From: Arnaud Fournet
Message: 60760
Date: 2008-10-10
----- Original Message -----
From: kishore patnaik
Piotr writes :
Well, why do Dyaus and Ushas have external cognates, then?
My reply:
Remember I am talking from an OIT framework. You keep forgetting that. If
Dyaus and Ushas have been borrowed by external cultures, naturally their
cognates will develop. If PIE is to correct, why it existed only for Dyas
and not for Varuna?
========
The problem is you just don't understand what the comparative method is
about.
Dyaus and Ushas are not the proto-forms but the ultimate reflexes of PIE
*dye:s and *usos.
Dyaus and Ushas have not been borrowed elsewhere.
They are the Indian reflexes brought there by Indian-language speakers and
nothing more.
Arnaud
=========
If there is no PIE equivalent for Varuna, then how do you account for his
indic existence and not elsewhere?
=====
You have already been told the answer.
the theonym Varuna is an Indian creation, but the semantic and mythological
content of this theonym existed before, and can be traced back to PIE.
ARnaud
===========
These questions are to be explained correctly before my premises are
questioned. In any cae, as I have replied to Arnaud, I think I have given
enough number of references from RV which support each of my premise.
=====
No.
You proved nothing.
Arnaud
=====
I am not satisfied with your sweeping reply that it is common sense to think
wider distribution could mean an older existance. If PIE and AIT are
correct, then yes, you are right. But when we are questioning these basic
premises, you ought to be proving this premise with some independent proof.
In fact, you are resorting to ciruclar logic : Since AIT and PIE are
correct, your premise is correct (instinct),. since your premise is correct,
AIT and PIE are proved.
============
This has nothing to do with circularity.
The problem is you don't understand the comparative method.
This is especially obvious as you tend to think that a cognate is just a
widespread loanword.
Absurd.
Arnaud
==========