Re: 'dyeus'

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "t0lgsoo1" <guestuser.0x9357@...> wrote:

>
> > It shows signs of the IE 'extended' roots *di-ew- and *di-en-
> > (Dienstag, dinsdag etc), which means that it too is best served
> > with a PIE root de-iŋ- (vel sim.).
>
> But this is explained in a bit different way: dingestach <
> Thingsus < Tyr; with the equivalent in Alemanian German: Zischtig <
> ziostag "Ziu's day" ("Tyr's day"). (Funny Zeus resemblance). IMHO,
> this shows that medieval Germans no longer had any idea of (or nexus
> to) _*di-en-_ (they were Mittelhochdeutsch, and no PIE-speaking
> people).

You're right, elementary error on my part, unless I want to claim a double root in Germanic *tiŋ-/*þiŋ- (< PIE *diŋ/*tiŋ). But then there's the θeos problem. Hm. And the Germanic *þiŋ- as the "high place"?

> >The -r of ON Týr, Dan. tirsdag etc could be explained as a
> >rhotacization of a final *-n#,
>
> Perhaps due to some Protorumanians taken with them by Gepids!
> (: just kiddin' :))

Rhotacization in Romanian? Related to the Gheg/Tosk n/r division?

> > This all seems far-fetched, but I don't know of any other attempt
> > to explain the -w/-n/-r alternation of that Germanic theonym.
>
> 1st of all, the sounds [n] and [r] are "next-door neighbors" for
> people whose [r] is apical (uttered mm away from the alveola).
> (Note that some Germans, esp. in southern regions of the "reich"
> pronounce their [n] in the apical-labial way (the tip of the tongue
> touches the upper lip). Now how about that! One of the most
> prominent "user" is the former federal chancellor H. Kohl. :))

That won't explain an alternation that's confined to a single word.

> > As far as I know (I only know Georg's line of argument from some
> > other article, which I can't find now) he proposes that the Turkic
> > Tengri etc is a cultural loan from Yeniseian, which makes
> > discussion of the relative affiliation or super/substrate status
> > of Turkic and Yeniseian irrelevent to this question.
>
> I'd rather say "quite the contrary":

Why?

> this only would stress the entire
> mass of assumptions pertaining to the super/substrate(s) of Turkic
> and Mongolian. After all, it seems that in those relevant vast
> regions the "mongoloid" and "Turkic" presence was more recent
> than the one of older (many of them PIE) groups.

I can't see how that's relevant to the question of the provenance of 'tengri'.

> > Into PIE, and later, independently, into Proto-Germanic.
>
> But it could have been the other way round as well, couldn't it?

No. *teng-l- has an etymology ("high") in Yeniseian, not in Turkish or IE.

> *deiuos > tangra. (OTOH, what has the Germanic mythology in
> common with tengrism? Chiefly that cosmogonic tree, kind of
> "Himmels-" or "Weltenbaum", similar to Yggdrasil. Otherwise, the
> deities and their ... adventures rather resemble those of other PIE
> groups. They seem to me quite different from those Tangra, Yer
> and their children and other spirits. I dunno, after all I am no
> Mircea Eliade or Dumézil. :)

Okay.

> By the way: Roman sources show that there
> were analogies Odin - Mercur (Hermes), and that Odin's cult only
> gradually surpass that of Tyr/Tiuaz.

Yes, since Odin (I think) was a deified person.

> Does all this have no significance?)

Erh, why ask me? You said that.

> >Prellwitz
> >Etymologisches Wörterbuch der Griechischen Sprache
> >says
> >'χoρός Reihe, Reigen, Tanzplatz (Hom.):
> >lit. žãras Art und Weise des Gehens,
> >ab. zara Band. Eigl. "das Anfassen" (beim Reígen)
> >von *gher fassen.'
>
> Perhaps the expert St. R. Georg could tell us whether the word
> yohor for those Altaic & Mongolian circle dance/Reigentanz of
> shamans is related or not with xoros, xoreia & *gher. (Whether
> it's a yoh + -or or a hor + yo-.)
>

I don't know. Ask him.


Torsten