| Revision as of 05:56, 9 September 2004 editRrjanbiah (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,055 edits Can you provide the concrete proof for your counter argument. If so, we can fix it up.← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:50, 9 September 2004 edit undoSundar (talk | contribs)Administrators8,909 edits commit myselfNext edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| :Can you provide the concrete proof for your counter argument. If so, we can fix it up. --] 05:56, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC) | :Can you provide the concrete proof for your counter argument. If so, we can fix it up. --] 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. -- ] 14:50, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:50, 9 September 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)