I am going to request this author to not cite my paper in the future. This is because I don't think he has understood it. Furthermore, I hate to say this, but I don't think he is conducting himself professionally.
However, given that he has chosen to cite my paper, I would like to respond to Mr. Manivannan (the person who cited my paper but done so improperly). My response has two substantive portions:
(1) Note on manner of academic engagement:
Mr. Manivannan claims to have read our paper (and, therefore, implicitly to have understood it).
I do not believe, however, that the author of the paper has done two things required to professionally engage with the paper: firstly, to make an attempt to fully understand the paper itself; and secondly, to make an attempt to either understand the mathematics in a paper or report inability to do so. Here is the requisite section of the paper where Mr. Manivannan has attempted to place this paper in the context of other papers, other proposals, et cetera.
(Simply put: If you do not understand the math, Mr. Manivannan, you should say so. It is okay. It is acceptable to say that you don't understand the math in the paper but that you disagree with it.)
(2) Notes on the points raised:
(a) Mr. Manivannan has not clarified what his actual point of disagreement with my proposal is.
(b) In fact, Mr. Manivannan has not clarified what his actual point of disagreement with any of the other proposals, in fact, is. Calling another scholar's work a random proposal -- and clubbing it with other authors as well -- is rank unprofessionalism. I don't even know whether my proposal should be considered under the category of "printed text" or "random proposal".
(c) There is no indication that Mr. Manivannan has understood any of the mathematics in the paper.
(d) It is to be noted that, one of the sub-proposals in the paper goes as follows: use such characters as "|", "_", et cetera, to introduce foreign sounds. These are already being used in Tamil. So much for lack of conformance with Tamil orthography.
The only thing I can think of at this point is complete disengagement. Let Mr. Manivannan do what he wants, but he needs to start providing some proof that he understood the math.
(Btw, at this point, James Bonilla has this to say: "By talking about a paper you clearly don't understood, Mr. Manivannan, you look like a fool. You have clearly not understood the paper. You are clearly dismissing the paper. God! What a jerk!!" Sorry, but those were James B.'s exact words.)
If Mr. Manivannan so wishes, we can engage on Quora or some platform where a BNBR-type ("Be Nice Be Respectful") norm is enforced by external moderators.