Could the H in Jesus H. Christ be from Helios Christus?

[bob x]

The Sanskrit grta, s'urya, and the Avestan hware- or khware, and English grease were probably all developed from the same root.

Sanskrit ghr.ta is the same root as English grease; Sanskrit s'urya is the same root as Avestan hware (NEVER "khware") and English south. These two roots have nothing whatsoever in common.

And Keresa is not totally unrelated to hware

The crimson root has nothing more in common with the south root than either does with the grease root.

It's also akin to Iranian forms like Khor "sun"

Farsi khor means "eater".

I think that "down [to the river]" is the key here. Light "shines" down.

1. ghat is more commonly used for the paths UP to the mountains than for river-access. The meaning is STEPS.
2. Light is generally thought of as shining OUTWARD in all directions. Our words radiate and ray are from the Latin radius "spoke of a wheel; abstractly, a line drawn out from the center of a circle to any direction". In Sanskrit vikhshaen.a "to shine forth", the vi- "forth" prefix is cognate to English away.
3. Neither the grade root nor the shine root have any relationship to any other words for "down".

Tir is a later form of Tishtriya and both are akin to Sirius.

Sigh... I don't even know what you mean anymore by a term like "akin". To me, it means an ancestral relationship: that is, if you go back to more and more ancient forms, they start to look MORE (rather than LESS) alike. One might guess that Tir and Sirius looked alike, if Iranian "t" corresponds to Greek "s" (I know of not one single example of such a correspondence), but when you show that the earlier is Tishtriya which doesn't look like "Sirius" at all anymore...

I said "rained" or "sprinkled" down not "sprinkled oil" (see Zoroastrian Festivals )

You were claiming some connection to ghr.ta which is SPECIFICALLY to sprinkle OIL and nothing else. Your link on Zoroastrian festivals contains nothing at all to explain your bizarre claim that the Dog Star either "rains" or "sprinkles" anything, in anybody's belief-system: mid-summer is not, to say the very least, associated with extra "rain" in Iran.

Indo-Iranian is a reconstruction. It's possible that the "s > h" and the "g" descended from the same phoneme.

??? Absolutely not. Two phonemes which used to be different could start sounding the same, but if there is only one phoneme, it is not going to split into two, not the same way in dozens of different descendant languages scattered over two continents. English grease and south start with sounds that are nothing alike, because they were NEVER anything alike; if they'd been alike to begin with, they would still be alike. Greek khristos and sirius start with sounds that are nothing alike, because they were never alike. Sanskrit ghr.ta and s'urya start with sounds that are nothing alike, because they were never alike. Iranian khor and hware start with sounds that are nothing alike, because they were never alike.

The only language I know that is said to be older than Avestan is Hittite.

Every source in our earlier discussions, including the ones you posted yourself, agreed that Vedic Sanskrit is older than Gathic Avestan.

May not be a "preservation," Keresa, but definitely descended from the same root.

"DEFINITELY"??? You have not proposed any account of how it could POSSIBLY be the same root.

Maybe the semantics changed from Avestan to Greek from "Sun-shine" or "Kingly Glory" to "what keeps the fire burning," and then to "oil."

While the Germanics, who had split of thousands of years earlier, and were living thousands of miles away, and would not have any renewed cultural contact with either Greece or Iran for centuries yet, were JUST BY COINCIDENCE(???) using the same word to mean "oil" and nothing but "oil", just like the authors of the Vedas, off the other direction in India, were JUST BY COINCIDENCE using the same word to mean "oil", and nothing but "oil".

You have some totally bizarre notion of how things work. You think words shift pronunciation in totally arbitrary ways, keeping scarcely one letter in place, while shifting meanings from one vague and tenuous connection to another. No, the grease root has been as steady in meaning and pronunciation as the two root or the mother root or other famously stable words.

 

[mojobadshah]

Sanskrit ghr.ta is the same root as English grease; Sanskrit s'urya is the same root as Avestan hware (NEVER "khware") and English south. These two roots have nothing whatsoever in common.

According to Robert S.P. Beeks' A Grammar of Gatha-Avestan (pg. 15) xveng is the genitive of hvare. He says we find xv- and hv- thus xv- < hv- and lists forms xvar- and xvarenah.

Farsi khor means "eater".

khor does mean "eater" but khor means sun in Farsi too.

Sigh... I don't even know what you mean anymore by a term like "akin". To me, it means an ancestral relationship: that is, if you go back to more and more ancient forms, they start to look MORE (rather than LESS) alike. One might guess that Tir and Sirius looked alike, if Iranian "t" corresponds to Greek "s" (I know of not one single example of such a correspondence), but when you show that the earlier is Tishtriya which doesn't look like "Sirius" at all anymore...

see Tishtrya

You were claiming some connection to ghr.ta which is SPECIFICALLY to sprinkle OIL and nothing else. Your link on Zoroastrian festivals contains nothing at all to explain your bizarre claim that the Dog Star either "rains" or "sprinkles" anything, in anybody's belief-system: mid-summer is not, to say the very least, associated with extra "rain" in Iran.[/QUOTE]

"Tiregan, celebration to Tishtrya, the rains, on the 13th day of the 4th month (July 1)." - Zoroastrian Festivals

All wikipedia says is 'sprinkled' for the meaning of ghrta (see Ghee

??? Absolutely not. Two phonemes which used to be different could start sounding the same, but if there is only one phoneme, it is not going to split into two, not the same way in dozens of different descendant languages scattered over two continents.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean here, but I realize that I have been confusing Keresa with Khwarshēd. Nevertheless I don't see why [k] or [kh] couldn't have descended from [g].


Every source in our earlier discussions, including the ones you posted yourself, agreed that Vedic Sanskrit is older than Gathic Avestan.[/QUOTE]

Like which one?

From my understanding Gathic Avestan is more archaic than Vedic Sanskrit in several important ways. The first thing Beeks says in his preface is that Gathic "is even more archaic than Sanskrit in that it preserves systematically the PIE laryngeals." And I remembered why I thought Gathic was said to be dated to at least around the same time as the Mittani which you claimed was a West Iranian text. It's because the Indologists think that the Mittani was an Indo-Aryan text. According to another article I read Avestan is associated with the Andronovo period according to archeological evidence which would place Avestan as early as 1800 B.C.

"DEFINITELY"??? You have not proposed any account of how it could POSSIBLY be the same root.

While the Germanics, who had split of thousands of years earlier, and were living thousands of miles away, and would not have any renewed cultural contact with either Greece or Iran for centuries yet, were JUST BY COINCIDENCE(???) using the same word to mean "oil" and nothing but "oil", just like the authors of the Vedas, off the other direction in India, were JUST BY COINCIDENCE using the same word to mean "oil", and nothing but "oil".

You have some totally bizarre notion of how things work. You think words shift pronunciation in totally arbitrary ways, keeping scarcely one letter in place, while shifting meanings from one vague and tenuous connection to another. No, the grease root has been as steady in meaning and pronunciation as the two root or the mother root or other famously stable words.[/QUOTE]

Ok, ok. I gotta say though Khwarsheed and Khristos sound oddly similar and even came to signify almost the same idea. I think the source I got this hypothesis stated that "Helios Christus" may have been derived from "Keresa Khwarsheed" or something like that. It was a published pdf and no longer available. But I got a question: I know that the English have trouble pronouncing khan. They say kan. Is it possible that the Germans had trouble pronouncing [kh] and pronounced it [g] instead?

But while we're discussing the Xwarenah root. You think that there could be any relationship between this Avestan form and forms like crown, corona?

 

[bob x]

According to Robert S.P. Beeks' A Grammar of Gatha-Avestan (pg. 15) xveng is the genitive of hvare. He says we find xv- and hv- thus xv- < hv- and lists forms xvar- and xvarenah.

There are several sounds which get confused because Roman-based alphabets don't have enough distinctions:

1. There is a distinction between "aspirated" and "unaspirated" stops (the "stops" are k/t/p, or the voiced g/d/b, etc.) The "aspirated" are with a puff of breath expelled: in English the unvoiced stops are always aspirated at the beginning of a word before a vowel, but not in consonant cluster or later in the word ("king" has aspirated "k" but not "queen" or "working") and the voiced stops are never aspirated. So we don't even notice the distinction (it is called a "non-phonemic" distinction in English: that is, it never makes the difference between two words of different meaning), and tend to mis-hear unaspirated unvoiced stops in initial position as if they were voiced: the French say Paris with an unaspirated "p" so it sounds like "Bah-ree" to our ears. In Sanskrit, either voiced or unvoiced stops can be aspirated or not: "k", "kh", "g", "gh" are all distinct. In Chinese, the voiced stops do not exist: the old Wade-Giles system used apostrophe for the aspiration, which is also common when linguists write in phonetic alphabets (a small raised "h" is preferred for the aspiration when typographically available, but apostrophe will do); the more recent Pinyin system uses B/D/G for unaspirated P/T/K. Thus, the emperor who used to be K'ang Hsi in Pinyin is spelled Kang Xi while the word which in Wade-Giles was kung "team" in Pinyin is spelled gung (borrowed into English as gang and in the phrase gung ho "team spirit").

2. There are "fricatives" (gradually released sounds) as opposed to "stops"; "f" and "v" are the fricatives corresponding to "p" and "b", and "th" for "t" or "d"; but English has lost the "velar fricative" written in German as "ch"; and THIS is what Beekes means by "x" in this context. There is a distinction between "velar" (more toward the front of the mouth) and "uvular" (pronounced further back): in English, "king" is a velar sound, "queen" or "cool" an uvular sound, but the distinction again is non-phonemic (where the sound is pronounced just depends on what vowel follows). The velar fricative in German is called the ich sound: it is "mild", basically like a thicker "h"; English huge if pronounced with an exaggerated breathiness is approximately that sound. The uvular fricative in German is called the ach sound: it is more guttural, as if clearing your throat to spit.

Confusions arise with how to write these things. In Greek, the X letter chi was the aspirated "k" but traditionally written "ch" instead of "kh" in Roman script; in Russian, that same letter is used for the mild velar fricative, and that is how linguists usually employ it. In Hebrew, there are no aspirated stops, so "kh" is the velar fricative (written with the same kaph as the velar stop) while "ch" is the uvular fricative (written with a special letter cheth different from the qoph for the velar stop).

khor does mean "eater" but khor means sun in Farsi too.

Apparently "eater" is k'or (aspirated stop) while "sun" is xor (velar fricative), and the pronunciations would not be confused in most dialects; but Arabic-based script is no better than Roman for keeping this straight.

see Tishtrya

Thank you. What it says is that Tishtrya was originally Indo-Iranian with no connection to the Dog Star, only to summer rains (welcome, because rain is rare in that season); and that both the simplification to "Tir" and the association to the Dog Star arose from "conflation" with a Semitic name (conflation is what happens when people take two unrelated but vaguely similar words and think they are the same).

All wikipedia says is 'sprinkled' for the meaning of ghrta

I'm telling you a little more than wiki does.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean here, but I realize that I have been confusing Keresa with Khwarshēd. Nevertheless I don't see why [k] or [kh] couldn't have descended from [g].

It's not that it couldn't have; but if that did happen in one particular line of linguistic descent, it would happen systematically. The way to identify a phonetic shift is to show numerous examples of the same correspondence over and over.

From my understanding Gathic Avestan is more archaic than Vedic Sanskrit in several important ways.

And Vedic Sanskrit retains more archaic features than Gathic Avestan in MANY MORE important ways. As I told you before, when there are divergences, each will retain some of the older features which others will have changed: humans still have the original five digits per limb, while horses have reduced that; that doesn't humans are "more primitive" than horses.

According to another article I read Avestan is associated with the Andronovo period according to archeological evidence which would place Avestan as early as 1800 B.C.

You need to show me, or at least recall an author's name or something.

Ok, ok. I gotta say though Khwarsheed and Khristos sound oddly similar

They are about as alike as "quartz" and "creatures", or "borsht" and "British".

and even came to signify almost the same idea.

"Sunshine" and "oil-smeared"???

I think the source I got this hypothesis stated that "Helios Christus" may have been derived from "Keresa Khwarsheed" or something like that.

If the phrase "Helios Christus" ever existed at all, anywhere, then we might want to know where it came from.

But I got a question: I know that the English have trouble pronouncing khan. They say kan.

Actually, we DO aspirate the initial consonant in khan, just like it's supposed to be.

Is it possible that the Germans had trouble pronouncing [kh] and pronounced it [g] instead?

No.

But while we're discussing the Xwarenah root.

That's not the ROOT, it's a late derivation. The ROOT is *sur "south; noon; summer".

You think that there could be any relationship between this Avestan form and forms like crown, corona?

No. The initial consonant was a sibilant, and in no derivation is it a velar stop (in some Avestan derivatives it is a velar fricative, but that is not the same). The root of corona is like English curve, referring to the "circlet" shape; the Middle East preferred the "peaked hat" shape for royal headgear.

 

[mojobadshah]

There are several sounds which get confused because Roman-based alphabets don't have enough distinctions:

Apparently "eater" is k'or (aspirated stop) while "sun" is xor (velar fricative), and the pronunciations would not be confused in most dialects; but Arabic-based script is no better than Roman for keeping this straight.

Can you give me an example of an Greek word that has an velar fricative in the initial consonant position?

And Vedic Sanskrit retains more archaic features than Gathic Avestan in MANY MORE important ways. As I told you before, when there are divergences, each will retain some of the older features which others will have changed: humans still have the original five digits per limb, while horses have reduced that; that doesn't humans are "more primitive" than horses.

Where can I learn more about this? Is there a source that contrasts the Rig Vedic to the Gathic?

You need to show me, or at least recall an author's name or something.

Zoroaster's Time and Place

Actually, we DO aspirate the initial consonant in khan, just like it's supposed to be.

Can you give me example of an English word that has a velar fricative in the initial consonant position?

No.

Can you give me an example of a German word that has a velar fricative in the initial consonant position?

No. The initial consonant was a sibilant, and in no derivation is it a velar stop (in some Avestan derivatives it is a velar fricative, but that is not the same). The root of corona is like English curve, referring to the "circlet" shape; the Middle East preferred the "peaked hat" shape for royal headgear.

Are you sure about that, man??? The kharena was a circle shape too, a halo which is depicted as a kind of mythological royal headgear symbolizing "kingly glory."

 

[bob x]

Can you give me an example of an Greek word that has an velar fricative in the initial consonant position?

As I told you, Greek doesn't have the velar fricative at all: it uses X for the aspirated velar stop (although the Cyrillic alphabet for Slavic languages takes that same letter and uses it for velar fricative).

Where can I learn more about this? Is there a source that contrasts the Rig Vedic to the Gathic?

Haven't you been paying attention to the sources we've been over? Certainly the most prominent respect in which Vedic Sanskrit is "more archaic" than Avestan is that it preserves the initial sibilants which Avestan changes to "h" (or sometimes "x").

Zoroaster's Time and Place

This source doesn't say very much, and certainly nothing to support the position you were quoting it for.

Can you give me example of an English word that has a velar fricative in the initial consonant position?

English no longer uses the velar fricative at all.
Mongolian never had the velar fricative; khan begins with an aspirated velar stop, as correctly pronounced by English speakers.

Can you give me an example of a German word that has a velar fricative in the initial consonant position?

Chor, sounding much like the Farsi for "sun", but meaning "choir".

Are you sure about that, man??? The kharena was a circle shape too, a halo which is depicted as a kind of mythological royal headgear symbolizing "kingly glory."

It is not a physical hat, and not found on "kings" but on holy men. Zoroaster is depicted with a halo: he was not the king.

 

[bob x]

I was in error deriving Kali from the krasniy root, whose Indic reflex is actually Kr.shn.a "colorful" (which makes more sense anyway). Kali is the feminine of kala "dark; black" which might be more related to the root of color but I'm not sure. The name is not used for a distinctive goddess until about the 6th century CE.

On the original topic, I did not emphasize sufficiently that the Greeks do not use the H letter eta for the "h" sound at all-- anciently they did not bother to write "h" but later employed an apostrophe for it (not always consistently bothering to put it in), so Helios actually starts E or 'E. The eta was for a vowel something like "ay" in ancient times, but in medieval times becoming an "ee" indistinguishable from a long iota; that vowel did not occur in Helios but did in IHCOYC Iesous

 

[Quahom1]

Wikipedia says the origins of the H in Jesus H. Christ are obscure. Could the H. be derived from the word Helios? And what is the Helios Christus exactly? I recall an online publication of a pdf. that connected the phrase Helios and Christus to the Zoroastrian Hvare khshaeta "sun shine" (as in Yima Khshaeta with his Hvarena or Khwarena "halo") which contracted to MPer. Khwarshēd and then to NPer. Khurshid "sun shine" which is a common name among Persians.

See Hvare-Khshaeta and Khurshid

According to the footnotes here

Zend Avesta

Keresaska was applied to Christians as if Keresa (which may also be akin to Khwarshēd) were the name of Christ.

The Greek Khristos "anointed" looks like it could be a contraction of Khwarsheed if it weren't for -os part of the word. Is that an affix or what?

Jesus' last name is not "Christ". "Christ" is a title, not a surname. H stands for Hell/Heaven, a joke/slant on the whole of Jesus' position in our time and what he came/comes to do. And H. was not his middle Initial (or any variation of it), as he had none (not the custom of the time to have a middle name).

Jesus according to many was called Yeshua bar Abba (s). That means "son (of) the Father". He wasn't called Yeshua bar Yousiph (son of Joseph) except once, but he was often referred to as Yeshua bar Miriam (son of Mary).

You could consider that "Yeshua bar Abba (s), is a "nick name" given Jesus after years of talking about the Father, while "Yeshua bar Yousiph bar...etc" would be considered his proper name for official Identification by the officials, and "Yeshua bar Miriam" would be an intimate name for identification as to whom he, or others called his mother...

Case in point:
Who is James Hickock ?
Who is Martha Jane Cannary Burke?
Who is Jes Woodson James?
Who is William Henry McCarty?
Who is Cassius Marcellus Clay, Jr?



Do you know of:

Wild Bill Hickock?
Calamity Jane?
Jesse James?
Billy the Kid?
Muhammad Ali?

 

[greymare]

I understand that this is a serious thread...... however, whenever someone says.."Jesus H Christ"........ I always thought they meant "Holy".... but then again, it could be Harold, Henry, etc....

 

[bob x]

I understand that this is a serious thread...... however, whenever someone says.."Jesus H Christ"........ I always thought they meant "Holy".... but then again, it could be Harold, Henry, etc....

Well the old joke is that his middle name is "Harold", you know, like in that song: "Hark! Harold's angels sing..."

 

[greymare]

LOL, ill definately use that one come christmas time. lol

 

[SoulFood]

I for one would never use this in reference, as I think it a negative term.