Re: [tied] Whence Grimm?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:

> 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

[Sanskrit]

>and to -str- in Iranian

[Avestan, Old Persian].

>Actually the
> _only_ IIr.-looking thing here is the quality of the root vowel.

The

> rest looks definitely non-IIr.
>

As for the the initial /s-/ I'll refer to Iron <sarh> that David
supplied. Apparently Sarmatian was an exception to the rule that /s-
/ > /h-/ in Iranian. I've posted a question about the whole "saddle"
thing in the Indo-Iranian group, I'll come back with whatever they
come up with.

Torsten