Re: s->h

Joachim Pense pravi:
- in short versions for personal pronouns (clitics?) the final -s remained the same: in Sanskrit you have in 1st pers. plur. 'nas' in Acc., Dat. and Gen.

Not in classical Sanskrit methinks. Sandhi lets the -s survive only
before a word-initial t or th. The paradigma form I learned was "nah",
which is also the form used before pausa. So -s is transformed into -h
if _nothing_ follows.

Yes, with sandhi it is naḥ. But original word is 'nas' (see MW). Therefore I conclude that the original -s remained the same in Slovene. In Sanskrit it has of course changed to -ḥ: sumus <-> smaḥ, nas <-> naḥ

Entry: nas
Meaning 1 encl. form for acc. gen. dat. pl. of the 1st pers. pron. (Pa1n2. 7-l , i , 21) , us , of us , to us
in Veda changeable into Nas (4 , 27 ; 28).

- Are you sure that there was s->h change for the word initial s- from Latin to Greek? Maybe your statement about 'six' is correct, but is the example as well?

Yes, that is standard. Initial s- before a vowel regularly developed
into h-. (Other examples "hi-ste:-mi" 'stand', where hi goes back to
the reduplication "si-"; "hepta" 'seven', cf 'septem'.

No reduplication in Slovene in this case. Again a case where initial s- remained the same? (Skt. sthā->tiṣṭhati, Slv. stati (inf.), stojim, stojiva, stojita, stojimo)

Or the article
"ho", "he", "to", compare with the Skr. demonstrative "sah", "saa",
"tat").

Similar Slovene demonstatives would be 'ta, ta, to'.


And of course this was not a change "from Latin to Greek" - Latin,
Greek, and Sanskrit developed from a common root into different
directions.

Sorry. Change in some predecessor of Greek then.

The word starts with a 'š/sh/ṣ' (unvoiced retroflex sibilant) in Sanskrit and in Slovene: 'ṣaṣ', 'šest'. Maybe the orignal word had a 'sh' and it changed to 's' in Latin and to 'h' in Greek, (while remaining the same in Slavic languages)?

The standard reconstructed PIE form is *sweks for six, and *septm for
seven.

So how did the 'š/ṣ' developed in Sanskrit and Slovene?
.

Quantcast