Content deleted Content added
Heathcliff (talk | contribs) |
69.122.150.41 (talk) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Considering we have an article on this, and one on Proto-Indo-European (although that is currently part of [[Indo-European languages]]), I think it might be wise to make an [[Wikipedia:Article series|article series]] on the Indo-Europeans: their culture, religion, language, etc. Any thoughts? -[[User:Branddobbe|Branddobbe]] 08:48, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
I have made an article on [[Indo-European]] which I have intended to be a neutral article giving links to both the language article and the religion article. What do you think? [[User:Wiglaf|Wiglaf]] 10:37, Mars 9, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
|||
Wiglaf, I've rewritten the first paragraph, splitting it up into a few, trying to provide a sufficiently balanced point of view, indicating both the difficulties in reconstructing such a primeval religion along with the positive evidence for it. I hope you like it. [[User:Martijn faassen|Martijn faassen]] 21:35, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|||
:Yes, I like it. [[User:Wiglaf|Wiglaf]] 08:37, Mar 30, 2004 (CET) |
|||
---- |
|||
We the Indo-Europeans, closely subsequent descendents of the original Takers, created our wheat-goddess that rewarded us with plentiful harvest and our thunder-god that punished us with lightning bolts, thus ensuring our destiny forever battling nature. We ate from the Apple of Discord and spread our totalitarian agricultural "civilization" to unsuspecting peoples who had previously let the old spirits govern their lives. Our legacy includes writing, commerce, cities, automobiles, recorded music, wealth, famine, democracy, politics, science, genocide, philosophy, logic and mathematics, which we will one day gladly forsake for the old spirits.--Georgopoulos, 22 June 2004 |
|||
==Missing the thought-process here== |
|||
The results are less interesting than the techniques for arriving at them would be, which are scarcely offered. The inclusion of Eos-Auroroa-Eostre (!) shows how easy it is to stray into fantasies in this kind of speculation. Can this entry be improved, or is the idea basically flawed? --[[User:Wetman|Wetman]] 12:35, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|||
:hm, certainly you accept Eos-Aurora? The Eostre connection is tenuous, of course, but not extremely far-fetched, in my view. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 09:22, 13 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==Plthivi Mh2ter (Tkon)?== |
|||
Who are Plthivi Mh2ter and Tkon. I've never heard of them, and google searches for Plthivi or Tkon don't shed any light on the matter. I assume that Plthivi is a theoretical Proto-Indo-European name, but the only sources on the web that seems to mention her is this one (or ones that are identical to this one though I'm not sure who copied whom). Tkon gets lots of hits, but none of them seem to have anything to do with an earth goddess. Are there any sources for this page?--[[User:Heathcliff|Heathcliff]] 03:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:yes, they are the reconstructed forms of Sanskrit "prthivi mata" and Sanskrit ksham / Hittite takkan, Greek khthon, respectively. ''tkōn'' should properly be ''dgh'ōm'', a very early ("[[Indo-Hittite]]") form the more familiar PIE form would be ''gh'ðōm''. You can only find so much specialist information with google, sometimes you have to resort to books :) [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 09:17, 13 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::Obviously. That is why I ask for a source. You seem to be knowledgeable about these matters; could you please provide sources for this information?--[[User:Heathcliff|Heathcliff]] 22:26, 13 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::do you mean the ''gh'ðōm'' or the ''dgh'ōm'' form? the former is in [[Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch]] (or any etymological dictionary of the languages mentioned above). The form before thorn-metathesis will be in any introduction to [[Indo-European studies]]. There is not really much controversy here. Accounts of how the metathesis took place exactly, or whether it should be called a metathesis, will vary, but the basic facts are pretty much universally recognized. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 11:00, 14 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::::I'd just like a source for the information on this page. You seem to know a lot about this subject, you could just let me know where you got the information if you want. If it's universally recognized, I don't see why providing a source should be to much trouble. Could you please provide at least one source on proto-indo-european relgion that supports to information on this page? Thank you for mentioning Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, but it's hard to get useful information out of dictionary. I have yet to find anything in it on Plthivi, Dghom, or Tkon. Also the Wilipdeia entry on it says it is outdated, and a review of it on Amazon makes the following claim: |
|||
::::::''In no case can the materials in Pokorny's IEW be taken as raw data. Onomatopoetic words are over-represented, and unfounded etymologies or improbable semantic groupings are not seldom. Using this material for statistical purposes, or browsing it with an interest in general semantics, or picking roots or words in order to compare them with words of other language families, is bound to be very misleading.'' |
|||
::::Is it still considered reliable?--[[User:Heathcliff|Heathcliff]] 13:12, 14 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::::look, exactly which point do you want to have referenced? I'll quote a coupe of works on IE myhtology, but are you interested in a particular point? Do you want information on a particular form, or rather on mythological implications? When I say the gdhom word will be in any introduction, I'm serious, it's one of the most widely discussed and best understood words, there is no way a basic introduction will miss it. I am not working on this article full time, you know. I don't know if you are disputing something in particular, or if you're just curious, but can't be bothered to go to the library yourself. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 10:16, 15 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::::::A source on the ''dghom'' word would be fine since that is what I've been asking about, but more general information on the infortmation on this page would be useful as well. You say that ''gdhom'' would be discussed in any introduction. That's great, that's exactly what I'm looking for: could you please name just one of these introductions? Also I was interested in your opinion of whether or not Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch was reliable. Do you have an opinion on this? If you have IEW could you look and see what page gdhom is on and let me know. I still haven't found it, but it may just be spelled differently.--[[User:Heathcliff|Heathcliff]] 12:57, 15 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
I don't want to sound impatient, but you did realize the IEW article points to the Leiden online version, didn't you? Here is a link for you, [http://www.indo-european.nl/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=leiden&morpho=0&basename=%5Cdata%5Cie%5Cpokorny&first=1&sort=lemma&text_lemma=&method_lemma=substring&text_meaning=earth&method_meaning=substring&text_ger_mean=&method_ger_mean=substring&text_grammar=&method_grammar=substring&text_comments=&method_comments=substring&text_derivatives=&method_derivatives=substring&text_material=&method_material=substring&text_ref=&method_ref=substring&text_seealso=&method_seealso=substring&text_pages=&method_pages=substring&text_any=&method_any=substring] (I'm sorry, but you'll have to scroll down yourself). Pokorny is quite reliable, and to be taken seriously. He doesn't have much Anatolian material, and doesn't accept laryngeals, so you'll need additional resources to come up with a "contemporary" opinion (e.g. Rix' lexicon of the PIE verb, and Mayrhofer's Indo-Aryan dictionary), but it's a very good place to start. Concerning introductions, there are a couple of good ones, but I'd recommend the one by [[Oswald Szemerényi]] (English translation 1996). [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 12:57, 15 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:I do not need a link to IEW. When I said I could not find ''dghom'' (or any of the other spellings you've used) in IEW it was because I had '''looked'''. What did you think I was talking about?? Thank you for citing Oswald Szemerényi. I'll see if I can find his book.--[[User:Heathcliff|Heathcliff]] 19:44, 15 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::and I gave you a link, directly to the lemma ''g'hðem-, g'hðom-'', I mean, what more can I do? They transliterate the palatal as g^ rather than g', but that can hardly be the problem, no? (c.f. [[PIE]]) [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 10:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::Sorry, your reply made it sound like it was a link to IEW, you didn't mention it was a link to the page itself. I have to say at this point I don't see the reasoning to lead to the conclusion that the Proto-Indo-Europeans worshipped an earth goddess who is a fore-runner to various bronze age godesses. It seems a linguistic link between the words for earth as been used to reconstruct a theoretical proto-indo-european word for ''earth'' and that the idea that ''Mother Earth'' was worshiped as a godess just seems to be slapped on at the end. But I don't actually know that this is the case. There may be ample evidence of a proto-indo-european earth goddess. I've just got to find it one way or the other. I've found a couple of books that aren't nearly as outdated as the two you suggested, and I may order them since I haven't found them locally. Perhaps then I'll be able to get some answers to my questions. It may be some time before I can get back to this page, but hopefully I'll be able to add to it and provide some actual sources.--[[User:Heathcliff|Heathcliff]] 13:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
|||
btw, "Plthivi" is really an epitheton. it means as much as "She who is flat", more or less "the wide expanse", but female. Dghom otoh is the proper word for "Earth", but not particularly when imagined as a female goddess, just "Earth". I suppose gods needed to be addressed obliquely, so it would be blasphemous to address a libation to "Dghom" (*speculation alert*) [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]]</small> 11:03, 14 May 2005 (UTC) |