> This is just one small corpus of Sanskrit linguistic traditions.

That was just what her dissertation was on, not the sum total of her expertise. I was responding to your question about familiarity with history in addition to linguistics of Sanskrit. In any case it's expert vetted piece of research, not claims about far-fetchednesd by someone on the internet.

Far fetchedness is hardly the the standard for wannabe scientific claims. If it was, there are many bridges that people can sell.

If proof free speculations are your thing, speculate away. There's a large population of similar proof-free quacks and hacks one can join. I have nothing more to add.