Re: 'dyeus' chronology

I felt impelled to reply in MacDevanagari to get my explanation across.

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "shivkhokra" <shivkhokra@...> wrote:
> On Ma-to-ro and Ma-ta-u-ro: Do you understand why some people on one side of the river call it duero and the same river on the other side is called douro?

The diphthong /au/ and vowel /o/ may be merging in some languages - in others the difference is stable. Do you know of Minoan evidence for a merger in progress?

> On the sanskrit invention saMhartR: it would be good to get in to a sanskrit class. The word for destroyer is : sun(g)har which can be pronounced sin(g)har (spelling in hindi would be:
> "sa" followed by "nasal dot which sounds like an english n and not m as Dr Brighenti would have us believe" "ha" "r")

Which those using the Kyoto-Harvard system (at least for
Sanskrit) would transliterate as <saMhara>, for there is no halant and an implicit halant is wrong for Sanskrit.

'saMhartR' is an exact transliteration into the Kyoto-Harvard system of ×¢ØÏèÂß.

> So Gareth Owens is absolutely right that siru (from Sinhrutra) is a word for destroyer in Sanskrit. Keraijo would be the equivalent form in Greek and hence Cretans spoke a satem language.

Now, what do you mean by 'sinhrutra'?

Richard.