CC BY
115
DOI :10.30842/ielcp230690152281
Luka Repansek MISCELLANEA AVESTICA ET PALAEOPERSICA
В статье предлагается ряд наблюдений, касающихся исторической фонологии авестийского и древнеперсидского языков. В § 1 рассматривается развитие мл.-авест. dat. pl. ptdr3bii5 как фонетически закономерной формы. § 2 содержит этюд, посвященный ацентологии авестийского слова для «солнца», причем показано, что оно в плане акцентологии сопоставимо с ведийским s^var-. В § 3 рассматриваются особенности развития *TH в унаследованных (индо)иранских словах, причем отмечается, что младоавестийское s в композите xasi° не является исконным. В § 4 древнеперсидские sc (напр., cisciy & c.) рассматриваются как унаследованные рефлексы праиндоиранской группы *t^. § 5 посвящен рассмотрению относительной хронологии развития, причем предлагается видеть аналогическое давление со стороны форм acc. sg. в праиранских амфидинамических именных парадигмах у основ с исходом на i- и и-. В §6 предпринимается попытка объяснить древнеперсидский гапакс da&as (DB 4.71-72) с помощью древних иранских данных фонологии и морфологии.
Ключевые слова: авестийский язык, древнеперсидский язык, праиндоиранский язык, историческая фонология.
§ 1. YAv. ptafbiio
As is well known, cases such as the YAv. acc. sg. atrdm 'fire' < *HeH-tr + -m or 3sg. subj. praes. trdfiiat 'would steal' < *trp-ie-t seem to point to what appears to be at least descriptively a Young
Avestan sound change *эг > гэ / t_([+lab.]) (see Hoffmann,
Forssman 2004: 91, but cf. Beekes 1999 pass. and de Vaan 2003: 512 ff. for an altogether different view).1 The passive present striie-< *stэr-ia- (via *st^-ia- > *striia-) that is usually adduced in support of such metathesis is not a good example, however, since Proto-Indo-Iranian sequence *ri regularly results in Pllr. *rii
1 As far as «rd für erwartetes dr [...] hinter inlautendem *au» (Hoffmann, Forssman 2004: 91) is concerned, I do not see here any kind of similar development. On the contrary, forms such as OAv. fraoft 'devotedly' =
[frawart] (Y. 30.5c) clearly point simply to *awdr > YAv. *awur > *awr =
3
aor .
Or perhaps syncope if the change is as late as the anaptyxis of d, so that tdr3 > trd. In this case, however, anaptyxis would have to precede YAv. *d
> i /_[+pal.]_, *d > u /_[+lab.]_, as is required, e.g., by the u < *d in
brätruiia-.
anyway (cf. Ved. kriya- < *kvr-ie/o-, matching the OP 3sg. opt. pf. caxriya vs. Ved. 3sg. opt. praes. bibhrya- < *bRi-bRr-ieHj- with what is clearly an analogically restored r), thus making YAv. striie-ultimately ambiguous. Is is nevertheless possible that striie- does reflect *strd-ia- < *stdr-ia- ^ *striia-, provided the restitution of *stdr- was early enough to undergo metathesis. That at least in the passive present the phonetically regular outcome could be and probably regularly was susceptible to restoration is proved by the likes of YAv. kiriia- < *kdlr-ia- ^ *kriia- < *kvr-ie/o- &c. (OP a-ka-ra-i-ya- is of course ambiguous, as it can either stand for the renewed *akarya- or old *akriya-). It is very unlikely that *striia-would have been exempt from what seems to have been an across-the-board renewal in j'a-presents.
Seen from this perspective, the YAv. dat. pl. ptdfbiid 'to the fathers' < PIE *pH2-tr-bRios is normally recognised to be aberrant for expected **fd,rdbiid, while its sequence tdr3 is usually ascribed to the analogical influence of nd/biid 'to men' < PIE *H2nr-bhios vel sim. (cf. Hoffmann, Forssman, loc. cit.). This is not impossible and is theoretically even rather likely given the fact that nd/biio itself is an analogically remade dative. The expected form must, at least in my view, have been nuruiio = +nuruuiio with the usual simplified spelling (thus also attested side by side with the partly restored ndruiio; cf. surunao-/surunu(u)- 'to hear')3 < *ndruwijo < *ndrwjo <
3
With surunao-/surunu- one could think of either *sdru-nao/nu- ^ *sdr-nao- < PIE *kl-néu-/nu-' (i.e., as a morphological portmanteau of *sdr-nao/nu- and sru- (i.e., the shape of the weak stem outside of the present) or
*s3runao- with anaptyxis in the anlauting cluster of a more radically reshaped *sru-nao-/nu-, copying the shape of the weak stem of the aorist, the perfect, the stative, and the past passive participle. Considering the 2sg. opt. praes. surunuiia in Y 68.9a, however, it seems that we are almost certainly dealing with late anaptyxis, since both opening verses (surunuiia no yasndm ahurane ahurahe / xsnuiia no yasndm ahurane ahurahe; for the recent edition see Redard, Kellens 2013: 35) point metrically to 6/5 + 8 (cd are regular 8 + 8). A disyllabic participle surunuuant- would also ensure perfect metrical correspondence between surunuuatasca asurunuuatasca and the following juxtaposition xsaiiantasca axsaiiantasca in Y 35.4 (for the edition see Narten 1986, Kellens/Pirart 1988). In this case, then, the colouring of 3ru to uru is not directly comparable to uru < *dru, but this is
not a problem, since in contrast to YAv. *a > i / [+palatal]_;_[+palatal]
and *5 > u / w_ ; _w, which only affects non-anaptyctic, i.e., old d
(mostly < *a /_N), the second wave of the colouring process affects the
central vowel of both sources. Consider, e.g., gar°bis < *gar3bis < PIE
*ndrfijdh < *narbiah.4 But the retention of the sequence tar3 must also be posited in the case of YAv. turiia- 'paternal uncle' (cf. Chwar. fcwr, Past. tra, on which see Morgenstierne 2003 s.v.) < *turija-5 < *tur(i)ja- < *tuwr(i)ja- < *tawr(i)ja-6 < *tawrw(i)ja- < *ptaru(i)ia < PIE *pH2-tr-u-(i)io-,7 which stands in clear opposition to YAv. bratruiia- 'nephew' (cf. 3CH^ II s.v.) < *bra-tra- (both in Videvdad). The latter form is not traditionally seen as representing the regular outcome of its PIE prototype (cf. Hoffmann/Narten 1989: 73126), but the alternative spellings braturiia- and braturiia-can hardly be given precedence seeing that these could in turn have easily been modelled on turiia- (for a similar view but a different evolutional history of the word see de Vaan 2003: 517-518 with references). Regardless of whether bratruiia- stands for +bratruuiia-(with the usual simplified spelling) or [bratruja-], the sequence *bhreH2 -tr- here clearly reflects the expected sound change *tra /_([+lab.]) conspicuously absent from turiia-. Note here that
*gvrH-bfiis 'with songs (of praise)' beside mordndat < *mdr3ndat < PIE *mr-n-d-a-t 'destroyed' etc.
4 For the relative chronology of YAv. *drw (< *dru) > *dwr > *ur(w) (vide infra) vs.*drw (< *drb) > dur cf. gduruuaiia- 'to grab' < PIE *giirbii-$H-ie/o-, which points to the fact that one would not in fact expect *ndrwjd to yield something like *ndrjo (via *jj < *w'j as inpaoriia- etc.) either.
5 Via Late YAv. j > ij ~ w > uw / C_.
6 With regular loss of palatalized *w' (probably via j, cf. Old Irish drui < *druw' < *dru-uid-s) as in *paruiia- 'first' > *parwja- > *pawrja- > *pawrja- > mlav. pao'riia- vs. OAv. pa<ou>ruuiia- (with YAv. contamination) <= *[parwija-]. Note that full metathesis (i.e. with proper resegmentation of the suprasegmental w) in the case of original *-rw- < *-rww- < *-rw- only seems to have occurred if -w- was lost (most probably due to the palatalising effect of the following segment): contrast YAv. haurwa- 'whole' < *hawrwa- < *harwa- with uruuara- 'plant(s)' < *urwara-< *dwrwara- < *drwara- < PIE *H2rH3-uer-eH2- (with the colouring of *d in a labial environment but no compensatory lengthening; see, however, Lubotsky 1997 for a radically different account) vs. tu'riia- < *turija- <
*tuwrja- < *tdwrja- < *tdwrwja- < *ptdruia- (with d > u /_[+lab.] as well
as compensatory lengthening due to the loss of the fully segmental w).
7 It is insignificant whether the suffix is di- or monosyllabic. One would not necessarily expect, however, the descriptively Sievers-type sequence (if this is the correct reconstruction) to survive in Iranian. For Vedic pUrv^ya-or pitrv(i)ya- are expected (perhaps even pitrv(i)ya-, considering the model of bhratrvya-), but the accentuation is not directly attested in the extant sources (cf. Rau 2011: 15-16).
on the evidence of Ved. bhratrv^ya-, YAv. +brätruuiia- < *brätruwija- < *brätrdwija- < *brätdruija- < *bßreH2-tr-u-(i)io- is the less likely alternative as opposed to the unproblematic development in brätruiia- < *brätruwja- < *brätrawja- < *brätdruia- < *bßreH2-tr-u-iio-, since in the case of +brätruuiia- the potentially disyllabic Proto-Iranian sequence * j would have to be preserved as well as accented to avoid early Young Avestan syncope. Since in the case of inital p in ptdfbiiö as opposed to turiia- < *ptdrwja- we must be dealing with a case of restitution (one completely parallel to ptä beside regular tä < *ptä in the nominative singular) from the oblique cases with the prevocalic shape of the stem (*tar- < PIE *p-ter- ~ *pitr-V- < PIE *pdH2-tr-V-8 ~ tdr-C- < PIE *p-tr-C-), both sequences form an equitable juxtaposition to brätruiia- < *brätrdwja- and other examples attesting to metathesis in tdr sequences. The reason for the failure of this particular sound change to operate in the case of the former thus becomes immediately apparent - it must have been the heavy cluster *#ptrd- which would otherwise have been produced that was disfavoured. Note here that the Common-Iranian fricativisation of
stops /_C precedes YAv. tdr > trd as is clearly evidenced by all the
examples with {-s}tdr > trd (and not **0rd). This is significant in as far as YAv. **/6rd- produced by reverse chronology would not have violated the onset constraint in a word-initial syllable, cf. OAv. fdöröi = [fBrqj]).
To a similar effect the OAv./YAv. 3sg. stative presents mruiie 'spoken' and sruiie 'famous' < *mruwaj, *sruwaj,9 continuing PIE *mluH-ei and *kluu-ei respectively (cf. Kümmel 1996 s.vv.) fail to show syncope of the unaccented sequence uw in heavy word-initial clusters such as #CRuw°\10
8 With subsequent loss of the laryngeal by lex Wetter in the sequence *pdHtr-' (concerning the Pllr. paradigm of the word for 'father', one should start from *pta, strong stem *ptar-, weak stem *pitr-\ "middle" stem *ptr-).
9 Possibly via *uwje (if the reflex of *-ai was subject to rediphthongisation in auslaut, which however is not unambiguously demonstrable) > *uw'je > *u6)je > uje.
Note that OAv. -duiie (2pl. primary medial personal ending) < *-duwaj vs. YAv. +-dpe < *-dwaj is ambiguous as both would result from either < *-d^uuai (with syncope and w > P in Young Avestan and the preservation of dw with subsequent development into duw by the late Young Avestan Sievers-effect, for which cf. OAv. ahuiie 'existence' (dat. sg.) < *ahuw'(j)e
§ 2. YAv. hu
The equation between Old Avestan disyllabic xdng = *huwsyg
< *huwa and Young Avestan hu (both genitives singular to the heteroclite neuter huuar3 'sun') is an established and unproblematic fact. The short genitive hu < *huwa (possibly via *huwdq(h) < *huwa) owes its seemingly truncated ending to Young Avestan contraction in the sequence *huw§ > *huwu > hu (see, e.g., Lubotsky 1997 pass., Hoffmann, Forssman 2004: 153). What is not usually explicitly pointed out but seems significant enough, especially in terms of the assessment of the relationship between Old and Young Avestan, is that unlike OAv. xv§ng, which clearly points to an oxytone *huw9ijg < *huwa and thus preserving the proterodynamic accentual pattern of Pllr. *suuans (from PIE *s(H2)uuens = *sH2-uen-s by lex Lindemann, alternatively *suH2ens ^ *seuH2ns < *seH2-un-s via laryngeal metathesis and in the event that one starts from an acrostatic *so/eH2-ul/n-, or from *suH2ens ^ *seH2-un-s, starting from a proterodynamic *seH2-ul-0 (^ *seuH2-¡-0) / *sH2-uen- (^ *suH2-en-)), Young Avestan hu can only be the result of a barytonised genitive *huwa. Given the fact that early Young Avestan sequences of * j and *uw are regularly syncopated if unaccented, the initial sequence of *huwa would result in exactly what is the transmitted Old Avestan form via *huwa > YAv. *hw§ > **xv5, cf. OAv. *zuwaja- 'call' > YAv. *zwaja- > zbaiia- vs. YAv. hizuu-V- 'tongue' < *hizuw-V- < *si<fcuu-V- ^ PIE *dng-uH2-V-, or tanuiie 'body' (dat. sg.) < *tanuwai < PIE *tnH2-uH2-ei. Since the nominative/accusative singular * huuar < Pllr. *suuarn < *suur < *suH24-0 (with laryngeal metathesis and subsequent generalisation of the zero-grade) was accented on the first syllable (cf. Ved. s^var '(sun)light'), secondary accentual columnarity is not surprising and can be nicely paralleled by the archaic Vedic gen. sg. s^var (homophonous even with the endingless locative s^var ^ *sH2-uel)
< *suuars ^ *suuans (with the additional generalisation of the
< *ahuwai < *áhwai vs. YAv. aifhe < *aywhai) or *-dñuai < PIIr. *-dh(u)uai.
11 The Proto-Indo-Iranian outcome of the syllabic *r in auslaut is beyond any doubt to be reconstructed as *-ar#. Vedic -ur in dhánur-type heteroclites is limited to *-Cur# sequences, in which the syllabicity of the elements involved was at least to my mind subject to metathesis. The development observable in *-Cur# > -Cur# is superficially comparable to the PIE rule, whereby *Cur > *Cru.
r-(< /)allomorph into the oblique cases). Note that it is extremely doubtful that Ved. sur-e (dat. sg.) reflects any kind of old accentual mobility (the retrograde by-form of the genitive singular is always accented as sur-as, while sur-e almost certainly copies the pattern of root nouns). It is important to add that the innovation displayed by the Young Avestan paradigm *huwar, *huwa (~ *hur-dh) as opposed to Old Avestan *huwar, *huwa is no obstacle in regarding the latter idiom as directly ancestral to the former, as is the case with the well-known and much discussed morphological innovations, also nicely paralleled by their progressive behaviour in Vedic.
§ 3. YAv. xasP
According to Hoffmann, Narten 1989: 6698 (cf. Hoffmann, Forssman 2004: 101) the YAv. compositional form hasi° 'companion' may mirror a virtual < *hagi- < *hakki- < *sokv-H2-i- or could have introduced its s from the oblique cases, where *kk < PIE *kvH2 was in contact with *j < PIE *i. The decision in favour of one or the other is of course not unimportant for the correct interpretation of the sound law, by which Proto-(Indo)Iranian < *lk(h?) / __j behaves differently than / __VE. Since Pllr. < PIE
*kfv) / _VE,j only regularly displays the outcome of secondary
fricativisation (parallel to stops and, much later, YAv. ~ >
* j /_j) when followed by the palatal approximant, one does not
expect *^k to have necessarily behaved much differently, but this is ultimately very difficult to prove given that hasi- is in fact the sole example of the inherited sequence
*k¥)Hi that we possess.
It is fairly easy to show on internal grounds, however, that s can easily be analogical. One encounters a similar phenomenon in the feminine stem apasi- < PIE *apo-H3kv-iH2- (to apanc- 'turned away'), which has replaced its original the expected reflex of the PIIr. sequence *ki, with *q from the oblique cases. There it was regularly produced by the contact of *k¥ with the anlaut of the full-grade suffix *apaqja- < *apakja- < *apo-H3k¥-ieH2-. Since the Old Avestan sequence (sii) attests to the preservation of the glide (cf. Old Persian siy), it must be concluded that the transference of s from the oblique cases in the case of apasi- as well as hasi- cannot have preceded the regular YAv. sound change by which *j was absorbed into the preceding *q (and, parallelly, *j < YAv. /_j).
There nevertheless remains the rather difficult question whereas hasi° might still somehow represent the regular outcome of PIIr. *hakhi- < *sokr-H2-i-. The issue must probably remain ultimately
open because there can be no absolute certainty that inherited sequences of a velar followed by *h, i.e. the probable reflex of the PIE laryngeal *H2 and *Hj, were affected by the process of Proto-Indo-Iranian palatalisation by front vowels or *j. Beside *sakhi-/*sakhj-, the only other example is the famous *dughtär-/*d(R)uktr-' 'daughter' < PIE *dRugH2ter-/*dRuktr-' < *dhugH2tr-', where the attested forms that could potentially go back to are too ambiguous (see more recently, e.g., Kümmel 2016) to serve as a yardstick for comparison, even more so because in this case, and in contrast to *i ~ *j in *sakhi-/*sakhj-, the potentially palatalising segment goes back to the specifically Indo-Iranian reflex of post-
laryngeal anaptyxis (0 > s(>i) / H_C). However, if there was no
palatalisation across h, one is in fact left without a good explanation for the YAv. oblique stem has-, unless one wanted to say, and this is of course entirely ad hoc, that since there is no OAv. *hasii-, YAv. has- might not go back to such a pre-form at all but is a YAv. reflex of *haxj- > *haq- (note here that such a putative *xj- > *q- would not necessarily have fallen together with the reflex of YAv. *hj-, the result of which is of course *qj (xii)).
If, on the other hand, *Kh did undergo palatalisation, which is by far the most economical solution (NB This says nothing about the possibility that *Khi < *Kh3 would do so too!), one would most likely expect to yield *qj (< *^j)12 in a combined change of Th >
O / {-s,-/}_and T > O / {-s,-/}_C (both Common Iranian), which
must surely have also affected the affricates.13 According to Lipp
12 As normally in the case of *k(-}i > *cj > *tj > *qj by T > O / {-s,-J}__C.
13 The problem of *%hj is intimately connected to the question of the fate of interconsonantal laryngeals in non-marginal syllables in Iranian (in favour
of Iranian *i / H_C see extensively Lipp 2009 II: 351ff.). My opinion is
that there probably was no anaptyxis, cases such as OAv. dug3dar-, YAv. duySar- vs. Ved. duhitar- being best explained as Iranian *dfiugfi.hter- > *dugii.hdiier- (unproblematic, since Bartholomae's Law operates across fricatives) > *dug.hdfier- (?) > *dug.dRar- (?) > *dug.dar- (i.e., with *h syllabified in the onset) vs. Indo-Aryan *dfiug.hd.ter- > *dugR.hd.ter- > *dugn.hi.tar- > *du.g i.tar- with secondary trisyllabicity. That onset-initial laryngeals leave no visible trace can be nicely supported by the likes of Ved. janmana (instr. sg.) as opposed to janiman- 'birth; generation', which points to *gen.hm$-ne (*genh-m^n-e) ^ PIE *genH1-mn-eH1. Avestan forms such as mazbis = Ved. mahibhis (instr. pl.) or mazdna = Ved. mahina (instr. sg.) mentioned by Lipp (2009 I pass.) in support of Iranian *meg-H2-
a a a a a
b is > *me^.hd.b is > *ma.df i.b is > *ma.^i.b is > *ma.(kfif.bis and *meg=H2-mn-eH2 > *meg=H2-n-eH2 > *me^.hd.ne > *ma.d^i.na >
2009 II: 388, (as in our hasi-, although this is not explicitly stated) < *khi would then regularly yield *$i in that same monophthongisation process that yielded Th > O. If this is correct, YAv. hasi- does not of course need to be analogical and the above scenario is redundant, but the matter seems slightly more complicated. If we are correct to assume that PIr. sequences *D(fi)$h14 underwent devoicing (see most recently Kümmel fthc.) in a process by which *D(R)h > *Dh > * Th = *Th15 (whence, together
*ma.fai.na > *ma.(fif.na are not decisive as the otherwise expected outcomes **mazbis (< *maz.bis < ...vlde m&a < *mafa.hbis < *mafaß.hbßis < *mefa.hbßis) or **masnä < *mafna < *masna < *matena < *mafa.hna< *mefaß.hne could have easily been restored to maz- at any point in which the interparadigmatic allomorphy was felt to be intolerable (cf. yasna-'sacrifice' for expected *yasna- < CIr. *jafnä- < PIr. jajnä- < Pllr. *iafanä- < PIE *iag-no- etc.).
14 Heterosyllabicity is of course required in the case of *Dß. Note in this respect *d(ßß>e-d(ßß>H1/3-us- (oblique stem of the act. ptcp. pf.) > *d(ß)ed.hus-> *dadß.hus- > *dad.hus- > *dat.hus- > *da0us- > YAv. da&us- (vs. strong stem daöuuah- as brought to renewed attention by Kümmel fthc.), since *d(ß)e-d(ß)Hm-us- > *d(ß)e.dßhus- > *d(ß)eMus- > YAv. **dadus.
Note that the lack of devoicing in PIr. *dßugß .hter- is in fact surprising. In view of YAv. jqfnu- 'depth, valley' and jafra- 'deep' there was probably
no condition /_$hv as in both cases YAv. f clearly points to *p < *bßh.
Since PIIr. *^abß-rä- would have developed into YAv. **jaßra- and *^ambß-nu- would certainly not yield *^amßnu- as prerequisite for
* faamfnu- (even so, the sequence with a regularly devoiced YAv. ß /_N
would be much too late to undergo the Common Iranian change by which
N > 0 / V>Y_0$), the only possibility, I think, is to assume PIE
*g(v)?pb(ß)H-rö- > PIr. *faab .hra- (*fa is of course analogical ^
* faemb(ßH-) > *faab.hra- > CIr. *faa.phra- > *faafra- (= Ved. gabhirä-'deep'; for the equation cf. EWAia I s.v.) and PIE *g(-)emb(ß)H-nu- > PIr.
*faambß.hnu- > * faamb.hnu- > * faam.phnu- > CIr. *faamfnu- > *faafnu-. The i-stem compositional form (as expected in a Caland-type adjective) viz. YAv. jalßi- of course expectedly reflects *faabi- (with analogical *fa as above) < PIr. *faa.bßi- < PIr. *faa.b(ß)hi- < *g^.b(ß)Hi- < PIE *g(¥)^b(ß)H-i-. But in the case of jaf- the environment is *D$hR while *D$hD (as in the case of *dugß.hdß er- or *mefa.hb is, mentioned above) could have behaved differently at the *ThD stage, where one would expect regressive voicing assimilation (not at all necessarily in the case of Iranian
however, and on the evidence of jaf-R- quite certainly not). Note, however, that for Young Avestan *duxöar- would have been perfectly tolerable (cf. uxöa- 'word' < PIIr. *uk-thä-), so that whatever the development might have been, it definitely reaches back to OAv. *dugdar-,
with the old *Th, *Th > O), PIr. *1h < *<h < PIIr. < PIE *g(ß)H will have yielded rather than *s (and thus parallelly > seeing that the voiceless dental fricative in OP ma&ista- 'great' (for expected *madista- = av. mazista-) < PIE *meg-isto- 'biggest, greatest' presupposes the existence of OP *mad- (corresponding neatly to YAv. mas-, cf. Kümmel, Op. cit.) at least somewhere in the paradigm of the adjective meaning 'great, big', thus ultimately pointing to PIr. *ma1s- (and not **mas-) < PIr. *ma<h- < PIIr. *ma^h- < PIE *megH2-.
§ 4. OP cisciy & c.
As has long been established, the Old Persian combinations of the nom./acc. sg. neuter pronoun cid* < PIE *1vid, avad < PIE *°auod and the pronominal adjective anyad < PIIr. *°ania-'(an)other' with the enclitic indefinite particle °cid< *°kvid result in cisciy 'something', avasciy 'that also', and aniyasciy 'also something else'. It is therefore tempting to conclude that PIIr. *-t°$-> OP *-(°t(- (similarly Lipp 2009 I: 11862 with references). The rather exceptional development of the pre-PIIr. cluster *tkE would of course be unsurprising across a loose morpheme boundary (i.e. in external sandhi), as is the case with, e.g., OP -s- (= Av. -sc- < *-s.%-) < *-ss- < *-s.ti- < *-s.%- < *-skE- vs. -sc-16 (in XPl 36 once exceptionally -sc-, as regularly in Avestan) < < *-s°%- <
of which duySar- is the expected YAv. outcome. I am not too enthusiastic about the old idea that the cluster *gd in PIr. *dugdar- goes back to a generalisation from the oblique stem, since this would require the highly uneconomical assumption that < *gH was transferred from the strong stem before any specifically Iranian phonetic development took place, only to be readopted after *ght yielded *gd (<* gdR) by Bartholomae's Law in its new environment. Cases such as OP (g-r-[f-t-m]) (DB 4.90; see Schmitt 1991: 45) if for garftam (and if this is the past passive participle corresponding to Ved. grbhTta- 'seized, grabbed' < pIe *g^rbH2-to- as seems likely despite semantic difficulties), are of course unhelpful, since as in OP basta- 'bound' ^ *bazda- < *ba&da- < *badzda- < *b$d-dhd- < PIE b^ydfi-to- and productively so whenever Bartholomae's Law obscured synchronic transparency (be it in morphology or word formation), even the theoretically predictable *bd (if the parallel case of gd in *dugdar- is anything to go by) would have been replaced by *bt > *ft.
16 As in Indo-Aryan, where *s > *J /_£ *z > *3 /_^ (cf. -s°ca < *-s°fa,
majja- 'to dive' < *mez^a-).
*-s°kE- (cf. pasa* 'after' < *po-skye vs. manas°ca ~ manas°ca 'and mind'). One could thus envisage the following development:
PIE *-t°kv)E- > Pllr. *t1 > *ts1
> a) Proto-Indo-Aryan *ttf > *tftf (by assimilation as a follow up to the regular elimination of the sibilant between two stops);
> b) Proto-Iranian > *s°1 (by inner-Iranian simplification of
affricates /_T, T_as in Av. -raost 'hindered'< *-vault < *-loudR-t
and loc. pl. nafsu 'grandson' < *napsu < *nap1u < *nep-t-su) > OP
If this is the correct scenario, one would expect Avestan to yield *-s°1-, since as opposed to Old Persian, there would have been no subsequent assimilation across word boundary as evidenced by, e.g., has°cit 'someone' < *-s°1- (vs. -s°c- < *-j°1- under RUKl-conditions) etc. Cases such as Av. ahmat°cit (abl. sg.) or kat°cit (nom. sg. ntr.), however, show no trace of sandhi (tc could stand here for the occasional padapatha-induced separation of the affricate tf, but it is more likely that it reflects restitution) and are ultimately uninformative, but there is a stronger argument against the above assumption that the PIIr. sequence *-s°1- regularly developed into OP It is namely the very two Old Persian lexicalised derivatives yaciy 'whatever' and aciy 'however', both with what must have arguably been synchronically non-transparent word formation, that in fact fail to show any trace of -sc-, even though they go back to directly comparable sequences *iat-1id < PIE *Hiod°kvid and *at-1id < PIE *at0kvid respectively (cf. Dunkel 2014 s.vv.). It will thus necessary be cisciy, avasciy, and aniyasciy - forms with synchronically productive morphology - that display some secondary and undoubtedly analogical development of the *-t°1- sequence, rather than what would have been its expected outcome viz. -1- (by degemination) < -1°1- < *-t°1-, which in turn seems to be reflected by yaciy and aciy. The source of the analogy that produced neuter forms such as cisciy & c. must of course have been the idiosyn-cratically Old Persian external sandhi -s°c- < *-s°1- of the corresponding masculine forms.
§ 5. PIr. *-aus, *-aum
In contrast to Vedic, Iranian preserves remnants of holodynamic and hysterodynamic u-stems, which on the evidence of Avestan and Old Persian terminated in *-aus in the nominative singular (note that the ending is liable to being replaced by -us from the predominant proterodynamic and acrostatic patterns) and *-aum (e.g., YAv.
nasaum 'corpse, carcass', pdr3saum 'rib', (?) gafmaum 'heat' /see Cantera 2007: 11-12/, fradat.fsaum 'furthering cattle', Classical OP
1H
dahayaum 'land' etc.) in the accusative (replaceable by -um in a parallel manner). To the strong cases of this synchronically productive paradigm of mobile u-stems must be added the archaic and moribund acc. sg. in -qm (there are only two secure examples, viz. hi&qm 'companion' (?) and vaiiqm 'wind(god)', for which see Tremblay 1998: 202, Cantera 2007: 9-11, and Remmer 2011, resp.), as well as YAv. -aom < *-awdm < *-awam and OP -avam.
While it is evident that Av. -qm reflects the expected ending, going back to PIE holodynamic *-om < *-ou-m (and, parallelly, hysterodynamic *-em < *-eu-m) by lex Stang,18 and that its early but evidently purely analogical replacement by -aum (Av., OP) < PIr. *-aum cannot predate Proto-Indo-Iranian (as is probably but not obligatorily true of *-au-am), one misses a feasible relative chronology behind these restructurings.
The only viable source of the PIr. novel ending *-aum must necessarily be the nominative singular *-aus. The latter then cannot of course be a retrograde formation, neither does it have any interparadigmatic support in the parallel declensional pattern of holodynamic i-stems (note that PIIr. preserves a single such stem in
17
Concerning the etymological source of the new ending, Old Persian material is of course decisive enough in itself as the spelling ((a)-a-u-m) can only stand for -aum. Theoretically, an Old Avestan ending *-aum could go back to either *-au-am (through YAv. *-audm as is the case with the unmistakably disyllabic acc. sg. of holodynamic i-stems in -aim) or *-aum, while the specifically YAv. attestations of accusatives in -aum can only speak in favour of -aum (*-au-am would have resulted in YAv. *-auam > *-au,dm > *-aom). On the assessment of the actual spelling of this sequence in the extant manuscripts see de Vaan 2000 and a critical account in
Cantera 2007: 11-14.
18
See Tremblay, Cantera, Remmer op. cit. What one descriptively labels a Stang's Law phenomenon is of course the result of a series of early Proto-Indo-European sound changes (assimilation, degemination and compensatory lengthening), set in motion as a response to the constraint against *-RR sequences in coda. Since -V.u^#< *-Vum# would have relegated the previously moraic segment to the syllable onset, *-Vm (theoretically via *-Vmm) would have been the preferred solution. Note that in the case of -Vim# there was no such possibility due to the phonological distance between the resonants, the only possibility of resyllabification then being *-V.i^#, whence PIIr. *-Vi-am. For a radically different view cf. recently
Pronk 2016.
*sakhai-l*sakhi- 'friend, companion' < PIE *sokv=H2-oi-/*sokv=H2-i-). In the strong stem, the latter group consistently preserves its old inherited features: nom. sg. *-oi-s ^ *-oi19 > Pllr. (*-o >) *-a,20 *-oi- > *-ai- (acc. sg. *-oi-m > *-ai-am). Compared to what would have been the original pattern inherited by the u-stems with a nom. sg. in *-au < *-ou ^ *-ou-s and acc. sg. in *-am < *-ou-m (strong stem *-ou- > *-au-), such allomorphy was obviously tolerated since it matched perfectly the pattern established in other resonant stems: *-a, *-aR- (acc. sg. *-aR-am). It must therefore have been the abnormal nominative singular *-au of holo- (and hystero-)dynamic u-stems that was remodelled first by being matched to the auslauting sequence *-aus in root-nouns *gaus 'cattle; bull; cow' ^ PIE *g¥ous and *diaus 'sky' ^ PIE *dieus (the latter behaves as a root noun at least synchronically) by the obvious proportion *-am : *-am = *-aus : x, where x = *-au ^ *-aus.21 Note that this was only possible at the Proto-Indo-Iranian stage, since it is exactly Indo-Iranian that introduces secondary length into the strong cases of *g¥ou- and *dieu-, the source of course being the inherited and
19 The lex Szemerenyi type of ending here is PIE (cf. Hittite -ai\) and follows the model provided by the productive group of resonant stems, where the loss of *-s, probably via a resonant geminate, degemination and subsequent compensatory lengthening were the result of a regular sound change. The same analogical spread of the new synchronic nom.sg. ending of holodynamic and hysterodynamic animate stems (and in much the same manner holodynamic collectives) also affects PIE t- and s-stems, where *-os ^ *-os < *-ot-s ~ *-os-s is secured by cases such as Welsh nei 'nephew' < *nepu < *-os < *-ot-s etc. (note that in the case of t-stems, Hittite must have reintroduced the *t into the nominative to the same effect as, e.g., Old Indic and Germanic; as opposed to Stang's Law that does not seem to have left any unambiguous traces in Anatolian, it is clear from cases such as haras 'eagle' < *-o + -s that Szemereny's Law was an inherited phenomenon).
20 The loss of *i in absolute auslaut (as in the loc. sg. *-a < PIE *-ei) is part of the more general Proto-Indo-Iranian rule, which can be stated as R{-m,-
w} > 0 / V'V}_#. Avestan thematic dat. sg. -ai is of course secondary
in comparison to OAv. -aiia = Ved. -aya < PIE *-oi-o (< *-o-ei + dir. *-o).
21 Note that simple «sigmatisation» of *-au as in the case of the Hittite nom. sg. -aus of arguably holodynamic u-stems (paralleled by -ais in the survivors of holodynamic i-stems; note that the asigmatic type seen in hastai 'bone(s)' and sakuttai 'thigh(s)' is of course due to the forms being collective plurals) is not a feasible alternative, as there existed no such productive process in Indo-Iranian.
preserved length in the acc. sg., where *-am < *-ou-m ~ *-eu-m. The anomalous *-am of suffixal holodynamic u-stems was then replaced by the unique retrograde *-aum (comparable to at least Hittite -ain in holodynamic i-stems with the nom. sg. in -ais < *-oi + *-s), while it remained liable to the influence of the parallel mobile i-stem acc. sg. *-ai-am, to which one has to ascribe the Old Persian variant spelling ((a)-a-v-m) = -av-am and, at least partly (i.e., in as far as it does not reflect the hysterodynamic pattern or a remodelled proterodynamic *-u-m ^ *-au-am) also Young Avestan -aom < *-audm < *-auam < *-au-am (probably at least in the case gaom). Note that there was no reverse influence of the innovative *-aum on the holodynamic i-stem paradigm as is clearly demonstrated by the OAv. karmadharaya-compound hus.haxaim (Y 64.13), which requires a metrically disyllabic *-aiam.
§ 6. OP daftas
The Old Persian adjective (dadas) (nom. sg. m.) is a hapax legomenon of unclear meaning attested at DB IV.71-72 (see Schmitt 1991: 43, 71, idem 2014 s.v.). The exhortative sentence in which it appears, however, luckily receives a nearly verbatim repetition in the immediately following conditional clause ('do this and that, and if you do this and that, you shall ...'), where in place of yava da&as ahay 'as long as you are d.' one now reads =taiy yava tauma ahatiy 'as long as there is strength in you':
tuvam ka hayah aparam imam dipim vainahay tayam adam niyapin&am imai=va patikarah ma=taya' vikanahay yava da&as ahay avad,a=dis paribara (DB 4.70-72) 'You, whoever you may be, who will hereafter look at this inscription that I have engraved or the images/reliefs, you should not destroy them (and) as longs as you are d. take care of them".
yadiy imam dipim vainahay imai=va patikarah naiy=dis vikanahay uta=taiy yava tauma ahatiyparibaraha=dis ... (DB 4.7274) 'If you shall look at this inscription here or the images/reliefs (and) not destroy them and as long as there is strength in you take care of them, ...'. As already noticed by Gershevitch 1959: 198, tauma astiy + dat. poss. must thus surely be a periphrasis of da&as ah-.This does not mean, however, that they should signal the same thing.
It is incorrect, I think, to interpret the form as da&ans (as per Schmitt 2014 s.v. with references) and recognise in it the Old Persian equivalent of the OAv. nom. sg. m. -qs < *-ans < *-ont-s /
*-o-nt-s of the active present participle.22 The sound change
affecting N > 0 / V>V_O# is at least Common Iranian and on the
evidence of OP -is, -us and -as for Pllr. *-ins#, *-uns#, *-ans# < PIE *-ins, *-uns and *-ons23 not absent from Persian, so one would in fact expect *-ants# > PIr. *-an1# > *-a1#, which should result in a long a in auslaut. Even if da&ans were some kind of sandhi form (note that the following word begins with a vowel), one would still expect a to be spelt long, since also in this case *-an.1°V- would
develop into *-a1 via Common Iranian N > 0 / V>V_SO. I do,
nevertheless, think that we are correct to assume that da&as is exactly the participle it seems to be. Starting from the immobile
r w
active present participle *dek-nt-s to the PIIr. Narten-present *datf-'serve; worship' (cf. OAv. das3me stutqm 'at the offering of hymns',
^ r 2 24
Y 28.9b) < PIE *dek- (cf. LIV s.v.), which seems semantically
25
appropriate enough to be viable, one is at least at a better position to explain the shortness of a in the suffix.
In my view, the usual and functionally corresponding YAv. ending -o ~ *-as° cannot reflect *-ah < *-as < *-ats (as per Schindler 1982). It does not seem logical to assume that in the Proto-Iranian sequence *-V(n)ts the final cluster would have had a double outcome viz. sporadic »simplification« to *-s (> *-h) vs. regular monophthongisation of the originally biphonemic sequence to *fc. Since in sandhi the suffixal *-as° of the generalised immobile participle was synchronically reanalysable as the sandhi realisation of -o < *-dh < *-ah < *-os, the introduction of -o ~ *-as° into the declensional pattern of the active participle could be seen as a retrograde analogical development of Young Avestan.
23 The length in *-ans is of course an innovation for *-ans. Proto-Iranian (*-as >) *-ah (as opposed to Ved. -an) can of course reflect either sequence.
24
Note that in Proto-Indo-European, mobile active participles (most probably holodynamic, although theoretically a descriptively hystero-dynamic pattern is also possible, especially if one considers the parallel ablaut pattern of mobile optatives) correspond to mobile presents and aorists, while immobile active participles characteristically accompany immobile presents (including e-reduplicated presents and intensives) and s-aorists: mobile 3sg. *CeC-t ~ 3pl. *CC-ent ^ ptcp. *CeC-ont- (or, alternatively, *CC-ent-) ~ *CC-p-' vs. immobile 3sg. *CeC(-s-)t ~ 3pl. *CeC(-s)-i}t // 3sg. *Ce(C)-C/oC-t ~ 3pl. Ce(C)-CC-yt ^ ptcp. *CeC(-s)-yt- // *Ce(C)-CC-yt-.
25
Or any verbal form of comparable shape. Gershevitch loc. cit. suggests *datf- 'be strong' (accepted by ЭCH^ II: 375), to which would belong
r r
Av. dasuuar- < *dek-ur and dasman-* < *dek-men- 'health', but this is
Such a proposal opens up an altogether different problem, however. If da&as is indeed an active present participle, then the attested nom. sg. m. ending -as must necessarily reflect the specifically Old Persian reflex of the inherited PIr. sequence *-a1s < *-at-s < PIE *-nt-s. Given the fact that Pllr. palatoalveolar affricate *tf <
F
PIE *k normally yields OP 6 (through the PIr. dental affricate *1, which then merges with the monophthongised product of the inherited biphonematic sequence *ts), one would expect *dek-nt-s to yield *dafa1s > *da1a1 (thus indeed in the Av. immobile participle, whose nom. sg. m. expectedly terminates in -as, cf. stauuas 'praising, worshipping' < *steu-nt-s). Since, however, it is more than likely (also in terms of diachronic typology, for which see Kümmel 2007: 195)26 that PIr. * 1 reached its specifically Old Persian reflex via dental (laminal) *s (coalescing with the old *s in the rest of Iranian, while progressing towards the voiceless dental fricative in Old Persian), one is tempted to envisage a specifically
Old Persian situation where *s > 6_{-#}, while *s > s /_# (i.e.,
merger of *s with the old s, which after Common Iranian *s > h /
V/R_V/R still held a marginal position). If this is correct (note that
the lack of data makes it impossible to weigh this assumption against the evolution of comparable sequences), it would point to the conclusion that like -s, -r and -m Old Persian -s too was regularly written (and pronounced in as far as there is a correlation between the two phenomena) in absolute auslaut. Seen from this perspective the OP nom. sg. m. nt-stem (tunuva) 'strong, powerful' (DNb 10 = XPl 11; cf. acc. sg. tunuvantam, attested at DB 4.65) must then necessarily stand for tunuva1 (as if for *tan-uant-)21 and match the analogical Avestan nom. sg. m. -uua < *-uäh < *-uäs of possessive
based solely on the assumption that OP da&as must mean '(physically)
strong' vel sim.
26
Such intermediate stage in the development of the PIr. affricate (and, in a parallel manner, < Pllr. could perhaps allow for a more economical explanation as to why PIr. > *s (via geminate *ss) /
*s>0$_and *s > 0 / #,$_*te, but these changes might also have taken
place before > *s as is in fact rather probable, cf. in this respect Av. nafsu < *napsu < *naptiu etc.
27
For OP distance assimilation of a to u when /_u consider *kdrnu- 'do,
make' > *kanu- (an allegro-form comparable to Ved. kuru- for older krnu-) > kunu-, and possibly also cases with regular OP anaptyxis, if it is correct to assume that *dru<%- > *daru<%- > duruj- 'lie to, deceive', *druwa- > *daruwa- > duruva- 'firm', *Sugda- > *Sugada- > Suguda- 'Sogdiana'.
denominals in *-u/mant- rather than reflect the old participial *-ats
(= OAv. -qs) < *-ants < *-ent-s.
References
Bartholomae, Chr. 1904: Altiranisches Wörterbuch. Strassburg: Verlag von Karl J. Trübner.
Beekes, R. S. P. 1999: Review of Hoffmann K., Forssman B. Avestische Laut- und Formenlehre. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität Innsbruck, 1996. Kratylos 44, 62-71.
Cantera, A. 2007: The accusative of the i-and u-stems with presuffixal full or large grade in Avestan. In: M. Macuch, M. Maggi, W. Sundermann (eds.). Iranian Languages and Texts from Iran and Turan. Ronald E. Emmerick memorial volume. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz Verlag, 9-20.
Dunkel, G. E. 2014: Lexikon der indogermanischen Partikeln und Pronominalstämme. Bd. 1-2. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.
EWAia - Mayrhofer, M. 1992-2001: Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. Bd. 1-3. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.
ESSIYa - Rastorguena, V. S., Edelman, D. I. 2000-: Etymological Dictionary of the Iranian Languages. Vol. 1-. Moscow: «Vostoch-naya Literarura» Publishing House.
ЭСИЯ - Расторгуева B. C., Эдельман Д. И. 2000-: Этимологический словарь иранских языков I-. Москва: Издательская фирма «Восточная литература РАН», 2000-.
Gershevitch, I. 1959: The Avestan Hymn to Mithra. Cambridge: University Press.
Hoffmann, K., Forssman, B. 2004: Avestische Laut- und Formenlehre. 2., durchgesehene und erwaiterte Auflage. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität Innsbruck.
Hoffmann, K., Narten, J. 1989: Der Sasanidische Archetypus. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
Kellens, J., Pirart, E. 1988 : Les textes vieil-avestiques. Vol. 1: Introduction, texte et traduction. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
Kümmel, M. J. 1996: Stativ und Passivaorist im Indoiranischen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Kümmel, M. J. 2007: Konsonantenwandel. Bausteine zu einer Typologie des Lautwandels und ihre Konsequenzen für die vergleichende Rekonstruktion. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
Kümmel, M. J. 2016: Zur 'Vokalisierung' der Laryngale im Indoiranischen. In: Sahasram ati srajas. Indo-Iranian and Indo-European studies in honor of Stephanie W. Jamison. D. Gunkel, J. T. Katz, B. Vine, M. Weiss (eds.). Ann Arbor, New York: Beachstave Press, 216-226.
Kümmel, M. J. fthc.: Lautgeschichte und Etymologie: Jungavestisch mas-'groß'. In: Iranian and Indo-European Linguistics and Onomastics. Proceedings of the symposium in memory of Manfred Mayrhofer
(1926-2011). R. Schmitt, H.-Chr. Luschützky, V. Sadovski (eds.). Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Lipp, R. 2009: Die indogermanischen und einzelsprachlichen Palatale im Indoiranischen. Bd. 1-2. Heidelberg: Unviersitätsverlag Winter.
LIV2 = Rix, H. et al. Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen. Zweite, erweiterte und verbesserte Auflage bearbeitet von M. Kümmel und H. Rix. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
Lubotsky, A. 1997: The Indo-Iranian reflexes of PIE *CRHUV. In: Sound Law and Analogy. Papers in honour of Robert S. P. Beekes on the occasion of his 60th birthday. A. Lubotsky (ed.). Amsterdam, Atlanta: Rodopi, 139-154.
Morgenstierne, G. A. 2003: New Etymological Vocabulary of Pashto. Compiled and edited by J. Elfenbein, D. N. MacKenzie, N. SimsWilliams. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
Narten, J. 1986: Der Yasna Haptayhäiti. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
Pronk, T. 2016: Stang's Law in Baltic, Greek and Indo-Iranian. Baltistica 51/1, 19-35.
Rau, J. 2011: Indo-European kinship terminology: *pH2-tr-ou-/*pH2-tr-u-and its derivatives. Historische Sprachforschung - Historical Linguistics 124, 1-25.
Redard, C., Kellens, J. 2013 : Études avestiques et mazdéennes vol. 5 Le liquidation du sacrifice (Y 62 à 72). Paris: De Boccard.
Remmer, U. 2011: The Avestan Paradigm of vaiiu- 'air, wind' in the context of irregular accusative singular forms of vowel stems with °qm and °dm. Indo-Iranian Journal 54/1, 1-18.
Schindler, J. 1982: Zum Nom. Sing. der nt-Partizipien im Jungavestischen. In: Investigationes philologicae et comparativae. Gedenkschrift für Heinz Kronasser. E. Neu (ed.). Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz Verlag, 186-209.
Schmitt, R. 1991: The Bisitun Inscriptions of Darius the Great: Old Persian Text. London: School of Oriental and African Studies.
Schmitt, R. 2014: Wörterbuch der altpersischen Königsinschriften. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
Tremblay, X. 1998: Sur parsui du Farhang-ï-Oim, ratu-, pdrdtu-, pitu- et quelques autres thèmes avestiques en -u. Studia Iranica 27, 187204.
Tremblay, X. 1999 : Ist jungawestisch näismi, näist Präsens oder sigmatischer Aorist? In: Compositiones indogermanicae in memo-riam Jochem Schindler. H. Eichner, H.-Chr. Luschützky, V. Sadov-ski (eds.). Praha: enigma corporation, 537-543.
de Vaan, M. A. C. 2000: Die Lautfolge äum im Vïdevdad. In: Indoarisch, Iranisch und die Indogermanistik. Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 2. bis 5. Oktober 1997 in Erlangen. B. Forssmann, R. Plath (eds.). Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 523-534.
de Vaan, M. A. C. 2003: The Avestan Vowels. Amsterdam, New York: Rodopi.
Werba Ch. H. 2005: Sanskrit duhitár- und ihre (indo-)iranischen Verwandten. Zur 'Vokalisierung' der Laryngale im Ur(indo)-iranischen. In: Indogermánica. Festschrift Gert Klingenschmitt. Indische, iranische und indogermanische Studien, dem verehrten Jubilar dargebracht zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. Schweiger G. (ed.). Taimering: Schweiger VWT-Verlag, 699-732.
L. Repansek. Miscellanea Avestica et Palaeopersica
The contribution offers a series of miscellaneous notes and observations on various details of Avestan and Old Persian historical phonology. § 1 deals with the prima facie aberrant behaviour of the Young Avestan dat. pl. ptdfbiiö, arguing in favour of the form displaying the expected outcome. § 2 adds a small but important observation on the accentual behaviour of the Avestan paradigm for 'sun', which arguably displays a secondarily acquired columnar accent comparable to Vedic süvar-. § 3 argues against the primacy of s in the Young Avestan compositional form xasi° and discusses several related problems pertaining to the inherited *TH sequences in (Indo-)Iranian. § 4 reassesses the viability of Old Persian clusters sc (as in cisciy & c.) as genuine reflexes of the inherited Proto-Indo-Iranian sequences *ttQ. § 5 tries to envisage the most economical relative chronology behind the inter- and intra-paradigmatic analogical pressure exerted on the acc. sg. of Proto-Iranian holodynamic i- and u-stems. § 6 is an attempt at the reconciliation of the facts of Old Iranian historical phonology and morphology with the highly problematic Old Persian hapax dadas, attested at DB 4.71-72.
Key words: Avestan, Old Persian, Proto-(Indo-)Iranian, historical phonology.
