Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-Iranian/Hwásištʰas

If a retroflex z (ẓ) led to the retroflexion of d (ḍ) that followed it, it's logical to assume the same happened for the retroflex s and the t that followed. The Dardic descendants are further proof that Dardic languages are descended from Sanskrit. -- माधवपंडित (talk) 08:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

That seems sound logic, but saying a change happened in PIA instead of Sanskrit does nothing to further the theory that Dardic descends from Sanskrit. --Victar (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@Victar: This one doesn't but what do you think of the 9 odd points I gave the other day? Imho, those Sanskrit-exclusive vocabulary features which Dardic also displays proves that it is descended from Sanskrit. -- माधवपंडित (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

"Proves" is far too strong a word. Like mentioned there, I'll respond when I can. --Victar (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

बसीठ

The Hindi dictionaries give अवसृष्ट/अवसृष्ठ as the ancestor. DerekWinters (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@DerekWinters: Not these: [1] [2]. अवसृष्ट (avasṛṣṭa) (as [3] suggests) is possible, but वसिष्ठ (vasiṣṭha) matches perfectly. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 21:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@AryamanA: That's what I was thinking too, but I thought best to bring it up. DerekWinters (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)