Thus from the time of Sir Jones’ adumbration in 1786 when he all but declared that Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, and the other Indo-European languages which he mentioned in his address had sprung from a common source, a number of Indo-European scholars have devoted their energies in discovering various elements of Indo-European among which the recognition of the Indo-European root-words is the pinnacle of their achievements. In a word, they have greatly succeeded in bringing back to life, as it were, the very words which were once uttered by their ancestors who in time came to occupy all of Europe and whose words gave birth to more than a hundred Indo-European languages constituting millions of words in them. These Indo-European words and languages could not have been born without these root-words which, as already stated, are only about two thousand in total.

While these two above noted scenes: (1) the appalling lethargic attitude demonstrated by many native Dravidian scholars in discovering the truth and significance concerning Dravidian, and (2) the extraordinarily consistent and intense activity of the concerned European scholars in dealing with various aspects of Indo-European, were taking place, a third scene of unequalled importance and implication both to Indo-European and Dravidian was simultaneously taking shape and form and that was: while recognizing or reconstructing the Indo-European root-words, the European scholars who were involved in this task, were unknowingly endeavoring as much for Dravidian as for Indo-European, because what they were actually engaged in was recognizing the keys with which to unlock the Dravidian identity of the common source of Indo-European. In short, in recognizing some two thousand Indo-European root-words, the European scholars have presented the keys, the proof, with which to identify Dravidian as the common source of Indo-European. Unbeknownst to them, they have worked as hard for Dravidian as for Indo-European which is in itself a proof that both of them are genetically related; one being the mother-speech, and the other being her offspring. They have worked for the mother speech Dravidian while they were working for her offspring Indo-European which, of course, behooves them. In truth, they could not have been serving the offspring without serving their inseparable mother. But since they too ignored Dravidian, they failed to utilize this proof and to bring Dravidian to light as the common source of Indo-European. As a result of these unique circumstances in the history of languages, it is the European scholars’ own proof with which the unfinished business of solving the so-called mystery concerning the identity of the common source of Indo-European is accomplished in this work.

This proof by virtue of the complication involved in deriving it becomes further solid and set in cement, because taking into account the contorted routes of the older and newer Indo-European phonetic correspondences which are interspersed throughout the maze of some hundred plus Indo-European languages some of which are uttered by tribes who to this day live in difficult to access terrain, not to speak of their different periods of operation throughout the millennia, the chances of arriving at an Indo-European root-word the shape, form, and meaning of which even remotely resembles the shape, form, and meaning of a word in Dravidian which is supposed to be an isolated and unrelated language family in the whole world are extraordinarily scarce, if not none. In view of this not more than a mere handful of Indo-European root-words are necessary to prove the Dravidian identity of their common source. When hundreds of them testify, as they do in the present work, on behalf of their common source Dravidian, it only goes to prove further how she has endured in spite of the neglect and mistreatment that she has been subjected to by many of her own so-called scholars.