Re: who are indus people?

Hi all,


I have struggled to understand what is happening.It seems to be
interesting but I should say I did not understand much of it, even
after reading three or four times.

May be I will grow with times,

regards,

Kishore patnaik


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

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

wrote:

> > --- 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.
>
> Yes, but what about the rather obvious one word per paragraph lists

on

> pp15-18? Uncategorised words also count, as do those discussed in
> running text.
>
> > > > 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
>
> Something weird here. It gives the meaning 'ear' for _ka:n.a_.
>
> > _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).
>
> To be investigated. The first page gives the impression that it

often

> left traces in that the Neogrammatically regular forms also tend to

be

> around.
>
> What's the current take on the notion that _stha:n.u_ is derived

from

> *sthalnu? Admittedly that opens up the notion that ka:n.a comes

from

> something like PIE **kalna or **kWolna. The nearest I can see for
> this is _kiNa_ 'corn, callosity' from PIE *kal 'hard' - the

semantics

> to get _ka:Na_ are not good, and the morphology doesn't look right

for

> _ka:Na_ either. Does the example of 'cyclops' make *kWl.na 'one-

eyed'

> > *kr.na > *kin.a plausible? Does the evolution somehow allow for a
> vrddhied form _ka:n.a_? It doesn't look right to me.
>
> > > It's a study of apparently non-native words. I wouldn't

dismiss it as

> > > pseudo-science.
>
> > Tautological! Their non-nativity is based on the nativity of

other

> > languages and vice versa.
>
> No. It's based on the patterns seen in genetically related

languages.

> (Can you suggest a plausible mechanism whereby cognates of such
> apparently alien words would be preferentially eliminated in
> non-Indian languages?)
>
> Richard.
>