Hi Francesco,
thank you for the mail. I specifically thank you for patiently
reading my earlier message and putting it in a better perspective.
I agree that my theory is somewhat on shaky grounds but then you
should remember that I am not a linguistic professional but an
amateurish historian studying into the vedic and other ancient
histories of India.
On the other hand, I do not think my theory is very far fetched. I
try to answer your points parawise:
>This isn't merely "said": it is _certain_. Telugu is, under all
aspects, a Dravidian language.
I am not a linguistic but my mother tongue is Telugu. We share more
shades of Sanskrit than Tamil. The grammar of Telugu directly
follows that of Sanskrit. I am not convinced that Telugu is a
Dravidian language. In fact, it appears that the language is more
ancient than Tamil.
>That the Indus people(s) were Dravidian speakers is, on the
>contrary, just one theory among many which is, moreover, not
>upported by the most recent studies on the substrate (= non-IE)
>words found in the earliest layers of the Rgveda. Actually, to date
>nobody knows which language(s) the Indus people spoke.
Exactly. Hence, the hypothesis that it could be belonging to the
Dardic language sharing the characteristics of Telugu. In my
original message, I have tried to create a system of how it relates
to Telugu.
>y so (see above)? You are -- perhaps inadvertently -- merely
>uggesting that the Indus people(s) were Dravidian speakers, for
>elugu _is_ a Dravidian language.
What I have really tried to say that what ever classification you
are making, both Telugu and Indus language seem to be falling on the
same side of the fence, especially since Indus language is yet to be
correctly deciphered.
> your earlier message you had suggested that the Indus Valley folk
>nd the Brahuis spoke/speak a Dardic language with Dravidian
>fluences!
Exactly.
>aisachi, a probably artificial (and only literary?) Middle Indo-
>Aryan language of classical India for the reconstruction of which
>only little little evidence has survived, may be a "forerunner of
>Prakrit Andhra" (a Middle Indo-Aryan language the kings of the
>Satavahana dynasty of the ancient Deccan used in their
>inscriptions), but this doesn't mean the common people of present
>Andhra Pradesh -- the Satavahanas' homeland -- did not speak Old
>Telugu, a _Dravidian_ language! The oldest Prakrit inscriptions on
>stone and copper from the Andhra region contain many Old Telugu
>place names and personal names. This indicates that Old Telugu was
>one (probably the most widespread) of the languages spoken by the
>people(s) of that region.
I can not understand this. Are you suggesting that Prakrit and Desi
Telugus are two entirely different languages- one from IA side and
the other from Dravidian side??? I am not sure that is really
right, if you are suggesting that. MY understanding is that these
two Telugu are two sides of the same coin- with more idiomatic and
accentuary difference than in the basic structure, say in terms of
language construction and content.
>Now, you seem to argue that Telugu was originally a Middle-Indo-
>Aryan language, that the Indus people "originally" spoke a Dardic (=
I>ndo-Aryan) language, and that, FOR THESE REASONS, the historical
>Andhras could have migrated from the Indus Valley to the Deccan in
t>he protohistoric period. Am I right? Yet, how can you come to such
>far-fetched conclusions if the premises of your argument are so
>shaky?
I am saying that Telugu was originally middle Indo Aryan language
and Indus people might be Telugu people. Indus valley period is
certainly not pre historic-it could not have preceded Ramayan.by any
stretch of imagination. And as I have pointed out in my original
message, Andhras have already started their migration to South
India by the times of Ramayan.
However, the Telugu people still have remained in north India till
the times of MBH. As I have pointed out, Karoosha kingdom was ruled
by king Canura, who was killed by Lord Krishna.
He was a Malla , which forms the derivative for mala, a scheduled
caste in the south. On the other hand, we also find , which has been
pointed out earlier, sindhurs are found in Telugu people , who have
certainly come form North. And if the name is any indication, they
must have migrated from the Indus valley.
> What do you mean by "Jain Yaksha" civilization?
I know it is fantastic to suggest that Indus valley people could be
Telugu on one hand and say that they could be Yakshas on the other.
But here, I am only looking at an alternative. More over, Yaksa
points to the tribe, telugu points the language and Jainism
discusses the faith. None of the pairs needs to be mutually
exclusive.
Further, I have a thesis that Yakshs described in the mythology must
be Jains.
Hope I make some senseĀ
Regards,
Kishore patnaik
98492 70729