Re: Timing of ablaut
That was not the question. We are facing a conflation of what would
have been IIr. *ac^i: (or *a:c^i:, the overriding question) 'two
eyes' and *us^i: 'two ears'. The latter survives as Avestan us^i,
while the former is aks.í: in Vedic and as^i (as^.i- at least in
Y.32.10 where I can check it) in Avestan. Other cases of original
palatal *k^ + s yield Skt. <ks.> ~ Av. <s^.> (retroflex shibilant,
different from the simple ruki-s^), but what we have here is, at
best, from secondarily palatalized (labio)velar k, i.e. /c^/ + /s/,
which do not normally cluster and are here only joined together by
analogy. Therefore we cannot tell whether the combination into a
cluster had been made before or after the time of operation of
--- In email@example.com, "wtsdv" <liberty@...> wrote:
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
> > . . . Trouble is we do not know what comes out of *palatalized
> > /k/* + added sibilant in Indo-Iranian. Therefore, Skt. -ks.-
> > and Av. -s^- could conceivably reflect an already-IIr cluster
> > *-c^s-, . . .
> Don't we know that * came out of *k^s in Indo-Iranian?
> In Indo-Aryan *k^s/k^t > *c^s^/c^t > */t > *s.s./s.t.
> > *t.s./s.t. > t.s.-t.s.-t./s.t.-s.t.-s. > ks.-ks.-t./
> s.t.-s.t.-s. In Iranian *k^s/k^t > c^s^/c^t > */t >
> */t. So * explains all of the outcomes.