From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 18487
Date: 2003-02-06
----- Original Message -----
From: <dmilt1896@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 8:40 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: On Arguing of the Mighty Saraswati River
> Being a geologist rather than a linguist, I'm entertaining myself by looking into the Sarasvati question. If I come to any conclusions I'll post them (but from what I've read so far I'm likely to end up as confused as when I started).
> In one study,"Did the Sarasvati ever flow to the Sea?" by G. L. Pohssehl, I read: "The image created by the Rgveda for the Sarasvati River is of a powerful, full flowing river, not easily reconciled with the literal meaning of the name, 'Chain of Pools'."
> Would someone explain this etymology? Have others been suggested?
The suffix <-vati:> is the feminine form of <-vant-/-vat->, forming adjectives of possession (< *-went-, fem. *-wn.t-ih2). "X-vant-" = 'abounding in X', more of less. This means that <sarasvati:> has a natural interpretation as 'having many "sarases"'. The neuter noun <saras> means 'pool, pond', and is usually reconstructed as *seles-, nom.sg. selos, because of Gk. helos 'marshy meadow, backwater'. I have myself suggested an alternative etymology, involving hypothetical *seros (*seres-) 'waterflow' (from *ser- 'to flow', as in Skt. sisarti, sarati), but I have to admit the usual one is better supported.
At any rate Skt. sarasvati: is etymologically identical with Iranian *harah-vati: (Av. haraxWaiti:) in Afghanistan.
Piotr