Wiktionary talk:About Proto-Indo-Iranian

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

@Tropylium Created. All non-conforming entries have been moved to correct transcriptions. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 17:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Transcription of PII and PIr[edit]

Can we please standardize the transcription of PII and PIr to <ǰ>, <č>, <š> as opposed to <ȷ́>, <ć>, <ś>? It's the system Skjærvø, Cheung and Rastorgueva all use and it's just silly that we don't. --Victar (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. Would the ancestor of हिम (hima) be *ǰimas or *ĵʰimás? I agree though that our system is unconventional. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 19:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I believe *ĵʰimás is the correct reconstruction. *ǰimas would point to Proto-Indo-European *gʰ- and not *ǵʰ-. --Victar (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I am confused as well as what the distinction was in PIr. I'll have a look at the published works again. --Victar (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I'd want to see a wider survey before declaring one version more standard. I have seen ‹ć ȷ́› (though not ‹ś ź›!) in use quite a bit as well, e.g. by Kobayashi, Historical Phonology of Old Indo-Aryan Consonants; Windfuhr's chapter on early dialectology in The Iranian Languages by Routledge; Skjærvø's chapter on Old Iranian in the same (interestingly even despite him still using ‹k̂ ĝ ĝ› for PIE); or Mayrhofer's chapter on the prehistory of Iranian in Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum.
Phonetically I see the distinction for PII usually phonetically analyzed by Iranicists / Indologists as *ć/*ĉ *ȷ́/ĵ = [tsʲ dzʲ] (palatalized dental), versus *č *ǰ = [tɕ dʑ] (fully palatal). For Iranian (if you mean that by PIr) pre-sibilant chain shift, older works (up to at least ca. 1950) seemed to favor ‹ś ź› ([sʲ zʲ]?) for the first series, more recent ones instead have [ts dz] (since this is the stage that Nuristani and some loanwords in Uralic have).
If there's editor consensus in favor of the circumflex notation though, I don't personally really mind either way. --Tropylium (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
@Victar, Tropylium: I'm fine with the circumflex as well. Should I begin moving the entries? —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 13:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Obviously no objections from me. =) --Victar (talk) 06:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Could we add a table showing the relationship of other transcription systems to ours to that there is no confusion, please? —JohnC5 17:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I would appreciate that, since I just made a mistaken edit, assuming that the circumflex and caron were the same thing. — Eru·tuon 19:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
@Aryamanarora: Did you do this backwards? You've been moving all the descendants of PIE *ḱ to instead of . Did I miss something? —JohnC5 20:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
@JohnC5: Crap, I knew I messed something up! Thanks for cleaning up after me. I confused myself. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 23:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The use of epenthetic ᵢ in IIr[edit]

@Victar, CodeCat, Aryamanarora, माधवपंडित, hello all! I'd like to start a discussion about the use of in IIr, Ir, IAr. Victar recently proposed moving *pHᵢtā́ and *HráwdHᵢti over but I'm not sure I agree. I think that if it truly is phonemic, it should be i and if it is merely phonetic it should not be shown. I'd also like to discuss the literature around this change. I'm not sure where to look for the history of this sound change or a careful accounting of the environment. Thanks! Also thanks for reverting the changes, Victar! —JohnC5 03:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, JohnC5. I'll have to pull together some sources, particularly the source that uses *Hᵢ, but essentially what I've read is PIE H becomes i-colored interconsonantally in PII. --Victar (talk) 03:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
@Victar: I'll also readily admit that I was misinterpreting as an epenthetic vowel rather than a coloration diacritic on the *H. I already like this much more and realize that I was foolish not to see that earlier. I would however like to discuss it more before implementing this across the board. —JohnC5 04:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
You're absolutely right, I should have started a discussion before moving those two entries. Incidentally, can you move back *HráwdHᵢti? I'm glad to see we understand each other's thinking now. --Victar (talk) 04:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Done. —JohnC5 04:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
@JohnC5: Can you move back *pHᵢtā́ as well? --Victar (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Old east Iranian dialects is very detailed paper on the matter, but actually argues for a syllabic *H̥ in PII.
A Grammar of Gatha-Avestan
The development of laryngeals in Indo-Iranian
The development of ∂/interconsonantal laryngeal in Iranian
--Victar (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Sanskrit पितृ (pitṛ) & रोदिति (roditi) reflect this coloring. Also explains why these consonants aren't aspirated... ɱɑɗɦɑѵ (talk) 07:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
At first I was against it but now I see why it's useful. I'd like to see which source uses the i though. BTW isn't *H between a consonant and consonant cluster realized as *i? E.g. *pitray, dative singular of *pHtā́. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 12:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
To play devil's advocate against myself, the alternative is to say laryngeals only aspirate the presiding consonant before a vowel and the insertion of -i- is a natural byproduct of IIR consonant cluster breaking. If that's the case, what are the rules of consonant cluster breaking and do we have examples of i-insertion without the aid of laryngeals? --Victar (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
To look at roots like *tep-, the normal result of cluster breaking in IIr is *a. —JohnC5 17:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
PII *bʰadʰHras -> Skt. बधिर (badhira) would be an additional example. But there's no interconsonantal laryngeal in PII *Hrudʰrás and yet we have Skt. रुधिर (rudhira). -- ɱɑɗɦɑѵ (talk) 06:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
The -i- or the aspiration of -d- in बधिर (badhira) could be influenced by another inflection of the word. If you have a look at the example in Old east Iranian dialects (actually Kuiper 1942), daughter is reconstructed as *dhugH̥₂tḗ (nom.), *dhugH̥₂térṃ (acc.), *dhugH₂tréi (dat.). --Victar (talk) 08:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
From the Indo-Iranian perspective, we are quite clearly dealing with a vowel and not a consonant. A decent option would be *ə or *ɨ (since this still cannot be identified with *i). A "syllabic laryngeal" *H̥ or *Hi is IMO overly abstract symbol-algebra.
As a sidenote, I also find the practice of retaining all laryngeals as *H into PII and even PIr. superfluous. AIUI it's done because some people argue that Eastern Iranian *iH > *i and *uH > *u never went through long vowels; but this does not mean that laryngeals would have to have survived in all positions. To reconstruct a PIr. *H as a distinct phoneme alongside real *h from PII *s (and also *x from PII *kC) is kind of absurd anyway. (Though I would like to read Mayrhofer's book on this before I propose adjustments.) --Tropylium (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I think we're mostly on the same page. *H was certainly lost in some positions (i.e. Lubotsky's law) and it's no doubt more complicated than our current understanding. We don't truly know what form laryngeals look in PII, be it *h or a dorsal fricative of some kind. Nonetheless, I think we can agree that it's pretty self-evident that we're dealing with two forms in PII, a consonantal, and a vocalic. By what mechanism some laryngeals became vocalic, during what period this happened, and how/should we demarcate this distinction is the challenge at hand. --Victar (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Kuiper (p. 148) actually claims that "*H̥ (…) became *i before the split" (of PII into separate branches), i.e. he seems to be using "Proto-Indo-Iranian" for the entire period from PIE to PII proper. On the other hand, he proposes a separate development *H > *i to have reoccurred in Indo-Aryan for some cases where Iranian has zero. This is probably not the current understanding. --Tropylium (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
@Tropylium: I don't we can say *H was fully realized into *i yet in PII, otherwise we would find -i- in Avestan 𐬞𐬙𐬁‏ (ptā‏). Yeah, it's a 41 year old rehashing of a 71 year old paper, so needs to be taken in that light. --Victar (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
We on the other hand regardless find -i- in Young Avestan (we do not seem to currently distinguish the Av. varieties, but we should). He proposes something like an alternation *ph₂tēr : *pH₂tre- > *pHtār : *pH̥tra- > *pʰtār : *pitra-, with the nom. sg. later levelled to *pitār outside of Avestan. --Tropylium (talk) 23:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
(We use dialect labels for the Avestan varieties, BTW, much like Vedic/Classical Sanskrit)Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 14:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Does anyone have access to this paper, Evidence of laryngeal coloring in Proto-Indo-Iranian? --Victar (talk) 20:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
@Tropylium also if you have a copy of Mayrhofer's Laryngalreflexe im Indo-Iranischen, I've yet to read it firsthand. --Victar (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I've looked up the Ollett paper, but I'm not sure what it would contribute to this discussion: it just verifies that *Keh₂- gives *Kā- and not *Čā- (e.g. *kās- (cough) from *kʷeh₂s-), therefore a-coloring did happen in II as well.
There's a much more interesting paper in the 2016 volume, though: i-Epenthese im Altindoarischen: Laryngalvokalisierung oder „Verbindungsglied“?', from Aufderheide & Keydana. I'll read more into that one; the theory might not be reliable enough for us to work with, but we'll see.
As for Mayrhofer's book, it has a pdf version floating online if you look around, although it's kind of a tedious book that mainly lists various categories of Sanskrit/Avestan/Old Persian words for which a preform with a laryngeal has been supposed. There's no real attempt to reconstruct the common Proto-Indo-Iranian stage. --Tropylium (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)