SV: Classical languages of India

[Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan]

This will preclude any possibility of sattasaI being referred to by kaLaviyal
which states clearly that the text was named after the one who "caused the
text to be created" and (not the one who "created" it) implying no role of an
author or compiler for sAtavAhana.

I do not know if this information has ever been discussed by anybody in
analyzing the relationship between Classical Tamil literature on the one hand
and  the Prakrit and Sanskrit literature on the other. If hAla, the
sAtavAhana king, patronized Tamil, we can conclude (with Siegfried Lienhard)
that Tamil poetry had a direct influence on Prakrit poetry. Thus the
sAtavAhana kings not only issued bilingual coins in Prakrit and Tamil but
seem to have sponsored Tamil literature as well. The positive attitude of
sAtavAhanas towards Tamil is also supported by cilappatkAram where iLaGkO
portrays them as aiding the Tamil king in his expedition to the Himalayas.

According to George Hart, the technique of suggestion used in the Classical
Tamil poems "fits the dhvani theory of Sanskrit poetry, propounded best by
Anandavardhana in his dhvanyAloka, far better than most of the Sanskrit poems
that alankArikas sought to analyze by it." Siegfried Lienhard said, "dhvani
seems to have been used by Prakrit poets, who either developed the technique
of the unexpressed themselves or borrowed it from classical poetry in Tamil".
Given the sAtavAhana patronage of Tamil literature, we can now more
conclusively say that dhvani was more probably a direct contribution by Tamil
to Indo-Aryan literature.

Finally, this shows clearly the influence of Tamil outside the traditional
Tamil region. I should thank Lars whose posting led me to realize the value
of the kaLaviyal urai information for deciding if Tamil is to be considered
as a Classical language.

Regards
S. Palaniappan