Talk:*Dyēus

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)

as ""Óne Without Company" it is exactly the one of Adam, in our language.

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)

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)

---

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

---

(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)

2023

Well, they are related. Dyeus is represented as a triangular symbol with dot inside on the dispilio tablet. ( https://i.postimg.cc/T3DQ5qVZ/Dyeus-symbol.png ) "Ea" (kept in arabic as an S symbol), is a later variation, probably for a different script. They both ban amanita. The text on this page seems to miss the point though, and later is loaded with lore. And while Dyaus and Dyeus page states it means "daylight sky" rather it is The Deity. And YHWH must mean Ea if anything, as in hallelu-ea. Remember that The Bible is syncretic and uncritically imports from other scripts, that again may be imports themselves. Devote9000 (talk) 12:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about, but it's not linguistic etymology. AnonMoos (talk) 18:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

French?

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

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)

The article says that Latin deus is based on *deiwos not *dyeus. -- pne (talk) 14:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

But these were allophones in PIE, yes? 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:C85D:C496:D601:706E (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The standard conventional proposals are listed at wikt:θεός#Etymology... AnonMoos (talk) 02:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

"Jesus"?

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

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)

lol, I think the unsigned user just got owned.80.203.20.94 (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I like the Jesus-YHWH connection but this conundrum was a creation of the renaissance and is generaly believed to be post-hoc specious. If Jesus was Jesus, then his "personal name" was a Hebrew to Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English translation of the well-attested Hebrew personal name, "Yeshoua" or "Yehoshuwah." We would recognize him as Joshua, who succeeded Moses as leader of his people many centuries before 1000 bc., or bce., or bcev. ("before the common or vulgar era.")

Yehoshua is related to the Hebrew word Yeshouvah which means something like "saving." Yes, Joshua saves! But it is a Semitic word and therefore an unlikely candidate for PIE cognate status, although such borrowings are not completely unheard of.

Many centuries later, in the 1500's European renaissance, Western christians became re-interested in studying the bible in its original languages. This developed into a whole subgenre of "christian qabalah" in which it was "deduced" that Yeheshua or Jesus "in zee oll-iginal," as the Rabbi used to say, was, or could be, spelled, YHShWH, or spelled out, Yod-Heh-Shin-Vav-Heh. This must be, they concluded, a special word related to YHWH. This sort of material re-entered the culture, or subculture, by being repeated in the side-lectures in the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, from whence it has been repeated to the curious but uninitiated. And by "uninitiated" I mean those who know a little more Hebrew than you, but not nearly as much as they should.

Yeheshua in Hebrew is spelled, Yod-Heh-Shin-Vav-Ayin, which adds up to 381, not the desired 326, but this is not the time to go into gematria, whether precise or -- no offense since I think you are repeating something you read -- sloppy-style qabalah, except to show that in this case it doesn't work. Those who "believe" will do so anyway, which they are free to, and which may be appropriate for the freewheeling discussions of a talk page, but, as I hope I have argued effectively, has no place on the actual Page itself.

But keep trying!

<{: )}>

BaalShemRa (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

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)

As discussed above, reliable sources disagree with you. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

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)

Oh You did it! And with a Hebrew Font to boot! As the man said, "I'm with yew fellers."

<{: )}>

BaalShemRa (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

If you don't mind, please see above. I think I addressed many of these same issues. In fact, it turns out that it is frighteningly easy to transform YHWH into Jesus. It's just that the people who do so are wrong.

In fact there's an even easier way to connect the Name of the christian saviour to the Cognate sky-gods. Just say:

In Spanish, Jesus is pronounced "Hey, Zeus!"

Now, technically, this is true.

But it wouldn't make you right.

<{: )}>

BaalShemRa (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Is is only Hey, Zeus if you cannot make the Spanish Je sound. As when they are laughing "je je je je" (ask a Spanish friend to pronounce this). 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:C85D:C496:D601:706E (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

• So, how do you pronounce Dyeus? I immediately though of "Die-US", but is it the right pronunciation of the name? Any answer is appreciated :) –– 90.231.152.181 (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • One syllable: 'd' as in "do"; 'y' as in "yet"; long "ē" as German "eh"; "u" as the second half of German "au"; voiceless "s" (hiss, not buzz). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Meaning

• What does "Dyeus" mean? Is the name related to some verb or noun from Proto-Indo-European language? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dakoto022016 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Its basic meaning is "the bright daytime sky". It is Common Indo-European. Its plural may heave meant "days". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Edited - discussion useless. Suggesting The Dewa, reflecting cultural and written form changes since then, so it gains the necessary contemporary meaning. Senseless versions of Dyeus with specials signs or not, is outdated. (obviously). "The Dewa has no company" though, fits the now typical monotheistic teaching.

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)

I don't know if this source will work, as the goddess was uncited 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)

Hyphenation and capitalization

Could "Daylight-Sky-God"[sic] be replaced by "god of the daylight sky" (a more usual form in English)? AnonMoos (talk) 09:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

No, since Dyeus was not the god of the daylight sky, but the daylight-sky conceived as a deity, as explained in the article. Regards, Azerty82 (talk) 09:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think your punctuation conveys to most readers what you want it to convey... AnonMoos (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean? If 'sky-god' is an acceptable form in English, why 'daylight-sky-god' could not be so? I'm open to suggestions, but 'god of the daylight sky' cannot be used; it is misleading since the PIE mythology is founded on a resisting animistic substrate. Azerty82 (talk) 12:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I have replaced it with 'daylight-sky god'. Azerty82 (talk) 12:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

That looks better, thanks. AnonMoos (talk) 23:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Dagda (Celtic reflex of *Dyeus) as a god of storms?

A source that discusses the role of Dagda in the Celtic pantheon:

Raydon Valéry. Le Dagda, dieu de l'orage du panthéon irlandais ? Un écueil du comparatisme interceltique. In: Dialogues d'histoire ancienne, vol. 39, n°1, 2013. pp. 75-105. www.persee.fr/doc/dha_0755-7256_2013_num_39_1_3820 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.218.212.120 (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Reflex of *Dyeus in Armenian?

It has come to my attention that a recent article from Professor Hrach Martirosyan (who proposes Ayg as a reflex of *Haeusos) has suggested that Urartian Sun god Shivini may be a borrowing from Hittite language.

Source: Martirosyan, Hrach (2019), “Traces of Indo-European ‘Father Sky, God’ in Armenian”, in U. Bläsing, J. Dum-Tragut, T.M. van Lint, editors, Armenian, Hittite, and Indo-European Studies: A Commemoration Volume for Jos J.S. Weitenberg (Hebrew University Armenian Studies; 15), Leuven: Peeters, pages 195–19600:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14D:5CE7:8E72:C15D:CA7C:27B9:E2DC (talk)

Tiwaz and the Proto-Germanic evidence.

Sorry no links but I know just from nomenclature and linguistic evidence that "Tiwaz" is Proto-Germanic and Proto-Norse and his name means and is cognate with Dyaus-Zeus-Jupiter et al. Primitive Tiwaz became Tiw in England and Tir in Iceland and Tyr in Germania. The evidence based on names alone seems no less strongly "speculation-but-highly-probable" as the rest of the " * " ("unattested") information here, submitted for the other PIE cognate deities.

His name, Tiwaz, appears as the Rune of the same name in the Elder futhork, which is not speculation or original research or fringe pseudo-history but good, solid widely available and accepted scholarship. (I don't mean to sound defensive but I want to cut off possible attacks before they hatch.) He is said to be the only Norse God who has His own eponymous Rune, Tiwaz, like a bow-roofed T or like His sacred Spear. His ancientry makes him a proper candidate for being a full fledged member of this cognate clan of Iron age sky-fathers. It is true that he is less well-known than some but that is because many of his attributes were taken over by fascinating newcomer, Wotan-Odinn, father (of thor and others,) husband (of Frigg,) and master of wisdom and Magick.

Tiwaz was a wounded lawgiver, Father God and dispenser of "right governance" and justice. He was superseded by Odinn as "father of the gods" but most modern historians of the subject believe that Odinn was a recent Anatolian or other import, whereas Tiwaz was PIE-stamp of approval ancient, of a generation with Varuna and the rest, and therefor "native" in the sense of going back as far as you care to go and beyond.

He did indeed as pointed out name our day of the week Tuesday ("Tiw's Day" ) as Odinn and Thor named Wednesday and Thursday, in an imperfect classical-Norse syncretism. (Thor would make a better Mars day War God and Tiw a Jove's day Father-sky-God in every respect except that Thor was also the Thunderer like Jupiter-Jove.)

If I can supply references is there any reason why Germanic Tiw-Tyr-Tiwaz cannot be made a member of this Pan-PIE Pantheon and not be relegated to "doubtful" status?

Thank you for your attention and time.2601:643:8403:9220:780B:2FB:B9E0:E77E (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, these words ARE all related!

Same topic, fresh start.

I don't understand any of this. The question seems to be, are these different Indo-European words that refer to Sky-gods, light, godliness, kingship, etc, related or are they not related? Zeus, Deus, Theos, dyaus-pitar, Jupiter, Tiwaz . . . I'm not arguing that they're related because they "look the same." I'm arguing that they are related because they ARE the same! Organically, by original vocabulary, in a manner that is reasonable, accepted, well-documented, fair, and should be readily accepted by any reasonable, skeptical, open-minded person.

Here is a quotation from the wikipedia page, Vrddhi (sorry no diacritic) on related words in, or derived from, sanskrit:

PIE *diw-, zero grade of *dyḗu-s "sky"→ *deyw-os "god, sky god" (Vedic devás, Latin deus, etc.)

It actually says that, on the web page! They are related through a common Sanskrit root!

Thoes is different from Deus, is different from Devas, is different from Zeus? No, they're not! Different, Greek roots, sure, different Latin ways searching out their derivations . . . but the G*^$#$forblasted Roots are Gossfer&*&%%$dammten related! The words are related, through their common Sanskrit Vriddhi! What more do you want?

Frankly, it completely baffles me why so many intelligent people wish to assert the opposite. Would be glad to learn, if such a good reason exists.

Sincerely and with respect,

<{: )}>

BaalShemRa (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

It is because people get funny and defensive about religion. In the real world stories behave much like words and languages, the split, go their own way, and remain related by descent (and in that sense "the same"). But you cannot tell a true believer that the story he chooses to believe in derives in such and such way from this earlier story, and so forth and so on. I could not get an Arab student to accept that Arabic has developed and evolved like any other natural language, and is related to Hebrew. Because, he says, the language of the quaran is the eternal language of God and the Djinns, never changing, and certainly nothing to do with Jews. People are like that. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:C85D:C496:D601:706E (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

What do you want to change exactly? Please be clear and concise. Alcaios (talk) 15:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

BaalShemRa -- Why do you include Greek "theos" in your list? It has a problematic consonant correspondence... AnonMoos (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

theós derives from *dʰ(e)h₁-s, "that who puts in place, create", hence a divinity. See Themis, Dharma, etc. PS: the article dharma gives a fake/absurd derivation from *dʰer-, with Rix (2001) as a reference. Of course it's not in Rix (2001) (see https://imgur.com/a/AXpr62g). I don't have the time to correct it. Alcaios (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 10 September 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move (non-admin closure) BegbertBiggs (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Dyeus → Dyēus – more appropriate title, the redirection should be the other way around, see WP:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS Alcaios (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Primefac (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Steel1943 (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

...And the article itself uses "Dyḗus", not and "Dyēus". Something is odd here, so moving this to full discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

(Updated per discussion below. Steel1943 (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC) )

@Alcaios: Ping nominator. Steel1943 (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

A survey of reconstructed forms in recent literature:

Beekes (2010): *Dieu-

De Vaan (2008): *Diḗus

Wodko et al. (2007): *Dj-éu-

Kloekhorst (2008): *Dieu-

Mallory & Adams (2006): *Djḗus

West (2007): *D(i)yéus

Lubotsky (2011): *Dieu-

As you can see, historical linguistics (which is a science, for the few people who still doubt it) is not in cause here. The reconstructions are very similar to each other and only differ slightly (n.b, i=j=y). Most linguists/philogists reconstruct the name as *Djḗus or *Djēus. (n.b. a reconstructed form ending with xx- means that the linguist remains prudent regarding the last consonant. That said, the attested forms Zeus, Dyáuṣ, dyaoš, Ζεύς, Diūs, šīuš, Zis, Zojz, etc. all lead to an ending -s.) Alcaios (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Steel1943 – Alcaios (talk) 16:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Alcaios: Okay, that brings us back to square one, considering you just stated "Most linguists reconstruct the name as *Djḗus or *Djēus.". So then, why are to showing preference to "Djēus" over "Djḗus" (per the way your move request is structured?) Steel1943 (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Note to closer: These edits happened after my aforementioned comment/inquiry. Steel1943 (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Because most of them agree that the second vowel is a long 'e' and ē is the intermediary form. My last addition is only a precision for people not familiar with linguistics. I'm waiting for opinions from other contributors. Alcaios (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

ps: contrary to what you stated in the first place Steel1943, the article uses Djēus. Only the lead uses Djḗus (ping: Hölderlin2019 for the change in the lead). Alcaios (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @Alcaios: Feel free to make the article consistent then since if the article is consistent throughout, I will not have a dog in the fight since linguistics are not my area of expertise in the least. (Grammar is a different story though, ha...) Steel1943 (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support renaming to Dyēus per above. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 09:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infobox

@Ffranc: why did you remove infobox? Your explanation doesn't make any sense. Where do you see any "biblical" thinking here? Succerssors mean continuators of PIE *Dyeus and it was correct because article is created that way and there was nothing misleading. Even author of this article agreed to this infobox. Sławobóg (talk) 13:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The infobox was for example unable to distinguish between etymological connections and connections between gods as mythological figures. This resulted in a very problematic field about "successors", based solely on etymology but giving the impression of a confirmed mythological and perhaps even devotional inheritance. {{Infobox deity}} can be useful for summarizing a particular cult, but in a broader article like this, based on myths and linguistic research, it will only create problems. The problematic parameters could be stripped out, but then there will be so little left that the infobox becomes meaningless; it just becomes a fixation that there has to be an infobox, whether or not it improves the article. Ffranc (talk) 13:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

An alternative could be to include a little bit of additional info in the image caption at the top. The image shows the daylight sky, so it wouldn't be too contrived to at least mention the meaning of the name there. Ffranc (talk) 13:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I added the name and translation to the image caption. Something more can possibly be shoehorned in, depending on what you think is important. It may also be worth considering a change of image, since the current one doesn't really show a steppe, but a (wheat?) field. There are many pictures of steppes to choose from at Wikimedia Commons. Ffranc (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

For the reasons highlighted by Ffranc, I think the infobox should not be readded to the page: Infoboxes on deities quite often simplify complex material to the point of misleading the reader, which is a disservice to the article's audience. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Jesus

I was reading this article and immediately thought about Jesus but I saw that it was already discussed above. Maybe it would be nice to include some information about the (lack of) connection? - Klein Muçi (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Dyeus comes from an Indo-European stem with alternate forms forms dyew-/deyw-/diw- etc. and an earliest ascertainable meaning "bright sky", while "Jesus" (a shortened version of "Joshua") contains a partial form of the Tetragrammaton YHWH (whose origin seems to be connected with verb roots meaning "to be" in Hebrew) plus a verb form whose third radical consonant is a voiced pharyngeal (a type of consonant which does not occur in Indo-European languages). Nothing on the Semitic side suggests a connection with the meaning "bright sky", while Grace Sturtevant Hopkins wrote a whole book on "Indo European *Deiwos and Related Words" and did not feel it necessary to mention the name of Jesus... AnonMoos (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

AnonMoos, yes, thank you. As stated, I've already read your answer. I am aware of false cognates however many other people may be not. A notice of some sort containing your answer, either on the article or on the talkpage may prove itself to be useful for these cases. -- Klein Muçi (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The short short summary is that the more linguistic expertise and knowledge of the subject someone has, the less likely they are to think that there's any etymological relationship between Zeus and Jesus. It's hard to find a citation for a scholar debunking a Zeus-Jesus connection, since scholars don't take the idea seriously in the first place. Otherwise, I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for. AnonMoos (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

AnonMoos: The short short summary is that the more linguistic expertise and knowledge of the subject someone has, the less likely they are to think that there's any etymological relationship between Zeus and Jesus. Yes, that's why we can put a paragraph of some sort, either here or on the article, explaining exactly that, for the people that lack such linguistic expertise and knowledge. After all, folk etymology is a real thing. That would clarify things up and if the said paragraph was put in the article instead of here, it could also lower the possibility for discussions such as the one we're having now to restart in the future. — Klein Muçi (talk) 07:43, 3 February 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)