--- In cybalist@..., "caraculiambro" <gpiotr@...> wrote:> --- In
cybalist@..., "michael_donne" <michael_donne@...> wrote:> > In the
transition from PIE *k > satem 's' was there any role of the > >
Sanskrit 'ks'/Persian 'x' since it seems to combine both sounds?
> > These are (somewhat arcane) post-Satem developments, which went
> different ways in Indo-Aryan and Iranian. *k(W)s, *tk (*kT), *k^s,
> *tk^ (*k^T) and even *dg^H (*g^HD) fell together in Indo-Aryan
> as /ks./, while Iranian kept them partly different: *k^s/*k^T >
*cs^ > > *s's^ > *s^ (as in Ir. *s^aiti vs. Skt. ks.eti 'he lives'),
*ks/*kT > > ks^ > *xs^ (*xs^aya- vs. Skt. ks.aya-), *g^HD > *jH- >
Av. z (as in > zam-/z&m- 'earth' vs. Skt. ks.am-).> > We also have
*sk^ > Skt. (c)ch, OPer. T, Av. s.
Is there any explanation why Skt. acquired such complexities? Isn't
it a reasonable hypothesis that complex compound consonants
simplified? Say, ks.am-, zam-; ks.eti, *s^aiti? There is a unique
consonant sound in Tamil, r.. which can explain ks.eti, 'he lives':
va_r..kkai, 'life'.