Guest guest Posted January 27, 2004 Report Share Posted January 27, 2004 At 12:26 pm +0000 27/1/04, wtsdv wrote: .... >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. Doesn't nah- go back to a different original aspirate as well? After all, we find the equivalent change not only in other parts of the verb, but in a noun derived from it, upAnah, nom. sg. upAnat, shoe. Or did this happen by analogy with the participle? In my earlier posting on this thread, I wrote 'spirant' when I meant 'sibilant'. Apologies for any (extra) confusion caused. Valerie J Roebuck Manchester, UK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2004 Report Share Posted January 29, 2004 First many thanks to everyone for the linguistic information on the past participles. 1. I have Burrows, The Sanskrit Language 1st edition. Does this differ significantly from the 2nd edition? 2. I have M. S. Murti's An Introduction to Sanskrit Linguistics. Is this in general sound. 3. I understand that Beekes has a book on Avestan. Is this structured in a way that would be useful for comparative linguistics to Sanskrit. Thanks, Harry Harry Spier 371 Brickman Rd. Hurleyville, New York USA 12747 _______________ Check out the coupons and bargains on MSN Offers! http://shopping.msn.com/softcontent/softcontent.aspx?scmId=1418 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.