Re: [tied] Re: Scythians, Zoroastrians, etc.

----- Original Message -----

From: tgpedersen

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2002 11:53 AM

Subject: [tied] Re: Scythians, Zoroastrians, etc.

> For example, Sanskrit has <s'arman-> 'shelter, protection'
(probably
> < *k^el-men-, i.e. related to Gmc. *xel- 'protect', Lat.
> celo 'conceal' etc.; cf. also Skt. s'aran.a- 'protective') and
> _unrelated_ but coincidentally similar <carman-> 'skin' (< *ker-men-
,
> cf. OPrus. kermen- 'flesh').

> Why "unrelated"? To magical thinking "skin" is a detachable (still in Danish <ham>, both of magical shape assumed by wizardry and of the shed skin of snakes and lizards), therefore something that "covers" the real person or spirit inside. 

Unrelated etymologically (I leave magical relatedness alone). *ker- and *k^el- are different roots.

 

Piotr