Conclusion
A plausible conclusion as to the evolution of Malayalam based on relevant theories associated with its origin.
Modern Linguist are of the opinion that Malayalam language is from Proto-Tamil Malayalam. The proto forms of all the Dravidian languages are Proto Dravidian. Brahui is the first language to be separated from the Proto- Dravidian language, more or less fivethousand years back. It is the language of Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Kurukh- Malto separated from the Proto- Dravidian language first four thousand years back. Later they separated as two languages as Kurukh and Malto. They are the North Dravidian Languages. The Gondi,Konda, Kolami, Parji etc are the central Dravidian languages,separated three thousand and five hundred years back. The South Dravidian languages were formed after the separation of Central Dravidian. Tamil, Kannada, Malayalam, Tulu, Kodagu, Toda, Koda etc are the South Dravidian Languages formed after the separation of Central Dravidian. The languages like Telugu,Kui,Kuvietc shows the dual characters of central and south Dravidian and are known as South Central Dravidian.
Points to consider
Language, A socio-political perspective
A language is a dialect with an army and navy
Famous sociolinguist and Yiddish scholar Max Weinreich popularised the aforementioned adage. It refers to the arbitrariness of the distinction between a dialect and a language. Basically language and dialect are socio-political terms. Thus, the distinction between a language and a dialect is not purely linguistic but is heavily influenced by social, political, and historical factors.
The primary difference between what we call a "language" and what we call a "dialect" often comes down to power. A group with political, military, or economic power can assert that their way of speaking is the "standard" language. For example, before the breakup of Yugoslavia, Serbo-Croatian was considered a single language with various dialects. However, after the collapse, the same linguistic varieties are now classified as separate languages: Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin. This shift reflects the new national boundaries and the political will to assert distinct national identities. The case of China is another example, Mandarin is the official language of China and is promoted by the state as the standard language. Other varieties of Chinese such as Cantonese, Shanghainese, and Hokkien are often considered dialects, despite significant linguistic differences. The sociopolitical power of the central government plays a key role in this classification.
The perception and legitimacy is another important point pertaining to the distinction between a dialect and a language. A dialect spoken by a less powerful group is often perceived as less legitimate or less proper than a language. The perception of a dialect as a "mere dialect" is influenced by the lack of institutional support and recognition. Historically, Malayalam was spoken by a less powerful group in the west coast. Thus it wasn't a language of administration and it has a shortage of inscriptions before 9th CE.
It is also worth noting that language is not a homogeneous unit; it is more like a fluid that overlaps and interacts with other languages at boundaries. Languages form a continuum and vary in terms of intelligibility. Natural languages are vibrant, and as the saying goes, "A language is a dialect with an army and navy," reflecting the socio-political nature of linguistic classification. One may consider the Tamil spoken in Kanyakumari its own language, while others see Jeseri as a separate language with its own varieties or as a dialect of Malayalam. The intelligibility between Malayalam spoken in Thiruvananthapuram and the Malayalam spoken in Kasargod is lower, leading some to view Kasargod Malayalam as a distinct language. Ultimately, these distinctions depend on socio-political factors.
The Oldest Language Dilemma
The claim of 'oldest language' is closely related to the socio-political attributes of a language mentioned above. It is an irrational claim driven by a sense of ethno-linguistic or religious pride and has no scientific basis. Determining the earliest spoken language is considered impossible for several reasons:
The earliest human languages were spoken long before the invention of writing. Writing systems only appeared around 5,000 years ago, while anatomically modern humans have existed for at least 200,000 years. Without written records, we have no direct evidence of what these early languages sounded like or how they were structured.
Spoken language leaves no physical traces. Unlike artifacts or fossils, which can endure for millennia, the sounds and structures of spoken languages are transient and do not fossilize.
Language is not static; it evolves continuously. The languages spoken by early humans would have gradually changed over generations, influenced by migration, isolation, contact with other groups, and internal developments. This constant evolution makes it impossible to pinpoint a single "earliest" language, as what we might consider the first language would have itself evolved from even earlier forms of communication.
Linguists can reconstruct aspects of proto-languages, which are hypothetical ancestral languages from which current languages descend (like Proto-Indo-European). However, these reconstructions are based on existing languages and only take us so far back in time. Beyond a certain point, there are no languages left to compare, making further reconstruction impossible.
In the case of India, where both Sanskrit and Tamil claim to be the oldest language, the existence of much older populations is often ignored. According to the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB), a biotech research unit of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, the Jarawas and other tribes of the Andamans are the first people of India, dating back 65,000 years. The CCMB’s research indicates that the first group of Jarawas left Africa and arrived on the island all those years ago. Other Negrito tribes in the Andamans, such as the Great Andamanese, Onges, and the Sentinelese, have also been around for as many years. This raises the question: how old are the languages of these people? They are not related to any language families on the mainland, yet due to the lack of inscriptions, political power, etc., the languages spoken by these groups are not considered the oldest simply because they do not have any written records. Tracing the antiquity of a language solely based on inscriptional evidence is irrational and leaves many questions unanswered.
Evolution of Malayalam
Considering the existing theories on the origins of Malayalam, the arguments presented in the Tamil Offshoot Theory and the Proto-Tamil-Malayalam Theory are the most compelling and currently at their peak. Based on these two theories, the evolution of Malayalam can logically be divided into two phases;
Malayalam as a language of the west coast
Malayalam as a literary language
The first phase is supported by existing attested evidence, while the second is based on literary history. This distinction also highlights the fact that literature does not always represent the contemporary spoken language. Malayalam literature has a connection with Tamil literature due to the established literary presence of Classical Tamil (Centamil). It is important to note that using literary history to measure the antiquity of a language is not always accurate. Further discussion on this topic will follow.
The Existing theories
Although both the Sanskrit Origin Theory and the Mixed Language Theory can be prima facie rejected, they were discussed in detail to explain why they are not considered valid.
The Independent Origin Theory
Upon analyzing this particular theory, it becomes evident that the Independent Origin Theory is closely related to the Proto-Tamil-Malayalam Theory. The Independent Origin Theory suggests that Malayalam developed as a distinct language from its early stages, while the Proto-Tamil-Malayalam Theory posits that Malayalam and Tamil evolved from a common proto-language. Both theories acknowledge the deep historical and linguistic connections between Tamil and Malayalam, indicating a shared linguistic heritage before diverging into separate languages.
While it is conceivable that languages may have evolved simultaneously in different regions, primarily due to geographical factors, this theory lacks appreciation for smaller languages within the family and heavily relies on major literary languages. Additionally, it fails to consider the close affinity of one language with another, suggesting they may have branched out from a common point.
The conservative nature of language aids in reconstruction, yet no language in the Dravidian family appears to be fully conservative due to their evolution over time. Many, particularly Tamil factions, argue that the whole idea of 'Dravidian Languages' do not exist and that it is solely Tamil. They also assert that Tamil is the oldest Dravidian language. While Tamil is indeed the oldest literary language in the family, not all aspects of the language are equally ancient. For instance, gender distinction in Telugu and related languages is considered closer to Proto-Dravidian than the gender arrangement seen in Tamil, Kannada, and Malayalam, suggesting an earlier split in Telugu's branch.
Regarding Kannada, one can observe how the language preserves the Proto-Dravidian *k in places where Malayalam, Tamil, and Telugu have undergone palatalization, leading to *k becoming *c, as in *kevi -> cevi.
A look at the phonological reconstruction of Proto-Dravidian, one can see how Malayalam is the only major Dravidian language to preserve all the phonemes except *H.
Krishnamurti has proposed the glottal fricative *H to explain the presence of the Old Tamil Aytam. However, considering the perspectives of other scholars and the absence of this phoneme in any other Dravidian language in the region, including Malayalam, which is closely related to Tamil, it is rational to consider that Aytam might be a loan from Indo-Aryan or a poetic device to emphasize certain sounds. While this phoneme may have existed in Proto-Dravidian, it is not synonymous with Aytam. Malayalam is the only major Dravidian language to retain the alveolar ṯ, but it is not unique in this regard among Dravidian languages.
Is Malayalam a mix of Tamil and Sanskrit?
This narrative is rooted in the Mixed Language Theory. However, proponents of the view that Malayalam is a blend of Tamil and Sanskrit often overlook the existence of the Pacha Malayalam Literary School, which emphasizes the use of pure Malayalam.
പാലാട്ടു കോമനുടെ നന്മയുടച്ചുവാർത്ത-
പോലാറ്റു നോറ്റൊരു കിടാവുളവായി മുന്നം,
'കോലാട്ടുകണ്ണ'നവനന്നു വളർന്നു മാറ്റാർ-
ക്കോലാട്ടിനൊക്കെയൊരുവൻ പുലിതന്നെയായി.
pālāṭṭu kōmanuṭe nanmayuṭaccuvārtta-
pōlāṯṯu nōṯṯoru kiṭāvuḷavāyi munnaṁ,
'kōlāṭṭukaṇṇa'navanannu vaḷarnnu māṯṯār-
kkōlāṭṭinokkeyoruvan pulitanneyāyi.
from Kannan, Kundoor Narayana Menon
കണ്ണു തുറന്നപ്പോള് കണ്ടത് വീണ്ടും ഇളകിയാടുന്ന ആള്ക്കൂട്ടത്തെയാണ്. പൊടിപടലങ്ങളുയര്ത്തി രണ്ടു കാളകള് അപ്പോള് വിരട്ടു കളത്തിലേക്ക് കുതിച്ചുകഴിഞ്ഞിരുന്നു. അവയെ നേരിടാന് രണ്ടു ചെറുപ്പക്കാരും..
kaṇṇu tuṟannappōḷ kaṇṭatŭ vīṇṭuṁ iḷakiyāṭunna āḷkkūṭṭatteyāṇŭ. poṭipaṭalaṅṅaḷuyartti raṇṭu kāḷakaḷ appōḷ viraṭṭu kaḷattilēkkŭ kuticcukaḻiññirunnu. avaye nēriṭān raṇṭu ceṟuppakkāruṁ..
from the novel Nilam poothu Malarnna Naal, Manoj Kurur, 2015
The main argument raised by proponents of the Mixed Language Theory is the use of Sanskrit and Tamil words. Tamil and Malayalam are closely related and therefore share a vast number of words. If this false notion persists, then one must explain why Telugu and Kannada also use similar words, such as 'Tala' and 'Tale' for 'head,' like the Tamil 'Talai' and Malayalam 'Tala.' Malayalam is not the only Dravidian language that incorporates Sanskrit loanwords; Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, and Tulu also use many Sanskrit loanwords.
Shown below are a few lines with Sanskrit loanwords marked from the famous Tamil writer Kalki's story 'Alai Osai.
cālaiyiṉ iru puṟattilum ālamaraṅkaḷ cōlaiyāka vaḷarntiruntaṉa. ātiyum antamum illāta paramporuḷaip pōl antac cālai eṅkē ārampamākiṟatu, eṅkē muṭivākiṟatu eṉṟu terintukoḷḷa muṭiyātatāyiruntatu. pakavāṉuṭaiya vicuvarūpattiṉ aṭiyum, muṭiyumpōla, iru ticaiyilum aṭarnta marakkiḷaikaḷiṭaiyil antac cālai maṟaintu viṭṭatu. kiḻakku mēṟkāka vanta cālai vaṭaticai nōkkit tirumpiya muṭukkilē rājampēṭṭaik kirāmattiṉ tapālcāvaṭi eḻuntaruḷiyiruntatu.
Shown below is the first lines of Thirukkural with Sanskrit loans marked
akara mutala eḻuttellām āti pakavaṉ mutaṯṯē ulaku
A brief examination of Tamil dictionaries, such as "Kriyāvin̲ taṟkālat Tamiḻ akarāti: Tamiḻ-Tamiḻ-āṅkilam," J. P. Fabricius's "Tamil and English Dictionary," N. Kathiraiver Pillai's "Tamil Moli Akarathi," McAlpin's "A Core Vocabulary for Tamil," the University of Madras's "Tamil Lexicon," and Miron Winslow's "A Comprehensive Tamil and English Dictionary of High and Low Tamil," reveals the substantial number of Sanskrit and other language loanwords present in Tamil. The illusion that Sanskrit words appear native to Tamil is partly due to the limited number of letters in the Tamil alphabet. Consequently, it is easier to identify Sanskrit loanwords in Malayalam than in Tamil for this reason.
Other differences
Tamil nouns ending in -ai corresponds to -a ending in Malayalam (same in Telugu)
The Chutteluttu markers such ‘ā’ and ‘ī’ occurs only in Tamil poetry as per Tholkappiyam. But in Malayalam, these markers are used in both the literary and spoken form.
Kodagu is considered to be an early split. In Kodagu, gender-number distinction is only found in demonstrative pronouns and not finitive verbs like that of Tamil.
eg: Malayalam: ā maram (that tree) ī maram (this tree) Tamil: anta maram, inta maram Kannada: ā mara, ī mara Telugu: ā ceṭṭu, ī ceṭṭu
According to "Historical Grammar of Early Old Malayalam," a thesis by K. M. Narayamenon, the alveolar sound ḏ (ന്റ) in Malayalam later shifted to the dental sounds ‘nta’ and ‘nna.’ Narayamenon also notes that Tamil lost this archaic sound before Malayalam, which explains why words with ‘nn’ in Malayalam correspond to ‘ṉṟ’ in Tamil. These sounds have been reconstructed in Proto-Dravidian. Additionally, Malayalam has retained the alveolar ‘ṯ’ (റ്റ), whereas in Tamil, it evolved into ‘ṭṟ’ and, in spoken Tamil, into ‘tt’. However, some regional dialects of Tamil still preserve the ‘ṯ’ sound, similar to Malayalam.
Another significant phonological aspect is the shift of the ‘ca’ sound. In Tamil, it became ‘sa,’ while in Malayalam, it changed to ‘śa’ when not at the beginning of a word. For example, in Malayalam, "kāṟṟ vīśi" (wind blew) corresponds to Tamil's "kāṭṟu vīsiyatu.
In Malayalam ‘ṅka’ as in tiṅkaḷ (moon) and ‘ṅṅa’ as in ‘tiṅṅaḷ’ existed side by side, but in Middle Malayalam, it completely changed to ‘ṅṅa’. Words like tiṅkaḷ are exceptions. But in Tamil, ‘ṅṅa’ is not in common usage. The same applies to ñca and ñña.
Sentence: He is coming from the temple.
Malayalam: avan ampalattil ninnum varunnu. Standard Tamil: avan avar kōvilil iruntu varukiṟān Spoken Tamil:avē kōyilila iruntu varān Kannada: avanu dēvasthānandinda baruttiḍḍane
In the above examples, one can see that unlike in Tamil and Kannada Malayalam is not using the masculine suffix ‘an’ with the verb. In addition to that in places where Tamil uses ‘iruntu’ (from) Malayalam uses ‘ninnu’.
Malayalam : avaḷ nīḷamuḷḷa peṇṇ āṇ.
Tamil: avaḷ uyaramāna peṇ
Kannada: avaḷu ettarada huḍugi
In Malayalam, the word ‘ആണ്’ (āṇ) is widely used in sentence formation. This is similar to ‘is’ in English. But in Tamil and Kannada, an equivalent is not widely used.
What is your name?
Malayalam: tāṅkaḷuṭe pēr ent āṇ?
Tamil: uṅkaḷ peyar eṉṉa?
Kannada: ninna hesarēnu?
Factors that lead to the separation of Malayalam and Tamil
Undoubtedly, geography is the primary factor in the separation of the Tamil-Malayalam branch. This same factor has led to the divergence of almost all Dravidian languages from their common origin. Geography plays a crucial role in distinguishing Kerala from Tamil Nadu. Kerala is bordered by the Western Ghats to the east, which separates it from the Tamil-speaking region. There are two main geographic gaps: one at Palakkad and another further south at Kumari.
Early inscriptions suggest that this linguistic division occurred hundreds of years ago. The question arises whether it is possible for languages within the same linguistic family to develop simultaneously in different locations. It is evident that such development is indeed possible. This phenomenon occurs due to several reasons, including geographic separation, social and cultural divergence, and varying rates of linguistic change.
Geographic Separation:
When populations speaking a common ancestral language become geographically separated, their languages can evolve independently. This leads to the development of distinct languages within the same family.
Social and Cultural Divergence:
Differences in social structures, cultural practices, and contact with other linguistic groups can cause variations in language development. This divergence can happen even within relatively close geographic areas.
Historical and Political Factors:
Historical events such as migrations, invasions, and the establishment of political boundaries can lead to the isolation of language-speaking communities, promoting independent linguistic evolution.
Examples
Romance Languages:
After the fall of the Roman Empire, Latin-speaking populations in different parts of Europe evolved into distinct languages such as Spanish, French, Italian, Portuguese, and Romanian. This divergence was due to geographic separation and the influence of local languages and cultures .
Germanic Languages:
The Germanic languages, including English, German, Dutch, and the Scandinavian languages, evolved from Proto-Germanic. These languages developed in different parts of Northern and Western Europe, influenced by regional variations and historical contexts .
As mentioned earlier, there is a significant geographical barrier between Tamil Nadu and Kerala, and most scholars agree that this was the primary reason for their linguistic separation. However, this aspect is not often thoroughly explored. Some scholars suggest that Sanskrit caused the split of Malayalam from Tamil, but this is not entirely accurate. Sanskrit grammatical elements have minimal impact on Malayalam and are mostly confined to Sanskrit loanwords.
Gopinathan Pillai and Sukumaran Azhikodu argued that Manipravalam was primarily a literary form used by Brahmins, who belonged to the elite class, and its influence did not extend into the everyday lives of common people.
Most of these Sanskrit elements diminished with the decline of Sanskritized literature. Aside from contributing loanwords, Sanskrit's influence on the split of Malayalam is often overstated. This phenomenon is not unique to Malayalam; Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, and Tulu also borrowed extensively from Sanskrit. Therefore, the argument that Sanskrit caused Malayalam to diverge from Tamil is not convincing. Furthermore, one must consider how Telugu and Kannada separated from their proto-languages under similar circumstances.
Another noteworthy aspect is the extended phonology of Malayalam. Inscriptions in Malayalam indicate that Vatteluttu was the primary script used in Kerala. Alongside Vatteluttu, the Grantha script was prevalent for writing Sanskrit. This dual-script system is somewhat analogous to the Japanese writing system, where loanwords were written using the Grantha script, which had characters to represent Sanskrit sounds, while native Malayalam words were written using Vatteluttu, which had a more limited set of letters.
Due to the artificial influence of Sanskrit, driven by literature and later by the Bhakti movement, Malayalam adopted a Grantha-based script known as Arya Eluttu. To this day, Malayalam uses two spelling conventions: 1) Vatteluttu and 2) Sanskrit. Despite the script becoming fully developed, Malayalam, unlike Kannada and Telugu, does not distinguish between voiced and unvoiced consonants in writing.
eg: kaṭal (malayalam), kaḍali (Kannada), kaḍali (Telugu)
As explored in 'The Sanskrit Origin Theory,' Malayalam grammar diverges significantly from Sanskrit grammar, and the syntactical impact of Sanskrit on Malayalam is minimal or in alternative terms, limited to literature.
Evidences of Early Tamil-Malayalam split
1st BCE Pulimankombu herostone from Theni : kal peṭu tīyan antavan kūṭal ūr ā kōḷ
This is an inscription in Tamil Brahmi script and it shows some interesting characteristics, the word peṭu as opposed to proper Tamil paṭu , the usage of chuttezhuttu ā (yonder) shows early traces of diversity. It may either be a much older form (Proto-Tamil-Malayalam) or the trace of an early split. This is because, the usage of peṭu and ā chuttezhuttu can be found in Malayalam. However, going to an extent to say that it is a Malayalam or Tamil inscription is not ok.
2 CE Pattanam Clay shard from Paravur, Ernakulam : ūrpāva ō
As opposed to the Tamil pāvai, this writing shows the Malayalam pāva form.
2 CE to 4 CE Edakkal Cave Inscription : palpuli tānantakāri
This writing from Wayanad shows the Malayalam sandhi form palpuli as opposed to the Tamil form paṟpuli.
2 CE to 4 CE Edakkal Cave Inscription : veṅkōmalai kaccavanucatti
Here the Malayalam dative case marker -u is found suffixed to the noun kaccavan.
3CE to 4 CE Edakkal-5 : ī paḻama
An entirely Malayalam writing, completely intelligible with Modern Malayalam. The use of Chuttezhuthu ī and noun ending in -a.
4 CE to 5CE Nilamboor Nedungakayam: mācakoṭ nīr aṇavāy
Another inscription showing the -a noun ending.
Conclusion from Proto-Tamil-Malayalam and Tamil Offshoot Theory
The bifurcation of Proto-Tamil-Malayalam into two branches can be attributed to the phenomenon wherein a literary language often deviates from the spoken vernacular, as it frequently reflects societal prestige. Prior to gaining political recognition in the 8th Century, Malayalam, as a colloquial language of the West Coast, shared resemblances with its Eastern counterparts in terms of its early literary tradition, drawing from elements of Sangam literature common to both regions. Despite the antiquity of the fissure within the Tamil-Malayalam linguistic group, dating back over 2000 years, it is evident that geography played a pivotal role in their separation.
Examination of Malayalam literature reveals its divergence into Old Malayalam concurrently with the emergence of Middle Tamil from Old Tamil. Notably, Middle Tamil and Malayalam exhibit more similarities than disparities, particularly evident in their literary forms. However, while Modern Tamil has distanced itself from Malayalam, Middle Tamil maintains a closer linguistic affinity with the latter.
Every language worldwide has incorporated numerous words, either directly or indirectly borrowed. Malayalam is no exception, having borrowed extensively. Dr. K. Kunjunni Raja posits that purity in language is a myth, asserting that linguistic amalgamation with other discourses is inevitable. Factors such as dominance, religious dissemination, trade, cultural exchange, and travel have all significantly influenced language evolution. It is through these diverse channels that languages have adopted a multitude of variant phrases.
According to S.K. Nair, ballads and folk songs serve as perhaps the most authentic repositories of colloquial expressions belonging to the communities they represent. The language utilized in these ballads reveals a notable absence of Sanskrit's dominating influence. Centamil in Tamizhakam and Sanskrit were not commonly spoken dialects among the people in their oral interactions; rather, they served as textual languages primarily used by the upper class or educated individuals. Nair further contends that literary language often represents a sophisticated and artificial version of spoken discourse.
Similarly, Dr. K.M. Prabhakara Varier discusses the disparity between written language (Varamozhi) and oral language (Vamozhi), noting that various factors such as region, societal norms, educational standards, and age contribute to dialectal changes within a language. Numerous factors have thus played crucial roles in shaping the language of specific societies.
Languages universally exhibit a dynamic nature, constantly evolving in response to societal changes. The spoken discourse of Kerala has likewise undergone dialectal shifts corresponding to broader societal transformations. Interaction with diverse communities and cultures has led to the adoption of words from various languages by Keralites.
The tradition of pattu in Kerala stands distinct from Tamil, embodying its own unique and authentic essence. Conversely, the thekkan pattukal represent a transitional phase where Malayalam converges with Tamil. This phenomenon is exemplified in the conservative regions such as the Southern Travancore Dialect and the Eastern Kumari Tamil dialect.
Tamil scholars categorize specific stylistic features found in Sangam literature as 'Malai nattuvazhakk' (Mountain country style), implying the presence of fully developed Western Koduntamil variants and their utilization as the language of ordinary people. Through comparative analysis, S. Shanmughan proposed that during the Sangam age, Pre-Malayalam served as a practical language. This assertion finds support in Tholkappiyam and subsequent grammar works.
In his study of the 'ballads of North Malabar,' Chelanat Achyutha Menon observed that these historical ballads may sound unfamiliar to cultivated ears. They are distinctly Dravidian, largely untouched by Sanskrit influence, and primarily focus on storytelling. Menon noted that this dialect is markedly different from standard written Malayalam and corresponds more closely to the language spoken by illiterate individuals.
Cecil J. Sharp, a prominent collector of English folk songs, defines folk songs as those created by common people, distinguishing them from compositions crafted by the educated elite.
A comprehensive understanding of language structure can be gleaned from oral sources rather than from literary traditions alone. Oral songs from various communities have endured as integral components of their socio-cultural and religious practices. This study categorizes certain songs as Northern Ballads (Puthooram Pattu and Tacholi Pattu), Southern Ballads (Neelikatha, Muvotu mallan Katha, and Iravikuttipilla Pore), Central Kerala Ballads (Edanadan Pattu), and ritual songs (Thottam Pattukal). The language of ritual songs, such as Thottam Pattu, remains static due to its ceremonial context.
List of a few important inscriptions in Malayalam
Quilon Syrian copper plates (849-850 CE)
Vazhappally Copper Plate (882-883 CE)
Sukapuram inscription (9th-10th Century)
Chokkur inscription (920 CE)
Nedmpuram Thali inscription (922 CE)
Avittathur inscription (925 CE)
Ramanthali inscription 1 (929 CE)
Ramanthali inscripton Plate 2 (1075CE)
Triprangode inscription (932 CE)
Poranghattiri inscription (932 CE)
Indianur Inscription (932 CE)
Thrippunithura inscription (935 CE)
Panthalayani Kollam inscription (973 CE)
Mampalli copper plate (974 CE)
Koyilandy Jumah Mosque inscription (1000 CE)
Eramam inscripton (1020 CE)
Pullur Kodavalam inscription (1020 CE)
Tiruvadur inscription (1020 CE)
References
An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, Ronald Wardhaugh, 5th Edition, 1986
The Oxford Handbook of The History of Linguistics,2012
Malayalam Classical Bhasha Pazhakkavum Vyakthitvavum, Dr. Naduvattom Gopalakrishnan, 2012
Dravida Bhasha Vyakarana Paramparyavum Leelathilakavum, P. Sreekumar
An Elementary Grammar of the Coorg Language, Captain R. A. Cole, 1867
The origin of Malayalam Language- The Linguistic theories, Lekha Kumari, 2021 IJCRT | Volume 9, Issue 12 December 2021
Last updated
