Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
> Grzegorz Jagodzinski wrote:
>
>> No, Polish <szarak> is not a speculation. It is a linguistic fact.
>
> It only shows that the hare _may_ be named after its colour. It
> doesn't follow that it has to be so.
>
> Piotr
And did I say it has to? I only said that Greek <khoiros> 'pig' is striking
because <gry:los> also means 'pig' but <khoirogryllios> ('pig-o-pig') means
'hare'. I also noticed that the hypothesis that Slavic *xe^rU 'grey' is
inherited and comes from *kHoiro- is probable when you consider Greek facts.
You are right that arguments are not too strong (because the development of
*kH in Slavic is not attested with many examples - even the most famous
example of <soxa> 'primitive plough' may be an Iranian borrowing and not an
inherited word related to Skr. çakha 'branch'). But you have not strong
evidence that this word is a Germanic borrowing either. And of course Slavic
<zaje,cI> may be completely unrelated but it does not has to be. However, we
know that the name of the hare may come from 'grey'. It causes that the
hypothesis of genetic relation between <zaje,cI> and *xe^rU cannot be
rejected at the start, nothing more. And if we were able to show more
examples of twofold development of *k^H in Slavic, into *x and into *z (no
matter how much irregular and improbable it seems now), all the "grey hare"
hypothesis would be yet more probable.
Grzegorz J.
___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.
http://uk.security.yahoo.com