Re: Accepted cognates of Arya?

<aryá-> meaning 'hospitable lord' (from <ar-í->) is quite often
considered as possibly related to *h2al-jo- 'other' (in which meaning
Sanskrit utilises its IE competitor, *h1on-jo- > Skt. anya-), the
semantic process being parallelled by the relation between <hostis>
and <hospes> in Latin. Whether this <arya-> is etymologically
identical with the homonymous IIr *aryá-, *á:rya-,
meaning 'respectable companion' or something of the sort, is open to
debate. I would not rule out such a possibility. Perhaps ethnonymic
<aryá-> began its career as a form of flattering address among the
early Indo-Iranian social elite.

Piotr

--- In cybalist@..., "wtsdv" <liberty@...> wrote:
> Could "arya-" have any connection to the Latin
> "alius"?
>
> My Latin Dictionary gives: "alius: the other (of two
> individuals)", "alii; others (= one's neighbours or
> fellow-creatures)", and "alius (5) all other, the rest"
>
> Emile Benveniste writes "There is more precise testimony
> to the social position of the arí in the complaint of the
> daughter-in-law of Indra (Rig Veda X, 28, 1): `All the
> other arí have come (to the sacrifice); only my father-
> in-law has not come'. Indra is thus counted among the
> arí of his daughter-in-law. If we took the expression
> in the most literal sense, we should conclude that the
> arí formed the other moiety in an exogamic society."
> and "The derivative a:rya, which at first designated
> the descendants of the arí (or the arya), indicated
> that they belonged to the arí, and it soon came to
> serve as a common denominator for the tribes who
> recognized the same ancestors and practised the same
> cults. These comprise at least some of the components
> of the notion of arya, which among both the Indic people
> and the Iranians, marks the awakening of a national
> conscience."
>
> So could "arya-" have originally signified "belonging
> to the other (moiety)"? Endogamy and exogamy taboos
> are a central part of both the Hindu and Ossetian
> cultures to this day. Alternately, if there had been
> at some point in time a three way system with "same,
> other (near), other (far)" comparable to Latin's
> demonstratives in "this, that (near), that (far)" or
> "here, there (by you), there (by him)", and *alyo-
> played the role of the first "other", then it seems
> to me that it could minimally distinguish, when used
> in context, one's own people "the others (near)" from
> outsiders or aliens "the others (far)", comparable to
> the use of "mare nostrum" for the Mediterranean, which
> is nondistinctive when taken out of context (translated
> from Latin and/or spoken by other than a Roman).
> Though I've never heard of a group whose ethnonym
> meant simply "us".
>
> This question probably tells more about what I don't
> know than what I do, but it's just that, a question.
> I'm not insisting on anything, so please just tell me
> where I've gone wrong and don't rush to call the
> looney wagon yet! :-)
>
> David
>
> --- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> > Nor can German Ehre, Old English a:r, Old Norse eir be cognate to
> Indo-Iranian *arya-; they go back to Proto-Germanic *ais-/*aiz-.
> Greek aristos contains the superlative suffix <-isto-> added to <ar-
> >, which is usually connected with PIE *h2ar(h1)- 'fit together
> (skilfully)' (cf. Latin ars 'art') and is not likely to have
anything
> to do with *arya-. Truth to tell, I know no _certain_ cognates of
> *arya- outside Indo-Iranian (even Celtic *ario- admits of more than
> one etymological interpretation).
> >
> > Piotr