Neeraj Mathur wrote:
> me wrote:
>> Nath Rao wrote:
>> > M. Ranjit Mathews wrote:
>> >> The standard derivation from PIE is that the Iranian p and Indic v
>> >> both came from PIE /qu/; in the case of the word for horse, PIE
>> >> /equos/ -> Indic as'vaH.. Since /qu/ is a phoneme, [...]
>> >
>> > This has me really confused. The usual reconstruction for the horse
>> > word is *h1ek'uo-, with a "palato-velar" (so that we get s' in
Sanskrit
>> > and s in Iranian).
>>
>> So, what would the singular accusative have been in PIE? h1ek'wom?
>
> Yes, that's correct. (Have you seen the Indo-European fable, "Hek'wos
> owis kwe"?)
No. I just tried looking it up and didn't find it.
>> > If by /qu/ you mean a labio-velar (which is what
>> > you "single phoneme" suggests), /equos/ would end up being ?aka-
>> > in Sanskrit. [Labio-velars and velars merged in Indo-Iranian,
>> > and do not lead to any v or p.]
>>
>> Ah! Thanks. I didn't read in a single source that it was equos with a
>> single phoneme /qu/. I read (1) in one source that the PIE word had
been
>> equos and read (2) in another source that PIE had labio-velar phonemes.
>> Putting (1) and (2) together, wrongly as you make apparent, I presumed
>> that the qu in equos was a single labio-velar phoneme.
>
> Indo-European seems to have contrasted a set of single-phoneme
> labiovelars with a sequence of velar stop + labial consonant. That is,
> /kw/ (where that w is superscipt) contrasted with /k-w/. The word for
> 'horse' had the sequence, *H1ek'wos; in Latin, the sequence merged with
> the single phoneme, giving equus.
>
> Neeraj Mathur
|
