This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of standardized, informative and easy-to-use resources about languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tamil Eelam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tamil Eelam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I have reverted a change to the order of entries in the table of languages in the Distribution section, back to grouping by subgroup from South to North, and by population within each subgroup. Various orderings of tables are possible, but for an article on a language family, the subgrouping of the family is particularly important. This ordering also correlates with the distribution of the languages being presented in this section. Since this is a sortable table, the languages ordered by number of speakers can be obtained by clicking on the column. However, clicking on the groups column puts the groups in the less-useful alphabetic order. Kanguole 11:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
One source, which says that it is "believed" that the Dravidian languages are indigenous to India, is very meager; even more so if that source does not give references for that statement. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
But this "one source" is a respected secondary source. So it trumps primary sources. I agree that it would be better to find more secondary sources. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
There is some discussion in Krishnamurti, pp. 2–16, 44–45, 492 and McIntosh The Ancient Indus Valley pp. 352–354. It seems there is little or no evidence to be had from the time depth of the proposed migration. The migration idea seems to be based on the McAlpin's Elamo-Dravidian proposal, which is not accepted by Dravidian specialists. In any case, controversies of this nature do not belong in the article lead. Kanguole 11:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: the languages; but what about the people?
@Kanguole: why do you think that "controversies of this nature" do not belong in the lead? It seems to be a relevant question, especially with the recent genetic research by Reich, Metspalu, Moorjani and Basu which connects the "Ancestral North Indians" with Eurasian origins, while Parpola argues that the Harappans were/spoke Dravidian. That does argue for an origin outside of India, and is definitely relevant.
"Starting about 5000 years (ky) before present, pastoral nomadism developed in the grasslands of Central Asia, as well as in southeastern Europe, opening up the possibility of rapid movements of large population groups . The spread of these new technologies has been associated with the dispersal of Dravidian and Indo-European languages in southern Asia , . It is hypothesized that the proto-Elamo-Dravidian language, most likely originated in the Elam province in southwestern Iran, spread eastwards with the movement of farmers to the Indus Valley and the Indian sub-continent , . Between the third and second millennia BCE the Iranian Plateau became exposed to incursions of pastoral nomads from the Central Asian steppes, who brought the Indo-Iranian language of the Indo-European family, which eventually replaced Dravidian languages, perhaps by an elite-dominance model , , ."
Yes, this is from the Introduction, which is reviewing Colin Renfrew and Cavalli-Sforza. But if you read the Discussion section, there is no information from genetics about what happened after the development of agriculture. So, I don't this paper is telling us anything useful about the Elamo-Dravidian connections. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)