resending the pprevious  posts with images shared.

Suresh gaaru,

1.
>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.