Of course, that's my theory, as I have said many times. I think it is helpful in these discussions, to acknowledge it as such until it is proven to be wrong. BTW, it is no different to the mainstream view which itself is a theory, granted, the subscription to mine, is one presently, and it is viewed highly suspiciously by the mainstream believers.
Well, neither theory can be
proven right or wrong, short of inventing a time-machine. All we can do is evaluate how well the evidence fits the theories, or equivalently how much explanatory power the theories have, i.e. how many observed phenomena they can explain.
The "standard" theory makes only one assumption that there was a Proto-Indo-Iranian *-ka- suffix in various meanings, including (almost) no meaning. Then using normal behaviours of language change (common sound changes, morphological generalization), it can explain the following
6 to 8 separately observed phenomena:
1) Sanskrit -ka- suffix in various meanings, including almost no meaning.
2) Avestan -ka- suffix.
3) Old Persian suffix spelt -k(a)- in cuneiform, e.g. v-z-r-k- (great), a-r-š-t-i-k- (spear-thrower < a-r-š-t-i- / Skt ṛṣṭi- = spear), a-r-i-k- (enemy, Skt. ari-), m-r-i-k- (young man, Skt marya(ka)-), b-d-k- (servant, Skt. bandhaka- < *OP band-/Skt. bandh- = to bind) etc. I am not vocalizing them here beyond what appears in spelling, because it is not important for our discussion.
4.a) Why the ending under discussion was written -k in Pahlavi. (Because that was the late BC pronunciation)
4.b) and where it might have come from. (Morphological generalization of OP -k(a)-).
5) Why the ending was written -g in Manichaean. (Because that was the 3rd century AD pronunciation)
6.a) Why this -k/g does not exist any more in most New Persian words (because it was lost after vowel),
6.b) but it still exists in others, e.g. bozorg, xošk, etc. (because after consonant).
The
probable counterexamples to this theory awaiting analysis here, as noted before, are:
NP bārīk, tārīk, nazdīk, tājīk, Mazdak, -ak dimunitives (seemingly violate 6.a).
What observations does your theory explain or fit to? I guess no. 6. Any other?
Correct, but the MP drōzan (liar) & druxtan (to lie), seem to have some evidence of g/z/x.
They do derive from OP d-r-u-g- (a lie) etc. However, the noun differs from the class of words we are discussing in two ways:
a) It does not contain a -k(a)- in OP. (point 3 above)
b) It does not contain a -g in Sassanian time Middle Persian. (point 4/5 above)
Now I understand you, but I find this theory unbelievable, what theory you might say, the theory that the OP script was peppered with vowel 'a', almost randomly. None of those a's are represented in the cuneiform text. Yes there were some real vowels where those a's are, and some could even be a's. The scholars have assumed that all letters of OP alphabet, ended in an a, this is ridiculous.
EDIT: I Removed my comments about the reconstruction of final -a vowel in OP, because whether there are final -a's was really a passing comment. We can discuss that in a separate thread if needed. The main point I wanted to make was:
OP would have inflectional endings after those stems.
in reply to your assertion that:
... OP conversations must have sounded a little odd, as every few words ended in g, and peppered with scores of common words with -ig.
As explained before the -g was a MP feature. The corresponding OP would have been -k(a)-. My point was that stems like b-d-k- would often show up in other grammatical forms like b-d-k-m (acc sing), b-d-k-a (nom/acc plu, inst/abl sing,...), b-d-k-h-y-a (gen sing), b-d-k-a-n-a-m (gen plu), b-d-k-i-y(-a) (loc sing), etc. I am not sure if all of these forms were actually attested for b-d-k- but that's the general idea. The k wouldn't be the final element all that often, no matter whether there is an implied final -a or not.
Don't you think this idea (all, or most OP words ended in a vowel) has a direct impact on the topic we are discussing? It creates an unexplained gap between the way OP & MP words were pronounced, of course I'm talking about the g/k ending in MP, and the fact they didn't exist in OP, if we were to believe, all or most OP words ended in a vowel.
There is a gap, yes. But, it is unexplained only if you believe languages do not change
