From: george knysh
Message: 53591
Date: 2008-02-18
>****GK: (1)What about the Indo-Iranian stage? Is there
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh
> <gknysh@...> wrote:
>
> > Is there anything radically impossible about the
> "Indic" analysis
> > of Temarunda?
>
> One substantial objection to his analysis could be
> that arn.a- in
> the RV means 'wave, flood, stream; (fig.) tumult of
> battle' --
> lit. 'being in motion, flowing, surging' (< ar- 'to
> put in motion,
> send, move, rise'). I am not sure as to the
> existence of an equally
> old meaning 'sea', at least in the R.gvedic period.
> For instance,
> ar.na- is not glossed as 'sea' in either
> Monier-Williams' and Apte's
> Skt. dictionaries.
>
> Did the R.gvedic Aryans know any "real" sea or not?
> Did they have
> any term designating the sea, or was their original
> habitat so land-
> locked that they hadn't any?
>
> (Remember the past discussions on the R.gvedic
> Sanskrit term samudra-
> = 'water confluence', not 'sea'?)
>
> Regards,
> Francesco
>____________________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>