How come you don't put a link or a date on this. This sounds dated. What does the cardemeister think?
OffWorld --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradh...@...> wrote: > > From Dr. Logananthan > The Origins of Tamil - Veer Linguistics > > > We describe below Veer Linguistics as developed by Pavanar where it > is strictly ETYMOLOGICAL. In fact this was developed by way of > criticism of the Etymological Dictionary of Dravidian Languages of > Burrow and Emeneau where words similar in phonology and meaning were > collected together by way of proving that the words listed are > Dravidian and so forth. By this strategy B&E missed out on many words > in SK [Sanskrit] and which are in fact Dravidian in origin. In fact > seen from SumeroTamil Sk is just a variant of Sumerian > > > Elements of Veer Linguistics. > > > As I have already mentioned, there are already book length studies of > this field by Pavanar (mostly in Tamil) and I will only illustrate > it very briefly here. The idea is that words have their Primordial > Roots (Muula Veer) and from which by adding various consonants at the > initial and post positions we have the generation of secondary roots. > This can also proceed further in which case we can have tertiary > roots. Thus we have a situation where higher order words are > generated out of an agglutinative process. The point is that once we > locate the primordial, secondary and tertiary roots of a language, we > also gain a way of identifying a language and along with it a family > of languages that are further developments from that language. Thus > we have a set of ROOT words that go into the developments of various > kinds of BRANCH languages, sharing the same set of ROOT words but > perhaps differing in the way these are glued to generate novel words. > > > Thus we have a ROOT Language as the language that contains the BASIC > set of root words and forming the BASIS of a number of languages. > > > It is on the basis of such studies that we can say that Sumerian is > Archaic Tamil and that SK is a Dravidian language that has > SumeroTamil as its basis. The SK language does NOT have its own roots > but exploits the roots of Tamil in a different way thereby generating > a language that only superficially appears different but as a matter > of fact not. Now I believe that Turkic Siraiki Pali and so forth may > be such languages exploitations of the ROOT words of Archaic Tamil > (= Sumerian) and hence essentially Dravidian > > > Some example may make the point clear. > > > From Exordium of In-Anna , we have the words u, ur, u-a etc as below: > > > 1. > > nin me sar-ra u(4) dalla-e-a ( Lady of all me's, resplendent light) > > > Ta. Nin mey sarva uu ( ul, oL) teLLiya ( The lady of all powers, > radiating out clear light) > > > 14. > > > an-ne me-si-ma nin ur-ra u-a ( Endowed with me's by An, lady mounted > on a beast) > > > Ta. aaNNee mey siiyimma Nin uur-va oo-va ( Blessed with all the > powers by An himself, the lady who rides a lion) > > > Here we have the same `u' (uu) in Sumerian and Tamil : u (Ta. uu, uL, > oL , oN etc) meaning `radiating light'. We have ur ( Ta. uur: to > crawl, move; uurti: a vehicle, conveyance etc). u(to ride) (Ta oo, > oovu, ooccu : to ride, drive etc) > > > We can see that the primordial condition of uttering `uu' is that of > rounding the lips and fronting it by way of imitating a forward > movement with the lips. Thus perhaps the word `uu' originated in a > primordial situation where man wanted to communicate a movement of > radiating out. This also shows that it is the most primordial > condition of the origin of this word and hence there cannot be a > prior language from which it is borrowed. It is a fundamental root > word native to Sumerian and Tamil and which leads us to identify > Sumerian as Archaic Tamil > > > Now this is further reinforced when we look at some of the secondary > developments - su (Ta. suu, suur, ) mu ( Ta. muu. mun, muL etc) bu > ( Ta. puu : to blossom) etc. Thus from the primordial "uu" common to > Sumerian and Tamil and with the basic meaning of `radiating out" we > have a set of secondary root words where we have the introduction > of consonants by way of DIFFERENTIATING the primordial meaning of `uu' > > > To this list we can also ur ( Ta. uuru : to crawl, move etc) and from > which we have Ta. uur-ti: a vehicle. In Su. ur remains in the general > sense to `move' and ur-ra , as that which moves meaning the mobile > creatures. > > > Now we can also see that while uu >suu > suur are primordial word > generating processes, the changes sur> sul > sun etc are merely > phonological but where specialized meanings are also possible. > > > Now such phonological changes along with meaning is clear in the > change of u, uu > Ta. oo, oovu, ooccu etc > > > We can go on with such studies of the word-generative process as > Pavanar has done quite extensively ( suur> kuur( sharp) suur> tuur > (distant, clear ) etc. > > > The point of such studies is that : > > > a. > > > We can locate the primordial roots which show that they do not have a > language prior to that from which they are borrowed. > > > b. > > > There are generations of secondary and tertiary roots by adding > consonants to the word initial and final positions for the > differentiations of the primordial meanings > > > c. > > > There are purely phonological changes to such words and again to > differentiate subtle differences in meaning > > > d. > > > This set of words are NATIVE to the language and hence can be used to > IDENTIFY the language e.g. Sumerian as Archaic Tamil. > > > e. > > > We can also see that if there are other languages sharing the SAME > set of such primitive roots, then they are genetically related to > Sumero-Tamil > > > > Thus From the point of Veer Linguistics such as this, we can > IDENTIFY a language as the BASE language ( root language) from which > a number of other languages could have developed. From my studies I > have shown that while C. Tamil is the same as Sumerian but an > earlier and hence an Archaic form of Tamil , Sanskrit is not but a > language that branched off from the BASE Tamil by exploiting the same > set of Tamil roots but in a different way Perhaps this also applies > to Turkic Siraiki Pali and numerous other languages. > > > In fact it may turn out that all Indian languages are Dravidian in > essence which means the disticntion between IndoEuropean and > Dravidian may not be valid. > > > Loga >
