Re: Sanskrit nr./nara (Was: A New language tree)

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

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003" <smykelkar@...> wrote:
>
> > He will do that when the IEL consider the full declension of nru:
> >
> > "IE linguists comment profusely on nara but hardly even bother to
> > consider the full declension of nr. Yet here we have a paradonxical
> > situation. If nara is older than nr (or nr is an Indoaryan innovation,
> > or whatever else, but definitely, but, in any case, not earlier than
> > nara), we should find in RV more compounds with nara-as first member
> > than compounds with nr (Kazanas, 2004),"
> >
> > <http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/english/documents/SPIE.pdf>
>
> What is the problem? The base form of the PIE word is *h2ner, zero
> grade *h2nr. In Sanskrit this whould give vr.ddhi _na:_, gu.na _nar_,
> zero grade nr..
>

*h2ner etc are not real words. They are laryngeals reconstructed to
sustain the mirage of language families. They are not attested in any
real language.

M. Kelkar