Mlecch (Like it Sounds?)

It is adopted as a root: mlecchayati DhatupaTha. xxxii , 120)

>>From a much older level, perhaps is the term for
‘non-Sanskrit speaking outsider/foreigner’: Mleccha,
‘Indus people’ -> foreigner, unable to speak Vedic
Sanskrit (Cf. Påli Milakkhu, Babylonian Melua).
Even the term Yavana must be old, perhaps a loan
word via some language of Asia Minor and Iran, since
Iōn <- *iaFōn- is of the level of archaic Greek. All of
this once again points to early Western contacts, p42,
such as visible in the word for ‘wheat'...<<

and, from another Witzel piece, The Languages of Harappa:

>>The word melua is of special interest. It occurs as a verb in a different form
(mlecha-ti) in Vedic only in ŚB 3.2.1, an eastern text of N. Bihar where it indicates 'to speak
in barbarian fashion'. But it has a form closer to Melua in Middle Indian (MIA): Pali, the
church language of S. Buddhism which originated as a western N. Indian dialect (roughly,
between Mathura, Gujarat and the Vindhya) has milakkha, milakkhu. Other forms, closer
to ŚB mleccha are found in mod. Sindhi, Panjabi, Kashmiri, W. Pahari. It seems that, just as
in other cases mentioned above, the original local form *m(e)lu was preserved only in the
South (> Pali), while the North has *mlecch. The meaning of Mleccha must have evolved
from 'self-designation' > 'name of foreigners', cf. those of the Franks > Arab Farinjī
'foreigner.' Its introduction into Vedic must have begun in Melua, in Baluchistan-Sindh,
long before surfacing in eastern North India in Middle/Late Vedic as Mleccha (for details,
see Witzel 1999 a,b)<<

On a listserve:

Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 14:26:12 PST
Reply-To: Indology <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Indology Mailing List <[log in to unmask]>
Comments: To: [log in to unmask]
From: "N. Ganesan" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: mleccha
Comments: To: [log in to unmask]
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed

Prof. Witzel, Substrates in OIA, EJVS, 1999 <<< The word meluHHa is of special interest. It occurs as a verb in a different form (mlecha-) in Vedic only in ZB 3.2.1, an eastern text of N. Bihar where it indicates 'to speak in barbarian fashion'. But it has a form closer to meluHHa in Middle Indian (MIA): Pali, the church language of S. Buddhism which originated as a western N. Indian dialect (roughly, between Mathura, Gujarat and the Vindhya) has milakkha, milakkhu. Other forms, closer to ZB mleccha are found in MIA *mliccha > Sindhi milis, Panjabi milech, malech, Kashmiri bri.c.hun 'weep, lament' (< *mrech-, with the common r/l interchange of IA), W. Pahari mel±.c.h 'dirty'. It seems that, just as in other cases mentioned above, the original local form *m(e)luH (i.e. m(e)lukh in IA pronunciation, cf. E. Iranian bAxdhI 'Bactria' > AV *bahli-ka, balhi-ka) was preserved only in the South (Gujarat? > Pali), while the North (Panjab, Kashmir, even ZB and Bengal) has *mlecch. The sound shift from -HH-/-kh- > -cch- is unexplained; it may have been modeled on similar correspondences in MIA (Skt. akSi 'eye' ~ MIA akkhi, acchi; kSetra 'field' ~ MIA khetta, chetta, etc.) >>> Prof. Parpola derives Meluhha, mentioned in Sumerian tablets, as Dravidian (Deciphering the Indus script, 1994). He connects Meluhha with tamil "mElakam". Intervocalical -k- often becomes a h-type sound. For example, take the sangam division of life into "pu.ram" (exterior) and "akam" (interior), - "akam" is pronounced as "aham". Is "Meluhha" a Sumerian rendering of the word something like "melakam"?

from N. Ganesan, on the Indology archive. I don't see whether this was answered.

And finally, here is how to use the word in contemporary discussion effectively:

>>Am Don, 05 Apr 2001 schrieb Subrahmanya S.:

> I don't know how many people have looked yet at Shrikant Talageri's long and
> devastating analysis of Michael Witzel's _Rigvedic: poets, chieftians andn
> politics. (http://www.voi.org/books/rig/ch9.htm)
> It shouldn't be overlooked.

It _should be_ overlooked, if only because Talageri's complaint that
Witzel has not read him is now, after Witzel's last review, evidently
pointless - if it were not already so before.

Perhaps you can show us, on the basis of Witzel's recent text, why we
should dismiss his criticism of Talageri? That would be far more
constructive than referring to rambling internet diatribes by persons
who hold up other persons of proven mendaciousness as authorities.

> Witzels's admits that his article is closely linked to earlier
> 19th century orientalists like Oldenberg

Perhaps because Oldenberg has done good work? Have you thought of that
possibility? Even if Oldenberg was a mleccha and not a modern
rightwing Hindu jingoist or sympathiser?<<