Gentoo studies

N. Ganesan naga_ganesan at HOTMAIL.COM
Fri May 7 16:39:22 UTC 1999

Sri Ganesan wrote:
       That is why the attack on Linguistics, Indo-European theory and
       so forth. Poor Tamil.

Vishal Writes:
 >Although  the above is a really pathetic posting, I would like to
 >add that to my knowledge, Kak is a Kashmiri name. I do not know
 >whether Dr. Rajaram et
 >al can explain the works of Alvars (I certainly cannot) but can the
 >Invasionist Indologists do so? Personally, I think that Indologists
 >must aspire to learn both the classical languages of India, not
 >only Sanskrit.

       Thanks for: all interested in classical 'must aspire to learn
       *both* the classical languages of India, not only Sanskrit'.
       Not too long ago in this list, some esteemed members were
       arguing their personal view that how/why Tamil cannot be
       construed a Classical Language!!

       Is that not a pathetic attempt?

       I guess I do not understand some learned members
       denying independent origin for Tamil and Dravidian language
       family.  It makes enjoyable reading to scan the views of Kak,
       Frawley, ...  when they talk about Dravidian languages.
       The new 'paradigm' is eloquently articulated in
       Dr. S. Kalyanaraman's website:

*Breakthrough! So many claims have been made so far (cf. Possehl's
* Indus Age: Writing System)that I am submitting this after careful
* deliberation and
*years of work on an electronic comparative Indian lexicon.

In Indology forum on 27-feb-1995, Sri. S. Kalyanaraman wrote
under the title  "Semantic clustering technique in South Asian dictionary",

  *   I think I have proved that Burrow and Emeneau's
  *   work is an aberrant, erroneous construct of a artificial family;
  *   most of their etyma (over 4,000 out of 5,000) really belong with
  *   the rest of the family of languages of South Asia.

On the `indic paradigms', Sarasvati-Sindhu civilization (c. 3000
*This may mean a new paradigm in our protohistoric studies. Aryans
*and Dravidians and perhaps Mundas lived in harmony in this
* civilization. The so-called indo-aryan and so-called dravidian
* languages may have originated from the common lingua franca spoken
* by these people on the Indus and Sarasvati river valleys.
*Thus, common words of Tamil can be found in
*Sanskrit/Vedic. The author claims to have established that the
* Dravidian etymological dictionary with 5000 entries can cease to
* exist since many of these words have cognates in vedic/munda and
* many south asian languages.

            Is Dravidian language family really an aberrant, erroneous
            construct? Is Dravidian an "artificial" family? Or, is
            Tamil a mere vernacular from Sanskrit?

            N. Ganesan

(Aside: I read from a KZ's book, tamiz < tam izi (their own speech)).

Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit

More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list