Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-Iranian/Hrā́ćš

Hindi राजा (rājā) and Sanskrit राजन् (rājan)

@Victar, @Bhagadatta Greetings. Some help is needed for the etymology section of Hindi राजा (rājā) and Sanskrit राजन् (rājan). The Hindi term is borrowed from the Sanskrit term, so their etymologies should be the same, but currently the etymology for both Hindi and Sanskrit terms seem to be different. Is the correct Proto-Indo-Iranian form *Hrā́ĵā or *Hrā́ĉš ? Also, with regards to the Proto-Indo-European form, is it derived from *h₃rḗǵeh₂ or *h₃rḗǵ-ō, both of which is derived from *h₃rḗǵs (“ruler, king”)? Thanks for taking your time to read this. KevinUp (talk) 10:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@KevinUp: The noun राजन् (rājan) is an n stem noun in Sanskrit, meaning it takes a long ā in the nominative singular and becomes राजा (rājā) which is then borrowed into Hindi.

Where does राजन् (rājan) come from? Certainly not from *Hrā́ĉš which is the exact formal predecessor of राट् (rāṭ), a term that is so old and archaic that it has been found in the Rig Veda only. So I believe राजन् is an Indo-Aryan innovation based on the STEM form of *Hrā́ĉš which is *Hrā́ĵ and then affixing to it a stem ending. As such राजन् (rājan) may not have had an exact PII/PIE ancestor but rather might have been secondarily derived. -- Bhagadatta (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta: I added the etymology for राट् (rāṭ) based on the descendants listed in this page. Seems like there are two Sanskrit terms, राट् (rāṭ) and राजन् (rājan) that are derived from Proto-Indo-Aryan *Hrā́ṭṣ and *Hrā́ȷ́ā respectively, originally derived from Proto-Indo-Iranian *Hrā́ĉš and *Hrā́ĵā respectively, both ultimately derived from Proto-Indo-European *h₃rḗǵs (“king, ruler”).

Anyway, I hope User:Victar can help explain how Proto-Indo-Iranian *Hrā́ĵā is derived from *h₃rḗǵs (via *h₃rḗǵeh₂ or *h₃rḗǵ-ō or *h₃rēǵ-né-s)? KevinUp (talk) 00:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@KevinUp (awesome username), you can find the etymologies for *Hrā́ĵā, *Hrā́ĵniH, *Hrā́ĵr̥ on the *Hrā́ĉš entry. --Victar (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@KevinUp: The exact formal PIE/PII ancestor of राजन् (rājan) may not have existed. In the event that it did, it certainly was not *h₃rḗǵeh₂; it would have yielded a laryngeal (*H) in PII (thus the word would be *Hrā́ĵaH) and it would be an ā stem in Sanskrit and not an n stem. Also I may want to erase the etymology at राट् (rāṭ); the convention is that we provide etymologies for the stem forms of nouns and not their inflections. Although the nom. sg राट् (rāṭ) is the one that continues nom. sg. *Hrā́ṭṣ and nom. sg. *Hrā́ĉš, the etymology will be at the main lemma form, which is राज् (rāj).-- Bhagadatta (talk) 18:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)