--- In cybalist@..., naga_ganesan@... wrote: > This is not a
surprise.>
> For years, Kalyanaraman is writing how the linguists have
> wrongly formed a language family called Dravidian. In Indology list,
> S. Kalyanaraman wrote in 1995:> "I think I have proved that Burrow
and Emeneau's> work is an aberrant, erroneous construct of a
artificial family; ..."> > He has proceeded to key in the some
available > dictionaries of Indian languages and this's what makes
him> claim that Dravidan linguists' works and DED are
> "aberrant, erroneous construct".> > Well, linguists see thru' all
these.
I hope linguists see through this. If 4000 of the so-called 5200
etyma have IA cognates, how can Burrow and Emeneau claim that they
have reconstructed Dravidian Etyma? What is the rationale for
claiming borrowing from IA > Dravidian or vice versa? Had grammar of
Proto-dravidian been constructed? Working with sounds is one thing
and working with semantics is another.