bones and flesh

[Paul Kekai Manansala]

"N. Ganesan" wrote:
>
> <<<
> I agree that the bones/flesh division is pan-Indian.  I was actually
> commenting on the formative input by the Mundas on Buddhist tantras,
> quite apart from this question.   In passing, I also agree with Paul
> Manansala's comments -- it's a pity the the Munda contribution to
> various aspects of Indian culture is played down -- after all, they
> seem to have been in India longer than "newcomers" like the
> Indo-Eurpeans and the Dravidians.
> >>>
>
> For the formative input on tantras from Dravidian side, pl. consult
> R. Nagaswamy, Tantric cult of South India, Delhi, 1982, 250 p.
>
> Any ideas when Dravidians entered India?
>
> Prof. Witzel, Substrates in OIA, 1999, p. 14
> "Munda originally had no retroflexes".
> On the same page, "In short, the people of the (northern)
> Indus language must have spoken with retroflexes".
>

Last I read, the idea that Munda did not originally have retroflexes
is based on the fact that retroflexes are not universal in Munda, with
one language given as an exception. This theory does not take
linguistic drift into adequate account.

> Deciphering the Indus script, p. 166 has "Fig. 9-3.
> Major linguistic areas in South Asia as defined by the retroflex
> systems; also, the distribution of the inclusive/exclusive
> distinction in the pronoun of the first person plural.
> Based on the ongoing researches of Bertil Tikkanen."

Also, the use of initial retroflexes in Munda and "Aryan" languages
as opposed to the non-initial retroflex system in the south.

--
Check out http://AsiaPacificUniverse.com/