It's *bHag-, not *bHag^- (Skt. bHaga-,
Slavic *bogU, with vocalism suggesting, if not proving, an early loan
rather than inheritance). Of course the switch of values, with *deiwo- delegated
to minor demonic functions, is typically Iranian, but despite common
elements the religious beliefs of the NE Iranians should not be identified
with Zoroastrianism and need not have been black-and-white dualist. In
particular note that Iranian *baga- is only once reflected in the Gathas (with
its old meaning "share, lot"), while the meaning "god" (Avestan yazata-) is
attested minly in "West Iranian" (Old Persian, Parthian) _and_ in Sogdian, which
extends its geography to NE Iranian, so probably to "Scythian" as well. Sogdian
Christians used it for Christian God, which is a striking parallel to the Slavic
usage. Sogdian also shows the derivative *bagina- 'altar, temple', possibly
reflected in Slavic *boz^-In-(ica) 'temple'. The word is not attested in
Old Iranian, so it's probable that Iranian religious influence on Slavic
dates to Middle Iranian ("Sarmatian") times.
Piotr
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 12:32 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Rydberg on the Ribhus of the Rigveda
Right, gotcha, I didn't examine long enough... whoops. But
all I
know is that the *bhag^os word is common in Balto-Slavic
languages
as the word for "god" and *deiwos seems to have taken a
back-seat.
Why did it develop this way? As I say, Mallory mentions
*Bhag^os
as though it were some sort of specific deity so why would
this
root, already used for a specific deity, be used to designate
_all_
gods? If there was no such *Bhag^os deity, then again, why is
this
"gift" root used to describe all gods if special gift-making
elves already
existed in the IE mythos... Something's not making
sense
here.