Res: [tied] Re: marko- = horse non IE ?

From: Joao S. Lopes
Message: 66124
Date: 2010-05-07

"I didn't say *m- can't denasalize. In fact, he does in for example *bhel- 'wildcat' (Latin fe:les) ~ Altaic *mál´e 'wild cat', but this seems rare when compared to *n-/*n^-"

How about PIE *(s)me:l- "small animal, small mammal", Grk me:lon "sheep", Lat. me:les "badger, marten", Eng small.

JS Lopes


De: Tavi <oalexandre@...>
Para: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Enviadas: Quarta-feira, 5 de Maio de 2010 18:22:36
Assunto: [tied] Re: marko- = horse non IE ?

 

--- In cybalist@... s.com, johnvertical@ ... wrote:
>
> > IMHO, *marko- 'horse' (hardly a PIE word) isn't a Wanderwort from Altaic *mor- 'horse' as in communis opinio but an old (Mesolithic/ Upper Paleolithic) substrate item related to Altaic *n^argu 'young male deer/elk'. I call "Paleo-European" the substrate language(s) from which originated this kind of LW.
> >
> > Apparently, Paleo-Eurasian (my own version of Russian school's Eurasiatic) initials nasal *n-, *n^- were labialized in Paleo-European as *m- before back vowels /o,u/ (sometimes also before /a/), as in *moro- 'blackberry' ~ Altaic *nur^i- 'a k. of berry, grape' (cfr. Hittite muri- '(bunch of) grapes')
>
> Uralic *mura "cloudberry" seems about as convincing a comparision here, which leaves this law of *n > *m not very well supported, unless you have more examples.
>
Not necessarily, as Altaic and Hittite seems to be an exact match (BTW, I don't think Uralic is a closer relative neither of native IE nor Paleo-European) . Notice, however, that there's a similar but different root found in regional IE *(s)mer-, Altaic *méra, Uralic *marja.

I think the comparison between *marko and *n^argu is reliable enough. I wonder if the native IE corresponding form could be *H1ek'w- 'horse'.

> > and denasalized as *d- elsewhere, as in Latin da:m(m)a 'fallow deer' ~ Altaic *n^àme 'goat, deer'.
>
> Assuming that this comparision is valid, can you rule out nasalization brought on by the medial -m- on the Altaic side? It is not apparent why should *n denasalize but *m should not.
>
That would be case if we consider AA *dama?/y- as a cognate (definitely it has nothing to do with PIE *demH2-).

I didn't say *m- can't denasalize. In fact, he does in for example *bhel- 'wildcat' (Latin fe:les) ~ Altaic *mál´e 'wild cat', but this seems rare when compared to *n-/*n^-.

Another example of denasalization is Paleo-Eurasian *NEk'rV 'thorny bush' > Altaic *n^íkrV 'a k. of thorny tree' and Paleo-European *dhreg^h- 'sloetree, blackthorn' (Celtic *dragena: 'sloe, fruit of the blackthorn, Albanian *drédhë 'strawberry' ). The native IE form would be (my reconstruction) *H2eg^ºr- (Gaulish agraniÅ�- 'sloe, fruit of the blackthorn', English acorn, Latin agresta 'green grape', Greek ágrios 'wild').