Re: Order of Some Indo-Iranian Sound Changes

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

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "david_russell_watson" <liberty@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Is it known, or is there any way of knowing, which of
> > the changes came first?
>
> I know there is a problem with the ordering of these two
> rules in IIr., but I can't remember what it was. However,
> I do remember I think I solved it:
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/47124

I see. You wrote at that time:

> Three traditional rules for IE:
>
> 1 RUKI (Balto-Slavic, Iranian)
> 2a *-dhT-, *-dT- -> *-zd-, *-tT- -> *-st- (Balto-Slavic, Iranian)
> b *-dhT- -> *-ddh-, *-dT- -> *-dd-, *-tT- -> *-tt- (Indic)
> c *-dhT-, *-dT-, *-tt- -> *-ss- (Celtic, Germanic, Italic)
> where T is any stop
> 3 stop + consonant -> corresponding fricative + consonant (Iranian)
> 4 stop -> fricative etc (Germanic, Armenian)

The changes in 2 involved the dissimiliation of pairs
of dental stops only, which aren't part of the Satem
change of affricates to fricatives before dental stop,
though. None of the affricates were dental then.

In Indo-Iranian, at least, the changes you give in 2a
are patently later than both of the changes I'm asking
about, and the changes in 2b didn't happen at all, as
far as I know.

> Sequence 1 < 2, 2 < 3, 2 < 4
>
> 1 must have come before 2, as Beekes (A Grammar of Gatha-Avestan)
> points out, since the sibilants in outcome of the assibilation
> rule otherwise would have been affected by the RUKI rule which
> they aren't (Avestan cit + ti -> cisti, not **cis^ti).

That change isn't shared with Sanskrit, though, which
has citti-, and so is post Proto-Indo-Iranian, whereas
the change I'm asking about is common Satem.

> It seems strange that the assibilation rule which seems to have
> applied over a large area in some form, should have come after
> the RUKI rule which is limited to Balto-Slavic and Iranian (and
> Armenian, I think).
> Also, the Iranian rule 3 seems to be similar to and in competition
> to the assibilation rule.

I don't understand how it's in competition.

> Also, it is strange that almost all IE languages agree that the
> otherwise non-affricated dentals of PIE suddenly should be
> assibilated when they meet.

T. Burrow, I think it was, explained this as due to the
purely phonetic insertion of [s] between two voiceless
dental stops in P.I.E., or [z] between two voiced ones,
later eliminated in some branches, but phonemicized in
others.

> Therefore I propose the following sequence of rules to replace
> those above:
>
> 1 stop + stop -> corresponding fricative + stop (PIE)

This would make *x^t of *k^t then, which *x^ would be
equivalent to, or later merge with, the *s´ arising due
to RUKI? I haven't thought it completely through, but
that might work, by itself.

However in this step you've produced a slew of clusters
beginning with bilabial fricatives, dental fricatives,
and velar fricatives, both voiceless and voiced, all of
which have to be converted back into stops before we
arrive at Sanskrit, and you haven't even mentioned Greek.

> 2 RUKI (Balto-Slavic, Indo-Iranian)
> 3a *-Dd- -> *-zd-, *-Tt- -> *-st- (Balto-Slavic, Iranian)
> 3b *-Ddh- -> *-ddh-, *-Dd- -> *-dd-, *-Tt- -> *-tt- (Indic)

Sanskrit normally has 'dd' and 'ddh' out of P.I.E. *dd
and *ddh, though.

- edit -

> The trick of this new set is that so to speak the common elements
> of rule 2abc have been factored out and placed in PIE,

Is it really worth the cost, though?

> and only that part of the rule within the RUKI area that could get
> phonemes "in harm's way" by changing them into sibilants is placed
> after the RUKI rule.

T. Burrow's suggestion does the same thing while invoking
fewer sound changes.

> At the same time we get rid of the whole Germanic sound shift by
> replacing it with generalizations of allophones that were already
> present in PIE.

But at the same time you create a whole new shound shift
for Indo-Aryan.

David