Past participles and retroflexion

[Guest guest]

Dear list members,

 

While looking up a past passive participle in the dicitionary I noticed the

following phenomenon.

 

It appears that whenever a past passive participle of type root + "ta" is

formed from a root ending in a short vowel + h ,

the past passive participle form either:

1. retains the short vowel and the termination is a unretroflexed double

consonent.

or

2. now has a long vowel plus a single consonent retroflexed termination.

 

So we have:

 

guh gUDha

dah dagdha

dih digdha

duh dugdha

druh drugdha

nah naddha

mih mIDha

muh mugdha and mUDha !!

rih rIDha

ruh rUDha

lih lIDha

vah UDha

sah sADha or sODha

snih snigdha

 

Is this in fact an invariable rule, and is it likely that the retroflex

forms were a historical linguistic development from an earlier but now

usually lost form of short vowel + non-retroflex ending.

 

I.e. short vowel + gdha ----> long vowel + Dha at some point in time for

these forms.

 

Thanks,

Harry

 

_______________

Get a FREE online virus check for your PC here, from McAfee.

http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "Harry Spier" <harryspier@H...>

wrote:

>

> It appears that whenever a past passive participle of type

> root + "ta" is formed from a root ending in a short vowel

> + h , the past passive participle form either:

> 1. retains the short vowel and the termination is

> a unretroflexed double consonent.

> or

> 2. now has a long vowel plus a single consonent

> retroflexed termination.

 

The regular outcomes depend on whether h is a reflex of

a P.I.E. palatovelar, plain velar or labiovelar aspirate.

 

> So we have:

>

> guh gUDha

> dah dagdha

> dih digdha

> duh dugdha

> druh drugdha

> nah naddha

> mih mIDha

> muh mugdha and mUDha !!

> rih rIDha

> ruh rUDha

> lih lIDha

> vah UDha

> sah sADha or sODha

> snih snigdha

 

The h in guh-, mih-, muh-, rih-, ruh-, lih-, vah- and

sah- goes back to a P.I.E. palatovelar aspirate. The h

in dah-, dih-, duh-, and druh- goes back to a P.I.E. plain

velar or labiovelar aspirate. I don't know about nah- or

muh-. They must be irregular.

 

> Is this in fact an invariable rule, and is it likely that the

> retroflex forms were a historical linguistic development from

> an earlier but now usually lost form of short vowel + non-

> retroflex ending.

>

> I.e. short vowel + gdha ----> long vowel + Dha at some point

> in time for these forms.

 

The diacritics are too difficult to convey in email, so

I made a picture file with a chart showing the stages

involved, and uploaded it to the files section as "Sanskrit

Past Participles". To simplify it I omitted accents. It

begins with a chart showing my method of notation.

 

David

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, Valerie J Roebuck <vjroebuck@m...>

wrote:

>

> Doesn't nah- go back to a different original aspirate as well?

 

Yes, you're right. I was too tired last night to look it up,

but I checked T. Burrow today, and he wrote that nah- 'bind'

is from nadh-.

 

David

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "wtsdv" <liberty@p...> wrote:

> INDOLOGY, Valerie J Roebuck <vjroebuck@m...>

> wrote:

> >

> > Doesn't nah- go back to a different original aspirate as well?

>

> Yes, you're right. I was too tired last night to look it up,

> but I checked T. Burrow today, and he wrote that nah- 'bind'

> is from nadh-.

 

I couldn't last night, with my limited sources, find the

root of ruh-, as my chart indicates with a question mark,

but was today informed on the cybalist that it's from

*leudH- 'grow up, ascend'. So ruh- is like nah- in this

respect.

 

David