Re: [tied] Polecat

On Tue, 5 Dec 2000 15:40:11 +0100, "Piotr Gasiorowski"
<gpiotr@...> wrote:

>Mind if I tsk-tsk over this one, Miguel? As far as I'm aware (correct me if I'm wrong), the "polecat" reconstruction *kek^- is founded upon a root equation (?) between Indic and Baltic. The meaning is only roughly similar in both branches, and the putative root forms involved are Skt. kas'- (< *kok^- or *kak^-) vs. Lith. s^es^-/Latvian ses- (< *k^ek^-), which means that *if* the words are related at all (chance similarity is a near-certainty in cases where neither the vowels nor the consonants match with any rigour), neither the Indic nor the Baltic variants reflect *kek^-.

As I don't really have G & I (just some notes I took when I had it
from the library), I just took the first example I found in Pokorny.
You're quite right that it's not a particularly solid one, although a
case could be made.

Looking at my notes, it's not, in fact, one of the examples adduced by
G & I. Their examples are:

*geig^- "bitter, sharp"
*kak^- "thin, weak"
*k^ak- "be able, to help"
*k^a(:)k- "branch, plough"
*g^halg- "stick"
*g^hengh- "ankle, leg; to go"
*gheug^h- "hidden, secret"
*k^e:ko- "grass, greens"
*kork^- "thin"
*k^euk- "white"
*kok^- "armpit ~ leg ~ body"
*k^uenk- "brush; to open"


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...