Re: 'dyeus' chronology

yes and Sinhrutra is Sanskrit.

-Shivraj

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister <gabaroo6958@...> wrote:
>
> Wasn't the original word in question in Sanskrit? Sanskrit and Hindi are 2
> different languages, as different, if not more, than Spanish and Latin. Latin
> had a similar set of sounds to Spanish but was by no means identical.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: shivkhokra <shivkhokra@...>
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sat, February 19, 2011 12:10:35 AM
> Subject: [tied] 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.
> >
>