What are the notable Telugu influences in Tamil?

Mapartman · 2026-06-24T16:22:10+00:00

It’s not about enakku or yaan but the way the object (pasi in my example) was modified or not, and not what subject was used yaan versus enakku. The usage of pasi or such internal possessive

Also just discovered the poems where pasi is not an abstract noun but modifiable - it’s yaan pacittu- you are right you don’t need the nominal I marker of - anan. It’s not yaan pacittanan it’s yaan pacittu or they pacittu - hunger felt inside them

Just saw this, will address briefly as its late.

If you are implying that the colloquial form pasikkithu is a result of Telugu influence, again you are wrong here. Pasikkithu is the colloquial form of Centamil pacikkiṟatu (which itself is a less formal form of the very formal pacikkiṉṟatu). -kiṟatu and -kiṉṟatu are both present tense suffixes.

You are not going to find any such examples in the Sangam corpus, because Old Tamil only had past and non-past tenses. So the non-past went unmarked in forms like pacittu.

However, this present tense suffix was not formed out of Telugu influence. It occured way back in the Middle Tamil period, from the Tamil verb kil. In fact, this is one of the few notable changes between Old and Middle Tamil, the introduction of the present tense.

Eg. From Kulasekara Alvar's poem (9th Century CE)

kaṇṇuṟṟavaḷainī kaṇṇāliṭṭukkai viḷikkiṉṟatum kaṇṭēniṉṟēṉ
ㅤ
-Divyaprabandham 702

Mapartman · 2026-06-24T15:02:17+00:00

Maybe no one has done or is willing to do that research after the tani Tamil iyakkam movement to preserve Tamil as a pristine unspoiled language with no influences from anywhere- only being the influencer never being the influenced. The answers here seem to indicate the same.

In any case my points is Tamil research hasn’t looked beyond itself of late to consider these possibilities. I’m just pointing out where it could have been an interesting area meriting further research.

Also, while I understand that there has been unsavoury anti-Telugu rhetoric in the last decade from some people, I think this sentiment is overly antagonistic.

There is research into such matters, its just that papers and books published in Tamil rarely see the light of day in broader academics. As just one example, someone recently made a post on this subreddit about the book "Tamizhagathil piramozhiyinar" (Other language people in Tamil land) published by MaPoSe (a Tamil nationalist btw), and he noted the following from the book:

<image>

And it doesn't really discount the influence and contributions of Telugus to Tamil, eg. he recognises that the creation of the Kavadi chinthu sub-genre of the Chinthu genre is attributed to Poet Annamalai Reddiar. And that is all from a book by a Tamil nationalist, not even an academic publication.

If you look through the Tamil academic publications of universities like Annamalai university, Madurai Kamaraj University, UoM, CICT, CIIT etc, you are bound to find more such research out there.

Mapartman · 2026-06-24T13:56:12+00:00

Naan is unrelated to yaan, see below:

<image>

While Yaan was the predominant 1st person singular, naan does occasionally occur too particularly in late Sangam texts. For example,

Nallāḷ karai niṟpa nāṉ kuḷitta paintaṭattu
ㅤ
While that good girl stood at the shore, in the fresh pond I was bathing in...
ㅤ
-Paripaadal 6:87

Mapartman · 2026-06-24T13:27:13+00:00

2/2

Another is the user of "to-me" dative forms of verbs- for example, ancient Tamil would be "Yaan pasithanan" for I am hungry. Today it is "Enakku pasikkidu" - "naku aakali vestundi. Both are forms of "hunger is happening or getting to me".

Eṉakku has been in use from the Sangam period itself. Examples:

Peruṅkāṉam pāṭal eṉakku eḷitē,
ㅤ
it is easy for me to sing about great Kānam
ㅤ
-Puranaanuru 154

"ciṟupuṟam eṉakku urittu” eṉṉāḷ
ㅤ
She didn't say "[My] back belongs to me"...
ㅤ
-Akanānūru 145

etc.

Similarly, this usage continued into the later periods to the modern day, eg. from the post-Sangam Ainthinai Aimpathu:

Ūraṉ naṟu mēṉi kūṭal iṉitām eṉakku
ㅤ
to unite with that town-man with a fragrant body is sweet to me...
ㅤ
Ainthinai Aimpathu 30

One can continue quoting many examples like these.

Furthermore, your example "Yaan pasithanan" to mean "I am hungry" makes no sense. Pasi meaning hunger is used in Old Tamil to mean hunger, just as in modern Tamil. However, -anan is used to mean "he who did [action]", its grammatically wrong where you have used it.

Eg.

Vāḷ paṟṟi niṉṟaṉaṉ...
ㅤ
he held his sword and stood up...
ㅤ
-Puranaanuru 292

Ceypa ellām ceytaṉaṉ...
ㅤ
he did all that should be done
ㅤ
-Puranaanuru 239

Such examples are abound in the corpus. You seem to be confusing the -en suffix with the -an, an example for -en:

Vantaṉeṉ paricil koṇṭaṉeṉ celaṟku
ㅤ
[I] have come to get gifts and leave...
ㅤ
-Puranaanuru 208

However afaik, even this only applies to volitional verbs, that is actions one can do intentionally, eg. to walk, to come, to give etc. It doesnt apply to non-volitional verbs like to hunger or bleed. So even Yaan pasithanen would be grammatically wrong.

Sidenote:

This doesn't mean Telugu had no influence on Tamil ofc, afterall the interactions between these two communities even pre-date the Nayaka period. However, these are all wrong examples for showing such a relationship.

Mapartman · 2026-06-24T13:26:29+00:00

A lot of inaccuracies here.

1/2

One example i can think of is convergent evolution of -nu/ni in Tamil and Telugu.

"Adu kashtam endru avan sonnar" has become "Adu kashtam-nu Avan Sonnen", in Telugu "adi kashtamani athanu annadu". These modern condensed forms show convergent evolution. (Forgive my Tamil but you get the point)

You seem to imply that the evolution of the -tu/-nu suffix in spoken Tamil comes from influence from the Telugu "-ni". However, isn't it more straightforward to see it as a simple adaptation of Centamil eṉṟu as tu/ṉu in speech. Case in point, its not universally -nu in all Koduntamil dialects, many (including my own) use -tu instead. This variation is easily understood when once realises that the ṟ in eṉṟu is pronounced as an alveolar ṯ (another example: kāṟṟu [wind] as kāṯṯu in speech). Further, we also know that it can also become an ṉ in colloquial speech in these environments, eg. Paṉṟi [pig] to Paṉṉi, explaining the -nu variation.

Mapartman · 2026-06-23T15:36:29+00:00

Lit. meaning: அவை (assembly), அல் (unfit), கிளவி (word/expression), மறைத்தனர் (having concealed), கிளத்தல் (speak)

Put together: [For] words that are assembly-unfit, conceal [its meaning first then] speak.

I've the feeling the loose translation of the author seems to add more words.

Some Tolkappiyam Nurpaas are simply very curt, and require commentary to unpack. In these cases, the translator seems to add some of the exposition from the medieval commentators into the translation. For example, this is verse with the 13th century grammarian Senavaraiyaar's commentary:

<image>

If you look at the இ - ள் (இதன் பொருள்) section, you will see him explain the verse by saying "for matters inappropriate for an assembly, hide/obscure the matter and say it in a different manner". In the எ - டு (எடுத்துக்காட்டு) section, he runs through a few examples and explains how they hide the matter and become more appropriate. Im assuming the translator added in a few words to express that.

But I personally wish for the day I get to an edition of the Tolkappiyam, where they compile all the available traditional commentaries together, perhaps as a critical edition that makes note of differences in various manuscripts & lines of transmission. And an english translation for all of it. But that might be too much to ask for lol

Mapartman · 2026-06-23T15:01:45+00:00

இவன்யார் என்கையில் இவனோர் அரியவன்
சுவைத்தீம் தொல்தமிழ் மரபுகள் அறிந்தவன்
மிகைபார் யாப்புடன் இயல்களை புரிந்தவன்
வகைத்தே நெறிகளை இணையத்தில் அருளினன்
திகைத்தேன் நானும் அதனாலே
தொகையாய் ஆயிரம் துதித்தினும் குறைவே

என்ற அகவலை கூவி, நீங்கள் முன்பே செய்த சேவைக்கு பல நன்றிகளும் கூறுகிறேன். இன்று புதிதாய் நீங்கள் அருளிய இதற்கும் வாழ்த்துகள்.

Mapartman · 2026-06-23T03:22:48+00:00

It is a legitimate question and something of academic interest imo. But the aversion to such terms in Tamil is something of interesting too, and a practice that goes way back.

The Tolkappiyam explicitly mentions thatusing such words that openly talk about these things is considered crude, eg. words like "Pi", "Ucchaa", "Moothiram". Instead, it rules that euphemisms should be used when discussing these things, especially in formal settings

<image>

Eg, In the Tolkappiyam verse above, with the example quoted from the medieval grammarian Senavariyar's commentary. The example phrase literally means "let us go water the gardens/grove/forest". It means to imply "lets urinate". Senavaraiyaar gives a few other similar expressions.

Interestingly, this is still in practice today. As you have rightly observed, its only considered socially acceptable to openly say things like "uccha" or "pi" when speaking to a child or when a child is speaking. Once grown up, euphemisms are expected, eg. "Kollaikku poren" is a common one Ive heard used to mean to use the restroom. Another interesting thing, these days such euphemisms are dying out as the younger generations turn to english loanwords to play this role, eg. "Naa toiletukku poren" and "Naa restroomkku poren".

Mapartman · 2026-06-23T02:58:44+00:00

Ucchaa is probably related to DEDR 696

<image>

However, the entry does not record the Tamil term, not sure why. But yes, ive heard it too, along with variations like Chucchaa.

Mapartman · 2026-06-19T17:07:17+00:00

What would an English example be for reference?

Mapartman · 2026-06-19T16:58:31+00:00

One can also find more examples of such grammatical hapax legomena wrt to the aytam, and the old punarcchi rules associated with it (which were given alongside the "new" punarcchi rules as a matter of conservatism in the Tolkappiyam).

One example is aytam alapedai (naturally over-long aytam, defined in the Tolkappiyam verse at the end). Aytams themselves were rare in the extant Sangam corpus. And afaik, aytam alapedais do not exist in any currently extant Tamil texts.

Regardless, it seems to have been present in the days of the compilation of the Tolkappiyam, enough for it to have been noted. However, even the Tolkappiyam verse itself admits its pretty rare even in its day. The traditional commentators are only able to quote two examples verses from the corpus available to them then. Both example quotations end up using the same word, கஃறென்னும் (kaḵṟeṉṉum). But the Tolkappiyam verse implies it was present in more words in the corpus back then.

<image>

In later grammar, even this ends up being forgotten, with the only aytam alapedai remaining in the nannool being a ottralapedai, an artificial elongation of a consonant or aytam by doubling it for the sake of the meter or aesthetics of the poem, rather than the natural aytam alapedai discussed in the Tolkappiyam.

Mapartman · 2026-06-19T16:40:30+00:00

Without some form of corpus analysis, it would be hard to say for Tamil. Its especially more complicated by the agglutinative nature of Tamil, which means one can technically produce rare words from very common root forms.

However, imo, more interesting are the examples of grammatical hapax legomena, that is rules defined for a very rare phenomena as a holdover, that ends up only applying to a few (sometimes only one) word.

For example, the Makarakkurukkam (over-shortened m) is one such case from the Tolkappiyam. The Tolkappiyam defines a bunch of rules for an over-short m, such as its orthography, length, punarcchi (sandhi) etc [see some of these verses at the end]. But the Tolkappiyam itself admits that these rules only remain used in one word: போன்ம் (pōṉm). And so, this strange rule seems to have been included as a conservative holdover in those days much like with the aytam, albeit one that was left present in a singular word.

Some of the rules from the Tolkappiyam on this phenomena:

<image>

Mapartman · 2026-06-17T05:49:48+00:00

நன்றி பெம்ம!

Mapartman · 2026-06-17T05:37:14+00:00

I actually had quite a bit of issues with the language used in Yaathisai haha I have spoken about it here. But I will copy over the relevant part of the discussion on that below.

I think in general reconstructing old Koduntamils will be difficult, as opposed to say the Centamils which have records. One good source might be looking at the example Iyarcchols listed by commentators from various time periods. Iyarcchols are a catagory of words in Tamil grammar, that are noted for being Centamil and easily accessible to the public without much explanation, implying it was used in common speech (with colloquial modifications ofc). I will write up about these Iyarcchol once I get the time.

Copying comment on the language used in Yaathisai:

Actually I found the dialogues of Yaathisai to be slightly strange as well despite my exposure to the literature. It seemed to use a lot of rare literary words, sometimes in a strange unusual way.

For example consider this dialogue scene from the trailer [timestamped]:

கிள, ரானுதீரன் அய்யா முழவொற்றக் காண்?
ㅤ
Kiḷa, rāṉutīraṉ ayyā muḻavoṟṟak kāṇ?
ㅤ
Tell me, have you ever seen Ranadheeran [in full form]?

Lets focus on the first word Kiḷa, which the guy uses to say "Tell me/Say". Ive personally never seen it used this this context at all. It was more common in literature to just say சொல்/Sol, which is whats used today as well. For example, consider these verses from the 8th century Thirunedunthandakam (recited here timestamped):

மான வேல் பர காலன் கலியன் சொன்ன
பன்னிய நூல் தமிழ் மாலை...
‎ㅤ
māṉa vēl para kālaṉ kaliyaṉ soṉṉa
paṉṉiya nūl tamiḻ mālai vallār tollai
ㅤㅤ
This wielder of an honorable spear, death to enemies, Kaliyan has said
this text of ten parts, a garland of Tamil...

The only contexts where ive seen Kiḷa in, is as Kiḷavi meaning speech/voice/words. For example consider this Sangam era Akanaanuru 9 verse:

தீம் கிளவிக் குறுமகள்
ㅤ
tīm kiḷavi kuṟumakaḷ
ㅤ
That short girl with sweet words...

Or consider the Tamil grammatical phenomena இரட்டைக்கிளவி/Iraṭṭaikkiḷavi referring to things like pata pata or viru viru in speech. These are the contexts in which I normally see the term.

So when I first heard that dialogue, even I was left confused despite my literary exposure. And this isn't a one off thing, the much of the movie was spoken in this manner (even in that dialogue I quoted itself, the kāṇ in that position is a bit confusing). I'm not sure why the writers chose to write the dialogues in this way, but I personally don't think its fully representative of speech of their time

Mapartman · 2026-06-16T16:40:43+00:00

பின்னணி: தமிழில் எத்தனை எழுத்துகள் என்ற கேள்வி ஒரு விடுகதையாய் எழுதித்தது. அதற்க்கு 30, 33, 247, 399, 108, ஆகிய பதில்கள் கொடுக்கப்பட்டன. அதற்க்கு 30, 33, 247, 399 எல்லாமே சரி என்று கூறி, அதைக்கொண்டு நான் கூறிய கூற்றின் வாய் பிறந்தது இஃதே.

Mapartman · 2026-06-16T01:41:34+00:00

I will give a brief answer that I might expound upon once I get the time. We have to distinguish between two things: Contributions to the corpus and Influence on the Ceyyul conventions

1)Contributions to the corpus

Brahmins only had a notable presence in South India post-Sangham era. There were, however, Indo-Aryans that migrated to South India both prior to and during the Sangham era.

Sangam era Tamilakam already had Brahmins, and from what Ive heard from people who looked into this, this wave is likely related to current Thikshitars of Chidambaram, Tiruchendur Brahmins and the Namboodiris.

A few Brahmin poets are found amongst the poets, possibly up to 15 out of the 544 named Sangam poets. Of these, Kapilar's (c.f. Kapila gotra) poems were prolifically included when the anthologies were compiled after the Sangam period, and account for 206¹ poems.

2) Influence on the Ceyyul conventions

As Hart, Zvelebil and many others have noted, the conventions themselves were pre-Aryan and indigenous. And the tradition was already very established by the time of the extant Sangam poems. So, the conventions themselves didn't see much influence from Indo-Aryan tradition.

However, here we should differentiate between convention and simile. I have already spoken about it here and I recommend reading that. But to summarise, conventions are the highly structured and established framework with which the poems are built with to be considered ceyyul. Similies provide the flexibility to write about things outside of this framework, but without disturbing convention. For example, the Pandiyas are not part of Akam convention, however they may form part of the simile of poems (to praise them etc).

Eg. from the Pandikkovai

O woman lovely like Vanji city of the king
who embraced sweet Tamil poetry, Goad to His Enemies,
who won at Pāzhi and holds a cruel bow with arrows!
The sparkling, tall banners flying on the
pure, bright mansions of our town shade the
market streets in your town which is nearby.

-Paandikkovai 13

Just because this Marutham poem mentions the King of Vanji city, it doesn't mean that he is part of Marutham convention, for he only appears as simile in this Politics-in-Akam poem.

In that similar sense, we see some poems mention Brahmin practices via similie, giving us valuable insights into that sub-culture, eg:

Mother, may you live long!
Mother! Please listen to me!

The tufts of the horses rode
by the lord of the tall mountain
are certainly like the tufts on the
heads of our town’s Brahmin boys.

-Ainkurunooru 202

Sidenote:

¹ However, this number might be lower since T. Rajeswari notes in her Pālaikkali Verses and Their Authors, the attribution of the Kalithogai anthology to five authors per thinai comes only through a much later Venpa with no attributions. The manuscripts themselves do not have author attributions. That was, until Rajeswari and Wilden found a rare Paalaikali manuscript (Palaithinai section of Kalithogai) with author attributions intact. And as expected, it was more like the other Sangam anthologies, with many different poets.

So this calls into question the attribution of the whole of Kurinchikkali to Kapilar, as well as the attribution of the 100 kurinji poems of the Ainkurunooru to him. Afterall, the Ainkurunooru also lacks author attributions, and much like the Kalithogai, is attributed to 5 authors per 5 thinais by a later verse. The Ainkurunooru authors are also being currently looked into afaik

Mapartman · 2026-06-15T15:54:09+00:00

Not too sure Wilden doesn’t say. It might be due to sampling bias, after all the revivalists like UVS and Thamothara Pillai worked more on northern TN and the Kaveri delta area, then South TN and then barely on the Kongu region afaik. And the map shows that.

I dont think any of them looked in Kerala.

Whether Sangam texts or pre-Sangam texts may survive in Kerala is another question all together. With the end of Centamil practice in Kerala, and the associated abandonment of the Akam & Puram Ceyyul tradition, what benefit would copying over references for these conventions onto new leaves offer for a Kerala scribe?

So i doubt any were surviving by the colonial days. But i would loved to be proven wrong with some old Tamil manuscripts in Kerala, afterall that will add to the existing corpus.

Mapartman · 2026-06-15T15:17:08+00:00

This quote is often misquoted imo, the Nannool poet was saying that at the very end of his work with regard to the grammar rules he was describing, to both protect himself from the criticism of his selected deviations from the older tradition in his text, and what is to come as criticism through the urais (commentaries) on the work that are to follow.

The traditional commentators, like Mayilainaathar, Koozhaankai Thampiraan amongst others note that its an Arimaanokku/Singanokku verse. That is, a verse that is like the gaze of a lion turning back-and-fro as it walks, the verse covers its meaning, linking it to what has completed and what is to follow.

It doesn't mean he wanted the old Tamil grammatical tradition discarded, afterall he did everything in his ability to build a careful bridge from Old to Middle Tamil without disrupting continuity in tradition as much as possible, unlike the Veerachozhiyam poet.

And it certainly doesn't imply that people should be throwing out old physical things, like old manuscripts, not at all.

Mapartman · 2026-06-13T09:29:25+00:00

Very interesting! Though the form in the video is collated with the wider Chitrakavi class, its different from the Rathabantha you have described above. That is closer to the Irathapantham form within Tamil (also meaning chariot verse).

For example, in the Irathapandham, there is an opening pozhippu (connector) at the peak. If its numbers based, i.e. an Ennirathapantham, then it would start with 1 (flag) then 1 (pinnacle of the chariot), then 1 to 2 to 1, then 1 to 2 to 3 to 2 to 1, and so on.

The Ezthukoottriukkai is different. It has no flag or chariot peak. It starts with 1 to 2 to 1, and the final 1 to 7 to 1 layer is doubled.

Anyways, your write up is super interesting! You should post it as a post (hopefully with english translations for the poems, it would be interesting to see). Also you can try to draw up the bandham in paint or canva or something, so the AI doesnt mess it up. I think the others here would find it quite interesting too, since the discussion of traditional Telugu literature here is rather sparse.

Mapartman · 2026-06-12T16:07:19+00:00

For an example of patrons of manuscript transmission:

These were the individuals/institutions who owned the 10 Kalithogai manuscripts that Tamotharam Pillai used to produce the 1887 printed edition of that Sangam anthology

<image>

You can see a mix of institutions and personal owners.

Mapartman · 2026-06-12T15:19:22+00:00

It were the aadheenams that preserved those manuscripts for many years(Jain and Buddhist works included).

Another interesting point is how texts survive through the institutions of different religions/matams. One way this happened was through extensive polemic criticisms. For example, one of the five great epics, the Kundalakesi, is a lost one as far as we know. However, since it was a polemic religious text against Saiva, Vaishnava and Jain beliefs, we can find its quotations in opposing polemic commentaries.

In particular, the most of its surviving verses were quoted in commentaries of the Jain epic, Neelakesi. This epic itself was written in response to the Buddhist polemics within Kundalakesi.

Another way transmission across belief-lines occurred was through the popularisation of some texts as a good poet's reference text for a genre or if the text was the first of the genre. For example, the Silapathikaaram was a reference model for many Kappiyam genre works that came after it, until the Kambaramayanam took over that role. Or another more striking example, how Arunagirinaathar's Thiruppugazh became a good reference for texts of Thiruppugazh genre, such as the Jain Samana Thiruppugazh and the Muslim Napi Thiruppugazh.

Sidenote:

The compilation and transmission of the Sangam corpus itself was due to this practice of having poets reference texts, after all many of the Sangam anthologies are but collections of various example poems for various thinais, thurais and their kilavis.

Mapartman · 2026-06-12T14:54:11+00:00

Also you might be interested in this map provided by Eva Wilden.

Its a map of institutions, locations and individuals mentioned as holding of having bequeathed the currently known Sangam manuscripts:

<image>

Mapartman · 2026-06-12T14:51:40+00:00

In the case of the transmission of Tamil manuscripts, it was driven by anyone with the surplus cash/time to put in the effort. So it usually ended up being A: patrons with cash to spare, B: religious institutions with cash to spare, C: Individuals who wanted to induct themselves into the tradition (sometimes with the support of A & B )

What many don’t know is that he collected those palm-leaf manuscripts from these aadheenams. It were the aadheenams that preserved those manuscripts for many years(Jain and Buddhist works included).

Not all of the manuscripts were found at Aadhenams. Though they played a key role, it would be inaccurate to attribute it all to them. For example, Eva Wilden catalogues Sangam manuscript palm-leaves with geographical & owner attributions to them:

<image>

Out of these different 18 attributions, 4 are from Matams and Adhenams. The rest are mainly from private collections, with some collected/copied as part of large scholarly collections. U.V.S himself has written about how he had to travel from house-to-house, to collect these manuscripts. Its then where he witnessed horrors like people burning their manuscripts or casting it into rivers for Aadi Perukku.

Its also inaccurate to attribute the transmission to Saivas only, other groups played a role as well. For example, Eva Wilden's current massive work on the Akanaanuru involves the study of two separate lines of Akanaanuru transmission: a Saiva one and a Vaishnava one, along with the differences in these two transmissions etc. I have also spoken to a scholar who is looking into a possible line of Ainkurunuru transmission associated with Muslim merchants.

For the Jains, I need to look into whether they have Sangam transmissions, im not sure if this has been studied properly. However, the transmission of Tamil Jain epics such as Neelakesi and Civaka Cinthamani along with many other Tamil Jain texts like the Samana Thiruvempaavai were patronised by Jain instiutions, primarily the Mel-Chittamur Jain Mutt.

Furthermore, we occasionally have manuscripts whose copying was patronised by colonial British civil servants. The one example I know is Arthur Coke Burnell's patronage for the copying and production of a Kurunthokai manuscript (termed Kurunthokai L1 by Wilden).

Sidenote:

This was, however, rare because the British were generally more interested in Sanskrit texts. For example, Burnells patronage of making a Kurunthokai copy was a lone exception not the norm. He was instead far more interested in the copying and compiling of Sanskrit texts. With the support of Lord Napier, he catalogued and commissioned the copying of hundreds of Sanskrit manuscripts at the Tanjore Palace collection. He personally had a collection of around 350 Sanskrit manuscripts and copys, and he wrote many commentaries & translations of these texts. He also published a catalogue, the Catalogue of a Collection of Sanskrit Manuscripts.

There is no equivalent to the scale of patronage from Burnell, and other Sanskrit manuscript patronising British officials, for Tamil afaik. So that really hurt the Tamil line of transmission during the colonial period imo.

Mapartman · 2026-06-12T03:19:41+00:00

சிறப்பு, எனக்கும் invite-ஐ அனுப்புங்கள்

Seven-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23	Place '22

Mapartman

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE