SV: SV: Digital Magic in Prehistory of India
vijay at VOSSNET.CO.UK
Wed Nov 29 05:14:04 EST 2000
On Mon, 27 Nov 2000 14:53:13 +0100, Lars Martin Fosse <lmfosse at ELENDER.HU>
>Vanbakkam Vijayaraghavan [SMTP:vijay at VOSSNET.CO.UK] skrev 27. november 2000
>> It is not just value judgements, but even the identification aryan vs
>> dravidian is unwarranted. The vedas themselves do not speak of dravidian,
>> even the word itself is not mentioned, but vedic people were at odds only
>> with dasyus - sometimes . The vedic people were unaware of such a group
>> dravidians. If you have a better information, let me know.
>The identification of Aryans versus Dravidians is primarily based on
>linguistic criteria, and is scientifically warranted. The fact that the
>Vedas don't mention the Dravidians is immaterial.
It would be immaterial if there has been independent existence
of "dravidian" literature or documents. But there has been no such
documents, not even one . When you say 'dravidian' in Vedic times, you are
only looking at Sanskrit and some aspects of it -like vocabulary or
grammatical structure or word endings- you want to call dravidian. Fine.
>âFrom this it is only a conjecture to say there was another language of
dravidian family. It is like you are studying Roman empire and you say some
emperors and gods were Syrian , hence there was a Syrian empire too in the
same locality. After all, while studying Vedic sanskrit, 'dravidian' is
only your analytic convenience and without the verifyable existence of
another language, you can't read two languages in one. You can't derive the
facts of the world from the contents of your mind. Analytical tools does
not create facts.
More information about the INDOLOGY