Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Possible sandhi in Indo-Iranian "drauj"?

Expand Messages
  • Francesco Brighenti
    ... So far as I know there isn t any such zero-grade form of PIE *dus- in Indo-Iranian. Iranian never has /r/ in formative prefixes deriving from
    Message 1 of 4 , Oct 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "bobbyisosceles" <nervous@...> wrote:

      > The "hu-/du-" opposition meaning "good/bad" appears in a number of
      > compounds. Most of the time, these compounds are appended with š -
      > as in "hušiti-", "good dwelling" or the Modern Persian
      > word "došmand", "enemy."
      >
      > However, I've seen in Sanskrit a potential sandhi combination H->r,
      > as in "Duryodhana" < (duh: + yudh-) meaning "bad/dirty fighter."
      >
      > With that in mind, is the word "draoj-/draug-", meaning "lie,"
      > really a combination of duH + aoj/aox to mean "bad word/bad
      > utterance"? Looking only at the Modern Persian "durugh" would lead
      > one to that conclusion, but the Avestan and Old Persian forms
      > didn't have that epenthesis. Is there such a thing as a "zero
      > grade" version of duH that became "dr"?

      So far as I know there isn't any such zero-grade form of PIE *dus- in Indo-Iranian.

      Iranian never has /r/ in formative prefixes deriving from Proto-Indo-Iranian *dus^- 'bad, wrong, difficult, un-, -less'. Avestan has both unvoiced dus^- and voiced duz^- (which are never confused with dur-); Old Persian has dus^-, Sogdian ds^-, Parthian dwj-, Middle Persian both duj^- and dus^-, New Persian duz-. No /r/'s in sight here.

      The dur- form of the prefix dus.- in Vedic (< Proto-Indo-Iranian *dus^-) is due to the normal rules of external sandhi. Final /s./ is changed to /r/ before a vowel or a voiced consonant (namely, before 'soft' sounds). There are a few exceptions (seemingly older compound words) in which dus.- becomes du:- instead of the expected dur-; on these forms, check out the book snippet at

      http://tinyurl.com/yavr7d7

      Finally, the rare form duH- of this prefix you mention above is found in Sanskrit only before /k/, /kh/, /p/ and /ph/. However, this aspirated form of the prefix is neither present in Iranian nor, if reconstruction has an inherent logic, in Proto-Indo-Iranian.

      Best,
      Francesco Brighenti
    • nervous@breakdown.org
      Thanks for the clarification, i ll look into the book :) ... So far as I know there isn t any such zero-grade form of PIE *dus- in Indo-Iranian. Iranian never
      Message 2 of 4 , Oct 1, 2009
      • 0 Attachment

        Thanks for the clarification, i'll look into the book :)




         



        --- In cybalist@yahoogroup s.com, "bobbyisosceles" <nervous@... > wrote:

        > The "hu-/du-" opposition meaning "good/bad" appears in a number of
        > compounds. Most of the time, these compounds are appended with š -
        > as in "hušiti-", "good dwelling" or the Modern Persian
        > word "došmand", "enemy."
        >
        > However, I've seen in Sanskrit a potential sandhi combination H->r,
        > as in "Duryodhana" < (duh: + yudh-) meaning "bad/dirty fighter."
        >
        > With that in mind, is the word "draoj-/draug- ", meaning "lie,"
        > really a combination of duH + aoj/aox to mean "bad word/bad
        > utterance"? Looking only at the Modern Persian "durugh" would lead
        > one to that conclusion, but the Avestan and Old Persian forms
        > didn't have that epenthesis. Is there such a thing as a "zero
        > grade" version of duH that became "dr"?

        So far as I know there isn't any such zero-grade form of PIE *dus- in Indo-Iranian.

        Iranian never has /r/ in formative prefixes deriving from Proto-Indo-Iranian *dus^- 'bad, wrong, difficult, un-, -less'. Avestan has both unvoiced dus^- and voiced duz^- (which are never confused with dur-); Old Persian has dus^-, Sogdian ds^-, Parthian dwj-, Middle Persian both duj^- and dus^-, New Persian duz-. No /r/'s in sight here.

        The dur- form of the prefix dus.- in Vedic (< Proto-Indo-Iranian *dus^-) is due to the normal rules of external sandhi. Final /s./ is changed to /r/ before a vowel or a voiced consonant (namely, before 'soft' sounds). There are a few exceptions (seemingly older compound words) in which dus.- becomes du:- instead of the expected dur-; on these forms, check out the book snippet at

        http://tinyurl. com/yavr7d7

        Finally, the rare form duH- of this prefix you mention above is found in Sanskrit only before /k/, /kh/, /p/ and /ph/. However, this aspirated form of the prefix is neither present in Iranian nor, if reconstruction has an inherent logic, in Proto-Indo-Iranian.

        Best,
        Francesco Brighenti

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.