Re: [tied] Re: Latin Volcanus and Ossetic Værgon

The <kurd/kyrd> part means "smith", and that's for sure. The rest (*arja-v(a)rka:n-?) is rather speculative (though by no means crazy, as Abaev is a careful scholar); at any rate I'd prefer to see one or two more IE "Vulcani" before I wholeheartedly accept an Alanic one, let alone a PIE one. The velar, however, is not a problem. Some time ago on this list we sifted the evidence for three types of dorsals with a fine-tooth comb and concluded that *k (as different from both *k^ and *kW, but perhaps uvular rather than velar) must be posited for PIE. I defended a smaller system at first but eventually came round to accept the three-way contrast :)

Piotr

----- Original Message -----
From: liberty@...

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 9:25 PM

Subject: [tied] Re: Latin Volcanus and Ossetic Værgon

Thanks all. I can see that any connection to *wlkwo- is definitely out, but I'm still confused as to whether there is any evidence that Vulcan and Wærgon are cognates. Was there a Proto-Indo-European Vulcan and if so why is there no trace in any other branch of Indo- Iranian than Ossetic? Are the velars in *welk- and *werg- labio- velars? If not, wouldn't they result in something like *wærs- or *wærz- in Ossetic? Also is it possible that Abaev misanalyzed Kurdalæwærgon as Kurd-Alæ-Wærgon "The Alan Smith Wærgon"? I would have expected an *Alæ-Kurd-Wærgon or an *Alon-Kurd-Wærgon if anything. It also seems strange that Alans speaking to one another in their own language about one of their own gods would bother to include in his name that he was an "Alan" god. Is this sort of thing typical? A few scholars have been overly zealous to find traces of the words Alan or Sarmatian in Ossetic.