Re: Proto Vedic Continuity Theory of Bharatiya (Indian) Langauges

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Francesco Brighenti" <frabrig@...>
wrote:

>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003" <smykelkar@...>
> wrote:
>
> > Here I reprdouce a message from Dr. Kalyanaraman on the proposed
> methodology.
> >
> > "[...] Nahali glosses are a > stunning reminder (with 40% Munda,
> 40% indo-aryan and 20% dravidian > words) that there was a
> linguistic area in Bhimbhetka times."
>
>
> The non-Munda, non-Dravidian, non-Indo-Aryan, isolated oldest level
> of Nahali, which comprises some 24% of its vocabulary as per
> Kuiper's estimate, is conveniently not even mentioned in this
> writing. For a correct presentation of the Nahali question see $ 3
> of Prof. Witzel's online paper at
>
> http://users.primushost.com/~india/ejvs/ejvs0501/ejvs0501c.txt
>
> Regards,
> Francesco Brighenti

Please see nahali.doc in the files section. Nahali should be
considered a language integrate with respect to Bharatiya languages.
According to Kuiper:

"It should not be forgotten that it was Indo-Europeanists who began to
study the non-Aryan languages of India, because to them it was quite
evident that a not inconsiderable part of the Sanskrit vocabulary
could not possibly be of IE origin. The preceding list was drawn up
from an Indo-Europeanist's point of viewThe main point is that it
should be recognized that Sanskrit had long been an Indian language
when it made its appearance in historyA language in which
simultaneously Dravidian calques arose and Indo-European laryngeals
were still pronounced (viz. in tanuam, suar) was more progressive and,
at the same time, more archaic than could be imagined a few decades
ago (p. 94)."

M. Kelkar