Re: Mitanni and Matsya

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "David Russell Watson" wrote:
> > >
> > > And just what PIE suffix does Sanskrit -*una reflect, David?
> >
> > I have no idea, but couldn't care less, because it
> > has nothing at all to do with the argument at hand.
> >
> > My argument is that 'Varuna-' has a sound and fairly
> > obvious _Indo-Aryan_ etymology, and that it's highly
> > unlikely that it's a loan from Hurrian.
>
> I have explained that my analysis of Varuna means 'wide'
> (*wer-u-) + 'one' (-*n).

Yes, you have explained that, and we've all been amused
accordingly. So what? What do you want now?

> That is certainly appropriate for a god of the sea but rather
> strange for a sun-god.

What's rather strange is that you keep referring to him
as a sea god or a sun god when it's been explained to
you, multiple times now, that he was neither one in his
earliest attestation.

> You have no idea what -una adds to a verbal root?

Absolutely none, but then I made little effort to find
out. If you're genuinely curious you could examine the
roots of the forms in -una- that I directed you to and
figure it out for yourself. Since none of it's relevant
to my own argument, why should I bother myself with it
any further?

> Or what PIE form it may derive from, like -*wen?

I have some ideas, but, again, of what relevance is it?
I've never claimed that 'Varuna-' ascends to P.I.E.

> So, you are claiming that you do not know what Varuna means if
> based on your proposed root.

I've already said, several times now, exactly what I think,
and in language that is in no way ambiguous. If you can't
understand it, just how many more times am I expected to
repeat myself?

David