From: Rick McCallister
Message: 57468
Date: 2008-04-16
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr GasiorowskiWhat's the possibility that the word was originally
> <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> >
> > On 2008-04-16 00:22, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
> >
> > > 3. Matasovic:
> > > "Notes: This word is probably a "Wanderwort" of
> eastern origin,
> > > that established itself in Celtic and Germanic
> alongside the
> > > inherited PIE word for 'horse', *h1ek'wos (OIr.
> ech). "
> > >
> > > 4. I fully agree with what Matasovic writes
> above.
> >
> > I don't think Ranko would subscribe to your
> Balkano-Baltic
> scenario.
> > He's simply referring to the familiar "Altaic
> origins" theory.
>
>
> 1. I prefer Matasovic than Marko...
> 2. What are that related names in Altaic....?
>
>
> > > In addition I will say that the Balkano-Baltic
> zone is the source
> of
> > > this horse-word *marg-/*murg- :
> > >
> > > I. The word entered in Celtic with -k- (< *g ->
> this indicates a
> > > k-language as the Celtic Source (probable a
> Germanic Eastern-
> > > Dialect : this is 'my' Germanic *marko-)
> >
> > What is a "k-language"?
> >
> > >
> > > II. and from Celtic the word entered next in
> West-Nothern-
> > > Germanic with -k-
> >
> > How many times doest it have to be repeated to you
> that the word
> has no
> > /k/ in Germanic? You have the cheek to quote
> Pokorny (who shows all
> the
> > relevant forms) and then repeat the same
> misrepresentation of facts.
> > It
> > had *k _before_ Grimm's Law. The PGmc. form was
> already *marxo-
> (fem.
> > *marxjo:n > Eng. mare), whose *x can't derive from
> *g (Grimm's Law
> can't
> > affect the same consonant more than once).
>
> 1. First I didn't say that *x can be derived from g.
> First also, I can show you an intervocalic g
> versus an
> intervocalic h ( having the same origin) : so the
> situation is more
> complex in Germanic that that one sthat you present
> here
>
> 2. Secondly, I didn't put in question k > x : (this
> should be obvious
> because I quoted Pokorny and Matasovic *marko) => is
> you that repeat
> again something obvious for nothing
>
> 3. Third : I have talked about loans.
>
> 4. Fourth, Based on what you assert that k>x and g>k
> etc...
> happened 'in the same time'? I can tell you: based
> on nothing...
>
> 5. Fifth,
> a loaned k- after k>x finished was loaned as
> what ?
> or a loaned g- after g>k finished was loaned as
> what ?
> These are simple questions Piotr....
>
>
> > For the same reason the Marcomanni were certainly
> the 'Border Folk'
> > (Gmc. *marka- 'mark, boundary stone', *marko:
> 'boundary, border),
> just
> > like the Anglian Mercians.
>
> First, I DON'T SEE that 'reason' ---> see 4. and
> 5. first
>
> So I disagree here....'Border Folks'? Border
> Folks of Who?
> The Germanic Tribes were very dispersed...(see
> Tacitus) also I
> don't think that they have a Global Germanic
> 'Conscience' at that
> time to refer to the Germanic Borders of All the
> Germans...
>
> And 'Certainly'? They translated their names for
> you?
> 'Horse-men' don't sound irrelevant...
>
>
> > > 5. My opinion:
> > > The similarity marg-/murg-/mark- 'horse' is too
> important to be
> > > a simple coincidence
> >
> > Obviously. The equation _has_ to be true because
> it's _so_
> important ;)
> > Piotr
>
>
> Not because is "so important" (this false emphatism
> serve to nothing
> Piotr)
>
> but because WE HAVE <<marg/k->> (the forms in -ur
> being later
> evolutions)
> that means 'HORSE' in three languages :
> -> Celtic,
> -> Germanic,
> -> Romanian-Substratum (/Proto-Albanians)
> -> and in Baltic <marg-> refers to
> animal-names for 'cow,
> dog, ox'
>
> Despite some 'not clear' phonetical evolutions :
> the fact above is for me more than a pure
> coicidence:
> You can ignore this if you like but I prefer not
> to ignore it.
>
> Marius
>