Re: [tied] Re: Why is PIE more centum than satem?

Sanskrit _simplified_ a more complex original state of affairs by merging several inherited clusters as <ks.>. This is one of those cases where Iranian reflects the PIE distribution of phonemes more faithfully as is therefore more archaic than Sanskrit in this respect. Tamil won't do it, since the words in question have IE cognates. The "earth" word (or its derivatives) can be found in all the branches of the family. Hittite and Tocharian show clearly that the initial cluster was *d(H)g^H-.

Piotr

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

From: kalyan97

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 3:22 AM

Subject: [tied] Re: Why is PIE more centum than satem?

> > 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-). 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'.