Four questions for those who still believe in prehistoric Slavs and other fairy tales

A conclusion drawn from 3 words and 1 ethnonym.

And readable for the first time.
Still waiting for a scientific analysis from you with a good alternative. Pleeaase.
 
I meant to leave this thread for a while,but apparently you raised other questions,so before i answer them and ask questions to you,let me comment on this.
You completely disregard the speakers of South-Slavic and some of the West Slavic languages by concluding that this is "Proto-Slavic" borrowing.
Take your example for cat.The word for cat is "mačka" (machka) in South-Slavic including some of the West-Slavic languages (Slovak) and Lower Sorbian,itself surely non borrowed word.Interestingly "matse" is found in Albanian too for cat.
OSЬ̀LЪ (donkey).OCS in church usage the word come from Latin via Gothic? However the word for donkey that is used is Magare/magarac(donkey) in South-Slavic are shared or borrowed words from some other Balkan languages(Romanian,Albanian).Does this tell us that at the time this "borrowings" occured speakers of this languages were located in different areas?
I guess this has to do with linguistic zones.

You're missing my point: I picked the word "kot" because it is 1) derived from Latin and 2) entered the lexicon before the *a > *o shift. Further on, "kot" is attested in all branches of Slavic (West Slavic, East Slavic and South Slavic). The same applies for the word for 'donkey' (unless Slovenian isn't a South Slavic language). As regards "marage", you have a cognate in Albanian and Romanian, this is true, but its also clear that this is a younger word (not shifted from *a > *o) that entered the lexicon afterwards.

I can give a number of examples that some linguists will count as borrowings from other languages but in reality are found only in few modern Slavic languages.
One such example is "sobaka" a dog in Russian an Iranian borrowing supposedly Schythian,but such word is not attested anywhere else.
Such things are forced even upon mythology supposedly "Svarog" or Hors found among East Slavs has cognates among Indo-Iranian language or were borrowings,but i can not accept this "gods" as part of South-Slavs since were never attested among us.
The word for "god" - bogъ is counted by some for Iranian borrowing see Sanskrit bhaga,we find such theonym in Phrygian "baga" so why this can't be supposedly "borrowing" from some other southern-language instead Iranic?
Bakar for copper was disscused among some Yugoslav linguists however is another matter.

It is true that some words can only be found in certain languages, but the phonology enforces that it must have entered the language at a certain point (i.e. before a sound change came into effect).

For your supposed borrowing for "bridge" from Germanic this is what wiktionary give me;
Etymology



  • From earlier *mottъ ‎(“something what is dropped, thrown over”), from *mesti ‎(“to throw, to drop”)

I have a possible counterargument: if the word is supposedly a shared inheritance from PIE, where are the cognates in the Baltic languages?
 
However i want to ask a couple questions;
1.Do you speak of a hypothesis in any way or a well established and final conclusion about Slavic languages?
2.I want to see your data on which you are so sure,i.e river names or whatever arguments you have about the Proto-Slavic homeland? since you are the one that you insist on that.

I do not see how you would come to a different conclusion. The data mainly comes from the lexicon and the phonetic evolution of the Slavic languages.

Again please bring the arguments you have about the Proto-Slavic homeland since you insist on that.

First, you had Balto-Slavic linguistic unity at some point (in the iron age, e.g. metallurgical terminology). You have common lexicon, common phonology. More importantly, Proto-Slavic before the Germanic loanwords entered the stock is very close to to reconstructed Proto-Balto-Slavic. You also had language contact between early Balto-Slavic and speakers of Uralic languages, more precisely the Finnic branch, because Finnic borrowed some terminology from Balto-Slavic.

Second, there's the terminology for the environment: Slavic borrowed the word for 'beech' (buk) from Germanic (the Slavic words adhere to Grimm's Law, and the Germanic *ō was rendered as *ū into Proto-Slavic), which suggests that Slavic speakers originated in an area were this type of tree did not grow, and entered at a later point into a (Germanic-speaking) area where it grew. In contrast, you have a common Balto-Slavic word for 'birch' (shared actually with Germanic, again note how the Germanic word adheres to Grimm's Law while the Balto-Slavic words are palatalized), which does grow in northeastern Europe, but does not grow in the steppe.

Another key issue that I see is the fact that the early Slavs were polytheistic, and that again, you can tie up strong links and parallels with the Balts.

As i said i can not be conclusive in this and in anyway i will not bring such conclusion,however the Slavic languages are tight to the greater Indo-European family so it all depends..

What cought my attention was this so shouldn't be left unanswered.

If I'd follow your ideas (Slavic languages originate on the Balkans), I would not expect such a close relationship between Baltic and Slavic (Slavic should be closer with Albanian or maybe even Greek - at least from areal contact - than with Baltic). I would expect unanimously Slavic place names, personal names and deity names from the Roman period. I would expect Latin loanwords to be much more extensive (as is the case in Albanian), and I would expect older and earlier Greek loanwords (and not just Church related terminology from medieval Greek - which again, is the case in Albanian). Since none of this is the case (all of that taken together accounts for a solid, testable hypothesis), I can only conclude that Slavic languages originally were far away from the Balkans and arrived there only during the Migration Period.

A fundamental proposition of historical anthropology is that human genes, language, and culture represent distinct systems of inheritance. The three systems are distinct and have no necessary relationship because each bears a different relation to population history.

If you think that you can write a history on linguistic hypothesis,including migrations,then please you or other linguist that insist on that,wrote a Indo-European history,so all of us Indo-Europeans can have a common history at least we gonna have something in common and then to all other according to our respective languages.

Which hypothesis you are going to use?

After all everything starts and ends with a language.

Like I said before, some form of movement is necessary to explain the situation: either you argue for a movement of peoples (aka demic diffusion), or you can argue for cultural diffusion. What you can't do, in my opinion, is ad-hoc argue "migration period never existed" and leave it altogether unexplained where the Slavic languages come from or why we do not have a record of them from the Balkans in the Roman period.
 
You're missing my point: I picked the word "kot" because it is 1) derived from Latin and 2) entered the lexicon before the *a > *o shift. Further on, "kot" is attested in all branches of Slavic (West Slavic, East Slavic and South Slavic). The same applies for the word for 'donkey' (unless Slovenian isn't a South Slavic language). As regards "marage", you have a cognate in Albanian and Romanian, this is true, but its also clear that this is a younger word (not shifted from *a > *o) that entered the lexicon afterwards.
Kot is found only in standard Bulgarian language among South Slavic,as i said you can see a split for the word "cat" in the Slavic world,Almost all South-Slavs and nearly half West Slavs use "machka" instead,it is not a Proto-Slavic loandword clearly,furthermore it is considered Afro-Asiatic borrowing into Latin and then into Slavic and Germanic.


It is true that some words can only be found in certain languages, but the phonology enforces that it must have entered the language at a certain point (i.e. before a sound change came into effect).

It doesn't matter if you speak of Proto-Slavic borrowings the said words should be found in all or nearly all Slavic languages.

I have a possible counterargument: if the word is supposedly a shared inheritance from PIE, where are the cognates in the Baltic languages?
Not for all words cognates can be found in Balto-Slavic,as i said some are found due to linguistic zones,take the word "teuta" for people exist in Italo-Celtic,Germanic and Baltic but is missing in Slavic,geographically confined to the west and center of IE world,there is number of words that aren't shared between Baltic and Slavic,this doesn't mean were borrowings,some can not be find in any other IE language with possible cognates.
 
Kot is found only in standard Bulgarian language among South Slavic,as i said you can see a split for the word "cat" in the Slavic world,Almost all South-Slavs and nearly half West Slavs use "machka" instead,it is not a Proto-Slavic loandword clearly,furthermore it is considered Afro-Asiatic borrowing into Latin and then into Slavic and Germanic.

It doesn't matter if you speak of Proto-Slavic borrowings the said words should be found in all or nearly all Slavic languages.

This isn't necessarily the case. If the phonological evolution suggests otherwise (bear in mind: sound laws have no exceptions, and words cannot retroactively adhere to sound changes of the past). "Kot" is a word that entered at the Proto-Slavic stage. I'd like to make a similar point: the German cognate, "Katze", adheres to the Upper German consonant shift *t > *ts, while the cognate in English (cat) does not. Neither words, compared to the parent word, adheres to Grimm's Law. This means the word entered Germanic after Grimm's Law took effect but before the Upper German consonant shift.

Not for all words cognates can be found in Balto-Slavic,as i said some are found due to linguistic zones i believe,take the word "Teuta" for people exist in Italo-Celtic,Germanic and Baltic but is missing in Slavic,geographically confined to the west and center of IE world,there is number of words that aren't shared between Balto-Slavic,this doesn't mean were borrowings,some can not be find in any other IE language with possible cognates.

What do you mean by "Linguistic zones"?
 
The Albanian word for newborn cats is 'kotele' if it helps. Like Milan said the word of cat is mace (matse), machi, and for male cats is daci (datsi) or machok :p
 
And readable for the first time.
Still waiting for a scientific analysis from you with a good alternative. Pleeaase.
Ur seriously waiting for a scientific analysis from me? Hahaha

If u want commercial and residential real estate investment analysis I can help u though.

For linguistic stuff consult Taranis. He's the only knowledgeable and sane person posting in this topic.
 
Second, there's the terminology for the environment: Slavic borrowed the word for 'beech' (buk) from Germanic (the Slavic words adhere to Grimm's Law, and the Germanic *ō was rendered as *ū into Proto-Slavic), which suggests that Slavic speakers originated in an area were this type of tree did not grow, and entered at a later point into a (Germanic-speaking) area where it grew. In contrast, you have a common Balto-Slavic word for 'birch' (shared actually with Germanic, again note how the Germanic word adheres to Grimm's Law while the Balto-Slavic words are palatalized), which does grow in northeastern Europe, but does not grow in the steppe.
Interestingly and i knew that you gonna brought this idea ;)
Exactly according to this theory Proto-Slavic homeland was solved plus some of the most "archaic" river names was added,if you have them please post them.
This hardly can be borrowing,such PIE word exist in Slavic terminology,from the same root we named two trees not just the beech.
The elder tree-from Proto-Slavic *bъzъ,bez from Proto-Indo-European *bʰeh₂ǵos or bhaugos,bhugo however was reconstructed,common inheritance from PIE,then we have "buk"(beech) which come from the same root,this is generaly PIE problem and not the Slavic one.If we accept such terminology that this is borrowing from a Germanic language then we should accept the fact that,the Proto-Slavs were firstly living south of the beech-line ,they had the IE terminology from where this tree comes,then they migrated north where there is no beeches but only elder tree so they lost it naturaly,hence they returned south where they found beech again and Germanic speakers and this time recieved the word but from Germanic source.

I suggest Milan Budimir-the problem of the beech and proto-Slavic homeland.





I do not see how you would come to a different conclusion. The data mainly comes from the lexicon and the phonetic evolution of the Slavic languages.

Then why so many linguists will express their distrust?
 
Interestingly and i knew that you gonna brought this idea ;)
Exactly according to this theory Proto-Slavic homeland was solved plus some of the most "archaic" river names was added,if you have them please post them.
This hardly can be borrowing in my opinion,such PIE word exist in Slavic terminology,from the same root we named two trees not just the beech.
The elder tree-from Proto-Slavic *bъzъ,bez from Proto-Indo-European *bʰeh₂ǵos or bhaugos,bhugo however was reconstructed,common inheritance from PIE,then we have "buk"(beech) which come from the same root,this is generaly PIE problem and not the Slavic one.If we accept such terminology that this is borrowing from a Germanic language then we should accept the fact that,the Proto-Slavs were firstly living south of the beech-line ,they had the IE terminology from where this tree comes,then they migrated north where there is no beeches but only elder tree,hence they returned south where they found beech again and Germanic speakers and this time recieved the word but from Germanic source.

There's only one problem with your idea: there's no way you get *eH[SUB]2[/SUB] (or Late PIE *ā) regularly to *u in Proto-Slavic (the only way to get there is via Germanic mediation, because *ā became *ō in Proto-Germanic, and the latter was reflected as *ū into Slavic during borrowings). There's no way that buz is regularly in Slavic from the same source. The expected regular reflex of *bheH2ǵos is something akin to *baz, because Late PIE long *ā regularly was preserved in Slavic, as opposed to short *a (which, I've mentioned before, regularly became *o). The fact that there should be an *ā or *eH[SUB]2[/SUB] in the word is certain because you have Proto-Germanic *ō, Gaulish and Latin *ā (*bāgo-, "fāgus") and Greek *ē (phēgos).

In my opinion your proposed migration forth and back for the Slavs is redundant. As I said, you have to assume a Baltic and Slavic linguistic unity at one point. I don't see how you can avoid that.

I suggest you to read Milan Budimir-the problem of the beech and proto-Slavic homeland.I will leave this for later...

And I suggest you should memorize my postulates about what Proto-Slavic should look like if it developed indeed on the Balkans. I should add, funnily, that the Albanian language fulfills virtually all of these conditions.
 
[QUOTE

  • From earlier *mottъ ‎(“something what is dropped, thrown over”), from *mesti ‎(“to throw, to drop)

I have a possible counterargument: if the word is supposedly a shared inheritance from PIE, where are the cognates in the Baltic languages?[/QUOTE]

In Lith language we have mesti - to throw or "matas" - measure which related to
indoeuropean *mē-, *m-e-t- ‘to mark, to measure
 
There's only one problem with your idea: there's no way you get *eH[SUB]2[/SUB] (or Late PIE *ā) regularly to *u in Proto-Slavic (the only way to get there is via Germanic mediation, because *ā became *ō in Proto-Germanic, and the latter was reflected as *ū into Slavic during borrowings). There's no way that buz is regularly in Slavic from the same source. The expected regular reflex of *bheH2ǵos is something akin to *baz, because Late PIE long *ā regularly was preserved in Slavic, as opposed to short *a (which, I've mentioned before, regularly became *o). The fact that there should be an *ā or *eH[SUB]2[/SUB] in the word is certain because you have Proto-Germanic *ō, Gaulish and Latin *ā (*bāgo-, "fāgus") and Greek *ē (phēgos).
I will again suggest him you can find other such satem terminologies,anatolian,mysian,kurdish.
And is not "buz" but "bъz" the /ъ/ could have come from previous a,e etc ;) so could have been baz,bez, at one stage.
In my opinion your proposed migration forth and back for the Slavs is redundant. As I said, you have to assume a Baltic and Slavic linguistic unity at one point. I don't see how you can avoid that.
You haven't answered why so many linguist expressed already their distrust about the theory you are so sure of,are they not aware of this facts you speak of? or all of them are just bogus?
Plus where will be the river names.
I do not propose migrations back and forth but that's how suppose to look like,if the word was borrowed from Germanic.
And I suggest you should memorize my postulates about what Proto-Slavic should look like if it developed indeed on the Balkans. I should add, funnily, that the Albanian language fulfills virtually all of these conditions.
I won't answer on this,but you must be right.
 
I will again suggest him you can find other such satem terminologies,anatolian,mysian,kurdish.
And is not "buz" but "bъz" the /ъ/ could have come from previous a,e etc ;) so could have been baz,bez, at one stage.

It couldn't be 'at one stage' if you would understand how sound laws work.

You haven't answered why so many linguist expressed already their distrust about the theory you are so sure of,are they not aware of this facts you speak of? or all of them are just bogus?

From what I have seen from you, you're basically only relying on Curta (who is an archaeologist who really has no clue on linguistics). So yes, from a linguistic perspective, Curta's ideas are just bogus, and that's what I have been trying to tell you from the start of this thread.
 
It couldn't be 'at one stage' if you would understand how sound laws work.
For bъzъ is generaly reconstructed by him as bhaugo/bhugo(bhāuĝo / bhūĝo) or *bʰAuǵ-. by others i can find,i have picked that on the internet that is connected to *bʰeh₂ǵos,however he connect both bъzъ and buk to bhaugo/bhugo and not to a Germanic borrowing.
Will have come to mean red,shining.

SUMMARIUM


Nomen fagi silvaticae summi est momenti in sedibus protoindo-europaeis necnon protoslavicis investigandis. Qua de causa slav. bukь et buky non ad Gothonum dialectos referuntur, sed cum lyd. baukoV »ruber, delicatus«, comparatur, quia baukideV idem valent atque kokkideV. Unde phytonymi protoslavici onomiasiologiam ad medullae fagi silvaticae colorem rubrum (cf. germ. Rotbuche) pertinere colligitur. Quantum ad heteroclisin spectat, stirpes slavicae bukь et buky inprimis cum lat. fagus et fagutalis conferuntur. Termini igitur habitaculorum protoslavicorum meridionales cum terminis fagi silvaticae septentrionalibus non exaequantur.

If you understand,because i don't.

We can continue this later,plus if you have the river names post them.
From what I have seen from you, you're basically only relying on Curta (who is an archaeologist who really has no clue on linguistics). So yes, from a linguistic perspective, Curta's ideas are just bogus, and that's what I have been trying to tell you from the start of this thread.
That is not true ;)
 
Last edited:
For bъzъ is generaly reconstructed by him as bhaugo/bhugo( and also most other i can find,i have picked that on the internet that is connected to the *bʰeh₂ǵos,however he connect both bъzъ and buk to bhaugo/bhugo and not to a Germanic borrowing.
Will have come to mean red,shining.

What is the meaning of *
bʰeh₂ǵos? is it the same?
SUMMARIUM

Nomen fagi silvaticae summi est momenti in sedibus protoindo-europaeis necnon protoslavicis investigandis. Qua de causa slav. bukь et buky non ad Gothonum dialectos referuntur, sed cum lyd. baukoV »ruber, delicatus«, comparatur, quia baukideV idem valent atque kokkideV. Unde phytonymi protoslavici onomiasiologiam ad medullae fagi silvaticae colorem rubrum (cf. germ. Rotbuche) pertinere colligitur. Quantum ad heteroclisin spectat, stirpes slavicae bukь et buky inprimis cum lat. fagus et fagutalis conferuntur. Termini igitur habitaculorum protoslavicorum meridionales cum terminis fagi silvaticae septentrionalibus non exaequantur.

We can continue this later,plus if you have the river names post them.

Sorry, this just demonstrates that you have no idea of how sound laws work. There's no way how PIE (even if you're assuming a form *bhaugos, hypothetically) would regularly yield *k in Slavic. In contrast, the shift *g > *k is part of Grimm's Law. I might add that here you're starting to sound - no offense - a bit like Paul Wexler (the linguist who has the idea that Yiddish isn't Germanic but a "relexified" Turkic language), who's fishing for really flimsy and illogical because he somehow cannot accept that Yiddish is basically just a dialect of German. No offense, but to me it sounds that you have the foregone conclusion that (because you're South Slavic yourself?) Slavic languages are autochthonous and every fact must be twisted (or ignored) to fit that idea. Which is not scientific methodology.

In conclusion, I do not see any error in the model: It is very clear for me that the Slavic languages originated in the forest zone, clearly outside of the Roman Empire and close to the Baltic-speaking areas. You had a common Balto-Slavic language stage. Early Proto-Slavic was heavily influenced by Germanic languages. If Proto-Slavic spread through demic or cultural diffusion is a secondary question, what is principally important is that you had a rapid expansion of the Slavic languages into new (previously non-Slavic) areas then had a breakdown of Slavic linguistic unity (which resulted in the formation of the Slavic language family).

That is not true ;)

Its absolutely true. This is why I already stopped about 15 years ago to take Curta seriously. The linguistic model that would match Curta's ideas, and I have mentioned this multiple times in this thread, is that Proto-Slavic was a conlang invented on the Balkans in the 500s. Good luck finding evidence for that.
 
For your supposed borrowing for "bridge" from Germanic this is what wiktionary give me;
Etymology






  • From earlier *mottъ ‎(“something what is dropped, thrown over”), from *mesti ‎(“to throw, to drop”)
I have a possible counterargument: if the word is supposedly a shared inheritance from PIE, where are the cognates in the Baltic languages?
We have 'mesti' in Baltic languages (mesti - LT, mest - LV) that still means "to throw". For bridge we use 'tilts' - from different etymology.

Edit: sorry, noticed Dagne already mentioned this.
 
Sorry, this just demonstrates that you have no idea of how sound laws work. There's no way how PIE (even if you're assuming a form *bhaugos, hypothetically) would regularly yield *k in Slavic.
In contrast, the shift *g > *k is part of Grimm's Law. I might add that here you're starting to sound - no offense - a bit like Paul Wexler (the linguist who has the idea that Yiddish isn't Germanic but a "relexified" Turkic language), who's fishing for really flimsy and illogical because he somehow cannot accept that Yiddish is basically just a dialect of German.
There you go....
I am posting you other people reconstractions,all i can find about the word itself and if anything doesn't agree with you,or your theory become to week you begin just to attack,just come down a bit..
You don't even know the letter /ъ/ in Slavic mistaking it for /u/ and somehow you are lecturing about Slavic languages?

What you don't understand is yes in Slavic the letter /g/ become /z/ and yes the final /g/ will be pronounced as /k/
That is how it was written in Church Slavic "bouk" and on the other side you have "bъz" yes the /g/ become /z/ anything unclear here?
No offense, but to me it sounds that you have the foregone conclusion that (because you're South Slavic yourself?) Slavic languages are autochthonous and every fact must be twisted (or ignored) to fit that idea. Which is not scientific methodology.
Damn.. what you have against that then,if i even think that way?

In conclusion, I do not see any error in the model: It is very clear for me that the Slavic languages originated in the forest zone, clearly outside of the Roman Empire and close to the Baltic-speaking areas. You had a common Balto-Slavic language stage. Early Proto-Slavic was heavily influenced by Germanic languages. If Proto-Slavic spread through demic or cultural diffusion is a secondary question, what is principally important is that you had a rapid expansion of the Slavic languages into new (previously non-Slavic) areas then had a breakdown of Slavic linguistic unity (which resulted in the formation of the Slavic language family).
Your emotionaly attacks doesn't do anything here...

Its absolutely true. This is why I already stopped about 15 years ago to take Curta seriously. The linguistic model that would match Curta's ideas, and I have mentioned this multiple times in this thread, is that Proto-Slavic was a conlang invented on the Balkans in the 500s. Good luck finding evidence for that.
Hardly you can offend Curta or any other linguist i relly on here..
I say again,if you think that way why do you waste your time here on this thread?
 
There you go....
I am posting you other people reconstractions and if anything doesn't agree with you,or your theory become to week you begin just to attack,just come down a bit..
You don't even know the letter /ъ/ in Slavic mistaking it for /u/ and somehow you are lecturing about Slavic languages?


I don't mistake it for /u/. In Old Church Slavic, the letters ъ and ь represented short /u/ and /i/ respectively, and they correspond to earlier Proto-Slavic short /u/ and /i/, respectively.

What you don't understand is yes in Slavic the letter /g/ become /z/ and yes the final /g/ will be pronounced as /k/
That is how it was written in Church Slavic "bouk" and on the other side you have "bъz" yes the /g/ become /z/ anything unclear here?

I disagree that this is of relevance here. As you said /z/ is an outcome of palatalization. Therefore, as I said, the expected Slavic outcome of bheH[SUB]2[/SUB]gos is *baz, not the attested buk. This goes back to what I said from the getgo, the word is a Germanic loanword. Don't forget that you also have the Germanic word for 'book' (including its English cognate), which also found its way into Slavic as the word for 'letter', e.g. Russian "bukva" (буква).

You emotionaly attacks doesn't do anything here...

I'm not being emotional. I've just analyzed your position.

I say again,if you think that way why do you waste your time here on this thread?

Has it crossed your mind that I actually might enjoy hanging out on Eupedia, and that there are people who actually enjoy reading this? (y)
 
I disagree that this is of relevance here. As you said /z/ is an outcome of palatalization. Therefore, as I said, the expected Slavic outcome of bheH[SUB]2[/SUB]gos is *baz, not the attested buk. This goes back to what I said from the getgo, the word is a Germanic loanword. Don't forget that you also have the Germanic word for 'book' (including its English cognate), which also found its way into Slavic as the word for 'letter', e.g. Russian "bukva" (буква).
No it is not,bouk might not even come from there,it is attested in "elder tree" and well as "beech",from where then the Slavic word for "elder tree' will come from,Slavs were iliterate of trees,better even not to comment on the loanwords that you posted "grad"-encolosure being borrowed from Germanic instead PIE shared words almost among all IE's,pure ethnocentrism.
It is not from bheH[SUB]2[/SUB]gos you,yourself demostrated that in the previous comment?
It is coming from (bhāuĝo / bhūĝo) according to what i follow.


Church Slavic-bukva (letter) etc all being connected to beech,yes,people wrote on that.


Has it crossed your mind that I actually might enjoy hanging out on Eupedia, and that there are people who actually enjoy reading this? (y)
Good for us then.
 
The church terminology in Albanian is from Latin.
 
better even not to comment on the loanwords that you posted "grad"-encolosure being borrowed from Germanic instead PIE shared words almost among all IE's,pure ethnocentrism.

How can it be "ethnocentrism" if the cognates in Celtic (Old Irish 'gort') and Italic (Latin 'horta') are both with *t? It is impossible to explain as having derived from PIE because the *d is wholly unexpected (it should be regularly with a *t in Slavic, just as in Celtic and Italic). In Germanic, however, from the cumulative effect of Grimm's Law and Verner's Law, you get *d (see English "garden").

It is not from bheH[SUB]2[/SUB]gos you,yourself demostrated that in the previous comment?
It is coming from (bhāuĝo / bhūĝo) according to what i follow.

Church Slavic-bukva (letter) etc all being connected to beech,yes,people wrote on that.

"buk" ("beech") is indeed derived from bheH2ǵos, but it is a Germanic loanword.

Good for us then.[/QUOTE]
 

This thread has been viewed 80539 times.

Back
Top