Re: Master of the twelve

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

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I'll sum up:
> > > *aNsu-/*aNsura- (non-IIR *esu-) means not only "master", it means
> > > "master of the twelve"; as the sun is the master of the houses of
> > > the zodiac, the *aNsu- etc is master of twelve houses/peoples on
> > > earth.
> > >
> >
> >
> > You appear to be confusing two different words: 'breathing, being,
> > spirit, god' and 'existing, good, master'.


> I do?
>
> Pokorny
> ansu-, ņsu- ,Geist, Dämon'.
> Ai. ásu-, av. aŋhu- ,Lebenshauch, Welt', davon
> ai. ásu-ra-, av. ahura- ,Machthaber' (*ņsu-);
> ven. ahsu- (= āsu-) ,Kultbild' = germ. *ansuz ,Gott, Ase'
> in
> aisl. āss,
> run. a[n]suR,
> ags. ōs ,Ase',
> got.-lat. anses ,Halbgötter'.
>
> Vielleicht zu an(ə)- ,atmen'.
> ...
>
> esu-s (: su-) ,gut, tüchtig'.
> Gr. `εύς, `ηύς ,tüchtig, gut',
> Adverb ε`υ~ (Akk. n.),
> Präfix ε`υ- gehört zu
> hitt. a-aš-śu-uš (assu-s) ,gut';
> zum a- s. Pedersen Hitt. 167 u. Anm.;
> vielleicht als Schwundstufe dazu (Friedrich IF. 41, 370 f.) das Präfix su-, s. dort;
> hierzu vielleicht
> lat. erus ,Herr', fem. era, alat. esa ,Herrin';
> doch ist hitt. iš-ha-a-aš (ishas) ,Herr' fernzuhalten, da dies zu
> arm. isxan ,Herr', isxal ,herrschen' gehört (?),
> das selbst nichtidg. Herkunft ist (Couvreur H 9);
> fern bleiben gall. GN Esus (mit Ä"-), wohl wegen der Namen mit Aes-, Ais- am ehesten zu 1. ais- oder 2. ais- (oben S. 16), weniger wahrscheinlich zu 2. eis- (oben S. 299); ebenso der air. PN Éogan (*ivogenos) und der cymr. PN Owein (älter Ywein, Eugein, Ougen) = air. PN Úgaine (*owogenios), vgl. dazu Bergin Ériu 12, 224 f.

There is no ev. to connect them in one. All ev. connects them to two: * xan-xY+ and * xYes+.

> > What is the N in *aNsu-/*aNsura- supposed to mean?
>
> Capital per convention means superscript, so it indicates that the vowel before it is nasalized.
>

A capital N or L could also mean 'velar _'; since neither is standard in IE > IIr for this word, I asked.

This can't fit w Oscan anafríss kerríiúís & maatúís kerríiúís (both aprx. 'grain spirits' (possibly one for dead ancestors, another for ~ gods/fairies, who knows?)) in which the -n- is clearly present and not nasalization. The standard model might have ansuro- > ansaro- > anasro- > anafro-, though it's not important for this discussion.

Also, the abundance of god-names w -no- makes dis. n-n > n-r the likely source for -ro-. I don't know how the timing would fit in w your thoughts about aN > aU/e: and non-IE-origin, neither of which I believe.

> I think the Venetic and Germanic forms of the root Pokorny reconstructs as ansu-, ņsu- are borrowed from an Iranian language. Since I also think the PIE ablaut vowel e/o/zero originated in PPIE /a/ I propose that Pokorny's two entries should be one, PPIE *aNsu- -> PIE *e(:)su-, with loss of nasalization (which is kept in IIr).

How could PIE not have -N- but one of its descendants have retained it? Are you attempting to split standard PIE trees in some way?


Further, I think they are related to (identical with?) Pokorny's

> awes- ,leuchten', bes. vom Tagesanbruch;
> ă:us-, wes-, us-; (ă:)us-ōs- f. ,Morgenröte';
> *aus-tero- ,östlich' ... ;
> auso- ,Gold'.
> which should then be PPIE *aNs- -> PIE *aUs-,
> which woulf mesh nicely with the supreme god being master of the Zodiac, ie. the sun.

The sun is not the Zodiac. All that glitters is not gold.

>

Etruscan usil "sun" gives reason to suspect the whole complex isn't IE in origin.


So one word shows that? And what if I use four? And Twana sluqat!' , Kl sqWqWë´y' , Saa sqWëqWë´l' 'sun', MS skWkWë?lí?l 'sunshine' could show Proto-Salish * suqWqWílY'ya 'sun' conn. w PIE * saxwelyo- , so I guess Etruscan and Salish are closely related and non-IE and both or either is the source of many PIE words through borrowing. Wow, either you're on to something big or completely wrong.

You are completely wrong. You connect roots via words w similar meaning in only one l., use unproven sound changes, baseless timing/borrowing fudges, then bring up one word in Etruscan whose origin is completely unknown as proof? You've proven nothing, and can't even begin to because the PIE forms you attempt to use as a start are wrong. The standard model is nearly as wrong, though it's not important for this discussion.