>>Did laryngeals already die out
> >in Indo-Iranian?
>
> LaryngealS (pl.) had died out. Perhaps the reflex of a single merged
> laryngeal remained
I'm not disputing this, but I'm wondering about dating - or at least a time
sequence. My non-existent Avestan does not allow me to tell if any of the
usual Sanskrit signs of continuing laryngeal(s) are or are not present in
Iranian. (e.g. class 9 presents, short vowel causatives, set forms, and the
c/k~kh variation)
(1) If they are not, I presume this means that at least one laryngeal was
present in PII, but then lost in Iranian after the split. So how do we date
its loss in Sanskrit (especially in view of the claim that Vedic scansion
sometimes works better if we keep a laryngeal)?
(2) If they are, then I presume the simplest explanation is to put the loss
before the split (otherwise we have parallel developments in the two
groups).
(3) Are there any traces of once-present laryngeals in Iranian, which are
not paralleled in Sanskrit?
Peter, feeling ignorant and in need of an Avestan grammar.
Peter