bones and flesh
s.hodge at PADMACHOLING.FREESERVE.CO.UK
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
More information about the INDOLOGY