[tied] Re: Dravidian in Persia?

A point to be considered is (taken to be minor by some writing
in the Net) is that none of these or those who neglect Drav., know
any Dravidian language at all! And, that too none has
expertise in reading old Tamil texts.

Many Sanskritists were originally drawn to it by their
"Aryan" and Indo-Germanic connexions. While knowing Sanskrit,
they attempt to neglect Dravidian substratum in Northern India.

What I have seen is Sanskrit scholars treating Dravidian
and Munda on par with each other. Take a Santali dictionary,
and take Drav. Etym. dictionary. That's it! While Munda
folks are tribal dialects and have no written texts at all,
Dravidian texts stretch back in time for millennia is easily
forgotten.

The poetics of Tamil sangam texts, different from Vedic,
is not yet understood by many.

Regards,
N. Ganesan

--- In cybalist@..., VAgarwalV@... wrote:
> --- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> > The language of the Indus script (or, shall we say, the "lingua
> franca" of the Harappans) may well have been Dravidian,
>
> VA: I have copies of reviews by Renfrew, Frits Staal and George
> Erdosy of Parpola's decipherment attempt. All the three reviews
> amount to saying that Parpola's conclusions are no stronger that his
> starting assumptions. Earlier, Archaeologist B B Lal has rejected
> Parpola's hypothesis (even before he rejected AIT and related
> theories) because of its inconstencies.
>
> In other words, many noted linguists and archaeologists now do not
> find much weight in Parpola's methodology. This is just FYI,
> referneces can be supplied next week when I reach my home.
>
> Best,
>
> Vishal