Paired Horse and PIE breakup

H.M.Hubey hubeyh at MONTCLAIR.EDU
Sat Nov 7 04:21:39 UTC 1998

Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
> "H.M.Hubey" <hubeyh at MONTCLAIR.EDU> wrote:
> >
> >Turkish 'yarim' = half. So this could mean 'half-sighted'.
> Well, if you can find a Turkic word "asp-" with the appropiate
> meaning.  Or any Turkic word "asp-" at all.

No. There is the very slight (an highly unlikely) k > x > 0
in kor/koz > oz/os/as (having to do with 'seeing, eye'). The
word Arimaspi could itself be half&half :-)

> But what has Turkic *e:r, *erkek to do with PIE *wi:ros, or with
> Herodotus' "oior"?

Word like /ar/ also shows up (I think in Nilo-Saharan) for 'man', or
'people'. Words like /il/el/al/ or even /ur/ura/ etc also show up for
'land', 'people', settlement, etc so this is probably a very old word.

So I think they are all from the same root..

> >These are dangerous territories. 'Deniz'/Tenngiz' means 'sea' in Turkic
> >and is well established in other forms like 'tennger' (in l~r Turkic and
> >Hungarian).
> Indeed, all the old forms have t-.  The change to d- is recent, and
> restricted to (Anatolian) Turkish.  That rules out any connection


> with <tenger> (apart from the wrong vowel, the spurious -(ng)er/

There are two great branches of Turkic, denoted l~r (Bolgharic) and sh~z
from the
commonly observed equivalence l=sh and r=z. Tenger is 'sea' in Chuvash
(which is Turkic) and also in Hungarian (possibly a borrowing). The /ng/
the nasal-n also commonly observed. I think it is rather unstable since
in some dialects it is /y/. IT seems to be also connected sometimes with

> -(ng)iz at the end, and the wrong meaning).  I don't care too much
> for the etymology of "Caucasus", but the river names are surely
> Iranian.  Forget about <deniz> and just look at Ossetian <don>
> "water, river"...

Yes, Ossetian 'don' is water. But we'd have to see it in many other IE
languages don't you think?

> >
> >That is not right. The Norse version of it 'atli' is a perfectly
> >good Turkic word meaning 'horseman'. This problem arises because
> >they first assume that 'atti' is Germanic
> Nope.  Attila *is* Gothic for "little father" (Vaterlein), no
> assumptions required.

The river Yayik is/was Turkic for Volga or Don. The word shows up
circa 200 BC, (which is 400-500 yrs before Turkic speakers are supposed
to be there_, in Greek (can't recall the author), in form 'daichs/daix'.

Doerfer reconstructs proto-Turkic as  *d > *d' > *c > y. This first is
(in)famous d-Bolgharic. That also dovetails with Tuna's works, and also
explains how the "Kashogs" (Kazaks) happen to be around the North of the
many centuries before they are supposed to be there. I also explained
how the
words kar/kaz etc could have come into being.

Now, then, we need to know if Gothic has an attested /atti/ (for father)
or /attila/ (little father) before at least 200 BC. Otherwise
considering the
fact that words like ata, atta (palatalized in Karachay-Balkar), apa,
appa, akka,
are all Turkic for father,and considering the the HUns were the
and Goths the substratum, the likely conclusion is borrowing unless some
good reason for it is given.

> >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.

This is penny-ante stuff. Atta is an attested word in Karachay and
of the CAucasus. The palatalized version sounds more like atti. Secondly
it is clearly known that although Altaic revels in vowel-harmony, IE
languages like contrast (i.e. inflection). That is the reason words like
'shishlik' become 'shashlik' in Russian. So there is no reason not to
suspect that atta became atti. Similarly probably many words without
consonant clusters were turned into clustered ones by IE langauges. One
see this in As-tarkhan > astrakhan, tumen-tarkhan > tmutarakan, or even
koturgur > kutrigur, or maybe even kubulat > kubrat, etc. One can even
include tur > troy.

Best Regards,
hubeyh at =-=-=-=
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity
to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
material.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of,
or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons
or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you
received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the
material  from any computer.

More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list