07-24-2007, 12:32 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-ishwa+Jul 23 2007, 02:30 AM-->QUOTE(ishwa @ Jul 23 2007, 02:30 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Yes, people have mentioned the etymological difficulty of deriving rAThauD from Skt rAShTrakUTa. However, there are records which describe the latter as rAShTrayodha. Hence, we have rAShTrakUTa = rAShTrayodha>rAThauD which follows a Middle Indo-Aryan formation.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, RAThoD/RAThauD is rather derived from rAShTrakUTa:
rAShTrakUTa > Initial MIA forms rATThakUDa, rAThakUDa > Advanced MIA forms rATha-UDa=rAThauDa > modern NIA forms rAThauD>rAThoD (loss of final -a)
The dental -dh- in -yodha will immediately pose difficulties when:
1. becoming a retroflex (-dh- > -Dh-)
2. then losing its aspirate (-Dh- > -D-)
without obvious reasons
[right][snapback]71464[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Some mention that rasktrakuta itself was a title and not a family name. Is that true? For example we do not find anyone by the name rasthrakuta today.
-Digvijay
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, RAThoD/RAThauD is rather derived from rAShTrakUTa:
rAShTrakUTa > Initial MIA forms rATThakUDa, rAThakUDa > Advanced MIA forms rATha-UDa=rAThauDa > modern NIA forms rAThauD>rAThoD (loss of final -a)
The dental -dh- in -yodha will immediately pose difficulties when:
1. becoming a retroflex (-dh- > -Dh-)
2. then losing its aspirate (-Dh- > -D-)
without obvious reasons
[right][snapback]71464[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Some mention that rasktrakuta itself was a title and not a family name. Is that true? For example we do not find anyone by the name rasthrakuta today.
-Digvijay