From: Arnaud Fournet
Message: 60759
Date: 2008-10-10
----- Original Message -----
From: kishore patnaik
Brian wrote:
" 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>?"
> Dyus will be present in PIE, IF PIE IS THE TRUTH. How do you account for
> it, if your instinct and belief that PIE is belied?
===========
PIE has nothing to do with truth. PIE is a scientific tool that accounts for
IE languages having recurrent structural patterns in common.
Dye:ws passes the criteria to be accepted as PIE-stage, and it can further
tracked down as being related to Semitic yaw "(to-)day".
Arnaud
======
> I do not know if there can be any logic for spread of some words and non
> spread of others. Why the word Bus spread and not gasoline? Both are
> western products that became prevalent world over
> equally.
======
Irrelevant.
Arnaud
=======
In a PIE frame work, neither you nor Piotr could explain why Varuna did not
spread on one hand to other cultures and secondly, neither is talking about
how a wider spread should mean an older time frame.
Kishore patnaik
========
The theonym Varuna did not "spread" because it's an Indian creation.
For that matter, it exists only where it has been created that is to say :
India.
Arnaud
=====