Re: hezbollah's etymo

"Yusuf B Gursey" <ybg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1153699748.751495.125510@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE166.html

Happy to get closed. I also found this (Oxford English Dictionary) :

"The ulterior etymology is disputed. Apart from the unlikely hypothesis of
adoption from some foreign tongue, the OTeut. *guðom implies as its
pre-Teut. type either *ghudho-m or *ghutó-m. The former does not appear to
admit of explanation; but the latter would represent the neut. of the
passive pple. of a root *gheu-. There are two Aryan roots of the required
form (both *g,heu, with palatal aspirate): one meaning ‘to invoke’ (Skr.
hū), the other ‘to pour, to offer sacrifice’ (Skr. hu, Gr. χέειν). Hence
*g,hutó-m has been variously interpreted as ‘what is invoked’ (cf. Skr.
puru-hūta ‘much-invoked’, an epithet of Indra) and as ‘what is
worshipped by sacrifice’ (cf. Skr. hutá, which occurs in the sense
‘sacrificed to’ as well as in that of ‘offered in sacrifice’). Either of
these conjectures is fairly plausible, as they both yield a sense
practically coincident with the most obvious definition deducible from the
actual use of the word, ‘an object of worship’. "

What is amazing and wonderful for me is that a possible origin is
‘to invoke’ (Skr. hū), or, as Köbler writes, 'rufen, anrufen' ( call)
This is next to "In principio erat Verbum ", "Εν αρχή ην ο Λόγος",
say, to conceive divinity related to Word.

Better I raise: does Lógos deal somehow with terminologies we are talking
about?


.

Quantcast