Re: [tied] Let dogs have their day too

--- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
(Piotr): The Turkic

> languages, not being IE, are neither satem nor
> centum. The satem
> change took place millennia ago, and <k�pek> can't
> have ebeen
> borrowed that early; I don't even think its
> reconstructible to Proto-
> Turkic. The only imaginable reason for the
> substitution k -> s in
> <sobaka> (if it derives from <k�b�k> with front
> vowels) would be that
> given by Trubachev (the second palatalisation *k >
> *c plus an ad hoc
> simplification of *c > s), which has nothing to do
> with the satem
> change.
> >
> > Piotr
>
> This rests on the Turkic peoples not having been
> anywhere near the
> Slavs before the Hun invasions, right?

****GK: Right. Although there is a tantalizing
ethnonym in Ptolemy (CHUNI, localized somewhere
between Lower Dnister and Southern Boh(g)) which
occasionally leads some to suggest that a small group
of Huns might have arrived in Eastern Europe as early
as the 2bd c., as part of some Alanic confederation.==
Of course we have the kooks who claim that Scythians
were Turkic, and one dear soul has just argued on the
Gothic list that the older futhark is a Turkic gift
from the "Gokturks" who were nomads and therefore
could find themselves anywhere in Eurasia at any time,
including Scandinavia (Denmark and Southern Sweden to
be precise) in the 2nd c AD*****

>
> Torsten
>
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com