Page views of this article over the last 90 days:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
According to Lubotsky's [1], these are etymologically connected, the original meaning of Proto-Indo-Iranian *Hurtra- being "cover", whence the "shield" of Avestan vɘrɘθra and the Vritra "coverer" of the waters naturally arise. Seems interesting, perhaps it should be mentioned? -- Ivan Štambuk ( talk) 11:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
It is very difficult to distinguish this root clearly from the previous one (*Hu̯ar1): *Hu̯ar2 may have developed a more specialised meaning of ‘to defend, ward off’ from *‘to cover, protect with a gear’?
Paul Thieme agreed with this principal feature, but clarified that while the wealth of archaic elements in the Bahram Yasht clearly point to the pre-Zoroastrian era, the interpretation of proper names is "highly conjectural", and "in no case do we get a decisive argument against their Indo-Aryan or old Indic character" (Thieme, 1960:302). Adopting "the exact linguistic and exegetic analysis" of Benveniste and Renou, Thieme concludes "Proto-Aryan *Indra has assumed the functions of a Proto-Aryan god *Vrtraghna." Noting that Vrtrahan is the name of Indra only in the later Sanskrit texts (but not in the Rig Veda), Thieme adds "there is no valid justification for supposing that the Proto-Aryan adjective *vrtraghan was specifically connected with *Indra or any other particular god." (Thieme 1960:312-313)
IMO, this paragraph is extremely confusing. Which "proper names" are "Indo-Aryan or old Indic" - the names in Bahram Yasht (as the syntactic context suggests) or the Sanskrit ones (which makes more sense semantically)? If the idea is that Sanskrit Vrtrahan developed in the Indic sphere quite independently from Avestan Verethragna, this should be stated more clearly. Also, I don't understand how one and the same author can both assert that there was a "Proto-Aryan god *Vrtraghna" and at the same time claim that "there is no valid justification for supposing that the Proto-Aryan adjective *vrtraghan was specifically connected with ... any ... particular god." Again, Thieme's position on this should be summarized more clearly.-- 91.148.159.4 ( talk) 21:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Page views of this article over the last 90 days:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
According to Lubotsky's [1], these are etymologically connected, the original meaning of Proto-Indo-Iranian *Hurtra- being "cover", whence the "shield" of Avestan vɘrɘθra and the Vritra "coverer" of the waters naturally arise. Seems interesting, perhaps it should be mentioned? -- Ivan Štambuk ( talk) 11:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
It is very difficult to distinguish this root clearly from the previous one (*Hu̯ar1): *Hu̯ar2 may have developed a more specialised meaning of ‘to defend, ward off’ from *‘to cover, protect with a gear’?
Paul Thieme agreed with this principal feature, but clarified that while the wealth of archaic elements in the Bahram Yasht clearly point to the pre-Zoroastrian era, the interpretation of proper names is "highly conjectural", and "in no case do we get a decisive argument against their Indo-Aryan or old Indic character" (Thieme, 1960:302). Adopting "the exact linguistic and exegetic analysis" of Benveniste and Renou, Thieme concludes "Proto-Aryan *Indra has assumed the functions of a Proto-Aryan god *Vrtraghna." Noting that Vrtrahan is the name of Indra only in the later Sanskrit texts (but not in the Rig Veda), Thieme adds "there is no valid justification for supposing that the Proto-Aryan adjective *vrtraghan was specifically connected with *Indra or any other particular god." (Thieme 1960:312-313)
IMO, this paragraph is extremely confusing. Which "proper names" are "Indo-Aryan or old Indic" - the names in Bahram Yasht (as the syntactic context suggests) or the Sanskrit ones (which makes more sense semantically)? If the idea is that Sanskrit Vrtrahan developed in the Indic sphere quite independently from Avestan Verethragna, this should be stated more clearly. Also, I don't understand how one and the same author can both assert that there was a "Proto-Aryan god *Vrtraghna" and at the same time claim that "there is no valid justification for supposing that the Proto-Aryan adjective *vrtraghan was specifically connected with ... any ... particular god." Again, Thieme's position on this should be summarized more clearly.-- 91.148.159.4 ( talk) 21:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)