From: Tavi
Message: 68859
Date: 2012-03-09

--- In, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> > But the problem lies precisely on this clumsy PIE reconstruction, as we
> > got an internal cluster **rC* where *C* has various reflexes: *t, s, s^,
> > kt, ks\* which can't be properly explained by the traditional model.
> > Fortunately, thanks to external comparison we can posit a sibilant
> > affricate here.
> The only problem here is your lack of familiarity with the current
> literature on the "thorny clusters" in PIE.  The reflexes you quote are
> perfectly regular branch-specific outcomes of PIE *tk^. Only Anatolian
> and Tocharian preserve the original order of the segments in *TK
> clusters. The "Neo-IE" branches (the crown clade of the family) share a
> common innovation -- the methathesis of the components (and the
> affrication of the dental).
I'm afraid there's no such "thorny cluster" here. As I've explained in another post, the geminate velar of Hittite hartagga- must be a suffix like the one found in the Turkic cognate qarsaq 'steppe fox'. With the help of external data, I reconstruct an affricate sibilant (possibly alveolo-palatal) in the internal cluster *rC.

> > In all likelihood, the Greek word must have been borrowed from another language.
> Why?
Precisely because sound correspondences aren't regular. Cross-borrowing between different IE branches must have happened, although this has generally being ignored. And Greek has TONS of loanwords, either IE and non-IE.

> > In my model, the word 'horse' belongs to a more recent layer (i.e.
> > superstrate) than other IE words. Some IE-ists have put too much
> > emphasis on this layer, up to the point of identifying it as the "true" PIE.
> If an item has Anatolian and numerous extra-Anatolian cognates, it can
> safely be labelled as PIE (= the latest common ancestor of the family).
> As simple as that. There is no earthly reason to classify the word as
> 'recent'.
Sorry, but I disagree with the traditional model. I must insist that not all the words labelled as "PIE" are equally older not they belong to the same (proto-)language.

> > IMHO the traditional PIE needs a major revision because it has become
> > obsolete.
> "Traditional" (Brugmannian) PIE has been revised very thoroughly, and the process still continues.
Unfortunately, the "revised" model is still unsatisfactory IMHO.

> > Once again, the example you're quoting is irrelevant for the matter.
> > Archaeological data tell us when and where the horse was domesticated,
> > and linguistic evidence gives us a 'horse' word native to that area.
> > Unfortunately, it looks like most IE-ists are too busy (or perhaps too
> > lazy) to look at any data outside their own field.
> Archaeological data do not tell us with anything close to certainty
> where the horse was first domesticated. *Genetic* data suggest mulitiple
> centres of domestication:
As regarding the IE 'horse' word, the relevant "center of domestication" are the Pontic-Caspian steppes.

> One does not even have to insist that *h1ek^wos referred originally to
> domesticated horses. Wild horses were very common throughout Eurasia and
> they may have kept their name after domestication.
Only that there's no actual evidence this domestication was done by IE speakers.