Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-Iranian/daywás

"Tamil: தேவ--செல்வா (talk) 03:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)--செல்வா (talk) 03:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)ன் (tēvaṉ)", as given is not considered a borrowing. See in the 12-volume "A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Tamil Language", Mandala 4, part 3, page 94. Tamil word is derived from Tamil தே (tē) = god, < a word meaning fire தீ (tī) and தேய் (tēy) ('to rub to produce sparks and fire').--செல்வா (talk) 22:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't speak Tamil obviously, but on the Fabricius Tamil-English Dictionary, the etymology is listed as, which matches with 🇨🇬. However, that dictionary is outdated, so I will look at the source you gave and try to find more that agree with your suggestion. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 02:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response, I have summarized the arguments in a blog. In the blog, I have given an excerpt from the Dictionary I have quoted above and a number of other sources. Please see https://tamilveli.blogspot.ca/2018/04/is-word-tevan-used-in-tamil-borrowed.html Thanks.--செல்வா (talk) 03:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting! I think we can list both derivations then. The reason that the Iranian languages diverge in meaning is because the ancient Zoroastrian religion had a conflict with the Vedic religion, and the roles of different gods and demons are flipped between the two. For example, 🇨🇬 is related to 🇨🇬. Another reson to support the borrowing from Sanskrit is that some Tamil compounds with correspond exactly to Sanskrit, e.g. 🇨🇬 = 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬 = 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬 = 🇨🇬. Also there are no other Dravidian cognates that I could find, but again I am not familiar with the Dravidian languages. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 04:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Yes, it is true about the 'flip' between Iranian branch and Sanskrit regarding Asura-Deva. You are also right that there are many compound words which are common between Tamil and Sanskrit involving deva. The inter-relationship between Tamil and Sanskrit is so close that there are numerous words of Sanskrit-Tamil mixture like portmanteau. In addition, there are many words of disputed origins. For example the Tamil word ulagam (உலகம்) is claimed to be from Sanskrit loka (लोक). However there is extensive evidence and reasoning which show that it is internally derived in Tamil. More than 100 Tamil words are related to Tamil ulagam (not compound words- for example like ula means 'to go around'). Thanks for adding the alternate viewpoint in this entry. About the Dravidian cognates, you can see many for தீ (tī) - 'fire' and தீ (tī) 'evil' in the entries 3266 and 3267 in Dravidian Etymological Dictionary by Murray Emeneau and Thomas Burrow (DEDR) (see: http://dsalsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/contextualize.pl?p.1.burrow.533106 ). For தேய் (tēy) 'to rub', one can see many cognates in DEDR 3458 (See: http://dsalsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/contextualize.pl?p.1.burrow.693931) and here you can see the sense of 'polishing', but the sense of 'shining' or 'light' or 'fire' do not show up in cognates for tēy. Famous 5-7th CE Tamil work called tēvāram (தேவாரம்) uses the word tē (தே) = 'god', and there are several other references. --செல்வா (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the links! I am aware of DEDR but I could not find the terms - I probably entered my search incorrectly. I noticed many compounds which have native Tamil words in them, and the Tamil ends in n which is different from the Sanskrit ending. So your hypothesis could also be correct; in fact, I think maybe the Sanskrit word could have been borrowed and merged into the preexisting Tamil word, which would explain the compounds having both native and borrowed words. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 23:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The parallel native etymology is nonsense. Tēvaṉ is a fairly late form, and when it does show up it’s orthographically distinguished as a Sanskritism, in contrast to earlier borrowings of the Skt. root. Which, incidentally, would be the source for any credible synchronic derivation, as opposed to the fire polishing concept salad. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I had provided credible source right when I entered my comment. If you don't understand something or not accept something, it does not become "nonsense". Look at the related language to Sanskrit, Namely Avestan language. The meanings are diametrically opposite. In Tamil, one can see a clear derivation and a compelling polysemy (for both meanings). Historically, Tamils had interacted with Iranians and Indo-Aryans. David McAlpin had proposed a Dravido-Elamite language family. See Elamo-Dravidian languages. Tamil tēvaṉ is not derived from Sanskrit and it is the other way around, if at all. --செல்வா (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's nonsense. The Indo-European antiquity of Skt. deva is secured not only by the Avestan, but also by the Latin, the Phrygian, the Germanic, and the Balto-Slavic, all of which preserve the same semantics as the Sanskrit. This is universally accepted, and any attempt to deny it is idiocy. Tamil tēvaṉ is attested late, and, damningly, the orthography of the attestation guarantees that it's a Sanskrit loanword. Frankly, given the time lapse between the IE antiquity and the Tamil attestation, plus the fact that all the other Dravidian versions of the word are clearly loans, without a reconstructible ancestral form, the orthographic evidence isn't even necessary, even though it's nice to have something so incontrovertibly establish the fact. The fact that you are unfamiliar enough with the evidence to think the hypothesis that the word is native to Tamil is even vaguely intelligible establishes that your opinion on the matter is forceless. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * By repeating "nonsense" it does not become one. My point was "tēvaṉ, as given here, is not considered a borrowing in Tamil". I provided evidence. Contrary to your claim, the antiquity of Sanskrit is exaggerated by 500-1000 years. The first attestation of Vedas (partial) is from the 11th century CE (in Nepal) and full Vedas with meaning and commentary was from late 14th to 15th century CE (Sayanacharya). There were only three Vedas (even up to the 'traditional" Manusmrithi's time around 2 century CE) and the fourth was even later. I am pretty aware of the claims that it (Veda) was an oral tradition and that there were schemes to preserve the integrity etc. If you happened to know, please tell me the earliest available manuscript of Panini's Aṣṭādhyāyī. The Buddhist and Jainist literature are also in CE (extremely few perhaps from 1 century BCE). So your claims about Tamil word tēvaṉ being 'late' etc. are truly without support and the issue is that it is a Tamil word and not a borrowing from Skt. The earliest epigraphical evidence for Sanskrit is also in CE or 1st century BCE. The antiquity of Skt is highly exaggerated, I think (with no hard evidence to support). You are probably quite unaware of Tamil semantics or its etymology. --செல்வா (talk) 23:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to whatever fringe (read: crackpot) views you wish to maintain, but we won't be hosting them here on Wiktionary. The dating of the Vedas is uncontroversial in academia, and fits in perfectly with the broader dating of the Indo-European languages and the Mitanni epigraphic evidence of a sister dialect. Moreover, as I've now stated twice, the orthography of the first Tamil attestation guarantees that tēvaṉ is a loanword. Those responsible for the first Tamil inscriptions containing the word thought it was a Sanskrit loanword; we're not going to overturn the academic consensus because of an incoherent and probably ethnonationalist crackpot theory. And, incidentally, I'm perfectly familiar with the Tamil, which is why I referred to the derivation you provide above as a salad - which is, frankly, a charitable description. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Your disrespectful language and tone do not let me proceed further. Hittite is not Sanskrit, but yes, it is a related language. Hard evidence for the antiquity of (the body of work called) Vedas or Panini's Aṣṭādhyāyī, as claimed, do not exit. --செல்வா (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am entirely uninterested in proceeding further with someone so oblivious as to think the Indo-Aryan superstrate in the Mitanni inscriptions is Hittite (!). You’re an undereducated, fourth-rate crank, and we will not be overthrowing the unchallenged consensus of academic IE linguistics to accommodate your drivel. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Your ad hominem attack speaks for itself.--செல்வா (talk) 01:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A remarkable concession on your part, that. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 04:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Vedic
Vedic daivas.--Manfariel (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)