Dravidian Linguistics

The present paper is an attempt to study the case markers of Malayalam language of South Dravidian group. The source and the historical development of case markers are shown in this paper. Deictic is shown as a major source of case markers in Malayalam, as well in Dravidian. There are very few markers which have been developed from the noun and verb used in the language. More number of case markers has been developed from different deictic in Malayalam. Among deictic, three each of case markers have been developed from distal and proximate, respectively, and intermediate is used as a dative case marker. The ablative marker -niṉṯu is a debatable one. This is a past participial form of verb nil. Each marker has been explained with the historical development from the respective sources.

This interdisciplinary study allowed me to establish, on the basis of linguistic, genetic, archaeological, historical and religious data, that linguistic concordances between Gaulish and Slavic were linked with Neolithic migrations from NorthWestern India and Pakistan to Iran, Mesopotamia, Anatolia, the Caucasus, the North of the Black Sea, Danubic and Balkan Europe, Gaul and Iberia, where Neolithic farmers contributed to the formation of the megalithic civilisation which developed in Gaul from 5.000 BC and brought an archaic language stemming from a Trans-Eurasian original language. This explains the linguistic concordances I established between Gaulish and Dravidian languages-250 common words from the 500 words I studied (and 160 with Burushaski), as well as with Altaic, Uralic, Kartvelian, Anatolian and Middle-Eastern languages. This also explains similarities I have found in the organisation of the Society and religion, which lead certain researchers to suggest, on the basis of the spread of the very ancient haplogroup H2 P-96 from India to Western Europe, that first Europeans and proto-Dravidians had an ancient common origin, as macrohaplogroups F and K, from which stem all European haplogroups, and haplogroup H could appear in India.

This paper presented at SI3 Conference in IIT Chennai on Dec 23, 2017 highlights the defective assumption of Aryan Invasion Theory and the faulty methodology of using Tamil words for decipherment of Indus script by Iravatham Mahadevan in his numerous works. Using his own samples this paper proves that Harappans were Vedic and the likely survivors of the losing side of the Mahabharata war. The paper further establishes the earliest civilization as 'Sarasvati- Sarayu' culture having sprung up from Manu who entered through River Sarasvati from the Arabian Sea. It is also established that Sarasvati had its origins in Manasa lake in Kashmir.

The paper also proves wrong the Dravidian decipherment of Indus script by Mahadevan and goes on to show that IVC was the source for Jain culture and Brahmi script while Tamil is found to be a sister language of Sanskrit having a common proto language, which in all probability could be Pali.

The ppt slides of this paper can be accessed here: https://www.academia.edu/36976504/SI3_conference_-_Challenging_Mahadevans_Assumptions_and_Methodology_of_Indus_script_decipherment

The recent surge in ancient scripts has resulted in huge image libraries of ancient texts. Data mining of the collected images enables the study of the evolution of these ancient scripts. In particular, the origin of the Indus Valley script is highly debated. We use convolu-tional neural networks to test which Phoenician alphabet letters and Brahmi symbols are closest to the Indus Valley script symbols. Surprisingly, our analysis shows that overall the Phoenician alphabet is much closer than the Brahmi script to the Indus Valley script symbols.

This series is a search for the roots of the Kōnkaṇi people, their land and their language, through their misty history, partly known, partly unknown, partly forgotten. Fortunately, abundant material is available across the world to make that journey. Not everything may be black and white; dates may be difficult to place. But stepping beyond that grey area of subjectivity, one does come across a rare source, that suddenly shines light on a dark patch of unknowing.

Abstract : this study, which first aim was to demonstrate the correspondences between the Gaulish language and the Slavic languages, between which I found 500 common words, allowed me also to demonstrate, on the basis of genetical, archaeological and religious data, that those correspondences were linked with ancient migrations linked with the diffusion of the Dravidian civilisation of the Indus Valley to Iran, Mesopotamia, Anatolia, the Caucasus, the North of the Black Sea, Danubian and Balkanic Europe, towards Gaul and Iberia, where the Neolithic agriculturalists contributed to the formation of the megalithic civilisation which developed from -5.000. This explains also the linguistic correspondences I established between Gaulish and Dravidian languages – 250 common words from the 500 words I studied, as well as similarities I found in the organisation of the Society and the religion, which lead certain researchers to suggest, on the basis of the diffusion of the very ancient gene H2-P96 from India to Western Europe, that the first Europeans and the proto-Dravidians had a common origin.
Extrait : cette étude, dont l’objectif initial était de démontrer les correspondances entre le gaulois et les langues slaves, entre lesquelles j’ai trouvé 500 mots communs, m’a en outre permis de démontrer, sur la base de données génétiques, archéologiques et religieuses, que ces correspondances étaient liées à des migrations anciennes liées à la diffusion de la civilisation dravidienne de la vallée de l’Indus vers l’Iran, la Mésopotamie, l’Anatolie, le Caucase, le Nord de la Mer Noire, l’Europe danubienne et balkanique, la Gaule et l’Ibérie, où les agriculteurs néolithiques ont contribué à former la civilisation mégalithique qui s’est développée à partir de -5.000. Cela explique aussi les correspondances linguistiques que j’ai établies entre le gaulois et les langues dravidiennes - 250 mots communs sur les 500 mots étudiés, et les similitudes que j’ai constatées dans l’organisation de la société et la religion, qui amènent certains chercheurs à suggérer, sur la base de la diffusion du gène très ancien H2-P96 de l’Inde à l’Europe de l’Ouest, que les premiers Européens et les proto-Dravidiens avaient une origine commune.

This study, which first aim was to demonstrate correspondences between Gaulish and Slavic languages, between which I found 500 common words, allowed me also to establish, on the basis of genetical, archaeological and religious data, that those correspondences were linked with ancient migrations which spread the Dravidian civilisation of the Indus Valley to Iran, Mesopotamia, Anatolia, the Caucasus, the North of the Black Sea, Danuban and Balkan Europe, Gaul and Iberia, where Neolithic farmers contributed to the development of the megalithic civilisation which began in 5.000 BC. This also explains the linguistic correspondences I established between Gaulish and Dravidian languages – 250 common words from the 500 words I studied, as well as similarities I found in the organisation of the Society and the religion, which lead various researchers to suggest, on the basis of the diffusion of the very ancient gene H2-P96 from India to Western Europe, that the first Europeans and the proto-Dravidians had a common origin.

Cette étude, dont l’objectif initial était de démontrer les correspondances entre le gaulois et les langues slaves, entre lesquelles j’ai trouvé 500 mots communs, m’a en outre permis de démontrer, sur la base de données génétiques, archéologiques et religieuses, que ces correspondances étaient liées à des migrations anciennes qui ont diffusé la civilisation dravidienne de la vallée de l’Indus vers l’Iran, la Mésopotamie, l’Anatolie, le Caucase, le Nord de la Mer Noire, l’Europe danubienne et balkanique, la Gaule et l’Ibérie, où les agriculteurs néolithiques ont contribué à former la civilisation mégalithique qui s’est développée à partir de -5.000. Cela explique aussi les correspondances linguistiques que j’ai établies entre le gaulois et les langues dravidiennes - 250 mots communs sur les 500 mots étudiés, et les similitudes que j’ai constatées dans l’organisation de la société et la religion, qui amènent certains chercheurs à suggérer, sur la base de la diffusion du gène très ancien H2-P96 de l’Inde à l’Europe de l’Ouest, que les premiers Européens et les proto-Dravidiens avaient une origine commune.

This paper is an attempt to understand the source and historical development of case markers of Classical Tamil. Traditionally, it was hypothesized that noun was the major source of case markers in Tamil as well as in Dravidian. This paper analyses data from Classical Tamil and shows that the deictic is major the source for the case markers in Tamil as well in the Dravidian family. The historical development is also shown for case markers of Classical Tamil. The phonological, morphological and semantic developments are also discussed incidentally. The case markers of Classical Tamil are compared with other languages of the South Dravidian group to understand the position of Classical Tamil in particular and of Tamil in general in the subgroup.

ദ്രാവിഡഭാഷകളുടെ വ്യാകരണപാരമ്പര്യം വളരെ സമ്പന്നമാണ്. പ്രത്യേകിച്ചും, തമിഴ്, തെലുഗ്, കന്നഡ, മലയാള വ്യാകരണപാരമ്പര്യങ്ങള്‍. എന്നിരുന്നാലും, ഇന്ത്യന്‍ വ്യാകരണപാരമ്പര്യചരിത്രത്തിലും ആധുനികഭാഷാശാസ്ത്രത്തിലും സംസ്കൃത-തമിഴ് വ്യാകരണപാരമ്പര്യങ്ങള്ക്ക്ത മാത്രമേ വേണ്ടത്ര പ്രാധാന്യവും പരിഗണനയും ലഭിച്ചിട്ടുള്ളൂ. അതായത്, സംസ്കൃതം തമിഴ് ഒഴികെയുള്ള ഒരു ഭാഷയുടെയും വ്യാകരണ പാരമ്പര്യത്തിന് അര്ഹ്മായ പരിഗണന ആധുനികഭാഷാശാസ്ത്രത്തില്‍ ലഭിച്ചിട്ടില്ല. ഭഷാശാസ്ത്രചരിത്രപരമായി അനാരോഗ്യകരമായ ഈ പ്രവണതയാണിത്. ഈ പ്രവണതയാണ് ഈ പഠനത്തിന്റെഗ സാഹചര്യം. ദ്രാവിഡവ്യാകരണ പാരമ്പര്യത്തിന്റെര സമഗ്രമായ ഒരു ചരിത്രം എഴുതപെടാത്തതുകൊണ്ടാണ് ഈ പ്രവണത ഇന്നും ശക്തിപ്പെട്ടുകൊണ്ടിരിക്കുന്നത്. അതുകൊണ്ട്, ദ്രാവിഡഭാഷകളുടെ വ്യാകരണ പാരമ്പര്യങ്ങളുടെ ചരിത്രരചനക്കായി ഒരു ഭാഷാശാസ്ത്രചരിത്രരചനാ രീതിശാസ്ത്രം അവതരിപ്പിക്കുകയാണ് ഈ ലേഖനത്തില്‍. ഈ രീതിശാസ്ത്രത്തിന് മൂന്ന് ഘടകങ്ങളുണ്ട് 1) വിവിധങ്ങളായ വ്യാകരണങ്ങളുടെ കാറ്റലോഗിങ്ങ്, 2) വ്യാകരണങ്ങളുടെ വിമര്ശ്നാത്മകമൂല്യനിര്ണ്ണ യം, 3) ഈ വ്യാകരണങ്ങളുടെ പ്രഭാവം കണ്ടെത്തല്‍ എന്നിവയാണ് ഈ ത്രിമാന മാതൃക.

The University of Glasgow’s Malayalam summer course aims at providing the basics of Malayalam grammar for researchers interested in any field of study related to the rich cultural, textual, and linguistic heritage of the West Coast of South India. You might be struggling with performance manuals, palm leaf manuscripts, historical documents, or speech samples that form the database of your research on Temple Theatre, premodern knowledge systems, Indian Ocean history, or tribes of the Western Ghats. We are here to help you in acquiring the analytic tools for approaching your database and developing your research accordingly.

The expected outcome of the class: The participants are expected to be (1) aware of, acquire and train the skill sets to describe, explain the language of OT for Comparative Dravidian Linguistics. (2) Able to use the OT evidence for the advancement of Comparative Dravidian Linguistics.

ചുരുക്കം

‍സംസ്കൃത-തമിഴ്-യൂറോപ്യന്‍ വ്യാകരണ പാരമ്പര്യങ്ങളിലേക്കെല്ലാം കേരളപാണിനീയത്തിന് ആഴത്തിലുള്ള വേരോട്ടമുണ്ട്. വൈവിധ്യമാര്ന്ന  വ്യാകരണ സങ്കല്പ്ന സങ്കേതങ്ങളുടെ സമ്യക്കായ  സമന്വയമാണ് കേരളപാണിനീയത്തിന്റെസ തടിത്തണ്ടിനെ ശക്തി. വാദങ്ങളുടെയും, അപവാദങ്ങളുടെയും  കണാവുന്നതും, പിടിച്ചു കുലുക്കാവുന്നതും, വലിഞ്ഞു കയറാവുന്നതുമായ ഏറെ വള്ളികളുണ്ട് കേരളപാണിനീയത്തില്‍. വിവരണത്തേക്കാളേറി നില്ക്കു ന്ന വിശദീകരണങ്ങളുടെ എത്തിപിടിക്കാവുന്ന ഏറെ ശാഖകളും. അങ്ങനെ മലയാളത്തിന്റൊ നടുമുറ്റത്ത് ഒരു നൂറ്റാണ്ടായി വളര്ന്ന്ക നിറഞ്ഞ് ഭാഷാപഠനത്തിന് തണല്‍ നല്കിു  അനസ്യൂതമായ ഇലയിളക്കത്തോടെ പടര്ന്ന്് നില്ക്കു ന്ന ഒരു ആല്മഏരം പോലെയാണ് കേരളപാണിനീയം. സംസ്കൃതത്തിന് അഷ്ടാധ്യായി പോലെയും, തമിഴിന് തൊല്ക്കാ പ്പിയം പോലെയും ആണ് മലയാളത്തിന് കേരളപാണിനിയം. ഒരു നൂറ്റാണ്ടിന് ശേഷവും  കേരളപാണിനീയത്തെ മലയാളത്തിന്റെൂ പ്രഥമവ്യാകരണം ആക്കുന്നത് അതിന്റെ് ഉപയോഗമൂല്യമല്ല (extrinsic value), മറിച്ച് അതിന്റെ  നൈസര്ഗ്ഗി കതയാണ് (intrinsic value). ആ നൈസര്ഗ്ഗിeകതയുടെ പ്രത്യേകതകളെ അന്വേഷിക്കേണ്ടത് മലയാള വ്യാകരണപാരമ്പര്യത്തിലാണ്. അതിനുള്ള ഒരു  രു എളിയ ശ്രമമാണ്  ഈ ലേഖനം.

We humans are in contact irrespective of the different languages we speak across the world. Therefore, languages we speak are constantly in contact, convergence and change. Language contact and convergence is an inter-language phenomenon. India is an ideal example to describe and explain the phenomena of language contact. Contact and Convergence Linguistics (henceforth CCL) studies the contact and convergence among languages.  The basic of CCL is introduced in this class based on primary evidences from Indian languages. Based on this class we can further examine whether the Kasaragod district of Kerala can be considered as a micro linguistic area in India.
Note: CCL is an advanced area of linguistics today. Only the basics of CCL is introduced in this class. A details list of reading materials is given in this handout with some supplementary articles, books and handbooks.

This article presents a sketch of the life and work of Prof. Bhadriraju Krishnamurti (1928-2012) (hence forth BhK) the legendry Dravidianist. He led the Comparative Dravidian Linguistics (henceforth CDL) for around half a century of 1955-2003. No effort have been made so far to document, review and assess the impact of his contributions except a brief profile about him with a list of publication appeared in Indian Linguistics and a few obituaries by his student Umamaheswar Rao (2012), Udaya Narayana Singh (2012)  and else. Therefore, this article is the first attempt towards that; especially in the absence of a comprehensive history of CDL when CDL reaches 200 years of development in 2016 (most sadly without BhK!).

First part of the paper gives a brief biographical sketch of BhK followed by a presentation of his contribution in the second part. Third part discusses how far his major works contributed towards the advancement of CDL from the pre-paradigmatic stage to paradigmatic stage. Finally, a few of the controversies left by him still remain unsettled are listed for the further development of CDL. A chronologically arranged list of his publications appeared in English is given at the end of the paper. The impact  of his contributions in CDL is measured based on citation indexes and other standard impact measures. Based on those measures the paper is reaching towards a point of conclusion that  Telugu Verbal Bases: A comparative and descriptive study by BhK in 1957 later published in 1961 is the substantial contribution with a paradigmatic impact in CDL. Later his magnum opus Dravidian Languages in 2003 is the compilation of his whole studies interacts with the field since 1957. Therefore, these two works by BhK and the years in which both were published, i.e. 1961 and 2003 are considered as internal chronological landmarks in the history of CDL. Based on this article I conclude that BhK represents beginning of the two phases in the development of CDL. Former is the third phase of the development of CDL begins with the establishment of comparative and historical paradigm of CDL in 1961. Later is the compilation of the total results of the development of CDL since 1961 by all the scholars in 2003 in his Dravidian Languages.

The Malayalam language is spoken by 38 million people as their mother tongue
and is the official language of Kerala and the Lakshadweep Islands. It has a
significant number of speakers across the Middle-East. The script used for writing
Malayalam is known as the Malayalam script, which is a Southern Brahmic script.
The writing system underwent various reforms over the years and became the tool
of literacy in Kerala. However, challenges exist with the current setup, which
requires attention from scholars and the government. This paper attempts to adopt
a simplified version of the Malayalam script which is prevalent in the Pacha
Malayalam Movement, adjusting it to the needs of Modern Malayalam language.

Коряков Ю.Б. Карты дравидийских языков и диалектов // Языки мира: Дравидийские языки / РАН. Институт языкознания. Ред. колл.: Н.В. Гуров , А.М. Дубянский, А.А. Кибрик, Е.Б. Маркус. ― М.: Academia, 2013. ― С. 576–581 + форзац.

Карты дравидийских языков для тома из серии Языки мира. Карты, которые находятся на страницах в основной части книги - черно-белые, последняя цветная карта - на форзаце. Нахзац занимает схема дравидийских языков (см. отдельной публикацией).

This interdisciplinary study allowed me to establish, on the basis of linguistic, genetic, archaeological, historical and religious data, that linguistic concordances between Gaulish and Slavic were linked with Neolithic migrations from NorthWestern India and Pakistan to Iran, Mesopotamia, Anatolia, the Caucasus, the North of the Black Sea, Danubic and Balkan Europe, Gaul and Iberia, where Neolithic farmers contributed to the formation of the megalithic civilisation which developed in Gaul from 5.000 BC and brought an archaic language stemming from a Trans-Eurasian original language. This explains the linguistic concordances I established between Gaulish and Dravidian languages-250 common words from the 500 words I studied (and 160 with Burushaski), as well as with Altaic, Uralic, Kartvelian, Anatolian and Middle-Eastern languages. This also explains similarities I have found in the organisation of the Society and religion, which lead certain researchers to suggest, on the basis of the spread of the very ancient haplogroup H2 P-96 from India to Western Europe, that first Europeans and proto-Dravidians had an ancient common origin, as the macrohaplogroups F and K, from which stem all European haplogroups, and the haplogroup H could appear in India.
Cette étude interdisciplinaire m’a permis de démontrer, sur la base de données linguistiques, génétiques, archéologiques, historiques et religieuses, que les correspondances linguistiques entre le gaulois et le slave étaient liées à des migrations Néolithiques d’Inde et du Pakistan du Nord-Ouest vers l’Iran, la Mésopotamie, l’Anatolie, le Caucase, le Nord de la Mer Noire, l’Europe danubienne et balkanique, la Gaule et l’Ibérie, où les
agriculteurs néolithiques ont contribué à former la civilisation mégalithique qui s’est développée en Gaule à partir de -5.000 et apporté une langue archaïque issue d’une langue originelle trans-eurasienne. Cela explique les correspondances linguistiques que j’ai établies entre le gaulois et les langues dravidiennes - 250 mots communs sur les 500 mots étudiés (et 160 avec le bourouchaski), ainsi qu’avec les langues altaïques,
ouraliennes, karvéliennes, anatoliennes et moyen-orientales. Cela explique aussi les similitudes constatées dans l’organisation de la société et la religion, qui amènent certains chercheurs à suggérer, sur la base de la
diffusion du très ancien haplogroupe H2 P-96 de l’Inde à l’Europe de l’Ouest, que les premiers Européens et les proto-Dravidiens avaient une origine commune très ancienne, les macro-haplogroupes F et K, desquels
descendent tous les haplogroupes européens, et l’haplogroupe H ayant pu apparaitre en Inde.

This interdisciplinary study, published in Scientific Culture, journal supported by the European Academy of Sciences and Arts, allowed me to establish, on the basis of linguistic, genetic, archaeological, historical and religious data, that linguistic concordances between Gaulish and Slavic were linked with Neolithic migrations from NorthWestern India and Pakistan to Iran, Mesopotamia, Anatolia, the Caucasus, the North of the Black Sea, Danubic and Balkan Europe, Gaul and Iberia, where Neolithic farmers contributed to the formation of the megalithic civilisation which developed in Gaul from 5.000 BC and brought an archaic language stemming from a Trans-Eurasian original language. This explains the linguistic concordances I established between Gaulish and Dravidian languages-250 common words from the 500 words I studied (and 160 with Burushaski), as well as with Altaic, Uralic, Kartvelian, Anatolian and Middle-Eastern languages. This also explains similarities I have found in the organisation of the Society and religion, which lead certain researchers to suggest, on the basis of the spread of the very ancient haplogroup H2 P-96 from India to Western Europe, that first Europeans and proto-Dravidians had a very ancient common origin, as the macrohaplogroup F and the haplogroup H could appear in India.

Sri Lanka Gypsy Telugu (SLGT) is a dialect of Telugu spoken by a gypsy community in Sri Lanka numbering several thousand individuals. This dialect diverges significantly from the Telugu spoken on the Indian mainland and exhibits several significant grammatical features that are best explained as resulting from contact with Colloquial Sinhala. Based on data gathered from gypsies living in the Anuradhapura area of north central Sri Lanka, this paper presents the first comprehensive description of those points of SLGT grammar that distinguish it from other forms of Telugu, including lexical and structural borrowings from Sinhala.

Data mining the Sumerian vocabulary reveals a dichotomy of the cognate associations of the Emeĝir and the Emesal dialects, with the former having mostly Dravidian and the later mostly Uralic cognates, indicating that Sumerian arose by the combination of two languages from those language families. The data mining also reveals a distribution pattern of Proto-Uralic, Proto-Finno-Ugric, Proto-Ugric and Proto-Hungarian cognates that indicates that Sumerian is farther than Minoan from Hungarian, although all are West-Ugric.

മലയാളത്തിലെ ആദ്യത്തെ താരതമ്യാത്മക വ്യാകരണപാരമ്പര്യപഠനമാണ് ഈ പ്രബന്ധം. വ്യാകരണപാരമ്പര്യം എന്താണെന്ന് ആദ്യമായി നിര്വയചിക്കപ്പെടുന്നു. ദ്രാവിഡഭാഷകളിലെ ആദ്യവ്യാകരണശ്രമങ്ങളെ പരിചയപ്പെടുത്തുന്നു. ലീലാതിലകത്തിന്റെു    പ്രത്യേകതകളെ    ഇതര വ്യാകരണഗ്രന്ഥങ്ങളുമായി താരതമ്യം ചെയ്യുന്നു. ഓരോ ഭാഷയിലും വ്യാകരണപാരമ്പര്യം രൂപപ്പെടുന്ന ഭാഷാസാമൂഹിക സാഹചര്യങ്ങള്‍ ചര്ച്ചയയാകുന്നു. വ്യാകരണരചനയുടെ സന്ദര്ഭണവും വ്യാകരണപാഠവും താരതമ്യം ചെയ്യുന്ന രീതിശാസ്ത്രവും ശ്രദ്ധേയമായ നിഗമനങ്ങളും അവതരിപ്പിക്കുന്നു.

This is the term paper I wrote for the Field Methods course at Rice University back in 2010. Some information in it might be wrong or misguided given the limited time and knowledge I had to write it. But the transcribed text might be useful to those working on Dravidian languages. So it deserves to be archived here.

ചുരുക്കം: ഇതര ഭാഷകളിൽ നിന്നും മലയാളത്തിലേക്ക് ആദാനം ചെയ്ത പദങ്ങളെ വിവരിക്കുകയും, ഈ ആദാന പ്രക്രിയയിലെ പൊതുവായ ചില പ്രവണതകളെ വിശദീകരിക്കുകയുമാണ് ഈ പ്രബന്ധത്തിൽ. ലോകപരകീയപദശേഖരത്തിലെ (World Loan Word Database) 1600 ആദാനപദങ്ങളുടെ അടിസ്ഥാനത്തിൽ വികസിപ്പിച്ച മലയാളം പരകീയപദ ഡേറ്റാബേസിലെ പദങ്ങളെ വിശകലനം ചെയ്താണ് ഈ പ്രബന്ധത്തിലെ നിഗമനങ്ങളിലേക്ക് എത്തുന്നത്.

Draft of the Solega-English Dictionary (with sketch grammar), containing much encyclopaedic information on the traditional ecological knowledge of the Solega people of the B. R. Hills (Karnataka State, southern India). The dictionary also includes an English-Solega finder list and biological species list.

My paper on the Dravidian languages is included as a chapter in the book titled "The Languages and Linguistics of South Asia: A Comprehensive Guide". This chapter describes the Dravidian languages, their histories, and their genetic classification.

This volume is a state-of-the-art survey of research on the languages of South Asia, with contributions by well-known experts. It covers the languages, their histories and classification. My chapter provides an up-to-date surveys on the 200 years of comparative historical research on Dravidian languages.

This extraordinary volume is edited by Hans Hock and Elena Bashir, and published by Walter de Gruyter.

Decipherment of the Indus script This paper describes a decipherment of the Indus script. The decipherment is based on observed similarities between Protocuneiform script and the Indus script. Meanings were transferred from Protocuneiform characters to characters in Indus script, and Dravidian words were used to obtain sounds for Indus script characters. Correlation between Brahmi letters and corresponding Indus characters were further used to correct the readings obtained. These readings show that Indus civilisation was largely Dravidian. It also shows that caste divisions specific to modern South India

This chapter describes grammaticalization patterns in a broad selection of languages of South Asia, a multilingual region of the world known to constitute a linguistic area in which unrelated languages demonstrate evidence of linguistic convergence. In addition to presenting representative examples of grammaticalization, the chapter specifically considers whether widely recurring patterns in unrelated languages could be induced by language contact. The investigation finds robust evidence for the transfer of seemingly identical cognitive schemas across the genetic boundaries of languages in contact. These target morphemes or constructions with identical meanings in unrelated languages, and they produce grammaticalization outcomes that are not attested in related languages located outside of South Asia. Such replicated patterns must cater to a multilingual community’s communicative needs, while at the same time reducing the cognitive burden imposed by multilingualism in a linguistic area.

A treatise which defines the meanings of linguistic units such as a word, a suffix, a prefix, a phrase, an idiom etc of a language can be called a dictionary. The history of dictionaries n Kannada begins from tenth century AD. The early dictionaries up to the end of eighteenth century ere in verse form, very short accommodating only bout a thousand words and of limited use. In nineteenth century western scholars brought about radical changes and compiled dictionaries on scientific lines. In twentieth and twenty-first centuries the native scholars contributed in a big way and diversified dictionaries were constructed. At present lexicography in Kannada is comparable to that  of any other language.

This interdisciplinary study, published in Scientific Culture,  allowed me to establish, on the basis of linguistic, genetic, archaeological, historical and religious data, that linguistic concordances between Gaulish and Slavic were linked with Neolithic migrations from North-Western India and Pakistan to Iran, Mesopotamia, Anatolia, the Caucasus, the North of the Black Sea, Danubic and Balkan Europe, Gaul and Iberia, where Neolithic farmers contributed to the formation of the megalithic civilisation which developed in Gaul from 5.000 BC and brought an archaic language stemming from a Trans-Eurasian original language. This explains the linguistic concordances I established between Gaulish and Dravidian languages – 250 common words from the 500 words I studied (and 160 with Burushaski), as well as with Altaic, Uralic, Kartvelian, Anatolian and Middle-Eastern languages. This also explains similarities I have found in the organisation of the Society and religion, which lead certain researchers to suggest, on the basis of the spread of the very ancient haplogroup H2 P-96 from India to Western Europe, that first Europeans and proto-Dravidians had a very ancient common origin, as the macrohaplogroup F and the haplogroup H could appear in India.

The main goal of this paper is to analyze a specific group of Turkic lexical items whose historical destiny has been recently tied to the Dravidian languages. Overall, it is unclear how these lexical items should be dealt with, since authors supporting this borrowing route offer no clear picture of the
exact nature of the historical setting. In this paper I hope to demonstrate that there is no such thing as Dravidian-Turkic direct contacts. Instead, more conventional borrowing routes, well-known in the specialized literature, might account for the majority of examples brought into discussion. Several
other instances, however, must be regarded as cases that arise due to chance similarity. The bulk of evidence relies on both (pre)history and (historical) linguistics.

This paper argues against the Dravidian, Vedic and Paramunda Indus theories, and shows why Dravidian languages, Sanskrit or Paramunda languages could not have been candidates for the Indus Valley Civilization which flourished from 2600 BC to 1900  BC in the North-West of India and Pakistan. Supporters of these three hypotheses are welcome to provide a systematic refutation of all the points raised in this paper. This paper adopts a multi-disciplinary approach, drawing conclusions from many different fields of science. Quotes of several mainstream scholars of repute are presented in support of the conclusions arrived at in this paper. An alternative hypothesis of the identity of the Harappans is also presented towards the end of the paper.

Originally published in a Russian scholarly journal: Tonoyan-Belyayev, Igor A. In search of the oldest common Indo-European Urheimat: preliminary linguistic evidence from Dravidian // Актуальные проблемы аграрной науки, производства и образования: материалы V международной научно-практической конференции молодых ученых и специалистов (на иностранных языках) (Россия, Воронеж, апрель 2019 г.). Воронеж, 2019. УДК 811.1