From: Rick McCallister
Message: 58099
Date: 2008-04-27
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallisterYuck, do, se chaer, punch you in the eye
> <gabaroo6958@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > --- 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?
> >
>
> Yuck! It seems the yeck's have it.
>
>
> Torsten
>