--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "david_russell_watson" <liberty@>
> wrote:
>
> Since A:ptyá- and A:thwiya- are obviously related, how can you
> use your preferred method to relate them? There's no other case
> of p becoming w and moving so any rule would apply to this word
> only, just like with Targitaos.
'Aptya'/'Athwiya' is indeed an irregular correspondence, but
one on obviously much more solid ground than 'Thraetaona'/
'Targitaus'. I cited it to demonstrate how closely related
Vedic Trita and Avestan Thrita and Thraetaona are, to make
a case for 'Thraetaona' being based on 'thrita-' "third", not
as an example of perfect regularity.
> Traitaná- is probably related to Thraetaona-, though the common
> mythological features aren't apparent from the little given in the
> Vedas, but the change of au>a (at least) is a problem no matter
> which origin is true, so mine has no dis- or advantage.
It's a problem only if we insist on the words being cognates
and invoke an otherwise unknown set of sound changes to make
it work, while simply accepting that a different suffix was
involved allows us to go on our merry way with the tried and
tested model left alone. That is the very heart, in fact,
of what I'm trying to get across to you: there's no virtue
in tying everything remotely similar into one package by
means of elaborate, large, and idiosyncratic sets of sounds
changes as you typically try to do.
> You seem to have said that since Thraetaona- is connected to one
> known myth, it can't be related to Targitaos, too.
Not at all. I tend to believe that Targitaus and Thraetaona/
Thrita/Trita are reflexes of the same Proto-Indo-Iranian myth,
but, if true, that wouldn't require that names to be cognate
and descended by means of sound changes alone from a common
ancestor (ancestral _word_).
You'll notice, I hope, that I put the names in quotes when I'm
referring to the words, and leave them off when referring to
the mythological characters themselves, which is an essential
distinction to keep in mind.
> If you're questioning how two apparently Iranian languages could
> have different reflexes of *triitewxnos based on metathesis, since
> at least ri > ir and i-a > a-i happened once, the movement of Na
> in one group and not another is no stranger.
No, the metathesis is the least of the problem. It's the total
set of unconvincing and unrealistic sound changes you posit in
order to force cognacy on the two names which is the problem,
and which taking 'Thraetaona' from *tri-taw- instead of *trayt-
awna- doesn't really help to fix.
David