Re: Vedic Indo-Aryans North of the Black Sea ~2000 BC!

V.C.Vijayaraghavan wrote:
> "M. Ranjit Mathews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote ...
>
> > foreign race. My point was that at the most, Dravidians were assimilated
> > rather than displaced (in parts, even if not all, of India), if they had
> > been displaced, there would be a greater difference (in language, among
> > other traits) between people. Dravidians at large were no more displaced
>
> Your use of the word 'dravidian' is illegitimate.

In long form: ...  speakers of Dravidian languages were assimilated ...

> History does not record
> any poeple called 'dravidian' in the times or places you mention.

History wouldn't record it since the term Dravidian* wasn't in use at 
the time of early compositions such as the Rg Samhita. Nevertheless, 
there were Dravidians (speakers of Dravidian languages, i.e., people 
speaking languages that are now, but not then, called Dravidian languages).

> Mixing up language category with people category leads to massive confusion like you
> have

* As an aside, Dravidian derives from <drAviDa>, which originally did 
not refer primarily to languages.