From: Abdullah Konushevci
Date: 2003-02-24
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex_lycos" <altamix@...> wrote:
> this root is supposed to be the one for actually English
word "wihtel",
> German " wachtel", ahd "wahtala", friz. "kwakkel".
> Since the PIE root is just *kwokt- which should be the accepted
suffixes
> here?
> The Germanic languages show an "al/el" the frizon one too "el".
> In Latin it was "coturnix, coturnicis".
> The Romanian word is "potârniche" which confirm once again that the
> language where from this word derives is one which made from an
PIEe *kW
> an "p", but it is very close to Latin form as construction
> coturni+x = potârni+che
> The Romanian linguists tried to explain the Rom. word trough an
Latin
> *quoturnicula, with a syncopated form *quoturnicla for explaining
the
> "che" in Romanian . The Latin word itself remains with an uncertain
> etymology.
> It seems this try (*qoturnicla= potârniche) was rejected since
Walde
> shows the discussion for this word and means there is no
*quoturnicla
> for the rom. "potârniche", nor in vulgar latin, nor in oscan
neither in
> umbrian.
> The PIE form in the zero grade matches perfectly the rom. root,
but the
> suffix is very strange until now.
> How is the Latin form to analyse? Cot+urnix. Is this "urnix,
urnicis" to
> find in other words or is there an Greek cognate or what about? I
know
> just about the greek-dorian "urnix/utniz" as beeing something like
Latin
> "urnix". Any ideea?
> Alex