Re: who are indus people?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
wrote:

> I found it hard to read this reference
> till the last page.
> Maybe there are about 30 sanscrit words,
> the rest is is a drench of muddy speculations.

p7: 3 proper names and 6 other words
p8: 2 proper names and 7 other words
p9: 3 proper names and 7 other words plus 20 others uncategorised
and that doesn't even reach the end of the Para-Munda words.

> Everything is shaky and undocumented :
> page 16
> kâna : "one-eyed"
> why not Latin caecus "blind".

Two reasons. Firstly, the Sanskrit cognates have, as expected, /e:/
for the vowel:

1) _kekara_ 'squint-eyed'
2) _kevala_ 'exclusively one own' (assuming an internal PIE root *kai)

Secondly, note that the word is _ka:n.a_ with a retroflex nasal -
where does that come from in this word?

> The rest is of the same kind.
> Empty assertions with no proof.
> Pseudo-science.

It's a study of apparently non-native words. I wouldn't dismiss it as
pseudo-science.

Richard.