Talk:*H₂éwsōs

"Commonplace mainstream assertions"

When officious censors come to harass us about commonplace mainstream assertions that aren't "documented or that are "original research" elsewhere in Wikipedia, let us recall this entry! --Wetman 08:31, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Do you think there should be references? If so, you're probably right. RickK 08:34, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's a "commonplace mainstream assertion" (try google...), but rather a trivially accepted reconstruction among Indo-Europeanists. The stub doesn't do much more than connect the various other articles of Dawn goddesses at present, of course, but it has potential, and should definitely be expanded. dab (ᛏ) 09:02, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Myth"

Just a thought, but since the Asatru still follow traditional Norse beliefs, shouldn't the word "MYTH" be removed? I would think that was as offensive as me rewtriting all Christian articles and calling Jesus a myth...(hope I did this right, could only comment with the edit button unless I missed something!)Mindwarper06 (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Sections or list?

To get PIE articles up to standard, we're going to need to produce a list or a set of individual sections to discuss the entities from the folklore record used by scholars to reconstruct the article's subject. I'm thinking a list format may be the wisest means of approaching this, as it'll be the most inclusive and most approachable for readers. We can then get into details about the specific entities on their respective pages. Any opinions on this? :bloodofox: (talk) 19:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Rewritten article

I have rewritten article and cleaned up all the speculative nonsense introduced by the banned User:Falconfly. See banning discussion here. Azerty82 (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Hausos as the opener of the gates of Heaven

A Celtic toponym is an exact cognate to the poetic phrase "Heaven's doors" or "Gates of Heaven": the ancient name of the French city of Metz, Divodurum Mediomatricum. Problem is, I cannot seem to find a reliable source that attest the imagery in Celtic mythology.

OCS/Slavic *(j)utro and PIE h2ewsos

This paper argues for the Slavic word jutro (morning) to be cognate to PIE hausos: https://www.academia.edu/38174201/Old_Church_Slavonic_j_utro_Vedic_u%E1%B9%A3%C3%A1r-_daybreak_morning_ 179.218.212.120 (talk) 02:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

As long as it has been published by a reliable source (respected authors, editors, publishing houses, or journals, etc.), it can be added to the article (in this situation to the other propositions along with Albanian (h)yll). It's clearly the case for this article, so it can be added with no issue! Alcaios (talk) 09:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Another descendant of *Hausos in the Latvian tradition?

Here is the article that mentions that Austra and Mara may be descendants in Latvian: https://www.academia.edu/40090976/Lh%C3%A9riti%C3%A8re_lettone_de_lAurore_indo-europ%C3%A9enne 2804:14D:5CE7:8E72:A589:244D:37DB:E81 (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Name?

Why is she named "Hausōs"? It looks like it is based on *hₐéusōs but then why isn't it "Haéusōs"? Sławobóg (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

hₐ is used by a minority of scholars who reconstruct a fourth laryngeal h₄ (hₐ is not a sound in its own way, it stands for either h₂ or h₄ – see Laryngeal theory#Additional Laryngeals). *h₂éwsōs is the most common form, with the initial "a-colouring" laryngeal. Both Hausōs and Haéusōs are "wrong" in a sense (we wouldn't need the laryngeal theory otherwise). Those "romanized" form should be used only for the title, and h₂éwsōs anywhere else in the article. Alcaios (talk) 00:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I see, but my point is that in article name "é" is missing. Is there reason for it? Article was created in 2004 with reconstruction *h₂aus-os- (é missing) and I guess that is why author named article Hausos but today everyone is reconstructing goddess name with "é". Sławobóg (talk) 08:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any issue if we rename the article (scholars don't use Hausōs anyway but h₂éwsōs, hₐéwsōs or a similar variant). I think héusōs or héwsōs is the best solution since the other Wikipedia articles about Proto-Indo-European gods indiscriminately render h₁, h₂ or h₃ into "h".Alcaios (talk) 12:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I translated the article to Polish and I wanted to be sure if I named it correctly because it is different than other articles and never saw that name in any work. I think a name change would be good as its current name is based on a bad/outdated? reconstruction and every other article name is just "romanized" form of main reconstruction (Perkwunos < *perkʷunos, Dhéǵhōm < *dʰéǵʰōm). But which form should we use? Sławobóg (talk) 12:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The reconstruction *Hausōs was used by Gamkrelidze & Ivanov (1984) according to Bomhard[1] (btw he has been criticized for using obsolete forms to reconstruct his [controversial] "proto-Nostratic" lexicon), but all modern dictionaries I have read use the form *h₂éwsōs/hₐéwsōs (see the bibliography section of the article for the refs). Since "romanized" forms are not used by scholars (who understandably prefer to give the most precise reconstruction possible), I think we should follow the other articles and rename the article héwsōs (< h₂éwsōs/hₐéwsōs). Alcaios (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I think there is some error? At the begining article mention *hₐéwsōs reconstruction and reffers to Mallory & Adams (2006) but in both their books they reconstruct her name as *hₐéusōs - there is "u" instead of "w". Sławobóg (talk) 08:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes my fault, this is a typo I had introduced when I normalized the spelling back then, although -éws- and -éus- are just variant spellings of the same cluster of sounds (as in dyēws/dyēus/diēus/etc.) Alcaios (talk) 11:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for my absence. I think you should rename article now. I would also update begining of the lead to "H₂éwsōs or Hₐéusōs" - what do you think? And what about name on other languages? I can change on pl. Sławobóg (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I have changed the name of the article and added the variant names as you suggested. Names in other languages can be changed too, we just need to also adapt the name within the article. Thank you for your contributions! Alcaios (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Why was the subscript ₂ not included in the name? As has been pointed out, h₂éwsōs is the most common form of the name, nobody writes it with just h. The letter H is used in PIE to indicate an unknown laryngeal, but here the laryngeal is definitely known. Rua (mew) 17:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I would have included the subscript in the name (it is the best solution). It'll lead to issues if we use <sub"> tags in the name, but if it works with the unicode ₂, then let's add it. WP:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS allows that if there's a redirect available (which is the case). I'm going to try. Alcaios (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, as I predicted, the subscript doesn't appear as such in the name. I'm waiting for your propositions, regards Alcaios (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. Rua (mew) 17:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

The subscript works everywhere (tab, internal link) except on the article title itself. Not perfect but still the best solution indeed. Alcaios (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I've done the same for Dʰéǵʰōm and asked Dyeus to be redirected to Dyēus (instead of the other way around). Alcaios (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

It should really be dyḗws to be consistent with the notation in our other PIE articles, including now this one. Rua (mew) 17:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. Not having it subscripted makes title feel misleading and having subscripted title makes it look and feel bad. Sławobóg (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

As said above -ew- is the same as -eu-, but indeed it could be changed to dyḗws for consistency. I'm not sure about subscript in the title, perhaps we should wait for other opinions. Alcaios (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Probably I found solution for this: {{Correct title}}. How about changing name of the article to H2éwsōs and then using this template like that? Sławobóg (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Eyesnore: Why did you rename the page? Rua (mew) 20:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Rua: The previous title used the special character ₂ (U+2082) instead of the digit 2 (U+0032). The digit could then be used for subscripting. The use of formatting special characters is discouraged per WP:MOSNUM. Instead, use subscripts. Eyesnore 20:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

The problem can be solved with {{DISPLAYTITLE:h₂éwsōs}} after moving the page. Eyesnore 20:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

But the character ₂ is used throughout the PIE pages on Wikipedia, as well as on Wiktionary. This rename makes the title inconsistent with all of the content. Rua (mew) 08:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Why is the accent of the main reconstructed form on the initial syllable? In the earliest forms of both Sanskrit and Greek (the only languages that directly preserve accent) it is on the second syllable, and Beekes reconstructs it as such. Is the assumption that the -e- grade of the root would have been accented? But which source actually shows this? Johundhar (talk) 10:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Renmants of Zora-djevojka in Eastern European folktales?

It has come to my attention that an Eastern European fairytale may contain infomration about the Slavic Dawn Maiden: 1) In the book "The Kingdom Under the Sea and Other Stories", by British author Joan Aiken (first published in 1971 and reprinted 2003), a story titled "The Reed-Girl" mentions the encounter of the main protagonist and a figure translated as "Zora-djevojka". (https://books.google.ht/books?id=45JDDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=zora&f=false)

2) The tale seems based on an earlier story, titled The Reed Maiden, collected by Jeremiah Curtin, in the 19th century (https://archive.org/details/mythsandfolktal00curtgoog/page/n492/mode/2up).

3) Jeremiah Curtin indicated its source as a compilation of Hungarian fairytales by one Laszlo Merenyi, published in 1861. (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/39386/39386-h/39386-h.htm#Page_35).

What is *interesting* about the story is that it contains epithets like "Daughter of the Sun" and "Beauty of the Skies"; association with the common colors of Indo-European imagery of the Dawn (silver, golden, copper, purple), mention of Dawn and the protagonist navigating on a boat.

In the original Hungarian tale, she is called "Hajnal", meaning "Dawn". It appears that the Dawn in Hungarian mythology is not a "daughter", but a "mother".

To my mind, it could indicate the presence of the Dawn Maiden in Eastern European mythology, besides Baltic and Russian sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.218.91.213 (talk) 02:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Sister of Sun and Moon?

I noticed that Zorya, Eos, Aurora and possibly Baltic Dawn/Venus gods are siblings to Sun and Moon, Ushas is also listed with Indra, Agni and Soma. Is there any reconstruction of this? Sławobóg (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Prussian counterparts of Ausrine and Aus(t)ra?

A 1865 Polish-language treatise has a section about "spis bogów zmudzkich i litewskich", something like "List of Gods of Samogitia [Zmudz] and Lituhuania". It lists Auska (variation Aussra) and, in a footnote, mentions "Prw. Oster, Asturija" (Prw - prussików, Prussian). Has there been any follow-up on this since then?

The book: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=6as9AAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=pt-BR&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false pp. 458-459, footnote 9. 189.122.57.144 (talk) 00:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Auseklis as a *male* god?

Hello, Alcaios. It has come to my attention that Auseklis may, in fact, not be a female deity, but a male god that represents the morning star. The first piece of information came through an edition by ip user 80.89.73.182, on Auseklis article. I looked further into the matter and it seems he was a male god, as per studies by Elza Kokare and Marija Gimbutas (which I added to Auseklis and "Divine Twins" articles). However, on Gimbutas's book I used for reference, she does refer that Auseklis may appear as a female deity when he is described in the dainas as weaving silk clothes for Saule. Regardless, the general information I gathered was that Auseklis, like Meness, woos Saules meita (the daughter of the female sun in Baltic).189.122.57.144 (talk) 03:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to answer your message. I'm not sure about the gender of Auseklis. I need to check the (primary and secondary) sources. It's possible that Auseklis appears either as a male or as a female deity depending on the Latvian source, but from what I can see in the Jonval, Auseklis is referred to as "he" ("il" in French). Alcaios (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

In the tale Gimbutas is mentionning, "Auseklis is in Germany / *He* wove cloths for Saule" as per Jonval, which is the reference book for the Latvian dainas. But it's possible that she's referring to a variant of this tale; I'm not an expert on Latvian mythology. Alcaios (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:EXTRAORDINARY, WP:UNDUE, off-topic additions

I have removed an addition on the etymology of Aphrodite on the grounds that it is off-topic, WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim, WP:UNDUE, with weak sourcing bordering on [[[WP:FRINGE]] territory. Specifically:

• The material is first of all off-topic. According to the scientific literature, Aphrodite is a fertility goddess of Semitic origin, separate and unrelated to the Indo-European dawn divinity. Even if we accept the claim that Aphrodite usurped Eos' place as the dawn divinity in later years, this article is simply not the place to go into a detailed explanation of the etymology of Aphrodite. This article is about the Indo-European dawn divinity, and nothing more. Devoting a detailed 2kb+ explanation tot he etymology of Aphrodite is a whopping case of WP:UNDUE.

• The author's claim that "Aphrodite" originates from Albanian is an exceptionally strong claim that contradicts academic consensus. The consensus position is that, like the goddess herself, the name is of Semitic origin (West 2000 [2], Beekes 2009 [3]). Even an Indo-European etymology is rejected, let alone something as specific as Albanian. Note that the author's claim is not that "Aphrodite" is cognate or connected to something in Albanian (which could be plausible, if only due to geographic proximity), but that it originates from Albanian, a very strong claim. The worship of Aphrodite is attested as early as the 8th century BC and likely goes back much further. The Albanian language is not attested until over two millennia later.

• The source itself is a very recent conference proceedings (not a full peer-review journal), of unclear peer-review, if any. The author is a doctoral student with a thin publication record (4 conference proceedings, 0 journal papers [4]). The publication itself is very recent (it literally came out two days ago), and has not yet been evaluated by the scientific community.

• The author's speculation about the worship of Aphrodite spreading from Phoenicia to Illyria is ahistorical and contradicts all the known literature. Aphrodite was supposedly born near Paphos, on Cyprus (also known as the Isle of Aphrodite), at Petra tou Romiou (supposedly). Cyprus was the main zone of contact between the Greek and Phoenician worlds, so it stands to reason that worship of Aphrodite entered the Greek world started in Cyprus. The author's claim that worship of Aphrodite started in far-away Illyria, then spread to Greece, and last of all to Cyprus via an extremely circuitous route, is very hard to take seriously.

To sum up, we have an a very strong and unusual claim that contradicts mainstream scholarship, sourced to a less than ideal source, that doesn't even belong in the article in the first place. This type of etymological claim is very common on internet forums (it reminds me of stuff like this [5] about the name "Alexander" supposedly having a similar origin), but has no place here. This is a medium visibility article, and the standard for inclusion should be high. Any major controversial major inclusion, such as this, needs to be decided by community consensus. If the usual attempts to ram this material into the article with brute force are made, I will vigorously seek intervention from the listed wikiprojects and other noticeboards. Khirurg (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Walhaz which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

reorganization based on descendant rather than shared qualities

presently, the article is nigh unreadable to me because it jumps back and forth between different descendant deities and traditions, it feels like it would be much easier to group prose by each culture, the compare and contrast would be much more natural. Remsense诉 16:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Japanese Dawn Goddess

Rasteem, you restored a removal in this edit: [6]. I saw the edit too, and on the one hand, I don't think th eIP had read the source, which is quite long and has significant discussion that seems to back up the claim as we have it. But, on the other hand, there is a very good question wether any of this is relevant to an article on the reconstructed PIE deity. The source only mentions Vedic tradition, and although you can say that is ultimately derived from the posited god (presumably), it is not clear why one person's view of the influence of one branch tradition on one other is particularly notable. More to the point, it appears to be a synthesis of sources to imply a PIE influence when the paper only talks about Vedic influence. And that is before we get into questions of whether "according to x" style inclusions are due. Thoughts? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Sirfurboy, Thanks for the ping! I haven't reviewed the sources yet, but I reverted the IP's changes as they didn't adhere to Neutral Point of View and blanked sourced content from several related pages. If I made a mistake, please feel free to fix it. ®asteem Talk 23:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. As it does indeed look like one of a number of drive-by edits by an IP with a POV, I'll take my time before making any changes. The legacy section of this article was added by Alcaios in 2019 in this edit [7], and expanded by them over time. Initially it only contained a sentence and reference to the Witzel paper in question [8]. The paper is an academic work of comparative mythology, and does posit a connection - a common source - between the Japanese and archaic Indian mythologies. It is an interesting piece and a good thesis, but one immediate concern I have is that it is the primary source for this claim. Our wikivoice correctly seeks to show that by saying "according to Michael Witzel..." but that is a red flag for single sourced primary claims. The whole legacy section is a bit like this. Wikipedia is not the place to list all the primary sources, and attempts to do so can show editor selection bias, or introduce contested or controversial claims. We should be relying on a secondary source that evaluates the legacy in the round. Are there such secondary sources? Hopefully Alcaios is still around to discuss this. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)