A note on Pāli suṇoti

Author(s): Truman Michelson

Source: Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der
Indogermanischen Sprachen, 43. Bd., 4. H. (1910), p. 351
Published by: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht (GmbH & Co. KG)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40846470
Accessed: 16-04-2018 13:38 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht (GmbH & Co. KG) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem
Gebiete der Indogermanischen Sprachen

This content downloaded from 112.134.207.198 on Mon, 16 Apr 2018 13:38:40 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Truman Michelson A note on Pali swqoü. 35 1

quo- ausgehende Erklärungsmöglichkeit wäre folgende: arm. ei-

und arm. oi- gehen auf den idg. Pronominalstamm *e- zurück.
oi- spiegelt die durch die Partikel -u erweiterte Form: *e-u-
wieder, die entsprechend ai. só, ap. hauv, gr. ovtoç (worüber
Brugmann Demonstrativpronom. 103 ff.) etc. gebildet ist. Sowohl
aus dem Nom. Sg. (vgl. ai. ay-ám), als dem Gen. Sg. (vgl. ai.
asya) und dem Lok. Sg. (vgl. gr. ei „so, wenn" und oben § 27)
des idg. Pronominalstammes e- mußte ein urarm. *ei, hist. arm.
è enstehen, das in dem Genitiv Sg. *eir (§ 9 b) und dem Dat.-
Abl. *eim (§ 9 b) vorliegt. Von diesen Formen aus vollzog sich
alsdann die Entwicklung und Bildung des Paradigmas, wobei
durch Einwirkung der verschiedenen Kasus aufeinander die
historischen Formen entstanden.

Heidelberg, den 1. II. 1910.

Heinrich Junker.

A note on Pali sunoti.

According to Otto Keller, KZ. XXXIX 159, Pâli sunoti

be either the phonetic correspondent to Sanskrit spnoti
may represent an Aryan *§runauti, and thus be the exact co
part of Avestan surunaoiti (the first u is epenthetical
the second hypothesis alone is correct, is shown by the testi
of the dialects of the inscriptions of Asoka, namely, Shãhbãz
éruneyu, Mansehra sruneylu],1) Girnãr srunaru.2)
x) Shb. êruneyu and Mans. êrwq,ey[u] are transfers to the «-conjugat
2) In citing this word it is proper to state that it is wholly obs
termination. There have been various readings and emendations of th
So much is at least certain, to wit, that the actual reading is srw&
that the form is a third person plural of some mood other than the in
as is shown by the correspondents of the other versions of the Fourteen
I hope to definitely settle the matter in the near future.
Bartholomae (AiW. under srav- and the literature cited there) con
that Sanskrit êrnoti represents the primitive Aryan type as shown by
dence of other Iranian dialects ; and holds Avestan surunaoiti to be a
analogical formation. Similarly Johansson, Shb. II 85, says that *êru
which Shb. êruneyu points) is in no wise more archaic than Skt. èrt
gives no explanation of the difference in formation. Neither Bartholo
Johansson thought of connecting the Avestan and Asokan forms. But w
the Avestan and Asokan forms come from a common Aryan prototyp
separate parallel new-formations, does not affect the impossibility of e
Pali sunoti with Sanskrit êfnoti and to prove this is the object of th

Ridgefield, Conn. Truman Michelson.

This content downloaded from 112.134.207.198 on Mon, 16 Apr 2018 13:38:40 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms