Is "Sanskrit" Dravidian?

[N.Ganesan]

 >> Since 30-50 % of the words of Sanskrit are of Dravidian etymology
 >>anyway,

 >And many other words are of Austric or other etymology making
 >up the vast majority of Sanskrit words.

  This is a basic construct in Indology. Over the last century,
Indologists are well learned in Sanskrit (because of the IE
connection). However, the widespread awareness on Dravidian
in the formation of Indian culture is still lacking.

So, when linguists-sanskritists look at Dictionaries of Munda
and DED, they tend to give equal weightage to both. Because
they do not know any Dravidian or Munda language, they are
experts in Sanskrit only. What they fail to recognize is the
written traditions of Dravidian (atleast 2300 years in case
of Tamil; All early inscriptions from
2nd century BCE in Tamil Nadu are in Tamil, Not in Prakrit)
The contrast is that Munda languages are recorded  in 19th century
by the British. I believe Kuiper's influence is significant
in raising Munda's weightage.

However, as far as IVC, Munda's weight should not be great;
Otherwise, we will have Austronesian stretching from
Afghanistan, IVC and Malaysia all the way to Champa/Vietnam
(before sinicized Vietnamese got there)!!

Austric is too small geographically and historically in India;
It never developed a civilization comparable to Dravidian.

Regards,
N. Ganesan



_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com