Re: 'dyeus' chronology

Richard,
I am a native Hindi speaker so I know the sound is "n" and not "m". The nasal n is represented in english as an "m" with a "." under the m but it does not mean it is pronounced "m". So the word is pronounced as "sinhrutra" which is the destroyer and "singhar" which means destruction.

I have put below the hindi spelling not sure it will pop up correctly in browsers (might want to turn on unicode in your browser):
संहार

-Shivraj

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham" <richard.wordingham@...> wrote:
>
> 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.
>