From: tgpedersen
Message: 58097
Date: 2008-04-26
>Yuck! It seems the yeck's have it.
>
> --- Richard Wordingham <richard@...>
> wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen"
> > <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> > > That's true. Strictly speaking we must either
> > assume either
> > >
> > > 1) that the Proto-IIr word was *aika and assume
> > that Iranian replaced
> > > that with aiwa, or
> >
> > Actually the evidence (see, for example,
> > http://www.zompist.com/numbers.shtml ) gives us
> > Proto-IIr *aiwa- if we
> > accept Nuristani as an independent branch, and the
> > consensus is that
> > the Proto-IIr form was *aiwa-.
> >
> > > 2) we must interject a common ancestor to
> > Indo-Aryan and the Mitanni
> > > glosses, in which the word was aika, as you point
> > out
> >
> > Ahem! Try Proto-Indo-Aryan. FWIW, Dardic also
> > appears to show *aika-.
> >
> > > Mostly for practical reasons, linguist have chose option 1),
> > > since it seems like a lot of terminological trouble to define a
> > > new stage to accommodate a few few words in Mitanni. It's true
> > > that that entails elevating aika to the status of proto-IIr,
> > > although we have no way of determining whether that's true,
> > > whether it was PIIr *aika or *aiwa.
> >
> > Richard.
> >
> If proto-Iranian is *aiwas and not *aika, then why
> does Persian have yek? (Zomplist has yak, but the
> Persians I've known all said "yek). Were there
> competing forms in proto-iranian?
>