Horse argument revisited

[Paul K. Manansala]

   Vidhyanath Rao <vidynath at MATH.OHIO-STATE.EDU>
wrote:


> BTW, I remember Lehman saying somewhere in ``Theoretical Bases of
> Indo-European'' that `ek'uo' cannot be pre-IE and might be a loan! This
> is apparently a consequence of his views on the history of velars (or
> tectals) in IE. In particular, he gave the impression that he considers
> the sequence k'u strange. [What about the word for dog?]. I don't really
> understand `internal reconstruction', and would appreciate any comments
> of this `heresy' of Lehman. [Of course, the Greek hipppos is strange
> from the viewpoint of IE history, and the i is already there in Myc.]
>

Does IE have distinct words for wild and domesticated horses?

Regarding solitary dating of horse remains, there is an obvious bias
as to which ones are accepted and which ones are not. For example,
it has been mentioned that some horses have been found in an IVC
context.  I might also mention that remains of Equus Sivalensis
possibly going back as far as 8000 BCE have been found in a Neolithic
burial with associated artifacts in Southeast Asia!  (See Maria
Isabel Ongpin, _Bone recoveries from the Obsidian Non Geometric
Microlith Cultural Level, Lemery Archaeological Site_  (Manila:
Ateneo de Manila University: 1981).

Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala