Re: Scythian tribal names: Paralatai

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "david_russell_watson" <liberty@...>
wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@> wrote:
> >
> > I also found this old message:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@>
> wrote:
> >
> > > A brilliant idea, Sasha! Supposing that Targitaus is a mangled
> > > Greek version of, say, *þrika-tavah- 'having threefold strength'
> > > (or rather its late variant *þriga-tavah- with the voicing of
> > > intervocalic *k), Av. þraetaona- (*þrai-tauna-) 'thrice potent'
> > > would be for all intents and purposes the same name despite the
> > > trivial suffixal differences (the same roots recur in both parts
> > > of the compound). Are we on the trail of the oldest foundation
> > > myth of the Iranians? :)
> >
> > Feel free to consider this as well, if only to argue against
> > what it has in common with my theory.
>
> You still haven't, seemingly, looked at the myths themselves,
> wherein Thrita and Thraetaona Athwiya simply cannot be treated
> separately from one another or from Trita Aptya of the Vedas.

What does this have to do with an additional possible connection
with Scythian?

Just because Thraetaona- was probably once seen as Thrita's son
doesn't mean their names are directly related.

In Targitao's myth, Zeus is a third son and T. had three sons who
fathered the Sc. tribes; why can't the names Thrita- and Thraetaona-
relate to those features instead of being related to each other by an
unknown -auna- suffix of descent?

> On the other hand the similarities between Thraetaona/Thrita/
> Trita and Targitaus are more than vague enough to allow us to
> forget any direct etymological equation of their names should
> that be found in any way problematic, which it has. Your own
> etymology isn't properly based on recognized sound changes and
> can't be accepted.
>
> This forces us, whether we like it or not, to take Proto-Indo-
> Iranian *trita- "third" as our point of departure for 'Thrae-
> taona', whether or not that is also the case for 'Targitaus',
> which is not a direct cognate. Note that Piotr did not claim
> direct cognacy either, positing different suffixes in each name
> for *traya- and *taw- both.

I showed that earlier discussion to let you know that even a
professional linguist can disagree with your interpretation without
being 'a dabbler' or 'reinventing the wheel'. I don't accept
everything Piotr said, I just wanted to show that he accepted
metathesis to allow an earlier form with *tri- not tar-, a connected
with PIE *tew-x 'fat, strong, etc.', not *thraita-una- but
*thrai-tauna-, and so on.