User talk:AryamanA/IA innovations

has- (to laugh)
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)
 * I gave it a shot at ! 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. 🇨🇬 is tough; it should reflect 🇨🇬 which doesn't really work. It's all really confusing! —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 22:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 🇨🇬 here is taken to be the formal cognate of 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  is not a big deal as Avestan shortens it sometimes. -- Bhagadatta (talk) 00:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, can we make work for all of them? The Pali certainly won't work... but the dialectal Vedic  will? —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 01:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 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 and ). Surely if tśa --> ccha then -jjha- can come from either dźʰa or dȷ́ʰa? -- Bhagadatta (talk) 02:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought so too, but then I see giving . But actually, we have e.g. 🇨🇬 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. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 04:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait false alarm, it's, 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. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 04:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 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, 🇨🇬 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)