No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 December 2009
It is now more than 90 years since Fortunatov first enunciated that rule of phonetic development in Sanskrit which has since borne his name. The article in which this theory was proposed appeared in A. Bezzenberger's Beiträge zur Kunde der indogermanischen Sprachen, VI, 1881, 215–20, and the rule formulated by him was that in the group l + dental in Sanskrit the l disappears and the dental is changed to lingual (cerebral, retroflex). This process of phonetic change is illustrated by the comparison of the Sanskrit word paṭa- ‘cloth’ with OSlav. platǐno, Russ. polotnó ‘linen cloth’, etc., where Sanskrit paṭa- has replaced a pre-Sanskrit *palta-. Fortunatov cited a large number of examples in support of this rule, and although many of these are unacceptable, there still remain enough good etymologies in his list to provide significant support for his theory. It is a noteworthy feature of this change that the cerebral replacing the combination of l with dental is a single consonant, in marked contrast to the later assimilation of r followed by dental in Middle Indo-Aryan where the result is always a double consonant (e.g. -ṭṭ- in vaṭṭai 〈 vartate, etc.). Another significant difference is that whereas in MIA the combination of r with dental results in dental as well as cerebral (vattai beside vaṭṭai, etc.), the product of l + dental in Sanskrit is invariably cerebral.
1 Schmidt, J., Kritik der Sonantentheorie, Weimar, 1895, 1 fGoogle Scholar.
2 London, 1898, 54–6.
3 Heidelberg, 1930, 1, 489.
4 Studien zu Fortunatov's Regel, Lund, 1911Google Scholar.
5 IIJ, x, 2–3, 1967, 84 ff.
6 ‘Some Dravidian words in Sanskrit’, TPS, 1945, [pub.] 1946, 79–120; ‘Loanwords in Sanskrit’, TPS, 1946, [pub.] 1947, 1–30; ‘Dravidian studies, VII. Further Dravidian words in Sanskrit’, BSOAS, XII, 2, 1947, 365–96Google Scholar.
7 Burrow, T. and Emeneau, M. B., A Dravidian etymological dictionary, Oxford, 1961Google Scholar.
8 Emeneau, M. B. and Burrow, T., Dravidian borrowings from Indo-Aryan (University of California Publications in Linguistics, XXVI), Berkeley, 1962Google Scholar.
9 ‘Spontaneous cerebrals in Sanskrit’, BSOAS, XXXIV, 3, 1971, 538–59Google Scholar. A list of Bailey's main contributions to the subject is given on p. 540, n. 4.
10 Lidén, E., Studien zur altindischen und vergleichenden Sprachgeschicte, Uppsala, 1897, 79 ffGoogle Scholar.
11 op. cit., 543.
12 With the exception, of course, of the Māgadhī dialect. But this change of r to l took place only over a limited area and over a limited period of time. It is not retained in the modern period.
13 Acta Orientalia, XXX, 1966, 30Google Scholar.
14 Mayrhofer, A concise etymological Sanskrit dictionary, s. vv. karpata-, paṭa-.
15 op. cit., s.v. paṭala-.
16 cf. BSOAS, XXXIV, 3, 1971, 557–8Google Scholar.
17 BSOAS, XII, 2, 1947, 386Google Scholar; DED 3180.
18 The meaning ‘shine, glitter’ is not given in MW for sphul-, but note prasphulita- ‘glittering’ in Jātakamālā, p. 30, 1. 10.
19 KT, VI. 42.
20 In these examples we have probably further cases of IE -o- becoming -ā- in Sanskrit, a development briefly commented on in connexion with kāṇḍa-, etc., in BSOAS, XXXIV, 3, 1971, 546Google Scholar.
21 For IE 
el- see Pokorny, , IEW, 1, 553Google Scholar.
22 For further details see Vasmer, M., Russisches etymologisches Wōrterbuch, II, 390, 398Google Scholar.
23 For these words see Bailey, H. W., Khotanese texts, VI, 65Google Scholar.
24 The Dhātupāṭha also records a ghuṇ-, ghuṇati which represents the treatment according to Fortunatov's law (〈 ghul-n-).
25 cf. also the rare root ghuṭ- ‘to turn’ (vyāghuṭya ‘having returned’, Pañcat.).
26 Since all the Sanskrit forms are derived from the extended root guld-, the -l- in galati cannot be directly compared with that in Gk. βλ⋯ω, etc.
27 The only other examples in Sanskrit of l + dental—phulta-, praphulta-, praphulti, Pāṇ. 7.4.89; 8.2.55 (cf. Bartholomae, , IF, III, 1894, 158Google Scholar)—are formations of a later period, and therefore unaffected by the rule.
28 Alternatively, and perliaps better, all the forms from the root with -rdh- (ardhuka-,ārdhuka-. etc.) should be regarded as secondarily formed on ṛdh-, and therefore outside the sphere of the law.
29 The Indian tradition has nothing to contribute to the interpretation of this word. Yāska (Nir. 6.25) paraphrases it na jvalanena hīnāḥ, based evidently on an analysis jaḷ-havaḥ of which jaḷ- is derived from the root jval, and the remainder of the word from hā-.
30 See BSOAS, XXXIV, 3, 1971, 542, 555Google Scholar.
31 With akṣsi-nikāṇnam compare Pa. akkhiṃ nikhanati (nikhaṇati) ‘closes eye’, which must obviously go with it, and can have nothing to do with khan- ‘to dig’. Possibly the aspiration in Pali indicates an original variation kan-/skan- with mobile s.
32 A Dravidian etymology (The Sanskrit language, 383) is to be rejected.
33 cf. BSOAS, XXXIII, 1, 1970, 54Google Scholar.
34 Mélanges d'indianisme à la mémoire de Louis Renou, Paris, 1968, 513–14Google Scholar .