Appendix. The Etymology of Mênis
An Indo-Iranian Term Related to Mênis
manahicā vacahicā šiiaoθanōi hī vahiiō akəmcā
åscā hudåŋhō əraš vīšiiātā nōiṭ duždåŋhō
aṭ cā hiiaṭ tā hə̄m mainiiū jasaētəm paouruuīm dazdē
gaēmcā ajiiāitīmcā yaθācā aŋhaṭ apə̄məm aŋhuš
acištō drəguuatąm aṭ ašāunē vahištəm manō
In the sixth stanza of this same hymn, we learn that the daēuua , the traditional gods as opposed to the Ahura of Zoroastrianism, chose the deceptive, evil mainiiu-,and “they then rushed into fury with which they have afflicted the world and mankind.” So at the beginning of Yasna 45, Zarathustra warns:
akā varanā drəguuå hizuuā āuuərətō
The world was first destroyed when the daēuua chose the evil mainiiu- . Now it is time for the correct choice. The hymn continues:
yaiiå spaniiå ūitī mrauuaṭ yə̄m angrəm
nōiṭ nā manå nōiṭ sə̄nghā nōiṭ xratauuō
naēdā varanā nōiṭ uxδā naēdā šiiaoθanā
nōiṭ daēnå nōiṭ uruuąnō hacaintē
The two mainiiu- represent a contrastive pair of initial beings such as we have seen in the context of Hesiodic cosmogony.  According to some authorities, they are the Zoroastrian replacement for the inherited Indo-Iranian primordial god, Vāyu, a cosmic starting point whose name means ‘air, wind’.  As Malamoud points out, the word mainiiu- by itself is so lacking in intrinsic color that it is necessary to specify whether it is spaniiå ‘good’ or angrəm ‘bad’.  But the concept of a cosmogonic moral force represented by this word is not irrelevant to the study of Greek mênis, as I hope to demonstrate.
1c.sāhyā́ma dā́sam ā́iyaṃ tváyā yujā́ sáhaskṛtena sáhasā sáhasvatā ||
2a.manyúr índro manyúr evā́sa devó manyúr hótā váruṇo jātávedāḥ |
2c.manyúṃ víśa īḻate mā́nuṣīr yā́ḥ pāhí no manyo tápasā sajóṣāḥ ||
3a.abhī̀hi manyo tavásas távīyān tápasā yujā ví jahi śátrūn |
3c.amitrahā́ vr̥trahā́ dasyuhā́ ca víśvā vásūni ā́ bharā tuváṃ naḥ ||
4a.tuváṃ hí manyo abhíbhūtiyojāḥ svayambhū́r bhā́mo abhimātiṣāháḥ |
4c.viśvácarṣaṇiḥ sáhuriḥ sáhāvān asmā́su ójaḥ pŕ̥tanāsu dhehi ||
Dumézil points out that in the second strophe, Manyu is first identified with the warrior par excellence, Indra; then with Varuṇa, a sovereign and priestly god whom Dumézil considers to be here represented with the attributes of the fire god, Agni; and lastly, the hymn tells us that the tribes of humans praise Manyu. It is problematic to associate Varuṇa, as Dumézil wishes to, with the term hotar ‘sacrificer’ and the epithet Jātavedas, both of which belong to Agni, a divinity who can bypass trifunctional sequences since he fits all three of the functions.  I would suggest that Agni as fire god has been inserted into the three-part sequence with good reason, because of the overwhelming association of manyú- in this and other hymns (as also in the ritual noted above) with fire.  In the concluding line of this same strophe, that association is explicit: “protect us, Manyu, together with the burning fire!” But there are other trifunctional features in this hymn in which the tripartite sequence remains intact; they strengthen Dumézil’s point. For instance, in the first and fourth strophes, there is a sequence of terms referring to the force gained by devotees of Manyu. In the first strophe mention is made of sáhas, which denotes force superior to that of another person, power over another; then ójas , a term for physical force that is part of the vocabulary of Indra; these two nouns are then followed by the adjective víśvam ‘complete’, a word related to and, according to Dumézil, playing upon the noun víś ‘clan’, regularly used for massed humans in references to the third function. Then, in the fourth strophe, the three terms recur: “Common to all populations (viśvácarṣaṇih), dominator endowed with superior force (sáhas), grant us formidable force (ójas) in battles.” 
Indra who thwarts the manyú- of him who wishes to thwart his manyú-
(Indra) who thwarts the evil manyú- of those bent on harm
Among the gods—principally Indra and those associated with him, but also (Mitra-) Varuṇa, Brahmaṇaspati, and Agni— manyú- is “the élan that makes [the god] accomplish the deeds that affirm his divinity.”  For instance, the manyú- of Mitra-Varuṇa correlates with their specific function as divinities:
dákṣasya svéna manyúnā |
For Agni, his manyú- is explicitly reflexive—what suits his particular desire and expectation:
várāya deva manyáve ||
Finally, Indra’s manyú-, the most commonly attested, was expressed when he slew the serpent Vṛtra with his thunderbolt as Sky and Earth trembled.  Here is a sample of passages:
áhiṃ yád índro abhí óhasānaṃ ní cid viśvā́yuḥ śayáthe jaghā́na ||
yád indra vajrin ójasā vṛtrám marútvāmँ ávadhīr
apáḥ samudrám aírayat ||
It should be clear by now that the personages with whom Manyu is identified in the second strophe of Hymn 10.83—Indra, Varuṇa, Agni, and the tribes of humans—are in fact those to whom the noun manyú- is attributed in the earlier hymns. But Malamoud pushes his analysis of the word’s core meaning a step further to explicate the sense of two words attested as qualifiers of manyú-, a noun which rarely has any. One is the adjective satyá, the other the rare word svayaṃbhū́ (attested only at 10.83.4 in the Rig Veda). Malamoud defines satyá to mean “destined for accomplishment, sure to be realized,” such that manyú- so qualified is the “élan which makes someone bring to fulfillment their desires, translate their thoughts into deeds.”  The manyu– of Indra is satyá in 4.17.10 and causes universal fear; or the poet says at 10.112.8:
where satīná means ‘realized’. So in regard to the following assertion of the primacy of manyú- in Indra’s exploits, which was deprecated by Louis Renou on the grounds that it was a “contamination” caused by a rhetorical “condensation of formulas”:
Malamoud counters that such a “condensation” could not have taken place unless manyú-actually was a primordial determinant of deeds at the origins of the world, like Old Avestan mainiiu-.  Such a quality in manyú- is confirmed by the second qualifier explicated by Malamoud, the neologism svayaṃbhū́ ‘spontaneously generated’, a rare epithet elsewhere attested, for example, of the king in the rājasūya ritual, in which he “symbolically creates space and time, organizes the universe around him, and reproduces the cosmic process of creation and maturation.” 
- It denotes not a transient emotion, but a permanent, primordial, conflictive, and active cosmic force among gods and men.
- It operates in all three of the domains of Indo-European society as reconstructed by Dumézil.
- It is fundamentally characteristic of Indra, in whom it is expressed by the fear-inspiring thunderbolt and fire.
Old Avestan mainiiu- shares in the first of these attributes, but not the others. Given the Zoroastrian function of mainiiu- at the zero point of the world, however, inherited features of the term may have been stripped from it. All three of these semantic and thematic attributes are present in Greek mênis and are especially strongly associated with Zeus.  In the Indic pantheon, however, Indra has taken over the functions of the inherited divinity represented in the Greek pantheon by Zeus, wielder of the thunderbolt and king of the gods. Accordingly, I would suggest that the semantics and thematics of manyú- listed above were associated in Indo-European with the root *men- and the lord of the pantheon. They were thence inherited, on the one hand, by Vedic manyú-, which is chiefly associated with Indra, and, on the other, by Greek mênis, which is chiefly associated in Greek epic with Zeus, his thunderbolt, and its destructive fire. Homeric mênis is also actively associated with the root noun of *men-, Greek ménos,  to which it is ultimately related.