> I agree with the current theory of *Dyuas for the most part. I
simply
> disagree that the Germanic Tyr was the original *Dyuas (*Tiwaz)
displaced by
> a younger god local named Odin. The evidence for that is weak, and
the logic
> unsound.
>
I still have yet to see anybody address here the linguistic problems
that exist in seeing Tyr as the equivalent of *Dyeus (as many often
claim). As I have mentioned, Tyr should go back to a Germanic form
*Tiwaz, allegedly from PIE *deiwos "god" (literally "shining one"),
which is not the same as *Dyeus "sky" (even though they are from the
same root *dei- "shine").
Is it possible that Tyr is actually from *Dyeus after all, and not
from *deiwos? How do we analyze the Roman Dius, a divinity that
allegedly has affinities with Tyr (connection with law/contracts, a
bound hand compared to Tyr's missing hand).
- Chris Gwinn