Re: Substrate language which contributed sar

> I see, you are omitting the evidence provided to you and to rest people that Vedic God
> Agni is called Dravida in Vedas
> There has been no seperate Dravida language or seperate
> Dravida entity in the Vedic Age as far as Vedic Hymns are concerned, Dravida is a wrong
> hypothesis originated and imposed on students and common people without proper
> study of historical aspect of Sanskrit in Vedic Age, you should counter argue to
> arguments and evidence provided before jumping to post.

You do not appear to be providing a full argument to counter as much as a half-assed assertion. Extraordinary claims (in this case, the nonexistence of a Dravidian language family, unrelated to Indo-European) require extraordinary evidence.

> In the Rigveda Vedic Rishi explains making of Sanskrit words from the sound made in
> the nature, this one important citation thats completely missed by western intelligentsia,

All languages of the world contain words of onomatopoetic origin. All of them also contain words that are not obviously so. If has been a widely held pre-scientific belief, no dout including this Rishi guy (?), that the former explanation could somehow account for the origin of languages; regardless, any attempts I have seen of to explain the word stocks of languages as purely sound-symbolic in origin have either come up negative, or descended into unfalsifiable pseudoscience. Abandoning any such preassumption, no matter what kind of a perceived authority you might have siding with it, is necessary for understanding the science of etymology.

> Can you and other friends of yours, show what was the Dravida language existing in the
> Vedic Age, You have to put textual and historical evidences of existence

You appear to be thinking that any language which was not written down or otherwise recorded didn't exist. This is obvious nonsense: writing has been unknown during the vast majority of the time humans have known language, and regardless thousands of languages have lived and died alongside for thousands of years. (Or if not, then where from did all the thousands of recorded languages spring into being, upon the dawn of written history in each part of the world?) Absense of proof is not proof of absense.

The default position to hold should be that of inertia: Dravidian languages exist as separate now, therefore they existed as separate earlier, unless some account for their origin can be presented. Pointing out the existence of some number of Indic loanwords in Dravidian does not make up such an account. The task would be to show that the *bulk* of the common Dravidian lexicon and grammar can be plausibly derived from e.g. Sanskrit (or why not, an earlier stage such as Proto-Indo-Iranian). The burden of proof to do this is on your side.

_j.