# Common origin of Iranian and Germanic words



## CyrusSH

I think we can say nothing about several Iranian and Germanic words other than that they have an Irano-Germanic origin, in fact we see all Germanic sound changes (Grimm's law) in the Iranian languages too. For example *p > f: fera (pro, forth), *t > θ: θri (three),  *k > x: xaoda (helmet, hood), *kʷ > xʷ: xwah (whether), ...


----------



## Sobakus

Postulating a whole new branch grouping on the basis of shared sound shifts is going a bit too far, don't you think? Plus, any etymological dictionary can tell you much more about the words you've listed, so I'm not sure about the reason for your statement.


----------



## ahvalj

The Germanic consonant shift is non-motivated: it occurs in any position (except after _s_ or after a newly formed spirant), whereas in Iranic this spirantization occurs a) before consonants (Sanskrit _praś-_ ~ Avestan _fras-, _Old Persian _fraθ-;_ Sanskrit _putra-_ ~ Avestan _puθra-;_ Sanskrit _krūra-_ ~ Avestan _xrūra-_), b) before laryngeals (Sanskrit _kapha_- ~ Avestan _kafa-; ratha- ~ raθa-; sakhā- ~ haxā-_); unlike in Germanic, there is no spirantization before vowels.


----------



## Delvo

CyrusSH said:


> *t > θ: θri (three)


Your pronunciation must be different from what Wikipedia tells me about the Persian alphabet. What letter represents /θ/ in your speech?
ث ?
ظ ?

Also, are you saying the Persian word for "three" sounds like English "three"? I can't find such a word at Google Translate, so maybe I misunderstood your meaning...


----------



## ahvalj

Delvo said:


> Your pronunciation must be different from what Wikipedia tells me about the Persian alphabet. What letter represents /θ/ in your speech?
> ث ?
> ظ ?
> 
> Also, are you saying the Persian word for "three" sounds like English "three"? I can't find such a word at Google Translate, so maybe I misunderstood your meaning...


The poster meant the Avestan and Old Persian _θri_ (Nom. Pl. neutr.).


----------



## CyrusSH

Sobakus said:


> Postulating a whole new branch grouping on the basis of shared sound shifts is going a bit too far, don't you think? Plus, any etymological dictionary can tell you much more about the words you've listed, so I'm not sure about the reason for your statement.



It is not just about sound shifts but there are several other things which relate Iranian and Germanic cultures to each other that I can talk about them.


----------



## CyrusSH

ahvalj said:


> The Germanic consonant shift is non-motivated: it occurs in any position (except after _s_ or after a newly formed spirant), whereas in Iranic this spirantization occurs a) before consonants (Sanskrit _praś-_ ~ Avestan _fras-, _Old Persian _fraθ-;_ Sanskrit _putra-_ ~ Avestan _puθra-;_ Sanskrit _krūra-_ ~ Avestan _xrūra-_), b) before laryngeals (Sanskrit _kapha_- ~ Avestan _kafa-; ratha- ~ raθa-; sakhā- ~ haxā-_); unlike in Germanic, there is no spirantization before vowels.



I don't know why we should just compare Iranian words to Indian words?!! Please explain those words that I mentioned, like xaoda (helmet, hood). And what about other sound changes, like *g > k: kan (woman)?


----------



## ahvalj

CyrusSH said:


> I don't know why we should just compare Iranian words to Indian words?!! Please explain those words that I mentioned, like xaoda (helmet, hood). And what about other sound changes, like *g > k: kan (woman)?


_fera-:_ Don't know what it is — Avestan and Old Persian have _fra-_ (before a consonant).

_xauda_-_:_ Do you know any plausible etymology? Pokorny lists this word under *_skeu̯dʰ_- (_Pokorny J · 1959 · Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. 3. Band:_ 952 — https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_7IkEzr9hyJN3BxamRiZWV6WDA), but I don't see how this could have produced the initial _x. _The Wikipedia comparison with the English _hood_ etc. (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hood#Etymology_1) is pure fantasy, as the Germanic _ō _can't easily correspond to an _u_-diphthong. The origin of the Germanic words (both _hood_ and_ hat_) is obscure, by the way.

_xwah-:_ actually _xʷə̄_ — as far as I understand, its primary (and etymological) function in Avestan is the possessive pronoun ("own"), and it represents the descendant of the familiar PIE *_su̯os _(cp. Latin _suus_).

*P. S. *I forgot _kanī _"girl". This word is found also in Indic (_kanyā, kanā_) and is explained as a derivation from Indo-Iranic *_kani- _"small, young" (Indic _kanīyas-_ "smaller", _kaniṣṭhaḥ_ "smallest", _kanīnaḥ_ "young") with counterparts e. g. in Greek _καινός_ "new, newly found, unexpected" and Latin _rēcens_ "fresh, young, new" (see e. g. in _Beekes RSP · 2010 · Etymological dictionary of Greek:_ 616 — https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_7IkEzr9hyJeWVWWWcydS0wVE0), thus no connection with *_gᵘen-_ "woman".


----------



## Sobakus

CyrusSH said:


> It is not just about sound shifts but there are several other things which relate Iranian and Germanic cultures to each other that I can talk about them.


To prove a special connection between them, you'd have to talk about things exclusive to only those two cultures and absent in other Indo-European ones. Otherwise, you only prove that both are Indo-European.


----------



## CyrusSH

ahvalj said:


> _fera-:_ Don't know what it is — Avestan and Old Persian have _fra-_ (before a consonant).
> 
> _xauda_-_:_ Do you know any plausible etymology? Pokorny lists this word under *_skeu̯dʰ_- (_Pokorny J · 1959 · Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. 3. Band:_ 952 — https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_7IkEzr9hyJN3BxamRiZWV6WDA), but I don't see how this could have produced the initial _x. _The Wikipedia comparison with the English _hood_ etc. (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hood#Etymology_1) is pure fantasy, as the Germanic _ō _can't easily correspond to an _u_-diphthong. The origin of the Germanic words (both _hood_ and_ hat_) is obscure, by the way.
> 
> _xwah-:_ actually _xʷə̄_ — as far as I understand, its primary (and etymological) function in Avestan is the possessive pronoun ("own"), and it represents the descendant of the familiar PIE *_su̯os _(cp. Latin _suus_).
> 
> *P. S. *I forgot _kanī _"girl". This word is found also in Indic (_kanyā, kanā_) and is explained as a derivation from Indo-Iranic *_kani- _"small, young" (Indic _kanīyas-_ "smaller", _kaniṣṭhaḥ_ "smallest", _kanīnaḥ_ "young") with counterparts e. g. in Greek _καινός_ "new, newly found, unexpected" and Latin _rēcens_ "fresh, young, new" (see e. g. in _Beekes RSP · 2010 · Etymological dictionary of Greek:_ 616 — https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_7IkEzr9hyJeWVWWWcydS0wVE0), thus no connection with *_gᵘen-_ "woman".



About the last word, the actual Persian word is "kaniza", the second part is "-iza" which is a female diminutive suffix, like in "dushiza", "pakiza", ... but the first part is "kan" which means "can" or "to know how to do something". In Persian "kaniza" means "young female servant", like Proto-Germanic "knehtaz": https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Proto-Germanic/knehtaz (German "knecht", English "knight", ...), it is from Proto-Indo-European *gen ‎("to know").


----------



## Sobakus

CyrusSH said:


> About the last word, the actual Persian word is "kaniza", the second part is "-iza" which is a female diminutive suffix, like in "dushiza", "pakiza", ... but the first part is "kan" which means "can" or "to know how to do something". In Persian "kaniza" means "young female servant", like Proto-Germanic "knehtaz": https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Proto-Germanic/knehtaz (German "knecht", English "knight", ...), it is from Proto-Indo-European *gen ‎("to know").


So are you saying شناختن [ʃenɒːxˈt̪ʰæn] doesn't come from from PIE "to know" and isn't cognate to Eng. "know", Rus. "znatʲ", Skr. jānā́ti, or did you simply not look in a dictionary at all and just made it up?


----------



## ahvalj

CyrusSH said:


> About the last word, the actual Persian word is "kaniza", the second part is "-iza" which is a female diminutive suffix, like in "dushiza", "pakiza", ... but the first part is "kan" which means "can" or "to know how to do something". In Persian "kaniza" means "young female servant", like Proto-Germanic "knehtaz": https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Proto-Germanic/knehtaz (German "knecht", English "knight", ...), it is from Proto-Indo-European *gen ‎("to know").


Contrary to Wikipedia, which even doesn't try to elaborate its statement, the etymology of _knight_ etc. is again obscure (cp. _Orel VE · 2003 · A handbook of Germanic etymology: _217 _*knakkaz ~ *knakkō_ — https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_7IkEzr9hyJcE9IMDBISXpsSUU ; in _Kroonen G · 2013 · Etymological dictionary of Proto-Germanic_ — https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_7IkEzr9hyJRng0Wnp0WUJFR0U this word seems to be simply absent, including under _*knēan _on p. 295), and in any case the PIE _gʲnehₒ-_ "to know" has regular outcomes in Iranic (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Proto-Indo-European/ǵneh₃-) in form of e. g. Avestan _zan-/zān_- and _xšnā- _(_Beekes RSP · 1988 · A grammar of Gata-Avestan:_ 168 — https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_7IkEzr9hyJMGdVdWp5NHQ0MW8).

According to the Iranic etymological dictionary I have checked (_Эдельман ДИ · 2011 · Этимологический словарь иранских языков. Том 4. i–k: _220–223 — https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_7IkEzr9hyJSmQ1eGQ1MGVfaUE), the modern Persian _kæniz_ comes from late Middle Persian _kanīz_ < early Middle Persian _kanīč_ < Old Persian reconstructed *_kanīčī_ or something similar, and _kænizæ_ comes from _*kanīča-/*kanīči- _with a secondary suffix -_kā _(>_kanīčak>kanīzak_), and both are related in Iranic e. g. to the Avestan _kainyā/kainī/kainīn _"unmarried girl, maiden, girl", _kainikā_ "girl" (Middle Persian _kanīk>kanīg_ "girl, maiden, servant"), dialectal Persian _kine,_ Kurdish _kač/kič, kanī, kanīšk_ "daughter", Ossetic _kynʒ/kinʒæ_ "bride, daughter-in-law, puppet" etc. The root is as described in #8. The semantics thus went from "new/young" to "young girl" and then to "bride", "servant" and not from "able" > "servant" > "bride", "daughter".

P. S. The Indo-European linguistics has been existing now for more than 200 years. It is based on rather limited material and requires rather little effort: dictionaries/grammars and paper/computer, so the hundreds and thousands of scholars involved in this research during these two centuries have discovered and analyzed virtually any possibilities — it is thus unlikely that a casual observer, on the base of several obscure words, may make a revolution in this science. The only thing that can lead to this is the emergence of a massive of new evidence, which is unfortunately unlikely as the 99,(9)% of the information about ancient languages is lost forever. To overcome this, I'd suggest to invest efforts in creating time machines.

P. P. S. By the way, on October 21 this year Doc Brown and Marty McFly will be in Hill Valley with their time machine. California residents may try to clarify some of their etymological questions.


----------



## CyrusSH

Sobakus said:


> To prove a special connection between them, you'd have to talk about things exclusive to only those two cultures and absent in other Indo-European ones. Otherwise, you only prove that both are Indo-European.



Of course, I'm researching about it for 15 years, and I have found hundreds things which just exist in these cultures, not other Indo-European cultures.

For example, an obvious thing: *Fimbulvetr* (the great winter)

*The Oxford introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European world* By J. P. Mallory, Douglas Q. Adams (2006 - 731 pages)

http://books.google.com/books?id=pH7emh7sv50C

page 440:






*Encyclopedia of Indo-European culture* By J. P. Mallory, Douglas Q. Adams

http://books.google.com/books?id=tzU3RIV2BWIC

page 180:


----------



## ahvalj

Of all the northern IE branches, the sufficient evidence of the pagan beliefs is preserved only for Celtic, Germanic and Indo-Iranic: Slavic and Baltic had been christianized so thoroughly to the moment their speakers became literate that we have very little to analyze, and Central European branches (Thracian, Daco-Moesian, northern Venetic and others, whose names we even don't know) disappeared without leaving texts. So, what you cite is the shared evidence from two branches located at the two geographically opposite ends of the Indo-European area: it may be perfectly possible that _every_ branch between Iranic and Germanic had this myth, but we simply have no sources to evaluate this.


----------



## CyrusSH

Sobakus said:


> So are you saying شناختن [ʃenɒːxˈt̪ʰæn] doesn't come from from PIE "to know" and isn't cognate to Eng. "know", Rus. "znatʲ", Skr. jānā́ti, or did you simply not look in a dictionary at all and just made it up?



Avestan "z" is changed to "d" in Persian, so the Persian word from this origin is "danestan" (دانستن).

I don't want to say that all Iranian words have Germanic origin or vice versa, but the fact is that these two languages were under influence of each other and there are many words which have origin from another language, it is not just about Iranian words but about Germanic words too, for example about the origin of Germanic words for "path", "hemp", ... linguists just say these words shouldn't exist in the Germanic languages!


----------



## ahvalj

The Avestan verb had three phonetic forms of the root: _zan-/zān-/xšnā-_ (see the reference in #12): the Persian word with _š_- apparently comes from this latter one. I wonder what is the origin of this initial cluster: on the other hand, Iranic sometimes retains initial clusters simplified elsewhere (e. g. in _*x*švaš_ "six", which is also reflected in Baltic and Slavic but not in other languages).

_Path_ indeed is most probably a Scythian/Sarmatian loanword borrowed through trade routes. Interestingly, it is only attested in West Germanic: it seems not ho have reached Scandinavia (future North and East Germanic). _Hemp_ is of unknown origin: it doesn't conform to the PIE rules of the root structure and exhibits irregular vacillations among languages (e. g. _b/p_), so it is most likely borrowed in Iranic as is in western IE languages.


----------



## CyrusSH

The easiest thing which can be said is that these are all loanwords, and we probably shouldn't ask how a word is borrowed into a group of languages in different forms: Old Frisian path, Middle Dutch pat, Dutch pad, Old High German pfad, German Pfad, ...

It can be also said that by considering sound changes, Persian xood, Pathian xōδ, Avestan xaoδa, Ossetian xodæ are loanwords from Germanic *xōda (English hood, Old Frisian hōd, Middle Low German hȫde, Old Norse hɔtt-r), cognate to Latin cudo: http://www.latin-dictionary.org/cudo


----------



## CyrusSH

A better example is Persian *xum*: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/خم (bent, curved, jug, vat) Avestan xumba, Sanskrit kumbha and English hump, this is again a Germanic sound change and it is not before consonant, by comparing to Indian one. Is it also a loanword from Germanic languages?


----------



## CyrusSH

ahvalj said:


> According to the Iranic etymological dictionary I have checked (_Эдельман ДИ · 2011 · Этимологический словарь иранских языков. Том 4. i–k: _220–223 — https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_7IkEzr9hyJSmQ1eGQ1MGVfaUE), the modern Persian _kæniz_ comes from late Middle Persian _kanīz_ < early Middle Persian _kanīč_ < Old Persian reconstructed *_kanīčī_ or something similar, and _kænizæ_ comes from _*kanīča-/*kanīči- _with a secondary suffix -_kā _(>_kanīčak>kanīzak_), and both are related in Iranic e. g. to the Avestan _kainyā/kainī/kainīn _"unmarried girl, maiden, girl", _kainikā_ "girl" (Middle Persian _kanīk>kanīg_ "girl, maiden, servant"), dialectal Persian _kine,_ Kurdish _kač/kič, kanī, kanīšk_ "daughter", Ossetic _kynʒ/kinʒæ_ "bride, daughter-in-law, puppet" etc. The root is as described in #8. The semantics thus went from "new/young" to "young girl" and then to "bride", "servant" and not from "able" > "servant" > "bride", "daughter".



Persian "kaniz" (servant) doesn't relate to Avestan "kainya" (unmarried girl) and both of them don't relate to Indo-Iranic *_kani- _"small, young", the Avestan and Old Persian word from this origin is "kamna" (small, little), I see no reason a word which means "small", can be also used for "girl" and "servant".


----------



## Dib

Hi CyrusSH, thanks for starting the thread, and am waiting to hear if our resident experts have an evaluation for xaoda and xumba. But, this following assertion of yours sounds rather unthought-out:



CyrusSH said:


> I see no reason a word which means "small", can be also used for "girl" and "servant".



It is in fact quite natural, in my opinion to use a word meaning "small" to denote a boy/girl, like Spanish does with chico/chica. The shift of meaning from girl to female servant is also quite feasible, like it happened in English "maid"; or for that matter, Bengali "jhi" - originally "daughter", apparently from Sanskrit duhitar- and thus related to Persian doxtar - now predominantly means "female servant".


----------



## Treaty

Just the reminder not to forget the main topic of the thread: the _common _origin of the Iranian and Germanic words, and _Irano-Germani_c origin. This is not about loanwords. I think just the examples for the so-called centum/satem division is enough to dismiss the existence of Irano-Germanic branch over an Indo-Iranian branch.



Sobakus said:


> To prove a special connection between them, you'd have to talk about things exclusive to only those two cultures and absent in other Indo-European ones. Otherwise, you only prove that both are Indo-European.





CyrusSH said:


> Of course, I'm researching about it for 15 years, and I have found hundreds things which just exist in these cultures, not other Indo-European cultures.
> ...



It doesn't work like this. Mere exclusive mutuality doesn't explain a thing. Especially, it is statistically meaningless when it is in minute details like examples provided and there is high chance of bias. For example, the two provided examples are misleading. There seems to be no information on the fate of the Iranian arch-demon (Angra-mainyu) as it is not mentioned in Avesta. It is later (middle ages) that two contrasting fates (death or powerlessness) are proposed (but not "binding"). Therefore using it for comparing with another culture is not academic. For the other example, what you consider as "obvious" _great winter_ may be only a geographic and economical similarity. Cultures are afraid of the natural phenomena which could damage their economy (at the time of creating the myth): Celt's feared draught, early Iranians and Germans feared the cold (that's why their scariest places Hell and Niflheim are cold places), Mesopotamian feared floods, etc.


----------



## ahvalj

CyrusSH said:


> The easiest thing which can be said is that these are all loanwords, and we probably shouldn't ask how a word is borrowed into a group of languages in different forms: Old Frisian path, Middle Dutch pat, Dutch pad, Old High German pfad, German Pfad, ...


If its your statement, not sarcasm, I should argue that the various Germanic words all are regular outcomes of *_paþ_-. That the word itself is not inherited is testified by both _p_ and _a._ The PIE prototype had two main alternating variants, Nom. Sg. _*pontehₑs, _Acc. Sg. _*pontehₑm̥_ (with the _o_-grade of the root and the _e_-grade of the suffix) and Gen. Sg. _*pn̥thₑos_ etc. (with the zero grades of the root and the suffix) (see _Beekes RSP · 1995 · Comparative Indo-European linguistics: an introduction: _181 — https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_7IkEzr9hyJY1IwVDdSNVBtMTQ). Various languages either preserve both variants (Avestan directly, Sanskrit in a somewhat leveled form) or eventually choose one of them. Inherited Germanic outcomes should have been either _**fanþ- _(which should have produced English _*footh,_ cp. _*hₒdont->tanþ->tooth_) or _**funþ- _(which should have resulted in the English _**fouth,_ cp. *_mn̥to->munþ->mouth_). The combination _aþ_ testifies the Iranic origin of the West Germanic word, since the development _*n̥th>aþ,_ of all the IE branches, is attested only in Iranic, and it is regular there (Gen. Sg. PIE _*pn̥thₑos > _Avestan _paθō_).



CyrusSH said:


> It can be also said that by considering sound changes, Persian xood, Pathian xōδ, Avestan xaoδa, Ossetian xodæ are loanwords from Germanic *xōda (English hood, Old Frisian hōd, Middle Low German hȫde, Old Norse hɔtt-r), cognate to Latin cudo: http://www.latin-dictionary.org/cudo


The Latin _ū_ in a non-prefixed word can either continue the post-PIE _*ū_ (_fūmus_) or be the result of monophthongization of *_eu̯_ (_lūx, dūcō_) or *_ou̯_ (_lūna, jūs_) or *_oı̯_ (_ūnus, scūtum_). The intervocalic Latin _d_ can only come from PIE *_d_ (_videō_). _Cūdō_ "helmet" in Latin is unexplained (_Pokorny J · 1959 · Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. 3. Band: _952 below — https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_7IkEzr9hyJN3BxamRiZWV6WDA) as it should have come from _*keu̯d- _or _*kou̯d-,_ whereas other languages suppose _*keu̯dʰ- _or _*koudʰ-,_ which in Latin would have produced _**cūbō _(cp. in Latin *_rou̯dʰos>*rou̯þos>rūbus_). De Vaan's dictionary doesn't mention this word (_de Vaan M · 2008 · Etymological dictionary of Latin and the other Italic languages:_ 733 — https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_7IkEzr9hyJS1ZxV2dpdnhzUEk).

The Germanic _ō_ can regularly come only from post-PIE _*ō _or_ *ā, _not from an _u_-diphthong. Since there are several examples when a long _i_-diphthong has simplified into a vowel (_*ēı̯>ē _as the main source of the Germanic _ē₂_), one can't exclude a similar development _*ōu̯>ō,_ but this should be demonstrated in crystal clear examples and shouldn't be postulated for a word that itself has no reliable etymology. Plus, the PIE _*d _should have produced _t_ in Germanic, so the cognate of the Latin _*kōu̯dō(n)>cūdō_ should have sounded _**hōt-, _not *_hōd-_ as we actually find.

If the Iranic forms were borrowed from Germanic, this should have occurred when Germanic still had an _u_-diphthong in this word (otherwise how to explain the Old Persian _xauda _and Avestan _xaoδā _?). The problem is that Old Persian is attested in your time, lord Cyrus (i. e. the 6th century BC), and it is unknown whether the Germanic consonant shift had already occurred that early: at least the tribe that left the toponym now known as_ *H*immerland, _was known to the Romans as _*c*imbrī_ and to the Greeks as _*κ*ίμβροι_ (http://greek_greek.enacademic.com/220044/Κίμβροι) at the boundary of the 2nd and the 1st centuries BC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimbri). One may give several explanations of this _k,_ but the doubts remain, especially why Greeks didn't use their _χ_ for this sound.


----------



## fdb

ahvalj said:


> The problem is that Old Persian is attested in your time, lord Cyrus (i. e. the 6th century BC),



Actually: not until the time of Darius.


----------



## CyrusSH

About **g > k* sound change, it can be interesting to mention some similar names of animals in Persian: *kulang* (crane), *kurrag* (colt) and *kalag* (crow).

For example about the first one there are:

Greek geranos
Slavic *žervъ
Baltic *gar̂nia
Germanic *krana
Latin grus
Celtic garan


----------



## CyrusSH

Treaty said:


> Just the reminder not to forget the main topic of the thread: the _common _origin of the Iranian and Germanic words, and _Irano-Germani_c origin. This is not about loanwords. I think just the examples for the so-called centum/satem division is enough to dismiss the existence of Irano-Germanic branch over an Indo-Iranian branch.



Ok, let's look at an example:

Proto-IE: *ki
meaning: this/3rd person pronoun

Hittite _ki_
Greek _ekeinos_
Latin _cis_
Old Church Slavonic _si_
Lithuanian _šis_
English _he_
Old Saxon _hi_
*Avestan hi*


----------



## CyrusSH

Another Example:

Proto-IE: *dekem
meaning: ten

Greek _deka_
Latin _decem_
Breton _dek_
Old Church Slavonic _deseti_
Lithuanian _desimt_
Sanskrit _dasa_
Old Persian _dah_
Kurdish _deh_


----------



## ahvalj

CyrusSH said:


> Ok, let's look at an example:
> 
> Proto-IE: *ki
> meaning: this/3rd person pronoun
> 
> Hittite _ki_
> Greek _ekeinos_
> Latin _cis_
> Old Church Slavonic _si_
> Lithuanian _šis_
> English _he_
> Old Saxon _hi_
> *Avestan hi*


The Avestan _hī_ (it is the feminine form) goes back to the post-PIE _*sī _(_Pokorny J · 1959 · Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. 3. Band:_ 979 — https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_7IkEzr9hyJN3BxamRiZWV6WDA), which occurs also in Sanskrit (Acc. Sg. _sīm —_ _Beekes RSP · 1988 · A grammar of Gata-Avestan: _139 — https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_7IkEzr9hyJMGdVdWp5NHQ0MW8), Greek (_ἵ _— _Beekes RSP · 2010 · Etymological dictionary of Greek: _571 — https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_7IkEzr9hyJeWVWWWcydS0wVE0), Celtic (Old Irish _sí,_ Middle Welsh _hi,_ Middle Breton _hy~hi, _Cornish _hy_ — _Matasović R · 2009 · Etymological dictionary of Proto-Celtic: _335 — https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_7IkEzr9hyJRlVOVHlzSWRZUm8) and Germanic (Gothic _si,_ Old High German _sī_ — _Orel VE · 2003 · A handbook of Germanic etymology:_ 329 — https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_7IkEzr9hyJcE9IMDBISXpsSUU). The development _s>h_ is typical of Iranic languages. By the way, _h_ and _x_ are two different sounds in ancient Iranic, with two different sources of origin.


----------



## ahvalj

CyrusSH said:


> Another Example:
> 
> Proto-IE: *dekem
> meaning: ten
> 
> Greek _deka_
> Latin _decem_
> Breton _dek_
> Old Church Slavonic _deseti_
> Lithuanian _desimt_
> Sanskrit _dasa_
> Old Persian _dah_
> Kurdish _deh_


My sources tell that _dah_ is the Middle Persian form: in Old Persian this numeral is unattested. The Avestan form is _dasā~dasa. _For Old Persian, consequently, *_daθa _is reconstructed. Old Persian _θ_ regularly produces Middle Persian _h, _e. g. Avestan _čaθwar-_ : Middle Persian _čahār_ "four". Other languages have e. g. _das_ (Parthian), _las_ (Pashto) and _dæs_ (Ossetic).


----------



## ahvalj

fdb said:


> Actually: not until the time of Darius.


Yes, sorry, mea culpa. So, we move 100 years ahead.


----------



## CyrusSH

ahvalj said:


> The Avestan _hī_ (it is the feminine form) goes back to the post-PIE _*sī _(_Pokorny J · 1959 · Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. 3. Band:_ 979 — https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_7IkEzr9hyJN3BxamRiZWV6WDA), which occurs also in Sanskrit (Acc. Sg. _sīm:_ _Beekes RSP · 1988 · A grammar of Gata-Avestan: _139 — https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_7IkEzr9hyJMGdVdWp5NHQ0MW8), Greek (_ἵ _— _Beekes RSP · 2010 · Etymological dictionary of Greek: _571 — https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_7IkEzr9hyJeWVWWWcydS0wVE0), Celtic (Old Irish _sí,_ Middle Welsh _hi,_ Middle Breton _hy~hi, _Cornish _hy_ — _Matasović R · 2009 · Etymological dictionary of Proto-Celtic: _335 — https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_7IkEzr9hyJRlVOVHlzSWRZUm8) and Germanic (Gothic _si,_ Old High German _sī_ — _Orel VE · 2003 · A handbook of Germanic etymology:_ 329 — https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_7IkEzr9hyJcE9IMDBISXpsSUU). The development _s>h_ is typical of Iranic languages. By the way, _h_ and _x_ are two different sounds in ancient Iranic, with two different sources of origin.



Of course h and x are two different sounds in Avestan, but about that word the proto-Germanic word is also not -*xi but *hi.

But in Persian we see both xvaršêt and hvaršêt (sun), xuram and huram (happy), xuš and huš (good), xušk and hušk (dry, husk), ...


----------



## CyrusSH

ahvalj said:


> My sources tell that _dah_ is the Middle Persian form: in Old Persian this numeral is unattested. The Avestan form is _dasā~dasa. _For Old Persian, consequently, *_daθa _is reconstructed. Old Persian _θ_ regularly produces Middle Persian _h, _e. g. Avestan _čaθwar-_ : Middle Persian _čahār_ "four". Other languages have e. g. _das_ (Parthian), _las_ (Pashto) and _dæs_ (Ossetic).



s>_θ?  _In your previous post you said "The development _s>h_ is typical of Iranic languages." 

Anyway s>x is certainly more possible, for example we see Sanskrit/Avestan "star" (star) has been chaned to "axtar" in Persian.


----------



## fdb

Indo-European *ḱ becomes s in Indo-Iranian (and the other satem-languages) and then ϑ in Old Persian and finally h in Middle and New Persian (with some exceptions).

Indo-European *s becomes h in Iranian (with some exceptions).

Thus, Persian h can go back either to *ḱ (as in dah, Latin decem) or to *s (as in haft, Latin septem).


----------



## ahvalj

CyrusSH said:


> s>_θ?  _In your previous post you said "The development _s>h_ is typical of Iranic languages."
> 
> Anyway s>x is certainly more possible, for example we see Sanskrit/Avestan "star" (star) has been chaned to "axtar" in Persian.


I meant Old Iranic: we were discussing the Avestan evidence, after all.

Indo-Iranic *_s_ > Iranic _h_ (Vedic _sapta_ ~ Avestan _hapta_ "seven", Vedic _asmi_ ~ Avestan _ahmi_ "I am", Vedic _Sindhu_- ~ Avestan _Hindu_- "Indus river").
Indo-Iranic *_ć_ > Avestan _s_ and Old Persian _θ_ (Vedic _śata_- ~ Avestan _satəm_ "hundred"; Vedic _śapha_- ~ Avestan _safa-_ "hoof").
Many centuries later Old Persian _θ_ > Middle Persian _h_.


----------



## CyrusSH

ahvalj said:


> I meant Old Iranic: we were discussing the Avestan evidence, after all.
> 
> Indo-Iranic *_s_ > Iranic _h_ (Vedic _sapta_ ~ Avestan _hapta_ "seven", Vedic _asmi_ ~ Avestan _ahmi_ "I am", Vedic _Sindhu_- ~ Avestan _Hindu_- "Indus river").
> Indo-Iranic *_ć_ > Avestan _s_ and Old Persian _θ_ (Vedic _śata_- ~ Avestan _satəm_ "hundred"; Vedic _śapha_- ~ Avestan _safa-_ "hoof").
> Many centuries later Old Persian _θ_ > Middle Persian _h_.



You should at least mention one example in Old Persian, the Middle Persian word for hoof is _kapš_.

And about the first one, we see Sanskrit _sūkará_ (pig, hog) is Persian _xug_.


----------



## Unoverwordinesslogged

Aswell as the Moors, the Iranian Alans got as far as northern France. Has this ever been looked into anent some kind of 'Irano-Germanic' wordstock?


----------



## ahvalj

Still, could you elaborate your idea — do you suggest that:

(1) the standard outcomes of PIE stops in Persian coincide with the Germanic ones, or 
(2) the standard outcomes in Persian are as postulated in the last 200 years but a number of Persian words don't fit this and are best explained as having evolved in the Germanic way?

In any case, do you suggest this only for Persian or for Iranic as a whole?


----------



## CyrusSH

I'm not just talking about Persian but the western Iranian languages, many things can be said about western Iranian culture and Germanic culture, for example as you read in this book: A history of Zoroastrianism: The Early Period By Mary Boyce, Frantz Grenet (page 77: http://books.google.com/books?id=F3...zaCdCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5), the chief god of western Iranians was Tir/Tyr.


----------



## ahvalj

Yet, could you formulate what you're talking about concerning the phonetic development?


----------



## CyrusSH

It is really difficult to say, I think there are two possibilities:

1. A process began in the Iranian languages and then completed in the western Iranian languages and finally in the Germanic languages.
2. Iranian languages were affected by the Germanic languages from the west and this effect reached to the east weakly.


----------



## ahvalj

I meant a different thing. What is your estimate about the share of (West) Iranic words with traditionally postulated reflexes of PIE stops (_pati_ "lord" [Lithuanian _pats _"self"], _kāra_ "army" [Lithuanian _karas_ "war"], _tuvam_ "thou" [Lithuanian _tu_] and hundreds of others) vs. those with _f, x, ϑ_? What to do with the endings, e. g. Praes. Act. Sg. 3 -_tiy_ and Ipf. Med. Sg. 3 -_ta_ (_amriyta_ "he died")?


----------



## CyrusSH

What I know is that etymologies of most of Iranian words are still unknown, so we can't estimate, I think linguists have just worked on some Iranian words which can be explained by their PIE theory, so they had to ignore the majority of Iranian words.


----------

