suzmccarth wrote:

>
> --- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
> wrote:
> > Ah. It's a reinterpretation of the entire corpus according to a new
> > theory that's at odds with everything else known about Indian
> epigraphy!
> > We could see what Richard Salomon says about TB
>
> TB ?????

See the paragraph you snipped.

> in *Indian Epigraphy*
> > (Oxford, 1997), and we can wait for reviews of this book.
>
> Mahadevan has stayed on the safe side concerning the Indus Valley
> script, saying that he has not made any progress there. I assume that
> much of what is said in this article, (see link) is established - the
> absence of the pulli, then pulli used as vowel lengthener, only 8
> vowels instead of 12, etc, However, the lack of inherent short medial
> vowel is new, is that correct?

Not credible.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...