains the same, the difference in the meaning of the secondary stem seems to introduce a
shift in the meaning. The effecting the state of being one doing A. The form kaNdicinoor
(Psi]@Úõº) will have the meaning: they, who have affected the state of being one who sees.
Those, who have accomplished the act of seeing; in result the secondary appearance of “sin” seems
to have something akin to the perfective sense. The examples of Sumerian constructions with “sin”
given in this study do not have any secondary appearance of “sin” in the form considered here. We
need to remark the perfective sense, which is attributed to cin (]ß) in classical Tamil didn´t agree
to what Tolkappiyanar has said about it. His interpretation seems to apply to “si”.

(A – sin) – si; the appearance of “n” as the terminal consonant of the stem would limited the
phonological transformation of “si” to “i” or Ri / di

naaddin – si -> naaddi – i

vadin – si -> vatin – i

kaNdin – si -> kaNdin – i

The function of “si” would be here the same as where it appears in the function of the primary suffix,
the difference in the nature of the stem, seems to make a difference in the overall grammatical
function. The meaning of complexes like kaNdini i (PsiÛ C), will be.” being one, who has
seen. Again a stative – being complex, one who has accomplished something. If we add pronominal
suffixes, we will get forms like naaddin – i – en (|õmiÛö¯ß), vantin – i – en
(ÁßvÛö¯ß) and so forth. If we allow these forms to delete the letter “n” and “i” or “ii” we
will get forms like naaddi – i- en (|õzv°ö¯ß), vatiyen (Ávö¯ß) and so forth, forms which
are attested in classical Tamil. From view on the Sumerian texts we have an example from the corpus
of texts consulted:

“si – ni – sub --> sub – sin – i” ---> in Tamil kubitten – i (S¤zöuÛ), kavittin – i (PÂzvÛ)”

33
It is possible we need to as forms like “i – in – si” , which we find used often in the Sumerian verses.

We give one example:

“uru – ba ki – e – ne – di – be mir i – in – si“ we read in the Sumerian verse and this we find
translated:” a tempest has filled the dancing of the city.”

We see here the transformation:

i – in – si -> si – in – i --> ciiyin i (^°Û)

The Sumerian word “uru” will be in Tamil uuru (F¸). The Sumerian word “ki” will be in Tamil kiiz
(RÌ). The Sumerian word “ne – di” will be in Tamil nadi (|i) , naattiyam or nadanam
(|õzv¯®, |hÚ®) and the Sumerian word “mir” will be in Tamil maari (©õ›).

(A – sin) – sin; the phonological transformation of this kind of deep structure will be like naaddin – in
(|õmiÛß) and so forth. The meaning will be: effecting the state of being and effectors of A,
which is a causative sense. In the Sumerian literature we have the appearance of closely related
words to this form:

“su ba – si – in – in – ti -> su ba ti – sin – in” in Sumerian ---> in Tamil suur vatittin pa (‹º
Ávzvߣ) --> karam vatittin pa (Pµ® Ávzvߣ).

(A – su) – sin; of specific interest are here the phonological transformations of forms, where “su” is
the imperative marker of verbal formant. From this we will get complexes like naaddukin
(|õmkQß) and if we add the pronominal suffix we get forms like naaddukinRaan
(|õmkQßÓõß). From this forms we can generate forms like nadukiRaan (|kQÓõß),
vatikiRaan (ÁvQÓõß) and so forth. These complexes are the present tense third person finite
verbs of present day Tamil. Here we touch exciting points. The secondary appearance of “sin” as sufix
added to a verbal stem, which has “su” as verbal formant, seems to generate verbal complexes,
which has come to function as present tense finite verbs in the post Sangam Tamil. Our
understanding of a perfective sense for cin (]ß) in classical Tamil we can verify from another side,
too. If it is correct that cin (]ß) is a phonological transformation of the underlying Sumerian “sin”
then we will under a new set of rules regulating these phonological transformation, it is possible for
“sin” to be transformed into d(din). If we allow this and add pronominal suffixes, we will generate
verbal complexes kaNdi – din – een (Psii@Úß). If we include the possibility of deletion of
the “n” then we will get forms like kaNdiddeen (Psim@hß). Forms, which have become the
perfective sense in present day Tamil.

We have already in Sumerian period reasons for to suggest the beginning of the phonological
transformation of si, sin and su, which was not as far and widespread as we find it in the classical
Tamil period. We can formulate some rules, which are valid already in Sumerian time.

34
 1. If there is only the primary appearance of “si” or “sin” then it will be optionally transformed
into the generation of the surface structure.
2. If there is the appearance of “si” and “sin” in the secondary sense, then will only the primary
or the secondary appearance of them take the phonological transformation.

We give one verse for to support our given rules in their substance. The verse is taken from the
lamentation over the destruction from Ur

“u amaru – gin uru i – gul – gul – e” are the Sumerian words, translated: “ like a storm of the flood it
destroys the cities.” (Verse 199) The Sumerian word “u” will become in Tamil uu, uutu (F, Fx),
to blow. The word uutai (Føu) means wind. The Sumerian word “amaru” will be in Tamil amuri
(A•›), waters. The Sumerian word “gin” will become in Tamil ngin (cß) -> in, a particle of
comparison. The Sumerian word “gul” will become in Tamil kol (öPõÀ) and means to destroy.

We have the transformation:

si – gul – gul – e -> i – gul – gul – e -> ii kolkolee --> kolkol – ii – ee; give destruction

Another verse from the same text (Verse 65)

“uru mu – zu i – gal za – e mu – da – gul – en“ the Sumerian verse is translated:“oh you city of name,
you have been destroyed.”

Transformation:

Sumerian: si – gal --> i – gal ---> Tamil ii kaal --> kal – ii; give firm standing

One more verse from the same text (verse 82)

“ene- ra nam – uru – na mu – un – na – te ir – gig i – se – se“ we read in Sumerian words and

translate: “ unto him for the sake of his city approached, painful she weeps.”

Transformation:

Sumerian: si – se – se --> i – se – se ---> Tamil ii sey sey --> seysey – ii

3. The Causative formant – b –

We find in Sumerian complex verbal constructions, which involves the causative infix “b”, which
corresponds to Tamil ip, we didn´t discuss until now. The structure of stems, which get this infix “b”
inserted we can explain in the words of the principle we have discussed until here.

35
Verse 76 from the lamentation over the destruction of Ur

“nin – lu – e – hul – a – ta uru – ni ir – ri ba- an – di – ni – ib – kar“ we read in the Sumerian verse and
translate: “because of the Lord, whose house has been attacked, his city was given over to tears.”

The transformation:

Sumerian: ir – ri ba – an –di – ni – ib – kar --> ir – ri ba – an – sin – ib – kar ---> Tamil iirree kaar – t –
tin – ip – paan (Dº@µ PõºzvÛ¨£õß); he will cause the city to be placed in tears. The
Sumerian word “ir” willbecome in Tamil iir, iirram (Dº, Dºµ®) and means wet and moist. The
Sumerian word “kar” will be in Tamil kaal (PõÀ), to place.

4. Theoretical Understanding

Our study is limited by its subject, but we see a close intimacy between the Sumerian and the
classical Tamil language. Because of this close relation we consider Sumerian to be an earlier form of
Tamil and our examination is an evolutionary theory and not a reconstruction of previous forms. We
see an evolution of the language from Sumerian to classical Tamil as we see and evolution of the
classical Tamil to the present day Tamil. Sumerian is genetically related to classical Tamil, like the
classical Tamil is genetically related to modern Tamil of the present day. We see in the classical and
modern Tamil the historical and evolutionary features of the development inherent in Sumerian
Period or even earlier. We didn´t find in the elaborate study of Prof. P. S. Subramanian on the verbal
morphology of the Dravidian languages no discussion of the forms A- si, A – sin and A – su in the
primary and secondary appearance as early forms of the Dravidian verbs. In the same way we didn`t
find in the studies of K. Zvelebil (1967) and M. S. Andronov (1970) nothing mentioned in this way.
The reason is, they didn´t take the Sumerian language in their account for to be a Dravidian language,
too. These studies and also our own study here, reveal certain inherent limitation in the structural
approach for the diachronic study of languages over the time of millenniums. The transformation
process, which we discuss here:

si(n) ----> - (k) ki(n), - (t)ti(n), - (c)ci(n), - (d)di(n), -(R) Ri(n), i(n)

are not processes that have ceased. They are going on phonological processes, we postulate si(n) , su
and so forth as elements of verbal complexes in the deep structure, which are operated upon to
generate surface structures with “s” deleted and substituted with the above alternatives, the specific
choice of which can be stated in terms of certain phonological environments. From this view each
historical epoch has to be understood and taken as characteristic by different sets of phonological
rules operating upon identical deep structures. Here we have of course to take care of some rules,
which will overlap while the change of historical epochs. If understand “si – ni – sub, sub – sin – i”
and kuvittini (SÂzvÛ) as the surface structure of the same underlying deep structure “sub –
sin – si”, the difference in the phonological character of the surface structure is attributed to
different sets of rules of phonological transformations, which are a characteristic of each epoch. Here
much more details investigations and research is needed to be done regarding these rules and which
are characteristic for which epoch. What we discuss here is not a generative transformational
36
grammar as we read it by Chomsky. The generative transformational grammar can´t accommodate
acts of speech. We need for to explain this, a different kind of generative grammar, which we still
need to develop these needed aspects. Our study here is just a first small step. In this relation with
our examination here, it is impossible to capture in an adequate way the structural differences
between the stative – being and the effectors being kind of constructions. They are close to the
constructions of vinaikuRippu (ÂøÚSÔ¨¦) and vinaimuRRu (ÂøÚ•ØÖ) as defined by
Tolkappiyanar. The stative constructions allow stringing together a number of independent clauses
with the juxtaposition of the clauses itself indicating the identity of the subject. This kind of
construction we can also call equities and enumeration, a listing without any hierarchical co –
ordination. These kinds of constructions we find frequently used in Sumerian and in classical Tamil.
We can take this as a characteristically feature of Sumerian and classical Tamil literature. We give in
the following a few examples, where all the verses have exciting constructions. We give some verses
with relative participle and based on what we have discussed until now.

1. this verse is taken from the poem “exaltation of In – Anna”

“ e kes mus – kalam – ma gu – hus – aratta” we read in the Sumerian verse, which is translated:”
Temple of Keš, foundation of the country, fierce ox of Aratta.” The Sumerian word “e” will become il
(CÀ) in Tamil. The Sumerian word “mus” will become in Tamil mutal (•uÀ). The Sumerian word
kalam will be in Tamil kalam (P»®). The Sumerian word “gu” will become in Tamil koo (@Põ). The
Sumerian word “hus” will become in Tamil usNa (San).

“kur – da – mu – a kur – ra sag – il – bi“ is the verse in Sumerian words, which are translated.”
Growing up like Ekur, when it lifts up its head in the land.” The Sumerian word “kur” will be in Tamil
kunRu, kuuRu (SßÖ, TÖ). The Sumerian word “mu” will become in Tamil muu (‰), while the
Sumerian word “sag” will become in Tamil senni (öŒßÛ). The Sumerian word “il” will be in Tamil
ezu (GÊ).

For comparison we will give an example of the Sangam poems as an example of the equities and
enumerative kind of construction.

PN.22

“y[S øP¯õÀ K[S Úøh¯ A

E»º ©o¯õÀ ¾¯º ©¸¨¤ß A

¤øµ ~u»õº öŒÓ @|õUQß A

£øÁi¯õÀ £õøn ö¯¸zvß A “

For to give and contrast to these verses are the active of effective being kind of constructions. Here
even the simplest is inscriptive; the effecting of something is ascribed to an agent. These ascriptions

37
are furthermore truth functional in the sense that ascription proceeds subsequent to presupposing
the effecting of actions. Each clause of this kind is if it is co – ordinate in hierarchical order. This is in
respect to the presupposition of the truth of the clauses, which are subordinated. What is stated by
the verse as presupposition of the truths is the essential ingredient in the generation of complex
structures from simple ones. We give from the Sangam Period one example:

PN.24:

“ö|À A›²® C¸ßöuõÊÁº

öŒß߯°ØÖ öÁ°ß •øÚ°ß

öÁs PhØÔøµ ªøŒ¨ £õ²ßx. “

The entire verse is made up of three independent sentences

a. iruntozular nel ariyum (C¸ßöuõÊ»º ö|À A›²®)

b. cennyayiRRu vey munai i (öŒß߯õ°ØÖ öÁ°ß •øÚ C)
c. iruntozuvar venkadaRRirai micaip paayuntu (C¸ßöuõÊÁº öÁs PhØÔøµ
ªøŒ¨ £õ²ßx)
If we order them as (a, b) or (b --->c), where D = [A o (B --> C)] means A is presupposed and B is
construed as the cause of C in the generation of D from A, B, and C. This kind of Sumerian clauses as
3 and 4 can be understood as complex clauses generated from simpler one through truth – relational
cognitive operations of various kinds. We give an example of Sumerian verses, which are of this kind
through the operational co – ordination is different. We take again two verses from the hymns from
the temple of Keš.

“kes kur kur – ra sag – ga il –bi

en – lil – le kes za – mi am – ma – ab – be.“ Verse 8 + 9.

The Sumerian word „kes“ will become keeci (@P] ) in Tamil. The Sumerian word “kur” will become
in Tamil kunRu, kuuRu (SßÖ, TÖ). The Sumerian word “sag” will be in Tamil saan, senni (Œõß,
öŒßÛ). The Sumerian word “il” will be in Tamil ezu (GÊ), while the Sumerian word “za – mi”
will be in Tamil saami, suvaami (Œõª, ”Áõª). The Sumerian word “ab – be” will become in Tamil
avai (AøÁ).

This kind of cognitive operations and specific the cognitive act of presupposing the truth of a
meaningful set of elementary propositions are not stated as the central generating principles of the
complex sentence as we find it defined in the transformational grammar discussed by Chomsky.
According to Chomsky the notion of the presupposition is taken as an element of the information
structure and therefore a contribution from the surface structure of a sentence. From this it is very
clear, we need the theoretical framework of grammatical processes for to describe the historical
development of the Tamil verbal system and the genetic relation between Sumerian and classical
Tamil language in a proper way. In the grammar of the process we need to distinguish between three
subjects.
38
 1. The cognitive matrix, called muulauru (‰ö»Í¸) in Tamil
2. The semantic matrix, called eeraNauru (Hµön͸) in Tamil
3. The surface structure, called puRaur(¦öÓ͸) in Tamil

Together with the surface structure we suggest the existence of two more subjects:

1. The initial surface structure, called adip puRauru (Ai¨ ¦öÓ͸) in Tamil
2. The terminal surface structure, called mudip puRauru (•i¨ ¦öÓ͸) in Tamil

From these 5 subjects the cognitive matrix provides the framework of cognitive operations and the
deep seated global constrains, what regulates the formation of semantic structures, which are
formed by inserting suitable concepts. If the semantic structure is lexicalised we get what we call the
initial surface structure. This produces by various kinds of transformation as an effect the terminal
surface structure, which is spoken or written. From this view we can understand Sumerian and
classical Tamil to have an identical initial surface structure, but a little different terminal surface
structures. This we see in the kind of verses, which we have discussed in this work. We give an
example for to illustrate our suggestion.

a) utu a – igi – na su ba – si – ni – ti ; Utu received his tears

b) uti aal akkina suur vatittinpa (Ex¯õÀ AUQÚ ‹º Ávzvߣ)
The initial surface structure we suggest is like:

s < ----- [NP { (utu) agent, < ---su (locative) <--- a- igin – ni (objective) } --<VC {ti (action, with karaka
cases) sin (effect), time (*), pronoun (*), ba (agent) } ]7

This deep structure, which during the Sumerian period was transformed into the verse a) got during
the Sangam period transformed into the verse b). If our suggestion here is correct, then we need to
discuss the differences in the terminal surface structure as the difference in the phonological
transformation, which are operative together with syntactic transformations.

Our suggestion has two implications, which we need to look on shortly:

1. We need to suggest two distinct phonological bases, one for the initial surface structure and
one for the terminal surface structure. They are in principle not taken as distinct from each
other and they will have a number of general elements. This implies the letters g. d, b, s, sh
and z are phonemes of the classical Tamil as elements of the initial surface structure, but
which are not elements of the basic for the generation of the terminal surface structure at
the time of Tolkappiyanar. For the Sumerian period these both basic elements can be taken
as identical.
2. In the historical development and evolution of a language as earlier it is as more close are the
initial surface structure and the terminal surface structure to each other. The historically

7
Here the line „<--„ indicates the cognitive operations of presupposing the truth of what it dominates. * is used
for to represent the slot for tense and pronominal specification, which are optional. In Tamil these slots are
defined by Tolkappiyanar as itaiccol (CøhaöŒõÀ), which has the same function as the slots. The action,
which is specified by the term of Karaka case, is required for to establish the agreement between the noun
phrase and the verbal construction.
39
 earlier syntactic and phonological structure of a sentence is not subjected to the
transformation compared to the later structures, which are undergone by time of use of the
language.

What we show here as a theoretical perspective, which has surfaced by the application of the
principle of grammatical process for to show the exciting similarities and differences between
Sumerian and classical Tamil language is just a first small step. Much more examination and research
work has to be done.

40
Compound words in the Sumerian texts

Compound words are words, which consist of two or more words, but which are taken in the
semantically function as just one word. Compound words are a characteristic of the Tamil language
and also of Sanskrit. We have seen a close relation between the Sumerian language and the Tamil
language, which belong to our understanding to the family of the Dravidian languages. We find in the
available Sumerian grammars no word on compound words in the Sumerian texts, but if we examine
this language carefully, we find there the existence and use of compound words, too. Before we will
go into the Sumerian literature for to search these kind of words, we will look into the grammar of
the classical Tamil for the nature and kinds of compound words defined by Tolkappiyanar and other
grammarians of Tamil and Sanskrit.

1. Word formation and compound words

According to the grammar of Tolkappiyam words are formed by adding one or more itaic col
(Cøha öŒõÀ) to verbs and nouns as suffix. We discussed it in the first part of this treatise and
see the itaic col (Cøha öŒõÀ) of Tolkappiyam are in function comparable to the “slots” we find
in the Sumerian grammars given.

The compound word is called in Tolkappiyam by the Tamil word tokai (öuõøP). The word tokai
(öuõøP) is derived from the root toku (öuõS), which means to elide and also to join together.
In the grammar Tolkappiyam we find given the unitary nature of the compound “GÀ»õz
öuõøP²® J¸öŒõßÚøh¯ “(Tolk. Col. 420). The dropping of the case suffix we find by
Tolkappiyanar in the following verse, where he deals with the anmolittokai
(Aßö©õÈzöuõøP) compound “£s¦öuõP
Áõ¹ ¸[SͯõÝ® E®ø©
öuõUP ö£ö¯ºÁ°ß BÝ® DØÖÛßÔ¯¾® Aßö©õÈz öuõøP@¯ “.
(Tolk. Col. 418).

1. The number and the nature of the compound words

In the Tolkappiyam we find the compound classified into 6 kinds. We find them given as follows:

1. Verrumait tokai (@ÁØÖø©z öuõøP); is formed from members, which form the
compound, which stand in relation to each other as poRkudam (ö£õØSh®), which
means golden pot. This compound corresponds to the Sanskrit “tatpurusa (VËnwéf)
compound”.
2. Uvamait tokai (EÁø©z öuõøP); is a compound, where one member is compared to
another. An example is pon meni (ö£õß@©Û), which means gold appearance. We can

41
 compare it to the Sanskrit compound “upamana purvapada karma dharaya
(Cn‘mZnyd©nXH«$‘Yma¶).”
3. Vinait tokai (ÂøÚz öuõøP); the first member is a relative participle, which denotes
time and the second member is a noun, which is qualified by the first member. An example is
kol yanai (öPõÀ ¯õøÚ), meaning an elephant that kills, killed or will kill. This compound
corresponds to parts of the Sanskrit compound “visesana purvapada karma dharaya
({deofUnyd©nXH$‘©Yma¶)”.
4. Panput tokai (£s¦öuõøP); the first member is a quality denoting colour, shape, taste
and so forth, while the second part is a noun, which is qualified by the first member. For
example karun kutirai (P¸[ Svøµ), the black horse. This corresponds to a part of the
Sanskrit compound “visesana purvapadakarmadharaya ({deofUnyd©nXH$‘©Yma¶)”.
5. Ummait tokai (E®ø©z öuõøP); this has two or more members, which are connected
by “and” and denotes persons, measures, numbers, weights and so forth. An example is puli
vir kentai (¦¼ÂØ@Psøh), which means tiger, bow and kentai fish. This corresponds
to the Sanskrit “dvandva (ÛÝÛ) compound.”
6. Anmolit tokai (Aßö©õÈz öuõøP), is a possessive compound and the members
stand to each other in any of the three relations
a) quality – noun relation
b) conjunctive relation
c) case relation

This compound corresponds to the Sanskrit “bahuvrihi (~hþd¦{h) compound.

We can remark here the Tamil compounds agree with the Sanskrit primary compounds. These
compounds are treated in syntax as they are single words “GÀ»õz öuõøP²®
JöµõöŒõßÚøh¯“ (Tolk. Col. 420). Here we need a little to look into the commentaries to
the Tolkappiyam, because we find compounds, which are not clearly defined by Tolkappiyanar in
which category of compound they will be placed. We find in classical Tamil words like karu niram
(P¸{Ó®), caraip pampu (Œøµ¨ £õ®¦)8, where both the members are either qualities or names,
which denote the genus and the species of the same object and are not taken in account by
Tolkappiyanar. The scholar Cenevaraiyar (@ŒÚõÁøµ¯º), says, they belong to the panput tokai
(£ß¦z öuõøP), on the power of the word “enna kilaviyaum (GßÚQͲ®)” in the
verse of Tolkappiyam, because it means the similar words in the verse. This verses from Tolkappiyam
on the compounds and their forms we give here:

“@ÁØÖø©zöuõøP@¯ ²Á©z öuõøP@¯ ÂøÚ°ßöÓõøP@¯

£s¤ßöÓõøP@¯ E®ø©z öuõøP@¯ ¯ß@©õÈz öuõøPö¯ßÖ
AÆÁõöÓߣ öuõøPö©õÈ {ø»@¯.

8
In many cases the final “u” and “i” are short vowels, marked with a dot like the consonants without inherent
vowel a. My Tamil font didn`t allow to write the dot on the vowel.
42
@ÁØÖø©z öuõøP@¯ @ÁØÔø© °¯». EÁ©z öuõøP@¯ ²Á© ¯».
ÂøÚ°ßöÓõSv Põ»z v¯»®. Ásnzvß ÁiÂÚÍÂØ
”øÁ°öÚßÖ AßÚ ¤ÓÄ® Auß Sn ~u¼ CßÚvvöÁÚ Á¹ß
ª¯ØøP GßÚ QͲ® £s¤ßöÓõøP@¯. C¸ö£¯º £»ö£¯µÍÂß
ö£¯@µ Gso¯Ø ö£¯@µ {øÓ¨ ö£¯ºU QÍ Gsoß
ö£¯öµõhÆÁÖ QͲ® Pso¯ Ûø»z@u ²®ø©z öuõøP@¯.
£ß¦ öuõPÁ¹ ¸[ QͯõÝ® E®ø©öuõUP ö£¯ºÁ°ß
BÝ®@ÁØÖAª öuõUP ö£¯ºÁ°ß AÝ® CØÖ{ßÔ¯¾®
Aßö©õÈz öuõP@¯. “ (Tol. Col. 412 – 418.)
All the following grammarians of Tamil language agree with Tolkappiyam in the classification of the
compounds. We find in the comments to the Tolkappiyam various discussions on the classification of
words under these 6 kinds of compound, which we will not discuss here.

2. Compound words in Sumerian temple hymns and other texts

We can find in the Sumerian text various compound words and our first example is taken from the
“Lamentation over the destruction of Ur”, where we find in the verse 155 the following words:

“an – ra a – i – bi – ma me – e he – im – ma – na – de“ , which we find translated:”To Anu verily the

water of my eyes verily I poured.” This verse will be in Tamil :” aaNRaa aalimaima meyee immana
idee (BsÓ A¼ø©© ö©@¯ C®©Ú C@h).”
The Sumerian compound word in this verse is “a – i – bi – ma”, where we can not only study the
Sumerian compound word, we get also to see an aspect of evolutionary linguistic, which is an
exciting company of the first part on morphology of the verb in our treatise. If we look on the Tamil
version of this compound word, we have in Tamil almost the same phonological shape. The first word
of the Sumerian word is “a” which will become in Tamil aam, aal (B®, BÀ) and means water.
The Sumerian word “ibi” is a clear variant of the Sumerian word “igi” and means eyes. Here we can
suggest the original of this word was igi or ingi, where the “ng” has become “b” by an intermediary
change from “ng” to “m”, which we find quite common. This is very exciting, because it corresponds
with the Tamil word imai (Cø©), which has the meaning eyes. The Sumerian reflexive pronoun
“ma” we find in Sumerian also in the form of “he – ma” and which is corresponding to Tamil em,
emma (G®, G®©), which has the meaning my. In Sanskrit we find this word in the same form as
we find it in Sumerian ma. From this we can suggest the Sumerian compound word “aal – ibi – he –
ma” is the earlier form of Tamil em aal imai (G® BÀ Cø©), which we find in present day Tamil
in the form of em kaNNiir (G® Pspº), where we find these words in Sumerian in the form of
“kin” for eyes and “ni – ir”, “ir” for water. We see here the roots are the same, but we have a

43
difference in the syntactic rules governing the formation of the compound word. We see 2 rules,
which we give here:

1. aal – ibi --> aal imai --> imai aal, kaN niir. We have the reversal in the order of the main noun
and the attributive noun.
2. aal – ibi – he – ma --> emma imai aal --> em imai aal (em kaN niir). We have here the
postposition of the Sumerian word has change its place to the initial position.

This kind of reversal in the order of the compound word and in order of the verb phrases, while the
roots are the same is a general difference in the syntactic feature of Sumerian and the classical Tamil
languages. But in this examination we see even this difference as such, in both Sumerian and classical
Tamil we find the agglutination, which is there in the formation of the compound words.

With this we go now into the Sumerian temple hymns.

We find in the first temple hymn direct in the first verse the following words:

“e – u – nir an – ki – da mu – a“, we read in the Sumerian words, and the given translation is:” Eunir,
which has grown high uniting heaven and earth.” The Tamil version of this verse is: “ il uunneer
vaankiizodu muuvva (CÀ Fß@Úº ÁõßQDöÇõk ‰ÆÁ)”, which we translate:” The
temple with step tower that is high as if moving with the shy and earth”. The Sumerian e – u – nir is
iin Tamil il uunneer (CÀ Fß@Úº). Il unniir anki --> in Tamil vaankiiz (ÁõßRÌ).

The Sumerian word “e” is a short form of “e – ku”. The word “e” means house and will be in Tamil il
(CÀ). The Sumerian word “e – ku” will be in Tamil il koo (CÀ @Põ) , which became in classical
changed in the word order koo + il = kooyil (@Põ°À), the temple or translated in literally meaning
the holy house. The Sumerian word “u – nir” will be in Tamil un neer (Eß @|º), which means
something tall and straight of erect. The Sumerian word “u” became in Tamil un and the Sumerian
word “ni” became in Tamil neer (@|º), which is written in combination unneer (Eß@Úº). This
describes obviously the step tower over the central shrine, which is called Koopuram (@Põ¦µ®) in
Tamil. If we look on the Sumerian word an – ki – du we will have in Tamil vaan kiiz uda (Áõß RÌ
Eh), where the particle “da” from Sumerian becomes in Tamil uda (Eh), which is the
commutative case marker. The Sumerian “da” has become in Tamil uda, odu, oodu (Eh, Jk,
Kk) in the Sangam Period. We take the word “e – u – nir” as a compound word. The Sumerian word
“mu” will be in Tamil muu (‰) and is the root for words like muLai, muyal and mun (•øÍ,
•¯À, •ß) and means to move forward. The particle “a” has the function of of a cuddu
(”mk) as it is called in the Tolkappiyam and which exists in the word atu (Ax) like we find it in
the word celvatu (öŒÀÁx), but which we find in classical Tamil also in the forms of a (A) and ai
(I) as we find it in the word uukkalai (FUPø»), which means of great motivations.

In the second verse of the same hymn we find:

44
“temen – an – ki unu – gal eridu“ in Sumerian words, which we find translated:” Foundation of
heaven and earth, holiy of holies, Eridu.” The Sumerian verse will become in Tamil timmai vaankiiz
unnukaL eritu (v®ø© ÁõßRÌ EßÝPÒ G›x). The Sumerian word “temen” will
become in Tamil timmai (v®ø©) and means something strong and firm. The Sumerian word
“unu” will become in Tamil unnu (EßÝ) andmeans something which is tall, here in a
metaphorical sense lofty. We find in Tamil the word unnatam (EßÚu®), which means great and
noble. The Sumerian word “gal” will become in Tamil kaL (PÒ) and means great. We take in this
verse the word temen – an – ki as a compound word. If we are precise we can take the word “an – ki”
alone also as a compound word. This word in verse one from this hymn above we can take as a
ummait tokai (E®ø©z öuõøP).

In verse 3 of this first temple hymn we read:

“abju es nun – bi – ir am – gub“ in the Sumerian verse and in translation: „Abju, shrine, erected for
the prince” we have in Tamil the version: “ uppusuur iisa nunbiyir aam kuppu (E¨¦‹º DŒ
{ߤ°º B® S¨¦)”, which we translate:” Shrine, bright and tall and where the celestial
beings dwell.” The Sumerian word “abju” will be in Tamil uppusuur (E¨¦‹º) and means
something tall and bright. The Sumerian word “es” will become in Tamil iisa (DŒ) and means god.
The Sumerian word “nun – bi – ir” means those, who are in the celestial world. Here the word nunbi
(~ߤ) in Tamil denotes those, who are in heaven. The Sumerian word “ir” and the Tamil word ir
(Cº) has the function as a third person plural marker. We find in Sumerian also the particle “ene” as
plural marker, which underwent transformation from ere --> ir --> to Tamil ir, a, aar (Cº, A, Bº).
The compound word nun – bi – ri corresponds very well with the formation of this kind of compound
as found in the Tamil grammar of Tolkappiyam. We find in Tamil many more compound words of this
kind like paaduvoor (£õk@Áõº).

In verse 4 of this first hymn we read:

“e du – ku u – sikil – la rig – ga“ in Sumerian words, which we find translated: “House, holy mound,
where pure water is eaten.” This Sumerian verse will be in Tamil: “il tuukoo uu sukila erikka (CÀ
y@Põ F”QÀ» G›UP) and we translate: “The temple, pure and divine, where the pure light
shines.” The Sumerian word “du – ku” will be in Tamil tuukoo (y@Põ). The word tuu (y) means
pure and the word koo (@Põ) means divine. We have here again two nouns glued together. The
Sumerian word u – sikil – la will be in Tamil uu sukilla (F ”QÀ»). The word uu (F) means light
and we further have in Tamil the words ul (EÒ) and oL, oLi (JÒ, JÎ), which we can derive from it.
The word sukkilla (”UQÀ») means pure. We take the Sumerian word u – sikil – la as a compound
word. We take it as a panput tokai (£ß¦z öuõøP). The Sumerian word “rig – ga” will be in
Tamil erikku (G›US) and denotes that, which shines of burns bright. The word eri (G›) means
fire.

45
We see already in the first few verses from this temple hymn various compound words, which we
can classify under the 6 kinds as we find them in the Tolkappiyam. They are obviously and important
feature of the Sumerian language as well.

In the verse 5 we read in Sumerian words:

“pa – sikil – nun – na – ka a nag – ga“, which we find translated. “watered by the prince`s pure canal.”
The Tamil version from the Sumerian verse is: “paay sukilla nunnaka aal nakku (£õ#”QÀ»
~ßÚP BÀ |US)”, which we translate: “The mouth of pure and heavenly water that is
drunk.” The Sumerian word “pa” is similar to the word “paa”, which transformed in Tamil into paay
(£õ#), where it means to rush out. From the word paay (£õ#) we get --> vaay (Áõ#), the canal
like in kaal vaay or vaaykaal (PõÀÁõ#, Áõ#PõÀ), which we can translate as long canal. The
Sumerian word “nun – na – ka” means heavenly water, which will be in Tamil nunnakam
(~ßÚP®). The Sumerian word “a” means water and will be in Tamil aam, aal (B®, BÀ). We
take “pa –silil – nun – na – ka” as a compound word.

In verse 6 of this hymn we read:

“kur ki – si – kil – la naga – dub du – ga“ in Sumerian words and find for translation: “Mountain, pure
place, scoured with soap.” The Tamil version of this verse is. “kunRu kiisukkila naakam tabu tunka
(SßÖ R”QÀ» |õP® u¦ x[P)”, which we translate: “The Mountain of pure place, where
snakes abound.” The Sumerian word “kur” will be in Tamil kunRu, kuuRu (SßÖ, TÖ) and
means mountain, hill or peak and so forth. The Sumerian word “naga – dub” will be in Tamil tabu,
tubu naakam (u¦, x¦ |õP®). We find the word tuval (xÁÀ) for to abound like in verses
“ariyar tuvanRiya peericai imiyam (B›¯º xÁßÔ¯ @£›øŒ Cø©¯®). We can suggest
the transformation tuval – iya (xÁ¼¯) --> tuvanRiya (xÁßÔ¯). We take the Sumerian words
“ki – sikil – la” and “naga – dub” for compound words. The Sumerian word du – ga will be in Tamil
tunka (x[P), which means great and divine. We remark here the Tamil verse: “x[P P›
•Pzxz y©{@¯“, which we translate: “the pure gem stone with great and divine black
elephant face.

We find in each of the verses compound words and for one more example from this temple hymn we
will give the verse 20, which is incomplete, because a few letters are missing, we can`t translate the
verse complete, but we have compound words.

“nun – ju nun – an – ki (missing letters) nu – kur – ru“ we read in the Sumerian verse and in
translation we find: “your prince is the prince of heaven and earth, whose word can never be
changed.” The Tamil version from this verse is: “nunju nun vaankiiz (missing letters) naa kuuRRu
(~ßáú ~ß ÁõßRÌ) missing letters (|õ TØÖ).” We translate: “your Lord is the Lord of
the heavens and the earth and who is deathless.” We take the Sumerian word “nun – an – ki” as a
compound word, analogue to the Tamil word nunvaankiiz (~ßÁõßRÌ). The Sumerian word “nu
– kur – ru” will be in Tamil naa kuuRRU (|õ TØÖ), which means does not die, therefore
deathless.

46
In the same way we can go through all the other Sumerian texts of the temple hymns and recognize
one compound word after the other. We will not go on, because we have enough for our purpose
here. We just needed to show the existence of compound words in Sumerian language, which are
obviously an important feature of the Sumerian language and which we find as a characteristic of
Tamil and Sanskrit language.

47
Duplicated words in Sumerian texts

The duplication of words we find defined by Tolkappiyam as “adukuuc col (AkUSa öŒõÀ),
which we find often translated as “echo words”. We find this in linguistic terms defined as
“reduplication”, which we find in different forms. Reduplication is a morphological process, which is
done by the root, the stem of a word or parts of the word are repeated to construct grammatical
functions like plurality, intensification, continuity and many more features. The reduplication is not
limited to the Dravidian languages, we find this used in many other languages as well. We find it as a
common feature in classical Tamil and we find the reduplication used in the Sumerian language as
well. We find the duplication defined by Laural J. Brinton as follows: “reduplication is a process
similar to derivation, in which the initial syllable or the entire word is doubled, exactly or with a slight
morphological change.” (A Linguistic Introduction 1991). This is exactly what we find in classical
Tamil and Sumerian language.

We can divide the reduplication roughly into two kinds:

1. Lexical reduplication
2. Morphological reduplication, Expressive

The lexical reduplication we can further divide into three groups:

a) Echo – formation
b) compound
c) Word reduplication

The Expressive we can divide into four groups:

a) Sound symbolism
b) Mimic words
c) Iconicity
d) Onomatopoeia

We will take our focus in this chapter on the reduplication of words alone. We find the reduplication
of words used in prosody for to fill up a verse for the need of the used metric, which we will not
discuss here. The reduplication of words we can subdivide into three kinds:

- Complete word, which is grouped into words, which keep their class and words, where the
class is changed.
- Partial word;
- Discontinuous

1. Echo formation

This phenomena is a partial or syllable repetition of the base, which has no meaning by itself and if
we find replaced the base or initial syllable of the base is has no individual appearance of any
meaning by its own. Therefore we do not agree to translate the word “adukkuc col (AkUSa

48
öŒõÀ) as an echo word. We translate it as reduplication word. The scholar Chidananda Murthy
defined: “ Echo formation are distinguishable from doublets on the one hand and duplicate words,
especially partial reduplicated words on the other hand. A lexical doublet means a combination of
two words, which are similar entities and it expresses a semantic meaning and exhibits a specific
sense relation with and identical syntactical category” (1972). The scholar Abbi defines the partial
reduplication: “partial reduplication means a partial repetition of the base word in the sense either
the initial phoneme or syllable of the base is replaced by another phoneme or syllable.” (Abbi 1991).
The example for a partial repetition is given by Abbi in the word “iali tazai (Cø» uøÇ)” fore
“leaves – leaves” in Tamil. Another example from him is “mummuunRu (•®‰ßÖ)”, three each.
The function of an echo word is to convey the meaning of “such and such”.

2. Word reduplication

The scholar Abbi defines the complete word reduplication as:”complete repetition of the base word
as it is with some semantic modification or some new meaning.” This means the complete
phonological form or the stem or all the meaningful elements are reduplicated. We can take this as a
simple form of reduplication. This kind of reduplication we find frequently used in classical Tamil,
present day Tamil and other Dravidian languages like Malayalam. We will give just a small view on
the reduplications.

1. Nouns

The reduplication of the noun implies the meanings of emphasis, fearfulness, caution, unbearable
situations, plural and many more. We will give a few examples from Tamil:

“paattupaattu (£õmk£õmk)”, song song; emphasis

“paampupaampu (£õ®¦£õ•); snake, snake; either for emphasis or to give caution on the
poisened animal.

If the nouns of time indication got added with the adverbial suffix aaka (BP) we get the meaning of
continuity, gradualness and augmentation. In the Tamil poetry of the classical period the adverbial
suffix or case suffix usually not added to the noun and implied by the meaning of the entire verse.

“kalankaalamaaga (Põ»[Põ»©õP) in classical poetry “kaalanlakaalam (Põ»[Põ»®); times

toghether. If the temporal noun appears in the dative case, then the reduplication will have the
meaning of any, together and completeness. Here again in the classical poetry the case suffix is often
not added and implied by the meaning of the verse. Example: “kaalankaalattuku

49
(Põ»[Põ»zxS), at all the time, in poerty “kaalankaalam (Põ»[Põ»®). “naaLuku naaL
(|õÐS |õÒ), day by day, every day or particular.

In Tamil we have he words tuNdu (xsk) and cukku (”US) for to express piece and small piece.
The word tuNDu (xsk) appears after nouns, which express to be broken by something. The
word cukku (”US) appears with abstract nouns like muuLai (‰øÍ), the mind. In formal Tamil
these words duplicated before all the verbs take the adverbial suffix aaga (BP), in classical poetry
we find the suffix rarely, it is implied from the context of the verse in the poem. The implied meaning
here is plurality.

2. Pronoun

The pronoun belongs to the properties of the noun and can be used in the verse instead of a noun.
We find different forms of the pronoun, but we give only a short view on the meanings of their
reduplication.

If the first person singular pronoun is reduplicated it implies the meaning of hesitation, doubt and
emphasis in a sentence. If the second person singular is reduplicated it means clarification. The
reduplication of the first person inclusive plural pronoun implies the meaning emphasis and among.
The third person pronoun reduplicated implies the meaning of each entity of a class or group.

If the interrogative pronoun is duplicated it means somebody or so many different people. If these
pronouns take the enclitic oo (K) they mean some different people or so many different people. The
interrogative nouns of quality are taken on the basic of countable and uncountable nouns.

3. other kind of nouns

The temporal nouns “appa (A¨£)” duplicated means now and then. The duplication of the
interrogative form eppa (G¨£) implies the meaning of expectation and particular time. The nouns
of colour reduplicated indicate the meaning of excessive. The partially reduplication of nouns implies
the meaning of augmentation from small and big. We find the first phoneme or syllable of the base
word duplicated and implies the meaning of greatness. An example: “manitam (©Ûu®), man will
become maamanitam (©õ©Ûu®), great man.” If the nouns, which qualify the quality of a thing
is reduplicated it means very much.

All these noun duplication can be constructed in negative form and imply negative meanings.

4. Verb

The reduplication of the simple verb or imperative verb and the plural and honorific imperative verb
indicate the meaning of emphasis, cordialness, request and insult. Indicative verbs are available in
positive and negative construction. The duplication of the positive present indicative form means
50
emphasis. Example vareen (Á@µß), coming in duplication vareenvareen (Á@µßÁ@µß),
coming coming. If the past indicative form is taken for reduplication it means incompleteness in a
syntactical level. The duplication of the future indicative expresses the meaning of certainty. The
optative verb reduplicated expresses emphasis.

The non – finite verb is divided into four kinds, which are subdivisions of the on – finite verb.

- infinite verb
- verbal participle
- conditional
- adjectival participle

From them the conditional verb is never reduplicated in Tamil. In Tamil we have 4 kinds of adverbial
clauses, they are: purposive, causative, temporal and resultative. From them the last three used in
reduplication express the mining of intensity and continuity of an action.

The verbal participle we have in positive and negative form. The positive form is made by adding the
verbal participle suffix to the verb stem. The verbal participle is made with the various past tense
allomorphs. This kind of verbal participle duplicated expresses intensity, cause, continuity,
habituality, idiomatic and adverbial meaning.

We find for all the reduplication of the verb negative forms. The Tamil verb iru (C¸) has the verbal
participle form iruntu (C¸ßx). This form duplicated means rareness. By the duplication of
negative verbs are indicating the meaning of inability.

5. Adjectives

In Tamil we find adjectives of two kinds:

- simple adjectives; example “nalla (|À»), good

- derived adjectives; example uyaramaana (E¯µ©õÚ), tall

These adjectives precede the noun they qualify and are lexical categories. The Tamil simple adjective
is a qualitative adjective and if they are reduplicated they mean multiplicity, either in the sense of
many or very. An example periya kaN (ö£›¯ Ps), big eye; periyaperiya kaNNu
(ö£›¯ö£›¯Psq), very big eye. In Tamil the adjectives of colour words are reduplicated
in a partially way and imply the meaning of very much. In the same way the derived adjectives are
reduplicated and have the meaning of very. We find in the formal Tamil the plural suffix is added to
the reduplicated construction, but in the poems it is usually omitted and implied from the
understanding of the entire verse of the poem.

51
 6. Adverb

Here again we have simple and derived adverbs. The adverb used in reduplication implies the
meaning of emphasis and repetition.

There are many more kinds of repetition used in the classical and in the present day Tamil language,
but for our purpose here it is enough. We find in the grammar of Tamil the use of complete, partial
and discontinuous constructions in details, which we will not give here. We will examine the
duplicated words found in some Sumerian texts in view of the above given Tamil versions and
meanings.

3. Reduplicated words in Sumerian texts

In this part we will look into some verses taken from the Sumerian temple hymns again.

In the first hymn we read in the verse 17:

“gir ninda ili u – su – su – ja“ in Sumerian words and find the following translation:” where the oven
brings bread, good to eat.” The Tamil version of this verse is: “kiir niiNda ilai uysuur suurjiya (Rº
}sh Cø» E# ‹º‹ºâ¯)”, which we translate: “ It is a place, where greens with long
leaves are cooked. The Sumerian word “su” will be in Tamil suur (‹º), to cook or to heat up. We
take the Sumerian word “su – su” for to be a reduplication for to express the habitual cooking.

In the second hymn we find the verse 5:

“e – en – lil – la sa – zu te – te – en bar – zu nam – tar – tar –ra“ in Sumerian words, which we find
translated: “ House of Enlil, your interior is cool, your back determines destiny.” In Tamil this verse is
as follows: “il eeNliilla saayju taNtaN puRaju tarunam (CÀ Hs½À» Œõ#áú usus
¦Óáú u¸Ú®).” We translate: “ Oh temple, of Enlil. Your heart is cool and your exterior is
generous.” Here the Sumerian word “te – te – en” is in Tamil taN taN (us us), where we have
the first “n” elided because of duplication. The meaning of cool is in uniform with the Tamil word taN
(us) and is a remarkable contrast to the exterior. The Sumerians understood the interior of the
temple from Enlil9 as always cool, while his outside is generous in its exterior. We take here the word
“te – te – en” as a form of te – en – te – en” and a reduplication of “te – en”, cool as continuous
condition in the interior of the temple.

In the hymn 4 we find in verse 9 the following Sumerian words:

9
We have shown in our publications of the Sumerian Temple Hymns that the description of Enlil´s temple
matches with the description of Tirumaal (v¸©õÀ), who is a form of the God Visnu.
52
“en nu – nam – nir – da u – mun – su – su“, which we find translated.“You dine together with the
Lord Nunamnir.” This verse appears in Tamil version: “ een nunnam neerodu uN mun tuu tuu (H¢
~ßÚ® @|öµõk Es •ß y y).” The name if the Sumerian God Nunam nir, will be in
Tamil have the name nunnam neer (~ßÚ® @|º)10. The name has the meaning “the Lord great,
erect and tall”. The Sumerian particle “da” added to the god name, we take as the Tamil
commutative case marker odu (Jk). Therefore our translation of this part is: “with the Lord, who is
great, erect and tall.” The Sumerian word “u” means food, which is in Tamil the word uN, uNaa, uu
(Es, Enõ, F). The Sumerian word “su” we saw already before and here the meaning is to
eat. In Tamil the word is tuu (y). From this we can derive the words tuvvu, tuppu (xÆÄ, x¨¦)
to eat. We take the word “su – su” as a reduplication of the verb “su” to eat, for to express the
continuity.

In the hymn 5 we find in the verse 11 the following words:

“kisib – gal – si – si – a – a – en – lil – ka me – nam - gal – su – du” in Sumerian words, which we find
translated: “ The (missing word) seal keeper of father Enlil, he who makes the great me`s perfect.”
This we have in Tamil in the form: “kisivakaL sii sii aiya eeNlillakam mey nam kaal suudu (Q]ÁPÒ
^ ^ I¯ Hs½À»P® ö©# |P® PõÀ ‹k).” We translate: “ The great saviour of all
existing things, father Enlil causes the powers to establish themselves.” The Sumerian word “kisib”
we find in the form “sisub” as well, which we can understand as a transformation and which means
one, who saves, the saviour. In Tamil the word will be sisiva, sisubam (]]Á, ]”£® ). Sivam,the
one who saves. The Sumerian word “si – si” we take as a reduplication of “si” and the meaning is the
existing things, which expresses plural. The Tamil word is sii (^) and means to be there as
resplendent, as brightened up or bright and beautiful. We can suggest a transformation from the
Sumerian word “si – si” to the Tamil word ti ti (v v), which means that which subsists and
11
endures .

From these few examples we see the reduplication is used in the Sumerian texts, not so frequently
used like the compound words, but we find them in the use as described in the Tamil grammar.

In the verse 14 of the same temple hymn we find one more use of reduplication. Here we read in
Sumerian the words:

“kur – gu – erim –gal mu – na – gul – gul en nin – urta – ke“, which we find translated: “He who
destroys the hostile land for him (Enlil) the Lord Ninurta.” The Tamil version of this verse is: “kunRu
kuuv erim kaal moonna kol kol eeN ninurtakkee (SßÖ TÆ G›® PõÀ @©õÚÚ öPõÀ
öPõÀ Hs {ݺuU@P). The Sumerian word “gu” means to cry and to yell, which will be in
Tamil kuuv (TÆ), where it means to cry, to call out and so forth. The Sumerian word “eri”, “erim”
means fire and will be in Tamil eri (G›) . The Sumerian word “gul” means to destroy and will be in

10
In our publication of the Sumerian Temple Hymns we show this God is comparable to Visnu in the form of
the Purusa.
11
The God Visnu and therefore the Sumerian God Enlil as well is understood as “vv PhÄÒ “, the Lord of
sustenance and preservation of all things.
53
Tamil kol (öPõÀ), where it means to kill, to destroy and so forth. We understand the Sumerian “gul
– gul” as a reduplication of “gul” for to express the repeated action of the God Ninurta to destroy the
lands. We translate this verse: “The temple for the great Ninurta, who destroys the land, who causes
miseries and destruction.”

We give a final example from the hymn 7, where we find two verses with reduplication. The first of
them is verse 8:

“e – kesi kii sig –zu tu – tu – zu“ in Sumerian words, which we find translated: „House of Kesi, your
bricks are well moulded.” The Sumerian verse will be in Tamil version. “il keeci senku ju tuuttuu ju
(CÀ @P] öŒ[S áú yzyáú).” Our translation of this verse: “ Temple of Keci, your bricks
are pure and clean.” The Sumerian word “sig – zu” means bricks. In Tamil the word will be senkal
(öŒ[S, öŒ[PÀ), which means red stones or bricks. The Sumerian word “tu” will become in
Tamil tuu (y) with the meaning pure and clean. We take the Sumerian “tu – tu” as a reduplication
of “tu” for to express the habitual or continuous condition of the bricks.

In verse 10 of this hymn we read:

“nun – zu nun – sig – sig – ga nin – zi – gal – an – na“ in Sumerian words and we get the following
translation:” Your princess, the lady who causes silence, the true and great lady of heaven.” The
Tamil version from this verse is: “nunju nun sinka sinka ninjiikaal vaanna (~ßáú ~ß ][P
][P {ßâCPõÀ ÁõßÚ).” We translate: “Your loftiness is the most beautiful among the
lofty, you are the life of the heavens.” The Sumerian word “nun” will become in Tamil nun, nuni
(~ß, ~Û) and means right at the top. The word nuN (~s) would mean very fine. The
Sumerian sig – sig – ga will become in Tamil sinka sinka (][P ][P) or sokka sokka (öŒõUP
öŒõUP), both means beautiful. We take here the Sumerian “sig – sig” as a reduplication of “sig” for
to express very much or the most. We can possibly derive sokka (öŒõUP) from the word sikkil
(]UQÀ), which means a beautiful place. The derivation from the Tamil word sikkil (]UQÀ) from
the Sumerian “sig” is not difficult to suggest.

We could go on to examine the Sumerian Temple hymns and other texts for to find reduplication of
words, but these few examples are enough for our purpose here. The reduplication of words, as a
characteristic of Tamil we find also in the Sumerian language.

54
Grammatical study of Sumerian and classical Tamil language some
other aspects

Here we will shortly look into some features, which we met while we read the Sumerian texts in the
light of the Tamil grammar of Tolkappiyam and the Sangam Period literature of the classicalTamil.

1. The Sumerian phrase kin – ki – du and Tamil KaaNkidu( Põs Qk )

In the first temple hymn of the Priestess Anna we find an exciting verse, which we will give in a
detailed study and which expose to us the grammatical similarity between Sumerian and Classical
Tamil. This testifies a cultural continuity of Sumerian Perion to the time of the Classical Tamil Period.
We see an overlaping in phonetic shape of words, meanings and syntactic processes. We find in the
verse 10 the following words:

“kin – gal kin ki – du u nu – dib – de“ which we find translated: “the great (missing words in
translation) the (again missing word in transaltion) the beautiful place, light enters not. The Sumerian
verse will be in Tamilversion: “kaNkaL kaaNkidu uu naa tiiyppee (Ps PÒ Põs Qk F |õ
w#¨@£).” We translate the entire verse: “For eyes to see the light did not brighten it.” If we look
into the Classical Tamil literature we find many verses, whichare similar to this verse. For example:
“kaNkaL kaaNkida oLi illai tiipa (Ps PÒ
Põs Qh JÎ CÀø» w£) or kaNkal kaNdida
illai oLittiibam (Ps PÀ Psiu CÀø» JÎzöu£®).”

1. The Sumerian gal and the Tamil kaL (PÒ)

In the Sumerian literature we didn`t find often the word “gal” used as a plural marker. The primary
meaning appears to be a numerical large crowd. This is a sense, which we find in the present day
Tamil still in use. The word kaNam (Pn®) is used in expressions like “maan kaNam (©õß
Pn®)” a crowd of gazelles, deer and so forths. The word is also used in a metaphorical sense for
to express greatness in expressions like “kaNam poruntiya (Pn® ö£õ¸ßv¯)”. This word we
bring in a related connection to the word “kaNavaan (PnÁõß)”, which means the honoured
person. The same meaning is expressed by the word kaLLar (PÒͺ), the ruling class of the Tamils

55
and we find it connected to the rulers of the Pandiyan dynasties. This word has many connectiions to
the Sumerian word “lu – gal”, which mean literally great person and is in use for the king, chieftain
and leaders. We find another Sumerian word “gal – la”, which means thieves and rogues. We
understnd from the primary meaning of a numerical large crowd we got the metaphorical meaning of
great, respected and honoured in the way of time. Now the word kaL (PÒ) has become the plural
marker in form of a suffix, which has become in the way of time the well established plural marker in
Tamil language of the present day. This way to express the plural is more common than the use of
the reduplication of the noun as we saw it in the chapter before.

2. The word kin – ki – du

The verb phrase “kin – ki – du“ is in Tamil kaaN kidu (Põß Qk), which is surely the nominal verbal
participle (peyareccam vinai, ö£¯öµaŒ® ÂøÚ), which completes itself with the second part
of the verse “u na – dib – de”. Here the verbal phrase should be “kaNkida (Ps Qh), where the
final “a” has the function as the indicator of the participle feature of the verbal phrase. IN the
present day Tamil this phrase is “kaNdida (Psih). The primary form of “kin – ki – du” is
obviously “kin – si – idu –a” , where the word “si” has become “ki” in the above verbal phrase. This
word “si” is a verbal noun and is equivalent to the Tamil word ci, cey (], öŒ#), the verb to be, to
be present, to shibne forth andso forth. The word “si” indicates the violating from the promordial
darkness and makes an object to shine forth and to enjoy a presence. The Sumerian word “e – du” is
in Tamil idu (Ck) and is the auxiliary verb to do, which is in the present day Tamil in use in various
forms and functions. We find it for example in the invocative “paartticu (£õºzvk), see and
padittidu (£izvk), read. Therefore we can take the meaning of the phrase “kin – si – idu” in the
sense of “make the seeing a presence, an actuality.”

We remark here the particle ki / kin exist in the present day Tamil as the present tense marker in
words like “kaNkiRaan (Ps QÓõß), padikkinRaan (£iUQßÓõß) and many more. The
historical root of this tense marker is suggested to be the Sumerian “si”, “si – in”, which primary had
the meaning “bringing into presence”. We discussed the transformation process in length in the first
chapter of this work. The transfomation of this word into the present tense marker is not accidental
for the activity of brining into presence by violating the darkness has already included the temporal
notion.

2. The pronominal suffix – an, - en

In the text and the study of the “lamentation over the destruction of Ur” we find some features in
the Sumerian language, which bring it very close to the Classical Tamil. In the following verses we will
56
give the examples, where the verbal proniominal suffix is conform with the subject of the verse,
whichis a central feature of grammatical agreement in Classical Tamil as we find it mentioned in the
grammar Tolkappiyam, which is dated around 500 b. C.

In the sentence we have for example yaan / naan paditteen (¯õß, |õß £iz@uß), I read,
where the subject yaan / naan agrees with the pronomunal suffix of the verb “een”, whichis thefirst
person singular. In some Dravidian languages we find this retained, while some of them deleted the
pronominal suffix as redundant. We find this same kind of verb morphology in Sumerian, which
connect the Sumerian language with the classicalTamil, and which became already around 2000 b. C.
an obvious close language to Classical Tamil.

If we study the verse 18 we find the phrase “bara – bara – e –en” in the Sumerian words, in which the
word “bara” is taken by the scholar S. N. Kramer as a particle of negation. We refute this, because in
Tamil the word para (£µ), has the meaning like in paran (£µß), the outsider and foreigner. The
form “bara – bara” we take as a reduplication of the word “bara”. The Sumerian form “bara – bara” is
in Tamil surely parap para (£µ¨
£µ), which means haste and we havestill in present day Tamil the
word parapparappu (£µ¨£µ¨¦) for great hast. Therefor this verb complexshould be understood
as parappara ee – en and means hastily I went away or departed. Here the suffix “en” is like the suffix
“en, een” in Tamil. Thesimilar notion we find in present day Tamil in the form of parappara eekineen
(£µ¨£µ HQ@Úß) or in parapparappaaka eekineen (£µ¨£µ¨£õP HQ@Úß), where the
adverbial function of the word “bara – bara” can be seen clearly. We need to remark here the word
“bara” in Sumerian has the meaning to fly, spread out, move out and so forth. This is in perfect
agreement to the Tamil word para (£µ), which means to spread our.

In earlier texts we didn´t see the differentiation between subject into I, he and you that well
andwhere we find variations of “mu” are used. Here in the “lamentation over the destruction of Ur”
we see the attempt to differentiate such pronouns and with that reducing the ambiguity surrounding
the use of such words.

We will look now into some of the verses from this text.

“me – e u – bi – se sag – pa – labag he – en – si –sag – an“ We read in verse 17, where we find the
following translation:” I also for that day, I tremble.” The rest of the verse was not translated. The
Tamil version of this verse is: “meyyee uubisee saan pa –lagab yaan sii aakan (ö©#@¯ F¤@Œ
Œõß) pa –lagab (¯õß ^ BUPß).” The Sumerian word “me – e” will be in Tamil meyyee
(ö©#@¯) and means truly, really and verily. The Sumerian “he – en” corresponds to Tamil yaan
(¯õß), which is the pronoun of the first person singular. The Sumerian word “si – ag – an” will be in
Tamil sii aakkan (^ BUPß) . The word aakku (BUS) has the meaning to make, to do. The word
sii (^) has the meaning to make something there. The suffix “an” is the first person singular suffix,
which we find in Tamil as well.

In the verse 18 we read the following words in Sumerian:

“u – da a – bi –se ba – ra – ba – ra – e – en“which is translated by Kramer: “To the day`s aid verilyI

went not forth.” The Tamil version of this verse will be: “uu ida aalbisee parapara eeyen (F°h

57
BÀ¤@Œ £µ£µ Gö¯ß).” We translate: “ I hastened away from the strength of the storm.”
We discussed the Sumerian word “ba – ra – ba – ra”already before and the Tamil word parappara
(£µº¨£µ) means hastely. The Sumerian “e – en” will be in Tamil eeyen (Hö¯ß). The word ee,
eeku (H, HS) means to move away and the suffix “en” is the first person singular pronominal suffix,
which we find in Tamil used as well.

3. The Sumerian aba / apa and the Tamil appa, appoo ( A¨£, A¨@£õ )

Here we find another connection between Sumerian and the Classical Tamil language, which we find
in the adverb of time in Sumerian “apa” or “aba” and in Tamil appa (A¨£), which appears in three
different levels of use. They are:

1. intra – sentential
2. inter – sentential with two sentences
3. inter – sentential with numberous sentences

We will look agai into the “lamentation over the destruction of Ur” in the publication by the scholar
S. N. Kramer. The transliteration and first translations are given by Kramer, which we will discuss in
view of the Tamil version of the verses and alternative translations based on this Tamil version.

1. The Sumerian adverb apa / aba in intra – sentential use

We read in the verse 99 in Sumerian words:

“u uru – gim – gul – la – ba ni – bi ha – ma – la – la“ which we find translated: “Like that of a city, the
terror of the destructionof the dayverily has filled me full.” This verse will be in Tamil version: “uu
uuru kim kol appa niibi emma alai alai (F F¸ Q® öPõÀ A¨£ }¤ö¯®© Aø»
Aø»).” We translate: “Like at the time thecitywas destoyed, terror assailed me.”
Here we take the Sumerian word “gul – la – ba” as a transformation or variation of “gul – aba” or “gul
– apa”, which corresponds to the Tamil form of kol appa (öPõÀ A¨£) or kol appoo (öPõÀ
A¨@£õ), where the Tamil word means when and is an adverb of time.

2. The Sumerian word apa, aba in intersentential use of two verses

58
Here we find 2 verses connected by the Sumerian word a – ba, which we can here certainly translate
as when. In the verses 86 and 87 we read:

“munus – e (missing word) a – ni balag – ir – ra – ki al – gar – ra – a- ba” verse 86 in Sumerian words

and translated as follows: “The Lady (the rest of the verse is not translated by Kramer).” This verse
will be in Tamil: “manusi (missing word) ani palakai iirakii val kaarra appa (©Ý]) missing word
(AÛ £»øP DµR ÁÀ Põºµ A¨£).” We translate the entire verse: “When the woman
(missing word) placed well the misucal instrument for lamentations.”

“ilu – ma – si – ga tur – tur – bi ni – te – na mi – ni – ib – bi“ the verse 87 in Sumerian words got

translated: “A (missing word in the translation) wail tremblingly in fear utters.” This verse in Tamil
version will be: “izuma sinka tun tun pi nooyttana ibbiminee (CÊ© ][P xßxߤ
@|õ#zuÚ C¨¤ª@Ú).” We translate this verse complete:” A wailing that is loud and full of
miseries and fear she uttered.”

We will give for a better understanding these verses in a complete version together: “When the
woman (missing word) placed well the musical intruments of lamentations, a wailing, that is loud and
full of miseries and fear she uttered12.

3. The Sumerian word apa / aba in inter – sentential use of numeral sentences

These verses are taken from the Tablet XII of the Gilgameš Epic. We find in this tablet remarkable
cosmological understanding, which have parallels to the cosmology found in the Nari of Suruppak
from around 3000 b. C. This cosmological understanding we find in the tradition of the Tantrism. We
give here the verses 3 to 10.

“mu – ri – a mu – su – du – ri –a“ we read in verse 3 the Sumerian words and find the translation: “in
those years, in the distant years.” The Tamil version of this verse is: “mun eria mun suudu eriya
(•ß G›¯ •ß ‹k G›¯).
“u – ul nig – du – e pa –e – a – ba“ are the Sumerian words of verse 4, which we read translation.”In
times of old, when everything needful was brought forth.” The Tamil version of this verse is: “ uu uuzi
nikazuttu ee paayee appa (F FÈ {PÌzx@Á £õ@¯ A¨£).” We translate: “When
during creation, everything was brought forth and made to shine forth.

“u – ul nig – du – e mi – si – du – ga –a – ba“ we have in verse 5 in Sumerian words, which we find

translated: “In time of old, when everything needful was properly cared for.” In Tamil version this
12
We discussed these verses in our publication of the “lamentation over the destruction of Ur” but we feel the
need to remark here the significance of the cultural information we get here from the Sumerian Period. The
ritual of wailing is even at present day practiced by the Tamilians and called oppaari ( K¨£õ›), which we can
derive from uppu aari (E¨¦ + B›), which denotes the singing about celestial beings or the dead. It is
practiced to the accompaniement of some musical instruments, espcially meant for wiling. The instrument
“balag” which we have in Tamil as palakai (£»øP) is a kind of harp. The instrument used in Sumerian time
was surely the bull headed lyre, which we find in the Royal Cemetery of Ur in the possession of Princess Pu ´abi.
59
verse will be: “uu uuzi nikazttuvee miicai tunka appa (F FÈ {PÌzx@Á «øŒz x[P
A¨£).” We translate:”When during creation the good things were made available on surface.”
“es – kalam – ma – ke ninda – su – a – ba.“ Is the Sumerian verse 6 and we read in translation:”When
bread has been tasted in the house of home land.” This verse in Tamil will be: “iisu kalammaka nintaa
suur appa (D” P»®©P {ßuõ ‹µ¨£).” We translate: “When in the temples of the land,
when the flame was burning.”

“(im) su.rin – na – kalam – ma – ka nig – tab – ak – a – ba“ is verse 7 in Sumerian words, which are
translated: “When the ovens of the home land were made to work.” This verse in Tamil version will
be: “When in the ovens of the nation had, burning fire became available.”

“an ki – ta ba – da – bad – du – a –ba“we find in verse 8 of the Sumerian text, which we get
translated:”When the heavens had been parted from the earth.” The Tamil version of this verse will
be: “vaan kiizta paayidu paNdu appa (Áõß RÌu¨ £õ°k¨ £sk Á¨£).”
“ki an – ta ba – da – sur – ru – a – ba“ from the verse 9 of the Sumerian text is translated: “When the
earth had been separated from the heavens.” This verse will become in Tamil version: “kiiz vaanttu
padu cuRRU appa (RÌ Áõßzx¨ £ka ”ØÖ Á¨£).” We translate: “When the earth was
rotating in the sky.

“mu – nam – lu – u – lu ba – an – gar – ra – a – ba“ we read in verse 10 of the Sumerian tablet, which
we read in translation: “When mankind´s reknown was assured.” This verse in Tamil will be:
“moonam uLuuLu paN kaalla appa (@©õÚ® •ÑШ £s PÀ»Á¨£).”
We give these verses for a better understanding in one complete form:

“In those years, in the distant years, when during creation, everything was brought forth and made
to shine forth. When during creation the good things were made available in the surface, when in the
temples of the nation, when the flame was burning. When in the ovens of the nations had, burning
fires became available. When the heavens had been parted from the earth, when the earth was
rotating in the sky and when mankind´s renown was assured.”

This kind of of verses goes on until another kind of sentences will be introduced. We can find in the
Sumerian literature many more examples, where the word “aba” is used as and inter sentence
connecter, an adverb of time, which is exactly the same in function as the Tamil word appa, appoo
(A¨£, A¨@£õ).

4. The Sumerian words ha – ba –an and ba – an in relation to classical

Tamil avan ( AÁß )and paN ( £s )

60
In the verb phrase of Sumerian and classical Tamil we can see a close relation, which we can
understand as an evolutionary feature of development. We discussed the posibility in the first
chapter of this treatise. Here we can try to establish one more rule. We can give an hypothetical rule
in the following formula: (y ) . We can understand it as a rule of change from
positions. What appears either as pre – fix or pre – position is relocated as suffix or postposition. This
is what we see as a general rule between Sumerian and classical Tamil.

For to demonstrate this we give an example from the hymn B of King Šulgi.

“an – da e – an – na ha – ba – an – kar“ we read in verse 86 of the hymn in SUmerian words. This we

read translated:”He has stripped of An of the temple Eanna.” This verse will be in Tamil version:
“aaNda il annaa avan kaaru (Bsh CÀ AßÚõ AÁß Põ¸).” We translate this verse:”
He has blackened the heavenly temple of An.”

We read in verse 93 of the same hymn:

“ki – ba – la – hul – gig – nanan – za – a – kam an – ne ha – ba – ab – si – mu“ in Sumerian words,

which are translated: “Uruk is malevolent rebel against your Nanna – may An make it surrender.”
This verse will be in Tamil: “kiiz bala ol kaikku nanna jiyakam aannee avai av silmoo (RÌ £» JÀ
øPUS |ßÚ â¯P® Bs@n AøÁAÆ ]U@©õ).”
In verse 94 from the hymn we read:

“uru – bi an – ne ha – ba – ra – an si – il – le” we read Sumerian, which we get translated: “Thiscity –

may it sundered by An.” The Tamil version will be: “uurubi aaNNee anabRaan sillee (F¸¤
Bs@n AÁßÓõß ]À@»).”
In verse 95 we read:

“ en – lil – le nam ha – ba – da ku – de“ we read in Sumerian and in translation we read: “May it be

cursed by Enlil.” This verse will be in Tamil: “eeNlillee naayam avanda koyidee (Hs¼À@»
|õ¯® AÁßh öPõ°@h).

This we compare to a verse from the text Utuhegal, where we read in verse 53:

“dub – ru – um (ki) – ma ba – an –sag“ in Sumerian words. This we find translated:“In Dubrum he was
welcomed.” This verse we have in Tamil version as follows: “tubruumma baan saanki (x¨¹®©¨
£õß Œõ[Q).”

In these examples we have in the Sumerian words ha – ba –an, ha – ba – ab and ba – an” pronomen,
but in the next example we will find Tamil wod paN (£s), whichis here used as an auxiliary verb.

61
“dumu – tuk du – mu – ni ba – an – da kar – ra“ we read in verse 6 of Utuhegal in Sumerian words,
which we get translated:”and from him he had a child, his child had been reft away..” This verse we
have in Tamil version: “tamutoku tamunee paNiDu karai (u•öuõSz u•} £okU Pøµ).”
We can understand from the examples before the Sumerian word “ha – ba – an” is in Tamil avan
(AÁß), the third person singular masculine and the Sumerian word “ha – ba – ab” is in Tamil avai
(AøÁ), the third person plural. The third person singular and plural we find also simply as “ba”,
from which we get the interrogative pronoun “a – ba”, which is is Tamil yaaba (¯õ£).

In the transliteration the distinction between “ba –an” as paan (£õß) and paN (£s) in Tamil is
not indecated. We need to examine the cuneiform script, if we can find a distiction between the
letters n (Ú) and N (n) in Sumerian language. The same is needed for all the other letters, for
which we find different writings like r (µ) and R (Ó). We gave remarks in all our publications on this
possible distinction on the Sumerian cuneiform tablets.

Here we can see in the Sumerian word “ba – an”, which becomes in Tamil paan (£õß), the third
person singular, which is affected by the above given rule of the change in position. This word
became not only the third person singular mascilin, if became in adition the marker for the future
tense. For example: varupaan (Á¸£õß), kodup paan (öPõk¨£õß) and many more. Here we
find also a change from p to v. This remark of the change from the consonant “p” to the “v” is only of
secondary examination.

5. Sumerian word gal, ka – al and the Tamil word kaal( PõÀ ) and kaalam
( Põ»® )

One of the most exciting questions in the human evolution is the psychology and the development of
linguistic competence is the appearance of a consciousness for time. Without a consciousness of
time the syntactical structure of any language is not possible. The scholar Tolkappiyanar
recognized13; while time indicating infexes are characteristic of the verb phrases, the case marking
suffixes, which made the named object from time consciousness are a characteristic of the noun
phases. The combination of noun phrase and verb phrase makes a complete sentence.

We find in Sumerian literature the word “ka – al”, whichbecame in Tamil kaal (PõÀ) and which gives
to as an insight into the generation of time consciousness and its differention into aspects of
grammatical tenses. We can suggest the understanding and appreance of a time consciousness
appeared through the primary consciousness of endurance, the human mind got into understanding
time as such only when they began to contemplate on the natural world, where things come into
being and endure or sustain themselves as there.

13
The same is of course recognized by other grammarians as well and of course from all the grammarians
before the life time of Tolkappiyanar. This includes of course also the grammarians of all the other languages
like Sanskrit, Egyptian and of course the Sumerian grammar.
62
One very important Sumerian text on this question we find in the Hymn B of the King Šulgi, where we
find the following verse:

“gis – tukul – ga mu – bi sig.se mu – un – gal“, which we read in the Sumerian words from verse 27,
which get in Tamil version: “ kiccu tukaL kaan moobi sinkusee munkaal (Qa”m kPÒPõß
‰¤a ][S@Œ •[PõÀ).” Translated:” He let the fame of my weapons be effective down to
the South.”

“ga – e me – en gis.tukula – la a – la mu – un – ga – gal – an“ we read in verse 33, which will become
in Tamil: “njaanee mankkiccuT TukaLLA aaLamunkaal kaalan (bõ@Ú ©ßUQa”m xPÒÍ
BÍ •[PõÀ Põ»ß).” Translated: “Indeed, by the sword I established my triumph.”
“urudu.sukur urudu.sukur ma – sa – tum a – ba – da –ab gal – le – en – na“ we find in the verse 34,
whichis translated: “with the spear, the masatum and many as there were.” This verse will be in
Tamil: “urutu sukuur urutusukuur masaattum avvadas av kaaliyena (E¸xa ”Tº E¸xa
”Tº ©Œõzx® AÆÁh AÆPõ¼ö¯Ú).” We translate this verse: “With the sharp
pointed spears and masatum that where standing here and there.”

From verse 34 we cen get an idea, how the appearance of time consciousness might have been
arisen. The Sumerian phrase “gal – le – en – na” we can take to be in Tamil kaaliyena (Põ¼ö¯Ú),
where the verbal root kaal (PõÀ) means to stand, be there as something enduring and the suffix
“an” is the plural marker for inanimate things, which is still in use in non – human things like in
maadukaL vantana (©õkPÒ ÁßuÚ), the cows arrived. The Sumerian word “gal” in Tamil kaal
(PõÀ) means to establish, to effect, to stand, to make standand so forth. The Sumerian word “gar,
gar.u” have the same meaning and they became the root of Tamil karunam, karuvi, kaaran
(P¸Ú®, P¸Â, Põµß) andso forth. The word kaal (PõÀ), like in the conditional words like
vantak kaal (ÁßuU PõÀ) and cenRak kaal (öŒßÓU PõÀ) still kept the primary meaning of
establishing, make it real andso forth. We find another branch of semantic, where the word kaal isd
related to. The root kaal (PõÀ) has the meaning of legs and in a general sense something
supportive. The kaal (PõÀ), the legs of the living being is, what makes the body to stand up, to be
there and so forth. From this understandig in mind, we can get a glimpse of an idea, how the
meaning of time, the kalam (P»®) can have been arisen. The observation of the process, how
things come into being and endure as to be there opens the interest towards time, whichcomes
along with everything that endures. Every natural object that appears continuous to be there without
dissapearing instantly appears in time. The time is not a part of the structure of the objects, buit the
process that makes their presence sustaining and only the mind, which get awareness from the
consciousness of enduring objects to the process that makes it possible or the endurance itself
emerged the awareness of time in the human consciousness.

The beginning of the human languages must be at the same time, with the mental awareness of the
human mind. The beginning of the human language is still subject of academic discussions, but a

63
dating will never be possible. The word kaala (H$mb) is found in Sanskrit as well in the meaning of
time.

Final

During my study of the Sumerian texts in the light of the Classical Tamil grammar I found many
grammatical features, which match very well with the rules and definitions found in the earliest
Tamil grammar we have today, the Tolkappiyam. But in the various Sumerian texts, we find at the
same time grammatical features, which are problematic in our view towards the Classical Tamil. The
Sumerian texts have a time period from 3000 b. C. to around 1800 b. C. Therefore we have a long
time span to the appearance of the earliest literature of the Sangam Period of Classical Tamil. Even
we date the earliest Sangam poems in a time of around 400 b. C., will have as gap of around 1400
years. We have some inscriptions of Tamil Brahmi script, which are dated to 600 b. C. and earlier, but
of some the reading is unsure or not red at all. Our first chapter is a first and very small step for to
explain these problematic features between the Sumerian and the Tamil grammar.

Our evolution of the language suggested in the first chapter can`t be more than a hypothesis and
further research is required. The limitation of science for to find a satisfying answer of the evolution
of the Tamil languare from Sumerian is alwas to be kept in mind. Other hypothesis and suggestions
are possible and while doing further research the need to change or to modify our suggestion offered
here is for sure. Many questions in relation to the transformation of a language we can`t answer by
our present day knowledge.

Future investigation need to take in focus other features of the Sumerian language and take a
comparison for what we find in the Tamil grammar. Our view on some of the grammaticaol aspects,
which we find in both languages, is a support of our view to see in Sumerian and in Classical Tamil
the same language on a different level of development. Another important further field of research
work we have mentioned already above and in some of our other publication is the study of the
Sumerian cuneiform tablets, if we find in the cuneiform script a distinction between the letters n, N,
r, R, l, L and so forth or not.

The field for further research is great and we need further study of the various Sumerian gods and
their mythology, the stories and the ritual in their connection as far as we can get itfrom the
Sumerian texts and compare them to what we find in the tradition of the Agama and Tantric
scriptures. We gave very short view on the Sumerian prosody with a view on the Sangam Poems and
the chapter ceyyuliyar (öŒ#²¼¯º) of Tolkappiyam and of the later text Yaapparunkalaikkariaki
(¯õ¨£¸[P»UP›øP) of the scholar Amitacakarar (AªuŒõPµº) in the precace of our publication
of the SUmerian temple hymns, which is also not more than a first small step. A specific study of the
Sumerian temple hymns and other Sumerian literature in the light of the grammar of Tolkappiyam
step by step in great details is required.

64
65