From: tgpedersen
Message: 53961
Date: 2008-02-22
>That is. assuming the Dacian(?) word wasn't a loan in that language too:
>
> Lubotsky's 'The Indo-Aryan Substratum':
> "
> Loanwords
> [..]
> Indo-Aryan *maiu:kha- m. `wooden peg':
> Skt. mayu:'kha- `peg for stretching the woof';
> OP <myux> = mayu:xa- `doorknob',
> Sogd. myGk `peg',
> MiP and MoP me:x `peg, nail',
> Oss. mi:x/mex `stake'.
>
> The current etymology derives the word from the root mi- `to build,
> erect', which explains neither its morphology (suffix *-u:kha-?),
> nor semantics (the verbal root only means `to fix in the ground').
> The meaning `stake' is only attested in Ossetic and is clearly
> secondary. [In view of its meaning, PP *majäk / majäg `stake' (Redei
> 72) is probably borrowed from Pre-Ossetic.]
> "
>
> Lubotsky's above assumption that this is not an IE word is in
> contradiction with :
>
> Romanian mãciuc& /m&c^uk& art. m&c^uka/ 'bludgeon' <->
> Albanian mësukë /m&suk&/
>
> < PAlb. /Dacian *mac^uka:
>
> see : http://dexonline.ro/search.php?cuv=maciuca
>
> Based on Romanian/Albanian forms the long u: in Indo-Aryan forms is
> secondary
>
> In Romanian this word is f.
>