SV: Date of the Buddha and RV

[George Thompson]

In a message dated 9/7/99 11:16:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
erik.seldeslachts at RUG.AC.BE writes:

> Having an untransparant etymology is not the same as having a non-Indo-Aryan
>  etymology. And 'hundreds' is really a gross exageration.

Well, Kuiper lists 380 possible loanwords in the RV. Even if you could come
up with alternative IA etymologies for 180 of these, "hundreds" would still
not be an exaggeration.

But the issue is not simply a matter of etymology, whether untransparent or
otherwise. It is also a matter of context, as Kuiper himself has observed:

"The main critierion for distinguishing inherited IA words from borrowings is
morphological [e.g., ja'na- versus kuNDRNA'cI-] or phonological, but the
context may sometimes be an additional reason for assuming a foreign origin,
e.g., in the case of personal or tribal names. It can even be the only
argument: a'nitabhA- [RV 5.53.9], name of a river, could from a morphological
or phonological point of view perfectly well be taken as an IA bahuvrIhi.
However, no acceptable etymology has been proposed, and in the context of the
verse

mA' vo rasA' 'nitabhA ku'bhA kru'mur
mA' vaH si'ndhur ni' rIramat

it would seem probable that it was, like ku'bhA and kru'mu-, a local river
name that was adopted by the Indo-Aryans."  [*Aryans in the RV* p. 89]

As for your counter etymology of ku'bhA-,  I am not persuaded.
>
>  Ku'bhA- probably belongs together with Avestan kaofa-, Old Persian kaufa- '
> mountain  ridge'; 'hunch', IA *kubba- (CDIAL 3301) and kubhra'- to IE
*keub-/*keubh-,
>  *kubho-s 'bent, curved'. Notice the voiced aspirated stop, which is a very
> typical  Indo-Aryan feature.

While I can see adequate semantic links between the Iranian evidence
['mountain ridge'] and Skt. kubhra'- ['hump-backed bull'], I fail to see such
links with a river name ku'bhA.

By the way, Kuiper has dealt with kubhra'- in *Aryans* [pp. 31 & 48],
suggesting a Munda etymology. As for ku'bhA-, I don't think that the language
from which it derives is known.  Also, the very isolation of the name in
Vedic and, I think, in Skt. in general, makes Kuiper's argument stronger.  At
least that is how I see it.

Erik Seldeslachts and I clearly disagree, but I think that it is possible to
discuss such matters without rancor, as indeed ES has shown, for which I
thank him.

Best wishes,

George Thompson