Re: 'dyeus' chronology

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

> Dear Dr Brighenti,
>
> I am now sure that you have no idea how anusvaras in Sanskrit work.
> Probably because you have not heard a "native" sanskrit speaker
> phonetically. Ever. Reading Harvard-Kyoto transliterations is not
> enough.

***Hmm, didn't the last native Sanskrit speaker die about 1500 years ago? Yes, I realize that Sanskrit has been on life support since then, as is Latin and as Hebrew was until recently but that's not the same as a language community. Modern Sanskrit has become Hindi, Bengali, Sindhi, etc. I hope neo-pseudo-Sanskrit did a better job than Latin with its sounds --e.g. Latin <gn> was a velar nasal, not a palatalized nasal and not a consonant cluster. Hebrew also got butchered over the ages --see Hetzron's work in Comrie.

>
> Let us take two simple examples of anusvar:
>
> [(a) in the Sanskrit word saMdhi- 'juncion'
>
> (b) in the Sanskrit word sUktaM (nominative singular of the neuter
> noun sUkta- 'hymn']
>
> In both a) and b) the anusvar (the "." character) has different
> phonetic values, n and m respectively, and yet it is transliterated
> identically in HK as an "m with a dot under it".

Neither example match the case under discussion, i.e. that of the word saMhartR- 'destroyer'.

In your example (a) the anusvAra ("M") has to be pronounced as the nasal corresponding to the following consonant, which in this case is a dental; hence the anusvAra in "saMdhi" stands for a dental (or alveolar) n.

Your example (b) has the anusvAra in word-final position. This is a way of representing the final m (without inherent vowel) in the Devanagri writing. The same word you point us to (sUktaM) can be written with final m muted by a virAma (an oblique stroke added below a consonant letter).

On the contrary, in the case under discussion (the word saMhartR), the anusvAra is, as I have already said, a "pure nasal" because it is followed by an aspirate (the same pronunciation applies when the anusvAra is followed by a sibilant). In Sanskrit, h and the sibilants have no class nasals of their own.

> Lastly sandhi is *not" pronounced rhyming with english word "sand"
> rather it would phonetically sound as "sundhi".

???

> Similarly the destroyer in Sanskrit is either "sunhrutra"
> or "sinhrutra" based on the dialect.

What dialect?

> So Minoan scribe could use either form based on what he spoke.

Who spoke what language/dialect?

> And I am sure you know that some syllable final sounds such as "n"
> were not written down in minoan syllabic script.
>
> Hope this helps.

No, it just makes me laugh. (And you haven't even remotely given a reply to my remarks at

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/67218 )

Francesco

***R I'm still trying to figure his allusion to Douro/Duero. Until recently Spanish was spoken upriver in Castilla and Portuguese downriver in Portuguese but neither was spoken across the river from the other because Leonese was spoken along the border --and still is in some pockets, with one pocket left in Portugal.