mark ா for ā were confused since both the diacritics were identical. Beschi says that some people “to distinguish them, write ா, when the figure expresses ā long; but when it is to be taken for ‘ra’, they...... slightly bend up the anterior stroke and write ர.”¹¹ From the above sentence it is evident that this mark used to distinguish between the two was not introduced by Beschi.

From Beschi’s remarks it is obvious that certain ways did exist to distinguish between ē and ō long from e and o short; only he devised “another and easier way” to distinguish them.¹² It is not apparent from his writings whether the method devised by him was for vowel consonants (the Kompu system) or for the long and short vowels e and o. He has not precisely shown how the new way was used to differentiate between the long and short vowels. The use of the “Kompu” system however has been clearly shown.¹³ He further adds that this new introduction was approved and adopted by the natives. In the light of these facts, we realise that Beschi contributed to the development of Tamil orthography.

Beschi has tried to analyse the writing system of the vowel consonants and to show the way to learn them easily. The letters which do not fall under analogy have been pointed out.¹⁴ This may help the future grammarian, who may embark on a script reform.

3. PHONOLOGY

Caldwell makes an analysis of the peculiarities of the Tamil alphabet. He says 1)...... “The Tamil alphabet possesses separate characters for long and short e, and for long and short o. 2) “Tamil has no characters corresponding to the liquid semi-vowels ṛi and lṛi....... Much use is made of nasals in Tamil; but those nasals are firm, decided sounds. n is the natural sound of the Tamil nasal.... 3) “The Tamil alphabet has nothing to

11. B. K. T.; Rule 3 division (2)

12. Ibid.

13. Ibid.

14. Ibid. division (8)