Re: Master of the twelve

At 1:32:51 AM on Tuesday, December 28, 2010, stlatos wrote:

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

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

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

[...]

>>>> 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.

> Looking at what are "generally" taken as cognates: L imber
> ; G ómbros 'rain(storm)' ; S abhrá- 'cloud' ; Gaul Ambris
> '(name of river)' ; I see no -a- or any -V- between the
> nasal and bH or any ev. that the nasal is -n- not -m- (the
> G might even be ev. for -m- (since m, > õ ( > ã in many),

There are other examples of anaptyctic <a> between <n> and
<f>. Assimilation of the nasal to *bH would explain the
instances of /m/; what's odd is the initial vocalism of the
Greek.

[...]

> Your commitment to taking a view opposite mine no matter
> what the evidence is impressive.

I have no such commitment. Indeed, I rarely pay much
attention to your posts at all, as the evidence is clear
that you have delusions of linguistic grandeur. Bluntly, I
put your magic wand version of reconstruction in the same
general category as the gospel according to Snorri and OIT.

[...]

> As I said, that connection was made for no good reason.
> There is absolutely no reason to think anafr()- : imbr()-,
> yet that is the ONLY reason "<anafríss> is generally
> taken to be cognate with Latin <imbribus>": a slight
> resemblance that can't be explained by any normal sound
> changes with absolutely no contextual ev. for the meaning
> 'rain' or anything similar.

Neither of these last two assertions is in fact true. The
interpretation suits the context well, <-fríss> is a perfect
match for <-bribus>, and the correspondence <ana-> ~ <im->
is not inexplicable. Is the correspondence beyond doubt?
No. Is there evidence for it that qualifies as 'good
reason'? Yes.

[...]

>>>>> 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'.

> He's said a lot of odd things, such as e:s- : aNs- : aUs-,
> but I should know he "obviously" wouldn't say Zodiac :
> sun?

No, you should be able to assign the obvious interpretation
to a pretty straightforward English sentence, instead of
going out of your way to choose one that you could ridicule.

Brian