> > True. That slipped by me. As far as I can see your theory works,
> > given one small extra assumption: that the dogs who strayed to
> > neighbors had the name 'kwon' engraved on its collar, so that theall
> > neighbors didn't start calling it something irrelevant.
> Hi Torsten- and if you make the further assumption that Piotr and
> his linguistic colleagues, who say that the supposed commonality reIf I knew what "the supposed commonality re the term for dogs" was
> the term for dogs is illusory, are correct, then it works fine. :-)
> Your statement is a wonderful example of two wrongs making a right.
> As has been pointed out, the point of origin for domesticated dogs
> was supposedly East Asia, not South East Asia. Fortunately for the
> tatters of your theory, at that time the predecessor language of
> Austronesian was probably spoken in East Asia and not South East
> too.Or on what's now the bottom of the strait between China and Taiwan.
> However, whether any group deserves the description "the traders"
> that time has not been established.Do you know when that title will be officially awarded?
> while speakers ofthe
> > the other language groups are landlubbers,
> I don't see why being landbound would have been an impediment to
> spread of dogs- it wasn't to the spread of wolves.AfroAsiatic-
> furthermore that these
> > Austronesian-speakers even today are associated with these two
> > animals, and to top it, that these two species are considered
> > in the Middle East, as though it were a reflection of an old
> > controversy between trading Austronesians and sedentary
> > speakers. It's almost too tempting, right?East
> Evidently right in your case, but not in mine. Anyway there is a
> chronological problem with your hypothesis re the uncleanness of
> pigs. There is no evidence that pigs were regarded in the Middle
> as unclean until the emergence of the Hebrew tribes c. 1100 BCE(one
> way archeologists judge whether a site of that time was Hebrew orbig
> Canaanite is the presence or absence of pig bones). There is too
> a gap between the introduction of pigs and the emergence the tabooAs far as I know the Egyptians considered pigs unclean too, although
> against them to fit with your hypothesis. I don't know enough about
> the history of attitudes towards dogs to judge that aspect.
> > >PFU *küjna (by memory). I'll go check.
> > > Since the perceived common root for a canine term in many
> > > language groups is probably illusory anyhow,
> > I don't think so. Here are Orël & Stolbova's "dog"-words for
> > Semitic:
> > HSED 917: *ger- "dog, cub"
> > HSED 1425: *kan- "dog"
> > HSED 1434: *ka[ya]r- "dog"
> > HSED 1498: *kun- "dog"
> > HSED 1511: *küHen- "dog"
> > HSED 1521: *kV(w|y)Vl- "dog, wolf"
> > This looks like a several times borrowed word.
> If so, it would only show a borrowing (or common ancestry) between
> PAA and PIE, not a chain stretching across Eurasia.