Re: Comparative Notes on Hurro-Urartian, Northern Caucasian and Indo

From: Andrew Jarrette
Message: 60323
Date: 2008-09-25

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003" <swatimkelkar@...>
wrote:
>
> http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/pies/pdfs/IESV/1/VVI_Horse.pdf
>
> [551 kB. -BMS]
>
"b) Another hypothesis also based on the reconstruction of the
initial *s- > h- might
suggest a link of the Greek *hikwkwo- < *sikwo to the Semitic name
for horse: Akkadian
SISÛ (possibly from *sisâ'um, cf. the spelling AN.E.ZI.ZI = *
[AN.ESÍSÍ] in Southern
Mesopotamian texts at the end of the III mil. B.C.283), Aramaic
sûsyâ, Ugaritic w/ssw
(sswm, feminine Dual stm, also in personal names), Hebrew sûs. The
Semitic noun
together with Egyptian m.t284 has often been thought to be borrowed
from Indo-
European with a possible later reduplication.285 But if the Semitic
word is connected to
the Indo-European one, virtually the Proto-Greek stem with the
initial *s- alone seems
to present a valid parallel. In the prehistoric Semitic-Greek
contacts it was usually Greek
that borrowed.286 If the direction of borrowing in this case was the
same the Semitic
word itself should have been borrowed earlier from some other
language where the
intervocalic group was closer to the Greek type.287"

Note "The Semitic noun
together with Egyptian m.t284 has often been thought to be borrowed
from Indo-
European with a possible later reduplication" -- What Indo-European
word would these semitc words have been borrowed from?

Also:

"The Indo-European terms for yoke resemble Northeastern Caucasian
words with
the same meaning: Nakh *duq "yoke" > Chechen duq, Avar-Andi
*rul:V "yoke" >
Avar rul: ; Lezghian *?ärl:w "yoke" > Tabassaran jurk:-aR, Tsakhur
ok, Kryz uk-ar,
Khinalug ing "yoke", Western Caucasian *b(P)GP "yoke" > Kabardian
bÃP "yoke", on
the basis of which North Caucasian *?r‰gwË "yoke" is reconstructed,
different from
*rikwV "yoke stick" seen to be reflected in Lak ruk "yoke", Dargwa
duk "yoke".362
The forms of concrete languages that may be explained by later
multichannel
borrowing are particularly similar. As the date of the invention of
the yoke is much
closer to us than the dispersal of Proto-Northern Caucasian and even
of the Proto-
Northeastern branch, there is no use in discussing the relationship
of protoforms, which
might be a scholarly illusion. The word might have been borrowed
several times, as is
clear for Tabassaran uRin "yoke for two oxen" and some other later
borrowings.363
The main source of borrowing seems to be different Indo-European
dialects,
particularly of the Eastern group: Iranian and Armenian, probably
Greek as
361 The Nuristani and Dardic forms were based on the analogical
reshaping yujjati > *yujjai > yuppai
"is joined, is fitting = is made ready"; the Waigali form may have
been borrowed from Dardic Pashai:
Turner 1989, 607. This case is methodologically important as it shows
that the value of Nuristani
linguistic forms for historical studies should not be overestimated.
362 Nikolayev and Starostin 1994, 220, 954; Starostin 1985, 80.
363 Nikolayev and Starostin 1994, 220-221.
well. Northeastern Caucasian (particularly Avar-Andi, Lak and Darwa)
names for the
yoke with the initial r- may be directly compared with later Eastern
Iranian forms like
Vakhan rig "two plaits made of twisted twigs that fasten a thill to a
yoke"364, Rushan,
Huf, Bartang rayâg < *fra-yuga "twisted twigs that fasten a thill to
a yoke", Avestan
frâ-yaog-, Old Indian pra-yuj- "to yoke". Such words can be
considered to be directly
and maximally close to the prototypes for similar forms in separate
Northern
Caucasian languages. A comparable problem may be discussed in
connection to the
Kartvelian terms: Swan ûGwa-, uGwa "yoke", Megrelian uGu-, Laz uGu,
Georgian uGel-G
"yoke" are supposed to be relatively later borrowings from
Iranian.365 In that case,
despite objections by Klimov, it might be possible to compare to the
type of Georgian
uGleul-, Megrelian uGul- "pair, yoke of oxen" such dialectal Indo-
European forms as
Old lndian yugala- "pair, couple" (attested in the Pañcatantra), Pali
yugala- "pair",
Dardic Khowâr juwalu "couple (usually of humans)", Marâthî
jûval "pair of twins,
pair"; Mundzhan ghûwela "twisted twigs that fasten a thill to a
yoke", Yidga ghûelo
"yoke-rope" < *yûGelo, archaic Greek (Homeric) zeÊglh "yoke-cushion,
between
neck and yoke"366; Latin iugulum "throat < *joint", Iugula, the name
of a star and a
constellation. The Semitic facts constitute the greatest difficulty
regarding the
intersection of several language families in connection to the name
for yoke. But if
Illich-Svitych was right in connecting the Indo-European term to the
Semitic name for
shackles, fetters (Akkadian allu/illi/ullu, 'll "chains, shackles",
Hebrew 'ol, Canaanite
hullu367), then all the important linguistic groups of this part of
the Ancient Near East
participated in transmitting the word."

Especially: "The Semitic facts constitute the greatest difficulty
regarding the
intersection of several language families in connection to the name
for yoke. But if
Illich-Svitych was right in connecting the Indo-European term to the
Semitic name for
shackles, fetters (Akkadian allu/illi/ullu, 'll "chains, shackles",
Hebrew 'ol, Canaanite
hullu367), then all the important linguistic groups of this part of
the Ancient Near East
participated in transmitting the word."

Why are these semitic words considered similar enough to *jug- to be
considered connected to it, at least by some scholars?

Further question: does the frequency of Caucasian cognates to IE
words, as pointed out by this author, suggest that we really should
look to the Caucasus or somewhere near the Caucasus as the most
likely homeland of PIE? Although I have not done extensive reading
on the subject, nevertheless I seldom hear this evidence used to
support a Caucasus-origin theory.

An aside: The words for "axle" in many IE languages, including the
English word and Latin <axis> among others, I assume derives from the
root *ag^- "to drive". Does this mean that this root originally
referred to driving a vehicle, like ON <aka>, with the ideas of
driving cattle or leading (as in Greek) both being secondary?
Perhaps it was used in all three senses originally -- is the
meaning "drive a vehicle" attested at all outside of ON?

AJ