From: Rick McCallister
Message: 53580
Date: 2008-02-17
>____________________________________________________________________________________
> --- Francesco Brighenti <frabrig@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh
> > <gknysh@...> wrote:
> >
> > > B[abaev]'s Temarunda analysis seems OK.
>
> ****GK: Sorry for the ambiguity. I only meant that
> it
> seems to be a genuine comment about the real Sea of
> Azov (Lacus Maeotis) not the Aral Sea.****
> >
> > On the contrary, to me its seems far-fetched:
> >
> > http://indoeuro.bizland.com/archive/article17.html
> > "*tem-arun-da, 'mother of the Dark, or Black,
> Sea',
> > where *tem-
> > means Vedic tamas- 'darkness', *arun- is Vedic
> arna-
> > 'a stormy sea',
> > and *da- fits well to Sanskrit dhe- 'to
> > breast-feed'. This makes
> > temarunda really 'a mother of the sea'.
>
> ****GK: This seems better than Trubachov while
> confirming(?) his main thesis.****
> >
> > However, Babev's source is O. Trubachev's article
> > "Temarundam 'Mater
> > Maris'" available online at
> >
> > http://groznijat.tripod.com/sci_lang/trubachev.htm
> >
> > The article is, unfortunately, in Russian. What
> does
> > it say, in
> > short?
>
> ****GK: Miguel's report has everything that
> matters.****
> >
> > > There's a couple of interesting articles I'm
> > presently reading.
> > > One by Gray(old (1927) but still interesting in
> > the Journal of the
> > > Royal Asiatic Society. He claims that the
> Iranian
> > plateau was
> > > earlier occupied by the Indo-Aryans, who were
> > pushed out by the
> > > Iranians, leaving traces of their language in
> the
> > latter's speech
> > > as a substrate. A more recent item (1973) by the
> > late Oxford
> > > professor T. Burrow (The Proto-IndoAryans),
> which
> > I've just
> > > started to peruse, seems to be headed towards a
> > similar
> > > conclusion.
> >
> > Burrow has argued for an initial Indo-Aryan
> > settlement not only of
> > North Mesopotamia (the area later occupied by the
> > kingdom of
> > Mittani), but also of parts of Iran. His arguments
> > are both
> > linguistic and religious. Linguistic arguments
> > mainly consist in the
> > names of Iranian rivers which are seen by Burrow
> to
> > be borrowings
> > from one or more earlier Old Indo-Aryan languages.
> > This evidence has
> > been dismissed by some linguists. Religious
> > arguments mainly consist
> > in the names of certain Zoroastrian daevas
> (demons)
> > which would have
> > derived from an earlier Indo-Aryan substrate. I am
> > quoting from
> > memory, and unfortunately I don't have easy access
> > to Burrow's book.
> > I cannot remember why the author excludes that the
> > Iranian river-
> > names and daeva-names he takes as evidence of an
> > earlier presence of
> > Indo-Aryans on the Iranian plateau were inherited
> > from common Indo-
> > Iranian. Could you kindly look into the book and
> > elucidate me on
> > this point, George?
>
> ****GK: Be glad to. I only read the first page.
> Gray,
> for his part, argues that
>
> "from Central Asia,through the open reaches east of
> the Caspian which have given access to the Iranian
> Plateau to conqueror after conqueror, there came at
> an
> undatable period an invasion (or series of
> invasions)
> of a people who spoke an Indo-Iranian dialect which
> represented the Indo-European hard sibilant by 's',
> and who termed their deities *deivos. In their turn
> these invaders were gradually driven south by
> another
> invasion (or series of invasions) by a kindred
> people(or peoples)who had changed the hard sibilant
> 's' to 'h', who called their divinities *ahuros, and
> who had, as kindred peoples often have,somewhat
> different vocabularies. These h-people (the later
> Iranians) gradually expelled the s-peoples until the
> latter finally made their way into India.
> In their contacts the h-peoples adopted some of
> the
> words of their s-enemies, but since they already had
> corresponding terms of their own (e.g. us(h)- as
> contrasted with ka:rn(.)a-, ahura- as opposed to
> deva(')-, etc.),they had no need to add them to
> their
> vocabulary except as referring to their foes.
> Hence,these terms of the s-peoples,expelled or
> conquered, formed no real part of the vocabulary of
> the h-peoples, as they did of the word-stock of the
> s-peoples, and the former employed them only in a
> derogatory sense,applying them solely to beings,
> human
> or superhuman, whom they hated and despised as
> hostile
> and malign.
> If this hypothesis be correct,the Ahurian and
> Dae(-)vian vocabularies of the Avesta were due to
> historical and political factors of invasion,
> conquest, and expulsion, and are still traceable in
> geographic distribution; they were not caused by
> linguistic oe even by religious considerations."
> (Louis H. Gray, "The 'Ahurian and 'Daevian'
> Vocabularies inthe Avesta", Journal ofthe Royal
> Asiatic Society, 1927, p. 439.) Gray studies 52 such
> terms tabulating their use, and states that "a
> survey
> of the geographical distribution of the words under
> consideration seems to justify the conclusion that
> in
> the majority of cases the Ahurian terms [ay-,
> uruthwan-, us(h)-, gam-,etc... he lists 20 GK]find
> cognates in several modern Iranian dialects, and
> often
> outside Iran as well;the Daevian words,on the other
> hand,[as(h)-, gav-, gah-,drav-, etc... he lists 18
> GK]
> find cognates only outside the modern Iranian area,
> except for a few in the Pamir dialects." (p. 434)
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Francesco
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Be a better friend, newshound, andhttp://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
>
>____________________________________________________________________________________
>
>