View Full Version : Dravidian Languages vs Finno-Ugrian

Friday, May 14th, 2004, 11:03 PM
Dravidian Languages vs Finno-Ugrian

Most of the languages from Europe to India are members of the large family known as the Indo-European languages. Notable exeception to this in Europe is the Finno-Ugric family consisting mainly of Finnish, Hungarian, Estonian and Lapp languages. On the Indian front, the Dravidian family of Tamil, Teluge, Kannada and Malayalam which are the principal languages of four South Indian States, also does not belong to the Indo-European.

Finnish language has remained independent and quite distinct, in spite of the close proximity to other European neighbours. On the other side, Dravidian langauges - all except Tamil - have been heavily influenced by Sanskrit words and alphabet to an extent that some of the literary works in these languages contain more Sanskrit words than the native ones! However, it is easy to find old writings in these langauges, which do not contain a single Sanskrit word.

Dravidian Languages - Origin
Nothing definite is known about the origin of Dravidian languages. Are they just native to India? In recent years, a hypothesis has been gaining ground that Dravidian speakers have probably moved from north-west to the South of Indian peninsula, a movement originating possibly as far as Central Asia. There is also general agreement that the language of Indus Valley Civilization looks like Dravidian. The presence of a Dravidian language called Brahui, isolated in Pakistan, spoken by 750,000, probably remnant of the Indus people, supports this theory.

The Dravidian languages have remained an isolated family to the present day and have defied all of the attempts to show a connection with the Indo- European tongues, Basque, Sumerian or Korean! "The most promising and plausible hypothesis is that of a linguistic relationship with the Uralic (Hungarian and Finnish) and Altaic (Turkish, Mongol) languages groups". [Encyclopædia Britannica Vol 22, Page 715 1989 Edition]. In our essay we attempt to elaborate this theory with some striking comparisons.

Dravidian Words elsewhere?
A number of Dravidian loanwords appear in Rigveda, the earliest known Indo-Aryan literary work in Sanskrit. In the Hebrew text of the Bible, peacock is called "tukkhiyim" probably similar to Tamil "tokai", tail of peacock. A number of words also appear in Greco-Roman sources such as Periplus maris Erythraei (AD 89). The western words for rice and ginger are cultural loans from Dravidian. (Italian riso, Latin and Greek oryza, Proto-Dravidian arici, and for ginger, German Ingwer Greek zinziberis, Old Tamil inciver meaning ver (root) if inci plant. In contrast to the words loaned during the colonial era (Copra, Cashew etc), these words are very old and appear in very old texts.

Finno-Ugric languages
The ancestor of Finno-Ugric language called Proto-Uralic was spoken 7,000 to 10,000 years ago in the general area of the northern Ural Mountains Range.

Grammatical Similarities
There are some grammatical similarities between Finnish and South Indian languages. Both do not use prepositions at all. An example makes it clear. Note that Malayalam has its own alphabet, but we use Roman script here so that you can read it.

Finnish Malayalam Means

Helsingissä Helsinkiyil in Helsinki
Helsinkiin Helsinkiyilekku to Helsinki
Helsingistä Helsinkiyilninnu from Helsinki
Turkuunko? Turku-yileko? to Turku?
kirjan hinta Pusthaka-thinte Vila the price of the book

The use of suffixes is not the only similarity. In the case of noun + noun constructions, the qualifying name comes first in both languages forming a single compound word. Eg: In Finnish, brick(tiili)+ house(talo) = tiilitalo. In Malayalam brick(Ishtika) + house(Veedu) = Ishtikaveedu. On the other hand, in the case of noun+name construction, where noun indicates relationship, both languages follow the same pattern. Eg: Matti setä = uncle Matti. In Malayalam it would have been Matti maman = uncle Matti.

Some striking words
Some words are strikingly similar and have the same or close-to meaning. This can be quite accidental, until someone can prove otherwise. Also 'sata' (=100) in Finnish means the same in almost all Indian languages! But the source of this is obviously Sanskrit satam.

Malayalam means Finnish means

amma mother äiti mother
emä maa mother country
emä laiva mother ship
nalu four nelja four
vatti basket vati basin
puu flower puu tree
muusari foundryman muurari* mason
piri screw thread piiri circle
eei (colloq.) 'no' ei no
tuuli blow in wind tuuli wind
kudi(kudil) house koti house
kayyi, kai hand, arm käsi hand, arm
kol (kolluka) die, kill kuolla die, pass away
ulla, olla(thu) be, exist ole to be

* Can be pure coincidence? They did not use bricks at the
time of supposed contacts. Muurari comes from "muuri" which means "wall".
Whereas in Malayalam Musari comes from "Musa"(=mould). Though not exactly
same meaning, the formation of the final word follows a similar pattern.

Meeting Place : Central Asia or Ural Mountains?
If the original inhabitants of Ural mountains spoke a Proto-Uralic langauge, then it is older than any modern Indo-European langauge prevalent in Europe today (7,000 to 10,000 years). Migration from Ural Mountains happened towards North and Northern part of today Russia. But there is absolutely no evidence that Ural people ever moved towards east or southeast.

It is now widely accepted that Indus Valley Civilization was "non-Indo- European" and is generally classified as "Dravidian" or "native Indian". "It is a well-established and well-supported hypothesis that Dravidian speakers must have been spread throughout India, including the north-west region... Thus a form of proto-Dravidian, or perhaps Proto-North-Dravidian must have been extensive in north India before the advent of the Aryans." [Encyclopædia Britannica Vol 22, Page 716 1989 Edition].

"The circumstances of the advent of Dravidian speakers in India are shrouded in mystery. There are vague linguistic and cultural ties with the Urals and with the Mediterranean area". There is also speculation that original Dravidians were a mix of Mediterraneans and Armenoids who moved towards India in the 4th millenium BC. "Along their route, these immigrants may have possibly come into an intimate, prolonged contact with the Ural-altaic speakers, thus explaining the striking affinities between Dravidian and Ural-Altaic language groups."[Encyclopædia Britannica Vol 22, Page 716 1989 Edition]. During and after the fall of, Indus Valley Civilization (3000-1500 BC) there was fairly a constant movement of Dravidian speakers from the northwest to the southeast of India.

A Note to Readers
What we have discussed is something which happened or did not happen, well before the recorded history (4-5 thousand years BC). It is difficult to coin the correct terminology to depict the people or languages of that period. Any reference to current people with the same name is misleading, because of the changes, migrations and mixing happened many times in the history.

For example, today's "Dravidians" of South India are a mix of original Proto-Dravidians who migrated from North India and the Australoid people who probably were natives of Southern India or Indonesian archipelago. This "mix" was further diluted with the coming of Aryans in the Vedic period. The same can be said about the Uralic people. The current "Finns" are a blend of European and the original Uralic forefathers. According to this view, the more archaic Uralic type is preserved among the Lapps. [Encyclopædia Britannica Vol 22, Page 703 1989 Edition].

Note: The author Gopi Nathan has written this out of academic interest only. I am neither a philologist nor a linguist. Those interested in similar subject should consult internet elsewhere. One of those pages is Ural altaic language home page where you see quite a lot of information and links on Finnish, Hungarian, Uralic in general and altaic languages.



Saturday, May 15th, 2004, 01:45 AM

Saturday, May 15th, 2004, 01:58 AM
Sounds plausible that the Ugro-Dravidian group's link was severed by the Indo-European incursion from the west ( into central Asia ).

Saturday, May 15th, 2004, 02:29 AM
Sounds plausible that the Ugro-Dravidian group's link was severed by the Indo-European incursion from the west ( into central Asia ).

Dravidian mignt be Nostratic but its unlikely to be closer to Uralic, than Indo-European is. A lot of linguists, recently accept an Indo-Uralic group, with Indo-European and Uralic both in it.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Saturday, May 15th, 2004, 06:59 AM
The knowledge displayed by posters on this thread is remarkable. I did not know Estonian was a non-Indo-European language. The woman who taught me German (had a Ph.D. in German) was also fluent in Russian, English, Swedish, and French. She was Estonian. Can anyone tell me more about Estonian?

Also, are there any genetic links between South India and Finnland?

Saturday, May 15th, 2004, 09:41 PM
Well, if not a few think we're aboard a phantastic but unconvincing theory, there is more to come that sounds far-fetched, although none is anything new.
The next article brings evidence of Austric connection between the Austric languages(a phylum including Austronesian and Austro-Asiatic languages: http://home.att.net/~lvhayes/Langling/langpg3.htm) and Indo-European!

Interestingly, the author mentions a PIE dispersal reaching Central Asia at 6000BCE.
Paul Rivet in L'origines de l'homme américain proposes a theory in which Europe got depleted of people during the LMG an a current of the Chancelade race sought out more clement living areas in Central Asia.
On the other hand, the UP races in the Don area share a lot in common with the Western Magdalénians(see my thread on Kostenki:http://www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=3625&highlight=kostenki ) and the type can still be traced back in the Neolithic(Dnepr-Asov culture).

Way back in 1932, Wilhelm von Hévésy wrote a book, Finnish-ugrisches aus Indien, wherein he points on the kinship of the pre-Dravidian and pre-IE Munda language in India with Oceanic languages(Austronesian) and ...Uralic.
Munda is today recognized as an Austric language.

The following article has a heritical content, but new paradigms often are ascribed to much maligned outsiders who create new apparently unfound, hazy viewpoints on the go and are often misunderstood or hard to follow by.


Austric words in IndoEuropean and AfroAsiatic?

Stephen Oppenheimer in his book "Eden in the East" proposes that
the sudden rise in sea level appr. 6000 BCE flooded Sundaland, the
area which is now the sea around Indonesia, and forced people
living there to leave, in the process travelling to many places,
including the Mediterranean, where they became "civilizing
heroes". It is interesting that the initial spread and dispersal
of AfroAsiatic and of Old European (of which Etruscan is a member?)
is generally set at about the same time. At the same time, Proto-
IndoEuropean reached Central Asia from the Fertile Crescent.
If this is true, did these exiles from Sundaland (presumably
speaking an Austronesian or at least Austric language) leave
linguistic traces in the IndoEuropean and AfroAsatic languages?
It would seem they did.
Paul Manansala has published a list on the internet with comparisons
between Sanskrit (and its descendants) and Austric languages: PMA and
between Sumerian and Austric languages: PMS.

I think (but I am not sure) that Manansala proposes that the
Indic/Austric cognates he has listed belong to a substrate of
Indic (or is Indic?). The problem is that the Indic half of the
cognate pairs have well-established cognates of their own in
the other Indo-European language groups. Therefore the existence
of the cognate pairs that Paul Manansala has found does not disprove
Indo-European influence in India (which he doesn't claim, anyway),
rather it would tend to reinforce an out-of-India hypothesis for
Indo-European. Some of the cognate pairs have cognates themselves
in other language groups (Afro-Asiatic, Kartvelian, Sumerian). Which
means, I think, if the Austronesian cognates are outside the Indic
influence area, that there have been earlier (and extensive! judging
from the number of cognates) contacts between Proto-Austric (or
perhaps Proto-Austronesian with Austro-Asiatic as sister languages)
and the block of languages now being proposed as descendants of
Nostratic. In principle the contacts could of course be both ways,
but a post-diluvian dispersal of a boat people from east to west
would be intriguing. We are left with two options for action

1) Assume that it is all a part of the Proto-World language. Add
Austric to the stock of candidate languages as a descendant
of Nostratic.

2) Assume a heavy borrowing of cultural items in the areas of
astronomy, boats, kingship, measuring, mythology, basic
geometrical structures couched in zoomorphic terms (this
is supposed to mean that when they talk of snakes and trees,
they also mean lines, waves and circles), psychology, magic,
shamanism, etc from East to West. Go chase Proto-Austronesian
(the Austro-Asiatics are landlubbers) cognates in every
language group that has a coastline (well, the speakers of
which live in an area that has etc, you know what I mean).

I go for 2). If you don't, check for Scandinavian bronze age rock
carvings on the net and be convinced.

This has some consequences for my modus operandi.

For each of Paul Manansala's cognates, I have tried to find
IndoEuropean cognates (from EIEC, Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture)
AfroAsiatic cognates (from HSED, Hamito-Semitic Etymologgical Dictionary)
Nostratic cognates (from IENH, Indo-European and the Nostratic Hypothesis)
and I have hoped each time (especially with Nostratic) that the cognates I found would belong to a language spoken in an area with a coastline (not too many Proto-Altaic roots, thank you very much). I seem to have been lucky. Most of the roots I found have belonged to places not incompatible with a theory of sea-borne transmission.
I have supplemented with discussions of root stems and related derivatives from the works of Møller and Cuny. Although they are very aged, I have nowhere found a similarly detailed exposition of the subject. Present-day authors seem to be content with working with single words (not fair, but sort of true). Especially around the complexes *H-n-(g) "bend, snake, fear, kill, sew, straight line", etc and *H-r-(g) "king, erect, set straight, extend" etc they have been invaluable.
Dumezil is good for setting things straight, when the sense of words makes no sense.
And some Etruscan cognates thrown in for good measure.
Of grammar
Charles Fillmore (in CFC) has proposed that in all languages the various NP's (noun phrases) in a sentence each take on one of a fixed number of roles relative to the verb. He called those roles deep cases (as opposed to what he termed surface cases of e.g Indo-European languages like German, Russian and Latin).

The number of deep cases varied as the theory evolved. Here is a typical list (I cite from memory, accuracy WRT names is not guaranteed):

These are the "non-spatial" cases. The "spatial" (or "spatio- temporal") may include:

(place where action occurred)
In standard Proto-IndoEuropean, such as it is reconstructed, a sentence consists of a verb and one or several noun phrases. The roles (deep cases) of the noun phrases are indicated by adding suffixes to the component words (articles, adjective, nouns) of the noun phrase in question. In Proto-Austronesian (according to PA) a sentence consists of a verb and just one noun phrase. The role of that noun phrase is indicated by an affix (pre-, in-, suf-) not of the noun phrase but of the verb. Here they are:

Actor mood : *-um- (infix )

Object mood : *-ën (suffix)

Beneficiary-Locative mood : *-an (suffix)

Instrumental mood : *Si- (prefix)

There is also a

Perfective mood : -in- (infix)

to which one might compare:

For actor mood and perfective mood

The Proto-IndoEuropean present tense -n- infix (CAIEH 76).

For object and beneficiary-locative mood

The Germanic and Slavic past participle in -n- (CAIEH 77)
(corresponding to Sanskrit -ána). If the language has no
copula (e.g. Russian), a passive sentence will correspond
to a Proto-Austronesian one. Perhaps the Latin absolute
ablative construction is an archaic sentence type that
belongs here too. Compare also the Etruscan suffix *-na
(shuthi "grave", shuthina "grave goods" written on
funeral gifts).
Alternative: the Germanic infinitive suffix (-an, later
variously -en, -e, nothing), Sanskrit ´-ana.

For instrumental mood

The AfroAsiatic languages makes causative verbs by mens of an
s-preformative (prefix). Herman Møller has suggested that the
Proto-IndoEuropean "s mobile" is a cognate and therefore
originally also was a causative preformative. It is tempting
to compare it to the Proto-Austronesian instrumental mood
prefix *Si- (cf. English "melt" vs. "smelt" (make melt?), and
"reach" vs. "stretch" (make reach?), cf. German "recken" and
"strecken", Germanic inserts -t- into sr-, as in "stream"
from *(s)rw-m-, “flow”).

Beside the s-preformative for Proto-IndoEuropean and Proto-
AfroAsiatic, Møller also postulates the existence of a
w-preformative of no distinct semantics.

It is possible to identify suffixes in the words: *-gh/k-, *-dh/t-.

Of phonetics

Since I assume an Austronesian origin for the cognate "clusters"
I am free to assume whatever alternations that are common there,
so r/n/l/d will be permissible alternates, and I have permitted
n-infixing into tri-consonantal roots C-C-C < > C-NC-C. This
is partly accepted in Indo-European already as present (ie.
imperfective) stem infixes in verbs. Dyen notes a similar
function in Proto-Austronesian: verb with n-infix, noun without.
Also (NEOVF), in Afro-Asiatic, Cushitic Bedawi has an imperfective
-n- prefix (two-consonant stems) and infix (three-consonant
stems), eg. verb -ktum- “to come”, 1st sing. perfective a-ktim,
imperfective a-ka-n-tim.
Further I will not attempt to keep laryngeals apart. This means
a lot of freedom and a good deal less credibility, but then,
this is only a first approximation. It should be noted that
in Semitic, the choice between r/n/l is considered "a matter
of style" (I read somewhere) and that it is generally assumed
that some substrate languages of the Mediterranean had d/l/n/r
vacillation. Consider also old Indo European problems like
(Hittite) laman vs. (many other Indo-European languages)
n-m-, Latin lingva vs. Germanic etc dengwa, and the archaic
neuter -r/-n and -l/-n paradigms. Thus it is possible to
claim a common origin for the *H-n(-g)- "snake" and *H-r(-g)- "ruler" roots.

In general, I think this d/l/n/r vacillation has been ignored.

Of notation

I have made some horrible
substitutions for various phonetic symbols.

& schwa
ly palatal l
ñ, ny palatal n
î, û Slavic short i and u, soft and hard sign
ã, õ, Slavic nasal vowels
gh, kh,
dh, th
bh, ph Aspirated stops
H1, H2, H3 I got rid of Ha in EIEC by calling it H2,
because it's easier to write. Sorry.
Y Some funny-looking Y-like letter
categorized as "emphatic spirantic lenis"
in VISW. Corresponds approx. to H3.
Unfortunately I know next to nothing about
# Some other laryngeal
plus various others that I made up on the spur of the moment.

(...) optional
[..|..|.. ] alternatives
(..|..|.. ) alternatives or nothing

*A-d-m- “cover, fill, build, create”

*A-n- “wind, breath, god, spirit”; “man”

*A-r- “earth”

*H-bh-g- “to apportion”

*H.-g^- “sharp”

*H-gh- “day”

*H-l-g- “stick, glue”

*H-l-gwh- “light”

*H-kw- “eye, see”

*H-n-g- “snake, serpent, destroy”

*H-r- “noble”

*H-r-g- “maintain”

*H-r-k- “sun, silver, gold, fire”

*H-s- “fire”

*H-p- “fire”

*H-w-s- “dwell, wear”

*Y-p- “water”

*Y-p-r- “(break on through to) the other side”

*air- “go”

*bh-A- “(make) appear from the beyond”

*bh-rs- “copper, iron”

*bh-r/l- “bright, castle, bank, high,
and many other strange things etc
(or numinous light above island?)”

*bhudh- “to fathom, awaken, understand”

*b-l- “axe”

*chag- “leave”

*dan- “river, lake”

*dh-r- “bear, hold”

*d-l-k- “see”

*d-w- “die”

*d-y-w- “divine, light”

*g-m- “to eat, chew, tooth”

*g-n- “get, create”

*gw-r- “heavy, great”

*hor- “time, period”

*kat- “speak, story”

*kay- “body, tree, wood”

*ken- “know”

*k-k- “chicken”

*k-l- “call, sound”

*k-m- “love”

*k-m-t- “shine, moon”

*k-r- “bark, skin; turn, cicle, enclosure”

*k-r-(n-) turtles, frogs, crabs; horn

*k-r-s- “dark, black”

*k-w- “magic”

*k-w-l- “hollow, ditch”

*kur- “dog”

*kw-r- “work”

*l-k- “body”

*l-w- “flow, wash, shine”

*l-w-k- The hole to the other side

*mats- “fish”

*m-d- Tree (pole) at middle of the world,
middle of the world,
order of the world,

*m-gh- “great”

*m-l- “sweetness, honey”

*m-n- “spirit”

*mula- “root, source, base”

*m-y- “urinate; cloud”

*n-bh- “cloud, shower”

*n-s- “island”

*p-g- “pole; catch”

*p-H- “protect”

*p-H-k- “hold”

*p(/kW)-d- “foot”

*p-kw- “to cook”

*p-k- “belly, flank, wing”

*p-l- “full, several”

*p-l-d- “lead”

*p-l-k- “dirt, foul”

*p-n- “hand, five”

*p-t- “lord, mistress”

*p-r- “love”

*p-r-k- “pig”

*pu- “clean”

*pul- “hair”

*q-l- “move, time”

*r-H-m- “dark, black”

*r-g- “blood, red”

*s-d- “true”

*s-g- “hang on to, limb”

*s-gh- “power, strength”

*s-k- “sea”

*sk-lk- “must; debt”

*s-l- “salt, water”

*s-l-k- “silver”

*s-m- “together, one”

*s-m- “sea, salt”

*sor- “woman”

*s-r- “flow, stream”; “arrow, spear”

*s-w- “one's own, relative, friend”

*s-w-g- “sick”

*s-w-l- “shine, sun”

*tar- “go across”

*t-k- “fear, evil”

*t-l- “thorn”

*t-n- “stretch”

*t-n- “to sound”

*toy- “water”

*t-p- “heat, burn, fire”

*t-r- “star”

*t-r-n- “go down”

*t-w- “to strike, hit”

*t-w-k- “descendants”

*w-d- “water”

*w-dh- “lead; wife”

*w-gh- “boat, carry, road”, (Vehicle of the Sun?)

*wit- “branch, tree, trunk”

*w-l- “choose”

*w-l/r- “to turn, wrap, (thus:) cover”

*w-r- “water”

*w-s- “water”

*yug- “to join, unite, mix”

*dm-pd- “domain and its master”

Forces of creation, maintenance and destruction


*H-s-, *t-r- Stars!





Morphology, inflection

Verb-forming nasal infix before second consonant of root

tuboh “body” Melanesian
tumboh “grow” Melanesian

yukta-h “joined” Sanskrit
yuñj-mah “we join” Sanskrit

The n-infix of the present may become the basis of another noun which may
replace the original one.

tumboh “growth” Melanesian

jùngas “yoke” Lithuanian

or an n-infix-less verb may be formed from the original noun.

tuboq “grow” Tagalog
tubu “grow” Toba
tuwoh “grow” Javanese

and if both happens, you may have a doublet root, with
or without semantic distinction.

tubuq Proto-Austronesian
tumbuq Proto-Austronesian

Suffix (verb)-en meaning “something which gets (verb)ed”

-ka:qin “eat” Tagalog
ka:n-in “boiled rice” Tagalog
makan “eat” Mal.
makan-an “food” Mal.
ka-i “eat” Futuna
kan-o “meat” Futuna

bit- “bite” Gothic
bit-an-s “bitten” Gothic
nes- “carry” Old Church Slavonic
nes-en-û “carried” Old Church Slavonic

Austronesian durative reduplication.

nagpu:tol “did cut” Tagalog
nagpu:pu:tol “is, was cutting” Tagalog
mööt “sit” Trukese
mömmööt “be sitting” Trukese

títhe:mi “I put” Greek

quotes E. Benveniste's "Origins of the Formulation of
Nouns in IndoEuropean" (1935) as the origin of the ideas
that lead IENH to these observations on the root structure
of Proto-IndoEuropean:

1 There were no initial vowels in the earliest form of
Pre-IndoEuropean. Therefore, every root began with a

2 Originally, there were no initial consonant clusters
either. Consequently, every root began with one and
only one consonant.

3 Two basic syllable types existed (A) *CV and (B)
*CVC where C = any non-syllabic and V = any vowel.
Permissible root forms coincided exactly with these
two syllable types.

4 A verbal stem could either be identical with a root
or it could consist of a root plus a single derivational
suffix added as a suffix to the root: *CVC-VC-. Any
consonant could serve as a suffix.

5 Nominal stems, on the other hand, could be extended
by additional suffixes.

Similarly for Afro-Asiatic

1 There were no initial vowels in the earliest form of
Proto-AfroAsiatic. Therefore every root began with a

2 Originally, there were no initial consonant clusters,
either. Consequently, every root began with one and
only one consonant.

3 Two basic syllable types existed (A) *CV and (B) *CVC
where C = any non-syllable and V = any vowel. Permissible
root forms coincided with these two syllable types.

4 A verb stem could either be identical with a root or it
could consist of a root plus a single derivational
morpheme added as a suffix to the root: *CVC-VC-. Any
consonant could serve as a suffix.

5 Primary (that is, non-derivational) noun stems displayed
similar patterning, though, unlike verbs stems, they
were originally characterized by stable vocalism.

PA quotes Dempwolff for the folowing limitations on the
Proto-Austronesian word-bases:


2 CVCVC, of which some are
CVNPVC, where N is a nasal and P is a stop, homorganic
with each other ie -mp-, -mb-, -nt-, -nd-, -n(g)g-,
-n(g)k-. CVNPVC and CVPVC may be or not be semantically
equivalent, in which first case they are written

3 CVCCVC, where CVC = CVC,
ie two identical syllables. abbr. CVC2

4 CVCVCVC, trisyllabic roots, of which some are

5 CVCVCVCVC, very few

Many have the form cv-, therefore the result becomes
one of the above, eg. cv- + CVC > cvCVC, cv- +
All infixes have the form -vc-, and are inserted
after the first C. eg. -vc- + CVC > CvcVC, -vc- +
Many are in the form -vc, eg. -vc + CVC > CVCvc,
-vc + CVCVC > CVCVCvc

This looks very similar to the structure of Proto-
IndoEuropean + nasal infix as explained above by Dyen.

VISW claims the following of the forms of

1 Pronominal single consonant stems C-

2 Two-consonant stems C-C-

3 Reduplication of two-consonant stems C-CC-C ((C-C)2 ?),
eg. gw-l “roll, turn” >
gw-lgw-l, Hebrew gilga:l “wheel, circle”
and as simplification "simple reduplication",
a consonant is dropped.
IndoEuropean drops the second consonant
kw-kw-l- , kweklo-s “wheel”
Afro-Asiatic drops the third consonant
gw-l-l “roll”, Amharic gw-l-l

4 Addition as suffix of the consonant in anlaut
eg. gw-r “swallow” > gw-r-gw, Old High German querca
“throat”. Called "half reduplication", elsewhere "broken

5 Two-consonant roots might be extended by a one-consonant
suffix, a "determinative". In some cases the meaning of
the determintive can be seen from its later history in
Indo-European, eg. -d and -n from -t and -n in Indo-European,
where the form participles. Since most of the determinatives
are no longer productive in Indo-European, they must be pre-
Indo-European. In Afro-Asiatic the determinative is tightly
bound to the root, since native Sprachgefühl demands three-
consonant roots

6 Two-consonant roots may become three-consonant by a one-
consonant infix. A nasal infix, which is rare in
AfroAsiatic eg. Ethiopian kanfar “lip” from *k-p-, has
become very much used in Indo-European. Further, in
Afro-Asiatic two-consonant roots may also be extended
by a one-consonant prefix. These prefixes may also be
found as infixes with no or small semantic change.

plus 8 more paragraphs.

As can be seen, the limitations of VISW correspond pretty
well with those of IENH and PA. In general, I think it sad
to see how Møller in generally is written off as a
"philologist" or "semiticist" who undertook an "abortive
attempt" to find a common origin for Indo-European and
Afro-Asiatic, by people who obviously haven't read his

As for the e - o ablaut gradation IVSQA maintains
that this should reinterpreted as a ë - a gradation.
So did RVCFRN.

(Conclusion by the author, I. Dyen)
I must confess that I am impressed with the extent to which I
have been successful in gathering matchings between the
reconstructions of the two families. Granting that thus far I
have not wavered in my stedfast belief in the likelihood that an
Austronesian-IndoEuropean relationship can not be demonstrated,
should I waver now?
TP :
I do. It should be noted that the article was written not to prove such
a relationship, but, rather, given the impossibility thereof since no
connections between the corresponding cultures before appr. AD 1000 is
(was) known, to test the validity of the comparative method (by providing
a counter-example, in Popper's sense). Dyen (personal communication), however,
doesn't see it this way.


Phonetic Correspondence


The consonant cluster “ng” has been noted, by Chaterjee
and others, in word like "Ganga", which is related to words
meaning simply “river”, in many Austro-Asiatic languages.
Other words like sanga “having limbs”, Sanskrit seem to indicate
that intervocalic "ng" may be connected with words associated
with appendages, limbs, extensions, offshoots and the like. The
Austronesian words darnga, tarnga, kalinga, etc. all meaning “ear”,
certainly seem to be related to Sanskrit karna “ear”, the latter
having lost the “ng” consonant cluster. This has also occurred
in Austronesian languages were we find kalna, kalina, talina, etc.
Other possible examples of this trait are:

TP :
This *-ng- “appendage” infix wouldn't happen to that horrible serpent
*-n-g- again? Or am I getting paranoid? At least I would claim "anguli"
“finger” and "anga" “limb” for it.
And how about Indo-European *dnghuH2- “tongue”?
ang-, esp. to designate joints of limbs
lithus “joint” Gothic
*lei- “bend” Gothic

ángam “joint” Sanskrit
angúri-h “finger, toe”, Sanskrit (from which
anguli:yam “finger ring” Sanskrit)
anguisthi-h “big toe, thumb” =
angushta “toe” Avestan
anginn “corner” Armenian
añjali-h “both hands rounded
held together” Armenian

linga “phallus”
langala- “plow”
vanga- “tree”
punga “heap, mound”
sunga “sheath of a bud”
anguli “finger”
matanga “elephant (from trunk)”
anga “limb”
langula “tail”
vangsa- “bamboo and other cane”

Initial retroflex consonants

There can be little doubt that the common occurrence of retroflex
consonants in the various languages of India are due to common
influence upon each other. Many of the retroflex consonants in Indic
and the Austric languages of India are almost certainly of Dravidian
origin as they are abundantly attested to in those languages but not
found outside India. On the other hand, the initial retroflex
consonants of Indic, cannot be found, or at least are very rare in
the Dravidian languages. Initial retroflex
consonants are quite common in Austric languages, both Austro-Asiatic
and Austronesian. Initial retroflex consonants do not occur in
IE languages in Iran or Afghanistan or further to the north and
west. Retroflex consonants themselves can be found as far east
as Formosa, Papua, Micronesia and the Santa Cruz Islands.
Re: the retroflex consonants in Swedish and Norwegian which are
sometimes cited as an example of "spontaneous" "retroflexisation"
(without super- or substrate influence); the "thick" or cacuminal
l occurs in the dialects of those areas where bronze age rock carvings
are found with motifs that might be interpreted as connected with
South East Asia (tree of life, birds, ceremonial axes, boats).
The retroflex r (which causes the immediately following consonants
(n, d, l, s) to become retroflex too) is limited to Sweden and Norway,
in Sweden historically to north of Scania into which area it is now
spreading, according to (indignant or jubilant) letters to the editor
in the local papers.


There exist an interesting similarity between the Vedic concept
of the sun as the “eye of Varuna”, and the Hindu one of the orb
as Lokachakshu, or “eye of the world”, and also as one of the
eyes of Siva; and the very common Austronesian term “eye of
the day”. In Thailand, we see the phrase as 'sa ven' “eye of
the day”, Li, 'da-ben' “sun”, Jer., 'tau wan', Dioi, Sek.

In Indonesia, and Malaysia there is 'mata wari' and
'mata hari' respectively for “sun = eye of the day”. In Malagasy
there is maso andro “sun = eye of the day”. In Amboyna and
Ceram, we have a slight variation with riamata “shining eye = sun”.
The words 'mata-alo' of Celebes and 'mata-alon' of Baju probably
have the same meaning. In Makatea, we have 'mata-ra', “eye of
the day = sun”, from a word for “day”, that is the same as
the word for sun in other New Hebrides languages.

Moving into Oceania, there is 'mata ni siga' of Fiji
and San Cristoval ahve the same meaning of “shining eye”,
for the sun. In Espirito Santo and Duke of York we have
simply 'maso' “eye = sun”, and 'make' “eye = sun”, respectively.
In Api, 'mat ni ele' “sun”, is quite the same as the 'mata-alo'
and 'mata-alon' mentioned above. At Leper's Island, 'matan aho',
related the newly-risen sun to the eye. In the New Hebrides,
the Western Eromangan has 'nipmi-nen' “eye of the day”.

Probably connected to this are the Sanskrit 'dina' “day”,
and 'dina-kara' “sun”. In Malay, there is the phrase 'dina hari'
“day break”, while in Motu, Mekeo, Kuni and Doura we have 'dina'
“day”. In Arosi, Sau, Saa, Kwaio and Ulawa there is 'dani',
'dangi', 'danigi', 'dinga', etc., all meaning “day”. In Motu and
Proto-Central Papuan 'dina' means “sun”, while in Indonesia
'tinag' means “torch”.

We can find many other examples of common terms and
phrases. For exmaple, in India it is common to denote
beautiful eyes by the term 'mina-kshi' “fish-eye”. The
eyes of the fish are also considered beautiful among
Austronesians, and thus we have examples like 'kole
maka onaona' “sweet-eyed kole (a fish) = beautiful
person”, due to the fact that the eye of the kole
was considered beautiful.

TP :

It is obvious (to me, at least) from Stephen Oppenheimer's
book "Eden in the East", that there was some kind of contact
from Sundaland (the land around the present Indonesia that
disappeared following the rise in water level at the end of
the last ice age) to India, Mesopotamia and Europe
(specifically Scandinavia). According to a recent (May, 2000)
article in Genetics some pig races in Europe (i.e. Yorkshire
and Swedish Countryside) contains Asiatic gene material.
Note the appearance of "hog" in the above list of
Austric-IndoEuropean cognates.

You may have noticed some enormous clusters in the cognate

*A-d-m “master, lord” | “build, something built” |
“domesticate” (driving out chaos)

*H-r-(g-) “king” | “reach, stretch” | “build with wood,
pile up, mount onto”

*H-n-(g-) “snake” > “constriction, suffocation, murder”,
“fear” | “snake” > “bend, wave”, “sew”

*m-n- “(noble) man” | “sexual desire, magical power” |
“spiritual body” |
“something protruding, stick, churning”

*t-n- “physical extension, physical body
(as opposed to spiritual, magical body)”

Words for swimming, travelling, boats.

The opposites heavy/light, appearing as if originating as
predicates of cargo on some floating transportation.

As for the four first clusters, here is what I think "they"
thought about it.
They knew about the Kundalini serpent, deep in the mind.
They saw the terrible conflagration in the depths of the oceans
at the Flood (whichever) (volcanic activity?, meteoric impact?)
as that same serpent rising and causing havoc in the physical world.

The *H-r-g- is not a surveyor, as Dumezil would have it. He is the
captain of a ship, also responsible for its construction (in wood),
and knowing about geometry because he sets the course by the stars.

With respect to the clusters stemming from *H-r-g- and *H-n-g-, they
may express the two opposite concepts of the straight vs. the crooked.
The chaotic vs. the orderly.
Or there may be a three-way opposition *A-d-m-, *H-r-g-, *H-n-g-;
creation, orderder, destruction.

The following is taken from memory, and I might be wrong:
One of the pioneers in the mathematical field of topology was the
German mathematician and linguist Grassmann. I believe that what
basis vectors do to a topological space in German is "aus-dehnen",
a cognate of *t-n- "extend, stretch". Coincidence (or bad memory
on my part)? In comparative linguistics, he is known for
"Grassmann's law" in Sanskrit, so he must have had done some
reading in that language.

Torsten Pedersen's Bibliography

Paul Manansala's Bibliography

*H1ekt “net”
de-ku-tu-wo-ko =
dektu-worgo- “net-makers” Mycenian Greek
díktuon “hunting/fishing net” Greek (-i- from dikein “throw”)
e:kt- “net” Hittite
aggati- “catch-net” Luvian
áksu- “net” Sanskrit

The Greek forms represent neuter nouns with
(prefixed?) *d- as in the word for “tear”