From: george knysh
Message: 53612
Date: 2008-02-18
>****GK: Or leaving (1) and (2) aside. I think that it
> --- Francesco Brighenti <frabrig@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > --- 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
>
> GK: (1)What about the Indo-Iranian stage? Is
> there
> a "sea" word? (2) Is there one in Iranian? (just out
> of curiosity)
> >____________________________________________________________________________________
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.____________________________________________________________________________________
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>