Is "Sanskrit" Dravidian ?

[Periannan Chandrasekaran]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lars Martin Fosse [mailto:lmfosse at ONLINE.NO]
> Sent: Thursday, June 10, 1999 6:28 AM
> To: INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK
> Subject: Re: Is "Sanskrit" Dravidian ?
>
>
> >
>
> Samar Abbas wrote:
>
> > Is the word "Sanskrit" itself of Dravidian etymology ?
> >
> > The word "samskrutam" has the suffix -am, indicating a
> Dravidian origin of
> > the word.
>
> that the ending -am is a very common ending for skt. nouns.
>
> >
> > Since 30-50 % of the words of Sanskrit are of Dravidian
> etymology anyway,
> > it would not be surprising if the word `Sanskrit' itself
> was of Dravidian
> > origin.
> >
>


In this regard, a serious question along the lines of dropping
the final "a"  in Skt word.

 The final "-am" also gets dropped.
e.g., kumArasambhavam would become "kumArsambhav" in Hindi (and other
north Indian IE languages too?)(kumAr + sambahv).

*When* did this start happening, if at all the original Skt. version
was ever adhered to?

Having lived in Delhi for 7 years, I had feeling that the northerners
seem to feel that the "a"s and "am"s "bloating" the original Skt words
were too South Indian or Dravidian; they seem to have a linguistic urge
to get to a version that has a clipped accent to it.


Regards
Chandra


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com