Talk:Verethragna

relationship to Vedic Vritra

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)[reply]

I agree in principle, but it might confuse matters if not carefully phrased. That is, care needs be taken to not encourage/provoke the idea that Indra (by-name Vrtrahan) equals Verethragna and/or that Verethragna is a dragon-killer (or any other kind of functional relationship between Verethragna and Vritra). I've repeatedly (both here and elsewhere) had to remove additions that said so. You know how it is with the encyclopedia that "anyone" can edit. ;)

Alternative suggestion: Do it on Wiktionary. That is, create wikt articles for the neuter noun vərəθraγna- (with a {{Wiktionary|vərəθraγna-}} here), for the adjective vərəθraγan-, and for vərəθra-. Then cross-reference all three as appropriate (i.e. "related words" and "derives from"). For vərəθraγan- and vərəθra- mention the VSkt cognates (respectively vṛtrahán- and vṛtrá-) in the etymology sections. Also mention derivation from PIIr *hur- in each. What do you think? I'll do the needful if you like. -- Fullstop (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC) ps: have you seen the reading "to cover" (for PIIr *hur-) elsewhere? I only know of the reading "to protect" (giving "that which causes protection" for *both* vərəθra-/vṛtrá-), but perhaps I'm thinking of a specialized form.[reply]

OK, I'll create the respective entries on the Wiktionary, it's just that I'm uncomfortable creating Avestan entries until Unicode 5.2 which adds support for Avestan script range gets officialized. So far the only Avestan entries on Wiktionary are for some important words such as miθrō (whence Mithra), pairi.daēza (whence paradise) and satəm (whence satem). But I guess there's no problem adding a few more ^_^

As for the PII *Hu̯(a)r- "to cover", Chueng's Etymological Dictionariy of the Iranian Verb is also supportive of that sense [2]. Chueng also lists another root *Huar²- in the meaning "to ward off, defend, protect (from)" as another headword with the following comment:

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’?

Cheung's dictionary on IEED project pages is a bit outdated, so I reccomend downloading the PDF [3] and reading the entries for those 2 roots at pages 231-233. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear

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)[reply]