>
> > > The issue of non-Germanic cognates of 'bow' and 'bow' (both the
> > > homonyms) is
> > > complicated. The Germanic forms point to PIE *bHeugH-, but the

other

> > > languages (Greek, Latin and Sanskrit, at least - I haven't

checked

> Pokorny
> > > for other languages) point to PIE *bHeug.
>
> Mark:
> > There are thrre roots *bheug. But there is a real word bUk in

Turkic and

> > it means 'bend'. And there is
> > a real word el (hand), elig (hand), bilek (wrist, arm), and pilek
> > (five). Why can't *bheug simply be
> > from Hunnish. Weren't germans in contact with them? Werent' the

Celts in

> > that region?
>
> Richard:
> *bHeug 'flee' is evidenced by Latin fugio: 'flee' and Greek

pheugo: 'flee',

> both real words. What's more, Old English bu:gan (whence

English 'bow' as

> in 'bow down'), besides meaning 'bend', also occasionally

meant 'flee',

> Probably two homophones, but maybe our ancestors saw some

connections

> between the words.
>
> I think it's just coincidence, but of course the Huns also invaded

India,

> and we have Sanskrit bhuj 'bend, bow'.

Illich-Svitych has in his reconstruction of Nostratic
Proto-Nostratic **/bok/a/ "to run away"
Proto-Indo-European *bheug/bhegw- id.
Proto-Uralic *pok-tV- "to run"
Proto-Altaic *p[']Vk- "run"

It occurred to me that the two senses of the root might be
reconciled, namely as "acknowledge defeat" (> "bow down", > "flee"),
cf Danish 'bukke' "bend", 'bukke under' "succumb, perish".

> > > Richard:
> > > The biggest problem I can see in relating Doerfer's *pOkUrz and

PIE

> > > *pek^u-
> > > is that the <s> of Latin pecus is not part of the root.

Germanic and

> > > Indo-Iranian show only a stem in peku-. Latin has (citing just

the

> > > forms in
> > > my pocket dictionary):
> > >
> > > 1. pecu: 'flock of sheep', stem pecu-, neuter.
> > > 2. pecus 'cattle, herd, flock; animal', stem pecor-, neuter.
> > > 3. pecus 'sheep, head of cattle, beast', stem pecud-, feminine.
> > >
> > > Only no. 2 has the right stem. Note that the final consonant

has

> > > developed
> > > from /s/, with the nominative and accusative singular

retaining /s/

> > > becuase
> > > it was not followed by a vowel.
>
> Mark:
> > Look at pecor and pecud. * pecudh. From *dh I also derive both r

and z.

> > Now you have actually buttered my bread.
>
> Richard:
> I strongly suspect the -d- and -r- (possibly once -s-) extensions

are purely

> Latin innovations. They are not unreasonable extensions from an

animate

> nominate singular 'pecus', which occurs in Latin, although the 4th
> declension noun is neuter. As Pokorny is down, I can't double

check the

> claims, alas.
>
> How do you explain the multiple development in the same language?

Any

> similar examples of /d/ and /r/ alternating? (Perversely, we do

have

> several example of /l/ in Latin where we would expect /d/.)
>

I-S 375:
Proto-Nostratic **p'okwe "cattle"
Proto-Indo-European *pekyu "bull, large horned cattle"
Proto-Altaic *p'oke-r "bull, large-horned cattle"
Proto-Afro-Asiatic bkr "large-horned cattle, bull"

borrowed? cf Semitic thawr > PIE *t(h)aur- "bull"

Torsten