Piotr writes :
Well, why do Dyaus and Ushas have external cognates, then?
My reply:
Remember I am talking from an OIT framework. You keep forgetting that. If Dyaus and Ushas have been borrowed by external cultures, naturally their cognates will develop. If PIE is to correct, why it existed only for Dyas and not for Varuna?
If there is no PIE equivalent for Varuna, then how do you account for his indic existence and not elsewhere?
These questions are to be explained correctly before my premises are questioned. In any cae, as I have replied to Arnaud, I think I have given enough number of references from RV which support each of my premise.
I am not satisfied with your sweeping reply that it is common sense to think wider distribution could mean an older existance. If PIE and AIT are correct, then yes, you are right. But when we are questioning these basic premises, you ought to be proving this premise with some independent proof. In fact, you are resorting to ciruclar logic : Since AIT and PIE are correct, your premise is correct (instinct),. since your premise is correct, AIT and PIE are proved.
Hope I am clear in pointing out the lacunae in your presentation, if not logic.
Kishore patnaik