Re: 'dyeus' chronology

Dear List,

All these rambling speeches of shivkhokra's (see the post pasted below) are nonsense.

"sinhrutra" is not the spelling of how the Sanskrit word saMhartR (here transcribed using the Harvard-Kyoto transliteration system) 'destroyer' is pronounced:

http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.6:1:39.apte

Etymologically, saMhartR is sam-hR + tR. Here the bilabial nasal [m] of sam-, making sandhi with h, changes to anusvAra ("M" in the Harvard-Kyoto system), which is defined by ancient Sanskrit grammarians as a "pure nasal", a sound formed by the breath passing through the nose unmodified by the influence of any consonant. This sound is far more similar to the final nasal in the French word bon than to the alveolar nasal [n] pure and simple, which is what shivkhokra would want us to believe. Moreover, the verbal root hR- in the compound expands to -har-, which means there's no longer a vowel R (Harvard-Kyoto system) in it. Therefore, shivkhokra cannot say that -har- should here be pronounced as "-hru-". Finally, why should the Skt. suffix -tR (Harvard-Kyoto system) be pronounced as "-tra"? Not to speak of the totally unsupported change in pronounciation from [a] to [i] in the first syllable proposed by shivkhokra, which is not documented for Classical Sanskrit.

In sum: the Skt. word saMhartR can in no way be pronounced as "sinhrutra"! It follows that saMhartR cannot be the source for the Minoan (Linear A) word "SI-RU(-TE)" as shivkhokra had claimed in his initial post archived at

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/67174

Good-bye,

Francesco

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "shivkhokra" <shivkhokra@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- 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
>