காரம், கதி, மூடம், சோதி, வேதனை, சண்டாளன், அரவிந்த லோசனன், மாதா பிதுவு, மதுரடோகம், இந்திரஞாலம், மாக வைகுந்தம் ; \vhile none of these twill be discovered in the early Tamil writings. The use of plurals in soir and double plurals in னகள் as inn காண்கின்ற னகள் and of the present tense in my as in 68mBoo is comparatively modern. With regard to the use of my as a particle of present tense, the learned commentator Nacchinarkiniyar observes thus : உண்கிறேனெனக்கிறு 61 60 L G 1684 sem bogoori s so 96610 Quyig. (Tol. II, 204). These were never used by the early Tamil authors anterior to the seventh century A. D.
Philological variations of the above nature in a living language like Tamil afford us the crucial test to determine the respective ages of literary works of different periods ; and yet, this test has often been completely ignored not only by Tamil pandits, but also by the early commentators of Tamil classics.
(2) At the time of our Alvar most of the Puranas had already come into existence and when he speaks of the Saivas, he refers to Linga-Purana by name (IV. X. 5). It is only the Puranas that contain rules for the worship of gods by means of prayers, offerings, and festivals. Nammalvar refers to some of these observances in the following lines:
| ஞானவி Fபிழையாமே பூவில் புகை.பும் விளக்கும் சாந்தமும்நீரும்மலிந்து
மேவித்தொழு மடியாரும் பகவரு மிக்கதுலகே. The above quotation distinctly proves that the observance of puranic rites had been in its full swing, and
