Kannada, Kannadiga, Kannadigaru, Karnataka,

Kannadigarella ondaagi Kannadavannu ulisona, kalisona and belesona

It is necessary for KANNADIGAS to know about the greatness of their language which most are not aware of.

It is necessary for KANNADIGAS to know about the greatness of their language which most are not aware of.

There is no need to comments of about others.


Amongst the South Indian Languages, there is written data available for Tamil, Kannada and Telugu languages. Whereas, Tamil Shaashanaas (records) have been found dating from 3rd century B. C.; in Kannada, the first shaashana is the 450 A.D. Halmidi shaashana. Ancient books like Vaddaaraadhane (800), Kaviraja Marga (850) are also available.

Though written literature appeared later, there are many other sources and proofs to prove Kannada’s antiquity:

1. 450 B.C. paaNini’s “aShTaadhaayi” has a reference to a “karnaadhaka” gOtra

2. 250 B.C. King Ashoka’s shaashana has a reference to name called “isila” which is said to be Kannada origin

3. 80 B.C. In the Prakrit shaashana of Madhavpur-Vadagavi, the word “NaaTapati” is a word of Kannada origin

4. 150 A.D. Ancient Greek historian Ptolemy’s book “Pappyrus” Kannada towns “kalligere”, “baadaami”, “mudugal” find mention.

5. 150 A.D. In the ancient Greek comedy “Aksirinkas Pappyri” there has been an attempt to understand Kannada words

6. 150 A.D.In a Prakrit shaashana, there are Kannada words like “maTTapaTTi” (maLavaLLi)

7. There is an abundance of Kannada in many Prakrit shaashanas:

a. Words “nagipa”, “saMkapa” found in the 100 B.C.Prakrit shaashana have a Kannada form

b. Usage of words like “manaaLi” originates in the union of two Kannada words “mun” + “paLLi”

c. Kannada towns have been named in constructs like “saMbalIva oora vaasinO”

d. “mooDaaNa” a word used in different languages to represent the Eastern direction is of Kannada origin

8. 150 A.D. In the Prakrit book “gaathaa saptashati” written by Haala Raja, Kannada words like “tIr”, “tuppa”, “peTTu”, “poTTu” have been used.

9. 250 A.D. On the Pallava Prakrit shaashana of Hire Hadagali’s Shivaskandavarman, Kannada word “kOTe” transforms into “koTTa”

10. 250 A.D. In the Tamil mega tome “shilappadikaaraM” written by Ilango Adi, there is reference to Kannada in the form of the ! word “karunaaDagar”

11. 350 A.D. In the Chandravalli Prakrit shaasana, words of Kannada origin like “punaaTa”, “puNaDa” have been used.

12. 250 A.D. In one more Prakrit shaasana found in Malavalli,

13. Kannada towns like “vEgooraM” (bEgooru), “kundamuchchaMDi” find reference.

In the recent 2003 Harvard publication “Early Tamil Epigraphy” authored by Iravatam Mahadev has important substance in the current discussion. This publication provides a new direction and paradigms to the question of Kannada’s antiquity. It extends the antiquity of Kannada to older times than presently known. It also presents a new thought that Tamil came under the Kannada influence in the years of B.C. timeframe. Some Tamil shaasana’s beginning in the 3rd century B.C. shows a marked Kannada influence.

In the 1-3 B.C. Tamil shaashanas, words of Kannada influence “nalliyooraa”, kavuDi”, “posil” have been introduced. The use of the vowel “a” as an adjective is not prevalent in Tamil, its usage is available in Kannada. Kannada words like “gouDi-gavuDi” transform into Tamil’s “kavuDi” for lack of the usage of “Ghosha
svana” in Tamil. That is the reason Kannada’s “gavuDi” becomes “kavuDi” in Tamil. “posil” (Kannada “hosilu”) is another Kannada word that got added into Tamil. Colloquial Tamil uses this word as “vaayil”.

In the 1 A.D. Tamil shaasana, there is a personal reference to “ayjayya” which is of Kannada origin. In another 3 A.D. Tamil shaasana, there is usage of the words “oppanappa vIran”. The influence of Kannada’s usage of “appa” to add respect to a person’s name is evident here. “taayviru” is another word of Kannada influence in another 4 A.D. Tamil shaasana. We can keep growing this list citing many such examples of Kannada’s influence on Tamil during the B.C.-A.D. times.

Kannada’s influence on ancient Tamil as depicted by the language of these shaasana’s is of historical importance. There are no written data available in Kannada from the times when these Tamil records show a marked Kannada influence. Moreover, there have been no findings/ discussions of this face of Tamil till now, that of a deep Kannada influence on it.

In the ambit of the current discussion in the country about “Classical Languages”, this influence of the influence of Kannada on ancient Tamil is of significance. In the Central Government’s announcement of “Tamil Language literature is of antiquity. It has grown independent of the influence of other languages’ literature. This is the reason that Tamil is being accorded the ‘Classical language’ tag”, these findings have shown the weak foundation on which the announcement was made. It has also shown the similar antiqueness of Kannada and the influence it had on Tamil to make it what it is now. These Tamil shaasanas have extended the horizons of understanding of ancient Karnataka’s language, and socio-religious culture.

The next natural question is that of the delay of about 500 years between the difference in the appearance of the Kannada v/s the Tamil written records. These originate in the political and administrative spheres of those times: the regions of the current Karnataka and Andhra were then still under the influence of the Mauryas and Shaatavaahanas, whereas, Tamil regions enjoyed independence of usage in administration and writing. The Cheras, Cholas, Pantiyas, Satiya Putra Adiyamanas adopted Tamil. The Jainas, Buddhist monks adopted the Brahmi font to the Tamil sound/ language.

Karanataka and Andhra were under the Sanskrit deference. Many Prakrit languages were in circulation since 6 B.C. in the Northern parts of India: The Jains, and Buddhist monks learnt these languages and wrote and taught in these Prakrit/ Pali languages. In the south, they first a! dopted, used and taught in Tamil since there was patronage for that language in the Tamil regions. There was no opputunity for Kannada to gain such currency under the influence of the Northern rulers. Such political reasons delayed the emergence of Kannada into the literal mainstream for about 500 years. Kannada finally started its independent emergence under the rule of the Kadambas and the Gangas. With such political and administrative patronage, Kannada literature really blossomed under the Badami Chalukyas.

The summary of this discussion is enunciated in the following points:

1. Kannada came into its independent existence from the proto-Dravidian language in the 6 B.C. timeframe.

2. In about 3-4 B.C. Kannada was already in use by the common people.

3. In 3 B.C. Kannada influenced the Indo-Aryan languages like Prakrit.

4. In the 2-1 B.C. timeframe, Kannada also influenced the Dravidian language Tamil.

5. There are socio-political reasons for the 500 year delay of the emergence of Kannada in shaasanas when compared to Tamil shaasanas. That does not mean Kannada at that time did not have its own language, script and literature.

6. The reasons for and against the emergence of Kannada were political: The Banavasi Kadambas were the first to use Kannada as the second administrative language. Badami Chalukyas were the first to use Kannada as a primary administrative language granting it patronage of being the official language and the language of the state. After that, Kannada has not looked back!

Research by HAMPANA


November 12, 2007 - Posted by | Classical status to Kannada


  1. I have written an article regarding real antiquity of Tamil and that article is published in PRAJAVANI on 6th July 2008 in supplementary pages of Saapthaahika Puravani under title ‘Sadila Talapaayada Tamilu Praachinate’. This article is also available on net. In continuation of this my blog in controversialhistory.blogspot.com/2007/01/tamil-brahmi-myth-of-antiquity-of-tamil.html contains some extended facts.

    In continuation of this combined facts (including the contents in blog)are listed below

    #Tamil historians always argue that Pulli is mentioned in Tolkappiam and followed in Tamil script hence Tolkappiam is ancient. Usually other way is more natural. When a grammatical work is composed it lists the nature of the language , its script in practice and rules to borrow and convert works from other languages with the conventions already in practice. Since the Pulli appears without doubt in 7th C.E Tamil inscriptions, Tolkappiam must be of this period or generously a century earlier.

    # As advocated by Iravatam Mahadevan Tamil-Brahmi has developed in 3 stages, with each next stage better than the previous one. Since Tolkappiam does not reflect these it must be using/referring well developed Pulli which was already included in Tamil script during 6th C.E or 7th C.E.

    # Majority of the historians accept that Jainism entered TamilNadu through Karnataka and most of the early inscriptions are connected with Jaina faith. Mahadevan also recognised some rare words and suffixes in these inscriptions which are not found neither in Old Tamil, nor in Old Tamil literature and which also are not in line with grammatical sutras of Tolkaappiam. After scrutiny Mahadevan declares that they are existing and prevalent in Old Kannada. Since Tamil and Kannada share most of the antique characters of their proto language , the language in inscriptions may not be Tamil but may be Kan-Tamil or Tamil-Kannada or proto dravidian.

    # Ashokas 250 B.C inscriptions have Kannada word like ‘isila’, Madhavapura-Vadagavi inscriptions (150 B.C.) , other inscriptions of 100 B.C. contain many Kannada names, compound words and With these it canot be argued that the language is Kannada-Brahmi. Same argument applies to Tamil-Brahmi also.

    # Wherever an antique piece with Brahmi inscriptions are found , either it may be in China, Egypt or Indonesia immediately there will be hue and cry that it is Tanil-Brahmi. These have to be rechecked whether they contain Tamil-Brahmi (whose existence yet to be established beyond doubt)or any other variant of Brahmi.

    # Ashoka (293 B.C-269 B.C) promoted Brahmi & Prakruta. Amongst Ashoka’s inscriptions rock inscriptions are the oldest. Cave,plate and pillar inscriptions followed this. Until now 18 rock inscriptions have been found and 9 are in present day Karnataka. All these have special features in their script which now called as Southern Brahmi. In true sense this has to be called as “Karnataka-Andhra Brahmi.

    # Even though Tamilnadu & SriLanka are geographically close ,culturally SriLanka had ties with Nortrh India. In 500 B.C Vijaya of Simhapura(Bengal-Kalinga) is the first Arya to reach SriLanka. Ashoka deputed Mahendra to Sri Lanka to spread Buddhism. Contemporary king in SriLanka called himself ‘Devanampriya’ and had inscribed this on rock which is very similar to Ashokan Brahmi. Use of Brahmi thus started in SriLanka and extended upto 7Th C.E. From -300 B.C. to 0.0 A.D , 374 SriLankan Brahmi inscriptions have been found & their number increased to 1440 by 7th century A.D. Amongst these 5 are dated at Ashoka’s period. These inscriptions are spread over entire SriLanka except Northern Jafna and north eastern part of SriLanka & earliest ones are found in western district of Puttanam. This indicates that Brahmi did not reach SriLanka from Tamilnadu but from Karnataka.

    # 2nd and 3rd A.D SriLankan Brahmi inscriptions contain names of women ending with ‘Abbe’ a respectful suffix in Kannada and which is still prevalent in north Karnataka. This indicates that Karnataka had direct links with SriLanka rather through Tamilnadu.

    # There are evidences that SriLanka had trade relations with Tamilnadu in 200-300 B.C. But no inscription of this period have been found until now in which either Tamil or Sinhalese language is used instead of Prakruta. Experts have recognized the influence of Samskruta and Pali on these and not of Tamil or Sinhalese.

    # For a short period in 5th century A.D Kadudda Parinda of Tamil origin ruled from Anuradhapura & his queen adopted Sri-Lankan Brahmi for inscription and not Tamil-Brahmi.

    # In due course SriLankan Brahmi separated and developed into separate script with Sinhalese language. After this stage only Pallava’s Grantha script and Samskruta inscriptions came into existence. It has been recognized that these are influenced by Chalukyan inscriptions.

    # Upto 8Th century A.D no Tamil inscription is found in SriLanka & Tamil words used are rarest in occurrence.

    # The oldest inscription found in Tamilnadu during 300-200 B.C are on banks of Vaigai(Madurai river). The total inscriptions found are only 35 in number from 24 centres. These Tamil-Brahmi inscriptions contain one or two words or end in a sentence or two. The longest Tamil Brahmi inscription(Mangalam Inscription) contains only 56 characters. Even in 4th century A.D the Tamil-Brahmi inscription found contain only 65 characters. Non of these inscriptions are used for Non-Jaina intentions. The writing of these inscriptions are crude and does not reflect well developed script for writing.

    # Tamil heritage says that first Sangam literature was developed in Kapadapuram of SriLanka and SriLanka was part of Tamilagam, But the historical facts point at the otherway. From 300 B.C. to 400 A.D Sinhalese had 3440 inscriptions where as Tamil had only 65 that too which are very short and with one or two sentences.

    # In 5th century A.D Tamil transformed from Tamil-Brahmi & tried to adopt Vattelluttu. But failed to represent Samskruta and other phonological compulsions and turned to Grantha script. In 8th C.E Tamil was able to refine its script. Even now Tamil cannot represent the other languages correctly in its script. Still today this problem is not yet overcome. For example words like ‘Hrudaya’, ‘Smruti’, ‘Schwarzsnegger’, ‘Stranford’ ‘Screw’ . cannot be written without ambiguity in Tamil. Since Mahapranas are not present in Tamil , readers discretion is required to differentiate between words like ‘ka’ ‘kha’ ga’ ‘gha’depending upon their context of use. For example Kanti Gandhi is written as Kanti Kanti and to be read as Kanti Gandhi with prior knowledge only.

    # But by 450 C.E Kannada was already equipped & ready with script to represent anything in phonologically correct way. (Halmidi Inscription) Telugu was not far behind Kannada in this respect.

    # An inscription of Anuradhapura belonging to 215 B.C- 237 B.C informs that ‘Sena’ and ‘Guttaka’merchants ( Compare this with Senas of Karnataka and name Gutta) of Tamilagam defeated Sinhala King Suratissa.and ruled for two decades. But no Tamil Sangam literature or other Tamil literature mentions such people. But Sangam poets indicate Katumba’s(Kadamba’s of Banavasi ? ) as northerners (vadugas) with whom Chearan Shenguttavan had prolonged fight to contain them as they were ‘Kings of Seas. These sea kings may be of Kannada origin having link with SriLanka for trade. ( This has to be especially researched with name ending with ‘abbe’ in SriLankan Inscriptions which is of Kannada Origin)

    # With all of the above listed historical facts antiquity of Tamil literature, real character of Tamil Brahmi to be restudied in detail. Without this attesting unacceptable antiquity does not lead to know the real history.

    Comment by SHANKARAPPA TORANAGALLU | July 21, 2008 | Reply

    • These inscriptions are spread over entire SriLanka except Northern Jafna and north eastern part of SriLanka & earliest ones are found in western district of Puttanam. ”

      Tamils lived in these areas. That is why sinhala incriptions were not found.

      This what they now call as Tamil Eelam.

      Comment by Sen | July 24, 2010 | Reply

    • “Even now Tamil cannot represent the other languages correctly in its script. ”

      That is the uniqueness of Tamil.

      Pure Tamil Language does not have Sanskrit words and for writing them we have Grantha or Vadamozhi scripts.

      Comment by Sen | July 24, 2010 | Reply

    • namaskara shankarappa saahebrige,

      i was touched by your works in getting kannada language researched so extensively.I saw the dd chandana programe where you were invited for “thatt-antha heli” program which was telecasted yesterday(Oct 9, 2015,friday).
      want to meet you and talk more on your works.I feel proud and elevated to have my mother tongue as KANNADA after going thru ur works.

      thanks sir,

      Comment by praveen | October 10, 2015 | Reply

  2. Hello Sir,
    Thanks a ton for this great article. Could you also let us know, which came first Kannada or Telugu. There are some references in the web which indicate that kannada came first and some websites contradict this. Please clarify this.

    Comment by Prajwal | November 18, 2009 | Reply

  3. From : N.Shankarappa Toranagallu

    Below are the excerpts from my recently released book titled “Tamilagam-Sangam : Eshtu Praceena ? in Kannada.

    The date of Tolakappiam has been seen from comparative and language development basis. This analysis indicates later date for Tolkappiam.

    # The name of the grammer work called ‘Tolkappiam’ appears for the first time in Nakkirar’s (800-1000 C.E) commentary on ‘Iraiyanar Ahapporul. In this book elobarate myth regarding Tamil Sangams appear for the first time and includes Tolkappiam as the work of second sangam.

    # Prakrit and Sanskrit have set a tradition in presenting the technical subjects such as grammer , prosody , mathematics, astronomy , dictionary etc., since from beginning . This tradition includes (1) Phonetic description and alphabetical arrangement (2) Adoptation of Sutra style presentation (3) Conventions of Tantra Ukti resembnling mnemonic sutras (4) Book writing techniques such as manuals , abridgements , digests etc., (5) Employment of technical vocabulary (6) Methodological theoretical approaches (7) preparation of accessories for understanding such as koshas , dictionaries , commentaries etc.,

    Tolkappiam and its commentaries adopt the above tradition completely. Katantra grammer of Sanskrit by Sharvavarma ( 200 C.E ) adopts arrangement of subject by ‘Heading’. Tolkappiam has followed this technique. Nagavarma (1042 C.E) who wrote first grammer in Kannada in ‘Shabdhasmruti’ chapter of his ‘Kavyaavalokana’ has followed Katantra school of grammer. He proudly calls himself as ‘Abhinava Sharvavarma ( Modern Sharvavarma) . This indicates that during 1000-1200 C.E Katantra was popular in South India and was followed in construction of native grammers .

    # Nacchinarkkiniyar (1400-1500 C.E) the commentator on Tolkappiam informs that the literary works were presented in the court of Pandyas for approval. On this basis Kamil Zvelebil asserts that Agattiyam and Tolkappiam might have got such approval. But no where in Tolkappiam such possibility is indicated neither explicitely nor implicitely. It is very strange that Tolkappiam maintains silence about its approval , approving committee , the court which approved etc., KavirajaMarga which is equivalent to Tolkappiam in Kannada clearly says ‘Nrupatungadevatanumatamappa i.e., As per the approval of Nrupatunga Deva’

    # Between 1100-1800 , in a span of 700 years seven commentaries have appeared on Tolkappiam. They are :

    (1) Ilamapuranar (1100-1200 C.E) commentary on all Adigarams
    (2) Perashiyar (1200-1300 C.E) commentary on Solladigaram
    (3) Senavaraiyar (1200-1300 C.E) commentary on Poruladigaram
    (4) Nacchinarkkiniyar (1400-1500 C.E) commentary on all Adigarams
    (5) Teyvyashillaiyar (1600 C.E) commentary on Solladigaram
    (6) Kalladanar (1600-1700 C.E) commentary on Solladigaram
    ( 7) Anonymus (1700-1800 C.E) commentary on Solladigaram

    # Whenever Tolkappiam is taken to Sangam or Pre sangam period the doubt arises that why such a great work was not referred even once in the entire Sangam literature of 33000 lines or why until Nakkirar know body gave any scant reference to existence of it.

    # The first five commentaries on Tolkappiam appears between 1100-1400 C.E. A.C Burnell and B.G.L Swamy considers this as the strong proof that Tolkappiam is 100-200 years older than these commentaries.

    # Developement of a language can be assessed through erudite works in that language such as Grammer ,Prosody ,Dictionary etc., Refer Tables 1 to 6 which give the first appearance of such literature in Indian Languages which are considered ancient. In all languages except Tamil , the time gap between the first grammer and first commentary on it is 200-300 years. Whereas in Tamil it is thousands of years. Except Tolkappiam no other erudite work in Tamil is ancient than Kannada. The Tables clearly show continuous and proper flow of various grammatical works in Sanskrit, Prakrit, Kannada and Telugu. But in case of Tamil the time gap between Tolkappiam and next grammatical work ‘Viracholiyam (1100 C.E) there is a time gap of 1300 years . This time gap is artificial and purposely maintained to push back the date of Tolkappiam by thousands of years.

    # Grammatical works in a language appear to explain and maintain the language
    whenever the old forms of a language are undergoing drastic changes/ are becoming extinct , the regional variations in a language are imminent due to contact with other languages . Tolkappiam has been written after the classification of Sangam Literature and the period in which severe contact with Sanskrit and its influence over Tamil has been established. The first Malayalam grammatical work ‘Lilatilakam ‘ emerged under the same conditions & supports this view.

    # From history of Karnataka , it is well established that there is gradually increasing pride among southern states regarding their language and state. From Kadambas to Chalukyas to Rashtrakutas to Hoysals this pride is enhanced along with development in literature and political power. In this context Kavirajamarga the first erudite work in Kannada declares Karnataka as ‘Kaveriyim Godavarivaramirpa nadu ( The land between Kaveri & Godavari) . In the same tone Tolkappiyam declares ‘Vada vengada tena kumari ayidai Tamil kuram nal ulagattu ( The sweet land of Tamils between Vengada at the north and Kanyakumari at the south). Both of these authors belong to the same period and pressurized by the emerging regional nationalities called Kannada and Tamil . Hence the pride for Tamil and Tamilagam not found in Sangam literature is vibrant and evident in Tolkappiam.

    # Tolkappiam speaks about the iyacchol region of pure Tamil called sendamil and tishaisol of colloquial Tamil. Commentators of Tolkappiam Nacchinarkkiniyar and Senavaraiyar describe the region around Madurai as fostering pure sendamil , and regions beyond that colloquial Tamil called Koduntamil. Tolkappiam explains the methods to Tamilise the nonTamil/Sanskrit words and vocabulary. George Hart , kamil Zvelebil and hundreds of other Tamil Pundits have argued that the effect of Sanskrit on Sangam literature is negligible and almost absent. By Sangam literature it is almost clear that there was no regional variations in Tamil. The regional variations of Tamil, influence of Sanskrit on Tamil as depicted in Tolkappiam are of later period. It has been established that upto 5 th century the Tamil-Brahmi inscriptions are highly influenced and are almost Prakritic in nature. But Tolkappiam is unaware of this great influence of Prakrit on Tamil. This indicates the later date for Tolkappiam. Like Tolkappiam . KavirajaMarga also talks about regional variations in Kannada and further wonders whether these variations can be understood by Vasugi of thousand tongues.

    # The period of Tolkappiam can be seen from other linguistic angles also. As the languages evolve the variety in literature will appear. Due to this the vocabulary of the language increases , the meaning of the words change. The changes in colloquial , written and elite forms will become more demarked. The words from other languages will find place. This situation demands the specific methodologies to borrow foreign words and construction of dictionaries. This transition period is same for Tamil and Kannada as indicated by the first appearance of Dictionaries, prosodies and other erudite works. If otherwise date of Tolkappiam is dragged to antiquity , the great time gap of thousands of years between various works is unexplainable.

    From the Tables 1-6 it can be noticed that in all ancient languages the erudite works have emerged in homogeneous and continuous manner. In Tamil ,except Tolkappiam other works follow this pattern. This fact establishes the fact that it belongs to 900-1000 C.E

    (From 1.0 C.E , the Samskrit started to replace Prakrit in writing . Due to Regional Variations in Prakrit there was confusion that which variety of it has to be considered as stabdard for erudite works. This gave great edge to Sanskrit over prakrit and hence vast erudite literarature started to appear in Sanskrit. This is clearly seen in the below tables.)



    10 C.E : Deshi Nama Mala (Hemachandra)

    11 C.E :Payyalacchi Nama Mala (Maha Kavi Dhanapala)

    12 C.E :Abhidana Rajendra (Vijayendra Suri)


    4 C.E : Amarakosha (Amarasimha) Dhanvantari Nighantu (Dhanvantari)

    6 C.E : Anekartha Samucchaya (Shashaavata)

    10 C.E : Abhidana Ratna Mala (Hemachandra ),Srikanda Shesha Vishvakosha (Srikanda Shesha),HaravaLi (Purushottama Deva) ,Abhidana Ratnamala (Halayudha)

    11 C.E :Vyjayanti (Yadava Prakasha), Nama Mala (Dhananjaya) , Anekartha Nama Mala (Amara Keerti) , Shabdha Pradipa (Sureshvara)

    12 C.E :Namarthaarnava Sankshepa , Shabda Kalpa Druma (Keshava Svamin ), Vishva Prakasha (Maheshvara) , Namartha Ratnamala (Abhaya Pala) , Abidana Cintamani +Anekartha Sangraha (Hemachandra) , Anekartha Kosha (Mankha) , Akyata Candrika (Malla Bhatta) , Raja Nighantu (Narahari)

    14 C.E : Nanartha Ratna Mala (Irugappa Dandanatha) , Madana Vinoda Nighantu (Madana Pala)

    15 C.E : Shabda Chandrike ( Vamana Bhatta) , Shabda Ratnakara(Bana)

    16 C.E :Sundara Prakashabdarnava (Padma Sundara)

    17 C.E :Kalpa Druma (Keshava Daivajna), Nama Sangraha Mala(Appaiah Dikshita)

    TAMIL :

    10 C.E – Sendan Divakaram (Divakaram) , Pingalantai (Pingalar)

    12 C.E : Chudamani Nighantu (Mangala Puttiran)

    16 C.E : Chudamani Nighantu ( Mandala Purutan) ,Akaradi Nighantu (Chidambara Revana)

    17 C.E : Uriccol Nighantu (Gangeyan) , Kayataram (Kayatarar) ,Bharati Deepam (Anonymus) , Ashiriya Nighantu (Anonymus)

    18 C.E : Pothigai Nighantu (Swaminatha Kavirayar), Pal Porul Chudamani (Eshwara Bharati) , Arumpporul Vilakka Nighantu (Anonymus)


    10 C.E : Ranna Kanda (Ranna)

    11 C.E : Abhidana Vastu Kosha (Nagavarma-2) ,Abhidana Ratna Mala+Amarakosha Bhashya (Halayudha)

    12 C.E :Nachirajiya (Naciraja)

    13 C.E : Akaradi Vaidya Nighantu+Indra Dipike+Madanari (Amrutanandi)

    14 C.E: Karnataka Shbda Sara (Anonymus) , Karnataka Nighantu (Anonymus), Abhinavabhidana (Abhinava Mangaraja)

    15 C.E : Chaturasya Nighantu(Bommarasa) , Dhanvantariya Nighantu (Anonymus)

    16 C.E : Kabbigara Kaipidi (Linga Mantri) , Shabda Ratnakara (Anonumus) , Nanartha Kanda (Chenna Kavi) , Nanartha Ratnakara+Ekakshara Nighantu (Devottama) , Karnataka Shabda Manjari (Totadarya) , Bharata Nighantu (Anonymus) , Amarakosha Dipike (Vitthala)

    17 C.E : Karnataka Sanjivini +Kavi Kanthahara (Shrungara Kavi) , Karnataka Nighantu (Surya kavi)

    TELUGU :

    14-18 C.E : Venkateshandhramu (Ganavarapu Venkatakavi) , Akaradi Deshiyandhra Nighantu ( Anonymus), Andhra Prayoga Ratnakaram (Anonymus) , Sarva Lakshana Shiromani (Anonymus) ,Padya Rupa Amara Kosham ( Venkata Rayudu), Andhra Nama Sangraham (Lakshmana Kavi) , Andhra Nama Vishesham (Sura Kavi) Samba Nighantuvu (Kasturi Ranga) , Andhra Bhasharnavam ( Venkata Narayanudu) , Akshara Malika Nighantu (Parvatishvara Shastry) , Andhra Pada Nidanam (Tumu Ramadasa) , Sarnadhra Sara sangraham (Amrutapuram Sanyasi),Nanartha Nighantu (Jayarama Rayulu)



    5-7 C.E : Prakruta Prakasha (Vararuchi) , Prakruta Lakshana (Chanda) , Prakruta Kamadhenu (Anonymus)

    12 C.E : Prakrutanushasana (Purushottama) , Siddha Hema Shabdanushasana (Hemachandra)

    14 C.E : Prkruta Shabdanushasdana (Trivikrama) , Shdbhasha Chandrika (Lakshmidhara)

    17 C.E : Prakruta Sarvasva (Markandeya)


    4-2 B.C.E : Ashtadhyayi (Panini) , Mahabhashya-Commentary on Ashtadhyayi (Patanjali)

    2 C.E : Katantra Vyakarana (Shrvavarman)

    6 C.E : Mahabhashya Dipika-Commentary on Mahabhashya (Bhatruhari ), Kashika Vrutti- Commentary on Ashtadhyayi (Vamana)

    7 C.E : Ashtadhyayi-Commentary (Jayaditya)

    8 C.E : Kashika Vivarana Pancika –Commentary on Kashika Vrutti (Jinendra Buddivada)

    9 C.E : Pada Manjari – Commentary on Kashika Vrutti (Haradatta)

    11 C.E : Pradipa ( Kaiyata) , Bhasha Vrutti -Commentary on Ashtadhyayi (Purushottama Deva)

    13 C.E ; Rupavatara (Dharma Keerti)

    14 C.E : Mitakshara- Commentary on Ashtadhyayi (AnnaM Bhatta) , Rupamala (Vimala Sarsvati)

    15 C.E : Prakriya Kaumudi (Ramachandra Shesha)

    16 C.E : Shabda kaustubha (Bhattoji Dikshita) , Prakriya Sarvasva (Nayarana Bhatta)

    17 C.E : Pradipodyota (Nagesha Bhatta)

    TAMIL :

    -3 to 10 C.E : Tolkappiam (Tolkappiyanar)

    11 C.E : Viracholiyam (Buddha Mitra)

    12 C.E : Neminatham (Gunaveera pandita) , Tolkappiam- Poruladigaram Commentary (Perashiyar)

    13 C.E : Nannul (Bhavanadi) , Tolkappiam- Solladigaram Commentary (Senavaraiyar)

    14 C.E : Tolkappiam-Commentary (Naccinarkkiniyar)

    16 C.E : Tolkappiam- Solladigaram Commentary (Teyvacilaiyar , Kalladanar)

    17 C.E : Tolkappiam- Solladigaram Commentary (Anonymus)


    11 C.E : Kavyavalokana (Nagavarma)

    13 C.E : Shabdamani Darpana ( Keshiraja) , Shabdanushasanam (Akalanka Deva)

    17 C.E : Shabdamani Darpana-Commentary (Nitturu Nanjayya)

    17 C.E : Shabdamani Darpana-Commentary (Anonymus)

    TELUGU :

    13 C.E : Andhra Bhasha Bhushanam (Mulaghatika Ketana)

    14 C.E : Kavyalankara Chidamani (Vinnakota Peddana)




    5 C.E : Bruhatsamhita (Varahamihira)

    6 C.E : Kavyalankara (Bamaha) , Kavyadarsha (Dandin)

    9 C.E : Kavyalankara Sara Sangraha (Uddata) , Kavyalankara Sutravrutti (Vamana) , Kavyalankara (Rudrata), Dhvanyaloka (Anandavarhana)

    10 C.E : Cahmdraloka (Jayadeva)

    11 C.E : Chandonushasana (Jayakirti), Kavyamimamse (Rajashekhara) , Abhidaavrutti Maatruke (Mukula Bhatta) , Kavyakautuka (Bhatta Tauta) , Hrudaya Drapana (Bhatta Nayaka)

    12 C.E :Vrutta Ratnakara (Kedara Bhatta) ,Kavya Praklasha (mummata)

    15 C.E : Chando Manjari (ganga Raja)

    TAMIL :

    -3 to 10 C.E : Tolkappiam (Tolkappiyanar)

    10 C.E : Yappurungulam + Yappurungulakkarikai (Amruta Saagara)

    11 C.E : Chulamani (Gunasagarar) , Purapporul Vembamalai (Iyanaar Idanaar), Dandiyalankaram(Annonymus)

    12 C.E : Ilakkana Vilakkam (Jivanana Munivar)

    13 C.E : Veyyappadial (Gunaveera Panditar)

    17 C.E : Chidambaram Seyyuttakkovai (Kumara Kruparar)

    18 C.E : Ilakkana Vilakkam (Vaidyanathan Alvar)


    9 C.E : Kaviraja Marga (Sri Vijaya)

    10 C.E : Chandobudhi (Nagavarma-1)

    11 C.E : Kavyavalokana (Nagavarma-2)

    12 C.E : Udayadityalankaram (Udayaditya) , Shrungara Ratnakara (Kavi Kama)

    15-16 C.E : Madhavalankara (Madhava), Kavi jihva Bandhana (Eshwara Kavi) , Kavya Sara (Abhinava Vadi Vidyananda) , Rasa Ratnakara+Apratima Veera Charite (Tirumalarya)

    17 C.E : Navarasalankara (Timma) , Kuvalayananda( Jayendra)

    TELUGU :

    13 C.E : Kavi Vagbhadanamu (Tikkana)

    14 C.E : Pratapa Rudriya (Vaidyanatha) , Kavi Janaashrayamu (Rachanna ) , Kavyalankara Chudamani ( Vinnakota Peddana) , Shrungara Dipika (Srinatha)

    Part-7 :


    5 C.E : Bruhatsamhita (Varahamihira)

    12 C.E : Abhilashitartha Chintamani ( Bhulokamalla)

    TAMIL :

    10 C.E : Sendan Divakaram (Divakaram) , Pingalantai (Pingalar)

    12 C.E : Chudamani Nigantu (Mangala Puttiran)


    10-11 C.E : Lokopakara (Chavundaraya)

    15 C.E : Viveka Chintamani (Nijaguna Shivayogi) , Siribhuvalaya (Kumudendu), Shivatatva Chintamani (Lakkana Dandesha)

    16 C.E :Sakala Vaidya Samhita Sararnva ( Veeraraja)

    TELUGU :

    20 C.E :Andhra Vignana Sarvasvam ( K.V.L. Pantulu)



    -2 TO 0 C.E : Sushruta Samhite (Sushruta) , Gajayurveda (Palakapya) , Ashvashastra (Shalihotra), Vaidyaka Sarvasva ashva Chikitse(Nakula)

    0 TO 2 C.E : Charaka Samhita (Charaka) , Kumara Tantra (Ravana) , Prayoga Ratnakara (Garga), Bruhaspatimata (Bruhaspati), Kamasutra (Vatsayana)

    4 C.E :Ashtanga Hrudaya + Ashtanga Sangraha (Vagbhata) , Ashvayurveda Saara Sindhu (MallaDeva) ,

    5-7 C.E :Matanga Leela , Shalihotra , Ashva Vaidyaka

    7 to 10 C.E : Madhava Nidanam +Rugna Nischaya (Madhavakara) , Charaka samhite-Commentary (Jayadatta Suri) , Rati Rahasya (kokkoka)

    11 to 13 C.E : Nibandha sangraha (Dallana) , Shabda Pradipa (Sureshvara) , Raja Nighantu+Dhanvantari Nighantu (Narahari) , Sarottama Nighantu (Anonymus) , Bhanumati (Chakradatta) , Jayamangala (Yashodhara) , Nagara sarvasva (Padmashri)

    14 to 15 C.E : Madana Vinoda Nighantu (Madanapala), Sarangadhara Samhite (Sarangadhara) , RatiManjari (JayaDeva)

    16 to 17 C.E : Anna Pana Vidhi (Susena) , Pathyapathya Nighantu + Bhojana Kutuhala ( Raghunatha) , Anangaranga (Kalyana Malla) , Kandarpa Chudamani (Veerabhadra Deva)

    TAMIL :

    13 to 18 C.E : Vaidya Shataka Nadi + Chikitsa Sara Sangraha ( Teraiyar) , Amudakalai Jnanam+Muppu+Muppuvaippu+Muppuchunnam+Charakku+GuruseyNeer+PacchaiVettu chuttiram (Agastya) , Kadai Kandam +Valalai ChuttiraM +Nadukandam (Konganavar) , Karagappa +Muppu Chuttiram +Dravakam (Nandikeshvara) , Karpam +Valai Chuttiram (Bogara)


    11-12 C.E : Karnata Kalyana Karaka (Jagaddala Somanatha) , Balagraha Chikitse (Devendra Muni) , Govaodya (Kirti Varma) , Madana Tilaka (Chandra Raja) , Anubhava Mukura (Janna)

    14 C.E : Khagendra Mani Darpana (Mangaraja) , Ashvashastra (Abhinava Chandra)

    15 C.E : Vaidyanruta (Sridhara Deva) , Vaidya Sangatya (Salva) , Ashva Vaidya (Bacarasa), Janavashya (Kallarasa)

    16 C.E : Vaidya Sara Sangraha (Channaraja) , Hastayurveda-Commentary (Veerabhadraraja ) , Ashva Vaidya (Bacarasa), Janavashya (Kallarasa)

    17 C.E : Vaidya Sara Sangraha (Nanjanatha Bhupala) , Vaidya Samhita Sararnava (Veeraraja ) , Shalihotra Samhita (Ramachandra), Hayasara Samuccaya (Padmana Pandita), Vaidyakanda (Brahma), Strivaidya (Timmaraja)

    TELUGU :

    15 C.E : Haya Lakshana Sara (manumanchi Bhatta)



    3-2 B. C.E : Surya Prajnapti , Stananga Sutra , Anuyogadvara Sutra , Shatkhandagama

    2-0 B. C.E : Vedanga Jyotishya (Lagada) , Bhadrabahu samhita +Surya Prajnapti-Commentary (Bhadrabahu) , Tiloyapanatti (Yatishvaracharya), Tatvarthayagama shastra (Umasvamin)

    5-6 C.E : Arya Bhatiya (Arya Bhata) , Pancvha siddantika + Bruhajjataka+Laghu Jataka + Bruhatsamhita (Varahamihira) , Dashagitika Sara (Anonymus) , Aryastashata (Anonymus)

    6-7 C.E : Brahma sputa Siddhanta+Kanadakadhyaya(Brahma Gupta) , Maha Bhaskariyam + Karana Kutuhala (Bhaskara-1) , Rajamruganka (Bhoja)

    8 C.E : Shishayabhuvruddhi (Lallacharya) , Ganita Sara sangaraha (Mahaveeracharya) , Horasatpanchashika(Pruthuyana)

    11-12 C.E : Siddhanta Shekhara (Sripati) , Siddhanta Shiromani (Bhaskara-2)

    14 C.E : Yantraraja (Mahendra Suri)

    15 C.E : Tantra sangraha (Neelakantha somayaji)

    16 C.E : Sputa Nirnaya (Achyuta)

    TAMIL :

    16-18 C.E : Ganakkadigaram , Ganita Nul , Asthana Golakam , Ganita Venba , Ganita Divakaram, Ponnilakkam


    11 C.E : Jataka Tilaka (Sridharacharya) ,

    12 C.E : Vyavahara Ganita+Kshetra Ganita+Chitra Hasuge +Jaina Ganita Sutra Tikodaaharana +Lilavati (Rajaditya)

    15 C.E : Kannada Lilavati (Bala Vaidyada Cheluva)

    17 C.E : Ksetra Ganita (Timmarasa) , Behara Ganita (Bhaskara)

    TELUGU :

    11 C.E : Ganita sara Sangrahamu (Pavaluri Mallana)

    Comment by Shankarappa Toranagallu | June 1, 2010 | Reply

  4. hello everyone,
    Thanks for the good discussion.
    I have recently read some arguments in the web about kannada and tamil and others. I dont understand why this type of hate between languages. Although my mother tongue is kannada I learnt to read and write tamil(to some extent due to curiousity) and found that there is no problem with tamil and it is similar to kannada in many ways.And by this I do know how much more beautifull kannada is.If tamilians want to know the real value and beauty of tamil they should really learn other south indian languages and then they will appreciate and understand that they should not hate each other. It is impossible to judge which language is the oldest from the present knowledge of humans and therefore try to be proud of your language and dont try to degrade other languages because it is the fact that many languages exists and no one can deny that.

    Comment by santhosh | July 30, 2010 | Reply

  5. yeah not bad

    Comment by Perilous Person | June 21, 2012 | Reply

  6. The problem with all the zealot language analysts is taking reference point to Sanskrit and comparing it with Prakrit/Kannada/Tamil etc., The mute question is has Sanskrit got continuous literature. No. The period before Bhasa has been void in Sanskrit. The foremost play of Bhasa is Prathigyana Yaugandharayana a theme on Udayana one of the foremost Jain kings. Why is that there was no literature before Bhasa. Unfortunately except Kalidasa, Bhatta Baba and Harsh a and Vishakadatta there are no historical plays or epics in Sanskrit. Here comes Tamil. Even if Sang am literature mistaken to tenth century AD how is that only in Tamil we are having eulogy on persons. It is amazing to find poems like Killivalavan showering praise on Sirugudi Kizhan the incident of Kavarpendu the lamenting of Bhutapandiyan’s queen and Cheraman Makothai is unparalled in any of the Indian literature. Now the question is if Tolkappiyam and Sang am literature is of later origin why there was no such literature of kings and common men but only Bhakthi literature. Even here there is problem. Up to Thirumangai Mannan the concept of Ah am was followed.This is the paradox. From Kapilar’s Kurinjipattu the concept of Ah am and Puram was retaliation to Hala’sGatha Sattasi which deals about unbridled love while according to Tamil there should be no poem on invalid love “poruntha kamam falling under Kaikilai and Perunthinai. The concept of thinai and thurai were given a go bye from the advent of Bhakthi literature. Now how are you going to accommodate thurai and thinai during the period fourth century onwards. In Tamil literature there was always a conflict between convention Marabhu and Nature Prakrithic. The Dakshina or Southern represented Marabhu and Vama the left represented Prakrithic. The original Tamil would have been from North Malabar to Rayalaseema. After the rise of Satavahanas they pushed eastwards and occupied areas from Nellore to Tondi. In none of the ancient literature Sanskrit/Prakrit/Ceylon reference to Tamil or Cholas have been made. As per Mahabharatha, Ceylonese chronicles, Chinese references Dramila/Dravida referred only to Krishna Godavari region the original home of Cholas. The reference to Kanchi by Mayurasarman cannot be the present Kanchipuram since there was no connection between Malnad and Pallavas. The Pallava king was Nolamba Pallava who up to thirteen the century AD called themselves as lord of Kanchi an impossibility unless it is in Darwaf/Bellary region. Similarly Gang a king Avinita and Durvinita had Chola princess as their queen with the epithet daughter of Descendent of Illustrious Kshatriya Karikala the lord of Uragapura and built dam across Cauvery. Uragapura can never be Woriyur because the meanings don’t match and there were cases where Mysore kings tried to build dam across Cauvery. The term Much in Kannada means east also. Thus Ganga Muduraja, Baba Muduraja actually referred to eastern movement and occupation of the present Cauvery area. It is also pertinent to note that Kodumpalur Velirs had relation with Gokali which was referred by Saint Manikkavasagar as Gokazhi and stoutly opposed to Pandyas. Thus during fourth century AD Cholas moved towards east along with Gang as Ban as Irukkuvels and Irungovels. This is supplemented by the fact that Kadambas were the first to construct Siva and Vishnu temples and we find sudden spurt in temples only from fifth century AD onwards started by Kochengana whose son was Nallidi from whom the Telugu Chola Mudiraja Erika Nalladi Bima Chola descended. The Uchangi Pandiyad with their capital at Udayavaram referred as Udagai of Malai Mandala by Rajaraja bears testimony to this. With eastward movement of Cholas there was migration of Brahmins from Malnadu(sometimes as Mayela nadu) known as Malnadu in Trichy who had again emigrated to Palakkadu as Mazhanadu Brahacharanam. Another sect of Tamil Brahmins is Vadama whose etymology can be traced to Vadda in Kannada corrupted form of Vriddha again translated as Much denoting east and elderly. Thus the two sects of Tamil Brahmins can be traced to Karnataka. Even now all the sub sects of Tamil Brahmins are wide spread in Karnataka areas. Thus if we remove Sanskrit/Prakrit connection the Tamil/Kannada connection in Karnataka/Andhra is shrouded in mystery. As far as Jainism is concerned it was in vogue in Srilanka even before King Vijaya and the east coast of Srilanka is always considered as Pandiya country and thus Jainism spread to south Tamilnadu even before it arrived in Karnataka. Scholars still don,’t consider why in all Sanskrit dramas the princesses of Srilanka were sent only by ship to North India and did not prefer land routes because the region between Tondi and Nellore was unnoticed. It is highly doubtful whether Arrian/Pliny references were later interpolations or places beyond Krishnapatnam between Tamralipti Krishnapattinaam. Unless the bogey of Aryan/Dravidism and anti Brahminism is shed the true history of Deccan will remain a puzzle. To a true lover of history the antiquity of Tamil remains puzzle when it has started where it has started and why it is discontinuous.

    Comment by Tejaswini Vemburia | July 13, 2013 | Reply

  7. while welcoming this healthy discussions i wish this discussion should continue to enlite the habitual readers . knowledge so that one will not hate other once they understand antiquity of language with universally accepted references

    Comment by thimma naik | January 14, 2014 | Reply

  8. Tolkappiyam belongs to or before 3rd Century BCE. I have proved it in my book, “Was there an Academy in the ancient Tamil Country?”

    Comment by N.Ramkumar | August 6, 2014 | Reply

  9. It’s amazing to ѵisit this web site аnd reading the views of all mates concerning this article,
    while I am also keen of getting experience.

    Comment by Shantell | November 24, 2014 | Reply

  10. Cankam is supposed to be derived from Sangha of poets in some court but this is not clear. It could refer to sangraha or sankalana of compilation of books into long and short stanzas actually done in Tamil. Tamil being short of consonents could have misidentified and the sangam age wholly imaginary.

    Comment by Partha Shakkottai | February 9, 2016 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: