(second attempt) CDIAL 3331

[Arlo Griffiths]

[this message was posted yesterday, but seems not to have been delivered]

Can anyone with a better understanding of the historical phonology of Dardic
languages inform me whether any of the lexical items from modern languages
listed by Turner under 3331 kulaka- 'stone of a fruit' (attested as far as I
know only Carakasa.mhitaa 6.1 [thus pw]) actually shows a trace of the
-ka-suffix of their supposed OIA source?

Two passages from the Paippalaada Sa.mhitaa rather clearly attest kula-
'stone of a fruit, pit', without the -ka-suffix, and I am tempted to see
here another example of an isogloss between Vedic and Dardic (see G.
Buddruss, "Der Veda und Kaschmir", KZ/ZVS 77, 235--245, esp. 241--244).

PS 7.19.3
yayaahus +t.r.s.ta.m ka.tukam apaguu.dha.m phale kulam |
tasyai hira.nyake;s{i}yai nama.h k.r.nmo araataye ||

She by whom, they say, a harsh, sharp pit is hidden away in [its] fruit, to
her, the golden haired Araati, do we bring homage.

PS 9.11.7
gandharvas te muulam +aasiic chaakhaa apsarasas tava |
mariiciir aasan par.naani siniivaalii kula.m tava ||

The Gandharva was your root, the Apsarases your branches, the particles of
light were [your] leaves, Siniivaalii your pit.

Perhaps Paa.nini 5.4.62 ni.skul;aa kar points to the same meaning, although
the example object of this verbal construction, daa.dima- `pomegranate',
quoted in Böhtlingk's ed. seems not to be old. See also EWAia I, 373.

Arlo Griffiths

[apologies for cross-postings]