From: Rick McCallister
Message: 53620
Date: 2008-02-18
>____________________________________________________________________________________
> --- george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > --- 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)
>
> ****GK: Or leaving (1) and (2) aside. I think that
> it
> is more than incredible that Indians would not have
> had experience of the "sea", whether at the R.vedic
> stage or afterwards. That's a complete non-starter.
> If
> "temarunda" (or something similar) means "mater
> matris" (and why doubt Pliny?) then it's clear there
> must be something in it that's seaworthy (:=)))
> Sanskrit (judging by dictionaries) seems to have
> quite
> a large vocabulary referring to things that, one way
> or another, are associated with the sea. It seems to
> like circumlocutions. So what, then, if this ar.na
> isn't in Apte or Monier-Williams? It's "wet" enough
> I
> believe. At least "tem-" and "da" work. Close
> enough.
> It might look like circular reasoning to feel that
> perhaps the Sindic "arun" was closer to "sea" than
> classical Sanskrit was, but on balance, Hesychius
> and
> "Sindica" are all it really takes to label these
> populations. And there is plenty more. Feel free to
> be
> skeptical.I'm not.****
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.____________________________________________________________________________________
> > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Looking for last minute shopping deals?http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
> Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
>
>____________________________________________________________________________________