( RE: message dated 12/14/99 8:56 PM Mountain Standard Time by
Joatsimeo) :
Hi Joatsimeo
This whole posting is a case of mis-communications.
I wrote:
>>He further states that there is less difference between between the
groups he was proposing [Dravidian and Sanskrit] than between Celtic
and Sanskrit.
Joatsimeo wrote:
>-- this is absurdly wrong. The relationship between Celtic and Old
Indic (Sanskrit) is immediately apparent. Dravidian is unrelated to the
Indo-European languages; there are some Dravidian loanwords in
Sanskrit, but that's all.
I write:
That it might be wrong was the reason I used it as an example, and the
reason I was wondering about additional filtering. The point I made, is
the identitical one that you later used to refute what you thought I
was saying. I said I thought the author's statement was suspect
because he relied on words that were not the core words we have been
talking about, instead he relied on many words related to trade.
But you may want to check the site out more thoroughly
(
http://sarasvati.simplenet.com/sitemap1.htm) because HE also said
that many of the word associations (he called them clusters) involved
daily life (which I think does suggest core words). And further, I get
the sense that even the words I find suspect by virtue of the type of
word they are (involving trade etc) you would not find to be real
loanwords, involving the letter changes discrepancies you wrote about.
Remember, the site is suppose to involve a new translation and not rely
upon the older Vedic material.
The point of the site is that there has been a major interpretation of
Indic language document, that pushes Proto-Indic back into India as far
as 2500BC, that (HE contends) throws the exclusion of Dravidic and
Mundo into real question and that (HE contends) reverses the direction
of migration from India to Indo-Aryan locations. Stuff that I would
think would set a traditional IE linguist's teeth on edge.
I wrote
>>But what I did pick up on, was that many of the common/shared words
were with items that either had a trade value
Joatsimeo wrote:
>-- sigh. No, no, no!
I write:
-sigh sigh. yes, Yes, YES, YES!!! (Chat board one-upmanship), See
miscommunications above.
Despite the miscommunications, I am really glad you wrote out the long
example. It was very generous of you to do so. And it greatly
increased my understanding of the core word relationship and
appreciation for the work of linguists thank you.
Warmest regards
Brent