Let me put in some of my discoveries about "turning".

It seems in Turkish to be from a duplicated root: * ter.ker. The root must
have been something like *ter.ker.ek. In Turkish it is teker and Magyar
kerek. Sanskrit charx seems like it is fro*m karak> kark>charx. The root
to"ngere (to roll), and to"gerek (round) are from Karachay-Balkar. The
-ng is likely from -dh which also gives rise to r so it points to a root of
form tor.ger again pointing to a duplicated root. Sumerian has gigir, but
this is purely confusing convention. A language that does not have
unvoiced stops does not have voiced ones. So it is more like kikir and
likely from kir.kir.  It looks like there was a shift t>k, and both sets
tVr, and kVr were in use in different dialects. The reduplicated word
came out of a mixing of these two dialects. One can find both roots
scattered accross IE languages also. Now I reconstructed Turkic to have
the suffixes of the type -Vl, -Vr, and -Vng from the evidence.  The
-Vng changed to -Vg, and -Vn thus we see lots of words of the type that
end in both g/k and n. Some of these (n?) disappeared. We can see these
in IE also. So words from the tVr root would show up as *tVrVng. The strange
thing is that in some words -Vn is reflexive-passive and in others it is a nominal
suffix so it went thru some big change.

We can see these in IE: turn (<*turung), Germanic has lots of drV-). These
work accross, Turkic, Hungarian, IE, even Semitic. The change to kVr must
have occured after t>k, and there are lots of words of this type.  The original
meaning of "round" is preserved in Turkic karIn, and even Akkadian garinnu.
I can't recall all the words right now.

Now compare these to Latin circle, circus, etc.  Greek ghorentis (encircled)
Turkic kursha (to encircle), kurshow (hoop), etc. There must be hundreds of
these scattered accross language families.

tgpedersen wrote:

> >
> >
> > > Her's another idea. The kW- of the "wheel" word is untypical of
> > > the "turn, bend" words I've mentioned in another posting.
Suppose
> the
> > > word was borrowed first in an IA language as *kekl- (> c^akr-),
> then
> > > borrowed into Western IE as *kWekWl- (cf the Irish "cadraig"
> loans:
> > > Irish c- corresponding to Latin p- since it was borrowed
through
> > > Welsh, and "their p is our k").
> > >
> > > Torsten
> >
> >
> > Any other cases of spontaneous labialisation ("their /c^/ or /k/
is
> our /kW/")?

They wouldn't be distinguishable from inherited /k/ (> /c^/)
vs. /kW/. Note that I'm using supposed parallel loans to corroborate
my claim (nothing inherent in the root itself). They are not always
available. Note also Greek kukl-, not the regular reflex of PIE /kW/.
That variation also points towards a loan. Also I would like to see
Witzel's Para-Munda ka- prefix somehow involved in this. Assuming
borrowing from Para-Munda into IA and thence cadraig'ing into Western
PIE would take care of that.
Also, the supposed existence in PIE of an unpalatalized velar
series /k/ etc, rests on its reflex /ka-/ in Latin. But what if they
are all borrowed Para-Munda stuff (ka- prefix)?
Note also Witzel's remark that the k-/nothing- alternation may
originate in Para-Munda. But that takes us straight into basic IE (as
he is aware of). Example Vedic kapi, Germanic apa "monkey".

Torsten




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nostratica-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

-- 
M. Hubey
-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
The only difference between humans and machines is that humans
can be created by unskilled labor. Arthur C. Clarke

/\/\/\/\//\/\/\/\/\/\/ http://www.csam.montclair.edu/~hubey