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.That's your theory.
Mazdak was a Zoroastrian prophet.What exactly is Mazdak though?
I used the formula which conforms with the mainstream view, i.e. Mānī + ig, the associative suffix.Source of your claim? Wiki seems to disagree. It says Greek Manikhaios is from Syriac "Mānī ḥayyā" (The living Mani).
Correct, but the MP drōzan (liar) & druxtan (to lie), seem to have some evidence of g/z/x.It is a different breed. The MP form has no final -k/g. So, it doesn't belong here. Maybe discussed in a separate etymology thread, though.
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.Actually I forgot another consonant that OP words frequently end in: -š.
Consider this text for example (Darius Behistun I.1-15):
TITUS Didactica: Old Persian Text Sample
I am making a couple of small changes to the phonetic interpretation given on the linked page to fit it to the way I prefer it, plus adding punctuation:
So if you want to see real OP, remove 100% of a's, then compare them to their equivalent words in NP (there are many), you are very likely to find those missing vowels, you can then apply a 'reasonable' sound change rule and working backwards, find the OP pronunciations. You don't seriously believe OP didn't have any words with consonant endings (bar three).
This is another topic worthy of its own thread, but I can see how that will go if I raise it (& I have been tempted to do so this for while), I will claim "There were no a's in the OP text....", and I will be inundated with people disagreeing with it, I will have no backing, and not because I'm wrong on that point.