--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
wrote:

> Richard Wordingham wrote:
> >
> > > > akshara

> > > Do you have any evidence for this "interpretation" of the word?

The word

> > > meant 'syllable' long before it was used for the writing

system. What's

> > > the Indo-European etymology?
> >
> > See the replies to

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/7692 .

>
> No, I'm not going to read through nine messages, and who knows how

many

> responses to them, in hopes of possibly finding a useful nugget.
>
> Is there an answer -- from a respectable Indo-Europeanist -- or not?

Yes, there is. There is some debate over the form of the root. You
can find a list of cognates in Pokorny's _Indogermanisches
Etymologisches Woerterbuch_. The root is often refered to as Pokorny
#742; Pokorny reconstructs it as *gWHðei(@) (gWH = voiced labiovelar
aspirate, @ is schwa, ð is the voiced non-sibilant dental
fricative). The general view nowadays is that it is wrong to
reconstruct non-sibilant dental fricatives for Proto-Indo-European.

Richard.