Hittite <hurkis>/wheel

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

>Steve Long writes:

>> (When I asked Sean Crist to identify the "telltale signs of borrowing" that
>> he offered that would tell him if "the wheel word" was borrowed in at least
>> some IE languages, he never replied.)

In a message dated 2/29/2000 8:33:58 AM, larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk wrote:

>OK.  I'm no IEist, and I can't evaluate the IE evidence here.  But I can
>illustrate the general point Sean was making with a Basque example.(snipped)

>But, in the early medieval period, Basque underwent a categorical
>PHONOLOGICAL CHANGE, in all but the easternmost dialects, by which plosives
>were uniformly voiced after /n/.

>Now, the word in question is *everywhere* <(h)anka> in Basque, and no such
>form as *<(h)anga> is recorded anywhere.  Therefore, the very form of the word
>is enough to *prove* that it was not in the language AT THE TIME OF THE
>CHANGE, and must have entered the language later -- from whatever source.
>(snipped)

>But, even if we didn't know the source, the form of the word would tell us at
>once that this is a late entry into the Basque lexicon, and therefore
>probably a borrowing. (Caps are mine.)

I think you may be making a rather different point.

The issue was not whether "signs of borrowing" would show up AFTER pertinent
sound changes - telltale signs or flat-out obvious signs.

The question was how borrowing would be evidenced IF it occurred AFTER PIE
dispersal but BEFORE the sound changes that show up in those words.

I made the assertion that the sound changes in the wheel words did not
necessarily occur right at the moment of PIE dispersal or even soon after.
Crist asserted that he could find tell tale signs of borrowing even if the
sound changes HAD NOT occurred yet.  I ask for examples of such pre-change
signs. No answer.

Your example, on the other hand, depends on sound changes already having
occurred.  So though it is interesting, it doesn't appear pertinent.

Regards,
Steve Long
by ARA