Paleo-European languages

[Talskubilos]

I would be very interested to hear what sort of evidence there is, please. (hopefully its not locked beyond a paywall)

As regarding Basque, the *e- prefix found in non-finite verbal forms could be related to the so-called "augment" in Eastern IE languages. Also the verb edan 'to drink' seems to be related to Iranian danu 'river'. On the other hand, kindship words point to a matrilineal society, quite different from the IE one.

[Ketsuban]

names of domesticated animals are often Wanderwörter

What's your evidence for this? Wikipedia's list of examples is all trade goods and luxury items, not animals. Considering the pattern of Proto-Indo-European reconstructed animal names being derived from adjectives and gerunds (*wl̥kʷós "dangerous" > *wĺ̥kʷos "wolf", *h₁eḱus "fast, swift, speedy" > h₁éḱwos "horse", possibly *h₂r̥tḱós "destroying" > *h₂ŕ̥tḱos "bear") I'm more inclined to believe that *pórḱos is an o-stem derivative of *perḱ-, regardless of whether it means "spotted" or "to dig".

I did find a 2014 paper called "Wanderwörter in languages of the Americas and Australia" by Haynie, Bowern, Epps, Hill and McConvell which uses the rather diplomatic phrase "Domesticated plants and animals are also among the most commonly cited examples of Wanderwörter in Eurasia and Africa" (emphasis mine) and largely ignores the topic of animals after that, but I feel like I need something stronger to support this claim.

[bradrn]

names of domesticated animals are often Wanderwörter

What's your evidence for this? Wikipedia's list of examples is all trade goods and luxury items, not animals. … I did find a 2014 paper called "Wanderwörter in languages of the Americas and Australia" by Haynie, Bowern, Epps, Hill and McConvell which uses the rather diplomatic phrase "Domesticated plants and animals are also among the most commonly cited examples of Wanderwörter in Eurasia and Africa" (emphasis mine) and largely ignores the topic of animals after that, but I feel like I need something stronger to support this claim.

Musa ‘banana’ is famously a loanword into Latin from Trans-New Guinea, so it’s entirely possible for a plant to be a Wanderwört. Not sure about animals though.

[Ketsuban]

Sorry, I wasn't clear - I'm okay with plants as Wanderwörter, I was specifically focusing in on animals.

[Talskubilos]

What's your evidence for this? Wikipedia's list of examples is all trade goods and luxury items, not animals.

I'm afraid Wikipedia/Wiktionary are secondary and non-reliable sources.

Considering the pattern of Proto-Indo-European reconstructed animal names being derived from adjectives and gerunds (*wl̥kʷós "dangerous" > *wĺ̥kʷos "wolf", *h₁eḱus "fast, swift, speedy" > h₁éḱwos "horse", possibly *h₂r̥tḱós "destroying" > *h₂ŕ̥tḱos "bear") I'm more inclined to believe that *pórḱos is an o-stem derivative of *perḱ-, regardless of whether it means "spotted" or "to dig".

The main problems with this approach are:
1) it's isolationist; that is, it systematically ignores external data from non-IE languages.
2) it's monolithic; that is, it assumes every word can be derived in a regular way from a PIE root.

[bradrn]

What's your evidence for this? Wikipedia's list of examples is all trade goods and luxury items, not animals.

I'm afraid Wikipedia/Wiktionary are secondary and non-reliable sources.

Considering the pattern of Proto-Indo-European reconstructed animal names being derived from adjectives and gerunds (*wl̥kʷós "dangerous" > *wĺ̥kʷos "wolf", *h₁eḱus "fast, swift, speedy" > h₁éḱwos "horse", possibly *h₂r̥tḱós "destroying" > *h₂ŕ̥tḱos "bear") I'm more inclined to believe that *pórḱos is an o-stem derivative of *perḱ-, regardless of whether it means "spotted" or "to dig".

The main problems with this approach are:
1) it's isolationist; that is, it systematically ignores external data from non-IE languages.

Which data exactly is being ignored here?

2) it's monolithic; that is, it assumes every word can be derived in a regular way from a PIE root.

Do you believe that there are any words which can be derived regularly from PIE? And if so, why not this one?

[Talskubilos]

Which data exactly is being ignored here?

Data from other language families, for example:
IE *h₁éḱw-o- 'horse'
East Caucasian *ɦɨ[n]tʃwi (~ -e) 'horse'
Sumerian anše 'donkey'
---> Wanderwort

IE *porḱ-o- 'young pig, piglet'
East Caucasian *wHarttɬ'wǝ 'boar, pig'
Austronesian *beRek 'domesticated pig'
---> Wanderwort

IE h₂ŕ̥tḱ-o- 'bear' (there're some problems with this protoform)
Turkic *KArsak 'steppe fox'
Tungusic *karsi 'marten'
East Caucasian *χHVr[ʨ']V 'marten; otter'
---> not a Wanderwort

2) it's monolithic; that is, it assumes every word can be derived in a regular way from a PIE root.

Do you believe that there are any words which can be derived regularly from PIE? And if so, why not this one?

I don't think PIE was a real language spoken by actual people; it's more like a (somewhat distorted) projection of the last stages of the IE family.

[bradrn]

Which data exactly is being ignored here?

Data from other language families, for example:
IE *h₁éḱw-o- 'horse'
East Caucasian *ɦɨ[n]tʃwi (~ -e) 'horse'
Sumerian anše 'donkey'
---> Wanderwort

I’d be very curious to very know how *ɦɨtʃwi and anše are related. (No, you’re not allowed to arbitrarily add and change sounds, such as that suspiciously convenient (~ -e).)

IE *porḱ-o- 'young pig, piglet'
East Caucasian *wHarttɬ'wǝ 'boar, pig'
Austronesian *beRek 'domesticated pig'
---> Wanderwort

Huh? East Caucasian to Austronesian‽ How do you propose to explain that one‽ (The only reason my TNG-to-Latin example works is because we can find cognates in every language along the way; else no-one would accept that etymology, and for good reason.)

Besides, *wHarttɬ'wǝ and *porḱ-o- have exactly 0 phonetic similarity to each other (the sole exception being the shared
presence of r).

IE h₂ŕ̥tḱ-o- 'bear' (there're some problems with this protoform)
Turkic *KArsak 'steppe fox'
Tungusic *karsi 'marten'
East Caucasian *χHVr[ʨ']V 'marten; otter'
---> not a Wanderwort

Why not a Wanderwört? The phonetics are about as close as your other examples. (And what sort of protoform is *χHVrV anyway?)

2) it's monolithic; that is, it assumes every word can be derived in a regular way from a PIE root.

Do you believe that there are any words which can be derived regularly from PIE? And if so, why not this one?

I don't think PIE was a real language spoken by actual people; it's more like a (somewhat distorted) projection of the last stages of the IE family.

Yet you seem pretty comfortable using reconstructed PIE words. Besides, if you accept IE as a family, then by definition you have to accept the existence of a Proto-IE language (though arguing about its reconstruction is fine).

[Talskubilos]

I’d be very curious to very know how *ɦɨtʃwi and anše are related. (No, you’re not allowed to arbitrarily add and change sounds, such as that suspiciously convenient (~ -e).)

The East Caucasian protoform isn't mine but Starostin's NCED (North Caucasian Etymological Dictionary). This Wanderwort makes sense because horses were domesticated in the Pontic-Caspian Steppes.

Huh? East Caucasian to Austronesian‽ How do you propose to explain that one‽

By seafaring and travelling exchanges between SE Asia and the Middle East.

Besides, *wHarttɬ'wǝ and *porḱ-o- have exactly 0 phonetic similarity to each other (the sole exception being the shared presence of r).

Admitedly, Starostin's protoform is rather clumsy, so either he conflated two different words here, or else they were irregular sound changes such *wH > b. Anyway, this Wanderwort is more like *bVr(V)k-. On the other hand, lateral affricates in Caucasian are similar to palato-velars in IE.

Why not a Wanderwört?

Because in this case we're dealing with names of several wild mammals instead of a single domesticated animal.

The phonetics are about as close as your other examples.

In this case, I think the problem lies in the IE protoform. On the one hand, we've got Hittite hartagga- 'wild predator', Celtic *arto-, Greek árktos, and on the other, Sanskrit ŕkṣa- and Latin ursus. So I think a better reconstruction would be *h₂rC(-k)-o-, where C would be either reflected as t or s and -k- is an optional suffix like in Turkic.

Yet you seem pretty comfortable using reconstructed PIE words. Besides, if you accept IE as a family, then by definition you have to accept the existence of a Proto-IE language (though arguing about its reconstruction is fine).

Not exactly. While I accept reconstructed protoforms are useful tools for comparative purposes, I've got good reasons to think the +2000 lexical items reconstructed for PIE can't have been originated in a single language.

[Ketsuban]

The East Caucasian protoform isn't mine but Starostin's NCED (North Caucasian Etymological Dictionary).

I feel like if you're allowed to criticise the fact I mentioned Wikipedia once then I'm allowed to criticise you citing Starostin.

By seafaring and travelling exchanges between SE Asia and the Middle East.

Europe was covered in forest, and there's archaeological evidence of domestic pigs in Cyprus 11,400 years ago. Why import a name for them from South-East Asia?

[Talskubilos]

I feel like if you're allowed to criticise the fact I mentioned Wikipedia once then I'm allowed to criticise you citing Starostin.

Starostin & Dybo’s response to Vovin’s The End of the Altaic Controversy. What's your point exactly?

Europe was covered in forest, and there's archaeological evidence of domestic pigs in Cyprus 11,400 years ago. Why import a name for them from South-East Asia?

One thing doesn't preclude the other. In fact, what it looks to be the "native" IE word for 'pig' is *suH- (although Celtic has an irregular -kk- instead). Don't forget also the doublet pig/pork in English, the latter imported by the ruling aristocracy of French origin.

[Richard W]

On the one hand, we've got Hittite hartagga- 'wild predator', Celtic *arto-, Greek árktos, and on the other, Sanskrit ŕkṣa- and Latin ursus.

Please spell the Hittite word sign-by-sign if you don't like the standard interpretation as /hartka-/. The developmnet seems quite reasonable from /tk/ (i.e. [t͡sk]).

[Talskubilos]

BTW, northern families such as Uralic and Altaic have velars corresponding to "laryngeals" in southern ones, such as East Caucasian and Semitic. For example, Uralic *koje 'man, person' became East Caucasian *XXHwĕje 'dog' and the derivative *koj(e)-ra > *kojra 'male' became *XXHwĕj-rV- 'dog' (oblique form).

[KathTheDragon]

On the one hand, we've got Hittite hartagga- 'wild predator', Celtic *arto-, Greek árktos, and on the other, Sanskrit ŕkṣa- and Latin ursus.

Please spell the Hittite word sign-by-sign if you don't like the standard interpretation as /hartka-/. The developmnet seems quite reasonable from /tk/ (i.e. [t͡sk]).

This is actually really easy.
Step 1: the Latin form is not regularly relatable due to its u- and -s-.
Step 2: the Sanskrit form is due to the development *tḱ > *tś > *kś > kṣ
Step 3: Celtic and Greek underwent metathesis (compare the Gaulish compound form -xtonio < PIE *dʰǵʰomyo-) and the Insular Celtic languages at least then dropped the velar

[Talskubilos]

This is actually really easy.

Not exactly.

Step 1: the Latin form is not regularly relatable due to its u- and -s-.

ur- is 0-grade. The problem is -s-.

Step 3: Celtic and Greek underwent metathesis (compare the Gaulish compound form -xtonio < PIE *dʰǵʰomyo-) and the Insular Celtic languages at least then dropped the velar

Gaulish gdonio- was borrowed into Basque gizon. But the Celtic word for 'bear' has no traces of a velar stop whatsoever (e.g. Basque hartz).

In case you're wondering, the ancient Basque homeland was located in Aquitaine and some adjacents areas on both sides of the Pyrenees, where we can find a high density of toponyms with the suffix -ós in Gascon, -oz(e), -otz(e) in Basque and -ués in Navarro-Aragonese. This suffix would derive from Celtic *ouxsV- 'high', whose superlative femenine form *uxsV-(s)amā 'the highest' can be found in toponyms such as Uxama, Usama, Ultzama, etc. IMHO, this would indicate Paleo-Basque/Aquitanian had a Celtic (Gaulish) substrate.

[Talskubilos]

Certainly, *prḱeh₂- and *porḱos are straightforward derivations from a root *perḱ- 'dig, furrow', which looks like an ordinary PIE root, though it appears to be areally skewed (Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Balto-Slavic). This thus may be a loanword from a Neolithic Central European language,

This root could be the Afrasian cognate, if the reconstruction is correct. It turns out this database, compiled by Militarev & Stolbova, is less reliable than other databases in Starostin's site and it also differs from Orel-Stolbova's Hamito-Semitic Etymological Dictionary (HSED) published by Brill.

On the other hand, Germanic *plōga- 'plough' could be also a substrate borrowing corresponding to Semitic *plg 'to split, to divide', from which the noun *palg '(artificial) watercourse' would be derived. See p.18 of this article for more information.

[Nortaneous]

Why? What speaks against the mainstream etymology?

Firstly, *prḱ-eh₂ 'furrow' is an agricultural term and has a different areal distribution than *porḱ-o-. And secondly, names of domesticated animals are often Wanderwörter, and in this case we've got parallels in Caucasian and Austronesian. The case of *h₁eḱw-o- 'horse' is even more evident.

That's not the 'horse' word I'd cite - rather mare < *markos ~ morin, *m-raŋ etc. (I'm not sure why Wiktionary has *k-m-raŋ.)

Which data exactly is being ignored here?

Data from other language families, for example:
IE *h₁éḱw-o- 'horse'
East Caucasian *ɦɨ[n]tʃwi (~ -e) 'horse'
Sumerian anše 'donkey'
---> Wanderwort

IE *porḱ-o- 'young pig, piglet'
East Caucasian *wHarttɬ'wǝ 'boar, pig'
Austronesian *beRek 'domesticated pig'
---> Wanderwort

IE h₂ŕ̥tḱ-o- 'bear' (there're some problems with this protoform)
Turkic *KArsak 'steppe fox'
Tungusic *karsi 'marten'
East Caucasian *χHVr[ʨ']V 'marten; otter'
---> not a Wanderwort

I don't think it's defensible to line up IE palatovelars with sibilants elsewhere in postulating loanwords into PIE without comment. It could work for loanwords out of satem IE, but I'd expect sibilance to be preserved in loans when possible, so instead **h1esw-o- etc. Is there precedent for the sort of borrowing pattern you're postulating here?

[Zju]

So far I haven't seen more than half a dozen word correspondances between the purported related language families, which is far from enough to establish genealogic connections, but firmly within chance resemblances territory.

[Talskubilos]

I don't think it's defensible to line up IE palatovelars with sibilants elsewhere in postulating loanwords into PIE without comment. It could work for loanwords out of satem IE, but I'd expect sibilance to be preserved in loans when possible, so instead **h1esw-o- etc. Is there precedent for the sort of borrowing pattern you're postulating here?

AFAIK, the borrowing of the 'horse' word was first proposed by Sergei Starostin in an old Russian article. He also proposed other Caucasian-IE correspondences, although I'm not sure of them.

So far I haven't seen more than half a dozen word correspondances between the purported related language families, which is far from enough to establish genealogic connections, but firmly within chance resemblances territory.

This has more to do with substrate loanwords and Wanderwörter, because establishing genealogic relationships is itself problematic, even within the IE family.

[WeepingElf]

AFAIK, the borrowing of the 'horse' word was first proposed by Sergei Starostin in an old Russian article. He also proposed other Caucasian-IE correspondences, although I'm not sure of them.

I can't say anything about that article because I don't master Russian, and I know nothing about North Caucasian lexicology, but IE loanwords in NWC(or NWC loanwords in PIE) seem likely to me. Proto-NWC probably was the language of the Maykop culture, which was strongly influenced by the Yamnaya culture (or vice versa), so one would expect some loanword exchange between both languages.