User talk:Joshua Jonathan/Dravidian migration

Krishnamurthi

@Joshua Jonathan: The section 1.7 of Krishnamurthi (2003) is interesting in making connections between Dravidian and Indo-Aryan. He even rubbishes Witzel's theory of a Para-Munda substrate in RV. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bellwood

Bellwood (2013) is quite radical:

He thinks the Anatolian origin for IE is far more convincing than the Pontic-Steppes origin. (pp. 157-163) His reasoning is that the PIE had plenty of agricultural vocabulary. So it must have been part of the Fertile Crescent agricultural civilisation.
He also thinks the Indo-European spakers could have entered India as early as Mehrgarh 6500 BC. (They may or may not have been Indo-Aryans, more likely not.) (pp. 162-163) They could have had contact with Elamo-Dravidians all throuh the region between Anatolia and Indus. The Indigenous Aryanist would be quite happy with this.
He thinks the Dravidian speakers spread to India starting around 3000 BC. They went through Sindh and Rajasthan to South India, and didn't venture into Gangetic plains. (pp 168-169). He doesn't explain how they ended up lending their word for rice to Indo-Aryan.
Rice was grown by Munda-speakers in the eastern Gangetic plains. It was summer crop that couldn't be grown in the Northwest, which only had rainfall in the winter. (I don't know about that.)

Kautilya3 (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dravidian could be a merger already

The Dravidian languages have two sets of words for family relationships:

amma (mother), appa (father), akka (sister), anna (brother), avva (grand-mother)
thalli (mother), thandri (father), thangasi (sister), thambi (brother), thātha (grand-father)

(Nowadays, akka/anna are used for elder sister/brother and thangasi/thambi are used for younger sister/brother, but this could have been a later differentiation.)

Given that family relationships are among the very first words to be invented in any language, this raises the possibility that the Dravidian languages could have been formed by merger of two language families. I haven't seen any sources discuss this.

There is a yet another word nāyana/nānna for father, which could have been a yet another third influence. Nanna could have been a made up word, nā-anna, but why would one make up an artificial word when there are already two good native words? The origin of Dravidian languages is going to be much more complex than the IE, it seems! Kautilya3 (talk) 05:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wheeled vehicles

Reading through Anthony, it occurred to me to think about the issue for Dravidian languages.

All the four Dravidian languages use the same word for wheeled vehicle: bandi / vandi / vanti. I think it is an ancient word. But Krishnamurthy thinks it is a derivative of Sanskrit bhānda (goods). By this theory, bandi would be something used to transport goods. But I don't see how Tamil could reverse-engineer vanti out of it.
There is no word for wheel. In all four languages, the Sanskrit word chakra is used. There might have been a made-up word tirgan earlier (see below), but it seems to have fallen out of use.
However, Telugu has a word for axle: irusu. Tamil uses akku, which must be a derivative of Sanskrit aksh. Krishnamurthy doesn't mention axle. But there are a lot of mentions on the web. Perhaps it came from "pivot", which would have been needed for potter's wheel etc.
There is no word for "rotate". The word for "turn" is reused: tirugu / cularra.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: Sanskrit origins seem to be most logical. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why. They were invented in Mesopotamia, India's trading partner, and they would have spread to India pretty quickly. Moreover, unspoked wheels are in common use till the present day, and replacing them with spoked wheels/tyres is a considered a reform. If they came from Sanskrit, unspoked wheels shouldn't exist at all! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]