Re: Preparing for a rainy day [was: Bog]

In Old Indo-Aryan, dur- is a sandhi variant of dus.- in voicing
environments -- a late development (*duz.-d.. > dur-d.., cf. Iranian
*duz-) and impossible in root-suffix combinations. I think Slavic
*dur- is more probably related to Latin furo (furia, furor, etc.).

Skt. sumRtyu- means "easy death", more or less.

Piotr

--- In cybalist@..., "Sergejus Tarasovas" <S.Tarasovas@...> wrote:
> --- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> >
> > I suggest that *dus-dju- may be a loan from Indo-Iranian -- a
> branch
> > in which such a compound exists (plus a number of similar
> formations,
> > e.g. Rigvedic su-div-, su-dyu-t-). The fact that neither *dus-
nor
> > *diw-/*dju- are independently attested in Slavic is therefore no
> > obstacle. They are found in the hypothetical source of the loan.
>
> What I was arguing against is the statement that *dUz?jI
etymologized
> in a Trubetskoi/Vaillant fashion is genuinely Slavic. A borrowing
is
> a quite possible solution, in my opinion. Considering the fact I am
> not aware of existance of *su- in Baltic as well (*dur-, by the
way,
> if treated as a variant of *dus-, is probably attested in Slavic as
> *dur- < *dour-, like in *durInU 'bad'?), I'm beginning to suspect
all
> the *su- complex (and *dus-, if *dUz?jI indeed contains it) in
Slavic
> being borrowed from Indo-Iranian (or -Aryan?). It might well be
Indo-
> Iranians who taught Slavs the idea of proper (sacral?) death (in
the
> battle-field, for instance).
>