Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Meaning and analysis of *Dye:us

Expand Messages
  • Joao S. Lopes
    What would be the original meaning of *Dye:us? How this noun is formed? Could it be analysed as *dye:u-, *dyeh1u-, *dyeh1-u?, dye-h1u ? How if *dye:u-
    Message 1 of 9 , Jan 17, 2014
      What would be the original meaning of *Dye:us? How this noun is formed?
      Could it be analysed as *dye:u-, *dyeh1u-, *dyeh1-u?, dye-h1u ?
      How if *dye:u- < *dyeh1u- <*dyeh1-yu, through dissimilation?

      A form *dyeh1-yu would be analogous to *h2we1-yu, cf. Sanskrit Va:yu, the Wind God.


      JS Lopes
    • Rajan Menon
      *h2we1-yu, would be closer to Hindi hawa wind
      Message 2 of 9 , Jan 18, 2014
        *h2we1-yu, would be closer to Hindi "hawa" wind


        On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Joao S. Lopes <josimo70@...> wrote:
         

        What would be the original meaning of *Dye:us? How this noun is formed?
        Could it be analysed as *dye:u-, *dyeh1u-, *dyeh1-u?, dye-h1u ?
        How if *dye:u- < *dyeh1u- <*dyeh1-yu, through dissimilation?

        A form *dyeh1-yu would be analogous to *h2we1-yu, cf. Sanskrit Va:yu, the Wind God.


        JS Lopes


      • richardwordingham
        ... *h2we1-yu is a typographical error for *h2weh1-yu. One has to consider the sound changes during the development of the languages considered. If one does
        Message 3 of 9 , Jan 19, 2014
          In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, <vajradanta5@...> wrote:

          > *h2we1-yu, would be closer to Hindi "hawa" wind

          *h2we1-yu is a typographical error for *h2weh1-yu.

          One has to consider the sound changes during the development of the languages considered.  If one does not do this, one is swamped by random coincidences.  In this case, _hawa_ and *h2weh1 are both suggestive of the wind, so a coincidence is even more probable than normal.

          Very few languages have 'proper' consonants corresponding to PIE laryngeals (h1 and h2) - the best one usually gets is a glottal stop, though some of Vedic Sanskrit makes more sense if the laryngeals had not yet vanished.  *h2 generally survives as /h/ in Hittite and there are suggestions of survival as /h/ in Armenian, and /h2/ has modified preceding consonants.  Other than the last modification, there is no survival of *h2 as a consonant in Indic languages.

          Richard.
        • Joao S. Lopes
          But, how about this suffix -yu? JSLopes Em Domingo, 19 de Janeiro de 2014 10:25, richard.wordingham@ntlworld.com escreveu:
          Message 4 of 9 , Jan 20, 2014
            But, how about this suffix -yu?

            JSLopes



            Em Domingo, 19 de Janeiro de 2014 10:25, "richard.wordingham@..." <richard.wordingham@...> escreveu:
             

            In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, <vajradanta5@...> wrote:

            > *h2we1-yu, would be closer to Hindi "hawa" wind

            *h2we1-yu is a typographical error for *h2weh1-yu.

            One has to consider the sound changes during the development of the languages considered.  If one does not do this, one is swamped by random coincidences.  In this case, _hawa_ and *h2weh1 are both suggestive of the wind, so a coincidence is even more probable than normal.

            Very few languages have 'proper' consonants corresponding to PIE laryngeals (h1 and h2) - the best one usually gets is a glottal stop, though some of Vedic Sanskrit makes more sense if the laryngeals had not yet vanished.  *h2 generally survives as /h/ in Hittite and there are suggestions of survival as /h/ in Armenian, and /h2/ has modified preceding consonants.  Other than the last modification, there is no survival of *h2 as a consonant in Indic languages.

            Richard.


          • dgkilday57
            ... What would be the original meaning of *Dye:us? How this noun is formed? Could it be analysed as *dye:u-, *dyeh1u-, *dyeh1-u?, dye-h1u ? How if *dye:u-
            Message 5 of 9 , Jan 27, 2014




              ---In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, <josimo70@...> wrote:

              What would be the original meaning of *Dye:us? How this noun is formed?
              Could it be analysed as *dye:u-, *dyeh1u-, *dyeh1-u?, dye-h1u ?
              How if *dye:u- < *dyeh1u- <*dyeh1-yu, through dissimilation?

              A form *dyeh1-yu would be analogous to *h2we1-yu, cf. Sanskrit Va:yu, the Wind God.


               

              DGK:  No laryngeal is necessary if we follow the explanation of the long vowel given by Sihler (New Comp. Gr. of Grk. & Lat. §§324-7).  In his treatment, the PIE acc. *djéum regularly became *djé:m (whence Skt. _dyá:m_, Old Lat. *die:m, Old Grk. _Zên_, in Homer and Hesiod only verse-final with a subsequent vowel, as though it were Class. Grk. _Zêna_ elided).  This is parallel to the acc. *gWóum 'head of cattle' becoming *gWó:m, with both acc. forms acting back on the nom. *djéus, *gWóus to yield *djé:us, *gWó:us.  The long diphthongs are preserved in the Skt. nom. *dyáus, *gáus but underwent Osthoff's shortening outside Indo-Iranian (with the possible exception of _Ze:us_ in an inscription of Thera, but this is more likely a carver's error, eta from the acc. inadvertently replacing epsilon).

               

              An alternative to the usual view that *djé:us comes from a /w/-extension of PIE *dei- (Pokorny, IEW 184) or simply from *deiw- 'to shine' (Watkins, AHD App.) is that it is an active root-noun compounded from *dei- (regularly in the zero-grade) and the simplex *jeu- 'to join, connect' (cf. *jeu-, *jeu@-, *jeug- 'verbinden', IEW 508, and Sihler's comments on nasal-present infixation, NCG §453).  The protoform would be *di-jeu- 'light-joiner, one who connects the world with light, illuminator of the world'.

               

              In his criticism of Edgerton's and Lindeman's Laws (NCG §§179-81), Sihler observed that the Rig-Vedic scansion _diyáus_ occurs far less frequently than predicted by Edgerton, and exhibits a distributional preference which Lindeman cannot explain.  All but one of the 26 examples of _diyáus_ in the RV occur in line-initial position.  If the protoform was in fact *di-jeu-, these disyllabic nominatives are archaisms, already superseded by _dyáus_ at an early stage of Vedic, and their distribution has nothing to do with Sievers' Law or any elaboration thereof.  Greek likewise has only a monosyllabic nominative.  But in Italo-Celtic it appears that the disyllabic acc. *dije:m generated a new paradigm for 'day', with nom. *dije:s reflected as Old Irish _dïe_, Lat. _die:s_.  The Phrygian acc. _Tian_ also looks like a disyllable reflecting *dije:m.

               

              I would thus suggest a modification of Sihler's scenario, in which the original acc. *dijéum became *dijé:m and acted on the orig. nom. *dijéus to create *dijé:us.  Absorption of the */i/ from nom. and acc. did not occur in PIE, but independently in Sanskrit and Greek.

               

              Finally, _Deipáturos_, according to Hesychius a god of the Tymphaeans or Stymphaeans (by either name Illyrians), should not be identified with Zeus as is done by Pokorny (IEW 184) and Krahe (Sprache der Illyrier 54).  The first element cannot plausibly represent a case-form of *D(i)jé:us.  More likely it continues the vocative of a root-noun simply derived from *dei- and the name is to be understood as 'Father Light', not 'Father Sky'.  The latter would have been glossed specifically as _Zeús_, not generically as _theós_.

               

               

            • Joao S. Lopes
              Thanks for the responde. Could this suffix *-yeu- be the same in Wind god Va:yu? JS Lopes Em Terça-feira, 28 de Janeiro de 2014 3:05, dgkilday57@yahoo.com
              Message 6 of 9 , Jan 28, 2014
                Thanks for the responde. Could this suffix *-yeu- be the same in Wind god Va:yu?

                JS Lopes



                Em Terça-feira, 28 de Janeiro de 2014 3:05, "dgkilday57@..." <dgkilday57@...> escreveu:
                 



                ---In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, <josimo70@...> wrote:

                What would be the original meaning of *Dye:us? How this noun is formed?
                Could it be analysed as *dye:u-, *dyeh1u-, *dyeh1-u?, dye-h1u ?
                How if *dye:u- < *dyeh1u- <*dyeh1-yu, through dissimilation?

                A form *dyeh1-yu would be analogous to *h2we1-yu, cf. Sanskrit Va:yu, the Wind God.


                 
                DGK:  No laryngeal is necessary if we follow the explanation of the long vowel given by Sihler (New Comp. Gr. of Grk. & Lat. §§324-7).  In his treatment, the PIE acc. *djéum regularly became *djé:m (whence Skt. _dyá:m_, Old Lat. *die:m, Old Grk. _Zên_, in Homer and Hesiod only verse-final with a subsequent vowel, as though it were Class. Grk. _Zêna_ elided).  This is parallel to the acc. *gWóum 'head of cattle' becoming *gWó:m, with both acc. forms acting back on the nom. *djéus, *gWóus to yield *djé:us, *gWó:us.  The long diphthongs are preserved in the Skt. nom. *dyáus, *gáus but underwent Osthoff's shortening outside Indo-Iranian (with the possible exception of _Ze:us_ in an inscription of Thera, but this is more likely a carver's error, eta from the acc. inadvertently replacing epsilon).
                 
                An alternative to the usual view that *djé:us comes from a /w/-extension of PIE *dei- (Pokorny, IEW 184) or simply from *deiw- 'to shine' (Watkins, AHD App.) is that it is an active root-noun compounded from *dei- (regularly in the zero-grade) and the simplex *jeu- 'to join, connect' (cf. *jeu-, *jeu@-, *jeug- 'verbinden', IEW 508, and Sihler's comments on nasal-present infixation, NCG §453).  The protoform would be *di-jeu- 'light-joiner, one who connects the world with light, illuminator of the world'.
                 
                In his criticism of Edgerton's and Lindeman's Laws (NCG §§179-81), Sihler observed that the Rig-Vedic scansion _diyáus_ occurs far less frequently than predicted by Edgerton, and exhibits a distributional preference which Lindeman cannot explain.  All but one of the 26 examples of _diyáus_ in the RV occur in line-initial position.  If the protoform was in fact *di-jeu-, these disyllabic nominatives are archaisms, already superseded by _dyáus_ at an early stage of Vedic, and their distribution has nothing to do with Sievers' Law or any elaboration thereof.  Greek likewise has only a monosyllabic nominative.  But in Italo-Celtic it appears that the disyllabic acc. *dije:m generated a new paradigm for 'day', with nom. *dije:s reflected as Old Irish _dïe_, Lat. _die:s_.  The Phrygian acc. _Tian_ also looks like a disyllable reflecting *dije:m.
                 
                I would thus suggest a modification of Sihler's scenario, in which the original acc. *dijéum became *dijé:m and acted on the orig. nom. *dijéus to create *dijé:us.  Absorption of the */i/ from nom. and acc. did not occur in PIE, but independently in Sanskrit and Greek.
                 
                Finally, _Deipáturos_, according to Hesychius a god of the Tymphaeans or Stymphaeans (by either name Illyrians), should not be identified with Zeus as is done by Pokorny (IEW 184) and Krahe (Sprache der Illyrier 54).  The first element cannot plausibly represent a case-form of *D(i)jé:us.  More likely it continues the vocative of a root-noun simply derived from *dei- and the name is to be understood as 'Father Light', not 'Father Sky'.  The latter would have been glossed specifically as _Zeús_, not generically as _theós_.
                 
                 


              • dgkilday57
                ... Thanks for the responde. Could this suffix *-yeu- be the same in Wind god Va:yu? DGK: It seems plausible to me. However, the chiasmus in gradation
                Message 7 of 9 , Feb 3, 2014




                  ---In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, <josimo70@...> wrote:

                  Thanks for the responde. Could this suffix *-yeu- be the same in Wind god Va:yu?

                   

                   

                  DGK:  It seems plausible to me.  However, the chiasmus in gradation between presumed *di-jeu- and *h2weh1-ju-, which would underlie Skt. _Va:yú-_, must be explained.  Presumably the zero-grade *-ju- had the same passive force as the extended *-jug- reflected in Grk. _ázux_ 'unyoked, unmarried', Lat. _conjux_ 'spouse' (later _conjunx_ after the nasal present _jungo:_).  Then *h2weh1-ju- was literally 'joined to the wind', referring to a deity inseparable from the wind.  This passive formation contrasts with the active *di-jeu-.

                   





                  Em Terça-feira, 28 de Janeiro de 2014 3:05, "dgkilday57@..." <dgkilday57@...> escreveu:
                   



                  ---In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, <josimo70@...> wrote:

                  What would be the original meaning of *Dye:us? How this noun is formed?
                  Could it be analysed as *dye:u-, *dyeh1u-, *dyeh1-u?, dye-h1u ?
                  How if *dye:u- < *dyeh1u- <*dyeh1-yu, through dissimilation?

                  A form *dyeh1-yu would be analogous to *h2we1-yu, cf. Sanskrit Va:yu, the Wind God.


                   
                  DGK:  No laryngeal is necessary if we follow the explanation of the long vowel given by Sihler (New Comp. Gr. of Grk. & Lat. §§324-7).  In his treatment, the PIE acc. *djéum regularly became *djé:m (whence Skt. _dyá:m_, Old Lat. *die:m, Old Grk. _Zên_, in Homer and Hesiod only verse-final with a subsequent vowel, as though it were Class. Grk. _Zêna_ elided).  This is parallel to the acc. *gWóum 'head of cattle' becoming *gWó:m, with both acc. forms acting back on the nom. *djéus, *gWóus to yield *djé:us, *gWó:us.  The long diphthongs are preserved in the Skt. nom. *dyáus, *gáus but underwent Osthoff's shortening outside Indo-Iranian (with the possible exception of _Ze:us_ in an inscription of Thera, but this is more likely a carver's error, eta from the acc. inadvertently replacing epsilon).
                   
                  An alternative to the usual view that *djé:us comes from a /w/-extension of PIE *dei- (Pokorny, IEW 184) or simply from *deiw- 'to shine' (Watkins, AHD App.) is that it is an active root-noun compounded from *dei- (regularly in the zero-grade) and the simplex *jeu- 'to join, connect' (cf. *jeu-, *jeu@-, *jeug- 'verbinden', IEW 508, and Sihler's comments on nasal-present infixation, NCG §453).  The protoform would be *di-jeu- 'light-joiner, one who connects the world with light, illuminator of the world'.
                   
                  [snipped for brevity]

                • anthonyappleyard2
                  I used to have the impression that the PIE root [dye_u-] or [diye_u-] meant the bright daytime sky , whence Sanskrit day and sky , and Latin die_s =
                  Message 8 of 9 , Feb 6, 2014
                    I used to have the impression that the PIE root [dye_u-] or [diye_u-] meant "the bright daytime sky", whence Sanskrit "day" and "sky", and Latin "die_s" = "day".

                    Latin "ventum" = "wind", Greek "awe_r" (air), "awe_ti" (it (= a wind) blows) (w = digamma); the PIE root for "air" seems to be H2-W-H1, and Vayu may be this root plus a suffix -yu-.

                    (Root H2-W-H1 also means "air" in Arabic; Arabic seems to have kept its laryngeals to the present day!)
                  • dgkilday57
                    ... What would be the original meaning of *Dye:us? How this noun is formed? Could it be analysed as *dye:u-, *dyeh1u-, *dyeh1-u?, dye-h1u ? How if *dye:u-
                    Message 9 of 9 , Jun 27, 2014



                      ---In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, <dgkilday57@...> wrote :




                      ---In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, <josimo70@...> wrote:

                      What would be the original meaning of *Dye:us? How this noun is formed?
                      Could it be analysed as *dye:u-, *dyeh1u-, *dyeh1-u?, dye-h1u ?
                      How if *dye:u- < *dyeh1u- <*dyeh1-yu, through dissimilation?

                      A form *dyeh1-yu would be analogous to *h2we1-yu, cf. Sanskrit Va:yu, the Wind God.


                       

                      DGK:  No laryngeal is necessary if we follow the explanation of the long vowel given by Sihler (New Comp. Gr. of Grk. & Lat. §§324-7).  In his treatment, the PIE acc. *djéum regularly became *djé:m (whence Skt. _dyá:m_, Old Lat. *die:m, Old Grk. _Zên_, in Homer and Hesiod only verse-final with a subsequent vowel, as though it were Class. Grk. _Zêna_ elided).  This is parallel to the acc. *gWóum 'head of cattle' becoming *gWó:m, with both acc. forms acting back on the nom. *djéus, *gWóus to yield *djé:us, *gWó:us.  The long diphthongs are preserved in the Skt. nom. *dyáus, *gáus but underwent Osthoff's shortening outside Indo-Iranian (with the possible exception of _Ze:us_ in an inscription of Thera, but this is more likely a carver's error, eta from the acc. inadvertently replacing epsilon).

                       

                      An alternative to the usual view that *djé:us comes from a /w/-extension of PIE *dei- (Pokorny, IEW 184) or simply from *deiw- 'to shine' (Watkins, AHD App.) is that it is an active root-noun compounded from *dei- (regularly in the zero-grade) and the simplex *jeu- 'to join, connect' (cf. *jeu-, *jeu@-, *jeug- 'verbinden', IEW 508, and Sihler's comments on nasal-present infixation, NCG §453).  The protoform would be *di-jeu- 'light-joiner, one who connects the world with light, illuminator of the world'.

                       

                      *****

                       

                      DGK bis:  Pokorny, Sihler, and I overlooked the evidence provided by Lehmann (PIE Phonology 76-9) in favor of laryngeal anlaut for 'yoke', which must apply also to the simplex 'join'.  This evidence includes the long vowels in Vedic _abhi:yújas_ 'assailant' and _á:yukta_ 'endowed with' as well as an improvement on Sapir's theory of the Greek z- which corresponds to *j- elsewhere.  Lehmann argued elegantly that this Greek z- must have developed from *h3j-, and _zugón_ 'yoke' must continue PIE *h3jugóm.  The simplex 'join' in question is thus not *jeu- but *h3jeu-, and a primitive compound *di-h3jeu- could not have led to Greek _Zeús_ and the rest.  If 'Zeus' is to be analyzed as a compound this way, the second element must be *jeu- 'set in motion' vel sim., the simplex of *jeu-dH- 'move (oneself) violently, fight' (IEW 511-2).


                      *****


                      In his criticism of Edgerton's and Lindeman's Laws (NCG §§179-81), Sihler observed that the Rig-Vedic scansion _diyáus_ occurs far less frequently than predicted by Edgerton, and exhibits a distributional preference which Lindeman cannot explain.  All but one of the 26 examples of _diyáus_ in the RV occur in line-initial position.  If the protoform was in fact *di-jeu-, these disyllabic nominatives are archaisms, already superseded by _dyáus_ at an early stage of Vedic, and their distribution has nothing to do with Sievers' Law or any elaboration thereof.  Greek likewise has only a monosyllabic nominative.  But in Italo-Celtic it appears that the disyllabic acc. *dije:m generated a new paradigm for 'day', with nom. *dije:s reflected as Old Irish _dïe_, Lat. _die:s_.  The Phrygian acc. _Tian_ also looks like a disyllable reflecting *dije:m.

                       

                      I would thus suggest a modification of Sihler's scenario, in which the original acc. *dijéum became *dijé:m and acted on the orig. nom. *dijéus to create *dijé:us.  Absorption of the */i/ from nom. and acc. did not occur in PIE, but independently in Sanskrit and Greek.

                       

                      Finally, _Deipáturos_, according to Hesychius a god of the Tymphaeans or Stymphaeans (by either name Illyrians), should not be identified with Zeus as is done by Pokorny (IEW 184) and Krahe (Sprache der Illyrier 54).  The first element cannot plausibly represent a case-form of *D(i)jé:us.  More likely it continues the vocative of a root-noun simply derived from *dei- and the name is to be understood as 'Father Light', not 'Father Sky'.  The latter would have been glossed specifically as _Zeús_, not generically as _theós_.

                       

                       

                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.