User talk:AryamanA/IA innovations

has- (to laugh)

@AryamanA What do you think is the etymology of this root? Because two Avestan cognates were given (albeit they did not formally match each other), I tried to analyze it on the IIR innovation page but man, that was a lot harder than I thought. I was unable to pin anything down to a single form! When you've some time, do take a crack at this! -- Bhagadatta (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta: I gave it a shot at हस् (has)! It's all quite iffy TBH, the Indo-Iranian looks weak, but the way the various assimilations have occurred really seems to require going even as far as PIE. Avestan 𐬰𐬀𐬒𐬌𐬌𐬀‎ (zax́iia‎) is tough; it should reflect Proto-Iranian *jahya which doesn't really work. It's all really confusing! —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 22:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@AryamanA: Avestan 𐬰𐬀𐬒𐬌𐬌𐬀‎ (zax́iia‎) here is taken to be the formal cognate of हास्य (hāsya) which means the same. That is, if it really means the same; Kanga says it does but Mayrhofer says the interpretation is not certain. Otherwise even the short a in 𐬰𐬀𐬒𐬌𐬌𐬀‎ (zax́iia‎) is not a big deal as Avestan shortens it sometimes. -- Bhagadatta (talk) 00:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta: Actually, can we make *ǵʰes- work for all of them? The Pali certainly won't work... but the dialectal Vedic जज्झती (jajjhatī) will? —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 01:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@AryamanA: हस् (has) won't care either way. But the PII and PIA forms would change. jájjhatī will be better explained by *ǵʰes: I think this development will be as follows but I may be wrong: ǵʰeǵʰs --> IIR ȷ́ʰaȷ́žʰ --> IA *źʰaḍẓʰ --> Vedic jajjh-

Basically a voiced counterpart of the development of PIE ḱs to Skt. क्ष.

Pali would not match as you said.

But then Avestan jahika would not match either unless we say it was an innovation of Avestan. OR maybe jahika and hasrā are related but they are both from a different root which has erroneously been tied to this one. -- Bhagadatta (talk) 02:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

However, Vedic can also go back to a previous *źádȷ́ʰa as already mentioned in the etymology and does not strictly require *źaḍẓʰ-. This is because -tśa- is realized as -ccha- in Vedic even through sandhi.

(For example, Rigveda 05.86.003 has "amavacchávas", whose padapāṭha reveals that the constituent parts are अमवत् (amavat) and शवस् (śavas)). Surely if tśa --> ccha then -jjha- can come from either dźʰa or dȷ́ʰa? -- Bhagadatta (talk) 02:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta: I thought so too, but then I see *mazǰʰā́ giving मज्जन् (majjan). But actually, we have e.g. Hindi भेझा (bhejhā) from that that preserves the aspiration! (Going to expand that a bit.) Maybe then मज्जन् is an anomaly, and जज्झती is normal. Still wary of the Avestan however. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 04:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Wait false alarm, it's भेजा (bhejā), idk what I was thinking there. Looking at Turner, I see pretty uniform lack of aspiration in the NIA descendants of that. But, he does construct *majjhra for Kalasha bhrānz. Still something I will look into. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 04:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@AryamanA: Haha, no worries! You're right, this is something we need keep at the back of our minds to look further into in the future. For instance, Avestan 𐬰𐬀𐬒𐬌𐬌𐬀‎ (zax́iia‎) is too good for me to let go of it and Kanga says without any आशङ्का that it means "laughable" and mentions Skt. हास्य as a cognate. It's just in Mayrhofer's dictionary where he says it's not certain that it means "laughable". So we'll leave the etymology as it is for now as it is well elucidated. -- Bhagadatta (talk) 04:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)