Nira-Narsingpur Narasimha, Lakmii-n.rsi.mha-sahasra-naaman
ashok.aklujkar at GMAIL.COM
Tue Nov 13 20:53:33 UTC 2007
On 11/13/07 9:23 AM, "George Hart" <glhart at BERKELEY.EDU> wrote:
> I think Ashok would be well-advised to take a look at the Dravidian
> Etymological Dictionary before he suggests that niira is not a
> Dravidian word.
I had looked up the entry some years ago. Pl note the word "possible" my
statement "it is possible that niira is not a Dravidian word at all."
As long as the argument I have given through the following sentence is not
disproved the possibility remains: "cp. the formations of similarly
structured niipa and nii.da, which are not Dravidian and at least one of
which, nii.da, has Indo-European cognates in "nest" etc.".
Moreover, the shorter a word is the less exclusive one should be in
advocating an etymology for it. The possibility of chance similarity then
cannot be as easily set aside as in the case of longer words.
(niira is attested at least as early as the Nigha.n.tu part of the Nirukta.
To some, especially the ones who see Dravidian words even in earlier
Vedic/Sanskrit literature ( I do not deny that they could be there), this
may not be good enough evidence to reject the origin of niira in the
Dravidian family (fair enough), but the fact that niira is attested in the
Indo-Aryan family centuries before it is attested in the Dravidian family
should at least serve to reduce the intensity of their resistence to the
observation that niira may not be Dravidian in origin.)
> It is rather strange that after the two language
> families (Indo-Aryan and Dravidian) have been intermingled for
> millennia scholars are still reluctant to admit mutual influence.
I do not see anything in my post that would imply that I hold the view you
criticize here. If any of my words have given you this impression, please
bring them to my attention and I will remove them.
More information about the INDOLOGY