But while the hymns addressed to the Maruts enable us to watch the successive stages in the development of so-called deities more clearly than any other hymns, there is no doubt one drawback, namely, the uncertainty of the etymology of Marut. The etymology of the name is and always must be the best key to the original intention of a deity. Whatever Zeus became afterwards, he was originally conceived as Dyaus, the bright sky. Whatever changes came over Ceres in later times, her first name and her first conception was Sarad, harvest. With regard to Marut I have myself no doubt whatever that Mar-ut comes from the root M, in the sense of grinding, crushing, pounding (Sk. mrinâti, himsâyâm, part. mûrna, crushed, like mridita; âmúr and âmúri, destroyer). There is no objection to this etymology, either on the ground of phonetic rules, or on account of the meaning of Marut b. Professor Kuhn's idea that the name of the Maruts was derived from the root M, to die, and that the Maruts were originally conceived as the souls of the departed, and afterwards as ghosts, spirits, winds, and lastly as storms, derives no support from the Veda. Another etymology, proposed in Böhtlingk's Dictionary, which derives Marut from a root M, to shine, labours under two disadvantages; first, that there is no such root in Sanskrit c; secondly, that the lurid splendour of the lightning is but a subordinate feature in the character of the Maruts. No better etymology having been proposed, I still maintain that the derivation of Marut from M, to pound, to smash, is free from any objection, and that the original conception of the Maruts was that of the crushing, smashing, striking, tearing, destroying storms.

It is true that we have only two words in Sanskrit formed by the suffix ut, marút and garút in garút-mat, but there are other suffixes which are equally restricted to one or two nouns only. This ut represents an old suffix vat, just as us presupposes vas, in vidus (vidushî, vidushtara) for vid-vas, nom. vid-vân, acc. vidvâmsam. In a similar way we find side by side párus, knot, párvan, knot, and párvata, stone, cloud, presupposing such forms as *parvat and parut. If then by the side of *parut, we find Latin pars, partis, why should we object to Mars, Martis as a parallel form of Marut? I do not say the two words are identical, I only maintain that the root is the same, and the two suffixes are mere variants. No doubt Marut might have appeared in Latin as Marut, like the neuter cap-ut, capitis (cf. prae-ceps, prae-cipis, and prae-cipitis); but Mars, Martis is as good a derivation from M as Fors, Fortis is from GH a. Dr. von Bradke (Zeitschrift der D. M. G., vol. xl, p. 349), though identifying Marut with Mars, proposes a new derivation of Marut, as being originally *Mavrit, which would correspond well with Mavors. But *Mavrit has no meaning in Sanskrit, and seems grammatically an impossible formation.