--- Piotr Gasiorowski <
piotr.gasiorowski@...>
wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "george knysh" <gknysh@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 4:38 PM
> Subject: Re: [tied] Hydronyms and toponyms of Vedic
> area
>
>
>
> > GK: What about RV 1.87.5; 3.31.10; 3.38.9;
> 3.58.1; and 8.6.30?
>
> In these cases it's translatable as "primeval" (esp.
> in collocation with <retas-> as in 3.31.10 and
> 8.6.30, or with <pitar-> in 1.87.5) or as "ancient"
> = belonging to the mythical past.
>
> Piotr
*****GK: Indeed. These are the terms of the Griffith
translation, which are very much in line with the
implications of the contexts. And that is why I'm not
sure that the translation of RV 1.30.9 as "former"
rather than as "ancient" is sustainable. "Former"
would be exciting of course (esp. when linked to "our"
i.o. "his" dwelling/homeland), as one of the very few
Rigvedan texts which might intimate a consciousness of
"having come in from elsewhere". Otherwise, one can
fall back on Sarasvati/Harahvaiti, which I still think
is simply an alternate name for the Indus, a
reminiscence of the Afghan Harahvaiti.******
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com