From: tgpedersen
Message: 53962
Date: 2008-02-22
>I thought we'd been there before:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> That is, assuming the Dacian(?) word wasn't a loan in that language
> too:
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/HbHpHg.html
>
> Note the PBasque *p- > Basque *m-
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/KuhnText/10pegg-zapfen.html
> and further(?)
> http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/KuhnText/08pauk-stechen.html
> http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/KuhnText/14pikk-stechen.html
>
> Note Sw påk "bludgeon" (vel sim.).
>
>
> PP *majäk/majäg "stake" / PIE *pa:k/*pa:g id. (and more) is an
> interesting parallel.