Re: HORSA vs. EXWA

W dniu 2012-03-09 10:47, Tavi pisze:

> But the problem lies precisely on this clumsy PIE reconstruction, as we
> got an internal cluster **rC* where *C* has various reflexes: *t, s, s^,
> kt, ks\* which can't be properly explained by the traditional model.
> Fortunately, thanks to external comparison we can posit a sibilant
> affricate here.

The only problem here is your lack of familiarity with the current
literature on the "thorny clusters" in PIE. The reflexes you quote are
perfectly regular branch-specific outcomes of PIE *tk^. Only Anatolian
and Tocharian preserve the original order of the segments in *TK
clusters. The "Neo-IE" branches (the crown clade of the family) share a
common innovation -- the methathesis of the components (and the
affrication of the dental).

> In all likelihood, the Greek word must have been borrowed from another
> language.

Why? And outside of Greek, can you show me a single irregular reflex of
*h1ek^wo-? You are trying to make a lot out of an isolated quirk.

> In my model, the word 'horse' belongs to a more recent layer (i.e.
> superstrate) than other IE words. Some IE-ists have put too much
> emphasis on this layer, up to the point of identifying it as the "true" PIE.

If an item has Anatolian and numerous extra-Anatolian cognates, it can
safely be labelled as PIE (= the latest common ancestor of the family).
As simple as that. There is no earthly reason to classify the word as
'recent'.

> IMHO the traditional PIE needs a major revision because it has become
> obsolete.

"Traditional" (Brugmannian) PIE has been revised very thoroughly, and
the process still continues.

> Once again, the example you're quoting is irrelevant for the matter.
> Archaeological data tell us when and where the horse was domesticated,
> and linguistic evidence gives us a 'horse' word native to that area.
> Unfortunately, it looks like most IE-ists are too busy (or perhaps too
> lazy) to look at any data outside it own field.

Archaeological data do not tell us with anything close to certainty
where the horse was first domesticated. *Genetic* data suggest mulitiple
centres of domestication:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3004868/pdf/pone.0015311.pdf

One does not even have to insist that *h1ek^wos referred originally to
domesticated horses. Wild horses were very common throughout Eurasia and
they may have kept their name after domestication.

Piotr