From: stlatos
Message: 66992
Date: 2010-12-28
>It has been "generally" taken as such, for no good reason. It's not the only expl. that has been made, and the comparison and contrast between the two phrases makes 'rains' unlikely (why would it be 'grain spirits' and 'grain rains' or 'spirits of Ceres' and 'rains of Ceres' when the two words match what could easily be 'spirits of dead ancestors' and 'spirits / gods / etc.'?).
> At 2:41:57 PM on Monday, December 27, 2010, stlatos wrote:
>
> > This can't fit w Oscan anafrÃss kerrÃiúÃs & maatúÃs
> > kerrÃiúÃs (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.
> This appears to be both irrelevant and somewhat off the
> mark. So far as I know, <anafrÃss> is generally taken to be
> cognate with Latin <imbribus>, dative plural of <imber>
> 'rain(storm)', from *n.bH-ró-. Larissa Bonfante translates
> <anafrÃss kerrÃiúis statif> as 'imbribus Cerealibus statio'
> and 'la estación para las lluvias de Ceres'.
> > The sun is not the Zodiac.He said:
>
> In fairness to Torsten, he neither said nor implied that it
> was, or even that it was a part of the Zodiac.
> >> which woulf mesh nicely with the supreme god being masterand that seems to do more than imply the sun is the Zodiac.
> >> of the Zodiac, ie. the sun.
>In honor of all lovers of Wikipedia, here's an expl. (no, I wasn't quoting Shakespeare):
> > All that glitters is not gold.
>
> If you're quoting Shakespeare, that's 'glisters'.