Fwd: Re: Question on Marathi phonology--Second Try

[Madhav Deshpande]

Hello Hans,

     The Marathi verbs tuT and phuT have short vowels, in contrast with the Hindi verbs TUT and phUT.  The related Sanskrit forms (as per Panini's dhAtupATha) are:

truTati/troTayati; Whitney also lists truTyati and truDyeyuH

sphoTati/sphuTati/sphoTayati; Here Whitney does not list sphuTyati

The dhAtupATha also lists a sphuDati (with sphoDayati as its
causative), suggesting that such voicing was dialectally already
underway. But this does not explain the contrast seen in the
Marathi forms.  

Madhav




-----Original Message-----
From: Indology on behalf of Hans Henrich Hock
Sent: Sun 8/22/2004 11:17 AM
To: INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk
Subject:      Fwd: Re: Question on Marathi phonology--Second Try
 
---- Original message ----
>Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 10:13:35 -0500
>From: Hans Henrich Hock <hhhock at uiuc.edu>
>Subject: Re: Question on Marathi phonology
>To: Indology <INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk>
>Bcc: hhhock at uiuc.edu
>
>Isn't the vowel in things like tuT, phuT long?  At any rate,
>the explanation would seem to be that forms of this type go
>back to the quasi-reflexive type _t(r)uTyati/te_, while the
>type toD in principle goes back to structures like
>_t(r)oTati_ (with no doubt some morphologicization and
>subsequent extension of the intransitive : transitive
>pattern).  In the first type, _Ty_ yielded MIAr. _TT_ which
>in most of ModIAr. produces single _T_ with compensatory
>lengthening of the preceding vowel (hence my question about
>the vowel length).  In the second type, _T_ underwent
regular
>intervocalic weakening, leading to _D_ in Marathi-type
>languages, and _R_ in Hindi-type languages (with further
>development to _r_ in Eastern Gangetic).
>
>I hope this will be helpful.
>
>Hans
>
>---- Original message ----
>>Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 07:20:19 -0400
>>From: Madhav Deshpande <mmdesh at UMICH.EDU>
>>Subject: Re: Question on Marathi phonology
>>To: INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk
>>
>>In Marathi, an Indo-Aryan language, we find pairs of verbs
>like:
>>
>>tuT = to break (intransitive)
>>toD = to break (transitive)
>>phuT = to break (intransitive)
>>phoD = to break (transitive)
>>
>>Is there any explanation of the voicing in the transitive
>verbs vs lack of voicing in the intransitive verbs?  In the
>Sanskrit antecedents of these verbs, the vowel of the
>intransitive verbs remains unaccented, while the vowel of
the
>transitive verbs is accented.  It is well understood that
the
>accents are related to the u/o alternation, but what might
>lead to voicing?  The voiced/voiceless alternation is not
>seen in Sanskrit in the same environment.  Any suggestions?
>>
>>Madhav Deshpande