Re: [tied] Re: Lambdacism

The question is if these were marginal retentions or rather different dialectal realisations of the merger, introducing some confusion as they were borrowed between dialects (as if an irregular secondary split of *r > *r ~ *l had taken place). No Indo-Iranian language shows a systematically maintained distinction. Even late Sanskrit generally merges PIE *r and *l, though it sporadically has <l> for *l (but also for *r, as in <loha-, lohita-> 'red' or <lup-> 'break, violate, rob'!).

Piotr

----- Original Message -----

From: wtsdv

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 7:31 AM

Subject: [tied] Re: Lambdacism

--- In cybalist@......, "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@......> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Alexander Stolbov > > > And could you please formulate the conditions of IE *l > > > Indo-Ir. *r . > > This is easy: *l > *r, full stop. > > Piotr In "The Sanskrit Language" T. Burrow states that while the N.W. dialect of the Rig Veda merged I.E. *l and *r into r, the more easterly dialect that formed the basis of classical Sanskrit preserved the distinction, and that a still more easterly dialect merged both *l and *r into l. Burrow also lists a few sporadic retentions of I.E. *l in Iranian: Pers. litan 'to lick', Skt. rih-, Gk. leíkho; Pers. lain 'soft', Skt. slaksna-; Pers. lab 'lip', Lat. labium; Oss. sald 'cold', Lith. áltas. David