Re: [tied] Re: Accepted cognates of Arya?

From: David Russell Watson
Message: 12279
Date: 2002-02-05

Attachments :
--- In cybalist@..., "kalyan97" <kalyan97@...> wrote:
>
> The word, 'ari' is defined in Monier Williams as: a faithful or
> devoted or pious man.

I consider this definition to have been overturned. I've attached
a longer quote from Benveniste which in part explains why it's
unsatisfactory. Similarly incorrect is T. Burrow who reports
"The existence of homonyms frequently results in the suppression
of one of such pairs. The early Vedic language possessed ásura-
'lord' (Av. ahura-) and ásura- 'demon'. Only the latter is in use
from the later Vedic period onwards. Similarly of the pair arí-
'devoted, trustworthy' (whence árya-, á:rya-, cf. Hitt. ara- 'friend,
ally', etc.) and arí- 'enemy' (<*ali-, cf. Lat. alius, etc.) only the
latter is preserved." Burrow, or whomever he's following in this,
has created two words out of one to deal with problems arising
from the mistranslation of the word as 'devoted, trustworthy'.
There is more on this in the quote that I've attached.

> In most of the R.gveda, the word, 'a_rya' and cognates have the
> meaning of 'nobility or civility' and DOES NOT connote a distinct
> ethnic group.

We can't base our understanding of the original sense of the word
on the Indian evidence alone, but must also include consideration of
the Iranic cognates, none of which is ever used in any other sense but
an ethnic/cultural/linguistic one. Also, as I wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/8872 "Aryan is an
ethnic not a racial designation and so when Dravidians, Mundas, etc.
were assimilated into the Sanskritic culture they can legitimately said
to have become Aryans. Besides in India "Aryan" has undergone a
change in meaning parallel to that of the word "noble" which originally
only meant "belonging to the aristocracy" but now more often is used
in the sense "honorable, selfless, dignified, etc." So in India the title
of
Aryan was eventually extended to anybody who upheld Vedic mores."

> It is good to know the truth from Piotr that only IIr and Indo-Aryan
> attest this word which strengthens the thesis of autochthons of

No legitimate scholar in decades has used "Aryan" in any other sense
than "Indo-Iranian" or "Proto-Indo-Iranian".

David