28-06-03 05:22, george knysh wrote:
> *****GK: I may not have understood him completely, so
> correct me if I'm wrong. Does Skok contend that the
> word "mogila" (with three meanings: heap; burial
> mound; hill) later metathesised as "gomila" (first
> meaning only) derives from a "Thraco-Illyrian" *magula
> (same meanings)? Hence a Thracian rather then Iranic
> etymology?******
In other words, *mogyla is a mystery and Thracian is a mystery, so maybe
they are the same mystery? The proponents would have a defensible case
if there were any tangible evidence of *magula in Thracian inscriptions,
glosses, demonstrably ancient toponyms, etc. Otherwise it's just
guessing. With the same logic English <dog> must be a loan from Pictish,
because (a) it has no convincing etymology, (b) Pictish was the only
mystery language in the vicinity of Old English. I don't even trust the
Iranian etymology of *mogyla, because I can't evaluate it for myself
until I see the details of that proposal.
Piotr