Talk:Proto-Indo-Iranian religion

There are more examples:

iranian Mah and sanskrit Mas (moon) iranian Rashnu and sanskrit Vishnu

else the iranian "Tvashtar" was Tashan and not Tishtrya/Tir.

Katha / Gatha both mean stories or tales

Reversal of positive and negative divinities

There's no mention that in Avestan daeva is negative and ahura positive, while in Sanskrit deva is positive and asura negative (roughly speaking)... AnonMoos 16:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, with respect to religion, its not appropriate to compare languages - one has to compare texts. In an Indo-Iranian context, the comparison is between the Vedas (the RigVeda in particular) and the Old Avestan texts (the Gathas and the Yasna Haptangaiti). Sanskrit was a living language well into the common era, and the ideas expressed in classical Sanskrit are far removed from those of the Vedas.

Second, ...

"there's no mention that in Avestan daeva is negative" is a generalization only applicable to the post-Gathic texts. In the Avesta daeva always has a negative connotation and ahura always has a positive one. That daeva in Zoroastrian tradition does not have quite the same meaning as in the earliest texts is a different matter: In Zoroaster's revelation (which are Old Avestan texts), the daevas are wrong gods, or false gods, or gods that should not be followed, but they are not per-se evil entities as they are in the later texts (e.g. the Vendidad)
Likewise, "in Sanskrit deva is positive and asura negative" is a generalization only applicable to the newest Sanskrit texts. In Vedic cosmogony, the asuras are the older gods while the daevas are the younger ones. The older gods preside over moral phenomena, while the younger ones preside over physical ones (i.e. the younger gods are identified with aspects of the created universe). In the RigVeda there is still a distinction between asuras, devas, and asuras-who-became-devas. In the post-Vedic but older Sanskrit texts, an asura is a non-daeva, or one in conflict to the daevas. The assignation of "bad" to asura is only evident in the very newest texts.

-- Fullstop 08:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Pandemonium Kortoso (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source

Here's the source from which this article was apparently copied: Lambert M Surhone, Mariam T Tennoe, Susan F Henssonow VDM Publishing, Dec 22, 2010 - 132 pages

Or at least large portions of it.

-Kortoso (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See VDM Publishing § Wikipedia content duplication. Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 11:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Style question

Is the *word style used to designate an Indo-Iranian word? I don't think this is within Wikipedia:Manual of Style. ~Technophant (talk) 06:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a standard linguistic style to demarcate a hypothetical construction of a usually extinct language. See Asterisk#Historical_linguistics Kortoso (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surhone, Tennoe, Henssonow

Sources written by Surhone, Tennoe, Henssonow need to be double checked (and possibly deleted) as per VDM Publishing § Wikipedia content duplication. Ihaveacatonmydesk Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

These two articles cover the same topic and should be merged. Have no preference as to which article title is used, but there should only be one. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Proto-Indo-Iranian religion has now been merged to Indo-Iranians. Krakkos (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]