bones and flesh

Fri Nov 19 23:53:06 UTC 1999

Venkatraman Iyer wrote:

> I have no problems with the Munda contributions; The problem is
> when experts in old and new IE, IIr, IA with their deep expertise
> of those texts treat Munda and Dravidian on par. Probably because
> they are not that knowledgeable of either Munda or Dravidian texts.
> At times, the Munda explanations have an equally valid Dravidian
> ones which are ignored.
> Probably you will agree that Dravidian philology is not
> as advanced as that of Sanskrit due to various reasons in Europe
> for the last 200 yrs. Along with D. Stampe's Munda etymological
> dictionary, Dravidian texts' study has to adavnce lot further
> for a proper (re)evaluation of the Indian past.

I agree entirely.  The prospect of what might be discovered is very
exciting. I believe when ultimately (if ever) the relationship between
each of these languages becomes clarified we are all going to be
surprised somewhat.

Best wishes,
Stephen Hodge

More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list