Re: Proto Vedic Continuity Theory of Bharatiya (Indian) Langauges

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Francesco Brighenti" <frabrig@...>
wrote:

>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003" <smykelkar@...> wrote:
>
> > > > Here I reprdouce a message from Dr. Kalyanaraman on the proposed
> methodology.
> > > >
> > > > "[...] 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."
> >
> > Please see nahali.doc in the files section. Nahali should be
> > considered a language integrate with respect to Bharatiya languages.
>
> The thesis proposed here is that there was a 'language continuum'
> or 'linguistic area' in South Asia (viz., 'Bha:rata' according to
> Kalyanaraman & Kelkar's terminology) dating back to Mesolithic times
> (viz., the estimated age of the oldest paintings found in the
> Bhimbetka caves in central India), and that the various strata of the

Does IEL provide a method to delineate the language spoken by people
who created the bhimbhetka cave paintings? What is wrong Mario
Alinei's method of lexical dating for such delineation?

S. Kalyanaraman

> Regards,
> Francesco Brighenti