--- In cybalist@..., MCLSSAA2@... wrote:
> --- In cybalist@..., liberty@... wrote (Re: nakha 'nail' in
> sanskrit):
> > ... Is a Dravidian origin for nakhá- possible if the root is >
>> common
> > Indo-Iranian? Are there any Dravidian loan-words in East-Iranian?
>
> I have read a theory about an Elamite-Dravidian family. If farming
> started in the Middle East, perhaps Dravidian started in Persia and
> spread into India as the language of the first farmers in that
> direction, like with Semitoid in Europe. A Dravidian language
called
> Brahui is still spoken in Baluchistan which is south of Afghanistan.
Also note that Dravidologists do not accept the
Elamite and Dravidian link. Let me post what
Prof. Bh. Krishnamurti wrote about David McAlpiin's theories
from Indology@... archives. - N. Ganesan
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 15:26:35 +0500
Reply-To: Indology <
INDOLOGY@...>
Sender: Indology <
INDOLOGY@...>
From: "Bh. Krishnamurti" <
bhk@...>
Subject: Re: Indo-Aryan invasion
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 11:52 02/03/98 -0500, you wrote:
>McAlpin published his provocative and very interesting study quite
>some time ago and then he himself (if I am not mistaken) appears to
>have disappeared from academic cirlces and nothing more was heard
>from him. In any event, while some linguists are still open to
>considering his line or argument, it is by no means universally
>accepted at all. Does anyone know of any more recent work predicated
>on McAlpin's preliminary investigations? Regrards, Edwin
In my article 'Comparative Dravidian Sstudies since Current Trends
1969' (In For Gordon Fairbanks, ed. by Veneeta z. Acson and Richard
L. Leed,212-231.1985. Honolulu: Univ of Hawaii Press), I made the
following observations on McAlpin's proposal of Proto-Elamo-
Dravidian."...He compares 57 lexical items drawn from a corpus
of 'about 5000 words' of Achaemenid Elamite (640 BC), and constructs
phonological correspondences and a theory of relationship between
Dravidian and Elamite. He even reconstructs Proto-Elamo-Dravidian
(PED). Thhere are 47 correspondences or phonological rules which
account for 57 etymological groups (1)...Many of the rules formulated
by McAlpin lack intrinsic phonetic/phonological motivation and appear
ad hoc, invented to fit the proposed correspondences; e.g. PED i,e >
0 (Elamite) when followed by t, n, which are again followed by a: but
these remain undisturbed in Dravidian (1974:93). How does a language
develop that kind of sound change? This rule was dropped a few years
later, because the etymologies were abandoned (1979:184). (2) he set
up retroflexes as an innovation in Dravdian resulting from PED *rt
(94). Later he abandoned this rule and set up retrofexes and dentals
for PED and said that Elamite merged the retroflexes with dentals
(1979, chart on 184-5)....."But, it is puzzling that in the body of
the article he referes to the splitting of PED dentals into dentals
and post-dentals..(1979:176). His 1981 book was not yet published ;
so I took three of his papers for review in the paper that I prepared
in Dec. 1980. I was able to show a lot of adhocism in his etymologies
as well as correspondences. Dravidian scholars have not accepted
McAlpin's proposal of PED. His corpus of 640BC (corresponding to Pre-
Tamil period) does not favourably compare with Proto-Dravidian,
approximately of 3000 BC.
Regards, Bh.K.
end
Bh. Krishnamurti
H.No. 12-13-1233, "Bhaarati"
Street No.9, Tarnaka
Hyderabad 500 017, A.P.
India
Telephone (R)(40)701 9665
E-mail: <
bhk@...>