Re[2]: [tied] Re: Mitanni and Matsya

From the technical recommendations:

Make sure that the quotations are properly marked, so that
one can easily see who wrote what.

Patrick, your posts and Arnaud's consistently violate this
recommendation. They're barely tolerable in the first
instance; once they've been quoted a time or two, they're
nearly unreadable. I'm not aware of any mail client that is
incapable of quoting correctly, and even the Yahoo interface
manages the trick, so there's no excuse for having your
comments appear at the same level of quotation as the ones
to which you're responding. If you need help configuring
your client, I'm sure that someone here can offer it.


At 11:05:41 PM on Thursday, April 3, 2008, Patrick Ryan
wrote:

> From: "david_russell_watson" <liberty@...>

>>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan"
>><proto-language@...> wrote:

>>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Francesco Brighenti"
>>> <frabrig@...> wrote:

>>>> Mitra (and other Aditya gods) are, in fact,
>>>> abstractions. Mitra-s (m.) 'god Mitra' corresponds to
>>>> mitra-m (n.) 'agreement' (or 'friend'?); same in
>>>> Bhaga-s 'god Bhaga', bhaga-m 'portion, share'. Cf
>>>> Arya-man 'arya-hood'.

>>> I cannot think that anyone could interpret the name as
>>> 'friend'.

>> It's not an interpretation; it's the primary meaning of
>> the word in Sanskrit and Vedic.

[...]

>> Use the engine at http://webapps.uni-koeln.de/tamil/ to
>> search for the string 'mitra', making sure to remove the
>> quotes and to select 'prefix' from the drop-down menu on
>> the right. Besides 'mitra-' itself look at the numerous
>> compounds built upon it and listed there too.

[...]

> I am certain with what I have read here, that I understand
> the semantics of *wer-u- better than you do.

Perhaps. But the word under discussion at the moment is
<mitra>, the glosses at the Cologne Digital Sanskrit Lexicon
clearly support David's contention, and in response you've
offered much noise and little substance.

Brian