This is a forum devoted to phonetics, not
to historical linguistics, so this discussion is slightly OT (we could continue
it on Cybalist). The PIE syllabic nasal *n has the following _regular_
reflexes:
Indo-Iranian a, Baltic in, Slavic In, Greek a, Latin en, Welsh an, Germanic un,
Armenian an, etc.
Examples:
PIE *h2juh1nk^os > Skt.
yuvas'a-, Lat. iuvencus, MWel. ieuanc, Gmc. *juwungaz > *jungaz (Eng.
young).
PIE *mntis > Skt. mati-, OCSl.
(pa-)mInt-, Latin ment-, Gmc. *mundiz (Eng. mind).
PIE *newn > Skt. nava, OPr. nevin-ts,
Gk. (en-)ne[w]a, Lat. novem (< *nowen, cf. no:nus '9th'), Gmc.
*niwun/*nigun (OE nigon > Eng. nine).
PIE *n- (negative prefix) > Skt. a-, Gk.
a-, Lat. in- (< *en-), Gmc. *un- (Eng. un-), Arm. an-
In Indo-Iranian (as well as Greek) the
syllabic nasal became a nasalised vowel (*a~) which then became denasalised,
eventually yielding *a. Note that e.g. the negative prefix in Greek and
Indo-Iranian is <a-> before consonants but <an-> before vowels (the
nasal survived as a hiatus-filler). You can't see the final nasal anywhere in
Indo-Aryan (including Vedic), Iranian (including Avestan) or Nuristani, because
the vocalisation took place already in their common ancestor and all
the historically known forms derive from Proto-IIr *nava. This
form (or its derivative *nava-ka) underlies all the Indic words you list
below. The loss of the unstressed final vowel produced forms like
<nau>/<nav>, and the resulting diphthong has been smoothed to
<no:> or <na:> in many languages. There are very similar parallel
developments in Iranian. In some Indo-Aryan languages the initial nasal has
caused the progressive nasalisation of the vowel, producing <no~>,
<nau~> or <nam>.
The final <-h> in several Iranian
languages is results from language-specific developments within Iranian (the
Proto-Iranian form was *nava without a shadow of a doubt). I know little about
Khotanese sound changes, but if you can wait till tomorrow I'll check that
up for you.
Piotr
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 3:43 PM
Subject: [phoNet] Re: Phonetic change lo -- no in some
languages
--- In phoNet@y..., "Piotr
Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@i...> wrote:
> I
don't rule it out... The form of <lo> rules out an early loan;
the
borrowed word would have had to be something like <no:>, i.e.
_Modern_
Indo-Aryan.
The variety of phonetic forms for the numeral nine in the
Indo-Aryan
languages is remarkable; what is the basis for constructing a
syllabic nasal ending for PIE *newn. (ending with a syllabic nasal).
You
say that it is vocalised in Indo-Iranian; is it in Avestan?
In none of
the I-A languages, not even in the Dardic languages, do we
find an ending
with a syllabic nasal.
There is an intriguing lexeme nyoh in Khotanese
which
connotes `nine'. [Whence y? –h from Persian? Belvalkar Vol. 94]. Is
it possible that n- in nyoh was derived from loh? The transformation
lohe > nohe is attested in Santali. lohe, nohe = v.a.disregard,
disown, disobey (Santali); nohe = is not (B.)(Santali.lex.) lo = nine
(now often heard)(Santali); lo (desi); noe (B.)(Santali.lex.Bodding)
nava = nine (RV.Pali); n.ava (Pkt.); nau (D.); no, nu_ (Ash.); nu~_
(Wg.); nu_ (Pr.); no~_ (Dm.); na_h (Tir.); nawa, na_u, na_ (Pas'.);
nu_
(Shum.); nu~_ (Gaw.); no_ (Kal.); nyoh (Kho.); nah, num (Bshk.);
nom (Tor.);
nau_ (Kand.); nau_ (Mai.); no_u (Sv.); nau, nu_, nu~_
(Phal.); nau~, na_u_
(Sh.); nav, nau, nam, na_u (K.); na_va (S.);
no~_, nau_, nao~ (L.); nau~,
nau (P.); nao (WPah.); nau, no (Ku.);
nau (N.); na (A.B.Or.); naa (Or.); nau
(Bi.Mth.Aw.H.); nam (H.); nova
(Omarw.); nav (G.); nav, nau_ (M.); nav
(Kon.); nava (Osi.); namaya
(Si.); nuva (Md.)(CDIAL 6984). Navaka consisting
of 9 (RV Pra_t.);
collection of 9 (R.); n.avaga (Pkt.); nomu (K.); nawwa_,
namma_ (H.);
navvo the 9 in cards (G.)(CDIAL 6985).