Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-Iranian/Hr̥tás

Pitch accent

@AryamanA I think this should be *Hŕ̥tas / *Hŕ̥tam instead, because nouns nominalized from adjectives have the accent on the first syllable (remember the example of कृष्ण (kṛ́ṣṇa, “black antelope”) vs कृष्ण (kṛṣṇá, “black”)?). In Avestan, when an accented syllabic r (ŕ̥) is followed by a /t/ it transforms to š or ṣ̌ (Av. aməša vs Skt. amṛ́ta). This is why the word is 𐬀𐬴𐬀 (aṣ̌a) and not *𐬆𐬭𐬆𐬙𐬀 (*ər^əta). But then the Sanskrit accentuation is ṛtá and not ṛ́ta. So who do we follow? -- Bhagadatta (talk) 02:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta: I found a great overview of this discrepancy in page 53 of A Zoroastrian Liturgy: The Worship in Seven Chapters (Yasna 35-41). I think the most convincing explanation is that the original term was an adjective *Hr̥tás which was substantivized only in Avestan (you can see that the other Iranian cognates work just fine with the accent on the suffix) which led to the ṣ̌. Also, the original accent is reflected in words like Old Avestan 𐬛𐬇𐬘𐬍𐬝⸱𐬀𐬭𐬆𐬙𐬀 (də̄jīt̰.ar^əta, “whose truth is fading”), with the a explained as lengthening of the vowel from the original Old Avestan 𐬛𐬇𐬘𐬌𐬙𐬀⸱𐬆𐬭𐬆𐬙𐬀 (də̄jita.ər^əta). The book I linked looks at it much more comprehensively.

Anyway, I think we can keep the page at this form and add a note next to the Avestan descendant. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 21:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@AryamanA: Makes sense. Thank you for the interesting source! -- Bhagadatta (talk) 04:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)