Re: [tied] Renfrew's theory renamed as Vasco-Caucasian

On 2007-09-18 01:22, stlatos wrote:

> To make sure I wasn't misremembering I went to www.indo-european.nl
> to find:
>
>
> Tocharian B: laks
>
> Word class: (n.[m.sg.])
>
> Meaning: `fish'
>
> Paradigm: [laks, -, -läks·i, -, laksäm·]
>
> Examples: kwri war tákam· yolmene winán~n~enträ omp lwása laksäm·
> warn~ai `if there is water in the pool, animals will enjoy fish, etc.'
> (11b4), pupam· laksäm· = BHS p³ti-matsyám· (308b3).
>
> Derivatives: läksan~n~e* `prtng to fish': yä[kw]en~n~e oksain~e
> läksan~n~e wästarye tu wiks·alle `horse, cow, and fish liver, it [is]
> to be avoided' (559b4/5), läksan~a klautso `a gill' [lit: `fish ear']
> (P-2a6).
>
> Etymology: From PIE lok´si- `salmon, salmon-trout' [: OHG lahs (m.),
> Old English leax (m.), Old Norse lax (m.), all `salmon' (<
> Proto-Germanic *lahsa-), Old Prussian lasasso (f.) `salmon' (<
> *lok´sok´yeha-), Lithuanian la~šis (m.), Latvian lasis (m.) `salmon'
> (< *lok´si-), Lithuanian lašiša` (f.) `id.' (< *lok´sik´yeha-),
> Russian loso´s' `salmon,' Ossetic läsäg `brown trout' (< *lok´sok´o-)
> (P:653; MA:497)] (cf. Schrader/Nehring, 1929:2). In Tocharian we see
> the zero-grade *l,k´si- of a paradigm whose strong grade was *lok´si-
> (cf. Krause, 1961). We need not assume that this basic word is a
> borrowing from an unattested TchA *laks from PIE *lok´so- as does VW
> (254-5). For a fuller treatment of the meaning and form of this etymon
> in Indo-European, see Diebold (1976).
>
>
> Some of this is obviously wrong, but what do you think about the
> likelihood of borrowing?

There's a detailed discussion of the Toch. 'fish' word in Ringe's book
on PIE-to-Tocharian sound changes (1996) continued by Kim (1999,
"Observations on the absolute and relative chronology of Tocharian
loanwords and sound changes", TIES 8). The comparison of dialectal and
accent-conditioned forms within TB shows that the underlying vowel of
the root is /&/ (western nom.sg. läks, central/eastern laks*) and the
endings match the expected reflexes of PIE u-stem forms. Krause's
*l.ksi- analysis can be considered obsolete. It doesn't account for the
root vocalism or for the absence of palatalisation in the nom.sg. and
obl.pl. The bottom line is that the word was most likely borrowed as
*luksu- from an IE (but non-Iranian) source, which only makes sense if
the donor language had something like *lok(^)so- and inherited *o had by
that time been unrounded in the ancestor of Tocharian.

Piotr