u/SXZWolf2493

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chakma\_language#

There are no citations for the things highlighted in the image and I couldn't find any of those things searching online. Secondly the text on the second image blatantly contradicts the first image and itself:

"originally spoke a Tibeto-Burman language belonging to the Jingpo-Luish branch", "contains abundant vocabulary items that belong neither to Indo-Aryan nor Tibeto-Burman linguistic groups, likely originating from their ancestral language".

Jingpo-Luish itself is Sino-Tibetan, it's a blatant contradiction to state that a Jingpo-Luish substrate means having vocabulary that is from another substrate altogether.

If these claims do actually have no sources, I'd like to know at the very least how this misinformation came about.

Source: Bengali and Bhojpuri: Comparision of Conjugation of Verbs with Odia and North Eastern Languages

Updated image compared to the original I posted a few months ago

There doesn't seem to be a flair for merch that aren't toys. Anyways, Marshall my beloved.

Avatar the last airbender, Belarusian dub

Assalamu alaikum minna-san. As we know, Japeens language doesn't distinguish between l and r, therefore, while the most popular reading of this title is donut hole, it is obvious there is a second meaning only discoverable to the dedicated learners: donut whore.

Paper title: Austral Contribution in Bengali: An Anthropological Study

DOI: 10.47310/hjel.2021.v02i02.011

The claims in yellow are just wrong, aren't they? Generally the lack of consonant clusters in Prakrit and modern IA is attributed to the influence of Dravidian languages. This study is leaving out comparative info of any other IA language. Secondly, retroflex consonants are not reconstructed for Proto-Munda, they exist in modern languages from various independent origins and areal influence. Also, the linguistics claims have no sources, only the historic parts have sources. This paper is not about Dravidian but I still wanted to post it here because it leaves out important linguistic information from Dravidian languages. Regarding classifiers, I believe that is not a Dravidian feature as they are mainly found in East IA, but classifiers are not solely Austroasiatic, it is a general feature of East Asian and SEA languages; IA languages like Rohingya, Chakma are mainly in contant with Burmic languages, not Austroasiatic. Also I think the paper mistakenly says loss of "post-positions" when it should be "pre-positions". Again the contribution of Dravidian is ignored. The reference list of this article is only sources about history, none from linguistics, and all are from the 20th century, none from this century.

I was looking for specifically Autroasiatic influence in Bangla, but papers regarding this subject ignore any other influence on Bangla completely. This paper's aim was not meant to be about Dravidian but still it's what's lacking that's important and I feel it reflects an issue with substrate studies in Bangladesh. The other paper I read on this subject was: The influence of Santali language on the development of Bengali language. It had the same issue and generally the literature on this topic seems very scarce.

This was published in 2023. I'm sorry but is the state of linguistics in South Asia really that abysmal?