On 2008-10-10 09:49, kishore patnaik wrote:
> 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.
You misunderstand. If the theonym <us.a:s> had been borrowed by external
cultures it would have developed differently. There's no way of getting
<auro:ra> or <eo:s> out of the Indic form of the name (the same holds
for <dyaus.>). The linguistic evidence points unambiguously to a common
prototype that is neither Indic nor Greek or Italic, and must be older
than any of these groups.
> 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?
I'm not 100% sure that there is no reconstructible PIE protoform of
Varuna, but the evidence is very weak at best, and could be a mirage
produced by sheer coincidence. If Varuna is indeed exclusively Indic --
well, this would most likely mean that this particular theonym is
younger than *djew-, *h2ausos- and whatever other religious terms occur
more widely and look inherited rather than borrowed. The same could be
argued even if India were the IE homeland (see below).
> 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.
No, I don't rely on AIT at all (or on any other migration scenario, for
that matter). I do rely on the general validity of the comparative
method (and of its application to the reconstruction of PIE). Are you
perhaps questioning it? How else do you propose to explain the existence
of systematic correspondences pervading the lexicons and grammars of
far-off languages and linking their linguistic substance? If you want to
be a Don Quixote, tilting at windmills, ride forth, sir knight, and God
speed thee. But I refuse to waste _my_ time trying to explain to you
that you are wasting _yours_. You might just as well visit a list where
chemistry is discussed and start telling people there that you know how
to turn lead into gold and can discuss your knowledge with them if only
they are prepared to abandon their superstitious belief in the existence
of atoms and molecules.
Piotr