[teleforce]

>"...it's has been proven to be a valid linguistic script..." No, it has NOT been proven to be a writing system for a language. Indeed the very link you cite [1] says:

Actually I was reffering to a 2011 TED Talk on Youtube by a researcher in this field namely Rajesh Rao a computational neuroscientist, entitled "Computing a Rosetta Stone for the Indus script." It's based on the comparison of the statistical distribution and entropy to other well-known languages such as English, Sumerian, and Old Tamil, as well as non-linguistic systems such as DNA sequences, Fortran programming code, and completely random sequences [1].

The researcher personally received a death threat due to this discovery. Why is the discovery or the hypothesis (depending on your perspective) is very controversial, is telling something. My conjecture is that the Dravidian speaking people is displaced further south to the Indian subcontinent by the "newcomers" (Aryan speaking people), similar to how the Wales/Welsh speaking people was driven further eastword in the British Island by the "newcomers" (English speaking people).

[1] Rajesh Rao: Computing a Rosetta Stone for the Indus script [video]:

https://youtu.be/kwYxHPXIaao

[mcswell]

I know nothing of death threats, but posting a YouTube video does not constitute "proof". And there's been plenty of water under the peer-reviewed bridge over the last twenty years, most of which does not seem to be politically motivated. Sproat for example has no political reason to prefer one or the other conclusion, but he has come down steadfastly on the side that the Indus script does not represent a language.

To repeat myself, then: there is no proof that the Indus script is the writing system of a language.

[teleforce]

Did you even watch the video before replying, that's a high quality TED talk instead of the lesser TEDx, presented by a reknowned and reputable professor in the field?

Do you know that interview, podcast, lecture, etc, with an expert reserchers in the field is a valid research evidents and citations?

Here are some of the Rajesh Rao publications on the topic if you even bother to check [1],[2],[3].

Apparently it's just a few minutes to find his papers but you seems to not interested in finding the truth. If you don't believe the results at least respect the scholarly efforts involved. Or find a refute to the facts presented or better yet do your own research to refute them. Failure to do any of the above is just a strawman with in denial attitude.

1) Entropic Evidence for Linguistic Structure in the Indus Script [pdf]:

https://www.science.org/cms/asset/f142c776-4f40-4b10-9d09-a4...

[2] A Markov model of the Indus script: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0906237106

[3] Statistical Analysis of the Indus Script Using n-Grams:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

[mcswell]

Did you even look at any of the papers (published in scholarly journals, not in TED talks), which argue against the idea that the Indus script is a written language?