[INDOLOGY] Whitney and doubling of "ch"

[Harry Spier]

Thank you everybody.  This was sent to me by Michael Witzel and I don't
think he would mind if I share it.

a long and bit complicated story:

 Panini’s doubling of ch-  and cases like icchati ,gacchati. pṛcchati all
go back to Indo-European *sk’
as in chāyā/shadow, Dutch schaduw {pronounced  s-kh) or Latin posco = pṛcha-

This RV WRITES only ch in gachati but the meter shows that it is a double
consonant. Which?

[[[(there are 2 cases of -khkh- in RV, trying to remember. Maybe just a
fluke of Maharastrian spelling)See below.]]]

Kaṭha Samhita (and Kashmir spelling in general) seem to have preserved the
old pronunciation; they write : gaśchati etc. (Kerala has -cs- I believe)
(See my Veda InKashmir)

This shows why chāyā etc.  has double consonant (cch in Panini’s area?) in
Sandhi as per Panini.

So Whitney’s Roots  with ichati reflects the RV spelling.

You can also check in the  first volume of Wackernagel, Altindische
Grammatik (1895) with some data.

Hope this mess is cleared up a bit.

========= on khkh: in our SARVA Dictionary:
http://www.aa.tufs.ac.jp/sarva/entrance.html

 RV akhkhalī-(kṛ'tyā), 'the sound of frogs in the rainy season', which
Thieme, Kleine Schriften 138, takes as 'producing syllables (akṣara)', see
M. Mayrhofer, Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindorarischen, 1986: 44. --
However, note K. Hoffmann, Aufsätze zur Indoiranistik, 1975: 176 who takes
it as an interjection. Note also that the sound combination -khkh- is not
allowed in Indo-Aryan. The old RV word therefore represents an onomatopetic
imitation of frogs that has survived, like many other onomatopoetica (see
bal-bal) without the expected sound changes from Vedic to Modern IA



On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 12:10 PM Agnes Korn <agnes.korn at cnrs.fr> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> If I remember correctly, there are different manuscriptal etc. traditions
> as for the notation of "ch" or "cch / chch". As there is no opposition of
> ch or cch, one can write one or the other. Whitney perhaps chose "ch" for
> brevity.
>
> As ch / cch / chch makes the syllable heavy (i.e. is treated like a
> consonant group), a notation "cch / chch" is clearer than ch, but of course
> the well-versed know that "ch" counts as a consonant group ;-)
>
> Best wishes,
> Agnes
> Le 18.10.2023 à 05:39, alakendu das via INDOLOGY a écrit :
>
> Mr. Spier,
>
> I can cite an instance . We take the word"*ICCHA" *( wish or desire).
> Here, we have doubling of "*Ch" *after a short or long vowel .
>
> Regards
> Alakendu Das.
>
> From: indology at list.indology.info
> Sent: Wed, 18 Oct 2023 06:56:35
> To: indology at list.indology.info
> Subject: [INDOLOGY] Whitney and doubling of "ch"
>
>
> Dear list members,
> Whitney  in his grammar section 227 says about the doubling of "*ch*".
> "As a general rule *ch* is not to be allowed by the grammarians to stand
> in that form after vowels but is to be doubled becoming *cch* (which in
> the manuscripts is sometimes written *chch*). . .According to Panini *ch*
> is to be doubled within a word after a long or a short vowel."
>
> But if you look in his "Roots, Verb-forms and Derivatives" at the entry
> for *iṣ, ich * nowhere does he double "*ch*" not even after a short vowel
> rather he has* i**chati, ichaka,* * ichā* and* ichu * . Does anyone know
> why for this root in all his examples he didn't double *ch* after vowels?
> Thanks,
> Harry Spier
>
> --
> Agnes Korn, PhD habil.
> CNRS ; UMR 8041 Centre de recherche sur le monde iranien (CeRMI)
> **new address**:
> 7 rue Guy Môquet
> 94800 Villejuif
> France
> agnes.korn at cnrs.frhttps://cermi.cnrs.fr/membres/korn-agnes/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> INDOLOGY mailing list
> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
> https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20231018/376f8d72/attachment.htm>