From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 21600
Date: 2003-05-07
>>>Did laryngeals already die outI have reread what Beekes says about his Avestan /?/, but I need more
>> >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.