The intermediate forms ś, ź, źh will explain most of the Indo-Iranian developments, as they will the Balto-Slavonic, but it is likely that before complete assibilation there was an affricate stage. Evidence of this is preserved in the Kafiri dialects, which occupy an intermediate position between Indian and Iranian. The treatment that occurs in Kati duć '10' and ćui 'empty' for instance (Sanskrit dáśa, śūnyá-) seems clearly to reflect a form more ancient than that of Sanskrit.
quoting dhok:I know many of the people I've talked to, at least, doubt there ever was a true affricate stage in the Satem development of the palatovelars
quoting dhok:I had been intending to make this for a while, but I have been browsing T. Burrow's The Sanskrit Language (an excellent reference work for all diachronic things Sanskrit), and stumbled upon the following intriguing passage:
The intermediate forms ś, ź, źh will explain most of the Indo-Iranian developments, as they will the Balto-Slavonic, but it is likely that before complete assibilation there was an affricate stage. Evidence of this is preserved in the Kafiri dialects, which occupy an intermediate position between Indian and Iranian. The treatment that occurs in Kati duć '10' and ćui 'empty' for instance (Sanskrit dáśa, śūnyá-) seems clearly to reflect a form more ancient than that of Sanskrit.
I know many of the people I've talked to, at least, doubt there ever was a true affricate stage in the Satem development of the palatovelars, and of course material on Dardic is hard to come by, especially diachronic material. But what do we make of this?
Nort: I think what I'm recalling is that I'd been advised by several sources that I could not realistically get away with having č j as reflexes for *ḱ ǵ in an a posteriori IE language. Seems I'll have to rethink that...
quoting dhok:Ah, I must have confused the two...woops. Thanks, Nessari. Also, wow, that website is an antique by now...
Nort: I think what I'm recalling is that I'd been advised by several sources that I could not realistically get away with having č j as reflexes for *ḱ ǵ in an a posteriori IE language. Seems I'll have to rethink that...
quoting Nessari:Yeah, I first ran into it in like 1998, and the only thing that's changed since then that wasn't cosmetic so far as I could tell is the url and the local situation update.Nort: I think what I'm recalling is that I'd been advised by several sources that I could not realistically get away with having č j as reflexes for *ḱ ǵ in an a posteriori IE language. Seems I'll have to rethink that...
o_O do you mean people saying 'don't do this, it's unsupportable' or do you mean books which said č ǰ etc don't occur? And is this part of why you were all weird about Scythian (mine, not the real one) happening to end up distinguishing reflexes of *k ḱ kʷ?
quoting Morrígan, Baroness:Awesome, thanks. I was not familiar with that site.
I'm working on finally building the unified PIE lexicon in RDF with citations back to the original texts.