Re: Let dogs have their day too

From: tgpedersen
Message: 16149
Date: 2002-10-11

--- In cybalist@..., "Richard Wordingham" <richard.wordingham@...>
> --- In cybalist@..., "Richard Wordingham"
> wrote:
> > Alert men in white coats!
> >
> > Warlpiri (Pama-Nyungan) ------------------------- maligi
> > Lavukavele (East Papuan) ------------------------ mitakeu
> > Russian (Indo-European) ------------------------- sobaka
> Disallowed:
> Pali (Indo-European) ---------------------------- sunakHa
> From Piotr:
> >Yes, it's another famous false cognate. The language is Mbabaram
> (now extinct; the last living informant was discovered by Bob Dixon
> some time ago), and the word in question is <dOg> (with an open [O]
> to make it even more English-sounding). It derives from *gudaga, a
> well-attested word with numerous cognates (Mbabaram was one of the
> called initial-dropping Australian languages).
> No. 5 in the list! I wonder if it is related to the Anindilyakwa
> word below?
> > On the other hand:
> > Anindilyakwa (Australian) ---------------------- wuruwad.e
> > Ama (Left May) --------------------------------- VlOwO:u
> > Portuguese (Indo-European) --------------------- cachorro
> >
> > Reckoning 20% probability of a guttural, the probability of
> > one of a 4-3, 5-2 6-1 or 7-0 split on whether the third syllable
> > begins with a guttural is only 3.3%. Striking out Sanskrit
> s'unaka / Pali sunakHa on the grounds of possible cognacy with
> does raise the probability to 9.9%.
> Score now 4-3. Possibility of 4-2, if 'wuruwad.e' derives
> from 'gudaga'. Unless, of course, English 'dog' established itself
> because of the 'g', in which case *gudaga is biased and must be
> disallowed, for a root yielding [dOg] stands a reasonable chance of
> starting its third syllable with a guttural.
> I disallow Sanskrit s'unaka because there is a strong possibility
> that the final syllable was interpreted as the same vague
> in both the Pali form and Russian sobaka. There's also the
> possibility that they are doublets.
> Richard.

Falk & Torp says Da.,No. dogge, Sw. dogg, Low Germ. dogge, High Germ.
Dogge are all loans from Engl. dog., of which the origin is unknown.
False cognate or megalithic loan? OTOH, no cognates in Celtic, but
suppose it's geminated (and then some) from AngSax déug, ON duga,
German taugen "be any good, be valid", cf OIr dúal (< *dug-lo-
) "appropriate", Lith. dau~g "much", Russian duz^ij "strong", Greek
túkHe: "luck". Except Greek all within Megalithic range. Unexplained
then ON dyggr "faithful" (< *deuwia-). Or loanword (note gemination)?