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@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@list.indology.info
Sent: Wed, 18 Oct 2023 06:56:35
To: indology@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 ichati, 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@cnrs.fr
https://cermi.cnrs.fr/membres/korn-agnes/
_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology