Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-Iranian/átʰarwā

The existence of the BMAC substrate is pretty widely accepted now, so I reverted your changes to wording. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 21:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Although BMAC is pretty widely accepted, as you said, it can't be proven that this particular word is definitively from BMAC. Even Lubotsky doesn't doesn't say it in such certain terms, as not much is known about the exact identity of the language. So it should be "possibly" or perhaps "probably" from BMAC as I had it before. --Foreverknowledge (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I've changed the wording. The identity and classification of the hypothetical BMAC language is still uncertain, but such a substrate definitely did exist in Indo-Iranian. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 22:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * And instead of meaning "unknown" I think we should put "priest" as Lubotsky indicated and how I had it before. This is because in both daughter languages (Sanskrit and Avestan) the meaning is priest; therefore, we can be reasonably certain that the reconstructed Proto-Indo-Iranian term had the same meaning. --Foreverknowledge (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I meant there are no accent marks for this word in Proto-IIr or Iranian. If you look at Lubotsky's reconstruction, for example, it's Proto-IIr *atʰarṷan-, Skt. átharvan-, and Av. āθrauuan-/aθaurun-. The accent mark is only for the Sanskrit word. --Foreverknowledge (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh. In this case we rely on the Sanskrit word for accentuation (because nearly all PII terms did have accent). Of course, it may not be accurate if this word's Sanskrit accent was a later innovation. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 21:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)