the question received 2 close votes for being opinion based after which I changed it and the way it is now it is very clearly an objective question for which I have already given an objective answer.
Why is my post being singled out when PIE etymologies of Sanskrit words have been used in the following posts?
2/27/2020 I think those in a position to decide at least owe me a "yes" or "no" answer.
From the root बृंहति (bṛṃhati), and this from the verbal Proto-Indo-European root *bʰerǵʰ- (“to become high, rise, elevate”).
From Middle English thre, threo, thrie, thri, from Old English þreō, þriē, þrī, from Proto-Germanic *þrīz, from Proto-Indo-European *tréyes.
(the poster disagrees with it - but he did cite the PIE etymology.
From Proto-Indo-Aryan * Hásuras, from Proto-Indo-Iranian * Hásuras, from Proto-Indo-European * h₂ń̥suros.
Related to असु (asu-), with several possible etymologies and meanings. In the context of asura conventionally associated with asu- in the sense of "master of the house". This meaning is not further narrowed by its etymology: cf. Avestan 𐬀𐬵𐬎 (ahu, “lord”) and 𐬀𐬵𐬎𐬭𐬀 (ahura, “lord”), Hittite 𒈗 (ḥaššū, “king”), and Latin erus (“lord”). Possibly ultimately from Proto-Indo-European h₂ens- (“to engender, beget”). Compare Old Norse æsir.
The Brahmanas and the Puranas derive asura from another asu-, "breath", a cognate of which is found in Av. ahu-, "life, existence". In yet other post-Vedic Sanskrit literature, asura was back-formed as a-sura, "non-sura", with sura then associated with a group of gods who inhabit Indra's domain.
According to Etymonline,
"spirit, lord," from Indo-Iranian asuras, from suffixed form of PIE root ansu- "spirit"