> > > The issue of non-Germanic cognates of 'bow' and 'bow' (both the
> > > homonyms) is
> > > complicated. The Germanic forms point to PIE *bHeugH-, but the
> > > languages (Greek, Latin and Sanskrit, at least - I haven't
> > > for other languages) point to PIE *bHeug.
> > There are thrre roots *bheug. But there is a real word bUk in
> > it means 'bend'. And there is
> > a real word el (hand), elig (hand), bilek (wrist, arm), and pilek
> > (five). Why can't *bheug simply be
> > from Hunnish. Weren't germans in contact with them? Werent' the
> > that region?
> *bHeug 'flee' is evidenced by Latin fugio: 'flee' and Greek
> both real words. What's more, Old English bu:gan (whence
English 'bow' as
> in 'bow down'), besides meaning 'bend', also occasionally
> Probably two homophones, but maybe our ancestors saw some
> between the words.
> I think it's just coincidence, but of course the Huns also invaded
> and we have Sanskrit bhuj 'bend, bow'.
Illich-Svitych has in his reconstruction of Nostratic
Proto-Nostratic **/bok/a/ "to run away"
Proto-Indo-European *bheug/bhegw- id.
Proto-Uralic *pok-tV- "to run"
Proto-Altaic *p[']Vk- "run"
It occurred to me that the two senses of the root might be
reconciled, namely as "acknowledge defeat" (> "bow down", > "flee"),
cf Danish 'bukke' "bend", 'bukke under' "succumb, perish".
> > > Richard:
> > > The biggest problem I can see in relating Doerfer's *pOkUrz and
> > > *pek^u-
> > > is that the <s> of Latin pecus is not part of the root.
> > > Indo-Iranian show only a stem in peku-. Latin has (citing just
> > > forms in
> > > my pocket dictionary):
> > >
> > > 1. pecu: 'flock of sheep', stem pecu-, neuter.
> > > 2. pecus 'cattle, herd, flock; animal', stem pecor-, neuter.
> > > 3. pecus 'sheep, head of cattle, beast', stem pecud-, feminine.
> > >
> > > Only no. 2 has the right stem. Note that the final consonant
> > > developed
> > > from /s/, with the nominative and accusative singular
> > > becuase
> > > it was not followed by a vowel.
> > Look at pecor and pecud. * pecudh. From *dh I also derive both r
> > Now you have actually buttered my bread.
> I strongly suspect the -d- and -r- (possibly once -s-) extensions
> Latin innovations. They are not unreasonable extensions from an
> nominate singular 'pecus', which occurs in Latin, although the 4th
> declension noun is neuter. As Pokorny is down, I can't double
> claims, alas.
> How do you explain the multiple development in the same language?
> similar examples of /d/ and /r/ alternating? (Perversely, we do
> several example of /l/ in Latin where we would expect /d/.)