--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <no_re...@...> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" <shempmcgurk@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Okay, I have now seen John's subsequent posting on Maize
> > > in ancient times which answers a lot of my questions!
> >
> > Has it occurred to you to wonder why, if a Sanskrit term
> > that we were sure referred to maize was used in the Vedas,
> > the evidence cited for the existence of maize in ancient
> > India has to do with sculpture that appears to portray
> > maize, and the references to it in the Vedas aren't
> > mentioned at all?
>
> The beginning of the line in question seems to go like this:
>
> nivaarashuukavattanvii piitaa...
>
> (nivaara-shuukavat tanvii piitaa...)
>
> Vocabulary:
>
> nIvAra (niivaara) m. (ifc. f. %{A}) wild rice (sg. the plant ; pl. the
> grains) VS. S3Br. MBh. &c. ;
>
> zUka (shuuka) m. n. (g. %{ardharcA7di} ; derivation doubtful) the awn
> of grain R. Sarvad.
>
> The suffix -vat after 'shuuka' means 'like' (adv.
> 1. In the manner of being; as if. )
Must mean uncultivated rice, rather than "wild rice"
as we know it, which isn't actually rice, and which is
native to North America and China but not India.
But here's a picture of a rice field in India in which
the awns sure look yellow:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/14120...@n02/1692596580/
At any rate, I gather there's nothing to link the term
to maize. Thanks, card!
