(was The reason for Caesar's ...) HORSA vs. EXWA

From: Joao S. Lopes
Message: 68708
Date: 2012-03-02

Proto-Germanic *exwaz has many IE cognates with the same meaning, so it's plausible that PIE was *ek^wos, while *xorsa- has many cognates, but none with the exact meaning of "horse" (cf. Latin currere, Celtic *carros). The relationship to Portuguese corço "roe deer" and corça "hind" (<*curtius, *curcius) sounds likely, but its relation to *kers- is obscure. Could we assume that *xorsa- was the wild horse and *exwa- the tamed one, or the opposite?

Joao S. Lopes

De: Tavi <oalexandre@...>
Para: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Enviadas: Sexta-feira, 2 de Março de 2012 7:11
Assunto: [tied] Re: The reason for Caesar's obtaining the two Gauls as province

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
> Whether *kers- meant 'run' or 'horse' is good speculation,
> and nothing forbids that Germanic shows a more archaic meaning. A
> comparison with NEC and Yeniseian is welcome, provided the regularity
> of the correspondences involved.
But as in the case of other DOMESTIC animals, the meaning 'horse' must have been coined by their domesticators, who were acquainted with the wild species. The NEC cognate suggests this is a genuine 'horse' word (please notice that NEC has a different word for 'horse').

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Joao S. Lopes" <josimo70@...> wrote:
> *xorsa- "horse" <*kers- "to run", so CGermanic can be explained as "the running animal", maybe applied to some kind of new horse, faster than the original Germanic horses, *exwaz
I'm afraid you've made two unwarranted assumptions. The first one is that the original meaning of *kors- was 'to run' and not 'horse', and the second one is that the original Germanic word for 'horse' was *exwa-z. IMHO none of them is correct.