Did Emeneau make plans for a DED3? (Re: Sanskrit and Tamil question

[Jean-Luc Chevillard]

As a side information concerning this thread,
it may be useful to re-read the reviews which appeared in Language
when the DED, the DEDS and the DEDR were released.

The one by Bh. Krishnamurti:

Reviewed work(s):
A Dravidian Etymological Dictionary by T. Burrow ; M. B. Emeneau
Source: Language, Vol. 39, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1963), pp. 556-564

Stable URL: <http://www.jstor.org/stable/411145>

The one by William Bright:

Reviewed work(s):
A Dravidian Etymological Dictionary: Supplement by T. Burrow ; M. B. Emeneau
Source: Language, Vol. 45, No. 3 (Sep., 1969), pp. 680-683

Stable URL: <http://www.jstor.org/stable/411453>

The one by Sanford B. Steever

Reviewed work(s):
Toda Grammar and Texts by Murray B. Emeneau
A Dravidian Etymological Dictionary by T. Burrow ; M. B. Emeneau
Source: Language, Vol. 61, No. 2 (Jun., 1985), pp. 477-480

Stable URL: <http://www.jstor.org/stable/414159>

Also pertinent for the thread is the review which Emeneau wrote for

Aryan and Non-Aryan in India by Madhav M. Deshpande ; Peter Edwin Hook
Source: Language, Vol. 57, No. 2 (Jun., 1981), pp. 468-470

Stable URL: <http://www.jstor.org/stable/413705>

Did Emeneau, at the time of his death, have plans for a DED3 (or a DEDR2)?

What happened to his unpublished manuscripts?

Thanks for any information on the topic

-- Jean-Luc Chevillard (Paris)


Michael Witzel a écrit :
> [...]
> What I  would like to see (no time myself now) is that someone would 
> go through Burrow-Emeneau's DEDR and eliminate all late loans words, 
> from Skt, Prakrit, even Munda.
> [....]
> That should be easier now that we have Bh. Krishnamurti's comparative 
> treatment which allows to pinpoint words that do not have typical 
> Drav. sounds or word formation.
>
> No one has paid any attention to it (as they assume Drav. has been 
> there from times immemorial,so also Krishnamurti). Except for Zvelebil 
> who lists some 5  words in the Nilgiris that do not fit and might be a 
> substrate.
>
> But, South India has a long history just like any other region in 
> Eur-Asia:
> recent genetic results point to an ancient population, of some 40,000 
> y.a. that includes the Drav. speaking Kurumba (Nilgiri), the IA 
> speaking Rajbamshis on the Nepal/Bengal border .. and the Andamanese 
> (male Y chromosome haplogroup D), also found in many Tibetans... and 
> Japanese/Ainu, a remnant of the first Out of Africa migration.
>
> Plus, remember FBJ Kuiper's 1962 list of a few words in Ainu that 
> match Nahali? And, the isolated language of the Vedda in nearby Sri 
> Lanka. And, the isolate and quiet aberrant Kusunda in C. Nepal, now 
> linked with Andamanese and New Guinea by some.
>
> So we can several expect old strata in India, and some of them should 
> show up in Dravidian.
> Any takers?
>
> Best,
> Michael
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 12, 2008, at 7:58 AM, Dean Michael Anderson wrote:
>
>> Thanks for bringing all this up Michael.
>>
>> It looks like the few years may allow me to expand my Indological and 
>> linguistic studies to include Tamil. Can you point me to some 
>> references to the issues  you mentioned that still need to be 
>> addressed so I can keep them in mind as I study?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Dean Anderson
>>
>>
>> --- On Sat, 10/11/08, Michael Witzel <witzel at FAS.HARVARD.EDU> wrote:
>> From: Michael Witzel <witzel at FAS.HARVARD.EDU>
>> Subject: Re: Sanskrit and Tamil question
>> To: INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk
>> Date: Saturday, October 11, 2008, 5:05 PM
>>
>> The article by Vaclav Blazek has already been published...
>
> Michael Witzel
> witzel at fas.harvard.edu
> <www.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/mwpage.htm>
>
> Dept. of Sanskrit & Indian Studies, Harvard University
> 1 Bow Street,
> Cambridge MA 02138, USA
>
> phone: 1- 617 - 495 3295 (voice & messages), 496 8570, fax 617 - 496 
> 8571;
> my direct line:  617- 496 2990
>