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

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

> Sean Whalen wrote:
>
> > When you said "following the accent" I thought
> you
> > meant directly following; I would have phrased my
> > rebuttal differently and included different
> examples.
>
> But yes, I really meant what you'd thought I did
> (see my self-correction
> concerning PIIr. *a-mr.'ta-).

My computer hasn't been working; I've seen that now.

> An *r followed by a
> voiceless stop was
> devoiced when it stood directly after the accent.
> The correlation
> between the location of accent in Vedic (reflecting,
> in most cases, the
> PIIr. state of affairs) and the distribution of
> <s^.> vs. <r&t> in
> Avestan was already known to Bartholomae more than a
> hundred years ago.
> There is no devoicing if the the accent is not on
> the syllable
> containing the rhotic, for example, in compounds
> with unaccented *harta-
> as the second element: cf. <anar&ta-> 'falsehood' <
> *n.'-harta- (as for
> the placement of accent in privative compounds, see
> below).

What about the Old Persian forms? I don't think
there's any possibility of hrt > s^ there. It looks
like free variation to me (with OP having a greater
tendency to analogic recreation of -ta-, etc.

Av. OP

m@...^a-/m@...@ta- marta- dead
m@...@Tyu- mars^iyu- death
mas^ya- martiya- mortal
p@...^u-/p@...@tu- bridge
as^a- ars^ta:- true, truth

I don't see any way to use accent to account for
"bridge" variation; OP has no devoicing + coalescence
to account for other forms.

> > Why does n. have the accent? Do you mind if I use
> n_
> > for syllabic n, etc., since we're using . as
> retroflex
> > also?
>
> In PIE this, the accent in this type of was on the
> first element
> (despite its phonetic reduction, cf. also
> *sm.'-logHo-s > Gk. álokHos
> 'wife, concubine', *h1sú-g^Huto- 'well offered' >
> Ved. súhuta-, etc.).

I think this is an innovation in Gk, IA. Also, it
must be PIE murto's > mwr_to's. Syllabic r > ur after
non-sonorant rounded or bilabial in Sanskrit, but not
after m or w. Syllabic r > ur after m in Old Persian.
Avestan has no r>ur. Later w>0 after m in all.

Av. OP Sans. PIE dialect

m@...^a-/m@...@ta- marta- mrta- mwrto'- dead
m@...@Ga- murG(NP) mrga- mrgo'- beast/bird

> > What about k@...; is the accent on r there too?
>
> Yes. I assume you mean <k&hrp-> 'shape'; it's a root
> noun, after all, so
> the accent has nowhere else to fall on in the strong
> cases!

Do you mean this was original PIE or analogy?

> *kr.'pam- + *-c^a 'and the form' --> *kr.pám-c^a >
> Av. k&r&p&m-c^a
>
> Do you believe me now? :-)

I never said anything different about r>hr
devoicing; I just didn't and still don't believe that
hrt>s^ occurred.

> > 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.
>
> Well, Avestan manuscripts are not entirely
> consistent in distinguishing
> <&r&> from <ar&>. Perhaps some degree of free
> variation can be admitted
> here, though I'm no expert.

But it's marz^-di-ka- with no schwa; both variations
are explained by variation in syllabification. I used
this as an example because you said that Av. ar came
from er or or while I said that syllabic r > ar in
closed syllables or word-final in Av. and r > ar in OP
except after m, etc.






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