'Fanciful' etymologies (was re. dating)

[MDSAAA48 at giasmd01.vsnl.net.in]

Dear Indology members,

Followint this thread of discussion, may I raise a query on Yaska?

Are there any works which explain WHY Yaska indulged in what appear to us
today (at this distance in time) to be 'fanciful' etymologies?

Niruktam was deemed to be a vEdAnga, an important part of the curriculum.

Why would Yaska mislead with 'folk' or 'syllabic' extravaganzas?

Thanks in advance.

Regards, Kalyanaraman

>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
>
>
>