Jump to content

Talk:*Dyēus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 173.0.251.59 (talk) at 20:08, 1 November 2019 (→Pltwih2 Méh2ter). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconReligion Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Deva

Is *Dyeus related to Deva, or does the name only bear a superficial resemblance? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deva_deity

related, but not derived directly. Deva is from *deiv-o-. dab (ᛏ) 11:31, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Of course, if we're going for a consistent orthography, that should probably be *deiu-o - and that would be the root from which Tyr would be derived. *deiuos > *Tiwaz.

Ancient anthropomorphic stone stela (Ukraine), possibly depicting an early variant of a god related to Dyeus

"possibly"? "variant"? "related"? The above caption of the picture seems highly conjectural --[jon] [talk] 14:53, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I know :-\ it's from a book that links it to Dyeus, but until I find the exact reference (particularly, where exactly is the stele), I was forced to be weasly. dab (ᛏ) 15:45, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

cut from article

A point worth mentioning here is that in Modern Persian, the word Dīv means demon. With the arrival of the Persian prophet Zoroaster, the old system of gods worshipped by the Iranians was deemed evil and replaced by a new system consisting of only two gods: Ahūrā-Mazdā, the god of light, and his counter-part, Ahrīman, the god of darkness. It can therefore be inferred, especially in the light of the above facts on Deus, Zeus, and other Indo-European forms mentioned above, that Dīv had been used to refer to one, and most likely, the supreme deitity of the pre-Zoroastrian Aryan pantheon.


there is some truth in this, but unfortunately it doesn't belong on this article. This is due to confusion of *dyeus and *deivo which were related, but not identical words. Also, why bother with modern Persian when we have the Avestan word, daeva. This point would belong on deva. *Dyeus appears to have been pretty pale at the time of Indo-Iranian unity already, and the suggested split (not entirely accurately described above) concerned two classes of gods the asuras (Aesir) and the daivas or "heavenly ones". *Dyeus doesn't really enter into this. dab (ᛏ) 08:58, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Germanic version

To say that Germans turned Dyeus into a featureless, pale nonentity is overstated. The Old Norse did so by saga times, but the cult of Tiw/Tiwaz was certainly very important in other areas.

"Weather god"?

I removed the statement implying that Dyeus was a weather god. There was such a god in Proto-Indo-European times (at least according to Brian Branston's The Lost Gods of England), but he was distinct. From him came Thor, Indra and the nameless Hittite Weather God. I mean, this very article itself further down distinguishes Dyeus from Thor and Indra. I would assume, rather, that some versions of Dyeus (Zeus, for example) assimilated characteristics of this other god, not the other way round (of course, that's just my theory and to include it would be original research). elvenscout742 21:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jehova?

Is Jehova related etymologically? It souns similar, and it would fit the concept. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uberisaac (talk • contribs) .

Nope, it is not related etymologically. Jehovah is Semitic, not Indo-European, in origin. It is derived from a Christian error in interpreting Hebrew scripture that mistook the consonants of Yahweh ("YHWH", the Tetragrammaton) annotated with the vowel sounds of Adonai, to be the name "Jehovah"—originally pronounced "Yehowah" (so you can see the similarity to "Yahweh" in its original pronunciation). This mispronunciation dates back to 500 years ago, whereas Yahweh has been around for many millennia. The etymology of Yahweh is a matter of dispute, but it is most likely from the Proto-Semitic root hwy and originally meant "he brings into existence" or "he causes to be", a suitably generic title for a creator deity, and one with much less character than Dyeus. :) -Silence 21:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is discussed at length in several places on Talk:Tetragrammaton. AnonMoos 16:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Sock edit removed)

Unfortunately, this is completely incorrect according to standard linguistic scholarship. The Tetragrammaton YHWH (of which "Jehova"[sic] is a highly inaccurate form) is probably related to verbal triconsonantal roots h-y-y or h-w-y with basic meaning "to be", while Dyeus comes from Indo-European stem forms dyew-/deyw-/diw- etc. with earliest ascertainable meaning "bright sky". There's really almost nothing in common between the two at this etymological level... AnonMoos (talk) 15:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

French?

Maybe Dyeus is related to Dieu, french word for God. --Neotenic 14:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. The other way around. Dieu (french) is based on Deus (latin) which was most likely based on Dyeus.85.138.1.15 08:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article says that Latin deus is based on *deiwos not *dyeus. -- pne (talk) 14:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deva

Is it also likely that the Sanskrit word deva originates from Dyeus (and thus is a cognate of deus)? Jon Harald Søby 01:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cognate, but different ablaut grade. Dyaus is the corresponding Indic form (as the articl says already). dab (ᛏ) 14:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duw

I thought I should add that the Welsh word for God is Duw... it seems related, but I'm not sure where it should go if at all.

Seems likely, at least to *deiwos, cf The Dagda. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to Grace Sturtevant Hopkins, Old Irish dia, Old Welsh duiu-, Modern Welsh duw, Old Cornish duy and Breton doué all go back to *deiwos... AnonMoos (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Subscript 2? Huh?

There are a couple of words spelt with a subscripted '2' in the middle of them. How could this possibly be pronounced? Was this by any chance intended as something else, put in with some goofy Windoze character set in mind, and converted by robot to this form? ;Bear 10:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Laryngeal theory. The short answer is that we don't know how the laryngeals - if they existed - were pronounced (especially since we have no sound recordings of PIE); they stand for "something which turned into X in language family A, Y in language family B, etc.", and all h_1 are the same something and all h_2 are a different something, but what exactly the somethings sounded like is uncertain. -- pne (talk) 14:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indra

Article states Indra cannot be traced to IE. Even though I am no linguist I think it should be related to Sanskrit nar, Greek anḗr/andrós and Sabine nerō.Aldrasto11 (talk) 10:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The PIE root is *h2ner; the Sanskrit form /naras/ reflects this root, without the -d-. That d is an innovation of Hellenic, like the -aik in gynh/gynaikos. The d was inserted because Hellenic realized vocalic laryngeals as vowels, thus the a- of the Greek; Indic did not have this, and if it had gained the -d- would have resulted in ndras -> adras (if it happened before nasal resonants became vowels), not andras. Moreover, there would be no reason for the a- to become i- as in Indra. -Senori (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greek

Is there any cognity to Greek the Greek word theos? I mean they seem strikingly similar, practically only different by changing the voiced aspiration y to a voiceless h, but that's nonlinguistically said. --91.34.219.10 (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linguists have puzzled over the matter for more than a century, but no hypothesis linking the words is widely accepted. In the line of development leading from Indo-European to ancient Greek, the original consonants [dh] and [d] are not at all commonly interchanged or confused... AnonMoos (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting that "theos" does not originate from this word. Do linguists know what the etymology of the word "theos" is? I'm assuming it has an Indo-European origin, but there are no articles on the word. Thanks24.189.108.166 (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The standard conventional proposals are listed at wikt:θεός#Etymology... AnonMoos (talk) 02:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Finnish words: ”Teos” and ”Taos”. Teos (noun) = Work, tehdä (verb) to make. Taos (noun) = Forging, takoa (verb) to forge.88.193.172.161 (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Jesus"?

Need I say more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.202.90.53 (talk) 12:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're implying that there's any connection between the two words, then you're unfortunately completely wrong according to the consensus of modern scholarship. Dyeus comes from an Indo-European root deyw-/dyew-, while Jesus comes from a shortened form of the Tetragrammaton YHWH plus a derivative from the Semitic triliteral root y-š-ʕ (where "ʕ" is a voiced pharyngeal consonant of a type which does not occur in Indo-European languages). The initial consonant of the word "Jesus" was not even pronounced with an initial affricate sound until certain early medieval Romance languages developed a "y" to "j" sound shift which affected all similar words, such as Latin IVDEX (pronounced "yoodeks") evolving in Old French into a form which became the word "Judge" when borrowed from French into English... AnonMoos (talk) 17:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
lol, I think the unsigned user just got owned.80.203.20.94 (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2014

You are absolutely right. Jesus real name is "ISA", denoted as "IS" in original scripture. "Jesus" may be a mix of Dyeus, Dionysus, and Isa. PBWY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.129.189 (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed above, reliable sources disagree with you. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
84.211.129.189 -- Qur'anic Arabic عيسى ʕīsā is a rather strange form in itself, where the voiced pharyngeal ʕay(i)n ع/ע consonant of original Hebrew/Aramaic ישוע yēšūʕ somehow got moved from the end of the word to the beginning. Christian Arabs generally prefer the more accurate يسوع yasūʕ. In any case, I'm looking at Grace Sturtevant Hopkins' "Indo European *Deiwos and Related Words", a whole book devoted to the roots dyew/deyw/diw, and she does not mention the name of Jesus. And of course the name of Jesus did not have any phonetic "d" like element at the beginning until the medieval period (in some Romance languages, and other languages influenced by such Romance languages, only)... AnonMoos (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2015

To be fair, there is very little interest for that. To say modern scholarship disagrees is kind of a cheap rebuttal. And it would take a lot to prove that "YHWH" can be transformed to "Jesus". People should stop implying "Hebrew" was the only "language" spoken in Canaan at the time. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you're trying to say. If you look at standard etymological reference works or extended scholarly linguistic monographs on Indo-European, they do not feel any need to pull in Semitic in order to explain the Indo-European stem dyew-/deyw-/diw- (original meaning probably something like "bright sky"); while if you look at standard Bibllical linguistic reference works, they do not feel any need to invoke Indo-European in order to explain a name composed of the Tetragrammaton divine name (possibly derived from a triconsonantal root meaning "to be") plus a root meaning basically "to save". This means that any proposal of an etymological connection between the two is a fringe hypothesis. AnonMoos (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation?

Meaning

I have one more question. Does the verb "dyeu" exist in the Indo-European language? I think "Dyeus" comes from this verb but I want to get more information about it.

deiwos

Is there any connection between "Dyeus" and "deiwos"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dakoto022016 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -- during at least some stages of proto-Indo-European the sounds [y] and [i] were allophones, as were [w] and [u]. So if you have a basic abstract phonemic root /dyw/, it could form the stem [diw] in zero ablaut grade, [deyw] or [deiw] in one form of "e" ablaut grade, and [dyew] or [dyeu] in another form of "e" ablaut grade... AnonMoos (talk) 16:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I still have a question. Which came first: "Dyeus" or "deiwos"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dakoto022016 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the two split off simultaneously, which is the implication of discussion above. The relevant point seems to be that 'deiwos' went on to form 'tiwas' in Celtic Europe whereas 'dyeus' formed deva but that the two words could have split a lot earlier so that therefore you can't postulate a connection between 'deva' and 'tiwas'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.227.30 (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deus = Jupiter?

The article states that the latin word "Deus" was originally used to address Jupiter. Can anyone give me more information about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dakoto022016 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the consonant sequence [dy] at the beginning of a word, the [d] was dropped in early Latin, leaving the [y] sound (spelled "I" or "J" in Latin). Something similar happened in ancient Greek, where nominative [dyew-s] became Ζευς, while genitive [diw-os] (with different ablaut grade) became Διος -- these were different case forms of the same noun/name... AnonMoos (talk) 16:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The -piter comes from phter, so dyeusphter with the d and s left out became yeuphter "Iupiter". Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 09:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your "phter" without diacritics or subscript is kind of a confusing transcription, since the "h" there is actually a notation for what is often called Indo-European schwa, and has nothing to do with aspirate "ph"... AnonMoos (talk) 03:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diaus

Dyeus is better reconstructed as Diaus. Which rings similar to "Allah, The Beneficient, The Most Compassionate". So this must be Adams original godconcept, that later versions simply are reiterations of. With early religion being about Ragnarok, Vàlhàll and Hél, as Judgement Day, Jannah, and Jahannam in The Quran. While the original religion was probably related to the Dispilio-artifact, (Adams fall), we only have The Quran today, in Arabic, as intact revelation. Which should be great for western scholarship to work on. In The Quran, Allah also is "Lord Of Dawn". Sky Letter (talk) 09:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... what? Wikipedia does not use original research all it does is cite and neutrally summarize professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic sources. Allah is a Semitic word, Dyeus is an Indo-European one. They're quite distinct. Norse paganism and Islam have historically had nothing to do with each other. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand some think they are distinct, but actual fact and research will clearly show otherwise. This is an ongoing discussion on the internet, with articles published by me, and as mainstream understanding grows, will be published as mainstream fact in typical media aswell. That can take some time though, I think this is clear and reasonable thinking enough. Welcome to the information age, Ian. I hope you will like it. Sky Letter (talk) 09:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just saying "actual fact and research" doesn't amount to anything. It is your responsibility to cite professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, otherwise you're just blowing hot air. Welcome to Wikipedia, we don't want your research. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These kinds of regressive attitudes surely don´t make popups about monetary support to Wikipedia very sensible. I find you are being regressive, uneducated and failing to scientifically understand that such a pheomena that I speak about MUST happen at ~-5200BC for civilization to begin. A fully featured religion, like that of Islam. Or Devotion, or what the most fitting translation would be. Devout would even be related to Diaus, linguistically. If one fails to understand this, because one likes wooden idols, associated by regressive elements in various cultures, that is a major stumbling block to the development of sound and scientific thinking. If that type of thinking is not relevant at wikipedia, how is anything here relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sky Letter (talk • contribs) 12:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to be paying attention. What part of "cite professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic sources" and "Wikipedia does not use original research" do you not understand? This is not a chat forum. If you are not here to abide by the site's policies, find another site. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, personal attacks are not allowed. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, this is not a personal attack. You seem to be using phrases for your own polytheistic sympathies, and I am sending this as an example to wikipedia, to why I find wikipedia regressive, and not at all far from some kind of "geek" facism, trying to control information, for the most feeble reasons, and not at all any reliable information instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sky Letter (talk • contribs) 12:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that must be some amazing education of yours if it left you with absolutely no sources to cite. And you have no idea what my sympathies are. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pltwih2 Méh2ter

I've removed the mention of a *Pltwih2 Méh2ter due to it still not being sourced despite the citation needed tag having been there for over one and a half years. It sounds plausible enough but at the same time feels like it was merely a personal theory. As for why I'm deleting it instead of waiting for additional sources, try a Google search for "Pltwih2 Méh2ter" or "Pltvi Mhter" (used in an earlier version). The only results are from web pages that directly copy from this very Wiki page (illustrating that it does not, in fact, exist in any other sources) and will continue to do so. It's better to remove the whole mention before this dubious claim spreads further. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 11:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this source will work, as the goddess was unsighted since 2004, but I have found she is mentioned in this, excerpts from a 2016 conference in Zagreb, Croatia, hosted by the Institute of Archaeology. --173.0.251.59 (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:*Dyēus&oldid=924099032"