Sound Synthesis in Indo European Indo Iranian and Sanskrit

Author(s): Satya Swarup Mishra
Publisher: Ashutosh Prakashan Sansthan

Page 42

24 SOUND SYNTHESIS IN IE, IIR & SANSKRIT
. 21. Back formation out of assimilated consonants resulted in creation of parallel cognate forms out of which one shows an aspirate and another shows a non aspirate or one shows a voiced whereas the other shows a voiceless stop. There are even cases where one shows a voiceless stop, another a voiced stop and a third a voiced aspirate. In such variations, all the variants cannot be original. Only one must be original and the rest owe their origin to back-formation of the radical consonant from a sandhiform after the original consonant before assimilation was forgotten. Thus out of IE mele (cp Ht mekis great), meg (cp Gk mėgas 'great.) & meĝh (cp Skt mahan 'great'), only one form was original and the other two were new formations; the new formations may be back formations from tike *mek-to-, which could theoritically result form mel or meg or megh+to. Almost a concerete example is found in IE dhuqtér (cp Gothic daúhtar) where the consonant is assimilated, beside the other two probable forms dhugətēr (cp Gk thug atēr) and dhughatér (cp Skt duhitā), out of which one form is original and the other is a backformation. In this case, of course the from anticipated on Greek evidence may be a back formation, since Avestan evidence also favours dhugh. Av duxsa, gAv dugada are from IE dhugdher < dhugh+ter. IE dhuqtēr may be from 9,8 or gh but IE dhugder must be from IE sh.
In several cases however it is difficult to ascertain the original consonant and the back formation cases. In such cases Sanskrit evidence may be taken to be more authentic, at least tentatively, because Skt shows a marked tendency to maintain the contrast of the voiceless non-aspirate, voiceless aspirate, voiced non-aspirate and voiced aspirate not only before vowels but also to some extent before the