ffirrjnsi"',,, H,#.i:l l' iii.ii'.i:iiii. t$iiij:jiii :trjjji,r..:iiii ii ii,. ii:,i.i iiijjiljiliiil ..l..':::jilli;;i:i.: .il'll,,':,,- i i''t,t;,ilri,*ffi$il#ii#f$$$tii* ,iiui' i ili $liili'ffi+ffiffi-.$if*ffi**li iiii+li11ir.r..I

Leykam 2000 Indo-Aryan'six' Alexander Lubotskv. Leiden

'six' 1. The onset of the Middle Indic word for and its family is a well-known crux of Indo-Aryan historical phonology. Whereas the forms always begin with 'six' 'sixth', p-, and the major Prdkrits have ch- in the words for and and s- elsewhere.The Middle Indic forms are conveniently listed in NoRueN 1992, the most importantof which are given in the tablebelow':

Sanskrit Pali+ maiorPrdkrits Northem Prdkrits six' sat cba Niya so, A5.sasu 'six' , (incmp.) .sa!' ( /) except As.sa( Q )- solba'6-fold' sal ay at ana'six sensefacilities' AMg. sadamga'6 const.parts' Inscr.(W) sanuuisa'26' 'sixth' sastha- cbattba(')2 Niya sodbama 'sixteen' sodaia solas a. sorasa. solasal Gdndhdrlsodasa 'sixteenth' sodaia- solasa(ma), solasama Khar. sodaia 'sixty' sasti- sattbi( m ) 'sixtieth' sastitama- sa[t bit ama, JM sal ! binxa Khar. sastibaa

The difference between the Northern and the rest is also reflected in Modern Indo-Aryan languages,where the Dardic languages (Shina [Kohistan] 5va, Gawar- Bati l'b, ,sd") and the Nuristani languages(Ashkun pu) continue the Northern form, whereasHindi, Sindhi cha'six' , etc. continuethe form of the other Prakrits. 'six' Initial ch- in the MI word for is incompatible with ,s-of Skt. sal. Therefore, *k;(v)- scholars generally assume a deviating proto-form for MI ch', viz. (.g' HIERScHET964:98f., TURNBR CDIAL:I2803, HEUP 1978,VON HINUBER 1986:167, NoRMAN 1992:204, BERGER 1992:247, EvlrnRrcr 1992:169), but this recon- structioncan hardly be called a solution. First of all, it doesnot accountfor the diffe- rencein anlautbetween cha'six' and solasa'sixteen',satlhi(d'sixty', a problem *k;(v)-, which has never been discussedin the literature. lf cha goes back to why don't we find initial ch-inthe wordsfor'sixteen'and'sixty'? Secondly,the reflex of

Abbreviations are: AitB - Aitareya-Brahma4a, AMg. =. Ardhamdgadht, Av' = Avestan' AV = Athanaveda' AVP = Atharvaveda-Paippalada,eVS = Atharvaveda-Saunaklya,A5. = ASokan inscriptions, Inscr. (W) = Westem lnscriptional Prakrits, JB = .laiminiya-Brahmana, JM = Jaina-Mdharastri, Khar. = Kharoglhi inscrip- tions, MI = Middle Indic, PB = Paficavimda-Brdhmaqa.PIE = Proto-Indo-European, PIII. = hoto-lndo-Iranian. RV = Rgveda,Saur. = Sauraseni,SB = Sarapatha-Brahmana,TS = Tainiriya-Samhita.Yt = Yasht. "nicht The variant satthagivenbyNoRMAN, is zu belegen"(voNFIINUBER 1986:l7l). 'sixteen', The forms chaddasa chaddasahd'sixteen times'. quotedby SHETH1963. are clearly based on cha'six'. "either Saur. chattimis a wrong reading, or by analogy with crla'six"' (NonlialN 1992:213)- 256 AlexanderLunorsrY

*kp in Middle Indic is different in the Eastern dialects, where it becomeskkh, and the Western dialects, where we find cch.There was a subsequentexchange of the forms between the dialects, mostly in favor of the kkh-forms, but in our word family all Middle tndic dialects show crl- (or t-), and it is not very probable that the numeral was borroweds.Furthermore, in the North-Western dialects, the reflex of kl is repre- sentedby a special signih(e.g. Niya ihetra< Skt. k$etra BuRRow 1937:18f')'but as 'six' we can seefrom the table, the word for in Niya is so. 'six' 2. To my mind, it is preciselythe oppositionbetween ch- in the word for and s- 'sixteen' in the word for that provides the key to the solution of the puzzle.ln order to understandthe nature of the processeswhich have led to these forms, we have to considerthefate of *zin Indo-Aryan. 'ruki'-,sbefore 2.1. Indo-Iranian *zis of twofold origin, viz. the voiced stopsand PIF *-[d@-, *-gtnt4th)-,*-Ent->Pnr' *-zdn')' palato-velars(k, gtri) before dentalJGIE in Sanskrit, *7 normally disappearswith compensatory lengthening of the preceding short , cf.: *igC > IC ni/ti-m.n.'abode,nest' < *nifia- uC *dus-d'eb"o-, ddldbha-adj.'hard to deceive'< *duz-dabha-< PlE dnlhi- adj.'malevolent'< *duz'dhiH- 7C7 lmyy'-'tobe merciful' < *mlzd-(cf. Av. mereid-'id''); 'to dy!hd-,taptc. ot'trdrh- [asten'.< *drzd'a-: 'to *Wdna- *(s)trp"-to-. trjhd-, tu-ptr.of tr@trh- crush',< < PIE 2.2. ln a similar fashion, we expect short a to be lengthenedin this position, but !n reality we find three different reflexes, viz. d, o and e (cf. WACfTRNAGEL 1896:37ff', 44t.).

*ks (k)kh: Note that. for instance, in Kdlsi (an Eastem dialect). where we find the form sa;u. the reflex of is Iukha

2.2.1.The most frequent reflex is a-(i.e.+a7C> aC): 'to v|6!hi(RY 10.1S0.2)2sg. impv. ltak;- fashion'< *tazy'hi oC) is found in derivativesof the root I vah-'to drive' (PlE *uep'-) and in derivatives of ;tig-'6' , cf . 'to volham,volhfim2,3 du. impv. root aor..,lvah- drive' (cf. NanreN 1964.240,fn.727); infinitives v6lhave,dnu prdvo/hum < *vaz/nu- The loss of -v- is not unexpectedconsidering the Sanskrit > fodo. 'to tendencyto drop post-consonantalyin labial environment,cf. k;ip- thtow, fling', 'quick' k;ipni- < *kgvip- (cf. Av. xiuua€pa-'quickly moving', xiuuiBra-'quick'); rwith *iviti-C,*. iiti-ptid- white feet', iiti-pygyhl-'with white back' a (cf. ivitrd- ' I3. wh-ite',i vity-dfi c-' whitish', etc.; DEBRUNNERI 938) In order to understandthe y -a r-). The development *Tdisappeared' *va7C> oCimplies that*vaTCwas pronouncedas [vc?C]. When [c] was lengthenedto [c:] and later merged with the phoneme lol. For the sake of completeness,I can add that before *2, the realization of the shwa was more fronted, *azdni1. and ihe lengtheningyielded e([ezDl > [e:D] > eD, cf . edhi'bet' < 'to 2.2.3. Theonly exampleof *a7C> eCis 3sg. impv.,tyae/hafrom tl,gtrn- crush < *ty4azdhu< PIE +15)tr-n-ef'-l4 attestedin AVS 8.8.11 = AVP 16.30.1, AVP 9.63t4. As alreadyindicated by Mansu l94l:47 and ReNOU 1952:30,e of the impe-

I With the assimilation r-s- > -s-. The epic and classic forms soy'ha- and so/har- are secondary, formed by analogy with vodhar-. etc.. for which seebelow. 'strongly' Attestationin the RV ea:etnf-balha- (1.106.6), balha-sttvan- (1.\22.101, balhe a&. ( I ' l8l '7)' *azC MARSH ( 1941:47) claimed that the normal reflex of is o, so that he had to explain away all examples of a. He did this by positing lengthened gnde in EIhi and sddh- and declaring badhii- of uncleu etymology. which is of course ad /roc. ,S8l. ln fater texts restoredto sady'ha satdha(PBI. *Cvo- I have to admit. however, that I have been unable to find another example of the sound change > Co-. In later Vedic texts we only find a hapax 3sg. trye/hi (IB 2.2'71). lsg. tJ7ehmi is a form invented by the grammarians. From this root, the RV only attests participles trlhd- (with metrically long y) and tv;nhdt 258 AlexanderLtmorsxv

rative tmddhacan be secondary,taken from imperatives llke edhi dehl, dhehi. To be sure, these imperatives are Zsg. and not 3sg., but -e- of the 2sg. imperatives went beyond its original limits, as appmrs from 2pl. impv. dhetana(RV 8.67.5; 10.37.12) beside the regular dhattana. From the imperative, e-vocalism spread to the other forms (cf. n. l4). 2.3. The distribution of the three reflexes of short a before zC can be formulated as follows: the normal reflex is a, whereas o is conditioned by the preceding v, e-voca- lism of tlve/hu is probably secondary.This distribution is by no meansa novel one. Already in the 19th century, BENTFEv,Hlvnr and Br-oouFrELD (cf. WncxTRNAGEL 1896:39)assumed that the o-vocalismis due to the preceding 4 but since they com- bined this observation with the theory that this o directly continues PIE *q their position was generally ignoredr'. More recently, in 1952, RENou gave the same distribution inhis Grammaire de langue vidique'o, but even then this view did not find its way into the scholarly literature, where it is commonly held that the normal reflex of abefore ZCis ot-. 'six'. 3. Now we can return to the word for The developmentof the words for 'six- 'sixfold', teen' and discussedabove, suggests that the Proto-Indo-Aryanforms were: 'sixteen', 'sixfold'. *svdt'6', *;vii7-/aia>;6/aia *svaz-/ha'2;odh6 My contention is that this system perfectly accounts for all attested forms both in Sanskrit and Middle Indic. The only difference is that *sviit was preserved in the dialect which formed the basisof Middle Indic, whereasSanskrit has analogicallyremoved the -y-. There are various reasonsfor this analogical development. First of all, in s1daia and ;o!h6, -v- was phonetically lost. Further, the ordinal must have played an important role. As was suggestedby HOFFMANN(1965:253f. = 1975:189f.),the Indo-Iranian 'sixth' *iuitoa-, form of the ordinal was which was replacedby ;a;!hti- in Indo-Aryan (epakthii- 'fifth'. on the basis of The ordinal ;a;thti- is then responsible for the absenceof -v- in the word for'sixty'(Skt. sasrl-,PAli sallhi, seebelow) and in Skt. $li!. 'six' ln the Proto-M[, however,the analogicalremoval of -v- in the word for did not take place.It has been indicatedlong ago (e.g. TUnNERCDIAL:12803) that Niya so and the reflexes in the Nuristani and Dardic languagesdirectly point to *;vdy, but it remained unnoticed that this form also directly accountsfor initial ch- in Middle Indic. There is important evidencethat *svregularly gives Mr ch (cf. Bencrn 1955: 81ff.), viz. mdtuhsvasy-f.'mother's sister' > Pali matuccha-,Pkt.maucc(h)a-- (next to 'sister', mdus(s)I-, maussia-, mdsia- with restored anlaut of the word for CDIAL

( 10.102.4). "fiir Cf. WACKERNAGEL'sconclusion: aZfindet sich eound ausserdemt[...], ohne dass die Ratio erkennbar wiire" (p. 38). p.30:"l,aformeisold tmedhu(...) deT$Hattesteuntraitementvocaliqueconformehceluide edhidehi.en soneque vddhaveputenddfinitivedevoirsontimbreradicalirlapr6c6dencedelaconsonne r'". tl Compare, for instance, Tuuvn - HAUSCHI-D 1958:300 ("a [wird] zu o, seltener zu t"). AIEN 1962:72 n. 8 " "for (regular reflex of azC is oC, i.e. sazdaia 2 ;avy'aia" . and two rare casesof simple lenglhening of the vouel (Edhi, sadha-) see p.94 n63", where these two cases are only mentioned without further adstruction), BuRRo'*' 1973:95 ("a preceding short a may be either lengthened [exx.]. tumed to o [exx.], or tumed to e [ex.]"), etc. Indo-Aryan'six

'father's 10001);pitul.t;vasy-f. sister' > Pali pituccha-,Pkl piucc(h)a-, piuccht-(next to piussiy+-, piusid-, CDIAL 8177). The phonetic development of *sv presumably *ks went through *$v > *$ > *ch. The reflex of *sv thus merged with that of in some dialects, which may explain forms like Khowar choi, the initial ch of which is a normal reflex of **s(voN HNUeEn 1986:67,167)t8.

4. A final detail to be taken care of is the initial s- in some Middle lndic words of the 'six' family. The A$okan forms (loc.pl.) sasu,gasu (= sasu), sa(d)- in saduvlsati'26' , 'up '26' sapar.nna'56',asaqnmdsika- to six months'and Inscr. (W) ;attuvisa must be due to a different treatment of *sv- (e.g. *pl- > *s.q-> s-). Pali salayatuna(next to 'six chala-yatana)'sixsense facilities' and AMg. sa/aqnga constituentparts' (vs. Pali chalanga-)are borrowings from an Easterndialectre. 'sixty', More problematic is PAli sallhi, AMg. sa!!hi(ry), etc. which cannot be separa- ted from Sanskrit ;li-. How can we account for the fact that there is no *sv- in this '6' word? Let us compare the "paradigms" of in Sanskrit and the proto-form of Middle Indic:

Sanskril Proto-Middle-lndic ,6, *$! fti! '6rh' *svastha- ;a;lhd- l6' s6daia *sodaia '60' sastr- *$a$!i

The most likely scenariowhich would explain both systemsseerns to be the fol- lowins:

'6' '6th' '60' Proto-lndo-lranian*iuacs - *iuitHa- - *iaaiti J *tval$ - *guptha- - *pvag1i

*,gval *paglha-(cf. *svasli - $3) - J Proto-lndo-Aryan*gvat - *sastha-- *$a1li /\ Skt.sar - sasthd-- sasti- Proto-MI *svat - xsvastha'

The difference in the treatment of *sy between Niya and the other Prakits is in line with the usual behaviour of Sy clusters: they are normally preservedin Niya (Btmnow 1937:21) and sorne other inscriptional Prdkrits. while in other Middle Indic dialects they become a geminate ss, simplified in anlaut (cf. SAKAMoTo-Goro 1988:95 for the evidence). 19 Cf. voN HlwUsER 1986:16'1, who points to cchaldyatana of the Devnimori inscription vs. ga(ayatana of the Ratnagiri inscription. 260 Alexander LuBorsKY

'six' ln other words, Sanskrit has removed the -v- in the word for by analogy with the '6th', ordinal whereasProto-MI has levelled the paradigm in the opposite direction.

5. The explanation of Middle lndic cha proposed above is of some importance for the reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-Europeanword for 'six'. Since the Indo-Aryan reflexes can be accounted for without recourse to the initial cluster *ks-, there is no reason for reconstructing it for the proto-language.Avestan xiuuai and other Iranian formsshowtheregulardevelopmentofinitial *i-toxi-(cf.PIE *$neh->Pilr. *znd- 'to > Ir, *ina-- > Av. xina- know'). so that we can reconstruct Proto-Indo-Iranian * igaii. The assimilation of the initial *s- to *i- must then be dated at least to the cornmon Indo-Iranian stase2o.

Bibiography

ArmN. W.S.: 1962 Sandhi. The theoretical, phonetic, and historical bases of word-junction in Sanskrit. 's-Gravenhage. (= Janualinguarum XVII). BsnceR. H.: 1955 Zwei Probleme der mittelindischen Lautlehre (Miinchener Indologische Studien, l). Miinchen. 1992 Modern Indo-Aryan. In: Indo-European numerals, ed. J. Gvozdanovii. Berlin - New York, p. 243-287. BURRow,T.: 1937 The languageof the Kharogthi documentsfrom ChineseTurkestan Cambridge. 1973 The Sanskrit language.London. Dr,snuNnnR.A.: 1938 Indoiranisches.In: IndogermanischeForschungen 56,p. 17l-177. 1957 Nachtriige zu J. Wackernagel,Altindische Grammatik, Band I. Gcittingen. Eul,mRrcx, R.E.: 1992 Old Indian. In: Indo-Europeannumerals, ed. J. Gvozdanovii. Berlin - New York, p. l 63-l 98. Herp. E.P.: '6'. 1978 Indo-European In: Linguistic and literary studies in honor of Archibald Hill, III: Historical and comparativelinguistics, edd. M.A. Jazayery,E.C. Polom6, W. Winter (Trends in Linguistics 9). The Hague - Paris - New York. HmRscrm.R.: 1964 Untersuchungenzur Frage der TenuesAspiratae im Indogermanischen.Wiesbaden. voNHnqUenn, O.: 1986 Das dltere Mittelindisch im Uberblick. (Sitzungsberichte der risterreichischenAka- demie der Wissenschaften,Philosophisch-historische Klasse, 467. Band.) Wien.

r(' The relationship between Skt. sdr. Middle Indic cha(t) and Avestan xiaaai is reminiscent of that between Skt. 'tailed') idpa-'ta|l, penis', Prdkrit and Pdli cheppd'tall' (< *-pyd-, cf. AY iepyivanl- and Av. xiuua€-- (Yt. 'tail', 19.40) which is likely to be cognate (for a discussion of this word see Hnqtzr 1994'216f.\. The hanian and Middle Indic words point to *i!!aipa-, whereas amay have been lost in Sanskrit due to dissimilation. ln order to 'tail' combine this form with Skt. iepa-, we can either reconstruct PIft. *piyaipa- or assumethat the word for is a 'scrotum'). loan word (cf. also AitB ieoha- m. Indo-Aryan'six' 261

Hn'tra, A.: 1994 Der Zamy-ad-Ya5t:Edition, Ubersetzung,Kommentar. Wiesbaden. HonT raNN,K.: 1965 Zu den altiranischen Bruchzahlen. In: Zeitschrift fiir Vergleichende Sprachforschung 79, p. 247-254. 1975 Aufsdtze zur Indoiranistik, ed. J. Narten. Band l. Wiesbaden. 1976 Aufs:itze zur Indoiranistik, ed. J. Narten. Band 2. Wiesbaden. INsI-rR.S.: 1968 Sanskrit ipsati and irtsati.ln: IndogermanischeForschungen 73, p. 57-66. Lusorsxv.A.: 1994 P.Y. tividhat. In: Friih-, Mittel-, Spiitindogermanisch.Akten der IX. Fachtagung der IndogermanischenGesellschaft vom 5. bis 9. Oktober 1992 in Zijrrich,edd. George E. Dunkel, Gisela Meyer, Salvatore Scarlata,Christian Seidl. Wiesbaden,p. 201-206. Mensn. G.H.: l94l The voiced sibilants in Sanskrit. In: Joumal of the American Oriental Society 61, p. 45-50. NeRrrN. J.: 1964 Die sigmatischenAoriste im Veda. Wiesbaden. NoRu.ql. K.R.: 1992 Middle Indo-Aryan. In: Indo-European numerals, ed. J. Gvozdanovii. Berlin - Neu' York, p. 199-241. RrNou. L.: 1952 Grammaire de la langue vddique. Lyon - Paris. Srmrs.H.D.T.: 1963 A comprehensivePrakrit- dictionary P6ia-sadda-maha4qavo.Varanasi. Snxelroro-Goro. J.: 1988 Die mittelindische Lautentwicklung von vin Konsonantenguppen mit Verschlusslaut bzw. Zischlaut.In: Indo-IranianJoumal 31, p. 87-109. TURNER.R.L.. CDIAL: 1966 A comparativedictionary of the Indo-Aryan languages.London. Tnuw, A. - HAUScHILD,R.: 1958 Handbuchdes Sanskrit.Heidelberg. We,cxrnN.q,cel. J.: 1896 Altindische Grammatik I. Lautlehre. Gcittineen.