Res: [tied] Re: 'dyeus'

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Why on Earth would Varro's country bumpkins use a "sacred
> > > > sociolect", with <Ja:na> for Roman Latin <Dia:na>? I think
> > > > instead we should be looking at a Sabine Latin dialect (not
> > > > Sabine itself, just as Irish English is not Irish itself). The
> > > > gemination of <Juppiter> beside expected *Diu:piter (from the IE
> > > > vocative) has parallels in <futtilis> 'easily emptied, leaky,
> > > > useless' beside <fu:tilis> and <vitta> 'band, ribbon, fillet'
> > > > beside expected *vi:ta. These two words are hardly "sacred";
> > > > probably they come from the same rustic Sabinizing dialect as
> > > > <Ja:na>. Obviously <Ja:nus>, name of the god of transitions, is
> > > > based on IE *yeh2- 'to go from one place to another' and has no
> > > > etymological connection with <Dia:na>, but confusion had already
> > > > arisen in late antiquity due to the rustic form <Ja:na>.
> > > >
> > > > Varro says "arae Sabinam linguam olent" which I take to mean not
> > > > that the sacrificial priests spoke Sabine, but that they used a
> > > > Sabinizing dialect of Latin with technical terms derived from
> > > > Sabine. I have argued elsewhere that <sulphur>, <mamphur>, and
> > > > <scintilla> owe their peculiar consonantism to this dialect,
> > > > these words originally denoting objects used in the
> > > > fire-starting ritual (and I am now inclined to add <ra:menta> to
> > > > this group). In my view Sabine Latin was used by the
> > > > sacrificial priests, by a segment of the Roman underclass, and
> > > > by certain rustics, but I have found no concrete evidence of
> > > > differentiation among the three sub-dialects.
> > >
> > > Frankly, how does this stated opinion rhyme with your initial
> > > 'Why on Earth would Varro's country bumpkins use a "sacred
> > > sociolect", with <Ja:na> for Roman Latin <Dia:na>?'?
> >
> > My opinion is that the bumpkins used a rustic Sabine Latin dialect,
> > and the sacrificial priests used a closely related dialect. I see
> > no compelling reason to postulate a "sacred sociolect".
>
> But you just did that yourself? Actually, I never used the word 'sociolect', but okay, if the sacrificial priests spoke a dialect closely related to a rustic Sabine Latin as you claim, (which I did too) then they spoke a 'sacred sociolect'.

You spoke of "socio-allophones" which amount to distinctions of "sociolect". My position is that the observed distinctions are dialectal, not "sociolectal". We have true Latin <Dia:na>, <fla:men Dia:lis>, and <Die:spiter> beside Sabinizing <Juppiter>. What this indicates is that some of the Roman priesthoods were traditionally Latin while others were traditionally Sabine. If we postulate a Sabinizing "sacred sociolect" for <Juppiter>, we must also have a true Latin "sacred sociolect" for <Die:spiter> et al., and these "sociolects" are phonologically indistinguishable from the ordinary dialects with their everyday profane words.

> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > I think E-M are on the right track with root-extensions.
> > >
> > > I think they're not. Semantics-less 'extensions' should not be
> > > used in the description of a language. I think it's *-eŋ (and a
> > > Rozwadowski's change variant *daŋ- in Germanic *dag- etc ?), which
> > > showns it's non-IE.
> >
> > The extensions have semantics, but they are difficult to determine
> > at this time-depth.
>
> The two presumptive extensions both change a root meaning "light, day; god" into stems meaning "light, day; god". They are semantics-less and there is no amount of deferring the question which will turn them into anything else.

No, I believe *dei-w- and *dei-n- were originally distinguished in meaning. I suspect the Jovian reformation commandeered *deiw- 'bright' (applied as an epithet to the moon, etc.) and replaced the old name of the daytime sky-god, *dein-, while elevating him to the position of supreme deity. I regard Etruscan as providing a clouded window into the pre-Jovian state of affairs; while it is not an IE language, it contains loanwords from one or more pre-Italic IE languages, and some of its divine names can be explained this way. Etr. Tin was identified with Zeus, and Tiu or Tiv was the Moon (also an appellative 'month'). I consider these to have been borrowed from *dein- and *deiw-. Also Etr. Usil 'the Sun' corresponds to Sabine <ausel> and presumably reflects pre-Jovian *h2ews-el-. My view is that the first IE-speakers to reach this area had not been influenced by the Jovian reformation, and they converted the Etruscans to this older form of IE religion. Centuries later, this religion was Hellenized, and that is what we find on mirror-scenes and the like, but some pre-Jovian relics are still identifiable.

> > Nevertheless I think *-g^H- clearly means 'inside, within, etc.'.
>
> Where? What? How?

E.g. *sneh2- 'to float, swim, be wet', *sneh2g^H- 'to dive in, plunge' (you may recall scoffing at my explanation of the river Na:r/Nera about two years ago); *bHer- 'to carry', *bHerg^H- 'to carry inside', whence 'to protect, defend'.

DGK