Re: Order of Some Indo-Iranian Sound Changes

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

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

> > > 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.

> What I should have done here is make rule 3a apply in (Balto-Slavic,
> IIr) and changed 3b to
> *-zdh- -> *-ddh-, *-zd- -> *-dd-, *-st- -> *-tt-
> since Sanskrit already has a(n almost defunct) rule *-zdh- > -ddh-,
> which makes one suspect it once also had *-zd- > -dd-, *-st- > -tt-,
> later removed by generalization.

-zd- > -dd- etc. were bled by the vocalisation of voiced sibilants in
Sanskrit, so we have PIE *nisdo- 'nest' > Sanskrit _ni:d.a_, Pali
_nid.d.ha_, as well as the weak perfect stem se:d- (< sesd- ) of _sad_
'sit'.

To what generalisation do you attribute the preservation of -st- in
the 'hand' word - Sanskrit _hasta_, Pali _hattHa_, Avestan _zasta_?

Richard.