The oddities of Basque

[Talskubilos]

You keep on going on and on with essentially "nuh-uh you're wrong" without giving any solid reason behind it—how are we supposed to believe you when you refuse to give a justification for your statements?

Quoted from my own blog:

IE *h₁eḱw-o- (Latin equus, Greek híppos) 'horse'¹ is surely a Wanderwort which also spread to Sumerian anše 'donkey' and Hurrian eššǝ 'horse' (Luwian *aššu-/*azzu- 'horse' and Georgian aču/ačua 'interjection for calling horses' are loanwords from Indo-Iranian) and whose earliest form can be traced to Nakh-Daghestanian *ɦɨ[n]tʃwi (~ -e) 'horse' (NCED 211). It would have originated in the Pontic-Caspian steppes, where the animal was first domesticated around 4,000-3,500 BC².

¹ In fact, the IE word has been used by defenders of the so-called Kurgan theory as part of the evidence supporting those people were speakers of PIE (i.e. the proto-language of the IE family). See J.P. Mallory (1989): In Search of the Indo-Europeans. Language, Archaeology and Myth, p. 143-185.
² The domesticated horse (Equus ferus caballus) is a different subspecies than the wild horse of the Eurasian steppes (Equus ferus ferus), also called tarpan (a Turkic word). There is also another horse subspecies native to the Eurasian steppes, the so-called Przewalski's horse (Equus ferus Przewalski's), which has never been domesticated.

[bradrn]

You keep on going on and on with essentially "nuh-uh you're wrong" without giving any solid reason behind it—how are we supposed to believe you when you refuse to give a justification for your statements?

Quoted from my own blog:

IE *h₁eḱw-o- (Latin equus, Greek híppos) 'horse'¹ is surely a Wanderwort which also spread to Sumerian anše 'donkey' and Hurrian eššǝ 'horse' (Luwian *aššu-/*azzu- 'horse' and Georgian aču/ačua 'interjection for calling horses' are loanwords from Indo-Iranian) and whose earliest form can be traced to Nakh-Daghestanian *ɦɨ[n]tʃwi (~ -e) 'horse' (NCED 211). It would have originated in the Pontic-Caspian steppes, where the animal was first domesticated around 4,000-3,500 BC**.

Um… you do realise that *h₁eḱw-o- and anše not only do not have a single phoneme in common, there is also no phonological relation whatsoever between them, right?

[Talskubilos]

Um… you do realise that *h₁eḱw-o- and anše not only do not have a single phoneme in common, there is also no phonological relation whatsoever between them, right?

The original form would be the NE Caucasian (Nakh-Daghestanian) one.

[bradrn]

Um… you do realise that *h₁eḱw-o- and anše not only do not have a single phoneme in common, there is also no phonological relation whatsoever between them, right?

The original form would be the NE Caucasian (Nakh-Daghestanian) one.

Sorry, I missed that. In that case it does seem a great deal more plausible.

[Talskubilos]

Sorry, I missed that. In that case it does seem a great deal more plausible.

In fact, I see a promising link between this 'horse' Wanderwort to Uralic *ki(n)tʃe/*ky(n)tʃe 'nail, fingernail, claw', also with a dangling nasal.

[hwhatting]

Um… you do realise that *h₁eḱw-o- and anše not only do not have a single phoneme in common, there is also no phonological relation whatsoever between them, right?

The original form would be the NE Caucasian (Nakh-Daghestanian) one.

Sorry, I missed that. In that case it does seem a great deal more plausible.

Not really. (1) As has been pointed out, "horse" has a good internal etymology in PIE, (2) the missing nasal in IE is not accounted for and (3) while developments from velar -> to sibilant / affricate are well attested, the reverse development is not. So even if we assume the words are related and ignore the internal PIE etymology, the reconstructed "*ɦɨ[n]tʃwi (~ -e)" cannot be the original form, but must go back to an older preform with a velar.
And BTW, Luwian *aššu-/*azzu- 'horse' doesn't have to be from Indo-Iranian, there is evidence that Luwian distinguished all three PIE tectals and the palatals are reprsented as sibilants. Plus, the Luwian u-stem must be older than the -wo- stem of Indo-Iranian and other IE languages.

[Talskubilos]

Not really. (1) As has been pointed out, "horse" has a good internal etymology in PIE,

I don't think so.

(2) the missing nasal in IE is not accounted for

But it's found elsewhere.

and (3) while developments from velar -> to sibilant / affricate are well attested, the reverse development is not. So even if we assume the words are related and ignore the internal PIE etymology, the reconstructed "*ɦɨ[n]tʃwi (~ -e)" cannot be the original form, but must go back to an older preform with a velar.

Not really, because PIE "palatovelars" might be the reflex of former postalveolars.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

Not really. (1) As has been pointed out, "horse" has a good internal etymology in PIE,

I don't think so.

What's wrong with PIE *h₁éḱwos, *ḱr̥sós being native inherited vocabulary? That maybe-palatal *ḱ ends up usually some sort of affricate or fricative in the branches of Indo-European that don't merge it with *k.

(2) the missing nasal in IE is not accounted for

But it's found elsewhere.

So? Sometimes words get a bit mangled in transition.

and (3) while developments from velar -> to sibilant / affricate are well attested, the reverse development is not. So even if we assume the words are related and ignore the internal PIE etymology, the reconstructed "*ɦɨ[n]tʃwi (~ -e)" cannot be the original form, but must go back to an older preform with a velar.

Not really, because PIE "palatovelars" might be the reflex of former postalveolars.

Is there any reason to suppose they did, as opposed to some sort of coalescence of */tj kj/, or something like that?

[WeepingElf]

The original form would be the NE Caucasian (Nakh-Daghestanian) one.

Sorry, I missed that. In that case it does seem a great deal more plausible.

Not really. (1) As has been pointed out, "horse" has a good internal etymology in PIE, (2) the missing nasal in IE is not accounted for and (3) while developments from velar -> to sibilant / affricate are well attested, the reverse development is not. So even if we assume the words are related and ignore the internal PIE etymology, the reconstructed "*ɦɨ[n]tʃwi (~ -e)" cannot be the original form, but must go back to an older preform with a velar.

Right. The 'horse'-word (just as the 'wheel'-word, BTW) has a good etymology within PIE - it is simply a thematicization of *h₁oḱus 'swift' - and is thus unlikely to be borrowed from another language, especially given the fact that the Yamnaya culture, who almost certainly spoke PIE, appears to have been the people who first domesticated the horse (apart from their eastern Botay neighbours, but those and their horses appear to have died out, while the Yamnaya conquered most of Europe and much of Asia, and all domestic horses of today descend from their horses). What similar words occur in non-IE languages near the Pontic Steppe are probably borrowed from PIE. PND *ɦɨ[n]tʃwi may be such a loanword (apparently even preserving the initial *h₁ of *h₁eḱwos); I have no idea about the "intrusive nasal", though, as I know too little about Nakh-Daghestanian (what I know about it is that there apparently is no generally accepted reconstruction of PND yet; at least the handbook Indigenous Languages of the Caucasus, which does include a reconstruction of Proto-Kartvelian, does not include any, and the form Talskubilos cites apparently is from Starostin, whose work is widely considered doubtful).

[Talskubilos]

What's wrong with PIE *h₁éḱwos, *ḱr̥sós being native inherited vocabulary?

This *krs-o- (why ḱ?) is a "regional" (in Mallory-Adams' terminology) restricted to Latin, Celtic and Gemanic. As a matter of fact, there're other 'horse' words in IE, namely *marko-, only found in Celtic and Germanic.

[Zju]

Not really. (1) As has been pointed out, "horse" has a good internal etymology in PIE,

I don't think so.

I think so: *h₁éḱwos < *h₁eḱus

[Zju]

but why? If you want to convince people of something, you can’t just state your opinion; you have to give reasons why your opinion is correct and theirs is wrong.

Of couse, but they just don't want to see the evidence.

All your arguments regarding **ib- have been refuted or countered. You believing in an argument does not make it evidence. You are yet to present evidence.

[Talskubilos]

All your arguments regarding **ib- have been refuted or countered. You believing in an argument does not make it evidence. You are yet to present evidence.

Sorry, but this topic has been already discussed.

[Zju]

All your arguments regarding **ib- have been refuted or countered. You believing in an argument does not make it evidence. You are yet to present evidence.

Sorry, but this topic has been already discussed.

So the status quo remains that there are no reasonable arguments in favour of some purported **ib- existing. I'm glad that we implicitly came to terms regarding something.

[Talskubilos]

So the status quo remains that there are no reasonable arguments in favour of some purported **ib- existing. I'm glad that we implicitly came to terms regarding something.

Sorry, but it's rather on the contrary.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

What's wrong with PIE *h₁éḱwos, *ḱr̥sós being native inherited vocabulary?

This *krs-o- (why ḱ?) is a "regional" (in Mallory-Adams' terminology) restricted to Latin, Celtic and Gemanic. As a matter of fact, there're other 'horse' words in IE, namely *marko-, only found in Celtic and Germanic.

So nothing, in other words?

I would expect Proto-Indo-European to have multiple horse-related words, given that the more cultural bearing a thing has, the more words a language tends to have relating to it. Some might be borrowed (English inherits blossom, which precises to mean flowers on certain agriculturally-significant trees, half-inherits bloom, and borrows flower from a superstratum, alongside technical words like inflorescence, of similar but not identical meaning) and others native. Some of those might or might not be borrowings, but I expect the etymons of horse and equus were probably Indo-European, and I'm not seeing a good reason to assume they weren't.

As far as regional variants go, we also have some forms for "flower" which are clearly not cognate — note blossom, probably partly cognate to flos, flor-, but not to the Slavic forms, like Polish kviat, Russian tsvietok, which seem to be connected to white. Proto-Indo-European was presumably internally diverse enough to have quite a number of competing forms.

[Nortaneous]

What's wrong with PIE *h₁éḱwos, *ḱr̥sós being native inherited vocabulary?

This *krs-o- (why ḱ?) is a "regional" (in Mallory-Adams' terminology) restricted to Latin, Celtic and Gemanic. As a matter of fact, there're other 'horse' words in IE, namely *marko-, only found in Celtic and Germanic.

*markos is unlikely to be inherited because *a, and is probably best connected to forms like Nivkh murŋ and Japhug mbro < *mraŋ (not listing Mongolic or Tungusic forms because last time this came up there was some debate about the final -n and I forget the details)

[Travis B.]

So the status quo remains that there are no reasonable arguments in favour of some purported **ib- existing. I'm glad that we implicitly came to terms regarding something.

Sorry, but it's rather on the contrary.

You're still sticking your fingers in your ears while going "nuh-uh I'm right".

[Travis B.]

What's wrong with PIE *h₁éḱwos, *ḱr̥sós being native inherited vocabulary?

This *krs-o- (why ḱ?) is a "regional" (in Mallory-Adams' terminology) restricted to Latin, Celtic and Gemanic. As a matter of fact, there're other 'horse' words in IE, namely *marko-, only found in Celtic and Germanic.

*markos is unlikely to be inherited because *a, and is probably best connected to forms like Nivkh murŋ and Japhug mbro < *mraŋ (not listing Mongolic or Tungusic forms because last time this came up there was some debate about the final -n and I forget the details)

LOL

[Talskubilos]

I would expect Proto-Indo-European to have multiple horse-related words, given that the more cultural bearing a thing has, the more words a language tends to have relating to it. Some might be borrowed (English inherits blossom, which precises to mean flowers on certain agriculturally-significant trees, half-inherits bloom, and borrows flower from a superstratum, alongside technical words like inflorescence, of similar but not identical meaning) and others native. Some of those might or might not be borrowings, but I expect the etymons of horse and equus were probably Indo-European, and I'm not seeing a good reason to assume they weren't.

I forgot to mention Basque zaldi 'horse' derives from an IE protoform *g^wold- 'foal, young of an ass', found in Germanic *kult-a- > English colt and Sanskrit gardabhá- 'ass'. But the fact there're several reconstructible 'horse' words in IE doesn't imply they coexisted in a hypothetical PIE language.