Dravidian Cryptography:Farewell2?

Mariana Caixeiro naniji at MAIL.TELEPAC.PT
Fri Sep 12 23:08:26 UTC 1997

Dear Professor Sarma,
I thought I was going to stay off line for as long as the situation forced me
to; but since your response was brought to my notice I have managed that this
can be posted.
Regarding the phenomenon of inversion and substitution "is exclusively
Tamilian:" This is a Dravidian linguistic phenomenon, and it belongs to all
the Dravidian  languages. The other languages of India, inasmuch as they have
inherited the results of this phenomenon, and inasmuch as they are part of
the total linguistic scene of  India, also have due claim on this phenomenon,
perhaps more, but no smaller portion. This phenomenon outgrew the stage of
being exclusively of Dravidian very long time ago, and now it belongs to the
entire linguistic scene of India. The reason I illustrated its evidence with
the help of Kannada is not because it belongs exclusively to Kannada or
Dravidian, but to prove its prsence at least in one Dravidian language first.
Its original home is Dravidian, but the results of its operation now reside
in all languages of India. When I said that it is through and through
Dravidian, I meant that it can be understood best and first, in its home.
Now, I want to emphasize, underline, and highlight this: I am not trying to
secure primacy for the Dravidian language family, or any part of it, as
opposed to Sanskrit, or any other Indian language. Nowhere I have claimed it
for Kannada, exclusively or otherwise. Sanskrit and other languages are as
precious to me as are the Dravidian languages.
A considerable portion of the Indian mythology is woven around the results of
the operation of not only linguistic but also artistic phenomena so much so
that it can be safely said that they formed the lifeblood of each other. If
you want to understand, appreciate, and enjoy the stated and implied
significance of various names, aspects, etc., of the Indian deities and the
myths and stories concerning them in their relationship with the linguistic
and artistic phenomena to a fuller degree, I am afraid, you can not take with
you much of your grammatical luggage to test them with, even though you can
still witness the results of the operation of the phenomenon of inversion and
substitution to an extent.
Regarding your contention that the Kannada muka is from Sanskrit:  In their
preface, the compilers of DED have stated "We have avoided inclusion in the
dictionary of words that were certainly borrowed by Dravidian languages from
IA languages..." and under DED. #4889, all the Dravidian words, including the
Tamil mukam for face, mouth, etc., are given. Besides this, there are the
Dravidian words such as mUti (= face, mouth), DED.#5031; mUgu (= nose, beak),
DED.#5024; mUsu (= to smell), DED.34886, listed in DED. not to speak of the
other Dravidian words denoting ear and eyes, complete with eyelashes and
eyebrows. Using all these latter Dravidian words denoting nose, mouth, etc.,
which are on or associated with face, I am not convinced that the Dravidians
had to borrow or derive the word denoting: face, from Sanskrit.
About p=h, in relation to the name Aasanga: I have noted my response already.
Absence of literary evidence for the correspondences in the speeches does not
indicate the absence of such correspondences, ancient or modern. We can not
pass judgement on such matters basing on a partial picture of them. I have
also said that the validity of the evidence for the Dravidian phenomenon of
inversion and substitution does not rest upon this name. It is time to stop
associatimg ourselves with this person who is not sure of his own gender.
Best regards.
V. Keerthi Kumar (http://www.mninter.net/~kumar/ )  email:
 dkumar6248 at aol.com

More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list