From: N. Ganesan (naa.ganesan@gmail.com)
Date: Fri Jul 01 2005 - 10:53:00 CDT
>I suppose the relevance to the current discussion is
>that there can be no easy correlation between language
>family and geographical area. So,
>while I would agree that very probably the indigenous
>languages of much of India were closely related to Tamil,
>that is by no means an argument that Sanskrit is from the same
>language family. It is certainly the majority view of scholars
>that Indo-European languages, the ancestors of
>Sanskrit, were brought to India by Aryan invaders who
>oppressed the indigenous peoples, the ancestors of the
>Tamils and India's other Dravidian minorities (who are visibly
>racially distinct).
For this, I once gave a linguistic example.
Consonant assimilation from Vedic Sanskrit
to spoken languages of North India (Prakrits)
follows the pattern observed in pure Tamil words:
http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9906&L=INDOLOGY&P=R4239
Asko Parpola wrote a reply that this is likely
a Dravidian substratum effect. Also, saw M. Everson's
proposal to encode Parpola's Indus civilization
glyphs in the Unicode.
http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9906&L=INDOLOGY&P=R4492
Some info and speculations esp. on PuLLi's origins:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CTamil/message/386
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CTamil/message/311
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CTamil/message/253
N. Ganesan
>And this oppression continues, at least as perceived
>by Srivas and others. These issues of perceived oppression
>and linguistic imperialism are very real and should not be
>ignored by the Unicode community. Nevertheless, if
>U+0BB6 is actually used in writing, even if not by some
>purists, it does need to be encoded and should not be deprecated.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jul 01 2005 - 10:55:09 CDT