Hot answers tagged


It is easy to prove that Vedic cannot be derived from Avestan. Vedic preserves voiced aspirates as such, Avestan (indeed all of Iranian) merges voiced plain and voiced aspirates into voiced plain. Now going the other way, the palatal voiced aspirate *ĵʰ of PIA becomes h in Vedic, but z in Avestan, just like *ĵ becomes z. Vedic has eliminated a property ...


Basically, this is correct, with some provisos. azə̄m is Old (Gathic) Avestan; in Young Avestan you would have azəm (with short ə), but if you use the former then the whole phrase would need to be OAv, hence with vaēnā or vaēnāmī (both with long final vowel). If you want to have it in YAv the verb would be vaēnāmi (as in the body of your question, not ...


Another example of Avestan retaining a more archaic form than Vedic is in the declension of the word for “path”. Avestan retains the distinction of full grade *pantaH- (Av. Nom. Sing. paṇtå) and the double-zero grade *patH- (Av. Gen. Sing. paϑō). Vedic generalised forms with -th- in all cases (nom. panthāḥ, gen. pathaḥ, etc).

Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible