Re: Scythian tribal names: Paralatai

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "david_russell_watson" <liberty@...>
wrote:

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

> > As I wrote before
> > (an excerpt):
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@> wrote:
> >
> > > I'd also say NN combos, including those in later analogical
> > > creations, remained. Neither -mn.V- nor -mYn.V- was reduced
> > > in PIE. Various branches had some changes including:
> > >
> > > *dhéxYmó(n.)+ /
> > > *dhóxYmó(n.)+ '(a) placing on/together, heap'
> > > *dhóxYmn.ko+, -ik+, -id+ 'cord, rope' > fu:nis, tho:miGx
> > >
> > > *kn.,mYn., > *kUmen
> > > *kn.,mYn.ixYn.o+ 'made of blocks of wood' > Slavic
> > > *kUni:go+ 'book, etc.'
> > >
> > > *xakYmo:n.
> > > *xakYmn.ixYn.o+ 'made of stone' > OP
> > > atha(n)gaina-
>
> Oh, 'athangaina'. I should have been able to guess.

You questioned my method for citing words: I use '_' around
definitions and leave such things as <_> or /_/ off words and
pronunciations as unnecessary if the context allows.

The form athagaina- is much more common; since both exist I said
"atha(n)gaina-" to show both at once, as is common.

> Although that form wouldn't ascend to *asagaina-.
> Old Persian's voiceless dental fricative developed
> from a Proto-Indo-Iranian affricate by a different
> route from that producing 's' in Avestan.

> See how it creates confusion when you present your
> own personal reconstructions as if standard ones?

What are you talking about? I've never seen a Proto-Iranian
reconstruction in which it mattered whether c^ > s^ > s had already
occurred before any dialect differences. Is it really important, for
this word or any, whether s^ > T or s > T in most positions in OP?

> Now I'll try to answer your question, admitting that
> my answer isn't an authoritive one: O.Pers. 'athanga-'
> exists on its own, and '-aina-' was still a productive
> suffix in Old Persian, as far as I know, so there's
> no reason to trace the word all the way back to Proto-
> Indo-European or even Proto-Iranian. It was coined
> much later. Clearly O.Pers. 'athanga-' reflects the
> Iranian reflex of the 'stone' word with an additional
> suffix, not something requiring a novel set of sound
> changes to derive out of P.I.E. *h2ek^mon- alone.

If there were any -ga- suffix, that would be fine. There is none,
no cognate of any kind. An abstraction from the adj. is the only
thing that makes sense (considering the other dissimilations of N>g
that exist).