Indo-European Poetry and Myth

With *dus-: AV 4. 17. 5 = 7. 23. 1 daús

̇

vapnyam

̇

daúrjı ̄vityam; 9. 2. 3 dus

̇

váp-
nyam ... duritám ca; Y. 49. 11 dusˇx sˇaθrə ̄ n
̇

g dusˇsˇ ́yaoθnə ̄ n

̇

g duzˇvacaŋho ̄
duzˇdae ̄nə ̄ n
̇

g dusˇmanaŋho ̄; Aesch. Ag. 746 δ3σεδρο κα? δυσο ́ μιλο.

With *n

̊

-: RV 1. 32. 7 apa ̄ ́d ahastó, cf. 1. 116. 5; 7. 6. 3; 8. 70. 11; 10. 37. 7, 39.
5; AV Paipp. 11. 1. 8; Il. 9. 63 α, φρτωρ α, θμιστο α, νστιο;Od. 1. 242
Eϊστο Eπυστο, 4. 788 Eσιτο Eπαστο; Hes. Th. 489 α, νκητο κα?
α, κηδ;Sigrdrífumál 19. 5–6óviltar oc óspiltar. The paired epithets applied
to Dawn in RV 1. 113. 13 ajára ̄mr ́
̇

ta ̄ (that is, ajára ̄ amr ́

̇

ta ̄), ‘unageing,
immortal’, correspond in sense, and partly in etymology, to the Homeric
α, θα ́ νατο κα? α, γραο (Il. 2. 447 α, γραον α, θανα ́ την τε).
With *pl
̊

hu-: RV 7. 73. 1 purudám

̇

sa ̄ purutáma ̄ pura ̄ja ̄ ́, cf. 6. 34. 2; 8. 5. 4, 8.
12, 93. 17; Yt. 13. 65 paoirı ̄sˇ pourusatå, paoirı ̄sˇ pouruhazaŋrå, paoirı ̄sˇ pouru-
bae ̄vano ̄;Il. 5. 613 πολυκτμων πολυλϊο; 9. 154 πολ3ρρηνε πολυβου


ται,
cf. Hymn. Dem. 31, Hes. fr. 70. 6; in Irish, ilchrothach ilgnúisech ilbrechtach,‘of
many forms, many faces, many spells’.^118
Other Vedic and Avestan examples include: RV 1. 47. 2 trivandhurén
̇

a
trivr ́
̇

ta ̄‘three-’, cf. 118. 2; 10. 94. 7 dás ́a ̄vanibhyo dás ́akaks

̇

iyebhiyo dás ́ayok-
trebhyo dás ́ayojanebhiyah
̇

dás ́a ̄bhı ̄s ́ubhyah

̇

‘ten-’; 8. 22. 12 vis ́vápsum
̇
vis ́váva ̄riyam‘all-’; 1. 113. 12 r
̇

tapa ̄ ́ r

̇

teja ̄ ́h

̇

‘right-’, cf. 7. 66. 13; 2. 21. 3
janabhaks
̇

ó janam

̇

saháh

̇

‘people-’; 8. 81. 2 tuviku ̄rmím

̇

tuvídes

̇

n

̇

am
̇
tuvı ̄ ́magham tuvima ̄trám‘strongly’; Y. 39. 3 yavae ̄jyo ̄ yavae ̄svo ̄‘of eternal life,
of eternal benefit’, cf. 4. 4, Yt. 19. 11.

Juxtaposition of opposed terms

In the collocations surveyed above, the words juxtaposed are grammatically
parallel and the ordering of syntactic elements in the sentence is not affected.
In what follows we shall be dealing largely with juxtapositions of words that
have different syntactic roles, especially of nouns or adjectives in different
cases. In unmarked discourse they would not necessarily stand side by side.
Their juxtaposition, which serves to emphasize the relationship between
them, is a stylistic choice; it is part of what makes the thing into a figure.
In the most basic type, two opposed terms –– often from the same root, but
one with the negative prefix –– are set together in different cases. Interaction
between immortals and mortals is often so pointed up in the pagan litera-
tures: RV 1. 90. 3 amr ́
̇

ta ̄ mártiyebhiyah

̇

, ‘(you) immortals to (us) mortals’,
cf. 1. 138. 2; 4. 1. 1, 2. 1; 5. 18. 1; 6. 5. 5, 9. 4; 8. 48. 12; 10. 91. 11, 95. 9; 3. 9. 1

(^118) Watkins (1995), 262 with references. The phoneme [p] was lost in Celtic, and il- is in fact
the Irish cognate of puru-,pouru-,πολυ-.
110 2. Phrase and Figure