Manansala is a close associate of Oppenheimer. His work with austric actually supports out-of-india movements. Of course, we could disgree with whether the austric influence in india is due to a substratum; it makes more sense as an adstratum, as pointed out by Dr. Elst.
from another associate, Pedersen:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->http://sambali.blogspot.com/2004_12_26_sambali_archive.html
http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/austric.html
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 <b>it would tend to reinforce an out-of-India hypothesis for Indo-European. </b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Loganathan from akandabaratam is similar in that he argues for, like V. Keerthi Kumar, a Dravidian origin for Sanskrit. He has been falsely and foolishly maligned by overenthusiatic IC listers who are just playing into the west's divide and rule. Loganathan also has some neo-dalitist type sympathies but that is not to be unexpected after the extended JNU brainwashing of past 50 years.
Indians are lacking in allies, who better than the SE asians to fill in the spot of ally. This work also emphasizes SE asian contribution to Hinduism and takes our mutuial ties far beyond the Hindu Classical period.
I agree that some of Manansala's motivations are less than transparent. But why do you say that Manansala may have Christian sympathies, other than he is filipino.
Alot of the Austric evidence extends out of Oppenheimer's first work, Eden in the East.
I have a 60 Mb video of an oppenheimer presentation at the darwin centre in london. From his demeanor, it is plain that ulterior motivations are lacking in his work. I will try to upload it soon. I am worried that by casting aspersions on Manansala, we also do the same to Oppenheimer.
from another associate, Pedersen:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->http://sambali.blogspot.com/2004_12_26_sambali_archive.html
http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/austric.html
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 <b>it would tend to reinforce an out-of-India hypothesis for Indo-European. </b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Loganathan from akandabaratam is similar in that he argues for, like V. Keerthi Kumar, a Dravidian origin for Sanskrit. He has been falsely and foolishly maligned by overenthusiatic IC listers who are just playing into the west's divide and rule. Loganathan also has some neo-dalitist type sympathies but that is not to be unexpected after the extended JNU brainwashing of past 50 years.
Indians are lacking in allies, who better than the SE asians to fill in the spot of ally. This work also emphasizes SE asian contribution to Hinduism and takes our mutuial ties far beyond the Hindu Classical period.
I agree that some of Manansala's motivations are less than transparent. But why do you say that Manansala may have Christian sympathies, other than he is filipino.
Alot of the Austric evidence extends out of Oppenheimer's first work, Eden in the East.
I have a 60 Mb video of an oppenheimer presentation at the darwin centre in london. From his demeanor, it is plain that ulterior motivations are lacking in his work. I will try to upload it soon. I am worried that by casting aspersions on Manansala, we also do the same to Oppenheimer.