Re: Res: [tied] Swiftness of Indra

--- Patrick Ryan <proto-language@...> wrote:

> Thank you, George.
>
> What do you think of Lubotsky's reasoning. I think
> it is hilarious.
>
>
> Patrick

****GK: I'm not competent to judge the linguistics of
the issue. But I must confess that I find both
Lubotsky and Witzel somewhat unconvincing on
alternative grounds. They both seem to think that
everything connected to the well-known Soma/Haoma
rituals in Indic and Iranic paleohistorical culture
(as reflected in texts) was acquired rather late, and
as a result of contacts with the BAMC people. Now,
whatever specific words might or might not suggest,
the notion that Indo-Iranians had to wait until their
contacts with earlier well-developed Central Asian
civilization to become adepts of the "Soma ritual"
(speaking broadly) is totally negated by
archaeological evidence. Even if one accepts the view
that the Soma plant= ephedra, and localizes its
availability on the highlands south of the steppes. At
most this would have meant a change in the identity of
the "holy plant". While still in Ukraine and South
Russia, the predecessors of the later Indo-Iranian
tribes which contacted with the BAMC had a fully
developed "holy plant drinking ritual", with all the
gadgets petaining thereto. All this was unearthed in
dozens of tombs of the Catacomb culture (2800-2200
BCE), and fully reported in the archaeological
literature. At that time the "holy plant" was the
poppy ("mak" in today's Ukr.) I was ready to accept
the notion that Indra was a later borrowing on the
authority of Lubotsky and Witzel,even as I was
rejecting some of their broader contentions about
rituals. But if you think the notion is laughable, I'm
listening(:=))).****

>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "george knysh" <gknysh@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 10:05 AM
> Subject: Re: Res: [tied] Swiftness of Indra
>
>
> >
> > --- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> >
> > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh
> > > <gknysh@...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- "Joao S. Lopes" <josimo70@...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Intara = Indara (-sh) in Mitanni?
> > > > >
> > > > > If there is *yNdro, there should be also a
> > > *yNdno- ?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > GK: Note BTW that Lubotsky and Witzel
> consider
> > > > "Indra" to be an IIr borrowing from the BMAC
> > > language,
> > > > with no PIE roots. Cf. e.g. Lubotsky's "THe
> > > > Indo-Iranian substratum" in the 2001
> > > Carpelan-Parpola
> > > > et al. volume 'Early contacts between Uralic
> and
> > > > Indo-European'
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

http://www.ieed.nl/lubotsky/pdf/Indo-Iranian%20substratum.pdf

> > >
> > > Which means some of the evidence for IIr.
> presence
> > > in Mitanni is
> > > evidence for BMAC presence.
> > >
> > >
> > > Torsten
> >
> >
> > GK: At the link Torsten has kindly provided,
> > Lubotsky argues that while semantically "Slavic
> > *jendr(&) 'strong, fresh' seems plausible, "the
> > primary meaning in Slavic is clearly
> 'pit','kernel'"
> > And he reiterates his earlier point about a wrong
> > vocalization in Sanskrit,for if Indra "were an IE
> > formation from *(H)indro-, we expect IIr
> **i(,}adra-
> > ".
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

____________________________________________________________________________________

> > Looking for last minute shopping deals?
> > Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
> >
>

http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

> >
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs