பக்கம்:ஆய்வுக் கோவை.pdf/184

the tradition about Kamba River old and if so how old? $omebody has identified Kampan with Kampavarman, the Pallava King. The development of varieties of verses has yet to be worked into a chronological flame work which will then help us to fix the higher limit for many of the Cantams. Modern linguistics especially historical linguistics can also help us to fix the age of Kampan. Here also the historical dictionary will be of basic importance. Ilampuranar has noted that the old first person singular suffix-en has become – an by his times. Kampan always uniformly used the old form of this suffix. It is true that in some of the Sangam texts the forman is found used but this is because of the hyperurbanity of the copyists’-an forms in Kampan’s may also be similarly explained away. We have also the present conjunctive kinru participle which are elsewhere found only ln Nammalwar, Appar, Irayanar Akapporul Urai. The Historical phonology for Tamil has been worked out at!east as a first draught. The use of medial syllabic - n– may be found in Kampan. The use of uyir alapetai which was gradually disappearing even from the literary usage of the Pallava period is one of the characteristic features of Kampan’s marphology. A historical syntax for Tamil had not been worked out but an attempt will certainly be helpful. Taken alone no one sick may be always conclusive but all taken together may ultimately help us to six the age of Kampan, this way of approach helping us Turther to know more about Kampan and his immortal work. I have not put forward any view. I have only illustrated the approaches. But as at present advised, I am biased in favour of the simple categorical assertion of “ EN NIYA SA KAPTAM ENNURRELU. ** 176