[tied] Re: Scythians, Zoroastrians, etc.

--- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: tgpedersen
> To: cybalist@...
> 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

Sanskrit also has *roch- "light" and *rushant- "shining" (I'm sorry
about the spelling, this keyboard is set up screwy. I'm even sorrier
about possible misspellings, but I trust you recognize them anyway).
And cf Old Norse <ljo-s>?

Torsten