From: Francesco Brighenti
> It is said Telugu people are said to be of Dravidian originThis isn't merely "said": it is _certain_. Telugu is, under all
> and so are the Indus valley people.That the Indus people(s) were Dravidian speakers is, on the
> While I do not believe in this classification, I believe that bothWhy so (see above)? You are -- perhaps inadvertently -- merely
> Indus people and Telugu people belong to the same classification,
> what ever it is.
> The reasons are given in my earlier message.In your earlier message you had suggested that the Indus Valley folk
> There is a language called Brahui in Balucistan. It closelyIn the same post you had also written:
> resembles Tamil but it is not a Dravidian langauge. It is a Dardic
> language. Similarly, in the same belt, the Kashmiri is a Dardic
> language. The Indus people lived some where in between or at least
> very close to these two places -- Balucistan and Kashmir. Then,
> there is a reasonable possibility that they should be speaking
> a Dardic language too and it is more likely that they should be
> speaking a language which has some characteristics of Dravidian
> language -- since Balucistan is nearby...
> I have argued and perhaps, without much opposition, that thePaisachi, a probably artificial (and only literary?) Middle Indo-
> language of Paisaci (a forerunner of Prakrit Andhra) has these
> characteristics. So, it is quite likely that the Andhras who were
> speaking Prakrit Andhra were residing in Indus valley.
> On the other hand, it is also possible that Indus valleyWhat do you mean by "Jain Yaksha" civilization?
> civilization is a Jain Yaksha civilization.