Lexicon Proto-Borealicum et Alia Lexica Etymologica Minora

Sorin Paliga

Lexicon Proto-Borealicum et alia lexica etymologica minora

Lexicon Proto-Borealicum et alia lexica etymologica minora

Coperta / Cover: Sorin Paliga Ilustra!ia copertei / Cover Picture: A fragment of Lexicon Protoborealicum

Revizia "tiin!ific# "i tehnoredactarea apar!in autorului Revision and page setting by author

Funda!ia Evenimentul pentru Cultivarea p!cii "i a spiritului tolerant (Evenimentul Foundation for Cultivation of Peace and Tolerant Spirit) Str. Ana Davila 22 sector 5 Bucharest, Romania Phone-Fax: 00 40 21 781 2490 Director General: Paul Tutungiu Pre"edintele Funda!iei „Evenimentul” pentru Cultivarea P#cii "i a Spiritului Tolerant

I.S.B.N. $

Sorin Paliga

Lexicon Proto-Borealicum et alia lexica etymologica minora

Bucure!ti 2007

Contents / Cuprins Cuvânt înainte

7

Foreword

9

I. A Proto-Boreal Lexicon. Introduction to the Archaic Heritage of the European Languages • With special reference to the archaic (Thracian) heritage of Romanian

11–161

Foreword

13

Introduction

15

The Proto-Boreal Linguistic Group

18

Proto-Boreal Reconstruction

19

The Proto-Boreal Consonant System

24

Positional Syllabic Tamber

26

The three degreees of velar consonants in PB

27

Perspectives

29

Lexicon Etymologicum Proto-Borealicum

31

ADDENDA

155–161

The Uralic Group

155

The Altaic Group

157

Distribution of the pre-historic cultural groups

160

II. The Velar Spirant (commonly labelled “Laryngeal”) in Thracian and Proto!Romanian

163–195

Introduction

165

Those ‘peculiar’ sounds of Romanian

167

Some Case Studies

171

Etymological Lexicon of the Thracian Elements in Romanian witnessing an original velar spirant (or ‘laryngeal’) III. 100 Slavic Basic Roots

174 197–222

Introduction

199

Once again on Sl. s!to

199

The Slavic ‘Homeland’ and Slavic Ethnogenesis

201

Compiling a basic set of Proto-slavic roots

203

100 Slavic Roots

204

Addendum. The Slavic Numerals

220

IV. Glosar de termeni mitologici lituanieni

Bibliographia

223–233

235

Cuvânt înainte / Foreword __________________________________________________________________

Cuvânt înainte Volumul de fa!" este al patrulea din seria ini!iat" în 2006 de Editura Funda!iei Evenimentul, cu sprijinul generos al Rosal Grup, f"r" de care nu ar fi putut vedea lumina tiparului în condi!ii grafice deosebite. Astfel, am reu#it s" adun"m, în patru volume succesive, ceea ce a# considera opera lingvistic" major": 1. Lexiconul etimologic al elementelor autohtone (traco!dace) ale limbii române, în contextul în care mo#tenirea arhaic" înc" nu #i!a g"sit locul cuvenit în lucr"rile dedicate istoriei limbii române; 2. $ influen!ele romane #i preromane (trace, ilire) asupra limbilor slave de sud; 3. aproape toate studiile majore de lingvistic" #i de antropologie, publicate – de!a lungul anilor – în diverse reviste de specialitate, din !ar" #i de peste hotare. Acest al patrulea volum cuprinde, în primul rând, lexiconul proto!boreal, elaborat pe baza materialului oferit de lingvistul rus Nikolaj Dmitrievi% Andreev, cu multe adnot"ri #i complet"ri, mai ales referitoare la mo#tenirea traco!dac" a limbii române. Acest lexicon completeaz", în fapt, primul volum al acestei serii. Ipoteza lui Andreev nu este nici nou", nici original": cândva, în preistorie, va fi fost un conglomerat etno!lingvistic, numit conven!ional proto!boreal, din care, ulterior, s!au dezvoltat limbile indo!europene, limbile uralice #i limbile altaice, probabil #i limba coreean". Bojan &op (Slovenia) #i Illi%-Svity% (Rusia, Uniunea Sovietic" pe atunci) luaser" în considera!ie o asemenea ipotez", ca s" nu mai amintesc de ipoteza lui Delitzch, avansat" pe la final de secol XIX, care sugera o înrudire primordial" dintre limbile indo!europene #i limbile semite (ipotez" neconfirmat", deocamdat" cel pu!in). Nimeni îns" nu a reu#it, în opinia noastr", s" adune un material a#a de vast #i a#a de conving"tor cum a f"cut __________________________________________________________________ 7

Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________

N. D. Andreev. Consecin!ele pentru studierea preistoriei europene sunt extraordinare: înrudirea dintre limbile indo!europene face parte dintr!o „înrudire etno!lingvistic"” mult mai ampl" a majorit"!ii limbilor vorbite în spa!iul euro!asiatic. Am prezentat lucrarea, într!o form" abreviat", la Congresul Interna!ional al Slavi#tilor, Ljubljana, august 2003; aceast" form" final" a dedic"m viitorului congres interna!ional al slavi#tilor, ce urmeaz" a fi organizat de Universitatea din Skopje, Macedonia, în septembrie 2008. Al doilea lexicon al volumului de fa!" cuprinde o list" neexhaustiv", dar ampl", a elementelor autohtone ale limbii române care fac dovada existen!ei unei spirante velare (unii lingvi#ti prefer" s" o numeasc" laringal") în limba traco-dac". Odat" acceptat" existen!a acestui fonem specific, consecin!ele pentru studierea mo#tenirii autohtone se pot modifica radical. Al treilea lexicon cuprinde ceea ce noi consider"m a fi cele o sut! de r!d!cini de baz! ale limbii proto!slave. Este, desigur, o selec!ie subiectiv". Am dorit s" subliniem aici caracterul eterogen a ceea ce se nume#te adesea „limba proto!slav"” sau, mai degrab" incorect, „slava comun"”. De fapt, nucleul slav arhaic este bazat, cum încearc" s" arate #i acest lexicon, pe elementele de tip sud!baltic, c"rora li s!au ad"ugat elemente vest iranice #i nord trace (a#a numitele idiomuri proto!slave A, B #i C, respectiv, conform categoriz"rii încercate recent de Aleksandar Loma, tot la amintitul congres interna!ional al slavi#tilor de la Ljubljana) precum #i, ulterior, elemente germanice #i vechi române#ti (protoromâne#ti). În fine, lexiconul minimal al divinit!"ilor lituaniene reia lista publicat", acum ceva ani, ca addendum la traducerea lucr"rii lui Algirdas Julien Greimas, Despre zei !i despre oameni. Fiind primul #i, deocamdat", singurul lexicon mitologic lituanian ap"rut în România, apreciem c" poate fi util unei largi categorii de cititori, fie #i „rupt” de corpul traducerii amintite. Sorin Paliga, iunie 2007 __________________________________________________________________ 8

Cuvânt înainte / Foreword __________________________________________________________________

Foreword This volume is the fourth in the series initiated in 2006 by Evenimentul Foundation Publishers, and with the generous support of Rosal Group, without which these books could not be published in such beautiful conditions. The four volumes gather together what I may label the major linguistic and anthropological works: 1. The Etymological Lexicon of the Indigenous (Thracian) Elements in Romanian, issued at a moment when the archaic heritage of Romanian has not yet found its proper place in the history of the Romanian language; 2. Romance and Pre!Romance (Thracian, Illyrian) influences on South Slavic; 3. Almost all the major studies in linguistics and anthropology, issued over years in various scientific journals, in Romania and abroad. This fourth volume includes, first of all, the Proto!Boreal lexicon, based on the works and analysis of the Russian linguist Nikolaj Dmitrievi% Andreev, with many adnotations and additions, especially referring to the Thracian heritage of Romanian. Thus, this volume complements the first of the series. Andreev’s hypothesis is not perhaps new or original: some time in prehistory there must have been an ethno!linguistic group, conventionally labelled Proto!Boreal, out of which the Indo!European, Uralic and Altaic languages later emerged, probably Korean as well. Bojan &op (Slovenia) and Illi%!Svity% (Russia, or Soviet Union at that time) considered such a hypothesis, to say nothing of Delitzch’s hypothesis, advanced in the 2nd half of the 19th century, which assumed a primordial relationship between the Indo!European and Semitic languages (unconfirmed, at least so far). In our opinion nobody else has succeeded in gathering together such a rich and __________________________________________________________________ 9

Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________

convincing material as Andreev did; and the consequences for the study of European prehistory are outstanding: the Indo!European relationship is just a chapter in a vast and older relationhip of most Euro!Asianic languages. My work was initially presented in an abridged form at the International Congress of Slavicists, Ljubljana, August 2003; this final, enlarged and corrected version, is dedicated to the next international congress of slavicists to be held at, and organised by, the University of Skopje, Macedonia, in September 2008. The second lexicon of the current volume includes an ample, be it non exhaustive, list of the indigenous (Thracian) elements in Romanian, which witness the existence of a velar spirant in Thracian (some linguists prefer to label it a laryngeal). Once accepted, this hypothesis may have crucial consequences for the study of the Thracian heritage in Romanian. The third lexicon includes what we assume the one hundred essential Slavic roots. Of course, the selection is subjective, nevertheless we wished to stress the ‘objective’ heterogenous character of Proto!Slavic, or—rather incorrect—‘Common Slavic’. In fact, and the lexicon tries to prove this, the Slavic nucleus is based on South Baltic elements, to which West Iranic and North Thracian elements were later added (the so!called Proto!Slavic idioms A, B and C, respectively, as Aleksandar Loma showed at the same congress in Ljubljana); some time later, Germanic and Proto!Romanian elements were also borrowed into Proto!Slavic. Finally, the minimal lexicon of the Lithuanian god!names resumes the list published as an addendum to Algirdas Julien Greimas, Despre zei !i despre oameni (About gods and humans). As it is the first and, to date, the only such lexicon, it may be also useful even if ‘torn off’ the named book. Sorin Paliga, June 2007

__________________________________________________________________ 10

A Proto-Boreal Lexicon Introduction to the Archaic Heritage of the European Languages

With special reference to the archaic (Thracian) heritage of Romanian

Proto!Boreal Lexicon __________________________________________________________________

Foreword

The present work covers a long-lasting preoccupation for gathering data for an enlarged etymological dictionary of the Indo-European and Pre!Indo!European languages, particularly the languages of southeast Europe; and, among these, Romanian too or, better, Romanian in the first place. Over years several studies were published or are forthcoming; I would just mention the reference cards for an etymological dictionary of the Pre!Romance (Thracian) elements of Romanian to be prepared for the International Congress of Thracology, to be held in Chi!in"u, 2004. This book refers to the so-called Proto-Boreal reconstruction, and is due to the Russian linguist Nikolaj Dmitrievi# Andreev. A preliminary version was presented at the 13th International Congress of Slavists (Ljubljana, August 15–23, 2003) under the title N. D. Andreev’s Proto-Boreal Theory and Its Implications in Understanding the Central-East and Southeast European Ethnogenesis: Slavic, Baltic and Thracian. Also an electronic version, in PDF format, was posted on my website and was, and still is, available free. This enlarged and revised version tries to solve, or to at least draw attention on, some disputed or unclear aspects of the archaic heritage of the European languages, particularly Romanian and other southeast European languages. It is assumed that the reader is already familiar to the general aspects of the Thracian heritage of Romanian and other neighbouring languages (Bulgarian, Serbian, Albanian among others) and with other elements connected to the archaic Illyrian and Celtic heritage of other linguistic areas. The Proto-Boreal Lexicon reflects, first of all, the data presented by Andreev, then followed (marked by ‘•’) by my comments on some archaic elements of __________________________________________________________________ 13

Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________

Romanian in a comparative perspective. They are largely accepted as substratum elements or, at least, have been subject to various debates regarding their origin. Our attempt follows the previous Pre-Indo-European Lexicon and, by and large, our constant preoccupation for clarifying various aspects of southeast European etymology (for which see the references). Sorin Paliga Bucharest, September 17, 2003 Minor revision: January 24, 2004; 2nd revision: March!May 2007

__________________________________________________________________ 14

Proto!Boreal Lexicon __________________________________________________________________

Introduction

N. D. Andreev’s theory, labelled Proto-Boreal, surprised – I may say – the scientific world by its large spectrum of linguistic problems: Proto-IndoEuropean, Proto-Uralic and Proto-Altaic (later he also added Korean) were considered as newer, derived branches from an older linguistic group labelled Proto-Boreal. It is also a difficult book as various languages are put together, regularly considered as belonging to different families according to traditional classifications. It is true that the idea of an archaic relationship between Uralic and Indo-European is not new, and was advocated – with notable results – by some linguists, mainly by Karel O$tir (1921) and Bojan %op (1974, 1975). Their pioneering work would deserve more attention, and Andreev’s theory would not thus seem isolated. It reflects, in fact, a long and strenuous effort towards identifying and explaining an archaic relationship among languages usually categorised independently. It is true that other linguists previously attempted to reconstruct an older phase of what we currently label Indo-European, and also to identify common, archaic roots of Indo-European, Caucasian and Semitic languages (e.g. !"#$%&'()*+,-./*Trombetti 1925 – yet Trombetti’s analysis should be analysed with care, as he really put forward precious material, just not always reliably analysed). On the other hand, many linguists predominantly tried to analyse, and at least partially succeeded in analysing the Pre-IndoEuropean roots identified or identifiable in Ancient or Modern languages. I would quote the remarkable studies of the Italian linguists, published – to a large extent – in the Studi Etruschi beginning with 1927. Also Ch. Rostaing’s __________________________________________________________________ 15

Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________

Essai sur la toponymie de la Provence (1950) and Skok’s analysis of the archaic place-names in the Adriatic islands (Skok 1950). The existence of an archaic, Pre-Indo-European stratum cannot be doubted any more (see our studies focused on this topic quoted in the references). This is in full agreement with archaeological studies, which now unanimously report remarkable Neolithic and Chalcolithic civilisations spreading, some time after 7,500 B.C. from Anatolia to Southeast Europe, and hence to Central and Western Europe. These ethno-linguistic groups, disregarding how we may reconstruct such outstanding changes and evolutions (animal domestication, copper and gold processing, larger and larger habitational sites, specific representations of deities, etc.) must have been responsible for the corresponding material culture discovered in thousands archaeological sites; they must be held for surviving in a certain linguistic inventory in Greek, Latin (Etruscan, a non-Indo-European language), and also Thracian, Illyrian, probably also Slavic and Baltic. The analysis of such an archaic heritage cannot be easy, especially in the case of languages without written documents, in fact the usual case: the written documents in the European culture are specific to only the Greeks and Romans, later gradually adopted by the newly emerged linguistic groups in the Early and Mid-Middle Ages. There is no wonder that Chantraine, in the introduction of his Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque, plainly assumes that only 40% of the Greek vocabulary admits an Indo-European origin, while other words were borrowed from Semitic and other neighbouring languages; and some 50% must reflect the indigenous, Pre-Indo-European heritage. On the other hand, Marija Gimbutas is perhaps the archaeologist who provoked the hottest debate in the wake of her articles mainly related to two topics:

__________________________________________________________________ 16

Proto!Boreal Lexicon __________________________________________________________________

1. The ‘Old European’ cultural bloc which, with its Gimbutasian label, is the same as the Pre-Indo-European stratum in the current or previous studies; also labelled “Mediterranean” by some linguists, e.g. Skok 1950; it should be carefully discriminated against Hans Krahe’s Alteuropäisch = oldest Indo-European identifiable stratum. 2. The ‘Kurgan’ or Indo-European tradition. Gimbutas opposed the two cultural blocs, and reconstructed a prehistoric tableau, which may be briefly summarised as thus: a. ‘Old European’ represented the indigenous Neolithic and Chalcolithic groups, which gradually created an outstanding civilisation in the Aegean and southeast Europe: animal domestication, archaeo-metallurgical skills, religious symbolism, peaceful and matrifocal societies, larger and larger habitational environment, a kind of proto-urban settlements. The Southeast European groups gradually developed a specific tradition, similar – but not identical to – Anatolian tradition. It is assumed that both human expansion and assimilation of civilisational habits played their role in this complex process, so the Neolithic and Chalcolithic groups reflected both an indigenous Upper Palaeolithic-Mesolithic element and a newer, Anatolian and/or Mediterranean element. b. The Kurgan or Indo-European tradition may be traced back as far as the fifth millennium B.C. in the North Pontic steppes. Unlike their western Old European counterparts, the Indo-Europeans (or ‘Kurgan people’) developed a specific ideology of the glorious warrior, domesticated the horse, adopted bronze metallurgy from (seemingly) the Caucasian groups, and began to expand west, north and east in waves. Gimbutas identified three waves of expansion: 4400– 4200; 3400–3200, and 3000–2800 B.C. The second and third waves were responsible for the decisive Indo-Europeanisation of a vast Euro-Asian space, but with specific preservations of the Pre-Indo-European heritage. Gimbutas did not speak of a unified, homogene ethno-linguistic groups, but rather a convergent __________________________________________________________________ 17

Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________

tradition gradually imposed from a presumably limited group, which later conquered various other Mesolithic groups of the Volga!Ural region. Such a reconstruction is, or may be, debatable. But, rarely noticed so far, her theory matches, at least loosely, if not even in details, N. D. Andreev’s theory of the Proto-Boreal language. Gimbutas dealed mainly with archaeological data (though she incidentally refers to comparative linguistics as well), whereas Andreev refers to only linguistic material. It is interesting that, despite the common points of their theories, Gimbutas and Andreev never quote each other! We may assume that they had no knowledge of their mutually complementary theories, and that archaeology and linguistics may indeed offer an incentive to interdisciplinary research. The Proto-Boreal Linguistic Group Before expanding on Andreev’s theory, we may briefly present it as a reconstruction of an older linguistic reality (‘Proto-Boreal’, hereafter PB), corresponding to an older, Upper Palaeolithic-Mesolithic phase, out of which Proto-Uralic (hereafter PU), Proto-Altaic (hereafter PA), Korean (discussed in two studies published after the publication of his main book) and Proto-IndoEuropean later developed in the evolution to Mesolithic-Neolithic-Bronze Age. Andreev reconstructs an archaic inventory of 203 roots, and analyses them in the three main derived branches. Andreev’s reconstruction remarkably matches, as said above, the Gimbutasian theory, even in details. The common points, as I may identify them, are the following: 1. A vast area of (initially) food-gatherers located in the East-Boreal part of Europe, hence the term Proto-Boreal; it confirms or supports Gimbutas’s theory that the Kurgan people were NOT a compact ethno-linguistic group, but rather a vast and large congregation of initially different groups, which gradually gathered __________________________________________________________________ 18

Proto!Boreal Lexicon __________________________________________________________________

together under a common ideology represented by the ‘warrior knight’, kurgan burials, veneration of the shining sky (Jupiter-Zeus) etc. 2. A gradual expansion; that is what Gimbutas says too, and analysing how the Kurgan (PIE) groups later assimilated Caucasian technologies, mainly arseniccopper alloy, and perhaps horse domestication, which may be of Trans-Uralian origin. 3. A parallel satem-centum dichotomy, identifiable in not only Indo-European languages, but also in Uralic and Altaic. As an example, Finnish and Estonian (closely related languages of the Fennic-Uralic group, see the Appendix) are of centum type, whereas Hungarian (Ugrian branch of the Uralic group) is of satem type. Altaic languages regularly reflect a process similar to the satem groups. There are of course other features of the PB reconstruction. I shall try to present them below. Proto-Boreal Reconstruction Andreev identifies the following proto-phonemes: J – sonant H – velar spirant (usually labelled ‘laryngeal’ in the Indo-European linguistics) Q – voiced explosive C – consonant In a review of Andreev’s book, Lucia Wald (Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, 33, 2/1988: 119–122) expands on Andreev’s terminology by adding or suggesting the following terms: PB – Proto-Boreal __________________________________________________________________ 19

Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________

EA – Early Altaic EIE – Early Indo-European EU – Early Uralic MIE – Middle Indo-European (between EIE and PIE: PB > EIE > MIE > PIE) PIE – Proto-Indo-European U-A – Uralic-Altaic Wald also summarises the basic points of Andreev’s theory: • Very likely PB was a language characterised by an inventory of rootwords undivided in parts of speech, the only device of forming new lexemes being the paratactic composition – a status in existence in EIE as well. • A peculiar evolution of Boreal velar spirants whose representatives in EIE have often been described as laryngeals or variations of ! (schwa indogermanicum); they were preserved – under some conditions – only in Hittite, Tungus-Manchurian and Fenno-Ugrian languages. Note. We assume that Thracian also had a velar spirant (laryngeal) still preserved in Proto-Romanian, until a historical moment difficult to determine, probably until at least the 6th century A.D. Its traces in (Modern) Romanian are zero, f/v and h, maybe also ! (ts); in Albanian, its counterparts seem to be as in Romanian, sometimes also th and dh (more in our paper Ten Theses on Thracian Etymology in Studia Thracologica, Bucharest, XXII, 1–2, 2001; included in the 3rd volume of this series). Andreev convincingly explains the influence of the velar spirants on the IE vowels and sonants. Thus: (a) the simple velar spirant X > IE ", #, !, the long sonants and aspirant occlusion; (b) labio-velar spirant Xw > IE $, %; (c) Xy. __________________________________________________________________ 20

Proto!Boreal Lexicon __________________________________________________________________

• The three velar series, e.g. K-R-, Kw-R-, Ky-R-. • The well-known centum-satem distinction is also found in UralicAltaic, e.g. the difference between Finnish (a centum-type language) v. Hungarian (a satem-type language). • In EIE the sonants Y and W were only consonants, their vocalic nature being developed much later in inter-consonant position. • The PB vowel system was very poor, reduced to a syllabeme with an indefinite tamber variously articulated in accordance with the tamber of the contiguous consonants, a stage preserved also in EIE. In the course of history the vocalic inventory became richer owing to the influence of the velar spirants in the adjacent syllabeme and to the vocalisation of the sonants. In contrast to EIE, in the other two Boreal branches the reduction and vocalisation of the velar spirants occurred much later; some idioms preserve them till now. Instead of the Ablaut, the vowel harmony was established. All Ural-Altaic dialects have preserved clear marks of a syllabeme with positionally conditional tambers. • The level of linguistic structure: absence of parts of speech, a scanty inventory of words, which implies an extensive periphery around the semantic nucleus, prevalently concrete nature of protosemes, the systematic character of the vocabulary, the lack of synonymy and therefore a reduced redundancy. On the whole the Boreal protosemes prove to be more archaic and more concrete than the corresponding units in EIE, but closer to those found in U-A languages. • The semantic fields of EIE vocabulary (chapter XI): - a. denominations of the means of livelihood with the changes from PB (a stage characterised by hunting, fishing and gathering) to EIE (cattle breeding and agriculture). __________________________________________________________________ 21

Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________

- b. names referring to communication and storing information; - c. labour and tools; - d. human relations – several words for female persons, according to their age and social status (girl, female-teenager, mother, daughter, wife), but only one for ‘man’: *X-N- ‘the one who goes ahead’; - e. affiliation to a certain tribe and to peaceful or warlike tribal relations; - f. clime and earth structure – many terms related to woods, hills, marshes, rivers and a severe climate with only two seasons: winter and spring (glacial age); no trace of words for ‘summer’ and ‘autumn’; • The transition from PB to EIE – the last period of the Halocene or Upper Palaeolithic-Mesolithic; geographically the PB area must have been a vast region delimited by the Rhine in the west and the Altai mountains in the east. In the course of time, the three basic linguistic groups derived from PB got gradual contours in the following regions: Altai-Urals: Altaic Urals-Dnieper: Uralic Dnieper-Rhine: EIE Note. Gimbutas locates the Kurgan, or Proto-Indo-European, homeland in more southern regions, starting from the assumption that arsenic-copper technology was borrowed from the Caucasian groups. It should be yet remembered that Gimbutas goes as back as the fifth millennium B.C., whereas Andreev reconstruct a linguistic reality prior to this period. • The right element (root) of a compound changed into a modifier in IE, and then a new classification of themes was created (Benveniste’s theory). __________________________________________________________________ 22

Proto!Boreal Lexicon __________________________________________________________________

The last stage was represented by an opposition r ~ n. It is ingenuously explained as a result of the transformation of the EIE main lexical opposition ‘things v. inanimate’: *RXy > r(XY) > -r(!) and ‘made or brought for us’: *NXw > *N(Xw) > *n(!). The most remote stage of the IE Ablaut might have been represented by the opposition, with semantic value, between stressed and unstressed syllabemes, reduced to zero, in correlation with the consonantal opposition w/y – vocalic opposition, e.g. *PL-Xw-w- ‘marsh’ ~ *PL-Xy-w- ‘to float’ –> *plou- ~ *pleuThe velar spirants led to the *o and *e degrees, i.e. IE typological evolution from an amorphous to an inflectional evolution. Setting up inflectional morphemes prior to the separation into parts of speech may explain e.g. *-r- as a mark of the objective case of nouns and passive voice of verbs or *-e- as vocative and imperative. Gradually the following structure was achieved: a. vocalic variation as a result of a PB syllabeme with contextul variations; b. biconsonant roots; c. identification of IE schwa with velar spirants; d. existence of three velar series in PIE; e. a morphological amorphous structure of PB and EIE which annulled grammatical parallelism between PIE and U-A; f. a socio-linguistic stage of hunters, fishers and gatherers. __________________________________________________________________ 23

Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________

Summing up, the reader may note the originality and accuracy of Andreev’s argumentation, even if it may further lead to additional questions and to perplexities. If it were for this reason only, Andreev’s theory deserves much more than scattered praises in linguistic journals. It brilliantly concludes a long-term investigation, whose prioneers were – among others – Bojan %op and Karel O$tir (Slovenia); and also largely expands the possibility of new research based on a rich and exciting material.

The Proto-Boreal Consonant System !"0%1#' PB

T

D

Dh

S

N

L

PIE

t

d

dh

s

n

l

PU

t

t

t

s

n

l

PA

t

d

d

s

n

l

213$1#' PB

P

B

Bh

M

PIE

p

b

bh

m

PU

p

p

p

m

PA

p

b

b

m

__________________________________________________________________ 24

Proto!Boreal Lexicon __________________________________________________________________

4$56#"*7"#18' PB

K

G

Gh

X-

-X-

R

-R-

centum

k

g

gh

xa-, &a-

-xa-, -'-, -&a-

r

-r-

satem

k

g

gh

xa-, &a-

-xa-, -'-, -&a-

r

-r-

Finn-Baltic

k

k

k

ha-

-ha-, -'-, -"-

r

-r-

Obi-Ugrian

k

k

kh

–

-!-, -a-

r

-r-

Tung.-Man.

k

g

g

-!-, -'-, -"-

&r-

-r-

xa-, ha-

91#1%1#*7"#18' PB

Ky

Gy

Ghy Xy-

-Xy-

Y

centum

k

g

gh

xe-, &e-

-xe-, -(-, -&e-

y

satem

#

"

h, " xe-, &e-

-xe-, -(-, -&e-

y

Finn-Baltic

ki

ki

ki

hi-

hi-, -(-, -)-

y

Obi-Ugrian

#

#

khi

–

&i, -e-

y

Tung.-Man

#

"

"

-!i-, -(-, -)-

y

xi-, hi-

213$:;"#18' PB

Kw Gw Ghw Xw

-Xw-

W

centum

kw

gw

ghw x°-, &°-

-x°-, -*-, &°

w

satem

k

g

gh

-x°-, -*-, &°

w

x°-, &°-

__________________________________________________________________ 25

Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________

Finn-Baltic

ku

w

w

hu-

-hu-, -*-, -+-

w

Obi-Ugrian

ku

w

w

–

-!u-, -o-

w

Tung.-Man

ku

(x)w, (x)w, xu-, hu-

-!u-, -*-, -+-

w

(h)w (h)w Note. This scheme does not reflect some Indo-European situations, e.g. Gr. b < Gw and ph < Ghw, Skr. ç < Ky, etc. The situation is also complicated in languages with poor or limited written sources like Thracian and Illyrian; in such cases, the analysis should consider complex analyses, which should permanently consider the possible similarities with known data. As a simple example, there are striking similarities between Thracian (including the Thracian elements of Romanian) and Baltic, mainly Lithuanian. On the other hand, there are some similar treatments in Thracian and Greek or Germanic, therefore a similarity with the centum area. According to my interpretation, the treatment of Gw and Ghw in Thracian seems similar to Greek rather than its satem-related languages. Positional Syllabic Tamber The syllabic tamber in PB depended on the two neighbouring consonants. The passage to PIE led to essential changes of linguistic typology, among these vocalisation of sonants, which – in its turn – led to zero degree too. There was initially only *" in PIE. Examples: PB *Gw-R ‘a hill’: fin. VuoR-i (< *GwoR-xwy-) ‘id.’ and VaaR-a (< *GweRx-): Fin. KuoR-i ‘bark, crust’ (- *GweR-xwy-); KaaR-na ‘crust’ (-*GweR-xn-); Fin. LoN-kka ‘coaps"’( ...-kxw-); LaN-ne ‘id.’ (...-nx-). __________________________________________________________________ 26

Proto!Boreal Lexicon __________________________________________________________________

The three degreees of velar consonants in PB (1) The three tambers of the so-called &va indogermanicum: velar spirants PIE *X, *Xw, *Xy, which in postsyllabic vocalisation led to contracted sounds *#, *%, *'. (2) The role of the second focus of articulation for labiovelars and palatals. (3) The intra-systemic argument represented by different meanings of roots: *Kw-R ‘a worm’, *K-R ‘hard’, *Ky-R ‘herd’; *Gw-L ‘to sting, *G-L ‘birdy, specific to birds’, *Gy-L ‘(good) luck, victory’; *Ghw-N ‘to strike, to beat’, *Gh-N ‘to gnaw’, *Ghy-N ‘to step’; *S-Xw ‘to jump’, *S-X ‘sun’, *S-Xy ‘to sow, to seed’. (4) Difference in treatment of PB simple and aspirated voiced consonants in Obi-Ugrian (OU) and Man#ur-Tungus (MT) groups: PB

OU MT

PB

OU MT

G

k

g

Gh

kh

Gy Gw

( w

) (x)w, (h)w

Ghy khi Ghw w

g ) (x)w, (h)w

Velar spirants and long contracted sounds. The case of spirant X. Examples: PB *D-Xw ‘to give’ > Hit. DaaH-hi, Skr. Di-tá;-, gr. dí-D*-mi; PIE * –+ X - (stress preceding X) > *a; __________________________________________________________________ 27

Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________

*T-X ‘to melt, thaw; to vanish’: gr. TA-kerós, dor. T,-k%, OCS TA-jati (see also # 33 and 100). PIE * –+ Xw (stress preceding *Xw) > *%; *! : *%. , bti, gr. bu-B*-nos Ex. (20): *B-Xw: Lit. BA-m Ex. (12): *Dh-Xw ‘fir-tree needles’: Gr. Tho-ós, Skr. Dh,-ra-, Evenki Dü-ün, Khanty Tu-./r Ex. (92): *P-Xw ‘protecting fire’: Khanty P"--/rla, -egidal P*-)a. * –+ Xy > '

/:'

Ex. (101): *K-Xy ‘to pick with a hook’: lat. CA-pess%, C0-pi, Negid Ke--jan, .ant. Kä--ri; Ex. (98) *Gh-Xy: gr. e-KhA-ndanon, Skr. ja-H,-ra, Ul#. G0-xü; see also # (9). Velar spirants and long sonants. In Uralic and Altaic, the velar spirant is preserved as such: Ex. (132) *Y-X- ‘to hunt’: O. Germ. JA-g%n, Vedic Y,-van, Evenki Ï-mka-; Ex. (141) *W-X- ‘a sheath; vagina’: Skr. 1-rú-, Lat. V,-g2na, Udegej WA, Lat. V,-rus; Ex. (14) *N-X- ‘nose’: Lat. N,-ris, Skr. NA-kra; Ex. (138) *L-Xw ‘shovel; to dig’: OCS LO-pata, O. Ir. L,-ige, Evenki L*mki, Negidal Lo--osïn-, Khanty /0--!l (!:%) Therefore a long sonant is often in agreement with not only the evolution of root structure J1–H2– but also with the evolution of the type H1–J2–. See also # 160: *X-W: Lith. ÁU-d', OCS AU-sa, Fin. VU-ras, Negidal XaW-#dakta. Ex. (172): *Xy-Y ‘to go, walk’: Homeric E3-mi, Lith. E3-din', Oro#i 3, Fin. HiI.htää. __________________________________________________________________ 28

Proto!Boreal Lexicon __________________________________________________________________

Perspectives The Proto-Boreal view as suggested by Andreev concludes a long chapter of hot discussions regarding the possible relationship between Indo-European and other linguistic groups. Unlike previous attempts, Andreev’s book is brief, profound, and – last but not least – coherent. Furthermore it is open to modular, both horizontal and vertical developments. Andreev himself (Andreev 1986 b, 1987) added data, mainly from Hungarian and Korean (two languages initially absent in his book) and made additional comments. It is outstanding that he aimed at an accurate, computer-like analysis of languages in their historical development. His arguments may be eventually debatable, yet it is for the first time that an ample material is analysed in such a way, with such convincing rectitude and by suggesting possible or potential developments. Andreev’s view is also an incentive to further analyses regarding the evolution of Upper Palaeolithic-Mesolithic-Chalcolithic languages, and the human evolution in prehistory. There are various ways in which we may attempt to exploit the available data and suggest further analyses. One refers to the very essence of the linguistic and ethnic realities in prehistoric Europe and Asia. We may thus better understand Slavic, Thracian or Illyrian ethnogenesis, as an example, and compare this to Hittite, Greek or Latin ethnogenesis, generally better known from written sources. And we may further expand the analysis to the Uralic-Altaic area, and understand why the similarities between (say) Finnish and other Indo-European languages is sometimes striking.

__________________________________________________________________ 29

Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________

Indeed, Andreev’s theory is always open to further investigations and to additional data. We tried to suggest a possible relationship with some archaic forms in Romanian. In all these cases, it is understood that we consider these forms of (certain, probable, possible) Thracian origin. In other words, they represent a component of the sub-stratum element in Romanian. This is important to understanding the complex ethnogenesis in Central-East Europe, e.g. the Thracian, Baltic or Slavic ethnogenesis, a topic we also approached in some instances. This contribution therefore continues and expands previous attempts towards the understanding of Euro-Asian prehistory. NOTE See the Appendix for a synthetic list of the Indo-European, Uralic and Altaic linguistic groups as quoted in the Lexicon Etymologicum.

__________________________________________________________________ 30

Proto!Boreal Lexicon __________________________________________________________________

Lexicon Etymologicum Proto-Borealicum Phoneme !"# (1) *W-T- ‘year’, ‘long-living’ Gr. WéT-os ‘year’ Fi. VuoT-uinen ‘year-’ Vedic VaT-sará- ‘period of a 6-year cycle’ Lat. UeT-us ‘old’ Khanty UT-/kh2 ‘every year’ Skr. par-UT ‘of the passed year’ Äwenki UT-ä4 lepti ‘old, of yore’ • It is debatable whether Rom. v"túi ‘a young, one-year old lamb’, may be viewed in the perspective of this root as an indigenous, Thracian heritage (as I. I. Russu believes). This hypothesis seems justified. (2) *T-W- ‘to keep, to hold; support’ Lith. TV-árdyti ‘restrain, repress’ Lith. TU-r'ti ‘keep’, from archaic *TW–+ rÄwenki TU-rut- ‘keep together’ Nanaj TU-ndüwän ‘to keep’ Fin. TU-kea ‘support’ (< *TW-k-+ ) Est. TU-gi ‘support, prop’ Ewän (Lamut) TÜ-rüt- ‘to hold, to restrain, to prop’ (< *TW-r-+ xy-) Khanty T5-t67 ‘to hold, prop in a boat’ (< *TW-tx-+ ) __________________________________________________________________ 31

Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________

Khanty T5-86t ‘to hold, prop a boat’ (< *TW-xt–) Äwenki TÜ-k- ‘to hold, to keep fast’ (< *TW-r-xy-) Lith. TaU-pà ‘restrain in expenses, thrift, economy’ (< *T-W-p-) = TaU-sà ‘id.’ (< *T-W-s-) Äwenki TÜ-rga ‘prop, support’ = TÜ-kta ‘id.’ O. Mong. TU-l8an ‘prop, support’ Nenets T’U-rts’uts’ ‘to have as a prop, as a support’ O. Mong. TU-l- ‘to lean upon’ Nenets T’U-rkutas’ ‘to lean upon’ Äwenki T9-nin- ‘to lean upon’ (< *TW-xn--yn-) Khanty T5-tast6ta ‘to lean upon, to set against’ Nenets T’U-rxalas’ ‘to lean upon’ O. Turk. TU-truq ‘to support, to prop’ Khanty T"W-6rta ‘to hold a river, to dam, to weir’ (< *T-+ W-xr-) Korean TU-k ‘dam, weir’ (< *TW-g–+ xy-) O. Turk. TU-8 ‘dam, weir, obstacle, barrier’ Khanty T5-l ‘barrier; partition’ (< *TW-lx-+ ) Note 1. In Khanty, the Boreal -W-, when vocalized, may become -5under the influence of the following -X-, not necessarily in the immediate neighbourhood. Note 2. When dealing with long narrow vowels 1, 9, 3 we must bear in mind that they may be the result of a contraction either from the type -WH-, YH- (where the symbol H denotes any velar spirant, currently labeled ‘laryngeal’, i.e. X, Xy, Xw) or from the type -HW-, -HY-. (3) *T-M- ‘dark(ness)’ Skr. TáM-a ‘darkness’ __________________________________________________________________ 32

Proto!Boreal Lexicon __________________________________________________________________

Lith. TaM-sà ‘darkness’ Est. TuM-e ‘dark’ Lith. TéM-ti ‘darken’ Fin. TuM-mentaa ‘darken’ Lith. TeM-dyti ‘darken’ Lat. TeM-pt% ‘to touch, to tempt, to explore’ Saami T'M-mes ‘dark’ O. Sl. T"M-"n#$‘dark’ O. Ir. TeM-el ‘dark’ Skr. TaM-asa- ‘dark-coloured’ Latvian TiM-a ‘darkness’ U1#i TaM-na ‘darkness; mist’ O. Turk. TuM-an ‘darkness, mist’ Lat. TeM-er% ‘I cast shadow’ Lat. TeN-ebras ‘darkness; shadow’ (< *T-M-nbh-) Latvian TiM-st ‘to darken’ Nenets Ta:-anak ‘full darknes’ (< *TM-gh-+ n-) Russ. TéM-en’ ‘full darkness’ (< *T-+ M-ny-) O. Turk. TüN ‘night (< *T-+ M-ny-) Ewän TiM-i- ‘to grope in the darkness’ Äwenki TäM-2- ‘to grope; to feel in the dark gropingly’ U1#i TäM-ürü- ‘to grope, to feel gropingly’ • Cf. Rom. a (se) întuneca ‘get dark’ from * (în)TuM-neca; cf. also a tuna ‘to thunder’. If our our approach is accepted, then this may be another word of Thracian origin in Romanian, with prefix în- < Lat. in, a very frequent

__________________________________________________________________ 33

Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________

derivation device in Romanian. NFl Timi; (Romania, several locations), Timok (Serbia-Bulgaria), Thames etc. are probably derived from the same root. (4) *D-R- ‘to sting, to scratch’ Avest DaR- ‘a to sting’ Orok DaR-gi ‘harpoon’ Est. ToR-kama ‘to sting’ Fin. TeR-ä ‘sharp’ Lith. DìR-ti- ‘to tear’ Goth. dis-TaíR-an ‘to tear’ (5) *D-W- ‘to cut; a knot, a stump; piece of wood’ Skr. DU-d%&a ‘broken, torn off’ Fin. TY-vi (< *DU-wy-) ‘base of a tree, butt-end’ Äwenki DU-r- ‘to beat, to whip’ Fin. TY-rkätä (< *DU-rky-) ‘to push’ Est. TuU-pi ‘a kick, a strike’ Lith. DÙ- bol-bor-); see also above # 19. A post!classical form *bergolare may be supposed for East Romance. Its ultimate origin should be held for Thracian. (23) *Bh-Xw ‘a child, a baby; to give birth; to bring forth Est. PO-isu ‘a small child’ (< *BhXw-y-) Fin. PO-ju ‘a (small) child’, PO-jka ‘a child’ W Phryg. BO-i ‘a child’ (< *BhoXw-y-) Old Germ. BuO-bo ‘a child’ (< *BhoXw-bh-) Ved. Bh,-va- ‘mother’ (< ‘the one who gives birth’) ME killen > to kill. Khanty WeL-/nteta ‘to catch, to kill’ Gr. BéL-emmon ‘a spear’ (< *GweL-xy-), BéL-os ‘id.’ Äwenki UL-ti ‘id.’ Sound .*+(a) The languages which neutralised the opposition aspirated– non!aspirated (Slavic, Baltic, Iranic, Albanian, Balto-Fennic, TungusMan)ur), *Ghw and *Gh were confused; (b) Celtic, which neutralised PIE Dh/D, Bh/B, Gh/G and Ghy/Gy, preserved the opposition Ghw v. Gw, namely in strong positions, in Anlaut, after consonants, before a labial sonant; the result was G and B. Otherwise put, the labio-velar mark backed the contrast with aspiration, lost in the other cases. (c) Khanty, which merged Gh and Ghy into Kh, preserved the opposition against G (reflected as K) and against Gy (reflected as (), and neutralised the

__________________________________________________________________ 59

Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________

opposition Ghw - Gw, reflected as the labial sonant W. Thus the labial component became predominant. (d) The languages which regularly preserved the opposition aspirated v. non-aspirated (Sanskrit, Greek, Armenian, Germanic) and also those languages which sometimes preserved this opposition (Latin, Hittite, Tokharian), the opposition Ghw-Gw was preserved. It is interesting to note that Germanic and Latin reflected Ghw by the sonant W, as in ObscoUmbrian. Also, when the initial spirant was lost, the Tungus-Man)ur languages has a similar evolution. All these details show that labiovelarity was a distinctive mark in Proto-Boreal. It is therefore natural that the emergence of $ in Ablaut, a genetically essential feature, led to the strong trinary opposition *$/*L/*zero. (56) *Ghw-N ‘to run for hunt, to chase; to follow, pursue for hunt’ Äwenki UN-ke ‘to follow, to pursue (for hunting)’ (< *GhwN-k-) Fin. VaaN-ia ‘to follow’ (< *GhwoN-xy-) O.Sl. GoN-iti ‘to run (initially for hunt) Nanaj XaN-p#(i ‘to run for hunt’ (< *XuaN-p#-) Skr. ja-GhN-' (passiv) ‘is pursued, followed’ Äwenki HaN-7i- ‘to pursue’ (< Huan-/ngi < GhwoN-xn-) Orok UN-änä ‘to smell, to sniff something (< to smell for hunting)’ Äwenki H'N-nuka ‘a dog which brings the hunt’ Gr. Th'N-% ‘I touch, I strike, I hit’; pe-PhN-émen ‘to strike’ • Cf. Rom. a pîndi ‘to pursue, to watch hunt’, presumably via Thracian, from *GhweN-d-, with Ghw > p. If so, the evolution PB *Ghw > p, via Thracian, is an outstanding phonetic phenomenon. See also next entry. (57) *Ghw-R- ‘to get warm (by sun, hearth, fire); embers; fever; shiver’ __________________________________________________________________ 60

Proto!Boreal Lexicon __________________________________________________________________

Gr. e-ThéR-'n ‘I made (it) warm’ (< *Gwer-xy-); Äwenki HuR-ga ‘to get meat dry under sun’ Skr. GhaR-má- ‘blaze; a recipient for cooking’ Äwenki UR-kan ‘to boil/cook a bear‘s heart’ Lat. FoR-nus (> furnus) ‘an oven’ Lith. GaR-úoti ‘to evaporate’ Gr. ThéR-m' ‘heat; temperature’ Arm. _eR-mn ‘heat’ Est. Vär-in ‘fever’ Fin. VäR-ähdys ‘shiver’ • cf. Rom. a pîrli ‘to singe, to scorch’ with the same evolution *Ghw > p (see also above under example 56). Seems related to pururi (adverb) ‘eternally’, initially a noun + the plural mark -uri for the neuter gender. The meaning of *pur- ‘fire’, hence pururi ‘eternal fires’ > ‘eternal (in general) in one of the most interesting semantic evolutions in Romanian, proved also by the probable relationship *pur ‘fire’, pururi ‘eternally, for ever’ – a pîrli ‘to singe, to scorch’. (58) *Ghw-Xy ‘to light(en); to be transparent; bright, yellow; bile, gall’ Lith. GA-ñdrytis ‘become bright, day comes’ (< *GgwXy-y-) Khanty WA-r/`ta ‘to be transparent’ (< *GhwXy-r-) Gr. PhA-idrós ‘bright’ Latvian GA-iés ‘bright’ Khanty WaG-l/`ta ‘to come to light from the forest’ (< *GhwoXy-lx-) Fin. VaA-lea ‘bright’ (< *GhwoXy-lx-) Latvian DzE-ltens ‘yellow’ (< *GhwXy-el-)< Äwenki U--2 ‘bile’ __________________________________________________________________ 61

Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________

Old Norse GA-lla ‘bile’ = Gr. khol', Lat. fel Sound %-. Differences of evolution against X occurred when a second focus was present, i.e. an additional labialisation of articulation, especially after stressed syllables; the result was *% as a result of contraction. Before the stress the result was *$. In the other cases, the evolution of Xw and X was the same (see also above examples 20, 23, 38, 39, 45). (59) *Xw-R ‘embryo, bud; offspring, scion; to corner, to germinate, germination; to grow; to go out’ Gr. ÓR-menos ‘scion, etc.’ (< *XwoR-m-) Fin. OR-aat ‘germinated cereals’ Mansi OR-xo ‘growth’ (< *XwoR-xw-) Skr. AR-dhitum ‘it grows’ (< *XwoR-dh-) Solon OR-%kto ‘grass’ (< *XwoR-xw- Thr. ( (satem) > Rom. ( would be normal. (63) *Bh-N ‘to tie; a knot; to wrap’ Skr. a-Bh#N-tsit ‘tied (up)’ (< *-BhoN-dhs-) Khanty P$N’-t’a ‘to tie, to wrap’ (< *GhoN-dhy-) Nanaj BoM-bi ‘to make a knot; to tie’ (< *BhoN-bh-); see below Rom. bumb Khanty P/:-/kseta ‘to switch in a knot’ (< *BhN-ks-) Gr. PHA-kelos ‘a tie; an arm’ ( lingua) ‘tongue’ O. Norse TuN-ga ‘tongue’ Skr. Dal-sayati ‘to speak’ (< *DeN-s-); __________________________________________________________________ 76

Proto!Boreal Lexicon __________________________________________________________________

Est. TöN-kama ‘to grumble, to sulk’ Skr. Dal-çati ‘to speak, to explain’ (< *DeN-ky-) (b) Derived meaning: ‘to teach, to instruct; to learn, to get knowledge’ Gr. DA-mmenai ‘to teach’ (< *DN-exym-) Gr. dedí-DA-gmai ‘he learnt’ (-DN-g-) Est. TuN-dma ‘to learn, to know, to get knowledge’ Fin. TuN-to ‘feeling, sense’ (88) G-Y (a) ‘mosquito, flea, an insect‘s sting’ Khanty KöJ-7i ‘mosquito’ Äwenki GI-dlin ‘to suck’ (about mosquitos etc.) (< *GY-dl-) Fin. KI-rppu ‘flea’ Est. KiI-n ‘gadfly’ Russ. dial. KI-gló ‘a wasp sting’ (< *GeY-gl-) Nanaj GI-ltär ‘pervaded, be stung’ Fin. KoI ‘moth’ Arm. e-KI-c ‘pervaed, be stung’ (b) Derived meaning: ‘fang; to wound; sharp’ Nanaj GoJ-a ‘a fang’ Est. KI-hu ‘fang’ Oro#i GoJ-ow ‘to wound’ Fin. KeI-häs ‘spear’ Äwenki GI-li7a ‘sharp’ Roots of the type Q1-H2-; see also examples (9) Dh-Xy and (33) G-X

__________________________________________________________________ 77

Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________

(89) Gy-X ‘to get married; to have offspring’; essential terms referring to family and family relations Äwenki Q,-l#- ‘to get relatives (by marriage), < *GyeX-lxGr. GA-mé% ‘I get married’ (< *GyX-m-) Est. KiH-luma ‘to get betrothed’ (< *GyeX-lw) Nanaj dial. Q, ‘a man, a husband’ Khanty Me--l/w ‘like father, similar to his father’ (< *GyeX-lw-) Udegej Q, ‘a relative’ Fin. KiH-la ‘betrothal’ Fin. KÄ-ly ‘sister-in-law’ (< *GyX-lw-) Gr. GA-ló%s ‘sister-in-law’ (90) Dh-X ‘a bush, shrub, hedge; branch; full of bushes/hedges’ Skr. DhA-nvana ‘a bush’ (< *DhXe-nw-) Fin. TiH-eikkö ‘a hedge’ (< *DheX-xyy-) Cymr. DA-il ‘leaves’ (< *DhX-ly-) Fin. TuuH-ea ‘bushy, with (many) branches; thick’ (< *DhoX-xw-) Est. TiH-e ‘bushy; thick’ Gr. ThÁ-leia (< *DhX-ley-), ThÁ-los ‘a branch, a twig’ Nanaj D,-ina ‘to get big, increase’ (< *DheX-yn-) Mong. DA-rwai ‘wide, open’ (91) Kw-X ‘cough; to cough’ O. Eng. Hw*-sta ‘cough’ (< *KwoX-sta) Est. KöH-ima ‘to cough’ (< *KwoX-y-) Corn. P,-z ‘cough’ (< *KweX-s) Khanty KH-ol ‘cough’ (< *KwX-ol-) Äwenki K,-ld/ ‘to snort, to rattle’ __________________________________________________________________ 78

Proto!Boreal Lexicon __________________________________________________________________

Alb. KO-llë ‘cough’ Fin. KöH-ä ‘(dry) cough’ Mansi K,-7, interj. imitative of dry cough Khanty KH-ot ‘cough’ (92) P-Xw (a) ‘defence fire; to put fire to; to scatter fire’ Hitt. PaH-hur ‘fire’ Negid P*-)a ‘a spirit of fire’ (< *PoXw-gy-) Gothic F*-n ‘fire’ (< *PoXw-n-) Oro#i P*-pi ‘birch bark on fire’ (< *PoXw-py-) Khanty P"--/rla ‘to burn with flames’ O. Sl. PaL-iti ‘to burn’ (< *PoXw-l-) Nanaj PO-7ki ‘to smoke’ Oro#i P1-nan)ï ‘to smoulder’ (< *PXw-wn-) Khanty Pö--tä ‘to scatter sparks’ Ul#i PO-si ‘a spark, glitter’ (b) Derived meaning: to defend; to pasture, a herd, a flock of animals’ PuO-ltaa ‘to defend’ (< *PoXw-l-) Skr. P,-yya ‘defence’ Hitt. PaH-&- ‘to defend; to pasture’ Fin. PA-imentaa ‘to pasture’ Gr. P*n-ÿ ‘a herd’ (< *PoXw-yw-) Skr. PA-çú ‘a herd’ Äwenki H-#da ‘a herd’ (< *PXw-exd-) • Rom. a pîlpîi ‘to smoulder’ (< *PoXw-l-p), related to group (a). __________________________________________________________________ 79

Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________

(93) G-Xw ‘to shout, yell; a bird‘s cry, etc.’ Russ. GA-m ‘loud voices, shouts’ (< *GoXw-m-) Est. KA-rjatus ‘a shout’ Äwenki GO-don ‘gossips’ O. Germ. K1-ma ‘a shout’ (< *Gxw-wm-) Mansi GO-ngan ‘a shout’ Russ. dial. GA-jag ‘to shout’ (< *GoXw-y-) Fin. KA-rjua ‘to shout’ Russ. GA-rkag ‘to shout’ (< *GoXw-r-) Cymr. GA-ran ‘crane’ Udegej G*-k(i ‘an owl’ (< *GoXw-k-) • Cf. Rom. ga, gaga ‘a goose shout’, gîsc" ‘goose’, gînsac ‘a male-goose’, and the whole Germanic and Slavic family of these forms. I assume that the Romanian forms interfere with, not are borrowed from, Slavic. Additionally, the Bulgarian form (g"ska) seems to reflect the Thracian heritage in Bulgarian rather than the Slavic form. Type Q1-H2-C3(C4); See also examples (22) B-X; (39) Ky-Xw (94) K-X ‘to wish, according to one‘s wish; to defend collectively; to repel the enemy’ Skr. KH-a=ati ‘he wants (it)’ (< *KX-or-) Latvian K,-rot ‘to be thirsty; to want, rave for’ (< *KoX-r-) Khanty KH-ojta ‘to want, wish’ (< *KX-oy-) Ved. #-K,-yíya ‘a wish, desire’ (-KoX-y-) Avestan KA-y# ‘I want’ __________________________________________________________________ 80

Proto!Boreal Lexicon __________________________________________________________________

Ul#i KA-li ‘to want; to need’ Skr. K,-ma- ‘desire’ Nanaj KA-mor ‘together; unification’ O. Lat. CO-m = CU-m ‘(together) with’ O. Turk. QA-ma8 ‘whole, all as a whole’ Äwenki K,-lbä ‘together, in one place’ Oro#i KA-pali ‘together, in one place’ O. Mong. XA-mtu ‘together, in one place’ (< *KX-em-) O. Germ. HuO-ta ‘helmet’ (< *KoX-dh-; usually explained from PIE root ‘to cover, protect’) Fin. KaH-akka ‘a fight, harassment’ Ul#i K,-dara ‘to act bravely’ Mansi KA-dura ‘to repel the enemy’ The evolution of meaning ‘to want, wish’ – ‘to defend’ is explained via the intermediate meaning ‘to wish to defend’, while ‘to want’ – ‘to praise’ via ‘to wish all good to happen, to greet’. (95) Ky-X ‘a branch; to branch out; a pitchfork, pale, harpoon; to use fork, pale, harpoon, etc.’ Nanaj M,-m# ‘a branch, branching out; a fork, a pitchfork’ (< *KeyX-m-) Skr. Ç,-kh# ‘a branch, a horn’ (< *KyeX-kxy-) O. Norse H,-r ‘a pitchfork’ (< * KyX-n-) Cymr. CA-ngan ‘a branch, pitchfork’ (< *KyX-ong-) Khanty Mä--in ‘a twig, a poker, a stick’ Lith. PÂ-kos ‘a fork’ (< *KyX-okxy-) Oro#i MA-pka ‘a fork’ Est. KeH-tima ‘to act, to use’ __________________________________________________________________ 81

Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________

Oro#i M,-sima ‘harpoon’ (96) Gw-X ‘to swim to the bank/shore, to depart from the bank/shore; to go down to the bank/shore’ Khanty W/--/lta ‘to go to the bank (coming from the forest) (< *GwoX-xl-) Äwenki U--? ‘a bank, shore’ (< *GwX-wxy-) Skr. ja-G,-ma ‘he came’ Negid U--wu ‘to stand up, fly up’ Dor. B,-se?mai ‘I go up, climb’ (pqVTr, < *GweX-s-) Äwenki U--as- ‘to sit on the deer, horse’ (< *GwX-es-) Khanty We--titta ‘to go for the bank/shore’ Dor. bé-B,-ka ‘he descended, went down’ (97) G-Xy ‘embankment, earthwork, earth; soil, field, piece of land’ Lat. ag-Ge-r ‘earthwork, earth’ (< *-GXy-er-) O. Norse KA-sa ‘to make earthwork, to dig the earth’ (< *Gxy-s-) Est. KoH-e ‘dug out’ (< *GoXy-) Gr. G0 ‘earth’ (< *GeXy-) Fin. KE-to ‘a meadow’ (< *GXy-edh-) Fin. KE-santo ‘a field’ (< *Gxy-es-) Fin. KE-nttä ‘field’ (< *GXy-en-) W. Cymr. G,-l ‘an even piece of land’ (< *GXy-sl-) Est. KoH-t ‘a piece of land, a place’ (< *GoXy-dh-) (98) Gh-Xy ‘to catch game, caught game’ Khanty Kha--/rta ‘to catch’ (< *GhoXy-r-) Skr. ja-H,-ra ‘he caught, he took’ (< *-GhoXy-r-) Hom. e-KhA-ndanon < *-GhXy-nd__________________________________________________________________ 82

Proto!Boreal Lexicon __________________________________________________________________

Fin. KaH-mia ‘to catch, to get’ O. Pers. GA-rb#yati ‘he catches’ (< *GhXy-or-) O. Ir. GA-ibid ‘he catches, takes’ O. Eng. bi-GE-tan < *-GhXy-edÄwenki Go-- ‘to hunt, go for animals with precious fur, by using dogtraction sledges on low snow’ Lith. GA-vHba ‘prey’ Ul#i G0-xü ‘hen-hawk, prey bird’ (< *GheXy-xw-) (99) Ky-S ‘knife; to cut; cut off/out’ Skr. Ç#S-á- ‘battle knife’ (< *KyoS-x-) M. Ir. CeS-s ‘a pervading weapon’ Mari K/Z-/ ‘knife’ Gr. KS-yrón ‘razor’ Ul#i MaS-u ‘to cut, to split’ Lat. CaS-tr% ‘I cut’ O. Turk. KeS- ‘to cut’ Gr. KS-ésma ‘cut sign’ (< *KyS-es-) Gr. KS-s% (tur) ‘to polish, get a smooth surface’ Type Q1H2C3-C4; see also examples (20) B-Xw; (41) Ky-Xy (100) T-X ‘to melt; snow thaw in spring; low water(s); a pond, lake’ O. Sl. TA.jati, TA.jf ‘to melt, to thaw’ (< *ToX-y-) Dor. T,-k% ‘I melt’ (passive) < * TeX-kKhanty T"--ïru7kh ‘waters after snow thaw’ Khanty To--ï ‘spring’ (< *ToX-y-) __________________________________________________________________ 83

Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________

Khanty T-$t/mtta ‘to melt, thaw’ (< *TX-ot-) Gr. TA-kerós ‘melting, thawing’ (< *TX-ker-) Gr. T-énagos ‘low waters’ (< *TX-enx-) Khanty je-- ‘low water’ Äwenki T,-7k2 ‘dead branch (of a river)’ Mansi TA-tla ‘dead branch (of a river)’ Gr. T-élma ‘still water’ Äwenki Ta--in ‘a pond’ (101) K-Xy ‘to catch, get with a hook, a hook, a claw, to catch with the claw; a sheepfold, a pen’ Khanty Ke--r/mt/ta ‘to fix with a hook’ Khanty Kä--ri ‘a hook, a pitchfork’ Khanty Kö--cogi ‘to fix a bow’ Khanty Ki--/c ‘a pitchfork, a pale’ O. Eng. H*-c ‘hook’ (< *KoXy-g-) Russ. KO-gog ‘a claw’ (< *KXy-y-) Negidal Ke--jan ‘sea-hawk’ Lat. CA-pess% ‘I catch, hunt’ (< *KXy-p-) Lat. C0-pi (< capio) < *KeXy-pO. Mong. Xa--#- ‘to hunt/chase the game; to impale (= kill) the game’ MHD HA-g ‘a fold, a pen, an enclosure’ (< *KXy-gh-) (102) D-Xw ‘to give; a present; a gift, sacred gift (to gods), offering; to bring in general’ Gr. dí-D*-mi ‘to give, to offer’ Äwenki D*-)i ‘an offering (upon sacrificing an animal)’ Nanaj D*-bo ‘to present/offer food to a deceased person’ __________________________________________________________________ 84

Proto!Boreal Lexicon __________________________________________________________________

Lat. DA-ps ‘an offering’ (< *DXw-p-); D*-num Hitt. DaaH-hi ‘I carry’ (= a gift) Khanty Tu--itta ‘to bring’ (< *DXw-y-) Est. ToO-ma ‘to bring’ Skr. D,-çati ‘to bring an offering’ Mansi DO-bo ‘to bring an offering’ (103) Ghw-Xw ‘to be poor; shortage; to ask for, to beg; to be thirsty’ Gr. PO-thé% ‘to long for, to desire; to regret’ (< *Pho-th- < GhwXwo-dh-) Est. VA-jama ‘to be poor, in need’ (< *GhwXw-y-) Äwenki U--i ‘shortage; a little’ (< *GhwXw-yx-) Lith. GO-b&áuti ‘to have a taste for’ (< *GhwoXw-b-) Khanty Wa--epta ‘to ask for, to beg’ Khanty Wa--/nta ‘to ask for’ O. Ir. ro-G,-d ‘asked for, begged’ Lith. GO-dùs ‘greedy’ Type Q1-H2-C3-C4; see also examples (19) P-Xy; (23) Bh-Xw (104) Ghy-X ‘an offspring screaming; to scream with hunger; to call; to open the muzzle’ Farsi Z,-gh ‘offspring’ Russ. dial. KO-pag ‘to scream’ Fin. KeH-to ‘a cradle’ (< *GhyeX-t-) Khanty Kh-ol-t/ta ‘to make noise, be noisy’ (< *GhyX-ol-) Arm. JA-in ‘voice’ (< *GhyX-yn-) Negidal QA-rbala ‘to ask, beg’ (< *GhyX-rb-) __________________________________________________________________ 85

Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________

Oro#i QÄ-mü ‘hungry’ Solon QoG-or ‘shortage of fodder’ Äwenki vo- ‘to be in need’ Skr. HÁ-vat' ‘a call’ Fin. KU-tsua ‘to call’ Russ. ra-Ze-vag ‘to open the mouth, muzzle’ Latvian K,-vaties ‘to open, to yawn’ Äwenki Q,-wni- ‘to yawn’ Yakut Q,-sïi ‘to yawn’ (105) T-Xy ‘to go out for fire; to bring fire; to burn, burning; burning pain’. Negid To--ol% ‘to go out for fire’ Khanty Tü--/t ‘fire’ Äwenki To--o ‘fire’ Skr. T,-pana ‘to burn, to cremate’ (< *ToXy-p-) Fin. TuH-o ‘destruction’ (TuH-o-poltto ‘to destroy by fire’) Fin. TuH-a ‘ashes’ (TXy-gx-) Est. TaH-m ‘soot’ O. Eng. DhE-ccan ‘to burn’ (< *Txye-gx-) Skr. T,-tapti ‘to suffer with a burning/painful disease’ Fin. TU-lehdus ‘burning’ = O. Eng. Dh0-or (< *TeXy-wr-) Latvian T1-kt ‘to swell, inflate’; cf. Lat. TU-mor. (106) Kw-Xy ‘to lie in wait for; to still-hunt; to lurk’ Gr. T0-ré% ‘to guard, to surveille’ (< *KweXy-r-) Fin. KoH-data ‘to wait for a long time’ (< * KwoXy-d-) Khanty KÜ-gitta ‘to sniff, to smell (an animal)’ (< *KwXy-dy-) __________________________________________________________________ 86

Proto!Boreal Lexicon __________________________________________________________________

Skr. ci-K3-hi ‘(he) observed, guaded, found out’ (< *-KwXy-ydh-) Est. KE-stma ‘to last/wait for a long time’ (< *KwXye-st-) O. Mong. KE-)ij'nei ‘since (a) long (time), ever since’ (< *KwXye-gy-) O. Sl. MA-s8 ‘time’ (< *KweXy-s-) Khanty KH-o8- ‘long, long time’ (< *KwXy-oxw-) Alb. KO-hë ‘time, weather’ (< *KweXy-sx-) Gr. é-PA-thon ‘to endure = to accept pain for a long time’ (< *-KwXy-dh-) Fin. KÄ-rsiä ‘to endure’ Lith. KA-n(ia ‘to suffer, endure’ (< *KwXy-nt-) (107) Gw-Xy ‘woman, wife’ Gr. GY-n' ‘woman’ (< *GwXy-nex-) Mansi UX-än ‘younger brother‘s wife’ (< *GwXy-en-) Gothic Q0-ns ‘woman’; related to Eng. quean > queen O. Ir. BE-n ‘wife’ Äwenki U--2 ‘elder brother‘s wife; wife of father‘s/mother‘s younger brother’ (< *GwXy-yx-) Solon U-jö ‘to get married’ Fin. VA-imo ‘wife, woman’ (< *GwXy-ym-) Mansi UX-ümä ‘the wife of father‘s younger brother’ Tokh. ÇÄ-m ‘woman, wife’ (< *GwXye-m-) • Rom. zîn", zân" ‘a fairy queen’ (< ‘sacred woman’ < ‘woman’) belongs to the same group; note the sacred character of the word, of Thracian origin, due to an euphemistic evolution: a taboo to pronounce sacred words. The common words for ‘woman’ in Romanian are of Latin origin: femeie (< Lat. familia) and muiere (< Lat. mulier). And also Sl. Mure; etc. (116) K-Xw I. ‘to bite; to pinch; to gnaw; a nut’; II. ‘to dig; a cavity; deep; dipper’ I. Latvian KO-st ‘to bite’ (< *KoXw-) Skr. Kh-#dati ‘(it) bites, gnaws’ (< *KXw-oxwd-) Arm. XA-canem ‘I bite’ Lith. KÁ-ndu ‘I bite’ Gr. KÁ-ryon ‘a nut’ (< *KXw-rw-) Äwenki KO-(ikta ‘a nut’ O. Germ. HA-sal ‘a nutbush’ II. Khanty Kh-ï7ta ‘to dig’ (< *KXw-en-) Skr. Kh-ánati ‘(he) digs’ (< *KXw-on-) Khanty Kh-"Dïta ‘to dig’ __________________________________________________________________ 93

Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________

Russ. KO-pag ‘to dig’ Khanty Kh-ot6kh ‘a cavity, a hollow’ Mansi KO-bi ‘a cavity’ Khanty K~--ri ‘deep’ (about recipients) (< *KoXw-ry-) Äwenki K*-mba ‘a dipper’ Ul#i KO-durpu ‘a dipper’ Oro#i K*-ndi ‘a dipper’ • Cf. Rom. c"pu;" ‘a tick’ (Melophagus ovinus), presumably of Thracian origin, whereas Rom. c"u; < Lat. cavus ‘deepened, hollowed out’ may also belong to this root, via Latin. (117) T-Xw (a) ‘to stay, be on guard; to guard, to guard, watch an unknown person; defence’ Äwenki Tä--ät- ‘to stay on guard’ (< *TeXw-xt-) Khanty Tı--6sta ‘to guard, to watch’ (< *TXw-est-) Lat. T1-tus ‘a safe place, beyond any danger’ (< *TXw-wt-) Äwenki Tö--6n- ‘be on guard, watch’ (< *ToXw-xyn-) O. Sax. ThA-u ‘watch’ (b) Derived meaning: ‘far away, over there; therefore, so’ Oro#i T*-to ‘far away, over there’ Khanty T$--6nam ‘there’ Lat. is-T1-c (< *TXw-wk-) Khanty T$--6pa ‘over there; in that part’ Nanaj T* ‘look over there’ Est. ToO ‘that one’ Gothic ThA-ta ‘that (one)’ Äwenki Tu--i ‘so, in that way’ __________________________________________________________________ 94

Proto!Boreal Lexicon __________________________________________________________________

Gr. Homeric T•-s ‘thus, in this way’ (118) B-Xy (a) ‘to baa, to bleat; a sheep, ram, wether’ Lith. B0G-bti ‘to bleat’ (< *BeXy-b-) Russ. dial. BE-kag ‘id.’ Äwenki B0-rü ‘sheep’ (< *BeXy-rw-) Alb. BE-rr ‘a ram’ (< *Bxy-er-) (b) Derived meaning: ‘sheep stomach; sheep fur; a lay for sheep; a shepherd’s stick’ Khanty Pa--D67ne ‘a ruminant animal’s stomach’ Oro#i BA-gda ‘sheep fur’ (< *BXy-ghwdh-) Fin. PeH-ku ‘a straw lay for sheep’ Fin. PaH-nat ‘straw layer’ Lat. BA-culum ‘a shepherd’s stick’ Gr. BÁ-ktron ‘a shepherd’s lay, bed’ • Cf. Rom. a beh"i ‘to baa, to bleat’, via Thracian, which reflects a conservative preservation of the velar spirant (otherwise known as &va indogermanicum); we have shown elsewhere that Thracian and, for some time, Proto-Romanian had a laryngeal reflecting this archaic sound. Also bîr, now obsolete: ‘a sheep’ (cf. Alb. berr), but still frequent as NL, NM Bîrsa, Bârsa, bîrsan ‘from Bîrsa’, i.e. a specific sheep fur from that area. Cf. also Czech beran ‘a ram’. (119) Gw-Xw (a) ‘big horned animal of the Bos family: buffalo, cow; a herd of horned animals; udder’ Gr. Dor. B€-s ‘a cow, an ox’ (< *GwoXw) __________________________________________________________________ 95

Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________

Skr. G,-u- ‘a cow, an ox’ (< *GwoXw-w-) Khanty Ü-k6s ‘a bull’ (< *GwXw-wyg-) Arm. KO-v ‘a cow’ (< *GwXw-w-) Äwenki HU-kun ‘udder’ (< *GwXw-kw-) Lith. Gu*-tas ‘a herd’ (< *GwoXw-t-) Äwenki U--uwa ‘a herd’ (< *GwXw-ow-) (b) Derived meaning: ‘manure, dung, compost; to depose excrements; to damage’ Russ. GA-dig ‘to depose excrements’ (< *GwoXw-dh-) Lith. GA-dinti ‘to damage, turn wrong’ (< *GwXw-odh-) Fin. VaH-inko ‘a damage’ • Cf. Rom. balig" ‘an animal excrement, dung’; b"legar, b"ligar ‘manure’; archaic indigenous terms of Thracian origin. Its place here is seemingly confirmed by the regular change PB Kw-, Gw- > Thr. p, b respectively. Further analyses should confirm, or not, our hypothesis. All the terms refer to a usual, standard archaic activity: herd keeping. As correctly noted by Andreev, the evolution to ‘excrement, dung, manure’ is later, and due to a pejorative connotation. (120) Dh-Xw (a) ‘a leaf of resinous trees; a needle of coniferous trees; coniferous needles; to prick, to sting’ Khanty Tu--6r ‘a needle of resinous trees’ (< *DhXw-r-) Gr. ThO-ós ‘pricky, sharp’ (< *DhXw-ow-) Skr. Dh,-ra ‘sharp tools’ (< *DhoXw-r-) Äwenki Du--un ‘a gear, a sharp stick’ Äwenki Dü--in ‘a perforator’ Fin. TuH-ota ‘to destroy, to demolish’ __________________________________________________________________ 96

Proto!Boreal Lexicon __________________________________________________________________

Lat. FI-go ‘to thrust, to fix (by thrusting)’ (< *DhXw-yg-) Äwenki D3- ‘to thrust’ (< *DhXw-y-) (b) Derived meaning: ‘inside; to sow, to inseminate, to fecundate; to have sexual intercourse; a pregnant woman (= inseminated)’ Äwenki D*-l# ‘inside’ Äwenki D*-w- ‘to thrust inside’ Gr. ThO-rnHontai ‘he fecundates’ Äwenki D*-(2 ‘a pregnant woman’ (121) T-K ‘to carve, to cut; adze; a pole’ Skr. TáK-&itum ‘to cut, carve with an adze’ (< *ToK-s-) Negidal ToK-to- ‘to cut’ O. Norse TheK-sla ‘an adze’ (< *TeK-s-) Äwenki TuK-awun ‘adze’ (< *TK-xw-) Gr. TéK-t%n ‘carpenter’ Fin. TuK-ki ‘a log, a piece of (cut) wood’ Oro#i TäK-sä ‘a cut pole’ Fin. TiK-ku ‘a splinter, a chip’ Type Q1 Q2 C3 (C4) (122) Ghw-Dh ‘to hit the target; to distroy; to damage; to squeeze’ Russ. dial. GoD-ig ‘to hit the target’ (< *GhwoDh-y-) Khanty WiT-ta ‘to shoot/aim at’ (< *GhweDh-t-) O. Mong. -oD-uli ‘a hit, kick with the weapon’ Khanty WäT-c6m ‘the point of an weapon’ Oroki XuD-a(ï ‘to destroy by fire; to roast, grill (meat, fish)’ (< *GhwDh-okyy-) __________________________________________________________________ 97

Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________

Gr. PhTh-er% ‘I destroy’ (< *GhwDh-er-) Lith. GêD-o ‘damaged’ = Gr. PhTh-óros ‘death, destruction’, Gr. Hom. PhTh-ínei Skr. KP-áyati ‘he destroys’ (< *GhwDh-oy-) MHD QVeT-sen ‘to squeeze’ (123) Kw-T ‘a group; a mass of people; many people; to increase the number of; among many people’ Sl. MeT-a (< *KweT-x-) ‘a group of people or soldiers’ Russ. dial. KóT-urom ‘a lot, many’ Lat. QUoT ‘how many?’ Äwenki KoT-on)o‘a lot, much’ Hitt. KuWaT-ta ‘how much, how many’ Skr. KaTh-aXnu‘many times’ (< KwoT-xw-) Äwenki KäT-äl- ‘to be more (people), to increase the number of’ Fin. KuT-ea ‘to cast spawn, to spawn’ Äwenki KäT-äs%- ‘to increase number’ (< *KwT-soxw-) Fin. KuT-oa ‘to tie up with many knots, to weave’ Khanty KüT-n6 ‘among many people’ (< *KwT-nexw-) (124) D-Ky ‘with/by both hands: to take with both hands; to keep with both hands, etc.’ Gr. Hom. DéK-sato ‘taken by both hands’ Vedic D#Ç-á- ‘(a) moved by both hands; (b) boatman’ Äwenki DI-kätän ‘palms’ (< *DKy-kwt-) Gr. -DoK-'kRs ‘taken, seized by both hands’ Fin. TaK-ertua ‘to seize by both hands’ Gr. DóK-ana ‘a bar to be seized by both hands, a railing’ __________________________________________________________________ 98

Proto!Boreal Lexicon __________________________________________________________________

(125) P-T ‘(moving) up-down, to fly up-down; to fall’ Vedic pa-PT-iva ‘up-down, a fly up-down’ Oroki Pa3-(ïlla ‘to strike with a hammer’ Lat. PeS-sum (< PeT-sum) ‘up-down, on the ground’ Fin. PuT-ous ‘a falldown’ Mansi PaT-ak ‘a fall of a hard, medium-sized object’ Gr. PT-#sthai ‘to fall; to fly’ Khanty PiT-tä ‘to fall’ Gr. pé-PT-*ka ‘(it) rolled down’ Khanty P"T-(a ‘to move down’ Type J1 Q2; see also Example (1). (126) L-Gh ‘to lie down; to lay down; to go to sleep’ Gothic LiG-an < * LeGh- = German liegen, Eng. lie, lay Hitt. LaG-aari ‘(he) lies down’ Äwenki LäG-däkan ‘to let down as a sign for a trip’, e.g. a fur on a branch etc. O. Sl. LoK-iti ‘to lay down, to set, to put’ (< *LoGh-y-) Est. LôK-s ‘a trap’ Gr. dial. LéKh-etai ‘to go to sleep, to lay down in bed’ Khanty LoKh-khinta ‘to go to sleep, to lay down for sleep’ (127) Y-K ‘to convince, to persuade; to implore, to ask for; to sing’ Skr. Y#C-ati ‘he persuades’ (< *YoK-) O. Germ. JeH-an ‘to talk, speak’ (< YeK) Fin. JoK-eltaa ‘to babble, to coo’ __________________________________________________________________ 99

Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________

Äwenki JaK-o ‘to speak’ Äwenki Ja-ä ‘to call’ Lith. JaK-smti ‘to shout, yell’ Negid 3K-(in ‘a shout’ Russ. dial. ÍK-ag ‘to shout’ Äwenki IK-a ‘to sing’ (< *YK-exy-) Osc IúK-leí ‘religious song’ Udegej JäX-ä ‘to sing’ (< *YeK-xy-) • Cf. Rom. a icni ‘to gasp, to groan’ (usually, a sound expressing pain or effort). Type J1!Q2!C3!C4 (128) W-P ‘to cast (up); to spill (over); to spread; to have a dispute, to fight’ Skr. UP-ta ‘cast, thrown up’ Hitt. UP-zi ‘to look up; to rise (about sun)’ Est. UP-itama ‘to support, back up’ Skr. VaP-ana- ‘climbing up, elevation’ Oroki UP-kä ‘snowed road, snowbound road’ (< *WP-kexy-) Skr. VaP-tum ‘spilled over, cast over’ O. Eng. YF-el ‘upset; dangerous’ (< *WP-xyel-); hence modern evil Est. UP-sakas ‘high’ Äwenki UP-(u ‘to pretend, to claim (up)’ • Cf. Rom. hopa, opa a interjection expressing ‘high, high up; cast up’; often used when playing with a baby by casting him/her up and down. The forms are unexplained so far. Initial h may reflect an archaic velar spirant as inherited from Thracian. To date I do not have another example which may lead to the __________________________________________________________________ 100

Proto!Boreal Lexicon __________________________________________________________________

conclusion that PB initial W may result in Thracian h > Rom. h. Cf. a !op"i ‘to jump as for dancing’; if such a connection is acceptable, then PB velar spirant may be also reflected by ! in Romanian (usually h and f), which sometimes corresponds to Albanian th. (129) W-K ‘to prepare, to make; a tool, an object’ Gothic WaíH-ts ‘object’ (< *WeK-t-) Ul#i WaK-a)i ‘well done, masterful’ Khanty WaKh-6lta ‘to carve the walls of a house’ (< *WoK-xl-) Lat. VeC-tis ‘a gear, a bar’ Mansi UK-u ‘a cage (made of plated stuff) for wild birds’ Gr. OK-ladí#s ‘a plated chair’ (< *WoK-l-) Russ. dial. VeK-o&ki ‘wooden knitting needle’ Oro#i UK-sama ‘made of birch bark’ Russ. dial. VaK-olka ‘fishing tool’ O. Sl. V'P-t6 ‘an object, a thing’ (< *WeK-t-) Fin. VE-hje ‘an object, a thing; a device’ (130) Y-G ‘ice; to freeze (about a river or lake)’ O. Norse JaK-i ‘ice floe, ice pack’ (< *YoG-n-) Fin. JäÄ ‘ice’ (< *YeG-xy-) O. Eng. IC-el ‘ice floe, icicle’ Khanty JÖ-7k ‘ice’ (< *YoG-xyn-) M. Ir. AIG ‘ice’ (< *YoG-y-) Khanty JÄ-7kDam ‘soft ice’ Lith. IK-as ‘soft ice’ Russ. dial. IG-núg ‘to freeze’ __________________________________________________________________ 101

Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________

Khanty JÖ-8li ‘frost’ (< *YoG-xyl-) (131) N-Bh (a) ‘a dull day, cloudy day; rain; cloud; to become cloudy’ Gr. NéPh-os ‘dull weather, cloudy day’ Äwenki N#B-e77a ‘dull day, cloudy day’ (< *NBh-xn-) Skr. NáBh-as ‘cloud, rain’ Äwenki NüB-li ‘to rain in large quantities’ O. Norse NiF-l ‘dark; cloud’ (< *NeBh-l-) Äwenki N#B-uk#t ‘to become cloudy’ (< *NBh-xw-) Fin. NaP-ista ‘to murmur’ (< ‘to have a sound like rain’) (b) Derived meaning: ‘to open the gates of rain; to break, to crack; to open’ Vedic NáBh-at' ‘to begin rain; to spring’ Äwenki NäB-d6rkin ‘to break, to crack; to open a blossom’ Est. NuP-pu ‘blossom (in evolution)’ Äwenki NäB-där ‘to open, to appear (about leaves)’ (132) Y-X ‘to hunt; game; to follow; artefacts for hunting, e.g. weapons’ O. Germ. JA-g%n ‘to hunt’ (< *YXo-gh-) Ul#i JO-sï ‘to hunt seals’ Vedic Y,-van- ‘followed up; hunted for’ (about horses) (< *YoX-w-) Oroki J,-mga ‘to sneak in (for hunting)’ (< *YeX-m-) Äwenki Ï-mka ‘to shoot/aim at’ (< *YX-mk-) Khanty Jö--tilta ‘to shoot with the bow’ (< *YoK-dy-) Ul#i JA-kta(ï ‘to shoot with the bow’ O. Turkish JA ‘a bow’ Fin. JO-usi ‘a bow’ Äwenki J1-lgä ‘a blow, a shoot (with a weapon)’ (< *YX-wl-) __________________________________________________________________ 102

Proto!Boreal Lexicon __________________________________________________________________

(133) N-Xy ‘cannot be; is impossible; to refuse, to reject; to get rid of’ Lat. N0 (< *NeXy-) Äwenki N’Ö-n’ä ‘it cannot be, is impossible’ (< *NXyo-nxy-) Äwenki N1-si7i ‘cannot be, is impossible’ (< *NXy-ws-) Nanaj N’O-mori ‘uncomfortable’ (< *NXyo-m-) Skr. N,-çáyati ‘(he) refuses’ (< *NeXy-kyy-) Fin. NyH-tää ‘pluck out weeds; eradicate, pull out’ Derived meaning: ‘to fall; snake; poison’ Äwenki N’O-rma ‘to come on tiptoe with weapons, for attack’ Äwenki NÄ-kä- ‘to fight’ Gr. NE-•kos ‘fight, battle’ O. Ir. NA-thir ‘snake’ Äwenki Ni--ul ‘poison’ (134) M-Xw ‘upper part; head, neck, throat; mane’ O. Norse M‚-na ‘to elevate’ (< *MoXw-ny-) Alb. MA-jë ‘a peak’ O. Eng. MO-lda ‘head’ Skr. M1-rdhan ‘head’ (< *MXw-ldh-) Oroki Ma--ï ‘the skin on bear’s head’ Äwenki MO-7okto- ‘skin on the neck or head of a bird’ Skr. MÁ-nya- ‘nape’ (< *MXwo-ny-) O. Ir. MU-in'l ‘neck’ (< MXw-ny-) Negid MO-7on ‘neck’ Khanty Mo--6D ‘mane’ Khanty M$--6t ‘hayrick, corn stake’ __________________________________________________________________ 103

Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________

• Cf. Rom. archaic forms, presumably of Thracian origin: muie, muian ‘face; mouth’ (pejorative meaning, including the vulgar, socially taboo usage ‘oral sex’); and NL Maia, which interferes with maie ‘grandmother’. It is not clear the relationship with mutr" ‘face’ (colloquial), seemingly related to Basque mutur ‘face’, which would indicate a Pre-Indo-European origin.

__________________________________________________________________ 104

Proto!Boreal Lexicon __________________________________________________________________

Type J1-H2-C3(C4) (125) L-X ‘bright night; a night with moon; moon; to contemplate the moon; to wait’ Lith. dial. LÓ-p' ‘light’ (< *LoX-p-) M. Ir. L1-an ‘light; moonlight; moon’ (< *LX-own-) Lat. L1-x (< *LX-owk-) Arm. LU-sin ‘moon’ (< *LX-ws-) Äwenki LO-7)ama ‘moon; moonlight’ Skr. L*-kat' ‘(he) looks at, contemplates’ (< *LX-owk-) Khanty Li--tä ‘(he) looks at, contemplates’ Gr. LE-uss% ‘I look (at), I see’ (< *LX-ew-) Khanty Le--6l686Dta ‘to look at’ Khanty Jo--ta ‘to guard, wait (for the hunt)’ Lith. LÁ-ukti ‘to wait’ (< *LX-owk-) Khanty Ja--D6khs6ta ‘to wait’ (< *LX-lgh-) Derived meaning: ‘bright, white; snow’ Gr. LA-mpros ‘bright’ (< *LX-mp-) Gr. LE-ukós ‘white’ (< *LX-ewk-) Äwenki L,-mus ‘snow’ (< *LeX-m-) Udegej LA-fula ‘snow’ O. Mong. LA-bsa ‘snowflakes’ • Rom. a lic"ri ‘to glitter, to glow’ and licurici ‘glow!worm’ reflect the same root, via Thracian.

__________________________________________________________________ 105

Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________

(136) Y-Xy (a) ‘young; beautiful; joyful; to gambol, frolic’ Lith. JÁ-unas ‘young’ (< *YXy-wn-) M. Cymr. IE-u ‘young’ (< *YXy-e-w-) Gothic J1-niza ‘young’ (< *YXy-wk-) Doric H0-b# ‘serene youth’ (< *YeXy-gwx-) Gr. HA-brós ‘glad, joyful’ (< *YXy-gwr-) (b) Derived meaning: ‘to frolic, to play; to throw, to cast; to hit, to kick; to break’ Lat. JA-cere (< *YXy-k-), J0-ci (< *YeXy-k-) Khanty Jo--titta ‘to throw, cast’ Khanty Jo--6mta ‘to hit, to kick’ Äwenki JA-7u ‘to break by striking’ Äwenki JÄ-n ‘to break’ (< *YeXy-n-) Ul#i JÄ-pürän ‘to destroy’ • Cf. Rom. iute ‘fast’, iure; ‘rush, race’ (formerly the rush of a battle or war); usually, the dictionaries do not make the connection between the two forms, and some assume that iute would be a Slavic influence. (137) M-X (a) ‘mother; old woman’ Doric M, ‘mother’ (< *MeX) O. Norse M9-na ‘mother’ (< *MoX-n-) Fin. MuO-ri ‘mother’ (< *MXo-xwr) Mansi MA-mu (< *MX-m-) Nanaj ma-M,-rïsal ‘mother; old woman’ Est. MoO-r ‘old woman’ (b) Derived meaning: ‘wife; to get married’ Est. MÔ-rsja ‘wife’ __________________________________________________________________ 106

Proto!Boreal Lexicon __________________________________________________________________

Ul#i MA-mala ‘to get married’ (< *MX-m-) Äwenki MA-7a ‘suitor, wooer’ • Rom. mum" ‘mother’, in mythological terms, e.g. Muma P"durii ‘Mother of the Forest’ reflects an indigenous Thracian form, with the confirmed evolution Thr. # > ô/? (as in Dun"re ‘the Danube’ etc.) against mam", of Latin origin, and Slavic maic". For Thracian, we must start from the form *m#ma ‘mother’ as confirmed by Andreev’s parallel forms. The meaning in Romanian reflects the preservation of Thracian forms in specialised categories, in this case folk mythology. (138) L-Xw ‘a paw; palm; shovel, oar shovel; to dig’ Khanty Jƒ--6l ‘a paw; palm’ Russ. LA-pa ‘a paw’ (< *LoXw-p-) Khanty JO-p ‘paw’ (< *LXw-p-) O. Germ. LA-ffa ‘palm; oar shovel’ (< *LXw-p-) Khanty LA-mp ‘palm, oar shovel’ O. Ir. L,-ige ‘shovel’ O. Sl. LO-pata (< *LXw-p-) ‘a shovel’ Gr. LA-khaín% ‘I dig’ (< *LXw-gh-) Äwenki L*-mki ‘to dig, to rummage’ (< *LoXw-m-) Negid Lo--osïn ‘to dig’ (< *LXw-os-) • Andreev puts together both Russ. Russ. LA-pa ‘a paw’ (< *LoXw-p-) and LO-pata (< *LXw-p-) ‘a shovel’. The meaning and form related to this seem also: Rom. lab" ‘a paw’ and Hung. láb ‘id.’ Traditionally the Romanian form is considered of Hungarian origin, mainly starting from the erroneous assumption that an archaic, indigenous element cannot have intervocalic .b-. __________________________________________________________________ 107

Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________

On many occasions I showed that this is not a sustainable hypothesis. Therefore Rom. lab" may also reflect an indigenous, Thracian heritage. Further research must clarify the relation between Romanina, Hungarian and Russian forms with the meaning ‘paw’. The indigenous character of Rom. lab" seems to be also supported by the usual dog-name L"bu;, without parallel in the neighbouring languages, with the archaic suffix -u;, as present especially in the archaic, Pre-Romance place- and river-names. (139) M-Xy ‘to measure; measurable; big, large; numerous’ Skr. M,-ti ‘(he) measures (< *MoXy-t-) Est. MôO-tma ‘to measure’ Skr. MI-tá- ‘measurable’ (< *MXy-t-) Gothic MI-tan ‘to measure’ (< *MXue-d-) O. Sl. M0-rjf ‘I measure’ Äwenki MÄ-kä ‘big, large’ (< *MoXy-k-) Vedic M,-hina ‘huge, giant’ Lat. MA-gnus < *MXy-gynEst. MaH-ukas ‘voluminous’ (< *MXy-wk-) Äwenki MÄ-nli ‘to enlarge, become wider’ Äwenki M0-lta ‘to increase ten times’ (< *MeXy-l-) Äwenki M0-klï ‘ten in a group of reindeer’ Gothic MA-nags ‘much’ (< MXy-nogh-) Fin. MO-net ‘many’ (< MXyo-n-) Yakut MÄ-näk ‘very many animals’ (< *MXy-nexy) • Rom. mare ‘big, large’ has long been debated if of indigenous Thracian origin or simply a peculiar evolution of mare ‘sea’ (< Lat. mare, maris). Linguists still debate on this topic. If of Thracian origin, the proto-form must have been *mar-, not *m#r-, as Thr. # changes into u in Romanian, via __________________________________________________________________ 108

Proto!Boreal Lexicon __________________________________________________________________

an intermediate phoneme ô, sometimes preserved in dialectal forms (against the more frequent u-forms). These examples do not seem to confirm the hypothesis that Rom. mare ‘big’ may be of Thracian origin, but rather an internal evolution of the type ‘sea’ – ‘big, large’. (140) Y-Xw (a) ‘to mix up; a mix for soup’ Skr. Y,-ti ‘(he) mixes up’ Äwenki J*-n ‘to mix’ (< *YoXw-n-) Lith. JÓ-ve ‘(he) mixed (it) up’ (< *YoXw-w-) Oroki JU-rädi ‘to mix up’ Gr. Z*-mRs ‘soup’, i.e. ‘a mixture of many ingredients’ (< *YoXw-m-) Fin. JuO-ma ‘a drink’ (< *YoXw-m-); also JuO-da ‘to drink’ Mansi JA-ru ‘soup’ (< *YXw-rw-) (b) Derived meaning: ‘a branch, a hook, a pitchfork’ (< ‘tools, objects for mixing up’) Khanty Jï--lï ‘a branch, a twig’ (< *YXw-ly-) Mansi J*-da ‘a hook for the bow’ Gr. Z*-stós ‘to girdle, to surround’ Khanty Jo--r6mt6ta ‘to turn over; to turn to the other side’ Lith. Ju*-si ‘(he) girdled, tied up’ (141) W-X (a) ‘a sheath; vagina; separately; to unfold’ Udegej WA ‘sheath’ Lat. U,-g2na < *WeX-gyOro#i WA-(a ‘a female animal’ Skr. 1-rú- (about women) ‘with beautiful thighs’ (< *WX-rw-) Lat. U,-rus ‘curved, with curved legs; contrary’ Khanty U--ra8t6ta ‘to unfold’ __________________________________________________________________ 109

Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________

(b) Derived meaning: ‘remote; at a certain distance; to call’ Lat. d2-U3-sum < *-WX-ysVedic V0-dhitum ‘to be far from something, someone’ (< *WX-oydh-) Est. VaH-e ‘distance’ Khanty Wa--ta ‘to call’ O. Sl. VA-biti ‘to call; to entice, to lure’ • Cf. Rom. a (se) v"ita ‘to lament, to call for support’ and Fin. VA-littaa ‘to lament’; Rom. form may reflect a local development from vai < Lat. vae, yet the relation with Finnish valittaa would thus remain obscure. They may have been similar, related forms in both Latin and Thracian which interfered at colloquial level. (142) L-Xy ‘to love, beloved; charmful; to take care of’ O. Eng. L0-ofian ‘love’ (< *LXye-wbh-) Fin. LE-mpi ‘love’ (< *LXye-m-) Skr. a-L,-&i ‘(she) embraced her lover’ (< *-LeXy-s-) O. Sl. LA-skati < *LXy-oxsNanaj LÄ-rguar ‘tender, lovingly’ Est. LaH-ke ‘lovingly’ Fin. LE-mpeä ‘loving, affectionate’ Lith. LÊ-po ‘(he) became drowsy, torpid’ Russ. LE-lejag ‘to caress’ Lith. L0-lo{ ‘a doll’ • Cf. Rom. lele ‘an older girl/woman’, closely related in form and meaning with the Lithuanian form; l"lîu ‘torpid, drowsy; lazy’

__________________________________________________________________ 110

Proto!Boreal Lexicon __________________________________________________________________

(143) W-Xy ‘to carry/take from one camp to another; to move; to drive the oxen; to guide a group of hunters from one place to another; to go through, to pass over’ Skr. a-V,-k&ám ‘(he) went away’ (< *-WoXy-ghys-) Khanty W#--imtä ‘to bring new force’ Äwenki U--ahin- ‘to drag something heavy’ (< *WXy-oxn-) Est. VeH-men ‘a shaft (for draggin)’ Skr. 1-hati ‘(he) transports’ (< *WXy-ghy-) O. Ir. FE-did ‘(he) carries’ (< *WXye-dh-) Fin. VE-tää ‘to carry’ Lith. VE-lkù ‘I pull, I drag’ Avestan VA-r6k ‘to transport’ (< *WXy-lk-) Avestan V,-dhuyeiti ‘he carries’ Negid W0-dü- ‘to go for hunt’ O. Sl. VO-z8 ‘vehicle, a cart’ Gr. ÓKh-os ‘a cart’ Lat. VeH-%, vehere, vex2 ‘to carry’; also vehiculum (144) N-Xw ‘ours; of our tribe or family; offspring of our family; childish’ O. Sl. NA-m8 ‘to us’ (dative) (< *NoXw-m-) Skr. N,-u ‘to us’ O. Ir. N,-r ‘with us, at us’ Gr. N* ‘ours’ Solon N*C ‘a child’ (< *NoXw-m-) O. Mong. Ni--un ‘a child’ Skr. NA-gná- ‘naked child’ (< *NXwo-gwn-) Derived meaning: ‘withered, weak, lean, slow’ __________________________________________________________________ 111

Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________

Gr. N*-khel's ‘withered, weak’ Äwenki N*-m#n ‘slow’ Fin. NaH-jus ‘good-for-nothing, idler’ Negid N’O-mnal- ‘to become weak, powerless’ (< *NXwo-mn-) Lith. NúO-gai&a ‘weak, lean’ (145) R-Xy ‘to set, put signs or tokens; to arrange; to group together; to reckon; to rule; much, abundant(ly)’ Lat. R0-g%, R0-gLre, R0-xi ‘to rule, to master over’ (< *ReXy-gy-); R0-gula ‘a ruler; a set square’ Skr. R,-jati ‘(he) sets right, arranges’ Fin. RyH-mittää ‘to group together’ Gothic RA-hnjan = German rechnen ‘to reckon’ (< *RXy-k-) Skr. R,-y- ‘richness’ Est. RoH-kus ‘richness’ Derived meaning: ‘to call (for order); to shout’ Solon o-R’0 ‘to call’ Lith. R0-kti ‘to shout’ Äwenki o-R0- ‘to shout’ Skr. R,-uti ‘(he) shouts’ (146) W-Xw (a) ‘a wound, to wound; to thrust, to penetrate; to scratch’ Latvian V,-ts ‘a wound’ (< WoXw-t-) Cymric GW-eli ‘a wound’ (< *WXw-ely-) Skr. 1-&ati ‘wounded’ (< *WXw-s-) Gr. *-thé% ‘I thrust’ (< *WoXw-dh-) Khanty Wa--6lt6ta ‘to kill a bear’ Est. UH-tuma ‘to strike, to beat, to kick’ __________________________________________________________________ 112

Proto!Boreal Lexicon __________________________________________________________________

Äwenki U--u- ‘to get a sting, to prick’ Negid Ö--ä- ‘to get a sting, to prick’ (b) Derived meaning: ‘blood, sanguine; a vein’ O. Ir. FU-il ‘blood’ (< *WXw-oly-) Äwenki U- ‘a vein’ Farsi V,-l#na- ‘a bleeding wound’ Type J1-J2 (147) W-Y ‘a bush; trees; branches; to become green; fruit’ Fin. ViL-dakko ‘a bush’ Khanty WI-r6s ‘a group of birch-trees or poplars’ O. Norse VI-dhr ‘a bush; grove’ O. Eng. WI-du ‘wood’ Lat. UI-rga ‘a rod’ Est. VI-ts ‘a vine branch; a rod’ Fin. VI-hreä ‘green’ Lat. UI-rere ‘to turn green’ Lith. Va„-sius ‘a fruit’ (< *WoY-s-) (148) N-M ‘to take, to snatch; to add; to distribute equally; to eat distributed food’ Gothic NiM-an (< *NeM-) = Germ. nehmen Äwenki NoM-kït ‘to shoot with the bow’ O. Mong. NuM-un ‘bow’ Latvian …eM-t ‘to take’ (= Germ. nehmen) Skr. NaN-da ‘satiation, sufficient provide’ (< *NeM-d-) __________________________________________________________________ 113

Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________

O. Mong. NeM-e ‘to get’ Oroki NaM-at(ï- ‘to load’ Äwenki NaM-äla ‘to load’ Gr. NoM-ádos ‘one who uses a grassland; one who errs from one place to another’ Gr. NoM-ós ‘pasture, grassland’ Oroki NüM-gä ‘to swallow’ Gr. NeM-ónt%n ‘distributing, sharing in equal parts’ Äwenki NeM-adivut ‘to share game among all the inhabitants of the village’ (149) R-Y ‘to have a nomad life; to horse; to use the boat or sledge; to go up, climb’ Äwenki ö-RÏ-n (< *RY-n- with a protetic vowel) ‘to migrate’ Äwenki ü-RI-l# ‘to move to another place’ Med. Ir. R3a-dim ‘I go, drive a vehicle’ (< *ReY-dh-) Khanty RI-t ‘a boat’ Lith. RáI-(iotis ‘to roll (over)’ (< *RoY-t-) Lith. RIe-dmti ‘to roll over’ (< *ReY-dh-) O. Germ. R3-tan ‘to drive a vehicle, to ride’ (= Eng. ride) Fin. RiI-mu ‘a halter (of a horse)’ Lith. RI-snóti ‘to trot, to move, go at a slight trot (about horses)’ • Cf. Rom. a r"t"ci ‘to err, to lose one’s way’ < ? Lat. *erraticare or indigenous Thracian to be included in this category? I am rather inclined for a Thracian origin, proto-form *r"t-"c- related, in form and meaning, to English ride and Old German r2tan.

__________________________________________________________________ 114

Proto!Boreal Lexicon __________________________________________________________________

(150) M-N (a) ‘man; thinking, understanding, broad-minded; to remember, to remind; memory’ Skr. MáN-u- ‘man’ Gothic MaN-na = Eng. man, Germ. Mann O. Sl. Mo(N)-?$( h. • If this relationship is not possible or confirmed, then we must look for another basic root to satisfy dependencies. Hung. Bihar is from Romanian; see next entry. Bihor NR With a probable Hungarian phonetic influence (o v. a) from Biharea. The expected form in Romanian would have been *Bihár. bîrf! ‘gossip, slander’. See bîrfí. bîrfí ‘to gossip, to slander’. Seems derived from bîr (beyond any doubt archaic and indigenous, not analysed here) an appelative for sheep, initially the word for ‘sheep’ in Thracian. If so, the pejorative meaning was derived from the basic one ‘to utter sounds similar to those of sheep’. Phoneme f reminds the archaic velar spirant (laryngeal). boarf! ‘a rug; old clothes; a prostitute’. Must be analysed in relation with bor(í and borhot (see); alternating f/( indicate the existence of an initial velar spirant (laryngeal), and a good hint that the forms should be indigenous. Etymon unknown; a basic *borX! ‘old, outdated’ may be reconstructed for a prehistoric form; this covers the modern meaning ‘rug, old clothes’ and ‘sour liquid’ for the forms bor(!. borhót ‘marc, husks’. A traditional term used as referring to brewing of various fruit. Seems related with boarf& < *borX ‘old, outdated’; also related bor( and zbor(i, with alternating h/f/( < velar spirant *X. bor" ‘bortsch; sour soup’. Traditional word. The basic meaning is ‘the basic liquid used for some types of soup, made of corn husk or bran in lukewarm water’. Most linguists hold it for a Slavic borrowing, even if its etymological family seems related with bor(i (also zbor(i), boarf& and __________________________________________________________________ 175

Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________

borhot, which are obviously non!Slavic. If indeed Slavic, then all the quoted dependencies should be clarified too. bor"í ‘to get sour; to get a bad taste’. Traditionally assumed as derived from bor(, in its turn assumed of Slavic origin. It seems that bor(í is rather related with boarf& and borhot (< *borX); further analysis should also clarify whether bor( is not again a derivative of this root too, and not a Slavic element, but a Thracian element in Slavic, as its etymological family is richer in Romanian, and reflects a compact etymological group, represented by boarf&, borhot and bor(i. See also zbor(i. buf Imitative of a fall down, approx. ‘bang’. The word originally was imitative-onomatopoeic, nevertheless its archaic origin is most probable. The root is *b(h)uX initially denoting a powerful air flow, like a gust of wind or air when speaking. See buflei, buft, bufni, bufni/&; buh, buh&. The alternating f/h is specific for the treatment of the archaic velar spirant in Romanian, via Thracian. See also puh, puf&i/puh&i, probably from the same root. bufléi ‘a fat, plumpy child or animal’. From the same root as buf, bufni, bu(i. buft ‘stomach’. From the same root as buflei ‘fat, plumpy’, and largely to the root represented by the related forms derived from root *buX: buf, bufni, buh, bu(i, puf&i and pufni, with the original meaning ‘to swell, to explode (e.g. air through mouth etc.)’. Alternating f/h/( stand for the original X, a specific velar spirant (laryngeal). bufní ‘to sulk, to pout’ (usually referring to small explosions, also figuratively, as when furious). From the same root buf/buh/bu( as in buh&, bufni/& and bu(í; also the parallel form pufni is atttested. The alternating f/h/ (, sometimes also v, indicate the existence of a velar spirant (laryngeal). The family represented by these forms, with alternating f/v/h/(, is the best example of how prehistoric laryngeal developed, and finally changed into historically later phonemes. Similarly v&taf/v&tah but the verb a v&t&(í and NP V&t&(escu v. NP V&tafu. Cf. pufni, puf&i/puh&i. __________________________________________________________________ 176

Velar Spirant in Thracian __________________________________________________________________

bufni#! ‘owl’. The root buf/buh, also in the parallel form buh&, with alternating f/h, also with alternating f/v/h/(, the indication of prehistoric and perhaps also historic velar spirant (laryngeal). The root *buX, was initially onomatopoeic, immitative of the sound made by owls and then generalised as in the verbs a bufní and a bu(í. buh Now only in expressions: a i se duce buhul ‘to become known as...’, usually pejoratively. Derived from root *buX ‘to explode, to inflate, to make a noise or specific sound’. Here X stands for the archaic velar spirant (laryngeal). buh! ‘owl’. A parallel form of bufni/& (see). Cf. a bufní and a bu(í. bulhác, !e ‘a pond’. From the same root as balt&, with development in velar spirant (laryngeal) and suffix ac. burduf, -uri s.n. Akin to Alb. burdhë ‘a bag’ (cf. Rom. burt& ‘belly, stomach’). The basic root bur- must have had the meaning ‘swollen’, cf. burt&, bor/, IE *bher-, *bhor- ‘to bear, to carry’, initially applied to the belly of a pregnant woman, later associated to any swollen, big object, resembling a pregnant woman's belly. • Rom. final f reflects an initial velar spirant (‘laryngeal’); cf. a puf&i/puh&i, v&taf etc. originally with the same velar spirant. bu"í ‘to make a specific noise, e.g. when falling down; to cuff, to thump’. With alternating (/f and different development, from the same root like bufni, further from the same root like buh& and bufni/&. bu"tean An equivalent of butuc (not analysed in this paper). The original form seems to have been *bu!tean, and would therefore be a derivative of buc and/or somewhat related with butuc, buturug&, even if the alternating bu(t – butuc/buturug is not comfortable. Anyway, the substratum origin seems probable. The probable IE root is *bheu! ‘to swell, to grow’. bu"tihán A dialectal form of bu(tean, with h showing an initial velar spirant (laryngeal).

__________________________________________________________________ 177

Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________

bu"umá ‘to scratch and clean a horse with a wisp of straw’. Archaic term, etymon unclear. If the original meaning may be related to the sound produced in scratching the horse, than from the same root as bu(i, bufni. c!f!lie Dialectal and expressive. Seems related with ceaf&, even if the alternance ce [!] 3 c [k] is not comfortable, and would indicate that some Thracian dialects had a centumlike, not satemlike, phonetic evolution, a detail furtively noted by Iv"nescu 1980, but not further argumented. Cf. sc&f&lie and sc&fîrlie, in which latter case r seems epenthetic. See also NM Cheafa, Parîng Mts. ceaf!, cefe s.f. ‘(back part of the) neck’. Related with Alb. qafë ‘neck’. The ultimate etymon is unclear, perhaps of Preie. origin (as we believe). Phoneme f probably reflects an archaic velar spirant (or laryngeal in the traditional terminology), the result of which was f, h, v and zero in Romanian. This velar spirant is reponsible for a series of specific phonetic changes, among these the alternation f/h, hence ceaf&/Ceahl&u. As argumented elsewhere, 0echy ‘the Czech lands, Bohemia (as part of Czech Republic) seems also derived from this archaic root, with the specific meaning ‘the neck of a hill’ = ‘mountainous region’. • There is a series of seemingly related forms without palatal !, i.e. NM Cheafa, c&f&lie, sc&f&lie, and which are closer to Alb. qafë and Arabic qaf1 ‘neck’. If this relation is accepted, then we must assume a Pre!Semitic, Circum!Mediterranean term. Ceahl!u NM One of the examples showing the alternating f/h, remnants of the archaic velar spirant (laryngeal), therefore the same etymon as in ceaf& and NL Cefa, further NR 0ech ‘Czech’. Similarly, buh&/bufni/&, fer&str&u/Her&str&u, v&taf/v&tah, vuí/huí etc. with alternating f/h/v. • Dr"ganu 1933: 347 refers to Hung. csahló ‘bald eagle’, which should be anyway reanalysed. Cefa NL (BH) Same etymon like ceaf&. See also Ceahl&u, with alternating h/f, remnants of the archaic velar spirant (laryngeal). __________________________________________________________________ 178

Velar Spirant in Thracian __________________________________________________________________

Cheafa NM (Parîng) Related with ceaf&, NM, NL Ceafa, with a difficult to explain alternance c[k] 3 !, as in ceaf& – c&f&lie, sc&f&lie. ciuf s.n. ‘a tuft (of hair)’. Also used for various night birds like owls with two tufts above eyes; named also ciuhurez. Related with cioc (see) with the same basic meaning ‘pointed, prominent’. Final f as in burduf and v&taf, a remnant of an initial velar spirant (or laryngeal). Similarly, in intervocalic position, ceaf&. The variant ciuhurez, with intervocalic h, also witnesses the initial velar spirant, with different suffix urez, as in huhurez, also another name for owls. ciuf! ‘eagle owl’. Derived from ciuf. A parallel name of the eagle owl is huhurez; see also bufni/& and buh&. ciufuli ‘to have uncombed hair, as in tufts’. Derived from ciuf. corhán The insect Blatta germanica. The root cor ‘round, balllike’ seems the same as in corcodu( and corcolí/corconí; phoneme h seems to witness the original velar spirant (laryngeal). Though apparently without any etymological relationship, but probably indeed so, see corh&ní below. corh!ní ‘to roll down felled logs or stumps to a river or road (where they may be further carried on with a cart or raft)’. Even if without an apparent relationship, seems derived from, or closely akin to, corhán, and confirms the basic meaning of root cor ‘round, balllike’, hence ‘to roll down (like a ball)’. d!hulá See d&ula. d!ulá ‘to exhaust, to get rid of physical power’. Obscure, very probably archaic. The form may be either interpreted as built with prefix de, d& and the basic root ul, which may be the same Preie. root as in the forms quoted under root ol!, ul!, having the basic meaning ‘high, peak, mountain’. If so, d&ula may have meant ‘to get down from the peak’ = ‘to exhaust power’; alternatively, a root daul, obscure, may be postulated. • The archaic origin is probable. The dialectal variants d&hulá, dehulá, with intervowel h, may __________________________________________________________________ 179

Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________

indicate an original velar spirant X > h. If so, a root Xul! may be postulated, non analysable. Cf. d&ulí. d!ulí ‘to bewail, to lament’. Var. d&olí. We may think that this form is built with prefix de and aoleu, an interjection of bewail or lament. Even if the derivation is newer, interjection aoleo, aoleu may be indigenous, and the form may be archaic. DEX simply assumes that aoleu in onomatopoeic. Another possibility is to see the verb closely related with the forms derived from da!, do!, du!, hence the most common is doin&, dain&, duin& (see for further references of this rich family), the typical Romanian folk song; from the same root also the ethnonym Daci, Dacisci, the northern branch of the Thracians. We are inclined to supporting this latter explanation, which is in full accordance with other data and preserving the tradition of the Thracians as good musicians, and that burial rites were accompanied by music. dehulá See d!ula. dolofán ‘fat, plump’. An expressive equivalent of durduliu (see). The root dol! ‘fat’ is isolated, and intervocalic f indicates an original velar spirant (laryngeal). It is possible to see in dol! a variant of dor!, dur! as in durduliu, which are semantically identical. See also dulu/&. f!rî$m! ‘a small piece of; a small quantity’. Alb. thërrimë, with similar meaning. The correspondence Rom. f – Alb. th (as English th in thin) speaks of an old phoneme *X, a velar spirant or laryngeal, held responsible for the alternating f/h/v in Romanian v. f/h/th in Albanian. (In this sense, see also v&taf). The forms are archaic, as proved by the verbal derivatives a f&rîma, a sf&rîma. No clear etymon, but the indigenous origin is beyond any reasonable doubt. See also Reichenkron7 1966: 118–119. 7

Günter Reichenkron, despite his good contributions to identifying and analysing the archaic heritage of Romanian, seems to have become completely ignored during the last decade. It is true his etymological approach may be debatable,

__________________________________________________________________ 180

Velar Spirant in Thracian __________________________________________________________________

ferí, also reflexive a se feri ‘to avoid, to stay/stand/keep aside (a danger etc.)’. Obscure. Initial f indicates an initial velar spirant (laryngeal) *X, so the archaic form should be reconstructed as X!R! ‘to avoid (a danger), stay afar from/of’, and must have referred to prehistoric hunting or war state. fi#e Now only in expressions like a face fi/e ‘to be whimsical, to expect others make the first step in an action’. Expressive form, related with fî/ and fî/îi. fîs!1 1. The fish Cobitis taenia; 2. a cheerful, sprighty person. The usual form for the fish is zvîrlug&, in relation with zvîrli, azvîrli ‘to cast, to throw’; also with the meaning ‘cheerful, sprighty person’. The form is isolated, improbably derived from fîs, onomatopoeic, imitative for any fizzing sound; the verb is a fîsîí ‘to fizz’. A relation may possibly be if we accept an original meaning ‘a quick move’, hence the sound of a quick move, which may explain both the name of fish Cobitis taenia and ‘cheerful, sprighty person’. Initial indicates an initial velar spirant (laryngeal) *X, which later changed into f, v, h and ( in the indigenous elements of Romanian. The archaic form must have then been *X!s ‘quick, fast; a quick move’. fîs!2 ‘a small, quick bird, similar to skylark, of the family Anthus. Associated to the meaning ‘quick’ of fîs&1. fî# ‘quick move’; hence a (se) fî/îi ‘to move to and fro’ (usually pejoratively). Incorrectly assumed a simple onomatopoeia in DEX and other works. Initial f indicates and archaic velar spirant (laryngeal) *X, later changed into f, h, v and (. In such a view, see also ha/ and ho/ ‘a thief’. fî#îí ‘to move to and fro’. See fî/. fl!mî$nd ‘hungry’. Root fla!/fl&! has 2 basic meanings: 1. ‘mouth – to speak’; 2. ‘mouth – hungry’. Initial f reflects the archaic velar spirant *X > f, h, v and (. The archaic form must have been *X!L! ‘mouth’ – ‘to eat; to be hungry’ and ‘to speak, to gossip’. See also fleac, fleanc& and flec&ri.

nevertheless his list of archaic elements – even if incomplete – is not at all outdated, and may still offer many interesting topics for further discussions. __________________________________________________________________ 181

Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________

fleac ‘unimportant thing or details’; in the plural ‘simple gossiping, just words’. The original meaning is connected to the sphere ‘to speak, to gossip’, for which see fleanc& and flec&ri. See also fl&mînd. fleánc! Pejorative for ‘mouth’. See flec&ri. flec!ri ‘to gossip, to speak nonsense’. The archaic root fle! is related to the meaning ‘mouth’ – ‘to speak, to gossip’ (hence also Alb. flet ‘he/she speaks’) and ‘mouth – be hungry’ (see fl&mînd above). Romanian preserves, via Thracian, both semantic spheres: one the one hand fl&mînd ‘hungry’, and fleac, fleanc& and flec&ri on the other. Initial f in all these forms stands for an archaic velar spirant (laryngeal) X > f, h, v and (. the root was *X!L! ‘mouth; to speak; be hungry’, also preserved in Alb. flet ‘he/she speaks’. fle# Pejorative and expressive: ‘naïve, a little bit stupid’. Seems derived from the same root as fleac, fleanc& and flec&ri, with the basic meaning ‘person who gossips, unable to express himself/herself’. flit ‘muzzle’. Regional and dialectal for bot. With the basic meaning ‘animal mouth’ closely related with fleanc& and flec&ri. fluier ‘a flute’. Alb. flojere ‘flute’. Seems a backformation from the verb a fluiera ‘to whistle’. The relation with Lat. flo, fl1re is doubtful or, if a colloquial Latin form is acceptable as origin, the phonetic details are difficult to reconstruct. Cf. fluture and a flutura. fluiera ‘to whistle’. See fluier. flútur(e) ‘butterfly’. Also NP Flutur(e), Fluturescu etc. Closely related with a flutura ‘to wave, to flutter’. Currently unexplained. There must be an etymological relation with Eng. fly, to fly, to flutter as a common Indo!European heritage. Compare the parallels fluier – a fluiera v. flutur(e) – a flutura; and Eng. fly, to fly – to flutter. See also fulg. fluturá See flutur(e). See also fulg. fri"c! ‘cream’, specifically the fresh fat part of milk, which – if whisked – the specific milk cream is obtained. The term is archaic and closely connected to milk production, where the Romanian terminology is basically __________________________________________________________________ 182

Velar Spirant in Thracian __________________________________________________________________

Latin and indigenous (Thracian). Initial f indicates an original velar spirant (laryngeal), so a root *XR! should be postulated. The analogy with a freca < Lat. frecare does not seem acceptable, even if not excluded. foac The fish Squalius leuciscus. Obscure. Initial f, if accepting the hypothesis of an indigenous element, which is most probable, stands for the archaic velar spirant (laryngeal) X. Isolated, no related form identifiable. fúf! 1. ‘small fish’, especially fish fry (Leucaspius delineatus); 2. a whore. Obscure. The term seems archaic, and very probably indigenous. Initial and internal f may stand for the original velar spirant (laryngeal), so the original root must have been *X!X! ‘small’, ‘small fish’, then pejoratively ‘whore’. fuiór ‘tow; hemp or flax bundle’. Obscure, presumably indigenous. Initial f stands for an archaic velar spirant (laryngeal) *X. fulg ‘flake’. Must be related with fluture, a flutura. Fulga NP, mainly family name. See fulg. As many family names, ending a rather reflects the invariable definite article !a. hai ‘let’s go!’. Also variants like haide, haidem, haidi. Spread all over southeast Europe (South Slavic and Turkish haydi). Held for an onomatopoeia in DEX and other dictionaries, with the suggestion that all these languages borrowed the form from Turkish, which is at least debatable, if not outright erroneous. • Obviously South Slavic haj, hajdi, hajdem(o) is an interference with the forms of iti, idem, idemo, idi! ‘to go’, therefore Turkish haydi seems rather a borrowing from Bulgarian and/or Serbian, with haj+(i)di (the imperative of iti), also mirrored in Romanian in haide, haidi, haidem (hai + idemo ‘we go’). The basic form hai is rather remnant of an old verb with the meaning ‘to go’, imp. ‘go!’; also initial h stands for an original velar spirant (laryngeal), and the forms may be globally related to the same root as Lat. e4 (< *ey4), 5s, 5re ‘to go’ < IE *ey/i ‘to go’, which would satisfy the meaning, and partially the existence of __________________________________________________________________ 183

Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________

initial h, which does not seem etymological (if accepting this hypothesis); alternatively, hai reflects another root, with the basic meaning ‘to go’, which eventually interfered with those quoted above. haihui adv. Especially in constructions like a umbla haihui ‘to err, to go to and fro, without any plan’. Expressive, with reduplicated base haihui, for which see hai and hui, also vui. This form, together with a hui/vui, huiet/ vuiet, huidui reflect the alternating velar spirant developed in Romanian as f/ h/v, sometimes also (. See hai and hui/vui. halí ‘to eat, to devour’ (expressive, colloquial; also referring to animals, especially to wolves). Alb. ha ‘he/she eats’, both forms related with hame( and h&mesit ‘hungry’. hame" ‘hungry’. Alb. hamës ‘eater, greedy’. The root ha! is also preserved in Albanian: ha ‘he eats’; hejë ‘food’, corresponding to Rom. a hali (colloquial, pejorative, as compared to a mînca < manducare, the usual form), h&mesit ‘hungry’. Initial h! leads to an archaic velar spirant (laryngeal). No clear etymon, but these archaic forms show that phoneme h was inherited in Romanian from the substratum. A relationship with Lat. edo ‘I eat’ does not seem possible. ha# Interjection with the basic meaning ‘to take abruptly, to seize, to steal’ as confirmed by the derived verb a înh&/a ‘to seize’ and the probable parallel ho/ ‘thief’, with the alternating a/o. Phoneme h would indicate an original velar spirant (laryngeal) in Thracian. DEX suggests an onomatopoeia for this form, which is of course possible for an archaic period (as in many other cases), yet the parallels ha/, a înh&/a and ho/ show that the meaning ‘to seize, to steal’ is well consolidated and is definitely old, if not archaic, prehistoric. A second root ha/, h&/ is in h&/i( and NM Ha/eg, with seemingly a different meaning, also well consolidated from prehistoric times. Ha#eg NM Related with h&/i( ‘thicket; bushes’; the root ha//h&/ ‘thicket’ should be discriminated against root ha//h&/ ‘to seize, to steal’ in ha/, ho/ __________________________________________________________________ 184

Velar Spirant in Thracian __________________________________________________________________

and the verb a înh&/a, unless an archaic, prehistoric evolution between the two semantic spheres may be reconstructed. H!b!"e"ti NL Derived from a supposed personal name as most forms in e(ti. The root h&b must be related with h&u ‘abyss’ and hobîc ‘a hollow, a pit’; NL Hobi/a. Initial h reflects the archaic velar spirant (laryngeal) *X. h!mesit ‘hungry’. Same root as hame(. h!rean (rare, dial.) ‘whey’. Alb. hirrë ‘whey’. Etymon unclear, but archaic, beyond any doubt. H!"date NFl, NL (CJ, near Turda; HD). If not a deformation of German Hochstadt, which is doubtful, then indigenous. The archaic suffix ate would also indicate an archaic origin. Initial h! would indicate an original velar spirant (laryngeal), as quite often in the indigenous elements. No clear etymon. The Preie. suffix ate was analysed by Battisti, Sostrati e parastrati 33. Cf. H&(ma(, hojma and hojmal&u. H!"ma" NM Seems related with H&(date, hojma and hojmal&u; if a relation with German hoch is in view, then it should be accepted for all these forms. Currently, they are held for unknown origin or not analysed at all. h!# ‘bridle; reins’. Must be akin to ha/ and ho/, also with the verb a înh&/a, with the basic meaning ‘to fix, to seize’. h!#á" ‘a path in abrupt, mountainous locations’. Must be the same root as in h&/i(. h!#i" ‘thicket’. The same root as in NM Ha/eg. h!u ‘abyss’. Root ha/h& reflects an initial velar spirant (laryngeal), *Xa! with the reconstructable meaning ‘hollow; abyss’. Gh. Mu!u (1995) analysed similar forms in the Pre!Hellenic and Pre!Semitic area. Cf. H&b&(e(ti, hobîc, Hobi/a and zg&u and v&g&un&. hîrîi ‘to rattle; to growl’. Akin to a sfîrîi ‘to sizzle’; the alternating h – sf indicate an original velar spirant (laryngeal). May be ultimately related to Latin !"##$#%& ‘to snarl’. The root hîr/sfîr! is imitative, and had an onomatopoeic origin, as many other forms. __________________________________________________________________ 185

Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________

hîr"i ‘to wore out’. Colloquial and expressive. Akin to hîrîi and hîr(îi. hîr"îi ‘to scrape, to grate’. Akin to hîr"i. Hîr%ova NL Dobrudja. Reflects ancient Carsium, with an unexplained change k > h, and Slavic suffix -ova. We assume, on the one hand, that – in several instances – phoneme h is inherited from the substratum, and, on the other hand, that in alternance with f, v and zero, it reflects a Late Thracian laryngeal or velar spirant (N. D. Andreev’s terminology). • Iordan, TopR 89 (quoting Bogrea) refers to cîr(e ‘peaks’, but he does not even try to explain the alternating c–h, which is not so simple. In their turn, cîr(e may be indigenous too (see Cîrpa, first of all, and the other placenames derived from Preie. *KR!, *GR! ‘stone, cliff’). Ancient spelling Carsium, with c instead of an original velar spirant, is normal, as such a phoneme was absent in both Greek and Latin. hoásp! The cover of cereal grains and other vegetables, like peas or beans. Seems related with Gr. 6789:; Rom. *hos, later hoas in prefinal syllable required by the feminine gender, may reflect a specific archaic sound. The correspondence Rom. h – Gr. 6 is not usual. See also p&staie and p&stra. Hobí#a NL See hobîc. hobîc ‘a hollow, a pit’. Related with NL Hobi/a, further with h&u ‘abyss’. Initial h reflects the archaic velar spirant (laryngeal) X. hojma adv. ‘continuously, repeatedly’. Unexplained, presumably indigenous, with initial h, a former velar spirant (or laryngeal). Ukr. ho$ma is from Romanian. See H"!date and H"!ma! above and hojmal&u below. hojmal!u ‘big, very tall’ (pejoratively, about too tall people). Seems related with hojma and NM H&(ma(. If we accept the archaic opposition __________________________________________________________________ 186

Velar Spirant in Thracian __________________________________________________________________

‘deep’ – ‘high’ (i.e. the extremes), then a relation with h&u ‘abyss’ is probable. hotar ‘border, fronteer’. Usually held for a borrowing from Hungarian hotár, even if the origin of the Hungarian form is obscure. There are two Albanian forms which support the indigenous origin in Romanian: hatër, (1) ‘border, fronteer’, and (2) ‘pleasure’; the second meaning shows that in Albanian two initial forms merged into one, one archaic, common to Romanian, the other one of Turkish origin (hatır ‘pleasure’), Rom. hatîr. In our view, Rom. hotar and Alb. hatër ‘border, fronteer, margin’ belong to the same archaic heritage; Hung. hotár is borrowed from Romanian8. • Initial h speaks of the same velar spirant *X (or laryngeal) later treated in Romanian as f/h/v and as f/h/th in Albanian. For this treatment see f&rîm& and v&taf. hot!rî ‘to decide’; initially ‘to draw a line, border in an action’. Derived from hotar. ho# ‘thief’. Closely related with ha/ and verb a înh&/a, with alternating a/o. hudubáie ‘big house or dwelling’. The root hud ‘big, large’ is best reflected in huidum&. hudubleáj! ‘large, prey bird’. Related with hudubaie and huidum&. huhurez ‘eagle owl’ (the bird Strix). From the same root as huí, with reduplication. The form originated in an imitative interjection. huí ‘to hum, to din; to roar’; also a vui. The alternating h/v, sometimes also f and ( (#), is the indication of an initial velar spirant (laryngeal) in a reconstructable root *Xu ‘to hum, to roar’. The derived verb, be reduplication and internal haplology/alternance, is a huidui (< huihui); cf. haihui and huhurez, also r&fui.

8

Despite the insistent and repetitive hypothesis, advocated by most linguists, Hung. hotár ‘fronteer’ is most probably borrowed from Romanian, not vice!versa. See under entry hot&rî. __________________________________________________________________ 187

Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________

huidúm! ‘big, fat or very tall person’. The root *hu(i)d ‘big, large, tall’ is met in hudubaie ‘big house, big dwelling’, hudubleaj& ‘big, prey bird’ and, with the generic sense of the root, in huidum&. Initial h reflects an archaic velar spirant (laryngeal) *X. Otherwise, the forms are isolated in Romanian, and no further relation has been identified so far. hutupí ‘to eat gluttonously, to swallow up’. With a different vowel grade, must be related with hali, h&mesit, root *Xa, *Xu ‘to eat; to be hungy’. hututúi ‘amazed’. Alb. hutón ‘to amaze’. The prototype was *huthutúi, then by haplology hututui. Etymon unknown, forms isolated in Romanian and Albanian. înfofolí ‘to put many, think clothes on’. Prefix în! and fuf&, pejorative for ‘clothes, cloth’ (also means ‘whore’). See also în!coto(m&na, with a similar meaning. înh!#a ‘to seize’. Derived from ha/. leh!i vb. ‘to speak nonsense; to prattle’. Related with Alb. leh ‘to bark; to bay, to yelp’. Unclear etymon; intervocalic h reflects an archaic velar spirant (laryngeal), cf. h&mesit, Hîr(ova; in this peerspective, related with le(ina, with alternating h/(, another proof – if accepted – of the original velar spirant. le"iál! Now obsolete and dialectal: ‘state of weakness or sickness’. See le(ina and le(ie. le"íe Now obsolete. A variant of le(ial&. le"ina ‘to lose conscience, to faint’. Sometimes held for a derivative from le( ‘corpse’, of Turkish origin, and spread in many southeast European languages. Russu, on the opposite side, assumes that the similarity is fortuitous. The verb is obviously derived from the same root as le(ial& and le(ie. Also, all these forms with root le(! are related with lihni (see). The __________________________________________________________________ 188

Velar Spirant in Thracian __________________________________________________________________

alternating h/( (in other cases, the alternating phonems are f/v/h and () are remnants of the original velar spirant (laryngeal). lihní ‘to feal weak or without power, especially when hungry’. The root lih! is related with root le( in le(ial&, le(ie and le(ina. The alternating (/h reflect the archaic velar spirant (laryngeal). matahál! (colloquial and pejorative) ‘too fat and/or tall person; a giant, any giant being in the tales’. The same root in the verb m&t&h&í, and otherwise obscure. Phoneme h reflects the archaic velar spirant (laryngeal). A root mat! ‘huge, very big, giant’ must be postulated. m!t!h!í ‘to move with difficulty, e.g. a giant or huge person’. See matahal&. meteáhn! ‘a fault, a flaw; a bad habit’. Phoneme h leads towards an original velar spirant. The form is related with matahal& and m&t&h&i(see). The modern meaning is derived from m&t&h&i ‘to move slowly, with hesitations’. mihál# The river prey fish Lota lota. Obscure. Definitely, there cannot be any connection with root mih! in personal and Biblical name Mihai ‘Michael’. Phoneme h suggests an original velar spirant *X, which resulted in Romanian alternating f, v, h and (. A root *miX! should therefore be postulated, with unknown meaning. mîhní ‘to make someone sad or depressed’; (passively) ‘to be sad or depressed’. Obscure and isolated. Phoneme h indicates an original velar spirant, which leads to reconstructing a root *m!X! ‘sorrow, grief’. proháb ‘fly opening’ (of male trousers)’. Isolated and obscure form. Given its situation, very probably indigenous. If so, phoneme h reflects the archaic velar spirant *X. A root *proX! ‘opening’ may be hypothesised.

__________________________________________________________________ 189

Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________

pufní ‘to snort; to burst (into laughing), as in a pufní în rîs. The same origin and etymon like bufní, with alternating b/p; phoneme f reflects the archaic velar spirant *X. puh!í ‘to push our air with force; to inflate, to release air with force’. From the same root as pufni and bufni, from an archaic root *b(h)uX, see buf, buh. Seemingly an archaic Proto!Boreal root *PuX ‘to push air by force, to blow’ as in Finnish puhua ‘to speak’. If so, this example, among others, may be a decisive argument in favour of an archaic Proto!Boreal idiom as described by Andreev and also by Bojan #op (even if he has not used this term). r!fuí (mainly reflexive a se r&fuí) ‘to settle accounts’; a se r&fuí cu ‘to fight with’. Built with prefix ra, r& and the same root in vui, with alternating f/v < velar spirant *X. r!mf See rîmf. remf See rîmf. rizáfc! See rizeafc&. rizeáfc! A species of herring or mackerel of the Black Sea, which migrates to the Danube for food and reproduction; the Alosa caspia nordmanni. The root riz, ris in attested in numerous Thracian elements, and is difficult to accept any other origin of this form. Cf. NP Rizea, Rizescu. Phoneme f probably reflects the archaic velar spirant *X. rîmf sg. The plant Aristolochia clematitis. Hasdeu already assumed an indigenous origin by approaching it to Thracian rhomphaia ‘a spear’, from spearlike form of its leaves. Later, G. Meyer compared Romanian form to Alb. rrufé, rrëfé, rrfé ‘a lightning, a thunder’. N. Dr"ganu refers to Transylvanian Saxon (s"sesc) Rimf%rt ‘plant Tanacetum vulgare’. As the form is dialectal now, a Saxon origin cannot be excluded, yet the indigenous origin is most probable.

__________________________________________________________________ 190

Velar Spirant in Thracian __________________________________________________________________

sc!f!lie See c&f&lie. schindúc The plant Conioselinum vaginatu. Related with schindúf, the plant Trigonella foenum graecum. The root schin! in these names of plants is isolated. The indigenous origin is probable. schindúf The plant Trigonella foenum graecum. The final f would indicate an original velar spirant. Related with schinduc. sf!rîma See f&rîm&, f&rîma; cf. sugruma and sugu(a for s(u)! as prefix, for which see su!. sfîrc ‘a prominence, usually nipple or teat’. The meaning ‘prominece’ of root sfîr should be discriminated against the meaning in sfîrîi and hîrîi, related to noise or specific sounds. In both cases though, phoneme f witnesses an initial velar spirant (laryngeal), which leads to reconstructing the basic root *sX%r! ‘prominence, nipple, teat’. The same root in sfîrl& and probably in zvîrlug& too, if not related with sfîrîi. sfîrîi Akin to hîrîi, with the alternating h – sf, indicating the initial existence of a velar spirant. sfîrl! (dialectal) 1. ‘flick; snub’; 2. ‘muzzle’. Must be closely related with sfîrc. sfrijí ‘to lose vigour or power; to get lean’. Isolated, presumably indigenous. Phoneme f would indicate an original velar spirant, and a possible root *sXr! ‘lean, lacking power’. "ufán ‘a stake or pole to which the fishing net is fixed’. Obscure, perhaps built with a root (u, which may be the same as in (ubred and in (ui. Phoneme f would indicate an original velar spirant (laryngeal) *X. teaf!r ‘healthy, strong’. Definitely indigenous, etymon unknown. Vowel f probably reflects and original velar spirant (laryngeal), therefore the prototype may be reconstructed *teX! ‘strong, healthy’. __________________________________________________________________ 191

Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________

teárf! 1. ‘rag, cloth; duster’; 2. ‘bride’s dowry’ (in some dialects only, obviously derived from the meaning ‘clothes’, which then got a pejorative connotation in most dialects, including literary Romanian). Related to tîrf& ‘whore, harlot’ and the verb(s) tîrî, tîrîi, tîr(i. terfelí ‘to soil, to defile’ < lit. ‘to drag along; to turn to worn out clothes’. Related with tearf&, further with tîrî, tîrîi, tîr(i. tîlhár ‘robber, bandit’. Isolated, presumably archaic. The basic root tal/ t%l ‘to rob, to steal’ may be the same as in t&láni/& ‘a whore’, and discriminated against other forms with the same root, and spread mainly in placenames. tîrf! ‘whore, harlot’. See tîrî. tîrî ‘to drag (along); to pull (along); to crawl (reflexive: a se tîrî). Also tîrîi (same meaning); tîr( ‘a small, undeveloped bush or tree’ (lit. ‘which crawls on earth’); also ‘haypole’ and, in some dialects, ‘a broom made up of tree branches’; tîr(í = tîrî, tîrîi, especially used with reference to dragging legs when walking with difficulty; tîrf& ‘whore, harlot’. Also related: tearf& and terfeli. • The verb a tîrî is commonly held for a borrowing from Slavic tr>ti, even if this puts major problems of phonetic evolution, seemingly ignored by most linguists; additionally, the obvious family of derivatives from the same root is rarely invoked, but this is the only key to understanding the origin of these forms. As modern distribution shows, the basic meaning must have been associated to ‘dragging game after hunt’, i.e. ‘to drag along a dead, heavy animal’ (like a boar or bear), and thus the verbs in this family clearly belong to an archaic activity. Also, as proved by other examples, the alternating (/f (as in tîr(i – tîrf&) show the eixstence of an original velar spirant (laryngeal) *X, a specific phenomenon of Thracian, and later reflected as alternating h/f/( in Romanian. • The ultimate origin of the root tîr must be Preie. *TR! ‘earth, cliff, stone’. From the same root is also derived Lat. terra, in relation with tellus < Preie. *TL, as variant of *TR. tîrîí See tîrî. __________________________________________________________________ 192

Velar Spirant in Thracian __________________________________________________________________

tîr" 1. a small coniferous bush, usually a small, underdeveloped one; 2. the rod in the dance of C"lu!ari; 3. vine prop. 4. a primitive broom made up of small tree branches (in some dialects). C. Dominte, Symposia Thracologica 7/1989: 455 suggests a relation with Gr. 2?@8; vatr& and Lat. 1trium, with 1 for the initial sequence *Xa!. • Eric P. Hamp labelled the modern territory of the __________________________________________________________________ 193

Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________

ancient Thracians as the areal vatr&!urd&!strung& (Linguistique Balkanique 20, 1–2/ 1977: 113–117). • Der. v&trai. v!g!ún! ‘gully, ravine’. Pl. is –uni, rarely –une. Built with suffix -un-(&, e) and a root v&g, which – if we start from the quite frequent existence of forms once containing the velar spirant *X, may also admit that modern initial v may reflect the original *X, as in vatr& or vui (also hui). If so, as we are inclined to believe, then the first part of v&g&un& is related with h&u ‘abyss’ (see). We may thus reconstruct an archaic root *Xa! ‘abyss; gully, ravine’, common to both v&g&un& and h&u. v!taf ‘(historical, obsolete) supervisor of servants at a king’s court or in a monastery, i.e. a kind of head of all servants; (late Middle Ages) a leader of the court servants or group of military; an important character of the dance of C&lu(ari’. Local, dialectal variants: v&tah, v&tav, v&ta(, v&taj; NP V&tafu, V&t&(escu; borrowed in some neighbouring languages as Ukr. vataha, Pol. wataha, Bulg. vatah, S.!Cr. vatak. The word is archaic, and presumably continues the ancient Thracian forms spelled ABCB8DE;-µH* and Lat. pulm3, with __________________________________________________________________ 216

100 Slavic Basic Roots __________________________________________________________________

the same meaning. These must be related to the root *pneu- ‘to breathe’, therefore an alternance *pleu-/ *pneu- must be accepted in prehistoric times. 83. plod# ‘offspring; fruit’ (also figuratively). Related to Old English bloed ‘fruit’, MHD bl7t ‘harvest’; also French blé ‘wheat’ is from Frank (Germanic) *bl7d. There is no archaic IE root reconstructable, so these form must be accepted as indigenous Central-European, possibly of Pre-IndoEuropean origin. 84. plug# ‘plough’. Similar forms are in Germanic (Germ. Pflug, Eng. plough), Baltic (Lith. plTgas) and Romanian (plug). Romanian form is traditionally held for Slavic, whereas the Slavic form would be borrowed from Germanic or is indigenous. The Slavic origin of Romanian plug is at least questionable, and rather reflects the linguistic stereotypes of the 19th century; Rom. grap& ‘harrow’ is indigenous Thracian (with Albanian parallel grep, gërepë ‘fish hook’) and a ara ‘to plough’ is of Latin origin. The Germanic, Slavic, Baltic and Romanian (< Thracian) forms rather reflect Central-European farm terminology; a North Thracian or Germanic origin of Slavic plug! is possible, but is not necessary in order to explain the form; all may reflect old terms referring to agriculture. The ultimate origin is rather Pre-Indo-European, root *P-L- ‘stone, piece of stone’, so the plough reminds the Neolithic and Chalcolithic stone ploughs. 85. prav# ‘right; straight’. Also pravda ‘truth’, praviti ‘do, say right’. Isolated forms, perhaps derived from an old root *pr3 ‘ahead, advanced; right away’. 86. pi(', p$sati, pisati ‘to write’. Related to Lith. pie"iù, piC"ti ‘to paint with colours, to draw with coal’, Lat. ping3 ‘I paint’ < IE *pei$. In Slavic, associated with ber1, b0rati ‘to take, to carry’ (against the expected pi"1, pisati). 87. raj$ ‘paradise, Heavens’. Unclear origin, but Pre-Christian. The old meaning must have been ‘blessed place in Heavens, where gods live’; cf. nebo, nebese. According to the traditional view, the word would be of Iranic __________________________________________________________________ 217

Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________

origin, Avestan ray- ‘richness; happiness’ (again traditionally, richness means happiness!), Latin rCs ‘thing, property’. 88. r'ka ‘hand’. Only with Baltic parallels: Lith. rankà, Latvian ruoka, Old Prussian rancko and the isolated Gallo-Romanic branca ‘a paw’, also pejoratively ‘hand’ (hence Romanian pe brînci ‘on all fours’, used especially about small babies learning to walk). The IE languages developed local forms for ‘hand’, a tabooed word. Slavic r1ka probably derives from IE*wer-, *wren-k- ‘to curve, to bend’. 89. s"k', s"(ti ‘to cut’; sekyra ‘a hatchet’. Related to Old Lith. [sekti, i"sekti ‘cut out, cut off’ and Lat. seco ‘I cut’. Other relationships are not clear. 90. s"m! ‘a seed’ < IE *sC-men, as in Lat. sCmen etc. Old IE term related to agriculture. 91. sestra ‘sister’ from an older form *sve-sr-7 (with epenthetic t) < IE *swe-s3(r); related to Lat. soror, Lith. sesuõ, gen. sese\s etc. Epenthetic t in the sequence -sr- rather indicate a Thracian influence, where this is a normal phonetical feature. Cf. bratr!, brat!. 92. syn# ‘son’; related to Lith. sTnus, Gothic sunus (German Sohn, Eng. son) < IE *sT-nu-s. 93. s#ln$ce ‘sun’, of neuter gender; related to Lith. saulD, fem., Latvian saule, Lat. s3l, masc. The neuter gender in Slavic may be explained by assuming that Proto-Slavs venerated Sun as a divinity of either masculine or feminine character. 94. s$rebro ‘silver’; related to Lith. sidãbras and Gothic silubr (Germ. Silber, Eng. silver). Further relationship unclear. 95. tud$, *ud$ ‘foreign’. Derived with suffix -j0 from an IE root *taut7, *teut7 ‘nation, ethnic group; foreigner’, hence also Lith. tautà ‘nation’, Oscian touto ‘a tribe, a group’, and of course the name of the Teutons. 96. t&g# (t#rg#) ‘a market place’. Lith. turgùs, Latvian tirgus and Rom. tîrg are held for Slavic borrowings, but the situation seems more complex. The oldest attested similar forms are in Illyrian Tergeste, hence Tergitio. As __________________________________________________________________ 218

100 Slavic Basic Roots __________________________________________________________________

a direct borrowing from Illyrian is impossible (Illyrian became extinct in the 2nd century A.D.) the only reasonable explanation is to assume a Thracian form akin to Illyrian, hence Romanian form as a direct follower of Thracian, and Slavic as a late Thracian or Proto-Romanian borrowing. Baltic forms (Lithuanian and Latvian) may be assumed as borrowed from Slavic. The ultimate, archaic root may be Pre-IE *T-R- ‘a stone, cliff’, well represented in southeast European place-names. 97. ucho, dual form u"i ‘ear’. Old IE form spread in various languages, e.g. Gothic aus3, gen. ausins < IE *aus, *ous. 98. usta ‘mouth’ (neutre plural). Standard IE form spread as a gramatically neutre in Indo-Iranic and Italo-Celtic branch as Lat. 3s and Old Irish á < IE *%s. 99. ve%er ‘evening’. Related to Lith. vãkaras (< *wekeros) and Arm. gi"er, but Lat. vesperos, Gr. ‘F=PK;(, and Cymric ucher would require a proto-form *wesperos as opposed to *wekeros. There probably was an IE parallel which may lead to *we-kseper-o-s, hence either *wekeros or *wesperos. 100. vid"ti ‘to see’. Old IE root *weid-, *wid- ‘to see’, hence also ‘to know’ in Slavic v"d"ti ‘to know’.

__________________________________________________________________ 219

Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________

Addendum The Slavic ,umerals jed$-#, jedin# There seemingly was no unified word for ‘one’ in PIE, therefore the IE languages often derived local forms starting from old, basic forms. The primitive construction interpreted ‘one’ as ‘one part/component of a pair’, at a time when grammatically the dual was opposed to both ‘one’ and ‘more than two’. The Slavic form resides on a previous construction *ede-in!, hence j-ed-in!. The first part of the compound, -ed-, is seemingly related to Lat. –dam in forms like quidam, idem. d#va, d$v" ‘two’ (masculine and feminine respectively). PIE *d(u)v3, cf. Gr. :>H, Lat. duo, duae, Eng. two etc. The numeral was closely associated with the dual form of nouns and verbs, usual with all the IE languages, lost meanwhile in almost all the IE family. As an exception, Slovene still preserves the dual as a vivid form. tr$je, tri ‘three’. PIE *tr-ei-es, Old Indian tráyas, Lat. trCs, Eng. three, Germ. drei. %tyr- ‘four’. PIE *kwet-wor-es, Gr. +F++