Res: [tied] Scythian tribal names: Paralatai

--- In cybalist@... s.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@... > wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@... s.com, "david_russell_ watson" <liberty@>
> wrote:
> >
> > 'Thraetaona' is a clear-cut derivative of the name of Thrita,
> > whose Vedic counterpart is Trita (Aptya), from P.I.E. *trito-
> > "third",
>
> I disagree. They definitely are related, from *trii-tew-x- nos
> 'three (times) strong', used for a man with three sons.

No, the two whole words can't possibly be related etymologically.
The only connection possible is between the elements 'trae' and
'tar' alone, if indeed 'tar' meant 'three'.

The similarities in the stories of Targitaus and Thraetaona are
very loose and vague, which could never be said of Thraetaona
Athwiya/Thrita and Trita Aptya. Please find some sources and
compare the myths.

For a start see

'The Indo-European Cattle-Raiding Myth' at http://www.jstor. org,

'Prince Mohammad, Fereydun, Thraetaona, and Trita Aptya', also
at http://www.jstor. org, and

'A History of Zoroastrianism: The Early Period' at http://books.
google.com/books? id=S5A18Y6rkjoC& pg=PA98&lpg= PA98&dq=Thraetao na+
Thrita+third+ %22Trita+ Aptya22&source= web&ots=7WCQmItB zH&sig=q8h_
7pHSxrUVW20Ge0tukyO pdk&hl=en& sa=X&oi=book_ result&resnum= 4&ct=
result .

> The changes involve n > n. > N after a velar which returns to n
> much later in most IE (but not if nasal dissimilation occurred
> first like Latin -go:(n-) or Iranian *xakYmnixYno- > *akYm.n.iyn.
> o- > *akYm.NayNo- > *asagaina- 'of stone').
>
> The change of ii>ai after r might have been regular in Iranian
> but *dwii- allowed analogy (in both directions).

There is no change of 'ii' to 'ai' after 'r' in Iranian, regular
or otherwise, and where does 'dwii' come into the picture at all?

'Thrae' here is in fact merely the guna grade, with 'Thraetaona'
a patronymic derivative of the name of Thrita.

> The IE languages that had this metathesis probably went:
>
> trii-tew-x-nos
> trai-tew-x-nos
> trii-tew-x-nos ana. (if needed)
> trii-tew-x-Nos
> trii-tew-Nos
> trii-teu-Nos
> tri-teu-Nos
> tri-No-teus
> tri-go-teus
> tri-ga-taus
>
> This specific name could have had an additional i-a metathesis
> at any time (not seen in others).

These changes are purely ad hoc and would make hash applied to
most other words, and moreover you, as so many other dabblers
in comparative linguistics do, mistake the ability to draw a
straight line between two words for proof that the words are
actually cognate, but which it is not and never could be. That
isn't how it's done. Given license to posit as many layers of
unattested sound change as one wishes, and you always present
us with very tall piles, and using the semantic-chain game, one
can connect absolutely any two words with any meanings from any
two languages in the world. Clearly a method that can connect
_any_ two words then has no probative value.

David