From: stlatos
Message: 59458
Date: 2008-07-03
>I could go on for pages about my methods, but instead just consider
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.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'.
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:
>
> First of all let me say that I have no idea about the
> etymology of this name. Perhaps someone can take a
> crack at it. But here is why I think Abaev was wrong
> in trying to understand it via Iranic . There are two
> similar names found in, respectively, Pontic
> Indo-Aryan (=TIRGATAO) and Mitannian Indo-Aryan
> (=TIRGUTAWYIA) {for details see Cyril Babaev's article
> on Indo-Aryan}. In In/Ar the names are female. So
> TARGITAUS would be the metathesised and hellenized
> male version.
There was no tar- in the etymon; it's just metathesis.
> > 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').
If there was no intermediate N stage, why *asagaina- instead of
*asanín(a)-, etc?
> >
> > 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?
Balto-Slavic *dwi:-. The difference between i: with level tone and
ii with falling usually translates to i: in B-S but i in the rest if
it retains tone. In compounds when the tone moves the original length
is retained (Skt, G have pítus, pi:tuda:ru-; phthísis, phthi:símbrotos).
> 'Thrae' here is in fact merely the guna grade, with 'Thraetaona'
> a patronymic derivative of the name of Thrita.
What kind of ending do you think -auna- would be?
> > 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,
The specific types of metathesis applies to this word only. Why
would you think met. would apply to others or should?
> 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.
This is ridiculous. I try to see what changes are needed to connect
possibly related words, and then see if these are found in other
words. That is, the n>N>g is found elsewhere, not as a random change
to make this one thing work right.