Re: who are indus people?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003" <swatimkelkar@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham" <richard@> wrote:
> > --- 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.

> 6+3+2+7+3+7=28 right about fournet.arnaud's estimate, not counting the
> 20 other uncategorised words.

Yes, but what about the rather obvious one word per paragraph lists on
pp15-18? Uncategorised words also count, as do those discussed in
running text.

> > > 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)

> http://vedabase.net/k/kana

Something weird here. It gives the meaning 'ear' for _ka:n.a_.

> _ka:n.a_ means squint eyed in Marathi and Hindi. n and retroflex n are
> spotaneously altered in Sanskrit without the necessity of their being
> loans from Munda or Dravidian. See for example

> "Spontaneous Cerebrals in Sanskrit
> T. Burrow
> Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of
> London, Vol. 34, No. 3 (1971), pp. 538-559
> This article consists of 22 page(s).

To be investigated. The first page gives the impression that it often
left traces in that the Neogrammatically regular forms also tend to be
around.

What's the current take on the notion that _stha:n.u_ is derived from
*sthalnu? Admittedly that opens up the notion that ka:n.a comes from
something like PIE **kalna or **kWolna. The nearest I can see for
this is _kiNa_ 'corn, callosity' from PIE *kal 'hard' - the semantics
to get _ka:Na_ are not good, and the morphology doesn't look right for
_ka:Na_ either. Does the example of 'cyclops' make *kWl.na 'one-eyed'

> *kr.na > *kin.a plausible? Does the evolution somehow allow for a

vrddhied form _ka:n.a_? It doesn't look right to me.

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

> Tautological! Their non-nativity is based on the nativity of other
> languages and vice versa.

No. It's based on the patterns seen in genetically related languages.
(Can you suggest a plausible mechanism whereby cognates of such
apparently alien words would be preferentially eliminated in
non-Indian languages?)

Richard.