Re: [tied] *ekwos and friends

But the vocative ("summons" form) of *ek^w-o-s was *ek^w-e. Besides,
what happened to *e- and *-w-? Look, historical linguistics _doesn't_
work by inventing a chain of ad hoc irregular transformations to
relate two forms that you'd like to be related. If an etymology
doesn't work, special pleading won't make it better. Please take my
word for it that this particular *ek^wos : kos' is indefensible.

Piotr

--- In cybalist@..., george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:


> *****GK: What about a simpler route:
> 1. The "summons cry" emerges as "kos'" at a time when
> the term for "horse" for the population in question is
> still "ekwos". It doesn't seem far fetched to suppose
> that a cry is simplified in this way.
> 2. This "cry" is maintained even as the other language
> shifts occur.[analogy: the mysterious "tsur (tobi)
> pek" expression in Ukr. I don't know if it exists in
> other Slavic languages. It may. You tell me]
> 3. This cry remains in the vocabulary of some groups
> (but is lost in that of others) and eventually
> produces some derivatives based on "kos'"*****