Tamil words in English

[Sn. Subrahmanya]

At 04:03 PM 2/18/98 +0100, you wrote:
>If the linguistic argument is thought to be wrong, then the revisionist must
>show that it is, not simply chant the mantra "linguistics is a fraud", or
>something to that effect.

I do not intend to debunk linguistics or chant that linguistics is a fraud.
All that I did was question the way in which conclusions were drawn.
The reason the argument started out was about Kuyil...
some of the arguments that were put forth are listed below.

>>kuyil could have arisen independently in Dravidian.....
>>In connection with the meaning to call, etc.,
>>Dr. Bh. Krishnamurti in a posting on 1/17/98 said that
>>the root "*ku:(y) occurs in all subgroups of Dravidian
>>(DEDR 1868; Skt. ku:jita- is said to have been derived from Dravidian)."
>>kuyil could be related to this root.
>>..............
>>We must consider another possibility.
>>In Collected Papers on Dravidian Linguistics, T. Burrow
>>says in p. 198 that Sanskrit kokila which is attested
>>from mahAbhArata onward is from Dravidian.

Is it justifiable to jump to the conclusion that just
because ku occurs in all subgroups southern languages that kuyil is
dravidian.
Has any effort been made to see if ku exists in other Indian languages ?
doesnt ku exist in sanskrit ?
Dont the words kuvate,kala, kilakila exist in sanskrit too ?
and dont they all mean to make a sound ?

All the evidence for a dravidian  origin seems to based on "said to have
been derived from"and the fact that ku occurs in all of presupposed
dravidian subgroups.
Please sir, provide more "evidence" than this.
Like you have asked, I have listed why I think that linguistic evidence
is not conclusive (not that it is a fraud).
Please point out why I am wrong to question the conclusions ?.

On a different matter:
Some time ago, there was a vigorous defence of Alain Danielou when his
credibility was questioned. Shouldnt the same apply to Rajaram too ?
If there is a problem with his hypothesis, please spell out what they are
and why you do not agree with it.
Since Rajaram is not here to defend himself we cannot make blanket statements
about his qualifications. Personally, I think Rajaram has enough scientific
training to atleast recognize irrational speculations.

Also, it is the invasion theorists who are revisionists, because the
invasion theory started only in the mid 1800's. The indigenous theory has
existed a lot longer and was accepted and still is in many parts of India,
until the Church and the British decided to do something about it.

S.Subrahmanya
Houston, TX