W dniu 2012-03-08 22:34, Tavi pisze:
> - The IE word for 'bear' is very difficult to reconstruct as a PIE root
> because of its phonetic irregularities.
What is so irregular about it? It's true that Arm. arj^ and Alb. ari are
hard nuts to crack, but only because our knowledge of the early history
of those two particular branches is very imperfect. In Hittite, Latin,
Greek, Celtic, Indic, Iranian (plus possibly a trace attestation in
Baltic) we find regular reflexes or *h2r.tk^os.
> - This word has a likely NEC cognate.
> - Germanic has a different 'bear' word linked to other IE roots (either
> 'wild animal' or 'beaver'/'brown').
Precisely. So it quite simpoly *isn't* the original 'bear' word, just as
English <deer> (though derived from a PIE root) does not reflect a PIE
(or even PGmc.) 'deer' word. By contrast, *h2r.tk^o- is represented in
Anatolian and in several branches of Core IE, which to all intents and
purposes demonstrates its PIE status.
> - The IE word 'horse' is irregular in some languages such as Hittite and
> Greek, pointing to they being loanwords.
The Greek reflex is only a little problematic, not enough, IMO, to
warrant invoking an external source. Everywhere else (Latin,
Indo-Iranian, Baltic, Germanic, Celtic, Tocharian) the reflexes are as
regular as anything. I used to believe the Anatolian horse terms were
Mitanni Aryan or Iranian borrowings, but now, having read Melchert on
the matter, I have to concede that the Luwian and Lycian reflexes of
*h1ek^wos (> PAnat. *ák^k^wos) are completely regular and inherited, not
borrowed.
> - This word has a likely NEC cognate.
> - Horses were first domesticated in the Pontic-Caspian Steppes.
> - There're other 'horse' words in IE languages, including one which is
> exclusive of Germanic.
There are also exclusively English words for 'pig', 'dog', 'badger' and
many other animals, replacing older terms. Does this fact support any
fairy-tales about long-range contacts?
Piotr