> Dravidian is just geographical classification. Map gets it wrong at least for one language. If not the entire Dravidian category. Their genealogical tree has

> Dravidian is just geographical classification. Map gets it wrong at least for one language. If not the entire Dravidian category. Their genealogical tree has some other issues (like merging Austroasiatic Vietnamese and Khmer into Austronesian), but I thought the Dravidian family is relatively uncontroversial and a proto-language can be reconstructed? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Dravidian_language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Dravidian_language (NB. The script used to write a language and loanwords from other language families have no bearing on its linguistic classification.)