Re: who are indus people?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham" <richard@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@>
> wrote:
>
> > I found it hard to read this reference
> > till the last page.
> > Maybe there are about 30 sanscrit words,
> > the rest is is a drench of muddy speculations.
>
> p7: 3 proper names and 6 other words
> p8: 2 proper names and 7 other words
> p9: 3 proper names and 7 other words plus 20 others uncategorised
> and that doesn't even reach the end of the Para-Munda words.

6+3+2+7+3+7=28 right about fournet.arnaud's estimate, not counting the
20 other uncategorised words.

>
> > Everything is shaky and undocumented :
> > page 16
> > kâna : "one-eyed"
> > why not Latin caecus "blind".
>
> Two reasons. Firstly, the Sanskrit cognates have, as expected, /e:/
> for the vowel:
>
> 1) _kekara_ 'squint-eyed'
> 2) _kevala_ 'exclusively one own' (assuming an internal PIE root *kai)
>

http://vedabase.net/k/kana

_ka:n.a_ means squint eyed in Marathi and Hindi. n and retroflex n are
spotaneously altered in Sanskrit without the necessity of their being
loans from Munda or Dravidian. See for example

"Spontaneous Cerebrals in Sanskrit
T. Burrow
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of
London, Vol. 34, No. 3 (1971), pp. 538-559
This article consists of 22 page(s).

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0041-977X(1971)34%3A3%3C538%3ASCIS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P

> Secondly, note that the word is _ka:n.a_ with a retroflex nasal -
> where does that come from in this word?
>
> > The rest is of the same kind.
> > Empty assertions with no proof.
> > Pseudo-science.
>
> It's a study of apparently non-native words. I wouldn't dismiss it as
> pseudo-science.
>
> Richard.

Tautological! Their non-nativity is based on the nativity of other
languages and vice versa.

M. Kelkar

>