Res: [tied] Re: Temarunda

--- In cybalist@... s.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