>I don't see it. The distinction between A:thwiya- and Thraetaona-
> --- In email@example.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@> wrote:
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "david_russell_watson" <liberty@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > 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?
> What it's meant to show is that 'Thraetaona' is connected to
> 'Thrita', and hence not as easily equatable to 'Targitaus',
> which involves at least a different suffix and possibly an
> entirely different root or roots. I don't accept the sound
> changes by which you claim to have shown otherwise, remember.
> > Just because Thraetaona- was probably once seen as Thrita's son
> > doesn't mean their names are directly related.
> It does lend to their names being related, but there's more
> to it than that, as their stories and other attributes also
> overlap considerably.
>Leip., Arp., Kol. '(ancestors)'
>Ing., Herm., Ist. '(ancestors)'
> Reading some literature on their myths and you'll find theI've read plenty to make up my own mind. The identification between
> suggestion more than once that Thraetaona and Thrita both are
> reflexes of the same original Proto-Indo-Iranian mythological
> character. That fact, along with the strong similarity in
> their names, does suggest to me that 'Thraetaona' is no less
> based upon the word for 'third' than 'Thrita'.