> Watkins in AHD:
> ENTRY: teks-
> DEFINITION: To weave; also to fabricate, especially with an
ax; also
> to make wicker or wattle fabric for (mud-covered) house walls.
Oldest
> form *tes-, becoming *teks- in centum languages.
> .....
> 5a. dachshund, from Old High German dahs, badger; b. dassie, from
> Middle Dutch das, badger. Both a and b from Germanic *thahsuz,
badger,
> possibly from this root ("the animal that builds," referring to its
> burrowing skill) but more likely borrowed from the same
> pre-Indo-European source as the Celtic totemic name *Tazgo- (as in
> Gaulish Tazgo-, Gaelic Tadhg), originally "badger." (Pokorny te-
1058.)
The Celtic form Tazgo, if anything, seems more likely to STENGTHEN
the claim of *tok^sos as the root word for badger. It makes perfect
sense semantically, as badgers' setts are remarcably complex, and
badgers often live in family units in these setts. This behaviour
would have been seen as a plus in PIE culture as we know it, and due
to badgers' ferocity when forced to attack, but being very difficult
to see and thus able to get what they want without needing to resort
to blood, this would really attract some positive attention. It makes
sense that the creature would be used totemically!
In addition, the sound change from tok^sos to Tazgo is comparable to
the change from PIE *h2r.tk^os to Post-PIE r.k^tos to the Latin
Ursus. And the Hittite attestation, if it is right, pretty much
certifies the root.
Here is a quote from Joshua Katz:
In Katz 1998, I discussed the only word for 'badger' that shows up in
more than one branch of Indo-European, (7) adding Hitt. tasku- to the
Germano-Celtic quasi-equation between Mod. Germ. Dachs and other
Germanic words for this animal ( < PGmc. *pahsu- < pre-PGmc. *taksu-)
and such Celtic forms as the Gaulish onomastic element Tasco(-), Tasgo
(-) and the Irish personal name Tad(h)g ( < (pre-)PCelt. *tasko-
/*tazgo-), as in the hero Tadhg mac Cein, whom Mac an Bhaird 1980 has
shown to be specifically associated with badgers. (8) Now, the
Hittite word is attested only with the meaning of a subcaudal body
part (something like 'anus' or 'scrotum'), but I endeavored to
explain how this meaning developed out of 'badger', (9) suggesting
also that the original sense is preserved in a number of Anatolian
personal names (most notably Hitt. mTaskuili- and HLuv. Ta-sa-ku-wa-
li/Ta-sa-ku-li /Tasku(wa)lis/ [~ Hellenized [LANGUAGE NOT
REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (10)) and probably also the place name
[LANGUAGE NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN AS CII] (best-known from Bithynia, but
apparently used for a number of locations in western, especially
northwestern, Asia Minor), on which see now Neumann 1999a: 17f. ...
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst;jsessionid=G1vQGWZjpJkkwJvJrWpGnh8Hlskzb
f4sPCsrfKn0lQXcyycsMtlg!168154422?a=o&d=5000835675&er=deny
Back to "Seadog"'s ideas. If the bizarre semantic shift in Hittite
can be explained, and if the Anatolian people whose names were
mentioned were not just jiven unfortunately dirty names, then there
is every reason to believe that we have the PIE word for Badger on
our hands.
But to be fair - if this equation turns out false, then all that's
left is just another, albeit very sensible PIE-wise, Germano-Celtic
geminate term
> > We all know the phrase *tetk^on (weaver/maker) and *tek^- (to
make).
> > Well, I read thet the Germanic original form of Modern
German "Dachs"
> > is actually related to a Hittite word that seems to mean badger.
The
> > two would originate in a for *tok^sos.
> > Now, the striking similarity of this to an o-grade extention of
*tek^-
> > leads me suspect something. Is this equation (in the title)
plausible?
> *********