Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-Iranian/ȷ́ʰánuš

RUKI

@Aryamanarora Should this not have final -š because of the RUKI law? —CodeCat 00:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

No, RUKI is for the semivowels *i and *u, i.e. *y and *w. (e.g. *ghāwš "cow") This is a problem with Old Persian hinduš – I think the nom. sg. ending -š was just a regular development in Old Persian, unconnected with the RUKI law. —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 02:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@CodeCat I am very confused now – this document, page 22, on Old Persian posits that the nominal endings in Proto-Indo-Iranian were using -h or -š, not -s (it invokes the Ruki rule). I think this change occurred later, in Proto-Iranian, (e.g. *sáwmas -> Avestan haoma but Sanskrit soma; Vedic Sanskrit had the nom. sg. ending -s but Avestan had no ending or -š) but I'm not sure. —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 12:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

From what I can tell in *dus-, Iranian has RUKI here while Sanskrit doesn't. The question is whether RUKI fully applied in PII and was later partially reversed by Sanskrit, or was applied fully only in Iranian, and Sanskrit retains the PII form. —CodeCat 13:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

However, it appears that vocalic -r̥- does have RUKI even in Sanskrit (see *dʰers-) and so does vocalic -i- (see *peys-). And there is RUKI in प्लुषि (pluṣi). —CodeCat 14:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Persian چانه (čâne)

Is this a regular match and inheritance from middle or old persian? There is already زنخ (zanakh) which seems to be the inherited word and čâne most likely seems to be developed under Turkic *čeŋe (Yakut сэҥийэ (señiye), Ottoman Turkish چكه (čeŋe), Chagatai [script needed] (čeŋe)). --Anylai (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree. zanakh matches with the Old Persian, so I would guess čâne is not Indo-Iranian. WT:Tea room might have some more knowledgeable people. —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 00:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)