Re: *-T + dh- > *-zdh- ? *-tó- < *-dhó-?

> > Does the latter paragraph mean (could be interpreted to possibly
> > mean) that in Skt. eg. the combination -d + dh- > -ddh- went via a
> > PIIr stage like this: -d + dh- > -zdh- > -ddh-?
>
> More like: either there are dialects with different rules
> or ordering of rules that give these different forms
>
> or
>
> -d(h) + dh- > -ddh- > -zdh- by reg. rules then in most forms
> (in Indic) z was replaced by d(h) by analogy from other forms
> in the paradigm where the original C wasn't changed (before a
> vowel instead of t/d/dh, for instance).
>
> However, this doesn't seem likely to me.

But (p. 33)

(5) Aryan z is elided in all positions (Skt. medhá:-, cf. Av. mazdå:)

so
-d + dh- > -zdh- > -ddh-
which would be similar to the rule above would be more economical than
-d(h) + dh- > -ddh- > -zdh- > -ddh-
which is what you propose.

>A syllabic "laryngeal"
> is lost between syllables regularly in Iranian before Ch+t > Cdh
> as in:
>
> dhugYh-x-te:r dhidh-xY-toi
> dhugYhx-te:r dhidhxY-toi
> dhughx-te:r dhidhxY-toi
> dhugh-te:r dhidh-toi
> dhugh-dhe:r dhidh-dhoi
> dhug-dhe:r dhid-dhoi
> dhug-dhe:r dhiz-dhoi
> etc.
>
> but in Indic it is lost between syllables only in a few cases
> after Ch+t > Cdh:
>
> dhugYh-x-te:r dhidh-xY-toi dhidh-xY-dhi bhudh-tos
> dhugYh-x-te:r dhidh-xY-toi dhidh-xY-dhi bhudh-dhos
> (double C forms geminate, no longer 2 dif.) bhu<dh>os
> dhugYh-x-te:r dhidhxY-toi dhidhxY-dhi bhu<dh>os
> dhugYh-x-te:r dhidh-toi dhidh-dhi bhu<dh>os
> dhugYh-x-te:r dhid-toi dhid-dhi bhu<dh>os
> dhugYh-x-te:r dhit-toi dhid-dhi bhu<dh>os
> dhugYh-x-te:r dhit-toi dhiz-dhi bhu<dh>os
> dhugYh-x-te:r dhet-toi dhez-dhi (analogy)
> etc.
>
> This order shows that whether there was originally an X
> between C's has no difference in the Iranian outcome, but
> does change the Indic outcome (with those words that lose
> X undergoing changes more similar to Iranian and most PIE
> modern languages.
>

Erh, and how does that impinge on my proposal?

> This requires a very early split between the branches,
> with many later same (or sim.) changes shared between them
> due to close contact for a long period. I believe this is
> true since it's also needed to explain differences in other
> branches (such as Khowar which must be in close contact with
> Armenian during several early changes in that branch).
>

Such as?


Torsten