Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[agathiyar] Re: [tamil.net] Is the Aryan Invasion a Myth

Expand Messages
  • jayabarathi
    ... please. ... ò½èã ¥‘™¥Ñ œ›Ìò, ¥‘¥‘! ¿º¦—ÆÖÒ‘Å ÿ›è ‡›€ã ˆãîÅ —œË°°‘ µ‘›è
    Message 1 of 5 , Dec 1, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      At 02:37 PM 12/1/98 -0600, you wrote:

      >At 09:12 AM 12/1/98 -0800, you wrote:

      >>Prof. Swaminathan Sankaran <sankaran@...>
      >>
      >>wrote in response to Dr. Jayabarathi's following note in the Agathiyar list:
      >>
      >>>> Dear ManiVannan,
      >>>>
      >>>> I would like to invite your views on this hypothesis,
      please.
      >>>> You are already exposed to this controversy for quite
      >>>> sometime through the Indology list and the relevent web-sites.
      >>>>
      >>>>===============================================================
      >>
      >>with the following :
      >>
      >>>Although I am not Mani Manivannan yet :-), here is my 2 cents.
      >>
      >>:-))). I hope you will never sink down to my level, Prof. Sankaran!
      >>In any event, some clarification may be in order. The original
      >>thread is running in the Agathiyar list and Prof. Sankaran's
      >>crosspost to Tamil.Net may give some misleading impressions
      >>about my expertise! While Dr. Jayabarathi did solicit my opinions
      >>on this theory, he was not inviting my opinions as if I am an expert
      >>in any of these issues.
      >>
      >
      >±Ï À¬ À¬×¯«ò:
      >
      >µ‘ò ‡à±Æ³ …›€ãþƑ, ±Ï —óƺ‘̱€ÆþƑ ˆãîÅ —œyװ퍑 ÖÒ.
      >¿º¦ ˆþ°ñÅ …›æ™´ þ°‘òêÇϹ°‘Ö °í ×Ï´°¿ º¨Žþéò.


      ò½èã ¥‘™¥Ñ œ›Ìò,

      ¥‘¥‘! ¿º¦—ÆÖґŠÿ›è ‡›€ã ˆãîÅ —œË°°‘
      µ‘›è ¶€î™þ×ÇրÒ. ÿ›è þµÌ¦Æ‘ …›è Ï´€°¢
      —œ‘ÖÓÇϙŽëэè. ³ÚÅ ¹° smiley figure(ˆò œ‘Ñ?
      ¹°¿ º™—ÀÖґŠºÒ‘î figure—ÌÖґŠƒÏ¿º°‘¢ —œ‘Öבэþã?
      €°—ÆÖґŠþº‘¥™˜¦Æ ãڙ ƒòñÅ —¥™î‘Òó’ ¯¨»¦™‘ÀÖ
      ƒÏ™Žé‘эþã‘?) …›äò µ€É«Ñ€×™ ‘ª¦Æ³ ÖÒב?
      ‡òî œ‘Ñ —œË׳? …›æ™´°‘ò —°ÍÉþÀ. ƒ€«Æ´±Ö
      ‡î™ ".‘.Ž."(ìŽ™‘Ì™ŽÝÅ), ŽÝ¿½Ó, ‡ò—éÖґÅ
      ˆþ°þ°‘ ºª¥›€ã ƒ¹° Ø¥€Òè —‘¨´±Ï™Žé‘эþã!
      ×Ñæ€¥Æ expectations‰ µ‘ò —‘¤œÀ‘׳ ¶€éþ×íéþׯ¨ÀÖÒב?
      À¯×‘œ€î —µ¦! °î‘ÕÅ €µÆ‘¯¦ ‡ª¦¿º‘Ñ´³Ø¨Žé³.
      ƒ¹° À‘±Í debates/discussionäÖ ê³ ƒ¹°À‘±Í,
      —‘´³ÀÖÓ —°‘™ À‘±Í þҜ‘¢ þœÑ™ØրÒƑî‘Ö, ³
      Japanese Tea Ceremony À‘±Í þº‘ËبþÀ‘ ‡òé ×€Ò.
      ‚î‘ÕÅ ³ °×é‘î ¬¿½æ™ ƒ¥¹°Ì™˜¨—Àòé‘Ö
      °ØÑ´³Ø¨Žþéò - hereafter. ‚î‘Ö ŠÏ °ÌÅ Àª¨Å, ت¨Ø¨›è.
      ƒò—î‘Ï À¥ÓÖ À¬×¯«ò ƒ¥Å —‘¨´±Ï™Žé‘Ñ. ¹° ƒ¥´±Ö
      Àª¨Å þҜ‘......

      ò½èã

      —óƺ‘̱

      ».. ÿ›è —œ‘ÖÒ×¹° Ï´³ µò ½Òé³. ˆ³Å ambiguity
      ƒÏ¿º°‘´ —°ÍÆØրÒ. You have put forward some salient views
      from some sources.

      >
      >‚ÍÆ¿ º€¥ —×íê (Aryan Invasion) ÄÒÀ‘ ‚Íƙ ¦þÆíéÅ ƒ¹±Æ‘ØÖ
      >ˆíº¥ØÖ€Ò ‡òº°íÅ ‚ÍÆÑè ƒ¹±Æ‘ØÓϹ³ ˆ€îÆ µ‘¨æ™¿
      >ºÌØî‘Ñè ‡òº°íÅ ÁÚþÀ Ø´±Æ‘œÅ …èã³ ‡òº±Ö µÀ™è
      >Ï´³ þ×íì€À ˆíº¥ ¶Æ‘ÆÁրÒ. —Ì‘Áґ °‘ºÑ þº‘òé œÍ´±Ì ‚Ëבãэè
      >(ƒ±Ö —Ì‘þÀö Àó•Å°‘ÏÅ ¥™Å; ×Ñ »í‘Ò´±Ö "ù’¹³´×‘"ב
      >À‘êت¥‘Ñ ‡òì °íþº‘€°Æ í颜‘ª€¥¿ ºíê ƒ¿þº‘³ Øב±™
      >×ÆÁրÒ) Aryan Invasion ‡òé Ï´³¥ò …¥òºª¦Ï¹°‘эè; ‚î‘Ö,
      >ƒ¿þº‘³ €° Àì°ä´³ ت¥‘эè. ‚î‘ÕÅ ˜¥ ‡òî —œ‘ÖŽé‘Ñè ‡òé‘Ö
      >"‚ÍÆÑè ‡òþº‘Ñ ¶€ÒƑî Øל‘Æ´ —°‘ÞÓÖ „¨º¥‘ÀÖ ‘Öµ€¥æ¥ò °›æ™Å,
      >×íêíÅ …«Ú þ°¦ †Ñ, †Ì‘ µ‘þ¥‘¦ þº‘Ö (as pastoralists) ±Í¹³ ×¹°×эè.
      >¹°™ ‘Ò ¶€ÒÇÖ ¿º¦´°‘ò ×эè ×¹±Ï¿º‘Ñè ‡òì Ï°
      >ƒ¥ÁϙŽé³" ‡òº³ °‘ò. ƒ€° Àª¨Å °‘ò µ‘ò َÆÀ‘¢ Ÿª¦™ ‘ª¥
      >ÃÆí —œËþ°ò.
      >
      >›šîþÀ, —À‘—ù¤£‘°‘þ̑, ùÌ¿º‘, —Ò‘ù‘Ö µ‘ÎÅ ±Ì‘Ø¥Ñ
      >µ‘ÎÀ‘ ƒÖ€ÒƑ ‡òº€°¿ ºíê´ ²ØÌÀ‘î ŠÏ Ã¦Ú ‡¨¿º°í‘î þº‘±Æ
      >œ‘òìè ƒÖ€Ò ‡òì ê¿»¥¿ ºª¦Ï¹°€°´ °‘ò µ‘ò ‡¨´³™
      >‘ª¥ ÃÆí —œËþ°ò. ƒ¹° ŠÏ Ï´³™¿ þº‘±Æ œ‘òìè ƒÖ€Ò
      >‡òº°‘Ö, "³ ‚ÍÆ µ‘ÎÅ °‘ò", ÖÒ³, "³ ‚ÍÆ µ‘ÎÀ‘ÚÅ
      >ƒÏ¹±Ï™Ò‘Å" ‡òºî þº‘òé À‘íì™ Ï´³™æ™ ƒÅÁþÆñÅ ‚°‘ÌÅ
      >ƒÏ™Žé³ ‡òé —º‘ÏãÖÒ. ¿º¦Æ‘î ŠÏ °×é‘î Ï´€° ‡ò ¤óÖ †ª¦
      >ت¦Ï¹°‘Ö °í µ‘ò —º‘ì¿»Ö€Ò ‡òé‘ÕÅ °íÅ µ‘ò ×Ϲ³Žþéò.
      >
      >œ›Ìò, —Ì€óî‘, ÷ø‘¢Ÿ×‘ò, î¥‘.
      ======================================================================

      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Free Web-based e-mail groups -- http://www.eGroups.com
    • jayabarathi
      ... Rather than acknowledge ... Aha! Gotcha there Manivannan! One quarter Anna is one sixty-fourth of a Rupee. Two Canadian Cents are one-fiftieth of a
      Message 2 of 5 , Dec 1, 1998
      • 0 Attachment
        At 09:12 AM 12/1/98 -0800, you wrote:

        >Prof. Swaminathan Sankaran <sankaran@...>
        >
        >wrote in response to Dr. Jayabarathi's following note in the Agathiyar list:
        >
        >>> Dear ManiVannan,
        >>>
        >>> I would like to invite your views on this hypothesis, please.
        >>> You are already exposed to this controversy for quite
        >>> sometime through the Indology list and the relevent web-sites.
        >>>
        >>>===============================================================
        >
        >with the following :
        >
        >>Although I am not Mani Manivannan yet :-), here is my 2 cents.

        >--------------cut
        Rather than acknowledge
        >and celebrate all these roots of Indian tradition, I see that the
        >Hindu nationalist historians are busy building revisionist
        >theories that once again assert the supremacy of only one
        >of these traditions. And in this they are not very different
        >from the Biblical Creationists in the west.
        >
        >And this is my quarter anna (which is worth even less than
        >the 2 Canadian cents!) ;-))


        Aha! Gotcha there Manivannan!
        One quarter Anna is one sixty-fourth of a Rupee.
        Two Canadian Cents are one-fiftieth of a Canadian Dollar.
        On a contemporary basis, say eighty years ago,
        a quarter anna definitely could buy a lot more than the Canadian
        two cents.
        Hence, on the contary, a quarter anna was indeed
        worth more than the two cents.
        Even the Salli or Thambidi or Paisa was more in worth,
        a hundred years ago.
        What about the Pudukkottai Amman Kaasu?
        Seems more likely.

        Regards

        Jayabarathi

        >
        >anpudan,
        >
        >Mani M. Manivannan
        >Fremont, CA, USA.
        ======================================================

        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Free Web-based e-mail groups -- http://www.eGroups.com
      • Bala Pillai
        ... Hmm Dr Jayabarathi, Here s another argument that ties Dravidians with Harappans - a base 8 numbering system ( my inference - 64 is a multiple of 8 though
        Message 3 of 5 , Dec 1, 1998
        • 0 Attachment
          At 07:16 AM 12/2/98 +0800, jayabarathi wrote:

          > One quarter Anna is one sixty-fourth of a Rupee.

          Hmm Dr Jayabarathi,

          Here's another argument that ties Dravidians with Harappans - a base 8
          numbering system ( my inference - 64 is a multiple of 8 though the choice
          of 64 here could be for other reasons). Here's an excerpt of the parent
          argument for this from another excellent source by linguistics hobbyist and
          smart cookie, Lawrence Lo [thanks Lawrence :-)*] at
          <http://alumni.EECS.Berkeley.EDU/~lorentz/Ancient_Scripts/indus.html>:-

          "Numerals seem to represented by vertical lines (represented by number of
          lines in the glyph), but they only go up to 7. Analysis reveal 4 more signs
          that appear in the same context as these numerals, and so they likely
          represent numbers higher than 7.

          The fact that no vertical-line numeral sign denotes 8 very likely means the
          Harappan language is based 8. (For example, the Arabic numerals that we use
          has symbols from 0 to 9, and to write "ten" we have to combined the symbols
          1 and 0, which identify our number system as based ten.)

          Base 8 languages are rare in the world, but it does appear that early
          Dravidian is base 8, but later changed to base 10 (possibly under
          Indo-European influence). When translated, the count from 1 to 7 is
          familiar to us: "one", "two", "three", "four", "five", "six", "seven".
          However, above seven, the number's etymologies become non-numerical: 8 is
          "number", 9 is "many minus one", and 10 is "many". (Fairservis 1983)"

          ---------------------

          And now for better context, the full article (best to go to the URL itself
          if you have web access for the pictograms):-

          The Indus Valley Civilization was the first major urban culture of South
          Asia. It reached its peak from 2600 BC to 1900 BC roughly, a period called
          by some archaeologists "Mature Harappan" as distinguished from the earlier
          Neolithic "Early Harappan" regional cultures. Spatially, it is huge,
          comprising of about 1000 settlements of varying sizes, and geographically
          includes almost all of modern Pakistan, parts of India as far east as Delhi
          and as far south as Bombay, and parts of Afghanistan.

          The main corpus of writing dated from the Indus Civilization is in the form
          of some two thousand inscribed seals in good, legible conditions. (In case
          you don't know what seals are, they are used to make impressions on
          malleable material like clay.)

          Although these seals and samples of Indus writing have been floating around
          the scholastic world for close to 70 years, little progress has been made
          on deciphering this elegant script. However, we should not blame scholars
          for their lack of progress, for there are some major impediments to
          decipherment:

          1.Very short and brief texts. The average number of symbols on the seals is
          5, and the longest is only 26. 2.The language underneath is unknown. 3.Lack
          of bilingual texts.

          For instance, consider Champollion, who deciphered Egyptian hieroglyphs
          with all of these 3 important clues: there were very long Egyptian texts;
          he knew Coptic, a descendant of Egyptian; and the Rosetta Stone, a
          bilingual text between Greek and two written forms of Egyptian.

          But the script isn't as bad as undecipherable. For one, even though
          scholars don't have long texts and bilingual texts, they can still theorize
          about the language underneath the writing system. There are several
          competing theories about the language that the Indus script represent:

          A.The language is completely unrelated to anything else, meaning an
          isolate. Well, this doesn't get us anywhere.

          B.The language is "Aryan" (some form of Indian-Iranian Indo-European). The
          historical languages spoken in Northern India and Pakistan all belong to
          the Indic branch of Indo-European, including Sanskrit, Hindi, Punjabi,
          etc., so maybe the people of the Indus valley spoke a very old
          Indo-European language?

          The major problem with this model is the fact that horses played a very
          important role in all Indo-European cultures, being a people constantly on
          the move. "There is no escape from the fact that the horse played a central
          role in the Vedic and Iranian cultures..." (Parpola, 1986) Sidenote:
          "Vedic" means from the time of the Vedas, the earliest text in India, and
          the Vedic culture is from around 1500 to 500 BC. However, no depiction of
          horses on seals nor any remains of horses have been found so far before
          2000 BC. They only appear after 2000 BC. Very likely there were no Aryan
          speakers present before 2000 BC in the Indus Valley.

          C.The language belongs to the Munda family of languages. The Munda family
          is spoken largely in eastern India, and related to some Southeast Asian
          languages. Like Aryan, the reconstructed vocabulary of early Munda does not
          reflect the Harappan culture. So its candidacy for being the language of
          the Indus Civilization is dim.

          D.The language is Dravidian. The Dravidian family of languages is spoken in
          Southern Indian, but Brahui is spoken in modern Pakistan. So far this is
          the most promising model, as in the following points: There are many
          Dravidian influences visible in the Vedic texts. If the Aryan language
          gradually replaced the Dravidian, features from Dravidian would form a
          "substratum" in Aryan. One of these features is the appearance of retroflex
          consonants in Indian languages, both Indo-European and Dravidian. In
          contrast, retroflex consonants do not appear in any other Indo-European
          language, not even Iranian ones which are closest to Indic. (For more
          information on retroflex consonants please visit my Pronounciation page).
          Another possible indication of Dravidian in the Indus texts is from
          structural analysis of the texts which suggests that the language
          underneath is possibly agglutinative, from the fact that sign groups often
          have the same initial signs but different final signs. The number of these
          final signs range between 1 to 3. The final signs possibly represent
          grammatical suffixes that modify the word (represented by the initial
          signs). Each suffix would represent one specific modification, and the
          entire cluster of suffixes would therefore put the word through a series of
          modifications. This suffix system can be found in Dravidian, but not
          Indo-European. Indo-European tongues tend to change the final sounds to
          modify the meaning of a word (a process called inflection), but repeated
          addition of sounds to the end of word is extremely rare. Often many
          suffixes in an agglutinative language correspond to a single inflectional
          ending in an inflectional language.

          The Dravidian model isn't just an unapplicable theory...But first we have
          to know what kind of writing system is the Indus script.

          A count of the number of signs reveal a lot about the type of system being
          used. Alphabetic systems rarely have more than 40 symbols. Syllabic systems
          like Linear B or Cherokee typically have 40 to 100 or so symbols. The third
          ranges from logosyllabic to logographic, running upwards of hundreds of
          signs (like 500 signs in Hieroglyphic Luwian, and 5000 symbols in modern
          Chinese).

          It appears that the maximum number of Indus script symbols is 400, although
          there are 200 basic signs (ie signs that are not combined from others).
          This means that the Indus script is probably logosyllabic, in that it has
          both signs used for their meanings, and signs used for their phonetic values.

          Many signs start off as pictorial representation of a physical object,
          often misleadingly called pictograms. They really are should be called
          logograms because they represent words in the language. However, it's next
          to impossible to write out a word with abstract meaning pictorially. What
          all early writers figured out was to use a logogram not for the object or
          idea it was originally supposed to stand for, but for all words sounding
          similar to the original word for that object or idea. For example, in
          English to write "leave" we can use a picture of a "leaf". This is called
          rebus writing, and is a tremendously common pattern in all early writing
          systems. We could also then use the same "leaf" symbol to stand for the
          sound in "relief", adding another symbol in front of the "leaf" symbol in
          order to indicate the "re" sound. So the logogram gained a phonetic value
          as well.

          Testing the theory

          How can we take the theoretical framework so far and apply it to
          archaeological data?

          Numerals seem to represented by vertical lines (represented by number of
          lines in the glyph), but they only go up to 7. Analysis reveal 4 more signs
          that appear in the same context as these numerals, and so they likely
          represent numbers higher than 7.

          The fact that no vertical-line numeral sign denotes 8 very likely means the
          Harappan language is based 8. (For example, the Arabic numerals that we use
          has symbols from 0 to 9, and to write "ten" we have to combined the symbols
          1 and 0, which identify our number system as based ten.)

          Base 8 languages are rare in the world, but it does appear that early
          Dravidian is base 8, but later changed to base 10 (possibly under
          Indo-European influence). When translated, the count from 1 to 7 is
          familiar to us: "one", "two", "three", "four", "five", "six", "seven".
          However, above seven, the number's etymologies become non-numerical: 8 is
          "number", 9 is "many minus one", and 10 is "many". (Fairservis 1983)

          But can we actually read (not interpret) any symbol on the seals? We should
          start with "pictograms", as this one:


          Many scholars (Knorozov, Parpola, Mahadevan, etc) see this sign as a fish.
          Fish in reconstructed Proto-Dravidian is *mîn. Coincidentally, *mîn is also
          the word for star. On many pots from Mohenjo Daro, an Indus site, there are
          drawings of fish and stars together, and so affirming this linguistic
          association.

          Going further, often the numeral six appears before the fish. Either it
          means 6 fish, or 6 stars. Old Tamil (a Dravidian language still spoken
          today) texts from just around the 1st century AD recorded the name of the
          Pleiades, a star cluster visible during autumn and winter just above Orion,
          as "Six-Stars", or aru-mîn. Throughout the world, titles with celestial
          connotations are very common, and the clause Six Stars forming part or
          whole of a Harappan title is not unreasonable. (Parpola, 1986)


          Sometimes symbols are added to the basic sign to make new signs. Of these,
          the one that looks like a circumflex accent placed on top of the fish is
          quite interesting. It is theorized to mean "roof", and in Proto-Dravidian
          it is *vêy/mêy. This is phonetically similar to Proto-Dravidian word for
          "black", *may. Together with fish, it spells out mai-m-mîn, or "black
          star", which in Old Tamil means the planet Saturn. In Sanskrit texts,
          Saturn is associate the color black. The god of death, Yama, is the
          presiding of this planet, and is usually depicted as riding on a dark buffalo.


          But the "fish" reading isn't accepted by all scholars. William Fairservis
          saw it as a combination of a loom twist and a human sign, and form a
          honorific title pertaining to rulership (Fairservis, 1983). I, however, am
          more inclined to accept the fish identification.

          This is a quick overview of the current process in the decipherment of the
          Indus script. For more information you can either go to the following
          links, or go to a good library for books and articles (check out my
          Bibliography).

          Links about the Indus Civilization:

          Languages and Scripts of India.
          Sarasvati Sindhu (Indus) Civilization, Language and Script History - The
          Indus Valley Civilisation Harappa.com intereting site...lots of pictures
          with an accompanying essay.
          The Indus Story
          Yet another page on Indus Civilization Languages in pre-Islamic Pakistan --
          Fascinating stuff!






          bala pillai* bala@...*the asia pacific internet co, sydney
          O N L I N E E M P O W E R E D C O M M U N I T I E S
          <http://apic.net> <http://sydney2000.net> <http://malaysia.net>
          <http://tamil.net> for info send blank <mailto:info@...>
          ph:+61 2 9419 5333 fax: + 61 2 9419 5155
          ------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Free Web-based e-mail groups -- http://www.eGroups.com
        • jayabarathi
          ... That s it, Bala! You ve hit the spot. There s more to it, actually. The counting in sixties. They tie us to the Mesopotamians. Sixty Vinaadi, sixty naadi,
          Message 4 of 5 , Dec 1, 1998
          • 0 Attachment
            >At 07:16 AM 12/2/98 +0800, jayabarathi wrote:
            >> One quarter Anna is one sixty-fourth of a Rupee.

            >At 11:34 AM 12/2/98 +1100, you wrote:
            >Hmm Dr Jayabarathi,
            >
            >Here's another argument that ties Dravidians with Harappans - a base 8
            >numbering system ( my inference - 64 is a multiple of 8 though the choice
            >of 64 here could be for other reasons). Here's an excerpt of the parent
            >argument for this from another excellent source by linguistics hobbyist and
            >smart cookie, Lawrence Lo [thanks Lawrence :-)*] at
            ><http://alumni.EECS.Berkeley.EDU/~lorentz/Ancient_Scripts/indus.html>:-
            >

            That's it, Bala!
            You've hit the spot.
            There's more to it, actually.
            The counting in sixties. They tie us to the
            Mesopotamians. Sixty Vinaadi, sixty naadi, sixty naalzhi,
            sixty days for one season, six seasons to a year, sixty
            years for a grand cycle. This is a crucial pivot.
            Why sixty years?
            60 solar years=60 earth revolutions.
            250 mercury rev.
            86 venus rev.
            30 mars rev.
            5 Jupiter rev.
            2 Saturn rev.
            Rahu/kethu almost coincide.
            But astronomically all planets come to the starting
            point once in sixty years. Its actually a point of synchronisation.
            A planetary tea-party, perhaps?:-)
            This is the knowledge that is Mesopotamian/Indic in
            nature. The West borrowed from around here. Whoever came
            here also picked it up from here.
            The time measurements that the Harappans used are
            not known - not yet anyway.
            But measures of length and weights are known.
            There are some other points which need to be elaborated
            but I have to high-tail it to Kuala Lumpur in a short while. Got
            a heavy schedule ahead. Nothing to do with what is happening around
            Kampong Baru or High Court on Friday. I will be having my own problems
            and agonies in the IJN and the Gastro. A date with the Gastro is
            something of a combination between the soap-water treatment of
            the WWII Japanese KempeiTai and the impalement of Jains:-):-):-)
            So I'll do it when I come back.

            Regards

            Jayabarathi

            >"Numerals seem to represented by vertical lines (represented by number of
            >lines in the glyph), but they only go up to 7. Analysis reveal 4 more signs
            >that appear in the same context as these numerals, and so they likely
            >represent numbers higher than 7.
            >
            >The fact that no vertical-line numeral sign denotes 8 very likely means the
            >Harappan language is based 8. (For example, the Arabic numerals that we use
            >has symbols from 0 to 9, and to write "ten" we have to combined the symbols
            >1 and 0, which identify our number system as based ten.)
            >
            >Base 8 languages are rare in the world, but it does appear that early
            >Dravidian is base 8, but later changed to base 10 (possibly under
            >Indo-European influence). When translated, the count from 1 to 7 is
            >familiar to us: "one", "two", "three", "four", "five", "six", "seven".
            >However, above seven, the number's etymologies become non-numerical: 8 is
            >"number", 9 is "many minus one", and 10 is "many". (Fairservis 1983)"
            >
            >---------------------cut
            ====================================================

            ------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Free Web-based e-mail groups -- http://www.eGroups.com
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.