Fortunatov's Law and tolkAppiyar's rules

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

>My own feeling is that until the time comes when Dravidian
>gets the same level of attention from the scholarly world as IA gets,
any
>explanation regarding Indian pre-history will remain problematic. I do
not see
>the situation changing any time soon.
>

My dear Palaniappan,

Your assumption is that the scholarly motivation is to explain *Indian*
pre-history, as opposed to I-A or I-Ir or I-E pre-history. So long as
this is not satisfied, Dravidian will not receive the same level of
attention. That is why your prediction will come true.

>As for the Hindutva folks, their arguments about Indian pre-history are
marked
>by appalling ignorance about the Dravidian side. Of course, they are a
lot
>more sure of their positions than scholars like Deshpande.

Indeed. Forget pre-history, which involves a lot of careful
reconstruction from often meagre leads. Even the recorded history of the
south is not very well-known, is it?


Vidyasankar


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com