Richard Wordingham wrote:
> Wouldn't *ekWos have yielded Sanskrit *aka-, Avestan *aka-? Also,
> there'd still be the labial element to explain. Moreover, I'm not
> aware of any argument against a derivation from *o:k^u 'swift'.
That is why expect from a root as *h2akWa- with Sanskrit "aka" but a root as
*kWetuer
yelded an "c^ature", so the inconsistence is here too. This is why I asked
if there is
not a later palatalisation of "k", "c^" to "s" in Sanskrit.
>
> I suspect you're just trying to dismiss the Thracian names believed
> to be compounded with the word for horse.
>
> Richard.
No. There has been no Thracian "esba-" as horse. At least the (stil
questionable) Dacian inscriptions speak about "keleres" and means "being on
the horses, ridding", thus the root has been "kal-" for "horse" ( sustained
by Greek and Latin as well). I will like to avoid connections to any
Thracian things now because I won't find properly to bring in discusion a
subject based on questionable inscriptions and on simple guesses, regardless
how educated these guesses are.
Alex