From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 57347
Date: 2008-04-15
----- Original Message -----
From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 12:08 PM
Subject: [Courrier indsirable] Re: Res: Res: [tied] Origin of *marko- (was:
Hachmann versus Kossack?)
> On 2008-04-15 10:26, fournet.arnaud wrote:
>
>> > And why should this Celto-Germanic *marko- have to be connected with
>> > <mori> etc.? A vague similarity involving short words with commonly
>> > occurring consonants is hardly compelling.
>> > > Piotr
>> ================
>> I suppose this statement applies to 80% of IE cognates.
>>
>> Arnaud
>> ==============
>
> That's why they would mean nothing *as isolated similarities*. Their
> evidential value depends on the existence of systematic correspondences
> pervading the lexicon, derivational morphology and inflectional system.
> It isn't a priori impossible that a Mongolian word spread westwards,
> passed along by the Scythians, Thracians etc., and ending up in
> Proto-Germanic and Celtic as a word for a 'saddle-horse'. But as an
> etymology, it's just a shot in the dark without any supporting evidence.
> Where is the attestation of *mar(ko)- in Iranian or Thracian? Who, when
> and why extended it with a suffix?
>
> Piotr
================
Piotr,
You're the expert.
My suggestion would be to distinguish wild animals from domesticated ones.
Not all words -ko/-ka describing animals are domesticated but most are.
Cf. por-kos, mor-kos (> markos), wa-kka, owi-ka, bu?-kos (> bukkos), do?-k
(> dog), pr.tu-kos, ker-kos,
So pigs, cattle, sheeps, dogs, goats and fowls have wide-spread -ko/-ka
nick-names.
Cats are missing, and horses are very limited in dialectal expansion.
Is it not telling us something about cats and horses vis-a-vis IE speakers ?
I suppose this is not compelling as usual.
God bless orthodoxy.
Arnaud
=============