From: Arnaud Fournet
Message: 61600
Date: 2008-11-14
----- Original Message -----
From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 12:40 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] raj / rex
>
> On 2008-11-13 09:38, Jack Angstreich wrote:
>
>> I thought the link between Indo-Aryan "raj" and Latin "rex" had been
>> debunked by Scharfe but the new Leiden "Etymological Dictionary of
>> Latin" lists these as cognates; am I mistaken about the scholarly
>> consensus on this?
>
> Scharfe nowhere denies this cognacy. To quote him,
>
> By far the most common Indian word for "king" is <rá:jan> ... It is
> related to Latin re:x "king", but the traditional view of this
> relationship is subject to revision. [The State in Indian Tradition,
> 1989, p. 74]
==========
This looks like a typical Out-of-India statement
trying to cast doubt on something obvious.
That kind of phraseology "the traditional view of XYZ is being subject to
revision"
is usually followed by a lot of uncontrollable OIT absurdities.
Traditional = to be stamped out, whatever the cost.
A.
=========
>
> They no doubt derive from the same verb root, which doesn't mean that
> the connection is straightforward, or that the institution of kingship
> was necessarily known to the PIE-speakers.
>
> Piotr
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>