Paired Horse and PIE breakup

[Paul Kekai Manansala]

Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
>>
> Nope.  Attila *is* Gothic for "little father" (Vaterlein), no
> assumptions required.
>
> >for father when they
> >should know by now that 'ata' is Turkic for father in practically
> >every Turkic language.
>
> Yes, but not 'attila', with double -tt- and dimunitive suffix -ila.
> Must be Gothic or Gepid.  Since most of Attila's subjects were
> Germanic Ostrogoths and Gepids (actually, most would have been Slav
> farmers, but those didn't count), there's nothing strange about that.
>
>

I think this type of back and forth argument illustrates the problems
with trying to determine language relationships based on a few words
in historical sources.  A lot of it is subjective and based on materials
that may be highly corrupt.

For example, in Europe Timur Leng was corrupted to Tamerlane for some
time.  If someone were to come across the ashes of modern civiliztion
and analyze this name he might surmise that it as a compound of English
"tamer" and "lane," and thus: "way of the lion tamer!"

Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala