Fortunatov's Law and tolkAppiyar's rules

[N. Ganesan]

V. Rao writes:
>Anyway, quoting Tolkappiyam (how old is that name?)
>for one part of the argument and rejecting it elsewhere leaves
>something to be desired.

> From Columbia university seminar on Indology,
Prof. M. A. Selby, Dialogues of Space, Desire, and Gender in
Cankam Tamil Poetry and Poetics, Jan. 29, 1998
(available in the web at South Asia Gopher site)

"The Tolkappiyam itself, whose name means the 'old text', is of
uncertain date. Some divide into two strata, one part being
composed in the 2nd century B.C.E. and the latter some seven
centuries later. Another scholar claims that it could only have
been written by one author -all composed in 2nd century C.E.
Another scholar provides a clear and convincing account which
divides it into four parts,the oldest composed between the first
and third centuries C.E. andthe later sections
in the 4th through the 6th."

 The name of the text is found in the manuscripts from which
 it was printed in the last century, in later commentaries
 on it and later grammars.

 Evidently, the TolkAppiyam rule and Fortunatov rule have
 some connexions, as elicited by Stephen Levitt and S. Palaniappan.

 F.'s rule is being revised often, eg., Hamp, Amendment
 to F.'s law, 1981; Hamp, Revised amendment to F's law, IIJ, 1983.
 Likewise, TolkAppiyar's and Fortunatov's relations can be
 explored much further.

Regards,
N. Ganesan