Re: Master of the twelve

At 8:53:34 PM on Monday, December 27, 2010, stlatos wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> <bm.brian@...> wrote:

>> At 2:41:57 PM on Monday, December 27, 2010, stlatos
>> wrote:

>>> This can't fit w Oscan anafríss kerríiúís & maatúís
>>> kerríiúís (both aprx. 'grain spirits' (possibly one for
>>> dead ancestors, another for ~ gods/fairies, who knows?))
>>> in which the -n- is clearly present and not
>>> nasalization. The standard model might have ansuro- >
>>> ansaro- > anasro- > anafro-, though it's not important
>>> for this discussion.

>> This appears to be both irrelevant and somewhat off the
>> mark. So far as I know, <anafríss> is generally taken to
>> be cognate with Latin <imbribus>, dative plural of
>> <imber> 'rain(storm)', from *n.bH-ró-. Larissa Bonfante
>> translates <anafríss kerríiúis statif> as 'imbribus
>> Cerealibus statio' and 'la estación para las lluvias de
>> Ceres'.

> It has been "generally" taken as such, for no good reason.

I'm afraid that I feel no obligation to take this very
seriously: you've long since convinced me that your
judgement of 'good reason' in such matters is of very
limited value.

[...]

>>> The sun is not the Zodiac.

>> In fairness to Torsten, he neither said nor implied that
>> it was, or even that it was a part of the Zodiac.

> He said:

>>>> which woulf mesh nicely with the supreme god being
>>>> master of the Zodiac, ie. the sun.

> and that seems to do more than imply the sun is the
> Zodiac.

Hardly. He's obviously identifying the sun as 'master of
the Zodiac'.

Brian