Arrows (was: On the ordering of some PIE rules)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
wrote:

> From: "Richard Wordingham" <richard@...>

[I 'restore':

>> Arnaud Fournet wrote:

- and assume readers can count greater than signs. ]

> >> *zar is just arrow or bow.
> >> Originally a spear
> >> Cf. Arabic :
> >> - zarra "percer quelqu'un avec une lance"

<snip>

> >You do appreciate, don't you, that Sanskrit /ç/ is the reflex of

PIE k^.

> I do not see the relevance of this here ?

If the Sanskrit words go back to PIE, then they have no connection
with Arabic words in /zar/.

> >> Sanscrit sara, zaru, srga, srka, "flèche".

> > Note that Skt. _sara_ seems to be a Prakritisation of _çara_.

> What is the basis for this statement ?

Monier-Williams' relevant entry for _sara_ - 'm. often v.l. or w.r.
for zara (also in comp. sara-ja &c for çara ja &c )'. 'V.l.' =
'varia lectio' and 'w.r.' = 'wrong reading'. (I've written 'ç' for
M-W's overdotted 's'.)

> >_ça:yaka_ appears to be a hypersanskritisation of _sa:yaka_.
> > Richard.

> Well,
> Why ?

Because M-W says of _ça:yaka_: 'm. w.r. for _sa:yaka_, arrow'. (I've
written 'a:' for his 'a' with macron.)

Richard.