Except the Rev. J.S.Chandler, who remained
in office only for a short period, the members of the editorial staff
never visited or sent agents to the various artisans and workmen, for
collecting technical terms and ascertaining their meanings and entrusted
the work entirely to the Literary Associates and Honorary Referees, who
were after all only honorary workers. Hence, many names of tools and instruments
are not found in the Lexicon. e.g. uru-dayaram, kattiyaram, ittiyaram,
pvaram, pondaram, muaram,
mudukaram, etc., the different kinds of file used in carpentry.
Of the terms relating to castes, sub-castes,
social customs and ceremonies, children's games, plants and insects, ete.,
there are hundreds unknown to the Lexicon.
The work of the Lexicon, with the exception
of the Rev. J.S. Chandler, has been supervised, guided and executed by
Sanskritists. The editor, Mr. Vaiyapuri Pillai, though a Tamilian, was
not a genuine lover of Tamil, and an adherent of the orthodox school.
His dating of Tolkppiyam to the early centuries
of the Christian era, was in keeping with his habit of post-dating of
all early Tamil classics. His definition of uriccol, iyacol,
tiriol and tiaiccol
are wrong and misleading. He was not able to construe a simple phrase
viippatr
occurring in the Tolkppiyar utra.
Moipporu
kraam
viippatt
(Tol.877)
He has mis-interpreted this sutra as, Tolkppiyar
only says that the origin of words is beyond ascertainment. Tolkappiyar
has never said so. Viippatt
means will not be clear at a glance. The editor has evidently ignored
the modifying adverb viippu in his interpretation.
There is as much difference between t
and viippatt
as between cannot talk and cannot fluently talk, Even at this stage,
the ascertainment of the orgin of words is possible in the case of more
than 50% and it must have been more so at the time of Tolkppiyar
who seems to have flourished in the 7th century B.C.
The
origin of pudalai, snake-gourd, which is erroneously derived from palik,
by reverse process, is as follows:
|