Re: Scythian tribal names: Paralatai

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister <gabaroo6958@...> wrote:

> ----- Original Message ----
> From: stlatos <stlatos@...>
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, July 5, 2008 1:52:51 AM
> Subject: [tied] Re: Scythian tribal names: Paralatai

> This oddity is a good piece of evidence for the proposed
> "macro-family" (not good enough, in my opinion), but it again hinges
> on ONE word without which it could just as easily be seen as
> coincidence. It's only mirus^ that establishes a shared oddity that
> almost must be explained by common origin in a genetic or borrowing
> context.
>
> Just as one word with m not b can change the set of arguments needed
> for this word, so one with N not g could have affected mine. Am I to
> give up everything because of the vagaries of history?

> It's interesting but it may be due to borrowing.

That's why I said: "be explained by common origin in a genetic or
borrowing context". I wouldn't use one example for such a huge leap;
I'm just trying to show how one word can prove an irregular change
like metathesis actually existed, and how the lack of it could leave
the explanation uncertain (even when the words are as similar as
borsuq/morzuq and A:thwiya/A:ptiya).

> Could you check to see what the Yeniseian and Burushaski forms are?

According to something I read long ago, Turkic originated next to
Yeniseian and, as you know, Bengtson and his crew ling Yen. & Bur. to
NE & NW Cauc. It would be an interesting check on things.

> But there are Turkic languages in and around the Caucasus and a loan

from one of those would be more plausible

The same word can be reconstructed in many languages, too widespread
for borrowing to be the explanation. I'm not trying to prove that
now, to go that far away from my original point isn't what I'm
interested in.