Re: [tied] *ekwos and friends

On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 14:52:19 -0700 (PDT), george knysh
<gknysh@...> wrote:

>*****GK: But why assume (not impossible of course but
>why assume) that (all? most?) horse words in the
>eventual Slavic (a) were borrowed

I wasn't assuming that.

>and (b) borrowed from a satem language?

That's what started the discussion.

>Incidentally what's your view
>of the source for Slavic "kon'"["komon'"?] (later(?)
>"kin'" in Ukr. [although there are two Sanskrit words
>which would be similar minus the suffix: kinlin,
>kindhin])******

I have no deep convictions about the matter. A connection with the
late Latin <caballus> (source?) or with Slavic <kobyla> seems a
reasonable hypothesis (maybe *kop- "hoof" -> kop-nios "hooved" >
kobnjI > konjI // komnjI > komUnI > komon'), but that doesn't account
too well for <kobyla> or Lith. <kume~le:>. (Because of Winter's law,
*kob- should have given Slav. *kab- [unless in *kob-n-]. And root
restrictions preclude *kobh-).