Reconstruction talk:Proto-Iranian/HaĉwastaHnas

RFD discussion: January–February 2018
Only attested in Avestan with a new formation or borrowing in MP. --Victar (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on this one? --Victar (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I can tell you 🇨🇬 is a word. I think though that the Avestan could have possibly been an independent formation. (Isn't aspō- nom. sg.? It doesn't match with the reconstruction.) —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 22:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , yeah, I was thinking about that too, that the Avestan looks like a new formation, like the MP. --Victar (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * On a larger note, I think we really need to stay away from these compounds words unless it can be proven with specific morphology or can be traced it back to PIE. Sanskrit and Iranian just have too many common productive suffixes. --Victar (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Sometimes ō appears as the usual composition vowel: parō.kauuīẟəm, drəguuō.dəbīš, etc. it is typical to substitute the vowel a of the first element with ō: drəguuō.dəbiiō < drəguua°" (read "Introduction to Avestan" by Michiel de Vaan, Alexander Lubotsky, §5.4 and §7.13. 1). The reconstruction is clear. Why should we delete it? You guys can create PIIr reconstruction and merge PIIr reconstruction to it. Thanks.--Calak (talk) 10:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , we understand the origin of -ō- from the nom.sg., but this is commonly found in new formations, not ones inherited from PIr. Therefore, this entry does not represent a word that existed in Pir, and should be deleted. --Victar (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * can you please comment on this item, as well as the one above. --Victar (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Eh, since the MP and Armenian both seem to be borrowed from Avestan, they don't necessarily plead in favor of this PIr construction. Indeed, it is telling that the MP doesn't have an inherited *asa- form. As to 🇨🇬, it is first attested in Yājñavalkya and Pāṇini, who are not late but are also not the earliest. The analogical aspiration from *stāna- > sthāna- had occurred by Vedic, so that's neither here nor there. So really the only question is whether aspō.stāna can be reconciled with aśvasthāna. Assuming there was an active process of first member -ō- compounding in Avestan, then a compound *aspa.stāna could have been “renewed” to form aspō.stāna since the compound was probably still apparent. I'm curious whether Armenian aspastan points to *aspa.stāna or aspō.stāna., any notion? —*i̯óh₁nC[5] 08:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Armenian is not useful in this case. Whatever the underlying Iranian form, the Armenian word would have been reshaped as a quasi-native compound with the interfix, as if  +  + . Compare . And in any case, there are probably no direct Avestan borrowings in Armenian.
 * Hinz on page 45 reconstructs Median *aspastāna- based on an Aramaic personal name. --Vahag (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * : The Armenian is all but certainly borrowed from the Middle Persian, and this Aramaic personal name could be from an unattested Old Persian new formation using . A Median compound isn't required, and this is the more likely scenario. --Victar (talk) 06:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that morphology is not like, compare Kurdish village name  .--Calak (talk) 10:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Could be, the other borrowings too have a vowel there. --Vahag (talk) 12:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)