Re: 'dyeus' chronology

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

>
> At 3:21:08 AM on Thursday, March 3, 2011, shivkhokra wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham"
> > <richard.wordingham@> wrote:
>
> >> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "shivkhokra" <shivkhokra@> wrote:
>
> >>> Have you tried consulting a sanskrit dictionary and did
> >>> you not find "sinhrutra" meaning destroyer?
>
> >> When I try Monier-Williams on-line (
> >> http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/monier/ ), I
> >> don't find it either. The nearest we can find is saMhartR
> >> - no <i>, no <u>. The word's in the middle column of
> >> http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/cgi-bin/monier/serveimg.pl?file=/scans/MWScan/MWScanjpg/mw1123-saMhita.jpg
>
> > Please look at the devnagari script spelling in the
> > dictionary and not at the english transliteration. There
> > is no "m" in it is "n".
>
> Nonsense: there is an anusvAra, which is correctly
> transliterated as m-with-overdot or in ASCII as <M>.
> Richard's H-K transliteration accurately represents the
> devanAgarI.
>

I don't think you are following. Question is what sound does the devnagari "dot", which is transliterated as "m" in english, represent?

The sound is *NOT* "m" sound instead it is an "n" sound. So nothing non sense about it.

> > My spelling in english is how it would be pronounced,
> > syllabically. Next question is how it would be represented
> > in a syllabic script. The "rt" would sound like english
> > "rut" and hence the "u". Similarly the "i" could either be
> > a "u" as in english "sun" or "i" as in english "sin" based
> > on the dialect of the speaker.
>
> Modern pronunciations are not to the point.
>

My pronounciation is not modern. If you are suggesting this word was pronounced with an "m" sound earlier which later changed to "n" then please provide some evidence.

Shivraj