Re: [tied] Let dogs have their day too

--- In cybalist@..., george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:

> > >>Russ. sobaka [also Ukr. sobaka and Bel. sabaka --
> > S.T.](not a pan-
> > Slavic word) is generally assumed to be a loan from
> > Iranian, but it
> > appears to be relatively modern (_not_ from Scythian
> > or Sarmatian)
> > and perhaps not _directly_ from Iranian.
>
> ******GK: How modern? Would you include the Alans
> among the Sarmatians? If so "post-Sarmatian" might
> mean "after ca. 1250" (when Alans were pushed out of
> the steppes and foothills into the Caucasian interior
> and became Ossetian)?

The question should be actually adressed to Piotr, since I was just
citing from his message.

>If not directly from Iranian, I
> wonder what might have been the intermediary? Some
> Turkic dialect?******

Trubachev suggests Turkic _köbäk_ 'dog' as a source in his
_Slav'anskije nazvanija domas^nix z^ivotnyx_: Moscow, 1960 (I have
only a reference to the book so I can't provide details), which would
point to after-first-palatalization times (kö- > ["second
palatalization"] (East-)Slavic *co- > [getting rid of phonotactically
prohibited sound combination] so-, the first step being like *kir- >
*cIr- in *cIrky 'church').

Sergei