Re: the all-from-sanskritists

> It seems that we have been ambiguous in our discussion, so
> I am attempting to clarify my meaning below.

And Richard, let me clarify too on my part.

> > However, the posting
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vediculture/message/750 , which is
> > signed by 'Neil Kalia', is in much better English. The errors
> there
> > are typical native errors of punctuation.
> >
> > Do you specialize in indoerrology, Richard? ;-)
>
> No, which is why I asked the question. I hoped an Indian member of
> the list would answer. 'Neil Kalia' appears to be a _native_ speaker
> of *English*.

It was impressive to see that someone could detect an author's origin by the nature of mistakes. Reminds me of Shaw's Pygmalion.

>
> I was talking of Indian words borrowed by English.

I had got that right. But was a point being made of all/most English having come from Sanskrit? I thot you implicitly rebutted that.

> > Kome on! The 'c' in cing/cyning was a guttural nevertheless.
>
> Aha! A hypercorrect desatemisation! (I jest.)
>
> Late OE had both 'cing' and 'cyng', so only the one slip-up. Again,
> note that there is no explicit claim that the 'c' is softened, let
> alone to a hiss.

My understanding was that the author was correlating "simha" to "cing" because he wrongly thot the 'c' to have been representing a sibilant, as 'c' is in such circumstances in Modern English. Am I wrong?

>
> > [You would know, of course, that "cyning/king" is a cognate
> of "jana/gent-"]
>
> I can't see how the etymology of 'c[yn]ing' is relevant here. And
> the semantics are debated by those who accept it.

It was to establish that the cing-simha connection was devious, since cyning/king has another etymology altogether. Are u saying the king/kin-jana etymology is disputed?

> > But, the budh-equivalent root has historically come in to (Old)
> English as "bid."
>
> 'Buddha' is the past participle in '-ta' from the Sanskrit root
> derived from PIE *bheudh. I was thinking of 'Buddh-' as a now
> English root for certain matters spiritual,
> yielding 'Buddha', 'Buddhism' and 'Buddhist'.
>

True. But I was just pointing out in addition that IE root has come in to/thru Old English as "bid." Correcto?
But in the modern context, isn't "buddha" the root, strictly speaking? (But no big diff anyway!)

Ash