Thread by @vakibs

There is an absolutely ridiculous assumption in linguistics about “primitive” words shared by languages of the same family.

Why is it ridiculous?
Look at our modern Hinglish or any creole languages. Mommy, Daddy etc. are the first words to come and replace those “basic” words.

https://twitter.com/bennedose/status/1464921051343638530

Telugu has entered the Arthamlēccha territory with English. People have started saying “water” వాటర్ instead of “nīru” నీరు. Those “basic, atavistic” words will be easily replaced in a couple of generations as long as there is a power disparity when languages come in contact.

The words for numbers can also be easily replaced. Look at all the Arthamlēcchas counting in one, two, three and unable to count in their mother tongues now.

On the other hand, what cannot be easily replaced are words for verbs. This is why Urdu is filled with Sanskrit verbs.

If we look at the list of verbs in Sanskrit and how many are shared across various Indian languages, we will see that South Indian languages like Telugu have a phenomenal overlap with Sanskrit. European languages typically have much lesser overlap with Sanskrit verbs.

Then, there are several verbs in European languages that appear similar to verbs in South Indian languages, although a related Sanskrit root is not apparent !

Put: peTTu పెట్టు
Drink: trāgu త్రాగు
Write: vrāyu వ్రాయు
Pour: pāru పారు (to flow)
Wake: vēgu వేగు (to daybreak)

These are potential candidates for an ancient language, that @bennedose calls Mātāmahī (grandmother). The separation of European languages from India must have happened at a very ancient time. Earlier, South Indian languages were indeed seen as part of the Indo European tree.

This was until Bishop Robert Caldwell, for entirely racist reasons, postulated a separate origin of South Indian languages. Apart from racist histories of Biblical descent from Noah and the supposed fall of some races, there is zero need for this theory.

https://twitter.com/vakibs/status/1276507867634438146