> 06-04-2004 10:54, tgpedersen wrote:last
> > True in principle, but I don't think it applies here. If the
> > half of *saDula is the "tool" suffix PIE *-tlo, the first halfwould
> > be *sed- and not any other ablaut form, judging from theother "seat"
> > words, and /e/ > /a/ is characteristic of the II languages. ThatSarmatian
> > together with the general assumption that the saddle is a
> > invention makes the idea that *saDula is a loanword from an IIthen
> > language at least plausible.
> But if Sarmatian was Iranian (and the consensus is that it was),
> initial *s should have given /h-/. I don't like the *-Dula- parteither,
> not so much because of the *l but because in Indo-Iranian *-d-tro-[Sanskrit]
> *-t[s]tra- _never_ develops an epenthetic vowel. It is invariably
> simplified to -ttra- in Indic
>and to -str- in Iranian[Avestan, Old Persian].
> _only_ IIr.-looking thing here is the quality of the root vowel.
> rest looks definitely non-IIr.As for the the initial /s-/ I'll refer to Iron <sarh> that David