Re: *-T + dh- > *-zdh- ? *-tó- < *-dhó-?

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

>
>
> > > Does the latter paragraph mean (could be interpreted to possibly
> > > mean) that in Skt. eg. the combination -d + dh- > -ddh- went via a
> > > PIIr stage like this: -d + dh- > -zdh- > -ddh-?
> >
> > More like: either there are dialects with different rules
> > or ordering of rules that give these different forms
> >
> > or
> >
> > -d(h) + dh- > -ddh- > -zdh- by reg. rules then in most forms
> > (in Indic) z was replaced by d(h) by analogy from other forms
> > in the paradigm where the original C wasn't changed (before a
> > vowel instead of t/d/dh, for instance).
> >
> > However, this doesn't seem likely to me.
>
> But (p. 33)
>
> (5) Aryan z is elided in all positions (Skt. medhá:-, cf. Av. mazdå:)
>
> so
> -d + dh- > -zdh- > -ddh-
> which would be similar to the rule above would be more economical than
> -d(h) + dh- > -ddh- > -zdh- > -ddh-
> which is what you propose.

That's not what I believe; I was attempting to interpret
the last paragraph's meaning as you asked. Eliminating the
part where -ddh- is written out doesn't eliminate a stage
in the derivation; the two chains you're describing are
equivalent (except the second works for both d and dh).

Before z was deleted there could have been analogical restoration
in cases where t/d/dh > z (I don't believe it, but it's possible; I
just have a different answer).

> >A syllabic "laryngeal"
> > is lost between syllables regularly in Iranian before Ch+t > Cdh
> > as in:

etc.

> > This order shows that whether there was originally an X
> > between C's has no difference in the Iranian outcome, but
> > does change the Indic outcome (with those words that lose
> > X undergoing changes more similar to Iranian and most PIE
> > modern languages.
> >
>
> Erh, and how does that impinge on my proposal?

It doesn't have anything to do with it. I described
both the explanation which requires analogy and my own
theory since the analogical theory doesn't seem right.

> > This requires a very early split between the branches,
> > with many later same (or sim.) changes shared between them
> > due to close contact for a long period. I believe this is
> > true since it's also needed to explain differences in other
> > branches (such as Khowar which must be in close contact with
> > Armenian during several early changes in that branch).
> >
>
> Such as?

I've already given my preliminary description of Khowar
history; the similarities are complicated to describe
since many of them depend on my specific theories. A few
cognates should be enough to show odd shared elements
for now:

Arm. lezu; Kh. lingìni 'tongue'

keank'; z^ùnu 'alive'

c^'ork'; c^hór 'four'

p'ok'r 'small'; phuk 'few'