'Fanciful' etymologies (was re. dating)

[Girish Beeharry]

Hi,

>Well, I agree with everything up to the word "inherent".  The kind of
>non-historical reflections on the meanings of words that we are discussing
>may be extremely interesting and revealing, etc., etc.  But that doesn't
>alter the fact that they are not historically correct.

This is a bit clearer to me now. The 'traditional point of view' is replete
with such ahistorical (I prefer this word to 'non-historical') etymologies. 
The exact philosophy of historical philologists is not very transparent, 
though. 

Could Dominik, and the other paNDitas, please examine one concrete example of
a 'culturally charged' word like raama, say? How do you analyse this word? 
Thanks in advance.

This whole discussion is quite fascinating! :-)

Bye,

Girish Beeharry