From: Glen Gordon
Message: 7905
Date: 2001-07-16
My current view (which could change at any moment because I'm not terribly knowledgeable
here) is that Munda was present in India before Dravidian, which came to India starting
5000 BCE. I'm tempted by the Munda-AA thing but without information I can't personally
verify. It would make sense that Munda-Indic borrowings are not too common if Dravidian
had successfully overtaken much of the original Munda presence on the subcontinent. Just a
thought.
- gLeN
>From: markodegard@... >Reply-To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com >To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [tied] Munda >Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 14:03:09 -0000 > >I know next to nothing about Munda, but what I've read is intriguing. >There seem to be a set of Mundaisms that came to Indic via Dravidian >first. Munda itself seems to have some very ancient Dravidianisms. >As I recall, however, direct Indic-Munda borrowings are rarer (my >memory or my initial comprehension of what I read may be faulty here, >however). > >It seems there not even sure if Munda is an independent language >family or a branch of another (AustroAsian?). > >The situation is sort of like Hungary, where you get Uralic, IE and >Turkic items all stirred together. > >--- In cybalist@..., "S.Kalyanaraman" wrote: > > Thanks for your kind note, Piotr Gasiorowski. In the absence of an > > etymological dictionary for Munda words and a grammar of proto-Munda > > or proto-Dravidian, it is a tough task indeed. The number of Munda > > words in R.gveda is indeed intriguing as pointed out by Kuiper. > >