From: João Simões Lopes Filho
----- Original Message -----From: Piotr GasiorowskiSent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 6:02 PMSubject: Re: [tied] Re: Parvati----- Original Message -----From: Dennis KingSent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 10:40 PMSubject: Re: [tied] Re: Parvati
You're right that the historically attested meaning in Sanskrit is 'pool' (also 'lake, trough, bucket'), though as the verb root *ser- means 'flow', *seres- must have meant originally 'flow [noun]' and I wonder which of the two makes a better semantic base for the Sarasvati. Anyway, whether it's 'rich in flowing water' or 'having many pools' is a semantic problem, not a morphological one.
As for Pa:rvati:, it should be added that the expected Sanskrit adjectives parvata- 'rugged, rocky' and vRddhied pa:rvata- 'of a mountain' (from parvata- [noun]) also exist, which should clinch the argument in favour of Pa:rvati: meaning 'she of a rock/mountain' and nothing else.
Anyone feel like some fire-water on the rocks?
In response to Glen ...
> What about Sarasvati then? In a same book, I saw
> Parvati meaning "She of the Mountain" and then Sarasvati meaning something
> different, "Flowing Water". What's up? Using the same analogy as Sarasvati,
> we would get Par-vati meaning "Fire Water". Speak to me.
... Dennis King wrote:
No you wouldn't. To begin with -vatî has nothing to do with water.
Sarasvatî is a transparent compound of saras (pool) and the common
feminine adjectival suffix -vatî, yielding "female/feminine someone
or something that has pools", or "pool-possessor, fem. gender", in
this case the river Sarasvatî and the goddess.