to include all alphabets (Sanskrit etc.). He wishes to use ulaku in its plural form (of worlds). Here Ellis has shown that instances of “such double application” are common in Tamil.²⁵ Ellis has vividly comprehended Parimēlal̠akar’s commentary on the Kur̠aḷ.

Ellis has also corrected the Latin commentator. In the 7th chapter of the Kur̠aḷ, he points out that the word uvamai should be considered as an abstract noun. He quotes the Latin commentator without giving any of his remarks on this.²⁶ Ellis has corrected this commentator’s error of making Akasthiyar as Akalyā’s husband.²⁷ He adds that the Latin commentator’s explanation is not entirely adequate.²⁸

Ellis says, that the third Kur̠aḷ in the 4th chapter has been correctly translated by the Latin commentator. He has pointed out that this interpretation tallies with that of Viramāmun̠i²⁹ and it “corresponds exactly to the expression of the original.” On this, one may hazard a guess that Beschi was the Latin commentator but we cannot assert it.

The term ākulam literally means “a loud turbulent noise.” Ellis wishes to interpret it to mean “ostentation or hypocrisy.” This new interpretation of the term enriches the significance of that particular Kur̠aḷ.

Despite frequently conceding and quoting from Parimēlalakar,³⁰ Ellis differs from him in his interpretation of verse 5 in chapter six. According to Ellis, the Latin commentator has also not adequately interpreted this verse. Ellis himself gives it a novel interpretation.³¹

25. Ibid. P. 2.

26. Ibid. P. 73.

27. Ibid. P. 77, 78.

28. Ibid. P. 85.

29. Ibid. P. 106.

30. Ibid. P. 6.

31. Ibid. P. 226.