Suresh gaaru,

>As you know, there have not been comprehensive reconstructions for Dravidian.

------- Entire edifice of the subgroup classifications collapses if there are no reconstructions of the proto form, because the vital basis of subgrouping is the common path of change from the proto form. Why I said 'cleaning the slate' is exactly this. Once you decide to redo the reconstructions afresh, no more use of the existing subgroup notions. Thus it is better to say 'what is being called as south dravidian' or 'what is being called as south-central' while referring to the existing classifications.

2. The word nishaada being borrowed by you to refer to the language elements that can not be accounted for through the presently known language family analyses, itself is from the Sanskritic sources. Those sources reflect a picture of multiple such groups. So it may be useful to look for such multiple bases rather than a single one while tracing the sources this time. "Convergence" of all such multiple sources into a commonality that rendered the multiplicity difficult to trace should also be highlighted and sufficiently accounted for.

Regards,

Nagaraj

రేవు/ఱేవు :

Sharing snapshots from Sri Suryarayandhranighantuvu, not for the meaning part but only for the usage citations part. S'akaTa rEpha gets an etymological justification from the Tamil iR /iL. rEvaDi /rEvani are both oblique forms. Di =D +i ; ni = n + i ; n has Tamil based source.

Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of Liberal Education,

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )