Re[2]: [tied] Re: Marduk = Marut = Marutash ?

At 1:13:49 PM on Thursday, October 9, 2008, kishore patnaik
wrote:

>>> Again, you instinctively assume that wider IE
>>> distribution means older connotation. Am I right? This
>>> is what I precisely oppose.

>> Not "instinctively". This is what logic dictates. If
>> Varuna is so very ancient, what happened to him in the
>> non-Indo-Iranian traditions?

> why should he be present in Non IIr at all? in fact, why
> should be present in non Indic scenario? If OIT is the
> truth, then he has no business to be present anywhere
> except in India.

This is obvious nonsense. The fact that *dye:us is very
widely attested clearly shows that it must have been present
in PIE. If you assume OIT, then this word must have started
in India and spread throughout the IE world. If <Varuna> is
an equally old word, why should it not have done the same?
Why did *dye:us '[have] business to be present' outside of
India and not (the ancestral form of) <Varuna>?

> To start with, try to condemn my arguments that a) Varuna
> is old b) he had prominence and then a decline c) he is
> not present anywhere except india (and of course, Mitanni)

Why bother? Only (c) says much of anything about OIT, and
it points *against* OIT.

[...]

> On the other hand, you have not given any proof (atleast
> give the basics why it is assumed, since I agree I am
> ignorant) to your instict that wider distribution in PIE
> means an older word.

It has nothing to do with instinct; it's obvious to anyone
with at least half a brain that a word with cognates in
virtually every branch of IE must go back to PIE. (Yes,
it's possible for words to be widely borrowed, but such
words are generally recognizable, e.g., because they *don't*
show the sound changes characteristic of real cognates.)

Brian