| Revision as of 14:01, 19 October 2004 editSanjeeth (talk | contribs)132 edits vEtRumai urubu← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:14, 2 November 2004 edit undoSundar (talk | contribs)Administrators8,906 edits →vEtRumai urubu: reply to SanjeethNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| :Doesnt it mean prepostion(though not exactly?) -- ] | :Doesnt it mean prepostion(though not exactly?) -- ] | ||
| Yeah, I'm concerned about the ''not exactly'' part. Actually it is the English equivalent, as you know, but the actual position in the sentence syntax is very different from that of Tamil. I remember having read something similar being called a ''conjugal''. -- ] 06:14, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:14, 2 November 2004
The dating of the tolkaappiyam supplied (600BC) is probably too far back in time. Most historians place it at 500BC~200BC. Additionally, this article is marred by hyperbole - can the people-who-know update this page with more concrete information?
- Can you provide the concrete proof for your counter argument. If so, we can fix it up. --Rrjanbiah 05:56, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I am very much interested (and have done some work on this) in contributing material on the scientific manner in which TolKaappiyam describes Tamil Grammar. Will do so in the coming days. Not very much knowledgable about the history though. -- Sundar 14:50, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks Sundar, I appreciate it. --Rrjanbiah 06:29, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
vEtRumai urubu
Does some one know the English equivalent of vEtrumai urubu? -- Sundar 11:35, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Doesnt it mean prepostion(though not exactly?) -- Sanjeeth
Yeah, I'm concerned about the not exactly part. Actually it is the English equivalent, as you know, but the actual position in the sentence syntax is very different from that of Tamil. I remember having read something similar being called a conjugal. -- Sundar 06:14, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)