Re: [tied] Vedic Rta... one last time

--- Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

> Sean Whalen wrote:
>
> > No, rt can become rs. no matter what the
> > environment; it's just optional. Later r > 0
> before
> > s. or T and s. > s^

> To imitate your style -- No, it isn't just optional.
> Mayrhofer's
> explanation of the rt/s^. alternation as
> conditioned by the place of
> accent has generally (though perhaps not
> unanimously) been accepted by
> the field. <m&s^.a-> is a compositional variant that
> developed in
> _posttonic_ positions:
>
> *n.'-mr.to- > *ámr.ta- > Av. am&s^.a-

When you said "following the accent" I thought you
meant directly following; I would have phrased my
rebuttal differently and included different examples.
Why does n. have the accent? Do you mind if I use n_
for syllabic n, etc., since we're using . as retroflex
also?

> But the addition of a suffix or an enclitic could
> result in a shift of
> accent:
>
> *amrtá-ta:t- > Av. am&r&tata:t-
>
> Your other examples simply conform to the rule: the
> accent of Skt.
> mártya- is initial and that of <mr.tyú-> suffixal.
> Where's your free
> variation?

I wrote m@...^a-/m@...@ta- as the first; if you don't
agree that this comes from free variation in a sound
change that's fine, but I did pick my examples to show
what I believe.

> Note that the same conditioning is responsible for
> Av. -hrp-, -hrk-
> versus pretonic -r&p-, -r&k- (cf. v&hrka- 'wolf' <
> *wl.'kWo-).

What about k@...; is the accent on r there too?

> Since
> <s^.> is found instead of expected *hrt, the actual
> posttonic
> development of *-r.t- is evident: the rhotic portion
> of &r < *r. became
> devoiced, and since the following voiceless stop was
> homorganic with it,
> the two segments easily coalesced into a voiceless
> postalveolar
> fricative. No such coalescence was possible in
> heterorganic sequences.

This rule occurs in Avestan, not Old Persian. In OP
there are forms like mars^iyu- and ars^a- (syllabic r

> ar in most positions) without any possible

coalescence of hrt; since Avestan has r.>0 before s.
in a following syllable looking at only that language
could be misleading.

There are enough optional rules and conditioned
variation in stems without analogical leveling in
Avestan that I didn't think my rules would create
controversy; I didn't know other theories were
accepted as standard. I'm sorry that this combined to
make my response seem seem as if I were trying to be
argumentative for no reason.

> > No, in Avestan r. > ar before a consonant in the
> > same syllable or word-finally. Later r. > @r
> > syl-final and Vr > Vr@ at the end of a syllable so

> > There's plenty of evidence for this so as^a-
> must
> > come from metathesis of H2 (there are many such
> cases
> > with H in Sans. and Av.).
>
> More likely *h2r.-tó- (adj.) vs. *h2ár-to- (noun)
> with some
> cross-contamination in Indo-Iranian.

What about m@-r@-z^di-ka-/marz^-di-ka-? I can't
think of any other possible explanation and it fits
with all other evidence. Also ar is the standard
result of r_ in most environments for most of Iranian;
r_ > ar in one specific environment in Avestan doesn't
seem far-fetched.






__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com