|
" The development of ∂/interconsonantal laryngeal in Iranian "
Erling Ravnæs
| Document Type
|
:
|
AL
|
| Record Number
|
:
|
1067706
|
| Doc. No
|
:
|
LA111335
|
| Call No
|
:
|
10.1163/000000081790080791
|
| Language of Document
|
:
|
English
|
| Main Entry
|
:
|
Erling Ravnæs
|
| Title & Author
|
:
|
The development of ∂/interconsonantal laryngeal in Iranian [Article]\ Erling Ravnæs
|
| Publication Statement
|
:
|
Leiden: Brill
|
| Title of Periodical
|
:
|
Indo-Iranian Journal
|
| Date
|
:
|
1981
|
| Volume/ Issue Number
|
:
|
23/4
|
| Page No
|
:
|
247–273
|
| Abstract
|
:
|
The examination of the material has shown that the only indisputable counter-example against Meillet's theory is Av. (p)tar- and its derivatives -f∂δrī and tūirya-. All the other examples have been shown to be wrong, or at least to have other and in my opinion better explanations. Other theories beside Meillet's have been rejected, either because they are based upon such presuppositions as make them objectionable from a methodological point of view, or because they do not explain the actual facts as they stand. Even though no convincing explanation has been found to make ptar- fit in with Meillet's theory, I do not think that this word alone is justification enough for abandoning this otherwise well-founded theory and replace it with one which can perhaps account for this word, but is in other respects inferior to Meillet's.This article is an adaption of a part of my thesis for the degree of Magister Artium in Comparative Indo-European linguistics at the University of Oslo. I thank Professor F. O. Lindeman and Research fellow P. Skjærvø for their assistance in the preparation, and Professor F. B. J. Kuiper for valuable comments on some points in the article. The examination of the material has shown that the only indisputable counter-example against Meillet's theory is Av. (p)tar- and its derivatives -f∂δrī and tūirya-. All the other examples have been shown to be wrong, or at least to have other and in my opinion better explanations. Other theories beside Meillet's have been rejected, either because they are based upon such presuppositions as make them objectionable from a methodological point of view, or because they do not explain the actual facts as they stand. Even though no convincing explanation has been found to make ptar- fit in with Meillet's theory, I do not think that this word alone is justification enough for abandoning this otherwise well-founded theory and replace it with one which can perhaps account for this word, but is in other respects inferior to Meillet's.This article is an adaption of a part of my thesis for the degree of Magister Artium in Comparative Indo-European linguistics at the University of Oslo. I thank Professor F. O. Lindeman and Research fellow P. Skjærvø for their assistance in the preparation, and Professor F. B. J. Kuiper for valuable comments on some points in the article.
|
| Location & Call number
|
:
|
10.1163/000000081790080791
|
| |