Re: Nominative: A hybrid view

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham"
<richard.wordingham@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "wtsdv" <liberty@...> wrote:
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham"
> > <richard.wordingham@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > I have a near-minimal pair contrasting Sanskrit /yi/ and /i:/:
> > >
> > > akri:Ni:ma 'we bought' (imperfect, root kri:)
> > > ninyima 'we lead' (perfect, root ni:)
> > >
> > > How much better can we do? ( For starters, most other class
> > > IX verbs would be an improvement on kri:!)
> > >
> > > Richard.
> >
> > Where do you find "ninyima"? My "A Vedic Grammar for Students"
> > gives "nini:má".
> >
> > David
>
> From the 'Digital Buddhist Library & Museum', at
> sino-sv3.sino.uni-heidelberg.de/SANSKRIT , or rather an earlier

mirror

> site at Ohio State University. It gives ninyi-, not nini:-, before all t=

he=

>
> weak suffixes beginning with a consonant. The 3pl. active is given as
> ninyuh., and the 3pl middle as ninyire. For the 2s. it gives two forms -=


> ninayitha and ninetha.
>
> I suppose 'ninyire' should be sound, but the PIEML reference

demolishes

> the claim to monovocalicness claim by citing the contrasting prefixes

ura-

> and vra-. Such contrasts demonstrate that [u] ~ [v] was a phonemic
> contrast, not an allophonic variation. I suppose the critical point is

tha=

> t
> prosodic contrasts are fundamental, while the phonemic contrasts are
> incidental.

P.S. Do we have a second opionion on the _Classical_ form?

Richard.