# Persian fradag "tomorrow" and Proto-Germanic *dagaz "day"



## CyrusSH

It seems to be clear that _fra_ (_fara_) means "forth, forward" (from PIE *_per-_ "forward") but what does _dag_ mean? Is it cognate with Proto-Germanic *_dagaz_ "day"?


----------



## PersoLatin

Of course you know it is  _fradāg _& not _fradag_. Also, the final 'g' is one of those suspects g/k endings that appear only after words, that end in long/some short vowels, like āhug/setārag and of course  fradāg and MP _dīg_/NP _dey-yesterday_, note, there's no _dag_ in the latter.

_fra_ is related to PIE *_per-_ "forward" and you can see it in the related word _frādahlšnih_ (increase, progress). Please note the latter is missing that vital /g/ you are relying on to link _fradāg _with _dagaz_.


----------



## CyrusSH

About the proto-Germanic word, we read in wiktionary:  Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/dagaz - Wiktionary Uncertain. Often explained as derived from the Proto-Indo-European root *dʰegʷʰ- (“to burn”), but the loss of the labialization would be irregular; *dawaz would be expected.

And about proto-IE *dʰegʷʰ- (“to burn”): Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/dʰegʷʰ- - Wiktionary > Persian: داغ‏ (*dāġ*)


----------



## CyrusSH

PersoLatin said:


> Of course you know it is  _fradāg _& not _fradag_. Also, the final 'g' is one of those suspects g/k endings that appear only after words, that end in long/some short vowels, like āhug/setārag and of course  fradāg and _dīg_/yesterday, note, there's no _dag_ in the latter.
> 
> _fra_ is related to PIE *_per-_ "forward" and you can see it in the related word _frādahlšnih_ (increase, progress). Please note the latter is missing that vital /g/ you are relying on to link _fradāg _with _dagaz_.



It is certainly not a general rule, for example what do you think about Persian _tāg_ "crown" (Arabicized as _tāj_) from Proto-Indo-European *_teg-_? تاج - Wiktionary (Also compare to Modern Persian _dibā_ and its Arabicized version _dibāj_: معنی دیباج | فرهنگ فارسی عمید)


----------



## PersoLatin

CyrusSH said:


> It is certainly not a general rule, for example what do you think about Persian _tāg_ "crown"


I didn't say it was a general, or even an accepted rule, although I believe there's something that has not been considered/studied thoroughly about these words, refer to this thread: Pahlavi words ending in a vowel .

Anyway that 'rule' only applies to MP words that have a g/k ending, whose NP equivalent, doesn't, so it definitely applies to _fradāg->fardā.  _No it doesn't apply to تاج/_tāg, _nor does it to many other words that end this way, e.g. p_āk etc._


----------



## CyrusSH

PersoLatin said:


> I didn't say it was a general, or even an accepted rule, although I believe there's something that has not been considered/studied thoroughly about these words, refer to this thread: Pahlavi words ending in a vowel .
> 
> Anyway that 'rule' only applies to MP words that have a g/k ending, whose NP equivalent, doesn't, so it definitely applies to _fradāg->fardā.  _No it doesn't apply to تاج/_tāg, _nor does it to many other words that end this way, e.g. p_āk etc._



In modern Persian _tāg_ doesn't exist, we just use its Arabicized version _tāj_, as I mentioned in your thread, Middle Persian loanwords in Arabic, Armenian and other languages show that _g/k_ endings were pronounced but they were gradually disappeared, it can be compared to _r_ ending in English, like _teacher_.


----------



## CyrusSH

It is good to mention that Gothic _afardags_ also means "next day": afardags - Wiktionary


----------



## PersoLatin

CyrusSH said:


> I mentioned in your thread, Middle Persian loanwords in Arabic, Armenian and other languages show that _g/k_ endings were pronounced but they were gradually disappeared


That's not a convincing argument, at least for a moment imagine that those words could have entered those languages (Arabic, Armenian etc), from Pahlavi text, and not from conversations with Middle Persian speakers, so when they saw g/k, they copied without checking if they were pronounced or not. I even showed that the Pahlavi symbol for 'the g/k ending' was different to the one for 'g' in proper words like, tagarg, nang, rang, nerang, frahang, ĉang, âhang, marg, sang, bozorg, kulang, tang.

Of course some of those words with g/k ending have even survived into New Persian e.g.  târik, nazdik, tâjik many more.


----------



## CyrusSH

I believe the only thing which has happened in Modern Persian is a simplification in pronunciation, for example Middle Persian _xāyag_ "egg" has been changed to both xāya and xāg, another important point is that when we add a suffix, this _g_ is reappeared, like _barde_ + "-i" > _bardegi_, _zende_ > _zendegi_, _āzāde_ > _āzādegi_, _mānde_ > _māndegi_, ... or _barde_ + "-ān" > _bardegān_, _āzāde_ -> _āzādegān_, _zende_ > _zendegān_, ... or _amuze_ + "-ār" > _amuzegār_, _parvarde_ -> _parvardegār_, ...


----------



## ahvalj

Germanic has words with _*đōǥ-:_ e. g. Old English _dōgor_ "day" (dogor - Wiktionary & Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/dōg- - Wiktionary) and Gothic _fidurdogs_ "four-days old" (fidurdogs - Wiktionary) and _ahtaudogs_ (ahtaudogs - Wiktionary) "eight-days old".

An _ā,_ either from _*o, from *ē_ or from _*ō,_ is attested in Sanskrit: _nidāghaḥ_ (Sanskrit Dictionary for Spoken Sanskrit) "heat, summer". Persian, too, has داغ - Wiktionary, as it was mentioned above, though I can't comment whether all this is related to فردا - Wiktionary

P. S. Concerning the Germanic _*ǥ_ instead of the expected _*ǥʷ:_ nobody knows, of course, but a contamination with _*hₐegʲʰr̥_ (>Sanskrit _ahar_ — अहर् - Wiktionary , Avestan _azan_- — A Grammar of Gatha-Avestan), an old word for "day", is sometimes suggested, i. e. _*aǥur_ × _*đaǥʷaz_ → _*đaǥaz_.


----------



## PersoLatin

CyrusSH said:


> I believe the only thing which has happened in Modern Persian is a simplification in pronunciation, for example Middle Persian _xāyag_ "egg" has been changed to both xāya and xāg, another important point is that when we add a suffix, this _g_ is reappeared, like _barde_ + "-i" > _bardegi_, _zende_ > _zandegi_, _āzāde_ > _āzādegi_, _mānde_ > _māndegi_, ... or _barde_ + "-ān" > _bardegān_, _āzāde_ -> _āzādegān_, _zende_ > _zendegān_, ... or _amuze_ + "-ār" > _amuzegār_, _parvarde_ -> _parvardegār_, ...


I am not doubting the 'g' in _āzādegān,_ which was gradually added as it is almost impossible to pronounce two vowels following one another i.e. _d*eā*n_ so Iranians added 'g' to get around this, the same way, in the English 'n' was added to 'a' in 'a*n* apple'.

Now how about looking at it another way i.e. : "this necessary 'g' has, by *mistake*, crept back into _āzāde_ and made it _āzādeg"_, but how? Maybe at some point some scribe looked at _āzādegān _and worked out the singular of it must be _āzādeg, _as he removed the plural marker_ ān, _the same goes for other example types.



CyrusSH said:


> I believe the only thing which has happened in Modern Persian is a simplification in pronunciation


Of course that happens but there's no proof this g/k was ever in day-to-day conversation of ordinary people (of course except in such cases _āzādegān zandegi)_, also there must be an isolated pocket of Iranian speakers who didn't go through the same 'simplification' and kept the original but there aren't any, and how do you explain the words that are in day-to-day use now, but haven't dropped this g/k, like  târik (târ), nazdik (nazd), tâjik (tâj), mazdak (mazd_ā_), etc.?


----------



## CyrusSH

ahvalj said:


> Germanic has words with _*đōǥ-:_ e. g. Old English _dōgor_ "day" (dogor - Wiktionary & Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/dōg- - Wiktionary) and Gothic _fidurdogs_ "four-days old" (fidurdogs - Wiktionary) and _ahtaudogs_ (ahtaudogs - Wiktionary) "eight-days old".
> 
> An _ā,_ either from _*o, from *ē_ or from _*ō,_ is attested in Sanskrit: _nidāghaḥ_ (Sanskrit Dictionary for Spoken Sanskrit) "heat, summer". Persian, too, has داغ - Wiktionary, as it was mentioned above, though I can't comment whether all this is related to فردا - Wiktionary
> 
> P. S. Concerning the Germanic _*ǥ_ instead of the expected _*ǥʷ:_ nobody knows, of course, but a contamination with _*hₐegʲʰr̥_ (>Sanskrit _ahar_ — अहर् - Wiktionary , Avestan _azan_- — A Grammar of Gatha-Avestan), an old word for "day", is sometimes suggested, i. e. _*aǥur_ × _*đaǥʷaz_ → _*đaǥaz_.



The proto-IE word for "yesterday" seems to begin with _d_ too but it has been disappeared in Proto-Germanic *_gis-_, compare to Breton _dec'h_ and Albanian _dje_, of course I don't know Persian _dig_ relates to which one, _*g>d_ sound change is also possible.


----------



## ahvalj

CyrusSH said:


> The proto-IE word for "yesterday" seems to begin with _d_ too but it has been disappeared in Proto-Germanic *_gis-_, compare to Breton _dec'h_ and Albanian _dje_, of course I don't know Persian _dig_ relates to which one, _*g>d_ sound change is also possible.


Connection with _yesterday_ etc. excludes the Iranic affinities as _*dʰogʲʰos_ would have produced the Old Persian *_dādas_ and Median *_dāzas, _while your etymology requires *_dāgas_.


----------



## CyrusSH

PersoLatin said:


> I am not doubting the 'g' in _āzādegān,_ which was gradually added as it is almost impossible to pronounce two vowels following one another i.e. _d*eā*n_ so Iranians added 'g' to get around this, the same way, in the English 'n' was added to 'a' in 'a*n* apple'.
> 
> Now how about looking at it another way i.e. : "this necessary 'g' has, by *mistake*, crept back into _āzāde_ and made it _āzādeg"_, but how? Maybe at some point some scribe looked at _āzādegān _and worked out the singular of it must be _āzādeg, _as he removed the plural marker_ ān, _the same goes for other example types.



Persian can be regarded as an oral language, in fact Aramaic was usually the written language of Persian empires, so I doubt that it can be related to orthography. 



> Of course that happens but there's no proof this g/k was ever in day-to-day conversation of ordinary people (of course except in such cases _āzādegān zandegi)_, also there must be an isolated pocket of Iranian speakers who didn't go through the same 'simplification' and kept the original but there aren't any, and how do you explain the words that are in day-to-day use now, but haven't dropped this g/k, like  târik (târ), nazdik (nazd), tâjik (tâj), mazdak (mazd_ā_), etc.?



I think the influence of Arabic culture after the Islamic conquest had an important role, _g_ sound didn't exist in Arabic and we see Arabic suffixes were widely used in Persian, for example when numerous Arabic words with _-i_ suffix were used in Persian and the same suffix could be used for Persian words, there would be no reason that Persian _-ig_ suffix is still used.


----------



## PersoLatin

CyrusSH said:


> Persian can be regarded as an oral language, in fact Aramaic was usually the written language of Persian empires, so I doubt that it can be related to orthography.


Not relevant, MP was written in Pahlavi and that's what we are talking about here. Using 'generalisation' in a debate is not good tactics, detail is.



CyrusSH said:


> I think the influence of Arabic culture after the Islamic conquest had an important role, _g_ sound didn't exist in Arabic and we see Arabic suffixes were widely used in Persian, for example when numerous Arabic words with _-i_ suffix were used in Persian and the same suffix could be used for Persian words, there would be no reason that Persian _-ig_ suffix is still used.


That's correct but you are using it as an argument against but I use it as a strong argument for. Arabic unlike Pahlavi (a variant of Aramaic script) *HAD* long vowels_ ī, ā, ū _so there was no longer a need for the g/k to identify Persian words ending with these vowels, so g/k was dropped from words like _āŝnāg, āhūg_ or_ dēnig _and changed to Perso-Arabic as آشنا ، آهو & دینی. But Arabic still didn't have short vowels for e & a (and o) so words like _āzādag/āzādeg_, had to take up yet another convention so they could be pronounced the way they are meant to, and that is the addition of the silent 'h' in *آزاده*.

Doesn't the silent 'h' look remarkably like the 'silent' g/k ending, i.e. it represents the same short coming that g/k ending was used for?

For the sake of argument, if at some point in the future Perso-Latin is used for Persian, we have to ensure that word like *آزاده *are not transcribed as _āzāda*h*/āzāda*h*, _otherwise we will be repeating the same mistake we are debating now.


----------



## CyrusSH

ahvalj said:


> Connection with _yesterday_ etc. excludes the Iranic affinities as _*dʰogʲʰos_ would have produced the Old Persian *_dādas_ and Median *_dāzas, _while your etymology requires *_dāgas_.



Persian di- (Middle Persian _dig_) means "yester-" and I don't think that it can be related to _-dāg_ in _fradāg_ but I asked about its initial _d_.


----------



## CyrusSH

PersoLatin said:


> That's correct but you are using it as an argument against but I use it as a strong argument for. Arabic unlike Pahlavi (a variant of Aramaic script) *HAD* long vowels_ ī, ā, ū _so there was no longer a need for the g/k to identify Persian words ending with these vowels, so g/k was dropped from words like _āŝnāg, āhūg_ or_ dēnig _and changed to Perso-Arabic as آشنا ، آهو & دینی. But Arabic still didn't have short vowels for e & a (and o) so words like _āzādag/āzādeg_, had to take up yet another convention so they could be pronounced the way they are meant to, and that is the addition of the silent 'h' in *آزاده*.
> 
> Doesn't the silent 'h' look remarkably like the 'silent' g/k ending, i.e. it represents the same short coming that g/k ending was used for?
> 
> For the sake of argument, if at some point in the future Perso-Latin is used for Persian, we have to ensure that word like *آزاده *are not transcribed as _āzāda*h*/āzāda*h*, _otherwise we will be repeating the same mistake we are debating now.



This silent _h_ after a short vowel in Persian and Turkish endings is the same as ة suffix in Arabic, compare to اضافه or غرفه ...


----------



## PersoLatin

CyrusSH said:


> This silent _h_ after a short vowel in Persian and Turkish endings is the same as ة suffix in Arabic, compare to اضافه or غرفه ...


So is that all you have to say about it? Saying nothing might be better if there's nothing to say.


----------



## CyrusSH

PersoLatin said:


> So is that all you have to say about it? Saying nothing might be better if there's nothing to say.



Persian _āzād_ + Arabic suffix _eh_ = _āzādeh_, what should I say more about it?! Like Arabic _sābeq_ + _eh_ = _sābeqeh_.

It is clear what happened, a simpler Arabic suffix has been replaced to a Persian suffix, like Latin -_ic_ which has been replaced to proto-Germanic *-_iskaz_ in English.


----------



## PersoLatin

CyrusSH said:


> Persian _āzād_ + Arabic suffix _eh_ = _āzādeh_, what should I say more about it?! Like Arabic _sābeq_ + _eh_ = _sābeqeh_.


Obviously by "Persian _āzād_ + Arabic suffix _eh_ = _āzādeh" _you mean Persian used the Arabic writing convention 'eh' and not the suffix itself?

Also, by saying the above, you are saying you know for sure, that by the time of Arab invasion, the g/k sound had disappeared so all Persian had to do was adopt the Arabic suffix 'eh'

This theory is full of holes.


----------



## Treaty

Usually, if the final _g _is etymological, it doesn't disappear from MP to NP (there is also _fradā _in MP, without _g_). So, we can assume that this _g _was probably not a part of the root. Moreover, unless someone knows the etymology, I don't see a reason to _only _consider that -_dā _in _fradā _is a meaningful word, rather than a suffix-like morpheme (c.f. Avastan _frād = _"further").


----------



## CyrusSH

I think you wait that fdb says that it is a compound and you say "Thanks", like what he said about _rustā_: "compound *raudas-tāka- > rōstāg."


----------



## PersoLatin

Hi Cyrus,


CyrusSH said:


> I think you wait that fdb says that it is a compound and you say "Thanks", like what he said about _rustā_: "compound *raudas-tāka- > rōstāg."





Treaty said:


> Usually, if the final _g _is etymological, it doesn't disappear from MP to NP (there is also _fradā _in MP, without _g_).





Treaty said:


> So, we can assume that this _g _was probably not a part of the root



I just want to use this as an example:

As I have said before here and elsewhere, the final 'g/k' (in fact it is always 'k', based on existing Pahlavi text), on this word & scores of others, was not intended for pronunciation, it is graphically different to the proper 'g' ending on many words, e.g gor*g*/wolf. There are many, including yourself, that don't believe in this theory, but I don't give up on the idea because, as much as I can't prove it, it can't also be dis-proved, in my way of thinking, most of the evidence that is used to counter my argument, for example presence of words with g/k ending in Arabic, Armenian, and NP, can be viewed as proof for my argument.

BTW - Like yourself, I am not convinced on this particular idea: "raudas-tāka- > rōstāg", but unlike you, I believe g/k ending on rōstāg, is not etymological & since scholars don''t seem to be sure, they have come up with an alternative, just in case.


----------



## CyrusSH

What do you think about Modern Persian _Eždahā_ (اژدها) "drgaon", Middle Persian _Aždahāg_, Manichaean_ʾzdhʾg_ and Avestan _Aži Dahāka_?


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> What do you think about Modern Persian _Eždahā_ (اژدها) "drgaon", Middle Persian _Aždahāg_, Manichaean_ʾzdhʾg_ and Avestan _Aži Dahāka_?


I am not quite sure in what way this question is related to the topic of this thread.


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> I am not quite sure in what way this question is related to the topic of this thread.



Both Treaty and PersoLatin say that _g_ in _fradāg_ is not etymological because it doesn't exist in Modern Persian _fardā_, in fact they say if it existed in the original word, it would not disappear in the modern one but in my examples, you can see that they are wrong.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> Both Treaty and PersoLatin say that _g_ in _fradāg_ is not etymological because it doesn't exist in Modern Persian _fardā_, in fact they say if it existed in the original word, it would not disappear in the modern one but in my examples, you can see that they are wrong.


Got it.


----------



## PersoLatin

CyrusSH said:


> What do you think about Modern Persian _Eždahā_ (اژدها) "drgaon", Middle Persian _Aždahāg_, Manichaean_ʾzdhʾg_ and Avestan _Aži Dahāka_?


I can’t see how this example is any different to fardā, you yourself have shown there’s no g/k at the end of _Eždahā _in NP. Also siting the Manichaean & Avestan examples of the same word isn’t adding any weight to the argument, both of those had the same problem with their scripts.


----------



## CyrusSH

PersoLatin said:


> I can’t see how this example is any different to fardā, you yourself have shown there’s no g/k at the end of _Eždahā _in NP. Also siting the Manichaean & Avestan examples of the same word isn’t adding any weight to the argument, both of those had the same problem with their scripts.



I really don't know why there should be problems in all Iranian scripts! The name of _Zahhāk_ has the same origin, it is clear that there was a _g/k_ sound in the original word.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> I really don't know why there should be problems in all Iranian scripts!


Not all. Only Pahlavi and it's derivatives, if I understand PersoLatin's argument correctly.


----------



## PersoLatin

CyrusSH said:


> I really don't know why there should be problems in all Iranian scripts! The name of _Zahhāk_ has the same origin, it is clear that there was a _g/k_ sound in the original word.


Clearly _Zahhāk was _borrowed into Aramaic (then into Arabic) from MP eždehāg, and the non-etymological ‘g/k’ was taken as a valid letter, I say taken because Pahlavi used most of the Aramaic letters. People on the forum must be bored by this repetition. 

But please don’t go looking for another example, as far as I’m concerned the same thing applies to all other examples you may ever find.


----------



## Treaty

CyrusSH said:


> Both Treaty and PersoLatin say that _g_ in _fradāg_ is not etymological because it doesn't exist in Modern Persian _fardā_


Sorry, I should have made my post clearer. I meant it was not part of the root, unlike the ending of _tyg _(blade). My point was that a straightforward connection with Persian _dāɣ_ or Germanic *_dagaz_ is unlikely. Otherwise, I do think the ending _g/k_ was in many cases a continuation of OIr. -_ka_ suffix.

Regarding PersoLatin's theory of a writing convention, there is a major issue. Like any unique script, in order to make sense of it, the reader needed to already know the language to some extent. If some Armenian, Syrians or Arabs were reading the script, they were already familiar with Middle Persian's language and pronunciations. They didn't need to know the spelling of a word to borrow it, and they wouldn't have borrowed it based on the spelling if they had already known the pronunciation. Besides, if g/k was a mere writing convention, they would have learned it when they were learning the script considering the magnitude of its usage. Otherwise, they couldn't have identified a word on a text and borrowed it with the correct meaning.


----------



## Treaty

PersoLatin said:


> I even showed that the Pahlavi symbol for 'the g/k ending' was different to the one for 'g' in proper words like, tagarg, nang, rang, nerang, frahang, ĉang, âhang, marg, sang, bozorg, kulang, tang.


Maybe the opposite. Based on McKenzie dictionary, there are at least 25 words with common _ak_ (resembling *l9*) ending whose pronunciation is preserved in NP. They feature all sort of final syllables including CVk (rag, xāk, nāzuk, dōk) and VCk (nask, kabk, *kark*, payg, bizešk). On the other hand, there are around 30 words with the other _-g_ endings (mostly a symbol resembling* و*). In half of them, *و* represents the whole _ng_ cluster, not just _g _(even in non-final conditions where n and g were parts of different components, e.g., _parwān-gāh_ as _prwā*و*āh_ or _tuwān-gar _as_ tuwā*و*r_). In another good number, it is used in final _rg_ cluster (I saw only one such cluster is represented by *l9*, as highlighted above). Of those which end with a CVk syllable, four also have *l9* variants. In other words, it is this *و *symbol, not the _ak_/*l9* symbol, that was seemingly a spelling convention for a certain type of _k/g_.


----------



## CyrusSH

Treaty said:


> Sorry, I should have made my post clearer. I meant it was not part of the root, unlike the ending of _tyg _(blade). My point was that a straightforward connection with Persian _dāɣ_ or Germanic *_dagaz_ is unlikely. Otherwise, I do think the ending _g/k_ was in many cases a continuation of OIr. -_ka_ suffix.



Persian _fra_ is itself a prefix, isn't it?


----------



## Treaty

I already said in post #21 that I don't know. Originally, _fra _is something between relational noun and preposition. It becomes a prefix when attached to meaningful words or lexemes. I don't know if _dā _is a lexeme or not. If it is, _fra_ would be a prefix; if it isn't (i.e., it is suffix morpheme), then _fra_ itself would be the stem and _dā _would modify it.


----------



## CyrusSH

We have also Avestan _ayarǝ_ "morning, dawn" (from proto-IE _h₂eyeri_ "early, in the morning", cognate with English _ere_ and Greek _êri_ "early in the morning") and *frayara* (Middle Persian _frayar_) "forenoon". I think it also shows that _fra_ is a prefix.


----------



## PersoLatin

Treaty said:


> Maybe the opposite. Based on McKenzie dictionary, there are at least 25 words with common _ak_ (resembling *l9*) ending whose pronunciation is preserved in NP. They feature all sort of final syllables including CVk (rag, xāk, nāzuk, dōk) and VCk (nask, kabk, *kark*, payg, bizešk). On the other hand, there are around 30 words with the other _-g_ endings (mostly a symbol resembling* و*). In half of them, *و* represents the whole _ng_ cluster, not just _g _(even in non-final conditions where n and g were parts of different components, e.g., _parwān-gāh_ as _prwā*و*āh_ or _tuwān-gar _as_ tuwā*و*r_). In another good number, it is used in final _rg_ cluster (I saw only one such cluster is represented by *l9*, as highlighted above). Of those which end with a CVk syllable, four also have *l9* variants. In other words, it is this *و *symbol, not the _ak_/*l9* symbol, that was seemingly a spelling convention for a certain type of _k/g_.



Thanks for looking at this, another pair of eyes always helps, I will come back with comments when I have some.


----------



## PersoLatin

Treaty said:


> On the other hand, there are around 30 words with the other _-g_ endings (mostly a symbol resembling* و*). In half of them, *و* represents the whole ng cluster, not just g


With reference to the words in McKenzie, I am afraid you are so very very wrong, let me clarify, you said ''In half of them, *و* represents the whole _ng_ cluster, not just _g"_, but with a careful & keen eye, you can see there are separate representations for 'n' and 'g' in all of the 12 I had found over 2 years ago, please refer to the image I have provided. Of course you are welcome to produce any that I have missed, i.e. those that follow your pattern.

In order to help myself remember, I added the column to the right of the Pahlavi words (see  image), it contains the Latin representation of consonants/strong vowels for each word. Bear in mind Pahlavi is cursive.

'n' looks like a lowercase English i (without a dot), slanted but less than a backslash (\). To see a 'g' proper which looks like a very large comma, compare the endings of words; 9, 13 or 15 and 7, 8 or 11, or others.

Word 12 (*k*ulan*g*- pickaxe) clearly shows the difference between a stand-alone 'k' representation and a 'g' proper, there is no 'u' representation in its Pahlavi, despite McKenzie's Latin version having one, but like its NP counterpart 'kolang/کلنگ', its Pahlavi is written as *K*LN*G*. Also word 1, 'tagarg-hailstone' is clearly 'ta*k*arg' and k->g sound change has changed it to the modern 'tagarg' which curiously McKenzie has used.

I wait for you (& others) to verify/dismiss what I said in this post.


----------



## CyrusSH

What do you mean by و? What is prwāوāh?!


----------



## PersoLatin

CyrusSH said:


> What do you mean by و? What is prwāوāh?!


Treaty was using 'و' as the nearest symbol for Pahlavi 'ng' or as I claim 'g' in 'parwāngāh', it means throne.


Treaty is wrong about this one too, i.e. there is no 'ng' cluster represented by one letter, but two separate letters of n & g. See below image & read post#38 and below:




Again, you can clearly see the difference between 'g' in 'gāh-place' in _parwāngāh _(word 1) and 'agi-گی' in _parwānagih _AND '...nag/نه...' in _parwāng _(word 2 & 3), and the last one is the infamous 'g/k' ending. Note the first 5 letters _parwān/prwān_ are common in all 3, so it's easier to work out the rest for each.


----------



## Treaty

Thanks and sorry for taking you time again. I had only looked at the difference between _tuwangar_ and _tuwan_ so I came up with that conclusion. Nevertheless, this doesn't change much regarding my point. Still, the final lone *و *or* 9* symbol is pretty much limited to _g_ in certain clusters (three, considering -zg in _mazg_, _spazg _and _azg_). While almost all other Ck clusters and Vk endings are solely *l9* or have versions with *l9* symbol.

In short, *و* exclusively represents the sound /g/ in three clusters _ng_, _rg_, and _zg_. *l9 *solely represents sound /k/ (as in NP) in clusters _rk, sk, šk, tk, bk_ and _yk_ or /g/ in _yg_*¹* and post-vowel _k/g_ after short vowels and _ē. _Most _k/g_ after other long vowels are also *only *written with *l9*, except _sāk, sāg, xāk_*²* and _āhūg_ (as far as I could find) which also have *و* representations.

So, the difference between *l9* and *و* is clearly not about being pronounced or mute but probably 1) the ending cluster they are in, 2) possibly being, e.g., voiced or unvoiced*³ *(in NP, almost all of the *و* ending words had it replaced with a voiced _g_ or _ɣ_ while a majority of *l9* endings replaced it with Ø or unvoiced_ k,_ with exceptions like _rag_ and _dēg_. Highlighting this difference, _Turk_ and _kark_ (the latter usually with unvoiced _k _in NP), are written with *l9* despite being _r-_ clusters)_. _Nevertheless, this second difference is just a wishful guess (besides, the whole discussion is based only on the Pahlavi scripts recorded by McKenzie, ignoring more others which we don't have access to).

¹ There is_ mayg _written by_ *و *_but it may not be the final _g_ as it is indicated as a part of a compound word.
² Same possibility of being in compound words.
³ Or maybe some other sound quality.


----------



## PersoLatin

Treaty said:


> Thanks and sorry for taking you time again. I had only looked at the difference between _tuwangar_ and _tuwan_ so I came up with that conclusion.


I am afraid I have lost all faith in your analysis skills and attention to detail, and,  your readiness to dispense new theories (clusters etc.) based on mistakes is amazing. I may well be wrong on this silent g/k ending theory but so far you have not managed to say anything to change my mind. This is negativity for the sake of it.


----------



## Treaty

PersoLatin said:


> your readiness to dispense new theories (clusters etc.)


What "new theory"? I assume you didn't understand at all what my theory has been. What I said in both posts #41 is almost exactly what I had said in post #33, that is my theory: that in majority of situations with pronounced final g/k, the sound is represented by *|9* symbol; meanwhile in only a few situations involving clusters it is solely written with *و* symbol (I had *emphasized on clusters* back in #33). Therefore, statistically, *|9 *seemed to be the main representation of final g/k, and *و* was an irregular spelling convention (contra yours).

The only difference between this part of the two posts is in *the examples* I provided for supporting it. Yes, I made a mistake on confusing between _ng_ cluster and _g_, but the correction *doesn't diversify* the usage of *و* symbol to undermine my theory. It is still in one and the same situation (the _ng_ cluster) which was assumed in #33.

The only real difference between #33 and #41, is adding a possible reason for the same theory (i.e. improves the theory). This is when I found there are more instances of final _zg_ cluster (which I had missed due to the 90-page length of the word list). This brought up the idea of possible voiced vs unvoiced difference (which I have been very cautious not to be assertive about it).


----------

