Re: Master of the twelve

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <bm.brian@...> wrote:

>
> At 8:53:34 PM on Monday, December 27, 2010, stlatos wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> > <bm.brian@> wrote:
>
> >> At 2:41:57 PM on Monday, December 27, 2010, stlatos
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> 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.
>
> >> This appears to be both irrelevant and somewhat off the
> >> mark. So far as I know, <anafríss> is generally taken to
> >> be cognate with Latin <imbribus>, dative plural of
> >> <imber> 'rain(storm)', from *n.bH-ró-. Larissa Bonfante
> >> translates <anafríss kerríiúis statif> as 'imbribus
> >> Cerealibus statio' and 'la estación para las lluvias de
> >> Ceres'.
>
> > It has been "generally" taken as such, for no good reason.
>
> I'm afraid that I feel no obligation to take this very
> seriously: you've long since convinced me that your
> judgement of 'good reason' in such matters is of very
> limited value.

Looking at what are "generally" taken as cognates: L imber ; G ómbros 'rain(storm)' ; S abhrá- 'cloud' ; Gaul Ambris '(name of river)' ; I see no -a- or any -V- between the nasal and bH or any ev. that the nasal is -n- not -m- (the G might even be ev. for -m- (since m, > õ ( > ã in many), the exact details of C, > [] in G aren't fully understood, and there's some ev. for gemination in some env. (maybe énnea)); but not clear enough). Why would PIE -a- disappear everywhere but Italic, and in only one part of it (or -x- fail to voc., or whatever you might think). Your commitment to taking a view opposite mine no matter what the evidence is impressive. However, I think you should reexamine the ev. or at least tell me how they could be cognate, or what the etymon was, etc.

As I said, that connection was made for no good reason. There is absolutely no reason to think anafr()- : imbr()-, yet that is the ONLY reason "<anafríss> is generally taken to be cognate with Latin <imbribus>": a slight resemblance that can't be explained by any normal sound changes with absolutely no contextual ev. for the meaning 'rain' or anything similar. This might as well be a discussion about a folk etymology I'm being expected to prove didn't really occur.

> >>> The sun is not the Zodiac.
>
> >> In fairness to Torsten, he neither said nor implied that
> >> it was, or even that it was a part of the Zodiac.
>
> > He said:
>
> >>>> which woulf mesh nicely with the supreme god being
> >>>> master of the Zodiac, ie. the sun.
>
> > and that seems to do more than imply the sun is the
> > Zodiac.
>
> Hardly. He's obviously identifying the sun as 'master of
> the Zodiac'.

He's said a lot of odd things, such as e:s- : aNs- : aUs-, but I should know he "obviously" wouldn't say Zodiac : sun? Whatever he meant, it's unlikely there was a Zodiac in the PIE framework (though since he did say every word with e:s- / aNs- / aUs- might be non-IE, I guess my objection wouldn't stand w him anyway).

If that's what he meant, I disagree w the Zodiac having any connection to those words, or the unity of their roots. Still, I suppose I should admire his grasp of PIE mythology (The sun is the supreme god.), however partial, for what it's worth among the rest of his ideas.