Re: raj / rex

From: Arnaud Fournet
Message: 61607
Date: 2008-11-14

----- Original Message -----
From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 1:02 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] raj / rex


>
> On 2008-11-14 12:05, kishore patnaik wrote:
>
>> Are you saying that kingship was known to PIE speakers or not?
>
> It depends on what you understand by "kingship". It a tribal chief with
> a few hundred "subjects" a king? Was the tyrant of an ancient Greek
> city-state a king? We often call them "kings" for convenience, simply
> because there is no universally recognised definition of monarchy.
>
> Piotr
>
=============

It can be added that in the tri-partite system of Dumezil in Priests,
Warriors and Producers,
"kings" appear to be a sub-class of Warriors.
This suggest that leaders (who must have existed in a way or another) were
not identified as a specific social class or activity in the PIE society
that created (or inherited) that system of thought.

A.