Talk:Harappan language

Untitled
the consensus is clearly that the affiliation of this language is unknown. The "Dravidian hypothesis" is generally accepted as the "default" plausible hypothesis, without anyone claiming that there is actually positive evidence for it. Witzel's Para-Munda idea is a respectable alternative. The Indo-European and Semitic proposals are more marginal, but I suppose it is due to mention them as minority positions. The listing of these hypothesis can only take place under the clear statement that the mainstream position is simply that this isn't something that is known, or probably even knowable. Actually, Shendge's "Asura" stuff raises quite some red flags as WP:FRINGE. I suppose Shendge is an academic author, and so her idea should be mentioned, but I would certainly like to see some serious review of her book: I do not expect anyone to take this at all seriously, already because the etymology of asura is clearly *nsu-ro- and has nothing whatsoever to do with Assur. --dab (𒁳) 10:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I have also removed an image and link as off topic, since this article is ostensibly not about the Indus script. Avoid WP:CFORK. The script is to be discussed at its dedicated article, and is only of interest here in the context of hypotheses regarding the language. --dab (𒁳) 10:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * semitic?lol!"elamo-dravidian"?it´s a comunist teories..the anciet munda people, the proto-aryans and the isolated philum are most probabily..the southeast nostraticoid family eurasic-laurasian anciet.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.203.15 (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Anon, your English is so bad it is hard to make out what you are saying, but you lost credibility when you stated that "Nostratic" has real traction among the vast majority of linguists. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * For me, the "comunist teories" did it. Last time I checked the communists weren't particularly infamous for racism and keeping down the black man. Hindutvas and their Dravidian analogues usually say that western scholars are fascists and want to keep the Aryans and Indo-Europeans for themselves, as Nordic supermen. But at least our buddy acknowledges that Austroasiatic and isolated phylum are more likely than Semitic or Elamo-Dravidian. Admittedly, Paul Sidwell's new arguments for the age and homeland of Proto-Austroasiatic throw a monkey wrench in "Para-Munda", and Witzel believes (Proto-)Dravidian was spoken in Bronze-Age Sindh at least. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Meluhha a direct Dravidian word
"Meluhha" the name of or some part of Indus land as mentioned in Sumerian scripts, is more closer to the Dravidian/Tamil word "Melaham/ MELAGAM ", which means "the Highlands" or "the Westlands".

"Mleccha" sounds nowhere near "Meluhha". "-ccha" can never transform into or substituted by "-hha" in semantics and in vocalization.

If Mleccha is what was transliterated in the Sumerian script, then:

1. Why would Sumerians address the foreigners(from Indus) as "mleccha"-the word meaning "foreign" in Sanskrit/Munda, a foreign language? Why would they address them in a foreign language?

2. Or is Mleccha also a word in Sumerian lexicon?

3. Perhaps "Meluhha" is the name by which the Indus land was called. And denoting mleccha is not a possibility at all;

180.215.49.96 (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC) 3.

let's be clear - no one knows!
Until the 'code' gets cracked for this language, everything is just a wild guess. HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/103/10/1220.pdf. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  13:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * While I have no opinion on the content, I'm leaving the source link here so that interested editors may evaluate it for any possible usage. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  13:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The Current Science paper is very much fringe. The periodical is ok usually in terms of reliability but this is certainly not an area it specializes in and the author Clyde Winters, mainly self-published Afrocentric theories online and using Lulu. Not worth citing anywhere on wikipedia, let alone basing the article on such a singular publication. Abecedare (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Harappan language. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.linguistics.uiuc.edu/jscole/Sindhi_Elsevier_encyl.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Harappan language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720084908/http://compling.ai.uiuc.edu/2007Workshop/Slides/witzel.doc to http://compling.ai.uiuc.edu/2007Workshop/Slides/witzel.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

2021 Nature Paper
"A new research paper published in the peer-reviewed journal of the Springer Nature Group has provided some interesting new insight on the linguistic culture of the Harappans. Taking clues from a few words shared between the Indus Valley people and the cultures they came in contact with, the paper traced their language roots to proto-Dravidian"

Ancestral Dravidian languages in Indus Civilization: ultraconserved Dravidian tooth-word reveals deep linguistic ancestry and supports genetics

ChandlerMinh (talk) 09:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This was recently added to the article, but immediately removed with the edit summary "WP:UNDUE for mention in the lead and elsewhere. The paper is highly speculative and virtually uncited except by the author himself". – Uanfala (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

"Meluhha" as the name of the language
From a recent edit summary: Meluha is affirmed as being a language, as referenced by the text Sumerian text that identifies its interpreter. "ki" does not signify "geography"; it signifies "of". Meluhha are a people, and a language.

I am not aware of any reliable sources that agree with this; if anyone knows any that do, please provide them. Also as referenced by the text Sumerian text that identifies its interpreter doesn't make any sense; that's not how references work and a text in a single language can't translate or interpret itself. Please provide a reference to reliable scholarship regarding this topic. – Scyrme (talk) 12:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)