> A more seriously radical study has to be indeed made into the Indology,
> in the area of Linguistics. I know that it is easier to dismiss this kind
> of
> demands but believe me, what I read about Linguistics is mostly
> unconvincing.
==========
You already know what you are ready to believe and to dismiss.
That's your problem.
Indology started in 1583 with Thomas Stephen.
I believe it's hard to defend the thesis that 425 years of linguistic work
on Sanscrit can be wiped aside.
Any approach that starts with the premiss previous studies about Indic have
to be thrown away is anti-science.
Even if you do not like previous studies, you will never escape the issue of
explaining what is not satisfactory and you won't escape being compared with
the bulk of existing works that are considered well-establised references.
I think the current root theory of PIE is inadequate.
I'm saying a more seriously radical study is necessary.
I know where to emend the whole thing and how to use Pokorny or LIV.
Arnaud
==========
>
> For eg, the word duhita (daughter in english) clearly means one who milks
> the cow.
=========
Why ?
Arnaud
=========
> Similarly, Telugu, a south Indian language, has clear country words for
> primitive feelings such as say fear. It does not have ready made words, at
> least not those which are popular , to express more learned feelings such
> as
> love, gratitude etc. All these words are downloaded from Sanskrit. The
> Tamil words such as Anbudam (lover) or Kadal (love) have no cognates in
> Telugu.
==========
This is a very prejudiced way of looking at Telugu.
Sanscrit is in the strong powerful diglottic position.
This has nothing to do with primitive or not.
Arnaud
=========