Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word
Wiktionary talk:About Proto-Iranian. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word
Wiktionary talk:About Proto-Iranian, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say
Wiktionary talk:About Proto-Iranian in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word
Wiktionary talk:About Proto-Iranian you have here. The definition of the word
Wiktionary talk:About Proto-Iranian will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition of
Wiktionary talk:About Proto-Iranian, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Cheung's dictionary is a handy reference for sure, but his system of reconstruction is clearly not the way to go, on at least two counts:
- *s and *z rather than *ts and *dz (*c and *j?) is clearly post-Proto-Iranian, as Old Persian fronted these further (> /θ/, /d/); but did not front retained *s in clusters such as *sk, *st, *sn.
- His claim of retaining a laryngeal *H might be acceptable, but this clearly requires not reconstructing the shift *s > *h at the same level.
Another possible issue is whether we should follow the traditional reconstruction with *f, *θ, *x, or still maintain *p⁽ʰ⁾, *t⁽ʰ⁾, *k⁽ʰ⁾. The problem is that spirantization does not appear in Wakhi and Khotanese, and it's been argued they split off already before this change.
--Tropylium (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
- (Spirantization is also not apparent in Balochi, and I wonder if this might also be an archaism, but it appears to be generally considered a reversal.) --Tropylium (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply