[tied] Re: Proto Vedic Continuity Theory of Bharatiya (Indian) Lang

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-
language@...> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard Wordingham" <richard.wordingham@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2005 5:17 PM
> Subject: [tied] Re: Proto Vedic Continuity Theory of Bharatiya

(Indian)

> Langauges
>
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003" <smykelkar@...>

wrote:

> > >
> > > Please refer to the files section for Proto Vedic Continuity
> > > Theory.doc, a document organized into the following sections:
> > >
> > > Part 1: Limitations of Indo-European Linguistics
> > > 1. 'Love' of Sanskrit as a camouflage for evangelism
> > > 2. Unfalsifiable Teach Yourself PIE
> > > 3. Indeterminate laryngeals
> > > 4. Aryan race ideology
> > > 5. Eurocentrism
> > > 6. A fading discipline hangs on to slippery genes
> > >
> > > Part 2: Bharatiya Language Studies
> > > 7. Studies needed to delineate the Indo- in Indo-European
> > > 8. Study of Prakrits from Paleolithic times
> > > 9. The Proto-Vedic Continiuty Theory of Bharatiya Languages
> > >
> > > Thank you for reading!
> >
> > I recommend that those who pay for connections by the minute not
> > bother. Further translation to English is needed.
> >
>
> <snip>
>
> > No discernible evidence is offered for the notion that Dravidian

and

> > Munda should fit within the same family as Germanic and Indian.

I'm

> > not surprised at the lack for Munda - if there were any evidence

a

> > Nostratic affiliation would have been suggested.
> >
> > Richard.
>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> I also read the essay in its entirety; and while I found it quite
> interesting, I was disappointed that it presumed a familiarity

with Bharati

> literature and technical terms that not many of us will have.
>
> The main premise of the essay, it seemed to me, was that nearly

all the

> Bharati languages are related; and this premise, as I understood

it, kept me

> reading. However, like Richard, I was saddened to see that this

premise was

> never developed, let alone proved.

Your suggestion has been noted. Here I reprdouce a meeage from Dr.
Kalyanaraman on the proposed methodology.


"We start with the hypothesis that semantic structures of bharatiya
languages are conservative and have preserved lexemes over
millennia. Some pratibimba are also available in tool names of
chalcolithic times which could be based on tools of paleolithic-
mesolithic-neolithic predecessors.

Hemacandra's des'i_naamamaalaa provides a good start. This is a
lexicon of words NOT found in Samskr.tam. Nahali glosses are a
stunning reminder (with 40% Munda, 40% indo-aryan and 20% dravidian
words) that there was a linguistic area in Bhimbhetka times.
(Nahali -- nagari ! -- is now spoken on banks of River Tapati, not
far from Bhimbhetka). The first step will be to isolate words
relatable to paleolithic cultures with reference to nighantus (fauna
words), stone workings (caves, digging of wells, stone tool names)
and compile them across all bharatiya languages. (Some leads are
available in my Indian Lexicon available on the web). That is, all
archaeologically attested artefacts of paleolithic times should be
listed not only in English but also in des'i words"

M. Kelkar

> It was obviously written by persons who have great knowledge and

love for

> their own culture; and I cannot fault anyone for this in any way.
>
> ***