Re: 'dyeus' chronology

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "shivkhokra" <shivkhokra@...> wrote:

> No one doubts closeness of Sanskrit and Greek. But occam's razor should cause us to not multiply without any reason. The simpler explanation would be that it was the same people who did not have a ficticious common ancestor.

I can only make sense of what you are suggesting as an alternative if you are suggesting that Greek derives from Vedic Sanskrit (as spoken by the composers, not necessarily the later reciters). Is this what you are suggesting?

Attempting to derive Greek from Sanskrit (as we know it) was abandoned long ago - one can't even derive Pali from Sanskrit, although one can get very close in that endeavour.

> We should also think about why on Crete the palaces were called PUR on linear B tablets and not the greek term polis. Pur is what palaces are in Vedas.

Can you expand on this for me, please. I can't see how you get 'PUR' as a citation form. It looks like an ideogram (in which case I'd be inclined to suspect the *transliteration* was a 20th century loan from Sanskrit), but I can't find any such ideogram. I have found a 1970 list of transliterations in the minutes of the 1970 CIPEM meeting as Salamanca. (It seems the list was last updated in 1972. The 1970 list is in pretty good agreement with the Unicode code chart.)

Richard.