Re: Sanskrit Rta... and related terms

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@...> wrote:

>
>
> gW palatalized g
> kW palatalized k
> etc.

You mean 'labialized' here, of course.

> g^ palatalized g
> n^ palatalized n
> etc.

The only place you use 'n^' in your demonstration though,
is in 'dln^gho-', where it seems that it could represent
nothing else besides a syllabic 'n', or else a velar nasal,
for the latter which however you claim to be using 'N'.
You don't really intend 'n^' to represent a palatal(-ized)
nasal in 'dln^gho-', do you?

> s. retroflex s
> r. retroflex r
> etc.
>
> S or š alveopalatal fricative
> Z or ž voiced alveopalatal fricative
>
> N velar nasal
>
> @ mid central vowel, schwa
>
> a low central vowel
>
> a: long a
>
> á accented a

- edit -

Below you posit several sound changes different from those
of the most widely accepted theory. Do you disagree with
that theory, or are you merely unaware of it? I've pointed
out a few problems with your suggestions below, but by no
means all of them.

> In Proto-Indo-Iranian Dialects:
>
> H drops at end of syllable and lengthens preceding vowel
>
> r is (remains) retroflex (r.)

So then you consider Proto-Indo-European *r to have been
retroflex?

> l > l.

Why was P.I.E. *r retroflex to begin with, but not P.I.E. *l?
It was my understanding that the ancient Indian grammarians
listed Sanskrit 'l' with the dental series, not the retroflex,
nor is there any evidence from Iranian of a retroflex there
either. What theoretical advantage is gained from claiming
that P.I.E. *l was at first a dental, then became retroflex
in Proto-Indo-Iranian, and then finally independently became
a dental again in both Iranian and Indo-Aryan?

> t > s and d > z after voiced velar stop (g, gh, g^, gW, etc.) but
> not at morpheme boundaries

*s became phonetically [zh] immediately following any voiced
aspirated stop, whether velar or not, but not after a plain
voiced stop. Neither did *t become *s after any of these, but
which I guess you posit to explain the 'bear' word?

> t > s after r. or l. (in Iranian only, optional)

Too many "optional" rules make for an unconvincing theory.

> s > s. and z > z. after velar, retroflex C, or high vowel n > n.

Where do we see an example of this supposed change of n > n.?

> as above (in IA only at boundaries; in Iranian only word-final
> (-r.ns > -r.n.s.))

So then you posit retroflex consonants for Proto-Indo-Iranian?
Do you extend them to the common-Satem stage too? When do you
place the RUKI change in all of this, or the change of Satem
(pre-)palatal affricates to fricatives before a dental, etc.?

What have you against the mainstream theory that would have only
post-alveolar or pre-palatal *š and *[ž] at this stage, whose
reflexes are only later retroflex, and that only in Indo-Aryan?

> syllabic H drops (varying locations in IA and Ir)
>
> s drops between two stops (in IA only)
>
> stop after voiced aspirate becomes voiced aspirate
>
> voiced aspirate deaspirates before s or z

In inherited clusters a voiced aspirate could be followed only
by *[zh] not *s. Are you referring only to new formations taking
place just at this supposed stage and afterwards?

> voiced stop devoiced before voiceless sound
>
> t > s and d > z before obstruent (in Iranian only)

Before _any_ obstruent?

> velar > alveopalatal before front vowel or glide (g > j)
>
> o > o: syllable-final (but not word-final)
>
> o/e > a
>
> o:/e: > a:
>
> l. usually becomes r. (not regular)
>
>
> To Avestan:
>
> metathesis with H (not regular)
>
> syllabic r. > ar. before a C in the same syllable
>
> H > 0
>
> voiced aspirates deaspirate
>
> r. > 0 before s. in next syllable
>
> stops > fricatives in various environments (notice rg>rG but not
> rng)
>
> n^ > 0 between consonants
>
> s. > S and z. > Z
>
> r. > r.@ at end of syllable
>
> x > 0 between consonants

What does 'x' represent here?

> voiced stops to fricatives after fricative

What about 'Ahura Mazda'? :^)

> voiceless aspirates deaspirate
>
>
> To Sanskrit:
>
> all dental > retro after s., z., or n.

After 'n.'?

> all dental > retro after r. (dialect)

Don't you count far far more instances of 'rt', 'rth', 'rd',
or 'rdh' than 'rt.', 'rt.h', 'rd.', or 'rd.h'? Actually, can
you name even one word in Sanskrit with one of the latter
clusters? I couldn't recall a single one myself and so checked
at http://webapps.uni-koeln.de/tamil/. Separately search there
for the substrings "rT", "rTh", "rD", and "rDh", where upper-
case dentals indicate the retroflex position, and see what you
find.

I thought that there would be at least a few, out of Proto-
Indo-Iranian *-ržd(h)- at least, but could find not a one.

> metathesis with H (not regular)
>
> H drops at end of syllable and lengthens preceding syllabic
> consonant

'Syllabic consonant' is an oxymoron. :^)

> nasal drops as above unless following C has same place of
> articulation

But from P.I.E. onward, if not before, a nasal assimilated
the position of the following stop, did it not? Is this why
you posit an otherwise unknown palatalized 'n': so that you
can get rid of it later with this rule? Why not just leave
it out from the beginning?

> syllabic H > @
>
> syllabic r. > ur after various labial sounds
>
> syllabic r.: > u:r after various labial sounds
>
> syllabic r.: > @:r
>
> H > 0
>
> @ > i
>
> gh > h except by consonant

Not all of your rules are incorrect, but even when not they
have exceptions and ordering problems of which you seem
unaware. I would suggest you familiarize yourself with the
mainstream theory, and then try to lend to the improvement
of that, where possible and desirable, rather than try to
reinvent the wheel, as that theory explains far more, has
far fewer counterexamples against it, and and involves fewer
optional rules than does yours. :^)

David