[tied] Re: Sanskrit Rta... and related terms

From: david_russell_watson
Message: 41706
Date: 2005-11-02

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "A." <xthanex@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "A." <xthanex@...> wrote:
> >
> > I understand that the original oldest root form is *h2ar-.
> > What I am hoping to discover is the newest/most recent PIE
> > term which gave rise to both European derivatives as well
> > as the specific Indo-Iranian root which later developed into
> > Rta and Asha.

- edit -

> Bumping this back up in a last desperate attempt to see if anyone
> can figure ot the final PIE term (before the switch to a purely
> I-I term).

Well I'm having a hard time figuring out exactly what
it is you're asking that wasn't answered by Piotr at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/41592 ,
and so I've gone back over your original question with
a fine-toothed comb below so as hopefully not miss
anything this time.

Although I do wonder about the following section of
Piotr's post:

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:
> Aydan wrote:
> >
> > Could anyone clarify whether the terms Rta/Ritu/Asha stem
> > from the suffixed form *ar-ti- from which we get artisan
> > and the Greek artios 'fitting'?
>
> Yes, these and Lat. ars, artis.

This seems to imply that 'rta-', and 'asha-' ('rtu-'
shouldn't be grouped for this purpose with 'rta-' and
'asha-', as it employs a different suffix) come from
*ar-ti-, but which I don't think is what Piotr meant.
Surely he meant that they are built upon the same
root, *H2ar-, and that the Latin 'ars' in addition
shares with the Greek 'artio-' the same suffix. However
'rta-' and 'asha-' never involved a suffix -ti- at any
point in their history, and neither did 'rtu-', which
uses the suffix -tu-.

Hopefully I don't misrepresent Piotr's view.

If we assume from the subject line that you're interested
specifically in 'rta-', then "H2rtó-" is the short answer
to your question, about "the final PIE term (before the
switch to a purely I-I term)". However the various forms
you've cited would make it appear that you're interested
no less in the root *H2ar- itself, its basic underlying
meaning, and all of its derivatives and reflexes.

Anyway, I've pasted your original question below, and
will try to answer it point by point.

> > I understand that the original oldest root form is *h2ar-.

The oldest reconstructable form is *H2er-, with the change
of *e to *a belonging to a later stage, and caused by
the laryngeal *H2. At some point the root *H2er- developed
also the supplemental forms *H2r- and *h2e:r-.

> > What I am hoping to discover is the newest/most recent PIE
> > term which gave rise to both European derivatives as well
> > as the specific Indo-Iranian root which later developed into
> > Rta and Asha.

Just to clarify, properly speaking, a word's "root" isn't
a word in an older stage of its language from which it
has evolved, but rather a theoretical construct abstracted
from a group of related words. For example the root of
'go', 'goes', 'going', and 'gone' is 'go-', where 'go-'
represents only a common element in these words, not an
older English word from which all of them is supposed to
have descended. So while 'rta-' and 'asha-' evolved from
a Proto-Indo-Iranian *H2rtá-, the latter isn't their
root. The root of the Sanskrit 'rta-' is the Sanskrit
verbal root ar-, and the root of its antecedent *H2rtá-
is the Proto-Indo-Iranian verbal root *H2ar-.

> > I am curious as to whether *h2ar- evolved into another truly
> > PIE term BEFORE it progressed into the Proto-Indo-Iranian
> > term which eventually lead to Rta and Asha.

Well properly speaking, *H2ar- didn't evolve into 'rta-'
or 'asha-', but rather *H2rtó- did, and it's incorrect
to refer to the derivation of *H2rtó- from *H2ar- as
"evolution", for it's really only word derivation. You
see *H2rtó- bears the same relationship to *H2ar- as
the English 'gone' does to 'go', or the English 'eaten'
to 'eat'. If 'gone' had in fact evolved from 'go', then
'go' would no longer exist, and 'gone' would have the
same meaning as 'go', but instead they are in use side
by side and with different meanings. What they in fact
have in common is the _root_ 'go-', but which by itself
is no more than a theoretical construct abstracted from
actually existing forms, not a word itself from which
any other could have evolved. In this way 'go' and 'gone'
are both based alike on the root 'go-', but not evolved
from it, and in the same way neither can we say that
either one of 'go' or 'gone' evolved from the other.

> > My goal is A) to explore any "missing links" between *h2ar-
> > and that specific Proto-Indo-Iranian term. And B) to look
> > at those European terms which derive from that same "missing
> > link".

Well as per above, there can be no missing links between
them because P.I.I. *H2rtá- didn't evolve from P.I.E.
*H2ar-, but rather from P.I.E. *H2rtó-.

> > For example, David Watson suggested both Sanskrit Rta and
> > Avestan Asha derived from a Proto-Indo-Iranian term *rta-.
> > Would other members agree with this view?
> >
> > If this is correct, then it seems that the progression goes
> > something like:
> >
> > *h2ar- > *h2ar- + to = *h2arto/*h2rto (or whatever suffixed
> > form is correct if not *h2arto-) now eventually this evolves
> > into the Proto-Indo-Iranian *rta- if Mr. Watson is correct.

More like this:

Pre-PIE

Verbal Root . *H2er- "to fit, to put together"
Adjective . . *H2er-tó- "fitted, put together"

P.I.E.

Verbal Root . *H2ar- (*H2r-, *H2e:r-) "to fit, to put together"
Adjective . . *H2r-tó- "fitted, put together"

Proto-Indo-Iranian

Verbal Root . *H2ar- (*H2r-, *H2e:r-) "to fit, to put together"
Adjective . . *H2r-tá- (1) "fitted, put together"
Noun. . . . . *H2r-tá- (2) "cosmic order"

Sanskrit

Verbal Root . ar- (r-, a:r-) "to fit, to put together"
Adjective . . r-ta- (1) "fitted, put together"
Noun. . . . . r-ta- (2) "cosmic order"


> > I am curious as to whether there was any further PIE development
> > after *h2arto- and prior to the Proto-Indo-Iranian *rta- ???

If the change of *H2e to *H2a came _after_ the change of
*H2ertó- to *H2rtó-, then there never would have been a
*H2artá-, only the pair *H2ár-/*H2rtó-, although I don't
myself know what the order was. However even if a *H2artó-
had existed, it would properly have belonged to Pre-P.I.E.
and thus be irrelevant to your question about developments
_between_ P.I.E. and Proto-Indo-Iranian, which for this
particular word were no more than the merging of *e and *o
with *a, and possibly a shift in the pronunciation of the
pharyngeal, which yields a maximum of three stages, as in
either I or II:

I *H2rtó- > *H2rtá- > *H?rtá-

II *H2rtó- > *H?rtó- > *H?rtá-


> > If so, what was that missing intermediary term and what European
> > terms derived specifically from that word?

Well not all of the European forms that you've mentioned
can possibly be descended from *H2rtó. They are indeed
based upon the same root, which again is *H2ar-, but they
employ different suffixes, and so there could be no one
intermediary for them all.

> > If there was not a further PIE intermediary between PIE *h2arto-
> > and PII *rta- , then does anyone know what European terms derived
> > specifically from *h2arto- ???

I don't know of many, and I'm not sure about those that
I do. For example there is Latin 'artare' "press together,
reduce to small compass, abridge, curtail", which might
be based upon *H2art-, but I don't know. I'm pretty sure
that Lat. 'artus' (not from 'artare') meaning "joint, limb"
is from *H2rtó-, and possibly Gr. 'artos' "loaf" as well.

If I may say so, I suspect that you're trying to find
connections for the European forms with the cosmological
significance attached to the Indo-Iranian derivatives
of *H2rtá-, but which I'm afraid simply don't exist. The
original meaning of the P.I.E. root was purely mundane,
and referred to the proper assembling, setting up, or
outfitting of something. In this way, at one time and in
the Indo-Iranian branch alone, the word for "(properly)
fitted, put together" was used to name the Proto-Indo-
Iranians concept of the greater world order, but even in
Indo-Iranian that specialized meaning was one only of
the extended form *H2rtá- and its reflexes, not of its
root *H2ar- or any of its other extensions.

David