Re: Let dogs have their day too

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

>
> --- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> (Piotr): The Turkic
> > languages, not being IE, are neither satem nor
> > centum. The satem
> > change took place millennia ago, and <köpek> can't
> > have ebeen
> > borrowed that early; I don't even think its
> > reconstructible to Proto-
> > Turkic. The only imaginable reason for the
> > substitution k -> s in
> > <sobaka> (if it derives from <köbäk> with front
> > vowels) would be that
> > given by Trubachev (the second palatalisation *k >
> > *c plus an ad hoc
> > simplification of *c > s), which has nothing to do
> > with the satem
> > change.
> > >
> > > Piotr
> >
> > This rests on the Turkic peoples not having been
> > anywhere near the
> > Slavs before the Hun invasions, right?
>
> > Torsten

> ****GK: Right. Although there is a tantalizing
> ethnonym in Ptolemy (CHUNI, localized somewhere
> between Lower Dnister and Southern Boh(g)) which
> occasionally leads some to suggest that a small group
> of Huns might have arrived in Eastern Europe as early
> as the 2bd c., as part of some Alanic confederation.==
> Of course we have the kooks who claim that Scythians
> were Turkic, and one dear soul has just argued on the
> Gothic list that the older futhark is a Turkic gift
> from the "Gokturks" who were nomads and therefore
> could find themselves anywhere in Eurasia at any time,
> including Scandinavia (Denmark and Southern Sweden to
> be precise) in the 2nd c AD*****
> >

Of course I am a firm and true believer in the irrefutable fact that
when Snorri says Turk he means something else and was misinformed and
making up virtual history etc and his Turks are someone else and
perhaps related to Teucri etc, but just to put my mind at ease, what
is the Turkic provenance of the root /Türk-/?

Torsten