Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-Iranian/páćšma

Are we sure that पपनी and co. derived from this. If they did it definitely isn't from the root on its own. DerekWinters (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

[1] I think they are in fact direct descendants. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 00:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing in the root to explain the final ई in many daughters. Also, daughters almost always have the nominative singular as their direct ancestor, and thus there is no explanation for the final/penultimate न/ण in most daughters. DerekWinters (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

"Forms with various (dialectic?) developments of -- kṣm -- are widespread throughout NIA.: -- khum -- , -- ṣm -- ( -- ṣṣ -- , -- ṣp -- , -- mh -- , -- mbh -- ), -- kkh -- , -- pp -- . Forms, esp. of the North -- west, with -- ṣp -- , -- ṣ -- , -- m(b)h -- and meaning ʻ wool ʼ, may with G. Morgenstierne BSOS viii 668, though not certainly, be ← Ir., cf. Pers. pašm ʻ wool ʼ. "

The -p- may be a dialectical development from -ĉšm-, possibly influenced by the initial p-? McGregor's Hindi dictionary gives pakshman as the source for the Hindi, with no doubts about it. The final -i is probably just an added feminine diminutive ending. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 22:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I read it. Regardless however, that would yield पप, पप्प, पाप, etc., or, with the feminine diminutive, पपी, पप्पी, etc. The न/ण comes from some other derivation from पक्ष्म. Indeed, Gujaratilexicon also gives पक्ष्म, but does reserve some doubt on the matter. It very well could have come from पक्ष्म but it is a little incomplete. DerekWinters (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Only Pali pakhuma cannot be accounted for by this entry except through an ancestor that had the /kṣ/ because I can't see how /ṭṣ/ can become /kh/. On the other hand /kṣ/ is known to give Pali /kh/. I've put pakhuma as a borrowing from Sanskrit and pamha as inherited for now - madhavpandit (talk) 04:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)