Day Brown wrote:
> jota@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > Day Brown wrote:
> >>nickname wrote:
> >>>Raja is male, Rana is female AFAIK. DD
> >>Nomenclature varies. JP Mallory "In Search of the Indo-Europeans" says
> >>it traces back to "raj". no suffix. A 'raj' is a 'witch', which dont
> >>have a suffix either. Since he published, I think the case can be made
> >>that 'raj' is 6000-8000 years old, an era so full of changes I dont
> >>think it can be nailed down more precisely.
> > Since he published, what happened 6000-8000 years ago is NOW an "era so
> > full of changes I dont think it can be nailed down more precisely??"
> Im not always as clear as I'd like to be for the sake of brevity.
> But we have the abandonment of the Anatolian agrarian communities
> *about* 8200 years ago; with some remnant hanging on in some places.
> And, come to think of it, since I read that report, the C-14
> recalibration controversy erupted, which may have an error rate for this
> era of 10%, or 820 years.
> Then, there's the Great Flood of the Euxine basin in the mid 6th mil
> BCE; Again with C-14 ambiguity, some saying 5600 BCE. I posted on a
> curious string of total solar eclipses that occurred between 5559 and
> 5525 BCE that would have provided stronger tidal forces on a region that
> is still prone to earthquakes. But in any case, again, sometime in the
> mid 6th mil, the agrarians were put on the move.
> And finally, there is the wholesale abandoment of the whole riverine
> dranage basin (Danube, Bug, Dneipr) about 4000 BCE. Which we now know
> coincidedd with the introduction by the Kurgans of the first
> domesticated horses. Gimbutas discusses the abandonment, which she notes
> could not have been caused by the invasion of the warlike Kurgans
> because it took hundreds of years. A snail wouldda been faster. But now,
> looking at more evidence, its plain to me that it was Anthrax.
> Oh ya- now more recently, there's support for a new agrarian culture
> that emerged in Germany just after this. Where that bronze/gold moon
> calculator was found. But in any case, we have at least three major
> events, separated by hundreds of years, which would have created masses
> of refugees, with trade springing up between the more distant new
> communities and/or the PIE nomads betweem the catastrophes.
> So- I dont see any way of sorting out just who went where when, or what
> language, other than it being some PIE varient, they spoke. Satellite
> radar shows trade routes we didnt even know existed, and a city dating
> from the mid 3rd mil in the Kara Kum. It seems reasonable to assume that
> while local dialects sprung up everywhere, there was some kind of Proto-
> Indo-European Lingua franca that all the merchants spoke which tied the
> variations of PIE together so that common words, like the "raj" family
> of nouns, would be found everywhere.
> Mallory published "In Search of the Indo-Europeans" in 1989, and knew
> nothing of Ryan & Pitman's "Noah's Flood". He takes Gimbutas to task in
> it, rejecting her theory of the home of the PIE south of the Urals, in
> large part because of all the words related to lakes, fishing, boats,
> and swamps that dont exist in that upland area. The Black sea had alredy
> been rejected cause everyone knew that it was *salt water*, and that
> there were no PIE words related to the marine environment.
> But *now* Ryan and Pitman show, that at the time, it was fresh water.
> > And it is not so much a case of nomenclature, but etymology
> > Raj - rule, or reign, Sanskrit; Origins: A Short Etymological
> > Dictionary of Modern English, Eric Partridge
> now do the same with German, Latin, Greek, Tocharian, and several other
> Indo European languages. The abundance of root forms is what supports
> Mallory's case that "raj" was the o-'rig'-inal word.
First, I am left with the impression you have a theory and gather
evidence to support it.
Second, Mallory may make the case for "raj," however, it does not seem
to be the dominate view, that would be "reg"
Third, you seem to be suggesting o-'rig'-inal has at its root "raj"
which does not seem to be the case either, maybe you could provide a
cite, if this is what you are trying to say.