Re: Which Manansala? (was [tied] a(i)s-)

I wasn't aware of that, but yes, he's Paul Kekai; he's the man who insists that Classical Sanskrit, as well as Middle Indo-Aryan and all the modern Indo-Aryan languages, should not be classified as IE, since represent a "native Dravidian" language with "heavy Austric and Indo-European influence". He also claims that e.g. <dHarma> developed out of <dhamma> rather than the other way round, as the Dravidian Prakrit was "modified somewhat" to make it appear more like (IE) Vedic.

Piotr

----- Original Message -----
From: liberty@...

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 10:47 PM

Subject: Which Manansala? (was [tied] a(i)s-)

Is this Manansala the IndianCivilization list's Paul Kekai Manansala who insisted with me that the terms Europoid and Australoid are syn- onymous and that the Scythians were Altaic and not Iranic? -David --- In cybalist@......, "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@......> wrote: > I've just found out that Binandere, listed among some twenty Austronesian languages by Manansala, is not AN at all -- it's a "Trans-NG" language of Papua New Guinea. Of course Sumerian did not take any loans from present-day Papua New Guinea either. > > Piotr
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.