Re: beyond langauges

--- Patrick Ryan <proto-language@...> wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Francesco Brighenti" <frabrig@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 1:07 PM
> Subject: [tied] Re: beyond langauges
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "kishore patnaik"
> <kishorepatnaik09@...> wrote:
> <...>
> Those who lump together Indo-Aryan, Dravidian and
> Munda languages
> under the label "Indic languages" are usually Hindu
> nationalists
> and/or crackpot scholars who aim at disintegrating
> the recognized
> language families of South Asia in the name of a
> misunderstood "Linguistic Area" concept -- see
> Shubash Kak at
>
> http://www.ece.lsu.edu/kak/indic.pdf :
>
> "We argue that based on genetic classification, both
> the Indo-Aryan
> and Dravidian languages have had common parents and
> these languages
> share many typological categories."
>
> (Kalyanaraman also adds Munda languages to the mix.)
>
> Regards,
> Francesco
>
> ***
>
> Patrick:
>
> I fail to see anything objectionable in Kak's
> assertion.
>
> Bomhard has convincingly demonstrated that, if
> Dravidian is not necessarily
> Nostratic, it certainly can be related to Nostratic.
>
> Munda is a different matter, of course.
> ****

Either he's trying to dismiss IE by innuendo and
replace it with Prakrit (IE + Dravidian + Munda) or
he's completely lost. His rambling is incoherent.
Sure, Nostratic posits a very distant relationship
between IE and Dravidian c. 15,000 years ago but
Kak-adoodle is off his chain.



____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ