In chapter eight for Kur̠aḷs 1, 2 and 9, Ellis differs from the Latin commentator.³²

In chapter nine (Kur̠aḷ 3), the Latin commentator does not adhere to Parimēlaḷakar, says Ellis. He, however, feels that the latter is better and more correct since the “former implies a selfish consideration.” This he feels is against the doctrine taught in the chapter.³³

Ellis draws our attention to the trends of the language when he says, “This figure is so frequent with the Tamil writers that it may be considered as a phrase of the language.”³⁴ He pays a tribute to Tamil, when he says, “The Tamil, the genius of which is to hint, rather than to define the signification of its words, selects generally a single idea to indicate a class or series.”³⁵ He continues “the Indian tongues exceed beyond comparison those of Europe in minuteness of distinction and strength of hyperbole.”³⁶ “.......... It is the genius of the Tamil and other Indian languages so to express all abstract ideas, those even, in the preference for which they have simple terms.”³⁷

Ellis feels that the tenth chapter cannot be translated to bring out adequately and vividly the meaning of the original. This shows the great difficulties met with during translation and it also indirectly shows us the characteristic peculiarities of Tamil.

Ellis has shown that there is only one instance in the entire Kur̠aḷ where the author has used Sanskrit derivations. He has thereby shown the purity of the language maintained by Tiruvaḷḷuvar in the entire composition.³⁸ In the same chapter Ellis says, “The notion of a plurality of worlds, which Fontenelle has

32. Ibid. Kuṟaḷ 1, P. 281; Kuṟaḷ 2, P. 286; Kuṟaḷ 9, P. 290.

33. Ibid. P. 355.

34. Ibid. P. 77.

35. Ibid. P. 335.

36. Ibid. P. 337.

37. Ibid. P. 354.

38. Ibid. P. 356.