Re: [tied] Whence Grimm?

06-04-2004 10:54, tgpedersen wrote:

> True in principle, but I don't think it applies here. If the last
> half of *saDula is the "tool" suffix PIE *-tlo, the first half would
> be *sed- and not any other ablaut form, judging from the other "seat"
> words, and /e/ > /a/ is characteristic of the II languages. That
> together with the general assumption that the saddle is a Sarmatian
> invention makes the idea that *saDula is a loanword from an II
> language at least plausible.

But if Sarmatian was Iranian (and the consensus is that it was), then
initial *s should have given /h-/. I don't like the *-Dula- part either,
not so much because of the *l but because in Indo-Iranian *-d-tro- >
*-t[s]tra- _never_ develops an epenthetic vowel. It is invariably
simplified to -ttra- in Indic and to -str- in Iranian. Actually the
_only_ IIr.-looking thing here is the quality of the root vowel. The
rest looks definitely non-IIr.

Piotr